Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) : I move, That the Income Tax Bill be now read a second time. This bill is the culmination of 15 years’ work to make income tax easier for taxpayers to understand and to comply with their tax obligations. Work began following recommendations by the Valabh committee in the early 1990s, which called for the—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we give the speaker an opportunity to be heard.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. As I was saying, work began following the recommendations of the Valabh committee, which called for the Act to be progressively rewritten in plain language in order to make it more user-friendly. I acknowledge the early contribution of Arthur Valabh and his team to that process.

Because of the sheer size and complexity of this task, the project has been completed in four separate stages. The first stage was the reorganisation of the Income Tax Act 1976, which resulted in the enactment of the Income Tax Act 1994. The second stage focused on refining the structure of the Act and rewriting its core provisions. This was completed in 1996. The third stage, the rewrite of Parts C to E of the Act, was completed in 2004, and the bill currently before the House represents the fourth and final stage of the project. It contains the redraft of Parts F through to the end of the Act, including the schedules. It re-enacts and consolidates Parts A to E, and it renumbers various sections contained in those parts. Several small intended policy changes to the legislation are also included in the bill, but these have been subject to public consultation. Once enacted, the new Income Tax Act will apply to income derived from the 2008-09 income year.

I should say that the overall aim of the project is to make income tax legislation easier to understand so that users can apply the rules, generally without confusion. Where possible, the language has been made more concise, and archaic terms have been removed or replaced with more modern, contemporary language. In addition, some areas of the legislation have been consolidated to give greater clarity, while other changes in the bill aim to improve the overall structure of the Act. Although the changes to the language and the structure of the bill are significant, the overall intention of the Act and its meaning remains the same.

When the Finance and Expenditure Committee reported the bill back to the House it made several recommendations. Those recommendations were largely aimed at clarifying certain terms in order to avoid confusion and ensuring that the policy intent of the bill was retained throughout. I thank the select committee for its work on this magnum opus, for the fine effort it has done in coming to grips with the detail of the bill, and for bringing us a step closer to those recommendations of the Valabh committee, which now seem so many years ago.

This has been a massive undertaking for everyone involved. I congratulate all of those who have been involved in this project over the years. In particular, I single out Sir Ivor Richardson, the advisory panel, and the members of the rewrite team—the analysts, the drafters, and the technical reviewer—who have advised on, rewritten, and reviewed every section of the bill’s now 3,041 pages. Not only is this one of the largest bills to come before the New Zealand Parliament but also it is one of the most significant.

I think it is worth recording too that the completion of this project is another milestone for New Zealand. The Australian Government attempted a rewrite exercise. The complexity of the task meant that it gave up halfway through the process, and Australia now has effectively two income tax Acts. The British Government spent 9 years coming to the conclusion that such an exercise was too difficult and complex to carry out. I think it is a tribute to all those who have been involved in this process in New Zealand that a little over a decade after the commencement of the project we are now seeing it brought to a conclusion through its passage through the final stages of this bill. It is with great pleasure that I now commend the Income Tax Bill to the House.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : As the Minister of Revenue has just said, this rewrite of the Income Tax Act that we now debate for a second time is a huge effort. It is interesting, though, that the Minister has said that this is the fourth and final stage of the project. I ask him whether it really is. If we look at the commentary on the bill—and I accept that the Minister was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but I trust that he has been briefed on it—we see that a number of recent matters to do with income tax are not covered in the bill. In fact, the select committee in its report raised some questions about that.

For example, the select committee said in respect of the KiwiSaver Act of 2006 and the Taxation (Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2006 that maybe those could be considered as part of this rewrite during the Committee of the whole House stage. I argued at the select committee that we could not do that unless there had been proper consultation with the private sector, and unless the rewrite advisory panel was involved in that consultation process. I do not know whether the House is aware of what has happened. What has happened? The Minister failed to mention anything about that. What has happened to the legislation that fell into the gap? This bill rewrites the old Income Tax Act. In the meantime, new income tax legislation has been enacted that is not included in this rewrite. The report from the select committee said that maybe some of that legislation could be included, and that the Committee of the whole House might consider doing that. What has happened? Are we to consider any of the intervening legislation as part of this process? I think that a Government member should make that clear.

What is more, if we look at the report from the select committee, we see that it says that one part of the Act is so darn complex that members are not sure how to rewrite it. I am referring to Part M of the Income Tax Act, which refers to the Government’s great Working for Families flagship policy. The report from the select committee actually states: “However, given the complexity of the policy underlying the Working for Families Tax Credits, and the difficulty of rewriting Part M in the rewrite style, we believe that any review of Part M to address these concerns should be undertaken separately.” So what is to happen in the tax legislation to Working for Families, which is a flagship area for this Labour Government but is not part of this rewrite process—what is meant to happen to it? Has Labour in fact realised that the policy is unsustainable and that one day it will have to be fixed up, and maybe then be incorporated in the legislation? I am staggered that this Labour Government allows the provisions of such a cruel policy as Working for Families to cripple the lives and hopes of low-income people. I will come back to that in one moment.

It is a huge paradox that at the very time when this Parliament is debating this rewrite and simplification of the Income Tax Act, the Government is enacting whole new layers of complexity. We have a bill in front of Parliament right now to introduce research and development tax credits. The select committee has just been hearing evidence in public about how complex it all is to try to define some of those things. It is adding layers of complexity to our Income Tax Act. Of course, that bill is not written in the style of this Income Tax Bill; it is not written in the modern rewrite style. Goodness knows when that legislation will be brought into line with this Income Tax Act rewrite. The paradox is that the Government continues to add huge layers of complexity.

The Opposition supports this rewrite. We started it, after all. As the Minister has acknowledged, in the early 1990s a National Government started this rewrite process, so we support it totally. It is just a shame that some of the huge effort that has gone into it has not been matched by an effort to reduce the tax burden that this Act confers on the people of New Zealand. Since Labour has been in office, the total tax take off New Zealanders has climbed from $32 billion a year to $52 billion a year. Those figures roll off the tongue easily, but $52 billion a year means that this Government, under this Act and other tax measures, is taking $1 billion a week off Kiwis—$1 billion a week.

Craig Foss: I’m working towards the day.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: True, but we can rest assured that there will be a change of Government before then.

This Government is now taking $1 billion a week in tax off hard-working Kiwis. It is outrageous that the amount of tax taken off the average New Zealand worker has climbed so much. Compared with the time when this Labour Government came into office, each year $2,400 more tax is now being taken off the average Kiwi worker. I see Shane Jones yawning. He does not care about any that—none of the Government members do—yet Labour’s rhetoric is about caring for workers. The Labour members do not give a toss about how much tax hard-working workers have to pay. If they did give a toss, they would have done something about the huge increase in the amount of tax that ordinary Kiwis have to pay, just through the Government not altering the tax thresholds. Kiwis now pay a billion dollars a year in extra tax just because of that. When Labour introduced the 39c in the dollar tax rate—which is confirmed in this bill—it said that only 5 percent of Kiwis would pay it. Now we know, if we are to believe Treasury, that 14 percent of Kiwis now pay that top tax rate.

But even if the Labour members do not care about the massive increase in taxation it is taking off Kiwis, why do they not care about this issue? Why are they happy about what happens to a person—and often it is a woman—on the domestic purposes benefit, with a couple of children or, say, three children, who is trying to work her way off the domestic purposes benefit? Why has Labour done nothing to fix that problem? If a woman in that situation works 10 hours a week, she still receives most of her domestic purposes benefit. She receives almost all of it. In order to get off the domestic purposes benefit, if she is getting $15 an hour—not minimum pay; $15 an hour—she would have to work 30 hours a week. She would have to work 30 hours a week at $15 an hour. The cruel thing for low-income Kiwi families is that of that $15 an hour for all the extra 20 hours a week, that person would get to keep $1.63. The Government takes the rest. The Government taxes that hard-working, low-income family at a rate of 90c in the dollar, and that bunch has done nothing about that.

Labour’s flagship Working for Families policy did nothing to help those low-income Kiwis. It is cruel the way that those low-income people are trapped in poverty. Part M of this bill confirms all of that, and it is cruel. Women write to me about that. They tell me they have tried to get off the domestic purposes benefit, but they say they cannot. I can produce the letters for Shane, if he wants them. He does not believe me, but it is the truth that people cannot get off the benefit because of that crippling tax regime.

This morning the Minister of Finance made a big speech about taxation. I would like to quote from his speech to the Ernst and Young tax partners and managers. The Minister of Finance said this: “Early indications are that the cash surplus for the last financial year is likely to be higher than forecast at Budget time, reinforcing the fact that the government has not been fuelling inflation.” I bet that not one person in the audience this morning believed one word of that. Not one person in the audience would have believed a word of it. I have here a whole list of expert opinion on that fact from bodies such as the IMF, which has said that is not correct, and the OECD, which has also said that is not correct. I will quote more exactly. What did the IMF say? It endorsed the authority’s goal that fiscal policy should avoid complicating the task of monetary policy, but questioned whether the current stimulatory fiscal stance would effectively help it to achieve that goal. That was said by the IMF just a couple of months ago. The OECD, just a couple of months ago, said: “Notwithstanding a large fiscal surplus, strong growth in government spending is complicating the stabilisation task of the Reserve Bank.” That is what it said. The Reserve Bank confirms that. Everyone is pointing out to this Government that its tax and spending policies are crippling this economy.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : I start by congratulating the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on getting this bill through in a timely fashion. I congratulate and thank Sir Ivor Richardson and the advisers and the experts who helped us through this huge bunch of documents—four volumes—that was started way back, we understand, in Roger Douglas’ day, and in the early 1990s, according to Dr Lockwood Smith. That is a long, long time to spend on getting a piece of legislation rewritten and through the House. So I congratulate and thank all of those who helped us with those tasks.

I am sure people know that the select committee would not be wading through all that stuff on its own, and if they do not, I am here to tell them. I also congratulate them on putting it into more simple language. I suggest that it is still not that simple, but it is simpler. It is the language that is used today, not the language of another era. I also congratulate Mr Peter Dunne, the Minister of Revenue, and I suggest that his keeping the pressure on is what has got this thing through. That is yet another sign of an MMP Parliament working very, very well indeed. This bill is, I think, one of the biggest bills that has gone through any Parliament in the Commonwealth recently. It is simply massive.

In talking to the bill, I also want to address a couple of issues that were raised by Dr Lockwood Smith, and I hope members will be understanding when I do this. It is important that people know, when Dr Smith and the National Party are talking about massive increases in tax, that those increases are brought about by increased financial activity, by the increase in the take from GST—because people have had more money to spend—and because businesses have had higher turnovers. All of this stuff is in this bill, so obviously there is more money in the system and more revenue will be gathered. But it is also important to say that although the National Party members talk about cutting taxes, they voted against a tax cut recently. Personally, I could not believe it. In fact, the last time that the National Party gave anybody a tax cut was, I am told reliably, back in 1960. Yet it built a whole campaign in 2005 on tax cuts, and it has been talking about them ever since.

In fact, there have been tax cuts by this Government that the National Party voted against. Those tax cuts apply to the savings vehicles that KiwiSaver is going to invest money from the public in, and they relate to the overseas portfolio investment entities that are available to people on the sharemarket. In fact, there will be $3.5 billion in tax savings over the next 4 years. But it does not suit the National Party to vote for those tax cuts or to admit that they have happened, and it certainly does not suit National to say publicly that it voted against them.

