Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : It has taken quite some time to come to the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. This is very important legislation that, I know, is very much welcomed across the Chamber. There is a time to be gracious in debate and there is a time to be aggressive with the Opposition. I say on this occasion that this bill has had great bipartisan support throughout its formation, and a lot of the work was done on it under the last Government and previous Ministers of Immigration. I acknowledge the contribution of former Ministers of Immigration Paul Swain, David Cunliffe, and Clayton Cosgrove.

Hon Steve Chadwick: That’s very courteous. That is very good.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Thank you.

Immigration is absolutely vital to New Zealand’s interests. When we look at the contribution it makes to our economy, we see that it is actually right at the centre of everything New Zealand does as “New Zealand Inc.” The Immigration Service makes half a million decisions each year. It makes decisions that bring people into our country with the skills we need that we cannot grow on our own shores. It brings tourists, who bring nearly $9 billion of foreign exchange earnings into this country each year. Immigration is something on which this country was built. So immigration is very much at the core of New Zealand’s economic well-being.

It is very timely that we are having this complete rewrite of the Immigration Act 1987. I acknowledge the contribution of the officials to this process. They have put in a heck of a lot of work over the last 2-something years. It has been trying at times, I know, to get such a massive piece of legislation right. It is a 500-page bill, with 13 parts. The officials have certainly given excellent service in getting the bill together, both to me and to the former Ministers of Immigration. It really has been an extensive work. It has been a well-consulted bill. There have been over 4,000 submissions on the bill. I believe that 90 people appeared in person before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at various stages. I acknowledge the work of the select committee in its report back on this bill.

I have tabled a pretty extensive Supplementary Order Paper. I know that there are Supplementary Order Papers from other members, as well. The Government Supplementary Order Paper covers a number of elements. There are technical amendments, relatively minor in nature. There is an amendment that was recommended by the select committee itself, relating to the ability to cancel deportation orders in certain circumstances. Then there are a number of matters that the Government believes need addressing. This bill has been quite some time in passing through the legislative process. As I said, the first reading was 2 years ago. Time has moved on and we want to make sure that we have an up-to-date and flexible framework for immigration policy. The bill is framework legislation. It does not stipulate the specifics of immigration policy; it sets the playing field within which any given Government can implement its own policies. The idea is that it is flexible and enduring.

One of the main features of the bill is that there will be a universal visa system. It will be a much simpler, more streamlined system to replace the current visa permit and exemption system. There will also be provisions that enable trans-Tasman travel. We are aiming to streamline trans-Tasman travel. The provisions in this bill will allow people to be processed from offshore in a way that we would not have envisaged when the 1987 legislation became law. There is also a new refugee and protection regime. I am sure that we are going to have some discussion about that as the bill progresses through the Committee stage. The establishment of a new single Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a major change that will certainly streamline some of the existing processes and take a lot of bureaucracy out of the process. There is also a new classified information system, which will allow classified information to be taken into account when important decisions regarding whom we want to bring into this country need to be made. Of course, more flexible compliance and information powers will enable immigration officers to do their job.

In conclusion, in immigration legislation we have to balance the national interest against the interests of individuals. Of course, the facilitation aspects of immigration are not dealt with in the legislation. A lot of it is elements of policy and settlement services, so by definition the legislation tends to focus more on the compliance aspects. I think we have come up with some very good changes that I hope the Committee will support. I certainly commend this bill to the Committee.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : I thank the Minister of Immigration for his generous remarks. There is an outbreak of peace that will endure for much of the evening, although not perhaps all of it. The legislation has been well described by the Minister. I endorse his remarks and I do not have to repeat them. That means I might get my introductory remarks made within 5 minutes instead of within 10 minutes—we will see.

Certainly, Labour has been very involved in the legislation, and the Minister was kind enough to acknowledge previous Ministers of Immigration. I think it would be a good idea if we reminded ourselves that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee spent an awful lot of time on the legislation, after Ministers themselves had spent years on it. The current Minister has had it on his desk for many, many months. The Hon Vui Mark Gosche deserves mention, because his contribution as the chairperson of the committee was undoubtedly pivotal. He was a South Auckland MP. He is a man who has a history in the union movement. He understands job substitution. He understands the needs of Pacific Island communities. So he has a very good idea of the balance that the Minister spoke of, and I think he has a clear view that the bill in its current form is in pretty good shape.

Since that time Supplementary Order Paper 32 has been tabled by the Government. It is a biggie. It is bigger than most pieces of legislation to come before this House—there are 106 pages of it. Labour members were granted a copy of it by the Minister, and today we have had an opportunity to have a first cut at it with officials, including some very capable officials. I thank the Minister and his staff for affording us that opportunity. It has increased our understanding of some of the detail.

Frankly, some of the technical detail is above my head, but fortunately it is not above the heads of previous Ministers such as David Cunliffe, Lianne Dalziel in particular, who is a lawyer, and Clayton Cosgrove. We have got ourselves to a point where we are prepared to debate some of the details of the legislation to gain further information to support much of it—in fact, a great deal of it—and to make up our minds on some aspects of it that may require us to suggest alternative wording, or may, indeed, end up with our simply opposing this or that clause.

One issue where we do have an interest and are at variance with the Government is the issue of review. Our considered view is that with legislation of this size—which, after all, replaces legislation that is 22 years old—and of this complexity and breadth, and which has this sort of impact on the individual lives of a number of people who are either visiting or wanting to live in New Zealand, having a review clause might not be such a bad idea. In fact, not reviewing the legislation after a period of time is almost certainly a bad idea. All major legislation that has come to the House in my time, in the last couple of decades almost, has been subject to review either by statutory requirement or by dint of necessity—that is to say, legislation that is as big as this and as complex as this, notwithstanding the scrutiny given to it, will be subject to interpretive differences, either by the court, or by officials who are putting it into place, or by the positive or negative actions of immigration lawyers and immigration consultants.

So it is somewhat dynamic, and therefore review is inevitable. If review is inevitable, why do we not make it a matter of statute? Just as soon as the Labour Party members have worked out which part we want to amend, we will as a matter of course put up a couple of review clauses—and I hope we are supported by other parties—to give the Government a couple of options, to see whether it will buy that.

The case against a review clause is worth noting, and it is that strictures are caused. If the legislation states that a review will take place within this time or within that time, it might turn out that it is not the ideal time. There are ways round that using wording, and I will demonstrate that when I sit down and get my pen out. But I think that officials have an aversion to thinking about a review now; having just spent so many years working on the Immigration Bill in the first place, they do not want some troglodyte coming along and saying “Let’s have a review.” I absolutely understand that from a human perspective, but the truth of the matter is that a review clause simply puts in statute that which is inevitable. One thing it does do is enable the Government of the day to say to the complainant of the day that a review of the legislation is coming up—that, actually, it is a statutory requirement—and the complaint, or the observation, or the concern can be taken into account in that review process. I think the Government should think carefully about that.

So there we are. It is a good bill, with a long gestation, and it is very substantially, but probably not entirely, supported by the Labour Party. We acknowledge the significant number of amendments that have come forward from the Green Party. We may or may not support them. We would like to hear the arguments, especially those from Keith Locke. We acknowledge the contribution of the Māori Party and its amendment to Part 1, and we will hear about that soon. For the moment, I will close by thanking the Minister for the generous use of his time and his officials’ time, reasserting my appreciation of Vui Mark Gosche, and saying that the passage of the bill is to be commended.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am very pleased to speak in the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. It is a significant bill. I was not part of the discussions that took place in the committee during the last term of Parliament. The purpose of this bill is, as the Minister said, to do a complete rewrite of the 1987 Act, and certainly the world has changed dramatically since that time. The world migration flows have changed dramatically, travel is cheaper, it is easier to get around, places are more accessible, and, of course, on the way we have had September 11, which really put the world on notice of security problems at our borders.

Since the 1987 legislation there have been a number of amendments. The old legislation is very complex, and this bill attempts to simplify it. As it is, New Zealand is very much dependent on migration, and each year we bring in 45,000 permanent migrants. In the 2007-08 year we approved a record 188,000 temporary work permits. Over the last 5 years permanent and temporary migrants have accounted for 60 percent of the growth of our workforce, helping to sustain and grow New Zealand business, so migrants do contribute hugely to New Zealand’s economy. Of course, with an ageing population in New Zealand and over 600,000 New Zealanders living offshore, it is not too surprising that one in four workers was born overseas, and in Auckland that figure is even greater at one in three workers.

The bill sets out to simplify the visa system. The 1987 Act currently provides for a visa for travel to New Zealand, a permit for permission to stay in New Zealand, and exemptions, as some people do not have to hold a visa or permit, or both. So this bill establishes a universal visa system that is simpler and more flexible in managing non-citizens’ travel to, and stay in, New Zealand. The visa will signify that the holder has the right to travel or stay in New Zealand. The bill establishes three classes of visa—the resident visa, temporary entry visa, and transit visas.

It is unfortunate that we inherited a dysfunctional Immigration Service, with poor management practices, a silo mentality, and an unacceptable variation in the quality of decision making between branches. That came out with the Auditor-General’s review. I know that our Minister is determined to address these deficiencies and has the department working on implementing the recommendations of the Auditor-General’s report. The chief executive officer has appointed an adviser to assist and monitor the reform.

As an example of changing the culture, a scheme was started in August this year. It has been trialled in the hospitality and tourism sector, whereby Immigration New Zealand must advise applicants, in a timely way, of the status of their temporary work permits. That will go some way to help change the culture. It is a more reactive approach in terms of making sure that permits can be assessed and processed in a more timely way.

This bill will, hopefully, in part, go some way to addressing the National Government’s immigration aims, and they are to retain Kiwis and attract more home. Certainly, policies have been produced by the Government to meet our skill needs and to attract business and retired migrants. There has been a significant business migrant policy, which has become more flexible, with reduced English level requirements, in order to try to attract migrants with significant skills and to provide financial back-up to New Zealand. I am sure we will benefit from that. In the last business migrant policy under the previous Government there were very few applicants. They were in the range of 10 to 20, or thereabouts. Of course we need to have a better Immigration Service, and I believe this bill will go some way towards achieving that.

On the way we had September 11, and what happened then shocked the world. I looked at the recent statistics of migrants and flows coming in and out of New Zealand, before and after September 11, and it was quite astonishing. People virtually stopped in their tracks overnight. New Zealanders came back to New Zealand in their droves, people did not go away from New Zealand on their OEs, and the world basically stood still. It is really recovering only now, but, of course, the recession has also had a further impact on that. This bill looks at security measures and has some more provisions for immigration officers, so that we can make sure that security is maintained.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Immigration Bill is a very big bill; as the Minister of Immigration, Jonathan Coleman, said, there were 4,000 submissions on it. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee spent a lot of time hearing those submissions. I was on that committee as the Green Party representative. Most of those submissions were critical of the bill. In the Committee stage the Green Party will essentially be putting forward amendments that are in line with substantial criticisms that have been made by reputable organisations like Amnesty International, the Human Rights Commission, etc.

It is disappointing that, on such an important bill, we are dealing with the Committee stage, which should really get to the heart of the bill, in urgency, and at a time when a lot of members want to go home, or go off to see the reception for the All Blacks and the Wallabies at Parliament, and what not. It is disappointing because this bill was reported back from the select committee about a year ago, so there does not seem to be any real reason for it to be included in the urgency motion.

