Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
I rise to support the Immigration Bill, because it was a Labour Government bill. It is well-thought-out and it changes the immigration law, after 20 years. Consideration was given to many issues and concerns that have been raised by the community. In doing so, the Labour Government considered the global labour situation, and the security environment around the country as well as internationally. This bill provides a balance between allowing us to choose the migrants we want and need in this country, and protecting our national interest. It ensures that we can protect our borders, and it enables us to successfully fill our immigration-related international obligations.
This bill does a number of things, and I will highlight some of the key issues in it. For example, this bill looks at the visa system. At the moment we have a number of visas, permits, and exemptions. I know that a number of people who visit this country get a permit to enter, then they have to apply for another visa if they want to stay for a longer term—although sometimes people have exemptions. This bill clearly brings all these visas, if you like, into one universal visa system. I think that is very important, because of the costs of some of these visas for some visitors. When they come here they have to pay one set of fees, then when they apply for a visa in order to stay for a longer term, they have to pay more fees. All these different fee structures have been combined into one universal visa system. It is also a much easier and more flexible system for the Minister of Immigration to implement, and there will be a lot of positive outcomes for people who are coming into the country.
At the moment we have a number of appeal authorities. For example, there are four appeal authorities that people have to go through. If they have been out here for some time and they want an extension to their visa or they have overstayed, then to regularise their visas they have to go through a number of authorities. This bill combines all of those authorities into one independent appeal tribunal, called the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I think this will be great for a lot of people who have overstayed. The bill gives the Minister the opportunity to have one tribunal to deal with these issues. Similarly, the removal and deportation provisions, and the revocation of visas, provide for a transparent deportation system. I think that is very important, because often immigrants are confused. They are not sure which particular regulations apply to them, because they have either a removal order or a deportation order. All these provisions are now combined in this bill.
Although I support this bill, I am also very mindful of a number of issues that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee looked at. There were 90 submissions on this bill, and most of them were heard by the committee. The committee has made some important changes to a number of issues, particularly in relation to the use of classified information on people coming here, to the refugee and protected person system, and to the detention and monitoring system. Some of those issues have relevance in terms of people’s rights, particularly in relation to using classified information. The select committee had to do a lot of work to try to streamline some of those issues. The select committee has done a great job, and I congratulate the committee members. With those few words, I thank the committee for its work and I support the bill.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the Immigration Bill today. I have been heartened to hear that, although there are some differences in opinion, the bill definitely has broad-based support. As we have heard, it has support because people understand the importance of the bill as the foundation for New Zealand’s immigration system. They understand the importance of immigration to New Zealand. It is a driver of economic growth, and it assists us to meet a range of obligations to the international community.
I reiterate the gratitude expressed in the House to all the people who have contributed to this bill. Literally thousands of people have had input into this legislation since the Immigration Act review began. The majority of those people have been members of the public, members of ethnic organisations, and members of a variety of law societies. What is impressive about that is it shows that there has been robust debate on the bill. Part of that debate has been heard here in the House during this reading, and we have heard it during the speech from the Green Party. However, I think it is important that where criticisms are levelled against the bill, they do not misrepresent it—that they are not scaremongering. It seems to me that there has been a lot of scaremongering about the classified information provisions in the bill.
I remind everyone here in the House today that the Part 4A processes under the current Immigration Act have only ever been used once. We have had the power to use these processes for 10 years and they have only ever been used just that one time. Do members know why? It is because the Immigration Service is good at finding the open-source information it needs in order to make decisions.
I do not know why people think that just because of the provisions in this bill there will be a mad rush by the Government to use classified information left, right, and centre. I also do not know why people think the classified information provisions in this bill are so bad. Any person who cared to do a comparison would surely see that they are better than the Part 4A processes in the current Act. To start with, there is an entitlement to a summary of allegations in most circumstances. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has ensured that unless a summary can be given for key decisions, classified information cannot be used at all. The bill also provides access to a special advocate in any appeal or review proceedings. None of these provisions exists in the current Act.
