Woodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWoodhouse Michael: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 31 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2726. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I am a little disappointed actually. I did think there might have been some opportunity to not just convince but encourage Opposition members to understand that when they say that they want to support exploited migrant workers they need to place a greater value on the prevention of exploitation than they do on the protection of people who are unlawful. Effectively what we are hearing today is that Labour and the Greens want to protect migrant workers but not as much as they want to protect people who are unlawfully in this country and who might be subject to a search power that they do not like. That someone liable for deportation can sit there laughing at an immigration officer with their passport on the table and those members can say: “That’s OK.” because it is consistent with some human right that they have to fly in the face of common sense—well I am really sorry. I am really sorry.I cannot for the life of me fathom how many times during the last 6½ years the Labour Opposition has said: “We don’t think it goes far enough fast enough but we will support it anyway because it does not do any harm.” Labour members must think that the harm that this bill does to people who are unlawfully in New Zealand and may be subject to what they perceive—not the Ministry of Justice not the Attorney-General but what they perceive—to be an illegal search power is strong enough to prevent them from supporting exploited workers. Clearly they did not get the memo from the Council of Trade Unions. The council supports this bill. It is in favour of this bill notwithstanding its misgivings.I want to touch on the issue—and I still cannot understand for the life of me why Opposition members are dancing on the head of this technical pin about why this power is not given to labour inspectors. Well I suggest to the members that there is a very good reason why I am both the Minister of Immigration and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety such is the symbiosis and the overlap between those two important functions of the public sector—that is the maintenance of minimum employment standards and the protection of all workers lawful and unlawful whatever their industry and wherever they are. I have been encouraging and cajoling and imploring—and I have been very pleased with the response—those two areas the labour inspectorate and immigration compliance and fraud to work more closely together more seamlessly. We have significantly boosted resources in straitened times to enable them to do their jobs better but we have asked them to work smarter and they are doing that and they are doing that much more effectively. The flow of information between the labour inspectorate and Immigration New Zealand is preventing and prosecuting far more illegal activities than ever.I am sorry that the volumes are going up and that is why we are improving minimum employment standards at the same time as passing the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2). I think it is an indictment on Labour and the Greens that despite whatever misgivings they have they cannot bring themselves to support this bill when their track record of pragmatic support for other legislation even though they do not think it has gone far enough or fast enough speaks volumes—speaks volumes—to how bitter they must be feeling right now. This is the one bill where I thought despite those misgivings we would have that support. I am deeply disappointed but always the optimist. It is not too late. It is not too late for them to have a change of heart.I want to acknowledge Clayton Mitchell’s intervention. He had the same concerns but true to form New Zealand First just wants to close the borders. That is its solution to migrant exploitation: let us not have migrants. Well that will be a great sell for the champions of small business in Northland. New Zealand First can go up there and say when it wants to grow Northland’s primary sector when it wants to grow those industries ahead of the demand for labour: “Don’t worry no solution there.”But I will accept what Mr Twyford and Ms Moroney said which was that successive Governments of all colours have always had a “Kiwis first” approach to immigration policy. And I will accept—Sue Moroney: Not in Queenstown.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will come to Queenstown because those champions of small business are going to go down to Queenstown and say: “Forget that—forget that stuff that National’s done. Labour in office wouldn’t do that. It would not support small business in Queenstown.” It is different down there and I do accept—here is the point—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I will call the Minister again but I am going to issue the same warning to him as I issued to members before. We are now talking about the detail of the bill not broader immigration policy.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will finish on this point. There are a number of industries and areas that have relied far too much on immigration policy to inoculate business risk. It is important that immigration policy is at the end of a pipeline that has other strategies to improve the domestic availability and supply of labour to meet those growing job demands. I thought we all had that in common but in the Canterbury rebuild in places like Queenstown and in our horticulture industry it will always be necessary at this time to rely on immigration policy to meet those labour needs. The challenge for this House is to make sure that those labour market - tested temporary visa holders are protected.I want to touch on an issue that Ms Logie raised in the second reading because it actually goes to the heart of some of the themes of what is coming through here in terms of why we are doing what we are doing. It relates to the issue of a power that will be given to the Minister of Immigration to consider the liability for deportation of people who have lied on their visa applications. She said that this was somehow going to catch people who inadvertently make a mistake in their visa applications or who do not understand the questions. Well that is not true. That is not what the bill says.She also said that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee never considered this and there is no problem to solve. Well that is also not true because the select committee was advised by officials of the grounds that required this particular change. It was a widespread rort uncovered some years ago on police-vetting checks for labour market - tested visas and residence applications under a certain category where hundreds of applicants had been given false police clearance letters. It does not matter who it does not matter where but when I was asked when I would see these files for consideration for deportation I was told that if the applicant notwithstanding that they had lied on their application would have otherwise been granted a character waiver and given residence there were no grounds for me to reconsider that decision. I think that is ludicrous and that is why I have proposed the amendment. It means that a commission of a criminal fraud on a visa application could be grounds for deportation. And the Greens will not support this bill because that is somehow unfair to a person who has committed a criminal fraud and they see that as being more important than the protection from heinous exploitation of legally entitled workers in this country.I find that a damned shame because it speaks volumes for the parties that are not supporting this bill. I encourage them to reconsider. I encourage them to see that whatever misgivings they have about those clauses in respect of search powers and a power to deport for a criminal fraud they should set aside those misgivings. They do not even put in a Supplementary Order Paper. Mr Twyford goes on about the labour inspectorate not having the powers. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? We cannot even consider it because they will not put it up. I think that is a bit lazy. But it is not too late for Labour to have a second thought—a reflection on whether or not Labour really is the party of the people and the champion of the workers and not of the fraudsters—and support this bill. There is still time.