Lianne Dalziel Speech: Immigration: Where we are heading
Address to NZAMI Conference Ellerslie Convention Centre Auckland
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to again speak to the NZAMI Conference. I said in my introduction to the
NZAMI Annual report that I was surprised to be invited to contribute to the report given the matter of the legal
proceedings that arose out of last November’s changes to immigration policy and the 1 July announcements of this year.
However, I also said that if the invitation represented a desire to maintain a dialogue even when we disagree with each
other, then I can assure you that that desire is matched on my part.
It could not have pleased me more, therefore, to see your Conference focussed on the future and the title of
Recognition, Reputation & Respect applied to your proceedings. This said to me that there is a genuine willingness to move on, and this was
confirmed reading Sylvia Bassett’s first contribution to the Annual report as your CEO. And it was further reinforced in
Bill Milne’s annual report, and I reciprocate in expressing my regret that we could not resolve matters without resort
to legal action.
As an aside I did note in Bill’s report that two political parties have approached NZAMI for assistance with writing
their immigration manifestos. I suppose it would be too much to hope that one of them is NZ First.
I mentioned NZ First so I could make one point about the man whose face and fingers adorn taxpayer funded billboards
around the country, and it is the only reference to him I intend to make.
There is nothing he says or does that drives me to do anything I do. As I have said previously, I have never shirked
debating immigration issues. My only caveat is that the debate is informed, rational and balanced. His contributions to
date do not meet even one of these three requirements. Consequently, he has declared himself irrelevant to the debate,
and he does not and cannot influence this government.
This government is committed to an active immigration policy, with the reconfirmation of the 45,000 places in the
2003/04 NZ Immigration Programme, and a further commitment to use this figure as an indicative basis for the three years
ahead. This signals a stability in settings, but it does not mean there will not be further changes. The Business
Investor category is being actively reviewed, and I have made many statements since the Evaluation of Business
Immigration Policy to signal that there will be changes focussed on the nature of the investment to ensure that there is
a clear benefit for New Zealand in maintaining this category. There are changes in the pipeline for the health
pre-requisites for all categories, and again these have been well-signalled.
We are also working on a settlement strategy, which will build on the settlement policy we developed in our first year
in government in the year 2000. It will be informed by: the introduction of Immigration’s Customised Service, the
changes to the skilled migration policy, the regional immigration initiative piloted in Wellington and Clutha/Southland
and the settlement pilots. This afternoon I am attending the launch of the Manukau City New Settlers’ Policy and Action
Plan, and the next Auckland Mayoral Forum will be receiving a report from their CEOs on the proposal I took to them last
month to develop an Auckland regional Settlement Strategy.
The development of a settlement strategy will add value to the skilled migration work we have done, and will ensure that
settlement outcomes are the focus of Customised Service, so that we are at every level matching advice to what is
actually deliverable.
I am looking for a win-win – for New Zealand and for the skilled migrant. As I said to you last year:
“The worst thing that can happen from an immigration perspective, is that a migrant arrives with high expectations, that
are not met once he or she settles in New Zealand. I have met too many people who have ended up working outside their
professional field or well below their skills and experience. This does not make for successful settlement for the
migrant, nor is it good for New Zealand when talent and skills are wasted in this way.”
That is still my position. The new approach says lodge an expression of interest, and we will rank you on an objective,
transparent points-based system, and we will invite you to apply for residence. Under this system, when you apply for
residence you know that you not only have excellent prospects of gaining residence, but also, you have been assessed as
having excellent prospects of doing well here. With additional points being allocated for qualifications or experience
meeting endemic skill shortages and skilled, relevant job offers, as well as further points for such job offers outside
Auckland, you can see that the intention is to reshape the Skilled Migrant Category to meet New Zealand’s priority needs
first.
The problem with the current system is that residence under the General Skills Category has become regarded as a right
upon gaining the requisite number of points.
And what’s more it is driven off push factors, rather then pull factors, and we continue to have a steady stream of
applicants, who have no idea whether their skills are even required here.
