Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2)

I move, That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. Immigration has always been vital to the growth and well-being of New Zealand and this bill includes a number of amendments that will ensure our immigration system remains fit for purpose, supports the economic aims of New Zealand, and better protects our borders. At the heart of this bill are the amendments to protect migrant workers from exploitation by cracking down on employers who exploit their migrant workers. New Zealand has an obligation to the migrants it brings here—the migrants who are contributing to our economic growth and who are helping us rebuild Canterbury.

Unfortunately, over the past few months we have heard many stories about migrant workers being exploited. We have heard stories from the Christchurch construction industry, the Queenstown tourism industry, and the Hamilton restaurant industry, just to name a few. These migrant workers are not working unlawfully. They are here in New Zealand on work visas, including working holiday and student visas with work rights.

The amendments in this bill aim to stamp out the exploitation of migrant workers who are in New Zealand on temporary visas. Under the Immigration Act it is already an offence to exploit migrant workers who are not entitled to work and this bill will extend that offence to temporary visa holders who are entitled to work.

This Government is sending a strong message to those unscrupulous employers who exploit workers and undercut their competitors. These employers could face up to 7 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $100,000. The Government is sending a message to these unprincipled employers that this is not OK.

It is important that New Zealand has absolute control over who enters and stays in New Zealand, especially in this era of heightened security risks. This bill contains a number of amendments that will strengthen our ability to protect our borders and ensure the integrity of our immigration system.

The bill introduces changes to the Immigration Act that will accommodate a new model for the way passenger name record information is provided. It will improve the identification of travellers who may pose a risk or require further intervention. Changes to the way biometric information is collected will enable faster identification of individuals and improve the ministry’s ability to manage risks. These amendments will enable biometric information to be collected from persons already known to be liable for deportation or turn-round. It will enable a compulsion order to be sought, on application from the District Court, to require a person to allow their biometric information to be taken, where that person is liable for deportation and has refused to allow biometric information to be collected from them. Where a compulsion order is made it will enable police to use reasonable force to take the biometric information under certain circumstances. This will help ensure a firm, fast, and fair deportation process for people who do not have the right to remain in New Zealand, and it will enable biometric information to be collected from non-citizens arriving in New Zealand either before or after they have been granted entry permission and while they are still within the immigration control area.

I want to summarise the amendments that are intended to improve the integrity of the immigration system. The bill will enable residence class visa holders to be liable for deportation where it is established that any of the information provided in relation to their application for a visa, entry permission, or any other visa was fraudulent, false, or misleading, or relevant information was withheld. The system needs to be based on a true and accurate disclosure by its participants, as cases that involve false or inaccurate disclosure erode the integrity of the system. This amendment creates a strong incentive for people to tell the truth in their application for a visa. It also extends the search powers of immigration officers. That will better enable them to do their job, including their job of investigating migrant exploitation.

One of the search powers that this bill will allow is the ability for trained and specialised immigration officers to search employers’ premises and interview employees in order to ascertain whether the employer and the employee are complying with the Immigration Act. Yes, the search power is warrantless, and yes, the search power will allow immigration officers to search dwelling houses.

I want to take a moment to point out a couple of details of these particular features, as they have been the subject of criticism. Firstly, the reason that the search power does not require a warrant is that immigration officers, prior to visiting premises to investigate an employer who they believe is committing an offence under the Act, will not know that workers may be hiding in part of the property. It does not make sense in these cases for the immigration officer to turn round and go to obtain a warrant, as the workers will have vanished by the time the immigration officer returns. Secondly, there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the search of a dwelling house. It should be pointed out that in the context of this amendment an immigration officer needs to believe on reasonable grounds that the premises are owned, occupied, or used by the employer where it is believed that work is being done. So it is not just an ordinary residential home, and we are talking only about searching for people.

In addition to the search of an employer’s premises, the bill contains three other search powers that will mean that immigration officers have the powers they need to effectively enforce the Immigration Act. Authorised and trained immigration officers will be able to apply for and execute a search warrant using the provisions of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Until the transitional powers set out in that Act expired in June 2014 immigration officers could only apply for a search warrant. The amendment reinstates that power and adds the ability for the immigration officer to execute that warrant. They will be able to undertake a personal search and a search of baggage in the immediate control of the person at the border for the person’s passport or identity document, where the officer has reasonable cause to suspect the passenger is concealing these documents. That power applies only to non - New Zealand citizens.

I must once again put on record my disappointment in the lack of support for exploited migrants shown by Opposition parties by their failure to vote in favour of this bill. New Zealand First, I can understand. They are now firmly established as New Zealand’s anti-immigration party. Mr Peters’ scurrilous description recently of migrants as “absolute crap” and his attack on the New Zealand resident recently killed in the Middle East are ample example of that. They do not pretend to be in favour of migrants or to be the champion of the migrant community, but Labour and the Greens do. Their failure to support this bill past its first reading highlights that pretence.

The bill’s primary purpose is to prevent and prosecute exploitative employers. So far, the reasons given by Labour and the Greens for not supporting migrant workers include, from Labour, that the search powers are given to immigration officers and labour inspectors—well, so what; that the immigration levy looks like a tax; that they thought a regulatory power that was taken out at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee remained; and that there are not enough labour inspectors.

The Greens, who prefaced their comments by describing the worst excesses of employers as “almost keeping slaves”, thought it more appropriate to allow visa applicants to commit fraud on their applications without consequence and allow overstayers to thumb their noses at officials’ attempts to deport them by refusing access to travel documents. They said it was more important—more important—than preventing and prosecuting the exploitation of migrant workers.

Many of those concerns were absolutely without foundation or were fixed by the select committee. Furthermore, the bill comfortably passed its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, the Ministry of Justice supports it, the Council of Trade Unions—for goodness’ sake—supports it, but Labour clearly did not get the memo. Labour and the Greens still have the opportunity to join with the Government. It is not too late for those parties to send a very clear signal that, whatever their misgivings about the rats and mice details of this bill are, they support preventing and prosecuting the exploitation of migrant workers. Their failure to do so says to me and it says to the migrant community that their faux support is just that—that they are more interested in the details than in the power to prevent and prosecute. I call on them to change their minds, even at this last minute.

I want to acknowledge the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, most recently ably led by Jonathan Young, the submitters, and especially the officials, who have worked tirelessly to improve the lot of migrants in this country with the passage of this bill. I commend it to the House; I hope Labour and the Greens can also do so.

That was an interesting call from the Minister of Immigration. Towards the end of his speech he called on Labour and the Greens to support the legislation in order to demonstrate our support for migrant workers and our desire to prevent their exploitation and to prosecute those employers that do exploit those migrant workers. He said that we should support the legislation simply because those members say it does what they say it does. They say that it will achieve those things—prevent exploitation and prosecute the exploiters. It does not matter whether we think it actually achieves those outcomes or not. This is what the Minister says: “Don’t worry about the details. Don’t actually look at what the legislation does.” It does not matter that the Opposition parties actually considered it in detail at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, listened to what the submitters had to say, and listened to what a lot of migrant worker representatives had to say when they came to the select committee and said: “This legislation will not work.” “No, no, don’t worry about that.”, says the Minister, “Just vote for it because it will look good.”

That is this National Government’s way of doing things, actually. Smoke and mirrors—pass legislation that has the right title and has the right purpose clause, but, actually, when you look at the detail, it does not do any of the things that it says it is going to do. Well, we do not support that approach. We will not support this Government’s window dressing. Sure, we supported this legislation’s referral to a select committee because we agree that we do have a problem in this country of migrant workers being exploited. The Minister is absolutely right that there are a number of places around the country that are extremely reliant on migrant workers. For example, the Christchurch rebuild is utterly reliant on migrant workers, and we thank those migrant workers for coming over to New Zealand and supporting the rebuild. Of course, the fact that we are so reliant on migrant workers is because this Government failed to provide the training and the skill development that New Zealanders needed to be able to participate in the rebuild. We have got loads of New Zealanders still sitting on the unemployment benefit because this Government failed to invest in education and skills development, so, yes, we are reliant on those excellent migrant workers who are coming over here and helping us get the job done, but we need not be. We need not have all those migrants coming and doing that work. We could have New Zealanders doing that work.

