Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

I rise to signal that United Future will be supporting the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Indeed, we believe that this licensing regime for immigration advisers is well and truly overdue. I was interested to hear earlier the speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel, which informed me, as I was not here at the time, that this matter was raised in 1999. For goodness’ sake, we are now in 2005! I would like to point out to Lianne Dalziel and members of the Government that they have actually had 6 years since 1999, which proves the point that this bill is well and truly overdue. So I hope it will be passed by this House rapidly and that we can get on and put a licensing regime in place.

It is a very, very important area of our immigration law. It is time that New Zealand cleaned up its act when it comes to immigration. It is a well-known fact that the current Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Winston Peters, has actually built a political career, in part, by opposing immigration. But the fact is that immigration does, and will continue to, play a vital role in the future of this nation. That is the reality. Incidentally, talking about reality, I would have found Keith Locke’s protestations about people, say, of Middle Eastern origin who are New Zealand citizens being held up at the border a lot more convincing if I were unaware of the fact that the perpetrators of the bombs on the London Underground and buses in July were not just people with permanent residency but also people who were actually born in Britain.

So it is important, I think, when we talk about these matters, that we talk about the real world, not some idealised version of the world. I would love it if this globe was peaceful and there was love and harmony between all members of all races. That is one thing that many of us would like to work towards. But in the meantime we have to look at the realities and be sensible. We need to remember that one of the functions of Government—its principle function, some would argue—is to protect its own citizens. That includes protecting them against people, whether or not they are New Zealand citizens, who might want to commit acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens. We have to get the cowboys, the fakes, the frauds, the thieves, the incompetent, the irresponsible, and the greedy out of the immigration loop in terms of people wishing to come to this nation.

Such people are actually scumbags. They prey on the innocent, they prey on the needy, and very often they prey on people—who are desperate for good and sound reasons such as persecution at home on religious grounds and who are fleeing areas of the world that are affected by warfare, poverty, or discrimination—who chose to make this country their new home. In those situations it is all too easy to set oneself up as an immigration adviser, to claim that one has all kinds of connections—even, in a recent scam, with the Prime Minister herself—and to say such things as: “You come to me. I’ve got some say with the Prime Minister and I’ll get you into New Zealand.” We really need to ensure that the system eliminates all those things.

I would also like to say that this is actually a very, very important matter in terms of policy formation. As a result of scams run in this country the Government recently changed the business migration scheme. There were scams of people bringing $1 million into New Zealand, living here for just a few days, and then going back offshore; the same $1 million brought in a whole stream of immigrants through totally illegal and shonky but very cleverly thought-out immigration schemes. So the Government reacted to that by saying: “If you’re a business migrant, now we want you to bring in a million bucks, and we’ll have it lodged with the Government, and only with the Government, and furthermore we’ll pay you an interest rate that is insignificant.” Since that new regulation came in there have been two—yes, that is right, two—business migrants who have come into New Zealand.

The whole Government setup we now have, in terms of the way that money is utilised, is, of course, the exact opposite of any sense of business acumen or entrepreneurship, because anybody who is able to have made $1 million in the first place, and therefore is able to bring it into our country, obviously has business acumen and those people see the whole scheme as patently ridiculous. I want to tell the Government today that there is an opportunity for it, once these immigration advisers are licensed properly, to revisit that policy in the interests of bringing more business and entrepreneurial people into this country. God knows, we need them!

I would also like to draw the House’s attention, as we are debating this subject today, to the write-up in today’s Dominion Post about the East Asia Summit, which our Prime Minister Helen Clark has been attending. Some members may know that this summit now embraces all of the nations of Asia, including China, India, and Japan, and it also embraces Australia and New Zealand. The Prime Minister of Malaysia said that he did not know how the Australians—or New Zealanders, for that matter—will regard themselves as east Asians. I thought that actually displayed an understandable ignorance of the history of immigration into this country. As Dr Pita Sharples has pointed out, the founding people of this nation were Polynesians, whom we call Māori. What sort of people are they? The answer is that they are east Asian people; that is actually their point of origin.

💬 Metiria Turei: What?