New Zealand First is behind this bill absolutely, and will be voting for it through all the stages. It is a huge volume of work, and I am sure that the people who have been involved in it—the experts, the officials—will heave a sigh of relief. I hope that the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee sees fit to buy them a magnum of champagne when this legislation finally gets through the House.

Craig Foss: One each.

R DOUG WOOLERTON: I tell Mr Foss that I think he should, and I am prepared to give him $5 to help with the cost of that, such is my thankfulness to the people who assisted us. I think that would be appropriate, because something like this is not seen very often in this Parliament. I just want to reinforce the magnitude of the task that has been completed here, and I look forward to supporting it through the House.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : I rise to speak to the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, with a premonition that the Committee stage could be somewhat arduous given the size of it. The re-drafting of the Income Tax Act 1976 was undertaken in four stages, commencing back in the early 1990s. Essentially it has been a reorganisation. The bill at this stage finalises that four-part process, and what we see here, I say for the benefit of the public, is a new Part F through to the end of the Act.

The objective of this piece of work was to simplify access to the tax legislation and make it clear and more easily understandable. The nation owes the officials who undertook this task a debt of gratitude—thank you very much. And to the chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, I say well done for taking this piece of legislation through all its stages.

I pay a particular tribute to Sir Ivor Richardson and his team for their oversight of this particular piece of legislation. Submitters to the select committee agreed that it is, in fact, an improvement and National supports the bill on that basis. Although this bill is unlikely to find pride of place on the mantelpieces of most New Zealand families around the country, I know that there are many legal and accounting practices who are salivating over this new bill and the size of it. Can I say that the likes of Katrina Shanks to my left, an accountant, and the likes of friends in the Hawke’s Bay, Andrew Barley and Tony Mossman, are looking forward to taking this bill back to their bedrooms and considering it over the course of many nights of pleasant reading.

Unfortunately, what this rewrite does not cover are the changes that need to be made to the New Zealand tax system to make this country an efficient best-practice economy. It does not address the over-taxation of hard-working Kiwis, and it does not reduce the tax burden on hard-working Kiwis. The rewrite does record in hard copy, however, the performance of this Labour Government with regard to excessive taxation over nearly 8 arduous years. It also records the Government’s performance on income tax, and that is what I wish to cover today.

Back in its early stages this Labour Government set high and admirable goals, goals that many across the country bought into, one of which was getting New Zealand’s general wealth back into the top half of the OECD.

Craig Foss: That’s a distant memory.

CHRIS TREMAIN: It is a distant memory, as Mr Foss says. Eight years later we are no closer to this goal. In fact, we are two places further down the list. In layman’s terms our people are poorer than people who live in the countries we like to compare ourselves with. Our closest neighbour, Australia, has continued to pull away from us, with average incomes now some 35 percent higher on an average income basis. Let me say this again. This Government has failed in its goal to lift our country up into the top half of the OECD. We are now two places lower.

The last 8 years have been a wasted opportunity. We have had some of the best economic trading times of a generation, and this Government has wasted that opportunity. Our people are poorer than those of comparable nations, and we have continued to drop down that ladder. One of the key reasons for this is the philosophical opposition of this Government to ongoing and credible reductions in taxation for hard-working Kiwis.

Let us have a quick look at Labour’s record on income tax, as covered in this bill. Let us have a look at how an increasing tax burden has impacted on hard-working Kiwis. It started when Labour introduced the 39 percent tax rate. Dr Cullen said on 23 December 1999 that 95 percent of people would not be asked to pay more tax. He said that only the top 5 percent of income earners would pay more. That is what he said. But according to answers to recent questions to Dr Cullen in the House, the latest figures show that 10.6 percent of taxpayers are now in the top tax bracket—10.6 percent. Treasury’s Key Facts for Taxpayers suggests that 14 percent of taxpayers are now in that tax bracket. That is nowhere near the 5 percent Dr Cullen suggested.

On top of that, and far more important, actually, is the fact that virtually everyone is paying more tax because of bracket creep. So people on the 19.5 percent rate will have drifted into the 33 percent rate, and people on the 33 percent rate will have drifted into the 39 percent rate. Hard-working Kiwis have been driven, over that 8-year period, into much higher tax brackets. What does that bracket creep mean to hard-working Kiwis? In real terms, it means that our tax rates are increasing subtly every year as we are paid higher incomes. As a result, a person on the average wage now pays an extra $2,400 more in tax per year than they did in 2000—$2 ,400 more in income tax per annum. No wonder we are poorer on an average basis per nation in terms of take-home pay.

Our top tax rate kicks in at 1.4 times the average wage, so although Australia, for example, has a higher top personal tax rate, that tax rate kicks in at $180,000, not at $60,000. It is a huge difference. So, in a nutshell, Labour has collected significantly more tax over the last 6 to 8 years—$20 billion more—on the basis that it knows how best to spend taxpayers’ money. Despite some of the best economic times in a generation, Labour has delivered a failed result. New Zealand has fallen down the OECD ladder.

Despite this fall down the ladder, I am confident about the future of this nation. Dairy prices in this nation are now the highest they have been for many generations. We see now that the demand for protein in India and China is going through the roof, and opportunities are there for lamb and beef prices, particularly with biofuels and the consumption of grains. That will have a huge impact on sheep and beef farmers around this country, as the demand for pasture-bred lamb and beef goes through the roof. So I am very confident about the future of our nation, particularly for my constituents in Hawke’s Bay.

The question, though, with regard to income taxes, is whether we can trust this Labour Government to make the necessary changes to income tax policy in order to position our nation as a best-practice, benchmark economy where our businesses can launch themselves with the best possible chance of success in export markets.

Craig Foss: Such as Fisher and Paykel.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes, exactly. The answer is a resounding no, and this is why. The fact is that Michael Cullen is in no rush to change his strategy. My colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed that out after a speech Dr Cullen made today. Michael Cullen signalled his intention to have an election-year spend-up. And as my deputy leader said today, Michael Cullen and Labour are preparing for an unprecedented spend-up in election year. It is called “lolly-nomics”. Dr Cullen said today in his speech that: “Early indications are that the cash surplus for the last financial year is likely to be higher than forecast at Budget time.” Because Labour and Michael Cullen have so badly mismanaged the growth in our economy, Kiwi workers are continuing to be over-taxed so that Helen Clark can build up what she describes as an election kitty. An election kitty—that is what it is all about. It is not about supporting hard-working Kiwis and helping them; it is about building up Labour’s kitty.

Shane Jones: We’ve had too much growth!

CHRIS TREMAIN: I would be interested to hear some comments on that, I tell Mr Jones, in regard to where Labour plans to spend that kitty going forward.

Shane Jones: Kete.

CHRIS TREMAIN: Not kete; kitty.

Dr Cullen simply refuses to take any responsibility for his economic failings over the past 8 years. According to the Minister of Finance, high interest rates and the high inflation environment are everybody else’s fault except the Labour Government’s. According to him, the largest surplus has nothing to do with the Government plundering more money than it needs from people’s pockets. Dr Cullen knows that his decision to spend a record amount of taxpayer money in his last Budget will keep interest rates higher for longer.

The reality is that Labour does not trust New Zealanders to make decisions about their own money. Under a Labour Government Kiwis can expect higher tax for longer. Under a Labour Government they can expect further falls in their place in the OECD, and they can expect more “lolly-nomics”. It is time for new thinking and new philosophy on the taxation of hard-working Kiwis. It is time for a National Government—it is time for John Key.

SHANE JONES (Labour) : Tēnā tātou katoa. Firstly, let me start off by reminding our listeners out in Aotearoa that this is the Income Tax Bill. It is of enormous size, and it reflects a great endeavour on the part of the New Zealand Labour Government and New Zealand taxpayers—to simplify the text and language used—in terms of our tax code. We have excelled in what the British have failed to succeed at. We have excelled, in the sense that the Australians, despite unwanted visitors in recent times, have also failed to create a readable, lucid, and accessible set of tax statutes.

I would like to join with the member from the Hawke’s Bay region Chris Tremain and the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Peter Dunne, and identify Therese Turner, an independent adviser to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and Sir Ivor Richardson, who as a jurist in tax matters is peerless in the history of the judicial community in our country. However, I should also turn with some special mention to members of the Inland Revenue Department’s policy team, and its drafting team. A more wearying, possibly unrewarding, and obscure task than rewriting tax legislation is difficult to imagine, but I am sure that I speak on behalf of all of the committee when I thank them for a job well done, and I look forward to being able to take up Mr Woolerton’s challenge and share a little social conviviality with them.

Now I come to Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Lockwood Smith is a fellow Northlander. He comes from Kaipara, and, after having heard his speech, I am reminded of the English meaning of the word “Kaipara”. It means “to consume offal”. The man has left not one single useful redeeming contribution on the matter of tax this afternoon. He demonstrates why renewal is on its way to the National side of the House. He also shows why the member from Hawke’s Bay Chris Tremain—although he unwisely raised the prospect of knowing something about China, which caused this side of the House to ponder whether it was a Peking duck, but no, it was a rooster, pecking away at a Granny Smith apple—and his colleague Craig Foss, two youngish but very ambitious members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, will soon replace my fellow Northlander Dr Lockwood Smith. Actually, there are two Hon Dr Lockwood Smiths: one does have a contribution to make because of experience in running farms and his interest in tax; the other Dr Lockwood Smith, because this is not a pharmaceutical bill, has no contribution to make whatsoever.

However, let me come back to the legislation. It needs to be reinforced that clarity was an issue that submitters challenged us to improve upon. Yes, lawyers and accountants up and down the country earn their keep from the likes of a number of members in this House in terms of enterprises, in terms of high-quality advice, and from families up and down the country. But the challenge was to create text that the average Kiwi—God forbid that he or she would want to look at it on a Friday night—would have something accessible in terms of not only what his or her obligations are but perhaps how his or her enterprises might be structured in the best possible way. So the rewriting exercise has taken a long time. Yes, there were some elements that have not been fully captured.

The KiwiSaver legislation is having the impact of a rainbow on the whole nation. It represents a sprinkling of opportunity and investment well into the future. I am sure that complex language was needed to capture the transitional measures from the failed savings policies of the Bolger time and the Ruth Richardson time—policies, of course, that are not fully repudiated by the current National members. We have to move on from that failed era into our era, where the KiwiSaver contributions to the savings challenge we have can be simplified in terms of language. I am sure that in good time the architects of the text will address that.

In addition to that, we have heard some very foolish and almost envious statements, really, from the seasoned parliamentarian from Kaipara, Dr Lockwood Smith, about the Working for Families package. Underlying what he is saying is the realisation of those members opposite that they have been outmanoeuvred. They cannot create a compelling argument as to why they can get away with ditching the scheme. So of course they engage in these flights of fantasy and segue into obscure irrelevant discussions as to whether it has been accurately described.

The key question, as I round up and applaud the work that has gone into this text revision exercise to simplify tax legislation, is whether members from the National side of the House will have a single idea they are willing to defend and sell, because they know the issue is not the nature of the text; it is the content and the impact of the legislation. They have voted against our tax policy. They have no ideas that they are willing to meet us with on the street corner, in the halls, or even in this Chamber, because they quietly, and I think mischievously, think they can sleepwalk to victory without having to put the case before the nation. That will not happen, because we are in MMP politics, and they have no friends; we have friends from the community to the commercial world. Kia ora tātou katoa.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. In considering policy, the Māori Party always likes to give consideration to the view that everything has a whakapapa, a genealogy, including this Income Tax Bill. Perhaps we might want to consider this bill’s parentage, and even consider the possibility of doing something to reduce the retard factor brought about by too much inbreeding between Labour and National by introducing some strong, fresh, positive new genes from the mighty Māori Party.

