The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 32 and 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 8 be agreed to.
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this
I am pleased to speak to Part 9 of the Immigration Bill. This part is about detention and monitoring, and the purpose of it is to establish a tiered detention and monitoring system in order to ensure the integrity of the immigration system through providing for the management of persons who are liable for deportation. This part also ensures the safety and security of New Zealand when a person who is liable for deportation may constitute a threat or risk to national security.
Part 9 relates to quite a small minority of individuals. Most individuals who have gone through the refugee appeal process and failed will accept the decision and leave New Zealand in an appropriate and timely way through a deportation process. This part relates to those individuals who are obstructive and actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand. The initial period of detention can be up to 96 hours without a warrant. In that case, the individual would be in police custody. Following that, a warrant of commitment can be applied for in the District Court for up to 28 days. The warrant can be reapplied for on consecutive occasions.
Generally speaking, there is a 6-month limit on immigration detention except where a foreign national hinders his or her own departure. Those individuals who actively hinder their deportation from New Zealand compromise the integrity of the immigration system. There is the option that the individual can be released into the community, but that would have to be negotiated. There would be conditions of release into the community, and there may be reporting requirements, residential requirements, a requirement to present for interview, and so on.
The actions of foreign nationals who deliberately hinder their deportation sets a precedent to others. Such actions suggest, for example, that if someone refuses to sign travel documents for long enough, he or she will secure release into the community because the Government cannot deport him or her. Therefore, the Government is proposing to strengthen the detention provisions by way of an amendment whose effect is that such people cannot seek to be released from detention due to the length of time they have been detained. I commend this part to the House.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
As the previous speaker, Jackie Blue, indicated, Part 9 of the Immigration Bill is about the detention and monitoring of those who have or may have broken the law in respect of immigration. It lists what the powers of the State are and are not. I want to spend a little time exploring the circumstances under which those powers may be used.
At the moment the New Zealand Police is conducting an inquiry into allegations against a member of this Committee that there was the possibility—so say the allegations—of a false or fake jobs for cash deals going on. That is against the law of the legislation we are passing, and the detention and monitoring powers in Part 9 are how we find out. In more recent days, it has become clear to me that this may not be the only case of its type involving a member of the Committee. Melissa Lee, who now is a member of Parliament, made a National Party video using her facilities at Asia Vision Ltd and hired a woman by the name of Miss Casalme.
Hon Tau HenareAttempts by the Opposition to shout me down will not work, because I have the microphone. I am led to believe that Miss Casalme worked voluntarily for Miss Lee in making the National Party video—so far, so good. There are issues around whether the video should have been authorised, but that is well outside the scope of this bill and I would not dare dwell on it. But the case is that a job was created for Miss Casalme. She desperately wanted to stay in New Zealand, she desperately wanted permanent residency, and she desperately needed the immigration points that one garners for this or that reason to get herself across the threshold. She did not have a job that was sufficiently senior, so Melissa Lee created one. She created a job that was sufficiently senior, and that did not exist before in her company. This was not a fake job for cash deal; it was a fake job for voluntary effort deal, because the same woman, Miss Casalme, worked on a National Party video voluntarily, and then the job was created. One assumes, though I do not know, that the woman then went on to put in her permanent residency application.
Part 9 of the bill deals with this sort of stuff; it deals with people who take our immigration law and try to bodge it. It deals with people who set out to—
Taito Phillip Field is in jail because he did some things against the existing legislation that he ought not to have done. He got caught, got taken to court, and got put in jail. My question is: who is joining him? That is what I want to know. I want to know whether other members of this Committee—
I am asking the question. If we know there is a police investigation into allegations of jobs for cash, I wonder whether there will be—
Jo GoodhewI raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I ask for your guidance on whether this matter is relevant to the question under debate, under Standing Order 107(1).
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member is quite correct to point out the Standing Order, but I say that it is generally accepted in this Chamber that members speaking can and are entitled to respond to interjections. A healthy stream of interjections has been coming from the National benches, to which the member speaking has responded. The interjections are quite off the matter in debate, so if National members want to keep to the narrow letter of the Standing Orders, and then hold the Opposition to account for that, then they should do so themselves.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek your advice about whether the speaker’s comments are out of order in relation to Standing Order 116, which makes out of order offensive reference to a member’s private affairs, particularly those that are completely unsubstantiated.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I say to the member that Standing Order 116 states: “A member may not make imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs, or a personal reflection against a member.” As I understand it, the member speaking has repeated issues that have been raised publicly and that are part of the public record—I may have got that incorrect, but that is how I understand it. If it is in the public domain and is being publicly debated, then I will not rule it out of order.
