DARIEN FENTON (Labour) Link to this
It is a pleasure to take a call in the consideration of Part 1 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. When the Committee rose last night we had heard some very interesting discussion in the Committee. I remember, in particular, the member David Bennett predicting dark clouds would swirl all around us and descend on us. Everything was misery. I really, really struggled to understand that. It seemed that would occur because the Minister had had the gall to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper. But maybe Mr Bennett has become good at predicting the weather, because in case members have not noticed this, I will say it is raining outside.
I also thought the member Pansy Wong would be pleased that we are going through the Committee stage of the bill, because on 1 February she complained about the much-needed legislation to regulate immigration advisers and said the bill was languishing in Parliament. It is really good that the bill is in the Committee stage, and I think the Opposition members should celebrate that, along with members on the Government side of the Chamber.
Part 1 is a very important part of the bill. It is critical to protect the interests of those who seek advice, assistance, or representation. Immigration advisers deal with all kinds of immigration applications, including matters relating to residence, temporary entry, work permits, appeals, exemptions, and refugee status claims and appeals. In 2004 immigration advisers were used in around 9,000 residence applications, and in 2003-04 they were used in around 66,000 temporary entry applications. Those numbers will have only increased in the past couple of years.
The objective of the Government in this bill is to ensure the regulation of immigration advice and to enhance the ability of immigration applicants to make a well-informed choice as to an experienced or a qualified immigration adviser. We want to reduce the risk of serious harm to those who use immigration advisers by ensuring the use of competent and ethical services, and to provide an accessible and a clear complaints and redress process for those who use immigration advisers and have less than satisfactory experiences.
As we discussed in the first and second readings of this bill, immigration advice is as diverse as any occupation, and it goes from the very good to the very bad. Advice is presently provided by immigration consultants, lawyers, education recruitment advisers, not-for-profit organisations, and also through personal contacts. Some advice is provided by experienced professionals who uphold decent standards and give excellent advice and assistance. Unfortunately, some advice is given by people who do not uphold those standards. There are no formal statistics on the number of complaints that have gone to the Department of Labour and the Minister of Immigration. As MPs we have heard many horror stories during the debate on this bill in this Chamber and during the select committee process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. All parties committed themselves during that process to ensure that the bad practices, which have such an adverse impact on intending migrants and on New Zealand’s reputation as a fair country, come to an end.
That is why it is important that in Part 1 we have clearly defined what immigration advice is: advising, directing, assisting, or representing people in relation to immigration matters. But this bill also states that immigration advice does not include providing information that is already publicly available or that is prepared or made available by the department. Nor does it include directing a person to the Minister, the department, an immigration officer, or someone on a list of licensed immigration advisers. Clerical work and settlement services are defined by clause 5 of the bill. Translation and interpretation services are not defined in the bill as immigration advice.
Clause 11 deals with those who are exempt from the requirement to be licensed. In the bill as reported back from the select committee, those exemptions are dealt with in the primary legislation rather than by Order in Council, as proposed in the original version of the bill. The committee has recommended that MPs and their electorate staff should be exempt—and I think we all agree with that one.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
This is not a second reading speech. This is meant to be the Committee stage, not the reporting back of the bill from the select committee.
Well, I would like to see Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith’s staff deal with his issues. If he did not have an exemption, he would not cope with his job. Also exempt are public servants who provide immigration advice within the scope of their employment agreement. That makes sense, as does the exemption of foreign diplomats and consular staff.
There was a lot of debate—as referred to in previous speeches—about whether lawyers should continue to be exempt, as was intended by the original bill. Unfortunately, lawyers have been known to be among those who provide poor immigration advice—I know David Bennett would not agree that is possible—and many of us can attest to that. However, we are assured that the complaints and disciplinary process under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act will be an improvement on the previous system under the Law Practitioners Act.
A very strong case and very magnificent submissions were made by the Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and community law centres. We acknowledge the great job they do. We accept that properly trained employees and volunteers who work for those organisations already provide high standards and an essential service to the community, and that therefore they should be exempt from the licensing requirements of the bill.
Why does the member not ask him?
Another issue that was not in the original bill, but that the committee considered, was whether people who have recently exercised any power of decision making in relation to immigration matters should be prevented from holding a licence. There is a legitimate question as to whether those positions provide inside knowledge and contacts that could give a competitive advantage. Unfortunately, we have had some bad experiences in that area. [Interruption]
The majority of the Labour members of the select committee supported a prohibition for 12 months on the licensing of anyone who has exercised the power of discretion on immigration matters, such as former immigration, visa, or refugee status officers and former Ministers and Associate Ministers of Immigration. That is intended to act as a restraint of trade. I think it is very, very reasonable, because it mitigates against any advantage that such people might have in becoming licensed immigration advisers. I do not agree with the member Pansy Wong, who said that provision was a slight on immigration staff. Rather, it comes about as a result of bad experiences, and we do not want to go there again.
I am particularly interested in clause 33, which states the Registrar of Immigration Advisers is to develop competency standards. For the first time in New Zealand, we will have competency standards for immigration advisers. Clause 33 provides for “… rules and criteria relating to—(a) relevant qualifications: (b) practical experience and knowledge: (c) continuing professional development: (d) communication in English.” That will start to professionalise the industry and give it the reputation that it needs. In addition, under clause 34 the registrar will develop a code of conduct that must be observed by licensed immigration advisers. The code will address standards of professional and ethical conduct for licensed immigration advisers.
Part 1 of the bill provides for a complaint and disciplinary procedure against licensed advisers through the establishment of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. We have recommended that the functions of the Immigration Advisers Authority be split between the Department of Labour and the tribunal, which would be administered by the Ministry of Justice. Natural justice rights are given to an adviser to provide a written statement of explanation, and following the investigation of a complaint, disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. Those sanctions include the giving of a caution or censure, a requirement to undertake specific training, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, the claiming of a penalty of up to $10,000, and the payment of compensation to the complainant. The sanctions, which are able to be enforced in the District Court, include a refund of all or any part of the fees or expenses paid by the complainant or another person to the immigration adviser.
I believe the provisions in Part 1, along with the other parts of the bill and the amendments made by the select committee, will ensure the regulation of immigration advisers and help to put an end to the problems that intending migrants have encountered over many years. Thank you.
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this
Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Last night, in looking at the amendment placed before the Committee by the Māori Party as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 in the name of Dr Pita Sharples, the Minister gave some responses to some of the concerns that we put on the table. I want to put some questions back to the Minister, to try to seek some clarification from him. In the first instance, however, I just want to go back over a few things so that it is really clear where I am coming from.
The first thing is that our Supplementary Order Paper was about the notion of establishing a Māori Immigration Education Council. We based our rationale for that on the view that the Treaty of Waitangi, according to a number of experts better than me, is the nation’s funding document and the constitutional blueprint for nation-building. So we figured that it was quite a good idea to have some education around the Treaty for people who come to Aotearoa. That is a précis of where we were heading with our Supplementary Order Paper.
