Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8270] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I will also put forward an amendment to this part of the bill. One of the constant criticisms that we heard from the submitters—who actually represent 90 percent of the submissions—who came to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee expressed concern that this bill if passed would damage the credibility of New Zealand’s reputation in terms of confidence and the certainty of our immigration system. I think this is very important and I particularly want United Future to consider it. United Future is a party that claims to be concerned about the interests of New Zealand and our standing in the international world so I want its members to consider and support this amendment to add a new subclause to clause 3: “(d) ensure the transparency and certainty of immigration policies to maintain the international credibility of the New Zealand immigration system.” 
I cannot imagine that any party or anybody would not accept an amendment for something that is very obvious. The immigration system is a very important integral part of the legislation of a country. Part of the concern about the immigration system undoubtedly is about the lack of transparency. When an immigration policy or the way it is being implemented shows a lack of transparency and a lack of integrity then undoubtedly the doors will be wide open to corruption. 
 One can imagine that before very long New Zealand will see a market price for obtaining letters of invitation for people to apply. As the Human Rights Commission stated to the select committee those letters of invitation to apply are unprecedented anywhere in the world. The commission did not know of anywhere else where that mechanism exists. 
The Immigration Service is already under a cloud because of the investigation into the “lie in unison” matter. What confidence can the public and potential applicants have when additional powers are awarded to the service so that it does not have to explain to potential applicants why their applications will not even be considered why they will not receive letters of invitation and why there will be no appeal? 
We were told during the select committee process that 67 percent of the appeals by applicants would succeed because of different technical interpretations between the Immigration Service and the applicant. So that is a very very serious issue facing New Zealand. Does Parliament want to pass legislation that will increase the possibility of our Immigration Service being tarnished by that lack of transparency so that the doors will open wide for corruption and corruptive practices? When that image is damaged internationally it will cost New Zealand dearly in terms of taking measures to regain the reputation of operating a transparent and credible immigration system in which both potential migrants and New Zealanders will know what criteria are being exercised. 
I hope that the various parties in the House will see this amendment as necessary to maintain the credibility of our country’s reputation if we are serious about attracting quality migrants. Those people would not want to apply under a system where they might spend lots of time and make financial commitments without knowing why they might not even be considered.