Michael Woodhouse Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I accept that point unequivocally, but I question whether the member’s implication that others may join a former member of this Committee in jail as a consequence remains outside of Standing Order 116.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member correctly—[ Interruption]—I am ruling on this matter—identified the words: “others might join them”. I did not take that to mean necessarily other members of Parliament; it could include them, but also others. Had the member said: “other members of Parliament will join them”, then of course that is a reflection on the House and the member would be unwise to do that.
Oh, so they have not stopped interjecting. You gave them the advice, Mr Chairperson, that if I was to stick to the knitting, they would have to keep their mouths shut. But as soon as I get to my feet, away they go! So away I go! It is easy: if members want me to stick to the knitting, then they need to keep their mouths shut. The Chairperson just told them that.
I have some advice for Melissa Lee: if she thinks I have said anything wrong, in part or in whole, she can either take offence, now or later, or take a call, as soon as I finish or later. She has plenty of options, and I urge her to exercise them as she sees fit. As I understand it, there is the case of a job being created for a woman who did voluntary work in the unpaid employ of Melissa Lee. I wonder whether the detention and monitoring provisions under Part 9 are relevant. Certainly it is only by monitoring that these things are brought to account. The new law that we are looking at passing has an ability to detain people for short, medium, or long periods for a variety of reasons, including questioning. So I would have thought that Part 9 is relevant to the issues that I raise.
Now that National members are silent, I say again—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think you can anticipate what my point of order may be.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
Well, that is unparliamentary language. I think it is well know that under the Standing Orders one cannot use language like that in Parliament. The member should withdraw and apologise.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
Normally, it is the member who is speaking who would take offence. If the member is offended by it, which I have the indication from him that he is, then I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
No, that is not good enough. I say to the member that there are rules in this place. I have never asked any member to leave, and I want to get through this term without doing so. But if the member does not withdraw and apologise for that remark, which is offensive, then I will simply have to do so. Does the member refuse to withdraw and apologise?
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
The member will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) Link to this
I think in a way—and sometimes I reflect on this—the punishment should be forcing the member to stay here till 10 o’clock, and, if I could do so, making him read his own Hansard. But never mind, the standard thing is for the member to withdraw, to leave the Chamber until 10 o’clock.
So we have, in Part 9, the detention and monitoring provisions, and what I have done—though I have been interrupted throughout, which is why I needed to take a second call—is point out the possibility that two members of this Committee may find themselves having a careful interest in this part. It is good to see that at least one of them is here, and I hope we might get to see the other later, because it matters to manage our borders in a way that is legal and according to law. Jobs for cash allegations are serious, and jobs for voluntary assistance allegations are serious. Of course, they are much more easily made than proved, and we need to be careful about that. But those allegations are swirling around two members of this Committee. One of them is being investigated by the police, to what end we do not know. One of them is not being investigated by the police. That one is being asked only to pay back an amount a little short of 100,000 bucks for some accounting errors. But, you see, accounting errors are not part of immigration law, so I cannot dwell on that, either.
If this Parliament is to pass legislation, it would be good to know in advance that all 120-something of us think that the legislation is good, and that all 120-something of us are prepared to be bound by the legislation. Right at the moment I have my doubts.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this
Part 9, as my colleague Pete Hodgson said, deals with immigration detention and the hindering of deportation. I am a former Minister of Immigration, and when my colleagues and I addressed parts of this bill some days ago we reflected on our relative experiences as Ministers of Immigration. I see that Damien O’Connor, who is a former Associate Minister of Immigration, is here along with me and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman.
I recall, for instance, the case of one Mr Yadegary, who delayed his own departure—and I have to be careful because my memory is slightly vague on this—through not signing, I believe, a travel document. I think he was either from Iran or Iraq; I cannot recall which. I know that in that case the courts took the view that the length of time he had been incarcerated was a determinant factor in his release. I recall that case—and others—and was quite disturbed by it, because in essence the courts took the view that even if immigrants were here illegally, had gone through the relevant appeal processes, and had been found wanting in those appeal processes, they should somehow, because they had hindered their own departures through, for instance, not signing a travel document, be let out. That was the court ruling because of the perhaps inhumane length of time they were incarcerated.
