Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
Peachey Allan: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1710] 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration Bill. I commence my remarks by paying tribute to the new Minister of Immigration Dr Jonathan Coleman and congratulating him on his contributions to the debate and to the management of the bill so far. It must be really refreshing for New Zealanders to know that immigration policy is at long last in the hands of a capable intelligent clear-thinking Minister which is such a huge contrast from what this country has come to expect in recent years in relation to immigration policy. 
The aim of this bill is to reform legislation affecting immigration in order to establish a stronger and more flexible legislative framework for New Zealand’s immigration system. Immigration goes right to the heart of the nature and history of New Zealand; we have to get immigration policy right. To manage immigration in a fair and balanced way is the objective of this bill. In order to achieve that a number of significant changes are being made. Firstly the new visa system will be simpler. In fact that one word “visa” will replace the previous three words: “visa” “permit” and “exemption”. The words “permit” and “exemption” will go and just the word “visa” will be used in their place. As part of that change three classes of visa are being established. The naming of these classes provides a clarity and understanding that did not exist before. There will be a residence visa a temporary entry visa and a transit visa. 
The second key change occurring as a result of the Immigration Bill—and the Minister made very good points about this—is the ability to use classified information in a wider range of decision-making areas with particular safeguards. And that is the point—with particular safeguards. This change will assist the identification process. Those of us who are electorate members of Parliament for whom immigration work takes up a fair bit of the time our offices spend dealing with constituents will welcome this. This change is balanced by providing greater natural justice protection for non - New Zealand citizens where classified information is being used. 
The third key change in the bill is to establish a single independent appeals tribunal which will be known as the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. This single tribunal will replace the four immigration and refugee tribunals we have at the moment. That has to be good. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not reduce the appeal rights contained in the Immigration Act 1987. Those rights remain. Those who seek to pick fault with the bill on those grounds really need to reflect on what they are actually saying. I repeat the point: this bill does not affect the appeal rights contained in the 1987 Act. I think we will see as a result of these changes a more transparent and fair deportation process. That is what New Zealanders would expect to see in legislation such as this. 
The fourth key area of change is the greater flexibility that is being put into the compliance powers of appropriately trained and designated immigration officials. In practical terms this means first of all that there will be new powers for immigration officials to exercise power of entry inspection and search. Secondly there are new limited powers for information officers to detain a non - New Zealand citizen who is liable to arrest and detention. Thirdly the bill will increase the period of detention without a warrant—which currently ranges from 42 to 78 hours—to 96 hours. This provision will better enable the Department of Labour to facilitate the departure of non - New Zealand citizens. It is fair it is sensible and it in no way infringes on any existing rights available under the 1987 Act. 
In conclusion I go back to where I started. Immigration is a very important feature of New Zealand life. New Zealand is built on immigration. We are a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution they can make to our country. This legislation should further encourage and enhance that. In saying that though let us not lose sight of one fact: the best immigration policy is our own people staying here and our own people having done their OE wanting to come home. But of course that will never meet the total population skill needs of our country so we need an immigration system that is flexible robust and strong and that will enable us to meet our current and future skill needs. We need an immigration system that will attract for example business interests because it is businesses that create employment prosperity and income. And above all else after the experiences of recent years which are a tragedy New Zealand needs to develop an immigration service in which every citizen every potential immigrant and every refugee being assisted can have confidence that they are being treated fairly directly and honestly and that there is only one way to get into New Zealand—the lawful way. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Those of the public who have been watching on television will have observed that the member who has resumed his seat Allan Peachey is quite a big man—a man around 6 feet 2 inches tall. Those who have been listening on the radio will have perhaps thought that he has made himself seem a little smaller in trying to play partisan politics with a bill in which his Government has changed not one comma. 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to references to my height or lack of it. I do not think there is any place in this House for that sort of personal comment. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Speaking to the point of order I think the member will have to have a substantially thicker skin if he is going to last in this place. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is the member taking exception to reference to his height? 
Allan Peachey 
: I am indeed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well I will not comment on that. 
Hon Member 
: Stand up Mr Deputy Speaker! 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am standing. The member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 116 I ask the member to apologise. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise to the member. 
