Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8663] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 In my hand is a copy of a press release issued by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment which states that it fears that the immigration consultant sector could be driven underground. This is the largest association of immigration consultants which has long supported and advocated the licensing of all migrant consultants and it is in general supportive of this bill. The association’s latest fear is driven by this devious Minister of Immigration’s very late introduction of a Supplementary Order Paper that looks like it will introduce another charge on registered immigration consultants in the form of a levy. 
 During the consideration of this bill by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we spent quite a bit of time on the cost of registration for immigration consultants. We were told that a new registration authority would have around 10 full-time staff and that the establishment cost of $1.4 million to $2 million dollars and $500000 to $900000 in capital costs would be funded through a variety of sources such as the Immigration New Zealand memorandum account and Crown funding. The Crown would also fund the annual cost of regulating the non-profit advisers and investigating and prosecuting unlicensed advisers. The department would also give consideration to gaining some third-party revenue towards those costs. 
By and large then the balance of the annual ongoing cost of the $1.3 million to $2.4 million to support this regulatory regime will be funded through registration fees from the for-profit consultants. We were told that Cabinet also agreed in principle that the for-profit advisers should pay an annual licence fee in proportion to the cost of regulating them. A figure of between $1000 and $2000 was indicated. We were told that an additional supplement to reduce the $1000 to $2000 annual licence fee would also be considered by Cabinet when the final figures become much clearer. 
The basis of the department arriving at a registration fee of $1000 to $2000 per consultant was from its database. The department also commissioned a survey by BRC Marketing and Social Research which projected that approximately 1000 immigration advisers would be regulated. This figure has long been disputed by the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment which is the largest association for immigration consultants. It indicated that the figure of 1000 immigration advisers was simply unrealistic. It reckoned it would be optimistic to think that the figure might reach 500. Let us remember that lawyers are exempt from this bill. So the association raised its concern with the Minister and it was told by him that in the explanatory note to the bill it was stated that an additional supplement to reduce the $1000 to $2000 licence fee would be considered by Cabinet if the numbers seeking registration were too small to cover the total cost of regulation. 
But the late Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced by the Minister without consultation with the sector after the select committee has completed its deliberation on the bill—including on the fees—raises alarm because the Supplementary Order Paper introduces the term “levy”. This provision would allow a levy to be imposed in addition to fees as provided in the original legislation. We believe that is an act of bad faith and that it is devious and underhand. Last night the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe actually took a call—we are grateful for that—and said that the latest Supplementary Order Paper— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I take offence at some of the terms the member has used. There has been no lack of good faith in this process. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister has taken offence at the terms the member used so I ask the member to withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: It would totally cut down Parliament’s vocabulary if words like “devious” and “underhand” were not able to be used. It is true for a start. I invite you Madam Chairperson to think carefully about the amount of vocabulary that might be left behind if parliamentarians want to take part in robust debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for her contribution and I think that she does have a point. However the member did take offence and as that has happened I ask the member to withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Can I just check did the member withdraw? 
PANSY WONG 
: It is my call and I am still on my call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I asked the member to withdraw her remarks. Please withdraw. 
PANSY WONG 
: I withdraw Madam Chairperson. 
Last night the Minister tried to brush off concern by stating that this is simply the result of legal opinion because the term “fees” can mean only recovering costs. That should cause further alarm for these immigration consultants because it is clear to me that the department realises that the number of 1000 immigration consultants is possibly overly optimistic despite its database and despite its paying consultants to confirm that figure. That means that introducing this levy on top of fees might mean the $1000 to $2000 that was explicitly promised to that sector may not be realised. 
I have tabled an amendment to test whether there is good-faith open government in dealing with the public and the immigration consultant sector. My amendment is logical and very reasonable. It states that the total annual fee and levy per registered consultant would not exceed $2000 without consultation with the sector. This is not breaking new ground. The precedent lies with the Accident Compensation Corporation which annually will undertake consultation in setting its premium. If the reason for this late Supplementary Order Paper is technical or legal then the Minister should have no problem supporting my amendment. At the very least he should take a call and announce here and now that the annual fee together with a levy would not exceed $2000 as promised and document it throughout this consideration of the bill. 
This is a serious issue. National supports the bill up until this stage because we believe in striking a balance between consumer protection and at the same time upholding the reputation of credible immigration consultants. But we are not prepared to be a party to destroying the immigration consultant sector through high fees and levies to fund bureaucracy. After all Immigration New Zealand funds a million-dollar website with only two job listings so it is not exactly careful with spending other people’s money. With the demise of immigration consultants should the high fee and levy proceed then potential visa applicants would have to either use lawyers or resort to unlicensed immigration consultants. We are then back to square one as the reason for introducing this bill was to drive out unqualified immigration consultants. So I say to the Minister that no ifs and no buts we want him to make it clear to the public and the immigration consultant sector by supporting my amendment that he wants to uphold good faith and transparency in passing this bill.