Part 9 attempts to deal with that, and we support that because it should not be the case that by the action of, for instance, refusing to sign a travel document a person can somehow just wait out the time before being allowed to remain in New Zealand. In the Yadegary case the court effectively set a precedent, or a benchmark, if you will, to say that if such people wait out X number of months, a court is likely to deem that they can be let out and remain in New Zealand.
There were people, in the case of Mr Yadegary, who protested that he should be allowed to stay for a variety of reasons. We have had cases, and I think I mentioned them some days ago, where those who were travelling from overseas converted to, I think, Catholicism—my own religion, not that I am the best Irish Catholic in the world—en route.
Grant RobertsonHon CLAYTON COSGROVE Link to this
I do confess a lot; that is right, so my colleague says. But today is not the day; that will wait for another time, and I thank my loyal colleagues behind me. Some people converted by osmosis, in one case, I think, in the airport lounge in Seoul en route to New Zealand. They then gained such a profile that they believed that they could not return to their country of origin—in one case I think it was Iran. They had raised their profile so much that they were deemed to be in a position, having converted from the Muslim faith to the Catholic faith, that if they were to return home, something nefarious then might happen to them—they might well be imprisoned, or worse. That being the case, one could also argue that if they had kept a low profile, they may well have returned.
I recall that when I was Minister we used the UN guidelines—I cannot recall the technical term—from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that determine whether returning a person to their country of origin is detrimental to their well-being or health. I think those international agencies, guided by our intelligence agencies, and officials from our departments with their labyrinth of global networks and tentacles, and the appeal agencies, are the agencies that should determine whether somebody can legitimately stay.
I agree with and support Part 9. Labour supports Part 9 as it attempts to tighten up on people who should be deported if they are hindering their own circumstances. It should not be the case that a person who refuses to sign a travel document is allowed to stay. I recall in one case we had to send officials to Canberra to try to get the embassy there—I think it was the Iraqi embassy—to provide travel documents. In the case of Iran, I think it would accept nationals back only if they went voluntarily and had signed a document. So the New Zealand taxpayer, either through the corrections system incarcerating the individual, or through other social services if the individual is let out is, in a bind where a person who is here illegally can, by hindering the departure for a length of time, and through the decision of a court, remain in New Zealand.
When those immigration decisions are made, it is appropriate, as this legislation provides, that appeal authorities make proper decisions with the guidance of officials and others, and, ultimately, the appeal authorities themselves. We have had high profile cases—and I mean no disrespect—where church leaders, church organisations, and other organisations have campaigned very heavily for individuals. I recall some people who said—I think it was about Mr Yadegary—that he was a nice bloke, therefore he could have stayed. I never met the chap, so I would not have known, and that may well be the case. But I do not believe that those sorts of arbitrary tests should set aside the appeal authority’s work and research in decisions, or the input from officials, from intelligence organisations, and from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in terms of whether somebody should be returned to their country of origin, and we should then just put our finger in the air and say that somebody should stay if enough people jump up and down and make a fuss about it. I mean no disrespect to those people who through goodwill campaigned for individuals, but there has to be a test and it has to be authoritative. There are appeal provisions—that is why they are there—and learned men and women and independent appeal authorities are trusted with making decisions.
To conclude, I have said in a previous debate that New Zealanders will be convinced of the integrity of our border and of our immigration system and that we are indeed letting in the right people only if the counterfactual prevails and we are vigorous in preventing people of ill will or people who should not be here from getting into the country. To put it bluntly, we should, where appropriate—after relevant appeals, independent advice, and decisions—remove those folks who are here by illegal means or under false pretences. If we do not have integrity in our removal system and if we do not have integrity in securing our border—if we do not have integrity in those areas—then it is difficult, especially when we come to humanitarian cases; for instance, in the case of the previous Government when it came to the Tampa refugees. A Government of the day might say that we should be a humanitarian country, that we should do our bit, that we should take our refugee component as we do each year, and that perhaps we should make an exception and take more from time to time. I do not think the community would accept that if it did not have confidence that we were securing the border.
I support Part 9 and I support the amendments. I think they are sound and will deal with, and perhaps take away from or move some distance away from, court decisions that are simply based on the length of time in incarceration and not on the validity of one’s case as a legal migrant.
