Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

First of all, I would like to say that National supported this bill during the first reading and the reporting back. I will share with the public the reason we have supported this bill so far. It is because of headlines like the one in the Christchurch Press in December 2006 that stated: “Recruitment company leaves migrants short of $600,000”. A Christchurch recruitment company owed 229 potential migrants about $600,000 after reneging on the refund policy. At that stage, in the advertisement of the particular company, it described itself as a “registered immigration agent”. Mary Anne Thompson, who heads Immigration New Zealand, said that because currently there is no authority that oversees the registration of immigration advisers, agents can describe themselves in the way they like.

However, with the enactment of this legislation, there is a channel whereby victims can complain. For example, they can complain about registered immigration advisers’ negligence, incompetence, incapacity, dishonesty, misleading behaviour, or breach of the code of conduct. It is because of this that we have supported the passage of the bill up until now, but we are developing some reservations, particularly on Part 2, which we will explore further.

We welcome the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, to the Committee, because I have a problem and I want him to take a few calls and share with us the rationale behind some of the new clauses that have been inserted. During the select committee deliberation a new clause was inserted—one we call a restraint of trade clause—clause 12(2). The Minister apparently believes that anybody who has held any immigration “offices or employment” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser at any time within 12 months of leaving the office or employment. That would mean that any “immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status officer” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser in the 12 months after that person had left immigration employment. I think the Minister needs to take a call to explain to the public why he has no confidence in the current employees of Immigration New Zealand. Let us rehearse this again: the Minister is publicly declaring he has no confidence in the current employees who hold the positions of immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status official. He has no confidence in them; if they leave their jobs, they are not allowed to register as immigration advisers.

The reasons given are that they would have an unfair advantage, and they might have a close relationship with people who continue to work in the department. I need the Minister to take a call because these two reasons basically spell out that he has no confidence in either the competence or honesty of current employees of, or employees who have just departed from, Immigration New Zealand. He is saying that any immigration officer, visa officer, or refugee status officer would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser. This is despite the fact that we are told that this registration process will be robust, and that if there are complaints there will be penalties for misbehaviour. But the Minister is saying that he has no confidence in the staff and the people who hold those positions. If they finish with Immigration New Zealand, at least for 12 months he does not want to see them operating as immigration advisers.

So what are these people going to do for the 12 months? Are they going on to the unemployment benefit or are they going to be taxi drivers? They are not allowed to use their skills. I think the Minister owes an apology to his own staff as to why he has no confidence in their competence or honesty, and as to why he has no confidence in existing employees, who would not treat differently any staff who have left Immigration New Zealand. If those people become immigration advisers, their applications will be processed just like any other applications, and there will be no favours. The Minister should have confidence in the people who work in Immigration New Zealand.

The other group of people whom he believes should not be allowed to register as immigration advisers, includes himself. He says, under clause 12(2)(a), that if any ”Ministers of Immigration and Associate Ministers of Immigration in the New Zealand Government” have completed their positions, they would not be allowed to be registered as immigration advisers for at least 12 months. It was very clear when this clause was introduced that one of the many former Ministers of Immigration, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, was obviously targeting the Hon John Delamere. But I want to share with the public that the Hon John Delamere was acquitted in court of 20 charges relating to when he ran his own immigration consultancy firm between 2001 and 2004. I ask the Minister to take note of the dates. John Delamere left Parliament in 1999. This restraint of trade clause will never apply to him, so it seems to me that the currency of former Ministers of Immigration is running for much longer than 12 months. If the Minister is serious in trying to stop the so-called problem, he may have to bar those people for life—including himself. Of course, one questions what will happen to existing politicians in the New Zealand Parliament who may come under suspicion for their dealings with regard to immigration issues.

I am looking forward to the Minister giving us an explanation as to why he has no confidence in his staff in Immigration New Zealand. He may like to explain why he thinks it is effective to bar former Ministers of Immigration. At least, Mr John Delamere’s case has shown the public that Mr Delamere was out of the job for more than 12 months, and was prosecuted for his activities almost 3 years out, from the time he left Parliament. This clause is totally ineffective, and I think it is a slight on existing Immigration New Zealand employees. If the Minister does not think they are trustworthy, honest, or competent, then they should not be in the service’s employment.

