Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

I present a legislative statement on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon ERICA STANFORD: I move, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 November 2025.

Immigration is integral to New Zealand’s economic and social prosperity. It plays a key role in supporting this Government’s Going for Growth agenda and delivering the skills our businesses need to compete globally and to grow. We want to enable a smart, responsive immigration system that attracts the skilled people that New Zealand needs. Since taking the immigration portfolio, this Government has made changes to the regulatory settings to get them right and to deliver on our priorities. We’ve targeted key skills gaps and ensured sustainable and efficient visa processing while effectively managing risk.

Settings are more attractive to migrants and more workable for businesses, the Accredited Employer Work Visa targets high-skill migrants and mitigates exploitation concerns, and we have significantly improved processing times. The new parent boost visa will help unite families and enhance New Zealand’s appeal to bring in highly skilled migrants. Our investor visa settings are now more simple and flexible, and they are delivering results. From November, we’re making it easier for people to visit New Zealand from Australia. Chinese and Pacific Island Forum nations will no longer need a separate visa. This trial will make it faster, cheaper, and simpler for our second-largest tourism market. Also, we’ve adjusted the fee and levy rates to reduce the taxpayer burden of administering the immigration system. I’m proud of the improvements we’ve made to the immigration system, but there is more to do to ensure our legislative settings are fit for purpose and designed for the future.

The geopolitical context of the world is changing, and New Zealand is not immune to risk. This bill will improve the immigration system’s integrity and responsiveness by tightening settings in response to risk. More instances of migrant exploitation can be prosecuted, and there will be stronger consequences for resident class visa holders who commit criminal offences or who pose significant risk.

The bill also introduces appropriate safeguards in the system for vulnerable people. It implements legislative recommendations from two independent King’s Counsel reviews of the immigration system. Those were Victoria Casey’s 2022 review into the detention of asylum seekers and Michael Heron’s 2023 review of immigration out-of-hours compliance activity. The bill’s changes also ensure that the system is flexible to unusual events and enables immigration funding to be fairer and more sustainable into the future.

The bill makes 10 targeted changes to the Immigration Act. Firstly, the bill addresses a gap in New Zealand’s migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment. Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation, and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars. Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer. This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account.

Secondly, the bill amends the definition of a “mass arrival group” to better respond to changes in international people-smuggling trends. The current definition excludes people who have arrived on a scheduled international service, such as a commercial flight or a cruise vessel. This change will ensure that New Zealand can appropriately and humanely manage the potential arrival of a large number of irregular migrants at one time, regardless of how they travel into the country.

Thirdly, the bill will reinforce the expectations of resident class visa holders. It will clarify that deportation liability is a consequence of criminal offending rather than solely on a criminal conviction. Currently, if a judge orders a resident class visa holder’s discharge without conviction, the person cannot be liable for deportation, even if they’ve pled guilty or been found guilty. This undermines the integrity of the good behaviour bond for new resident class visa holders. It also advantages migrants over New Zealand citizens, who cannot seek to avoid a conviction on the grounds that it could lead to their deportation. This change means that a person is liable for deportation if they plead guilty, are found guilty, or are convicted of a criminal offence. Decisions about the deportation liability of individuals who have committed triggering offences will be made within the immigration system, rather than in the criminal courts. The existing humanitarian appeal right to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will remain unchanged.

Fourthly, the bill improves our ability to respond to the very rare situations where a migrant poses a threat or a risk to the security of New Zealand but cannot be deported, because, for example, there is a credible chance that they would be subject to torture. In those situations, the Minister of Immigration will be able to cancel the person’s resident class visa. The removal of resident class visa status will facilitate deportation in the future if circumstances in the person’s home country should change. In the meantime, an individual will be on a temporary visa. They will no longer be able to vote or purchase a home, and they will lose the ability to sponsor friends or a family member to come to New Zealand. This approach is consistent with the international human rights law and the principle of non-refoulement.

The fifth amendment builds on operational improvements by requiring immigration officers to obtain a judicial warrant prior to conducting out-of-hours compliance activity. While most compliance visits can be effectively undertaken in hours, sometimes out-of-hours visits may be the only realistic option for contacting a person subject to deportation. This will ensure that when such an action is necessary, it is scrutinised by an independent body, protecting individual rights and providing confidence in compliance action. This was a key recommendation in the 2023 Michael Heron review.