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) Link to this
Allow me to address Part 9 of the Immigration Bill in the Committee stage, in the absence of my colleague Keith Locke. The amendments we have proposed as set out in Supplementary Order Paper 31 of 22 July are, first, to clauses 271A and 285(10). Those measures would result, in our view, in allowing asylum seekers who have not committed any crime in the community but who are to be deported, to remain in jail for the rest of their lives, perhaps, if they did not sign documentation necessary for their own deportation. The classic cases in the past forty-eighth Parliament were those of the Iranian Christian converts from Islam who were imprisoned for lengthy periods for not signing papers required by the Iranian Government for them to be deported from New Zealand to Iran. They refused to sign because they believed that they would be persecuted back in Iran and such conversion, or apostasy as they saw it, was a criminal offence there. The bill tries to eliminate any possibility that any such person might have a case for bail. It also eliminates the length of time in prison as a special case for release from prison. Our amendments try to stop this injustice happening and to stop New Zealand breaching the principles of habeas corpus.
Our amendments are also to clauses 273 and 275, and keep the initial maximum detention time of asylum seekers arriving at our border at its present 72 hours rather than be extended to 96 hours, as the bill proposes. There is no good case for such an exemption. Our amendment to clause 285 would reverse the proposal that “exceptional circumstances” would not include the period of time that a person has already been detained. Instead it would propose that such circumstances can indeed include such detention time.
Finally, our amendment to clause 289(2)(c) eliminates the phrase in the bill that “classified information must be treated as accurate.” What possible correlation can exist between secrecy and accuracy? Divine right to rule, and the infallibility of the prince, have gone out of fashion. It is information that must be tested like any other information.
I recommend that the Committee revisit these five proposals for amendment in our Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I will make a brief contribution to Part 9. I will reflect on the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, of which I was a member during its consideration of this very large bill, which took a large amount of time. The committee was under the excellent chairmanship of Mark Gosche.
Paul QuinnI tell the member not to be disrespectful.
This part of the bill caused some considerable angst for the committee. It is a highly sensitive issue, in a highly sensitive area. I mentioned in my second reading speech that getting our heads around this Immigration Bill was difficult, both for me and for other members who have any sense of humanity and do not like to see anybody detained, and detained for any length of time. However, as others have mentioned, during the last Parliament we had a couple of high-profile cases, and I came to understand that we need to have a system of trying to manage those non-citizens who have been through all the appeal processes and have not qualified as refugees. Therefore, they have no right to remain in New Zealand, but they deliberately hinder their departure by refusing to sign documents that would enable them to leave. As others have mentioned, there were court cases that created an incentive for those non-citizens to wait out time in detention, in order to secure their release into the New Zealand community.
From Labour’s point of view, we felt that this impacted negatively on the integrity of the immigration system. Therefore, the select committee, when weighing things up, looked hard at this issue. It heard many submissions, but it also supported the amendments to the bill that create the presumption of exceptional circumstances—that a non-citizen who hinders his or her departure will be detained after the first 6-month period—and also exclude the length of detention from being an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of detention and monitoring.
As others have said also, Labour supports the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 32. The intention of this Supplementary Order Paper builds on what we were intending to do, as reported back from the select committee, but I understand that Crown Law advice is that it should be amended to ensure that Part 9 should work as it was intended to. We support that amendment. As I said, it is a very, very difficult area, as is the whole area of immigration. It is extremely fraught. We are dealing with human beings and with families, and we do have to act humanely and fairly, but on balance I support Part 9.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 9 be agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 271A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Noes 108
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 273 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Noes 108
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 275 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Noes 108
Amendment not agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) Link to this
The next amendment in the name of Keith Locke, to clause 285(10), regarding warrants of commitment, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31, is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 289 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Noes 108
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That Part 9 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Part 9 as amended agreed to.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
Well, there are no speakers from the Government, so I am happy to stand and speak in favour of this legislation, and to remind the Committee that Part 10 deals with offences, penalties, and proceedings. Clause 305, which is at the very beginning of Part 10, deals with the provision of false or misleading information. I have a couple of stories to tell.