In Queenstown, the Government has now introduced an exemption so that Queenstown hospitality employers do not have to go through a labour market check to make sure that there are not New Zealanders who could go and work in Queenstown. They can just bring migrants directly in. Well, the reason why employers in the Queenstown hospitality sector are struggling to recruit and retain workers is the pay and conditions that they offer. If they are having trouble recruiting and retaining staff, then this Government should encourage them to improve the pay and improve the conditions and improve the accommodation that they provide for those workers. That is why we are so reliant on those migrant workers, and that is how this Government has actually created the conditions in which more migrant workers are likely to be exploited. That is why it needs to be seen to be doing something in this legislation, even though the submitters who came to the select committee told the select committee that it would not work.

The Minister mentioned the migrant workers who come here on temporary visas, who are entitled to work in New Zealand, and said that this legislation would protect them. Well, in fact, Mr Assistant Speaker Mallard, you know very well that there is a group of workers who come to New Zealand on temporary visas whom this legislation will do absolutely nothing for, and that is the group of workers who are employed by foreign companies to come and work in New Zealand. There are workers, as you know, in your electorate at the Hutt workshop—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Yes, yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I think even though the member knows I have some interest in this area, it is not appropriate to bring me into the debate while I am in the Chair.

That is true, and I apologise. There are workers at the Hutt workshop who have worked in New Zealand for 6 months—that is what I am told. They worked in New Zealand for 6 months, and, yet, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety insists that they do not need to be covered by New Zealand employment law. So they do not get the right to the minimum wage. They do not get the right to sick leave. They do not get the right to bereavement leave. They do not get the right to annual leave. They do not get the right to be covered by health and safety law. They do not get the right to be covered by the Employment Relations Act. And that Minister is comfortable with that. They will not be covered by this legislation, either. That Minister over there is absolutely comfortable with workers coming to New Zealand, working in this country, and not being subject to the minimum standards, not being protected by the minimum standards that New Zealand law provides for.

That is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage that that Government is prepared to allow those workers to be potentially exploited by their employer. Are they being exploited? We do not know, because those workers were not prepared to tell—

💬 Ian McKelvie: Go and ask them.

Ah, Mr McKelvie says: “Go and ask them.” Well, Mr McKelvie, you obviously have not been paying attention, because a labour inspector did go and ask them and, for whatever reason, those workers refused to tell the labour inspector what their wages are. The Minister triumphantly said in the House yesterday that that was absolutely the right thing to do—to tell the labour inspector to butt out because that was a matter, a private matter, between those workers and their employer. Well, if those workers were covered by New Zealand employment law, that would be a matter for the labour inspector because, under the Minimum Wage Act, the labour inspector is absolutely entitled to ask for information relating to the wages those workers receive.

I think, actually, that that legislation should apply. It should be possible for the labour inspector to find out whether those workers working in New Zealand are receiving the basic minimum requirements that any other worker in New Zealand should be allowed to receive. It is a wonder that a labour inspector even got in there in the first place, because we have so few labour inspectors. We have so many examples of the minimum requirements that are expected under New Zealand employment legislation being absolutely flouted by employers because there are so few labour inspectors that it is highly unlikely that they will get caught doing it. This legislation will not make a lot of difference to those most extraordinarily vulnerable migrant workers. Even if it did the job it was supposed to do, even if we felt we could support it, that Minister believes that because it is New Zealand employment law and New Zealand immigration law, it does not apply to those vulnerable migrant workers, and that is an absolute outrage.

Actually, the Minister covered the reasons why we are opposed to this legislation. We do believe that the powers of search and surveillance that are going to be given to immigration officers will actually act as a disincentive for migrants to come forward and report unreasonable, exploitative practices by their employers. We also agree with the Legislation Advisory Committee’s concerns that the proposed immigration levy is too broad and, in fact, actually acts as a tax. That would have been an easy matter to tidy up, but this Government refused to do that. We think that the result of this legislation will not be to make migrant workers feel more secure in the workplace, will not be to encourage them to speak up and alert the authorities to exploitative behaviour, but will, in fact, do the exact opposite and make those workers more vulnerable.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that if Labour wants to look like it is supporting migrant workers, it would vote for this legislation. We are not interested simply in looking like we support migrant workers; we are interested in really supporting migrant workers. That means all migrant workers, whether they are employed by New Zealand companies, New Zealand individuals, or foreign companies. They should all get the same protections and we should be working hard to enhance those protections, not diminish them in the way that that Minister and this Government continue to do.

The member opposite, Iain Lees-Galloway, started off his speech by riling and railing against the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Minister Michael Woodhouse has sponsored through the House, saying that it was mere window dressing. I was waiting to hear the alternative provisions that the Labour Party believes are going to make a difference. I cannot say that I heard anything that I felt was going to make any difference; all I heard was criticism. I guess that may be the purpose of the Opposition, but I think also the other purpose of the Opposition is to provide credible alternatives. So, to the honourable member opposite, perhaps that is something that you should consider—what are the credible alternatives that you present, in regard to this bill?

We are a migrant nation, without any shadow of a doubt. Every single one of us has come from a migrant background. My older brother, who lives in the United States—obviously, a migrant to that nation—describes the United States as a nation of nations. In a recent trip to London—a private trip—I was amazed at the number of migrants who were there. You would wonder whether London would achieve the phenomenal growth and commerce that it does without the inflow of intellect and capital into that city that comes from migrants. What we understand is that migrants around the world who go to difference places to share their ideas, to make a way and a life for themselves, offer to their host nations incredible opportunities to develop, to grow, and to improve. Because of that, and because we are a migrant nation and we are a world of people who travel and work in different places, it is important to have a good, solid foundation of migration law.

I was fascinated to hear—and alarmed, of course—that in the recent earthquake in Nepal 1,000 climbers were on Mt Everest. At any one time, there are a million travellers in the air. Those are huge numbers, and it just goes to show how important travel is to us as people. Coming back to this point: migration is an incredibly important area of attention that needs to be well thought of and well legislated for in order for nations to take advantage of the migration that happens to them, and also to protect those migrants and to protect the economy of those nations that migrants go to. In this legislation not only are we seeking to protect migrants but also we are wanting to ensure that people who exploit migrants do not do it at the cost of genuine, bona fide, compliant businesses.

You can imagine that if an employer were cutting somebody’s wage and paying them well below the minimum wage—which here in New Zealand is $14.75, which, as a proportion of the average wage, is very high internationally—and paying only $5 an hour, and if they were paying this to a number of employees, at that level of income, not only would it be exploiting the employees, it would mean that their cost of business would be so much lower. The business next door, which might supply the same or a similar service, would now be at a competitive disadvantage. So it is incredibly important, not only to protect the exploited worker but also to protect the bona fide, compliant, legal businesses that are in our nation as well. This bill does that.

In my second reading speech, I alluded to a report in the New Zealand Herald. I would not mind doing that again, if you would give me the leave to be able to read its report.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am sure I will be flexible if you do.

This was a case where an Auckland employer was accused of exploiting migrant workers by refusing pay and by using city offices with no bathroom or kitchen facilities for their accommodation, and failed to pay nearly $40,000 in settlement costs. They then refused to do this. The Employment Relations Authority then published a report on this, showing that the Auckland woman, Norajane Colos, the sole director of E-Advance, E-Jobs, and E-Reuse companies, had agreed to pay, in November, just under $40,000 to six complainants but had failed to do so. The complainants were owed a tremendous amount of money. These were their claims of exploitation: they had to pay a premium, or capital infusion, of up to $15,000 to secure employment in the first instance. That is not the sort of capital investment that we call bona fide and honest; that is extortion. They were not paid any wages. They were pressured to borrow further sums of money to give to the company. Their office in central Auckland was a commercial building turned into accommodation for those who ran out of money for rent. I wonder why they ran out of money. It is quite obvious. The accommodation had no access to a shower or a kitchen, and they survived mainly on fruit and instant noodles. They were subjected to various degrees of humiliation if they did not work full time without pay.

Of course we are horrified at those sorts of conditions and that sort of exploitation. This is what this bill seeks to address and to stop, which is why, despite the nuances and the detail here and there, we would ask parties in this House to support this bill. This is the exploitation that can and does take place in this country, which we want to see come to an end. It is very important for us to understand that we are living in a world of incredible cleverness, where people can find their way around laws and compliances in all sorts of different ways and measures. That is why, when it comes to some of the biometric technologies that are now available, we need to give the Crown the opportunity to utilise them.

