Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

I think that at this time it would be appropriate for me, as the sponsor of the bill, to set out the substantive changes that are being proposed by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 65 and also to address some of the issues that have already been raised by members, both at the commencement of the Committee stage and also in the second reading debate—questions, actually, much more measured in the Committee stage—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Bennett—if the member can resume his seat or sit beside the member he is talking to. It is quite rude to talk like that with your back to the Minister who is speaking.

Also, I will address some of the issues that were raised in a much more measured fashion, I think, at the Committee stage than they were at the second reading, where things got rather emotive. I just want to put some of those comments in context. It is a disappointment to me that parties such as Labour and the Greens—I should just record—that understand the importance of protecting—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We cannot hear the Minister because the microphones do not seem to be working.

I will do my best to speak into the microphone. I will just raise it. Clearly, I was too tall for it.

It is disappointing to me, I have to say, that Labour and the Greens are not supporting this bill, because I know that they support the notion behind it—that is, that those who are being ill-treated, who are those legally able to work in New Zealand who are being exploited by their employers, should be protected, and that those who are perpetrating those sorts of misdemeanours should be subject to a much heavier sanctions regime, which is the primary purpose of this bill. It does sadden me that Labour and the Greens will not support that because of their concerns around some of the search powers. That seems to me to be the essence of their concern—

💬 Sue Moroney: No, it’s not.

They were concerns that were addressed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I will be very happy then if that is not the only concern, but I know that has been raised by both Labour and the Greens. The legislation has passed comfortably the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that is required to be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice, but I hold out hope that through this Committee stage I am able to put at ease some of the concerns that the Opposition members have, and to support this bill, because I know they support the goal.

In respect of the Supplementary Order Paper, we are introducing a new offence. At the moment there is almost a binomial offence of the exploitation of a worker on a temporary visa, regardless of the employer’s knowledge of their immigration status. It has been drawn to my attention that there could be a defence of ignorance, and so what we are doing is saying that there should be another infraction, which is that if the employer is reckless as to the immigration status of the employee, that in itself will be an offence. It still has some very severe punishments in it: up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $100,000. The Supplementary Order Paper also makes some changes to the bill to align judicial review and appeal pathways to provide consistency between the two pathways, and it clarifies that an application for leave to the High Court, firstly, must be brought no later than 28 days after notification of the tribunal’s decision and, secondly, requires leave to be sought before a party can appeal to the Court of Appeal. It also amends section 64 to clarify that when a new visa is issued to a person whose visa is cancelled under the new cancellation provision of the bill, the new visa does not cancel the person’s liability for deportation.

A subsequent amendment, which I will acknowledge Mr Seymour on, is in respect of entry and search powers under new section 277A, inserted by clause 61. This is an amendment that has given some members some anxiety, and in respect of Mr Seymour’s interventions the Government has agreed to do two things. Firstly, through the tabled amendment, it will require the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to review the exercise of the entry and search powers under that section within 3 years and to report to the Minister of Immigration on whether any amendments should be made to the Act concerning those powers. So, often a review provision is brought into a piece of legislation if there are concerns about how it might be used. But, in addition, the amendment will require that the ministry will report to Parliament annually on the use of the entry and search powers under new section 277A.

I want to move to the three questions that were asked by Mr Lees-Galloway in his initial intervention in the Committee stage. His first question was: why does the Government choose to give to immigration officers, and not labour inspectors, the power to search private dwelling houses without warrant? Well, this is the Immigration Amendment Bill. Effectively, without sounding glib about it, the reason we have chosen to give the additional search powers to immigration officers is that labour inspectors have no powers to investigate offences under the Immigration Act. But I would also add that often the investigative search powers that are required by immigration officers are much broader than those that are less required for work visas or in a work setting. So I am perfectly comfortable that, in respect of the Immigration Act, these powers are appropriately given to immigration officers. I should also just note that the warrant for search can be sought by an immigration officer, but presently it can be executed only by a police officer. That was a provision in the Act that had a sunset clause in it, and we are bringing that back.

I want to acknowledge also the questions that have been raised, mainly in the second reading, around whether these powers are necessary or appropriate, because it certainly does appear to be the thing that is giving some members anxiety. In respect of those search powers, this will enable immigration officers to undertake a personal search at the border for the person’s passport or identity document if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the passenger is concealing those documents. I think any reasonable person would expect that at the border, those immigration officers should have the power to do that.

The third amendment is probably the one that gives members the most anxiety: trained immigration officers would undertake a search of certain places for a passport or identity document in order to facilitate a deportation, and they could do that without warrant. The search does not need a warrant in the sense that, often, the officer does not know until they go on to the premises that a search is even necessary. We have the ludicrous situation at the moment where an immigration officer could walk into a person’s premises—a person who could be liable for deportation—and the passport could be sitting on the table in front of the person, but the immigration officer has no powers to require the documents to be presented. That may sound utterly ridiculous, but my immigration officers tell me that it is happening reasonably frequently. These people simply either refuse to hand over or deliberately hide their passports in order to delay or impede their deportation. This power will allow immigration officers to search the place where the deportee is located—their abode, their premises, or their vehicle—if they believe the identity documents are in that place. Currently the immigration officers can enter and search premises for the person in order to deport them, but not their documents. I think that is ludicrous. That is why we are making the change. It is necessary in the field for the officers to have this power. I would be very disappointed if that kind of provision—which has been New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - vetted—actually prevented parties in this House from supporting this bill.

Two other issues were raised by Mr Lees-Galloway. The first one is the immigration levy. Is it really a tax? Well, there are very clear descriptions about what constitutes a levy and what constitutes a tax. A levy has to be levied for a specific purpose, and I can assure the member that the activities will be related only to the funding of the immigration system. It will meet the definitions of a levy.

💬 Sue Moroney: That’s what they said about ACC levies.

Well, the better example is the road-user charges levy, which the member held up, actually, as a good example. The levy is paid by road users to contribute towards the upkeep of our roads. That is exactly what the immigration levy does. It contributes to the upkeep of the immigration system.

Lastly, Mr Lees-Galloway raised a question about why the bill contains a clause that allows regulations to be made that could override the primary legislation. In fact, I can advise the member that although this was the case when the bill was introduced, this was removed by the select committee at the second reading. So the provision that the member was concerned about that would override that primary legislation is no longer in the bill. I could point to the specific part of the bill if the member wishes, and I am sure officials could assist me, but I can reassure the member that that is no longer the case. Thank you.

