Q+A: Jessica Mutch interviews Michael Woodhouse
Sunday 23 June, 2013
Jessica Mutch
interviews Michael
Woodhouse
Immigration Minister
announces tougher penalties for bosses who exploit migrant
labour
The Government is cracking down on
employers who exploit migrant workers, with the threat of
deportation for some employers who are themselves
immigrants. It’s also aiming to make it easier for victims
to report exploitation without penalty.
Immigration
Minister Michael Woodhouse said people working here
illegally are already protected.
“At the
moment, an employer can be convicted and sent to jail for up
to seven years and fined $100,000 for exploiting an illegal
migrant worker,” Mr Woodhouse told TVNZ’s Q+A programme
today.
“What I’m going to do is introduce a
bill in a month or so which will extend that to legal
migrant workers as well, because most employers don’t
really distinguish between who they’re discriminating
against.”
Employers who exploit migrant workers
could face deportation themselves.
“Many of those
have the privilege of being recent immigrants to New
Zealand, and they are abusing that privilege by exploiting
workers, often from their own home country,” Mr Woodhouse
said.
“So what I’m going to be telling those
employers – and the law will support this – is that if
they are convicted of those sorts of offences, they
themselves – the employers – could be liable for
deportation.”
The Minister says social media will
play a role in communication the changes to migrant workers,
changes he hopes will see them reporting exploitation
without fear of punishment.
“I will be looking
forward to the time when there are examples within the
migrant community of people who have spoken up and have not
been punished for doing so.”
Mr Woodhouse also
said foreign buyers were not necessarily driving up house
prices in places like Auckland. Net migration has been
pretty much stable, with arrrivals and departures more or
less balancing each other, and non-New Zealand buyers
matched by foreign sellers.
“So I’m not sure
it’s true to say immigration at the moment is driving up
the price of houses,” he said.
Q+A,
9-10am Sundays on TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE
plus 1. Repeated Sunday evening at 11:30pm.
Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz.
Thanks to the support from NZ
On
Air.
Q+A is on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/NZQandA#!/NZQandA
and on Twitter, http://twitter.com/#!/NZQandA
Q
+ A – 23 June, 2013
MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE
Immigration
Minister
Interviewed by JESSICA
MUTCH
JESSICA
Michael Woodhouse, thank you very much for your time this
morning. What I want to start off by asking you – you’re
going to give us an announcement basically around employers
of migrant workers. Why do we need these harsher
penalties?
MICHAEL
Well, we already have quite harsh penalties for employers
who exploit unlawful migrants. One of the problems we’ve
found is that those who are unlawful – they may be working
outside the terms of their visa – are very reluctant to
speak up, so as a consequence, that law probably hasn’t
been as effective as it could be. So what I’ve instructed
immigration officials to do is turn their attention to the
employers rather than the employees. What that’ll mean for
the employees is that they will be able to speak up,
confident that they won't be punished, perhaps by
deportation or other
sanctions.
JESSICA
Let’s talk about some of those sanctions. What are the
rules at the moment, and what are the harsher penalties that
you
want?
MICHAEL
Well, at the moment, an employer can be convicted and sent
to jail for up to seven years and fined $100,000 for
exploiting an illegal migrant worker. What I’m going to do
is introduce a bill in a month or so which will extend that
to legal migrant workers as well, because most employers
don’t really distinguish between who they’re
discriminating
against.
JESSICA
Let’s talk about those fines at the moment. I mean, it
seems like a little bit of a no-brainer. Why has it taken
you so long to do
this?
MICHAEL
Well, it was in the 1987 act, and when the act was rewritten
around 2007, it was though that a more principles-based
approach would work. I don’t think it has worked. We have
had a handful of charges laid, but I think we’re not
seeing the extent of the problem, particularly here in
Auckland.
JESSICA
How have you missed it for so
long?
MICHAEL
Well, I think it’s really important firstly that people
feel confident that they can speak up without fear of
sanction themselves, and many of these migrants come from
countries where their perception of authority is quite
different from here in New Zealand. So it’s going to be
important that we give them the encouragement that they can
safely and confidently speak up against those
employers.
JESSICA
How do you do that, though? How do you encourage them to
speak up? Because as you say, there are sometimes some
cultural
differences.
MICHAEL
Well, I’ve already tested these ideas with some of the
migrant communities. They’re very
supportive.
JESSICA
Can you tell us about some of those
ideas?
MICHAEL
Yes, well, it’s about communication and it’s about
social media. I think there's a lot of misinformation that
can come out through social media, so it’s about making
sure that we can get to those workers and cut across the
things that sometimes employers are telling them, which are
simply not true, about what would happen if they did speak
up.
JESSICA
Is that a little bit naïve, though, to say, “Look,
we’re the government. We’ll help you through this.” Is
that a bit
simplistic?
MICHAEL
Well, I think actions are going to speak louder than words
at the end of the day, so I will be looking forward to the
time when there are examples within the migrant community of
people who have spoken up and have not been punished for
doing so. And remember that the target of this is the
employers. Now, many of those have the privilege of being
recent immigrants to New Zealand, and they are abusing that
privilege by exploiting workers, often from their own home
country. So what I’m going to be telling those employers
– and the law will support this – is that if they are
convicted of those sorts of offences, they themselves –
the employers – could be liable for
deportation.
JESSICA
So how do you communicate that? You talked about social
media. How do you actually communicate directly with those
people?
MICHAEL
Well, it’s going to be quite ubiquitous. It’s going to
need to be through a number of media, through those migrant
support communities, because remember they often have very
good networks. It will be through the universities and the
pastoral care that’s being provided to students who have
work rights here, working-holiday scheme makers at places
like Rotorua and Queenstown. I think it’s going to be
really important that we get to those places who have a high
level of workers who could be subject to
exploitation.
