Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

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: 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.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Do you think Taito Phillip Field should be exempt?

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 CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member’s interjections are just too much.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

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: 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.

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—

💬 Darren Hughes: The Hon David Cunliffe.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY:—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: Ashraf, you were once a respected agricultural scientist; look what you’re reduced to—filibustering to save a dying Government.

The member is an agricultural scientist as well, so there are no worries there.

💬 Bob Clarkson: Which way are you going to vote this time? We’re never sure.

As I said—

💬 Darren Hughes: Put your burka back on, Bob.

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.

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.

💬 Bob Clarkson: I didn’t.

It was the one where you covered your mouth after you used it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There will be silence. You did use the word.

💬 Bob Clarkson: I said: “Don’t lie.”, but I didn’t say he was lying.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): But you were—

💬 Bob Clarkson: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

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—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: The third-former!

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): 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: 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): The member has been addressing the bill. There has been robust debate from all sides.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Which clauses?

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—

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: It goes further than that.

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.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What about Taito?

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.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: What did the court do?

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.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: This member criticises the court!

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:

To omit subclause (2).

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.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, the amendments that relate to Part 1.