Immigration (COVID-19 Response) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the debate on Part 2. This is the debate on clause 17, “Modifications of principal Act in connection with temporary powers”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk to the Minister about the way in which he has exercised some of his powers under this legislation. We talked at first reading and in select committee about some of the ways in which the powers have been used, and most of them for the right reasons—we’re not saying that the Minister has used his powers in the wrong way. The issue has been with the lack of timeliness and the communication around the way in which those powers have been exercised. We saw last year some classes of work visa holders that were given only three days’ notice before their visas were extended. We saw earlier this year, in February, five days’ notice before whole classes of visitor visas were extended. The amount of anxiety and stress for these vulnerable people, who are being given a very, very short period of time before their visas are due to expire, to know that they’ve got that extension, is not very good work on behalf of the Minister, and there has been no reason given for why he has had to give them such a short period of time.

The visitor visas: for the most part the people who are on those visitor visas in this country are elderly people. They are extremely stressed and vulnerable, and when they think that they are going to have to leave the country because their visas expire in five days, they are, as you can imagine, upset and stressed out and anxious. Now, the Minister, for whatever reason, on a number of occasions has chosen to give them only a very, very short period of time—a short notice period. Now, he mentioned at the very start of this process that there were only a few occasions, in fact, that a short notice period would be required.

So the question is: why is it that the Minister is unable to give these people a much longer period of notice before these come into effect, given how anxious and vulnerable these people are, who are, in effect, living from extension to extension? That’s how they’re living their lives, and the way that he has conducted himself around giving them notice has, in my view, and in their view—because they came to the committee and told us this—been less than ideal. Now, the Law Commission wanted to have a far greater notice period as an extra safeguard around the bill, but my reason for that was to give these vulnerable people far more time and notice.

The other thing that I would point out is that, when the Minister does this, his immigration officials don’t catch up very quickly. When they’ve got only three days’ or five days’ notice, it means entire classes of visa holders become unlawful in this country. Many of them lose their jobs, and still to this day—in fact, this term—there were children who could not go to school, in my electorate, because their status said that they were unlawful, because the officials didn’t have enough time to catch up and get all the paperwork in order. If they were given more time, they would be able to do that.

As I said, people lost their jobs because their status was showing as unlawful because the Minister is not giving a long enough time period of notice for officials to catch up, and, as I said earlier, it’s also causing people to buy flights and get stressed and anxious that they’re going to have to leave the country, when, actually, three days before they’re due to expire, it turns out they don’t. That came up very strongly in select committee from our submitters. I’ve heard it, and many members of this House will have heard it as well from their constituents.

There is very little reason why in most cases the Minister can’t give more notice. There will be some extraordinary circumstances, we understand, where he needs to be flexible and needs to be nimble, but those situations can’t be all of the time. As he even said himself, when he first got up to speak today, it is only in a small percentage of the time. So why is it that the Minister is unable to give these people certainty and surety and reduce their stress and anxiety, and actually let his officials catch up with their paperwork so that people don’t become unlawful?

I know that I have snuck this into Part 2, but we didn’t get a chance to debate my Supplementary Order Paper in the first part—and I apologise—but I would like some answer from the Minister as to why he is unable in the majority of cases to be able to give more notice for these people. We understand that there will be some times when emergency powers are needed at the last minute. Why is it that he can’t give more notice?

I might quickly just address that question from Erica Stanford by, well, just saying some of the factors that go into consideration when we’re looking at using these powers to extend the period of visas for classes. When we consider that, it is taking into consideration, obviously, their visas, but also the labour market tests and issues that we’re also trying to manage within New Zealand. I can stand up quite happily and say that we’ve had good news in terms of our unemployment record today, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not without challenges in New Zealand to get New Zealanders into work. Something that always is a test when we’re looking at visas and the ability to approve a visa, especially for those who are working, is: is there somebody else in New Zealand available to do that work? We’ve during this period tried to make sure that we get that balance right of making sure that we give New Zealanders opportunities to work when the chips have been down but, because of the response that we’ve had, the economy is actually going quite well. But, again, I would reiterate that there are still challenges that we have to meet in balancing that decision about extending visas—and labour market tests are something that we take into consideration.

I would also remind the member that these people are on temporary work visas or temporary visas. So at some stage, they also have to do a calculation, as the member said, about whether or not they should stay here in New Zealand and I acknowledge some of the difficulty that they would have in any case if they were to face that situation. I think everything’s been a learning curve over the last 12 months. I think certainly some of the communication to visa holders, Immigration New Zealand and I would say could have been better and we’ve learnt a lot of lessons over the last 12 months as to how we can do it. But I can assure the member that the intent has always been trying to balance some of those competing factors to make sure that we keep the safety intact of New Zealanders and make sure that those businesses who want to be able to keep their workers here in New Zealand can also do that. I think we’ve done that to good effect over the last 12 months.

Is three days an acceptable notice period to give work visa holders?

I can’t recall the case and the decision which the member talks to. Again, as I mentioned in my previous answer, there have been lessons learnt both in communication and in timing and as one who likes to take lessons when they are offered in front of them, if we are afforded the opportunity to pass this bill, we’ll continue to make sure we learn from them.

That’s an explanation of sorts for work visa holders, but if we take visitor visa holders—nothing to do with their ability to work, because they’re not here on a work visa; they’re here via visitor visas. For the most part, they are older people. Earlier this year, in February, they were all sent a letter to say, “You need to leave.” Five days later, the Minister told them that they had an extension. Is that acceptable, and did he, in fact, learn the lessons from last year?

The New Zealand Law Society made a very good recommendation for a longer period of time, not only because of these issues we’ve just been speaking about but also because of the fact that this disallowable instrument, the special direction, is only disallowable after it’s been made. If there was an ability before that to have some notice, then this would be an extra safeguard in the bill. Now, I know that the Minister wants to be flexible and nimble, but in most cases he’s been giving three days, five days, and in one case a week’s notice, which he admitted they’re going to learn from and, hopefully, move on and get better processes in place. But, actually, a notice period fixes so many problems and anxieties that these migrants are feeling. Other than “We’d like to work-test.”, there has been no explanation from the Minister as to why he can’t give more notice period.

Given the fact that we all agree that there will be some extraordinary circumstances where he will need to be a little bit more flexible and nimble, he can have the ability to make a decision in three days or five days or a week, if that’s what is necessary. But, actually, especially for those people who are here on visitor visas, why is it that they can’t have a far greater notice period, rather than being told as short a time ago as February this year, when they thought they’d have to leave the country in a week, that the Minister turned around and changed his mind, after they’d all been sent a letter, and said, “Actually, no, you can have your extension for three months.”?

These are the kinds of things that are happening. People are losing their jobs. Kids can’t go to school. Older people are being stressed out and buying flights and having to reschedule them. They’re all living on a knife edge because this Minister is making decisions at the last minute and hasn’t been able to explain why it is that he can’t give more notice to these people, especially those people who are here on visitor visas, who are mostly older people.

I invite the member, if she has another question to ask, to come back to Part 2, which is only clause 17. Notice and time period was all included in her Supplementary Order Paper, and we’ve passed Part 1.

The question is that Erica Stanford’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 be agreed to.