Lees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee[Sitting date: 25 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2643. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):I was half expecting the Minister in the chair Mr Woodhouse to take the call given that there is a rather substantial Supplementary Order Paper in his name which he may have wanted to outline to the Committee so that we could consider it more fully. I am sure the Minister will be back soon to explain this rather weighty Supplementary Order Paper. I am looking forward to it—obviously a bit of a tidy-up is required on this legislation.As the Labour Party has made clear in previous readings of this legislation although we supported its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—because we certainly agree with the Government that there are considerable issues with the abuse of migrant workers in New Zealand and we hoped that this legislation would make some inroads into dealing with that abuse—we have not been able to continue with our support after the select committee consideration. A lot of concerns were raised by submitters and a lot of matters became apparent at the committee and to date sadly those have not been addressed although I must admit having only just come across this rather large Supplementary Order Paper that I wonder whether the Minister may be planning to address some of those issues in those amendments.I do have some questions for the Minister around some of the areas that we have specific concerns about. I think it would be useful to the Committee if the Minister was able to answer some of those concerns. Firstly why is it that the Government chooses with this legislation to give the power to search private dwellings without a warrant to immigration officers rather than labour inspectors? Obviously we are talking about people who are here on work visas and it is an immigration issue but we are also talking about the abuse of people working in New Zealand. And what we are trying to get to the bottom of is abusive and exploitative labour practices rather than abusive and exploitative immigration practices.The other reason we have a concern with giving those powers to immigration officers rather than labour inspectors is that the use of those powers could very easily be misinterpreted by the migrant workers whom the Government wishes to protect. These are vulnerable people who often may not fully understand the English language. They may not fully understand the New Zealand way of doing things. They may not understand our law. They may not understand our processes. And they may be used to a different use of Government agencies than we are used to here in New Zealand.The threat—which is indeed how it could be perceived—of giving immigration officers the power to search private dwellings without a warrant which is quite a significant power to give any Government agency and the threat of that power being able to be used may give utterly the wrong message to these migrant workers. In fact it could serve as a disincentive for them to come forward with their complaints about the abuse they may be suffering at the hands of unscrupulous employers.We understand the need to be able to provide additional powers of search. We are generally uncomfortable with the concept of warrantless search and that has been something we have canvassed in other legislation in recent times in this House. But we certainly have that question—why choose to give this power to the immigration officers rather than to the labour inspectorate? That is a genuine question that we would appreciate a response to from the Minister in the chair Michael Woodhouse.The second question is around one very specific aspect of the legislation and that is concerning the Legislation Advisory Committee’s recommendations around the proposed immigration levy. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the Legislation Advisory Committee recommended that the purpose and the use of the proposed levy contained in this legislation ought to be much more tightly focused. At the moment the potential use of that levy is so broad that it in fact looks a lot more like a tax than a levy.There is an important difference between a tax and a levy. General taxation is something that we empower the Government to carry out through this House and it raises those taxes in order to pay for the general expenses of running the Government. Levies on the other hand are supposed to be for a very specific purpose. The fuel levy for instance goes directly into the National Land Transport Fund and is specifically for the purpose of providing transport infrastructure. The proposed levy in this legislation ought to have a much more defined purpose and a much more defined use than it currently does. That was not the view of the Opposition necessarily; that was the view of the Legislation Advisory Committee. But those proposals were not taken up and a question for the Minister which we would appreciate an answer to is this: why not take up the advice of the committee and narrow the focus of that levy so that it is genuinely a levy and not just another stealth tax to be placed—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Oh no I am now going to apologise to the member because I thought he was straying into the next part of the bill but we did take leave to take it together.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is right.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise. No wonder I could not find it.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I accept the Chairman’s apology. Thank you Mr Chairman. So that is—ha ha!The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I withdraw and apologise yes.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am a little taken aback but I will recover. Thank you Mr Chairman. The other areas that we have some concern about are the inclusion of clauses that provide for regulations that override or depart from the primary legislation. That is always a fraught area of concern. The body that is supposed to pass legislation—the body that has the authority to pass laws in this country—is Parliament but there are clauses in this legislation that provide for regulations that override that primary legislation effectively giving the Government the ability to override the will of Parliament at times. Why are those clauses necessary in the legislation? If there is a good reason we would like to hear it from the Minister.This is legislation that is full of very very good intentions. But unfortunately because the advice that was given at the select committee by the submitters was not heeded the bill has ended up being a piece of legislation that in its current form could actually potentially do more harm than good. We on this side of the House have been quite happy sometimes to vote for legislation that we think will do very little or will make only minor changes or may not do any good at all. But as long as it does no harm and if the Government thinks that it might be taking us in the right direction we will support it.Unfortunately we think that this bill in its current form—and again I do recognise that there is a very large Supplementary Order Paper here—has the potential to do quite a bit of harm and to potentially put the people whom it purports to protect in an even more vulnerable position.I have raised some of the areas that we have concerns about and we would appreciate some response from the Minister on those. I have no doubt that other members will be interested in asking the Minister questions as well.