The sixth amendment in the bill establishes a separate, higher bar for the detention of asylum claimants. These groups of people are in New Zealand under very different circumstances and have particular needs which New Zealand is under an obligation to respond to. This change responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Victoria Casey review and long-held concerns from stakeholders.

The seventh amendment will increase the range of tools available to manage immigration risk and ensure that compliance measures are proportionate. At present, judges have only two options when someone is subject to restrictions of movement under the Act: they can either detain the person, usually in a prison, or release them on the condition that they comply with a residence and reporting requirements agreement. The bill establishes electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention where a person is subject to deportation. This change responds to concerns from judges and stakeholders that the existing compliance options are not always appropriate. It also responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Casey review.

The bill’s eighth amendment enables flexible responses to challenges to the immigration system to more effectively respond to unusual events. Currently, the Act requires an individual to submit a visa and a decision maker to individually determine the outcome. This individualised approach doesn’t allow for the efficient management of large numbers of visa applicants, such as visa holders like the visitors who were stranded due to an airline disruption, which we saw in May last year. The system also struggled to respond to the collapse of Air Vanuatu, which temporarily stranded hundreds of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers in New Zealand, and the volcanic explosion which caused Tonga’s airspace to close, which meant that many visiting Tongan citizens were stuck here. This change will enable the Minister of Immigration to make decisions on visas in the absence of applications only in situations where this would benefit a group or an individual.

Finally, the bill will support the immigration funding system to be fairer and more sustainable, through two amendments. The bill provides an option in the future to expand the immigration levy - payer base so that immigration system costs are more fairly shared across people who benefit from, and create risks for, the immigration system. The bill also creates a new immigration levy - making power to expand the purposes that an immigration levy can be used for. While there are no immediate plans to undertake a fee and levy review to implement these changes, the bill futureproofs the system should such changes be needed in the future.

These are important, sensible changes to the Immigration Act that will ensure New Zealanders have confidence in the integrity of the system. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment consulted with key groups, including immigration experts, businesses, unions, and the legal profession, on the policy proposals drafted in the bill. Their feedback has helped to strengthen and improve this bill. With that, Mr Speaker, thank you, and I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s Labour’s view that the purpose of our immigration system is for New Zealand to attract, welcome, and successfully settle the people our country needs and—importantly, we believe—to treat people with dignity, respect, and fairness. This is a wide-ranging bill that makes a variety of changes to our immigration system. Labour supports some of the changes made by this bill, such as those recommended by Victoria Casey KC and Michael Heron KC. We have questions about other aspects of the bill, and we look forward to exploring those at select committee, such as the increased levy powers and the changing of the definition of a “mass arrival”.

There are important principles that underpin the discussion here. The first, I think, is that people have a right, under international law, to seek asylum, enshrined in international law and commitments that we have signed up to. The second is that the integrity of the system must be protected to keep the public’s faith in asylum being just for those fleeing war and persecution. The third is that the primary risk, we must always remember, when people flee their countries is to the lives of those asylum seekers, not from asylum seekers.

Let’s walk through some of the key provisions of the bill. I want to start with the provisions that have arisen out of Michael Heron’s 2023 review of out-of-hours immigration compliance activities. It was a concern to a lot of people, including to us when we were in Government, that immigration officers were turning up unannounced at homes in the middle of the night or in the very early hours of the morning. Given the scars that the Dawn Raids of the 1970s left on this country, clearly that compliance activity needed guard rails put around it. I’m glad to see the provisions in the bill do that.

Secondly, in relation to the conditions around warrants of commitment and the provisions around the detention of asylum seekers—the background on that is that about three years ago, Amnesty International published an investigation into the jailing of asylum seekers in New Zealand and alleged that this was going on. They provided some very harrowing examples, and they said it was happening in contravention of New Zealand’s international obligations. As Associate Minister, with the support of my senior colleague, I arranged for Victoria Casey, then QC, to do the investigation, and she did an excellent job. She entirely vindicated Amnesty International’s report. Asylum seekers were being jailed in New Zealand, not in large numbers, but decisions were being made by junior officials in Immigration New Zealand, in the absence of any proper process, to jail asylum seekers—indeed, in contravention of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Immigration New Zealand has since then implemented a raft of policy and operational changes. These legislative changes are the final piece of the puzzle, I think, and Labour is very glad to see them before the House tonight.

Third, creating an offence for people who seek a monetary premium for an offer of employment—also, this is something that we’re very happy to support in the House. No one likes to see the kinds of migrant-worker exploitation cases that pop up in the media with alarming frequency—corrupt overseas agents, effectively, selling visas, seeking premiums for offers of employment, and working in cahoots with dodgy employers in New Zealand. It has to stop, and we strongly support this particular initiative to do that.