I have an amendment lying on the Table to delete clause 12(2). I am seeking the assistance of other parties across Parliament to reflect on this clause, and to support my amendment to say that it is not effective and in fact is an insult to the existing staff of Immigration New Zealand. I think having a Minister declare in such a public way that he has no confidence in the honesty and competence of the people of Immigration New Zealand is quite devastating for them.

As I say, the National Party has so far supported the bill, and particularly Part 1. I do not have too much of a problem with the other part. Firstly, I would like to say let us not pass a provision that is ineffective. Secondly, I say that in fact it is a real stigma reflecting badly on the existing Immigration New Zealand staff. Either we have confidence in the licensing regime that is put in, or we do not, so I seek the Committee’s support for my amendment.

Just before the next speaker commences, and so that members can take the opportunity afforded by Standing Order 319(4), I want to mention that the Government has issued a financial veto certificate in relation to Dr Pita Sharples’ amendments to Part 1, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105. Those amendments relate to the establishment and functions of a Māori Immigration Education Council. The amendments are therefore out of order and no question will be put on them, but that Standing Order affords members the opportunity to debate both the amendments and the veto certificate. A copy of the certificate is on the Table.

I rise to support this excellent legislation. I do so in two capacities. Firstly, I do so as an electorate MP. Probably every member of Parliament in this Chamber has experienced constituency cases that have been brought to his or her office by people who have been to an immigration consultant first of all. Those constituents have spent a great deal of money—sometimes many tens of thousands of dollars—and in many cases have received no support whatsoever. Documents have not been lodged, passports have been confiscated, and very large sums of money have been asked for. I have experienced that many times in my electorate.

Secondly, I support the bill as Minister for Ethnic Affairs. I spend every weekend engaging with ethnic communities. In fact, I was discussing with the Minister of Immigration the other day the fact that two weekends ago, I went to 10 ethnic events during that weekend. I have the opportunity to meet thousands of people, on a monthly basis, from minority ethnic communities. Many of them have had a lot of bad experiences with immigration advisers who purport to help them, often when they are in desperate circumstances, to get residency in this country.

The bill itself was first proposed when Lianne Dalziel was Minister of Immigration. It has been a fair time in its planning, but it is very important legislation in providing safety for the community. The bill creates a licensing regime for people who provide immigration advice both in New Zealand and overseas. Any person who provides advice regarding immigration to New Zealand will have to be licensed, unless explicitly exempt from that requirement. Immigration advisers will have to meet competency standards and be deemed fit to practice, and will of course be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures. That is long overdue. A number of new offences are also set out, including one of providing immigration advice without a licence. A new statutory body, the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, will be established to administer the licensing regime.

I think it is important that we are clear in our heads as to what this bill is trying to do. We have heard a few whinges and moans from Opposition members already. Although I am glad to hear that they are supporting this bill, I am disappointed to hear the degree of whingeing from them. I can even hear some barracking while I am talking now. Actually, this bill is about providing safety and security for people who are often in desperate circumstances.

I can remember that about 4 years ago a large delegation of members of the Tuvalu community came to see me in my electorate office in west Auckland. They were very concerned about global warming. They were not climate change deniers—unlike one or two members in this Chamber. They had become alarmed that rising sea levels around the low-lying atolls that make up Tuvalu would impact profoundly on their safety and on their homes. They were, of course, desperate to stay in New Zealand. As a result of the combination of their anxiety about environmental impacts and global warming on Tuvalu and their desperation to remain in New Zealand, those people were extraordinarily vulnerable. They had met some rather unscrupulous individuals on the North Shore in Auckland, who charged them about $10,000 each to issue them with false passports. The individuals concerned called them Aotearoa passports and claimed that they would lodge refugee claims on behalf of the people from Tuvalu, to try to get them refugee status in New Zealand as environmental refugees. Of course that was completely hopeless, and their money was taken.

Refugee claims were, in fact, lodged, and of course when Labour came into Government it issued the transitional policy that allowed people who had been in New Zealand illegally to regularise their status if they had not broken the law, if they were married to a New Zealand citizen or resident, if they had had a child born in New Zealand, if they had not drawn a benefit, and if they had not lodged a refugee claim. That group of Tuvalu residents, all of whom were overstayers, would have qualified completely for the transitional policy, but they achieved a double whammy. Not only had they been ripped off by the unscrupulous individuals from the North Shore but their opportunity to regularise their status in New Zealand was removed because they had, unfortunately, applied for refugee status. Fortunately, through the generosity and wisdom of the then Minister of Immigration—not the present one, who I am sure would have been just the same as the then Minister—many of those people from Tuvalu got special directions.