One of the features of clause 305 is that it is carried forward from the current legislation. In other words, the existing law states that one may not provide false or misleading information. That is why, presumably, when New Zealand Immigration Service officials were investigating the case of Mr Bakshi and they sought from him financial information concerning his businesses in order to ascertain whether they were small, medium, large, or, indeed, very small or miniscule, he gave them the wrong business information, not in a misleading way but simply by way of signalling that he would not give them the correct information. In other words, being aware of the danger of providing false information, he decided to provide none at all.
Regrettably, not all of Mr Bakshi’s friends were as savvy as he was. One of them, Bhavdeep Dhillon, has claimed, not to the police or to immigration officials but to the media, so legally it does not count, that he never took part in any heavying of folk in India, of the original complainant against Mr Bakshi, or, for that matter, of the Indian police officials who became involved in the case at higher and higher levels. Regrettably, one such person in India has his phone number recorded, and that can only be because he received a telephone call. That person has said in an affidavit, which the police do have, that the purpose of that call was to raise merry hell and cause the original complainant to fall silent. That is why, in December of last year, when the original complainant was contacted by immigration officials who asked whether they could have a chat with him, he said he had nothing to say and was completely happy. He said there was nothing to answer, there were no problems, and his complaint of only 2 months previously was not one that he wished to pursue. The complainant had been leaned on hard, and he had been leaned on by the Indian police as well as by phone calls from New Zealand. That is an interesting example of what may be false or misleading information, but, for it to be so, Bhavdeep Dhillon would need to repeat the remarks that he made to the press to immigration officials and, presumably, also to the police.
Then there is the situation where information does not come forward at all. Of course, the original complainant is the classic case of that, but so too is the Indian gentleman from Tauranga who put the original complaint in front of Television New Zealand just before the election. He did not have anything to say to immigration officials either. He was terrified, and the only reason those people are saying anything now is that they have come to believe that things cannot go bad for them because New Zealand’s processes are somewhat more trustworthy than the processes they are used to back home. They have developed the confidence to make their various remarks and to give their various interviews—video interviews included—to New Zealand Immigration Service officials, and those have been passed on to the police.
With those remarks about offences, penalties, proceedings, and the importance of not providing false or misleading information, I say that I think Part 10 should proceed, but I am aware that my colleague Darien Fenton will, when the time arises, wish to make her remarks.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
In a departure from the previous member’s offering, I will talk about Part 10. Although it may have been ruled to be within the Standing Orders, I personally do not feel that his contribution had any relevance to Part 10, and neither was his offering prior to the last speech relevant to Part 9. I am sure that is a debating point that members may wish to take up with me.
I want to talk about the three areas of Part 10 that deal with compliance with the obligations and the offences for not doing so.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
That is a cheap shot. In particular, I wish to talk about that provision where it relates to employers. As we know, the 1987 legislation placed similar obligations on the employer to not knowingly employ a non-citizen who was not entitled to work in New Zealand. The nuances of the obligation have been changed. The things that are deemed to be reasonable excuses, and therefore defences to an offence under Part 10, have changed, taking out the issue of whether the IR330 tax code declaration form constitutes a reasonable excuse for employers to be able to say the employee gave them an IR330 and therefore as employers they did all they needed to do to establish whether the person was legitimately entitled to work in this country, and therefore they are OK.
When submitting on the bill at the select committee, employers expressed some disquiet about whether that would impose some extra burden on them. I think the committee has very reasonably reassured employers that that will not be the case, and that the requirements that employers need to meet in order to establish a defence are not necessarily onerous. As a former employer, one who from time to time employed people who were not New Zealand passport holders but who were otherwise entitled to both live and work in New Zealand, I can add that there really is no reason for employers to be worried about this part. There are some quite simple things that can be done in order to establish whether a person can be entitled to work here.
I am also interested in the Department of Labour and in the enabling provisions that I think in the future will enable the department to develop an online system so that employers can go online and find out whether a foreign national is legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. That is a really good example of the technologies that can be used to streamline the process around immigration. We have heard of a few examples in earlier debates on other parts; this is another one, and I support it.
We also talked in earlier debates in the Committee stage about the obligation on airlines to establish whether a person is legitimately entitled to travel to New Zealand. Of course, this part imposes some fines on the carrier for a failure to do that. I think there are some very good provisions in here that employers do not need to be worried about, and I certainly support this part.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
I will address Part 10, and particularly the provisions on offences by employers. I acknowledge what my colleague across the Chamber has said, because he is right about the fact that we spent a lot of time on this proposal in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We looked at whether there were alternative means by which employers could get the information through the Inland Revenue Department. As Michael Woodhouse has pointed out, we went to some lengths in our report to reassure employers about this provision. The whole integrity of our immigration system is affected by how we treat workers whom we bring to New Zealand to work for us and whom we need to fill the skills gaps during the good times. It is also affected by how we treat them when we do not need them.
