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:2716. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I think that at this time it would be appropriate for me as the sponsor of the bill to set out the substantive changes that are being proposed by the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 65 and also to address some of the issues that have already been raised by members both at the commencement of the Committee stage and also in the second reading debate—questions actually much more measured in the Committee stage—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Mr Bennett—if the member can resume his seat or sit beside the member he is talking to. It is quite rude to talk like that with your back to the Minister who is speaking.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Also I will address some of the issues that were raised in a much more measured fashion I think at the Committee stage than they were at the second reading where things got rather emotive. I just want to put some of those comments in context. It is a disappointment to me that parties such as Labour and the Greens—I should just record—that understand the importance of protecting—Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We cannot hear the Minister because the microphones do not seem to be working.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will do my best to speak into the microphone. I will just raise it. Clearly I was too tall for it.It is disappointing to me I have to say that Labour and the Greens are not supporting this bill because I know that they support the notion behind it—that is that those who are being ill-treated who are those legally able to work in New Zealand who are being exploited by their employers should be protected and that those who are perpetrating those sorts of misdemeanours should be subject to a much heavier sanctions regime which is the primary purpose of this bill. It does sadden me that Labour and the Greens will not support that because of their concerns around some of the search powers. That seems to me to be the essence of their concern—Sue Moroney: No it’s not.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: They were concerns that were addressed in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I will be very happy then if that is not the only concern but I know that has been raised by both Labour and the Greens. The legislation has passed comfortably the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that is required to be undertaken by the Ministry of Justice but I hold out hope that through this Committee stage I am able to put at ease some of the concerns that the Opposition members have and to support this bill because I know they support the goal.In respect of the Supplementary Order Paper we are introducing a new offence. At the moment there is almost a binomial offence of the exploitation of a worker on a temporary visa regardless of the employer’s knowledge of their immigration status. It has been drawn to my attention that there could be a defence of ignorance and so what we are doing is saying that there should be another infraction which is that if the employer is reckless as to the immigration status of the employee that in itself will be an offence. It still has some very severe punishments in it: up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $100000. The Supplementary Order Paper also makes some changes to the bill to align judicial review and appeal pathways to provide consistency between the two pathways and it clarifies that an application for leave to the High Court firstly must be brought no later than 28 days after notification of the tribunal’s decision and secondly requires leave to be sought before a party can appeal to the Court of Appeal. It also amends section 64 to clarify that when a new visa is issued to a person whose visa is cancelled under the new cancellation provision of the bill the new visa does not cancel the person’s liability for deportation.A subsequent amendment which I will acknowledge Mr Seymour on is in respect of entry and search powers under new section 277A inserted by clause 61. This is an amendment that has given some members some anxiety and in respect of Mr Seymour’s interventions the Government has agreed to do two things. Firstly through the tabled amendment it will require the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to review the exercise of the entry and search powers under that section within 3 years and to report to the Minister of Immigration on whether any amendments should be made to the Act concerning those powers. So often a review provision is brought into a piece of legislation if there are concerns about how it might be used. But in addition the amendment will require that the ministry will report to Parliament annually on the use of the entry and search powers under new section 277A.I want to move to the three questions that were asked by Mr Lees-Galloway in his initial intervention in the Committee stage. His first question was: why does the Government choose to give to immigration officers and not labour inspectors the power to search private dwelling houses without warrant? Well this is the Immigration Amendment Bill. Effectively without sounding glib about it the reason we have chosen to give the additional search powers to immigration officers is that labour inspectors have no powers to investigate offences under the Immigration Act. But I would also add that often the investigative search powers that are required by immigration officers are much broader than those that are less required for work visas or in a work setting. So I am perfectly comfortable that in respect of the Immigration Act these powers are appropriately given to immigration officers. I should also just note that the warrant for search can be sought by an immigration officer but presently it can be executed only by a police officer. That was a provision in the Act that had a sunset clause in it and we are bringing that back.I want to acknowledge also the questions that have been raised mainly in the second reading around whether these powers are necessary or appropriate because it certainly does appear to be the thing that is giving some members anxiety. In respect of those search powers this will enable immigration officers to undertake a personal search at the border for the person’s passport or identity document if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect the passenger is concealing those documents. I think any reasonable person would expect that at the border those immigration officers should have the power to do that.The third amendment is probably the one that gives members the most anxiety: trained immigration officers would undertake a search of certain places for a passport or identity document in order to facilitate a deportation and they could do that without warrant. The search does not need a warrant in the sense that often the officer does not know until they go on to the premises that a search is even necessary. We have the ludicrous situation at the moment where an immigration officer could walk into a person’s premises—a person who could be liable for deportation—and the passport could be sitting on the table in front of the person but the immigration officer has no powers to require the documents to be presented. That may sound utterly ridiculous but my immigration officers tell me that it is happening reasonably frequently. These people simply either refuse to hand over or deliberately hide their passports in order to delay or impede their deportation. This power will allow immigration officers to search the place where the deportee is located—their abode their premises or their vehicle—if they believe the identity documents are in that place. Currently the immigration officers can enter and search premises for the person in order to deport them but not their documents. I think that is ludicrous. That is why we are making the change. It is necessary in the field for the officers to have this power. I would be very disappointed if that kind of provision—which has been New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - vetted—actually prevented parties in this House from supporting this bill.Two other issues were raised by Mr Lees-Galloway. The first one is the immigration levy. Is it really a tax? Well there are very clear descriptions about what constitutes a levy and what constitutes a tax. A levy has to be levied for a specific purpose and I can assure the member that the activities will be related only to the funding of the immigration system. It will meet the definitions of a levy.Sue Moroney: That’s what they said about ACC levies.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well the better example is the road-user charges levy which the member held up actually as a good example. The levy is paid by road users to contribute towards the upkeep of our roads. That is exactly what the immigration levy does. It contributes to the upkeep of the immigration system.Lastly Mr Lees-Galloway raised a question about why the bill contains a clause that allows regulations to be made that could override the primary legislation. In fact I can advise the member that although this was the case when the bill was introduced this was removed by the select committee at the second reading. So the provision that the member was concerned about that would override that primary legislation is no longer in the bill. I could point to the specific part of the bill if the member wishes and I am sure officials could assist me but I can reassure the member that that is no longer the case. Thank you.