Salesa Jenny; Faafoi KrisPart 1 Temporary powers relating to visasCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The House is in committee on the Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill. Members we come to the first part Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16 Temporary powers relating to visas". The amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of Ricardo Menéndez March is out of order as outside the scope of the bill. The member therefore cannot speak on that amendment. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Can I begin by giving a little bit of context as to why the bill that we are amending was passed roughly this time last year. Obviously earlier in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic the Government made—[Change of Chairperson] that was very swift—one of the biggest and best decisions it could make. It was not an easy decision to make to make sure that our population kept safe and that was to close our border in order to put a protective armour around our country to keep New Zealanders safe and to keep COVID-19 out of our country. Obviously by taking that relatively unprecedented action the need to regulate the flow of people and also cohorts of groups of visa holders in New Zealand and those outside of New Zealand was necessary and it had to be done in a different way. The purpose of the original bill and the current Act was to ensure that we could deal with some of those cohorts as groups and not as individuals because you could imagine the logistical nightmare that Immigration New Zealand would have if we were dealing with changes of visas with people who are in the country on an individual basis. The time that it would take and the resources it would take would have been troublesome and it would have certainly overwhelmed the system. So the bill passed last year which we are amending through this stage gives the Government and the Minister of Immigration eight powers and those powers have to be linked to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those powers are to "vary or cancel conditions for classes of resident visa class holders; to impose vary or cancel conditions for classes of temporary entry visa class holders: [thirdly] waive any regulatory requirements for certain classes of application … grant visas to individuals and classes of people in the absence of an application: extend the expiry dates of visas for classes of people: waive the requirement to obtain a transit visa in an individual case or suspend a transit visa waiver made by regulations in an individual case: certify immigration instructions under which an immigration officer may revoke the entry permission of a person who has been detained by regulations made under the principal Act to have been granted entry permission: make regulations suspending the ability to make applications for visas or to submit expressions of interest in applying for visas by classes of people."I would like to thank the Education and Workforce Committee for their very prudent work under time constraints for this piece of legislation. I do note having had a look at some of the reports that came out of the select committee hearings that quite a broad number of stakeholders came and gave submissions and I thank all of them for taking the opportunity to talk either to the issues that they are facing or to the substance in the bill. I would also note now two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been put before the House both in the name of Erica Stanford. In essence Supplementary Order Paper 30 is to reduce the extension of the bill from the current proposal of two years to an extension of the current laws and powers in the bill to one. Then Supplementary Order Paper 31 in essence is to enforce a 28-day rule of enforcement of any special directions or regulations that may come about of the powers that are afforded to the Minister of Immigration and the Government within this piece of legislation. I didn't hear the contributions of the Opposition in the second reading speeches—the quality of them is not for me to judge—but I understand that the Opposition may be predicating its further support on whether or not those two SOPs will pass. I want to put the Opposition members out of their misery nice and early in this debate because I know that—pre-empting a question—the Government will not be supporting those SOPs. I understand that those issues were relatively well thrashed out and debated in the select committee process and submissions were received. But in order to deal with Supplementary Order Paper 31 which goes to the adding of a 28-day rule what we have found when we are making decisions about using special directions for example is that having the flexibility in our response is important and in a small number of instances some of the changes had to be made quite quickly in order to take action for cohorts of people who we were making decisions for. Including the 28-day rule within the purview of all the decisions that are made would take away that flexibility for us. So in that respect the Government won't be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 31. Then to go to pre-empt some of the questions that may come from the Opposition around truncating the extension of the current bill from two years to one there is a simple answer to that. I know some concerns have been raised but even in the short time since we had our first reading COVID-19 has taken an even tighter hold in some countries. So just how long we will be dealing with this pandemic and to have the current border settings as they are is a question mark. So in order to make sure that we do have the tools and do have a flexibility to deal with this ongoing issue we believe that two years gives us the ability to make the kinds of changes that we need to that the powers within the current Act give us.So I hope that will deal with some of the questions that might come from the Opposition at some stage. Happy to let the committee stage lie."