I rise to speak in the Committee on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to clarify that the characterisation by the Minister of Immigration of the reasons for the Labour Party’s opposition to this bill is not, in fact, correct. Of course, it goes so much deeper than the issues that he was talking to. I think the Government’s response to this—and this is the part of this bill that really resonates with the Labour Party—is the attempt to resolve the exploitation of migrant workers in New Zealand workplaces. That is an incredibly important issue because it is part of the Labour Party’s determination to build decent work and decent jobs back in this country after it has been decimated by the Government members sitting opposite. Part of doing that is ensuring that migrant workers are not being used to undermine and undercut New Zealand workers and that they are, in fact, not being exploited themselves.

If this bill satisfactorily came up with the right solution that addressed that issue, then of course the Labour Party would be supporting it, but, in fact, it is a bit of window dressing. It purports to fix the problem, but, just like it found up in Northland, National has once again come up with the wrong answer. It has come up with the wrong answer to the problem. I just want to enlarge on this because the Minister’s explanation for why it was immigration officers who had extended powers when it came to the exploitation of migrant workers was that this is an Immigration Amendment Bill. I am sorry, Minister, but that is not a good enough reason for getting this so badly wrong. The fact is that if anyone understands the power relationships in any workplace—let alone the power relationships for migrant workers, who also have the additional power relationship of dealing with immigration and being here at the behest of a decision made by the immigration department—then they would understand why workers who are being exploited are not going to feel comfortable reporting that exploitation to the immigration department. The rightful place for addressing the issue of the exploitation of workers in New Zealand is for that to be reported to the department of labour and the labour Minister.

It is not an acceptable excuse to say that the reason why migrant workers, if they believe that they have been exploited, have to report this to the immigration department is simply that the Minister decided to bring this forward as an immigration bill. That Minister, in fact, happens to be the same person as the Minister of labour, and he should have been bringing this forward as a bill under that category because it is the department of labour that has the speciality in dealing with the exploitation of workers in New Zealand workplaces. It is the department of labour that the Labour Party believes migrant workers would feel more comfortable in reporting exploitation to, because they do not have a power relationship with the department of labour—or the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, “MoBIE”, as the department is hidden in that monstrous ministry these days—as they do with the immigration department. The immigration department has the ability to deport and the ability to look into a range of issues about their status as migrant workers, and, therefore, is not the appropriate body for worker exploitation to be reported to.

Again, I cannot help but think that this is the Government recognising its own failure to actually resource the department of labour and the labour inspectorate properly. It knows that it does not have anywhere near the number of labour inspectors it needs to deal with the issues of worker exploitation in the New Zealand workplace, let alone deal with the issues and the complexity of issues that are brought about when migrant workers are exploited in the workplace.

This would seem like an awful lot more genuine an attempt by the Government to deal with worker exploitation, particularly of migrant workers, if this was not the same Government that has currently suspended the work-testing rule in Queenstown. Why I raise that in this debate is that the Government suspended that work test where employers have to prove that they have in the first instance tried to recruit New Zealand workers first and foremost into these roles in the hospitality sector in Queenstown. So these are not very high-paying jobs; these are cleaning jobs, these are hospitality jobs in the main, and this Government has now—for the first time that I know of in New Zealand history—suspended that very important market-testing requirement where employers are required to make sure that New Zealand workers have been approached first.

I raise it in the context of this debate because this is one of the main ways that we can ensure that migrant workers are not being used to undermine New Zealand workers by being exploited in their workplace. We know that in the case of Queenstown, there are very high accommodation costs. Anyone who has been to Queenstown will know that it is not a cheap place to live at all. It is not a cheap place to buy your groceries in, not a cheap place to rent in—the costs are probably amongst the highest in any location that you could go to in New Zealand. Yet it may be exactly there where, because of the temporary suspension of that market test by the Government, we may find that exploitation will be at its highest. I say that because if employers, as those members often argue, actually want market rules to apply in setting wages, then in Queenstown they would be prepared to pay higher wages to get New Zealanders to actually be able to afford to live in Queenstown and be able to undertake those jobs. It is of concern that at the same time as putting this legislation through the Government is making it easier—well, in fact, it is saying to Queenstown employers: “You don’t actually need to even bother trying to recruit New Zealand workers into those jobs. It’s a free-for-all. Get the backpackers to come in and do that job.”, and that is all fine as far as that Government is concerned.

Therefore, on this bill I believe that it is simply window dressing. The Government has no real intention to address issues of migrant exploitation. If it did, it would have been bringing forward a bill that actually lifted the number of labour inspectors throughout the country. It would have been bringing forward a bill that made sure that it was the labour department that migrant workers were reporting exploitation to, rather than the immigration department, for the reasons that I have already outlined.

Although I am taking a call on this bill, I am not satisfied with the Minister’s answer to our questions—and I think they were very legitimate questions—about wanting to make sure that the levy being imposed in this bill on migrant workers when they make their applications is not simply a way of the Government properly funding the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority. It has become clear to the Labour Party that the amount of Government funding put towards establishing the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority—whose legislation was, in fact, initially set up under the previous Labour Government, but it was implemented by the incoming National Government—has not been adequate to make it work properly. Therefore, we are concerned that this migrant levy is being used to prop that authority up, and I am not satisfied with the answer from the Minister in which he said that a levy is not a tax because it has to be used for a certain purpose. Well, at the moment we have got this Government using ACC levies to prop up the Crown’s accounts in order to return them to surplus.

💬 Andrew Bayly: No.

Well, we absolutely do, Mr Bayly, by the Government’s own admission. By the Government’s own admission, ACC levies are being used to return the Crown’s accounts to surplus.

I rise to take a short call in the Committee of the whole House stage on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to say from the start that I support everything that Sue Moroney, the previous speaker, has just said. We have to acknowledge that there is some goodwill towards the Government for putting forward this bill, because it is an attempt to address the exploitation of migrant workers. I also agree with the previous speaker that the way the Government has gone about it is not good enough. So we will not be supporting this bill.

We recognise that migrant workers are some of the most vulnerable workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. As the previous speaker explained, a power imbalance in the employment relationship for workers exists under the current situation, but when you are a migrant worker it is even more of an imbalance. We are now in a situation with our industrial relations environment where workers are becoming increasingly vulnerable. They have less say, less power, and less ability to negotiate, and when you are a migrant worker this is a problem that escalates by about tenfold.

The labour market is becoming increasingly swamped with migrant workers, and we are increasingly concerned at the amount of exploitation that is occurring. As outlined by the previous speaker in terms of the situation in Queenstown, the Government’s actions in welcoming low-paid workers into the country is having an impact on the ability of New Zealand workers to be paid anything above the minimum wage. What is happening, in effect, is that many employers are using migrant workers to force down wages so that wage costs become less and less for the employers, which is all very well for the employer, but in terms of what it is like for workers, it makes it harder for people to make a living and it makes it harder for them to make ends meet.

