Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill

In my hand is a copy of a press release issued by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, which states that it fears that the immigration consultant sector could be driven underground. This is the largest association of immigration consultants, which has long supported and advocated the licensing of all migrant consultants, and it is, in general, supportive of this bill. The association’s latest fear is driven by this devious Minister of Immigration’s very late introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that looks like it will introduce another charge on registered immigration consultants in the form of a levy.

During the consideration of this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we spent quite a bit of time on the cost of registration for immigration consultants. We were told that a new registration authority would have around 10 full-time staff and that the establishment cost of $1.4 million to $2 million dollars, and $500,000 to $900,000 in capital costs, would be funded through a variety of sources such as the Immigration New Zealand memorandum account and Crown funding. The Crown would also fund the annual cost of regulating the non-profit advisers and investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers. The department would also give consideration to gaining some third-party revenue towards those costs.

By and large, then, the balance of the annual ongoing cost of the $1.3 million to $2.4 million to support this regulatory regime will be funded through registration fees from the for-profit consultants. We were told that Cabinet also agreed in principle that the for-profit advisers should pay an annual licence fee in proportion to the cost of regulating them. A figure of between $1,000 and $2,000 was indicated. We were told that an additional supplement to reduce the $1,000 to $2,000 annual licence fee would also be considered by Cabinet when the final figures become much clearer.

The basis of the department arriving at a registration fee of $1,000 to $2,000 per consultant was from its database. The department also commissioned a survey by BRC Marketing and Social Research, which projected that approximately 1,000 immigration advisers would be regulated. This figure has long been disputed by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, which is the largest association for immigration consultants. It indicated that the figure of 1,000 immigration advisers was simply unrealistic. It reckoned it would be optimistic to think that the figure might reach 500. Let us remember that lawyers are exempt from this bill. So the association raised its concern with the Minister, and it was told by him that in the explanatory note to the bill it was stated that an additional supplement to reduce the $1,000 to $2,000 licence fee would be considered by Cabinet if the numbers seeking registration were too small to cover the total cost of regulation.

But the late Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced by the Minister, without consultation with the sector, after the select committee has completed its deliberation on the bill—including on the fees—raises alarm because the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the term “levy”. This provision would allow a levy to be imposed in addition to fees as provided in the original legislation. We believe that is an act of bad faith, and that it is devious and underhand. Last night the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Cunliffe, actually took a call—we are grateful for that—and said that the latest Supplementary Order Paper—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I take offence at some of the terms the member has used. There has been no lack of good faith in this process.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The Minister has taken offence at the terms the member used, so I ask the member to withdraw.

It would totally cut down Parliament’s vocabulary if words like “devious” and “underhand” were not able to be used. It is true, for a start. I invite you, Madam Chairperson, to think carefully about the amount of vocabulary that might be left behind if parliamentarians want to take part in robust debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member for her contribution and I think that she does have a point. However, the member did take offence and as that has happened I ask the member to withdraw.

Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Can I just check, did the member withdraw?

It is my call, and I am still on my call.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I asked the member to withdraw her remarks. Please withdraw.

I withdraw, Madam Chairperson.

Last night the Minister tried to brush off concern by stating that this is simply the result of legal opinion because the term “fees” can mean only recovering costs. That should cause further alarm for these immigration consultants, because it is clear to me that the department realises that the number of 1,000 immigration consultants is possibly overly optimistic, despite its database and despite its paying consultants to confirm that figure. That means that introducing this levy, on top of fees, might mean the $1,000 to $2,000 that was explicitly promised to that sector may not be realised.

I have tabled an amendment to test whether there is good-faith, open government in dealing with the public and the immigration consultant sector. My amendment is logical and very reasonable. It states that the total annual fee and levy per registered consultant would not exceed $2,000 without consultation with the sector. This is not breaking new ground. The precedent lies with the Accident Compensation Corporation, which annually will undertake consultation in setting its premium. If the reason for this late Supplementary Order Paper is technical or legal, then the Minister should have no problem supporting my amendment. At the very least he should take a call and announce here and now that the annual fee, together with a levy, would not exceed $2,000, as promised, and document it throughout this consideration of the bill.

