The leaders of New Zealand must keep abreast of important issues as they arise, and must respond appropriately.
One such response was the enactment of legislation aimed at combating migrant exploitation, with punitive measures such as up to 10 years imprisonment, $100,000 fine, revocation of residence visa and deportation.
No doubt this sends a strong message, but the question is, “How effective is this legislation in stopping exploitation?”
The annual Diversity Forum organised by the Human Rights Commission in Christchurch on August 24, 2014 heard that migrant workers are at the risk of working under inhuman and slavish conditions.
Migrants involved in the Canterbury rebuild are particularly vulnerable.
A case is currently before the courts and we await the verdict.
Students victimised
Although we do not know if this menace is widespread but anecdotal evidence shows that it is rampant in the hospitality sector. Students with work visas are particularly the target of exploitation as they are disparate for a job, which will help them gain residence visa.
It is so common that some students think that it is the norm.
It is very unfortunate that such practices have become part of our employment scene. This was not envisaged and certainly not a part of the New Zealand psyche.
This practice creates an unhealthy and unwarranted competitive advantage, because these rogue employers pay far less than the minimum wage to reduce overheads and maximise profits.
Exploiting one’s own people who are most vulnerable is unforgiveable.
Why the perpetrator’s moral compass is not working is an inquiry for another day.
Youngster cheated
Pravinder Singh (not his real name) has just finished his qualification. Like most others, he came here in search of a better life. He was granted a job search visa and was looking for employment. Meanwhile he went to India to visit his family. While he was there, he was told that Mr M, a man in Auckland might be able to give him a job.
Pravinder flew back to New Zealand contacted Mr M, who gave him the job of managing a restaurant and provided him food and accommodation. Weeks rolled by but there was no mention of salary and paper work that would enable him to gain permanent residence.
Eventually Mr M said that another person could offer Parvinder a job, but there was a fee of NZ$20,000 (with guaranteed refund if the application for residence visa failed).
Pravinder’s parents in India agreed to pay the fee and took out loans, and started repaying in installments with much difficulty.
Mr M recommended Pravinder to an Immigration Adviser who assisted him with the two-stage Skilled Migrant residence process.
Application declined
Apparently, Mr M had a deal with the Immigration Adviser, according to which Parvinder would be paid normal wages; he would later be asked to pay back all but $70-$100 per week, by withdrawing cash from various ATMS and at liquor stores.
The residence application eventually failed as the restaurant was not financially viable.
Parvinder was desperate. He asked Mr M to refund the money paid but was fired from his job. Nowhere to go, Parvinder went into depression. With no one to guide him in this country, he had one hope: to speak with his family in India for guidance. Out of desperation, he used someone’s credit card to top up his mobile phone.
Deportation ordered
The Compliance Team at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) started the process for Pravinder’s deportation. He was terrified and did not know who he could trust to help him. One of his co-workers brought him to me in Wellington on a Saturday morning.
It was hard to fathom how he had been duped.
Parvinder is an example of the desperate circumstances under which many international students and migrant workers live in this country.
Our firm has been battling this case for a year now on three fronts – Labour Inspectorate, Immigration Advisers Authority and Compliance Operations.
The challenges
The challenges we have to overcome are: jurisdiction (the transfer of funds took place in India, not New Zealand), providing evidence that supports the claim of exploitation (the exploiters knew how to cover their tracks), and finally providing a suitable outcome for Parvinder when the legislation provides no recourse.
While the technical legal challenges continue, it makes me wonder whether the legislation goes far enough to protect such people.
Will M be held accountable?
Is Parvinder a victim rather than a culprit?
Does our immigration policy encourage employers to exploit innocent victims?
I am sure that the exploiters will be held to account sooner than later.
Kamil Lakshman is a Lawyer & Principal of Wellington based law firm Idesi Legal Limited. She can be contacted on (04) 4616018 or 021-1598803. Email: kamil.lakshman@idesilegal.co.nz; The opinions expressed in her article above are her own and not that of Idesi Legal Limited or the New Zealand Law Society, or its Wellington Branch, or its affiliated bodies and committees or Indian Newslink. Readers can send their comments (names can be withheld from publication on request) also to editor@indiannewslink.co.nz