It is also really bad for local economies if you are relying just on low-paid migrant workers, as is the case in Queenstown. What it means is that local families are not able to afford to live in the areas, and you get the situation—which we seem to be heading for on Waiheke Island, where I live—where we are actually importing low-paid workers to get the hospitality jobs done because nobody can afford to live there because they are not being paid enough.

We see the Government’s attempts to bring some sanctions against employers who are migrants themselves as a step in the right direction. It is a nod in the right direction, but we do not believe it goes far enough. The bill still does not address the fact of—or offer any protections for—migrant workers who are themselves being exploited when they blow the whistle.

Quite recently I dealt with a very sad case—and I want to thank the Minister of Immigration’s office for its support and assistance in this issue—where a woman was faced with deportation basically because although she had come to New Zealand to work in a specialist job at the request of the employer, who was a migrant themselves who had received residence, as soon as she got to New Zealand she found out that the job she had been given had changed. It was changed at a whim. So instead of being given a specialist job, she was being asked to clean. Not only that, she was on very limited hours and was on call, so it was basically a zero-hour contract. She was also paid the minimum wage.

Within a couple of weeks she had talked to her employer and said that she needed to earn enough to be able to live here and she needed to do the work they had brought her over here to do. She was sacked immediately, and within a month or two her employer had actually dobbed her in to Immigration New Zealand, so her work visa was revoked. When she came to see me she was facing deportation, and at that stage she was also receiving assistance from an advocate in the employment relations field. While she was still trying to avoid deportation, they took the issue through to mediation with the Employment Relations Authority, through the mediation service with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

The employer admitted that they had failed her in terms of providing what was supposed to be provided in the employment agreement that she had agreed to—and signed, for that matter—and they agreed on a settlement. But that settlement made no impact at all on the fact that her work visa had been revoked. So she received no protection whatsoever for being able to identify the issue that there was a rogue migrant employer—an employer who was not treating workers fairly and who was exploiting them. Raising that issue led to her being deported from New Zealand, despite the fact that she did receive a settlement through our labour relations laws. She was basically left in a situation where the settlement that she received was spent on her ticket back to her home country.

This is a very sad state of affairs for any worker, but particularly for this woman, when she and her family had been looking forward to coming to New Zealand, settling here, and contributing to our economy. It is not an easy thing for workers or anybody to make that decision. We know from people in this House who have migrated here themselves that it is not an easy decision, but it is one that shows they want to contribute as much as they can to this economy and this society. To have that taken away from under her feet in a very unfair way was just incredibly sad, and there was nothing we could do about it.

This bill does not go any way towards trying to address this issue. It does provide sanctions against employers who may be acting unlawfully themselves, but it does not protect the workers. I agree as well with previous speakers about the powers of immigration officers. I absolutely agree that these matters should be transferred to labour inspectors because, essentially, we are looking at workplace relationships that have gone sour. Immigration is an area where migrant workers feel very, very vulnerable and that at any moment they could be deported and their visas could be revoked. So to place them in a situation where they will be investigated by immigration officers with extended powers is to increase their vulnerability.

So we will not be voting for this bill. We understand that it is an attempt to try to address the situation of exploited workers, but it is not going to do that. I would like to see this Parliament operating in a way that does actually fix the problems that come to us. Thank you.

This Government does take very seriously the issue of immigrant exploitation in the workforce. We have seen different media releases about those sorts of occurrences. There are a number of reasons, of course—not just the human rights reasons—why this is such an important component of this bill. We have companies in New Zealand that work hard at what they do to employ people and pay good wages and put into place in the workforce very strong health and safety measures. As soon as an employer starts to exploit an immigrant worker they undercut and undermine all of those companies that, through their goodwill and compliance with New Zealand law, seek to put in place employment conditions that keep a workforce safe and pay a good wage to help New Zealand families.

It is not just about the human rights of people, which are incredibly important, but it is also about maintaining a workplace environment in this country that we can be proud of. The particular measure in this bill that deals with the exploitation of migrant workers is very, very important because it shores up that sort of behaviour and brings it to accountability. Sue Moroney in her speech made a comment that we do not have enough people in the labour inspectorate to actually enforce these measures and to ensure this does not happen. Looking back at the number of people in the labour inspectorate, what we see is that since 2008 until today there has been a 37 percent increase in the number of inspectors. I would certainly say it is important to have those people, and surely her statement now becomes an indictment on the previous Government because we have increased that number by 37 percent. We do need labour inspectors to be empowered in those places in order to address these issues, and aspects of this bill address that.

As I just mentioned before, one of the reports that has come to light has been a case in Auckland. Let me just briefly touch on this for the sake of those listening here and outside this Parliament. There was a case in Auckland where a number of immigrant employees were taken advantage of, and the Employment Relations Authority became aware of this, addressed this issue, and brought fines against the employer. The exploitation claims were that the employees had to pay a premium or capital infusion of up to $15,000 to secure employment. I mean, what a travesty of the New Zealand way of life that that sort of extortion would take place. They were not paid any wages at all, and they were pressured to loan further sums to the company. An office in central Auckland in a commercial building was turned into accommodation for those who ran out of money for rent, but it had no access to a shower or to a kitchen. The people survived mainly on fruit and instant noodles. This is the sort of behaviour that this bill determines to stamp out.

💬 Sue Moroney: But it won’t.

It will stamp this out, and we will be putting tools and measures in place. The bill makes employers who are residence class visa holders liable for deportation. They have come to New Zealand for the better way of life that they have sought, and instead they have brought with them misery. They do not deserve to live in this country, to experience what they hoped they might achieve. They are liable for deportation if they are convicted of exploiting migrant workers.

This Government does take this sort of behaviour seriously. Not only is it dreadful treatment and a denial of human rights—a denial of the right of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, which we know the workforce in this country desires—[Bell rung]—and relies upon in order for us—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Does the member wish to continue?

Yes—sorry, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Mr Young.

This bill includes two amendments that will protect migrants from exploitation. The amendment in Part 1 will see employers who hold residence class visas liable for deportation if they are convicted of that degree of exploitation of migrant workers—just desserts, we say—or if they knowingly employ migrant workers without the right to work. I guess this is also protecting the New Zealand workforce because they need to be people who have the right to work. We know that this is an area of real tension.

I remember a case back in New Plymouth where some migrant workers came in, employed by a reputable company. The local workforce was pretty upset that these men came in to work in New Plymouth. They were aluminium welders. People felt: “Well, I can do that job.” These men came from the Philippines with their families. They previously had been welders of aluminium air frames, so they were highly specialised. The work that this company was doing was welding bumper bars and accessories to utes and vehicles and exporting these across to Australia and different places in the South Pacific and in Asia.

