edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just conclude my question about Schedule 1 the amendment to clause 11. If an essential skills work visa has been granted conditional upon a person working in a particular DHB and then we superimpose that and we make reference now to Health New Zealand there is a risk I think that the geographic requirement disappears and therefore while it's a problem right across the country now—we've got a shortage of doctors and nurses and allied health professionals everywhere—there is still a risk that in smaller and more remote DHBs like Southern West Coast Tairāwhiti and so on that those temporary visa holders could be attracted to main centres. I wonder if thought has been given to either a tabled amendment or some kind of reassurance that the committee can get that even though it's a reference to Health New Zealand the locality requirement remains the same—if one was recruited on a visa that said Tairāwhiti DHB they still need to stay in the Poverty Bay area—because I do think this could be an added problem for those DHBs that are heavily reliant on temporary work visas.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I just want to follow on from my learned colleague Dr Shane Reti in exploring the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 169 that we found on the table. What a difference it makes when the polls are tanking for the Government. They spent the whole time and expense of the select committee saying Oh no you can't define rurality. You can't do a rural strategy." They said "No we're not going to prioritise rural." and here we are mea culpa. On the first part of the committee of the whole House and here we have a rural health strategy after denying it for weeks.I say well done to the Opposition because we got accused in the last debate of whingeing. This is what whingeing does. It delivers for New Zealanders. And funny enough the last speaker from the Government who accused the Opposition of whinging was from a rural seat and he knows that rural communities were upset about this. And of course for a while this Government didn't care. They thought they knew it all until they started to cede control. And that's what they're doing here.They try and tell us this bill is about equity. But when it comes to equity of certain groups like rural communities their equity didn't count. And that's why it's not in the bill and that's why this Minister has been dragged kicking and dragging his feet to the committee of the whole House and finally puts up that he concedes the Government was wrong. And quite rightly 800000 rural New Zealanders who deliver 50 percent of this country's GDP—quite rightly—deserve a rural strategy. So yes we accept that there's going to be a rural strategy but also we say let's back Dr Shane Reti's SOP because he was the one championing for the rural communities as other MPs in the Opposition were. And I expect we're going to hear from those MPs as well over the course of the debate.This committee of the whole House is about questions and my question simply is to the Minister. It would be nice to hear an explanation for the House today why we spent so much time and expense on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill at select committee who were told no we're not going to have a rural health strategy; why those submitters had to go through the anguish of seeing that bill put out in a draft form where they had not been listened to. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister what has changed? When did he decide—or in fact when was he told that now we're going to have a rural health strategy? What has changed? Why was that group told "No no it's all right; you'll be covered under the health strategy that the Minister would determine."? But now we see there is going to be a rural strategy.This is a good starting point for what is going to be a long debate tonight because of course there's several other population groups that aren't represented in here as well and one of them that I'm going to be talking about in my future calls is mental health. So I'm very much looking forward to the Minister's explanation."
Little AndrewPart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just speak briefly to this part but this is a critical part because this part of the bill contains the commitments of the Crown or the Government to the Treaty of Waitangi and sets out not only the commitment that the Crown is obliged to make under the Treaty of Waitangi but actually incorporates a set of principles that were taken from the Wai 2575 interim report of the Waitangi Tribunal which is about making sure that our health system is equitable to Māori and to all New Zealanders.The opening—the kind of starting point for this bill—is that we have a health system that is based on health need but we also have a country where we know that health need is met inequitably across different population groups principally Māori and also Pacific. So this is about setting up a set of commitments and principles upon which our health system will be based that better drives towards greater equity. So the combination of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles and the health sector principles are a vital underpinning to the way decisions are made in the provision of health services from here on or at least from the enactment of the bill.
Edmonds Barbara; Salesa JennyBARBARA EDMONDS (Associate Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that motion. Those of that opinion will say Aye. Is there any objection for the motion? There is objection. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Salesa JennyPAE ORA (HEALTHY FUTURES) BILLIn CommitteeCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you're on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat function. You should also use the chat function if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I will advise members so that they can refresh the "House papers" page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them so that the member in charge can answer during the call. We come first to Part 1."
