Clark David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2733. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I rise to speak to the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) which Labour will oppose because it does not significantly tackle migrant exploitation and there are some significant issues that we have with the bill. We in the Labour Party have a concern that far too many migrant workersare having their employment rights abused. That is something that we certainly see down at the end of the country in which I live. In the wider Otago-Southland area there are countless tales of exploitation on dairy farms. That should not tar all farmers with a brush because there are also plenty of good employers in our region. But where there are abuses we need to ensure we have good legislation to tackle them otherwise it simply puts pressure on good employers as they seek to stay afloat competing with bad employers.There are of course also isolated cases in Dunedin itself. There were cases raised before the election where I personally was asked for comment about employment rights being abused. The position that Labour took was that there should be appropriate fees in place—and I see here in this legislation that there is a muddling of levies and taxes which has been criticised because the thinking is not clear thinking. When we do have appropriate levies in place that pay for sufficient inspectors to ensure that the employment rights of immigrant workers are not being exploited we will end up with a more even and level playing field.Of course we all recognise the need to have seasonal workersand immigrant workershere in New Zealand to meet shortages in the labour force. We must balance that of course with the need to have opportunities for New Zealand workers many of whom are willing to work and may or may not be located in a position where they can do so easily. Sometimes the wages of course are insufficient to cover transport costs and we find that migrant workersare willing to live in conditions that New Zealanders would not work in and that is an issue to do with minimum wages that is not unrelated to the material in this bill.We need tocreatein this country I think an environment where workers are able to report abuse. This is the problem of course that we are trying to tackle but that is tackled inadequately in this bill. Workers are not going to report exploitation if they are going to risk being deported. We need to think carefully about how we set in place those mechanisms so that we have the principle preserved that where there are abuses the migrant worker can feel that they are safe to report them so that our labour laws are strengthened and so that our labour market functions in a way that is fair before the law for all parties.The Government it has to be noted continues to fail to employ enough labour inspectors to reduce the pressure on migrant workers to report. If we had sufficient inspectors we would be living in a situation where we had fewer cases of exploitation and so it seems logical to me that we need to set in place the appropriate levies taxes fees—however they are collected—to cover the cost of inspecting to make sure that exploitation is not taking place. Where there is an incentive in place to report or sufficient oversight that the abuses do not occur in the first place we then have a functioning labour market we have the appropriate workers being brought in and treated fairly and we preserve our international reputation as a good place to work and to live and these reputational effects of course also have wider benefits. As a country we depend on our reputation for fairness in many many situations including at the international trade table. New Zealand earns its place at the trade table as a small country often because it is seen as a straight talker—as one that will not align itself with other countries’ interests just for the sake of it but will take a principled position. That is based on our reputation for fairness and of course that can be undermined by poor legislation that does not seek to ensure that immigrant workers are protected appropriately.In the bill itself as I said there is a mix of levies and fees. The Legislation Advisory Committee regarded the bill and proposed that there should be greater specificity to show that what has been proposed is not simply an unwarranted tax and to ensure that migrants will not be made responsible for the Government’s failure to properly fund the Immigration Advisers Authority. So there is some muddled thinking in the bill and it is clear that that needs to be picked up and addressed. I would be interested in what the Minister in the chair the Hon Paul Goldsmith has to say about that recommendation as I am sure he is across these issues as a former Finance and Expenditure Committee chair one whose nomination I thoroughly supported. I am sure he will have some words of wisdom about the recommendations of the Legislation Advisory Committee. I see Mr Goldsmith nodding so I will look forward to his contribution soon. He is someone who does have something to say in debates that is worthwhile from time to time and this may well be one of those occasions.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Like Halley’s Comet.Dr DAVID CLARK: My colleague comments he is like Halley’s Comet but I will come back to the matter at hand. In the select committee 18 people submitted on the bill and a number of changes were recommended. Unfortunately we are not in a position to support the amendments that are being put forward. We do not think that they really address the issues that have been brought forward through the submissions process and we do not think that they get to the heart of unpicking the problems that sit in the bill so we will still not be able to support the bill even if the amendments were adopted by this Parliament.I want to finish my contribution where I started off by encouraging the Minister in the chair to indeed address those issues. Maybe he has got some other ideas as to how we can solve the muddle that is in the bill. I would like to see the Government significantly tackle migrant exploitation in a way that is meaningful and that preserves our international reputation for fairness and the fair treatment of workers because we depend on that reputation in the international trade sphere. We depend and trade on our reputation for fairness in many areas in world affairs. Ultimately it is about fairness and New Zealanders have a real sense that fairness must be preserved. That is also true for our New Zealand workers—it is about making sure there is a fair market place and that exploited migrant workers are also not undercutting the opportunities effectively for New Zealand workers. So we will not be supporting the bill as it stands and I do very much look forward to Minister Goldsmith’s contribution to the debate. He is someone who occasionally sheds useful light on an issue.The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 65 in his name to Part 1 be agreed to:In new section 5(4) in clause 5 replace “must be sent” with “must be given or sent”; andin new section 175A(5)(c)(iii) inclause 47 replace “for liability against deportation” with “against liability for deportation”.