The new system will let them know straight away whether there is a realistic prospect of success in their chosen field.
And, if there is no objective measure of settlement prospects, because there is no job offer or prior period of study or
work in New Zealand, then we can manage that risk through a 2-year work-to-residence option.
It is my view that this is how the skilled migration category in its various forms was always intended to operate. Prior
to the 1991 points-based General Category being introduced, the focus was on occupational priorities. So this stream of
migrants was always intended to ensure that migrants matched New Zealand’s skill shortages. It was by no means perfect,
and I accept some of the criticisms I have heard about it.
Unfortunately, the shift to the points system went too far the other way, by shifting the emphasis from New Zealand’s
actual priorities in terms of skill shortages to the assumed employability and potential contribution of the skilled
migrant.
This was the policy that gave us the ‘doctors-driving-taxis’ scenario; something the government of the day took four
years to address. But they only fixed it for those who needed professional registration to practise in New Zealand.
Other policy changes in the 1990s and the unwillingness of the government of the day to focus on settlement outcomes,
meant skilled migrants came to New Zealand without a hope of ever finding opportunities to match their skills and
experience. Some of those people are still struggling today.
The new approach is about turning the policy around so that we get the best of both worlds.
We retain the points system, with bonus points that emphasise New Zealand’s needs, and we prioritise those who have
registered an expression of interest, who have the greatest potential to meet those needs.
This is the most significant change to skilled immigration policy in more than a decade, and has been welcomed by
virtually all sectors of the community.
It has been welcomed by the business community, as it meets the objectives they have established for innovation and
growth. It has been warmly received by the union movement, as they have been concerned about skilled migrants
under-cutting wages and conditions of employment, having been forced into unskilled and semi-skilled work, well beneath
their fields of expertise, as they struggle to find skilled work in New Zealand. It has been welcomed by many
well-settled ethnic communities, who have seen newer members faced with insurmountable barriers.
And it has been welcomed by the good immigration consultants, (of which there are many), who either provide or who have
links with post-arrival settlement programmes, because they are already working on an outcomes basis, with a recruitment
focus.
Other consultants, who think their job is done when the residence permit is stamped in the passport, and that all they
have to do is to create a device to avoid government residence policy, will not survive these changes, and that is good.
Afterall, what do those consultants actually do for those migrants – other than reinforcing a belief that we are stupid
or corrupt? And what do they do for New Zealand when we get migrants who cannot settle here, because they have been
brought in through a backdoor route or have been given an overly optimistic assessment of their chances of success.
I know that many of you believe that I have a poor attitude to immigration consultants. But that is not true generally
speaking.
There are some for whom my opinion is unprintable, and although the use of the word ‘rogues’ in the Herald was not mine,
it is moderate compared to my view of their unethical and damaging practices. I am convinced that licensing is the only
way to go, however, this is a matter that will have to go to Cabinet before any final decisions are made.
I am pleased that Laurette Chao has joined you again, because I had an excellent meeting with her and her team at MARA
in April this year. There I floated the idea of an expanded jurisdiction for MARA across the Tasman. I received a
sufficiently encouraging response to raise it with Bill Milne and his team, and that produced a highly favourable
response. So I raised it at Cabinet and then with the Australian Minister of Immigration.
As a result we have started a process, which I admit may lead nowhere. But on the other hand it could lead us to a
mutually satisfying conclusion. Since I became Minister of Commerce I became more aware of the implications of the Trans
Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement should New Zealand go down its own path. I asked myself, ‘why reinvent the wheel’,
and I was impressed with what I saw at MARA. Why would we want to develop from scratch, something that already exists
and can be built on, and in the process miss the opportunity to develop a truly Trans Tasman regulatory and standard
setting body? It represents an opportunity on both sides of the Tasman to address the risks we both have from overseas
consultants who evade whatever regulatory framework we have in place in our respective countries. But to suggest that
the only risks exist off-shore is a deliberate turning of a blind eye to unacceptable practices in New Zealand.