The Green Party has four amendments on Part 1, and in my contributions on this part I want to outline the importance of those amendments. The first one amends clause 4(1) as regards the definition of “biometric information”. We propose to exclude iris scans from that definition. The current definition includes “(i) a photograph of all or part of the person’s head or shoulders: (ii) the person’s fingerprints: (iii) an iris scan;”. The Green Party is worried about the creep towards a surveillance society, and part of that creep is the increasing use of biometric identifiers. We see that iris scans, which are starting to come in around the world, are an even more intrusive form of biometric identification. We are not convinced that they are needed for immigration purposes.

In fact, at the select committee there was some criticism on the question of biometrics. For example, the Human Rights Commission in its written submission said: “the Commission is not convinced that there are compelling reasons for requiring biometric data to be collected from everyone who wishes to come to New Zealand. It is concerned that this could set a precedent for the compulsory collection of biometric information in other areas or lead to data being exchanged with other countries.” Then it goes on to say: “there is no indication in the Bill about how the information will be dealt with—for example, how it will be stored or for how long.” There was a lot of discussion on biometric information, which will be dealt with in consideration of Part 2 of the bill. The Privacy Commissioner, who was also a bit worried about this issue, effectively intervened in the discussion in the committee. Some changes were produced as to privacy assessments and when biometric information collecting systems are introduced. We will talk about that later, but I ask members to at least exclude iris scans from the system that is being applied.

The Minister mentioned speeding up travel to Australia. This will involve New Zealanders being photographed and their facial characteristics being compared against the chip in their passport. That is not a particularly wonderful step, but certainly we do not want to go one step beyond that to iris scanning. I think there was a lot of concern among New Zealanders when the United States introduced fingerprinting for everyone going to America, including people in transit. I was fingerprinted in Los Angeles International Airport, where I sat in a transit lounge for an hour. I hopped off an Air New Zealand plane and hopped back on to it an hour later, and in the meantime I was fingerprinted. It gets a bit over the top. Supposedly, from the American point of view, it is part of the war on terror, but it tends to affect ordinary people a bit too much. Biometrics are also being introduced in terms of fingerprints for such things as people getting out library books. We are moving more and more down that track. So I thought that perhaps setting a base here by removing iris scans from the Immigration Bill would help in not letting it spread to the rest of society, with people having to clock in at work using iris scans, etc.

The second amendment to clause 4 of Part 1 that I want to talk about changes the definition of “relevant agency”. These are relevant agencies for the purposes of having classified information for the purposes of immigration processing. Normally when we think of agencies with classified information we think of the Security Intelligence Service, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Police. The Green Party wants the definition to be restricted to those three agencies, as it traditionally has been, rather than adding a whole pile of other agencies. I will read out the other agencies: the Aviation Security Service, the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Department of Labour, Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the New Zealand Defence Force. All of these agencies will now be able to say that particular bits of their information are classified. The chief executives of those organisations will have all sorts of rights—we will discuss them later on in the Committee stage—to withhold information and stop the Immigration and Protection Tribunal from making it public. We do not believe that is necessary, particularly in immigration cases, where we want maximum transparency so that people who are going before the New Zealand Immigration Service, the tribunal, or the Minister are able to properly see the case for or against their staying in or coming to New Zealand. So the nature of this amendment to clause 4 is to cut out all of those other organisations. Eleven of them should not be there; just the Police, the Government Communications Security Bureau, and the Security Intelligence Service should be left.

I think this amendment is important because, as we all know—and we discuss this in Parliament every day—departments like to hide things, for various reasons. Sometimes it is just to avoid embarrassment if they have made a mistake, and that is why we have the Official Information Act to try to get this information out. We spend a lot of time asking questions in Parliament to get out information that people are trying to hide. So why should we give these agencies the right to determine as classified all this stuff relating to individuals with immigration cases? It is also a bit problematic if all of these 11 other agencies become, in effect, mini - police agencies in terms of their classified information, investigatory powers, etc. We are creeping down that path a bit in the Search and Surveillance Bill that is before the House. That bill is creeping down that path in a parallel way. That is the Green Party’s motivation for putting up that particular amendment.

Our next amendment is to clause 5(2)(a). This amendment is supported by Amnesty International. It also relates to classified information. Clause 5(2)(a) expands on the definition of “classified information”, which it says is information that “might lead to the identification, or provide details, of the source of the information, the nature, content, or scope of the information, or the nature or the type of the assistance or operational methods available to the relevant agency;”. I remind members that “relevant agency” covers those 14 agencies, not just the traditional security agencies. Amnesty International suggested—and the Greens support this—that rather than “classified information” being defined as information that “might” lead to a problem, it should be defined as information that “will be likely to”. Otherwise, any chief executive of an agency might say that if he or she discloses a particular bit of information, it “might” lead to something else. It is very vague wording. We have all seen in our work as MPs how agencies chop out all sorts of things from Official Information Act requests, and if we give them too great a scope, saying that something is classified if it “might” lead to a problem, we might not get the information that is required.

The next amendment is to clause 5(3)(a).

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the Committee stage debate of the Immigration Bill. I join the Hon Pete Hodgson in thanking the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, both for his courtesies in his remarks and also for making available the officials’ time to brief us on Supplementary Order Paper 320. I guess this is one of those processes that the public does not see often enough, where there is active cooperation between the parties right around the Chamber. There is a once in a generation nature to this rewrite of the Immigration Bill—let us hope it is only once in a generation. It has passed through the hands of, if I can count, at least five Ministers. It has had the same officials, but five Ministers. So I guess we can fairly say that a great deal of the credit—or the discredit, depending on how it all works out in the end—will be attached to the loyal officials who have worked on it all the way through. It is really humbling for Ministers to realise that we are but a blink in the imagination of the officials who serve us, before they move on to train the next one.

With due humility, let us record that Labour supports this bill. There is one part of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper, in respect of refugee and protection provisions, that we will be opposing. In respect of all other provisions, including the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper, we will be rendering support. That reflects the long process of consideration that this bill has had. To give some due credit to my colleagues, the bill had its gestation right back in about 2003, or 2004, when the Hon Lianne Dalziel put together some ideas for the consideration of the then Minister, Paul Swain, and officials were working from that point on a range of ideas.

Also about that time, to be fair, we should record that there were a number of celebrated cases, or at least celebrated by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, of individuals like a member of Saddam Hussein’s Cabinet who ended up sunning himself on a beach in Tauranga or somewhere. We decided it would be a good idea if we made the border a bit more impregnable. So some of the early drafting around the reform programme put a higher degree of emphasis on the security side of things, and on ensuring that officials and agencies of the State had what they need to do their job on behalf of the public.

It is also probably fair to say that by the time some early versions of the bill had passed through Minister Swain’s hands to my own, there was a need to rebalance it in favour of the protection of civil liberties and human rights, to ensure that we had a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and that we had the general support of the Privacy Commission. All of those things were achieved, which is a credit to the long hours that were put in by officials and office staff; we recognise all of the above today.

It is also timely to recognise the extensive work that was done under my successor Clayton Cosgrove by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chaired by Vui Mark Gosche. My colleague Darien Fenton is one the alumni of that illustrious committee. The bill as it is presented to the House has a 33-page intensively written committee report, which I think adds great value to the bill. It has continued the process of rebalancing from the early focus on ensuring the rigour of the border and that officialdom had the appropriate powers to ensure that private protections were in place.

I will also contextualise the legislation within the broader context of the way that the process of immigration management is changing. A word of warning to Government members: it follows from the fact that immigration Ministers come and go, rather like pass the parcel in a Belfast pub. There is no point in playing politics with the Immigration Service. If we do that, it is a bit like playing politics with the police force; it makes it hard for the officers appointed to defend the interests of the public to do their job, and in the end, we all lose. So we will not be playing politics with this bill or with the state of the Immigration Service, which I know ain’t perfect. It was not perfect before I saw it, it was not perfect when I had it, and it ain’t perfect now. But it is filled by and large with people who get up every day to go and serve the public interest and do their very best. As politicians, we ought not to be taking out on them our frustrations about the complexities of the modern world. That is not to say that if there are particular instances of malpractice, we should not draw that to the public attention.

In that regard, the Immigration Bill before us today was part of a broader immigration change programme that had three layers, and I imagine the Minister is still addressing himself to all three. To quickly recall those layers, they are the policy and strategy layer, the legislative layer, and the operational layer. There have been some surprises at the operational end of things that we do not need to dwell on today, but I say to the Minister that there is also a fair degree of bipartisan support for the ongoing improvement to both the policy and the operations that provide the context for this bill, in the area, for example, of the services, information technology systems, and its processing operations.

That is enough of a quick walk down memory lane. The key changes we will be discussing in the Committee stage relate to the purpose of the bill. It is to provide a stronger, more flexible, and enduring foundation for a modern immigration system. It aims to facilitate the entry of the people we want, and to ensure that we can keep out the people we really do not want. It is the sovereign right of any nation to make that choice. Immigration is not a right; it is a gift that is bestowed on the person seeking to enter a country, and it is the responsibility of the Crown to offer that gift appropriately, with good process, with appropriate protections for human rights, but with the national interest in mind. Whatever side of the Chamber we are on, it means that there will be people we say no to. We will say no to them because they do not meet the standards we require in terms of raising the average, because they do not fall into a designated humanitarian category, or because they carry with them risks to our international reputation or, God forbid, security. It is the sovereign right of any nation to turn people away and to welcome them in. If we do welcome them in, we carry with us the responsibility to ensure that they are properly integrated into our society, that there is room in our schools for their children, even if sometimes—I will put in a particular plug for the Pacific community—the immigration status of their parents is in question; we ought not to block the access of those children to school. It is not their fault that there may be a question about their parents’ immigration status. I will be bringing that up again later.

There is a valid purpose for this bill to provide both the safeguards that the State needs to carry out those roles, and the protections that must continue to ensure that they are not abused. In any complex organisation, in any Government agency, there is the potential, as my Green colleague has said, for mistakes, etc. For that reason, we have updates to technology-driven matters like biometric processing; access and management of classified information; a more transparent and equitable deportation system that will also be faster, but more balanced; better detention and monitoring; and more appropriate incentives for third parties to comply. We will have time to discuss each of those issues as we go through the debate. These are contextual comments. I thank the Minister again for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I will follow on from the comments made by members of this House in regard to the Immigration Bill. This is a once-in-a-generation rewrite of the immigration legislation. One will find there is common cause amongst members of this Parliament and past Parliaments to ensure that we get it right to the extent that is possible. We see a great deal of support across the parties in the Chamber to make sure we have the best bill going forward. As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which looked at this bill—and there are some Labour members here that were on that committee—I would like to pay tribute to Mark Gosche who did a tremendous job of leading this bill through the committee, and also to the now Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith, who lead the National charge in regard to the bill. He had a huge impact on how the bill was treated during the committee’s deliberation. Those two individuals need to be singled out for special mention and support.

I congratulate the current Minister of Immigration, Dr Jonathan Coleman, on getting this bill to the stage where it has come before the Committee. That is a tribute to his hard work. As the previous speaker said, many Ministers have endeavoured to get the bill to this stage, but have not had that kind of success. I say well done to the Minister, and well done to the officials who have spent many years progressing this legislation.

It is important that New Zealanders understand that this is the Immigration Bill, but it is only a procedural bill. When we talk about immigration, many New Zealanders think of who can come into New Zealand. They think of the people who come into our country on a yearly basis. This bill does not deal with that issue, as such. The nature of who comes into New Zealand is outside of this legislation. This bill sets the procedures of how our immigration system works. When New Zealanders hear us talking about the Immigration Bill, they actually think it sets out how many people come into our country each year, who those people are, and what their country of origin is. The reality is that the public perceptions of what immigration is about are quite different from what we are talking about here tonight. This bill is about the structure of how our immigration system operates. It is about some of our border issues. It is about the nature of the review process and our visa system. It is much more about the procedural aspect of immigration than the practical aspect that individuals in our community will identify with when we talk about immigration.

