Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6721] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports this bill— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At the last election we came in third and United Future stumbled in at about sixth. What is the member doing speaking in this debate before I or a member of my party has had the call? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have a list in front of me which is a list that has been adhered to for as long as I have been an Assistant Speaker in this House. I am now calling the honourable member Paul Adams. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already made a ruling— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I know you have made a ruling and you might have a list but can you please tell me when it was decided that under MMP a party with a bigger membership than another party ends up speaking second to that party? Pray tell me how that is fair. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reason is that United Future supports the Government. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we are in danger of setting an unfortunate precedent here. I am not going to question your ruling but I will invite you to give a considered ruling on this matter. Mr Peters properly makes the point that he is the leader of a significant political party. He has significant identification with this matter in the public mind and he is a parliamentarian of very considerable seniority. If you are making a ruling because United Future has made some commitment—which is not known to members of this House at this time—to vote for this bill then I think we are getting into territory that requires some further thought. I would have thought it was the position of most members that they wanted to hear the debate before giving a commitment as to which way they were going to vote on this matter. If you have some secret information on which you are basing your ruling then I think we are all entitled to hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: On a proportionality basis the reality is that the call should go to Labour but Labour has made an agreement that it goes to its coalition partner United Future. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You see the difficulty you have got into here. You just described United Future as a coalition partner of the Government. That is the first time I have heard that and we have been going since the election in July 2002. The second point is that any position United Future might take—unlike the Progressives which Mr Anderton leads—is an artificial position and it changes depending on the issue. So when United Future is backing the Government it gets priority and if it is not backing the Government it does not get priority. I cannot see how that is fair. Frankly that is what worries me about this. You are saying that despite what the public said at the last election a party that has an artificial position will determine the speaking order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Standing Order 84(3). Points of order are supposed to be terse and to the point. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The important point here is that first and foremost Speakers generally over many many years have attempted to keep the flow of debate going across the debate based on an understanding of where the support and the opposition to a particular measure before the House sits. That is what has been done in this case. Secondly particularly since the advent of MMP as members are well aware there has been increasing use of the speaking order generally to assist the flow of debate in the House and to assist the Speaker in the chair to give fair coverage to all the parties. Thirdly and perhaps most important the call has been given it cannot be withdrawn and it cannot be disputed by members from the floor of the House. It is clear and a matter of longstanding ruling both in the Standing Orders and in  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 that once the call is given it cannot be withdrawn. The debate should continue. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for explaining the call you gave. It is parliamentary to alternate between those for and against and that is what we are doing. I have checked with the United Future members and they will vote for the measure and I understand that Mr Peters will vote against it. So it is very parliamentary: we have just had a speech made by the National Party against the bill and now we are to hear a speech in favour of it from United Future. We will then have Mr Peters who I am sure by that time will be ready to give us a rip-roaring speech. We should get on with it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. The point has been made that I have given the call to speak under Speaker’s ruling 23/3 and I cannot take it away. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have already ruled. Is this a fresh point of order? 
John Carter 
: Yes it is. The precedent of United Future being given the second Government speech has now been running since the election but it does raise an interesting point and you might like to give a view on this at some stage. In the way that Mr Prebble has just put it basically—and it is accepted that in this case United Future supports the bill—the call should be one for then one against. But we have occasions when United Future is opposed and the Greens are in support. Does that mean that sometimes the Greens will get the third speech so to speak? How is the Speaker to know whether someone will support something or not support it until the member actually takes the call? We could get ourselves into a difficulty. What has happened in the past is a precedent has been set because United Future while not in coalition has by agreement indicated— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member come to the point? Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order should be terse and to the point. 
John Carter 
: That is true. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes I know; I was making that point. But if we are going to go any further then you run into the dilemma of trying to predict how members will vote. I say it would cause some difficulty. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am following the order of calls on the first readings of bills that was established by the Speaker and the Business Committee at the commencement of this Parliament. There is no reason to depart from it on this occasion. Other parties would find it unfair if the Speaker were to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to record my party’s total disagreement with that ruling and to say that it is totally contrary to the election results. To have a party in Government that is not part of any coalition taking precedence over a party with more seats is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a debating point. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: United Future supports this bill because it is not about reducing the number of immigrants as part of some knee-jerk response to the cultural insecurity of New Zealanders; rather it is all about the Government being a lot smarter about the people we accept as residents. The aim is to change from a passive receiver of anyone who wants to come to live here into an active recruiter of skills that the country needs. 
