Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6740] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was becoming a little worried after my last speech when Winston Peters climbed into me so I thought I had better check New Zealand First’s immigration policy. I was most surprised when I saw that it states: “To give greater priority to immigrants who have the skills and qualifications necessary to further regional economic and social goals.” I thought that was what we were doing here: developing a population policy that integrates immigration policy and economic policy. Here I am a poor new MP getting climbed into and wondering what the problem is here. Winston Peters complains that the current immigration policy is not working. I thought that if something did not work we were supposed to fix it. Winston Peters admitted in the debate on the first reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill that we need to bring in skilled migrants to meet the needs of the country. I agree with that; I am short of mechanics myself. 
The first thing tonight about the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) is that it must be viewed in conjunction with the Immigration Amendment Bill that we debated earlier today. This bill is the first practical stage in the Government’s new policy for skilled migrants. The bill covers two groups of migrants. To start with the bill aims to prioritise the general skills category applications that are currently in the system of which there are about 20000 representing approximately 46000 people. As soon as the bill is passed those with a job offer relevant to their skills or with high points will be prioritised in the queue. The applications currently in the system of those who do not have a relevant job offer or sufficient points will lapse and their fee will be refunded. That will not affect those who already have a job search visa or those whose residence decision is imminent although the Immigration Service will no longer invite people to apply for a job search visa in order to get a relevant offer of employment in New Zealand. 
The current backlog represents almost 2 years of potential approvals under the general skills category and although many of those applications meet the minimum points requirement only 57 percent had relevant job offers in the last year. Many of those who have applied are already in New Zealand on work permits or came here to look for work before they applied. I underline the point that people will still be free to do that. In fact their experience in New Zealand would count in their favour should they subsequently receive a job offer and apply for residency. I see that Mr Peters is now starting to recognise how great this bill is. Sixty-two percent of the principal applicants approved for residence in 2002-03 have previously held a student work or visitor permit at some stage. 
The bill is also intended to manage the number of general skills applications that the Immigration Service is bound to receive between the introduction of the bill today and the implementation of the new policy. Every time immigration policy changes a flood of applications is immediately lodged in an effort to be considered under the old policy before the new one comes into full effect. From 1 July principal applicants must have a job offer relevant to their skills or qualifications. That is entirely consistent with the intent of the Immigration Amendment Bill we debated earlier and ensures that everyone will be treated in the same way. It is also the reason that this bill must go through all stages today: to stop one group of applicants from using the window of opportunity presented by the normal legislative process to submit their applications under the old rules. 
This bill is about prioritisation but the side effect of that will be to let the applications of those who do not have a job offer lapse. The Immigration Service cannot take the top candidates at the bottom of the pile without letting lapse the applications of those who have no immediate prospect of getting a job. We do not want to miss out on the opportunity to bring in qualified and experienced migrants who already have a skilled job to come to. The number of applications on hand has to be managed so that there is no danger of exceeding the places available in the programme. Expressions of interest will lapse on a regular basis—probably quarterly—to ensure that the pool of applicants does not become a queue. 
Previous speakers have already argued against the rapid nature of this change and the introduction of these two bills under urgency but it must be remembered that the Immigration Amendment Bill has passed its first reading only. It will go through the normal select committee process at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and there will be further opportunities to debate it in the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No it will not. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: That is correct. As for the interim bill that we are currently debating— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is not going to a select committee. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: As for the interim bill we are currently debating I say to Mr Peters given its alignment with the primary bill I think the experience of the next few months will greatly inform the select committee about how the shift in policy will work in practice. For example the select committee may want to look at whether the idea of lapsing unsuccessful applicants after 3 months is workable and fair. 
Another point to reiterate is that there will be no significant change in the number of people who gain residency here. There is essentially a new filter in the application process because the Government is inviting people to apply. But only the number of applications provided for in the New Zealand Immigration Programme will be considered. That number remains at 45000 with 60 percent of it set aside for skilled migrants and that will continue for the next 3 years. If anything the approval process should be much faster than it is now but the total number will remain stable and predictable. 
To conclude this bill prioritises those currently on the list who already have job offers rather than those who do not have a job and could end up on the dole. I think that most New Zealanders would find that pretty hard to argue against but I guess we will find out shortly whether that is the case.