Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6794] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: I thank the Committee for the opportunity to respond to the member who has just resumed his seat. I should make the point because he clearly did not hear what I said earlier on that clause 3 was added to the bill as a result of the decision that was taken on 23 June. This bill was already in the process of being finalised prior to that date. So the lapsing provisions were already being addressed at that point. I asked the officials to again look at including clause 3 in the legislation to cover the lapsing provisions and the global prioritisation. So I want to clarify for the member that that was not something that was written. Those particular provisions were not written at that late stage. 
I thought I would share with the Committee the newsroom agency story that has come in over the wires in respect of the response to this particular part. I will just quote from the document itself. It states: “An immigration consultant Ted Legget says the Government’s move to actively recruit skilled migrants will ensure immigrants can put their skills to use as soon as they arrive in the country. He says immigrants who cannot settle into a suitable job are not happy and the changes will address this. Mr Legget says it is unfortunate for those who have already lodged applications for non-relevant job offers and may now be rejected but there was no alternative.” That is an immigration consultant who has made that particular point. 
Pansy Wong 
: That’s a good one! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I find it very interesting to hear Pansy Wong interjecting particularly given associations with certain immigration consultants who may be of interest to that member. I will be in a position to identify the main players in the money-go-round that that member is fully aware of very very soon. 
The point that I have made about the difference between good and not-so-good immigration consultants is simply this: the good immigration consultants welcome the Government’s changes in this bill. The reason that they welcome these changes is that they already operate on a recruitment model. They already know about jobs that people can be brought into New Zealand to do. They care about the settlement outcomes for the people whom they bring here. I went to one immigration consultancy company’s launch of its Hunters Club—a club actually set aside for new migrants to New Zealand who are the company’s clients in respect of immigration applications. The interesting thing is that that is not something that the consultancy firm has to do. It does not have to do that but it cares about the outcomes. That is the immigration consultancy that welcomes this bill. It is speaking to the media today and it is saying that the Government is on the right track. 
The reason that the firm accepts we are on the right track is that it wants what the Government wants. I thought I heard Dail Jones interject to say that that is what New Zealand First wants. That firm wants migrants to hit the ground running and to use their skills and their talent when they get here. Nobody in this Committee could justify for one minute having skilled and professional migrants coming to this country and taking up jobs as cleaners cooks and taxi-drivers. New Zealanders have had a guts full of that sort of treatment. New Zealanders are fair and decent-minded people who ask why we waste the talent and skills of the people whom we bring here. This policy will make sure that we do not continue to bring to New Zealand people who will not make it here and who have little to offer New Zealand—and to be blunt New Zealand has little to offer them. This turn-round in policy is good for migrants and good for New Zealand.