One of the reasons for making that comment—in all seriousness—is that there are many people who need to be acknowledged in the history of the Immigration Bill. One of them whom I would like to acknowledge is the current Speaker the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who when he was the previous Opposition’s immigration spokesman and I was the Minister was one of the first to take a bipartisan approach to the development of this bill. He attended seminars he participated in the development of the policy and he was quick to say that the then National Opposition would support moderate and balanced legislation that would bring immigration practice into the 21st century. So I commend Mr Speaker as he now is for that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Without bringing him into the debate of course. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —without bringing him into the debate in anything other than a complimentary way I say to my dear colleague. 
We have here a bill with a rather long history. Its concepts were laid down by former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel and it was further developed by former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain. Its drafting was developed under my own watch and the bill was passed through to the new Government after its introduction into the House. I think all members would acknowledge that there have been no amendments to the draft; the bill as it is before the house today has multipartisan support—other than from the Green Party; it has had reservations all along—and the current Government has changed not one comma of the draft it inherited from the previous Government. I say to Mr Peachey and some of his colleagues that there is room for a little bit of bipartisanship in this Parliament and a little bit of acknowledgment of work done—it does not demean anybody. 
The second point is that this bill has a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. It is also fair to say that earlier drafts did not have that vet. Many hours of work were put in by some very able officials and legal advisers with a bit of help from Ministers and they brought this bill to the point where it could—and did—receive a clean passage under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course that stands in contradistinction to other legislation before the House at the moment—the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. I commend the current Attorney-General Mr Finlayson for taking a very proper and balanced approach and upholding the dignity of his office in making clear that that bill does not pass muster either ethically or constitutionally under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The third and final point I make with your indulgence Mr Deputy Speaker is that this legislation—a very major once-in-a-generation overhaul of immigration law—will not itself be sufficient to modernise immigration practice. That is why the previous Government saw this as one of three main legs if you like of the broader Immigration Change Programme. The programme included the modernisation of key categories of immigration policy such as business migration the skilled migrant category talent visas the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme and some of the more socially focused programmes such as the refugee policy and the ability to reunite families. We need to acknowledge some of the long history of all of that work; again it goes back not only to the previous Government but to a number of former Ministers and many many officials who have worked tirelessly to put together the hundreds of pages of policy work that underlie the many many pages of this bill. 
The third leg of the treble is operations and it is no secret that the operations of the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service have had a fairly chequered history over the years. I acknowledge the current Minister of Immigration Jonathan Coleman and his hard-working Associate Minister Kate Wilkinson and former Ministers and Associate Ministers who have done their best to serve the public interest in what is always going to be a very difficult environment. It is difficult because these are human stories: they are individual case-based; no two cases are the same; and the fairest way to interpret the law can sometimes be a matter of judgment. That is why some 5000 cases a year come across the desk of the Associate Minister and require many many hours of consultation between that Minister officials and other members of Parliament to try to get the best result for New Zealand and for the constituents concerned. 
The Labour Opposition fully supports the efforts of the Government to ensure that the management structures and processes of the Department of Labour meet the challenge before it as it is modernised. The Opposition holds no truck with any form of malpractice any lack of ethics or any lack of due process. We commend the work of the Government working with the State Services Commission and the Department of Labour management to ensure that those processes and systems are able to meet the challenge. There is no politics in this and there is no partisanship. This is a matter of good governance. Of course it should always have been so and I acknowledge the many good officials and Ministers who have done their very best to ensure that it is and will be so. We do not need to again go into individual cases that will have disappointed us all but we do need to acknowledge that that was not about party politics; it was about human frailty. Our common challenge is to build systems that meet the challenge and the mandate before them. 
One final piece of advice to the new Minister is that it will continue to be a challenge to have a seamless and well-functioning department while the information core of the business is rather antiquated. The Minister will be aware that—going back to my time as Minister—that significant work was being done to modernise the information technology systems in the department because fully one-third of cases are processed without access to the main information database at the time those decisions are made. That was never acceptable on our watch. Significant investment was put into modernising it and I hope that the Minister will give his best efforts to ensure that the development of modern seamless systems throughout the department continues. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Bill read a second time.