This is an excellent bill.

I listened to the Hon Chris Carter speaking just now on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. He was talking about “unscrupulous” immigration consultants. I just remind the Hon Chris Carter that it was him, not an unscrupulous immigration consultant, who twisted his colleague Damien O’Connor’s arm into allowing into this country a member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Now his colleague the Hon Clayton—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: If the member does not know what I am talking about, I can get the file where the department’s notes show that it responded to representations from Chris Carter in letting this guy into the country—a man who has now caused all sorts of problems. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove now has to deal with this unscrupulous character after Chris Carter convinced Damien O’Connor—it must have been Damien O’Connor; it cannot have been this Minister—to let him into the country. So it is not just immigration consultants—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: What’s the name?

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: I do not want to give private information to the public, but I can grab the file for that member so he can refresh his memory. If he wants to do so, I can easily get the file for him.

In speaking to Part 1, I want to cover something that is very unsatisfactory about the bill. National has supported this bill, and we have done so partly because we listened to the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and those submissions from the immigration industry were positive about this bill. National wants to see a system put in place that works well. Again with this Labour Government we are seeing Supplementary Order Papers brought in after the select committee process that change the nature of the bill and would change totally the nature of support for the bill.

If Supplementary Order Paper 104, which adds bits to clauses 16, 24, and 26(1)—all clauses in Part 1—had been in the bill when it was going through the select committee process, there would be a totally different set of submissions on this bill. This Labour Government does this sort of thing intentionally. We see it done too often now. It brings in bills that receive submissions at the select committee, then, after all those submissions have been considered, it changes the bill totally to something that is very different. Supplementary Order Paper 104, in the Minister’s name, will now introduce a levy and make major changes to this bill. Instead of a simple licensing system, we will see a levy system where a very small number of immigration consultants will have to fund a major bureaucratic set-up that this Government is setting up. Those consultants would never have been positive about that had the bill had that in it from the word go.

I want the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, to explain to the Committee how something as fundamental as a levy regime, and the amendments he is proposing to clauses 16, 24, 26, etc.—and I will go on to clause 77A when we come to Part 2—could not have been part of the bill as introduced. Why was something as fundamental as a levy regime to fund a disputes process, to go through complaints, and to discipline members of the immigration consultancy industry, not part of the bill as introduced? I believe we deserve an explanation from the Minister as to why something as fundamentally important to this legislation was not part of the bill as introduced.

I am prepared to resume my seat so that the Minister can explain to the Committee why something as fundamental to the bill as that was left out of the bill that went to the select committee, to be introduced now, after the public had its opportunity to make submissions on this legislation.

It is a great pleasure to speak in the Committee stage on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. We have had a very passionate contribution from my friend and colleague the Hon Chris Carter, who has been detailing his hard work in the weekends at his local electorate office. Since I have been in the chair, we have had two contributions from Opposition members. Although I appreciate their strong support for this bill, I must say that I found their contributions somewhat confusing. It may help if I address their contributions in order.

Ms Wong argued that the 1-year stand-down did not go far enough. In an act of flagrant disloyalty to her former colleague the Hon Tuariki Delamere, she said it would not have been effective in preventing him from committing corrupt practices, because he left Parliament more than 1 year ago. I thought she was going to propose an amendment to extend the stand-down period, but I understand that she has in fact, in a blinding flash of reverse logic, tabled an amendment to remove the stand-down period of 1 year that is already proposed.

Occasionally, as colleagues know, the Opposition suggests that foreign diplomatic posts can become a form of retirement programme for former Ministers and MPs. What is clearly the case with the current Opposition is that the immigration advisory industry is the retirement programme for the National caucus. There is the Hon Aussie Malcolm, who is one of the more respected and longstanding consultants in the industry. There is Tuariki Delamere, who apparently mounted a defence in the Golden Harvest Investment and Trust case along the lines of arguing that yes, the money was moved around, but that he did not think it was illegal at the time, because he had written the legislation. That is kind of interesting, but we respect the judgment of the court. Then there is Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, who is quite concerned about this bill because he has his eyes on retirement at the next election, and he wants to make sure there is a job for him to go to. I suspect that there has been some communication on the National benches between him and Ms Wong, to ensure that he does not have to resort to driving taxis, which seems to be her alternative to becoming an immigration adviser.