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Fa'afetai lava. Members no petitions papers or select committee reports have been presented and no bills have been introduced.
Edmonds BarbaraWEDNESDAY 1 JUNE 2022The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Tatou ifo ma tatalo. Le Atua Silisili ese e matou te sulaina lau Afio mo fa'amanuiaga ma tofi ua e fa'au'uina ai i matou. E lafoa'i ni o matou lagona ma manatua ta'ito'atasi i le amana'iaina o le Masiofo o Peretania. Matou te tatalo ina ia tonu ma fa'amaoni fuafuaga ma fa'ai'uga uma i totonu o lenei Maota Fono. Ia talosia ta'ita'i o lenei Mālō ina ia maua le tōfā mamao le fa'apalepale ma le agamalū auā le manuia ma le filemū o Niu Sila. O le matou tatalo lea e ala atu i le suafa pele o Iesu Keriso. Amene.
Wednesday 8 September 2021 - Volume 754
Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2021-22 stand part of the Schedules. Motion agreed to.Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): I report the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill without amendment. SPEAKER: The question is that the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill is set down for third reading presently.
Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill Third Reading & Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill Second Reading
Mallard Trevor; Robertson GrantIMPREST SUPPLY (SECOND FOR 2021/22) BILLIntroductionSPEAKER: I understand it is the Government's intention to introduce an imprest supply bill. CLERK: Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill introduction.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for first reading forthwith.First ReadingHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2021/22) Bill be now read a first time.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Andersen Ginny; Faafoi KrisGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is in relation to the Te Korowai report which examined family justice reforms. One of the key recommendations in that report-back from 2014 was in relation to child wellbeing. So my question to you is: how is the Government working to improve the experience of children and families as they go through the New Zealand justice system?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Look I think one of the things that I'd really like to highlight is that a number of—well most—people who are going through the Family Court process find the whole experience absolutely foreign. So they've got a high-stress situation within their family and then they get thrown into a courtroom situation where you've got legal speak and it can move at a pace where some people don't necessarily understand what is going on right in front of them. And I'd like to thank the Minister of Finance for the funding that he has given in recent Budgets for the likes of Family Court navigators to help marshal people through and those families through and understand what the process is and to make it as efficient and effective for those families as possible. This service is relatively new. I think if I recall correctly some of these navigators have only recently been appointed but will make a rather large difference to the Family Court process which has deteriorated since the changes that were made in 2014. But the report that my colleague mentioned Te Korowai highlighted ways and recommendations in which we can make that process more effective for those going through that process. And to date we've been able to respond to some of those recommendations and we hope to be able to do that more fully over time.
Logie Jan; Faafoi KrisJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I guess I'd just ask the Minister if he'd like to take the opportunity to connect that to the work—the connection between his work and the work that Minister Marama Davidson is doing around reforming the system in relation to family and sexual violence. Acknowledging that traditionally we've had a justice-based response to family and sexual violence which has left things to the really last minute until things have gone horribly wrong before we've stepped in as a Government and has also just created—like that the system being adversarial is not acknowledging that those crimes are deeply relational which provides a barrier for people reporting and people being sent to prison while being protective in certain cases actually can just amp things up and can be a disincentive in other cases. So I'm really interested in that talk to that broader work and the role of Justice in the work that Marama Davidson is doing.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I also acknowledge the work that that member Jan Logie did as under-secretary for that issue in the last term of Parliament. Having been a participant in many of the meetings that Minister Davidson has had around that project I agree. I think what I have found welcoming and also positive as that member will know is the multiple agencies that are involved in that project. Again I think to discuss and have options and remedies available for people in these situations because they often start out as one thing and then turn into another—I think the best example that I think both of us would agree with is making sure that people have a good and safe home available to them and making sure the likes of Kāinga Ora are part of those situations. Also the likes of Corrections to make sure that if someone from a family is leaving a Corrections facility they have somewhere safe to live as well to decrease the stress of reintegrating back into the community.So again I acknowledge the work that Minister Davidson is doing. I think it is complex and complicated work and I think she's very soon getting to a point where that is going to become a real game-changer for some of those families. So I acknowledge the work that has been done to this point.