I think National and Labour will come together on this bill, because the parties have a common approach to immigration, in that we see the benefit of it for our communities and our country. The Green Party will probably provide the most different point of view on the legislation. The Greens did that in the select committee. Although it may not necessarily be in the best interests of New Zealand to follow what the Green Party is proposing, it is an important part of the process of coming to the conclusions we do in this bill to have that voice advocated in the committee and in the Chamber. Its view may not reflect the end result that would be practical for New Zealand, but it is something that adds value to the final result we get. I encourage Keith to stand up and say what he thinks. I know that he will be representing some people who made some submissions in regard to this bill—

Hon David Cunliffe: Go easy!

DAVID BENNETT: Yes, well, even though that idealism may not reflect what a country would endeavour to do in practical terms, it may well have a value in theoretical terms. We congratulate the Green Party on putting its view forward.

We will see a good bill come out of this session. It will be a bill that sets up a procedure going forward for New Zealand immigration that will be in the best interests of all New Zealanders. It is one of those things where we never get a final result that is perfect. It is a bit like the tax bill that we have just debated. It is an area that is so big and that has so much complexity that we cannot cover it all off in one bill, and think it will be done for ever and a day. It is something that will develop and will change over time. We look forward to this bill progressing.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei pō. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, ko tāku ko te whakairi i te āhuatanga o te kōrero mō te Tiriti o Waitangi ki mua i te aroaro o tēnei Whare i tēnei pō mō te wā poto i roto i te reo Māori, kia taea ai e te katoa o tēnei Whare te mōhio ko te hōhonutanga o tēnei kaupapa ki tēnei Whare. Ko te tangata nāna tēnei wāhanga o te Pāti Māori i whakairi ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata, ko taku hoa ko Hone Harawira. Ko tōna hiahia me kī, kia whakairi tē tāhūhū kōrero i raro i te āhuatanga o te Tiriti o Waitangi. He aha te pānga o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te haerenga mai o te tangata i tāwāhi ki konei, he aha te wāhanga o te ao Māori ki tērā haerenga mai o tangata kē ki Aotearoa nei.

Ko te mea nui o roto i te Tiriti o Waitangi, tētahi mea i kōrerohia i roto i te pire o Tāmaki-makau-rau, kia whai wāhi te ao Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o te motu nei. Nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i te mea ko te Tiriti o Waitangi, he kōrero i wānangahia e te ao Māori, e te ao Pākehā i ngā rau tau kua hipa hai painga mō te katoa. Koinei te tino hiahia i puta i roto i te pire mō Tāmaki-makau-rau. Kai te pērā tonu i tēnei wā mō tēnei pire. Kai hea te wāhanga o te ao Māori ā-tangata whenua nei i roto i ngā ture o tēnei Whare Pāremata? Nō reira, koi nei te mihi ki a tātau katoa i tēnei pō. Kia ora tātau.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, and to us all this afternoon, Mr Chair. My part, by way of explanation, is to put the case of the Treaty of Waitangi before the House this afternoon, and to speak in Māori for a brief period so that everyone will have a deeper understanding of it in this Parliament. My colleague Hone Harawira was responsible for this part from the Māori Party that was put before the Parliament. He wanted to ensure that there would be references to the Treaty of Waitangi in terms of its relevance to immigrants coming here, and the impact Māoridom would have on people coming to New Zealand from elsewhere.

The most important factor in the Treaty of Waitangi, something that was debated in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill, was Māoridom’s participation in local government in this country. Why is that? It is because the Treaty of Waitangi has been talked about and debated over the past 100 years by Māori and Pākehā as being beneficial for all. This is really what was wanted to come out of the Auckland Council bill. That is the feeling at the moment about this bill. Where is the place for the Māori people of the country in the laws of this House of Parliament? So this is my acknowledgment to us all this afternoon. Greetings to us all .]

As I mentioned in te reo Māori, I rise to speak on behalf of my colleague Hone Harawira, who has put before the Committee Supplementary Order Paper 18 for it to consider. At its heart is our belief that a reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi should be added to the Immigration Bill to enable Māori to have a statutory right of participation in the management of immigration, consistent with the rights guaranteed to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. I made reference to the Auckland situation, because one of the things that people find hard to understand in any discussion about Te Tiriti o Waitangi is its practical implications: what the drop-down effects are of having Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a part of legislation. We know that in the health sector, for example, people talk about participation, they talk about protection, and they talk about partnership. In terms of this Immigration Bill we hope that participation, in terms of setting the rules, and partnership, in terms of coming together with others—not by ourselves—to be able to set the scene in respect of immigration are important aspects. We have framed that under the terms of a Treaty of Waitangi clause; in other words, the legislation is to be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.

In debating other immigration bills we have talked about references made by Dr Ranginui Walker, a very famous writer in Aotearoa. He described the Treaty of Waitangi as the original charter for immigration. He referred to the Treaty as providing the source for all migration to Aotearoa from Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom. He referred to the fact that Te Tiriti o Waitangi guaranteed a developing social contract: a partnership of the two cultures. At its very core were expectations that Māori, as a Treaty partner, should be consulted on every aspect concerning migrants who wished to reside here. In the past we have put up Supplementary Order Papers to try to find that space, whether it be through establishing a consultative body over immigration policy or by being actively involved by way of providing education programmes.

Tangata whenua understand the intentions of the Treaty signatories in 1840; we believe that they were very clear. There was recognition by both parties to the Treaty that immigration was having a significant impact on the land and on Māori culture. We believe also that the architects of the Treaty knew that what the Treaty represented would establish a precedent in terms of how the British Empire recognised the culture, the rights, the traditions, and the way of life of indigenous peoples against the arrival of immigrants and the onslaught of immigration. So, in terms of immigration, we expect that all new citizens to Aotearoa should be able to learn about the history of this land and to appreciate the context that we all share arising from Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We want every New Zealander to appreciate the opportunities that Te Tiriti o Waitangi offers to us all in a shared future.

We are focused in this bill on ensuring the provision of immigration advice that reflects the significance that this nation places on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I am mindful too, of course, that in the confidence and supply arrangement that we enjoy with National, both parties have agreed to act in accordance with Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In terms of what we are facing right now, I say we have a confidence and supply arrangement that acknowledges Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We are soon to have an emissions trading scheme arrangement come before the House, as discussed by the Minister today, that holds Te Tiriti o Waitangi out there as an important document, especially around the huge issue of emissions trading and climate change. Here in this bill the Māori Party is again attempting to put the whole notion of the Treaty before the Committee by way of a small but significant Supplementary Order Paper that we think, and hope, the rest of the Committee will find is appropriate under the circumstances.

I suppose the discussion is really aimed at the Minister of Immigration, as he ushers through this particular bill. Indeed, having set the precedent, we will be looking to try to again have Te Tiriti o Waitangi in front of all legislation as it comes to the House. The key will be our working together on the drop-down effects and the practical implications of similar legislation, but, more important, on the impact of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We would expect that as Treaty partners Māori should be consulted on every aspect concerning migrants who wish to reside here. Surely one would accept that that is an appropriate reaction on the part of tangata whenua, just as much as our expectation that we should have seats on the Auckland Council. We would expect a partnership approach, in which tangata whenua, in the spirit of manaakitanga—of looking after each other as fellow countrymen and women—and in a demonstration of rangatiratanga, can develop systems of whānau, hapū, and iwi to help immigrants and refugees to adjust to life in Aotearoa when they arrive here. It must be a huge adjustment for many of them.

Nothing in the bill serves to provide incentives for whānau, hapū, and iwi to produce economic, social, cultural, and environmental benefits from pooling their skills, knowledge, talent, and experience with those of new New Zealanders. I suppose that is one of the downsides of the bill. So Supplementary Order Paper 18, which we have put forward today, is intended to give Māori a statutory right of participation in the management of immigration. We say that was and is consistent with the rights guaranteed to Māori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi—the Treaty of Waitangi—and we would hope, as I said earlier, that we have widespread support from across the Committee for the intention of my colleague Hone Harawira and the Māori Party to put Te Tiriti o Waitangi constantly in front of the nation. Kia ora tātou.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Thanks for the opportunity to say a few words on the Immigration Bill, which I am very pleased to see is progressing through the House. I will comment on the contribution made by Te Ururoa Flavell for the Māori Party and his colleague Hone Harawira, but I will do so in the context of recognising that this bill completely changes the format of the previous legislation, particularly in the area of having established the purpose clause. Given that Hone Harawira’s amendment would add another clause to the purpose clause, I will comment on the fact that we are looking to replace legislation that described itself as “An Act generally to reform the law relating to immigration, and in particular to remove the need for persons who are in New Zealand unlawfully to be dealt with by way of criminal prosecution”. That is rather an unfortunate way to describe such a fundamental piece of law.

We have now a purpose statement that traverses a number of different issues, right through from the purpose being “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest, as determined by the Crown, and the rights of individuals.”, to looking at the way that that purpose is achieved. A number of provisions are placed in the purpose clause, such as requiring non - New Zealand citizens to hold a visa to travel and to stay in New Zealand, facilitating access to skills and labour, supporting families, allowing for the management of the immigration aspects of border control, and the list goes on. Personally my favourite is to have finally recognised in our law that we are supporting “the settlement of migrants, refugees, and protected persons.” as a statement of purpose in the legislation. I think that is a huge advance, and it is something that I have certainly been looking forward to see written into our law for a considerable length of time.

I acknowledge what the member Hone Harawira is trying to achieve by moving an amendment to add a new clause 3A in order to make the legislation consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, but I will go back over time and explain an approach that I adopted when I was the Minister of Immigration and had the privilege of holding that portfolio. I felt that it was really important that before we started developing this new law—because this law has been in the development stage for a very long time—we consulted with Māori about what their expectations might be of a new Immigration Act, so we started a consultation process. The very first consultation we had was a complete and utter disaster, and I can stand here and say that I accept full responsibility for that. The main reason was that I attended that initial consultation, having invited people whom I felt ought to be in the room for such a consultation, and I discovered that, in fact, there was not a unified view from those around the table. Ranginui Walker was one of the people in the room, and he certainly made that very fine and sound statement that if we were looking for our original statement of immigration policy, then we need look no further than the Treaty of Waitangi.

It was a very powerful meeting. I remember having a very interesting engagement with several of the individuals there, and I learnt a lot from that particular occasion. I learnt that the Crown could not call together a group of people and say that it had consulted with Māori about which way was the right way to go. I started a process of going around individual iwi and talking to iwi—listening more than talking, to be honest—to find out what people wanted out of an Immigration Act rewrite. What I started to hear, because it was a job that I left incomplete, was that people wanted to see people making the decision to migrate to New Zealand being tied up with an understanding of the country they were migrating to. Therefore, an understanding of the Treaty need not be an administrative function for Māori within New Zealand, but a knowledge base to be shared with new migrants to this country.

A number of Māori made the point to me that under our citizenship laws there needs to be an understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and of the relationship that we have in New Zealand, yet that is not in our immigration law. My answer to the question that is posed quite justifiably by the member is that this is not the right place for this clause. In my view, it is better that the immigration legislation remains silent on the matter, but that the conditions against which immigration status—and residence status, in particular—is granted should be more inclusive of the objectives of the Treaty and the understanding around that. Certainly, in terms of establishing the immigration programme on an ongoing basis, consultation with Māori is not dependent on having a Treaty clause in the document. In many respects I am arguing against myself, because I tend to have a view that it is useful to have consultation obligations written into legislation, but a clause that simply asks for: “The interpretation and administration of this Act will be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi.” does not, in my view, get to the heart of the issue. The issue is that the people who choose to make New Zealand their home need to have a good understanding of the nature of the Treaty, which establishes one of the very foundations of our nation.