About 7 or 8 years ago, I went into the United States. I think the place of entry was Hawaii. I went through customs, and there, for the first time ever, I received fingerprint and iris scans. For a brief few seconds, I think there were millions of calculations and processes taking place that identified that I was not on a terrorist list. That is the sort of technology that is available—and you will be very relieved to hear that, Mr Bayley. That is the sort of technology that is available. Iris scanning is an amazing technology that identifies a person in even more detail and has a greater capacity than fingerprints, and the technology is available to us today. Of course, these are the technologies that we need to use, especially when there is fraudulent activity around identity documents. It is important that we do keep up with the advantages of technology, because those who seek to work around the law will certainly use technology to their benefit as well.

There are many provisions in this bill, which the Minister has ably discussed and presented to the House. I am sure other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee will bring those out in the debate today. But I would just like to make some closing comments. This bill addresses the rights and concerns that people have regarding exploitation and seeing those exploitations come to an end. I believe that we have a good and a decent society in New Zealand, and this sort of legislation is being put in place to protect that and to enhance that. I am very happy to commend this bill to the House.

The Labour Opposition supports the intent of this bill. It supports the prevention, the interdiction, and the punishment of the exploitation of migrant workers. But what it does not support is some charade where the Government itself knows that the measures proposed in this bill are not going to work and, in fact, cannot work. Members opposite have asked the Opposition for two things in this debate. The first is clarity as to why we will not support it, and the second is what we would do instead, and I intend to set out both—set out both. What is important is that this bill is under-resourced. It creates an inappropriate extension of powers. It is full of legal anomalies and unintended consequences. It does not solve the problem that it says it is going to fix. As such, it is yet another triumph of spin over substance and of rhetoric over solutions. It is an example of a Government that has lost its way.

If you ever doubt that, you know it when members opposite, members of the Government sitting on the Treasury benches, make a plaintive plea, as the member who has just resumed his seat, Jonathan Young, has done to the Opposition to come up with the solutions even though they have all the resources of the Government at their disposal. You know you are in a third term—a Government that has lost its way, meandering through side tracks and embarrassments, losing the point, and losing the capability to charter a course to the future for New Zealand.

Firstly, let us look at the context of this bill. There is a growing problem. On that we agree with the Government, and we agree with the officials who have worked very hard on this bill. There is, as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has so clearly stated, a lack of skills development in New Zealand, which means that our economy is becoming increasingly reliant on migrant labour to fill the gaps. There is a mismatch between our tertiary education system and our job market. That is made worse by the proliferation of low-quality private training establishments, which are under-regulated. Too many of them are not about higher education; they are about being visa factories. Anybody who has been in Auckland and looked around those knows only too well that students are brought in on lax courses, they are given work rights, and they are often exploited by people—I agree with the Government—who are often from their own communities. They are exploited on low wages. As a former Minister of Immigration for 2 years and as a local MP in west Auckland, I can tell you that I have seen these cases at both ends—from a supervision and overview point of view, and as a local MP reporting cases of alleged exploitation, one of which has finally led to convictions in the court system after many years of chasing.

What we need to see is a law that will work. Here is what needs to happen instead of what we have been served up. Firstly, this bill lacks any kind of whistle-blower protection for the workers who are being exploited. Here is the fundamental problem and why this bill just cannot work. If you are a migrant worker and your temporary visa depends upon the job you have, as it often does, and you report that you are being exploited, you can bet your bottom dollar that you will lose that job because either the employer gets away with it and kicks you out in revenge, or, if the employer goes down, your job may well go down with it. Either way, unless you are protected, you will not report. That is a fundamental problem with this bill that the Government knows about because it was presented in multiple submissions to the select committee, and that it has done nothing to fix.

The second fundamental problem is a very sad one, and I am almost loath to mention the names, but what do Cave Creek, Pike River, and this piece of legislation have in common? They were all disasters waiting to happen. This bill is a disaster waiting to happen because it provides an unfunded, under-resourced mandate. The labour inspectorate has been thrown together in Mr Joyce’s little empire, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, but the labour functions have been run down because the ministry is so set on racing to the bottom of the business barrel that it has under-resourced the labour inspectorate. That is another reason that this bill cannot succeed: it is an under-resourced mandate.

Thirdly, this bill contains what in our view is an inappropriate and unbalanced extension of official powers. They are, in several cases, measures that were tried on the previous Government by some of the same officials in the lead-up to the 2009 review—when I was the Minister—and rejected because they failed New Zealand Bill of Rights Act tests, like warrantless searches of private property and private home dwellings. Of course officials must have the ability to conduct a thorough search; otherwise, they will not get the evidence. But when we start taking away the judicial protections of warranting, as the Government is trying to do in the intelligence and security area and as it is doing in this bill, what we see is a creeping undermining of democracy. Just ask John Campbell. Just ask Mike Hosking. This Government loves power and it loves control, but New Zealanders are getting sick of a Government that is about power for its own sake, not about the people it is here to serve.

Write us a law that will work, and we will vote for it. We support this bill’s intent, but we will not window-dress over New Zealanders’ suffering. We will not window-dress. Another example: absolute discretion decisions—under this law, there is no Privacy Act protection. The officials—and this will be delegated down to a low level—have absolute discretion to make whatever decisions they like, with no legal comeback and not even the ability for an affected party to find out what has been decided and why. You could call it the “Kafka clause” because the Government is exempting itself from the normal processes of a democratic system where a citizen, including a migrant or an employing migrant, should be able to find out why they have been pinged. Do we want to live in a society where the Government can take arbitrary, unsupervised actions by officials—not by the Ministers; by officials—and people cannot even ask what and why? No, that is wrong. That was rejected in the lead-up to the 2009 review, but officials have come back and snuck it past the goalie, and those folks were asleep at the wheel.

There is a bunch of legal issues. It is my privilege to chair the Regulations Review Committee. We raised with the committee that considered this bill the fact that the commencement date was outside the normal processes, and it did act to tighten that up. In this legislation there is a potentially unmandated levy that has come under considerable criticism from migrant communities. It is very, very important that those processes are transparent.

In summary, we support the intent of removing the exploitation of migrant workers. We wanted to support the bill. We supported it to select committee. We made it clear to the Government that we wanted a law we could pass. But we sadly find, once again, that the Government has put spin ahead of substance. The sad part about this is that the Government knows damn well that it is doing it, because it was clear in the submissions. There is no point in passing a law that protects workers if it does not. If a worker comes forward, under this bill, they are down the road because either they get the sack in revenge or their employer goes down and there is no protection for the worker. The bill is an unfunded mandate. There is no resource in the labour inspectorate to carry out the functions written in law. Thirdly, it is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is an inappropriate extension of warrantless searches and exemptions from the Privacy Act. Finally, the bill is beset with legal loopholes and contradictions, which is just bad quality legislation.

In summary, there are many responsible members opposite. The Government has had a worthy intent with this bill. It is not too late for the Government to change its mind and take this bill back and put it through another turn of the legislative spanner to fix these obvious problems. This bill deserves more work. New Zealanders deserve it to have more work. They deserve a Government as intent on substance and fixing the problems as it is on its own power and popularity. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to be talking on this third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Immigration and the people and the systems that monitor and manage it are vitally important to New Zealand. It is crucial that we welcome our migrants, look after them, protect them, and give them the same rights as all New Zealanders. The skills that they bring and the expertise that they offer are very important in terms of helping all of us in New Zealand to grow and prosper here in New Zealand. They contribute directly in terms of not only their skills but often the capital and intellectual properties that they bring. Of course, it is easy to understand why we are having this conversation and dealing with this issue. When you look back, in 2011 we had just on 15,500 immigrants who came into Auckland. This is expected to rise to nearly 48,000 by the end of this year. I do note that these figures do include some New Zealanders returning home to New Zealand.

To bring these figures into life, in my electorate we rely heavily on skilled migrants helping some of the industries. One of the most important industries in my electorate is the horticulture sector. We have got the cropping sector, which employs hundreds of people and generates roughly about $250 million in export sales a year. I have also got the glasshouse growing industry, which, again, generates about $150 million and employs roughly 1,500 people in my electorate. Many of the people involved in assisting those companies, working in those industries, are migrants who come into New Zealand with great skills, particularly with the dexterity to pick a number of the crops, to go up high on lifting equipment, to drive the tractors, and to do all those sorts of things that help to make horticulture in Pukekohe, in particular, a very successful growing industry. Migrants can be very important not only at an industry level but at a particular company level.

