Lees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1436. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The Labour Party and other Opposition parties had I know extremely high hopes for this legislation. We recognise as the Government appears to recognise as well that migrant workers are amongst some of the most vulnerable workers in our country. I agree with the previous contributor Mr Young when he said that there are many migrant workers who come to New Zealand and who make a good fist of what is on offer here. In my electorate in Palmerston North the university and the hospital in particular attract a lot of migrant workers—skilled migrant professionals—who settle in our city and make a very good life for themselves.We also have a number of students who come to study at one of our fine tertiary institutions in Palmerston North and they may seek to pick up a bit of work. They often try to pick up seasonal work particularly in the horticulture industry. Those workers and other migrant workers in those industries tend to be those who are the most vulnerable. They find themselves locked into employment situations that are not acceptable that are not appropriate and that are in breach of the law but they are also locked into a very intimate relationship with the person who employs them on those contracts because as other speakers have said often the only reason they are in the country is because of the sponsorship of that person who is employing them. So they feel utterly beholden to them.I have worked on behalf of migrant workers—and I am sure many electorate members of Parliament have done this—who have found themselves on the wrong side of Immigration New Zealand because their employer has dobbed them in about something because they have somehow or other got offside with their employer often over the terms and conditions of their employment. So this is a serious issue. We are glad to see that the Government has attempted to do something about it but sadly and with a considerable amount of regret we cannot support this legislation because it simply does not do the job. It actually leaves migrant workers just as vulnerable as they were before. We absolutely agree with increasing the penalties on those employers who exploit migrant workers. We absolutely agree that those people should feel the full force of the law and that the penalties should be severe for exploiting migrant workers. But the truth is that it will be very very difficult to gather the evidence that exploitation is occurring because it is still an extraordinarily daunting thing for those most vulnerable workers to come forward and actually speak up about the exploitative practices that they have been subjected to.It certainly does not help that we have this idea of warrantless searches. Where have we heard that before? It seems to be a favourite of this Government the idea of warrantless searches. So labour inspectors charging on to a worksite with warrantless searches is going to strike fear into the hearts of these working people. They are not the target of those searches. We know that—members opposite know that; we know that on this side—but the workers are unlikely to understand that. They are going to be in absolute fear that those labour inspectors are going to be coming in to find reasons to send them back to their home country not to deal with the exploitation.Mr Young tried to sort of suggest that there are safeguards in place and that migrant workers can come forward and have absolutely rock solid evidence of the exploitation perhaps something written down something on paper—I do not know. Maybe they would have to record something—Sue Moroney: An admission from the employer maybe.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Maybe the employer could come forward and turn themselves in. But the truth is that of course workers are going to feel that if they do not have a strong enough case if they have not gone and done the work that the labour inspectorate should be doing to gather the evidence to make sure that they are in a safe position they are likely to be on the receiving end of the sanctions that are laid out by Immigration New Zealand not only instead of but as well as the employer.This bill has not done the job and that is because this Government did not listen when people came to the select committee and told it what was wrong with the bill. That is supposed to be the point of our parliamentary process—if you have not quite got it right at the first draft you take it to the select committee and you listen to the people who are going to be affected by this legislation. You listen to the people who are in the situations that you are trying to fix and you make your legislation work so that it will actually do the job. But instead what have we got? Window dressing. We have got window dressing from a Government that wants to look like it is doing the right thing but is actually not prepared to put the resources in to properly fix the situation. In fact if this legislation was perfect it probably in itself still would not fix the problem. Having legislation is one thing; what you need to be able to do is enforce it. There is no point in having any laws unless we have got the police the Serious Fraud Office the labour inspectorate—all manner of regulatory authorities that are there—properly resourced to actually enforce the law. The truth is we have neither the labour inspectors nor the immigration inspectors to properly enforce this legislation.I understand that the labour inspectorate has actually been directed to prioritise cases involving migrant workers. That is great. That is fantastic. Obviously this is a sensitive issue for the Government. There has been too much bad press and it wants the inspectorate to do something about it. But there are so few labour inspectors and they are so under-resourced that in order to prioritise cases involving migrant workers they are having to turn down perfectly good cases from ordinary New Zealand workers who are also vulnerable. I hope the Government actually understands that. People who are on zero-hour contracts are vulnerable. People who have employers who are unscrupulous and try to keep them in employment agreements that do not entirely adhere to the law are vulnerable.We have laws in place that say that you have got to pay at least the minimum wage and you cannot deduct wages from people. Tell that to the people who had their pay cut because somebody stole from their supermarket or from their petrol station. Was it the labour inspectorate that sorted that out? No it was the media.Brett Hudson: What’s that got to do with migrant workers? What’s that got to do with immigration?IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: What has it got to do with migrant workers? We are talking about vulnerable workers. Migrant workers—Brett Hudson: No we’re talking about immigrants I believe.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: He says migrant workers are not vulnerable workers. That is what that member over there said. I cannot even remember his name. He said that migrant workers are not vulnerable workers. Well I suggest you read this bill—that would be a good start—and you actually go back to your caucus room and talk about what the purpose of this bill is if you think that migrant workers are not vulnerable workers. The man whose name I cannot even remember seems to not understand what this bill is about. I wonder whether he is speaking on it later on.Migrant workers are vulnerable workers and they share a lot of interests with other vulnerable workers around the country. But this Government cannot even make sure that people born in New Zealand have security at work. It cannot even ensure that the labour inspectorate can enforce the laws that apply to people born in New Zealand. How is it going to make sure that the laws that apply to migrant workers are going to be enforced? It cannot. It cannot do it. That is why this legislation flawed as it is—even if it was absolutely perfect even if they had bothered to listen to the people who came to the select committee even if it was perfect—still would not do the job because that party that is in Government right now is not prepared to provide the resources that are required to actually protect vulnerable workers.I do say that it is with regret that we oppose this bill because we agree that it is an issue that is pressing and needs to be sorted out. But this Government did not listen. It has got it wrong. We do oppose this legislation.