Wilkinson Kate: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1018] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I declare from the outset that in my former life as a lawyer I dabbled in some immigration advice and I am pleased to see that lawyers are exempt under this proposed legislation from licensing as immigration advisers. Having said that although I accept that the bill is well-intended it is flawed and it is ineffectual. It does attempt to address some very real concerns but why it does not address other concerns is a mystery to me and the method of addressing some of those concerns is also mystifying. It is vital that our immigrants and our potential immigrants receive good competent advice and service. Often those advisers are the first port of call—the shop window of New Zealand—and those first impressions indeed matter. 
As a lawyer I have had the unenviable task of trying to pick up the pieces of very disappointed and disillusioned people who have entered New Zealand. They are often given false hope of what to expect in New Zealand. They are often encouraged to pack up their bags sell their homes and travel to New Zealand in the false hope that they too will be privileged enough to call New Zealand their home. People come to New Zealand relying on advice from so-called immigration advisers and thinking that they can obtain a work permit and they cannot. They come to New Zealand thinking they can obtain permanent residency and they cannot. 
The consequences of poor and incompetent advice resulting in declined applications and sometimes in deportation are severe. Does the bill deal effectively with that? I would have to admit that it does not. The bill provides for penalties payable by the adviser for failing to meet the acceptable standards of advice. But what about the poor visitors to our country whose hopes and aspirations have been totally dashed and whose impression then of New Zealand and New Zealanders is to say the least atrocious? Those poor victims are deported and they run the risk of not being able to return to New Zealand at least not for some time and then with difficulty. They run the risk of their travel to other countries being hampered because of an immigration record that is marred as a consequence of bad negligent and incompetent advice. To fine the adviser does nothing whatsoever to help their cause. 
The bill as we have come to expect is seriously flawed—not only in relation to the penalties. Although the bill provides that no person may provide immigration advice unless that person is licensed or exempt such as lawyers it then goes on to provide the definition of immigration advice. The bill says that immigration advice does not include providing information that is publicly available or that is prepared or made available by the department. But the entire operations manual is available to the public and the entire legislation is available to the public. The appeal and the other case decisions are available to the public. So what exactly is not available to the public? What exactly is the immigration advice that one must be licensed or exempt to provide? 
What is more the bill attempts to include offshore advisers but then it excludes them if they give advice in relation to student permits and student visas. I cannot fathom why that might be. Students are not immune from bad or incompetent advice and I can envisage offshore immigration advisers giving a lot of advice that is disguised as advice on student permits. 
Many of the problems that the bill seeks to address arise from offshore advisers but those offshore advisers are not subject to our New Zealand jurisdiction. I do not believe that sufficient thought has been given to the fact that the enforceability of this regime on offshore advisers is well-nigh impossible. 
My other concern relates to the good old chestnut of costs and compliance. Even the explanatory note admits: “The proposal is expected to result in increased costs to immigration advisers through licence application fees and compliance costs associated with applying for and renewing licences meeting minimum competency standards and complying with a code of conduct (details yet to be decided). Application fees will be prescribed in regulations … An annual licence fee is expected to be in the order of $1000 - $2000.” 
The note continues: “Compliance costs for businesses will also arise from the licensing application process competency standards and code of conduct that are to be developed by the regulator.” It concerns me that we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy—we are catching a baby about to grow into a monster. An Immigration Advisers Authority will be set up. A Registrar of Immigration Advisers will be appointed under the State Sector Act; what wage will he or she be on? Other such persons will be appointed as the chief executive decides. We will have a complaints body and a complaints procedure. 
This is a monster in the making. Although the bill is certainly well intentioned it fails to address some of our more serious immigration issues. It addresses issues that do not need addressing and I feel that it will do little to raise the standard of immigration advice in our country. 
Although National members support the bill going to the select committee for scrutiny that scrutiny does indeed need to be very robust for this bill to be effective at all. We need to address the issue of offshore advisers giving shonky advice giving false hopes to our immigrants and risking our national integrity. That is vital. There is definitely a mischief out there that needs to be remedied but this bill does not seem to be able to remedy it. I am certainly hopeful that the select committee will see the serious flaws in this bill and try to make it into effective legislation. 
It adds so much bureaucracy that we really wonder whether it is all worthwhile. We only have to look at some of the functions to realise what a bloated bureaucracy this authority will develop into. The authority will establish and maintain a register of licensed immigration advisers then will have to administer the licensing regime then will have to develop and maintain competency standards then will have to develop and maintain a code of conduct for immigration advisers then will have to facilitate the education and professional development of immigration advisers then will have to facilitate public awareness of matters relating to the provision of immigration advice and then will have to investigate and take enforcement action. 
This bill is draconian. A mischief is out there. National members will support the bill going to a select committee but we implore the select committee to scrutinise it very robustly. 
Debate interrupted.