Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8777] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National supports the passage of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill but with reservations. I will highlight some of those outstanding issues that will need to be addressed in the future. First of all I acknowledge the chairmanship of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by the Hon Mark Gosche who took the line of allowing a free flow of exchanges and was receptive to opposing views which I believe has led to major improvements to this bill. The bill is now much better than when it was introduced to the House. I also acknowledge the work and support of the advisers and committee clerks who helped to improve on the original bill. The select committee members have contributed across the party line which once again has made possible the improvements to the bill. That is the satisfying part of the select committee process.  
There remain some concerns that I would like to raise. First of all after the bill was reported back to the House a late Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the Minister to introduce the term “levy” to the bill on top of the fees that are contained in the original bill. The anxiety of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment—which by the way fully supports the regulation of immigration advisers—is understandable. The immigration officials have always insisted that around 1000 immigration advisers are practising in New Zealand. The way the officials look at it is that the annual operating costs are around $1 million for 1000 immigration advisers so the registration fee will be around $1000. But the association has always been adamant that the number of full-time advisers out there at best is half that. Lawyers are also exempt from this bill so as you can imagine the association is quite concerned about the registration fee that has to be paid towards the running costs of the scheme.  
This late introduction of the term “levy” has rung alarm bells. I introduced an amendment during the Committee stage because the Minister was adamant that the total fees or levy—whatever we call it—would not exceed $1000 to $2000. He rejected that amendment but instead in the Committee stage made the declaration that the levy and fees will be drastically less than the indication of the maximum level of $2000. National will hold him to his word. After all the Labour Government promised this bill in the year 2000. It is now some 7 years after that initial promise was made. In response to some of the gung-ho statements made by the Minister about cleaning up the industry one could say that some of the horses have already bolted.  
The other issue that I want to raise is that of the scope of the bill. By and large the select committee members have all expressed some reservations that immigration advisers who handle only student visas and permits are to be exempted from this bill. Recent research was conducted by Waikato University researcher Dr Elsie Ho. She came to the same conclusion as the Ministry of Education in 2004 which suggested that Chinese students face a large gap between their expectations of New Zealand and the reality. The ministry also indicated that currently one-third of international students come from China. Dr Ho pointed out that those students are the ones who are more likely to want to stay permanently. Therefore one-third of our international students who come here are probably likely to progress to become a permanent resident in New Zealand at some time in the future. But they tend to be more unhappy because they came with unrealistic expectations. Dr Elsie Ho has urged immigration advisers in China to give better advice and perhaps better prepare those prospective students before they arrive in New Zealand. 
 That is exactly why some select committee members expressed concern. Consultants who deal only with student visas and permits might fall through the gaps. We will continue to face this problem of students not being adequately supported by advisers or consultants who are not familiar with and fully informed of New Zealand qualifications and other requirements.  
There are two other issues I want to raise. One is enforcement. I hear the Minister continue to say that there will be a robust complaint procedure and enforcement. But the experience we all have in this Parliament is that it is all too easy to pass legislation and that the enforcement of legislation is yet to be tested. Once again I hope that the Immigration Service will take on board the fact that Parliament will continue to monitor its enforcement commitment. In my office alone I have dealt with a lot of complainants who have raised issues with the Immigration Service which tends to say that its hands are tied and it needs to refer them to the police which in turn would advise them that there is nothing much they can do because it is a commercial transaction. We can understand the anxiety of people who seek advice from immigration advisers and consultants who are in general not that familiar with the legislation requirements etc. So we will continue to monitor to make sure that Immigration New Zealand under this new legislation will tackle those enforcement issues.  
The last issue I want to raise is that I think it is a tragedy that a trade restraint clause was introduced into this legislation. The Minister has shown no confidence in existing Immigration Service staff because in future people handling visa applications etc. will not be allowed to practise as immigration advisers for 12 months after they leave the Immigration Service. I think that is an insult to the existing employees of the department. It suggests either that their technical competence may not be up to scratch or that somehow the Minister is casting doubts on their integrity in that they may use their relationships with their ex-departmental staff for their own benefit. I think Ministers need to show more confidence in their staff. Of course the restraint of trade clause is also targeted at the former Minister of Immigration but I hasten to point out that John Delamere who is a former immigration Minister had an immigration practice for 2 years after he left Parliament. So what gaps is this legislation trying to plug? I remain puzzled by that. Although National supports this bill we still have some reservations.