Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6671] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Thanks for the opportunity to say a few words on the Immigration Bill which I am very pleased to see is progressing through the House. I will comment on the contribution made by Te Ururoa Flavell for the Maori Party and his colleague Hone Harawira but I will do so in the context of recognising that this bill completely changes the format of the previous legislation particularly in the area of having established the purpose clause. Given that Hone Harawira’s amendment would add another clause to the purpose clause I will comment on the fact that we are looking to replace legislation that described itself as “An Act generally to reform the law relating to immigration and in particular to remove the need for persons who are in New Zealand unlawfully to be dealt with by way of criminal prosecution”. That is rather an unfortunate way to describe such a fundamental piece of law. 
We have now a purpose statement that traverses a number of different issues right through from the purpose being “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest as determined by the Crown and the rights of individuals.” to looking at the way that that purpose is achieved. A number of provisions are placed in the purpose clause such as requiring non - New Zealand citizens to hold a visa to travel and to stay in New Zealand facilitating access to skills and labour supporting families allowing for the management of the immigration aspects of border control and the list goes on. Personally my favourite is to have finally recognised in our law that we are supporting “the settlement of migrants refugees and protected persons.” as a statement of purpose in the legislation. I think that is a huge advance and it is something that I have certainly been looking forward to see written into our law for a considerable length of time. 
I acknowledge what the member Hone Harawira is trying to achieve by moving an amendment to add a new clause 3A in order to make the legislation consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi but I will go back over time and explain an approach that I adopted when I was the Minister of Immigration and had the privilege of holding that portfolio. I felt that it was really important that before we started developing this new law—because this law has been in the development stage for a very long time—we consulted with Maori about what their expectations might be of a new Immigration Act so we started a consultation process. The very first consultation we had was a complete and utter disaster and I can stand here and say that I accept full responsibility for that. The main reason was that I attended that initial consultation having invited people whom I felt ought to be in the room for such a consultation and I discovered that in fact there was not a unified view from those around the table. Ranginui Walker was one of the people in the room and he certainly made that very fine and sound statement that if we were looking for our original statement of immigration policy then we need look no further than the Treaty of Waitangi. 
It was a very powerful meeting. I remember having a very interesting engagement with several of the individuals there and I learnt a lot from that particular occasion. I learnt that the Crown could not call together a group of people and say that it had consulted with Maori about which way was the right way to go. I started a process of going around individual iwi and talking to iwi—listening more than talking to be honest—to find out what people wanted out of an Immigration Act rewrite. What I started to hear because it was a job that I left incomplete was that people wanted to see people making the decision to migrate to New Zealand being tied up with an understanding of the country they were migrating to. Therefore an understanding of the Treaty need not be an administrative function for Maori within New Zealand but a knowledge base to be shared with new migrants to this country. 
A number of Maori made the point to me that under our citizenship laws there needs to be an understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and of the relationship that we have in New Zealand yet that is not in our immigration law. My answer to the question that is posed quite justifiably by the member is that this is not the right place for this clause. In my view it is better that the immigration legislation remains silent on the matter but that the conditions against which immigration status—and residence status in particular—is granted should be more inclusive of the objectives of the Treaty and the understanding around that. Certainly in terms of establishing the immigration programme on an ongoing basis consultation with Maori is not dependent on having a Treaty clause in the document. In many respects I am arguing against myself because I tend to have a view that it is useful to have consultation obligations written into legislation but a clause that simply asks for: “The interpretation and administration of this Act will be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.” does not in my view get to the heart of the issue. The issue is that the people who choose to make New Zealand their home need to have a good understanding of the nature of the Treaty which establishes one of the very foundations of our nation. 
That is my view and it was part of a consultation that I had started but it was incomplete as I said. I certainly would encourage the Government of the day to think about continuing that conversation because it was a very very worthwhile process. It certainly opened up my eyes to a lot of issues that I would have been completely unaware of otherwise. 
The only other comment that I will make on Part 1 is in relation to a clause that I had some concerns about and the Minister has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the particular provision. I had some concerns about the new clause 5C which had been moved by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from another part of the bill. I think that the problem that arose with the wording that was framed in the clause was that the use of the new phrase “while liable for deportation” had not really been picked up with its new meaning. Simply taking the provisions of the previous law straight out of the current Immigration Act and inserting those as the new clause 5C(1) resolves the problem with the clause that I had raised and I am very grateful to the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman for resolving that issue. I know that a couple of my other colleagues have commented on the issue of how well we have been served in terms of preparing for this debate and I too acknowledge the Minister for making officials available to work through these issues with us. I appreciate that very much and I am sure that the bill will be stronger for it.