The major question I have been asking myself while reading every single page of this 2,700-page bill is: why does income tax legislation have to be so goddamn complicated? This is where the history of this bill becomes so interesting, because the bill’s purpose states that the key aim of the rewrite project is to reduce compliance costs by producing tax legislation that is clear, uses plain language, and is structurally consistent. It says that clear legislation makes an important contribution to increasing voluntary compliance with tax laws, because it makes it easier for readers to identify and observe their income tax obligations. That is all well and good, but we could shorten that by saying that the bill’s purpose is: “Making the law clear so that people will hopefully pay their taxes.”

I tell you, Mr Assistant Speaker, that tax clarity is hardly a topic of hot discussion in my electorate, let alone the complex jungle of new terms that this bill uses to try to make it so-called easier to understand. Let us take family support, for example. When my wife and I were bringing up our kids back in the 1970s and 1980s, we could get the family support and/or the guaranteed minimum family income. There were two different terms for two different sorts of payments. Now my kids are having children and are confronted with a barrage of terms, all of them in this bill. These terms include family scheme, tax credit, child tax credit, family assistance credit, family plus family credit abatement, in-work payment, family support, family tax credit, parental tax credit, social assistance payment, and family scheme income. All these terms mean completely different things. The three most well-known are probably family support, family tax credit, and in-work payment. But this bill has changed them all again. Family support becomes family tax credit, family tax credit becomes minimum family tax credit, and in-work payment becomes in-work tax credit. So having gone from two payment types to 11, we now find that some of them have been reworded. The Government talks about people getting off benefits, but people have simply lost touch with which benefits they are supposed to be eligible for, and are not getting them any more. I remind the House that the purpose of the rewrite project was to make the legislation clear. Imagine how bad it would be if the purpose had been to make it complex!

I would like to take a look at the in-work payment, as yet another example of Labour’s “Tale of Two Ditties”. One of the ditties that Labour likes to warble on about is how it promotes fairness for all. But last night Labour was pushing for a provision that is a contradiction of that, in supporting a blatant discrimination in the “Young Slave Rates Bill” that will see young workers get only 80c to every $1 for adult workers.

Again, in contradiction to its claim of fairness for all, Labour has just introduced a Working for Families package that clearly discriminates against those families most in need. In fact, this particular matter made me think about something, so I went back and looked at Charles Dickens’ ATale of Two Cities, where he says: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness … it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way.” That is exactly what this Income Tax Bill reminds me of. The Labour Government crows about helping to eliminate child poverty in the world, yet in its own backyard it has withheld just under $3 billion from the nation’s poorest children by a deliberate discrimination in the form of the in-work payment.

I note that despite Labour protesting when it was in Opposition against National’s version of the child tax credit—the first policy to discriminate directly against the children of beneficiaries—and despite promising that it would change the policy when it became the Government, it took Labour 6 years before it actually introduced Working for Families. Then, to add insult to injury, Labour chose not to extend the child tax credit to children of beneficiaries. Instead it selected only “worthy families” to qualify for the in-work tax credit.

That means that for the 250,000 children discriminated against by Labour’s “Ditty of Depravation” this is, indeed, the worst of times, the age of foolishness, and the long winter of despair. It seems patently clear that the point of discrimination in the Working for Families package is to punish the unworthy poor—those who would dare to be on benefits and accident compensation. But the pain is all for the children. It would cost only $450 million to extend the in-work payment to the parents of beneficiary children, but instead, that money stolen from the poorest homes is propping up this Government’s coffers as surplus, and is now being re-routed to those individuals who can afford to participate in KiwiSaver.

The Government calls this “justifiable discrimination”—get that! Ripping-off the poor is now called justifiable discrimination. The Child Poverty Action Group says that passing laws that impact negatively on the health and well-being of children can never be considered justifiable. It points out that the income tax provisions that mean that some people will not get the in-work payment because they are on a benefit are the basis of the group’s discrimination case against the Attorney-General, which charges that such discrimination is directly in breach of the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The Māori Party believes that the fruit of economic growth should mean a more equitable distribution of wealth, through wages and benefits. We want to raise the standard of living of all individuals in Aotearoa, especially those on low incomes. We support the idea that New Zealand should maintain and raise its international competitiveness, as long as it is measured against a reliable genuine progress index. We also want tax reductions driven by improved efficiencies in the public sector. We want to ensure that tax revenues and Government expenditure result in acceptable surpluses. We want our nation’s focus to be on redistribution of wealth, so that everybody has enough income to participate fully in his or her community and in society. We want legislation that reflects the best of times, the age of wisdom, and the spring of hope. This Income Tax Bill clearly does not reflect that philosophy, so the Māori Party will be voting against it. Tēnā koe.

CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) : The Income Tax Bill has been at least 10 years in the making, and today we are debating its second reading. After 10 years of formulation, I find it a bit amusing that the commentary on the bill states that some issues were not addressed because of “time constraints”. The Rewrite Advisory Panel has done a fantastic job, and I join previous speakers in congratulating and thanking all concerned. I would particularly like to thank the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, who, in many areas, provides a balance to the more socialistic tendencies of the current Minister of Finance. I thank him again for the way this bill has been put through, with generally all-party agreement. I would particularly like to thank the Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson, our expert adviser Ms Therese Turner, and officials, some of whom are here today. I thank them again and put on the record my comments on the intellectual “grunt”, if you like, of the people who sit around our committee, in particular; the Finance and Expenditure Committee would be pretty lost without them, and I thank them.

This bill is 3,331 pages long. I think it is backed by all parties. I would be interested to see whether the Greens back this bill, not because of the tax implications but because of the sheer number of trees that have been ripped down to produce it. But the legislation gets rid of a whole lot of other bills, so I do not know which way the Greens have gone—I look forward to the answer on that one.

Nandor Tanczos: So we need a virtual Parliament!

CRAIG FOSS: We almost do, actually. I am also interested in what the previous speaker, Hone Harawira, from the Māori Party, said. That he was pretty much looking for a flat and transparent tax rate is how I interpreted much of what he was saying.

I would like to contrast the consultation process that this bill has gone through with what is currently going on. The Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson commented about the tax policy accord of 1992, where all major fundamental changes to tax policy were put out there, consulted on, and various papers were produced. Yes, that process took a long time, but there was buy-in from the public, from various stakeholders, and there was pretty much a seamless transition. I contrast that process with what we have had recently. Much of the legislation has been rushed, and those are not just my words; those words were expressed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday by many submitters. There has been no consultation, the drafting of bills has been rushed and ill-thought-out, and companies, businesses, and stakeholders have been ambushed.

One of the largest organisations representing businesses in New Zealand put out a very, very hard press release yesterday stating that various tax policies have ambushed businesses in New Zealand. I point out that that has happened not just to businesses but to New Zealand as a whole. Some of the bills that have been pushed through include those relating to KiwiSaver and the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax, which was announced and pushed through this House under urgency.

Members opposite constantly talk about consultation and democracy, etc. I ask members to look at the Electoral Finance Act to find an example of where the Government thinks things should go. With the legislation relating to the specified superannuation contribution withholding tax, a huge and fundamental change was pushed through under urgency. The mortgage diversion scheme associated with the KiwiSaver Bill was pushed through under urgency. Changes to the fair dividend rate regime were whipped out there—a pretend consultation—so a fundamental change to our tax framework was rushed through. What do we have today? We have endless Supplementary Order Papers, endless amendments, endless clarifications, and various bills coming through to try to fix the initial KiwiSaver legislation, the fair dividend rate legislation, and other legislation that has been affected by the fair dividend rate and portfolio investment entity regimes, etc.

I would also like to contrast the way in which this bill has come about, with Dr Cullen essentially breaking the superannuation accord. He has tried to confuse changes to the KiwiSaver legislation in order to dilute and dirty what is a solid cross-party accord that superannuation—“65 at 65”—is here to stay. In fact, under the current agreement 66 percent of the average wage will be available at age 65. It will be interesting to see what happens with that in the lead-up to the next election.

I will give members some staggering, staggering numbers relating to the Income Tax Bill. There has been a $20 billion increase in tax revenue since this Labour Government came in, in 1999. That is $20 billion. The Government is now taking in over $52 billion per annum—$1 billion per week. That figure was $32 billion when the current regime came in. It is hard to translate those figures, because they are up there in the galaxy somewhere, but members can think of it in this way: $384 million extra is taken out from this economy in the form of tax every week—that is $384 million. Members should think about the waiting lists, the schools, and the infrastructure. It is absolutely crazy, because the Government cannot even spend it all. It is running such a large surplus, and Dr Cullen is all over the place trying to explain it.

Combined with that problem, we have fiscal drag. Fiscal drag is when inflation drags people’s wages up into higher tax brackets. Well, fiscal drag accounts for about $1 billion extra every year. That is $1 billion due just to inflation and extra income tax per annum. It is no wonder that normal, ordinary, working Kiwis are having to go into debt. It is no wonder that Kiwis are having to eat into the equity of their own houses.

Dr Cullen is blaming everyone but himself for the current corner he has painted himself into. It is a pretty simple equation. The Government overtaxes and overspends, but it spends on the same amount of stuff that it used to, so there is unproductive spend that turns into inflation, interest rates go up, wages go up, inflation goes up, GST goes up—because everything is more expensive—and the tax take goes up. And so the cycle continues. Dr Cullen knows this. In fact, in recent Cabinet papers produced prior to the delivery of recent Budgets, he actually warned his colleagues against asking for extra spend, because extra spend—he did not even mention the words “productive spend”—would create higher interest rates for longer. That is exactly what we have now. Dr Cullen warned his colleagues about that and went on to spend about $4 billion more over the coming cycle.

There is a further whack that the poor New Zealand worker has to face. Not only has the tax take gone up by $20 billion per annum but interest rates are pretty much double what they were when the current Minister of Finance came in. The figures are now in double digits. So not only is tax whacked off people’s gross salary but also they are dragged into a higher tax bracket because of inflation and their residual income, so suddenly they are paying 4.5 or 5 percent—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for the member to repeat the point that he made. If I heard correctly, he said that interest rates were now double that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order.

CRAIG FOSS: I am happy to clarify that. The official cash rate equivalent when Dr Cullen became Minister of Finance was at about 4.5 percent; it is now 8.25 percent. That figure, for members’ information, has almost doubled. That reflects in a near doubling of floating mortgage interest rates. In fact, the Bank of New Zealand calculated that $3 billion would be paid in extra interest payments in 2008, and that was paid in 2006. So that is Dr Cullen’s mortgage levy, which has arrived thick and fast at the doorstep of New Zealand mortgage payers.