I talked about this issue in my second reading speech on this bill. I mentioned a particular circumstance that is occurring at the moment and said I hoped that the Minister was keeping a watching brief on the workers who were brought here to work in the telecommunications industry. They were brought here under work permits, promised jobs, and told that this was a great place to come. They gave up good employment in the Philippines, where they had rights that they do not have here. I will get to that issue in a minute. They have been caught up in an industrial dispute whereby Telecom, through its contractor Visionstream, has decided that those workers should no longer be employed as employees and should become owner-operators. Migrant workers who are on work permits are unable to take that offer up, because they would have to go on to business migrant permits, and they are not able to do that. People cannot transfer from one type of permit to another. What is going on with regard to those people at the moment is an absolute tragedy.
Three Filipino telecommunications workers in Nelson were in that situation this week. It is just a tragic story. Again, I say those people were encouraged to come and work in New Zealand by Transfield Services, which is an Australian operator, and to migrate to Nelson to fill a skills shortage that we had here. Of course, they have been made redundant by Transfield Services, which, as I have said, is an Australian company. They have been made redundant with just 4 weeks’ pay, even though it is an Australian company and if they were in Australia they would have had minimum redundancy protection—they would have received minimum redundancy pay. From the 4 weeks’ pay, those workers have had to buy their tickets home. Because they have been laid off, they are not entitled to anything, so they are sitting in a house in Blenheim, unsure about how they will feed themselves for the next 4 weeks while they wait to go back to the Philippines.
One of those workers, a guy called Librado Andales, said he had left a good job in the Philippines that he had held for 14 years in order to come to New Zealand 2 years ago. It was his first time abroad, and he was encouraged to believe that this was a good place to bring his children and raise them. He said it was far from his imagination that New Zealand would bring someone to do a skilled migrant’s job and then have that person face this awful situation.
Transfield Services brought in 300 to 400 skilled migrants.
I will report the member’s sympathy back to them. It is a really, really awful situation. I have been spending some time with the migrant action group in Auckland, as has Jackie Blue. She assured them at the last meeting that I was at that she would be asking the Minister to be more flexible when it comes to workers on work permits who are being laid off, but I have not seen any evidence of that. I think members will find that the migrant action group has quite a lot to say in coming months about what we need to do regarding this issue. It is fine to bring migrant workers here when we need them: when we have a lack of skilled workers. It is fine to have, in Part 10 of the bill, provisions around exploitation. But it is not fine to send those workers back with nothing, and to leave them sitting in a house for 4 weeks while they cannot feed themselves and cannot feed their families, because we have nothing that looks after those workers.
Obviously, we support Part 10 of the bill. The exploitation provisions are very, very important, and immigrants deserve to have the minimum requirements that we have in New Zealand under the Holidays Act, the minimum wage, and the other things that we believe are absolutely fundamental. But, as I said, I think we really need to think seriously in this House, and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, needs to think—I would welcome his contribution on this—about the people that we have invited here to do jobs that we cannot find New Zealanders to do. We put those workers on the scrap heap and send them home with nothing. I think that is very bad not only for the workers and their families, including their children who have been going to school here, but also for New Zealand’s reputation. I would encourage the Minister to respond to that. Thank you.
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) Link to this
It really behoves me to comment on the offering of the previous member who spoke, Darien Fenton. In fact, it was a case of very nearly taking a point of order on whether that was relevant.
Hon Darren HughesMICHAEL WOODHOUSE Link to this
Well, members know I am a bit new and fresh, a bit wet behind the ears, a shrinking violet, and not very confident when it comes to these things. Despite that, and I am sure the senior whip for the Opposition would be able to endorse this, that speech was so far outside Standing Order 107, which is about relevancy, that I was waiting for him to stand up and take a point of order on it. Every single one of the examples that the member talked about was of people who are legitimately entitled to be here under their work permits. How on earth people who were legitimately entitled to be here are somehow subject to the provisions of Part 10 absolutely defies logic. But Darien Fenton has defied logic before, and I am sure she will do it again. We are getting pretty used to it. We get a tired mantra around workers’ rights, and somehow the member continues to be able to spin absolutely anything that she has to say around that subject.