Unfortunately, we learnt last night that under Standing Order 319 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in the Committee of the whole House, the Government is exercising its right to place a financial veto on the Supplementary Order Paper. We learnt that this sort of action is fairly rare, and we also learnt that it means that our Supplementary Order Paper cannot be voted on but can be debated. We ask about the rationale for the Government doing that. The Minister gave some views about that, but we obviously still feel disappointed that the Government has moved in that way to basically take away our right to have our Supplementary Order Paper debated on.
As I said, the Minister referred, or responded, to some of the questions about that. There are a couple of points I want to make. The first one is that the Minister referred to the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Māori caucus. I wonder, with no disrespect to the Māori members of the Māori caucus, whether the Minister can give us some guide as to whether it is a regular occurrence to refer issues around the Treaty or Māori issues to the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Māori caucus. The second point is to ask whether that referral is to one person or to a group. The third point is to ask whether that is accepted, common practice. That is the first issue, and I ask the Minister to give a response on that.
The second issue is in respect of the amount of money. The rationale given for our Supplementary Order Paper being taken off the agenda is that there are some fiscal restraints on the Government, and therefore under the Standing Orders it was appropriate that the Government took action last night to use the financial veto. We are talking about, apparently, $1.5 million per annum. So the first issue for us—as I try to explain the issue from our point of view—is that there was some money in the Budget that could have been removed for the purposes of supporting this initiative. The issue is that the amount of money we are talking about, according to the Government, is not significant enough to justify the financial veto.
But the key concern is around where the figure comes from, in the sense that $1.5 million per annum has been identified, yet we have not discussed the whole notion of how the Māori Education Immigration Council might operate. Yes, there are some issues around what it might look like, but it seems as though the figure of $1.5 million has been plucked out of the air, without any discussion of the actual concept of the council with those of us in the Māori Party who have put the Supplementary Order Paper forward. So I ask the Minister to perhaps respond to that issue.
The third issue is that last night the Minister provided quite a number of booklets that give some information about the Treaty, saying that if the immigrants who come here would just take a little care to read over those booklets, then they might actually gain an understanding of the Treaty. In response to that, firstly, I ask the Minister whether he has read the booklets. I have not. That is the first point—would immigrants take care to read those booklets? The second point is to ask the Minister whether immigrants would understand them. Would immigrants who come here, possibly without English as their first language, understand the booklets, and if not, what would be the point of putting the booklets in front of them? The third point stems from being a Treaty educator myself. I know that just simply plonking books in front of people does not actually deal with the issues about the place of tangata whenua and, indeed, that of the Treaty partners. We want to give immigrants a real appreciation of what we are actually aiming at in this, which is not only the education issue but the issue about involvement in decision making. That pretty much made up a large part of my discussion last night. We were looking at those issues, so I want to put those points.
The last point I want to raise was that last night the Minister talked about clauses 32, 33, and 34 of the bill, where issues around the competency standards are raised. I noted that he looked to the officials while, I hope, giving a fairly clear lead of a desire to have issues around the Treaty—encompassing, I hope, a wide range of issues, including from, perhaps, a tangata whenua point of view Māori language, Māori culture, and so on—included. But I noted in those clauses, when I had a quick squiz over them, that I did not see competency standards in respect of anything about Te Ao Māori. I am hoping that when the Minister turned round to look at the officials, that was a good enough look from him to say to them that that needs to be addressed. I would appreciate some sort of response to that.
This wraps up our last chance to ask the Minister to reconsider the matter of Standing Order 319 and to allow our Supplementary Order Paper to be voted on, or at least to give us a bit more of a clear lead as to how the issues that I have just raised this afternoon might be addressed. Kia ora tātou.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
Let me first restate to the member Te Ururoa Flavell the Government’s commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and, indeed, to seeing Treaty education, tikanga Māori, and te reo Māori as part of the broad education of people in this country, including new migrants. It is important. Māori are the first people of this land and their identity is much of what defines our collective identity as New Zealanders in Aotearoa.
The member has asked three specific questions and a general one and I will quickly respond to each of them. Firstly, my reference to the kaitiaki of tikanga by the Māori caucus was an informal and collective reference to the role that our Māori caucus plays in very strongly advocating internally within the Labour Party for matters of tikanga Māori and Te Ao Māori. They are, in many ways, the guardian of that flame within Labour, and indeed a force to be reckoned with within Parliament as well as within the party. I gave due deference to my colleagues last night, and I can confirm to the member that there was proper consultation on a formal basis with the Māori caucus in respect of this bill and in respect of the member’s amendments, which took place before the debate last night.
Secondly, the member has questioned the Minister of Finance’s costings. Those costings are, of course, approximate. They are the costings done by the Minister of Finance’s office. I think what is key here is that a non-trivial amount of resource is required to set up a new council—which was the burden of the member’s proposed amendments—and that that fiscal hurdle had not been budgeted in the forward estimates or in the current Budget round, and therefore the amendments would have required spending that was without a current or planned appropriation. That is an appropriate and standard use of the financial veto, and an appropriate standard process, I understand, was employed by the Minister of Finance in coming to that decision.
Thirdly, in respect of the information booklets, may I just take this opportunity to clarify one slight oversight in my comments last night. A number of the booklets were given directly to prospective migrants, but there was also a pack of four smaller booklets that were designed for the training of immigration advisers and immigration staff. The member has quite rightly pointed out that it can be hard to get across the sense of the Treaty simply from the written page. That is why we have taken an active role in training our immigration staff in the principles of the Treaty so that they might, as part of the settlement programme and the settlement strategy, communicate that orally and in person to new migrants.
The member asked whether I had read the booklets. I have had a good skim of them. I cannot say I have read every word on every page, but then I am not a migrant and therefore not the target audience. I am satisfied that the booklets are a good effort, and that they do contain the information that we need to get across to migrants.
Fourthly, the member has asked whether my reference to our assiduous officials last night, in respect of clauses 32 to 34, was in the nature of an indication from me as Minister that I expected the registrar and policy to reflect the principles of tikanga. I am happy to confirm for the member and for the Committee that it has always been the Government’s intention that the principles of the Treaty should be contained within those matters that are the proper purview of the licensing of immigration advisers, and, indeed, the training of immigration staff internally.
In summary, I do not think there is any great difference between the positions of the Māori Party, the Māori caucus of the Labour Party, and the Government in the principles of this matter. I think we are all heading in the same direction, but we are proposing somewhat different routes. It is our view that a whole new bureaucracy is not necessary to achieve these aims, and that the most effective and efficient thing to do is to channel that training and that information through the existing channels that we are proposing in this bill. I would hate for that member, the Committee, and the public to think for one moment that this Government was less than fully committed to the underlying principles of the Treaty, which define us as a nation and which will be an increasingly important part of our collective future.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
This is a good opportunity to be able to contribute to the debate on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. The Labour Party supports this bill. It is a Government bill. I was on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard the submissions on this bill, so it is wonderful to see it come through to its Committee stage and I also look forward to the bill reaching its third and final reading.
