Laurie Ferguson (Reid, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This visit to New Zealand by the parliamentary delegation confirmed the great value of these inquiries. If there is one area where New Zealand and Australia have to take cognisance of each other’s policy, it is the area of migration. Obviously Australia, with a higher non-English-speaking-background settler population, tends to be a bit of a magnet for people who have settled in New Zealand. I congratulate the chairman, the member for Canning, and the delegation secretary, Dr Kate Sullivan, for the professional way in which this delegation was led. We were limited in numbers but, as I say, it was a very worthwhile visit—as were the discussions with the foreign affairs and transport and industrial relations committees. Mark Gosche, a former minister, who has close ties with this country on a family basis, was amongst the people at those discussions.

Aspects of the delegation’s visit that I found interesting included the move in New Zealand to try to streamline and amalgamate a number of tribunals. They experience a reality—which is international—of people utilising the tribunal appeal process to prolong their stay in a country. New Zealand has a number of authorities and there are moves there to do something about the appeal process. Another aspect of interest was the refugee and migrant resettlement group—a voluntary organisation that seeks to train people helping migrants and, more particularly, refugees settle in New Zealand. In this country there has been a bit of a withdrawal of volunteers, particularly from church groups, over the last decade as they became frustrated with the red tape in the system, but in New Zealand there has been a massive effort to try to ensure that they retain and encourage people.

In relation to the appeals process, one of the aspects that I think the delegation was surprised about was the separate issues of people being deported and the lack of rights of the department to get information with regard to the deportation of people. Page 18 of the report says:

Officers do not have any powers to require information to assist them to locate a person here lawfully, but who may have obtained that status through fraud or misrepresentation. In order to investigate such cases, the officer must generally first locate the person and give them an opportunity to respond.

Whilst there is something amenable in the way in which New Zealand does not seem to have a proliferation of long-term appeals, the other side of the coin is a real national problem when it comes to locating people who are illegally in the country, have no grounds for being there or have been through the appeals process and failed.

Skilled migration was obviously a great matter of interest. New Zealand is moving from a pool system where people gain 100 points and then await their destiny to a new system whereby people with 140 points get automatic entry. I note that New Zealand requires a higher standard of English for skilled migration entry.

There is an image internationally of New Zealand being a country that is slightly more liberal with regard to refugee settlement processes. We were very interested to find that New Zealand intends, under its UNHCR responsibilities, to curb the intake in order to look at those communities that it perceives as being better able to settle. The main example cited to us was the Burmese. So Australia is not the only country that perhaps at the edges seeks to maintain some government policy control on the entrant groups.

Another matter of interest is the question of New Zealand’s relationship with the Pacific islands. It is interesting to note the population trends. In 1991, Pacific islanders accounted for five per cent of the population, and they are now up to 6.2 per cent; and Maoris represented 12.1 per cent and are now up to 14.1 per cent. There was genuine concern expressed to us that what has happened with Niue and some other islands in the Pacific is recurring with respect to Samoa. We all know that the New Zealand’s football team is full of Samoans—and western Samoans more particularly—but there is a genuine concern that the easy access to New Zealand might be leading to a situation of depopulation within Samoa. That is an issue being looked at.

We found the ethnic peak councils in New Zealand extremely appreciative of government policy and interest in their affairs when we met them. As I said, we also had the opportunity to meet government, opposition and Green Party spokespeople to discuss immigration policy. I want to put on record again the value of these exchanges. As I said earlier, in immigration there is a crucial need to mirror policies as much as possible. It is not totally going that way, but we try to aim for that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to endorse this report.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.