Part 10, in particular clauses 314 and 315, talks specifically about the rights of workers even though they might not be legitimately entitled to work in New Zealand. I thought that if that member wanted to say anything about this issue, it would have been around the fact that if workers are not legitimately entitled to work—even if employers have taken reasonable steps to ascertain whether the workers are entitled or if they have committed an offence under Part 10 of this bill—employers are still required to, and responsible for, treating their employees fairly, and required to apply the provisions of the Holidays Act and the Minimum Wage Act. Really, that speech was something of an irrelevant diatribe, and I think we should stick to our knitting when it comes to Part 10.
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this
It is a great privilege to take a call in this debate on the Immigration Bill.
For all of the Committee. I say to Darien Fenton that I thought she made a worthy—not exactly statesmanlike, but worthy—contribution to the debate. It did not have the touches of brilliance that Cam Calder’s earlier speech had, I have to say. For that she would have needed to use a little more hand movement, some alliteration, and some onomatopoeia. But it was pretty good.
I will come at the bill from first principles and say this. I enjoyed greatly taking immigration law at the Auckland University law school—
We did not have a polytech where one could study law back then. If we had, I probably would have done that. It was a great experience. I learnt that immigration law is a complex area of law. I want to say this bill does a very good job of simplifying the law, making it stronger, more flexible, and giving us an enduring framework going forward. Thank you.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 10 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That Part 10 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Part 10 as amended agreed to.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
Believe it or not, I have a serious question to put to the Minister in the chair, Jonathan Coleman, and it is a real-life case. There is a child currently in Scotland—at least, I think the child is currently in Scotland; I am not sure whether it has been resolved yet—and that child wants to return to New Zealand. When I say: “return to New Zealand”, actually, the child was born in Scotland. But the child was born in Scotland to two New Zealand citizens. Regrettably, each of those citizens was themselves born offshore. Let me try and explain. The child’s four grandparents were all born and raised in New Zealand.
Hon Dr Jonathan ColemanNo, it is not a riddle; it is a real-life problem. What I am trying to work out is whether we have it fixed, and I simply cannot get it. All four of the child’s grandparents were born in New Zealand, and the child’s two parents were both raised in New Zealand. All four grandparents were born in New Zealand, and each pair of grandparents then travelled offshore for postgraduate study—one pair to Australia, and one to Canada. In Australia and Canada each of the child’s parents was born. [ Interruption] Well, it may end up on Mr Woodhouse’s desk; I will send over the details. As a result of that, although the parents were born to New Zealand citizens, they assumed Australian and Canadian citizenship respectively, and their citizenship in New Zealand, which was subsequently granted, is of a different status to that which would be the case if they were born here. I appreciate that the member says this is not citizenship legislation but is immigration legislation, but it is now an immigration problem because now that the two parents of the child have grown up and finished their first degree, they are offshore too, doing post-graduate study themselves—in this case in Scotland—and this child has come along.
The New Zealand citizenship processes will not allow this child to be granted New Zealand citizenship. Attempts to give the child Canadian citizenship are possible—the child can be given Canadian citizenship because one of his parents was born in Canada, even though the family lived there for only 3 years—and the Australian Government has apparently said that Australian citizenship for this child is not appropriate. The child cannot travel, because he cannot be put on to a passport. This family is due to come back to New Zealand. It is not an urgent problem; these people are not due to come back for a time, although they wonder what will happen if they have to rush back to New Zealand in a hurry for some reason. It is just an interesting issue that I think the very first part of Part 11 might help address, but I do not know whether it addresses it.
I am sorry that I have given the officials a bit of a pickle, but I wonder whether they would be able to help, if we have a few minutes. If they are not able to help, then that is fair enough; the legislation can proceed anyway. But if the officials would be good enough to look at the first part of Part 11 and tell me whether I am right in my thinking that maybe a fix for circumstances of that sort is applicable with regard to the most favourable citizenship proposition—the idea that we would accord a person the citizenship most favourable to the person’s status. I wonder whether the clauses in the Immigration Bill, even though it is not dealing primarily with citizenship, would allow this child, who is currently in Scotland, to come to New Zealand, which is where his natural home will be. I could just keep talking if officials would like to take the time to confer with the Minister in the chair. They are conferring now; that is slightly helpful.
