Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1002] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 There is a degree of irony in following on from a speaker who is from a National Government that refused to license immigration advisers. It had the opportunity to do so with amendments to the legislation in 1999 and in fact I was standing on the other side of the House as the Opposition spokesperson on immigration asking for amendments to the Act in 1999 in order to bring in a licensing regime. As soon as I became Minister of Immigration we started to put together a process that has brought us to today. Yes it has been a lengthy process but that is because it has been a robust one. 
We have done a lot more for immigration in this country than any other Government in New Zealand’s history because we have brought in a proper process that has enabled people to have some assurance about the way in which the immigration process will apply. This is the Government that recognised that what happened after people arrived in New Zealand mattered to them; that the National Government did not care about what happened to migrants after they arrived in New Zealand. This legislation is an important plank of the settlement strategy that this Government had the ability to bring in but that Government did nothing. All it did was count the numbers of people coming into the country; it did not care what happened to them after they arrived. That Government did not mind that there were doctors driving taxis; it did not mind that highly qualified information technology specialists were working in takeaway bars. It did not care that highly qualified business people ended up running takeaway bars to get residence in this country in order to escape from a particular environment they did not want to live in. 
Who was standing in the way of those people? Who actually made sure that a number of people came here with high expectations but no ability to live up to those expectations? It was immigration consultants who did not care what happened to those migrants after they arrived here and a Government that did not care what happened either. This Government is a caring Government; it has put into place a settlement strategy that is second to none in the world and it has now brought in a licensing regime. Yes I would have liked to see that brought in earlier but I am glad that it is here now and I pay full tribute to the Hon David Cunliffe and also to the Hon Paul Swain who did the preliminary work on bringing it in. 
This legislation has been well negotiated with the industry and it is interesting that the good immigration consultants are the ones who say “This is great!” because it will clean up the industry and the consultants who are doing the job properly will make sure there is an ethical framework within which they can operate. Lawyers operating in the field of immigration are covered by ethical standards by fees revision—they cannot charge contingency arrangements—and by disciplinary procedures. There is proper protection in place for people who use lawyers. There have been no protections in place for people who use immigration consultants apart from disputes resolution and general consumer protection law. The trouble is that those consultants promise the earth. If it is not delivered and the person’s permit expires the immigration consultant does not have to deal with the fallout; the person must deal with it. 
I heard a member talking about illegal overstayers. All overstayers are illegally in the country; that is what overstaying is. The point that I am making though is that the reason many of them become overstayers is that the proper applications have not been filed in a timely manner. This bill will make sure there is a proper process in place to ensure that people are able to be properly looked after and that those who hold themselves out as offering a service are actually capable of delivering on it. 
The last point that I want to make is about the ethics of people who leave the Immigration Service’s offices and set up as immigration consultants and the ethics of members of Parliament including a former Prime Minister and former Ministers of Immigration who leave Parliament and set themselves up as immigration consultants. What they do is the most unethical practice that one could possibly even imagine. I know that some members in this House have relationships with some of those former members of Parliament who have taken up immigration consultancy work. They do not care about our country. They use their former positions to open doors that should not be opened to them. They should be slammed in their faces because they have no right to abuse their former position in order to gain personally in the way that they have attempted to do—by bringing thousands of people into this country who have no chance of settling and without a word of English between them—without any obligations because of the way the law was set up under a National Government. 
I am proud of what I was able to do in the time that I was the Minister of Immigration because we closed off loopholes that those members opposite know perfectly well were being exploited by former National members of Parliament including former National Ministers and a former National Prime Minister. It is an absolute outrage and I look forward to this bill providing an opportunity for some ethical framework for the operation of immigration consultants. I do not know why Pansy Wong is standing up while I am still talking but it just looks as if she still does not know how the procedures of this House operate even though she has been here for quite a while. Obviously she knows perfectly well who I am talking about in terms of connections with people who are abusing their former positions in order to gain personally in a way that is intolerable. 
I just want to make a point about former Ministers who actually do go out and practise in this field in order to take full advantage of opportunities that should not be made available to them. It is an outrage and we are seeing one example being played out in another forum not so far from here. I remember sitting on a select committee and exposing what I saw happening. A former Minister of Immigration had used a policy that he was very well attuned to then had abused a change that I had brought in to enable a talent visa operation with the effect that an immigrant would pay a $45000 salary to an employer that the employer would pay back to him or her. It was a money-go-round. It was absolutely utterly and completely unethical and it would have been found to be illegal if we had not exposed it before it was put into place. I want to know why we have allowed that situation to occur. It really does reflect somewhat on people who were once honourable members of this House but who will never be regarded as such in anyone’s eyes again. 
I commend this bill to the House. I think it is an excellent opportunity for us to draw a line in the sand. If people are to operate as immigration consultants—and the good ones support this bill—then we will see a situation where immigration consultants will be able to hold their heads up because what they are doing is in accordance with ethical standards and there will be disciplinary procedures that will enable them to be struck off and not allowed to practise if indeed they do cross that line. I think it is important that we provide that protection for new migrants to New Zealand; they deserve nothing less.