I would like to address the way in which Dr Cullen is running the country. It is a bit like the lawnmower guy. A guy comes around and says he will mow a person’s lawn for him or her, and that he will do so every fortnight. Then, a couple of weeks later, he comes around again and says that the person’s lawn needs a bit of fertiliser. So the person buys some fertiliser and pays the same guy to put some fertiliser on the lawn, which he is mowing every fortnight. The lawns go so well that he comes back to the person and says that he now needs to mow the lawn every week, that the person basically needs to pay twice as much, and that he still needs to fertilise the lawn every week to keep it growing. Dr Cullen is spreading a lot of fertiliser around the lawns of New Zealand. Dr Cullen has painted himself into a corner, with higher interest rates, the higher currency, and the high rates of persistent core inflation, which he is mostly a part of. The public is starting to make its judgment on him, and it is not good.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I rise to speak on the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, and to say simply that the Green Party supports this bill. We think that it is a good initiative, for what it is worth. The attempt to simplify tax legislation and to make it more accessible is something that should be commended, for all the various reasons members have already stated.

However, I also have to say that like the Māori Party and the National Party, we think it is a shame that the effort that went into this is not reflected in any effort to address the broader issues, although there is some disagreement about what those broader issues might be. In particular, of course, the thing that interests the Green Party is opportunity for ecological tax reform. I recognise that that was not the brief of this project. Nevertheless, I cannot avoid asking why the Government consistently refuses to take up opportunities to address questions of tax shifting—that is, ecological tax reform. It was avoided in the business tax review; it was avoided, of course, in this rewrite.

The Government position has been basically dismissive of the idea of ecological tax reform. What do I mean by that? I will dwell on this for a couple of moments. I give thanks to Dr Suzi Kerr at the Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Unit for her 2001 paper on ecological tax reform, because she has put the ideas out fairly clearly. I will draw on her work, and the work of some other people as well.

First of all, I think we have to recognise that taxes on labour income, and on capital, cause inefficient distortions in behaviour. Nevertheless we accept that, in order to address broader social, environmental, and other goals. However, if the Government can raise money with no additional distortion—for example, by using eco taxes to address environmental problems rather than using other non-revenue raising forms of environmental regulation—we can achieve significant efficiency gains. The revenue raised can be used to decrease other forms of taxation or to reduce Government debt. The Green policy has been consistent on this over a number of years—that we are about shifting taxation, not about increasing it, by way of ecological tax reform.

If we can reduce labour taxes without reducing the overall amount the Government has available to spend, the economy as a whole will benefit. It is worth noting that even unlikely supporters, such as the UK shadow Chancellor and The Economist magazine, have become advocates for ecological tax reform. The Greens have long been supporters of fiscally neutral ecological tax shifting from incomes on to pollution and resource use. We are very pleased to see those ideas being picked up by more conservative elements.

Ecological taxes are pigovian taxes aimed at addressing an externality that causes inefficiency in the form of too much pollution. Under current tax law, those responsible for pollution do not have to take responsibility for the social and environmental costs that they impose. So we need a system that rewards behaviour that looks after the environment, and disincentivises behaviour that destroys the environment. If a tax is set appropriately, so that the marginal cost of reducing the pollution is equal to the marginal environmental benefit, it will equalise the marginal costs of abatement across all actors, and it can achieve the environmental goal of reduced pollution at the least cost. Eco taxes simply price the environmental damage in the same way that other inputs to production and distribution are priced, leading to efficient use of that input.

That is why the Green Party supports things like lower registration fees for cars that are fuel efficient, and higher registration fees for cars that use more fuel. That is why my Waste Minimisation Bill, currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee, puts a levy on waste going to landfill; the levy can then be used to fund waste minimisation efforts. As the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development has stated, in support of at least elements of that bill, a waste levy is simply about internalising externalities.

The cost created by this approach is the lowest possible cost of achieving environmental gain, assuming there are no problems with people having information about abatement opportunities or access to capital to implement that. We recognise that it is not a perfect world and that those issues do arise. Nevertheless, any other regulatory programme will have at least as great a cost, on average, in order to reduce the same amount of emissions, although some goods may face higher costs and some may face lower costs. But that is part of the reality of pricing externalities.

We welcome the support of TheEconomist magazine for these kinds of ideas. It has now come out and said that countries should adopt a carbon charge, because that is one of the most efficient and stable ways of putting a price on carbon emissions. Dr Kerr in her paper states that in the case of carbon taxes in the United States, using the revenue from carbon regulation to cut other taxes is estimated to reduce the cost of the regulations by two-thirds. We also welcome the comments of the UK shadow Chancellor, George Osborne, that we need to move tax on to environmentally damaging behaviour and off incomes. That is exactly the point that the Green Party has been trying to make for many, many years. It is about tax shifting in order to internalise externalities, and to address the reality that we are starting to reach the environmental limits of human activity. We have to start to not just tinker around the edges with environmental policy but to put ecological issues at the centre of economic life. And ecological tax reform is certainly one key way, if not the only way, of doing that.

We support this bill. We recognise that it is not intended to be a review of tax law but a codification and clarification. That is important, and we support that. However, we do ask the Government, please, to stop running from this issue. The time to start to address issues of ecological tax reform is now.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) : I move, That the Immigration Bill be now read a first time. Over the last 20 years the world has changed. There are greater flows of people around the world. There is greater global competition for skills, talent, and labour, and, of course, there are heightened risks and pressures on the border. Those changes are real. They are significant. New Zealand needs to recognise the realities of the global labour market and the risks in the modern security environment. It is not a matter of either/or. We need to be better at managing both. That is why we need to adapt the immigration system to ensure the best outcomes for the country. That is why we are overhauling the system and introducing the most comprehensive rewrite of the legislation since 1987.

The Immigration Change Programme, of which this bill is a part, is based on three pillars. First is legislative reform, and this bill is a key element of that. Along with the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, it provides a solid legislative base for an immigration system fit for purpose and built to last, now and into the future. Second is the ongoing strategic review of key immigration policies. A framework has been established to inform policy reviews that will enable immigration to continue to contribute to the goals of economic transformation, families, and building national identity. Third is the Immigration Business Transformation project. This project will lead to operational and process changes within the Department of Labour. It will seek to transform the business of immigration from end to end.

This bill is the result of extensive consultation, and reflects, I think, best practice in the development of legislation. In April 2006 the Government published a discussion document on the Act review. It asked for submissions on the key options for change. My officials travelled the country, talking to people about those options. Indeed, over 650 people attended those meetings and almost 4,000 submissions were received from, among others, migrant and community organisations, employers and their representatives, and key national and international human rights organisations. I want to thank everybody who made submissions and contributed to developing the bill that is having its first reading today. I would like to thank also officials from my department and from across the Government for developing this framework legislation, which, I am pleased to say—and I appreciate—has widespread support.

This is framework legislation. Since the arrival of the tangata whenua, the first people of New Zealand, the foundation was laid for a nation that would be built on successive waves of immigration. This foundation was built upon when the early settlers signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Māori in 1840. A nation benefiting from immigration continues to provide a basis for the immigration system today. Like the 1987 Act, this bill is largely framework legislation, with the detail of the Government’s immigration policies to be contained in immigration instructions. This is because the ways immigration can serve New Zealand’s interests may change over time. It is important that the legislation continues to provide that flexibility. But where clear minimum standards are required, the bill is prescriptive, in particular in areas such as international protection, compliance and enforcement, and detention and monitoring. However, this bill is not about a false choice between facilitation versus security, or security at the expense of all else. It is about achieving a balance between the best interests of all New Zealanders and the appropriate rights of individuals. Balance has, I believe, been achieved. I am pleased to say that I have been advised that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

This bill establishes provisions that protect the rights of New Zealand citizens to enter and remain in New Zealand. It will require all non-citizens to hold a visa to stay in New Zealand. The bill updates the provisions that exclude certain persons from coming to New Zealand, to ensure that they are relevant and meet current international standards. It maintains the existing obligation on persons unlawfully in New Zealand to leave. The bill retains a role for the Minister of Immigration in individual decision-making that may be delegated.

The bill establishes a single visa system that provides for greater simplicity and flexibility in managing non-citizens’ travel to, and stay in, New Zealand. The single term “visa” replaces the terms “visa”, “permit”, and “exemption”, which can often be so confusing. The new visa system will ensure that all who come to New Zealand are accurately recorded and managed within the immigration system. Where the requirement to hold a visa for travel to New Zealand is waived, non-citizens can be granted a visa at the border.

The bill codifies New Zealand’s existing immigration-related obligations under the refugee convention, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This ensures that all claims for international protection will be assessed together. This change strengthens New Zealand’s already highly regarded refugee determination system. It reflects best-practice standards internationally.

The bill enables the future collection and use of biometrics subject to certain safeguards. It will not create a surveillance State, but it will enable New Zealand to use new technology to help improve the integrity of the immigration system. Biometrics will be limited to the use of photographs at the border in the case of New Zealand citizens. New Zealand citizenship and New Zealand passports are valuable. We want to make sure their value is protected.

I note that the biometric provisions, along with some of the other new provisions of the bill will come into force by Order in Council. What that means is that although the provisions will sit in the bill and can be considered during the select committee process, they will not be enacted automatically with the rest of the legislation. That is a safeguard added to provide an extra layer of security, and it highlights how seriously the Government views those proposals.

The bill allows certain classified information to be used, with safeguards. It will be used only where appropriate open source information cannot be found. I do not expect the use of classified information to be widespread. I am advised that it has been used only once to date and will be used sparingly in future. The bill clearly defines classified information. It does not include gossip or hearsay. The Department of Labour already deals with information it receives from grumpy ex-partners or nosy neighbours. This information is not classified information now, nor will it become classified information under the new legislation.

The Government takes its commitment to human rights very seriously. I would like to emphasise the natural justice safeguards in the classified information provisions. They include, first, requiring a non-classified summary of any allegations to be disclosed to the person, where possible, prior to a decision even being made; second, broad reasons for a decision being given, along with information on any entitlement to appeal; third, where a person can ordinarily access an appeal, the tribunal is to be heard by a panel of up to three District Court judges on the new tribunal, and the person can engage a special advocate to represent his or her interests in a confidential but informed way. The classified information provisions draw on current national and international standards and experience. They will allow decisions based on all available information, and this is important.

In regard to appeals, the bill establishes a robust, independent appeals system based on a new single immigration and protection tribunal that replaces the four existing appellate bodies. The new system maintains New Zealand’s high standards of fairness, but unlike the current system the bill enables a single tribunal to consider all grounds of appeal for a single appellant, and that will significantly streamline the process. The new appeals system will prevent people with no right to remain in New Zealand from delaying their departure for years and years through multiple appeals.

I note that there has been some confusion about the compliance and enforcement provisions in the bill, along with some questions as to why they are required. Let me clarify. As I have highlighted in the past, ensuring integrity in the immigration system requires a balance between facilitating the entry and stay of people we want and being able to manage the exclusion of those people we do not want. The bill establishes flexible compliance and enforcement powers to enable the Department of Labour to access the people, places, and information required to ensure the integrity of the system.

The bill enables a more relevant set of organisations to provide access to address information. It establishes a set of entry and inspection powers that enable only designated immigration officers to inspect records to ensure general compliance with the immigration law. Inspection powers are not search powers. Immigration officers will not be breaking down doors to access the information.

The bill establishes more flexible, fair, and responsive detention and monitoring provisions. The bill creates a tiered system that includes a greater ability to use reporting conditions instead of secure detention. There is much work to do. A significant amount of planning and implementation is required. I intend that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : That was an unusually restrained performance from the Minister of Immigration. We expect rather more from David Cunliffe. He is, after all, a rising star in this dying Labour Government, is he not? Perhaps the odour of death is starting to suppress the sparkle of even some of the younger Ministers.