I have been interested to hear some of the other contributions to this debate. Many of them were made yesterday, because today’s debate is the continuation of the interrupted debate on the Committee stage of the bill. It was interesting to note that both yesterday and today when Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith took a call on this bill he took his time to raise all sorts of issues, but not once did he raise an issue that he has subsequently constantly interjected on, which is the issue of wanting some answers from Taito Phillip Field on his involvement in immigration issues. It is very interesting that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith chose not to take his formal speaking time in the Chamber to raise that issue yet continues to make interjections about it. He did not interject when his colleague David Bennett talked about “9.30 o’clock” in his contribution to this debate last evening, but that is another story.
I want to talk about how important the introduction of this bill is. It is not a minute too soon. It is certainly not a minute too soon for those people who have been in a very vulnerable position at the hands of immigration advisers, at a very vulnerable time in their lives. Those people have been looking for professional, competent advice at a time when it makes a big difference to the decisions they are about to make. They have a right to good, competent advice on the immigration procedures in this country and on their likelihood of being able to immigrate here successfully. This bill ensures that a much more professional approach will be taken to the advice that people receive in that regard.
For all of those people who are subject to that advice, this bill is coming before this House not a minute too soon. It is good to see that we were able to progress it at reasonable speed, but not with undue haste, through the select committee process, because this bill has a profound effect on people’s lives, at a time when they are very vulnerable and need to make sure they get absolutely the appropriate advice.
We heard in the select committee submissions, and I have certainly heard in my role as a local member of Parliament in the Waikato area, many sad stories from people who have come to this country in good faith, on the advice of immigration advisers, in the belief that they had a very good chance of immigrating successfully and integrating into New Zealand society. They have found that they have integrated very well into society, but sometimes they have subsequently found that the advice they received at the outset was not correct, which causes all sorts of harm and disruption. In fact, people feel quite traumatised by having made significant financial decisions to come to this country and then subsequently finding out that the advice they were given at the outset was not correct and that they did not meet the criteria for becoming resident in this country.
This bill creates a new framework for the regulation of individuals providing immigration advice, both onshore and offshore. It is important that we cover both areas, because they are where people receive their advice from. The framework is critical to managing the growing immigration advice industry. One of the very interesting things we discovered in the select committee was that the industry is both formal and informal. We had a lot of interesting discussions about that issue and had to make some decisions about the types of people who were giving immigration advice. They stretch from lawyers, who of course are governed by other Acts of Parliament, all the way down to family members and other well-meaning people giving immigration advice to a whole range of people trying to make decisions sometimes not based on the best advice. It was one of the many very difficult issues to deal with in addressing this bill.
The legislation will bring New Zealand into line with other countries, such as Australia and Britain. That is important, because I think the more consistency we have on this issue the better, and the less confusion there will be for people operating in this field of immigration advice. This bill, in raising the standard of immigration advice, will promote and protect the interests of migrants and potential migrants who receive immigration advice. That will therefore enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination. It really does harm our reputation as a migration destination if immigration advice is not appropriate.
Before the dinner break I was talking about my support for this bill, and about my involvement in the select committee process and getting it through to the Committee stage that we are now debating.
I make particular reference to the very fine work the officials did on this bill. As I said before, the select committee had some very difficult issues to deal with. Although the bill seemed straightforward at the outset, as do many of these bills, it became more and more complicated as we went along the process. We had issues to debate and discuss around lawyers and whether they should be caught in the requirements of this bill or whether Acts of Parliament that already covered them were sufficient. We had to consider whether payment for advice was the issue we should be regulating around, or whether the issue was the provision of advice per se. There were a range of issues that we looked to the officials for advice on in terms of the evidence and practice out in the community. We certainly received very good advice from the officials on those matters.
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made some recommendations to change aspects of the bill—mostly minor and technical changes. Those recommendations include establishing the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, which is to be independent of the Immigration Advisers Authority, and for the tribunal to be administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
It is sad to see a Government filibustering because it has no work to do.
That was Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who took a call on this part of the bill yesterday. He did not ask any questions of Taito Phillip Field with regard to this matter, but he has been quite interested in interjecting about it ever since. I invite Dr Smith to approach Taito Phillip Field and ask him the questions he so obviously wants to ask during the debate on this bill. This bill is about regulating immigration advisers. If the member has questions to ask of a particular member of Parliament—an Independent member—perhaps he would like to address those questions to that Independent member of Parliament.
This Labour-led Government understands that a sustainable, well-managed, and balanced immigration programme is one of the keys to New Zealand’s economic transformation. This bill is part of that understanding. I have no hesitation in recommending the bill at the Committee stage. Thank you.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) Link to this
I rise to support this bill, and I particularly want to pay tribute, first of all, to the previous Minister of Immigration, Paul Swain, who brought this bill forward. I also congratulate the current Minister of Immigration, my good friend David Cunliffe—
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
—the Hon David Cunliffe, who has done a great job in promoting this bill. I know personally how many meetings and discussions he has had with many, many ethnic communities around the country. In many places I myself was with him to explain the purposes of this bill and why we had to bring it forward.
The ethnic communities—the migrant communities—have a lot of horror stories. Over the years, particularly the last 5 years that I have been in Parliament, we have heard a lot of horror stories from many immigrants who had to deal with some of the fly-by-night consultants and advisers on immigration.
I must tell members this story. I was in Tauranga last weekend and I heard some comments about the local MP from some of my friends, who, for whatever reason, actually voted for the member opposite, Bob Clarkson. They did so by mistake, obviously, though they did not realise it at the time. Now they tell me that the member for Tauranga is hardly ever available to listen to their plight.
Some of those people have a lot of horror stories to tell about consultants. We have heard horror stories about consultants taking immigrants’ passports and money and then going off overseas, leaving the immigrants high and dry and in a lot of difficulty. So I am delighted that the Government has brought this bill forward to make sure that our people—the immigrants and ethnic communities—are protected from some of these sharks who have been out to rip off these people.
More important, this bill is about managing our immigration. It is important to remember that this country depends, in many ways, on people who come from overseas, whether they are skilled people, or whether they are their families joining migrant communities here. These people have major issues. This bill will rectify some of the shortcomings that a lot of those people feel are in the system, particularly in relation to some of the so-called advisers.
I have another story. The other day somebody wanted to get permanent residence for his spouse. The so-called consultant, after the first application was made, advised this poor fella to go straight to the Minister, rather than go through the proper procedures. This guy took all the couple’s money, then sent the application over to the Minister for special directions.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
Ashraf, you were once a respected agricultural scientist; look what you’re reduced to—filibustering to save a dying Government.
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
The member is an agricultural scientist as well, so there are no worries there.