This is a serious issue. National supports the bill up until this stage because we believe in striking a balance between consumer protection and, at the same time, upholding the reputation of credible immigration consultants. But we are not prepared to be a party to destroying the immigration consultant sector through high fees and levies to fund bureaucracy. After all, Immigration New Zealand funds a million-dollar website with only two job listings, so it is not exactly careful with spending other people’s money. With the demise of immigration consultants should the high fee and levy proceed, then potential visa applicants would have to either use lawyers or resort to unlicensed immigration consultants. We are then back to square one, as the reason for introducing this bill was to drive out unqualified immigration consultants. So I say to the Minister that, no ifs and no buts, we want him to make it clear to the public and the immigration consultant sector, by supporting my amendment, that he wants to uphold good faith and transparency in passing this bill.

I thank the member who has just resumed her seat, Pansy Wong, for her intervention. I am happy to confirm that the Government has absolutely no intention of raising the combined levels of application fees, licensing fees, and adviser levies above the indicated level of a maximum of $2,000. Indeed, I am advised that the charge will quite likely be set at significantly below that level.

But it is true that the Government has had to introduce a clarifying amendment on the definitions in the bill, and I am happy to say that that is on the basis of recent legal advice. The issue is really one of definition, and it turns as follows. A fee must, as close as possible, relate to the value of a service provided to the person who paid the fee. If there was any margin above that, the fee would instead be defined in law as a tax and would therefore be outside the Treasury guidelines and be unlawful. Therefore, those proportions of the amount that is needed, properly and constructively, to cover the industry-good functions of the authority and the administration of the tribunal must be defined in law as a levy and cannot be defined in law as a fee. To be fair, that is an issue we probably should have foreseen in the original drafting; we did not. The lawyers have clarified it more recently. But what I took exception to in the member Pansy Wong’s remarks was any accusation that this was a matter of bad faith; it certainly was not. The amendment will not impact on the total charges faced by the industry.

The member has raised, I think, two subsidiary arguments. The first is that the charges should be enshrined in legislation, through an amendment of her own, to somehow provide protection for immigration advisers. The problem with that is that it is extremely bad legislative practice to write a nominal dollar amount into primary legislation. Why is that? It is because it is a long process, and very expensive in terms of the public’s time and the resources of Parliament, to put an amendment bill through the House. If we put in a nominal dollar amount, which, of course erodes in real terms every year due to inflation—a little maths lesson for the member—it is unlikely, in nominal terms, to be realistic in 10 or 20 years’ time. Why would we commit the faux pas of putting a nominal amount in legislation? That would violate best regulatory and legislative practice, in which by convention we embody the principles in legislation and policy, and then the implementation in subsidiary and delegated legislation, regulations, or Gazette notices by Order in Council, when things like fees should be set. So that is the reason, quite normally and in keeping with good legislative practice, why we are correcting this anomaly in that way. I do not think I need to spend any more time on that, other than to say that I have heard the views of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment and that its members have nothing to worry about.

The member has bandied about a number—I think 2,000—in terms of advisers in the industry. I think the member might be confusing the number of advisers in the industry with the number who are members of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment, the former being significantly greater than the latter. Therein lies the problem, and therein lies the proof that we are doing the right thing. The good advisers, along with other advisers, benefit from that proportion of their levy that funds the industry-good functions that protect their reputation. The honest and reliable individual adviser who pays his or her levy that supports the industry-good functions and keeps the industry clean and reputable benefits directly by that reputation because, frankly, it grows the market for the whole industry. If that were not the case, the reputation of the industry would erode and the market would shrink, and that is when we would have the potential for disruption and a black market to arise. So I am very, very comfortable that this is the right thing to do and that it is good regulatory and legislative practice. It is also an act of good faith by the Government in order to correct as quickly as possible an anomaly in the original drafting. I thank the Committee for its time.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Of course, we have already talked about setting up the processes that underline the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. It sets up a regulatory framework so that we can get some standards into the sector. I want to move on to the issue of the levies that the Opposition members seem so concerned about. It certainly was an issue that was canvassed during the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing process when we heard the submissions.

💬 David Bennett: No, it wasn’t!

I recall that the member who is trying his best to interject, David Bennett, actually asked quite specific questions of the officials about how the levies would be set up, so it should be no surprise to the members of the Opposition. They were part of the process and they were asking all of the same questions that Government members were.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Look, nobody can hear when interjections are going across the Chamber like that. It is reasonable for there to be one or two interjections, but the member has been warned.

