Hughes Darren: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8672] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I want to speak about clauses 66 through to 69 which are part of Part 2. 
David Bennett 
: He’s on the bill now. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I was on the bill in the last speech I gave too. I hear David Bennett already interjecting. 
Sue Moroney 
: He can’t help himself. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: As soon as he opens his mouth he manages to make quite an interesting advertisement for himself. I noticed that most of his speech centred on Sue Moroney and I wondered why he was so sensitive about that member’s point. But given that he is a one-term wonder in Hamilton East I would be a little sensitive too if I were him. 
The key point he missed in his attack on Sue Moroney was that she clearly talked about cost recovery. The Minister has just outlined through the schedules exactly what that will mean and what the proportion of revenue will be for some of the advisers we are talking about. But if after two speeches the “present” member for Hamilton East still cannot understand exactly what the bill is trying to achieve—even though he sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that considered the bill; I had to look up the committee report to see whether his name was actually listed there—then I do not know what more the Committee of the whole House tonight can do to explain to him a piece of legislation that he should know more about than most other members of Parliament because not all of us had the privilege of sitting on that committee. He was given that opportunity but clearly he has done absolutely nothing with it. 
It was very difficult to tell from his contribution whether he was in favour of or opposed to what the Labour Government is proposing by way of Part 2. It seems to me that clauses 66 through to 69 set out some pretty clear expectations around how the register will work in order to achieve the No. 1 goal which is to get confidence into this system and to make sure that members of the public can understand what we are trying to achieve and what standards we are trying to put in place. 
I note that clause 66 sets out the purpose of the register. It has in it some quite practical things that I think will be useful for people. The first in subclause (2)(a) is how to contact a licensed immigration adviser. We have all had cases where people have paid a huge amount of money to an immigration adviser who all of a sudden has disappeared into the dead of night as a fly-by-night operator and even we as members of Parliament have been unable to track them down or get hold of them. Letters have gone unanswered and the ability of people who in good faith have paid money to get a service have not been able to get that service. 
So I think that it is quite right and proper that the first purpose of the register will be to ensure that people are able to access all those contact details. I refer to the information about the licensing regime that comes into place with the passage of this bill and the type of licence a person is actually holding. I see that the information is contained in clause 67 whereby information on the limited provisional or full licence—the three different types of licences we are legislating for here tonight—has to be available to people so they can quickly check online. Clause 66(3) states that the register can be an electronic register on which the registrar may post information so that people can quickly check to see whether they are dealing with somebody who has a long history there and is recognised by way of the provisions of this legislation or whether they are dealing with somebody who has held only a provisional licence that has expired some time ago. Even worse the person might not be on the register at all in which case people can give that adviser a very wide berth. So I think this is a very critical part. 
In terms of the disciplinary regime around this part I tell the Committee that if any complaints have a formal procedure to be gone through then all that information is available there as well—information about whether people have been suspended have had their licences cancelled or have applied for licences only to have them refused. That is interesting information to know as well because it may be that some people have gone down the path of trying to have their businesses registered and then finding that they do not meet the criteria we are putting in here—the good standards to protect people—those people have decided to go out in the market anyway because they have been trying to earn as much money as possible. But a quick check will show there must be some reason for their non-registration. At the end of the day it is up to the person seeking the information to make that final decision. This is a commercial arrangement; in the end the person has to be responsible for the decisions he or she makes in a buyer-beware environment. 
At least what we are doing in clauses 66 67 68 and 69 is ensuring that as much information as possible is given so that a clear register is able to be set up. The register will list what is important. It will list the sorts of information one can expect to get from people—their addresses how to contact them what status they currently hold whether their licences have been suspended or cancelled and whether any alterations have been made. 
People should also then be able to search that information without a fee. I was surprised that National Party speakers who have been so concerned to make sure that immigration advisers can charge whatever they like were very critical of Labour members for supporting that. We will be able to get that information for free. That will be something where there will be no barrier to people in the sense of being able to find this information and make a difference to their search so I guess that the real practicality of this entire bill is borne out in Part 2 in clauses 66 through to 69. It will be a real test not only from a Government point of view of making sure the administration is efficient up to date and easily accessible but also from the point of view of testing whether immigration advisers will be cooperative in supplying all that information and in making sure they are keeping within the spirit and intention of what the Minister has set out. 
I again comment on Sue Moroney’s point about cost recovery that she mentioned in respect of the select committee consideration for which she was heavily criticised by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith PhD and also by the present member for Hamilton East. I think that that was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what Sue Moroney was trying to get to but she was able to deal with that quite effectively to ensure that the Committee of the whole House was left in no doubt about what took place at the select committee. 
I think it is incumbent on the National Party to say whether it will keep this register should it become the Government—what aspects it is in favour of and what aspects it is opposed to—to ensure that we are able to put the best possible information in front of people who have the privilege of being immigration advisers. In a sense those people are literally holding other people’s lives in their hands. Often people come to them with the only copies they have of original documents. They entrust them to those advisers and believe that they will be the gateway for them to start a new life in a new country—a country that all of us in this Chamber are blest to call home. A lot of trust is involved here and I think that having something like this that is so practical and that sets out information that is so clearly required can only advance the interests of people and benefit those who are trying to work their way through the New Zealand Immigration Service and the system. 
Obviously we have to have a robust system. It is a privilege not a right to come and live in this country so it is fair enough that there are a lot of rules even though sometimes they can be technical and difficult to follow. Immigration advisers can help although a lot of constituency MPs give a lot of assistance on immigration cases as well—and that is a right and proper thing. But this register properly maintained by a decent registrar will indeed ensure that the intentions of the Committee tonight in passing clauses 66 through to 69 will be honoured—and I think the country will be better off for that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to insert new clause 77B after the proposed amendment to insert new clause 77A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the name of the Hon David Cunliffe be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
77BNotwithstanding clause 77 and clause 77A the combined total of the annual licensing fee and the annual immigration adviser’s levy for each applicant and licence holder may not exceed $2000 without consultation with the sector.