That is exactly right. The Polynesians came originally from east Asia. Dr Pita Sharples and I have just been talking about this and he thoroughly agrees with the point I am making. From that point of view, we are therefore, genuinely an east Asian country to the extent that we were populated by east Asian people.

💬 Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to correct one comment. I definitely stated that we are the same people; we derive from the same language family but it does not mean we are from there.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is for another time, thank you. It is not a point of order.

I am sorry. I meant that the original inhabitants of New Zealand, the original human inhabitants, were of east Asian origin in the same way that I am of European origin. That is the point I was making and I think it is factual and non-controversial in reality. The Indian diplomat at the summit also had the same problem. He also questioned how it was that New Zealand could be regarded as part of east Asia.

I think it is also very important to focus on the fact that Asia is therefore not only a very important part of New Zealand’s past but is also a very important part of our history. I was privileged yesterday to be the guest of honour at the Victoria University graduation ceremony for commerce graduands. To be perfectly honest, as I have not been to one of those ceremonies since I graduated myself about 40 years ago, I was absolutely staggered because I would estimate conservatively that 70 percent of the graduates in commerce from Victoria University yesterday were Asian. I think that is a good illustration of the role that immigrants to this country are playing and what a fantastic contribution these young men and women are going to make to the future of our country.

The licensing regime for immigration advisers has many, many ramifications for this country—all of them extremely positive. I would venture to express the hope in this Parliament that once the licensing regime is in place, the Minister of Foreign Affairs might himself, in that new role—that very important role of representing our country—open his mind and heart a little bit to the great potential that new immigrants can make to the fabric of life in this country, and that we can rid ourselves of xenophobia and put out the welcome mat, especially for overseas students. I believe that the best immigrants we could possibly have coming to New Zealand would be students who have come here from different lands, who study at our universities, who graduate from our universities, and then decide they want to become citizens of our country. That is the brain drain in reversal and we do need it, because, as we are all very aware, we also have the other side of the equation, which is the migration of some of our best and brightest from our shores to other parts of the world.

With those remarks, I signal our strong support for this overdue bill.

ACT will support the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill going to a select committee but we note, in the same way the National Party did, that this bill still needs a lot of work. The purpose of the bill, of course, is very laudable. According to the explanatory note: “This bill creates a licensing regime for individuals who provide immigration advice. The purpose … is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice, and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migrant destination.” That is as it should be.

This bill, though, could be termed the “Tuariki Delamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs, so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires, but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked, and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it, I found that the New Zealand Herald was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category.

Instead, the SFO alleges his Chinese business partner contributed the $1 million, which was used seven times for seven different applications in a ‘money-go-round’.” As Lianne Dalziel pointed out, that is absolutely unforgivable and scurrilous behaviour.

So what would Mr Winston Peters have said, before his reformation as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Let us forget the Iraqi Cabinet Minister; if we listen to what the Serious Fraud Office said, Mr Peter’s former colleague played the system for a—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are making reference to a matter that is before the courts and has not been resolved at this time. You are free to talk about others and free to talk about Mr Peters, but not about Mr Delamere in the way that you have been.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The information I have been giving is mainly quotations and information that has already been in the public arena. I was very careful when I was researching this to take particular note of that point.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the Standing Orders are quite clear. You stepped over the mark just slightly with your comments, and the rules prohibit that sort of thing. I ask you to use more general terms, please.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are many cases where people who have applied to come to this country have been taken advantage of in a very serious way, and this bill regrettably is necessary to control the behaviour of those few. I think that most people who have consultancy businesses to give advice to those wanting to come to New Zealand do a very good job, and I suggest that many members of the House, who are frequently asked about immigration cases, and for their own advice, might well consult those people. So it is regrettable that the bill is needed, but ACT will support it because it is needed to control that sort of behaviour.

Immigrants add a huge amount to this country. Those who have to apply to come to New Zealand are mainly hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding, good, and valuable citizens. They provide enrichment to the country that we would otherwise not see. Those who apply to come here are generally under-represented in the use of hospital beds and in our prisons. They are very good, well-behaved, law-abiding citizens of our country. Those who apply to come here are frequently the doctors and nurses who keep our hospitals going. New Zealand is a better country thanks to the immigration we have, so we feel a deal of disappointment that legislation like this is necessary to provide for immigrants’ protection.