One example my predecessor had to deal with was an excellent Indian migrant worker who worked in the glasshouse construction and maintenance sector with a particular company in my electorate. The reason he was so good was not only was he very happy to work at heights and he was physically light, but he was also very good working with metal and glass. His ability to scale and construct those glasshouses—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: He sounds like spiderman.

Very close to it, I am sure. He was pivotal in terms of the development of that company. Unfortunately, by the time we got to hear about him, his visa had expired and he had to return overseas. But with the support of that employer we managed to get that person back, and now that company has grown substantially. It is now not only working in New Zealand but has successful operations in Australia and is now a very successful company. One of the conditions for him to return to New Zealand was that that company had to also employ another person who had the back-up skills to be able to do the same type of work. That is a classic example of where it was very helpful in terms of growing that New Zealand business.

However, it is not always great outcomes that we can talk about, and this bill is obviously about dealing with some of those other outcomes. I want to talk about just two areas: international students, who are often given work visas to work up to 20 hours a week, and also those migrants who come in under the essential skills category. If migrants in either of these groups actually do something that breaches their consent conditions, then they are obviously liable for deportation. At the end of the day, there is an imbalance between those types of migrant workers, working here legitimately, and employers. If there is an employer who wants to take advantage of them, there is a strong imbalance of power. That imbalance of power is often demonstrated because when they come to renew their visa, they need the support of that employer. That imbalance of power is something that this bill is seeking to deal with.

The flip side of dealing with immigration is that the controls and procedures that we put in place under the terms of this immigration legislation must make sure that those migrant workers are protected and given the same rights as all New Zealand workers. At present the Immigration Act offers no protection to migrant workers who work in accordance with their visa status. I just want to say that again. At present the Immigration Act offers no protection to migrant workers who work in accordance with their visa status. At present those employers who exploit unlawful migrant workers face heavy sanctions, but those persons who exploit lawful migrant workers are less severely penalised. It is interesting reading the impact statement to this bill and the case of the two massage therapists who came to New Zealand. What happened was those two ladies came here. The employment agreement under which they were supposedly brought into New Zealand was provided to the Immigration Service. What happened was as soon as they arrived in New Zealand they were made to sign a much more onerous employment agreement that meant that they were working between 6 and 7 days a week, up to 10 hours every day. They were actually forced to stay in the room and sleep on their massage beds, and they were paid a miserly $100 to $200 a week. They were left in that invidious situation, so eventually they left that employer and sought employment elsewhere. Under the current Immigration Act that situation did not meet the criteria for exploitation and this is what this bill is trying to deal with.

This bill deals with the screening and monitoring of foreigners living and working in our country and ensures they are meeting the conditions of their work visas. To protect our migrant workers, severe penalties are introduced in this bill whereby those employers who do operate in a totally inappropriate way can face fines of up to $100,000, or 7 years in jail, or both. It is interesting that migrants who are also employers are now able to be deported if the exploiting occurred within 10 years of their gaining residency here in New Zealand. I note a comment in the labour inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand report that it is common that many of the employers who do exploit migrant workers are themselves former migrants. Of course, this bill is dealing with that. The penalties reflect the seriousness of the exploitation offences and demonstrate the tough action that this Government wants to undertake. We are not prepared to allow the illegal treatment of migrant workers to continue.

The bill provisions will also encourage migrants if they are in invidious situations and are finding that they are being exploited to come forward under a situation where by doing so, and if they collaborate with the immigration department, their current status is not going to be denigrated by coming forward to Immigration New Zealand and letting the department know about these employers who are exploiting other people. We are also extending the power to search not only to deal with exploitation in the workplace and in the home but also to deal with what happens at the airport to make sure that we can get all of the relevant documentation. The proposed amendments also enable technological changes to be made so that our immigration officers can be far more effective in doing their jobs. It is really important, particularly at airports, that we give our immigration officers the power to make sure that arriving passengers are subject to the due tests and that we can test and check the patterns and trends of what is happening with migrant flow, because it will lead to better protection of our national borders. The biometrical measures continue, which I think are a really good idea. One of the things that specifically relates to biometrical measures is that when migrant workers have been deported on reasonable, proper grounds, we can then force them to give us the biometrical data that we need to make sure that they do not return to our shores.

In my view, this is a great bill. It is seeking to deal with a significant problem. We like migrant workers coming into New Zealand but we do want to make sure that they have the same rights as New Zealand workers. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Greens will not be supporting. Basically, this bill takes one step forward and two steps back. We support several things in the bill. We support the intention and we support making the exploitation of migrants on temporary entry visas, with regard to work conditions, an offence. That is a common-sense measure that we should have had in place a long time ago, but we applaud the Government for bringing it in. We support the provisions in the bill that will provide harsher punishments on employers underpaying and exploiting migrant workers. We approve that those unscrupulous employers who exploit migrant workers on temporary entry visas should face up to 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000.

The fundamental reason that migrant workers do not report bad employers is that, frankly, they just do not want to be deported. This is something that the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand has told the Embassy of the Philippines. It said there was little it could do because it was difficult for migrant workers to complain because they feared that they would lose their jobs and, consequentially, their visas. This is straight from the workers on the ground who have said what they need. What this bill does not address is the necessary protection to be whistleblowers.

That is why we fundamentally cannot support this bill. It tends to take a top-down approach to fixing the issue rather than listening to the people on the ground who are suffering the problems, and providing bottom-up support so that we can protect migrant workers properly and effectively. The Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand is at the coalface of what is happening. It has seen cases of workers working 15 hours a day, day after day, during the calving season. It has seen cases where migrant dairy workers have had to provide their own wet-weather gear and have had no assistance from their employers.

That is consistent with the statistics we are seeing from the labour inspectorate, which conducted 176 investigations in farm-related industries across New Zealand quite recently. It found 67 employment breaches. This means that a shocking one in three of those who were investigated was abusing minimum employment standards. There is an absolute epidemic of migrant worker abuse around the country. This bill that the Government is proposing is a band-aid; it is not a cure. It is not just the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand that has identified the core problem of this bill. The Auckland Latin American community have identified the “lack of effective protection for victims of labour exploitation as a main concern” and have highlighted in point No. 1 in their submission that immigration status and employment rights are intertwined. This is also supported by evidence from the Union Network of Migrants, which has highlighted that stronger protection and incentivisation for whistleblowers is what is needed. We commend the Government for its good intentions about this, which makes the fact that it is not listening to the community, not listening to the people on the ground, not listening to the Filipino Dairy Workers of New Zealand or the Union Network of Migrants—not listening to them—all the more tragic.

The bill has lots of other problematic areas in it. We are uncomfortable with the way the bill extends the search powers of immigration officers into private dwellings, especially without the requirement for a warrant, and I endorse what the previous speaker on this side, Mr Cunliffe, said about that. If the goal is to address labour abuses, then why is the power being given to immigration officers rather than labour inspectors, and why do we not beef up the number of labour inspectors that we need? Putting immigration officers in charge of enforcing the labour standards will lead to further confusion in the migrant sector, and it will create more barriers to reporting breaches and exploitation. Warrantless searches also mean that we are treating migrant workers as less than other New Zealand citizens and other workers. The legacy of the dawn raids of the 1970s casts a long shadow on many Pasifika and migrant communities, and it is not surprising that many people would feel uncomfortable with this.

This bill will enable those with residency to be liable for deportation if any of the information in the original application proved to be false, even if this information was irrelevant to the decision to grant them a visa. They do not even need to be aware that the information was false when they made the application. People make mistakes. This is problematic because even minor errors can lead to deportation, and that creates another disincentive. In some cases, workplaces assist migrant workers in preparing their visa applications. From the abuses that have already happened, it would not be too outrageous to suggest that some of these employers might deliberately introduce errors into the process, creating further disincentives for reporting exploitation.

We know from the points that my colleague Jan Logie raised in the earlier reading that FIRST Union has mentioned employees signing agreements in the Philippines. Yet, when they arrive in New Zealand, that contract, that agreement, has been changed. It knows of workers whose local employer is threatening to send them home if they do not work during the weekend, or make them work for no pay, or they get put in different work from what they originally agreed to do. The task of protecting migrant workers is even more urgent in light of a finding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that it could not even determine whether Chinese engineers working at KiwiRail were being paid the minimum wage. The ministry could not even find that out. When the Minister’s own department cannot determine whether or not someone is getting paid the minimum wage, we have a serious problem. When the Chinese engineers decline to tell the labour inspectors what they are getting, perhaps for fear of getting their contracts cancelled, then we have a very serious problem.