I do not want to dwell on the classified information processes; they are taking up more time than they deserve in the overall debate. The final thing I will address in relation to them is the blanket claim that under the legislation the High Court will be compelled to treat inaccurate classified information as accurate. I have just described some of the key safeguards in relation to the classified information provisions. At the heart of the safeguards is a clear and closely prescribed appeal and review process. Where classified information is used people will generally have the right to appeal its use to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and/or the courts. In the context of those appeals the veracity and the accuracy of the classified information is able to be tested. People will be able to challenge its use in the decision made about them.
What the bill does not allow is for people to challenge the accuracy of classified information in warrant of commitment hearings. The reason for this is to avoid multiple strings of challenge being used to obstruct the regular and proper decision-making process. Treating classified information as accurate in the context of a warrant hearing prevents delays in the warrant process and the decision-making process.
I do not think there will be many circumstances where we will need to use classified information in a decision to detain someone, but given that we are talking about people who are a risk or a threat to security or who are criminals, I think it is pretty important that if we need to use it, we do. I think most New Zealanders would agree with that.
It has been disappointing to hear the criticisms from the Greens about the impact of the bill on refugees. It is pretty clear that the bill takes significant steps forward in providing for a robust refugee and protection system that takes account of New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill recognises not only New Zealand’s obligations under the refugee convention but also our immigration-related obligations under the convention against torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. People seem to forget how positive that aspect and many other aspects of the bill are. Maybe I could remind people of some of those positive aspects.
Firstly, the bill does away with the visa permit and exemption system. That might not seem like such a big deal, but it will make life easier for people dealing with immigration. Applicants and employers are two examples.
The bill creates an interim visa. Where people put in an application and a decision is not made before their current visa runs out, an interim visa can bridge the gap. This is important as it means people can remain lawfully in New Zealand and will have more certainty.
The bill allows for automated decision-making, with appropriate safeguards. This means that New Zealand will be able to put into place systems that compete favourably against other immigration systems internationally. Where appropriate, we will be able to automate some decisions so that they will happen quickly.
The bill also enables most people to remain lawfully in New Zealand throughout any appeal they might be undertaking. This is a significant change from the current system, where often people have their permission to stay in New Zealand revoked before any appeal.
These are just some of the positive aspects of this bill, and it is worth mentioning that the bill’s deportation, compliance, and enforcement provisions will not apply to most people. Members may ask why not. It is because most people do the right thing. They have nothing to worry about, because they are good, honest people who comply with our immigration law. These are the people New Zealand wants and needs in order to build the economy.
This bill is one part of a programme of work towards building a stronger immigration system for New Zealand. There are also a number of operational improvements that will support these legislative changes. Today I released the outcome of the review of the Immigration Service’s Pacific division. I have asked the chief executive to consider integrating all activities of the Pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. I will also be appointing an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the Pacific division and to monitor service performance. I have every confidence that the chief executive will take the actions necessary to restore the level of service and to restore full confidence in Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific operations.
I acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of staff at Immigration New Zealand are hard-working, honest, and professional, and that they do an excellent job for New Zealand, ensuring that the right people come here to work, live, visit, or study. Most people in the Immigration Service do the right thing. I think that was acknowledged here in the House in the speeches on this bill. I can assure the House that that acknowledgment is appreciated by the staff of Immigration New Zealand.
The state of the global economy makes it more important than ever that the Department of Labour, including Immigration New Zealand, is in the best possible position and has the best possible systems in place to face the enormous challenges ahead. It is essential that we have as many New Zealanders in jobs as possible, whilst ensuring we have the best possible skilled people from overseas in areas where it has been difficult to recruit locals. Immigration provides an important source of talent and skills to support the New Zealand economy. Having the right systems in place that leverage off this bill is important. Employers, the international education system, and the tourism industry, amongst others, rely on New Zealand having a world-class, competitive immigration system.
Immigration New Zealand has a programme of work under way to address longstanding under-investment in its people, its systems, and its business processes. This includes investment in its core application management system, as well as a plan for investing in a modern information technology system to replace the application management system, which will not be fit for its purpose in the future. In addition, Immigration New Zealand will institute an end to end business process review to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its services. Supporting professional leadership and management capability in Immigration New Zealand will be a key aspect of this work.
As my colleagues have stated, the Government wants New Zealand to have a robust and progressive immigration system. This bill will help achieve that goal. The bill will provide a solid foundation, but we recognise that there is other work to do. As members can see from the announcement made today, this Government is committed to doing it. I look forward to the Committee stage of this bill, and I know that the work is progressing well.