In ACT we do not like bureaucracy. We certainly do not like unnecessary bureaucracy that adds costs to things we feel are unnecessary. We do not like excessive regulation, and we certainly do not like to interfere with professionals who are doing their jobs, but we do support the bill. We support certainty for people who want to immigrate to New Zealand. We support people who want to come here in order to contribute to our society and enjoy our social and economic freedoms, and we want those people to be sure they are dealing with bona fide consultants. That is very important; they should have that reassurance. However, ACT has concerns about many parts of the bill, particularly in respect of the costs it might impose on those who are already giving good, valuable advice to people applying to come to New Zealand. We also have concerns about other parts of the bill—particularly about the fact that MPs are not subject to it—but we will support the bill going to the select committee.

Tragically for the House, I am obliged by the whips to be brief, but I want to begin by making a quick comment to Mr McCully, who earlier raised a point of order about question time. I remind him that if the National Party had not filibustered the Veterinarians Bill for 9 hours, and then ultimately voted for it, we probably could have had question time. We always know when Murray McCully is not particularly serious, because the Brylcream in his hair starts to dry out and get ratty on the edges. And he sat down with a smile on his face, so no one took him seriously.

I turn to the matter in hand, the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. First of all, I congratulate the new Minister of Immigration, Mr Cunliffe, on bringing the bill to the House in his name. I also congratulate the former Minister of Immigration, Lianne Dalziel, whose idea started the process. But there is another Minister whom I want to mention. I hear he is a humble man, who does not like to receive public acclaim for his work, but I am assured that much of his grunt work, his hard work—if you like, the intelligence and rigour; the donkey work—in bringing this all together into legislation, which was before the House prior to the last election, had a lot to do with his own efforts. I know that that member will not like me speaking like this about him, and I have said that I will not mention his name, because I do not think it is appropriate; nor is it fit and proper. But I do think it is worthy of the House to say—

💬 Darren Hughes: A little thankyou.

Yes, to say thank you for doing a lot of the work in bringing it all together. Of course, we are a collegial party—there are no individuals; it is all teamwork. We have Lianne Dalziel and David Cunliffe, but there is one other person who will remain nameless, and I think we should do that person the honour of making sure—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Name him.

No, it would not be right. He would be embarrassed if that were the case, because he is a team player and does not like to have individual glory bestowed upon him.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: He was the best.

No, I would not go that far. Basically, the objective of the bill, which has been well outlined by both Mr Cunliffe and Lianne Dalziel, is to drive the crooks, the thieves, and the liars out of the immigration adviser industry—that is basically its job. So the good, law-abiding advisers, many of whom I have met over the last 6 years, are able to get on and do their job, out from under the cloud of constant allegations about behaviour that continually hangs over this industry.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee might like to have a look at two key issues. The first issue, raised by Lianne Dalziel, is that there could well be a stand-down period for those who have worked for the New Zealand Immigration Service and who then want to become an adviser. I think there should be a stand-down period so that those people cannot, therefore, claim that they have inside knowledge and information, which I am sure there would be a temptation to do. The other issue is about international advisers. The compromise, in the end, was that it would be 3 years before the legislation applied to them. My view is that it could well be a bit sooner, and I would be interested if the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee could have a look at that. But this is a fabulous bill that has been brought to the House through the efforts of a number of fabulous Ministers in a Labour-led Government, who are doing fabulous work on behalf of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.

I rise to speak to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I declare, from the outset, that in my former life as a lawyer I dabbled in some immigration advice, and I am pleased to see that lawyers are exempt under this proposed legislation from licensing as immigration advisers. Having said that, although I accept that the bill is well-intended, it is flawed and it is ineffectual. It does attempt to address some very real concerns, but why it does not address other concerns is a mystery to me, and the method of addressing some of those concerns is also mystifying. It is vital that our immigrants and our potential immigrants receive good, competent advice and service. Often those advisers are the first port of call—the shop window of New Zealand—and those first impressions indeed matter.