On the fiscal-sustainability provisions, we’ll be interested to see who exactly the Minister wants to target in relation to that. On the mass arrivals, I’ve run out of time to talk in depth about that, but we will be exploring that in detail at select committee, along with the special powers that are being granted in relation to how you deal with someone who’s a protected person but is deemed to be a risk to public safety. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I know that this bill actually covers a lot of different aspects of the Immigration Act 2009, but I think I actually want to first pick up on something that is on the first page of this bill, which is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest … and the rights of individuals”. Although this looks great, I think it’s also a key reminder for this House that the Immigration Act is one of the few Acts that is exempted from the Human Rights Act. I’ve seen that we are able to discriminate against a person who is seeking immigration status on the basis of their disability. We have seen that over and over again in recent years and even in recent months. It is important to note that while this is the purpose and the right of individuals, we do not see it in practice or in other parts of this bill.

I just wanted to leave that there for now, because this segues really nicely into the first part of this bill, which is around the immigration levy. I think it is a genuine concern. One of the things we have seen that’s been announced by the Government so far is the idea of the parent boost visa etc., but let us be clear: there are very few people whose parents or who themselves—if they are one person with two parents, like a lot of the people from China—have $250,000 just tucked away in cash in their back pocket to be eligible for that particular visa type, as well as, or alternatively, their parents having superannuation in their country of origin that matches the level of superannuation here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is simply not feasible for most of the people.

The reason for that, as the Minister said, is to strike a balance between people here—migrants who pay their taxes, who are contributing to Aotearoa New Zealand, who bring diversity and vibrancy to Aotearoa New Zealand. But what we’re telling them is that they need to meet this really specific criteria in order for them to be eligible to bring in their parents, on the basis that their parents might add burden to our healthcare system. But let us be very, very, very clear: what is the definite proof that migrants, or even migrants with additional housing needs, who are sometimes not eligible for our public health system anyway, are responsible for the systemic underfunding of our healthcare system and also our education system?

This first point: allowing immigration levies to be charged on visa applications, which is already exorbitant and outside of some people’s reach—for example, the application now for residency is, roughly, I think, up towards $5,000. On top of that, we’re asking for the charge of additional levies on employers and migrants to fund the public health and education system. That then is no longer a levy. We are adding an additional immigration tax. Levy implies it is for the operations of Immigration New Zealand, which we acknowledge, but it is not for migrants who want to apply for visas to come here and support the lack of funding that this Government has given towards health and education. Something like this is something that the Green Party absolutely will not support.

In saying that, there are other worthwhile elements in this bill. Like the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, said, they expanded the special direction of power. There are certain areas in here—some of the aspects around stronger restrictions on out-of-hours immigration rates; these are good things to see, because we have seen our migrant community being harmed as a result of over-the-top treatment towards them in the form of the Dawn Raids and others. But there are other elements of this we’re interested to see in the select committee, like the cancellation of resident visas—what would that actually be? The Green Party will not support this bill, but we’re keen to see what happens during select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, I think, when he read that statement on the first page of the bill, completely forgot that the statement also says that it is to take into consideration the interest of people—those who are already here in New Zealand. So, yes, of course this bill is to provide that balance, and that balance is needed when we look into our immigration system so that it is fair and just for people, those who are looking to be here in our country, whether it is just for visiting, for studying, or for wanting to make New Zealand their home. But then it has to be fair for people, those who are already in our country as well. And these two things which this bill addresses—fiscal sustainability and enhancing integrity, by making several changes that the Minister has already talked about—are really important, because, in this very complex global landscape that we live in, immigration systems are really important. It is not only about looking at one side for people, those who are coming into our country, but also to ensure, for the interest of people who are already here in our country and who are calling New Zealand home, we are able to be fair to them as well.

In this bill, yes, fiscal sustainability is important, and this provision which will be in the bill—as the Minister said—is not going to be implemented straight away, but this will be there so that, if needed, this can actually be implemented. This is to expand the immigration levy - payer base, and it is very, very clear in the bill, that it will have to be justified which groups this expansion can be done to. These kinds of levies, through regulation that the Minister can make, will have to be justified on the basis of the link; as it says, if other people are benefiting from that, then they will be included in that levy-payer base—for example, if an employer is bringing somebody from overseas and that person comes on a temporary work visa, that person can become that expanded group; or if it is some education provider, those who provide education, those who are signatory providers providing education to international, fee-paying students, they can be included in that group. The Minister will have to justify the linkage before that expansion can be done.