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) Link to this
I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate on the Immigration Bill. I commence my remarks by paying tribute to the new Minister of Immigration, Dr Jonathan Coleman, and congratulating him on his contributions to the debate and to the management of the bill so far. It must be really refreshing for New Zealanders to know that immigration policy is at long last in the hands of a capable, intelligent, clear-thinking Minister, which is such a huge contrast from what this country has come to expect in recent years in relation to immigration policy.
The aim of this bill is to reform legislation affecting immigration in order to establish a stronger and more flexible legislative framework for New Zealand’s immigration system. Immigration goes right to the heart of the nature and history of New Zealand; we have to get immigration policy right. To manage immigration in a fair and balanced way is the objective of this bill. In order to achieve that, a number of significant changes are being made. Firstly, the new visa system will be simpler. In fact, that one word, “visa”, will replace the previous three words: “visa”, “permit”, and “exemption”. The words “permit” and “exemption” will go, and just the word “visa” will be used in their place. As part of that change, three classes of visa are being established. The naming of these classes provides a clarity and understanding that did not exist before. There will be a residence visa, a temporary entry visa, and a transit visa.
The second key change occurring as a result of the Immigration Bill—and the Minister made very good points about this—is the ability to use classified information in a wider range of decision-making areas, with particular safeguards. And that is the point—with particular safeguards. This change will assist the identification process. Those of us who are electorate members of Parliament, for whom immigration work takes up a fair bit of the time our offices spend dealing with constituents, will welcome this. This change is balanced by providing greater natural justice protection for non - New Zealand citizens where classified information is being used.
The third key change in the bill is to establish a single independent appeals tribunal, which will be known as the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. This single tribunal will replace the four immigration and refugee tribunals we have at the moment. That has to be good. It is important to appreciate that this bill does not reduce the appeal rights contained in the Immigration Act 1987. Those rights remain. Those who seek to pick fault with the bill on those grounds really need to reflect on what they are actually saying. I repeat the point: this bill does not affect the appeal rights contained in the 1987 Act. I think we will see as a result of these changes a more transparent and fair deportation process. That is what New Zealanders would expect to see in legislation such as this.
The fourth key area of change is the greater flexibility that is being put into the compliance powers of appropriately trained and designated immigration officials. In practical terms, this means, first of all, that there will be new powers for immigration officials to exercise power of entry, inspection, and search. Secondly, there are new, limited powers for information officers to detain a non - New Zealand citizen who is liable to arrest and detention. Thirdly, the bill will increase the period of detention without a warrant—which currently ranges from 42 to 78 hours—to 96 hours. This provision will better enable the Department of Labour to facilitate the departure of non - New Zealand citizens. It is fair, it is sensible, and it in no way infringes on any existing rights available under the 1987 Act.
In conclusion, I go back to where I started. Immigration is a very important feature of New Zealand life. New Zealand is built on immigration. We are a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution they can make to our country. This legislation should further encourage and enhance that. In saying that, though, let us not lose sight of one fact: the best immigration policy is our own people staying here and our own people, having done their OE, wanting to come home. But, of course, that will never meet the total population skill needs of our country, so we need an immigration system that is flexible, robust, and strong, and that will enable us to meet our current and future skill needs. We need an immigration system that will attract, for example, business interests, because it is businesses that create employment, prosperity, and income. And above all else, after the experiences of recent years, which are a tragedy, New Zealand needs to develop an immigration service in which every citizen, every potential immigrant, and every refugee being assisted can have confidence that they are being treated fairly, directly, and honestly, and that there is only one way to get into New Zealand—the lawful way. I commend this legislation to the House.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this
Those of the public who have been watching on television will have observed that the member who has resumed his seat, Allan Peachey, is quite a big man—a man around 6 feet 2 inches tall. Those who have been listening on the radio will have, perhaps, thought that he has made himself seem a little smaller in trying to play partisan politics with a bill in which his Government has changed not one comma.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to references to my height or lack of it. I do not think there is any place in this House for that sort of personal comment.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
Speaking to the point of order, I think the member will have to have a substantially thicker skin if he is going to last in this place.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER Link to this
I am standing. The member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 116 I ask the member to apologise.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I apologise to the member.