When it came to the test of whether there were New Zealanders able to do this work, in this case they were able to do it for about 1 or 2 hours but not for the whole work day. So the experience of these welders was something that was a skill not currently resident in the workforce. After the tension around that issue and the debate around it, from what I understand, the union appreciated the fact that the experience of these welders—particularly in aluminium—enabled the workforce at large to be involved in a project that brought export dollars into that company and into the country.

Immigrant employment is important to New Zealand but we must ensure that it is not exploited and that we have labour laws and immigration law that protects workers’ human rights and protects them in the workforce. This bill has many provisions that address that. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the Committee.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call on this bill, the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). It is probably no surprise to the Minister of Immigration that New Zealand First does not support this bill. We cannot support it, although we have a lot of sympathy for those temporary migrant workers who are being exploited and we have a lot of sympathy for those illegal temporary migrant workers who are being exploited, as we have a big issue with any worker in New Zealand being exploited. So we would just like to talk and explain to you the issues that we have.

As early as today there was a media release—and I am sure Mr Young was speaking to the same one that I am speaking to—about a fine that was given out to a restaurant up in Auckland for exploiting some workers. These were illegal immigrant workers, and these workers had been taken serious advantage of. The interesting point here is that this outfit, this organisation, really could not be fined because, of course, it has gone into liquidation now. This is not the first time that this has taken place.

This situation is continuing throughout New Zealand at a time when New Zealand is having some major internal issues of its own around employment. At the moment we have got 138,000 temporary migrant workers in the country, 54,000 working holiday visas per annum, and another 100,000 student visas with expanding working rights. We are approaching, if you include the illegal temporary migrant workers or the illegal migrant workers, close to 400,000 workers coming to this country—temporarily, I might add. We are not talking about migrants who are moving to New Zealand for the benefit of the long-term looking after of their families, as Mr Young mentioned, where the money would stay in this country. This money goes out of our country. This money, at the end of their seasonal work and picking, goes back to the other countries. We have some serious issues. When we have got an unemployment rate of 143,000 people, this bill does nothing to help get those workers—New Zealanders—into those jobs.

The biggest issue that we have got, which this bill does not attack or in any way mitigate, is closing the borders to those people who are coming here to take advantage of our generosity, our hospitality, and our open-arms policy of immigration. This bill needs to address the issue by taking closer consideration of it and by taking a deeper, harder look at those people who are coming here. As recently as October last year, there was a case in Tauranga where we had a whole group of temporary migrant workers who were over here to do some kiwifruit picking. It had a similar issue of exploitation—they were being paid between $5 to $7 per hour. There were eight people living in a shack with one toilet. They were promised food, they were promised suitable accommodation, they were promised clothing, and they got none of it. These people came to New Zealand First, where they were actually assisted. They wanted to go back home to Fiji. They did not want to be here any more. This is what has been going on for such a long time.

We want to reiterate that this is in no way New Zealand First supporting this sort of exploitation, but a lot more could be done with this legislation at our border control areas. If we can control the entry points into our country, we are going to have a lot more control over what is going on within our country. We need to look at incentivising and offering opportunities for the youth. Northland is a very, very topical point at the moment. The unemployment rate up in Northland is much higher than anywhere else in the country. We could incentivise like we have in Christchurch by getting some of these people some money to get themselves down to areas where there is work required for them to do, and get them trained and upskilled. These are the sorts of things we need to be doing for the betterment of New Zealand and for the betterment of our people.

As far as exploitation goes, I reiterate that we are in no way condoning that. We sympathise with these people who have come here to the land of milk and honey, the land of opportunity, to get themselves ahead, but the bill does not help New Zealand or New Zealanders. We need to do more to look after those people. Prevention is by far the best cure in this situation.

We can understand why so many people want to move here and certainly come and work here. We have got great weather. We have got fantastic opportunities for jobs, but we have got to get back to the most important issue, which is getting our 143,000 unemployed workers out there taking up some of these jobs. We cannot support this bill going through. Thank you.

Before I call the next member I am just going to remind the Committee that we are in a relatively broad Committee stage because there are big amendments on the bill, but we are in the Committee stage. The principles have been accepted. We are not doing a second reading debate. I think all of the last four speakers did not really spend much time considering the clauses of the bill, which is the purpose of this debate.

I want to add some comments to the debate that we have had so far about the enhanced search powers for immigration officers. What the bill does—and what one of its primary effects is—is give search powers to immigration officers so that they can search employers’ premises, talk to people present to identify offending, search for unlawful workers, check documents, and ensure that migrant workers are complying with the Immigration Act 2009. I want to take at face value the statements that have been made by members opposite, particularly by Jonathan Young and by the Minister of Immigration, in which they say that they are genuinely committed, through this bill, to putting in place a mechanism to address the exploitation of migrant workers.

We can certainly agree with a couple of things that Jonathan Young said. One was that migrant labour is essential to the prosperity of our country and to the functioning of our economy, and the second was that the harmful, negative effects of the exploitation of migrant labour are not only that people’s human rights are being breached but also that they are undercutting other good employers and undercutting the wages and conditions of other workers in the workforce. We see plenty of evidence of that principle operating today. We have had a huge increase in student migrants who are allowed to work under the current rules. Large numbers of them are working for minimum wage rates, and that has had the effect, according to many observers now, of driving down pay rates in those industries, particularly in the fast-food joints and the service stations in Auckland. Many of those are now staffed, by and large, by student migrants who are getting paid minimum wage rates.

I want to come back to the Minister’s statement at the beginning of this particular part of the debate, where he said in response to Labour’s concerns—for example, about enhanced search powers being given to immigration officers instead of labour inspectors—that he was satisfied because this is an immigration amendment bill, and that labour inspectors have no power to investigate immigration offences. Well, that is an entirely circular assertion. It does not take us anywhere. The proposition that we are putting up here is that if the Government is genuine—and I am happy to accept that it is—about trying to eliminate exploitation, then it would be much better policy to actually give those enhanced powers to a labour inspectorate.

As I was listening to the last few contributions, I was thinking about experiences that I had as a young man, as an organiser with what was then the northern Hotel, Hospital and Restaurant Workers Union, which has morphed over the years into what is now the Service and Food Workers Union. The union came across many cases, actually, of exploitation of migrant labour. I am thinking of one case in particular: a restaurant where there were about 20 migrant workers—many of them unlawful in terms of the rules attached to their visas—working in the restaurant and sleeping upstairs. The employer held their passports, and there was what was then a vast sum—tens and tens of thousands of dollars—in unpaid wages that they were due. Those workers were reluctant to report their exploitation to the authorities, but they were willing to talk to a union because they understood that the union did not have the powers of the State and was not there with a view to catching them out about immigration offences. They were willing to come to the union, and as a result of that, we successfully busted that operation and were able to get those workers not only the tens of thousands of dollars of unpaid wages but also the legal advocacy and support that got their immigration status regularised.