It is a tragic state that our State-owned company cannot even guarantee that contracted migrant workers are getting paid the minimum wage. What sort of message does that send to other employers around the country? The Government should have been investing in places like the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin so that the country has independent industrial capacity, rather than resorting to importing workers it cannot even guarantee are getting paid a minimum wage. It undercuts every other worker in Aotearoa New Zealand.

What would the Greens do? Well, as I have said in an earlier reading, the solution as we see it, frankly, is to improve worker representation. This means that we need to improve the rights of unions and promote their ability to bargain collectively. We need to improve the industrial relations climate as a whole so that workers’ rights are the norm, instead of having the current Government’s moves to deregulate the workplace environment, which actively encourages bad employers to rip off workers. The zero-hour contracts that are prevalent through the hospitality sector are one example of bad employer practice.

In terms of this bill, we need a guarantee that workers who blow the whistle on their employer have their visas protected. We need real protection for migrant workers and a supportive environment so that workers, Kiwi and migrant, can step forward without fear. As I have said, although we thank the Government for making the right noises and taking a step—a tiny step—in the right direction, this bill takes several steps back, so we will not be supporting it.

I am going to try my hardest to keep my level down, because it is a very emotive subject and we have seen a lot of passion in the House so far today from people talking about this very important subject. I do not think there is anybody in this House who would not agree that we have a major problem in New Zealand at the moment and, potentially, in the future if something is not done about the issue of temporary migrant workers and the exploitation of workers.

I want to make very, very clear what the Minister of Immigration’s comments were when he opened up his statement. He said that this bill is fit for purpose. I have to ask whose purpose it is fit for, and I have to question some of the patriotism when we talk about the purpose of looking after New Zealand and New Zealanders first and foremost. However, he did come back quite nicely and say that he understands New Zealand First’s point of view—New Zealand First has a very, very strong immigration policy and we have a strong view on immigration. It was a bit tongue in cheek there, because I know he was not saying that in a positive way; he was trying to make it negative. He mentioned Christchurch quite openly, using Christchurch as an example of where we have got the temporary migrant workers we need. This is absolutely 100 percent in line with New Zealand First policy.

New Zealand First’s policy, in our manifesto, says that immigration is about the people we need, not the people who need us. We need those workers who are down there in Christchurch. We need those skilled labourers, those skilled workers, because we do not have enough of the skills that are required to rebuild one of New Zealand’s most important cities. But I challenge the Minister to come up with another area, another location, or another workplace that needs the sorts of numbers of temporary migrant workers who are flooding New Zealand’s workforce. I cannot think of another one. Absolutely Christchurch needs that—[Interruption] Sorry, Mr Bridges?

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: Bay of Plenty.

Bay of Plenty, with our kiwifruit workers? You must be living on a different planet. That does not make any sense whatsoever. It makes no sense at all. When we have 143,000 New Zealanders looking for work we should be doing more to get those people skilled and into our workforce, because the money that is coming in—I am just trying to get my level down, trying to calm down; I was getting to another level, you see. We are getting ourselves into a situation where we are getting these people from overseas, they are working here for a short amount of time, and then they are heading back, taking that money away.

Another member, earlier on, mentioned the temporary migrant worker visa for students. What a great subject that is to bring up, because at the end of the day we are exporting our education system, which is a very sound policy to be doing. We have been doing it for years, encouraging people to come to this great country and get a good education, because they are people we need. They are bringing wealth to our country. It is a zero-sum gain when we then go out and give them—a hundred thousand of them—employment to cover themselves off while they are studying here. Where is the benefit for New Zealand? What about our New Zealand students who are struggling on a daily basis to get ahead and to pay their school fees, which are rocketing? They are borrowing more money to keep themselves afloat and get themselves skilled and get themselves educated. This Government is not doing anything to address that issue by allowing that to happen.

I want to talk about our kiwifruit workers. Why do we not bring in a situation where we are encouraging our unemployed people to get in and be part of the workforce—with a community wage, where you cannot just receive the benefit; you have got to be part of the community and work for that benefit? Now all of a sudden that is a huge incentive.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: You go talk to the kiwifruit growers. You see whether they like that policy.

Mr Assistant Speaker, I have to say that I think Mr Bridges is trying to be charming, and it is not working.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry, I probably should have interrupted Mr Bridges, not for his interjections generally, because they are fine, but for referring to me repeatedly. Mr Mitchell.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you very much. Referring back to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), I would just like to read a couple of points. This bill would, it says here—in the commentary on the bill; the bill as reported from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—“give temporary migrant workers the same protection from exploitation that illegal workers currently have under the Act.” Wow, we actually give illegal migrant workers protection under the Act.

Secondly, it says here that it would “make liable for deportation employers who are residence class visa holders if they are convicted of exploiting migrant workers or knowingly employing migrant workers without work rights,”. If we had an amnesty clause put into that, that might make some sort of sense, but you are asking these exploited migrant workers to go and whistle-blow on their temporary employers and there is no incentive for them to be able remain in their work or relocate to new work. So all of the sudden this is not working. This Government has not listened to the submissions that have been made to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and it is not listening to the outcome that we are trying to put forward here.

We would be somewhat supportive of this sort of legislation if it actually addressed the problem at the source. If there was a leak in a dam and it was starting to grow, and then that leak turned into a crack and the crack turned into a major breach, the water would flow down and gouge away the land. Any sane person would agree that you would not start trying to fix the land at the bottom; you would fix the dam at the top and stop the leaking. There is nothing in this legislation that stops the problem at the source.

We are talking about tightening up on our immigration laws. What interests me the most is the fact that these temporary migrant workers are being exploited by their own people. Just recently we read in the newspaper that the Masala restaurant chain was fined for exploiting migrant workers. They were exploiting their own people. The exploitation of skilled migrant workers was also raised as an issue. The people in Christchurch, the skilled migrant labour that we have got down there, are not being exploited. They are being well remunerated and well looked after for the jobs that they are doing. The exploitation is in respect of those unskilled workers—kiwifruit workers, pickers, and packers in our fruit industry. There is exploitation there.

Just recently I got some information sent through to me with regard to the Rena in the Hawkes Bay. Mr Bridges, you will be well aware of the Rena but you might not be well aware of this information, because, of course, you might not be in touch with those people. But the reality is that eight New Zealand workers who have been working on the Rena for up to 3½ to 4 years have all lost their jobs in the last 2 weeks. Eight New Zealanders have lost their jobs in the last 2 weeks, after working on the Rena for 3 to 4 years. Why? Because they have been replaced by temporary migrant workers. That is right. They have been replaced by six people from Indonesia and two people from India. Why? Because those people are being paid sub-conditional wages. They are trying to undercut the value of New Zealand workers.

We do not support increasing employer dependence on cheap migrant labour to the detriment of New Zealand, but that is what is going on. You are not getting to the source of the problem by heading it off at the pass. Anybody would understand that if you want to control your room, you have to control the doorway to your room. This is not being done, and this legislation does not do anything about doing it. Weak labour market testing is also a major problem, and we have also got some serious issues with the black market bypass of the Inland Revenue Department.

A lot of these people are using these temporary migrant visas as a way to cut the loopholes, to not pay their taxes. I can tell members about another case—and, Mr Bridges, you might be interested to know this too. Late last year we had some issues in the Bay of Plenty with those very same exploited temporary workers. It was promised that they would come to the land of milk and honey, New Zealand, and get great work—$15 to $17 an hour—and they were exploited by their own people. This problem is not a new problem. This problem has been going on for a very, very long time. Mr Bridges, you can look as if you are reading something more important and not listening to what we have to say about this, but this issue affects the Bay of Plenty. In fact, it affects all regions of New Zealand. I also saw in a newspaper an article that looked at the problem of Kiwis who lost their jobs over the Cricket World Cup.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What should we do about it?

Oh, you are interested again. The Kiwis who lost their jobs over the debacle—

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What should we do about it?

I am getting to the problem—and I have already told you what we need to do. You need to get to the source of the problem.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the source?

Simon Bridges, seriously, as a Minister—the source is where they are entering. Come on! Well, I tell you what; perhaps you could sit down and have a coffee with me. You once denied me that. You said I do not offer you anything. You asked what I could possibly offer you if you sat down with me. Well, how about you have that coffee with me? Maybe you will change your mind, because there is some rational thinking here. You have not thought this problem through, and you are not interested in coming to talk to the people who have got some solutions. I put the challenge to you.

