Hughes Darren: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8660] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 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! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: 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).