I agree with the Minister that this is framework legislation. It is important that we have a measure of bipartisan support for important framework legislation. New Zealand’s fundamental immigration law is too important to have it treated as a political football. As everyone knows, this Government is about to be tossed out at the next election because everyone is sick of its endless control, control, and “Helen knows best” attitude. But just because that happens and this Government is tossed out, important legislation such as a framework for our immigration system should not be turned on its head. That is why I think a degree of bipartisan support for important legislation like this is important. That is why I make it clear that National will support this legislation. Obviously if at the select committee examination huge flaws in it are uncovered, either we will want those flaws remedied or our support may not be as complete then. But so long as the legislation proves to be as balanced as we perceive it to be at the moment it will continue to get our support.

What we do not support, of course, is some of this Government’s rather strange immigration policy—things like the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. That is causing massive problems around New Zealand, which can be seen if one goes to any region where there is horticulture or viticulture. The Minister knows that I have right here a paper prepared for him by his officials. What is scary about it is that his officials are telling him that for a significant proportion of the horticulture industry the transition to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme requires no less than a new business model involving major change in culture and practice. The unions have told the Minister they are right behind this. The unions are using the Recognised Seasonal Employer programme to impose what they want on the horticulture and viticulture industries.

It is interesting. The Minister is being told that the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions needs more resourcing—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member be kind enough to clarify whether the Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is contained within the bill?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): If it is not, the member needs to speak to the bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Quite, Madam Assistant Speaker. I am just making a passing reference to this crazy legislation that has the Minister so embarrassed. I am using it as an example of the difference. You see, this bill is the framework, and we support that. We do not support some of this Government’s dopey immigration policies, such as the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme. Do members know what the Ministers officials are telling the Minister? They are saying that if the Government were to allow, for example, the seasonal work permit to be continued, Pacific Island leaders would be offended by it, because it might undermine the scheme that Helen has sold—I should say that the Prime Minister has sold—to our Pacific Island neighbours as a wonderful aid programme for them, and they are caught by a crazy hybrid scheme. So that is the difference. That is policy that we do not support. This is legislation. We support this framework legislation.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave for the member to yield his time so that I can give him a refresher briefing on the progress on the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: We do not want to waste time listening to that member. He has enough problems out there with the industry. He has huge problems with the industry. The industry is not very enthusiastic. It is saying that neither he nor Mr Benson-Pope, who was involved before, were listening. I have to say, though, in fairness, that the Minister is now listening. I accept that. The problem is that he is hoist with his own petard. The Recognised Seasonal Employer policy is so dumb; he does not know how to try to meet the industry’s needs.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member needs to come back to the bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: Let me make clear which parts of this legislation we support and why. Basically the legislation does two things. It provides for greater facilitation of processing immigration decisions, and it strengthens risk management around immigration and border protection. There are risks there, and the legislation strengthens the management of them. We support these two fundamental objectives.

In respect of the facilitation side of the bill, we support things like the simpler visa system. Anyone who knows anything about our current double-layered visa permit system knows that it is just unnecessarily complicated. It confuses people and there is no need for it. Having a single visa system makes sense, and National supports it.

In respect of things like decision making on exceptions to policy, where those are positive exceptions to policy the bill proposes that the Minister can delegate those. The poor old Associate Minister of Immigration at the moment is faced with having to make so many thousands of decisions a year that it makes sense that some of that decision making can be devolved to the appropriate level of the department. Again, we support that.

In respect of the appeals process, at the moment there are so many different appeals bodies that under the current law once someone has been through one appeal process he or she can start again. I think there is a bipartisan acceptance of the need to have a robust and fair appeals system whereby a person can get a fair hearing, and once that person’s case is dealt with it is dealt with. That person cannot start on it again and go through yet another, different appeal process. So the establishment of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal makes sense.

In respect of the biometric information, this legislation will be a bit more controversial. The Minister knows that the Auditor-General identified 500-and-something cases of identity fraud involving immigration. On Agenda the other day the Minister could not even tell viewers where the 389 allocated cases of immigration fraud were. The Minister said “Where are they?” as if he was asking the poor old interviewer. Guyon Espiner had to explain to the Minister where they were. And the Minister said: “Well, actually, these 389 cases are probably not very sensitive.” Little did he seem to remember that the Auditor-General had actually told him that a significant number of them—almost half—were category A. That is kind of serious. But I make that point in passing. Biometric information is important because we need to know who is coming to this country. For New Zealand citizens it will just involve a biometric photograph, which I do not think is too invasive, at all. For non - New Zealanders rather more detailed information is required, but given the fraud problems that we have I think that although we need to look to make sure it is not too intrusive, the move in this direction makes good sense.

In respect of the risk management side of things, our deportation and removal system is overly complex. Why we have a deportation system and a removal system in the current law, I have to confess, quite escapes me. I think all New Zealanders would feel much more comfortable about simplifying it into a single deportation system that is more robust. I think there is a degree of unease around New Zealand that people who should not be here are staying here too long, and we need to have a system to move them out and make sure that it works.

The monitoring and detention arrangements that the legislation proposes are a tiered response to manage risk. The provision for a 4-hour detention by specially trained and warranted immigration officers, for which police involvement would not be required, is a streamlining of the system. So long as it is implemented wisely—and at the select committee I am sure we will hear submissions on it—it makes sense to move down this track.

Access to information is vitally important. We support the moves in the bill to get better access to information. The compliance power moves the use of classified information. I think we have seen the craziness of the system at the moment with the Ahmed Zaoui case—which I think was the case the Minister was referring to—where classified information has been used. The mechanisms have not been successful. Where classified information needs to be used it should be possible to use it, and we need better ways to use it promptly, deal with the matter, and resolve the issues. At the select committee we need to make sure that the balance is right in this area. We will examine that carefully, but National supports the thrust here.

One bit that I am concerned about is that the legislation will prevent employers from being able to use something called an IR330 as identification of a person’s right to be employed in New Zealand. An IR330 is the form that any new employee has to fill in for an employer to identify his or her tax code. One would normally expect that if someone has a tax number from the Inland Revenue Department, he or she ought to be able to be legally employed in New Zealand, but that is not necessarily the case. We will want to examine this at the select committee, because if this imposes unacceptable compliance costs on employers, we will not support it. I am an employer, and we have to put ourselves in the place of employers. How are they to know whether someone is legally entitled to be in New Zealand? When someone fronts up, fills in an IR330, and gives the employer a valid Inland Revenue Department tax number, how is the employer to know that the person is not legally entitled to be in New Zealand? We do not want to see compliance costs heaped on employers. It is an issue we will want to examine. But National will be supporting the introduction of this legislation.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Immigration Bill. In doing so, I commend my very good friend and colleague from west Auckland, David Cunliffe, for the sterling work he has done on this bill. It is a proud moment for David, as it is for this Government.

Immigration is a cornerstone of this Government’s long-term goals in respect of economic transformation, our focus on families young and old, and our national identity. Migrants are central to these goals by bringing in skills, trades, links to our export markets, and investments, and indeed by adding to the diversity and the richness of this country.

The new global environment has increased competition for skilled migrants, and there is a greater need to ensure New Zealand is secure. More than 5 million people cross our borders each year. We want to attract and retain the cream of that migrant pool. To do this we need to market New Zealand in a way that is attractive and desirable but grounded in realism. We need to provide first-class immigration services that are responsive, pro-active, skills-focused, and people-centred, and in doing that we need to strengthen New Zealand’s security by supporting robust decision making both on and offshore, creating secure borders, and having the ability to manage risk in New Zealand.

We know, and I acknowledge, that despite some churlishness the Opposition has acknowledged that there are some very, very good focuses in this bill. Certainly, our up-to-date exclusion data criteria will set out very clearly the people we do not want to come into our country, such as people with serious criminal convictions who will indeed pose a risk to New Zealand. Also, there is more flexibility for screening airline passengers before they get on a plane to New Zealand, and enhanced compliance and enforcement powers so that immigration officers can conduct searches at the border to prevent, detect, and investigate immigration offences.

We know that this bill will sharpen, clarify, and strengthen the immigration legislation. Indeed, in Waitakere we celebrate the fact that we have one of the most diverse societies within New Zealand, as we also see in south Auckland and in fact the greater Auckland area. There will be enhancement and streamlining of the processes of immigration, and I will know when I attend citizen ceremonies in Waitakere and see people becoming proud citizens of Waitakere—one of the better areas of New Zealand—that we are recognising and recruiting the cream of people coming into New Zealand. Streamlined processes, such as easier visa systems, will make it easier to attract and retain those very people we want to attract to our country. It will also allow flexibility to respond quickly to a rapidly changing environment.

This bill is an enabling bill. It puts in place processes to ensure that New Zealand is up there with a 21st century immigration system. I think that this bill really builds on all the other good policies we have put in place for new immigrants to this country. I am proud of this bill. I think it will be fantastic when it is enacted, and I commend it to the House.

PANSY WONG (National) : I am a bit puzzled by the claim made by the member who has just sat down, Lynne Pillay of Waitakere. She seemed to suggest that this will be the first time New Zealand has had the immigration practice of not allowing people with criminal records to enter the country. I thought we always had legislation in place so that people with criminal records would not be accepted under the immigration policy. It must be quite painful for Government backbenchers to always have to stand up and make a standard speech that is complimentary to the Minister.

The other thing the member mentioned about this legislation was that it complements the Labour Government’s policy on families. The member may not have heard about the complaints I hear. I have a long string of complaints coming into my office, and I remind the Minister of Immigration of that. Apparently the family quota for 2007-08 is already full. We have not even got through the first months of that year, and the family quota is already full. Many constituents have written to me, asking why the Labour Government says it is supporting families, when they cannot bring a family member into the country.

This Minister will soon not be able to continue to use his standard excuse. Whenever anybody raises a problem in the immigration area, the Minister’s standard response is to tell that person to wait until the Immigration Bill has been passed, without explaining to people that this bill is framework legislation. Most people have a problem with the immigration policy. As Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has already indicated, National is supportive of this bill and its referral to the select committee. The completed passage of this bill, following its amendment at the select committee, will remove the last excuse of this Minister, who is overseeing the sinking ship known as Immigration New Zealand. Why do I use that term? Because most of the problems are to do with immigration policy and practices, and also the attitude and competence of the people in the Immigration Service.

I want to welcome New Zealand First’s stand, which is quite unusual for me. New Zealand First, at long last, has come around and supported a National Party initiative. At the last election we said that Immigration New Zealand needed to be a stand-alone department. Is that not right, Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith? The Immigration Service needs to be a stand-alone ministry and needs to be staffed with highly competent people. It took New Zealand First about 4 years to wake up to the fact that the Immigration Service should be a stand-alone department and that the decision-making process should be transparent. This is a serious point. Because we have a legislative framework without competent personnel working in that framework, I am not sure how the further delegation of authority to immigration officials will work out.

I will give everybody an example. A constituent wrote to me. His work permit was due to expire in 2 months’ time, so he lodged an application for renewal of his work visa. Everybody would think that 2 months would be plenty of time for that person. Well, apparently the Immigration Service said that his medical certificate needed to be referred for another assessment by a health professional. By the time he received that notice he was 4 weeks down the track, and then that assessment was to take another 3 weeks. So he panicked and said that that would force him into the position of being an overstayer. When the medical certificate came back he had only 1 week, and, knowing the Immigration Service, he realised it would never make a decision within 1 week.