The question of levies was well canvassed, and how the setting up of the tribunal and the registrar would require cost recovery, because that is how all professional groups operate. It is hard to imagine why the members of the Opposition are surprised that, just like any other legislation that sets up standards, regulations, competency, and all those sorts of issues, there is a cost recovery basis that is expected, because of the professional upholding of those provisions.

This legislation, of course, means that immigration advisers will have to meet competency standards and be deemed fit to practise. They will be subject to complaints and disciplinary procedures, just as other groups are; just like midwives, nurses, and all of those groups I am used to advocating for and representing. They all have their own processes, just like this, and, yes, they all have levies on a cost recovery basis to ensure that those processes can be robust, that those processes can operate, and that those processes can operate on an independent basis. So those issues were well canvassed in the select committee during that process. In fact, the member opposite, David Bennett, asked quite specific questions around that issue, because he was obviously concerned—as many of the select committee members were—about the cost, and making sure that it was appropriate and affordable.

Of course, one of the other issues we were concerned about in the select committee was the implementation time frame. I think we had agreement on this, but sometimes when we come to the Committee stage of these bills Opposition members suddenly find that they have a different position on the things we thought we had agreement on. However, we will test this one out, as well. The select committee recommended that the implementation time frame be reduced from 5 years to 3 years. So we do have agreement on that one. The time frame was reduced from 5 years to 3 years, because we determined that this was such an important issue. As I said previously, this legislation has come before Parliament not a moment too soon and we wanted to ensure that the time frame of the implementation was as speedy as possible.

In addressing Part 2, I want to make sure that listeners understand that what we are talking about is ensuring the independence of people carrying out functions under the Act. That is of vital importance. What we must make sure of in setting up this legislation—this much-needed legislation—is that the processes are transparent and there is accountability; the independence of those people carrying out those functions is a vital part of ensuring that. The legislation also sets up the register of licensed immigration advisers, just like, for example, nurses have a register and they become registered nurses.

Part 2 also sets up the process for an appeal to be taken against the decisions of the registrar and the tribunal. Again, that is about accountability, transparency, and fairness in the system. Part 2 goes on to talk about a whole range of miscellaneous matters, such as the annual report on the performance of the tribunal’s functions and the power of the registrar to delegate. These are all very important details in making sure that we actually do get this right. This legislation, as I said before, is not a minute too soon, and we need to get the detail right in it.

It is sad to see what was once quite a proud Government reduced to filibustering in this Chamber. This Chamber costs thousands and thousands of dollars every minute, and it is sad to see it happen. It is sad to see the Government so reduced that Ministers are so frustrated they use four-letter words in this Chamber. It is a sad day that this Labour Government is reduced to this level.

I say to the member who has just resumed her seat, Sue Moroney, that it is actually quite important what one says in this Parliament. That member told this Committee just now that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of the levy. If that is the truth, why did the select committee not incorporate it into the legislation? Why did it not incorporate it? The Labour Party has a majority on the select committee. If the issue of a levy was considered at the select committee, as that member has just told the Committee—or was she not telling the truth?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. Members know very well that they cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw and apologise. The member cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: But I did not.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I think the member did. Please withdraw and apologise.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: To help progress matters, I will withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Now I will ask the other member Mr David Bennett to do the same thing, because he said exactly the same thing. Please withdraw and apologise.

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry, I am not debating this. I am asking you to withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of not telling the truth. The member will rise, withdraw, apologise, and say nothing else.

💬 David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: What I was questioning the member on—and I was very careful—is the fact that she told this Committee a few minutes ago that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of a levy. If that is the truth—and this is important, because members should be truthful to this Parliament—why did the Labour members, who have a majority on that select committee, not amend the legislation to incorporate a levy? Because they did not. The levy has been brought in by a Supplementary Order Paper, after the select committee process. I want that member to acknowledge that, maybe—

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I want to clarify the point that in the bill as reported back it was referred to as a fee, but the issue was well canvassed by the select committee.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH: It appears that we do now have the truth, and the truth of the matter is that there was no levy in this bill when it was brought into this Committee. The key issue—and this is an important issue—is that the immigration industry had no opportunity to make submissions on the issue of a levy. That is important, because we have seen Labour doing that all the time with recent bills. It brings in Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute so that those parties that have a genuine interest in a piece of legislation have no opportunity to make submissions.