Logie Jan; Faafoi KrisJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker—just interested in terms of following up on the reform work that started last term and acknowledging the Minister in the chair Kris Faafoi making the link to that as the pathway forward. Just taking off from the quote from the previous Minister in acknowledging that the old ways in terms of justice have failed us that they've resulted in too little rehabilitation and therefore more crime while not doing enough to support victims. The Green Party would be really interested to hear from the Minister and whether the Minister will commit to law change with a focus on the Sentencing and Parole Acts that allows for alternatives to prison using evidence-based alternatives to prevent recidivism rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders far more successfully than our current system does.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I'd more than welcome an opportunity to sit down with the Green Party to discuss such alternative methods around sentencing. I think I'll reiterate the point that I made earlier: there does need to be a circuit breaker around the overrepresentation of some communities both in offending and victimisation. I think we're slowly getting there. I fear that it will be again a political football but speaking quite personally as someone who has either had family members or people he's grown up with find themselves on the wrong side of the law I think it's high time that this place found the sweet spot that made available alternative methods and also other ways to make sure that drivers of crime are dealt with so we don't see our courtrooms log-jammed with people and we also see New Zealanders live the best and fullest possible life. I think for many generations that hasn't been possible because of some of the raruraru that happens in this place and I would like to see us move beyond that. Quite genuinely I think certainly at the Criminal Bar Association Conference earlier I think last month there was a vein of that come through as well. So I think it's not just politics. I think people have seen that there's an opportunity here to deal with these issues.
Bishop Chris; Faafoi KrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I do note the irony of the Minister lauding the iwi leaders forum. Various members of his political party have spent much of the nine years prior to the Government coming to office slamming the iwi chairs but I do welcome his endorsement of them.A couple of questions following on from what he's just said. Firstly in relation to hate speech legislation I do feel a little bit sorry for the Minister in terms of having to have passage of this. Where is that at? Because things seem to have gone suspiciously quiet in relation to it since the big announcement two or three months ago now. So is it still the Government's intention to proceed with legislation in relation to banning hate speech or at least amending the existing law we have relating to hate speech and if so what is the process and the time line in relation to that? Secondly just while I'm on my feet a question in relation to alcohol and other drug treatment courts—completely separate from hate speech. One of the things that I think there is universal agreement in the House over is different treatment pathways for people with addictions. And as someone who has been to see one of the existing courts in Auckland—actually alongside the now Prime Minister when she was a member of the Justice Committee four or five years ago something that we were all impressed by across the select committee all parties on the committee. And I think there will be universal support across the Parliament for the expansion of alcohol and other drug treatment courts. In particular can I put in a plug Minister for expanding something into the Wellington region or the Hutt Valley region where meth is a real problem and where we could really do with some alternative pathways to deal with people with serious drug addictions like meth?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Sorry again in terms of hate speech I believe that submissions have recently closed or are about to close on the discussion document for the hate speech proposals. The Ministry of Justice I believe is assessing those submissions as we speak. I understand there has been plenty of contributions from the public around that. So we'll take a look at that information around the submissions and progress as it is the policy of the party that legislation.In terms of alcohol and other drug treatment courts I think you'll probably have universal agreement around the effectiveness of them. I think maybe two or three months ago we were at the launch of the alcohol and other drug treatment court in Waikato. Resourcing allowing we'd love to be able to roll them out in other areas and I'm sure there'll be a number of people in this Parliament interested in making sure that there were such resources available in the capital city.
