Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8415] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. I notice that we are the only party to support the Government on this bill. I was very concerned when I heard Mr Peters speaking on immigration policy because I get upset when words are spoken that bring division to our nation and when we start to put one person against another and deal with issues rather than the actual situations we face.  
What is so wrong about trying to move forward with a residence policy that allows New Zealanders to accept those immigrants who will make a positive contribution to this country? Nobody doubts that we need immigration in this country. The law we are passing today is bringing about many changes that New Zealand First proclaimed it wanted. It makes so much sense to move from a system dictated by a “first come first served” approach to one that puts the people most likely to integrate successfully into New Zealand society at the head of the queue. Otherwise the people we want might be stuck at the back of the queue for 2 years and what sense does that make to Mr Peters? They might lose their job offers and go somewhere else that can offer them quicker entry. At the same time we would be letting people at the front of the queue get in first when they might not have a relevant job offer and when they cannot find work be more likely to be a drain on the taxpayer through the benefit system. 
That is why we are supporting this legislation and why it will be passed. To let people come out here without proper work is unfair to them as it makes it much more difficult for them to integrate into New Zealand society. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I agree. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Good I am glad the member agrees. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What are they doing here? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: We are passing this legislation to make it better which was New Zealand First policy. 
I have heard some members talk about the fact that under the current system people hoping to come and live in New Zealand have had to put their lives on hold for as long as 2 years before they hear the outcome of their applications. I have no doubt that this is the case but to claim that this bill would have the same impact shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what this legislation will do. After expressing interest in applying for residency those who do not receive an invitation to apply within 3 months are lapsed from the system—based on the information they submitted. Those are people who would not settle easily into this country. Letting them know within 3 months that they have not been accepted must surely be better than keeping their lives on hold for 2 years. 
I believe it is a privilege to be able to come and live in New Zealand not a right. I was in Australia not so long ago and spoke to a young waitress serving at the table. She thought woe is me that I was an Australian and she actually thanked me for allowing her into Australia. I thought that was a refreshing attitude. People should not come in as of right but because they recognise that it is a privilege to come to another nation. 
This legislation will help discern those who are better people for our nation. This process also means that those who are invited to apply will wait for no more than 3 months to hear whether they have progressed to the next stage. Just because someone has lapsed from the system does not mean that he or she cannot try again. The fact that a person will know his or her status within 3 months gives that person more time to improve his or her chances—by acquiring a relevant job offer for example. 
One of the problems under the old system was that in waiting up to 2 years for residency an applicant who had a job offer might have lost it because the employer was sick of waiting. In the case of university lecturers coming from overseas for example entire courses have had to be delayed because their applications were taking too long. This bill will change that. Under this bill we should be able to pick up on those people from the start and say: “Right this person will help our country move forward so let’s make sure he or she gets priority.” That has to be common sense in anyone’s language. 
From reading the select committee report it is pretty clear that even the other parties in the House that are voting against the bill do not have a problem with the idea that we should be an active recruiter rather than a passive receiver of immigrants. New Zealanders have gone to many nations all over this world and made a difference with the skills and talents they have put forward. I want people who can make a difference to this nation to feel free to come back and be welcomed not to be discriminated against on race colour or any other thing. They should feel part of New Zealand and able to call it home. We are going to build a great nation in New Zealand and it will be made up of many races many cultures and many people. We will put systems in place that will make that possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Who said? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I say to Mr Peters that systems are not perfect but we are in the process of changing the system to bring improvement. If we do not bring improvement or change anything we will not get a different result. United Future believes that it will get a different result because we stand by this legislation to make a difference to this nation to bring good people into this nation and to create a great nation in the days that lie ahead. We are glad that we are brave enough and bold enough to support this legislation at this time. 
National recognises that there is a need to match the skills of residence applicants with skill requirements in the New Zealand economy but its objection is that it can be done in a more transparent manner than this bill proposes. [ 
Interruption 
] Is the member going to take a point of order? I agree that the more transparency the better but I have yet to see any proposal from National members as to how that could be achieved. I am sure they understand that the one thing about immigration policy— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member invited me to raise a point of order and I do so now. I like a good joke and I seek an extension of time for this speech. 
Dail Jones 
: 5 minutes? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Yes 5 minutes. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who was speaking was giving a strong speech and a good speech and I think you should rebuke Mr Peters for breaking it up. If he is sincere and wants to move an extension of time he should do so at the end of the speech. It is extremely unparliamentary for a member to break up a speech just because he or she does not like it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Prebble is quite right and I thank him for that. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am sure they understand that unlike other portfolio areas where a lot of substance is contained in the legislation the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the criteria that is collected in the manual that immigration officers use when assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be. That does limit the degree of transparency and therefore my challenge to the Government is to communicate as openly as possible with potential applicants other interested parties and the public about how its immigration policy will be applied. Despite our disagreement over the bill I am sure that the National Party and the Green Party will join me in urging the Minister to follow that path. 
Part of that information campaign must include ensuring that applicants have accurate expectations about their chances of success. In the course of assessing an applicant’s potential immigration officials must ensure that applicants have realistic expectations about what they will find when they come here. As much as we think that our country is the greatest in the world we need to dispel the misconception spread by some consultants that its streets are paved with gold. 
I also think it is important that we get more information about the kinds of skills that are deemed to be in short supply. Under the Government’s proposed policy bonus points will be available to applicants who hold a skills set that is in demand here and for a job offer that is relevant to those skills—particularly if it is located in a region that is experiencing shortages. 
I would think that many people are surprised as I certainly am that New Zealand First does not support this bill. There can be absolutely no doubt that this bill conforms to its manifesto at the last election which said that New Zealand would give greater priority to immigrants who have the “skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” I feel sorry for New Zealand First voters that they have been betrayed in this way but United Future has come to the rescue. That party’s excuse that it will not support the bill because the overall number of immigrants will remain the same just does not wash because that is right outside the scope of this bill. Even if New Zealand First cannot achieve that in this bill it should at least follow through on something it has pledged to its voters. 
I support this bill because it is not about reducing the number of immigrants as part of some knee-jerk response to the cultural insecurity of New Zealanders. Rather it is about the Government being a lot smarter about the people we accept as residents. United Future is in favour of immigration and we are pleased that the overall level of migrants will be sustained for the next 3 years. But in the longer term we need to stop dealing just with immigration policy and high inflation as a more strategic approach would be to see this as just one part of an overarching population policy. Those who want to drastically cut the number of immigrants fail to recognise that in the light of an ageing population and the slowing birth rate we need to maintain a sizeable working population to fund our State services. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said New Zealanders liked a joke and those who were listening would want me to move an extension of time for that last speaker. I would like to see him read his speech a second time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not a point of order.