Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8272] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to say to the Hon Lockwood Smith that New Zealand does indeed have a culture and one that I am proud of. People who immigrate to our country need to know that they need to fit in with it. 
Clause 3 states that the Act will provide the legislative framework to enable residence policy to be based on New Zealand’s needs rather than on an entitlement system. New Zealand does have needs. I am an employer. Currently I cannot get mechanics. Therefore we need an immigration policy that is based on what we currently need in the country. That is just common sense. 
Rodney Hide 
: Conflict of interest. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I ask Mr Hide whether we want workers and the economy to prosper. Do we want workers to be able to work here? I thought that was ACT party policy. The first thing to note is that unlike other portfolio areas that are founded on fairly prescriptive legislation the real substance of immigration policy is contained in the standard operating procedures and criteria that are collected in a manual and used by immigration officers while assessing applications. This bill facilitates that process rather than spelling out what immigration policy will be and that is why it may be difficult for some to understand the impact of this legislation. 
It puzzles me that New Zealand First would vote against the bill because as clause 3 states it enhances the Immigration Act as a mechanism by which residence policy can be facilitated. So if there is a miracle—and I do happen to believe in miracles—and New Zealand First is ever in a position once again to sit on the Treasury benches and control immigration policy this measure would assist it to introduce its policy. So why on earth would those members vote against it? Never mind—politics is a strange business. 
The objects clause also explains that the idea behind the bill is to allow the Government to get smarter about whom it selects as residents. If one looks at New Zealand First policy from the last election it becomes quite clear that it should be supporting this bill. Maybe the promises made at election time do not mean anything. The New Zealand First policy stated: “New Zealand First will give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” That is exactly the kind of policy this bill facilitates. New Zealand First is clearly betraying all those misguided people who voted for it at the last election by not supporting this bill. 
What is its excuse? New Zealand First stated in the select committee report that this bill does not reduce the overall number of immigrants into this country. That is a completely misleading defence given that that is quite outside the intended scope of the bill. New Zealand First is trying to cover the fact that the Government is doing something about immigration with the help of United Future. [ 
Interruption 
] Can we fix it? Yes we have. This was one of Winston Peters’ three fingers in the last campaign; by not supporting this bill New Zealand First is giving two fingers to the voters. The object of the bill is not to reduce the overall number of people who gain residence here but essentially to add a new filter to the application process to enable the selection and recruitment of migrants who can make the best possible contribution to New Zealand. Although the Government is inviting people to apply only the number of applications provided for in the New Zealand immigration programme will be considered. 
The Government does need to do a much better job at communicating the objectives of the bill to the public and prospective applicants. Reading through the select committee report I found it interesting to note the number of concerns about the bill put forward by submitters but the number of amendments that emerged as a result was quite modest. This is because those concerns were effectively addressed as one would realise if one understood the objects of this bill and the context of immigration policy. But I was quite happy to see that the committee also recognised the need to keep applicants informed.