That is the opposite of the kind of mechanism that is being proposed in this bill, where beefed-up powers of compliance are being given to immigration officers. I think that it is just common sense to realise that workers are not going to feel comfortable. Many of us know from firsthand experience as members of Parliament that people who come to our electorate offices seeking support to help navigate their way through the immigration system and stay on the right side of the law are often incredibly vulnerable. They are absolutely powerless, and their options are often very limited. To think that they would go and report exploitation in the workplace to an immigration officer who, essentially, has the power to have them apprehended and, in some cases, booted out of the country—I just think is really laughing in the face of common sense.

So I would really like to hear more from the Minister about why he thinks that this kind of mechanism will make a difference. I want to come back to the point that Darien Fenton, a former member of this House, made in relation to this bill—that not only would labour inspectors be better able to deliver on the intent of this bill but, actually, the labour inspectorate has to be properly resourced in order for this to happen. I cannot help thinking that in this case, the Government is kind of hobbled by its ideological preference to not have an organised and strong workforce that is capable of asserting its rights. It prefers to go down the line of beefing up immigration compliance and enforcement, rather than putting in place the machinery to actually ensure that exploitation is driven out of our workplaces.

I am a little disappointed, actually. I did think there might have been some opportunity to not just convince but encourage Opposition members to understand that when they say that they want to support exploited migrant workers, they need to place a greater value on the prevention of exploitation than they do on the protection of people who are unlawful. Effectively, what we are hearing today is that Labour and the Greens want to protect migrant workers, but not as much as they want to protect people who are unlawfully in this country and who might be subject to a search power that they do not like. That someone liable for deportation can sit there laughing at an immigration officer with their passport on the table and those members can say: “That’s OK.” because it is consistent with some human right that they have to fly in the face of common sense—well, I am really sorry. I am really sorry.

I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how many times during the last 6½ years the Labour Opposition has said: “We don’t think it goes far enough fast enough, but we will support it anyway because it does not do any harm.” Labour members must think that the harm that this bill does to people who are unlawfully in New Zealand and may be subject to what they perceive—not the Ministry of Justice, not the Attorney-General, but what they perceive—to be an illegal search power is strong enough to prevent them from supporting exploited workers. Clearly, they did not get the memo from the Council of Trade Unions. The council supports this bill. It is in favour of this bill, notwithstanding its misgivings.

I want to touch on the issue—and I still cannot understand, for the life of me, why Opposition members are dancing on the head of this technical pin about why this power is not given to labour inspectors. Well, I suggest to the members that there is a very good reason why I am both the Minister of Immigration and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, such is the symbiosis and the overlap between those two important functions of the public sector—that is, the maintenance of minimum employment standards and the protection of all workers, lawful and unlawful, whatever their industry and wherever they are. I have been encouraging and cajoling and imploring—and I have been very pleased with the response—those two areas, the labour inspectorate and immigration compliance and fraud, to work more closely together, more seamlessly. We have significantly boosted resources, in straitened times, to enable them to do their jobs better, but we have asked them to work smarter, and they are doing that and they are doing that much more effectively. The flow of information between the labour inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand is preventing, and prosecuting, far more illegal activities than ever.

I am sorry that the volumes are going up, and that is why we are improving minimum employment standards at the same time as passing the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it is an indictment on Labour and the Greens that despite whatever misgivings they have, they cannot bring themselves to support this bill, when their track record of pragmatic support for other legislation, even though they do not think it has gone far enough or fast enough, speaks volumes—speaks volumes—to how bitter they must be feeling right now. This is the one bill where I thought, despite those misgivings, we would have that support. I am deeply disappointed but always the optimist. It is not too late. It is not too late for them to have a change of heart.

I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell’s intervention. He had the same concerns, but, true to form, New Zealand First just wants to close the borders. That is its solution to migrant exploitation: let us not have migrants. Well, that will be a great sell for the champions of small business in Northland. New Zealand First can go up there and say, when it wants to grow Northland’s primary sector, when it wants to grow those industries ahead of the demand for labour: “Don’t worry, no solution there.”

But I will accept what Mr Twyford and Ms Moroney said, which was that successive Governments of all colours have always had a “Kiwis first” approach to immigration policy. And I will accept—

💬 Sue Moroney: Not in Queenstown.

I will come to Queenstown, because those champions of small business are going to go down to Queenstown and say: “Forget that—forget that stuff that National’s done. Labour, in office, wouldn’t do that. It would not support small business in Queenstown.” It is different down there, and I do accept—here is the point—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will call the Minister again, but I am going to issue the same warning to him as I issued to members before. We are now talking about the detail of the bill, not broader immigration policy.

I will finish on this point. There are a number of industries and areas that have relied far too much on immigration policy to inoculate business risk. It is important that immigration policy is at the end of a pipeline that has other strategies to improve the domestic availability and supply of labour to meet those growing job demands. I thought we all had that in common, but in the Canterbury rebuild, in places like Queenstown, and in our horticulture industry it will always be necessary at this time to rely on immigration policy to meet those labour needs. The challenge for this House is to make sure that those labour market - tested temporary visa holders are protected.

I want to touch on an issue that Ms Logie raised in the second reading, because it actually goes to the heart of some of the themes of what is coming through here in terms of why we are doing what we are doing. It relates to the issue of a power that will be given to the Minister of Immigration to consider the liability for deportation of people who have lied on their visa applications. She said that this was somehow going to catch people who inadvertently make a mistake in their visa applications or who do not understand the questions. Well, that is not true. That is not what the bill says.

She also said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee never considered this and there is no problem to solve. Well, that is also not true, because the select committee was advised by officials of the grounds that required this particular change. It was a widespread rort uncovered some years ago on police-vetting checks for labour market - tested visas and residence applications under a certain category, where hundreds of applicants had been given false police clearance letters. It does not matter who, it does not matter where, but when I was asked when I would see these files for consideration for deportation, I was told that if the applicant, notwithstanding that they had lied on their application, would have otherwise been granted a character waiver and given residence, there were no grounds for me to reconsider that decision. I think that is ludicrous, and that is why I have proposed the amendment. It means that a commission of a criminal fraud on a visa application could be grounds for deportation. And the Greens will not support this bill because that is somehow unfair to a person who has committed a criminal fraud, and they see that as being more important than the protection from heinous exploitation of legally entitled workers in this country.

I find that a damned shame because it speaks volumes for the parties that are not supporting this bill. I encourage them to reconsider. I encourage them to see that, whatever misgivings they have about those clauses in respect of search powers and a power to deport for a criminal fraud, they should set aside those misgivings. They do not even put in a Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Twyford goes on about the labour inspectorate not having the powers. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? We cannot even consider it because they will not put it up. I think that is a bit lazy. But it is not too late for Labour to have a second thought—a reflection on whether or not Labour really is the party of the people and the champion of the workers, and not of the fraudsters—and support this bill. There is still time.