Coming to other issues, this bill is making several changes, and I want to touch on only a few in the limited time that I have. Migrant exploitation is a very, very big issue. It’s a very serious issue, and it happens in so many different forms, and some of the forms are visible; some of the forms are still invisible. We become aware of these different forms of migrant exploitation only when somebody comes forward. I really want to commend each and every individual who has come forward and shared their stories of migrant exploitation. It’s because of those stories we are able to make the changes we are making through this legislation.

Just two years ago or so, we were seeing so many stories of people coming to New Zealand, packed in a small house, like 10 to 15 people packed in a house. They landed here in New Zealand, and straight away, they were told that they didn’t have any employment. It wasn’t that they had a dodgy employer, but the employment didn’t exist. Many of these people shared the stories that they paid money to get this employment here in New Zealand, which doesn’t actually exist. This kind of situation, we know, is migrant exploitation, but, now, what this bill does is it takes cares of people who are doing this kind of activity offshore for New Zealand - based employment offers, and also takes care of any kind of premium that is charged before the employment commences. These changes will ensure that people understand that we are taking it very, very seriously. This is going to be introduced as a new offence through this legislation.

We also know that sometimes, when the applications are processed, people come into our country, and we believe that they are going to be the kinds of citizens and residents we want in New Zealand. But sometimes we may find, later on, that these people are actually a risk to the security of our country and that actions need to be taken. If these individuals have a residence class visa, then the Minister having the ability to revoke the residence class visa is actually going to send a really good message—a strong message—to such individuals if they decide to take up activities which pose risk to our country. Very clearly, it has been said that if we consider that there is going to be a threat for them in their own country, they won’t be deported straight away, but they will lose the rights of being residents here, with the Minister revoking residence class visas for such individuals. With that, I would say that this is a good bill, and we support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This bill delivers on a key component of our coalition agreement and party values in strengthening protections that ensure our immigration system serves the needs of our country and the needs of those who are migrating to New Zealand.

This is a complex piece of legislation, in that there are a lot of moving parts, but at its core it is a simple recognition that we can do better. It respects the importance and value of immigration to New Zealand and our economy, it respects the contribution that our migrant population pays to New Zealand, and it does this by providing some fundamental protections around the area of exploitation, which is an area I have worked significantly in and recognise the incredible harm that it does, not only to the individuals but to our reputation as a country. The more that we can do to make this legislation workable, practical, and fiscally sustainable is really important as we move forward to achieve the targets we have as a Government for our economy.

The bill creates a number of changes and arrangements, but I would applaud, most importantly, the priority that it has given to Victoria Casey KC’s and Michael Heron KC’s recommendations. These have taken some time to be fully addressed and worked through, and I think the bill does an enormous service to ensure that those key recommendations are addressed through this piece of legislation.

I’d also recognise the tidying-up around the “mass arrival” definition. There has been some debate previously around mass arrivals in this House, and I think it’s important to recognise that having a robust definition as well as a process for managing mass arrivals is, again, actually about protection. It’s about protection for those that are vulnerable. It allows us an opportunity to provide some support, some services, and to ensure that no matter how you arrive—which is what this is trying to address—whether it is through, you know, illegal means or whether it’s through commercial services, we have the ability to manage those arrivals and do it efficiently and effectively.

The bill, as has been mentioned, also provides the ability to cancel resident visas for security risks. Again, this is about the credibility of our immigration system, to ensure that New Zealanders can have good faith in our immigration system, and that when there are security risks and when there are vulnerabilities created, in order to protect the reputation of those enormous number of immigrants that are now calling New Zealand home, we aren’t allowing their place in our society to be in any way discredited, because we have migrants we are unable to manage when security risks occur.

I think there are a lot of moving parts in this legislation. It will be an important piece of work for the Education and Workforce Committee to work through. I think there is an enormous benefit to us as a country having these legislative changes that make sure that our future in immigration is supported by really good, robust legislation and that we have the ability to manage any risks that arise in this space but also have the ability in balancing that to ensure that we have all the protections in place for those who may be victimised through the very immigration system that we have introduced into this country. I have no hesitation at all, on behalf of New Zealand First, to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’m taking a short call on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m rising on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, not just as a lawmaker but as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki of this land and of the people who seek refuge upon it.

