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:6806] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill does three things. It provides for global prioritisation. We believe that we have the power currently to do this because we are able to manage the way that we address those applications that come in but we are not taking any risks. This measure enables the best applications to be dealt with first. I quite frankly have been absolutely amazed at the support for the “first come first served” principle which would not serve New Zealand well. I want every member in this House to realise that the global prioritisation principle is about ensuring that those who have job offers who are already needed in New Zealand have access to residence first. 
The second thing that the bill does is that it introduces the lapsing provisions. I am aware that there will be people who are disappointed as a result of that. It was made very clear in the debate that it does not apply to applications lodged after 20 November last year; it does not apply to applicants who have lodged more than 28 points; it does not apply where there is a relevant job offer; it does not apply where the applicants have already been invited to apply for a job-search visa or one has been granted to them; and it does not apply where all the criteria have been met for approval in principle. So only one component of the group of people who currently have applications in the pipeline will have those applications lapsed. The application fees for those lapsed applications will be refunded in full. 
It is no wonder National Party members have got up in this House to defend rights. Actually it is the first time that I have heard National Party members get up in this Parliament and do that. In the 13 years that I have been here I have never heard a National Party member get up to defend someone’s rights. What the National Party members are really defending is the fact that they got it wrong. In 1991 the policy got it wrong. The 1998 adjustment which allowed migrants to get full points for a job offer that was not relevant to their qualifications or experience was an unmitigated disaster for this country. The National Party in essence is defending the National Government’s policy errors; this policy puts them right. 
The skilled immigration policy is surely designed to meet the needs of New Zealand. If other parties are willing to sit back and wait for people to apply to come to New Zealand—bringing skills that New Zealand may or may not need—and then to forget about them the moment that they arrive in this country then so be it. That is not what this Government stands for. This Government is pro-immigration pro-migrant pro-settlement and pro - New Zealand and that approach produces the best of all worlds. All will benefit from the approach that we have adopted. 
National Party members have asked what I have done in the last 3½ years. To quote one of my very good colleagues on this side of the House I have done “heaps” in the immigration portfolio. I have an entire page of delivery in terms of our policy that I could go through but I just want to mention two points. I said when I became the Minister that there were people in the country with residence who could not get work and there were people in the country with work who could not get residence. I have done everything within my power to address that issue. I have said that the settlement focus has to be the key approach to immigration. That is why we established pilot schemes—to make sure that skilled migrants were matched with skilled opportunities in New Zealand. We brought in the work-to-residence policy and the talent visa has been hugely successful. This bill is not a knee-jerk reaction; it has been a very long time in the planning. 
In the Committee stage I read out the public comments of immigration consultants who do not accept the position of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment and I want to close with some comments from business other than Business New Zealand. This is a statement from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc: “Business has forever said the best way of selecting immigrants suited to New Zealand was for them to show they had a genuine offer of a job from a New Zealand enterprise. The changes announced yesterday move a long way towards delivering this approach and the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) endorses it with enthusiasm. ‘Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel’s approach is fundamentally the right one for business particularly for manufacturing businesses.’ says Alisdair Thompson EMA’s Chief Executive. ‘A labour department survey last year showed many of our enterprises are not growing as fast as they could because of a lack of suitable skills especially people with trades and vocational skills. Skill shortages were found to be holding back growth for 42 percent of smaller businesses but the door must be kept open for immigrants bringing capital with them. In addressing the issues Minister Dalziel has made more progress with the portfolio than any Minister I can remember. While some people may be disadvantaged the change needed was bound to cause some disruption.’ ” 
My point is that there would be more disruption if we do not do this if we do not get it right for New Zealand.