Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8286] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I shall speak briefly about the remaining aspects of the elements of Part 2 that I have not already addressed and then I shall speak briefly about the sequence of events in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper. 
Interestingly I think that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble have become confused between work-permit policy and residence policy. That is not an unusual thing to happen when one notes the situation in 1998. Because of the figures Mr Jones read out which showed a falling rate of immigration in 1998 the Government of the day decided to change the policy so that the offer of employment attracted premium points—five points—regardless of whether the job offer was relevant to the individual’s qualifications or experience. In fact the whole system melted down once again with highly professional people gaining residence and having a job offer as a forecourt attendant at a garage. A constituent came to my electorate office a few weeks ago to tell me that he had had his petrol poured by a neurosurgeon and he was appalled that that situation was still arising in our country. 
Unfortunately there is a mismatch with work-permit policy. Work-permit policy is a matter on my agenda but it is not relevant to the debate on the skilled migrant category. The skilled migrant category is for people to obtain residence in New Zealand. The general skills category as it is now the interim category or the skilled migrant category of the future is not to meet New Zealand’s labour market shortages such as truck-drivers. It is to meet our skill shortages such as people in the information technology areas who will help to grow New Zealand’s economy. This is really about building New Zealand’s skills set out of our skilled immigration policy. It is not designed to replace work-permit policy. It is simply to utilise the category as it was properly to be used in the first place. 
The trouble is that both Mr McCully and Mr Prebble said opposite things about the points system but have highlighted the deficiency I am trying to get rid of. The deficiency in the current system is that the points rise or fall based on the numbers and not on the quality of the application. Under the new points system for the expression of interest there will be a threshold of points that anyone who wants to lodge an expression of interest has to meet. But that person will not be able to lodge an expression of interest if he or she does not meet a set number of points and they will not be fluctuating over a period of time. In my time as Minister they have gone from 24 points to 29 points. Have New Zealand’s needs changed in that period so that we need only the people that Mr Prebble described as meeting the requirements of 29 points? No they have not and that is the problem with the current system. It is why we want a set threshold that people have to meet in order to lodge an expression of interest. It will not adjust based on applications. We will meet the New Zealand immigration programme which has been established at 45000 for this year and 45000 for the next 3 years is the indicative level. New Zealand’s First’s objection is that this Government is supportive of an active immigration programme. We will continue to support an active immigration project. So the points are not to be adjusted. 
Mr McCully raised the question of when I was provided with advice on this particular case. I introduced the Supplementary Order Paper at the earliest possible opportunity. On 6 August I was advised by the Department of Labour that a matter was to occur in the High Court the following day. It was an application under the Habeas Corpus Act. The department warned me that following the outcome of the proceedings consideration might have to be given to an urgent amendment to the Immigration Act. Yes I was provided with a warning the day before the matter went to court. 
The following day I received another piece of advice from the legal section of the Department of Labour advising of the risks and stating that I would have to consider the matter and that the written version of the oral judgment that had been given that day would be available the following week. On the following Monday we had the written judgment from the court and the matter proceeded from there. We worked out a programme to bring together an amendment to the Immigration Act that could be put into place with the Immigration Amendment Bill that was currently before the House. A week’s adjournment fell within that 3-week period. The following week which was last week I sought power from Cabinet to act. I took it through two Cabinet committees last week which would normally take 2 weeks. Yesterday I took it to Cabinet. It was approved by Cabinet yesterday and signed off by my caucus today. 
The member says that this Government has not responded quickly enough but it would not have been possible to move an amendment any more quickly than this. I am very grateful that the National Party New Zealand First United Future and now the ACT party have said that they will support the Supplementary Order Paper. We cannot forget the fact that the individual who is the subject of this case is not in custody at the moment and there is no provision to detain him until this particular amendment is passed. That is one of the reasons this is urgent. However it does apply beyond that particular individual. It applies to another individual whom I spoke of in the motion before the House prior to the Committee stage to consider the Supplementary Order Paper. I made it very clear that another individual was charged with a very serious offence yesterday in relation to the shooting of a woman in Manurewa. That individual was also released because the District Court could not continue to extend his warrant of commitment because of the Mohebbi case. 
That means that we are exposed while the law remains as it is. 
A number of people have commented on the language of the law and the use of the language of discretion. I make the point and the select committee made this point in its report back that we are going to be undertaking a full review of immigration law next year. We will look at the language of the legislation in its totality but it is important that we get this amendment into law at the moment so we can be protected against people who will take no action to support the removal of such people from this country—or in this case sign applications for identity documents to enable them to be removed from New Zealand. 
New Zealand remains under threat I believe by people who could be released under the current section 60 and I thank members of the Committee for providing me with the support I need to get this amendment through.