While there are some positive elements in this bill, including protections against migrant exploitation and the requirements for the judicial warrants before immigration officers can enter people’s homes after hours, ultimately, we cannot support it. The bill, while dressed up in the language of fiscal responsibility and system integrity, reinforces a two-tiered immigration system—one rule for the rich, another for the poor. On one hand, we have the “golden visa” scheme fast-tracking residency and citizenship for the wealthy. On the other hand, the bill introduces harsher deportation powers for refugees—people who arrive with nothing but hope for a better life—by allowing the Government to cancel resident visas of refugees even if deportation would result in them being tortured in their homeland. This is not an immigration policy; this is class warfare disguised as legislation. Let’s be clear: in the past 10 years, no one has been certified as being a national security risk under section 163 of the Immigration Act 2009.

Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind. The law reinforces a class system for migrants and reinforces the mentality that refugees pose a risk, when they do not. While billionaires can buy their way into Aotearoa, refugees’ whānau, who carry nothing but hope, are treated like political pawns. Yes, there are some good provisions in the bill, and we acknowledge those, but let us be absolutely clear: these small wins do not undo the deep injustice at the heart of this bill. The message remains that wealth equals worth and poverty equals suspicion. It is hypocritical, it is elitist, and it is a breach of our values as a nation grounded in manaakitanga. We call on the Government to rethink immigration policy in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and with the values of fairness, manaakitanga, and rangatiratanga. Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind, and we do not support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. This bill is making targeted changes to do just as the title suggests: improve the integrity, responsiveness, and sustainability of New Zealand’s immigration system. A couple of things that have already been highlighted and that I think are really important are creating an offence for charging for jobs in New Zealand and, also, requiring a warrant for out-of-hours enforcement actions. These are very important changes, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As members clock up mileage in this House, they’ll reflect upon their careers and look towards the events that they experience in their time here. For myself, there are two in particular that I’d like to speak to, with respect to this bill.

The first one is of course the tragic incident that took place at the New Lynn shopping mall. I was in Cabinet at the time, and, as decisions were being made with respect to that individual and the tragic circumstances that led to that individual doing what the individual did, we acknowledge that this bill looks towards special powers that would allow the Government of the day to look towards ways to remedy the situation that we found ourselves in during that tragic event. Mr Speaker, you can imagine how difficult it is, as lawmakers and as the Cabinet leading the country at the time, how, often, through pieces of legislation—often obscure, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle—you can find yourself hamstrung in the ability to make effective decisions to make sure that the community is kept safe. Now, in that particular instance, we didn’t have the powers, which is why we acknowledge it in this bill.

However, of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and the ability for the select committee to make sure that we can interrogate the checks and balances on the power that Ministers do have with respect to immigration cases is going to be important. We’ve seen cases with respect to immigration across multiple Governments over decades fall foul of the rules in one way, shape, or form. It’s important that those checks and balances can continue to make sure that those who do come here with a special status and those who do come here with the hopes and aspirations that their new home will be a home that they can call their forever home for them and their family can continue to do that.

The second part that I reflect upon in my time here in this institution is of course the Dawn Raids apology that was made under the Ardern leadership. I was fortunate to speak at that ceremony in Auckland, and I recall just the weight of burden, the weight of anxiety, the past trauma, and the way that our people who come to this country and call New Zealand home look towards immigration settings and immigration laws to make sure that they and their whānau get a fair go.

When we look at this particular bill, as I already stated, there are some really good parts in the bill, but there are some that we will look to interrogate as it goes through the select committee process. We know that there are a large number of interest groups in our community—community groups, family groups—who are looking towards this particular bill and will, no doubt, make submissions on this bill, and we encourage those voices to come through in this process in order to make this bill robust and something that we can all look back on our time in this House as a progressive and smart move moving forward.

One of the other parts is of course mass arrivals. My colleague and friend the Hon Phil Twyford spoke to this particular matter before his time ran out, and that was about the definition of “mass arrival”. We’ve heard from the Government that there are instances where organised travel has been utilised to bring illegal immigrants, or those who wish to travel to this country under what would have been formerly termed as “mass arrivals” under the old legislation but is being proposed for a change in this particular bill. In changing that definition, I think it’s important that we look toward what those definitions mean in a modern context and in today’s times. Once upon a time, it was only ever seen as the arrival of “boat people”, and that’s because we live here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and it was thought that that was the only way you could have that kind of an event, which was voyage across the sea. But we know times have changed, and we will look towards that particular definition to make sure that it gets the kind of interrogation that ensures that it’s evidence based, that it’s fact based, and that, actually, the good policy in the bill that we’re debating here will be robust. That’s all we can ask as we look towards the progress of this bill.