If the view of the officials is that I am on the wrong track, then that is fine. I am very happy to be corrected. But I just wonder whether the very first part of Part 11, which is miscellaneous provisions, has any relevance to the real-life problem that I am addressing. By the way, this child was born after 1 January 2006. This child is not a New Zealand citizen, because this child was born in Scotland to New Zealand parents who were themselves born overseas to New Zealanders. So that is me just trying to nut through a bit more time here. If the officials would like to shake their heads and indicate that I am on the wrong track, then I will gladly resume my seat. But if they would like to offer advice to their Minister, then that would be good too. If they would like me to go through the story again, then they could indicate that, and I will happily try to tell it without hesitation on the second time around. I am just not sure whether the officials want to rise to the occasion. I do not mean to put them on the spot. As I say, if it will not work—
It is off-line and it will not work. Nevertheless, it was worth a go. I thank the Committee for its indulgence.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 350 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 9
Noes 108
Amendment not agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 11 be agreed to.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I do not know what my whip thinks, but I am getting the sense that we might finish the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill at, or a minute or two before, 6 o’clock, so I do not really want to spend a lot of time on this part. But I will say that one of the features of Part 12 is that it has been completely rewritten, and most of Part 12 of the bill as introduced has been struck out. I suppose, therefore, it is a good time for me to say once more that this legislation, which was reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 15 months ago, was subject to the most extraordinary examination by the select committee members. I was not one of them. I was not doing select committee work back then—
Yes. But the chair, the Hon Mark Gosche—a pretty experienced politician who is no longer with us, unfortunately—and the members of the select committee put in the hours. I think it is time to reflect on the hours that were put in. The result is legislation that has bipartisan support, despite the fact that the select committee members argued and grizzled about all sorts of things, and despite the fact that the Minister of Immigration has subsequently come up with a particularly large Supplementary Order Paper. We have had the opportunity to go through that Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister’s officials whilst in Opposition, and I again thank the Minister, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, for that courtesy. It has meant that this huge piece of legislation has been able to make its way through the Committee stage reasonably quickly. I say “huge” because it is more than 500 pages.
I will sit down in 30 seconds, but I record for the Committee once more that this Immigration Bill went through a fine select committee process and was chaired by a fine former member of this House.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 12 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That Part 12 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Part 12 as amended agreed to.
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) Link to this
I am struggling to work out where new Part 13 begins and ends, but I wonder whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, might take a very short call to speak on Supplementary Order Paper 68, as it affects the amendments that have been occasioned by the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. If he has got his head around it—I do not say that sarcastically—I ask him whether he would like to give us any comment on what has happened to the amendment to the District Courts Act 1947, which pertains to the number of District Court judges. I think that the bill acknowledged that the number of District Court judges was going to increase, but this amendment takes that increase away. That does not seem quite right.
The Minister may not wish to take a call. We cannot force the Minister. We could make a great hue and cry about it. In fact, we could do so for some hours. I wonder whether we should take this legislation through until 10 o’clock. The Minister does not mind? The Minister has had a terrible day. We were trying to be easy on the gentleman. There is only a certain amount of abuse and hardship an individual piece of physiology can take. An ordinary piece of vaguely humanoid protoplasm does have its limits! I thought the Minister has had a tough day and he would be quite happy to finish at 6 o’clock.
That is true. He had a late start. That is true. If the Minister is going to ignore me, then we can always respond to that. In fact, we can respond seriously. What do we think, team?
I am trying to work out what has happened to the number of District Court judges. I thought it had gone up. As I read Supplementary Order Paper 68, it takes the number down again, and that does not seem right. The explanatory note states: “The amendment relating to the District Courts Act 1947 (which altered the maximum number of District Court Judges from 140 to 141) will be addressed in a separate Ministry of Justice bill amending that Act.” I think that the Minister is saying that we do not need the amendment now, because the amendment will be made later. I can see the whips conferring. Maybe they are working out how many District Court judges we need in this country. The Minister is showing no signs of flexing his flaccid musculature.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in his name to add new Part 13 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Amendment to the amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
New Part 13 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 1 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Amendment agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 2 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That schedule 2 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 32 and 68 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to schedule 3 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Amendments agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That schedule 3 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 108
Noes 9
Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.
[... plus a further 21 contributions not shown here]