That is my view and it was part of a consultation that I had started, but it was incomplete, as I said. I certainly would encourage the Government of the day to think about continuing that conversation, because it was a very, very worthwhile process. It certainly opened up my eyes to a lot of issues that I would have been completely unaware of otherwise.

The only other comment that I will make on Part 1 is in relation to a clause that I had some concerns about, and the Minister has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the particular provision. I had some concerns about the new clause 5C, which had been moved by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from another part of the bill. I think that the problem that arose with the wording that was framed in the clause was that the use of the new phrase “while liable for deportation” had not really been picked up with its new meaning. Simply taking the provisions of the previous law straight out of the current Immigration Act and inserting those as the new clause 5C(1) resolves the problem with the clause that I had raised, and I am very grateful to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, for resolving that issue. I know that a couple of my other colleagues have commented on the issue of how well we have been served in terms of preparing for this debate, and I too acknowledge the Minister for making officials available to work through these issues with us. I appreciate that very much, and I am sure that the bill will be stronger for it.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : The Immigration Bill is a very substantial piece of work. Clearly, a lot of effort has gone into it. I was not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which dealt with it, and when I look at the size of the task I must say that I am not sorry about that. The select committee is to be commended for its attention to detail and for the very solid and cooperative work that it has put into this bill. I also acknowledge the role of a number of Ministers of Immigration, because it has clearly passed through several sets of ministerial hands to reach the point where it is at now, although I believe that the current Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, deserves a lot of credit.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

ALLAN PEACHEY: When we broke for the welcome dinner break I had just been commenting that the Immigration Bill is very substantial and complex legislation, which has been worked on by a lot of people for a long time. I reiterate my congratulations to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; I was not a member of the committee during its deliberations. It clearly did a very good job, as did several Ministers from both the current and previous Governments. I reiterate my compliments to the present Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, for the fine job that he has done in getting this bill to the Committee.

When legislation is as far-reaching and, as I have said, as complex as this bill, it is very, very important that Parliament gets it right. That takes time, and it takes attention to detail. The time has gone into this bill; so has the attention to detail. As the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, said, this is once-in-a-generation legislation. It is worth getting it right.

Addressing specifically Part 1, I say the bill contains a statement of purpose. In summary, the purpose is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest, as determined by the Crown, and the rights of individuals.” As a previous Labour speaker has commented, every nation has the sovereign right to control who comes across its borders. It is not a right to live in a country; it is a privilege. But it is important to get the balance right between the two, and it is my view that this bill does that. The primary objective of reforming the legislation is to establish a stronger, more flexible, and more durable legislative foundation for New Zealand’s immigration system. The objective is to facilitate entry into New Zealand, and to enable people to stay in New Zealand who are of the types that New Zealand wants and needs.

H V Ross Robertson: Come on, a bit of passion, Allan! I know it’s been a long day, but come on!

ALLAN PEACHEY: Is Mr Robertson not enjoying this speech?

H V Ross Robertson: I want a bit of passion.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Well, we decided on this side of the Chamber that on the last evening of urgency we would tone down some of the hard truths that we have had to say about the Labour Party and the previous Government. If the member would like to take a call himself and have a crack at me, I would welcome that. It might get me motivated to take another call later in the evening.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: If you do that, we’ll ask Aaron Gilmore to take a call.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Ha, ha! The business of the Government is far more serious than this, surely. I guess one of the privileges of being in Opposition is that members do not have to take anything very seriously, because they are not responsible for anything.

In fact, given the intention of this bill to set up a strong, more flexible, and enduring legislative foundation for New Zealand’s immigration policy, it is important that there is as high a degree of cooperation across the floor of the Chamber among all parties as can be achieved. New Zealand needs to control who crosses its borders; it needs to control who is allowed to stay. Immigration is a very, very important part of the fabric of what makes up New Zealand, and of where many New Zealanders came from. So immigration needs to be managed in a fair and balanced way: a way that balances the interests of the Crown with the interests of the individual. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I want to give an explanation of my amendment to clause 5(3)(a) of the Immigration Bill. I think it relates to what the previous speaker, Allan Peachey, was talking about: sure, we control who comes across our borders, but we have to do so in a very fair way. The Green Party is concerned, as were various submitters, that the definition of “security” as it relates to withholding information deemed to be classified was too loose. My amendment takes out a piece of it. That is, instead of information being determined as classified if it is likely “(a) to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of New Zealand;”, my amendment seeks to omit “or the international relations of New Zealand;” because it is so vague. As the Human Rights Commission said in its submission, “Apart from the implications of using classified information in a wide range of immigration matters, relying on concerns about the potential effect on New Zealand’s international reputation is problematic. Decisions about what amounts to a significant impact on a country’s reputation can be subjective. In the United Kingdom they have been described as ‘makeweight’ and held not to justify detention without trial in the absence of other reasons:”. The Auckland District Law Society said that the current definition, which includes the phrase “significant impact on New Zealand’s international reputation”, is considered too wide and incapable of sufficiently precise definition.

I think members can see that in this Chamber we debate what is in the best interests of New Zealand’s international relations. We have big disagreements on that matter. For example, at the moment I am looking at the ways in which the leader of the World Uyghur Congress, Rebiya Kadeer, could come to New Zealand and explain the cause of her people. If members look at that and how it will affect New Zealand’s international relations, they will see that it will improve our relations with the Uyghur people, it will improve our relations with the Tibetan people, it will improve our relations with the democrats of China, and it will improve our relations with democratic-minded people throughout the world, but it will not necessarily improve our relations in the short term with the Chinese Government, which is suppressing the Uyghur people as we speak.

One can look at international relations in the short term or the long term. It may be that there is some penalty for New Zealand from the Chinese Government if we allow Rebiya Kadeer to come to New Zealand, but if we give encouragement to the democratic forces of China, that will carry on to other issues, such as the fact that the Chinese Government at the moment is aiding Bainimarama in Fiji. If we have a more democratic China that might not be the case; it would help everyone. So it would be much better not to have vague terminology in that clause. Let us say that Rebiya Kadeer applies for a visa. We do not allow her to come in, and the information explaining why we are denying her the visa is classified because it would affect the international relations of New Zealand. That is not the democratic path to go down. It would be much better to support my amendment and take that particular definition out of the bill.

It is quite clear that Governments try to keep things under wraps as much as possible; I know that in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee a lot of the documents we are provided by the ministry have bits chopped out. I think that often the ministry chops them out because those bits may embarrass other Governments. Sometimes there is a good reason for it. Other times it is because the ministry does not want to engage in more public diplomacy, and everything is done behind closed doors, and not very effectively. Effects on international relations are matters that are debated in this Parliament, and debated across the community, and people should not be denied visas to come into the country under the cover of classified information. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am very pleased to take a call on the Immigration Bill. I want to let members know that I will be relying on very fine former Ministers of Immigration to look at the detail of the bill, but I was on the select committee—

Keith Locke: Which one?

DARIEN FENTON: All three of them, actually. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chaired by the Hon Vui Mark Gosche. I was on the select committee with David Bennett, who has now taken over the chairing, and is not doing a bad job. He aspires to be like Mark Gosche, but he has not quite got there yet.

Hon Member: You’ve gone soft.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, that is true. I also recognise the officials in the House tonight. We got to know each other rather well, I think, over the very long period that we considered this bill.

As other speakers have said, Labour supports the bill. We will consider the amendments, because it is a large and difficult bill, and it deals with some very tricky issues. We have to remember when we debate this bill that those on the receiving end of it are real human beings. It will affect people’s lives. During the select committee process, I found some of the issues quite difficult to grapple with. There were things like detention—locking people up—classified information, and special advocates. On the surface, those things seem pretty harsh. But the thing that I primarily learnt in my time considering the bill is that immigration, by its very nature, is discriminatory. There is not a Human Rights Commission aspect to it, where one can say that one group of people should not be treated differently from another, because of human rights legislation. We reserve the right to decide who can live and work in New Zealand, and I support that. I must say also that I support the “Kiwis first” policy when it comes to jobs. But I support our doing that in a humane and compassionate way. We have international obligations. We have an international reputation. We are a country of migrants, and we all have stories in our families about those who came here hoping for a better life.

I want to address the purpose clause, and, in particular, clause 3(2)(b)(i), which is about “contributing to the New Zealand workforce through facilitating access to skills and labour;”. The bill was drafted, debated, and referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in very different times from today. It was a time of high employment and of growth, and New Zealand was relying on skilled migrants to fill the gaps in our workforce that we could not fill ourselves. Of course, that has now changed, but during those few years many migrants came here on a promise that they could start a new life here. They thought New Zealand was a good choice. We went out and encouraged them to come here, and we said they would be welcome here. As I said, things have changed dramatically since then, because of the recession.

I want to reflect on one particular group of migrant workers who are facing difficulty at the moment. Over the past few weeks, telecommunications workers have been locked in lawful dispute with a contractor called Visionstream over that company’s determination to force those workers into “take it or leave it” owner-operator contracts. About 100 migrant workers are affected by that, mainly from the Philippines, but from other countries as well—South Africa, Fiji, India, and others. Many of them live in the North Shore area that I work in, and, indeed, where the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, works. It is a shocking position that they find themselves in. Some of them left their homes and jobs with the biggest telecommunications employer in the Philippines, and they came here at our invitation, believing that New Zealand was a great choice. We advertised on the Web that it was a wonderful place to come. We needed them, and they were encouraged to come here. We needed them to do the job, because we did not have skilled workers here to do that work. Actually, we still do not. But the workers in that group who are on work permits are in no-man’s land. They have no choice about accepting the owner-operator model, because their permits do not allow it. They cannot swap from being on work permits over to the business migrant category—they just cannot.

Visionstream has indicated, as I understand it, that it would employ the migrant workers, but only on fixed-term contracts. I am told that Immigration New Zealand has said that is not acceptable. I know they are still waiting to hear, and I know that the Minister of Immigration has said that he is keeping a watching brief on it, and I hope that is right. Even the Hon John Carter, the member for Northland, said to those workers when they came to see him that they should not sign that contract because it is such a bad one. So they wait.

Another group within that group of migrant workers managed to get through the work-to-residence requirements and are now New Zealand residents. They have been made redundant. They have been given 4 weeks’ notice with no redundancy pay, nothing. They are not entitled to any assistance—nothing—until they have been here for 2 years. I understand those rules, but the point is that a major New Zealand company is using its power to force its workforce into less pay and poorer conditions. Those migrant workers, who came here with hope, whom we invited here, who have skills we need, and whom we needed at the time, are being thrown on the scrap-heap.

I wanted to address the purpose of the bill, but I also want to ask the Minister to do what he can to intervene for those workers. It is a terrible situation. It is not something that any of us feels good about. It is bad for those workers and their families, but it is also bad for New Zealand. It is bad for our reputation. We will need those workers when the economy picks up. We will need migrants, I am told, to look after us when we all grow old. Apparently we will need lots of migrants, so we will have to do a lot better when it comes to how we treat migrant workers. They do have rights; they have rights under our international obligations. But they have rights under New Zealand law, as well. I do not want migrant workers whom we have invited here being put at the top of the list of people we are going to get rid of first. That is happening, as well. They have rights and we need to enforce them. We need to make sure that this particular group of workers are looked after and that we do something about them. I implore the Minister to intervene; otherwise, how would we ever get skilled migrant workers to come here? Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : I think I remarked earlier that there is a 33-page commentary from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. The member who has just resumed her seat, Darien Fenton MP, was a valued member of that committee. It is a very short summary of a very extensive set of work that the select committee undertook. How short? It does not even mention that the committee changed the purpose clause just a bit—just a bit! When I look at the old clause 3, I see that it had about 8 lines. The new clause 3, which is the subject of this part of the debate, has about 40 lines.