As a lawyer I have had the unenviable task of trying to pick up the pieces of very disappointed and disillusioned people who have entered New Zealand. They are often given false hope of what to expect in New Zealand. They are often encouraged to pack up their bags, sell their homes, and travel to New Zealand in the false hope that they too will be privileged enough to call New Zealand their home. People come to New Zealand relying on advice from so-called immigration advisers, and thinking that they can obtain a work permit, and they cannot. They come to New Zealand thinking they can obtain permanent residency, and they cannot.

The consequences of poor and incompetent advice, resulting in declined applications, and, sometimes, in deportation, are severe. Does the bill deal effectively with that? I would have to admit that it does not. The bill provides for penalties payable by the adviser for failing to meet the acceptable standards of advice. But what about the poor visitors to our country whose hopes and aspirations have been totally dashed, and whose impression, then, of New Zealand and New Zealanders is, to say the least, atrocious? Those poor victims are deported, and they run the risk of not being able to return to New Zealand, at least not for some time, and then with difficulty. They run the risk of their travel to other countries being hampered because of an immigration record that is marred as a consequence of bad, negligent, and incompetent advice. To fine the adviser does nothing whatsoever to help their cause.

The bill, as we have come to expect, is seriously flawed—not only in relation to the penalties. Although the bill provides that no person may provide immigration advice unless that person is licensed or exempt, such as lawyers, it then goes on to provide the definition of immigration advice. The bill says that immigration advice does not include providing information that is publicly available, or that is prepared or made available by the department. But the entire operations manual is available to the public, and the entire legislation is available to the public. The appeal and the other case decisions are available to the public. So what exactly is not available to the public? What exactly is the immigration advice that one must be licensed or exempt to provide?

What is more, the bill attempts to include offshore advisers, but then it excludes them if they give advice in relation to student permits and student visas. I cannot fathom why that might be. Students are not immune from bad or incompetent advice, and I can envisage offshore immigration advisers giving a lot of advice that is disguised as advice on student permits.

Many of the problems that the bill seeks to address arise from offshore advisers, but those offshore advisers are not subject to our New Zealand jurisdiction. I do not believe that sufficient thought has been given to the fact that the enforceability of this regime on offshore advisers is well-nigh impossible.

My other concern relates to the good old chestnut of costs and compliance. Even the explanatory note admits: “The proposal is expected to result in increased costs to immigration advisers through licence application fees, and compliance costs associated with applying for and renewing licences, meeting minimum competency standards, and complying with a code of conduct (details yet to be decided). Application fees will be prescribed in regulations … An annual licence fee is expected to be in the order of $1,000 - $2,000.”

The note continues: “Compliance costs for businesses will also arise from the licensing application process, competency standards, and code of conduct that are to be developed by the regulator.” It concerns me that we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy—we are catching a baby about to grow into a monster. An Immigration Advisers Authority will be set up. A Registrar of Immigration Advisers will be appointed under the State Sector Act; what wage will he or she be on? Other such persons will be appointed as the chief executive decides. We will have a complaints body and a complaints procedure.

This is a monster in the making. Although the bill is certainly well intentioned, it fails to address some of our more serious immigration issues. It addresses issues that do not need addressing, and I feel that it will do little to raise the standard of immigration advice in our country.

Although National members support the bill going to the select committee for scrutiny, that scrutiny does indeed need to be very robust for this bill to be effective at all. We need to address the issue of offshore advisers giving shonky advice, giving false hopes to our immigrants, and risking our national integrity. That is vital. There is definitely a mischief out there that needs to be remedied, but this bill does not seem to be able to remedy it. I am certainly hopeful that the select committee will see the serious flaws in this bill and try to make it into effective legislation.

It adds so much bureaucracy that we really wonder whether it is all worthwhile. We only have to look at some of the functions to realise what a bloated bureaucracy this authority will develop into. The authority will establish and maintain a register of licensed immigration advisers, then will have to administer the licensing regime, then will have to develop and maintain competency standards, then will have to develop and maintain a code of conduct for immigration advisers, then will have to facilitate the education and professional development of immigration advisers, then will have to facilitate public awareness of matters relating to the provision of immigration advice, and then will have to investigate and take enforcement action.

This bill is draconian. A mischief is out there. National members will support the bill going to a select committee, but we implore the select committee to scrutinise it very robustly.

Debate interrupted.