Roy Heather: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:1015] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT will support the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill going to a select committee but we note in the same way the National Party did that this bill still needs a lot of work. The purpose of the bill of course is very laudable. According to the explanatory note: “This bill creates a licensing regime for individuals who provide immigration advice. The purpose … is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migrant destination.” That is as it should be. 
This bill though could be termed the “TuarikiDelamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it I found that the  
New Zealand Herald  
was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category. 
 Instead the SFO alleges his Chinese business partner contributed the $1 million which was used seven times for seven different applications in a ‘money-go-round’.” As Lianne Dalziel pointed out that is absolutely unforgivable and scurrilous behaviour. 
So what would Mr Winston Peters have said before his reformation as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Let us forget the Iraqi Cabinet Minister; if we listen to what the Serious Fraud Office said Mr Peter’s former colleague played the system for a— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are making reference to a matter that is before the courts and has not been resolved at this time. You are free to talk about others and free to talk about Mr Peters but not about Mr Delamere in the way that you have been. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The information I have been giving is mainly quotations and information that has already been in the public arena. I was very careful when I was researching this to take particular note of that point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders are quite clear. You stepped over the mark just slightly with your comments and the rules prohibit that sort of thing. I ask you to use more general terms please. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. There are many cases where people who have applied to come to this country have been taken advantage of in a very serious way and this bill regrettably is necessary to control the behaviour of those few. I think that most people who have consultancy businesses to give advice to those wanting to come to New Zealand do a very good job and I suggest that many members of the House who are frequently asked about immigration cases and for their own advice might well consult those people. So it is regrettable that the bill is needed but ACT will support it because it is needed to control that sort of behaviour. 
Immigrants add a huge amount to this country. Those who have to apply to come to New Zealand are mainly hard-working taxpaying law-abiding good and valuable citizens. They provide enrichment to the country that we would otherwise not see. Those who apply to come here are generally under-represented in the use of hospital beds and in our prisons. They are very good well-behaved law-abiding citizens of our country. Those who apply to come here are frequently the doctors and nurses who keep our hospitals going. New Zealand is a better country thanks to the immigration we have so we feel a deal of disappointment that legislation like this is necessary to provide for immigrants’ protection. 
 In ACT we do not like bureaucracy. We certainly do not like unnecessary bureaucracy that adds costs to things we feel are unnecessary. We do not like excessive regulation and we certainly do not like to interfere with professionals who are doing their jobs but we do support the bill. We support certainty for people who want to immigrate to New Zealand. We support people who want to come here in order to contribute to our society and enjoy our social and economic freedoms and we want those people to be sure they are dealing with bona fide consultants. That is very important; they should have that reassurance. However ACT has concerns about many parts of the bill particularly in respect of the costs it might impose on those who are already giving good valuable advice to people applying to come to New Zealand. We also have concerns about other parts of the bill—particularly about the fact that MPs are not subject to it—but we will support the bill going to the select committee.