I came into the Chamber during the Minister of Immigration’s earlier contribution, during which he responded in a very measured fashion to some of the questions I asked when we were last considering the Committee stage of this bill. I must say I actually appreciated the answers that the Minister gave. I think the Minister will be aware that for two of the three questions that I asked we did not accept the response that the Minister gave. I asked some genuine questions about the legislation during the Committee stage, as we are supposed to do, and I appreciated the fact that the Minister answered them. I was going to delve into the exact—well, I am going to delve into the exact issue that the Minister has just raised, but with a little bit of trepidation, given the fact that that was a slightly more political speech from the Minister than the one he gave earlier on.

But, nevertheless, Minister—oh, Minister Foss—in the spirit of a good Committee process, I will ask some questions around clause 42. This clause amends section 158 of the principal Act that we are amending. This relates to the deportation liability of residence class visa holders if the visa or citizenship is obtained or held by fraud or forgery, etc. There is no concern on this side of the Chamber with having measures that ensure there are consequences for fraudulently obtaining a visa or residency or citizenship, and those provisions already exist in the legislation. What we do have some concerns about are the exact issues that were raised by a number of submitters at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Forgive me, Minister, but this term’s select committee is markedly different in personnel from the previous term’s select committee. Most of us who are speaking during this Committee stage by virtue of being members of that committee did not get to consider this legislation. So these questions are genuinely asked because I was not part of the select committee process.

I understand that the body representing immigration practitioners, the Legislation Advisory Committee, and the Law Society all raised concerns around the expansion of powers under clause 42 of this legislation. Essentially, the current situation is that if a migrant has been convicted of an offence involving their procurement of a residence visa or citizenship by fraud, forgery, or false or misleading information, or concealment of information, then the Immigration Service is within its rights to revoke their citizenship and seek deportation. The amendments in this legislation significantly widen the scope that is currently contained in section 158. It will no longer be necessary that the discovered fraud, etc., contributed to or led to the procurement of the visa. At the moment it has to be demonstrated that the fraud occurred in order to procure a visa. Now the scope is being widened considerably. I must say, despite the Minister’s previous contribution, which I have to say was rather political in its tone, we have not yet heard the reason that the Government has determined that that widening of the scope is required.

However, it goes a lot further than that, and this is where the real concern from submitters came in. It was around the fact that a migrant may lose their residence visa or citizenship due to fraud or concealment committed by somebody else. The migrant themselves does not even need to be aware that that fraud or concealment took place. Now, of course, it does not matter whether that fraud or concealment committed by someone other than that migrant actually contributed to the gaining of their own visa or citizenship. This is a significant widening of the scope of section 158.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment explained that the immigration system should be based on true and accurate disclosure to maintain its integrity. There is no argument from this side of the Chamber that that should not be the case. The ministry also explained that cases involving false or inaccurate disclosure erode that integrity, even if it is not the false information that leads to a visa being granted. If that is the case, then the consequences relating to the giving of false or inaccurate disclosure or false or inaccurate information should relate really to the matters that that false information related to, not necessarily to the granting of a visa. The ministry also explained that the change is expected to provide a strong incentive for migrants to tell the truth in residence class visa applications, and presumably make sure anyone else supplying information is also doing so.

However, and this is the point that the Legislation Advisory Committee raised with the select committee, it is possible that some visa holders will be unreasonably tainted by someone else’s fraud, or by that other person’s possibly innocent or inadvertent falsification of some peripheral information. Some migrants, through little or no fault, may still lose residency or citizenship or be deported. These so-called innocent migrants will still have rights of appeal in matters of fact, but it is not clear in the legislation, given the wording of the legislation, whether a defence such as having taken all reasonable steps to avoid submitting anything false, or absence of fault, will be available to those migrants should they be appealing against such an order to revoke their citizenship or to be deported. The Legislation Advisory Committee considered that such a defence should be expressly available, as it is consistent with normal policy for strict liability offences.

That was the concern that I believe Jan Logie raised during the second reading debate. It is a matter that has not been considered in great detail by the Committee of the whole House. Given that Minister Foss is in the chair, he may be able to respond to this, or perhaps some member of the National backbench may be able to respond if they have been given a brief on what their party’s position is on this. But I think this is a genuine concern. It is one that has been raised by multiple submitters. It was considered significant enough that it was included in the departmental report, but as yet we have not seen a considered response from the Government on that matter.

I have got some questions for the Minister in the chair relating to clause 94 of the bill, which deals with the question of migrant levies. We have not had a lot of discussion about migrant levies in the Committee, but as the Opposition spokesperson on ethnic communities, I am particularly concerned about the implications of the change that this clause makes for those people who are coming to New Zealand. We have long had the requirement that there is a levy paid by migrants who are coming to New Zealand, but this has been on the basis of an understanding that a migrant pays a levy that is then reinvested into the new migrant community to pay for English language training, to help that new migrant individual or family to understand the customs of the country and the language of the country, and to give that migrant the chance to settle as quickly as possible into New Zealand society.

For all of those reasons, I have not been a critic of the migrant levy that exists in the current Act. But there are some serious changes in clause 94, and I want to refer the Minister to the Legislation Advisory Committee’s comments on the changes that have been made. I think it is worth reading to the Minister what the Legislation Advisory Committee said about the changes in this particular clause. It said: “The existing Migrant levy is narrowly focused, and raises approximately $4.5 million annually, or about 2 per cent of the Immigration budget. The current levy’s purposes are expressly restricted to funding settlement programmes for migrants and research into settlement issues.” This is exactly what I have been explaining to the Committee. It says: “The existing levy is clearly not a tax.”, but the change that the Government has made in clause 94 makes the levy into a tax. This is a new tax—a tax being smuggled in through this legislation—and one that has not been explained to the migrant community.

To go back to what the Legislation Advisory Committee said about this, it said that in contrast to the existing levy, “the proposed Immigration Levy could be construed as a tax.” The Legislation Advisory Committee is not a political body. It has advised on this bill, and has advised on things that it regards as poor legislative and statutory practice, and it says this is poor practice. It says that “Clause 94 broadens the potential purposes for the levy considerably, including helping pay for any immigration system infrastructure and operations and funding the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority. In principle, such general expenditures should preferably be met from tax revenue or from properly targeted fees for services where these can be identified.”

