Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8780] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In moving the third reading motion of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Minister the Hon David Cunliffe argued that the bill was needed because there are a whole lot of crooks and cheats out there who will do people for their dollar if they are not regulated. To be fair about this I must ask where the greatest scam has been in the last couple of years in the immigration area. Where has the greatest abuse of vulnerable potential migrants been in the last couple of years? Has it been from an immigration adviser out there in the public? If members of this Parliament reflect back on the last couple of years I think most would have to acknowledge that the greatest scam and the greatest abuse of vulnerable potential migrants has been carried out by a member of this very Parliament—someone whom this bill is exempting from any regulation. Of course I refer to none other than the former Labour Minister the honourable Taito Phillip Field.  
It is fascinating—it is a paradox—that in moving this third reading motion the Minister David Cunliffe with such an innocent voice spoke of crooks and cheats out there not seeming to realise the paradox in relation to one of his own former ministerial colleagues—I do not want to be unfair; it has not been proven that he was crooked but certainly there is no question he abused vulnerable potential migrants. There is no question about that. One only has to read the Ingram report to see that. When we look at that particular case it is interesting to see the way the honourable Taito Phillip Field exploited potential migrants.  
A complainant claimed to me that in order to get the assistance of Taito Phillip Field as a Labour member of Parliament they had to pay serious cash. When I say “serious cash” I mean that this particular person claimed to have paid $2000 in order to get the assistance of Taito Phillip Field. What is interesting about that is also what on balance I think makes us accept that there probably is a need for this legislation.  
I talked to the person who complained to me who had paid the cash—and there is no question that the cash was paid. The complainant told me of having to front up with $2000 in cash in order to have Taito Phillip Field’s help with an immigration matter concerning a Thai overstayer—and it was not the Thai tiler; it was another one. What is interesting about that is that the cash was not paid to Taito Phillip Field directly. The complainant when asked to whom it was paid claimed it was a family friend. I said: “Well hang on could this person have been a crooked immigration adviser?”. I have to say that the person complaining laughed and said: “No no it’s common knowledge this person is not an immigration adviser. They are a go-between.”. Now I do not know—the police will sort that matter out I trust. But it is possible that the person to whom the cash was paid was in fact a shonky operator abusing potential migrants collecting a couple of thousand dollars in cash along the way simply to pass people on to a member of Parliament who maybe if we put the most generous complexion on it was a bit naïve about certain things going on around him.  
It is that—the risk that that person was simply a shonky immigration adviser—that on balance makes us accept the need for this legislation. It means more regulation and right at the moment there is no question that in the last 7 years under this Labour-led Government there has been significant regulatory creep. Right now there is no question that productivity in our economy is declining significantly. The latest figures show productivity down to 0.4 percent growth a year which is disastrous for New Zealand’s future and analysts— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Positive or negative? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Well it is still positive slightly but it is down from 2 percent through the decade of the 1990s when Labour claimed that failed policies were in place. Productivity was growing very well in those days. Since Labour has been in office the average productivity growth has gone down by two-thirds to 0.7 on average and it is now down to almost zero. Analysts are suggesting that one of the reasons for this among a range of reasons is excessive regulation. In fact there was a lecture on this very issue at Treasury this very day—which this Government’s own department Treasury sponsored. I did not see any Labour members of Parliament there but they would have learnt a bit if they had been there.  
Analysts are starting to say that regulatory creep is a major problem and this legislation is more regulation. What we did not see was a decent cost-benefit analysis. As the Government moves to regulate this sector of the economy where was the cost-benefit analysis? I think we should insist in the future that greater focus goes on cost-benefit analysis as we bring in greater regulation through this Parliament. The amount of legislation and regulation has grown exponentially in recent years.  
So National has reservations about this bill. We have supported it because as I say on balance National believes that it makes sense to have some framework to register immigration advisers and certainly the industry itself was supportive although notably the industry when making submissions on the bill did not know that this Labour Government intended by Order in Council to impose a levy which is just another name for a tax on the industry. That is typical of this Labour Government. It puts legislation in front of the select committee and then at the last minute when people no longer have a chance to make submissions it changes it. Undoubtedly there would have been further submissions had the industry known that the Government retained to itself the power to impose a levy the Government sees fit. I am sure that will make the industry fairly concerned.  
Finally I want to make this point. My good colleague Pansy Wong has already raised the issue of the constraint on trade on those who worked in the ministry or had been Ministers in the past. What to us is crazy about that is if a person has worked in the ministry he or she clearly has a knowledge and to prevent people from being able to use their expertise skills and training because they might be more effective as immigration advisers than someone else is just plain dopey. People should be able to use their skills and knowledge and there is nothing wrong with that.  
I think it is most unfortunate that the Labour Government did not listen to my good colleagues on the select committee Pansy Wong and David Bennett and remove from the legislation that constraint on trade. It is an unnecessary regulation that again will limit productivity. People with greater skills and knowledge can be more productive and that is an example of regulation that reduces productivity. I hear the Minister interjecting. Let me in my last moment say this to the Minister. OK he wants more transparency with immigration consultants. Let us get some transparency out of his department. How many scams were there in the last 12 months in his department?  
Last year there were 116 investigations of people in his department. How many of them found crooked operators? Let us have that Minister tell Parliament. He should take another call. He should advise one of his colleagues who is taking a call to tell us how come a whole bunch of Chinese immigrants had their applications approved within 1 day when the average time for Chinese business applicants was 10 months. How come the investigation has been going on for 7 months and this Minister claims he has had no report yet? For 7 months there has been an investigation going on into that. How come? Why does that Minister not apply the same transparency to the internal workings of the Immigration Service that he expects from external immigration advisers?  
I think it is time for greater transparency within the department instead of this Minister trying to hide everything that is going on in his department. He tries to block official information requests. He is very evasive of questions in this Parliament. We want to see a bit more transparency out of his department.