One of the reasons for making that comment—in all seriousness—is that there are many people who need to be acknowledged in the history of the Immigration Bill. One of them whom I would like to acknowledge is the current Speaker, the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith, who, when he was the previous Opposition’s immigration spokesman and I was the Minister, was one of the first to take a bipartisan approach to the development of this bill. He attended seminars, he participated in the development of the policy, and he was quick to say that the then National Opposition would support moderate and balanced legislation that would bring immigration practice into the 21st century. So I commend Mr Speaker, as he now is, for that—
Hon Trevor MallardHon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
—without bringing him into the debate in anything other than a complimentary way, I say to my dear colleague.
We have here a bill with a rather long history. Its concepts were laid down by former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel, and it was further developed by former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain. Its drafting was developed under my own watch, and the bill was passed through to the new Government after its introduction into the House. I think all members would acknowledge that there have been no amendments to the draft; the bill as it is before the house today has multipartisan support—other than from the Green Party; it has had reservations all along—and the current Government has changed not one comma of the draft it inherited from the previous Government. I say to Mr Peachey and some of his colleagues that there is room for a little bit of bipartisanship in this Parliament and a little bit of acknowledgment of work done—it does not demean anybody.
The second point is that this bill has a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. It is also fair to say that earlier drafts did not have that vet. Many hours of work were put in by some very able officials and legal advisers, with a bit of help from Ministers, and they brought this bill to the point where it could—and did—receive a clean passage under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course, that stands in contradistinction to other legislation before the House at the moment—the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. I commend the current Attorney-General, Mr Finlayson, for taking a very proper and balanced approach and upholding the dignity of his office in making clear that that bill does not pass muster either ethically or constitutionally under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
The third and final point I make, with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that this legislation—a very major, once-in-a-generation overhaul of immigration law—will not itself be sufficient to modernise immigration practice. That is why the previous Government saw this as one of three main legs, if you like, of a broader immigration-change programme. The programme included the modernisation of key categories of immigration policy such as business migration, the skilled migrant category, talent visas, the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme, and some of the more socially focused programmes such as the refugee policy and the ability to reunite families. We need to acknowledge some of the long history of all of that work; again, it goes back not only to the previous Government but to a number of former Ministers and many, many officials who have worked tirelessly to put together the hundreds of pages of policy work that underlie the many, many pages of this bill.
The third leg of the treble is operations, and it is no secret that the operations of the Department of Labour’s Immigration Service have had a fairly chequered history over the years. I acknowledge the current Minister of Immigration, Jonathan Coleman, and his hard-working Associate Minister, Kate Wilkinson, and former Ministers and Associate Ministers, who have done their best to serve the public interest in what is always going to be a very difficult environment. It is difficult because these are human stories: they are individual case-based; no two cases are the same; and the fairest way to interpret the law can sometimes be a matter of judgment. That is why some 5,000 cases a year come across the desk of the Associate Minister and require many, many hours of consultation between that Minister, officials, and other members of Parliament to try to get the best result for New Zealand and for the constituents concerned.
The Labour Opposition fully supports the efforts of the Government to ensure that the management structures and processes of the Department of Labour meet the challenge before it as it is modernised. The Opposition holds no truck with any form of malpractice, any lack of ethics, or any lack of due process. We commend the work of the Government, working with the State Services Commission and the Department of Labour management, to ensure that those processes and systems are able to meet the challenge. There is no politics in this, and there is no partisanship. This is a matter of good governance. Of course, it should always have been so, and I acknowledge the many good officials and Ministers who have done their very best to ensure that it is and will be so. We do not need to again go into individual cases that will have disappointed us all, but we do need to acknowledge that that was not about party politics; it was about human frailty. Our common challenge is to build systems that meet the challenge and the mandate before them.
One final piece of advice to the new Minister is that it will continue to be a challenge to have a seamless and well-functioning department while the information core of the business is rather antiquated. The Minister will be aware that—going back to my time as Minister—that significant work was being done to modernise the information technology systems in the department, because fully one-third of cases are processed without access to the main information database at the time those decisions are made. That was never acceptable on our watch. Significant investment was put into modernising it, and I hope that the Minister will give his best efforts to ensure that the development of modern, seamless systems throughout the department continues. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.