Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:657;Page:6677] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I think I remarked earlier that there is a 33-page commentary from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. The member who has just resumed her seat Darien Fenton MP was a valued member of that committee. It is a very short summary of a very extensive set of work that the select committee undertook. How short? It does not even mention that the committee changed the purpose clause just a bit—just a bit! When I look at the old clause 3 I see that it had about 8 lines. The new clause 3 which is the subject of this part of the debate has about 40 lines. 
I will take members through some of the changes that have been made to the purpose clause but before I do I echo the sentiments that have been raised by my colleague and friend Darien Fenton. It is of great concern to us to see immigration once more in the political frame associated with an industrial dispute. There is a long-held bipartisan consensus around the principle that jobs ought to be for New Zealanders first and that immigration can play a valuable role filling the gaps—especially the skill gaps—when they arise. Any suggestion—as has from time to time been raised in the context of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and now is being raised in the telecommunications sector—that employers might be deliberately letting workers go in order to lower costs and filling their positions with fixed-term migrant workers is not in the long-term interests of the Minister in the chair’s colleague Mr Joyce who wants to get broadband rolled out and it is also not in the interests of New Zealand. We are just putting a little flag down around the Visionstream dispute. Hopefully it will all work out; hopefully the workers’ terms and conditions will be revised and peace will break out. That is a little marker of warning. 
It is probably also worth mentioning in the context of the purpose clause that it is good for everybody if there is a steady and balanced stream of net positive migration into New Zealand. We have a birth rate slightly less than two. We want to grow and develop as a country. We appreciate the skills that people bring in. We have skill gaps to fill. A predictable and steady rate of net inwards migration is a good idea. Under the previous Government it tended to average about 10000 to 15000 persons net per annum and already in the life of this Government we have seen the good old National Government rollercoaster starting up again. Immigration dropped to 3000 per annum and it is currently running at—the Minister of Immigration will be able to confirm it—about 3500 per month net positive. So we are back up towards 30000 inwards per annum. 
Here is a prediction; members might call me a soothsayer. Given 2 years of that rate of immigration Winston Peters will rise from the crypt to rally the country against migrants. That is not good for New Zealand and it is not good for migrant New Zealanders. Maybe he will start in Epsom; I do not know. I want to see every individual human being who comes into this country treated on his or her own merits; a system of infrastructure including schooling and health care that can cope with the flow; and that we do not knock the housing market through the roof and force Alan Bollard to—I almost said Don Brash; that was an echo from the past. Of course he is now gainfully employed tilting the Government to the right but that is another story. Anyway we need predictable migration flows in line with the purpose clause which states that we need to get a balance between the needs of the country for skills and protection for individual rights. 
I hear members ask with bated breath how the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee amended the purpose clause. Why was the purpose clause expanded from eight lines to 38? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was all the hard work of the select committee. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: And what a magnificent select committee it was! Let me read out a few of the excellent additions to the purpose clause; it will be a long night. Labour members are here for the duration on this bill because the flights out of here have already left. 
John Boscawen 
: Not all of them. There’s a 9 o’clock. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There’s a night one? 
John Boscawen 
: You can still make the 9 o’clock. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the member’s dreams! It is Thursday night so he should bring his sleeping bag. He will be here tomorrow and Saturday because Labour members love this bill and we want to give it the attention it deserves. 
Darien Fenton 
: Look how big it is! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is a big bill and I am only on clause 3. In particular I am on lines 8 to 35 and I warn you Mr Chairman that I may need a second call. 
The purpose of the Act of course is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest as determined by the Crown and the rights of individuals.” That wording is a slight modification from previously. The original clause 3 stated that the purpose of the Act is “to manage immigration through balancing the rights of the individual and the national interest …”. The reformulated clause 3(2) states: “To achieve this purpose the Act establishes an immigration system that—” and then it is spelt out in a whole lot more detail. It “requires persons who are not New Zealand citizens to hold a visa to travel to and to be granted entry permission to stay in New Zealand;”. That is an important clause because of course we no longer have visas and permits. Rationality has broken out. It took me about 6 months as Minister of Immigration to work out what the difference was and now there is no difference because they are all called visas. This will help the next 15 Ministers that the fine officials have to train because it will be that much quicker for the new ones. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It didn’t take me 6 months to work it out. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well this is my opportunity to record for posterity that in my humble opinion the Hon Lianne Dalziel—I apologise to the current Minister—was the best Minister of Immigration New Zealand has ever seen. I honestly believe that. She was visionary she was great on the detail and she brought a lawyer’s mind to the portfolio. I think she was a fantastic Minister and some of the core principles of this bill go right back to her time as Minister. I say to Lianne that it was a pleasure to learn from her. I will always believe that. But that is enough love in this Chamber. 
Clause 3(2)(b) states that the immigration system “provides for the development of immigration instructions for visas that enable people to stay in New Zealand to meet objectives determined by the Minister which may include objectives such as—(i) contributing to the New Zealand workforce through facilitating access to skills and labour; and (ii) supporting families;”. It was very important that the select committee brought families into the clause. They have been elevated both there and I believe later on in the purpose clause where it talks about supporting “the settlement of migrants refugees and protected persons.” for reunification purposes. Clearly families are more important in the reformulated purpose clause. 
A number of paragraphs in clause 3(2)—paragraphs (c) (d) and (e)—start to talk about the role of officials. The immigration system “(c) allows for the management of the immigration aspects of border control … (d) provides a process for recognising and ensuring compliance with … international obligations; and (e) includes mechanisms to ensure that those who engage with the immigration system to meet its requirements to gather information … (ii) allow for deportation … (f) establishes a specialist tribunal …” etc. Those paragraphs remind us that inherent in the purpose of the rewrite is to more tightly specify the powers and ambit of officials. I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to the Committee how in his mind he has approached the delicate job of balancing the responsibilities of officials with the required limits on official power. With that I think it is appropriate to invite the Minister to take the next call.