Bishop Chris; Faafoi KrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. It's good to be back in the justice realm. I have a couple of questions for the Minister; the first is in relation to three strikes law. Is it still Government policy to repeal the three strikes legislation and if so how's that tracking? Can we foresee a bill in the House at some point in the next year or so? That's the first question.The second is in relation to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill which colleagues have already raised and that's whether or not he is considering any further amendments to the bill outside of what has been part of the select committee process when the bill comes back to the House and if so what are they? Then the third question is in relation to alcohol law reform. I note—from looking at the members' bills in the biscuit tin—there are I think now four pieces of legislation or four bills in the ballot that deal with various aspects of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. One is to do with cellar doors and issues there; one is to do with restaurant off-licences—that's my bill; one is to do with racing festivals over the New Year period—that was drafted by me but it's actually in Ian McKelvie's name; and I think his colleague Kieran McAnulty has a bill around Anzac day and Easter sales and things like that. So he's previously said to me as Minister that he's intending to review the Act. Is that part of the work programme for justice in the next year and if it's not going to be a part of a wider review of the Act is there potential for Government to pick up some of the very sensible suggestions that are in the members' ballot around small but sensible changes to alcohol law?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): To the member's first question: yes and it's going well. You may have noticed that at that Criminal Bar Association conference about six weeks ago I mentioned that we were hoping to bring in some legislation soon. That has obviously been affected a little bit by the House but hopefully that can be done soon.To answer his third question yes a review of the alcohol laws is planned for this term so some of the issues that he has traversed with a number of the members' bills that he has authored in the last term may get dealt with in that respect. The member will know the last time that piece of legislation was substantially amended it was somewhat of a conundrum or a vortex of amendments also. So we understand how much of a challenge it is in this place to amend those laws but we fundamentally understand some of the concerns in the community around the harm that alcohol is causing as well which don't necessarily go to issues that are raised in the members' bills that he has mentioned.In terms of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill I believe that the select committee is going to be reporting back on that later this week. There are some issues that may have arisen out of the event on Friday that may be looked at in terms of amendments to the bill but no decisions have been made on that yet.
SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I begin by—sorry I'll remove my mask—thanking members for their questions. To go to my colleague Ginny Andersen's questions I would like to thank the Ministry of Justice staff who have been able to make sure that certainly those necessary court hearings have continued. Foot traffic through the courts at the moment is 4 percent of normal levels across the country but the District Court has continued to conduct priority proceedings and obviously workloads have been affected. My understanding is that the court events yesterday were just over 1000 which is 40 percent of what it would normally be expected to be on a Tuesday. So I think from those figures it's clear to see that (a) the ability of the courts and judiciary to keep the wheels of justice turning is happening obviously at a much reduced level but I think it is important that that is able to continue. I think some of the investment that was put in after last year's alert level 4 settings around audio-visual links that were able to be put into court rooms and linked to police stations in order for basic hearings to be held has helped in order to make sure that those proceedings can continue as opposed to having people wait longer because of the alert level settings.I will go to Mr Woodhouse's question—I think certainly the last one. There were injections of funding that were necessary across the justice portfolios that he had mentioned in order to deal with some of the issues that came about because of the alert level settings of last year. A considerable amount of money was put into making sure that backlogs that came about because of the lockdowns were met in terms of judicial resourcing but also resourcing the administration to make sure that the cases I've mentioned that weren't able to be heard because of alert levels were able to be dealt with in a manner that didn't see those hearings protracted.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. My question relates actually to the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations that were tabled with this Budget and it's this: it relates to Vote Corrections Vote Courts Vote Justice and Vote Police—they are all in the justice sector. There were supplementary appropriations from the COVID response and recovery fund—$1.1 million last year and then $1.5 million thereafter plus $3.5 million of capital for a prison-based industry focused on the assembly of affordable kitset homes provided by Kāinga Ora. Vote Courts—$6.45 million last year rising to $10.9 million in 2023/24. Vote Justice—$6 million every year starting last year and going on. Vote Police—$1.2 million and $1.4 million this year and next for strengthening the Family Court based on the recommendations of the independent panel on the 2014 family justice reforms. My question to the Minister is: why was that not part of Budget appropriations last year or this year so that they could be examined for the quality of their spend and why was it believed that they would be COVID-related when indeed the Family Court recommendations are seven years old? It strikes me as extremely odd and frankly lacks transparency. It may well be good-quality spending but for it to be appropriated in a supplementary sense without the scrutiny that we should be putting it through now including through select committee I think is an example of where the COVID response and recovery fund has been used for things that it shouldn't have been used.