I will take members through some of the changes that have been made to the purpose clause, but before I do I echo the sentiments that have been raised by my colleague and friend Darien Fenton. It is of great concern to us to see immigration once more in the political frame associated with an industrial dispute. There is a long-held bipartisan consensus around the principle that jobs ought to be for New Zealanders first, and that immigration can play a valuable role filling the gaps—especially the skill gaps—when they arise. Any suggestion—as has from time to time been raised in the context of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, and now is being raised in the telecommunications sector—that employers might be deliberately letting workers go in order to lower costs, and filling their positions with fixed-term migrant workers, is not in the long-term interests of the Minister in the chair’s colleague, Mr Joyce, who wants to get broadband rolled out, and it is also not in the interests of New Zealand. We are just putting a little flag down around the Visionstream dispute. Hopefully it will all work out; hopefully the workers’ terms and conditions will be revised and peace will break out. That is a little marker of warning.

It is probably also worth mentioning in the context of the purpose clause that it is good for everybody if there is a steady and balanced stream of net positive migration into New Zealand. We have a birth rate slightly less than two. We want to grow and develop as a country. We appreciate the skills that people bring in. We have skill gaps to fill. A predictable and steady rate of net inwards migration is a good idea. Under the previous Government it tended to average about 10,000 to 15,000 persons net per annum, and already in the life of this Government we have seen the good old National Government rollercoaster starting up again. Immigration dropped to 3,000 per annum, and it is currently running at—the Minister of Immigration will be able to confirm it—about 3,500 per month net positive. So we are back up towards 30,000 inwards per annum.

Here is a prediction; members might call me a soothsayer. Given 2 years of that rate of immigration, Winston Peters will rise from the crypt to rally the country against migrants. That is not good for New Zealand, and it is not good for migrant New Zealanders. Maybe he will start in Epsom; I do not know. I want to see every individual human being who comes into this country treated on his or her own merits; a system of infrastructure, including schooling and health care, that can cope with the flow; and that we do not knock the housing market through the roof and force Alan Bollard to—I almost said Don Brash; that was an echo from the past. Of course, he is now gainfully employed tilting the Government to the right, but that is another story. Anyway, we need predictable migration flows in line with the purpose clause, which states that we need to get a balance between the needs of the country for skills and protection for individual rights.

I hear members ask with bated breath how the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee amended the purpose clause. Why was the purpose clause expanded from eight lines to 38?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It was all the hard work of the select committee.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: And what a magnificent select committee it was! Let me read out a few of the excellent additions to the purpose clause; it will be a long night. Labour members are here for the duration on this bill, because the flights out of here have already left.

John Boscawen: Not all of them. There’s a 9 o’clock.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There’s a night one?

John Boscawen: You can still make the 9 o’clock.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: In the member’s dreams! It is Thursday night, so he should bring his sleeping bag. He will be here tomorrow and Saturday because Labour members love this bill and we want to give it the attention it deserves.

Darien Fenton: Look how big it is!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is a big bill, and I am only on clause 3. In particular I am on lines 8 to 35, and I warn you, Mr Chairman, that I may need a second call.

The purpose of the Act, of course, is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest, as determined by the Crown, and the rights of individuals.” That wording is a slight modification from previously. The original clause 3 stated that the purpose of the Act is “to manage immigration, through balancing the rights of the individual and the national interest …”. The reformulated clause 3(2) states: “To achieve this purpose, the Act establishes an immigration system that—”, and then it is spelt out in a whole lot more detail. It “requires persons who are not New Zealand citizens to hold a visa to travel to, and to be granted entry permission to stay in, New Zealand;”. That is an important clause, because, of course, we no longer have visas and permits. Rationality has broken out. It took me about 6 months as Minister of Immigration to work out what the difference was, and now there is no difference, because they are all called visas. This will help the next 15 Ministers that the fine officials have to train, because it will be that much quicker for the new ones.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It didn’t take me 6 months to work it out.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well, this is my opportunity to record for posterity that, in my humble opinion, the Hon Lianne Dalziel—I apologise to the current Minister—was the best Minister of Immigration New Zealand has ever seen. I honestly believe that. She was visionary, she was great on the detail, and she brought a lawyer’s mind to the portfolio. I think she was a fantastic Minister, and some of the core principles of this bill go right back to her time as Minister. I say to Lianne that it was a pleasure to learn from her. I will always believe that. But that is enough love in this Chamber.

Clause 3(2)(b) states that the immigration system “provides for the development of immigration instructions for visas that enable people to stay in New Zealand to meet objectives determined by the Minister, which may include objectives such as—(i) contributing to the New Zealand workforce through facilitating access to skills and labour; and (ii) supporting families;”. It was very important that the select committee brought families into the clause. They have been elevated both there and, I believe, later on in the purpose clause where it talks about supporting “the settlement of migrants, refugees, and protected persons.” for reunification purposes. Clearly, families are more important in the reformulated purpose clause.

A number of paragraphs in clause 3(2)—paragraphs (c), (d), and (e)—start to talk about the role of officials. The immigration system “(c) allows for the management of the immigration aspects of border control … (d) provides a process for recognising and ensuring compliance with … international obligations; and (e) includes mechanisms to ensure that those who engage with the immigration system to meet its requirements to gather information … (ii) allow for deportation … (f) establishes a specialist tribunal …”, etc. Those paragraphs remind us that inherent in the purpose of the rewrite is to more tightly specify the powers and ambit of officials. I invite the Minister to take a call and explain to the Committee how, in his mind, he has approached the delicate job of balancing the responsibilities of officials with the required limits on official power. With that, I think it is appropriate to invite the Minister to take the next call.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I was saying over the dinner break that I was not going to take any more calls on the Immigration Bill—and perhaps the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, will respond to Mr Cunliffe’s earlier comments. But I was moved to take a call, and I suppose it is to make a plea to the Minister. Not long ago—in fact, about 5 minutes ago—I went next door for a short period of time, because my darling wife had said there was a discussion on television that I might be interested in. She said the mayor of Whanganui was on television—a Mr Mark Laws. Is that him?

Hon Members: Michael.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Michael Laws.

Hon Member: Whatever you want to call him is fine.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Yes, whatever we want to call him. I am sorry; I mispronounced his name. Ken Mair, a good friend of mine, a radical activist from former days, was also on the programme.

That discussion stirred the blood a bit. I started to wonder why it is that when we start to mention words like “the Treaty” and “Māori rights”, that when we start to fly flags like this one, and that when we start to talk about terms like tino rangatiratanga, for some reason that polarises the country. It seems to put people in the “Yeah, I’m with you.” line or the “No, I hate your guts.” line. Tonight I saw on television a person who is so wound up that he is telling the whole country that Whanganui has its own culture, which has nothing to do with Māoridom. He says the culture has developed over X number of years, and the Māori perspective, the Māori tīkanga, the word “Whanganui”—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Come back to the bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —I am getting there, Mr Chairman—have no part to play in this country.

I suppose, to bring my comments back to this bill, this is why I listened to the discussion from the Hon Lianne Dalziel about the place that a Treaty clause might have in this bill. OK, we might not accept the placing of it, but I suppose I am looking to the Minister in the chair and saying to him that if the parties do not accept where the clause should be or the clause itself, I hope we can accept the sentiment behind it. That sentiment is about, I suppose, opening the door on the current issues we face as a country about allowing a space for Māoridom in there somewhere. I listened to the discussion, as I said, from the Hon Lianne Dalziel, and I understood what she was talking about. If Supplementary Order Paper 18 in the name of Hone Harawira is voted down, so be it, but I would really hope that thought is given, in the practical implementation of this bill, to finding that space. I would hate to think that the mayor of Whanganui considers that his—I mean, he said at the end of his comments: “I will fight this with every breath in my body.”, or something like that. That, hopefully, will not—oh, I had better not go there. I suppose it is a sad indictment on our society that we can have that sort of disregard for the place of Māoridom in our country.

That is the point I wanted to make, really. I ask the Minister and his officials to give some consideration, as this bill is passed, to finding that space in the discussion. I would hate to think that just because people happen to put up a flag, wear a T-shirt, or believe that their language and culture are very important to them, other people disregard them. I would hate to think that that is the way our country is heading. I hope it is not, and I hope the Minister will help in placing the practical drop-down effects of our new clause 3A on Supplementary Order Paper 18, if it fails, so it can still find a place in the bill somewhere. I leave that as a thought for us tonight. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : I want to take a short call, firstly, to address Te Ururoa Flavell’s point about the Māori Party’s Supplementary Order Paper. I reiterate David’s Bennett’s earlier point about this bill being framework legislation. It deals with factors that enable immigration policy. To be honest, when I read Supplementary Order Paper 18, I was not exactly sure what it meant. I can fully appreciate the member’s sentiment that Māori should be consulted on immigration policy and on long-term discussions about what the New Zealand population might look like in the future. I certainly think that tangata whenua have a place in New Zealand that needs to be preserved, and that they need to be part of that discussion. I would not want the member to think that because we are voting against that Supplementary Order Paper, we do not recognise the rights of tangata whenua to have a major say in what we do in immigration in the long term. Certainly for Māori Party members, as our coalition partner, my door is literally open to them to come in and talk about these issues. I think we should have a discussion about that.

I think there might be some misunderstanding about what we are trying to achieve in this bill. This is just a framework within which successive Governments can implement their policies in years to come. I appreciate that there probably is a point Te Ururoa Flavell is making, and I am sure he appreciates the point I have made, but he wants the Supplementary Order Paper tabled to make the broader point. I want to reassure the member about that.

I will address some of the points that the Green member Mr Locke made about why this bill is being put through under urgency. Well, there are a couple of reasons. Let us look at the history of this bill. The first reading was 2 years ago, and there were years of consultation before that. It has taken a lot of effort to get it to the Committee stage now, so we have to seize this opportunity. But more than that, it will take about 18 months to implement the operational changes that will be required as a result of this legislation. When we look at how the clock is ticking, we can see we have to get this bill through the House as soon as possible in the national interest. When we look at what we have coming up in 2011, we have an event that is of major significance to New Zealand and 18 months of operational changes. If we do not get this bill passed by October, we will really compromise the national interest. That is the reason. There is nothing sinister about it. Immigration New Zealand will have to make a lot of changes; information technology systems will have to be frozen for a period. It will have some major implications for the service. So let me reassure the member about that.

The member asked about iris scanning and why that should be included, and he suggested that the biometric face recognition and the ten finger and thumbprints should be adequate. One of the points is that we are part of a wider ring, if you like, of Western World security. If other nations are to have confidence in New Zealand’s contribution to that security and in the integrity of our borders, we have to keep in touch and up to speed with what those other nations are doing. If we are the only country within the broad grouping of countries that we are generally aligned with in terms of trade and general foreign interests that they cannot rely on to be strong enough to ensure the integrity of our borders, that is not in the national interest. So we have to keep pace with Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US. It is the way the world is moving. At the end of the day, I think New Zealanders would generally accept that modern world security considerations necessitate this type of measure, and they would certainly prefer that to some of the possible consequences.

The member asked why chief executives of a wide range of Government departments and agencies were able to deem information as classified. If he looks at that list he read out, he will see that all those agencies are related in some way to national security; they are not a random collection. It has been thought through very carefully, and we felt that we needed a wider spread of agencies than those three or four that the member defined. I want to clarify the position on that.

