Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8208] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not be supporting this bill because we believe that it remains discriminatory and contrary to the principles of natural justice. We were very hopeful that at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee there would be an opportunity for real exploration of the issues so that the policy and details could be thoroughly canvassed but that was simply not possible because of the extremely tight time frame for the committee’s deliberations. In our view present immigration policy is based on responsiveness to the labour market for the purpose of economic advantage to New Zealand and does not accommodate social and cultural benefits and cost analysis. Nor is it constructed in a mode of hospitality to immigrants. 
Many of the changes the select committee made to the bill were a direct response to the concerns raised by submitters and the Greens would like to thank all of those who made submissions for their rigorous contribution to such a sensitive issue. I want briefly to go through some of those submissions which were not deeply canvassed in the select committee report. Submissions were received from very diverse interest groups ranging from human rights groups to legal agencies and parties with business interests. Most submissions contained deeply held concerns about the bill. Those concerns went to the heart of whether the changes increased discriminatory and unjust processes. 
The Council for Civil Liberties opposed the bill as breaching acceptable constitutional standards. The council appealed to the priority of democratic process. It considered that the proposed bill overweighs the discretionary power of the Immigration Service at the expense of remedial processes available to those seeking residency. It was the view of the council that the modified review process in the bill would create uncertainty for applicants with the likely outcome that the most desirable applicants under the present criteria—that is those with the most desirable skills—would be less likely to apply. 
The Human Rights Commission referred to the application procedure for those in New Zealand whose applications lapse who are required to leave the country. The commission reviewed the Human Rights Act and raised many concerns that the proposed procedures would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act under the auspices of unfair procedures. Like the Council for Civil Liberties the Human Rights Commission considered that changes made without consultation warning or access to appeal might constitute an unfair process. Changing the rules midway through a process was also a concern of the commission. Its submission commented that the spirit of natural justice and procedural fairness is lacking in this bill although the strict legalistic criteria may be met. 
Business New Zealand had an approach from the other end of the spectrum to that of the Greens and set out its view of supporting skilled migration into New Zealand along with domestic skill development to support the goal of economic growth. Although the Greens are committed to a broader approach to immigration than a solely economic imperative we note that Business New Zealand in its submission considered that changes to the points required in the general skills category not only had created uncertainty for applicants—possibly dissuading the more discerning applicants—but also increasingly had created difficulties for an important group of skilled migrants those skilled in the trades area. The submission emphasised that the skills of those groups are desperately needed in a range of industries. Applicants for immigration with these skills do not necessarily attract sufficient points to qualify. 
Whereas Business New Zealand the Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Commission emphasised the uncertainty for immigrants the Auckland District Law Society agreed with those concerns but extended its opposition to the bill to include the further impact of uncertainty—that is uncertainty for employers. With the prospect of applications being lapsed employers are bound to be resistant to employing people with uncertain immigrant status. They will not want to make a human resource investment in them on the chance of their gaining permanent residency. If we continue to follow this line the uncertainty for employers will exacerbate the inhumane uncertainty for the applicants. Overall this and other substantial submissions considered that there has been a fragmentary approach to immigration revisions and that they have been counterproductive to achieving greater flexibility in responsiveness to the New Zealand labour market. The Auckland District Law Society advocated a comprehensive and robust approach rather than reactive measures that cause problems in statutory interpretation. 
The bill was changed at the select committee and many of those changes were very positive. One significant change was the deletion of the proposed subsections (2) (3) and (4) of section 18C in clause 13 so that the current rights of appeal for persons declined a visa or permit are retained. This ensures that there is some capacity for a review of the process for decisions to decline applications. But this appeal right will be available only for those applicants who have been invited to apply for residence. Those who have submitted expressions of interest are not entitled to a review of any part of the process for reaching a decision. In our view that is not satisfactory. Whether a person meets the criteria and should therefore be invited to apply for residence is a decision of an immigration or visa officer. The criteria for an invitation to apply are to be published as part of the residence policy. The Immigration Service has argued that the publication of those criteria will provide sufficient transparency and certainty of outcome. We are not so certain. 
One of the criteria is having a job offer which increases people’s points. We question whether this takes into account the well-known fact which has been established in research that the highest-ranking means of securing a job is through personal contacts. How can immigrants realistically avail themselves of job opportunities given that that is a primary job-entry process? Furthermore immigrants who speak English as a second language are at a disadvantage in New Zealand where there are many anecdotal and published examples of employers screening out a job applicant when they hear that a prospective employee is a foreigner whose English may be limited or whose accent is rather thick. One submission stated that the bill was likely to disadvantage skilled applicants who failed to meet the International English Language Testing System language requirement of 6.5 even where those applicants met the skill shortage requirements. 
We understand that the appeal rights of applicants will form part of the review of the Immigration Act that is to be held next year. It is good that it will be looked at again although we are very concerned that the intention behind the removal of the appeal rights in the original version of the bill may be raised again in the review process which may not be subject to parliamentary and public scrutiny. 
The Greens support an approach to immigration that is beneficial to families and to community interests in New Zealand. Immigration will have an effect of increasing diversity here and of not only strengthening the skill base but influencing the values and cultural make-up of New Zealand society. We consider the present economically driven approach to immigration policy which focuses only on economic advantage through skills criteria to be an inadequate basis for assessment of immigrants. It has the effect of screening out qualities that may enrich New Zealand communities such as multilingual skills; contributions to qualities associated with New Zealand such as environmental conservation and indigenous development; and skills that not only are defined by job fit but take account of the family and cultural contributions that potential arrivals may bring. At present the economic focus is an example of a silo approach. 
The culture and ethos of New Zealand are changing with immigration but there are no adequate attempts at a policy level to accommodate New Zealanders to these changes. There is a need for much stronger orientation provisions for immigrants in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and the historical and current issues with which tangata whenua are engaged. These orientation provisions need to be matched with educational provisions in New Zealand on these matters. 
At present the policy of economic criteria for immigration allows no responsibility to be placed on the Ministry of Immigration for the social and cultural effects that are inevitable with large changes to the component of the New Zealand population. What mechanisms have been established to avert negative attitudes from New Zealanders and what provisions are there to assist immigrants to have respect for New Zealand values? The Greens welcome a review of immigration in which the social cultural and economic effects are integrated. This would signal a fresh approach to policy where humanitarian considerations in respect of immigrants and the beneficial influence of immigrants form the framework of policy on immigration.