💬 Hon Simon Bridges: What’s the solution?

Well, I have just given you a solution—stop the problem at the source. And come and have that coffee with me. [Interruption] I will tell you what. We have got all sorts of problems, and the situation is mounting now. A total of 55,000 people immigrated in March, when last year it was 35,000 people. In 2013 we had only 15,000 migrants enter this country. We have got an explosive problem that needs to be fixed. Thank you.

Obviously I rise in support of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). Following on from the excellent contributions of Government members to the annual review debates, I can say that this bill is a pragmatic solution to an issue, by highlighting unacceptable behaviour, putting in place harsh penalties, and putting in place measures that will stamp out, obviously, this abhorrent practice. This issue, of course, is the exploitation of migrant workers.

As my colleague Mr Young alluded to, immigration underpins New Zealand society, and you do not have to look back too far in your own history to see that. With a name like Dowie, I have Scottish ancestry. I do not quite roll my Rs like the Scots do, but, nevertheless, some farmers and people here have told me that I have got a bit of a twang. I am quite proud of that. I am from Southland.

💬 Tim Macindoe: It’s one of your most endearing features.

Absolutely. And Southland, of course, as we are aware, is one of the better provinces in New Zealand. Migration obviously adds to our diversity. It is going to be interesting for me, now that I have a New Zealand First member in our province, because if it was not for migration to our area, our population would be going backwards. So it is going to be very interesting for our people to have somebody who holds New Zealand First principles in respect of migration. Our migrants come to us sometimes through tourism, and they love the place and then they want to stay. They come through education, especially in Southland with the Southern Institute of Technology, our fantastic polytechnic. That allows us to forge friendships, and it attracts a greater skill base. As I have alluded to already, Southland requires that greater skill base, especially in the primary sector.

But when migrants are taken advantage of, it is just not a good look. It is not a good look for our reputation internationally. We like to think of ourselves as a fair society, and we want to have laws that protect that. It is certainly not good internally either. By exploiting migrants—paying them less, making them work long hours, taking away their holidays—it means that businesses that are operating within the parameters of the law are extremely disadvantaged, and that is not good for production or for our economy. The predominant way to bring attention to this matter is being quite clear and making exploitation an offence. That is what this bill does. Employers who exploit migrant workers will face a jail sentence of up to 7 years or a fine not exceeding $100,000. That is 7 years and/or a fine not exceeding $100,000. That is a tough penalty, and it sends a very, very clear message.

Furthermore, this bill makes resident class visa holders who are exploitative employers—and they are often a group of people who engage in this behaviour—liable for deportation if the offence was committed within 10 years of gaining residence. This sends a message that says now that you are in the country, it is a privilege to be here, and we expect you to comply with our legislation and our practices and uphold our fair society. So we are sending a message that this is just simply inappropriate behaviour.

The exploitation of migrant workers has come to the fore through articles in the New Zealand Herald. My colleague Mr Young read out a report from the New Zealand Herald that highlighted some terrible, terrible situations that some of our migrant people were placed in. There was also an issue that was found in Queenstown, where an audit was carried out by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment late last year. I have got some statistics here. Thirty-five audits were carried out in Queenstown at the end of last year, targeting businesses that in turn target migrants for employment, with 18 of them found to have broken employment laws. Again, that is unacceptable. Workers were missing out on holidays, they had no employment agreements, and they were being paid less than the minimum wage. Those businesses, I am happy to say, are now complying with the law, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment resolved 1,563 complaints made nationally by exploited migrants. More than $2.6 million in arrears was recovered. I think that is a fantastic result for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

It is not great that we had the problem in the first place, but obviously now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and its labour inspectorate are targeting industries. They are monitoring industries to make sure they are complying with the law, where there are migrant workers working in them. Some of those industries are hospitality, horticulture, dairy, construction, fishing, and viticulture. So they need to be monitored. I have already alluded to Southland, obviously. Agriculture has traditionally been a mainstay for us. It is a major source of growth and demand in our province. It is not just labourers whom we require. We require skilled owners, farm managers, and farm workers to help with that industry and to continue our great record in respect of our production and generation of export receipts.

Here are a few statistics about Southland. I said that if it was not for migrants, our population would be going backwards. We now have around 2,000 Filipinos in our community, adding to diversity, interacting with our people, and children in schools. These people are on farms and want a better life for themselves, but we cannot have them exploited, especially when they are located some way out of a city centre and feel somewhat isolated.

In 2000, non-New Zealand citizens made up 36 percent of Southland’s arriving migrants, whereas in 2013 they made up 61 percent. So that is fantastic for us. It really does add to our diversity in the Southland region, and it is much richer for that. It is, again, reflective of the needs of our primary sector and is obviously a reflection of our growing tourism and wonderful education systems that are attracting people, first, to the province, and later they are deciding to stay. It is a fantastic result for us.

Internally, we do not want to see lawful businesses driven out of the market. We certainly want our international reputation to be preserved. As an example, an employer who pays $5 less per hour of a worker’s entitlement for a 40-hour week is saving $20,000 per annum. You can see that that effect would basically mean that a legitimate business just cannot compete. So this bill forms part of a reform package to encourage victims to come forward. This is because there are also changes to the immigration instructions that allow immigration officers to overlook breaches of the terms and conditions of work-related visa conditions if the person cooperates with Immigration New Zealand or the labour inspectorate. That is a positive; I really cannot see the Opposition’s points with respect to that. What I also like about this bill is that it extends the search powers of immigration officials, and that is appropriate. They can now search employers’ premises to talk to the people who have issues, to help build a case, to gather evidence, and to, hopefully, move that through to a successful prosecution.

I want to end by thanking the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work on this bill, and, of course, the Minister of Immigration, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, for bringing this bill to the House. He is a Minister of Immigration who listens very well to the issues surrounding immigration, especially in Southland, and I look forward to working with him further in respect of Southland’s issues.

The next call is a split call—Jan Logie, 5 minutes.

I rise to take a call on this the third reading of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2), which the Greens are very disappointed not to be able to support. As has been previously mentioned by my colleague Denise Roche, we see this as one step forward but also, sadly, as two steps back.

It is critically important that we have provisions in law that protect legal migrant workers from exploitation, and this bill enables that to happen. It is critically important that we have functioning sanctions against employers who are exploiting migrant workers, and this bill provides for up to 7 years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $100,000. That is really important, because, as we have heard from the previous speaker from the National Party, Sarah Dowie, some employers may benefit by up to $20,000 a year through the exploitation of migrant workers. So minimal economic sanctions, as is the case in the law at the moment, will not pay off. They are not going to be in balance with the gain that those employers can make from exploiting workers.

So those provisions are really important. However, the basic conditions to enable those sanctions to be put in place are not in this bill. We know that the migrant workers’ union was encouraging the Government to bring in this legislation, and we supported it at its first reading. In fact, the union was saying that we should not have to wait too long, that this was too important, and that the exploitation that was happening was terrible. We have heard across the House tonight some terrible stories of exploitation, and we all know those stories.

So this bill is really important, and we really, really wanted to support it. But as we were going through the legislation, and through the select committee deliberations, we were starting to get more and more concerned at what was being raised. So we went back to the union and said: “OK—this is what’s in this bill. Can you support this? Do you support this? Do you want us to support this?”. Their answer was: “No.” If the union that is representing the workers—the people who have most access to their experience, to be able to inform good lawmaking—is saying that this bill is counter-productive, then this House actually needs to listen to that, because none of us have access to the experience that they do. We need to listen to that. They are telling us that for this to work, there needs to be visa protection for those workers.

I hear that the Government is bringing in directions for Immigration New Zealand to enable it to overlook breaches of visas for workers, to enable them to make complaints. But that is a discretionary provision. If workers cannot be guaranteed that their visas are protected, they are not going to come forward. If they are risking deportation, they are not going to come forward. We know that we do not have enough labour inspectors to actually be able to detect migrant exploitation without the workers coming forward. We do not have a system to be able to do it, so we are reliant on the workers coming forward. This bill disincentivises those workers from coming forward.