So what we have got here is a fundamental change that the legislation is making without the Government giving justification for why that change is here. If you are going to levy a tax, call it a tax. Explain to the migrants that you are now taxing them to pay for the basic functions of the Immigration Service, but do not come into the House and smuggle a piece of legislation like this into the House that detracts from the levy that helps people to settle in New Zealand and requires the migrants to pay for a fundamental, core Government service. And when the Legislation Advisory Committee, chaired by Sir Grant Hammond, makes a criticism of this magnitude, the Minister needs to take it seriously.

So I would like the Minister to take the next call and explain why the old levy—helping people to settle in New Zealand; a justifiable objective that the migrant themselves could be expected to contribute to—is suddenly becoming a tax to pay for the basic bureaucracy of the immigration section of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. This is a serious change. It has not been advertised as such. It has not been referred to by the Minister in the speeches that have been made. It has not been justified to the House. And I am saying that in this Committee stage the Minister has the opportunity to get to his feet and explain why that change is being made.

It is a pleasure again to be talking on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). It is slightly disappointing to hear the Opposition talking about this bill, because this bill is really important in terms of protecting those migrants and those immigrants who come to New Zealand and provide an important contribution to this economy. In my own electorate I see a number of them who come and support the horticultural industry in Franklin, and they play a very important part. On the other end of this, we need to also make sure we put in place proper controls so that the Immigration Service can do its job. This bill is particularly focused on legitimately enhancing controls and procedures, particularly focusing on screening and monitoring and also powers of inspection.

We want to make sure that those migrants, those immigrants, who come here are protected and that they are not exploited. A number of speakers have spoken about that concern and those issues that have been occurring and that we want to make sure we stamp out. Probably the most important thing about this bill is that it introduces quite severe penalties—namely, a jail sentence of up to 7 years or a fine of $100,000, or both. These penalties reflect the seriousness that this Government is putting on this issue. We are simply not going to tolerate illegal treatment of our migrant workers.

I want to turn my mind to three clauses of the bill. The first is clause 42, which my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee just spoke on previously. Under this bill, section 158(1) of the Act is actually widened by clause 42(2), whereby the definition now states that a person commits an offence if any information on the application form for a visa or an entry permission was fraudulent, forged, false—the three “f”s—or misleading or omitted relevant information, whether or not the person holding the residence class visa or the entry permission provided the information. My view is that the first part of that change is absolutely understandable. The second element really gets to the heart of the issue with someone else filing on behalf of the resident or the person getting the entry permit some false documentation and therefore allowing a travesty to occur. I think that is a particularly relevant part of the clause—to make sure that all information provided to the Immigration Service is actually timely and accurate and full.

With regard to the second clause I want to focus on, it is new section 277A in clause 61. This clarifies the definition of “specified employee” as it relates to the powers to enter and search an employer’s premises. The new definition now gives the immigration officer powers of entry to search for employees on an employer’s premises—and this is the new bit—if they have “good cause to suspect” that a specified employee is committing an offence. Personally, I think it is essential that the immigration officer can undertake their duties, but it is also vital that the Immigration Service also undertakes that search in a proper manner.

The third clause I want to just turn my own mind to is clause 80(3A). This addresses the obligations of the employer in relation to the hiring of unlawful employees. So you can see that on one side, under clause 61, we have talked about the unlawful employees; on the other side we are now talking about the employers’ obligations. This new amendment replaces section 351(7) of the Act and states that an employer is committing an offence if he or she knows that an employee is not entitled to do any particular work if, within a period of 12 months prior to that period, the employer is informed of the fact by the Immigration Service, whether or not that employee is holding a temporary entry visa or otherwise. Again, this clause is really dealing with the issue of employers hiring—

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I come down to take just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First, predominantly in response to the Minister of Immigration, who was previously in the chair, and his comments with regard to New Zealand First’s reasons for opposing this bill. The Minister was somewhat simplistic, which does not surprise us, but we need to clarify these things. The Minister suggested that the reason why New Zealand First opposes this bill is merely that New Zealand First opposes immigration, which, of course, is not correct. New Zealand First, as I think the Minister actually articulated in his contribution at that time, strongly believes in putting New Zealanders first. It is not a difficult concept; that is the concept upon which our name is founded. But we also believe that the moment—the moment—a migrant, a temporary worker, or any new settler to New Zealand places one single foot on New Zealand soil, they will be treated no less than any New Zealander who has been here for all time, or even a new New Zealander or a new settler.

The reason why we are opposing this bill is quite clearly outlined in some of the move—and I believe that Ms Moroney in her contribution highlighted it—to powers that are going to be given to immigration officers. This is around warrantless search. This is around actually targeting workers—the very workers whom the bill says it is trying to protect. So, first of all, let us go back one step and say that we agree that migrants need to be protected from unscrupulous employers—absolutely need to be protected from them. However, this bill, in a very strange way, takes away some of their rights, which no New Zealander would accept, and that includes allowing a warrantless search of any premises at any time by an immigration officer, as opposed to—as Ms Moroney said—putting in place more labour officers, more workplace officers, so that those workplaces can be checked in the first instance and the appropriate person held to account. The appropriate person to be held to account is actually the employer.

We agree with the clause that says that if an offence was committed within 10 years of the employer’s visa being granted, then that employer needs to go. They obviously have not understand the values that New Zealand places upon the work environment. We believe that for any citizen, any individual, who comes to our country, whether it be for holiday work or whether it be for temporary migrant work in our avocado orchards or in any other place in New Zealand, we place value on having the minimum criteria, which must be met. But, unfortunately, there are no clauses in here—actually, the exact opposite will take place—with regard to encouraging these people to come forward and report, and surely that is exactly what we need to be putting into place.

There is no statement in here with regard to where, if any migrant worker comes forward and reports to authorities—and we would suggest that those authorities should be workplace inspectors, not immigration agents. Those are the very people who come around to find illegal workers and deport them. We would suggest that there should be criteria in here that give some protection for whistleblowers. We are prepared to go forward and say that the case needs to be proven, so that if the whistleblower makes an allegation and it is proven in the courts, then that individual gains protection. Perhaps it might be just 6 months’ protection while they seek another employment opportunity, but nothing in this bill will encourage those workers to come forward. Nothing in this bill will suggest to those workers that New Zealand is actually trying to protect them—nothing in this bill.

I think that the other thing that is probably important is that it has been the case where New Zealanders who are born New Zealanders have been taking advantage of migrant workers, and at this stage we have raised the penalties a little bit, but not enough. Again, there is nothing to encourage those workers to come out and report those environments.