When my constituent wrote to the Immigration Service, it gave him two options. It said that option 1 was that he could take the risk and become an overstayer in New Zealand. Imagine getting that advice from the Immigration Service! Option 2 was that he could withdraw his application and return to his homeland. What sort of service does the Immigration Service provide? Here we are, trying to pass a bill to give the service greater delegated authority.

I also want to remind the Minister that when the legislation was passed to regulate immigration consultants, the Minister actually singled out the integrity of immigration staff as being doubtful. The Minister introduced a provision stating that any immigration official who was involved with issuing visas or determining refugee status was not allowed to practise as an immigration consultant for 12 months after leaving the service. So here we go. The Minister showed he has no confidence in the staff’s integrity and competence by not allowing them to practise as immigration consultants, yet here we are being asked to pass legislation to give them more discretion and more authority. I cannot reconcile those two things.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member who is speaking be kind enough to confirm the name of the bill to which she is currently speaking?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member was mostly speaking to the Immigration Bill. She did stray a little then, but I think it is still in the same context.

PANSY WONG: He is a very, very touchy Minister, is he not? I am talking about the delegated powers contained in this legislation, and I can assure that very touchy Minister that the passage of this legislation will not save his skin, because of all the problems in the immigration area.

I also want to once again endorse the comment made by our very learned, hard-working Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about the possible unfair workload that is being imposed on employers and education providers under this legislation. New Zealand employers literally operate as tax agents for the Inland Revenue Department, in doing all sorts of paperwork for the Government. One has to ask why the Inland Revenue Department cannot utilise a better framework before it assigns an IRD number to individuals. I think that would be a fair ask. Why can the Government department that collects tax not be asked to scrutinise the immigration status of people who are acquiring an IRD number? In the select committee we will raise that issue, and ask what extra resources would need to be allocated to the Immigration Service so it could have a dedicated system to help employers get that information if the bill passes in its present form. I want to know whether there could be a dedicated system or a telephone line, so that employers and education providers could pick up the phone, say that so-and-so is applying for work, etc., and ask the service to confirm that the person has a valid visa. National would demand that, unless there are changes in legislation. Otherwise, we want dedicated, quantified resources to be provided, in order to be fair to employers.

The other issue I want to raise concerns more power being delegated to officials, in terms of detaining people. In principle one agrees to that, because of the increasing risk in terms of border control. But once again, at the select committee we will want to know how much more training is needed, and what assurance can be given to members in relation to the competence of the people who will exercise those powers.

So although we support the bill going to the select committee, we will be asking a lot of hard questions and expecting full answers before we see this bill come back to the House.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Well, I have to say that I have seen and heard so many U-turns this afternoon on this bill that it is beyond belief—beyond belief.

Pansy Wong: What U-turns?

PETER BROWN: There have been U-turns from Government members and certainly U-turns from National members. I can say that the road to Damascus has been very congested—very congested—tonight. But I can understand the Government and I can understand the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon David Cunlifffe, because of a clause written in the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First. I will read it, because I want to put this clause on record in Hansard. Under the subheading “Immigration”, the bullet point states: “Conduct a full review of immigration legislation and administrative practices within the immigration service, to ensure the system meets the needs of New Zealand in the 21st century and has appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the system is not susceptible to fraud or other abuse, and taking note of other items raised by New Zealand First.” I think that that makes it quite clear that this bill is the result of a review that was instigated totally—totally—by New Zealand First, and we have been on this crusade—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would the member kindly confirm the date of that confidence and supply agreement, with reference to the fact that the bill has been underway for 3 years?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No. The member knows very well that that is a debating point.

PETER BROWN: I do not know whether to respond to the Minister, because that will encourage him to make further unnecessary interruptions. New Zealand First has been long—and I mean long—years on the record as saying immigration policy in this country is not right. It needs addressing totally; it has been addressed on a piecemeal basis. We, and particularly my leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, have been called xenophobic and all sorts of other names that are not particularly nice. Nevertheless, we have stuck to the issue and said that immigration should be reviewed totally. At last it has been, and this bill is the result. If the review had been a minor review, or if the review had come out with minor amendments, the bill would not be so thick.

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes, that’s true.

PETER BROWN: I thank the Minister—he agrees with that.

In essence—and we have long said this—immigration policy should be skills based, and people who come here should have good health. People who come here should be of good character. People who come here should speak English. Finally, and most important, people who come here must integrate into this society—they must become Kiwis, and they must become New Zealanders. They should not come here and set up their own mini-State or little enclave that reflects the country they have come from. They should come here and participate and belong to the country.

Tariana Turia: Pardon?

PETER BROWN: Did the member ask a question?

Tariana Turia: Yes, I’m just saying “Pardon?”.

PETER BROWN: I might be going deaf; I cannot hear her.

Immigration on a worldwide basis has become an ever-increasing problem. If we went to places in Europe we would see that they have problems. Australia has had problems, but in fairness to the Australians I say that they are keeping their problems under control as best they can. We have tried to operate here on a “hail-fellow-well-met” type of policy—ad hoc, an open-door policy at some times, a closed-door policy at other times, and I am hopeful that this legislation will address those problems.

But it is important that we give new migrants and refugees some education-type system to let them know what this country is all about—to let them know what New Zealand stands for in terms of lifestyle, and to let them know how the democratic process works in this country and how important it is to this country. We need to let them know what New Zealand stands for in terms of values and how important human values—freedom and those sorts of values—are to this country. We need to let them know also that we want to control crime in this country, and that if they want to come here and get involved in crime, then they will be shown the exit door in short order.

This is physically a very beautiful country, tucked way down at the bottom of the South Pacific. It is a fantastic country. MPs are privileged to fly over large parts of it on many a day, and whenever I fly I look out of the window of the plane and think what a fantastic place this is and how privileged I am to live in this country. New Zealanders are basically friendly, hard-working, innovative, and efficient people dedicated to their cause and their country. They are the type of people who make up this country. Those are two significant assets that New Zealand has, and the third asset—and we must not overlook it—is that there are not too many of us. If people want to live in a crowded-type scenario, they should go to live in Tokyo—

Hon David Cunliffe: London.

PETER BROWN: —London, New York—they should go to live there. We should put a value on being a place with a relatively low population, in which case I suggest, in short order, that it is time we developed a population policy. I know I am digressing a little bit from the bill, but it all ties together.

Some years ago I think there was a population conference, and it is high time we started looking at having another one, to work out how many people we want here and the time frame to get them here—the rate of increase in the population that we should allow for. Allowing people in on an open-door policy puts a strain on this country’s infrastructure. What do I mean by that? It puts a strain on our hospitals, on our schools, on our medical services, on our roads, and even on our transport systems. So we should allow the population to increase under controlled conditions.

From time to time people come here illegally, or abuse the system. They are not wanted in this country. They take advantage of New Zealanders’ good nature, or they exploit some sort of circumstance to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the country. They commit crimes and do things that we should not encourage them to do. The Immigration Service is charged with getting rid of them. We have to improve those systems. For up to something like 5 years, the Zaoui case has cost us so many millions of dollars that we have lost count of how much, although New Zealand First has tried to monitor it. That is not good enough. I am not talking about the rights or wrongs of Mr Zaoui; I am talking about the system and the process. They make this country look like a laughing stock, and I am hopeful that this bill will go some way towards addressing those problems. We welcome the use of classified information in certain circumstances. We welcome biometric information being used. In fact, if it were left to me I would DNA test everybody who comes into the country, be it on a permanent or a temporary basis, but that might be going a little too far.

I want to make a final point—and I say to Pansy Wong that I am sorry but she is totally wrong in this. It is that New Zealand First has long advocated that the Immigration Service should be a stand-alone department, exactly like the Customs Service and the New Zealand Police. That has been our policy and our attitude for many a year. I know that the National Party has had a road to Damascus experience, and I welcome that, but I ask its members to please not start saying that this is their policy and that New Zealand First has come on board with it. We have advocated this policy for many a year. For many a year we have had it split off at the select committees, as the member may or may not know.

Hon Member: They’ll claim anything.

PETER BROWN: They are so desperate, they will claim anything.

New Zealand First rejoices in this bill coming to this House and absolutely supports it going to the select committee. We do not think that the Government has got it right. We know that the bill has flaws in it, but we will do our best to get it right. We welcome the opportunity to review the legislation that governs our immigration policy.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party, of course, appreciates that the Government has put a lot of effort into rewriting New Zealand’s immigration policy—and a lot of the rewriting is overdue in terms of updating procedures. But the Green Party will be voting against this Immigration Bill, because it has very serious flaws in it. It gives more powers to the State and takes away due process and justice in the system.

In the discussion on this bill since it was tabled in this House, we have concentrated on two areas. One of those areas is privacy and the intention to bring in the use of more biometric procedures at airports. Of course, the Government sort of plays it two ways. Often it says, when under criticism, that it is just future-proofing the legislation and that it has no plans, yet, to introduce biometrics. But if we look at the explanatory note of the bill we can see that there is a clear intention to bring in biometrics and to compete with other nations in seeing which one can have the most biometric procedures at its border. I think that at the moment countries like America are in the lead with their fingerprinting. Under this bill New Zealand can get into that action by having not only fingerprinting and facial recognition systems but by having iris scans.

From the reaction I have had since the bill was tabled, I do not think that New Zealanders want to go down the track towards being a surveillance society. There is a huge feeling amongst New Zealanders that people should not go through all that checking unless they really need to. The obvious point is that we are not, at the moment, being overrun by terrorists, and the security danger can be exaggerated. If Air New Zealand keeps flying troops to Kuwait and Iraq, we might have more problems, but at the present time and in the foreseeable future, New Zealand, if it presents itself as a peaceful country, will not have the sorts of security situations where we could even think about bringing in those levels of surveillance measures. Generally, when these types of measures are brought in they make people more frustrated and angry at the Government and are more likely to produce terrorists than to stop them.

The other thing we were worried about in terms of due process is the trend in legislation, not only in New Zealand but around the world, to increase the power of the State to determine people’s futures, particularly in relation to new migrants or refugees, and take away their right to due process. I think that the bill’s provisions for the use of classified information fall into that category. Usually, when people think about classified information, they say: “Oh, that’s the stuff that the intelligence agencies like the Security and Intelligence Service, or the Government Communications Security Bureau have.” If one asks the average person, that is what he or she will say. In fact, under this bill, anything that comes from overseas, such as from the American post office, immigration, customs, or dog pound people—as long as it comes from overseas—that the overseas agency thinks should be kept confidential, will all be defined as classified information. That overseas agency, whatever it is, can stop it from being made public under this legislation.

Of course, most of the determination of immigration, of refugee, cases is done on the basis of information from overseas—from countries that people have visited or lived in. All of that information can be kept away not only from the person being affected—the immigrant or refugee—but from the person’s lawyer. The Government has a bit of a guilty conscience on this, so it has suggested the use of the special advocate procedure that has been tried a bit overseas and is currently being tried on the initiative of the Inspector-General in the Ahmed Zaoui case that is going on right now. We can see the problem with that special advocate situation, in that the special advocates in the Zaoui case, or overseas, or under this bill are not appointed by the person affected; they are appointed either by the judge who is running the case—as in the Ahmed Zaoui hearing—or by the Government, or by a tribunal. But they are not appointed by the person.

In this bill the key point is that once the special advocate sees any of this classified information, and, as I said, it can include any information from overseas, the advocate is not allowed to talk to the person affected, about that information, at all. The advocate cannot get hints of what line of defence to run on the basis of these accusations. It is a little bit easier in the Zaoui case, because a lot of the stuff has been in the public domain and the two special advocates probably know a bit about the background. The special advocate in this case will come along, look at this classified information, and will not really know what the counter-points might be and what questions to push. So it is a very unfair justice system.