So what are we left with then? Actually, we are left with window dressing on the core provision. We have got extended search warrant powers into domestic homes or powers of search without warrants. I want to give credit to ACT for extending and ensuring that there is some accountability around the use of that power, but still, it is without warrant. There are search powers into people’s homes, when we have a history of dawn raids in this country. Those powers are being given to Immigration New Zealand rather than the Labour Group. We are told by the Minister that that is because this is an immigration bill—not to be flippant. That is flippant, when we have a history of immigration officers going into Pasifika people’s homes to deport families in this country and of racist abuse of the immigration system. We need protections against that. This bill actually gives disproportionate power to the Government, and we should be very worried about it.

I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, and as somebody who believes the history of New Zealand, our country is in fact a history of immigration. I cannot help but respond to some of the comments made earlier by members of New Zealand First that some of this exploitation is being done by their own people. What exactly does that mean? I would love them to give an explanation of that someday, but it seems to give an insight into the way that they think. They seem to believe that immigration is a threat to “our” jobs. Well, I will tell you something. Apart from the offensiveness of the pronouns they use, the fact is that once upon a time New Zealand had no people, no immigration, and no jobs. We have had a thousand years of immigration and now we have lots of jobs. QED: immigration is actually good for jobs.

But I would like to get back to a particularly poignant experience. I had cause over the past week to spend a lot of time in Whangarei Hospital, in honour of my, unfortunately, late grandfather, Joe Faithfull. The ward that he was on was staffed almost entirely by people who are recent immigrants to our country. There is a lesson in that for some of the elderly members of New Zealand First: be very careful what you say about immigrants because it might not be too long before they are giving one of you a sponge bath.

In particular, I want to get back to what Jan Logie was referencing—that is, new sections 277B and 277C in clause 61. I would like to thank the Minister Michael Woodhouse, and I have to say that I find him to be a very hard-working, professional, and listening Minister. He was prepared to take on board concerns about the idea that an immigration officer would be able to go into not only a business but a private residence connected to a business—perhaps a dairy or restaurant in my electorate—and ask any questions that they wanted to ask and search for any documents that they wished to search for, without a warrant. We would not give that power to the police, so I made it clear that ACT’s preference is that we would not have such provisions.

However, it was clear that the Government was determined to have them, so I would like to thank the Minister for being considerate enough to insert the additional new sections so that the search provisions that this bill introduces will actually be subject to greater democratic oversight—that is, there will be periodic reporting of the use of what I regard as extraordinary powers—and that after 3 years, the sections in this legislation that introduced them will be required to face ministerial review.

We are a nation of immigrants. It is not about us and them, and our own people and their own people. This is a country that is great because so many people freely come here to access, first and foremost, due process and the rule of law. I do not believe that this bill is perfect in that regard, but I am pleased to have been able to play a very small role in improving it. So I will commend this bill to the House and we will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) in its third reading. I support the bill. This has been a very interesting debate. Why I say so is that it reveals that the Labour Party does not care about migrant workers’ exploitation, and many contributions from that side will remain in my mind for a very long time because I am so surprised. I do realise that I will not have time to deal with them all, but if I talk about my electorate, Mt Roskill—Mt Roskill is the hub of migrants. In Mt Roskill I have more people born overseas than people born here in New Zealand. If I talk about Auckland—according to our latest census, we know that one in four people in Auckland was born overseas, and the prediction is that in another 15 years it will be one in two—one in two people in Auckland will have been born overseas. So this is a very much - needed bill for New Zealand, especially when it is becoming so diverse.

As I said, I will not have enough time to deal with all the Labour contributions so, to move on—I had a trip just last Sunday down from Auckland to Palmerston North to attend and speak at an Indian function. This was just a day trip, so I was dressed up in my very traditional Indian outfit. As I arrived at the airport and went through the usual process of checking in and getting my boarding pass, I was constantly offered help. Doors were opened for me, people were very kind and very genuine in their greetings, and this continued on the plane, too. I got numerous compliments. I was actually amazed—I never thought that I could be treated so well just while catching a domestic flight. Then it clicked: it could be because of my very traditional Indian outfit. It is quite possible that the people at the airport and on the plane thought that I was a tourist or a visitor. We know, in New Zealand, that we are such a friendly nation, and there is this kind of kindness and care that we do not receive anywhere else in the world.

So when these tourists and visitors come to New Zealand and they experience this care and this courtesy, they are instantly hooked. And if any of these tourists are planning to migrate to another country, New Zealand is No. 1 on their list. But then, when these families migrate to New Zealand, they are no longer tourists; they are migrants. And then they are not always treated with that same care and courtesy when they are looking for jobs. Rather, they are met with migrant exploitation.

So this bill is to ensure that we have fair, firm, and fast processes in place to crack down on migrant worker exploitation. This bill sends out a clear message that migrant workers have the same employment rights and protection as all other workers. I am really grateful to the Minister in charge, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, for bringing in this bill, and I am grateful to the previous Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, chaired by David Bennett, for the work it has done on this bill, because I understand the importance of this bill. It is important that we have legislation, regulations, and rules in place to assure our migrant workers that when it comes to employment, their rights are the same as those of all other workers.

This bill is to protect the rights of new migrant workers going into work. This bill is also about strengthening our ability to protect our borders. And it is sending the message that this National Government is really serious about migrant worker exploitation and that we want to come down hard on those people who exploit migrant workers, as well.

It is also about clarifying our existing Immigration Act and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system. This bill extends the powers of immigration officers so that they are able to check on employers, to see that they are complying with the Act, and also if they have information that there could be some workers who are being exploited at a worksite. This also will enable them to determine that workers are complying with their work visa conditions. This issue of migrant worker exploitation is a very serious one because it takes away the trust of migrant workers in our system. Secondly, these employers—those who employ these people at substandard conditions—are able to provide their services at a much lower cost than compliant businesses, and this can result in compliant businesses closing down and numerous people becoming jobless.

We know that the relationship between migration and the economy is a linear one. Under this National Government our economy is doing well, so there is this huge influx of people coming into New Zealand. So it is really important that we protect migrant workers’ rights, and that we also protect our borders. This bill will make our immigration system more effective, and also, by giving these extended powers to immigration officers to be able to monitor worksites, we are sending the message that we want to make our immigration system a really reliable one.

This issue of the exploitation of migrant workers is a real one. Unfortunately, those employers who exploit migrant workers are often former migrants themselves. I have come across a few cases. One case was where this person was offered a job, which was fine. It was on the minimum wage. He was offered a place to live. When he turned up at work, this place where he was supposed to live was actually a small room in that same commercial building from which the business was being operated. There was no separate toilet or bathroom facility, and he also claimed that he was called in to work on his days off. In another case I heard there were similar claims that they did not have any days off. These people are actually hired on false terms. These are systemic breaches of our employment standards. It is really important that we do take care of those people who are being exploited. There are numerous workers who are being exploited, including migrant workers and also international students.

The penalties in the bill reflect the seriousness of this offence. It is really important that we send the message out that it is a serious offence to exploit migrant workers, and also that this Government is taking tough action to fix this problem that is here, and that this problem is a real problem.

This bill also changes the way biometric information is collected. This is to address gaps in identity management capability for faster identification, and to improve the Government’s ability to manage risk.

Migration is a social fact. Although migration is important to us, it also brings challenges in some areas, which are addressed in this bill. The fact is that migrant workers are being exploited, and it is time that we should act on this because we are becoming a very diverse country day by day. So I commend the bill to the House and I support the bill. Thank you.

The next call will be a split call. The Hon Damien O’Connor—5 minutes.

Before I start I would just like to say to the new member Clayton Mitchell over there: do not apologise for getting passionate in this House, because no matter how hard you try, Phil Goff and I will try to make you look like a moderate. This is the place where we should have passion, because the issues we bring here to this House are very important—none more so than that of migration.

Labour supported this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because, in principle, we absolutely support the protection of migrant workers in this country and their conditions. But we have to know that the legislation is going to be effective, and I have not heard so much hypocrisy in this House for a long time. Yesterday in this House the Minister of Immigration refused to stand up and protect Chinese migrant workers who had been brought into this country to take asbestos out of trains. He said: “I’ll fall in behind contract law because they are employed by a company that is not a New Zealand company. Therefore, those migrant workers don’t have to have New Zealand wages and conditions.” That is an outrageous act of slavery endorsed by the Minister in this House yesterday. And then he has the gall to come into the House today and say: “We’re passing legislation to protect migrant workers.” That is why Labour cannot support this, because it is absolute hypocrisy.