The good Dr Smith raised another rather spurious but interesting question in conveying his strong support for the bill, which was the allegation that Supplementary Order Paper 104 in my name was a major change that would somehow bring in a brand-new levy. Well, in fact, I say to Dr Smith that I am advised that the Supplementary Order Paper makes no necessary difference at all to the amount that is being charged to the industry. All that it does—and the member asked the reason for the change—on advice from the legal teams, is to make it clear that it is appropriate to split the amount between fees and levies. The fee is for the actual delivery of the licence; the levy is to fund services received indirectly. That is a technical amendment, based on the appropriate definition of fees and levies. It makes no difference at all to the amount of revenue that may or may not be charged. It cannot be very long ago that Dr Smith was a Minister—maybe it is, but it is not as long as it is going to be—so he may remember the Treasury guidelines for setting fee regulations. One can—in fact, one should—charge cost recovery, but one cannot charge more than cost recovery. Within that framework, it matters not to the amount charged whether it is called a fee or a levy; the same amount would be charged.

In concluding this brief call, I say that it is important for us to recognise why we are here. We are here because ordinary New Zealanders, ordinary new New Zealanders, and aspiring New Zealanders have suffered and been hurt by a few unscrupulous immigration advisers, who give the industry a bad name. They give the industry a bad name, and they actually hurt their colleagues as well as their clients. Now I know colleagues have a number of cases that they would like to relate. I am not going to name one, but I will say that I was at a function, I think it was with Dr Sharples, at Hoani Waititi Marae. A constituent came up to me, described his immigration case, and asked me what he could do. It was clearly a case for which there was no hope. The gentleman concerned met no criteria for any migration category that I could consider, and that was blindingly obvious at the time. But he had approached an immigration adviser who had said: “Give me $1,500 down now. Come back tomorrow with another $3,000, and I should be able to work on this case. If you come back a week later with another $3,000, I think I can pretty much turn the trick for you.” There was no physical way—no humanly possible way—that any consultant or, indeed, any Minister could have got that man through, because he just did not qualify. But that did not stop that adviser from ripping him off to the tune of some $7,000.

I will speak later about the proposed amendments from the Māori Party, but I see that the good Dr Smith is reaching boiling point again, so it is probably a good time for me to resume my seat and allow the Opposition to take a call.

Kia ora tātou kua hui mai i tēnei pō. Greetings to everyone tonight. I rise to follow on from the co-leader of the Māori Party Dr Pita Sharples and the Supplementary Order Paper, so I will probably go off at a tangent, away from the discussion that has been happening tonight. That is the first point—just to take over from Pita Sharples.

The second point is that, as a new member of Parliament, I was taken a little bit aback by the fact that the Government has exercised its right under Standing Order 319 to place a financial veto on our Supplementary Order Paper, which is really disappointing, because we try to take most of these matters that are put before us fairly seriously. My understanding is that the right to move a financial veto is taken up on rare occasions. The last occasion was in June 2006, and prior to that it was in 2004. So obviously the Government takes this particular issue seriously, as do we.

The fact that our Supplementary Order Paper cannot be voted on is really disappointing. I suppose we are happy that at least it can be debated, but the fact that it cannot be voted on is pretty disappointing, and in that sense we are wondering what the rationale is for moving towards this sort of action. Can the Minister perhaps explain at some point why this course of action has been taken up? The rationale that has been presented in the certification, or whatever the document is, talks about costings, and that our Supplementary Order Paper may well have financial constraints or repercussions, and that seems to be the rationale for the “no vote” on this particular amendment.

We think that money is obviously an issue, which we would argue, but the Minister might tell us about that. Dr Cullen announced in December 2006 that the improved position meant that the country would have available around $1 billion for extra headroom for the 2008 Budget, on top of the $2 billion allowance that was set aside in 2006. He also said that the 2007 Budget will continue our progress in building a unique national identity.

On Budget day the Government announced another big operating surplus—$8.5 billion in 2005-06, and $5.8 billion in 2006-07—yet we are still unable to support a clause that is all about trying to give support to the Treaty of Waitangi. So we reckon that we might have put the Government in a bit of a corner actually—either support the Māori Party on one of our initiatives, or run the risk of voting against the Treaty in te reo Māori. So, unfortunately, from what we see, and the Minister might give us an explanation, this is the “get out of jail free” card—an attempt to get out of a political corner.