Since this Supplementary Order Paper has come in, the industry has made it clear that if it had had the chance to make submissions to the select committee—which I presume Sue Moroney was a member of—it would have told her and the select committee that it had a grave fear that a levy like this could drive the industry underground. That is the last thing, I believe, that the Government wants. National supports the objective of the Government here. We want to see a decent immigration advisory industry here. But we do not want to see legislation that drives the industry underground. That is the key issue.

The Minister in the chair, David Cunliffe, has claimed that the levy is only a minor technical thing that the department advised him he should do. It is not a minor technical thing. The issue of whether to have a levy, as distinct from fees for licensing, is a major one. Is the Minister in the chair telling us that his department is so incompetent that when it was drafting this legislation, it did not know that a levy might be required? For the Minister to blame this on his department is not very good. I believe that we deserve a slightly higher standard of debate from these Labour members. If they are going to take up the time of this Committee with filibustering, we actually need them to tell us the truth about what went on at the select committee. We have established that what the last member told us was not in fact correct. The issue of a levy was not specifically discussed at the select committee, at all. Let me be careful and say that to try to claim to this Committee that a levy was discussed is a misrepresentation of the facts of what went on at that select committee.

These matters are important, and I do not think it is good enough to bring in, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, issues such as levies that are unlimited and can be set at any level. The Minister in the chair should tell us whether he thinks the fact that the immigration industry believes that a levy could drive the industry underground is a genuine concern. I suggest that he reflect a little bit on the issues around Taito Phillip Field that I have questioned him on at length over recent months. Money was paid there. There is no question that money was paid to people whom even the police may have trouble sorting out as to whether they are immigration consultants or are paying the money on.

I rise to take a call so that I can clarify the situation that was put before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Of course, we did canvass very fully the issue of cost recovery and how that would occur in terms of setting up these processes. As the member opposite, David Bennett, who was involved in that select committee, well knows, that was an issue of quite some considerable discussion and debate in the select committee.

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. That speaker is implying that I support her contention that a levy was introduced in the select committee. That is completely not the case. The member cannot do that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is a point of debate, and I am sure the member knows that very well.

The point I was making was that the issue of cost recovery in order to set up these processes was well canvassed. The member David Bennett was involved in that discussion; he was on the select committee. There was significant discussion about the issue of the requirement for cost recovery, as happens when any professional body or group is being set up. It is interesting to learn that the Opposition now finds this a surprise, when the issue was well canvassed at the select committee. So I wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that issue. It should be absolutely clear to anyone—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Members cannot give a running commentary the whole time. I have warned Mr Bennett and Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith about this several times tonight. If they want to take a call, they can take a call afterwards. Please do not make a running commentary so that no one can hear anything.

I would appreciate it if the members opposite could take a call to clarify their position on this. Sometimes it seems we get to the Committee stage and we find that things we believed had been fully canvassed are being argued against by members opposite. So I just wanted to take a very quick call to clarify that situation. Thank you.

I find it quite distressing that a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Sue Moroney, would say that a levy was discussed at the select committee, when it was never discussed. No documents relating to that select committee mention the word “levy”. It was never discussed at that select committee. The issue came up only when the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced today.

This is a major issue. Sue Moroney is saying that we discussed the word “levy”, and that we were cognisant of the idea of a levy being employed in this case. That is simply not the position. I take offence at that member trying to imply that I was part of any negotiations on a levy, because there were no negotiations on levies in the select committee. I can give written proof of that from the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe, because the explanatory note to Supplementary Order Paper 104 states: “There is a need to provide for a levy as well as fees,”.

In the select committee we talked about fees constantly. If one looks at all the documents, one sees that they refer to licensing fees. There was never any discussion about a levy in addition to those fees. The idea of a levy has come only at this subsequent stage, when the Minister has found that the system to be employed may not cover the cost of the new system for registration. So the Minister has brought in a levy to bump up the cost on immigration consultants.

The members opposite who were on that select committee know that a levy was not discussed in that select committee. They know that it is not proper and right to come into this Chamber and talk about something that did not happen in a select committee. They know they should stand up and take a call to say that they are sorry and that they made a mistake. But they did not do that. Sue Moroney misrepresented other members of that select committee, and that is an offence in this Chamber that that person should take very seriously. It is a matter of pride and dignity for that person to actually stand up and deliver an apology for misrepresenting the members of that other select committee, and all that.