The bill gives extended powers of search and entry, and although arguments could be made for increasing powers in certain circumstances, I do not think the case has been made strongly enough. The bill extends the initial detention time from 72 hours to 96 hours—4 days—in prison, for someone like that coming into the country. It extends the powers of the Immigration Service to detain a person for up to 4 hours. Auckland International Airport is the gateway to this country, and I would have thought we would want our immigration officers to be the friendly face of New Zealand. Sure, the police and customs officers are there and have certain powers, but I think immigration officers should be welcoming. If we give them the power to detain someone for 4 hours, without customs officers or police being around, that will colour the whole situation. So immigration officers will be objects of fear for new migrants, to a certain extent. We do not want that; we want them to be the friendly face.

The bill streamlines the residence, removals, deportations, and refugee tribunals into one body. The Government says that is good, because it streamlines everything. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority, which has a very good record, is based on a whole raft of refugee law—for example, the 1951 refugee convention is a very specialist area—so why dissolve all of that into one appeal body? There is no requirement for this combined body to have much specialisation in it. At least overseas, in some of the tribunals, they have certain requirements for expertise whereas we require a judge and perhaps some other judges, but have no requirement of them to know anything specific about immigration law. Hopefully, they will be chosen on the basis of that knowledge, but there is nothing to bring into that tribunal and appeal system the expertise that we have seen in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.

Another part of the process is the delegation of ministerial power to officials in terms of a final determination in exceptional circumstances. Of course, Clayton Cosgrove, who is doing that job as Associate Minister of Immigration at the moment, would welcome any delegation, I suppose, because he comes into this House with huge piles of appeals he has to go through. I think we have to keep very much in our system the fact there are a whole lot of exceptional and humanitarian systems, and the Minister’s discretion has been very important in allowing that discretion to be exercised properly.

I am a bit worried that the whole thing is an official’s wish-list. Officials are given more power, more cases, etc. It is all so unnecessary, too, because why can we not give people a fair go? There is not a super-security situation whereby all this information has to be kept “classified”. New Zealand First may say otherwise, but there is not a great flow of refugees pouring in. No boat people get here, because we are too far away, unless they have a really big boat, in which case if they can afford one they will probably not want to come here. The only people who come here arrive on a plane, but with the Advance Passenger Processing system, with America, Australia, Singapore, and so on, it is very hard for anyone who does not have the full rights, papers, permission to come here, and everything else, to arrive here. So we get very few asylum seekers, compared with European countries, etc., where they have land borders and easy access. There is just a dribble of refugees at the moment, so I do not think we should get all upset about security and classified information.

Yesterday in question time in the House Peter Brown of New Zealand First asked how many people currently detained have been detained for over 3 months, and was surprised to hear it was only four. New Zealand First may have the image of all these people pouring in. I must say that what is happening to the detained Iranians at the moment is a shame, because they have not committed any crimes. One of the four detained is in Auckland hospital and in his 35th day of a hunger strike. I went to see him on Monday and he was lying on his bed and could not even get up to greet me. The next day, when his lawyer and main supporter went in, they found him handcuffed. How humiliating and inhumane! There has been no real apology for that, and I will be following that matter up. It is not directly the responsibility of the Minister of Immigration, in the sense it is the Department of Corrections that puts the handcuffs on and has the two guards on the door of the hospital bedroom when obviously the man is not going anywhere. This is bureaucracy gone mad, humiliation gone mad. I will be following it up. The Immigration Service’s view is relevant in that case because it is in control of the destiny of the person, and it should ask the Department of Corrections why the heck it put that guy in handcuffs.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Sometimes when Māori Party members come into the House and we hear people talking about these issues, we wonder how much those people understand of the history of this country and the history of immigration. When we hear talk about “fitting into the culture” and “values of this country”, we feel, as tangata whenua, that that is something we would have loved to see happen, but did not experience.

This legislation is clearly targeted at people of colour, people who do not come from Western-speaking countries. I think that is appalling.

The Immigration Service has produced a pamphlet for migrants that features a statement that I believe provides an apt context for both migrants coming to Aotearoa and members coming to this Immigration Bill. This comment comes from the Hon Justice Taihākūrei Edward Durie, and is as follows: “The Treaty of Waitangi is not just a Bill of Rights for Māori. It is a Bill of Rights for Pākehā too. It is the Treaty that gives Pākehā the right to be here.” Maybe we sometimes need to be reminded of it.

The challenge issued by Justice Durie is to remind us all that without the Treaty there would be no lawful authority for a Pākehā presence in this part of the world. He describes Pākehā as tangata Tiriti—those who belong to the land by right of the Treaty—and I agree with him. This is a most suitable challenge from which to consider the bill’s purpose, which is to manage immigration through balancing the rights of the individual and the national interest as determined by the Crown. It is an interesting twist of truth that the national interest is determined by the Crown. Because, of course, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, as the first immigration document of this nation, puts forward another vision—that the national interest is determined in dialogue and cooperation between the Treaty partners.

Despite the words of Justice Durie in the Immigration Service’s promotional material and the status attributed on its website to the Treaty as the founding document of our nation, there appears to have been no specific Māori input into the Immigration Act review that led to this bill. Such apparent neglect clearly means that no amount of public relation airbrushing can hide the fact that the Government does not see that a Treaty obligation exists in relation to immigration. The Māori Party contends that until the Government does see it exists, no immigration policy can have any legitimacy. We believe that, as the Treaty partner, Māori should be consulted on every aspect concerning migrants who wish to reside here.

The aims of the bill are broad-sweeping, clarifying details around the very nature of residence and citizenship policies. We are told that the proposals will enhance the security of New Zealand, facilitate the settlement of migrants, refugees, and protected persons, and support New Zealand’s immigration-related international obligations. In short, the tangata Tiriti—those who come to this land by virtue of the Treaty—will be well protected, and for some individual tangata whenua, those who perhaps work in the immigration system or those who may have relationships that will be supported through the improvements made to residence decisions, there may be some benefit that results from the changes. But for Māori, as a partner to the Treaty of Waitangi, there is absolutely nothing.

There is nothing in this bill that reflects a partnership approach in which tangata whenua, in a spirit of manaakitanga and demonstration of rangatiratanga, can develop systems for whānau, hapū, and iwi to help immigrants and refugees in their adjustment to Aotearoa. There is nothing in this bill that serves to provide incentives for whānau, hapū, and iwi to produce economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits out of pooling their skills, knowledge, talents, and experience with those of new New Zealanders. There is nothing in this bill to support whānau, hapū, and iwi, and new migrants to develop collective strategies for moving forward together as communities and, ultimately, as a nation.

It is not as if the concept of a Treaty partnership is automatically alien or unwelcome to new migrants. Two weeks ago I received an email from one of these new New Zealanders living in Dunedin, who told me: “I do very much agree that newcomers to New Zealand need to be introduced in a friendly way to the Treaty and Māori culture. Also, the idea of a welcome from tangata whenua is a nice concept indeed, and I wish this were in place when my family moved here first in 2003. Māori inclusion in immigration planning is important.”

So one has to ask this question. If this man, having lived in Aotearoa for 4 years, can see value in our having Māori inclusion in immigration planning, then what is stopping other tangata Tiriti, many of whom are descended from new settlers who have been living here for some 167 years, from also being able to support Māori having a partnership role?

What then does this bill do? Far from being the friendly welcome, this bill seems just another opportunity to enforce the snooping power and control regime that has dominated justice legislation. The extensions of State power will now include greater powers of search, entry, and detention. Immigration officials will be able to detain people without warrant for up to 4 hours, and, without a warrant of commitment, for up to 96 hours. Juxtaposed against the new powers for immigration officers to enter, inspect, and search premises for suspected persons of interest, we are pleased that it appears the accused will not automatically be confined to jail upon suspicion.

The performance of the New Zealand Government alerts us to what the purpose of this bill is really about—that is, to build a case for upping the ante in the fight against terrorism. A significant context of the bill, given its provisions, is the assumed security threat raised in other very recent bills and reports, such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill, the Aviation Security Legislation Bill, and the Law Commission’s Search and Surveillance Powers report.

This Immigration Bill creates a whole new artillery of secret information and special advocates. The bill also allows classified information to be used, with special safeguards. It sets up the case by which the bill will enable the future collection and use of biometric information, such as fingerprints, iris scans, and photographs, for identity verification purposes. The bill also proposes to disband the four independent appellate bodies that currently exist, and collapse them into one.

Finally, I want to talk about this whole fascination with information—classified or otherwise. In a previous life as an Associate Minister of Māori Affairs, I was approached by a former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel, who I believed had a genuine interest in understanding and valuing the context that te Tiriti o Waitangi establishes for immigration. We called together a consultation hui in February 2001, at which, from memory, the participants included Professor Ranginui Walker, Pauline Tangiora, Atareta Poananga, Amster Reedy, Sir Paul Reeves, Eru Pōtaka-Dewes, Annette Sykes, the Hon Tuariki Delamere, Moana Jackson, Jason Fox, and many other expert advisers across Te Ao Māori. As I recall, a very useful report was written—a report that never saw the light of day. For the life of me I cannot work out what was so confidential, or why the information in their report warranted such a classified security rating that the nation should be spared from its ideas and recommendations.

The Immigration Bill sets in place a new set of minimum standards and protocols relating to international protection, deportation, appeals, compliance and enforcement, and detention and monitoring. But there is one standard above all standards that this bill fails to honour, and that standard is set by te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Māori Party will not support this bill.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : I expect that the bill whose first reading we are debating today, the Immigration Bill, will come to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think that some of the speeches that have been already made indicate that some of the issues will be contentious. I do not think one can have immigration law that does not have some matter of emotion, and this bill is no different.

What we have to remind ourselves of is that the current Act is now 20 years old, so we are looking at immigration through the eyes of 20 years ago—1987. Sadly, the world has changed, and changed dramatically, in that time. Also, as many members of Parliament will know, we have an immigration system that reflects the fact that that law has been changed along the way. When dealing with our constituents we sometimes have a very frustrating, lengthy, arduous, and expensive process, for both the applicant and the system. Although we may concentrate in these speeches on the contentious matters, it is also important to think about why we need good immigration law—streamlined services, fair services, and services that do not keep people in a bind, year after year.

I congratulate the Minister of Immigration on the consultation process. As he mentioned in his speech, hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders up and down the country have been involved in the consultation process. Something like 650 people attended meetings, and about 4,000 submissions were received. Migrant and community representatives and organisations had their views heard. Employers and unions were talked to. Our key national and international human rights organisations were consulted. I think it is long overdue that we have a bill that tries, if one likes, to modernise the immigration system in New Zealand.

If one looks at just one aspect of the bill, the appeal system, one sees that at the moment people can go through appeal body after appeal body. As any constituent MP knows, that process can take 3, 4, or 5 years. The results are coloured by the fact that it has taken so long. I think anybody would welcome those sorts of changes.

Yes, there are new measures in terms of security, but as I said at the beginning we are in a changed world. This House is having to debate security not only in terms of immigration; we recently discussed security at our borders in terms of aviation security. This bill is another part of that process. Any Government now has to contend with a changed and quite troublesome world. Nobody would have thought 20 years ago that we needed to increase security measures as this bill has done, to look at biometrics, fingerprints, and those sorts of things. But New Zealanders who travel the world—and they do it more often now—are very aware that this is the reality for most countries, because of the security risk.