The reason we put up this particular Supplementary Order Paper was that we mentioned in a number of speeches that the Treaty of Waitangi is the nation’s founding document—a constitutional blueprint for nation-building through relationships; relationships between tangata whenua, the Crown, and newer immigrant groups. So, given this context, we believe that an awareness of the Treaty of Waitangi and its practical implications for daily life in Aotearoa is highly beneficial to newcomers. We hope that the Minister might respond to the view that we hold as the Māori Party that any moves to better prepare migrants for life in Aotearoa, by having access to well-equipped immigration advisers, is advantageous to all involved, including the nation at large. We believe that nation-building is an ongoing project, and it requires new initiatives to imbed a sense of national identity and harmony in the face of increasing cultural diversity. So the Treaty of Waitangi and a respect for the indigenous people of Aotearoa is one of those anchors.

We submitted the Supplementary Order Paper in the knowledge that tangata whenua often refer to the Treaty of Waitangi as being the first immigration policy document for this nation. We mentioned also that Dr Ranginui Walker has described the preamble of the Treaty as the original charter for immigration, and that it allows immigration to Aotearoa from Europe, Australia, and the United Kingdom, but requires consultation with Māori as the Treaty partner for any variation. Dr Ranginui Walker also argues that the Government has ignored the notion of partnership, by unilaterally deciding who can enter New Zealand without consultation with Māori. We say that the Treaty sets the scene by which all subsequent migrants and communities can survive and prosper in Aotearoa. In essence, the Treaty is our first immigration document because it enables all others to come here. With that in mind, our Supplementary Order Paper provides for the establishment of a cultural education programme including the Treaty, and basic tikanga and te reo for immigration advisers.

Alongside this, it established the Māori Immigration Education Council to facilitate and oversee the programme. We thought that was a pretty good idea. The council would be an expert council of up to 10 members, appointed on recommendation by iwi rūnanga. We thought this was an exciting opportunity to develop a cultural education programme that would be a model for all other nations. It gives tangata whenua a real chance to be involved in immigration matters, and this is a call that for too long has been unanswered. We believe that this sort of idea enabled immigration advisers to become proficient in providing a full service to those wishing to make Aotearoa their home.

Finally, the key point in submitting this Supplementary Order Paper is in response to concerns from Māori that immigration policies have been made at the expense of Māori, without consultation with Māori, and of unproven value. If we are committed to restoring any harmonious relationship between Treaty partners, we must honour the importance of creating effective and mutually respectful relationships. If we honour the spirit of the partnership explicit in Te Tiriti o Waitangi surely the Government must give recognition to the need to give effect to Māori involvement in immigration policy.

We thought that our Supplementary Order Paper responded to that imperative. We are obviously disappointed that the Government has taken a different tack by moving to have our Supplementary Order Paper ruled out of order. I ask the Minister to at least give us some explanation as to why our Supplementary Order Paper has been blocked at that stage, believing as we do that if the Treaty is at the heart of this whole notion of nation-building, surely the idea of having an immigration council based around education was a common-sense idea that would allow the nation, and indeed those coming here, to have a good baseline knowledge about Aotearoa and our nationhood.

The fact that fiscal constraints have been used as a buffer to take our Supplementary Order Paper off the Table does not seem to match with the fact that the Government, even by its own reports over a period of time, says that the money is there. We also recognise that somebody has done some costings. I am not too sure where those costings have come from, but the costing on the certification says $1.5 million per annum, yet there is plenty of money in the kitty from the sound of it. We ask that for the purposes of nation-building, surely that amount of money—and it is a figure that has been put up without too much research, we think—would be a good investment in the future of the nation. So we leave that for someone to take a call on. Kia ora tātou.

I thank the member who has just resumed his seat, Te Ururoa Flavell, for that intervention and say that the Government is sympathetic to the need for migrants to be informed and advised on Treaty issues.

The Government has taken the proposed amendments by the Māori Party very seriously and we have consulted extensively with the kaitiaki of tikanga in the Labour Māori caucus. Unfortunately we do not have provision in the Budget for the expenditure that the proposed Māori Immigration Education Council would require. But, more important, the functions for which such a council would be set up have already been provided for in immigration provisions, and I wish to give some examples. The following materials are provided to new migrants when they arrived in New Zealand. Listeners will not be able to see these examples, but colleagues can.