Let us talk about licensing fees. The document I have states that many people who submitted on this legislation were concerned about the level of any licensing fee. Most people on the select committee expected a fee between $1,000 and $2,000, and that was based on a general concept that there would be 1,000 licensed advisers. So a budget was expected, basically, in the range of $1.3 million to $2.4 million for the new licensing regime, which was to be made up of fees between $1,000 and $2,000.

That gives quite good support, when we look at all the documents presented to the select committee, for the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Pansy Wong. Mrs Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper looks for a limit of $2,000, but the Minister has said that we cannot have any limits, because that is bad law—you know, that is not how it should be done. But the reality is that in the select committee all the information that was provided to the members of that committee was that $2,000 would be the top cap anyway, on the basis of the number of advisers expected.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It still is.

If that is still the case, as the Minister says, why does he want to bring in a levy at this stage? He wants to bring in a levy at this stage because he and his officials are now aware that 1,000 providers of immigration advice may not actually be the case. They are also aware that if they charge people $2,000 to do this kind of work, that number of 1,000 advisers will actually go down, because people will go out of business. They realise that they will be left with a white elephant of a licensing system, which will have potentially only 500 people providing advice, and having to pay for a $2.4 million system. That is why they have brought in a levy, because they are trying to save themselves from a system that was not designed properly in the first place.

For members on the other side to say that it is all about levies that were discussed, I tell them that that is not the case. We discussed fees, and fees were seen on the basis of being from $1,000 to $2,000. The word “levy” was never approached in that manner. To bring it in at this stage is really a show of no faith in the industry. It is a show of no faith in the people out there who are providing that immigration advice.

Another part of the fee and levy system that I think we need to consider is in regard to community advisers. A number of submitters talked about organisations that do things on a community basis—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc. There are also other organisations—for example, in Hamilton, the Waikato Migrant Resource Centre. These places provide a lot of immigration advice, and they were originally not going to get the exemption. The National members on that select committee pushed hard for the distinction for those being exempt to be on a not-for-profit basis, rather than having an exemption just for the Citizens Advice Bureaux, which Labour members felt they could sell to their colleagues.

A not-for-profit basis is much more appropriate, because that includes organisations like community law centres. It includes places like the migrant resource centre in Hamilton. It also includes an Indian group from Auckland, which provides its own advice. Those kinds of organisations should be exempt. They have no intention of paying between $1,000 and $2,000, and they have no intention of paying an open-ended levy that will now be in addition to the fee.

Those groups will be the ones that will really be hurt by this Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper actually hurts the most vulnerable people who are giving advice. Its provisions will go out there and make those community groups—like migrant resource centres—the ones that will have to pay huge levies just to make up for this Government’s vision, which is misguided.

This is an example of a Labour Government that has no comprehension of the impact of its legislation, and that comes into this Chamber and just changes its mind at the last minute in trying to cover all the gaps. It is a Government that then blames the select committee and its members for things that were never discussed in that committee, and it is a Government that will not take responsibility for its own mistakes. It is a Government that knows that although this legislation had a good purpose it is now misguided, in the sense that the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that will add a levy on to the fees that were discussed in the select committee. I encourage those members—

💬 Darren Hughes: Ah, so it was discussed in the select committee, now.

The fees were discussed, but not the levy.

💬 Sue Moroney: Ah, now he’s changed his mind.

So the member on the other side needs to stand up and take a call, to acknowledge her mistake in misrepresenting the select committee deliberation, because the word “levy” was never discussed at the select committee. Licensing fees were always discussed, but these levies are in addition to the licensing fees. That member knows that, and she should get up and apologise to the Committee, and to the members of this Committee whom she has made such false accusations about.

I am reluctant to take another call. I am indulgent of the member because he is a new member, but that really was a pile of unadulterated drivel. So let me have a go—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has no right to say those things. I ask him to withdraw and apologise, because I have taken offence.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member has taken offence at those words, so I ask the Minister to withdraw.

