Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6752] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. I want to take members back to the Department of Labour’s 2002 briefing to incoming Ministers because it has been commented on in this debate. I want to read the opening statement in it— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What page? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Page 125. The member might like to refer to it—I know he carries it around with him. 
Too often the success of the immigration programme has been primarily equated with quantity rather than with quality of outcome. The 1991 general category was initially perceived as a success because it attracted high numbers of migrants with high human capital. In practice outcomes were often poor because their capacity was not necessarily transferable. This bill the No. 2 bill is focused on ensuring that immigration policy is able to address the concerns that we are talking about. 
I heard New Zealand First members saying that— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister referred us to page 125. I have a full copy of that briefing paper right here and there is no page 125 in it. [ 
Interruption 
] No here it is here. The Minister gave it to me. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is a debating point as the member knows. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it’s not. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Can I please have this matter addressed? It was page 125 of the Department of Labour’s compiled briefings to Ministers. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The briefing to the incoming Minister of Immigration by the Department of Labour Te Tari Mahi—everything has a Maori name these days—is that of August 2002. That is the briefing paper that was given to her and she gave to me so where is the page 125 she is talking about? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister said she had the compiled ministerial briefings. The member does not have the whole lot; he has only one. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I heard New Zealand First members saying that we were denying people the right to residence and I want to say in this House that nobody has the “right” to residence in New Zealand. In fact under the skilled migration policy it is a privilege. That has been the fundamental problem with the legislation the policy since 1991. The year 1991 brought in a right to residence backed up by a Residence Appeal Authority. Who was the Minister of Immigration in 1991? It was the Hon Bill Birch. Who was in Cabinet in 1991? It was the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He was there in Cabinet when this policy was brought in; he absolutely was. It is a bit rich for anyone from New Zealand First or National to come into this House and criticise this Government for trying to address the problems that their policies created. 
This bill does three things. It allows for the global prioritisation of applications. That enables us to take those who have job offers relevant to their qualifications or experience and address their applications first. We are turning the general skills category around so that it works for New Zealand. It is supposed to be the category where skilled migrants come to New Zealand to make a contribution to this country to be part of this country and to be part of its economic development and its future. We are making the general skills category work in the way that it was originally intended to work but unfortunately the National Party—and New Zealand First in conjunction with the National Party—failed to address the fundamental flaw in the immigration system. 
This bill lapses certain applications. It lapses all general skills applications made before 20 November last year and not decided by the time this bill comes into effect—except where points have been claimed for a relevant offer of employment in New Zealand except where they have claimed 28 or more points or have been issued a job-search visa or permit or have been invited to apply for one or have been determined by the Immigration Service to meet the requirements for approval in principle. So people who have already been invited to apply for a job-search visa will continue to have that process. Where they have been issued with a job-search visa they will continue to have that process. If it has been determined that they meet the requirements for approval in principle they will still be processed. If they have claimed 28 points or more they will still be processed. If they have claimed points for a relevant offer of employment in New Zealand they will still be processed. Not one single person that Pansy Wong mentioned—namely people who claimed after 20 November last year—will be lapsed by this bill. Not one single one of them will be lapsed because they meet the new criteria as established by the policy. 
I believe it is better to lapse the applications when we know through evidence through research and through all of the examples that have been brought to our attention that those people are highly unlikely to succeed—even when members of New Zealand First raise time and time again the issue of highly skilled applicants doing unskilled work. We have been raising that matter since we became the Government and this is the way we are addressing it. When I became the Minister of Immigration I said that there were people in this country who had residence and who could not get work and that there were people in this country who had work but could not get residence. This is the Government that has been prepared to front up to both of those problems and this is the Government that is making a real difference. We want to address the issue of those who will not succeed in a New Zealand environment—to lapse their applications so that we can get on with the job of bringing in the people we know will succeed. 
The third thing this bill does is that it clarifies the distinction between Government immigration policy and Government residence policy which has been confused by the High Court decision. I want to ask the National Party—and it will be very interesting because it was its Cabinet that made the original decision to bring in the job-search visa—did it ever intend to include the job-search visa as part of Government residence policy? Of course not! Nobody seems to front up to that in the National Party. 
In 1998 the National Party made a fundamental change to the general skills category that recreated the era of 1991. In 1998 it delinked the requirement that the job offer be linked to the skills and the experience that the individual brought. It delinked the qualifications from the job offer which meant that that party was responsible for saying that if one is a scientist and gets a job offer to work in a laboratory doing original science one gets five points towards his or her residence. Under its amazing policy in 1998 it also said that if that same scientist gets a job offer as a hamburger bar cook or a cleaner then he or she gets five points towards residence. It was the National Party that brought professional migrants to this country and saw their hopes dashed because they were never going to have the opportunity to achieve those ends. 
I want finally to comment on the fruits of the case argument. The New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment took the case. It did not take the case with named individuals who were affected by it. I have to say in this House that there are two very distinct groups of immigration consultants in this country and the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment represents both sorts. Some want good settlement outcomes because they actually care what happens to New Zealand. Others do not care about settlement outcomes because all they want is a fee paid to them when they get a resident stamp in the passport. There are people in this country acting as immigration consultants who do not act in the interests of New Zealanders. The immigration consultants I support are the ones who believe that they have a role to play in actively recruiting the people that New Zealand needs and that is what this policy is all about.