Bob ClarksonDr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY Link to this
He wants a burka; he should have a burka on him! I say to the member that he should be going out and looking after his constituents. He never takes the opportunity to see those ethnic communities and migrants. In his own area some of those ethnic people actually voted for him, and they have never seen him again. It is very sad.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt my colleague during his presentation, but during an interchange Bob Clarkson used an unparliamentary term. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this
I feel moved to take a call on Part 1 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I had not intended to do so, but I could not believe—
Lockwood Smith should not talk about third-formers; he should talk about first-year university students. He is the member of Parliament who was chased out of a toilet window at a university campus in this country because no student wanted to talk to him, at all.
I was not going to talk about Part 1 of this bill, which sets up the need for immigration advisers. What prompted me to take a call in support of Part 1 tonight was hearing—what do we have to call him now—Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD say that the Government was filibustering a bill, because it wanted to talk about its legislation. That old Tory arrogance was on display. Lockwood Smith does not think it is worthy enough to get up here and talk about protecting New Zealanders by making sure that new New Zealanders get access to decent immigration advisers.
That shows me why that man is so out of touch. He has been in Parliament far too long. He represents all the worst excesses of the National Government of the 1990s and its condescending approach to people. He came down here tonight, on pay day—when members of Parliament are paid—to sit in the second row of the National benches, because he cannot get any higher than that, and he has the disdain and the disrespect to say that the Government wanting to support its own bill is filibustering.
This was an open window into the heart of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD. It reminded me of why we will work so hard on this side of the Chamber to make sure that Part 1 of a bill like this one will continue to be brought into Parliament. I never want to see the kinds of rip-offs and rorts that have been perpetrated on vulnerable people come back in the way they did when Lockwood Smith used to have a front-bench job and occupied this side of the Chamber.
Dr Lockwood Smith says that I do not know what it was like. I do know, because every day that I was a student at Victoria University—staying at a very good hall of residence, I might add, Weir House—I paid interest on my student loan while I was studying. Then, when I got a job, I had to pay interest on that loan as well, all because of Lockwood Smith. So when he comes to Parliament tonight and arrogantly scoffs at very important Government bills, he should know that in actual fact we are making positive changes for ordinary people.
Those of us who have the privilege of representing constituency seats know all too well that often one has the difficult situation where people have paid tens of thousands of dollars to immigration advisers—[Interruption]
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. He knows that if he wants to criticise the Chairperson, there is a proper way of doing it.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith Link to this
I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Could I just draw to your attention that in fact we are meant to be debating Part 1 of the bill. The member has been speaking, I think for about 3 or 4 minutes, and I have not heard him mention Part 1 of the bill yet.
Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chairperson, I want to say first of all that at the very point I was interrupted by Dr Smith I was mentioning the costs that people had to pay to immigration advisers, which I would have thought was pretty much within Part 1. I have been chipped away at—which I do not mind—by National Opposition MPs, and when they interject it is reasonable that I get the chance to reply to the things they are saying. Longstanding MP David Bennett is shaking his head like the parliamentary veteran he is, but if members interject it is reasonable that the speaker on his or her feet gets the chance to have a chip back. But at the very point I was interrupted, I was talking about Part 1.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member has been addressing the bill. There has been robust debate from all sides.
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith now wants to know which clauses I am addressing. If he really is the immigration spokesperson for the National Party, he should know. I ask him which clauses are covered by Part 1. He does not know. So the man who is now interrupting my speaking contribution does not know. I know Part 1 is clauses 3 to 14. He is now checking his papers because he does not know that. Part 1 is clauses 3 to 14, and I ask the member to check. Well, in actual fact it goes over the page as well—
Well, it goes up to clause 64, but he did not know that—[ Interruption]
All these provisions cover the very important matter of how we will make sure we have some decent immigration advisers in New Zealand. We will have a proper licensing regime, which National never bothered to get on with.
Now he is interjecting about Taito Phillip Field. Of course, I notice that all of a sudden Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has not been asking many questions in Parliament about Taito Phillip Field any more. Am I to think that he was not very genuine about his inquiries on that matter when he railed in this Parliament and did that big, angry, puffed up thing that he likes to do from time to time? Am I to assume that was not what he was wanting to do?
I want to know from National why it never introduced proper licensing regimes for immigration advisers. I wonder whether it is because, just recently, one of its Ministers from the last Government has been up before the courts charged with fraud as an immigration adviser. When National Party members could not convince that person to join their party, they waited until he joined an honourable party like New Zealand First, then poached him with the baubles of office that they could offer at that time. That is what they did.
Lockwood Smith wants to know what the court did, implying even further his association with that person, and endorsing and agreeing with what he did.
So Lockwood Smith does not think we need this part of the bill now, because the court made a decision in some way. Well, Lockwood Smith might not see any constituents any more because he is so busy trying to get on with things, but I have constituents who have been ripped off by some of the shonky immigration advisers. I think it is fantastic that there will now be a licensing procedure, and that a complaints and discipline procedure is being put in place, as well. This will help a lot of people over a lot of time, and I think that will be very, very useful for the kinds of people who, when they are moving to a—[ Interruption] Bob Clarkson now interjects, a man who has never done a single constituency day’s work in his life.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 12 be agreed to:
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 48
Noes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- United Future 3
- Māori Party 3
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Amendment not agreed to.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The amendments in the name of Dr Pita Sharples, as has already been advised, have been ruled out of order by financial veto.
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There is a slight difficulty in that the Supplementary Order Paper also covers Part 2. Presumably you mean the amendments that relate to Part 1.
A party vote was called for on the question,
That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 70
- New Zealand Labour 49
- New Zealand First 7
- Green Party 6
- United Future 3
- Māori Party 3
- Progressive 1
- Independent 1 (Field)
Noes 48
Amendments agreed to.
PANSY WONG (National) Link to this
In my hand is a copy of a press release issued by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, which states that it fears that the immigration consultant sector could be driven underground. This is the largest association of immigration consultants, which has long supported and advocated the licensing of all migrant consultants, and it is, in general, supportive of this bill. The association’s latest fear is driven by this devious Minister of Immigration’s very late introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that looks like it will introduce another charge on registered immigration consultants in the form of a levy.
During the consideration of this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we spent quite a bit of time on the cost of registration for immigration consultants. We were told that a new registration authority would have around 10 full-time staff and that the establishment cost of $1.4 million to $2 million dollars, and $500,000 to $900,000 in capital costs, would be funded through a variety of sources such as the Immigration New Zealand memorandum account and Crown funding. The Crown would also fund the annual cost of regulating the non-profit advisers and investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers. The department would also give consideration to gaining some third-party revenue towards those costs.
By and large, then, the balance of the annual ongoing cost of the $1.3 million to $2.4 million to support this regulatory regime will be funded through registration fees from the for-profit consultants. We were told that Cabinet also agreed in principle that the for-profit advisers should pay an annual licence fee in proportion to the cost of regulating them. A figure of between $1,000 and $2,000 was indicated. We were told that an additional supplement to reduce the $1,000 to $2,000 annual licence fee would also be considered by Cabinet when the final figures become much clearer.