I want to also pick up on the point that Mr Goff just made with regard to the levy being changed to a tax. It is an uncomfortable feeling. We have had a tax on foreigners previously in this nation. It is an uncomfortable place to be in, and I find it ironic that it is a New Zealand First member who is going to stand up and say that it smacks of the poll tax. These levies were there for a purpose and they should not be seen as another cost in order to try to buy your way into New Zealand. They should be collected for a specific purpose and the Government should be able to show where those funds will go. An example would be the levy on English for speakers of other languages that you can actually pay to come into New Zealand, should you not meet the English language criteria. I am going to go back to my memory now—I think it is between $1,200 and $1,500 when you come in. If you do not meet the English-speaking criteria, you can pay this levy to the Tertiary Education Commission for a prepaid certificate, and it is trackable. That is what the levies are supposed to be for. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are a foreign worker. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are coming to take up a temporary work placement.

So I want it to be very clear because the Minister made it very simplistic. New Zealand First is not standing here and opposing this bill because we believe that migrant workers and temporary visa workers should be treated any less than any other New Zealand citizen or any other New Zealand resident or New Zealand worker; we are standing here opposing this bill, as the majority of the Opposition members are, because, in a strange way, this bill hunts those workers down. It gives powers to the immigration agents that they should not have. People should not be able to do a warrantless search in this way. The bill provides no protection for migrant workers that we can find. We think it takes away some of the protections that they have now. It will not encourage anybody to come out and tell us about the employers who are taking advantage of these workers, and that is supposed to be the purpose of the legislation—to avoid people being exploited.

Again, one can have at the end of it a certain punishment for somebody who is exploiting them, but where in this bill is the support to stop people taking advantage in the first place? Where are the supports to make sure that those migrant workers can actually report? Where are the supports in here so that should they support, as they did down in Nelson—I am pretty sure it was in around about 2008 that there was an incident in Nelson when those workers were treated and housed horribly by a New Zealander. They were deported when they reported those conditions. That New Zealander was fined and then went about his business.

We cannot support the bill because the bill misses its mark. Kia ora.

I rise to speak to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which Labour will oppose because it does not significantly tackle migrant exploitation and there are some significant issues that we have with the bill. We in the Labour Party have a concern that far too many migrant workers are having their employment rights abused. That is something that we certainly see down at the end of the country in which I live. In the wider Otago-Southland area there are countless tales of exploitation on dairy farms. That should not tar all farmers with a brush, because there are also plenty of good employers in our region. But where there are abuses we need to ensure we have good legislation to tackle them, otherwise it simply puts pressure on good employers as they seek to stay afloat competing with bad employers.

There are, of course, also isolated cases in Dunedin itself. There were cases raised before the election where I personally was asked for comment about employment rights being abused. The position that Labour took was that there should be appropriate fees in place—and I see here in this legislation that there is a muddling of levies and taxes, which has been criticised because the thinking is not clear thinking. When we do have appropriate levies in place that pay for sufficient inspectors to ensure that the employment rights of immigrant workers are not being exploited, we will end up with a more even and level playing field.

Of course we all recognise the need to have seasonal workers and immigrant workers here in New Zealand to meet shortages in the labour force. We must balance that, of course, with the need to have opportunities for New Zealand workers, many of whom are willing to work and may or may not be located in a position where they can do so easily. Sometimes the wages, of course, are insufficient to cover transport costs, and we find that migrant workers are willing to live in conditions that New Zealanders would not work in, and that is an issue to do with minimum wages that is not unrelated to the material in this bill.

We need to create in this country, I think, an environment where workers are able to report abuse. This is the problem, of course, that we are trying to tackle, but that is tackled inadequately in this bill. Workers are not going to report exploitation if they are going to risk being deported. We need to think carefully about how we set in place those mechanisms, so that we have the principle preserved that where there are abuses, the migrant worker can feel that they are safe to report them, so that our labour laws are strengthened and so that our labour market functions in a way that is fair before the law for all parties.

The Government, it has to be noted, continues to fail to employ enough labour inspectors to reduce the pressure on migrant workers to report. If we had sufficient inspectors, we would be living in a situation where we had fewer cases of exploitation, and so it seems logical to me that we need to set in place the appropriate levies, taxes, fees—however they are collected—to cover the cost of inspecting to make sure that exploitation is not taking place. Where there is an incentive in place to report or sufficient oversight that the abuses do not occur in the first place, we then have a functioning labour market, we have the appropriate workers being brought in and treated fairly, and we preserve our international reputation as a good place to work and to live, and these reputational effects, of course, also have wider benefits. As a country we depend on our reputation for fairness in many, many situations, including at the international trade table. New Zealand earns its place at the trade table as a small country often because it is seen as a straight talker—as one that will not align itself with other countries’ interests just for the sake of it, but will take a principled position. That is based on our reputation for fairness and, of course, that can be undermined by poor legislation that does not seek to ensure that immigrant workers are protected appropriately.

In the bill itself, as I said, there is a mix of levies and fees. The Legislation Advisory Committee regarded the bill and proposed that there should be greater specificity to show that what has been proposed is not simply an unwarranted tax and to ensure that migrants will not be made responsible for the Government’s failure to properly fund the Immigration Advisers Authority. So there is some muddled thinking in the bill and it is clear that that needs to be picked up and addressed. I would be interested in what the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, has to say about that recommendation, as I am sure he is across these issues as a former Finance and Expenditure Committee chair, one whose nomination I thoroughly supported. I am sure he will have some words of wisdom about the recommendations of the Legislation Advisory Committee. I see Mr Goldsmith nodding, so I will look forward to his contribution soon. He is someone who does have something to say in debates that is worthwhile from time to time, and this may well be one of those occasions.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Like Halley’s Comet.

My colleague comments he is like Halley’s Comet, but I will come back to the matter at hand. In the select committee 18 people submitted on the bill and a number of changes were recommended. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to support the amendments that are being put forward. We do not think that they really address the issues that have been brought forward through the submissions process and we do not think that they get to the heart of unpicking the problems that sit in the bill, so we will still not be able to support the bill even if the amendments were adopted by this Parliament.

I want to finish my contribution where I started off, by encouraging the Minister in the chair to indeed address those issues. Maybe he has got some other ideas as to how we can solve the muddle that is in the bill. I would like to see the Government significantly tackle migrant exploitation in a way that is meaningful and that preserves our international reputation for fairness and the fair treatment of workers, because we depend on that reputation in the international trade sphere. We depend and trade on our reputation for fairness in many areas in world affairs. Ultimately, it is about fairness, and New Zealanders have a real sense that fairness must be preserved. That is also true for our New Zealand workers—it is about making sure there is a fair market place and that exploited migrant workers are also not undercutting the opportunities, effectively, for New Zealand workers. So we will not be supporting the bill as it stands and I do very much look forward to Minister Goldsmith’s contribution to the debate. He is someone who occasionally sheds useful light on an issue.

The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:

In new section 5(4) in clause 5, replace “must be sent” with “must be given or sent”; and

in new section 175A(5)(c)(iii) in clause 47, replace “for liability against deportation” with “against liability for deportation”.