Prasad Rajen: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First ReadingText is subject to correctionPrasad Rajen: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading[Sitting date: 19 November 2013. Volume:695;Page:15078. Text is subject to correction.]Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a call on this bill the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) and to indicate to the Minister of Immigration that Labour will support this bill’s referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because it does address a number of shortcomings that have been exposed in the immigration system—in particular the exploitation by employers of immigrants and those who are here on short-term permits with work rights. So there is good reason to support it which we will.Labour wants to see a robust and effective immigration system because we as a country have become very reliant on immigration to a significant extent to meet our own national developmental aspirations. We would not have for example a growing population without immigration because if the number of New Zealanders permanently going abroad continued without being offset by the number of incoming migrants thenindeed our population would be depleted and would certainly be on a downward trend because our fertility rates are not good enough for replacement. Our trading partners are also significant contributors to our immigration numbers so there is a lovely coming together of mutual interests. That has created very powerful diasporas in this country in New Zealand of those countries with which we trade and with which we will have an increasing relationship particularly from North central and South-east Asia. That applies also to our trade and tourism targets.However we have to record that we have not yet thought through in any detailed way how we might effectively capitalise on those diasporas. Development in this area is crying out for some serious attention and a good robust immigration system would do that.Furthermore when we reflect on the Government’s intention to double the value of our export education sector which is currently assessed at $2.6 billion over the next 12 years or so our immigration system takes on an even greater significance. That is because the export education pathway is becoming a pathway to residency for a growing proportion of people and for a growing number of those who come here initially on student visas. The education pathway also has a significant impact on our labour markets because of work rights that are granted to overseas students. So we could well ask in the context of the importance of immigration how good our current immigration system is whether it is well placed to meet the future challenges that are coming up and whether all aspects of the 2009 Immigration Act are fit for purpose or not. But that broader question must await another debate at another time.The Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) attempts to keep the 2009 system fit for purpose by proposing a number of amendments. Some are technical in nature as the Minister has said and others correct minor inconsistencies. Those are not of concern to us. However there are a number of amendments included in this bill that are serious and that will require intensive scrutiny at the select committee. As I said earlier the proposals that have attracted the most attention to date relate to the exploitation of workers by employers. Stories of students who are being exploited in the labour market are now legendary and have been around for some time for several years. It is a credit to the union movement and union advocates for exposing these and for being available to those exploited migrant workers that this matter has now reached this point and come to Parliament for it to be fixed up. So despite what people from both sides might say about unions here is an example of how if it were not for unions advocating for this group we would not be debating these particular provisions today.The bill increases as the Minister said search powers for immigration officers including the ability to enter premises and search for unlawful workers as well as to examine employers’ records for their compliance with new employment law and the Immigration Act—all useful provisions. However as other speakers on this side will raise what are the checks and balances that those provisions are being appropriately used? These amendments will address the working conditions of workers who might be being exploited. However it is doubtful that the provisions will address some of the rorts that are reported to us confidentially around false job offers. My colleague Darien Fenton will have much more to say about this aspect of the bill.One of the changes is reintroducing the ability to deport residence class visa holders who are employers and who have been here for less than 10 years. I assume that there are very good reasons as to why that provision was not included in the 2009 bill so I would like to know—and the select committee will want to know—why it is being reintroduced now. I am not really arguing against myself here but I do wonder at what point a resident becomes a New Zealander. Here is a benchmark: 10 years. So we will now have two classes of people on residence class visas: those who have been here 10years or less and who are subject to a particular set of standards and those who have been here longer than 10 years and who are not held to the same set of standards and therefore have more rights if you like. Without in any way wanting to be supporting the illegal activities of the migrant employers themselves there seems to be an inconsistency here that needs to be addressed. That is one provision that we would have some difficulty with.Also there are some retrospective sanctions here where if a person on a residence visa has committed an offence in the past 5 years and is exposed they will now be caught—so this is retrospective. We would need to ask whether a retrospective legislation is a fair one. Again I am not defending at all the activities of those who have offended in the past 5 years but why do we not start clean and say that from now on these will be the expectations? I look forward to hearing those arguments.The other major inclusion here relates to the migrant levy. We believe it is a major change. It has been changed to an immigration levy and its purpose is significantly altered. In the current Immigration Act 2009 the purpose of the migrant levy is to assist the successful settlement of migrants and to carry out research. But in this bill those provisions are extended quite considerably. The newly named immigration levy is to support “the infrastructure required for and the operation of the immigration system … for the following purposes: (i) establishing and verifying the identity of persons: (ii) managing risk to the integrity of the immigration system: (iii) managing immigration risk … (iv) managing compliance …” and indeed to attract migrant students and fund the Immigration Advisers Licensing Authority. That is quite a major change and I want to hear some arguments about that.The notion of absolute discretion of the Immigration Service which is being protected here is one that we are concerned about. It is not as if it has been a good week for the Immigration Service. We see what researchers are telling us about the rorts that are going on with people who are paying for job offers. In the present system students after qualifying must get a job in management. That is a big step researchers tell us and it is resulting in exploitation. Today there is a secret immigration blacklist that exists within the Immigration Service—185 lawyers and immigration advisers are on a blacklist within this service—yet we want to give this service greater discretion. It has not earned it and we want to know about the protections against some of the difficulties that have come up.The Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse talked about Canterbury where there is now already discussion about the rorts in respect of the Filipino workers coming through. It is almost like bonded labour where Filipino workers have to pay a big price to middle people to come here. The Minister’s comment as reported is that “it is very difficult for me as the Minister of Immigration to control that.” But indeed we must control that.The immigration system should be a robust one. We will want to make sure that the changes made in this bill do provide for a robust service. Thank you.