The basis of the department arriving at a registration fee of $1,000 to $2,000 per consultant was from its database. The department also commissioned a survey by BRC Marketing and Social Research, which projected that approximately 1,000 immigration advisers would be regulated. This figure has long been disputed by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, which is the largest association for immigration consultants. It indicated that the figure of 1,000 immigration advisers was simply unrealistic. It reckoned it would be optimistic to think that the figure might reach 500. Let us remember that lawyers are exempt from this bill. So the association raised its concern with the Minister, and it was told by him that in the explanatory note to the bill it was stated that an additional supplement to reduce the $1,000 to $2,000 licence fee would be considered by Cabinet if the numbers seeking registration were too small to cover the total cost of regulation.
But the late Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced by the Minister, without consultation with the sector, after the select committee has completed its deliberation on the bill—including on the fees—raises alarm because the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the term “levy”. This provision would allow a levy to be imposed in addition to fees as provided in the original legislation. We believe that is an act of bad faith, and that it is devious and underhand. Last night the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, actually took a call—we are grateful for that—and said that the latest Supplementary Order Paper—
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take offence at some of the terms the member has used. There has been no lack of good faith in this process.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The Minister has taken offence at the terms the member used, so I ask the member to withdraw.
It would totally cut down Parliament’s vocabulary if words like “devious” and “underhand” were not able to be used. It is true, for a start. I invite you, Madam Chairperson, to think carefully about the amount of vocabulary that might be left behind if parliamentarians want to take part in robust debate.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I thank the member for her contribution and I think that she does have a point. However, the member did take offence and as that has happened I ask the member to withdraw.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. Can I just check, did the member withdraw?
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I asked the member to withdraw her remarks. Please withdraw.
I withdraw, Madam Chairperson.
Last night the Minister tried to brush off concern by stating that this is simply the result of legal opinion because the term “fees” can mean only recovering costs. That should cause further alarm for these immigration consultants, because it is clear to me that the department realises that the number of 1,000 immigration consultants is possibly overly optimistic, despite its database and despite its paying consultants to confirm that figure. That means that introducing this levy, on top of fees, might mean the $1,000 to $2,000 that was explicitly promised to that sector may not be realised.
I have tabled an amendment to test whether there is good-faith, open government in dealing with the public and the immigration consultant sector. My amendment is logical and very reasonable. It states that the total annual fee and levy per registered consultant would not exceed $2,000 without consultation with the sector. This is not breaking new ground. The precedent lies with the Accident Compensation Corporation, which annually will undertake consultation in setting its premium. If the reason for this late Supplementary Order Paper is technical or legal, then the Minister should have no problem supporting my amendment. At the very least he should take a call and announce here and now that the annual fee, together with a levy, would not exceed $2,000, as promised, and document it throughout this consideration of the bill.
This is a serious issue. National supports the bill up until this stage because we believe in striking a balance between consumer protection and, at the same time, upholding the reputation of credible immigration consultants. But we are not prepared to be a party to destroying the immigration consultant sector through high fees and levies to fund bureaucracy. After all, Immigration New Zealand funds a million-dollar website with only two job listings, so it is not exactly careful with spending other people’s money. With the demise of immigration consultants should the high fee and levy proceed, then potential visa applicants would have to either use lawyers or resort to unlicensed immigration consultants. We are then back to square one, as the reason for introducing this bill was to drive out unqualified immigration consultants. So I say to the Minister that, no ifs and no buts, we want him to make it clear to the public and the immigration consultant sector, by supporting my amendment, that he wants to uphold good faith and transparency in passing this bill.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
I thank the member who has just resumed her seat, Pansy Wong, for her intervention. I am happy to confirm that the Government has absolutely no intention of raising the combined levels of application fees, licensing fees, and adviser levies above the indicated level of a maximum of $2,000. Indeed, I am advised that the charge will quite likely be set at significantly below that level.
But it is true that the Government has had to introduce a clarifying amendment on the definitions in the bill, and I am happy to say that that is on the basis of recent legal advice. The issue is really one of definition, and it turns as follows. A fee must, as close as possible, relate to the value of a service provided to the person who paid the fee. If there was any margin above that, the fee would instead be defined in law as a tax and would therefore be outside the Treasury guidelines and be unlawful. Therefore, those proportions of the amount that is needed, properly and constructively, to cover the industry-good functions of the authority and the administration of the tribunal must be defined in law as a levy and cannot be defined in law as a fee. To be fair, that is an issue we probably should have foreseen in the original drafting; we did not. The lawyers have clarified it more recently. But what I took exception to in the member Pansy Wong’s remarks was any accusation that this was a matter of bad faith; it certainly was not. The amendment will not impact on the total charges faced by the industry.
The member has raised, I think, two subsidiary arguments. The first is that the charges should be enshrined in legislation, through an amendment of her own, to somehow provide protection for immigration advisers. The problem with that is that it is extremely bad legislative practice to write a nominal dollar amount into primary legislation. Why is that? It is because it is a long process, and very expensive in terms of the public’s time and the resources of Parliament, to put an amendment bill through the House. If we put in a nominal dollar amount, which, of course erodes in real terms every year due to inflation—a little maths lesson for the member—it is unlikely, in nominal terms, to be realistic in 10 or 20 years’ time. Why would we commit the faux pas of putting a nominal amount in legislation? That would violate best regulatory and legislative practice, in which by convention we embody the principles in legislation and policy, and then the implementation in subsidiary and delegated legislation, regulations, or Gazette notices by Order in Council, when things like fees should be set. So that is the reason, quite normally and in keeping with good legislative practice, why we are correcting this anomaly in that way. I do not think I need to spend any more time on that, other than to say that I have heard the views of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment and that its members have nothing to worry about.
The member has bandied about a number—I think 2,000—in terms of advisers in the industry. I think the member might be confusing the number of advisers in the industry with the number who are members of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, the former being significantly greater than the latter. Therein lies the problem, and therein lies the proof that we are doing the right thing. The good advisers, along with other advisers, benefit from that proportion of their levy that funds the industry-good functions that protect their reputation. The honest and reliable individual adviser who pays his or her levy that supports the industry-good functions and keeps the industry clean and reputable benefits directly by that reputation because, frankly, it grows the market for the whole industry. If that were not the case, the reputation of the industry would erode and the market would shrink, and that is when we would have the potential for disruption and a black market to arise. So I am very, very comfortable that this is the right thing to do and that it is good regulatory and legislative practice. It is also an act of good faith by the Government in order to correct as quickly as possible an anomaly in the original drafting. I thank the Committee for its time.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Of course, we have already talked about setting up the processes that underline the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. It sets up a regulatory framework so that we can get some standards into the sector. I want to move on to the issue of the levies that the Opposition members seem so concerned about. It certainly was an issue that was canvassed during the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing process when we heard the submissions.