JESSICA
Let’s talk about a recent example that we’ve seen in the
news this week where employers were paying people $4 an hour
for work here in New Zealand, and they were basically fined,
each individual company, $20,000. Is that too soft, in your
opinion?
MICHAEL
Well, it could well be. And the work that I’ve been doing
is alongside of body of work that the Minister of Labour,
Simon Bridges, is also doing in terms of reviewing penalties
for breaches of, say, the Minimum Wage Act, the Employment
Relations Act and so on. So that work is on-going. What
Simon and I have asked is that there is a joined-up
approach, and it’s one of the benefits, I think, of
getting the Labour Inspector and Immigration New Zealand
together under the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment.
JESSICA
So let’s just talk about this case. So, $20,000 – would
you see that with these new law changes that that would be
harsher – more like that $100,000 that you were talking
about?
MICHAEL
Quite possibly. I wouldn’t want to pre-empt what Minister
Bridges is going to do in those
acts.
JESSICA
But that’s the kind of change you're talking
about?
MICHAEL
But that is the sort of change. Now, if those thresholds are
reached, then it is possible that the sorts of punishments
that apply under the Employment Relations Act could result
in deportation of recent migrants who are employers if they
offend against New
Zealanders.
JESSICA
And why are those changes to the deportation rules—? Why
are they
necessary?
MICHAEL
Well, I think it’s very important to send a signal that
being in New Zealand is a privilege and that there's a rule
of law in this country that needs to be obeyed. Now, there
are some countries where law is perhaps not quite as closely
followed—
JESSICA
Let’s just talk specifically about New Zealand, though,
and these deportation laws. Because at the moment, basically
once you’ve been here for 10 years, you're pretty much
safe. Do you think we need to tighten these up a
bit?
MICHAEL
Well, I’ve had a look at that as part of the amendments
that I’m going to be introducing next month. On balance,
I’ve decided that the punishment regime and the
deportation regime is adequate. And remember that people can
be liable for deportation for things like a drink-driving
conviction. Now, as Associate Transport Minister, I
wouldn’t want to trivialise a drink-driving conviction,
and that’s certainly what the Immigration Act does right
now.
JESSICA
Do you think that New Zealand needs to be careful that we
don’t get a bad reputation overseas for being poor
employers?
MICHAEL
Yes, it is important, and I was very
pleased—
JESSICA
Do you think there's a risk that that’s happening at the
moment?
MICHAEL
Well, I was going to say the US State Department has come
out with its annual Trafficking of Persons report this week.
We have retained our tier-one status, which means we are
amongst the best nations in the world for our management of
trafficking. There were some criticisms last year around
things like foreign charter vessels, migrant exploitation
and the fact we saw that trafficking was more of a
transnational issue rather than a domestic issue. Judith
Collins is working on that last issue, and there’ll be
some changes made to the Crimes
Act.
JESSICA
Right.
We—
MICHAEL
And Simon and I are working on a lined-up policy for both
immigration law and employment
law.
JESSICA
Since you're talking more broadly, let’s broaden it
out.
MICHAEL
Sure.
JESSICA
Basically, what's happening now is that there are a lot of
migrants coming to New Zealand, and there's some criticism
that they’re buying up residential houses in the Auckland
market in particular. Do you see this as a
problem?
MICHAEL
Well, it’s really important, I think, that people don’t
judge what's going on by how many Asian faces there are at
the local
auctions.
JESSICA
But not just Asian faces, though – immigrants in
general.
MICHAEL
Well, that is true. Remember that our net migration over the
last three or four years has been pretty stable. That is,
the number of people coming in has more or less matched the
number of people leaving. So we know we’ve got a
supply-side issue in terms of housing problems, and that’s
why we’ve put in place changes to the Resource Management
Act, the Local Government Act and the issues around special
housing.
JESSICA
Is this just a by-product of immigration,
though?
MICHAEL
Well, I wouldn’t accept that. I mean, we need skills, and
we are a migrant nation. We have always relied on
immigration as part of our
policy—
JESSICA
But talking specifically about housing,
though.
MICHAEL
Well, they need somewhere to live. Now, a recent BNZ survey
showed there were about 9% only of houses that were owned by
people who were not here in New Zealand. Now, half of those
intended to come to New Zealand, and of the balance, there
was about as many non-New Zealand residents selling houses
as there were buying them. So I’m not sure it’s true to
say immigration at the moment is driving up the price of
houses.
JESSICA
If you look at other examples – basically, in Hong Kong
they’ve got a 15% tax for people buying residential
houses. Is that anything you’d look at here, or would that
put off immigrants in your
opinion?
MICHAEL
Well, I don’t think it’s something I should comment on.
That would be something the Minister of Housing would need
to look
at.
JESSICA
As Minister of Immigration,
though.
MICHAEL
Well, as Minister of Immigration, it could be a barrier to
skilled migrants seeing New Zealand as an attractive
destination. I would also add that I’m not sure that
it’s actually had the effect of actually dampening the
house prices in Hong
Kong.
JESSICA
And that’s one of the things, as well, that you’ve got
to look at. You talked about 9% there owned by immigrants.
That would make quite a big difference to the housing market
in
Auckland.
MICHAEL
That’s 9% owned by people who are not currently New
Zealanders and are not in New Zealand at the time. So
we’ve always got a churn of people coming and going. So
the real number is probably closer to 4% or 4½%. And as I
say, they’re being sold at the same rate that they’re
being purchased by people who are not New Zealanders and not
in New
Zealand.
JESSICA
Well, that’s a nice place to leave it. Thank you very much
for your time this morning, Michael
Woodhouse.
MICHAEL
Thanks,
Jess.
ENDS