In terms of the Labour Party’s Supplementary Order Paper regarding a review clause, Pete Hodgson has put in a couple of options. One of the points to make is that if we are to review this legislation, there are major time commitments and expenditure involved—up to $1 million for one of those options. We will be practical about this legislation. If things are not working, we will change them. But it has taken so long to get to this particular point that we do not feel it will be a good use of officials’ time or parliamentary time to put in a review clause committing Parliament and the Public Service to a whole lot of expenditure and use of resources in a relatively short period from now. I think the purpose of the bill has been well canvassed. Part 1 has been very well canvassed as well, and it is good to see some common sentiment across the Chamber on this bill.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 18 in the name of Hone Harawira to Part 1 be agreed to.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Immigration Bill. As I did not have the opportunity to speak on Part 1, I begin by congratulating the officials and the various Ministers who have worked on the bill to this point, and also those hard-working members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, of which I am one. Of course, as I was not here in the previous parliamentary term I did not face the dubious challenge of wading through the several thousand submissions I am sure the committee received on the Immigration Bill.

I will not pretend that I know terribly much about the bill, but I want to make a few comments in relation to Part 2. However, I will preface that by talking a little about the purpose clause. This is reforming legislation to establish a stronger, more flexible, and more enduring legislative foundation, as we know. But really, this legislation is about managing risk. It is the risk that the wrong types of people, micro-organisms, or pathogens will enter this country and put its people and its biosecurity at risk. Once here, the risk also is that those people will be here for the wrong duration, or for a different purpose from that for which their visas were extended. It is also worth recognising that the technologies have changed quite a bit, not only since the Immigration Act 1987 was implemented, but also, I am quite sure, since this process started in 2004. It has been a long time in gestation.

The issue in Part 2 is the ability of the immigration authorities to use biomedical and automated systems for identifying people—for example, iris scans. We heard the Green Party member Keith Locke express his serious disquiet about those technologies and the way they could be used or misused. Indeed, the Green Party mentioned those concerns in its minority view. I think it is worth reflecting on technology generally, and the way in which society has introduced it, whether it is fingerprint technologies introduced many, many years ago or DNA testing for criminal inquiries and genetic identification. These new technologies carry with them legitimate and sometimes significant concerns about the way in which they could be used or misused. I think that is the concern that the Green Party and perhaps some others have, so I am pleased to see that the bill contains protections around the use of that information, and in particular the department’s responsibility to complete a privacy impact assessment and to identify the potential effects that the use of this information may have on personal privacy.

It is another matter altogether whether in practice those processes and protections are strong enough. I think from a legislative perspective, having looked at Part 2 and realising the risks to the country, the bill as laid out provides very adequate protection. I am sure it will be incumbent on the Minister—and I have every confidence that he will do this—to ensure that those technologies are used appropriately. I certainly wish the Minister all the best in that endeavour. Obviously the country wants an Immigration Service that is of world standard, and that has the best technologies and the best processes. I do not think we can say that that has been the case in recent years, for reasons that are well documented and do not need to be gone into again. I think we need to back our Immigration Service and give it the tools and the technologies it needs to improve that performance. These sorts of biometric tools are definitely part of that.

The other area of Part 2 that I want to touch on briefly is the issue of classified information. This is another area where the Green Party has some concerns. But, again, it comes back to that fundamental risk management strategy. The risks in this area are exceeded by the benefits. I think that we need to measure those clauses in that context. Yes, there are concerns in terms of natural justice and the issues of equity when we are considering the risk assessment of certain immigrants, but I think on balance the need to keep certain information classified is well understood, and I support it. That is all I want to say about Part 2; I commend that part.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Part 2 of the Immigration Bill has some interesting features to it, but, first of all, I just want to make a couple of points. A point that I did not make before is that I am struggling with the new language: to go from having “visa” and “permit” to just “visa”, and from “removal” and “deportation” to just “deportation”, is a struggle. I will hopefully get over that by the time the law takes effect.

I want to address two things in this part. The Minister of Immigration has picked up one with the officials. Clause 7(1A) does not quite match section 3 of the Immigration Act. I asked him to address that, and he has done so by way of a typescript amendment. It appeared as if we were required as New Zealand citizens to establish our right to be in New Zealand. I have no problem with us establishing our right to enter New Zealand, but I do have a problem with New Zealand citizens having to prove that they have a right to be in New Zealand. We will vote on that amendment later.

The second issue is a little bit more vexed. Immigration consultants, lawyers, and others will struggle with the loss of section 35A and its replacement by way of clause 52, which is in Part 3. I am not going into Part 3, but I found a little part of the old section 35A tucked away in Part 2. It is clause 14. When clause 14 stands alone it does not make a lot of sense. It states: “No person who is unlawfully in New Zealand may apply for a visa and, where any such person purports to apply for a visa, it is a matter for the absolute discretion of the Minister.” That clause was tucked away in section 35A(2), and it said that nothing “confers on any person the right to apply to the Minister for a permit, and where any person who purports to apply for a permit under this section,—(a) The Minister is under no obligation to consider the application;”. But that is in the context of an obligation to hold a permit. I have a little difficulty with clause 14 being separated from the rest of the old section 35A, which we will all lovingly come to know as section 52 at some later point in time. We will get used to calling it section 52.

I do not raise these things because I am trying to be cute about anything; the bottom line is that these things are fundamentally important to people who are in our country illegally. There are a lot of them at any one time. I have heard the Minister comment about the transitional policy, as it was known in 2000, which was exactly the same as the transitional policy that the Rt Hon Bill Birch organised when he was Minister of Immigration some 10 years before me. He said that not many people—6,000 or 7,000—took advantage of the transitional policy to work their way through to residence. In actual fact, a significant number of others did not show up in that figure but actually used section 35A. We had sanctuary days where people could come forward knowing that the Immigration Service would not uplift them and put them on a plane there and then. The service was able to look through their circumstances and say that if the only thing standing in the way of those people applying for residence—which on all other fronts they appeared to qualify for—was their unlawful status, then there was no reason not to put them on a temporary permit so that they could at least test their eligibility for residence under normal policy.

That process was used extremely effectively. I would not even try to guess how many people got residence that way, but I suggest that it would at least double the number of people that gained residence through the transitional policy. When I was responsible for making discretionary decisions as Minister of Immigration, as I was for the first 2½ years in that position, I used to run that test by the cases that came to me if there was nothing standing in the way bar the unlawful status. Unless there was something dreadfully wrong about the circumstances of their remaining in New Zealand, I would put them on a temporary permit and let them test their status against normal policy. I do not think that was against New Zealand’s interest at all; I certainly commend it to the Minister.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am very pleased to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Bill, which is actually quite a substantial part. It covers the core provisions and matters in relation to decision making. The Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 32 makes changes to the original bill that impact on Part 2, and I want to talk about those in particular. One of the changes to Part 2 concerns the legislative ability to use biometrics. That is really all about keeping up with technology. I certainly doubt whether biometrics was a commonly used term in 1987 when the Immigration Act 1987 was passed. Biometrics involves the measurement of physical characteristics of a person for use in verifying his or her identity. Biometric information uniquely distinguishes one person from another, and can be used to confirm an individual’s identity. Common forms of this sort of information include photographs and fingerprints, which we use commonly. Other internationally acceptable forms of biometrics are iris scans and voice recognition. I am pretty sure that in 1987 iris scans and voice recognition were probably the stuff of sci-fi movies, and certainly not common practice.

The use of biometrics in New Zealand’s security system will only enhance security and help protect against identity fraud. Biometric identity information is increasingly being used in other countries, and is regarded as essential to modern immigration and border systems. Traditional, paper-based identity documents have become inadequate to manage identity fraud, and we are all very familiar with the cases that have been in our own media of people whose identities have been stolen, and the absolute anguish that they have had to suffer trying to prove their own identity. It is tragic.

People are very much aware now that huge personal damage can be caused by identity fraud, and that it can be quite time consuming to prove. The feeling is that biometrics will help improve the integrity of the immigration system in terms of confirmation in immigration decision-making, providing greater assurance in identity fraud, detecting non-citizens posing risks to New Zealand, allowing for processing immigration applications more quickly and effectively, facilitating the processing of arrivals at the border and New Zealand citizens, and taking advantage of technology to automate the current face-to-passport check that is a standard aspect of current border processing. Biometric identity information is increasingly being used in comparable countries such as Australia, Canada, and the United States, and is regarded as an essential modern immigration tool.

This bill, as far as its legislative ability to use biometrics goes, enables the future collection and use of specified biometric information for identity verification purposes, including collection, storage, and use of photographs, fingerprints, and iris scans of foreign nationals to verify their identity and check their character; use of photographs of New Zealand citizens to verify their identity and confirm their citizenship; and the ability to share biometric information nationally and internationally in certain circumstances, which are being proposed by way of the Supplementary Order Paper before us today.

The changes to the biometric provisions will ensure New Zealand has up-to-date and internationally comparable measures to address immigration and identity fraud. This Supplementary Order Paper and Part 2 are all about taking part in the modern technology that is in front of us, and making sure that we can make use of that technology going forward, so that we have the ability to keep up.

Also in Part 2 are clauses that relate to a new classified information system with special safeguards. This bill enables classified information to be used in immigration, and in refugee and protection decision-making, with special safeguards. It can be used only when the Minister of Immigration agrees, and the information relates to security or criminal conduct. The special safeguards to the classified information system are included to balance the right of the Government to use all available information to choose who may travel to, enter, and stay in New Zealand, and the rights of foreign nationals. Classified information obviously has to be used very carefully, and to date has been very rarely used. It is used only when there are very special circumstances.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I will provide an explanation of my amendment to clause 30, which is a clause dealing with the use of classified information in decision making. The amendment particularly seeks to delete subclause (2) of that clause, which relates to refugee and protection decision-making claims. There is good backing for my amendment, because internationally the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees very strongly states that classified information should not be used in that way. In fact, in a discussion paper during the earlier review period for the Immigration Act changes the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, under point 21 of its paper, said “As acknowledged in the discussion paper, refugee/protection decision-making is different from standard immigration decision-making. Accordingly, UNHCR urges the Government of New Zealand to maintain the status-quo and not adopt practices that allow asylum claims to be determined and rejected on the basis of classified information. Classified information should not be used unless declassified and shared with all parties concerned. In UNHCR’s view, such a practice would be at variance with international standards of best practice.”

Amnesty International backs that up. It says in its paper: “AINZ therefore concurs with the UNHCR recommendation to maintain the status quo and that classified information should not be used unless it is disclosed to the claimant and open to challenge. As it stands, clause 30 could see asylum-seekers disadvantaged by denying them natural justice, and is contrary to the practice in similar jurisdictions, including Canada, The UK, and Australia.” Amnesty International seeks the removal of the clause 30 extension to asylum seekers.

So there is good backing for my Supplementary Order Paper, and the reason is a very practical one, too. A lot of false information about asylum seekers comes into the hands of Immigration New Zealand and the hands of appeal bodies. It comes in because asylum seekers come from situations of conflict, situations of repression, and situations where the Government of their country is not particularly keen on them, because they are very often dissidents or religious minorities. Because of that, incorrect prejudicial information comes through the system, and lands in New Zealand. Also, because asylum seekers often come from politically or religiously divided countries, the communities here spread rumours. One group could be against another group because it reflects political or religious difference from their home country, so false information about these people is fed into the system.