I do want to make a quick point to some of our whānau that might not be supporting this bill. We can’t lose hope in the democratic institutions that we uphold in this place, and that means that the select committee must be given a chance—and I implore the Government to remember this—to make this bill better.

Excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great honour that I stand to rise in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in this first reading. I think probably a great way to sum up this bill is it is really to manage immigration in a way that balances our national interests with the rights of individuals. I think it’s really important that this bill introduces measures to combat migrant exploitation by creating a new offence for seeking or receiving monetary premiums for employment offers. It also strengthens any consequences for someone who commits criminal offences or poses a risk—the ability to respond to individuals who threaten our national security. It just gives us—and it’s been previously mentioned—a few more powers in the immigration space, once again to kind of balance our national security with the rights of individuals. It addresses the recommendations from a number of independent reviews. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by saying—similar to my two colleagues who spoke on this bill before me, the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill—that Labour supports this bill. Madam Speaker, as you’re about to take the Chair, we support the intent of this bill. We agree that our immigration system should be sustainable and that it should be fair and robust. We agree that those who benefit from, or create risks for, our system should contribute to its costs, and we agree that system integrity is essential for public trust.

One of the most commendable aspects of this bill is the decisive action that it takes on the issue of migrant exploitation. As the ethnic spokesperson for the Labour Party and also as a person who has so many thousands of migrant folks who live in my electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, in South Auckland, this is actually a huge issue for our community. I would like to commend the Minister and the ministry of immigration for ensuring that migrant exploitation is one of the things that this bill addresses.

The new provision makes it explicitly illegal for employers, agents, or recruiters to charge employment premiums, regardless of whether the fees are charged or collected offshore, before the employment begins or whether the worker is ultimately hired. That is an aspect that we absolutely agree with on this side of the House. However, values matter, and we should not allow fiscal discipline and technical fixes to come at the expense of equity or transparency or the fundamental rights of our migrants, who actually contribute so much to Aotearoa New Zealand.

The bill proposes changes to expand the immigration levy base so that it now includes employers, education providers, and visa-waiver visitors, who will now share the cost. But this Government’s own departmental disclosure statement reveals a glaring lack of analysis of how these costs could possibly flow through our economy. For instance, will our small businesses, who are already under pressure, be able to absorb these new proposed costs? Another question: will our world-class tertiary institutions be forced in the future to raise their fees, making New Zealand possibly less attractive to international students; or will these costs be passed on to the most vulnerable—our migrants and our students—who are some of the least able to bear these costs? Fiscal sustainability should not become a euphemism for cost shifting on to those with the least power.

This bill also grants the Minister of Immigration really broad new powers to be able to set the levies to determine who actually pays and how much they pay. This is only with periodic consultation and a five-year review. We should be careful when we look at centralisation of power in the Minister’s office that it should not go unchecked.

There are some useful aspects, though, in this bill. Of course, we absolutely support the bill—for instance, judicial warrants for enforcement, electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention, and protections for asylum claimants. But the power to cancel residence-class visas, even in rare cases, sets a rare and dangerous precedent.

The Minister’s statement earlier framed this bill as a technical fix for efficiency and for fiscal responsibility and discipline. But where is the acknowledgment of the lived realities of our migrants? Where is the recognition that New Zealand’s strength lies in our diversity and our openness and our commitment to justice? We urge the Government to work with us to strengthen this bill to ensure that it reflects the best New Zealand values, those of fairness, openness, and respect for all. Let us build an immigration system that is not just fiscally sustainable but one that is socially just, an immigration system that is not just technically sound but one that is also morally strong. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure I rise to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in the first reading. I look forward to working with members across the House on this bill to once again strengthen our immigration system and through the select committee process.

A couple of aspects of the bill really appealed to me—particularly the one focusing in on the whole process of people who exploit our immigrants. As someone who moves around the electorate, you hear these stories of exploitation, so anything we can do to really make it quite clear that that is totally unacceptable in our society is a great thing, and I look forward to working through those issues.

The other one that actually hasn’t really been touched on much is the concept that people who are facing deportation will actually be monitored on electronic bail as opposed to being in a jail. I think that was highlighted through the KCs’ reports. I think that is a really important part of it. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Instruction to

Education and Workforce Committee