Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8295] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I note that this is a debate on the schedule which is simply putting into effect the decision already made in Part 2 to rename the Residence Appeal Authority as the Residence Review Board. But given that the member has raised substantive issues that really ought to have been dealt with in Part 2 I am not going to be too hard on her failure to raise them in the debate on Part 2. She has raised them in the debate on the schedule but this really is not the right time to raise issues of substance. 
However I really do want to correct a point that she made about a reference. The submission that was received from the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment should not be presented to the Committee as if it were an accurate reflection of actual numbers. I have the departmental report in front of me which I will quote from now: “It is of note that comparatively small numbers of people would be affected by the changes. Contrary to claims made in submissions in only 2 percent of cases did the RAA reverse the NZIS decision as being incorrect and order the grant of a residence visa or permit which was down from 5 percent in 2001-02. In a further 26 percent of cases the NZIS assessment was cancelled and referred back to the NZIS for a correct assessment.” 
Let me say something about that 26 percent. Under the current law when the Immigration Service knows that it has made an error people still have to appeal to the Residence Appeal Authority in order to get an error known by the Immigration Service corrected because the service has no power under the existing Immigration Act to correct its own mistakes. This bill allows it to correct its own mistakes so that 26 percent of cases can now go directly to the Immigration Service which can accept that: “Yes an error has occurred.” instead of advising as it has until now that: “We know we’ve made an error but there’s nothing we can do about it because we’ve made a decision and that decision can’t be reversed by us. You will have to go to the Residence Appeal Authority or send another letter to the Minister.”—which seems to be a course of action that a number of people adopt as well. So the Immigration Service will be able to amend its own errors under Part 2 of this bill which we have already dealt with. 
I should also make the point that in the 26 percent of cases that were cancelled and referred back to the Immigration Service for a correct assessment only 10 general skills applications decided off shore were included and only 10 business decisions with the majority of cases being family-sponsored stream applications that will retain appeal rights under the proposed changes. Having listened to the same evidence that has been raised in the House tonight the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee decided not to proceed with the original intention which was to limit the rights of appeal to those who were on shore to those who were sponsored by a close family member or to an employer prepared to sponsor the appeal to the Residence Appeal Authority. 
The name is being changed from the Residence Appeal Authority to the Residence Review Board to shift away from the idea that the system is an entitlement-based system and I do not resile from that for one minute. I believe we are making an important change. 
In respect of the language in the bill a number of people have commented that it is the language of discretion and I point out that that is what the existing Act says. We have made it very clear that we are going to review the Immigration Act in total—and the select committee has accepted that. We are going to get the language right and I invite members to participate in that review when it occurs.