Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Immigration): Mr Chairman thank you and I thank the member for her question. I thank her for her recent interest in migrant exploitation because it differs markedly from what she said just earlier this year in an interview with Newshub when she said that We need a [work] visa process that is streamlined that cuts all the bureaucratic tape and the cost out." So it's good that that member has radically changed her position to accept now that if we are to have good immigration processes and eliminate or do our best to eliminate migrant exploitation what she preaches to the media and for example to outfits like The Platform they're actually not going to be good for people.So the rules around the Accredited Employer Work Visa are that first of all the employer has to be accredited. They have to supply information to Immigration New Zealand. They have to demonstrate that they are in business and have been in business for at least a year. They have to provide information. The benefit of that is that in a way that we didn't have before we now actually have source information to go to in relation to employers about whom complaints are made of migrant exploitation.The regime in place at the moment is that a total of 15 percent of accredited employers are subject to various forms of audit or checking. It differs depending on the sector. So 100 percent of franchisees are examined or audited in some form or another in the court in a single year and 30 percent of high-volume employers of migrants are also checked on each year and then to make up the full 15 percent of all accredited employer visas there's a different cycle for others. That is a level of auditing and checking that we never had before; we were reliant almost entirely on a complaints process. Even in spite of that the other thing we've done is to radically improve and make more accessible the complaints process. And that explains in the media report last night which was factually incorrect in a number of respects but factually correct in others—but that's Newshub these days I guess. But it did note that for example in the 2021-2022 year slightly over 900 complaints had been made. The member in her dissertation just now talked to a sixfold increase in migrants being exploited. That's not correct. It's a significant increase in the number of complaints being laid and it's not sixfold. And then in the 2022-23 year again just over 900 complaints being made. Of those roughly half are processed through a website now that wasn't in existence two years ago. Because in putting together a revamped immigration system and knowing (a) we need labour from overseas and we want to support employers who need labour from overseas but (b) we want to do what we can to mitigate the risk of migrant exploitation we put in place that mechanism. In addition to that for those who do suffer exploitation in work we have a number of other visas they can very quickly move on to which Newshub failed to report last night—in fact erroneously reported last night. They can move on to the migrant exploitation protection visa or if they are dismissed particularly under the 90-day rule which some have been they can go instantly onto the dismissed worker visa. That gives workers in those situations an extra few months with the support of Government agencies to secure new work and it doesn't have to be in the original sector that they were employed into. So those measures are in place and that is starting to make a big difference.In terms of their numbers 516 post-accreditation checks of employers have taken place. There's just under 1500 currently in progress. This is across a total of 27000 accredited employers and that is the way that the system works. But I'm confident that the way the system is set up—it's in its second year—the processes are being tested and the ability for Immigration New Zealand to respond to complaints of exploitation is now better and more effective. And we're providing support to those who unfortunately find themselves a victim of that type of approach from rogue employers."