The bill should not be seen in isolation from the changes that the Government will make in immigration policy. The legislation introduces a two-tier system for general skills residence applications but is driven by a policy shift towards approving those who are most likely to make a positive contribution to the country and settle well here. Intending migrants will first submit an expression of interest and will assess their skills and attributes using a points system. The threshold of the current points system fluctuates depending on the number of applications. As the points go up it becomes more difficult for people with trade skills to qualify because those with higher qualifications get more points. However that may not take into account other factors such as whether the country is in need of people with those qualifications or whether they have a job offer relevant to their skills—hence the phenomenon of over-qualified taxi-drivers. Under the proposed scheme the same upper limit of immigrants will be rolled over but the points will reflect the country’s needs. In other words applicants will receive bonus points for holding a skill that is in demand here and for having a job offer that is relevant to that skill—particularly if it is located in a region that is experiencing shortages. Other standards such as health character and English language requirements will still need to be met. 
For those who meet the points threshold the Immigration Service will issue an invitation to apply. The invitation to apply allows for an opportunity to verify job offers—something that is not investigated as thoroughly as officials would like at the current time. Successful applicants at this stage follow one of two courses. They may qualify for residence if they have already demonstrated an ability to settle and contribute to New Zealand—for example if they have worked or studied here. Alternatively they may qualify for work-to-residence status for 2 years if they have the potential to settle and contribute to New Zealand—for example if they have not been here before but have received a job offer from a New Zealand employer. This means that if the migrant is unable to settle successfully here within that period then that failure does not have to be met by the welfare system beyond a limited period. 
Under the current system all applicants who meet the basic lodgment requirements must be accepted and processed and that has contributed to the large backlog that exists now. The inflexibility of those provisions in the Immigration Act are amended by this bill as those who do not receive within 3 months an invitation to apply will lapse from the system which means that some of the more intensive stages of the application process are avoided. The lapsed applicants are not able to seek a review of this decision as the bill also restricts access to a review to those applicants who are declined after they have been invited to apply. 
Ron Mark 
: Did Lianne write this? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: No she did not. The lapsing provision should be seen as a positive move for in many ways it is better to be cruel than to be kind—to let applicants know that they have failed the process at the earliest possible stage. Under the current system people are putting their lives on hold for up to 2 years but the change will mean that in the future applicants will know either way within 3 months. Of course if their circumstances change after their application has lapsed in a way that would increase their points value—such as an offer of relevant employment—then they are free to reapply. 
My hope is that this process will give applicants more accurate expectations about their chances of success and that in the course of assessing an applicant’s potential immigration officials will be able to ensure that applicants have realistic expectations about what to expect when they come here. As much as we think our country is the greatest in the world we need to dispel the misconceptions spread by some immigration consultants that the streets are paved with gold. 
The bill streamlines the review process because only those people who having been invited to apply for residence have their applications declined will have access to a review. Only those applications lodged in New Zealand may be reviewed unless offshore applicants have a New Zealand employer or family sponsor who supports the review. Those who have had their applications declined because they made a false declaration will not be eligible for a review of their case but the Immigration Service will be able to correct any errors without recourse to the review board. 
The invitation to apply requires legislation as do the provisions for lapsing residents’ applications. The bill on its own is simply the bones of the reform. This will be fleshed out later by policy—some of which I have discussed here—that will set the criteria for inviting applications and assessing them. But at this stage the bill can be viewed as an additional filter through which residency policy will be applied. The Government intends to work with employer and trade organisations to identify skills gaps and which regions are in need. We are also encouraged by suggestions that the Immigration Service will become more proactive in marketing New Zealand as a place to live and work for skilled migrants particularly in the virtually untapped North American markets. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yeah? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Is the member happy about that? United Future is in favour of immigration. We are pleased that the overall level of migrants will be sustained for the next 3 years. Those who want to cut drastically the number of immigrants do not recognise that we need to maintain a sizeable working population to fund State services in the light of the aging population and the slowing birth rate of the current adult population. This makes it all the more important to attract migrants who will be good for this country. Business and Economic Research Ltd reports that over the last year migrants had a positive net fiscal impact of $1.7 billion. With the right immigration programme in place this added value could be even higher. 
To United Future it makes so much sense to move from a system dictated by the first-come-first-served approach to one that puts the candidates who are more likely to integrate into New Zealand society at the head of the queue. Otherwise the people we want may be stuck at the back of the queue for 2 years and lose their job offers or they may go somewhere else that can offer quicker entry. At the same time we would be letting people at the front of the queue get in first when they might not have a relevant job offer and might be more likely to be a drain on the taxpayer through the benefit system when they cannot find work. To let people come here who then cannot find proper work is unfair to them as it makes it that much more difficult for them to integrate into New Zealand society. 
I ask those listening to look to this legislative framework for some very positive changes that are about to be made in residence policy and I trust that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will examine the bill with that in mind.