Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8596] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I listened to the Hon Chris Carter speaking just now on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. He was talking about “unscrupulous” immigration consultants. I just remind the Hon Chris Carter that it was him not an unscrupulous immigration consultant who twisted his colleague Damien O’Connor’s arm into allowing into this country a member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guard. Now his colleague the Hon Clayton— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I don’t know what you’re talking about. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If the member does not know what I am talking about I can get the file where the department’s notes show that it responded to representations from Chris Carter in letting this guy into the country—a man who has now caused all sorts of problems. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove now has to deal with this unscrupulous character after Chris Carter convinced Damien O’Connor—it must have been Damien O’Connor; it cannot have been this Minister—to let him into the country. So it is not just immigration consultants— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: What’s the name? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I do not want to give private information to the public but I can grab the file for that member so he can refresh his memory. If he wants to do so I can easily get the file for him. 
In speaking to Part 1 I want to cover something that is very unsatisfactory about the bill. National has supported this bill and we have done so partly because we listened to the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and those submissions from the immigration industry were positive about this bill. National wants to see a system put in place that works well. Again with this Labour Government we are seeing Supplementary Order Papers brought in after the select committee process that change the nature of the bill and would change totally the nature of support for the bill. 
If Supplementary Order Paper 104 which adds bits to clauses 16 24 and 26(1)—all clauses in Part 1—had been in the bill when it was going through the select committee process there would be a totally different set of submissions on this bill. This Labour Government does this sort of thing intentionally. We see it done too often now. It brings in bills that receive submissions at the select committee then after all those submissions have been considered it changes the bill totally to something that is very different. Supplementary Order Paper 104 in the Minister’s name will now introduce a levy and make major changes to this bill. Instead of a simple licensing system we will see a levy system where a very small number of immigration consultants will have to fund a major bureaucratic set-up that this Government is setting up. Those consultants would never have been positive about that had the bill had that in it from the word go. 
I want the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe to explain to the Committee how something as fundamental as a levy regime and the amendments he is proposing to clauses 16 24 26 etc.—and I will go on to clause 77A when we come to Part 2—could not have been part of the bill as introduced. Why was something as fundamental as a levy regime to fund a disputes process to go through complaints and to discipline members of the immigration consultancy industry not part of the bill as introduced? I believe we deserve an explanation from the Minister as to why something as fundamentally important to this legislation was not part of the bill as introduced. 
I am prepared to resume my seat so that the Minister can explain to the Committee why something as fundamental to the bill as that was left out of the bill that went to the select committee to be introduced now after the public had its opportunity to make submissions on this legislation.