Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8279] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 Part 2 is the guts of the bill to use a colloquial expression and it worries us hugely. I keep stressing to the Minister that I can accept the logic of what the Government is trying to do. As I understand it it is that we need somehow to better match the skills that immigrants bring to this country with the skills needs of our country. We have no argument with that. I accept that in the past immigration policy has not achieved that as well as it should have. We all know that there are too many doctors driving taxis. We accept that but we should be moving to a better policy. There is no question about it. But the problem with what is provided for in Part 2 is twofold in my view. 
The first problem is that the Government is putting in place a two-tiered system that is inevitably going to delay decision making. The two tiers are firstly that under clause 9 people who wish to come to New Zealand are invited to express an interest in residence in New Zealand. The Minister is given the unfettered right under section 13E inserted by clause 9 to decide which of those people who have expressed an interest in having residence in New Zealand will be allowed to apply for residence. They could sit on that list of expressions of interest for months while the Minister decides which of those people will be invited to apply for residence. 
After they apply for residence there is then a further decision to be made. The decision then has to be made whether they will be given residence. That is the second tier of the whole process. Submissioners to the select committee were concerned about the length of time this whole process could take. I know that the Minister will get to her feet if she is interested in the debate to say that there will be mechanisms to make sure it does not take too long. But we know all too well that it is going to be quite a lengthy process. 
People will have made the huge decision to seek to come to New Zealand. It is a huge decision a very courageous decision that all our forebears made in previous times in the history of our country. We believe that it is not wise to have to go through that two-tier process. But there is a worse problem. The very nature of this process gives the Minister and her officials so much power to choose who can even apply for residence. Almost inevitably all those who came to the select committee to make submissions on the bill expressed a concern that despite the best intentions this process will almost inevitably lead to corruption. 
We know that under clause 7 the Government will be putting out its residence policy. But the danger remains that when we give absolute discretion when the Minister chooses not to invite someone to apply for residence there is no appeal. No one can say: “Hang on we think it’s not consistent with the Government’s residence policy that our expression of interest should have been turned down by the Minister because we feel she has not invited us because we are Indian or Asian or Chinese. We feel that that’s why we have not been invited to apply.” They have no chance to appeal that decision with anyone. That is why so many people are concerned about the potential for discrimination; the potential for corruption. 
I am not accusing this Minister of being racist. I would not dare accuse this Minister of being corrupt. But despite the best intentions we have legislation like this. In other jurisdictions not everyone sets out to be corrupt. Some do but not all. When we have legislation that can lead to a slippery path where a Minister can make a decision about two people whom we could invite to applyfor residence here and one is Asian and one is not there is the risk that the person who is not Asian might be selected.