I recall that the member who is trying his best to interject, David Bennett, actually asked quite specific questions of the officials about how the levies would be set up, so it should be no surprise to the members of the Opposition. They were part of the process and they were asking all of the same questions that Government members were.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Look, nobody can hear when interjections are going across the Chamber like that. It is reasonable for there to be one or two interjections, but the member has been warned.
The question of levies was well canvassed, and how the setting up of the tribunal and the registrar would require cost recovery, because that is how all professional groups operate. It is hard to imagine why the members of the Opposition are surprised that, just like any other legislation that sets up standards, regulations, competency, and all those sorts of issues, there is a cost recovery basis that is expected, because of the professional upholding of those provisions.
This legislation, of course, means that immigration advisers will have to meet competency standards and be deemed fit to practise. They will be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures, just as other groups are; just like midwives, nurses, and all of those groups I am used to advocating for and representing. They all have their own processes, just like this, and, yes, they all have levies on a cost recovery basis to ensure that those processes can be robust, that those processes can operate, and that those processes can operate on an independent basis. So those issues were well canvassed in the select committee during that process. In fact, the member opposite, David Bennett, asked quite specific questions around that issue, because he was obviously concerned—as many of the select committee members were—about the cost, and making sure that it was appropriate and affordable.
Of course, one of the other issues we were concerned about in the select committee was the implementation time frame. I think we had agreement on this, but sometimes when we come to the Committee stage of these bills Opposition members suddenly find that they have a different position on the things we thought we had agreement on. However, we will test this one out, as well. The select committee recommended that the implementation time frame be reduced from 5 years to 3 years. So we do have agreement on that one. The time frame was reduced from 5 years to 3 years, because we determined that this was such an important issue. As I said previously, this legislation has come before Parliament not a moment too soon and we wanted to ensure that the time frame of the implementation was as speedy as possible.
In addressing Part 2, I want to make sure that listeners understand that what we are talking about is ensuring the independence of people carrying out functions under the Act. That is of vital importance. What we must make sure of in setting up this legislation—this much-needed legislation—is that the processes are transparent and there is accountability; the independence of those people carrying out those functions is a vital part of ensuring that. The legislation also sets up the register of licensed immigration advisers, just like, for example, nurses have a register and they become registered nurses.
Part 2 also sets up the process for an appeal to be taken against the decisions of the registrar and the tribunal. Again, that is about accountability, transparency, and fairness in the system. Part 2 goes on to talk about a whole range of miscellaneous matters, such as the annual report on the performance of the tribunal’s functions and the power of the registrar to delegate. These are all very important details in making sure that we actually do get this right. This legislation, as I said before, is not a minute too soon, and we need to get the detail right in it.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) Link to this
It is sad to see what was once quite a proud Government reduced to filibustering in this Chamber. This Chamber costs thousands and thousands of dollars every minute, and it is sad to see it happen. It is sad to see the Government so reduced that Ministers are so frustrated they use four-letter words in this Chamber. It is a sad day that this Labour Government is reduced to this level.
I say to the member who has just resumed her seat, Sue Moroney, that it is actually quite important what one says in this Parliament. That member told this Committee just now that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of the levy. If that is the truth, why did the select committee not incorporate it into the legislation? Why did it not incorporate it? The Labour Party has a majority on the select committee. If the issue of a levy was considered at the select committee, as that member has just told the Committee—or was she not telling the truth?
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Please be seated. Members know very well that they cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw and apologise. The member cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Now I will ask the other member Mr David Bennett to do the same thing, because he said exactly the same thing. Please withdraw and apologise.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I am sorry, I am not debating this. I am asking you to withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of not telling the truth. The member will rise, withdraw, apologise, and say nothing else.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH Link to this
What I was questioning the member on—and I was very careful—is the fact that she told this Committee a few minutes ago that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of a levy. If that is the truth—and this is important, because members should be truthful to this Parliament—why did the Labour members, who have a majority on that select committee, not amend the legislation to incorporate a levy? Because they did not. The levy has been brought in by a Supplementary Order Paper, after the select committee process. I want that member to acknowledge that, maybe—
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to clarify the point that in the bill as reported back it was referred to as a fee, but the issue was well canvassed by the select committee.
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH Link to this
It appears that we do now have the truth, and the truth of the matter is that there was no levy in this bill when it was brought into this Committee. The key issue—and this is an important issue—is that the immigration industry had no opportunity to make submissions on the issue of a levy. That is important, because we have seen Labour doing that all the time with recent bills. It brings in Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute so that those parties that have a genuine interest in a piece of legislation have no opportunity to make submissions.
Since this Supplementary Order Paper has come in, the industry has made it clear that if it had had the chance to make submissions to the select committee—which I presume Sue Moroney was a member of—it would have told her and the select committee that it had a grave fear that a levy like this could drive the industry underground. That is the last thing, I believe, that the Government wants. National supports the objective of the Government here. We want to see a decent immigration advisory industry here. But we do not want to see legislation that drives the industry underground. That is the key issue.
The Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, has claimed that the levy is only a minor technical thing that the department advised him he should do. It is not a minor technical thing. The issue of whether to have a levy, as distinct from fees for licensing, is a major one. Is the Minister in the chair telling us that his department is so incompetent that when it was drafting this legislation, it did not know that a levy might be required? For the Minister to blame this on his department is not very good. I believe that we deserve a slightly higher standard of debate from these Labour members. If they are going to take up the time of this Committee with filibustering, we actually need them to tell us the truth about what went on at the select committee. We have established that what the last member told us was not in fact correct. The issue of a levy was not specifically discussed at the select committee, at all. Let me be careful and say that to try to claim to this Committee that a levy was discussed is a misrepresentation of the facts of what went on at that select committee.
These matters are important, and I do not think it is good enough to bring in, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, issues such as levies that are unlimited and can be set at any level. The Minister in the chair should tell us whether he thinks the fact that the immigration industry believes that a levy could drive the industry underground is a genuine concern. I suggest that he reflect a little bit on the issues around Taito Phillip Field that I have questioned him on at length over recent months. Money was paid there. There is no question that money was paid to people whom even the police may have trouble sorting out as to whether they are immigration consultants or are paying the money on.
SUE MORONEY (Labour) Link to this
I rise to take a call so that I can clarify the situation that was put before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Of course, we did canvass very fully the issue of cost recovery and how that would occur in terms of setting up these processes. As the member opposite, David Bennett, who was involved in that select committee, well knows, that was an issue of quite some considerable discussion and debate in the select committee.
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That speaker is implying that I support her contention that a levy was introduced in the select committee. That is completely not the case. The member cannot do that.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
That is a point of debate, and I am sure the member knows that very well.
The point I was making was that the issue of cost recovery in order to set up these processes was well canvassed. The member David Bennett was involved in that discussion; he was on the select committee. There was significant discussion about the issue of the requirement for cost recovery, as happens when any professional body or group is being set up. It is interesting to learn that the Opposition now finds this a surprise, when the issue was well canvassed at the select committee. So I wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that issue. It should be absolutely clear to anyone—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
Members cannot give a running commentary the whole time. I have warned Mr Bennett and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about this several times tonight. If they want to take a call, they can take a call afterwards. Please do not make a running commentary so that no one can hear anything.