Mallard TrevorCHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): That concludes this part of the debate. We now move on to the justice portfolio.
McDowall James; Faafoi KrisDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Will the Minister consider enabling family members of our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers who are on visas to have their visas processed offshore if necessary and get a border exemption? And another policy question: COVID has made it difficult for many couples to meet the living together requirement; will the Minister consider waiving that requirement for applicants who haven't met that as a direct result of COVID? And finally: why does the Minister wait until a sector is in a dire state regarding its workforce shortages before allowing workers—most recently teachers—to bring in family? How bad does it need to get before the Minister decides to use family border exemptions as a carrot for workers to stay in New Zealand and who does he want to give the stick to and which sector is going to get the next carrot?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): I disagree with the framing that the member used for the last question. I will reiterate: the ability to bring people through the border isn't stick and carrot; it's availability of managed isolation capacity and if the member wants to increase that and then put the robustness of the border protection of MIQ at risk then he and his party should go out and talk about that policy a little more. So I think in terms of the first question—no the second question you mentioned MIQ workers is that right? So I'm not sure what you're talking in terms of that—are you talking about those who are on temporary work visas?Dr James McDowall: Temporary work visa holders working in our MIQ facilities who are split families—bringing their family members in.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Then again that policy decision very much rests on the capacity of managed isolation.
Woodhouse Michael; Faafoi Kris; Mallard TrevorHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I would like to ask the Minister three final questions. I think they're very important. In the basket of things he is looking at but so far not acting on is this very concerning issue of the children of temporary migrants who have completed their secondary education but can't go on to tertiary study without paying extortionate fees—well not extortionate but they're very high—and can I implore him to act on that in the same very soon" time parameters? In fact could he give the committee an update on that?Secondly I note from the Budget documents that the memorandum account which was severely overdrawn effectively was topped up effectively with a nearly quarter of a billion dollar transfer in the 2020 Budget—we're at the end of that—but the projections are still for that to be back in the red by over $200 million by the end of this year. I'm in possession of the letter that the Hon Grant Robertson sent to the Minister basically saying "Don't come back for more." He says—I quote—"I consider that the decision not to cost recover these deficits from future fee payers is a significant policy matter that should be considered at Cabinet." Now the issue with that is that if it's not going to be funded by the taxpayer then future fee payers will have to pay a significant sum more than they currently are to top that up. It's unfair to them. It's unfair to the taxpayer to once again have to pay for a service that the overseas applicants should be paying for. How will the Minister reconcile that?My third question is around satisfaction. The Budget documents show that last year one in four—according to page 147 of the Budget document—visa applicants was not satisfied with the overall experience of applying for a visa. That's a big big jump in what it had previously been. Is he concerned about that and what is he doing about it?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): In answer to his first question yes we're all wanting to make sure that we take care of the issue around people who have young children or young adults as part of their residency application. As the member will know as part of that letter I think the Minister of Finance also asked us to undertake a cost review of the immigration system and that is currently being done. And in terms of the survey that the member said about the visa-processing system I think moves are afoot to make that much more streamlined by moving more to a digital platform away from the paper-based system that has predominantly existed up until recently. And without knowing the particulars of that survey that was the year when quite an increase of people who were applying for visas were being declined because of the border closure. So I'm not necessarily sure that the customer service because of the border closure was up to the standards that they would have hoped.CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr James McDowall—final question."