New migrants get an extensive pack of reading material that briefs them about the Treaty of Waitangi and its importance to contemporary New Zealand society. They are given a booklet called Te Tiriti o Waitangi: The Treaty of Waitangi and Migrants when they arrive. In the Department of Labour’s Linkz magazine there are often articles expounding the importance of the Treaty to New Zealand culture. In addition, when new migrants arrive they are given this pack of Treaty background booklets in their Getting Started pack: All About the Treaty, The Timeline of the Treaty, The Story of the Treaty Part I, The Story of the Treaty Part II, and The Journey of the Treaty. So I am pretty comfortable that a comprehensive set of information materials is made available to new migrants directly when they arrive.

The amendments from the Māori Party propose that the advisers are also well informed of tikanga Māori. Indeed, the bill already caters for this also. Clauses 32, 33, and 34 set out the functions of the registrar and the authority in setting competency, training, and conduct standards. Clause 32 in particular sets out the responsibilities of the registrar, including: “(c) to develop and maintain competency standards … (d) to facilitate the education and professional development of immigration advisers:”, and to carry out functions consequential on functions referred to earlier in the clause. I wish to provide some reassurance to the Committee, and in particular to our colleagues in the Māori Party, that as Minister I expect that the registrar will consult Māori on developing those standards.

Clause 34 covers the code of conduct—the ethical standards and behaviours required of advisers. The code of conduct will bind immigration advisers to being informed on Treaty and tikanga issues. Again, I expect the registrar to consult Māori on developing this code of conduct. As Minister of Immigration I will have the responsibility for signing out the competency standards of the code of conduct and I will be seeking to ensure that Treaty and tikanga matters are explicitly covered in that code.

I thank the Māori Party for bringing this matter to the attention of the Committee because it gives us an opportunity to underline what was the Government’s intention in the first place. I think members can see that, quite honestly, a serious effort is already being made in Treaty education. I agree with the sentiments expressed by our colleagues from across the Chamber, and expressed very strongly by the Labour Māori caucus, that education about the Treaty is non-negotiable, that it is our founding document, and that in many ways it is the glue that binds together the important first people of this land with all of those who have come after—Pākehā from Britain and Europe, and our newer settlers from the Pacific and other countries. That is the spirit with which we enter into this legislation. It is the spirit with which we seek to build a great nation.

I would just like to thank the Hon Mark Gosche for his great work in being our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chairman during this process. Unfortunately, he did not get the call then, but he has been a very good leader of our select committee and it is a pleasure working with him on that select committee. I also thank the officials who are here today. We went through a few technical issues during the process, and the officials were very helpful. They always researched what we wanted to find out and came back with very good results. So I would give a pat on the back to our officials, who did an excellent job in this case.

However, a major cross has to go against the Government again. Once again, we see a Government that changes its mind at the last minute, and that goes to the public saying one thing and then does another in this Parliament. It is a Government that does not care what New Zealanders think, expect, or want. It is a Government that does what it wants to do under cover of night, at 9.30 o’clock on a Tuesday night. This Government does not look forward and deliver for the people. We have heard that this is a technical amendment—that is what the Government says it is. It says that it is OK to do a technical amendment at the last minute.

Then there has been the sort of Treasury-Cabinet cost recovery model, which the Government says is the only one we can go for; but in saying that we can only go for a cost recovery model, the Government is denying what it is actually doing in this legislation by putting this Supplementary Order Paper forward. In the Supplementary Order Paper the Government is adding another layer on top of that cost recovery. It is making a second charge on immigration consultants—a second charge that will put many immigration consultants out of business. A lot of small businesses will go out of business. It is the same as what happened in Australia, and it is what will happen in New Zealand through this clandestine approach taken by the Government to change things on a whim under clouds of darkness.

I would also say to the Māori Party that it is such a shame to see a financial veto used at this time. Those members came in with genuine amendments that they had put forward, and to get at them the Minister of Finance came through with a shadowy, shameful veto of a financial nature at this stage. The Government did that because it has no provision in the Budget. Well, the Government has enough money in that Budget to sink a ship! They will go out there and buy as many votes as they can over the next 2 years, but, no, they will not look after Māoridom—no, they will not do that. They have bigger priorities than that, have they not? That is what this Government is about. It is just about saving its soul; it is not about doing what is right for New Zealanders.

This Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill had the ability to set up something great for New Zealand. New Zealand is in a region that is growing at enormous rates. We are probably the slowest-growing of the countries in this region—in fact, we are. If we look at our major trading partners in this region—for instance, Australia, China, and India—they all have much faster growth rates than us.

