Statutes Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 19. This is the debate on clauses 74 to 76, “Amendments to Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007”. The question is that Part 19 stand part.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Looking at the original Act—I’m bringing it up on my laptop—it feels here that we’re adding a few additional criteria in which someone could basically be refused a licence, and that the registrar could be able to consider.

I’m curious as to how she sees particularly clause 75, amending section 17(c)(iv), playing out in relation to being basically related by employment or association to a person who has a conviction “for an offence of a kind” referred to in to in paragraph (a) of section 17 of the principal Act, which basically then paragraph (a) in the original Act is just any conviction, New Zealand or otherwise.

Is the Minister concerned that this particular provision in subparagraph (iv) could be used in a way that could weaponise, for example, quite historical convictions—to give an example, on substance use? So if you have someone who’s related by employment to someone who has had a conviction on substance use, that could prejudice them from being able to become licensed.

If so, what is the policy objective to basically have the registrar be able to consider someone who may have had a conviction for, say, substance use, in relation not just so much to the person trying to get registered, but in relation to someone they may have been related to by nature of employment or association? Because of the way that subparagraph (iv) connects paragraph (a) in section 17 is so broad, I’m just curious as to why it wasn’t limited to quite narrow, specific types of convictions that genuinely, for example, may prejudice someone from being a good immigration adviser.

The member asked me what the objective of the amendment is. Basically, the reason why we’re doing the amendments, both at clause 75 and clause 76, is to clarify the existing requirements that the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 require. So it’s updated the legislation to align with what that 2007 Act requires.

As to what they look at, that’s getting into operational matters. That’s not for me to determine whether or not substance abuse could be used or not. But what I will say to the member is we do have the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act, so after seven years there is the ability, depending on where they’re applying and who they’re applying with, to not have to disclose some past offences that they may have.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just trying to find the Immigration Act on the little electric machine there but couldn’t see it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: The Immigration Advisers—

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act. I’m just curious whether this is a new provision, because what it seems to be saying is that in terms of this fitness to practice test—which is common across all professions—who your employer is a relevant question. So if you want to become an employment adviser, you need to get licensed, and in doing that you’ve got to show what your criminal past is or is not and other things as well—whether you cheated at law school, that sort of thing; just the usual.

It’s quite unusual to say it is relevant to whether you are an honest person whether you’ve been unlucky enough to be employed by a dishonest person, because that’s kind of tainting an employee with an employer’s misdeeds. I guess my question is whether—if that’s the existing law, I’m surprised. I didn’t think it was. If it’s an addition, to say: “Whether or not you’re a good person depends in part on whether or not the person you work for is a good person”, that’s a little problematic. If you have misbehaved—your conduct, as an employee of an immigration adviser, is directly relevant. If you’ve been dodgy or dishonest, that’s relevant. But if you’ve just been a good employee and your employer has been engaging in modern slavery and all sorts of other horrendous things, you can’t really visit that on an innocent employee. So I’m interested to know exactly what this is intended to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I will note is that this isn’t a new requirement; this is clarification. We’re clarifying the existing requirements that are in the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. We are amending it so that there is clarity around what sort of information can be gathered, and the licensing and fitness required for the licensing of an individual. We’re amending section 18, which is clause 76, to clarify that an application for licensing as an adviser must include the applicant’s aliases and foreign names. That’s so that we can make sure that the right people are in the jobs of being advisers and that they are looking to give good advice to those that are wanting to immigrate here. So it’s really just clarifying already existing requirements that come under the 2007 Act.

Thank you. I just have a subsequent question, because it does seem to me like the way that we are replacing section 17(c) with the language, particularly—and I go back to subparagraph (iv). Basically, in paragraph (a), it says that somebody could be refused because they have any conviction, whether in New Zealand or in any other country, for an offence of any kind other than those referred to in section 15 and 16.

Now, in section 15 and 16 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, the nature of the convictions someone can basically be rejected from becoming an adviser for are in relationship to offences that have to do with the Immigration Act 2009 as well as the Immigration Act 1987 or the Immigration Act 1964. So most of the provisions in sections 15 and 16 have to do with people who have basically made an offence in relationship to immigration Acts, but the way in which this is now written is that it would broaden the scope of the consideration to effectively any conviction.

If you have an employment relationship to someone who has any conviction, then basically now that would be considered by the registrar. So this seems more than just simply aligning things to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, but broadening what the registrar can consider. Can the Minister please confirm that the changes that she is making to section 16 do not broaden the range of convictions that a registrar is able to consider when it comes to taking matters into account in relationship to someone’s fitness for licensing.

If this is effectively broadening the range of convictions that the registrar can consider, I’m concerned, then, that more analysis could have and should have been done, so that clarity would be useful, to just ascertain as to whether now we’re just taking basically any conviction from someone who the person is related to by nature of employment or association.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member from the Green Party, this is the Statutes Amendment Bill that’s making minor technical and non-controversial changes. When you start to look into areas like section 16—which we have not delved into; we’ve delved into 17 and 18—I believe that that would have been no longer small or minor, and therefore that was not considered as part of the Statutes Amendment Bill.

When looking at and addressing the members’ concerns around past history and convictions within an Act, I’m sure that the member would agree with, when it comes to immigration advisers, making sure that we have the right people that are there, not ones that want to exploit migrant workers. I’m sure the Green Party would not like to have people who do that sort of thing with them. So making sure that we have the right people in the job means being able to have a look at their past convictions, means being able to have a look to ensure that they are, in fact, the right person for the job. So what I can confirm to the member is we’re not changing anything here. We’re clarifying the process to strengthen it and tidy it up.

Part 19 agreed to.

Part 20 Amendments to Incorporated Societies Act 2022