Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to New Zealand, which took place from 27 to 31 August 2006 as part of the Australia-New Zealand Committee Exchange Program. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I am pleased to speak today on the tabling of the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to New Zealand. I had the honour of being deputy leader of the delegation to New Zealand as part of the annual Australia-New Zealand Committee Exchange program between the two parliaments. The delegation was in August of this year for a period of four days. The 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 our inquiry—the report of which has now been tabled—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 by our committee.

Australia and New Zealand have a number of things in common in this area. 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 go to New Zealand and examine its skilled migration program and its overseas skills recognition process. We found when we were over there that New Zealand is currently going through a process of reassessing its migration program in a number of respects. For example, in December last year, it announced changes to its skilled migration program. Whilst there we learnt that they have also recently commenced a review of the New Zealand Immigration Act 1987, which is now 20 years of age, and it has been determined that it is time for a review.

In February 2006, the New Zealand Minister of 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 Australia and New Zealand. The report concludes by highlighting a number of areas of interest to the delegation over the course of the visit.

In the short time that I have remaining I want to focus on five of these areas. First, the delegation was very interested to meet officers from New Zealand’s immigration department, Immigration New Zealand, and hear more about the current review of the New Zealand Immigration Act that I referred to just a moment ago. In May 2005 a comprehensive review of its immigration program, including the Immigration Act, was announced by the New Zealand government. The purpose of the review is 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, as I indicated a moment ago. The proposed changes to the legislation include a simplified visa system for travel to and stay in New Zealand.

Of interest to the committee was the fact that in New Zealand there is currently a very different entry system for noncitizens compared with that of Australia. In New Zealand they use a two-document system consisting of visas and permits, while in Australia entry is managed solely through a visa system. In New Zealand a visa provides the authority for a noncitizen to travel to New Zealand, whilst a permit provides the authority for a noncitizen to enter and remain in the country. The discussion paper on the Immigration Act that I referred to comments that the terminology of ‘visa’ and ‘permit’ are quite confusing and many people are unaware of the distinction between the two. It is therefore proposed to bring the various elements of the visa and permit systems together into a single visa only system, as exists here in Australia. The committee will be interested in the outcomes of the review—I am sure that we will monitor it with interest—and will look at any subsequent changes to New Zealand’s immigration arrangements.

The second point I want to refer to is the following. We met with a number of senior officers from New Zealand’s immigration appeal tribunals and heard more about the proposal, which is also 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. We heard that each of these tribunals has been established for a single purpose, meaning that individuals can therefore appeal to multiple bodies. The availability of these multiple avenues of appeal has led to delays in the final determination of matters. We learned that the amalgamation of the four tribunals, if it does go ahead, 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. Obviously the streamlining of the process is something to be commended for the following reasons: it is perceived that delays will be reduced in awaiting determinations and there will be a general improvement of the overall fairness, transparency and efficiency of the appeals system.

The third point is that the delegation was interested to learn more about New Zealand’s overseas skills recognition framework. Like Australia, New Zealand, as I said, is facing skills shortages in key employment sectors. Assessing the skills of those who wish to migrate is of course a crucial element of any migration system. Both Australia and New Zealand have mandatory pre-migration qualifications 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 pre-assessment result and a full qualifications assessment report. A pre-assessment result is normally submitted at the initial stage of the skilled migration program. A qualifications assessment report is a requirement of the final stage of residence application.

In New Zealand, regulated professions, professional associations and registration authorities have their own requirements for membership or registration, and individuals need to have their qualifications assessed not only by the NZQA but also by the appropriate professional 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 people seeking to come to Australia, because of the gap that exists between migration on the one hand and registration skills recognition on the other. This issue was discussed in the committee’s recent inquiry report on skills recognition. I commend it to all senators for reading.

The fourth point is that the delegation was interested to hear about New Zealand’s refugee program, including the role of volunteers in the provision of settlement services. As the delegation report notes, under the government’s refugee quota program, New Zealand currently accepts up to 750 refugees each year—a small number by comparison to Australia, but of course New Zealand has a much smaller population. All refugees who are accepted under the program initially attend a six-week orientation program at Mangere Refugee Reception Centre in Auckland. The delegation actually visited that reception centre. I think it is fair to say that the delegation was quite impressed with the facility. We are very interested in meeting the individuals who run the place. As I am running out of time, I would briefly like to mention the meetings that we had with New Zealand’s peak ethnic councils, which were of benefit to the committee.

I conclude by saying that it certainly was an extremely busy program in New Zealand. We also visited Wellington in the course of our visit. I would like to thank all the New Zealand parliamentarians and government and non-government officials that we met. I thank them for their time and for the information they provided to us. I would particularly like to thank our counterpart committees in New Zealand, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would also like to thank my colleagues who travelled with me: Mr Don Randall MP, the chair of the committee; Mr Laurie Ferguson; and Senator Stephen Parry. Finally, I would very much like to thank Dr Kate Sullivan for all her assistance. Whilst we were on the delegation she was always cheerful and a great deal of assistance to us all.

Question agreed to.