I withdraw and apologise, and clearly he is a new member, because as he gets on in this place—

💬 David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When he withdraws and apologises, he is only to withdraw and apologise. He used the word “and” and then brought in another sentence after that. He is to withdraw and apologise just for that. He cannot make a comment as well.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I actually did just ask him to withdraw, as we did previously. I will ask the Minister to do it clearly, again—that he withdraw—

I withdraw—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): —and not relate it to what was said.

—and the apology was a bonus.

My first point of difference with the member is that the word “levy” was clearly explained in my previous intervention to be “within”, not “in addition to”, the nominal sum that was described. The concept of the levy is in addition to the fee, but the cumulative total of the two is within the amount prescribed. I made that clear, unless the member has misheard me or doubts my word—the former is quite likely and the latter would be a breach of the Standing Orders.

The member then trotted out the spurious argument that the poor immigration advisers would go out of business, because somehow they would be paying a combined fee and levy of something less than $2,000. It is difficult to tell what planet the member has been on—it is clearly not “planet Waikato”, where real people live—

💬 Sue Moroney: Or which select committee he’s been on.

—or which select committee he has been on, because someone may not have told him that the fee charged for an individual residence visa is often in the realm of $10,000 per client, per transaction. This is a combined fee and levy of less than $2,000 for a whole year. So even if an adviser had only one client in the whole year, this would be less than 20 percent of the adviser’s revenue. If that was how David Bennett worked as a lawyer, that probably explains why he has found gainful employment—of sorts—in this Chamber.

The member then moved on from that high point to say that the burden would fall on the little guy. This was a treasure of an argument because, having misunderstood the level of revenue that some of these scoundrels get away with, he then tried to defend the raggle-taggle by putting it all on the shoulders of people like those working in community law centres. Well, the problem with that argument is that lawyers are exempted from the coverage of the bill, and community law centres are staffed by lawyers. Therefore, the people working in those centres are exempted, as I understand it.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s too complex for David.

It is too complex for him, perhaps. Secondly, other providers of voluntary advice, where they have sufficient internal standards to demonstrate competence—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux—are also exempted. So unless a particular community organisation decides to go out on a limb and offer what is, in effect, professional immigration consulting advice, then that is its choice. But it then falls subject to the same requirements of the bill. Otherwise—surprise, surprise—we might find that the good and enterprising people in the industry will rebrand themselves as non-governmental organisations and hang out the shingle in that way. That might be the way that the current Opposition would run regulatory policy, but I guess we have seen it all before.

If that combined set of two speeches represents the best that the Opposition can do in terms of offering public comment on the substance of this bill, then my advice to Opposition members is that they should go back to their previous tactic and just vote for it.

I want to speak about clauses 66 through to 69, which are part of Part 2.

💬 David Bennett: He’s on the bill now.

I was on the bill in the last speech I gave, too. I hear David Bennett already interjecting.

💬 Sue Moroney: He can’t help himself.

As soon as he opens his mouth he manages to make quite an interesting advertisement for himself. I noticed that most of his speech centred on Sue Moroney, and I wondered why he was so sensitive about that member’s point. But given that he is a one-term wonder in Hamilton East, I would be a little sensitive, too, if I were him.

The key point he missed in his attack on Sue Moroney was that she clearly talked about cost recovery. The Minister has just outlined, through the schedules, exactly what that will mean, and what the proportion of revenue will be for some of the advisers we are talking about. But if after two speeches the “present” member for Hamilton East still cannot understand exactly what the bill is trying to achieve—even though he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the bill; I had to look up the committee report to see whether his name was actually listed there—then I do not know what more the Committee of the whole House tonight can do to explain to him a piece of legislation that he should know more about than most other members of Parliament, because not all of us had the privilege of sitting on that committee. He was given that opportunity, but clearly he has done absolutely nothing with it.

It was very difficult to tell from his contribution whether he was in favour of, or opposed to, what the Labour Government is proposing by way of Part 2. It seems to me that clauses 66 through to 69 set out some pretty clear expectations around how the register will work in order to achieve the No. 1 goal, which is to get confidence into this system, and to make sure that members of the public can understand what we are trying to achieve and what standards we are trying to put in place.

I note that clause 66 sets out the purpose of the register. It has in it some quite practical things that I think will be useful for people. The first, in subclause (2)(a), is how to contact a licensed immigration adviser. We have all had cases where people have paid a huge amount of money to an immigration adviser who, all of a sudden, has disappeared into the dead of night as a fly-by-night operator, and even we as members of Parliament have been unable to track them down or get hold of them. Letters have gone unanswered, and the ability of people who in good faith have paid money to get a service have not been able to get that service.