McDowall James; Faafoi KrisDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Just to clarify the questions that I asked since requested it was regarding processing times for the Skilled Migrant Category and getting back to 90 percent completed by six months as opposed to 27 months at present. Furthermore is it feasible that they're going to be able to say to 11000 Expression of Interest (EOI) people—people that have lodged EOIs—that you can apply for residence?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): The reason why the wait times have increased are a number and the first one is that in terms of what the forecast was for applications for residency that was well above what was forecast. So the ability to process an increased demand or a higher than expected demand has meant that people have had to wait later. Also to a degree as I mentioned to Mr Woodhouse there has been a reorientation of some processing staff and the ability for us to process those residency applications because of that has also been affected.I think another question he asked also is: is there a way to make sure we can expedite the processing of residence applications? My understanding is that over time the criteria or the checks that have to be done to pass the muster for residency have grown considerably and I have asked to find out if there are ways to streamline that process but also to make sure that we keep the robustness of that process within the system in order to make sure that we can give people the level of service that I think they would like.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister while our borders continue to be closed business have expressed more than a time that they are affected by worker shortages. What are some of the measures you are implementing to take the pressure off and help them to make the most of the onshore workforce?
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): To address the last question eventually yes. I think the immigration system as many in this hall will know has been paper-based for some time and that has caused logistical issues even experienced during the latest lockdown around the processing of residency visas under alert level 4. So moves are afoot under the debt programme to make sure that much more of the visa process or application process can be moved online to make that a much more streamlined process. And in the age of COVID making sure that we can continue to do that processing work when people are working at home.To try and address a number of the questions that have been asked by both Mr Woodhouse and Mr McDowall at the risk of agreeing with Mr Woodhouse about some of the statements I have made I think the demand for the likes of the retention of workers has increased over many months. And to the question that his colleague Erica Stanford asked at the select committee last week about what we could do about particular cohorts of people who might be looking for residence my response to her was there is more than one cohort or sector that would like to have a clearer pathway to residence because of the situation that we're in now and also I think for the long-term stability of the workforce in the future. The Government is looking at that as a wide and broad issue as opposed to an issue just about a particular sector.I think I may have answered some of those questions. I think I may have forgotten one of the ones that Mr McDowall has asked. I might let him ask it again.
Woodhouse Michael; McDowall JamesHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I would point out to the Minister of Immigration that actually families are being reunified. They're being reunified because the individuals who are already here onshore are leaving the country. So my first question is: does he have any data on the number of highly skilled workers who have left New Zealand because the Government's policy prevented their family members from joining them?The second questions are around effectively the reset speech that the Minister gave—or Minister Nash did on his behalf in April—putting an emphasis on skilled migrants but since then there are over 3000 doctors and nurses and 600 teachers stuck in the queue. Many of those have given up on New Zealand and gone to places like Canada and Australia because of the Government's inertia. Does he agree the speech and that inertia are not only highly inconsistent but actually hurting New Zealand?My third question is: has he had a discussion with the Minister of Health about the calls by intensive care clinical leaders including Dr Carr that says that bed capacity in our ICUs on a day-to-day basis including trained staff hasn't increased in the past 18 months and the degree to which immigration policy and that inertia might be a driver of it?Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Can the Minister explain the delays in the skilled migrant category processing given that no expressions of interest have been selected since April 2020 and tell us what plans there are if any for Immigration New Zealand to address these delays in this category and return to say 90 percent completed within six months as opposed to the 27 months at present? Secondly does Immigration New Zealand think it is feasible to invite the more than 11000 expressions of interest to apply for residence when selection resumes and how long will it take to process those applications? My final question on residency is: is the Minister considering shifting the skilled migrant category application process to being online-based given the sophistication in document verification technology that is available today?
