Elections and migrant-bashing: Full rights for migrant workers By Byron
25 August, 2014
Joe McClure, Fightback
Labour and National both have unpromising records when it comes to immigration policy. National, represented by Minister
of Immigration Michael Woodhouse, has suffered a series of embarrassments this year. Groups of Filipino workers employed
in Christchurch were found to be victims of exploitative company Tech5, which was keeping them in cramped conditions,
taking $125 per person per week to “pay for the cost of their tools”, and coercing them into working for the company
without complaint, or risk losing their visa and being returned to the Philippines. A recent raid on fruit picking
operations in the Bay of Plenty found eight people working without visas, and more than 18 companies operating in breach
of immigration requirements. In May, Woodhouse was found to have met with overseas investors and significant National
party donors, including prominent Chinese businessman Donghua Liu, before deciding on their visa applications.
Labour has also been dogged by the case of Liu, when it was found that Labour leader David Cunliffe had intervened in
his application, after Liu allegedly paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine at a Labour party fundraiser. Despite Cunliffe’s
adamant claim that he never got involved with Liu’s visa application in 2014, it has been revealed that in 2003 he wrote
a letter asking for Liu’s immigration application to be fast-tracked. Liu donated an undisclosed amount to Labour after
the application was approved.
Labour’s hostility to immigrants (other than wealthy businessmen) was made clear in their election policy, where they
announced they wanted to reduce immigration to avoid raising housing prices. Despite the party’s frequent attacks on
National’s immigration stance, Deputy Labour Leader David Parker made it clear that the Labour party intend to control
the number of immigrants arriving in New Zealand, reducing the number arriving without qualifications or skills of value
to the New Zealand economy, and fast-tracking those instances where applicants can demonstrate that they can contribute
to growing New Zealand’s GDP.
Labour party policy involves a points-based system, which ensures that immigrants are spread throughout the country
rather than being concentrated in just one or two regions. In a concession to potential coalition partners such as the
Green Party, Labour promised to ensure immigrants are paid no less than the minimum wage, provide training opportunities
for upskilling immigrants, and increase the refugee quota from 750 per year to 1000. In contrast, the National party
claims that the risk of refugees targeting New Zealand is growing, a claim echoed by NZ First leader Winston Peters.
Peters has announced his party’s position on immigration, involving increased security and a reduction in the number of
student visas granted, in line with the party’s conservative ideology; however, the lack of detail in Peters’ statements
prevent a clearer appraisal of his position.
In contrast, the Green Party, in their policy framework, include promises to increase the refugee quota to 1,000, with a
focus on uniting families, ensuring that migrant workers are paid no less than local workers and employed in the same
conditions, and will create opportunities for people on temporary visas to upskill so that they can apply for permanent
residency.
Finally, MANA-Internet policy reflects a more open-borders position, in which skilled visitors from overseas can come
and go from New Zealand as necessary. Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom has been a very prominent figure in immigration
discussions, as his residency was granted under dubious conditions by Immigration NZ, and subsequent to this, an illegal
search of his home was carried out, including the seizure of various items belonging to him.
Dotcom claims that former Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman pressured Immigration NZ to accept his residency
application, as part of a deal with the US government, and to ensure he invested in the NZ economy. He further suggests
that this was to make it easier for the US government to extradite him out of New Zealand, as he was accused of
copyright fraud by various American media companies. According to reports released under the Official Information Act,
Immigration NZ were aware of these accusations made against Dotcom, but felt that his economic contribution was more
important than his legal situation.
As a result of these obfuscations and denials, Dotcom has demanded transparency in government processes, and a full
review of the relevant diplomatic and intelligence agreements. MANA leader Hone Harawira has also taken up this view, as
have his fellow candidates; John Minto demanded that Woodhouse explain why the NZ government was discriminating against
Pacific people from Tonga and Samoa while putting out the welcome mat for anyone from Australia, irrespective of skills
and criteria.
New Zealand employs numerous workers from around the Pacific each year to take part in fruit picking and other seasonal
employment, and this creates a valuable opportunity for these people to work in the NZ environment, improving their
English language fluency, as well as picking up skills that they can use both in New Zealand and in their home
countries. However, these workers are often discriminated against, as in the example of the construction workers in
Christchurch, and the MANA Movement is one of only a few parties that have promised to prevent this happening.
MANA has offered to migrant workers the same pay and conditions as local workers, without the risk of having their visas
revoked, and enabling them to receive the same support as a New Zealander working in that job could expect. This is just
one of the areas where Fightback stands alongside MANA, in affirming the rights of dispossessed workers, and demanding
fair and reasonable treatment without discrimination, whether for migrant workers employed in New Zealand, or New
Zealand-born workers.