So I think that it is quite right and proper that the first purpose of the register will be to ensure that people are able to access all those contact details. I refer to the information about the licensing regime that comes into place with the passage of this bill, and the type of licence a person is actually holding. I see that the information is contained in clause 67, whereby information on the limited, provisional, or full licence—the three different types of licences we are legislating for here tonight—has to be available to people so they can quickly check online. Clause 66(3) states that the register can be an electronic register, on which the registrar may post information so that people can quickly check to see whether they are dealing with somebody who has a long history there and is recognised by way of the provisions of this legislation, or whether they are dealing with somebody who has held only a provisional licence that has expired some time ago. Even worse, the person might not be on the register at all, in which case people can give that adviser a very wide berth. So I think this is a very critical part.

In terms of the disciplinary regime around this part, I tell the Committee that if any complaints have a formal procedure to be gone through, then all that information is available there, as well—information about whether people have been suspended, have had their licences cancelled, or have applied for licences only to have them refused. That is interesting information to know, as well, because it may be that some people have gone down the path of trying to have their businesses registered and then, finding that they do not meet the criteria we are putting in here—the good standards to protect people—those people have decided to go out in the market anyway because they have been trying to earn as much money as possible. But a quick check will show there must be some reason for their non-registration. At the end of the day, it is up to the person seeking the information to make that final decision. This is a commercial arrangement; in the end, the person has to be responsible for the decisions he or she makes in a buyer-beware environment.

At least, what we are doing in clauses 66, 67, 68, and 69 is ensuring that as much information as possible is given, so that a clear register is able to be set up. The register will list what is important. It will list the sorts of information one can expect to get from people—their addresses, how to contact them, what status they currently hold, whether their licences have been suspended or cancelled, and whether any alterations have been made.

People should also then be able to search that information without a fee. I was surprised that National Party speakers, who have been so concerned to make sure that immigration advisers can charge whatever they like, were very critical of Labour members for supporting that. We will be able to get that information for free. That will be something where there will be no barrier to people, in the sense of being able to find this information and make a difference to their search, so I guess that the real practicality of this entire bill is borne out in Part 2, in clauses 66 through to 69. It will be a real test not only from a Government point of view of making sure the administration is efficient, up to date, and easily accessible, but also from the point of view of testing whether immigration advisers will be cooperative in supplying all that information, and in making sure they are keeping within the spirit and intention of what the Minister has set out.

I again comment on Sue Moroney’s point about cost recovery that she mentioned in respect of the select committee consideration, for which she was heavily criticised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD and also by the present member for Hamilton East. I think that that was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what Sue Moroney was trying to get to, but she was able to deal with that quite effectively to ensure that the Committee of the whole House was left in no doubt about what took place at the select committee.

I think it is incumbent on the National Party to say whether it will keep this register should it become the Government—what aspects it is in favour of and what aspects it is opposed to—to ensure that we are able to put the best possible information in front of people who have the privilege of being immigration advisers. In a sense, those people are literally holding other people’s lives in their hands. Often people come to them with the only copies they have of original documents. They entrust them to those advisers and believe that they will be the gateway for them to start a new life in a new country—a country that all of us in this Chamber are blest to call home. A lot of trust is involved here, and I think that having something like this that is so practical, and that sets out information that is so clearly required, can only advance the interests of people and benefit those who are trying to work their way through the New Zealand Immigration Service and the system.

Obviously, we have to have a robust system. It is a privilege, not a right, to come and live in this country, so it is fair enough that there are a lot of rules, even though sometimes they can be technical and difficult to follow. Immigration advisers can help, although a lot of constituency MPs give a lot of assistance on immigration cases, as well—and that is a right and proper thing. But this register, properly maintained by a decent registrar, will indeed ensure that the intentions of the Committee tonight in passing clauses 66 through to 69 will be honoured—and I think the country will be better off for that.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to insert new clause 77B after the proposed amendment to insert new clause 77A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to:

to insert the following new clause:

77B Notwithstanding clause 77 and clause 77A, the combined total of the annual licensing fee and the annual immigration adviser’s levy for each applicant and licence holder may not exceed $2,000 without consultation with the sector.