We also want to be able to attract good migrants to this country. We all know about the skill shortage and the need to have people come here who have the business skills that this country needs, but we also need to think about the families that follow them. We also need to think about our special relationship with the Pacific.

I am keen, as I am sure the rest of the select committee will be, to invite maximum participation by the public in this last phase of the process. Many of those people have been through the consultation process that the Minister ran, which led to this bill coming about. I am sure that many of those people will also line up at the select committee to have their views heard, as will other parties in this House who have expressed some concerns about the nature of this bill and some of the measures in it. I think all New Zealanders and all people in this House would support the vast majority of measures in this bill. It is needed because the current legislation is so old. I commend the bill to the House, and look forward to the select committee process that will come after its first reading.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : The immigration debate is one of the major debates that we will have as a country over the next decade or so. It is probably the biggest thing that a constituent MP has to deal with on a day-to-day basis, and it really reflects the changing nature of our country and of the world we live in—especially the region we live in. We live in Asia. It is time New Zealand identified that and was quite positive about that, and recognised that that is our future.

Hone Harawira: This is not Asia. This is the Pacific.

DAVID BENNETT: Our future is in this region. We are in the Asian region and the greatest economic influence on our country will be from our Asian neighbours, the challenge of our greatest population increase will be from our Asian neighbours, and the greatest political influence will be from those countries as well. As we see a changing dynamic of the population, we will see a changing political methodology as well. Those groups will bring in a different way of government. They will bring in a different perspective on the values of government. They will bring in a different concept of what they want to see government involved in, in our communities and throughout the country.

This bill does not address those issues. This bill is just procedural legislation. All parties basically will support it, to an extent. Everybody wants to see the best procedures of government in the way that we do our business. However, the bill does not address those fundamental concepts that have been discussed today.

In this House over the last couple of months it has become quite evident that members of New Zealand First are raising the question of immigration. They are bringing that up as they are getting ready for another election campaign, to use it as one of their tools in that campaign. The Māori Party, quite rightly, identified that. It is a campaign that is quite appalling, when we consider that people are trying to impose limits on others who come to New Zealand. We hear members from New Zealand First talking about U-turns from Government members. New Zealand First members had the biggest U-turn when the Minister of Immigration challenged what they were actually saying. They were saying that New Zealand First was the party that brought this legislation forward—that New Zealand First members were the drivers for it. In fact, the drivers were set up a year before that coalition agreement. It was not New Zealand First that was driving it; it was the Government that was driving it as a result of the changing nature of our immigration patterns.

We also hear many of the political parties talk of the need for immigration as a cornerstone of the Government’s economic transformation. I think those were the words of Lynne Pillay. If it is the truth that immigration is the cornerstone of Government policy, then why has the Government reduced the immigration targets? Only a month or so ago the Government reduced immigration targets by 2,000 people. On the one hand the Government is basically saying that it wants immigration and it wants to see New Zealand grow, but on the other hand its actions indicate that it does not foresee immigration as beneficial to New Zealand.

Government members are going out there into the communities, and they will do this during the election campaign. Labour is especially good at this during election campaigns. They go amongst all those communities and side with them, and say: “We’re the party for you. We’re the ones for immigration.” Let us look at the statistics and see whether this is true. The Government has reduced the immigration quotas. It has reduced the number of people who could have come to New Zealand by 2,000. This is 2,000 people who would have gone into the communities that those members will go out to and profess their great allegiance to. Those communities need to know that this Government has reduced the ability of New Zealand to have immigration. Immigration is something that inevitably we will have; we will not be able to deny the future of immigration to New Zealand. It will happen and it is something we must embrace, not limit.

We hear the Minister talk about a changing world and how this bill is one of the three factors in his reform process, which will be made up of the legislative reform, the review of key policies, and the business project. We want to see the review of key policies. That is the debate that people are looking for. This legislative reform is a long piece of legislation, and it is a big book for everyone, but it does not contain the heart and soul of what immigration is about. It does not tell us who is going to come into New Zealand and when they can come. It is only saying that these are some of the procedures that the Government will look at.

The real debate needs to be not on the procedures, but on the nature of immigration, whom we let into the country and how we let them in. Immigration is something we must be open and considerate about. It is not something we can put up barriers to. If members feel that New Zealand can isolate itself from immigration, then they are dreaming. We lose so many people from New Zealand that we have to replace them. At the moment the people coming in do not have many skills in comparison with those we are losing. That is something we need to adjust in our immigration policy. We need to take into account that we are losing a lot of skilled people. Research from Massey University shows that the people coming to New Zealand have very few skills. A startling percentage of only about 15 or 20 percent of people who come to New Zealand have the skills base we would expect. The immigration system clearly is not working. It is not a matter of limiting numbers and saying that 2,000 fewer people can come in. It is a matter of identifying how we can get the right people coming here, and with the right skills. There will be some changes in the colour of New Zealand as a result. That is something we need to see happen, as well. It is the nature of the world in which we live, and it is the nature of the continents that surround us.

We also hear that this bill is only procedural and framework legislation. That may be the case, but we want to debate the real issues in this House. The real issues of immigration are not dealt with in framework legislation. I challenge the Labour Party members to put the real issues in front of this House rather than some kind of framework that they then hide behind. Why do those members not debate the real issues in the House? [Interruption] They cannot. That is right. They will not, and the reason is that they are afraid of doing that.

The other reason Labour members will not debate the real issues is that they are in a coalition agreement that binds them to silly policies from a party that is scared and will use the immigration debate in election campaigns. We heard Peter Brown talk about requirements for migrants, such as having to speak English. What makes a migrant so great because he or she can speak English? Is Peter Brown going to require a level of English speaking? That member is a migrant. Who is to say he would meet any criteria to come to New Zealand these days? [Interruption] Exactly! He would not meet the criteria under the skilled migrant category that is in place these days.

It will be interesting to see what New Zealand First members will do. New Zealand First is a party of old men, and a few old women as well. They will be going to hospital in the next few years. I wonder how many of them—

Pita Paraone: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I take exception to being referred to as old. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

DAVID BENNETT: That member clearly is not old, so I will withdraw and apologise.

I would like to see how those elderly members of the New Zealand First Party get on if they have to go to hospital and see who will be operating on them. I can bet that if they go to hospital, their nurses will not be born and bred in New Zealand, and I can guarantee that their doctors probably will not be born and bred in New Zealand. Will those New Zealand First members thank those people? I am sure they will. They will say thank you. They will not talk about the immigration policies they talked about in this House. They will be very thankful for those people.

What is more, the children of those New Zealand First members—the baby-boom generation—will benefit from those migrants paying taxes to keep their superannuation going. Who will pay for the gold card that has been set up? It certainly will not be all those New Zealanders who have left and gone overseas. It will be the migrants coming to this country who are working hard and paying taxes. They will pay for the next generation of New Zealanders to retire under the gold card provisions.

It is pretty rich for a political party to come in here and use the immigration debate as an election campaign tool when it knows that it will benefit from it. It is just using fear tactics in this country to try to get some votes, and that is appalling. The Māori Party has described it as appalling. New Zealand First is against people who do not quite look or sound like what it wants to see. That is not good enough.

The world is changing, and if we cannot adjust to that and be prepared to take in people who do not look the way we look, who do not sound the way we do, and who have different interests, then that is a sad day for New Zealand. We as a country will pay the price for not being able to do that. The countries we compete with have made the choice that they will take in those people. If New Zealand denies those people a future, we deny ourselves a future. The people on the other side of the House who do that will deny this country a future.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I came down to the House to listen to the debate because aspects of it interested me, and I am grateful to the chief Government whip for permitting me to make a brief speech about Part 7, which deals with reviews and appeals. I hope the select committee will have a good look at a number of issues in this part, and I hope there will be some submissions on it.

First, I want to address the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. I think many of the procedures set out in Part 7 are very good. In particular, I think that to establish a tribunal that deals with this area of the law that has proceedings more of an inquisitorial nature than an adversarial nature is appropriate, and, hopefully, will help to secure the expeditious determination of hearings before it. I also think that the constitution of the proposed tribunal is good and that the procedure for determining appeals makes a lot of sense, although the select committee may wish to look at some terminology. For example, it is a bit odd that clause 199 talks about determining appeals in “an orderly and expeditious manner”. The usual formula is “just, speedy and inexpensive”. It is clearly understood that an important task for this tribunal will be to deal with all appeals as quickly as possible.

The procedure for appeals looks reasonably sensible. I also think that appeals from the tribunal look as if they will work well. One provision that I know the select committee will want to look at is clause 222, which sets out special provisions relating to judicial review. It is the first time I have seen a clause like that, and I think it is a very good clause. So often one finds in this area that deportation, for example, is unnecessarily delayed because of judicial review, which seems to go on and on and on. Clause 222 mandates that any such judicial review proceedings must commence within 28 days after the date of the decision unless the High Court directs otherwise, and that imports into judicial review the necessity for speed so that the matter does not drift on. The same applies to clause 223, which provides restrictions on review.

I think the select committee should look at clause 220, which provides that the tribunal may state a case for the High Court, because I think that case-stated procedure is increasingly out of date. Other procedures are more appropriate and up to date, and I do know that an attempt has been made to remove case-stated procedures in legislation, so I do not know why an attempt has been made to bring in that outdated procedure in this bill. When one looks at the structure of the tribunal and the way in which appeals are to be dealt with from a justice point of view, one sees that what this bill proposes is pretty sensible.

But I am concerned, like my friend the co-leader of the Māori Party and also Mr Keith Locke from the Green Party, about some of the provisions concerning classified information. I hope the select committee has a very close look at clause 231(4). Clause 231 sets out the obligations and the powers of the courts and tribunals to protect security in proceedings involving classified information. Subclause (4) states who the persons are who may receive that information. A special advocate may be appointed to assist an organisation or a person who has to front up to one of these tribunals.

I worry from a solicitor-client point of view that in some legislation in this country we see an undermining of the special position of the lawyer representing a defendant. We have seen it, for example, in the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002, which provides that certain information may not be given to the lawyer for the client. We saw it most recently in the criminal justice reform legislation, which states that in certain parole hearings information may not be given to the solicitor for the prisoner. I know of other pieces of legislation where there have been concerns. For example, I know that when we looked at the Evidence Act last year, there were some issues about whether video records could be handed over to the solicitor for the defendant. I have a concern that, once again, we are placing restrictions on what the solicitor for a defendant—in this case, a person who is perhaps subject to a deportation order—may or may not be able to look at. So the role of special advocates and the recognition of special advocates is a very important issue from a justice point of view, which is why I sought to make a brief intervention on it.

I know that the National Party is supporting the bill going to a select committee, but I hope the select committee will take the time and trouble to look at Part 7, which deals with important procedural matters. At the end of the day, procedure is not an aspect of justice; it is essential to justice. Even though it may be something of an imposition, there will be circumstances where the solicitor for a client should be given access to information. It could well be that that information might be provided on special terms and conditions. At the end of the day, solicitors are officers of the court, and accountable to the court if they breach any information that is given to them in conditions of confidence. They can also be subjected to discipline from the New Zealand Law Society. I am just a little concerned about the role of the special advocate, and hope the select committee takes a very good look at it when it comes to Part 7.