Martin Tracey: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMartin Tracey: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair. I come down to take just a quick call on behalf of New Zealand First predominantly in response to the Minister of Immigration who was previously in the chair and his comments with regard to New Zealand First’s reasons for opposing this bill. The Minister was somewhat simplistic which does not surprise us but we need to clarify these things. The Minister suggested that the reason why New Zealand First opposes this bill is merely that New Zealand First opposes immigration which of course is not correct. New Zealand First as I think the Minister actually articulated in his contribution at that time strongly believes in putting New Zealanders first. It is not a difficult concept; that is the concept upon which our name is founded. But we also believe that the moment—the moment—a migrant a temporary worker or any new settler to New Zealand places one single foot on New Zealand soil they will be treated no less than any New Zealander who has been here for all time or even a new New Zealander or a new settler.The reason why we are opposing this bill is quite clearly outlined in some of the move—and I believe that Ms Moroney in her contribution highlighted it—to powers that are going to be given to immigration officers. This is around warrantless search. This is around actually targeting workers—the very workers whom the bill says it is trying to protect. So first of all let us go back one step and say that we agree that migrants need to be protected from unscrupulous employers—absolutely need to be protected from them. However this bill in a very strange way takes away some of their rights which no New Zealander would accept and that includes allowing a warrantless search of any premises at any time by an immigration officer as opposed to—as Ms Moroney said—putting in place more labour officers more workplace officers so that those workplaces can be checked in the first instance and the appropriate person held to account. The appropriate person to be held to account is actually the employer.We agree with the clause that says that if an offence was committed within 10 years of the employer’s visa being granted then that employer needs to go. They obviously have not understand the values that New Zealand places upon the work environment. We believe that for any citizen any individual who comes to our country whether it be for holiday work or whether it be for temporary migrant work in our avocado orchards or in any other place in New Zealand we place value on having the minimum criteria which must be met. But unfortunately there are no clauses in here—actually the exact opposite will take place—with regard to encouraging these people to come forward and report and surely that is exactly what we need to be putting into place.There is no statement in here with regard to where if any migrant worker comes forward and reports to authorities—and we would suggest that those authorities should be workplace inspectors not immigration agents. Those are the very people who come around to find illegal workers and deport them. We would suggest that there should be criteria in here that give some protection for whistleblowers. We are prepared to go forward and say that the case needs to be proven so that if the whistleblower makes an allegation and it is proven in the courts then that individual gains protection. Perhaps it might be just 6 months’ protection while they seek another employment opportunity but nothing in this bill will encourage those workers to come forward. Nothing in this bill will suggest to those workers that New Zealand is actually trying to protect them—nothing in this bill.I think that the other thing that is probably important is that it has been the case where New Zealanders who are born New Zealanders have been taking advantage of migrant workers and at this stage we have raised the penalties a little bit but not enough. Again there is nothing to encourage those workers to come out and report those environments.I want to also pick up on the point that Mr Goff just made with regard to the levy being changed to a tax. It is an uncomfortable feeling. We have had a tax on foreigners previously in this nation. It is an uncomfortable place to be in and I find it ironic that it is a New Zealand First member who is going to stand up and say that it smacks of the poll tax. These levies were there for a purpose and they should not be seen as another cost in order to try to buy your way into New Zealand. They should be collected for a specific purpose and the Government should be able to show where those funds will go. An example would be the levy on English for speakers of other languages that you can actually pay to come into New Zealand should you not meet the English language criteria. I am going to go back to my memory now—I think it is between $1200 and $1500 when you come in. If you do not meet the English-speaking criteria you can pay this levy to the Tertiary Education Commission for a prepaid certificate and it is trackable. That is what the levies are supposed to be for. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are a foreign worker. There should not be a tax on a person merely because they are coming to take up a temporary work placement.So I want it to be very clear because the Minister made it very simplistic. New Zealand First is not standing here and opposing this bill because we believe that migrant workers and temporary visa workers should be treated any less than any other New Zealand citizen or any other New Zealand resident or New Zealand worker; we are standing here opposing this bill as the majority of the Opposition members are because in a strange way this bill hunts those workers down. It gives powers to the immigration agents that they should not have. People should not be able to do a warrantless search in this way. The bill provides no protection for migrant workers that we can find. We think it takes away some of the protections that they have now. It will not encourage anybodyto come out and tell us about the employers who are taking advantage of these workers and that is supposed to be the purpose of the legislation—to avoid people being exploited.Again one can have at the end of it a certain punishment for somebody who is exploiting them but where in this bill is the support to stop people taking advantage in the first place? Where are the supports to make sure that those migrant workers can actually report? Where are the supports in here so that should they support as they did down in Nelson—I am pretty sure it was in around about 2008 that there was an incident in Nelson when those workers were treated and housed horribly by a New Zealander. They were deported when they reported those conditions. That New Zealander was fined and then went about his business.We cannot support the bill because the bill misses its mark. Kia ora.