Wong Pansy: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1596] 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Immigration Bill along with David Bennett my hard-working National colleague—we were both members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the last Parliament—who will speak shortly. 
The bill has taken a lot of thought. The select committee received 90 submissions and 61 submitters presented a submission that deserved our attention. This legislation has quite a few controversial parts which I want to share with the House. Lots of submitters were concerned about biometric information in respect of the protection of an individual’s privacy and in respect of whether it infringes human rights. How long can an individual’s biometric information be stored and who can retrieve it? The select committee took a very considered and professional approach to that issue. We engaged at length with the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Human Rights Commissioner and eventually we struck the right balance in the legislation. 
The other provisions that caused a lot of controversy were about classified information. Which chief executives of which departments can provide this information; once again who can access it; and what is the Minister’s authority with regard to it? Once again the select committee took those concerns to heart and had very lengthy discussions. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner made return trips to the select committee which is quite unusual. We also authorised the officials to work with the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission to make sure that the provision that eventually ended up in the legislation provides the sensible and right balance between an individual’s rights and the rights of New Zealand to protect its border from people who might present a threat to New Zealand. 
I would like to talk about three other matters I have raised some of which have been incorporated into the legislation. First of all a new provision that has been introduced caused quite a lot of concern to employers. Currently employers can rely on the fact that a potential employee would provide a PAYE code to prove that he or she has the right to work. An employer could employ someone if that person had an Inland Revenue Department tax code—the employer could assume that person has the right to work. 
In this legislation that provision has been changed. The provision is about employers having to take reasonable steps to prove that the potential employee at least has a work visa has permanent residence or is a New Zealand citizen. That caused quite a lot of concern to employers. Some of them were concerned that it might be interpreted as racist. I can just imagine the types of potential employees who might be asked for further identification. They could possibly be people who look like me or who speak with an accent. Employers are quite concerned that if they ask certain candidates for a passport or whatever as identification a complaint might be laid with the Human Rights Commission that they are racist. 
We traversed alternative proposals with the Inland Revenue Department and asked whether the department could come up with some solutions to help. Could for example a potential employee have a tax code so that employers can safely say: “Yes from that tax code it looks as though that person has either a work visa or has permanent residence status.”? We were told by the Inland Revenue Department that it was too difficult. I must say a lot of the select committee members did not take that response from the department too kindly. If that was too difficult for a Government department then spare a thought for employers particularly smaller employers. 
We eventually came to a compromise whereby the Immigration Service agreed it would have an online website to ensure that it responded to any inquiries from employers very quickly. We were also assured that some employers already have an interview form that might be extended to include additional requirements that may satisfy the criteria that employers take reasonable steps to ensure that an individual has the right to work. I hope that works out. We want to send a signal to Immigration New Zealand and to the Inland Revenue Department that we want them to cooperate to ensure that the burden on employers has not been made so difficult that they will be put off employing people. 
The other matter I want to raise is the use of limited purpose visas by Immigration New Zealand. Way back in 1998 when National was in Government a limited purpose visa was introduced. The reason it was introduced was to ease the consideration of risk by immigration officers. Immigration officers might take the attitude—possibly correctly—that there was a higher risk that people entering New Zealand from certain countries might become overstayers. They were very reluctant to issue those people with visitor visas work visas and so on. But that posed a lot of problems for people who genuinely had extended family and friends and wanted to come to New Zealand to visit them for special occasions. A limited purpose visa was introduced for that purpose but unfortunately it has not been used in that spirit. 
I realise that a lot of immigration officers use the limited purpose visa as a last resort rather than using it more liberally at the front end to allow people to come in. The reason they should be at ease is that if the protocol is properly introduced by Immigration New Zealand a person who holds a limited purpose visa cannot change to another category. That should give immigration officers peace of mind when giving those people a visitor visa to come to New Zealand. I wanted that provision to be used in a much better way because right now I am sure that all members of Parliament are constantly being approached by their constituents in relation to the difficulty that their friends and family members have when wanting to visit New Zealand. 
I finish my second reading speech by saying that the Hon Pete Hodgson made a point I agree with to a certain extent. He said that a world-class immigration system starts with legislation but does not end there. I can safely say I am glad that this immigration bill will be passed under the National Government. The law had to be updated and changed. I have confidence in the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and in the Hon Kate Wilkinson to ensure that immigration policy and the Immigration Service will be run as a first-class system—in contrast with the time Labour was in Government. 
Let us look at the shambles of Labour’s so-called business investor policy. The previous Minister of Immigration introduced a $20 million threshold for the investor category. Can members guess how many applications have been received since its introduction? The answer is a big zero. That policy has been in place for a year but there have been no applicants. It is a waste of the time of the department and it is a waste of New Zealand’s time to advertise ourselves and try to show ourselves as a country that values expertise and financial capital. I am glad to take a call in support of the second reading of this bill.