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:6784] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: A number of comments have been made in this debate in respect of a position that was adopted in 1999 in respect of another Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I remind the Committee that the legislation itself had already been passed by the House and in fact the particular provisions in the No. 2 bill had been supported by the Labour Opposition at that earlier stage. We had supported the writing in of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and we had supported all the changes that were made in respect of asylum seekers. The No. 2 bill to which members have referred brought into effect those provisions relating to asylum seekers—specifically those relating to mass arrivals—because there was allegedly a boat on the way. That boat still has not arrived today—and that was in 1999. 
The only briefing the only meeting that I asked for in this House was a brief calling together in the lunch break while the bill was going through the House so that officials could provide a briefing to Opposition members. 
I provided a briefing to Opposition members yesterday through the offices of the Associate Minister of Immigration and all the Opposition parties were invited to participate in it. I think it was perfectly reasonably to offer members an advance opportunity to ask questions about the content of legislation that was to be introduced under urgency. So there is absolutely no contradiction in the position I have adopted in this Chamber whatsoever. 
This part of the bill deals with the Government residence policy. Assertions have been made in this House that I must have arranged for the particular provisions in clause 3 to go through Cabinet and be drafted in a bill before I put out my statement saying that we intended to appeal the decision relating to the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment case. I can tell this Committee categorically that the date that I asked officials to draft a Cabinet paper seeking permission for this clause to go into the legislation and be drafted was 23 June. Prior to that it had not been proposed that clause 3 be included in this bill. It was only 2 weeks ago that I asked officials to do this work. 
I make the point that clause 3 is not retrospective. Clause 3 clarifies the situation in respect of temporary entry to New Zealand which is not governed by Government residence policy. If members of the National Party want to have temporary entry policy under the same rules as Government residence policy then God help New Zealand! That would be an absolute disaster. We make decisions every day of the week as to whether people will comply with the provisions of temporary entry policy to this country. Every day of the week we get applications from people from different countries in the world and we have to try to decide whether they will comply with the provisions of their visa if we grant them that visa. National Party members had to do exactly the same thing when they were in Government. It is a bit rich for Opposition members now to come to this House and say that they accept that a job-search visa is part of Government residence policy. It was not intended to be part of Government residence policy when the National Party Cabinet considered the Cabinet paper back in 1999 and it certainly was not in my mind when I confirmed the introduction of that policy early in 2000 when I became the Minister. That is the bottom line in respect of clause 3. It clarifies very specifically that temporary entry visas and permits and limited-purpose visas and permits are not in any circumstances part of Government residence policy. 
The second element of this part is the global prioritisation—something we have already introduced. It enables us to prioritise the applications of particular individuals who already have skilled-job offers. That will be good for business good for the migrant and very good for New Zealand.