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): To Mr McDowall's question they can still be prioritised. I think if they're earning twice the median wage and are a registered occupation then those people who have applied for residency can have their application brought up out of the queue and prioritised and that is happening.To Mr Woodhouse's first point around family reunification I would stress the difficulty of being able to give what I think most families want: some certainty around when their family members can be reunited with their loved ones here in New Zealand. It very much depends on our ability to bring those people through our managed isolation system. The former Minister will know that there is huge demand from New Zealanders who have a right to come back to New Zealand. There is huge demand from sectors who would like to bring critical workers into the country and also there are families who want to be reunified too. All of those groups have to bring people through 14 days of managed isolation in order to keep the country safe. That is a non-negotiable. Unfortunately in those difficult situations the Government has had to make some difficult decisions. We don't enjoy making those decisions but we have to make them in order to make sure that our managed isolation capacity is manageable to give certainty to people across the board and that is again a difficult decision to make.One of the other things I think we also have to do is when we make these decisions we have to be mindful of the numbers of people that will be eligible for those spots and manage that across a period of time. As the member has seen especially with the last outbreak that is very difficult when you don't necessarily know all the inputs.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to follow up on the answers to Jan Logie's questions around family reunification. I heard the Minister say that he was always looking". Frankly what those people want isn't looking; it's acting and for him to say in respect of residence that COVID lockdown has affected his ability to make decisions around residence and particularly the expression of interest pool which has been suspended now for 19 months is I think a bit of a cop-out. The Minister said that he reoriented some of the staffing resources and indeed that would have been the case but he didn't reorient them to the residency pool. He was reported as saying in April this year that the decisions around the reopening of that pool were soon and we've heard the words "soon" and "very soon" quite a bit lately including in the select committee last week. So I would like the Minister to provide those applicants with much more certainty about what "very soon" means and to inform the committee about when he intends to make those decisions. Has he taken a Cabinet paper already and was it deferred for more work but firstly when are we going to hear?"
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Why has Residence from Work been put into the general residence processing queue when it should be a priority? And the reason I ask that is that Residence from Work is supposed to be a reward for having a particularly skilled job that can't easily be filled locally and applicants have to wait two years to apply for residency anyway. Now that this category has stalled their visas are expiring and they have to renew them. Residency through this route can take four years. It never used to be like this. My question to the Minister is: why has Residence from Work become such a mess and what is he going to do about it?
Woodhouse Michael; Faafoi KrisHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I note from the Budget documents that there has been no reduction—in fact a small increase—in Vote Immigration for this year. Not surprising—that's normally what happens in normal circumstances. But these are anything but normal times. Can he confirm data from the Immigration New Zealand website that in the past year and despite the retention of all of the staff and all of the costs more than 700000 fewer visas have been processed in just three categories: international students temporary work and visitor visas? And if that's the case to what work have those staff been put if they weren't processing those 700000 visas? Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Thank you very much Mr Chair. Pre-COVID as the former Minister of Immigration will know usually—I think in the year between June 2018 and June 2019 there were 1.3 million visa applications and that during COVID has dropped to about a half a million visa applications. So that one example reflects the change of volume that Immigration New Zealand has had in processing certainly visa applications. The member will also know that when the border closed we also set up a border exception process in order to allow those businesses who needed critical workers to come into New Zealand to be able to do that. There are very strict criteria for that in the two ranges that we have. There are also the likes of class exceptions and also the likes of family reunification applications that need to be looked at. None of these application processes were needed before the border was closed so Immigration New Zealand has had to reorient a number of its processing staff into the likes of making sure it can process the likes of border exceptions. I'll get the number soon but it is a rather large number that we've been able to bring through of both workers and also their partners and families in order to make sure that those critical businesses can have the labour that they dearly need.
