Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8671] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am reluctant to take another call. I am indulgent of the member because he is a new member but that really was a pile of unadulterated drivel. So let me have a go— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Minister has no right to say those things. I ask him to withdraw and apologise because I have taken offence. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has taken offence at those words so I ask the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw and apologise and clearly he is a new member because as he gets on in this place— 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. When he withdraws and apologises he is only to withdraw and apologise. He used the word “and” and then brought in another sentence after that. He is to withdraw and apologise just for that. He cannot make a comment as well. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I actually did just ask him to withdraw as we did previously. I will ask the Minister to do it clearly again—that he withdraw— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: —and not relate it to what was said. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —and the apology was a bonus. 
My first point of difference with the member is that the word “levy” was clearly explained in my previous intervention to be “within” not “in addition to” the nominal sum that was described. The concept of the levy is in addition to the fee but the cumulative total of the two is within the amount prescribed. I made that clear unless the member has misheard me or doubts my word—the former is quite likely and the latter would be a breach of the Standing Orders. 
The member then trotted out the spurious argument that the poor immigration advisers would go out of business because somehow they would be paying a combined fee and levy of something less than $2000. It is difficult to tell what planet the member has been on—it is clearly not “planet Waikato” where real people live— 
Sue Moroney 
: Or which select committee he’s been on. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —or which select committee he has been on because someone may not have told him that the fee charged for an individual residence visa is often in the realm of $10000 per client per transaction. This is a combined fee and levy of less than $2000 for a whole year. So even if an adviser had only one client in the whole year this would be less than 20 percent of the adviser’s revenue. If that was how David Bennett worked as a lawyer that probably explains why he has found gainful employment—of sorts—in this Chamber. 
The member then moved on from that high point to say that the burden would fall on the little guy. This was a treasure of an argument because having misunderstood the level of revenue that some of these scoundrels get away with he then tried to defend the raggle-taggle by putting it all on the shoulders of people like those working in community law centres. Well the problem with that argument is that lawyers are exempted from the coverage of the bill and community law centres are staffed by lawyers. Therefore the people working in those centres are exempted as I understand it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: It’s too complex for David. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It is too complex for him perhaps. Secondly other providers of voluntary advice where they have sufficient internal standards to demonstrate competence—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux—are also exempted. So unless a particular community organisation decides to go out on a limb and offer what is in effect professional immigration consulting advice then that is its choice. But it then falls subject to the same requirements of the bill. Otherwise—surprise surprise—we might find that the good and enterprising people in the industry will rebrand themselves as non-governmental organisations and hang out the shingle in that way. That might be the way that the current Opposition would run regulatory policy but I guess we have seen it all before. 
If that combined set of two speeches represents the best that the Opposition can do in terms of offering public comment on the substance of this bill then my advice to Opposition members is that they should go back to their previous tactic and just vote for it.