Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I am pleased today to speak on the tabling of the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to New Zealand. I was honoured to lead the delegation to New Zealand from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, as part of the annual Australia-New Zealand Committee Exchange Program between the two parliaments. The delegation visited New Zealand from 27 to 31 August. I thank the member for Reid for his kind words, in his introduction, about the conduct of the delegation and the visit.

This visit to New Zealand was timely, given that the committee was close to finalising its inquiry into overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing. The terms of reference for the inquiry required the committee to consider how Australia’s arrangements compare with those of other major immigration countries. New Zealand was one of the countries under examination. Australia and New Zealand both face skills shortages and, with the high degree of economic integration between the two economies and high rates of cross-Tasman migration, the committee welcomed the opportunity to examine the New Zealand skilled migration program and its overseas skills recognition processes.

The New Zealand government announced changes to its skilled migration program in December 2005 and recently commenced a review of the New Zealand Immigration Act 1987. In February 2006 the New Zealand Minister for Immigration also announced a nationwide initiative aimed at providing improved settlement assistance to migrants and refugees. These were all issues of direct relevance to the work of the committee.

The delegation met with New Zealand parliamentarians, government and non-government officials and peak ethnic groups. The delegation report provides some background on the program assembled for the visit and a brief comparison of migration arrangements in New Zealand and Australia. The report concludes by highlighting a number of areas of interest to the delegation over the course of the visit. I want to focus my comments today on five of these areas.

Firstly, the delegation was interested to meet with New Zealand’s immigration department, Immigration New Zealand, and hear more about the current review of the New Zealand Immigration Act. As the delegation report notes, in May 2005 the New Zealand government launched a comprehensive review of its immigration program, including the Immigration Act. The review aims to ensure the effectiveness of labour migration, border security and migrant settlement. This is the first major review of the act since it was established.

The proposed changes to the legislation include a simplified visa system for travel to, and stay in, New Zealand. New Zealand currently has a very different entry system for noncitizens from that of Australia. In New Zealand there is a two-document system, consisting of visas and permits, while in Australia entry is managed solely through the visa system. A visa provides the authority for a noncitizen to travel to New Zealand, while a permit provides the authority for a noncitizen to enter and remain in the country.

The discussion paper on the Immigration Act review comments that this terminology has proven confusing, with many people being unaware of the distinction between visas and permits. It is therefore proposed to bring the various elements of the visa and permit system together in a single visa-only system, as exists in Australia. The committee will be interested in the outcomes of this review and the subsequent changes to the New Zealand immigration arrangements.

Secondly, the delegation met with senior officers from New Zealand’s immigration appeals tribunals and heard more about the proposals as part of the Immigration Act review to amalgamate these tribunals. As the delegation report notes, there are currently four immigration appeals tribunals in New Zealand. The delegation heard that each of these tribunals has been established for a single purpose—meaning that individuals can therefore appeal to multiple authorities. The availability of these multiple avenues of appeal has led to delays in the final determination of these matters. The amalgamated tribunal will provide a single procedure for determining refugee and protection status and establish a single right of appeal, with all possible considerations being heard together. It is perceived that this will reduce delays in awaiting determinations and improve the overall fairness, transparency and efficiency of the appeals system.

Thirdly, the delegation was interested to learn more about New Zealand’s overseas skills recognition framework. Like Australia, New Zealand is facing a skills shortage in key employment sectors. Assessing the skills of those who wish to migrate is a critical element of the migration system. Both Australia and New Zealand have a mandatory pre-migration qualification screening as a condition of eligibility for skilled migration.

The New Zealand Qualifications Authority assesses international qualifications against New Zealand qualifications for migration purposes. As the delegation heard during its meeting with the Qualifications Authority, prospective migrants can seek a preassessment result and a full qualifications assessment report. A preassessment result is normally submitted at the initial stage of the skilled migration program. A qualifications assessment report is required at the final stage of a residence application.

For regulated professionals in New Zealand, professional associations and registration authorities have their own requirements for membership or registration. Individuals need to have their qualifications assessed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as well as the appropriate professional authority or body. Skills recognition for the purpose of registration in certain professions in New Zealand is therefore a separate process to that for the purpose of migration. Accordingly, migrants to New Zealand may experience similar difficulties to those experienced by some migrants to Australia as a result of there being a gap between migration and registration skills recognition outcomes. This issue was discussed in the committee’s recent inquiry report on skills migration.

Fourthly, the delegation was interested to hear more about New Zealand’s refugee program, including the role of volunteers and the provision of settlement services, to which the member for Reid just referred. As the delegation report notes, under the government’s refugee quota program, New Zealand currently accepts up to 750 refugees each year. All refugees accepted under the program complete a six-week orientation program at the Mangere Refugee Reception Centre in Auckland. The delegation visited Mangere and the members were taken on a tour of the facility. The delegation was interested in New Zealand’s structured approach to refugee resettlement, particularly the initial orientation provided at Mangere. The delegation heard that volunteers play an important role in refugee resettlement. New Zealand’s volunteer training program includes a nationally recognised certificate in refugee resettlement support, designed to provide volunteers with the skills needed to assist newly arrived refugees with the challenge of early settlement.

Finally, the delegation very much welcomed the meeting with New Zealand’s peak ethnic councils, in particular the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils, the Refugee Council of New Zealand and the Auckland Regional Ethnic Council. The delegation was impressed by the forward vision of the councils and their commitment to improving settlement outcomes for migrant communities in New Zealand. The delegation report notes the work of the councils in improving migrant workforce outcomes.

To conclude, the delegation program was a busy and interesting one. On behalf of the delegation I would like to thank the New Zealand parliament and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand, the honourable Margaret Wilson MP, for the hospitality extended to the delegation. I would also like to thank the New Zealand parliamentarians, government and non-government officials and peak ethnic groups with whom we met for the time they took to ensure that the delegation was well informed. Particular thanks go to our counterpart committees in New Zealand, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Delegation members very much appreciated the briefing they received from both committees.

Finally, I would like to thank the other committee members on the delegation—Senator Linda Kirk, the deputy leader of the delegation, Mr Laurie Ferguson, and Senator Stephen Parry—for their contribution to the visit. I also thank the New Zealand members, particularly Mr Gosche, who provided us with a great deal of hospitality. I also thank our committee secretary, Kate Sullivan, for her fantastic work in helping to put this committee visit together. It was a very meaningful exchange and it was an honour to be selected as the exchange committee for this parliament. I commend the report to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Adams) adjourned.

See this speech in context