Sometimes even more democratic allies of the countries where the asylum seekers come from spread false information. We can look just at the Ahmed Zaoui case, where the French Government explicitly supported the military dictatorship in Algeria. So it was in the French Government’s interest to spread false information about Ahmed Zaoui, who was a democratic opponent of the military dictatorship in Algeria. That is what came through the system, and that is what caused a whole lot of problems in the system—this democrat was subject to false information by not only the military dictatorship in Algeria but also its democratic allies in Europe. So I think it is important to support my amendment.

There are a number of improvements in this part, some of them relating to the questions I have just talked about. For instance, one of the improvements is to make sure that when classified information is provided, it is provided in a balanced way, so that it contains not only the negative information about someone but also the positive information. In the Zaoui case, right at the end of the process, after years and years, the SIS admitted that it did have quite a bit of positive information as well as the negative stuff that came from overseas. That information was put on the table and it was one of the reasons the security risk certificate was taken off him.

I will briefly indicate a couple of other positive developments. The committee did a good job on bringing about these positive developments. One of the things that has been mentioned already is bringing in the Privacy Commissioner and adopting a whole procedure of privacy orders when biometric systems are being brought into the immigration processing system. That was a progressive change. Also there was improvement in clause 32, where the protection of classified information did not limit the application of the Ombudsmen Act, the Official Information Act, and the Privacy Act. That was a good step forward, so the committee did quite a good job in bringing in a number of improvements—although not sufficient, in terms of the overall context of the bill—to meet with the Green Party’s support.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : I need just a 60-second call, I think, to conclude Labour’s contribution to Part 2. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on ensuring that we have a fix in Supplementary Order Paper 32 as it affects school children who are the children of people who might be here unlawfully. Clause 14A states that if one is here unlawfully one cannot work or study, and now there is a Supplementary Order Paper stating that that provision applies unless one is a pupil in primary or secondary school, and that is great.

It is a matter of fact that in the term of our Government, when this law was not in place, we were having to do this by Cabinet directive. It may even be the case that the incoming Cabinet was perhaps not as aware of it and did not maintain pressure on officials, because there seem to have been many instances of kids who were not going to school when they should have been going to school—and they were not going to school only because they were the children of parents who were here unlawfully and had therefore been damaged.

It does not fix the problem entirely because, of course, the mum or dad still may not want to send their kids to school and have the school know their home address. But it does mean, as I understand it, that those children can go to school free of charge, just as an exchange student can come from France to New Zealand and attend school free of charge. To the extent that that is the case, well and good, and, in any case, the immigration impediment is now gone, and the Government should be congratulated.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : In response to Pete Hodgson’s comments, yes, this situation was drawn to my attention through the whole Gerrard Ōtimi saga, which highlighted the plight of overstayers. It became apparent that we had hundreds of overstayer children, many of them in South Auckland, who were literally just not going to school. We do not want to say that there is a clear path, through overstaying, to gain residence in New Zealand, but neither do we want children penalised by their parents’ actions. What this effectively does is allow the Minister of Education to allow these children to go to school while their parents’ immigration status is being sorted out. So we are not saying: “Well, look, overstayers, your children can go to school indefinitely, don’t worry about normalising your immigration status.” I think, though, I agree that it is an improvement on the situation we had before.

In terms of Lianne Dalziel’s point about the immigration amnesty, I think the point about amnesties is that they send the wrong signals. They send a signal that it is a path to residency, and I think it penalises people who follow the set procedure and comply with—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I wasn’t advocating one; I was advocating sanctuary days.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Effectively, the point I am making is that with the amnesty the Government gave around 2001, over 18 months the number of overstayers—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: And the amnesty National gave in 1992.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not blaming the last Government, but I am talking about the general concept of amnesties for overstayers. Eighteen months after the 2001 amnesty the numbers of overstayers had actually risen again, so it does not seem that the concept works in decreasing overstaying rates overall. I think the educational side is far more effective. Over time, including during the period under that member’s Government, the numbers of overstayers have come down and we want to continue the trend.

I think we have canvassed the use of biometrics. The other point on Part 2 that I will make and that we have not touched on yet is that there is a provision here to allow immigration information to be shared across Government agencies to ensure that people who are not entitled, by dint of not having the correct immigration status, are not able to access free public services, whether those are health and disability services, or some of the benefits that Work and Income offers. The Supplementary Order Paper is far more specific about the types of information that various services can ask to access from Immigration New Zealand. There is provision for biometric information to be shared in the future. At the moment law enforcement agencies do not have the technology to analyse biometric information, but no doubt as technology increases and becomes more sophisticated that may happen in the future. I think this is an important safeguard of public services for the people who are entitled to them. The broader points about biometrics have been well canvassed, and it is good to see once again a broad consensus across the Chamber on this part.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 2, and the following amendment in his name to clause 7, be agreed to:

to omit from subclause (1A) “and be in”.

• Amendments agreed to.
• The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Mr Locke, I have bad news for you. The Clerk advises that the Minister’s amendments to clause 30 have been agreed to. Now that we have passed those, your amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 to clause 30 is inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee. Therefore your amendment is out of order.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I will take what I trust will be a relatively short call on Part 3 of the Immigration Bill. Part 3 is another very substantial part of this bill. It establishes a universal visa system. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did quite a bit of work around this area, and recommended a number of minor and technical amendments. As a result of that work, Part 3 has a greater clarity about it and reads in a more logical fashion.

The National Government certainly supports a simpler visa system. The single term “visa” will replace the terms currently used in the Immigration Act 1987: “visa”, “permit”, and “exemption”. Instead, the term “visa” will be the only term used, and there will be three types of visa: residence class, temporary entry class, and transit. As I have said, the purpose of this change is to simplify things. The bill establishes a universal visa system that maintains flexibility in managing people’s travel into New Zealand and their time while in New Zealand. The bill gets rid of the old distinctions so we will no longer talk about visas, permits, and exemptions. It uses the one term to refer to the authority to travel to, to enter, and to stay in New Zealand.

A universal visa system means that all foreign nationals require a visa to be in New Zealand. Visas can be granted, or they can be deemed to have been granted. That is to maintain flexibility in managing risk and the range of unique circumstances under which a foreign national may enter New Zealand. I am interested to note that, for example, a visa may be deemed to be granted when a foreign national enters New Zealand territory in Antarctica. This is because he or she may travel directly to Antarctica from another country, rather than through New Zealand.

The bill introduces a new concept in allowing interim visas to be granted for the purpose of maintaining a foreign national’s lawful status in New Zealand where he or she has applied for a further visa and his or her application is under consideration. That is fair, reasonable, and proper. It is a positive change that should benefit foreign nationals who wish to extend their stay in New Zealand. I commend Part 3 to the Committee.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Part 3 of the Immigration Bill contains the clause that will become known as section 52. That section replaces section 35A of the Immigration Act, which we all are used to today. Of course, every member of this House, particularly constituency MPs who have undertaken constituency casework in the immigration area, will know that this is the section under which cases are taken to the Minister of Immigration. Often it is the absolute last resort as somebody desperately tries to have his or her issues addressed.

I do not want anyone to think that section 35A and the new section 52 are actually all about the most gut-wrenching of circumstances. I got into a taxi the other day, and I had ordered the taxi using just my first name. The taxi driver picked me up from Parliament, and when I got into the taxi he said: “It’s Lianne Dalziel, isn’t it?”. I said yes, and then he said that I was the reason that his mother-in-law is allowed to live in this country. It was so nice. This was really important because there had been a change in policy, and we said that when we changed the policy we would allow a little more discretion, a little more flexibility, and a slightly more humanitarian approach over that transitional period. That is what we did for his mother-in-law. It was not part of an amnesty or transitional policy in that respect; she really did qualify under the previous policy, but she missed out under the new policy. For the sake of the family, who were well-settled in New Zealand, we made a decision to intervene.

Another case was recently brought to my attention by my sister. She spoke at a conference in a different city from the one where I live. My sister said that she had been picked up at the airport, and that the woman who had picked her up had not realised that she was my sister until right at the very end of the presentation. My sister, who is a very clever presenter on issues of privacy, actually said to the audience—and I am getting a bit sick of it really—“I suppose you have all been wondering. No, she is not my mother.” She continues to say that, but I tell her that as she gets older she will not be able to say it any more. But this woman just froze, and after everyone had gone, as she was taking my sister away, she burst into tears and hugged her. She said that I had saved her life. The reason she said that was that I had allowed her to come to New Zealand when she was at high risk of consequences from a severely violent domestic relationship in another country. She did not qualify under our strict criteria, but under this provision—section 35A; the new section 52, as it will become known—we allowed her to stay. That is the importance of this clause.

The reason I got up to speak on this part is that I think it is really important that we think very carefully about how this discretion is exercised. It must be exercised without fear or favour. There are National MPs in this House who know that I exercise that discretion without fear or favour. I recall that one of the very first phone calls I got after I became Minister of Immigration in 1999 was from Tony Ryall. He said he had had contact with people from Zimbabwe who were really concerned about their ability to get to New Zealand. They had relatives here. They could not buy a ticket home because they were not really going to go home, and they asked whether there was something we could do about it. I took that to Cabinet straight away, we intervened, and we created a special policy that enabled a group of people to come to New Zealand. Thank goodness we did! If we look at the consequences of what happened to those who remained, we will see that we did a very good thing. That was an approach from a National Party member. I think it is always important to remember that we are all members of Parliament representing our constituencies, and those constituents must be treated without fear or favour.

I will not go through the particular examples of the cases where I have felt it has been a bit disappointing of late in terms of the intervention. But if we do not hold on to that principle, then we will lose it. I think it is very important that Ministers are able to look at the very human side of immigration, which are circumstances that we ourselves would not think could possibly happen to us.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I will follow on from the two speeches that have been made on Part 3 of the Immigration Bill. The first speech, made by Allan Peachey, was a very good explanation of what is happening in this part. Basically we are replacing a series of visas with a much more simplistic system whereby people have a common visa. There are some differences for people who come into the country under limited visas, but essentially the bill replaces the present complex system with something a lot simpler and easier to manage.

I think Lianne Dalziel made some very good points. All members of this House will have engaged in the activity of assisting their constituents through the immigration process. For constituent MPs, especially in an urban constituency, that is probably the bulk of our work. In my constituency about 70 percent of my work is on immigration-related issues. We are constantly doing that work. Immigration is one of the few areas where there are discretions. If people do not pay their taxes, there is not a lot we can do. But if someone wants to stay in New Zealand, we have the ability to advocate on that person’s behalf to the Minister or to the Department of Labour. I must admit that during the term I have been in this House, both Labour and National have been very good to deal with in respect of immigration cases, and we expect that to continue in the future so that constituent MPs can represent their people and assist them in areas of concern to them.

I think this visa process goes to a fundamental question. We have a problem in immigration in New Zealand in that we do not specify to people who come into New Zealand what holding a temporary visa actually means. When people enter New Zealand on a work permit or a visitor’s visa, it is a temporary visa. There is no way of looking at it other than that: it is a temporary visa. If someone comes in under a residency programme, the system is different. Once a lot of migrants and a lot of people who come to New Zealand as visitors or on a work permit get settled here, they forget that they came in on a temporary visa and have an expectation that they will be able to stay here. Their children have been born here, their children are attending school here, and they have built up family connections. They have friends, a community has been built around them, and they have a work environment. They have made New Zealand their home. It normally takes a couple of years to do that, and they do not then realise that they entered New Zealand on a temporary visa. They are the people who come to our offices and say that they have sons or daughters born here, and they have worked for 3 or 4 years in New Zealand industries when we have wanted them to. They ask what the story is, and say that they need to be able to stay in New Zealand. That situation has been going on for many, many years.

