Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 26 November 2014. Volume:702;Page:916. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I move That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The integrity of our immigration system is vital for the well-being of New Zealand and this bill will ensure that the immigration system operates more effectively. The bill will strengthen New Zealand’s ability to protect our borders as well as provide better protection to migrant workers who are working in New Zealand. It will mean our immigration system can respond to changes in the use of technology and it will enable immigration officers to have the powers they need to enforce the Immigration Act.The cornerstone of this bill is the package of amendments to protect against the exploitation of migrant workers. The Government takes the issue of migrant exploitation seriously and we will come down hard on employers who take advantage of vulnerable migrant workers. This is critical as we ramp up the rebuilding of Canterbury. Immigration plays a key role in the rebuild and these workers need to be protected from exploitative employers who seek to gain a commercial advantage by employing migrants below minimum employment standards. By avoiding the full cost of employing workers on a lawful basis the commercial advantage gained by exploitative employers can potentially drive compliant businesses out of the market. For example an employer who pays two workers $5 an hour less than their entitlement for a 40-hour week is saving $20000 per annum in overheads.It is clear we need to stamp these practices out.The bill includes two amendments that will protect migrant workers from exploitation. It makes the exploitation of migrants on temporary entry class visas with work conditions an offence. There is currently an inconsistency in our legislation in that employers who exploit unlawful migrant workers can face hefty sanctions through the Immigration Act whereas those who exploit lawful migrant workers face less serious penalty under the Employment Relations Act. This bill will address that mismatch by including the exploitation of lawful workers as an offence against this Act. Unscrupulous employers who exploit migrant workers on temporary visas could face up to 7 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $100000 under the Immigration Act.The second amendment will see employers who themselves hold residence class visas liable for deportation if they are convicted of exploiting migrant workers or of knowingly employing migrant workers without the right to work if the offence is committed within 10 years of their being granted a residence visa. Unfortunately employers who exploit migrant workers are often former migrants themselves. This amendment will act as a further deterrent to these employers.The bill also extends the powers of immigration officers so that they have more ability to check an employer’s compliance with the Act including where there is information that workers may be being exploited and to determine whether workers are complying with the work-related conditions of their visa.I want to thank my colleague David Bennett for his excellent work in chairing the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I thank the rest of the committee for getting the bill to this stage and I thank the people and organisations that made submissions on the bill. The committee recommended a number of changes to improve the bill. These include a change to the commencement date of the clauses related to new powers of search and entry which were set to come into force 2 years after the Royal assent unless brought into force earlier by Order in Council. Following advice from the Regulations Review Committee the committee recommended changing this to come into force automatically after 1 year unless brought in earlier by Order in Council.The committee recommended amending clause 42 as it was noticed that the amendment to section 158 inadvertently narrowed the provision to lead to deportation liability only in cases where the fraudulent false or misleading information was provided in that person’s application. The current section 158 allows for the deportation liability of people whose visa is held on the basis of another person’s fraudulently obtained visa. It was not the intention to limit the provision in this way so the bill has been amended to allow for this.The committee recommended redrafting clause 47 which amends section 175 of the Act setting out when deportation orders may be served to make it clearer. There is no change in the policy intent.In relation to the amendment to clarify that the ability to access personal information under the Privacy Act does not apply to reasons for decisions made using absolute discretion the committee recommended that other sections of the Act also be amended to ensure consistency across the Act. The committee made two recommendations regarding the new search power provisions. One is that the thresholds for the exercise of search powers are internally consistent and where possible aligned with the model set out in the Search and Surveillance Act. Thus the bill is amended to use “good cause to suspect” regarding offences and “reasonable grounds to believe” for other purposes. The second recommendation is to change clause 65 which allows searching at the border to align the legislation with sections 85 to 87 of the Search and Surveillance Act which will allow a visual examination of the mouth nose and ears in certain situations.One of the submitters raised an issue relating to the provision addressing the exploitation of migrant workers. The submission queried how we would know that the employer was employing a temporary worker. The committee recommended an amendment to the clause to state that the employer is treated as knowing that a person is on a temporary visa if they were advised of the fact in the preceding 12 months. This aligns with the way the Act currently determines when employers are considered to know that the employee is not entitled to work for them.Finally the committee recommended a change to the bill to allow the migrant levy to continue to apply if the applicant applies before the new immigration levy is in place.I have no doubt that the bill has been enhanced through the select committee process and I commend it to the House.