McDowall James; Faafoi KrisDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Why were 24 women who were supporting the New Zealand Defence Force as paramedics teachers and even clearing landmines and improvised explosive devices in Bamiyan Province declined emergency visas?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): There were very clear criteria that were made by Cabinet as to those who would be eligible certainly in the first tranche of applications that have come through. I have not seen each of those individually but the Defence Force the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Police were responsible for triaging those applications as to whether they met the strict criteria that Cabinet had made. If the member has some of those cases that he believes did meet the criteria or maybe haven't been through the process with either the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or Defence or Police then I would like to see those.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Mr Chair thank you. And can I thank Mr McDowall for the question. The critical purpose visas were issued to the people he has spoken about because it was the most effective and efficient and quickest way in order to get those people to New Zealand. A check of the residency process will be undertaken now. I think—if I recall and it may have been at last Friday's select committee meeting—Mr McDowall asked me about the letter that was sent or essentially the communication that was sent to those people around the critical purpose visa. I think I said I'd go away and get a response for him—the form letter is the form letter that is usually sent out for a critical purpose visa which I understand—he said at the meeting—may have sounded a little harsh. I think officials acknowledge that and have made moves to amend that. Everyone was working at pace but that is the form letter that is sent to people who are granted critical purpose visas. So I think that may answer that question. To answer I think the second question that the member asked: we are doing everything that is possible to make sure that people who do have valid visas who are either in Afghanistan or have made their way outside of Afghanistan are able to make their way to New Zealand. We're doing that in a number of ways—obviously in the first phase the evacuations that were taking place and ceased about a week and a half ago; but also Cabinet will soon consider what other options in terms of our refugee programme we may be able to extend as well as any humanitarian efforts that we may be able to make to welcome more people from Afghanistan here. The criteria for that and some of the logistics behind that in a time of COVID and also some of the challenges of making sure we can settle some of these people here are being worked through for officials and hopefully we'll be able to make some decisions about that soon.
McDowall JamesDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you. I'll start with a few questions around the Government's Afghanistan response and I'll ask why were Afghan nationals who supported the New Zealand Defence Force including interpreters only granted critical purpose visitor visas—and here is one of them—valid for six months and not residency; and further what will happen to those visitor visa holders who are stuck in Afghanistan when their visas expire and will they be given residency?
Omer IbrahimImmigrationIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to kick this off in the absence of our chair Marja Lubeck. I'm the only person who's available from the Education and Workforce Committee which Immigration lies under. I first wanted to start off by acknowledging the challenges that COVID-19 has brought to us as a nation but also the extra challenges for our migrant community and also our businesses. This is the reality that COVID-19 has created for us—it's not something that we wanted. So we acknowledge the burden of the suppression of the families and the lack of our businesses to bring skilled labour from overseas has created extra challenges for us as well. With that considering time constraints I just want to go straight into the question. But first I want to acknowledge the Minister of Immigration for his constant engagement with the committee constructively. He constantly came in front of the committee and answered questions. There was no reservation and he generously gave up his time. So I commend him for that.With that I go to my question. My question is we are aware that the Government is considering measures to rebalance New Zealand's immigration policy settings as we look to reconnect with the world. What can the Minister tell us about the principles that will underpin this work?
Mallard TrevorESTIMATES DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 7 September on the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Rt Hon Trevor Mallard): The House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2021/22 Estimates) Bill. There are five hours and 27 minutes left remaining in this debate. All votes are available for debate but only the Minister of Immigration and the Minister of Justice will be available to speak to the indicated portfolios. The first call in each debate will be offered to the chairperson or member of the committee that's considered the Estimates most closely related to the Minister's portfolios. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government's current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations 2021 stand part of the schedules—in this case immigration.
Urgent Debates Declined — COVID-19 Response—Middlemore Hospital Patient
Mallard TrevorURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCOVID-19 Response—Middlemore Hospital PatientSPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Seymour seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the management of a now-known COVID-19 patient at Middlemore Hospital. I understand from the member's letter that he was aware of this issue on 6 September but sought to clarify some accounts before making his application. However he could have applied for an urgent debate before the House sat yesterday. There was also an opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister for COVID-19 Response during the Estimates debate. The fact that a member does not raise a matter at the earliest opportunity may be taken as an indication that it is not of sufficient urgency to qualify under Standing Order 399 but it does not automatically rule it out. The matter that the member wishes to debate appears to have been a possible clinical error. While Ministers answer to the House for the health system and the response to COVID-19 the concept of administrative or ministerial responsibility is narrower for urgent debates than for oral questions. The fact that questions have been addressed to a Minister does not necessarily mean that it involves ministerial responsibility on which an urgent debate can be founded—Speakers' ruling 200/4 from Dr Smith and a more recent one. Having considered the matters raised by the member in his letter I'm not convinced that it reaches the threshold that warrants setting aside the business of the House. The application is therefore declined.
Petitions Papers Select Committee Reports and Introduction Of Bills