The crucial point is that we need to educate people, when they come to the border, on what their visa status actually is. People need to understand what a temporary visa is, in comparison with a long-term visa, leading to residency. That is a major part of the way that people live their lives while they are here. If they do not understand that difference, they can easily forget their entry point and then have an unrealistic expectation when compared with the original visa they entered New Zealand on. I think the approach taken here will assist in that education process. We need to engage in education so that people do not have unrealistic expectations, and so that they have a sense of certainty about their status. There is nothing worse for people living in a country that they have made their home than to find that they do not have the status they thought they had. That is the situation that we are confronted with time and time again as constituent members of Parliament.

I think this is an important aspect of the bill, both from the policy that it represents and also from the need to educate people who come into New Zealand so that we give the right signals and people can understand the journey that can come with being a New Zealand resident and then a New Zealand citizen. I commend this bill to the House.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : It has been quite useful to listen to the tales from Lianne Dalziel and others on the immigration cases that come before us. I think one thing that humanises all members of Parliament is that each of us has immigration cases. We all have to show our real compassion when dealing with those cases, and, when making our submissions on them, we have to try to get the Associate Minister of Immigration to show that compassion.

I think that in the case of clause 52, which has been referred to by other speakers, it is very useful to take into account the many varied circumstances that people and families find themselves in. Unfortunately that seems to be a little countered from another direction in the New Zealand Immigration Service, and that is through the immigration profiling group, which seems to go to great lengths holding up a lot of quite valid cases for temporary visas or other visas. Although it is very good to have this provision on exceptional circumstances in clause 52, it really should not be up to the Minister to correct so many wrong decisions of the New Zealand Immigration Service.

The other type of visa I would like to talk about a little bit, and which is included in Part 3, is the transit visa. I think New Zealand has got a bit carried away with transit visa procedures over the last little while, and that is upsetting many people, particularly in the Indian community. There are a whole range of countries, particularly richer countries, whose citizens have visa-free entry to New Zealand and therefore can arrive and just come in.

Transit through New Zealand does not create a problem if someone is coming from Europe and stopping off in New Zealand before they go off to Niue, Fiji, or wherever. But it is a particular problem for people from some other countries such as India, where people now have to trot down to the high commission in New Delhi or wherever to get a transit visa just to be able to sit for one hour in a lounge at Auckland Airport, having come in on a plane that happens to stop in Auckland on its way to Niue, Cook Islands, or wherever it might be. It is just bureaucratic madness, really. There might be a very slight security ground for it, but I think we must have a balanced system of procedures and must not exaggerate threats. So the procedures for transit visas are creating a problem.

In respect of temporary visas, it is true that often people do not understand quite what a temporary visa is. But, that being said, I think that about 180,000 people are here on work visas, and only a smaller proportion of them are on work-to-residence visas. A lot of those people have their whole family with them. They have come over here to try to start a new life, and they think their skills are needed here. When they have employment they have a future ahead of them; then all of a sudden there is a bit of a recession, they get laid off, and—bang—they are kicked out.

I think the Government and the Minister should put in place systems to cater for the recession so that people can have extensions, particularly people who have been here for a while on work visas. That is another side of our compassion, and it has a practical use too, because when there is a bit of an upturn, all of a sudden we turn around and say: “We need these skilled people. Where are they? Oh, they’ve disappeared overseas; we kicked them out.” Working out ways to allow more skilled people to stay here is quite useful. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will follow up on the comment that David Bennett made, which flows on exactly from the point that Keith Locke was making. People are told to apply for temporary visas to come here to look for the job that they know will lead them to residence. They are told that in the London branch of Immigration New Zealand; they are told that in various offices around the world. David Bennett can shake his head all he likes; I know that people are told to do that. It is very simple for somebody who does not need to apply for a visa: they can come here for 3 months visa free and they can apply for an extension when they get here. A lot of people come to New Zealand on a temporary visa on their journey to residence, and it is a perfectly legitimate way to use the policy to get here.

The second thing is that there are people in this country at the moment who are working on a work-to-residence permit. If they are made redundant, they are given up to 3 months by Immigration, depending on which office they deal with. If they do not find an equivalent job—they have to get a job that meets the points they have claimed under their expression of interest—then basically they are told to go. That is the story that was on the front page of the Press. I tell this Chamber that that story on the front page of the Press cost us big time as far as skilled migrants coming to New Zealand from the UK is concerned. That is exactly the point that Keith Locked made.

When we hit a recession we have to have a mechanism for just seeing us through. Quite frankly, letting people who are on that direct route to residence have an open work permit until the recession is over would be a much better idea. They would not be able to apply for benefits, so if they could not find a way of looking after themselves in the meantime, they would go of their own accord. But they will not be front-page news because Immigration has told them they have to go. People have failed to cotton on to that point as far as this recession goes. We will need those skills again, yet we are telling those people that we will flick them even if they are on a route to residence. We will flick them if they do not meet the criteria after being made redundant in these circumstances. Jim Anderton and I have written to the Minister of Immigration about that point. We want to talk to him about it. I hope that he sees this as an opportunity to test the bona fides of what we want to do. We want to do it for our country. We think New Zealand’s reputation will be on the line if we continue to have those stories in our media. They are reported on the other side of the world instantaneously, as the Minister knows, and it is costing us big time reputationally.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 3 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am so pleased to be able to speak to Part 4 of the Immigration Bill, and to speak only positively about advanced passenger processing. I was the Minister of Immigration when we introduced advanced passenger processing, and it was a very proud moment in my life. Extending the border offshore is certainly something that is of significant benefit. But it does raises privacy issues.

I will share a recollection I have of a privacy seminar that I spoke at, a short while after we had moved to introduce this measure. Justice Michael Kirby was speaking at the seminar as well; in fact, he was opening it. It was a very interesting debate, because he raised the question of the vast quantities of information held by airlines. It was a significant privacy issue, given that the information was in the hands of private organisations, and some State-owned organisations. Huge amounts of information are held by these carriers. The point he was making, though, was whether it was an appropriate digression from normal principles of privacy to allow those vast quantities of information to be brought together. His view was that there was a difference with the airlines bringing people into Australia or New Zealand—those were the examples that he was using. In neither Australia nor New Zealand does one have to produce an ID card just to be walking down the street. There are countries in the world where one has to produce an ID card if asked to do so. In New Zealand and Australia, something that we actually value about living here is that we do not have to have ID cards. He said that for us to be part of a process that enables us to know who is coming here, who they are, where they have come from, and why they are coming here, that is perfectly acceptable. I think that goes a considerable way to meeting a lot of the concerns that people have about information that is being held by carriers.

I think it is important that we can shift the border offshore, because we can manage a lot of the concerns we have as a small isolated island State and a lot of the risk around our borders. We are subject to some of the concerns that overseas countries have to deal with on an hourly basis, although in New Zealand it is on a daily basis, a weekly basis, or a monthly basis. So I am very supportive of this part of the bill.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : We are getting into the detail of the Immigration Bill, and Part 4 is very much a process part of the bill. As the previous speaker mentioned—quite glowingly, I think, given her being the person who thought of it—this part also relates to the processes around advanced passenger processing.

I come back to the comment that the member for Dunedin North made about Part 1, particularly around the issue of review, because it is relevant to Part 4 in the context of the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister of Immigration has brought forward. In fact, Mr Hodgson tabled an amendment for a review of this bill within 2 years, or alternatively 4 years. That amendment probably had members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee shivering in their boots when they thought about the fact that this bill has taken nearly 5 years to get to the Committee stage. I completely understand what the member was trying to do, but certainly a review in 2 years’ time would not be anything like as comprehensive as the making of this legislation. The member agreed that there were other ways to do it.

One way, I think, is to future-proof the legislation to enable those sorts of changes to be effected as opportunities and technologies come about. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper in relation to pre-screening and the trans-Tasman agreement that has been reached between Kevin Rudd and the Prime Minister is a very good example of the sort of future-proofing that we can do. We have here an amendment that will enable the processing of passengers before they get on to the plane from a biosecurity and a passport control perspective, and that will certainly speed up the process at the point of embarkation. I think that is a really good example of not waiting for a review to make that change, but also of future-proofing, because the provision does not just apply to a trans-Tasman service; it is written in a way that could apply to any international inbound service to or from New Zealand, albeit it would probably be most effective in a point-to-point transfer, and if a stop-off was required in transit in the Middle East or South-east Asia the system might be a little less effective. Nevertheless, we have future-proofed this part.

I also want to mention again biometric testing. Whereas in Part 2 we had the power of the Immigration Service to require biometric testing, we now have, in Part 4, an obligation on the passenger to supply that information. The same sorts of risks and onuses both on the passenger and on the Immigration Service remain, and I do not think it is worth relitigating that. But I acknowledge that this is another part where the obligation now falls on the passenger. We are into the business end of the bill and I certainly commend Part 4.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : Although there are benefits from Advance Passenger Processing overseas, there are also downsides from that, and those have been identified by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission in their submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. I have an amendment to clause 89 to try to correct that situation.

Both the Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International say clause 89 may infringe article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which every person has the right to seek asylum. That is from the Amnesty International submission, and the Human Rights Commission’s submission is very similar in that respect. Clause 89 could also infringe New Zealand’s adherence to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, because it is out of the spirit of that convention to prevent asylum seekers from hopping on a plane to come to New Zealand to claim asylum, particularly, perhaps, when they are coming from a rather repressive country. I think New Zealand has flights arriving from Dubai and Shanghai—places with repressive Governments. There may be asylum seekers from those countries, and under clause 89 of the bill the aircraft carriers are supposed to deny those asylum seekers the right to get on a plane if they do not have fully effective documentation.

I have set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in my name an amendment to rectify that by adding to clause 89(1) the following paragraph: “(e) that the carrier or person or person in charge of any craft cannot be held responsible under subsection (1)(a) if the passenger is to claim asylum in New Zealand under the Refugee Convention 1951.” This amendment makes it clear that if someone comes off a plane in Auckland from Dubai or Beijing and claims asylum, then the carrier does not have any responsibility for that. It is important to put that provision into the legislation. Otherwise we are violating, as I said, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and our adherence to the 1951 convention.

Already the number of people who are claiming asylum at the border has gone down to virtually single figures, I think, and that is partly because of the Advance Passenger Processing system. We are already lucky, in that we are at the end of the chain in terms of the desire of people to claim asylum here, compared with, say, countries in Europe. We should not put additional legal barriers in the way of asylum seekers. It is a very important part of having a compassionate society that we should be open to people who come here to seek asylum. We cannot glory in having such a dramatic drop in the number of applications that we are receiving; that is not the mark of the humanitarian society that we should be.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I will take a short call on Part 4, which concerns arrivals and departures. This is not a contentious area at all. It does not deviate too much from the original 1987 Act.

I will make some comments about advance passenger identification. I think that is obviously a very important way that we can screen arrivals in New Zealand. I have had a tour of Auckland International Airport, and I was able to look at the very sophisticated ways in which immigration staff look at on-board profiling and pre-board screening. It is very sophisticated, and clearly that is the way to go to prevent people from reaching our borders and to stop them getting to our borders in the first place.

This bill establishes immigration control areas for immigration processing and maintains advance passenger processing obligations. In the debate on Part 2 we talked about biometric screening, and clearly that is the way of the future. Part 4 states that passengers travelling to New Zealand are obligated to provide biometric information. I note in clause 110A that people who are leaving must also allow biometric information to be obtained from them. I think that this is a non-contentious part of Part 4, and I commend this part to the Committee.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 89 be agreed to.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : I seek leave for the Committee to report progress.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.