I would appreciate it if the members opposite could take a call to clarify their position on this. Sometimes it seems we get to the Committee stage and we find that things we believed had been fully canvassed are being argued against by members opposite. So I just wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that situation. Thank you.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this
I find it quite distressing that a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Sue Moroney, would say that a levy was discussed at the select committee, when it was never discussed. No documents relating to that select committee mention the word “levy”. It was never discussed at that select committee. The issue came up only when the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced today.
This is a major issue. Sue Moroney is saying that we discussed the word “levy”, and that we were cognisant of the idea of a levy being employed in this case. That is simply not the position. I take offence at that member trying to imply that I was part of any negotiations on a levy, because there were no negotiations on levies in the select committee. I can give written proof of that from the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, because the explanatory note to Supplementary Order Paper 104 states: “There is a need to provide for a levy as well as fees,”.
In the select committee we talked about fees constantly. If one looks at all the documents, one sees that they refer to licensing fees. There was never any discussion about a levy in addition to those fees. The idea of a levy has come only at this subsequent stage, when the Minister has found that the system to be employed may not cover the cost of the new system for registration. So the Minister has brought in a levy to bump up the cost on immigration consultants.
The members opposite who were on that select committee know that a levy was not discussed in that select committee. They know that it is not proper and right to come into this Chamber and talk about something that did not happen in a select committee. They know they should stand up and take a call to say that they are sorry and that they made a mistake. But they did not do that. Sue Moroney misrepresented other members of that select committee, and that is an offence in this Chamber that that person should take very seriously. It is a matter of pride and dignity for that person to actually stand up and deliver an apology for misrepresenting the members of that other select committee, and all that.
Let us talk about licensing fees. The document I have states that many people who submitted on this legislation were concerned about the level of any licensing fee. Most people on the select committee expected a fee between $1,000 and $2,000, and that was based on a general concept that there would be 1,000 licensed advisers. So a budget was expected, basically, in the range of $1.3 million to $2.4 million for the new licensing regime, which was to be made up of fees between $1,000 and $2,000.
That gives quite good support, when we look at all the documents presented to the select committee, for the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Pansy Wong. Mrs Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper looks for a limit of $2,000, but the Minister has said that we cannot have any limits, because that is bad law—you know, that is not how it should be done. But the reality is that in the select committee all the information that was provided to the members of that committee was that $2,000 would be the top cap anyway, on the basis of the number of advisers expected.
If that is still the case, as the Minister says, why does he want to bring in a levy at this stage? He wants to bring in a levy at this stage because he and his officials are now aware that 1,000 providers of immigration advice may not actually be the case. They are also aware that if they charge people $2,000 to do this kind of work, that number of 1,000 advisers will actually go down, because people will go out of business. They realise that they will be left with a white elephant of a licensing system, which will have potentially only 500 people providing advice, and having to pay for a $2.4 million system. That is why they have brought in a levy, because they are trying to save themselves from a system that was not designed properly in the first place.
For members on the other side to say that it is all about levies that were discussed, I tell them that that is not the case. We discussed fees, and fees were seen on the basis of being from $1,000 to $2,000. The word “levy” was never approached in that manner. To bring it in at this stage is really a show of no faith in the industry. It is a show of no faith in the people out there who are providing that immigration advice.
Another part of the fee and levy system that I think we need to consider is in regard to community advisers. A number of submitters talked about organisations that do things on a community basis—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc. There are also other organisations—for example, in Hamilton, the Waikato Migrant Resource Centre. These places provide a lot of immigration advice, and they were originally not going to get the exemption. The National members on that select committee pushed hard for the distinction for those being exempt to be on a not-for-profit basis, rather than having an exemption just for the Citizens Advice Bureaux, which Labour members felt they could sell to their colleagues.
A not-for-profit basis is much more appropriate, because that includes organisations like community law centres. It includes places like the migrant resource centre in Hamilton. It also includes an Indian group from Auckland, which provides its own advice. Those kinds of organisations should be exempt. They have no intention of paying between $1,000 and $2,000, and they have no intention of paying an open-ended levy that will now be in addition to the fee.
Those groups will be the ones that will really be hurt by this Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper actually hurts the most vulnerable people who are giving advice. Its provisions will go out there and make those community groups—like migrant resource centres—the ones that will have to pay huge levies just to make up for this Government’s vision, which is misguided.
This is an example of a Labour Government that has no comprehension of the impact of its legislation, and that comes into this Chamber and just changes its mind at the last minute in trying to cover all the gaps. It is a Government that then blames the select committee and its members for things that were never discussed in that committee, and it is a Government that will not take responsibility for its own mistakes. It is a Government that knows that although this legislation had a good purpose it is now misguided, in the sense that the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that will add a levy on to the fees that were discussed in the select committee. I encourage those members—
So the member on the other side needs to stand up and take a call, to acknowledge her mistake in misrepresenting the select committee deliberation, because the word “levy” was never discussed at the select committee. Licensing fees were always discussed, but these levies are in addition to the licensing fees. That member knows that, and she should get up and apologise to the Committee, and to the members of this Committee whom she has made such false accusations about.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) Link to this
I am reluctant to take another call. I am indulgent of the member because he is a new member, but that really was a pile of unadulterated drivel. So let me have a go—
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has no right to say those things. I ask him to withdraw and apologise, because I have taken offence.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
The member has taken offence at those words, so I ask the Minister to withdraw.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
I withdraw and apologise, and clearly he is a new member, because as he gets on in this place—
I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When he withdraws and apologises, he is only to withdraw and apologise. He used the word “and” and then brought in another sentence after that. He is to withdraw and apologise just for that. He cannot make a comment as well.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) Link to this
I actually did just ask him to withdraw, as we did previously. I will ask the Minister to do it clearly, again—that he withdraw—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
—and the apology was a bonus.
My first point of difference with the member is that the word “levy” was clearly explained in my previous intervention to be “within”, not “in addition to”, the nominal sum that was described. The concept of the levy is in addition to the fee, but the cumulative total of the two is within the amount prescribed. I made that clear, unless the member has misheard me or doubts my word—the former is quite likely and the latter would be a breach of the Standing Orders.
The member then trotted out the spurious argument that the poor immigration advisers would go out of business, because somehow they would be paying a combined fee and levy of something less than $2,000. It is difficult to tell what planet the member has been on—it is clearly not “planet Waikato”, where real people live—
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
—or which select committee he has been on, because someone may not have told him that the fee charged for an individual residence visa is often in the realm of $10,000 per client, per transaction. This is a combined fee and levy of less than $2,000 for a whole year. So even if an adviser had only one client in the whole year, this would be less than 20 percent of the adviser’s revenue. If that was how David Bennett worked as a lawyer, that probably explains why he has found gainful employment—of sorts—in this Chamber.