Officials from NZIS and DIMIA will begin that process and will engage on both sides of the Tasman so that hopefully this
single gap in my manifesto commitments is finally filled.
In conclusion, thank you once more for having me back. I know that this year has been a testing one in terms of our
relationship, but relationships can emerge stronger when they are tested.
As I said at the outset, I have taken your invitation to participate in your Annual Report and now your Annual
Conference as a signal of a desire to move on. And I invite you to accept that my willingness to write that introduction
and attend your Conference represents my desire to do the same.
I will always remain willing to engage with NZAMI, but that does not mean that we cannot have differences of opinion –
we will. And I hope that you accept that I have a duty to take action against those who seek to undermine government
residence policy. It is actually to your benefit if I can expose those who seek to rort the system, because all of your
reputations are on the line when such practices occur.
There will be more focus on verification and fraud detection. I have spent this morning launching Advance Passenger
Screening, which is an important part of this government’s commitment to managing risks, which is entirely appropriate
in these times of heightened international security awareness. We have allocated significantly increased resources to
our Fraud Unit and to our B services.
That being said, as is so often the case, the majority of people who come to New Zealand, temporarily or permanently, do
so for genuine reasons, and have been entirely up-front with NZIS from start to finish. It is always the minority, and
in these cases they are a miniscule percentage of that total, that will ruin it for the rest.
The culture of NZIS has changed in the time I have been Minister – the mindset has shifted from border control to
facilitating entry, while managing risk. Customised Service is going to represent an important new step, as it merges
risk identification and management, as well as settlement outcomes, into the whole interaction with the applicant.
I know many of you have had experiences that have been less then satisfactory, and the huge backlog has not eased the
frustration experienced by potential migrants and consultants alike. I heard the interview on Nine-to-Noon yesterday,
and I have sought to follow-up on the matter so that we can learn from this man’s personal experience. It does not
validate how he felt he was treated, but it can provide important lessons that we can learn from.
We are not only willing to change the way we do things, but we are expressing our strong desire to do so, because it is
the way of the future.
I stand by the comments I made last year, that this is a government that can stand proudly on its record of achievement
in immigration. In addition to the first term achievements, last year I recorded our 2002 Manifesto commitments and
already we have delivered on most of them:
Further develop NZ’s capacity to actively recruit talented and skilled migrants to NZ; (Skilled Migrant Category and
Customised Service)
Review Business migration categories, including an evaluation of how to improve opportunities for making investor funds
available to local economic development initiatives; (Completed by end of this year)
Review the Immigration Act 1991, to ensure that it is modernised in the light of changes to policy, and the location of
and criteria applied by the immigration appeal authorities; (next year)
Develop an Adult ESOL strategy to complement the Adult Literacy Strategy; (Launched)
Review immigration policy relating to students to ensure that international students are able to continue to access
quality education and appropriate pastoral care (e.g guardians’ visas, extended working visas for students); (Soon to be
announced)
Review the effectiveness of Limited Purpose Permits and Bonds in managing risks of non-compliance with temporary entry
policies; (Later)
Broaden consideration of ways the proposed register of Immigration Consultants could be managed; (Approach to MARA)
Establish an appointments database in the Office of Ethnic Affairs; (Established)
Develop NZ-wide telephone interpreter services; (Pilot established)
Maintain close relationships with the Pacific Region in terms of immigration and settlement policy (Ongoing commitment)
That is not bad after only 12 months in government, and represents the commitment this government has made to an active
immigration programme, which measures success against settlement outcomes and benefit to New Zealand.
I took the title for my address from your Conference Programme, ‘Immigration: Where we are heading’. Linking that back
to your Conference theme, Recognition, Reputation, Respect, these are all words that carry with them a mutuality that
must exist for them to be meaningful. Recognition of our respective roles, enhancing New Zealand’s reputation and
respecting each other, as well as the migrants for whom we owe a mutual duty of care, this is where we are heading.