Young Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeYoung Jonathan: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading[Sitting date: 30 April 2015. Volume:704;Page:3090. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):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 1000 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.JONATHAN YOUNG: 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 $40000 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 $40000 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 $15000 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.