The member then moved on from that high point to say that the burden would fall on the little guy. This was a treasure of an argument because, having misunderstood the level of revenue that some of these scoundrels get away with, he then tried to defend the raggle-taggle by putting it all on the shoulders of people like those working in community law centres. Well, the problem with that argument is that lawyers are exempted from the coverage of the bill, and community law centres are staffed by lawyers. Therefore, the people working in those centres are exempted, as I understand it.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE Link to this
It is too complex for him, perhaps. Secondly, other providers of voluntary advice, where they have sufficient internal standards to demonstrate competence—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux—are also exempted. So unless a particular community organisation decides to go out on a limb and offer what is, in effect, professional immigration consulting advice, then that is its choice. But it then falls subject to the same requirements of the bill. Otherwise—surprise, surprise—we might find that the good and enterprising people in the industry will rebrand themselves as non-governmental organisations and hang out the shingle in that way. That might be the way that the current Opposition would run regulatory policy, but I guess we have seen it all before.
If that combined set of two speeches represents the best that the Opposition can do in terms of offering public comment on the substance of this bill, then my advice to Opposition members is that they should go back to their previous tactic and just vote for it.
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) Link to this
I want to speak about clauses 66 through to 69, which are part of Part 2.
As soon as he opens his mouth he manages to make quite an interesting advertisement for himself. I noticed that most of his speech centred on Sue Moroney, and I wondered why he was so sensitive about that member’s point. But given that he is a one-term wonder in Hamilton East, I would be a little sensitive, too, if I were him.
The key point he missed in his attack on Sue Moroney was that she clearly talked about cost recovery. The Minister has just outlined, through the schedules, exactly what that will mean, and what the proportion of revenue will be for some of the advisers we are talking about. But if after two speeches the “present” member for Hamilton East still cannot understand exactly what the bill is trying to achieve—even though he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the bill; I had to look up the committee report to see whether his name was actually listed there—then I do not know what more the Committee of the whole House tonight can do to explain to him a piece of legislation that he should know more about than most other members of Parliament, because not all of us had the privilege of sitting on that committee. He was given that opportunity, but clearly he has done absolutely nothing with it.
It was very difficult to tell from his contribution whether he was in favour of, or opposed to, what the Labour Government is proposing by way of Part 2. It seems to me that clauses 66 through to 69 set out some pretty clear expectations around how the register will work in order to achieve the No. 1 goal, which is to get confidence into this system, and to make sure that members of the public can understand what we are trying to achieve and what standards we are trying to put in place.
I note that clause 66 sets out the purpose of the register. It has in it some quite practical things that I think will be useful for people. The first, in subclause (2)(a), is how to contact a licensed immigration adviser. We have all had cases where people have paid a huge amount of money to an immigration adviser who, all of a sudden, has disappeared into the dead of night as a fly-by-night operator, and even we as members of Parliament have been unable to track them down or get hold of them. Letters have gone unanswered, and the ability of people who in good faith have paid money to get a service have not been able to get that service.
So I think that it is quite right and proper that the first purpose of the register will be to ensure that people are able to access all those contact details. I refer to the information about the licensing regime that comes into place with the passage of this bill, and the type of licence a person is actually holding. I see that the information is contained in clause 67, whereby information on the limited, provisional, or full licence—the three different types of licences we are legislating for here tonight—has to be available to people so they can quickly check online. Clause 66(3) states that the register can be an electronic register, on which the registrar may post information so that people can quickly check to see whether they are dealing with somebody who has a long history there and is recognised by way of the provisions of this legislation, or whether they are dealing with somebody who has held only a provisional licence that has expired some time ago. Even worse, the person might not be on the register at all, in which case people can give that adviser a very wide berth. So I think this is a very critical part.
In terms of the disciplinary regime around this part, I tell the Committee that if any complaints have a formal procedure to be gone through, then all that information is available there, as well—information about whether people have been suspended, have had their licences cancelled, or have applied for licences only to have them refused. That is interesting information to know, as well, because it may be that some people have gone down the path of trying to have their businesses registered and then, finding that they do not meet the criteria we are putting in here—the good standards to protect people—those people have decided to go out in the market anyway because they have been trying to earn as much money as possible. But a quick check will show there must be some reason for their non-registration. At the end of the day, it is up to the person seeking the information to make that final decision. This is a commercial arrangement; in the end, the person has to be responsible for the decisions he or she makes in a buyer-beware environment.
At least, what we are doing in clauses 66, 67, 68, and 69 is ensuring that as much information as possible is given, so that a clear register is able to be set up. The register will list what is important. It will list the sorts of information one can expect to get from people—their addresses, how to contact them, what status they currently hold, whether their licences have been suspended or cancelled, and whether any alterations have been made.
People should also then be able to search that information without a fee. I was surprised that National Party speakers, who have been so concerned to make sure that immigration advisers can charge whatever they like, were very critical of Labour members for supporting that. We will be able to get that information for free. That will be something where there will be no barrier to people, in the sense of being able to find this information and make a difference to their search, so I guess that the real practicality of this entire bill is borne out in Part 2, in clauses 66 through to 69. It will be a real test not only from a Government point of view of making sure the administration is efficient, up to date, and easily accessible, but also from the point of view of testing whether immigration advisers will be cooperative in supplying all that information, and in making sure they are keeping within the spirit and intention of what the Minister has set out.
I again comment on Sue Moroney’s point about cost recovery that she mentioned in respect of the select committee consideration, for which she was heavily criticised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD and also by the present member for Hamilton East. I think that that was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what Sue Moroney was trying to get to, but she was able to deal with that quite effectively to ensure that the Committee of the whole House was left in no doubt about what took place at the select committee.
I think it is incumbent on the National Party to say whether it will keep this register should it become the Government—what aspects it is in favour of and what aspects it is opposed to—to ensure that we are able to put the best possible information in front of people who have the privilege of being immigration advisers. In a sense, those people are literally holding other people’s lives in their hands. Often people come to them with the only copies they have of original documents. They entrust them to those advisers and believe that they will be the gateway for them to start a new life in a new country—a country that all of us in this Chamber are blest to call home. A lot of trust is involved here, and I think that having something like this that is so practical, and that sets out information that is so clearly required, can only advance the interests of people and benefit those who are trying to work their way through the New Zealand Immigration Service and the system.
Obviously, we have to have a robust system. It is a privilege, not a right, to come and live in this country, so it is fair enough that there are a lot of rules, even though sometimes they can be technical and difficult to follow. Immigration advisers can help, although a lot of constituency MPs give a lot of assistance on immigration cases, as well—and that is a right and proper thing. But this register, properly maintained by a decent registrar, will indeed ensure that the intentions of the Committee tonight in passing clauses 66 through to 69 will be honoured—and I think the country will be better off for that.
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to insert new clause 77B after the proposed amendment to insert new clause 77A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to:
[... plus a further 5 contributions not shown here]