💬 Darien Fenton: They’ve got more people.

That is the key thing. New Zealand will have a greater population over time, and our population will come from that region. The longer we deny that fact, the longer we will sit here at low growth rates and the longer we will have the situation where we are out of kilter with our neighbours and with our region. In time we will pay the price for that. We cannot insulate New Zealand and then think that it will change and that our growth at 1 percent or 2 percent will be sufficient. Our neighbours are growing at 8 to 9 percent. They have huge populations. New Zealanders need to be competitive in that model, and under this Government we simply are not.

This bill would have given New Zealanders the ability to bring in more people who were specialists, and who really wanted to work hard and to build this country. They will come anyway. We had the chance to choose when they came and how they came, and we have denied ourselves that by putting more and more fees into the system, and by shunting those people who are doing the immigration consulting advice to the bottom of the heap.

We are killing off an industry that had the potential to grow our country, an industry that would have picked the best people from our region at a time when we need to do that. In 10 years’ time it will be too late. The best people in our region will not be coming to this country. They will be going around the world to where they can get the highest incomes. This bill could have given us the chance to go out and target those people now—to actually go out there and make the best for New Zealand. But, no, we have denied ourselves that by putting on another level of fees and really crucifying an industry that had the potential to grow our country.

I am not quite sure what to make of that speech. It was from one of the bright young stars of the National Party caucus, who had something to say about dark clouds at “9.30 o’clock”—even though it was quarter to ten at night. Nevertheless, I suppose those members have to learn how to filibuster sometime. One would have thought that National had a research unit that would give those members a few notes about what is in the bill. I will talk about that, because I think this stuff is actually quite important. Some of us do work as MPs when we go home from here on a Thursday evening. We have clinics—some of us have them on Friday, some of us on Saturday, some of us on Monday, and some of us on all of those days—and people come to see us about immigration matters a great deal. I do not know about members on the other side of the Chamber. I do not think that the public see National MPs as being interested in the problems of human beings.

Let us just talk about what this bill does, because for Labour MPs it is really important to regulate this industry and to give clear notice to people as to who can do that and who cannot.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: How are we going to help Sunan Siriwan?

We will come to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith a little later. He has gone very silent in his questioning on this matter lately. One would have thought that in his call he may have wanted to add some names to the area of prohibition. But did we hear anything about that? Did we hear Dr Lockwood Smith questioning why MPs and their staff should be exempt under this bill? No, we did not hear a thing about that. He asked a question a day for a year and a half, or whatever it was, on immigration matters—

💬 Hon Chris Carter: And now silence.

He is completely silent. Why is that? Why has he gone completely silent? Why has he not used the golden opportunity, as any decent Opposition member would, to talk about the exemption for MPs and their staff that is in this part? We have not heard a word from that member over there, yet we had a question today on the matter that lasted a very long time. Why is that? Who are those members over there trying to suck up to? That is what I want to know. Dr Smith is forgetting about that immigration issue just like that, after asking question after question after question.

This bill defines what immigration advice is. If we look at clause 7, we see it spelt out in pretty clear and simple English. Clause 7 refers to “using, or purporting to use, knowledge of or experience in immigration to advise, direct, assist, or represent …”. That probably comes as news to those members opposite—they only sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for months considering this bill! This is the first time they have actually read this bill, and I am just giving them a bit of information.

The bill also states who is prohibited from providing immigration advice—it is basically people who are not licensed or are not exempt. I have talked about exempt people, and they include MPs and their staff.

💬 David Bennett: And lawyers.

That member over there, who belongs to the lawyers’ trade union, worked very hard to make sure that lawyers were exempt. Most of us were uncomfortable about it, because we have dealt with crooked lawyers as well as immigration consultants. A lot of lawyers actually asked not to be exempt, because they said they operate purely in the area of immigration and should be treated the same as Australian lawyers. David Bennett fought as hard as he could to make sure that crooked lawyers were exempt. Well, we will look forward to the Law Society doing a good job of making sure that those crooked lawyers are put out of business. If it does not do so, this Parliament will have to deal with this matter again, and this Parliament will have to change the law on exemptions for lawyers.

But I will talk a little bit more about who is exempt. There has been nothing from the people on the other side about the Citizens Advice Bureaux, which do wonderful work in this area for nothing.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill, and no progress on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.