Fenton Darien: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Fenton Darien: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8652] 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 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 9000 residence applications and in 2003-04 they were used in around 66000 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. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: 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? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: 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. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: 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 $10000 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.