We supported the establishment of the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme, bringing into this country people from the Pacific Islands to help us out. We supported the ongoing utilisation of worker permits for people in the tourism industry. The dairy industry is now hugely reliant on workers who come into this country. In the meat industry we supported them. The core of this economy is supported by migrant workers. There are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, we have not done a very good job at establishing a high-wage economy. New Zealanders have opted to go offshore rather than stay here. In general terms, the jobs that the migrant workers come into are low-paid work—low-paid work. We are reliant upon that. But there is still the unfair and unjust situation that in some of these industries they can rely on migrant workers for up to 5 years, giving them no security—sometimes allowing their families to come in, which is good, so they have some form of normality—and then telling them after 5 years to pack their bags and go home. I think that is as unfair as anything we are trying to address in this piece of legislation, but the Government is not doing anything about that.

As a former Associate Minister of Immigration, I am someone who takes pride—and I know there will be many others on all sides of the House—in trying to do a very fair job in this really difficult area. There are 4,000 to 4,500 individual cases of migrant workers seeking an exemption to the rules because they believe they should be here. I think that is a fair system and I think we do our very best for them. But we have got an economy dependent on migrant workers. This Government is moving to try to protect them, and we applaud the principle of that—in fact, I acknowledge that this Government has brought in legislation to protect foreign workers on foreign-owned fishing boats working in New Zealand. But when the Minister yesterday could not stand up and support the upholding of rights for those Chinese workers, I cannot believe anything the Government says. I cannot believe that the passage of this legislation is about a genuine attempt to bring fairness into the workplace.

There are some terrible rorts going on, and they have been in the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme and across migrant workers. I can tell you that workers who raise issues in the workplace are then threatened that they will go back to their home village and no one will be employed in the next year if they continue to raise these issues. Outrageous—outrageous strong-arm tactics over migrant workers. They are vulnerable, they do need protection, but they need it through legislation that is genuine and is backed by a Government that upholds rights for all migrant workers, not just for those it selects because they are in its chosen industries. When the Minister upholds the rights for those Chinese workers getting asbestos out of trains, I will believe the Government, but until then, this is an act of hypocrisy.

Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make this short contribution in the third reading of this bill. This is an important subject matter, immigration. We have heard throughout the debate this afternoon comments around how we are a nation of migrants. We are a migrant nation, and there is a rich history of immigration that makes up our nation of Aotearoa New Zealand. But I would just like to add that over that thousand-year-plus period of immigration—right back to our Polynesian seafaring voyagers of yore—there is recognition of indigenous people here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is without question. That is because we have protected specific rights based on historical ties and cultural and historical connections and distinctiveness that are unique to our country. I just wanted to state that matter.

Yes, we are a nation, I guess, where we can all say that we come from forebears who roamed and voyaged and travelled the globe, but there is very much a proud indigenous people here in Aotearoa whom we represent and whom I represent in Te Tai Tonga. But this is a very important piece of legislation. I think, to get to the nub of the matter, we are opposing this legislation on this side of the House because it is window dressing. Although the National Government likes to talk tough: “We are going to crack down on exploitative practices by employers on migrant workers.”, it is viewing this whole piece of legislation through the eyes of business, through the eyes of trying to address the competitive advantage that unscrupulous employers have in exploiting migrant workers. Everything that the Government does is from the viewpoint of the employer, the industry participants, but it fails to address the actual rights of workers. So that is the fundamental reason why we are opposing this bill.

We have heard numerous examples this afternoon. Dare I say it, but most of the examples given are actually occurring within my electorate of Te Tai Tonga. If we look at the examples of the Chinese workers in the Hutt Valley, who are working with no protections under New Zealand law—absolute exploitation has been taking place there—and the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme examples that the Hon Damien O’Connor made in terms of Motueka, you can see the contributions that they are making right across the south, right through to Queenstown. In Christchurch, obviously, there are lots of Filipino and Vietnamese workers who have come over on short-term arrangements who have horrific stories. If we go further down the island, into Queenstown, we heard numerous examples there.

So that is the reason why these measures, although having good intentions, fail to really address the issue of protecting the workers. There is no greater example of that than the requirement for workers to actually make a complaint. What this bill does is it imposes an obligation on those highly vulnerable workers, if they are being exploited, to make a complaint to Immigration New Zealand. Obviously, it will defeat the bill’s purpose if many of these vulnerable people are obliged to actually come forward and make a complaint. So, again, it is a big fail on that ground.

Finally, can I just quickly squeeze in, if I can, the issue around giving powers to immigration officers. Of course, any officers, be they police or immigration officers, love more powers being given to them: “Yeah, let’s go in there, and let’s smash into some private dwellings with no warrants required.” Everyone loves more powers being given to them, but it does not work. We need to give those powers to the people with the expertise in those areas, such as the labour inspectorate. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation does not do that, and that is one of numerous reasons we have heard today as to why we oppose this bill. Kia ora.

Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the passing of Monte Ōhia from Ngāti Pūkenga. He was a man of much mana and a highly respected kaumātua, and his loss will be felt by many in my electorate, Tauranga Moana, and Welcome Bay. Okioki i roto i te rangimārie.

I am very pleased to add my voice to the support on this side for this sensible bill in its third reading this evening. Any efforts to ensure that the immigration regime operates effectively should be encouraged, because immigration is absolutely critical for this country. It helps build a strong economy, creates jobs by encouraging innovation, deepens our links with the international community, and provides skills and capital for growth. I have been absolutely astounded to sit here and listen to the drivel that has come across from the other side of the House from New Zealand First members. Their vision for isolation is pathetic. They have a view that we should be an isolated island. Well, let me tell you that an isolated island is a poor island. An isolated island is poor economically, poor in spirit, and poor in ideas. It echoes its own prejudice, and you are all a great example of that. It is appalling. To listen to what you have said makes me wonder, Mr Mitchell, just what planet you are on, to quote your words back to you.

Immigration is a very, very critical part of the Bay of Plenty economy, which I, Todd McClay, and Simon Bridges effectively represent. The Bay of Plenty is the kiwifruit capital of the world. You will be aware that it has suffered from Psa. It is recovering, and the kiwifruit industry has said very clearly that over the next 3 years it needs another 4,000 jobs—4,000 more jobs. Of course, New Zealanders will be a key part of that, but so will migrant workers. [Interruption] Mr Mitchell, could you please get out of your isolationist bubble and go and have a chat to a kiwifruit orchardist? Go and have a chat to a kiwifruit pack house. Have a chat and listen to what they say. They say: “We need more workers. We need New Zealanders and we need migrants who can fill the gap.” That is why this country and this Government are heading in the right direction with this party. The more you outline that view, the more you will disconnect yourself—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. Mr Mitchell, you get the point.

💬 Tim Macindoe: The member. You meant the member.

I did mean the member. Turning back to the specifics in respect of this bill, it is very, very good to see that there is provision in it for significant consequences for exploitation. I mean, the specifics that have been outlined have been worked through by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in terms of jail sentences for up to 7 years and fines not exceeding $100,000. I mean, these are material consequences for those who are proven to be exploiting migrant workers—who are here legally. The migrant workers are doing everything right, they are following all the right processes, and they must have the same protections under law from exploitation. So this is a very, very good piece of legislation, because it sends the right message to employers around the expectations we hold of them to do the right thing for their community, and their employees in particular.

I am very pleased to see the specific provisions in respect of deportation, particularly around those exploitative employers who have themselves come into this country in the last 10 years and been given residential status. I think that the fact that they can potentially be deported will be another very strong and powerful message to do the right thing. It is natural for migrants who come to this country to then at times look for those who can join them from where they have come from to be part of their own workforce, but, of course, they need to follow at all times the expectations we have of all employers to be good employers. If they are not, then, of course, they need to be exposed to the consequences that are outlined in this particular piece of legislation. Exploitation is not right, and the equity issues, where we have seen those law-abiding employers who are doing the right thing being potentially undercut, are not right.

We have heard some great examples of some of the differences this bill will make, particularly from the various submissions that have come in. I think that the biometric information provisions are good—a great blend of cutting-edge technology to assist us in delivering the right policy and getting information to enable us to protect our borders and our people more effectively into the future.

To conclude, I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Immigration, Michael Woodhouse, and, of course, the members of the select committee and its chair, Jonathan Young, who have worked through this legislation. I am very sure that at the end of this process we will have a better framework to protect our migrants and workers in this country. Thank you.