Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8775] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill be now read a third time 
. A careful and robust process has brought us to this point today: the passing of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. It was back in May 2004 that Cabinet agreed in principle to the statutory regulation of immigration agents in New Zealand. The then Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain announced that the days of shonky immigration advisers were numbered and today we see that come to pass.  
The call for the regulation of immigration advisers came first from migrants themselves—migrants who had been ripped off who had been told lies who had been misled who had had money and documents stolen and who had put their trust in an agent and had then been let down often when their application or appeal was not lodged or when important information from the Immigration Service was not passed on to them. Some shonky agents were providing false and fraudulent documentation to the Immigration Service often knowingly. Like many MPs in this House I have constituents who have had such experiences with immigration advisers. The financial and emotional cost to them is huge. Many families have lost significant amounts of money and more important they have been caused a great deal of stress.  
Worst of all though is that until now there has been little redress for those migrants. Something had to be done to ensure ongoing confidence in this industry. The liars the crooks and the thieves had to be weeded out and face the consequences of preying on innocent migrants. A large majority of immigration advisers are of course ethical and competent. A handful of crooks have been pulling down the entire reputation of the industry putting it at risk and undermining our immigration programme. Immigration advisers are valuable because they facilitate the entry of skilled migrants and others to New Zealand. Many of them supported the passing of this bill because they too want to ensure the integrity of this growing and vital industry.  
The passing of this bill means that anyone who provides immigration advice—with some exceptions both onshore and offshore—will have to hold a licence and that those who do so without holding a licence will be prosecuted. Immigration officials will not accept applications from unlicensed people; it is as simple as that. The legislation will establish the Immigration Advisers Authority within the Department of Labour. A registrar who will create a robust licensing system for immigration advisers will head the authority. He or she will be charged with developing strict competency standards and a robust code of conduct that sets out the ethical standards required of immigration advisers. The legislation will also establish the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal independent of the authority and administratively supported by the Ministry of Justice. The tribunal will consider all complaints about immigration advisers filed with it by the registrar and will have the disciplinary power to impose sanctions on immigration advisers. It has been estimated that some 1000 people will need to be licensed under the new regulatory regime. That estimate is based on surveys of people who currently provide advice excluding lawyers and other exempt persons and on examining the number of adviser interactions with my department. 
 The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee took a thorough and determined look at this bill and suggested a number of changes which the Government supported. Those have led I believe to a stronger and broader bill being agreed to by the House today.  
Several additional issues arose from the Committee of the whole House stage—the first being one regarding fees and levies. In general Government regulation-making powers require that fees can be collected only for a service that is directly supplied. Funding for all other indirect services must be collected through a levy. When the bill was introduced there was going to be an authority only. The nature of a tribunal in terms of its functions and technical funding arrangements had not been fully considered before the select committee proposed the split. My officials brought the fee/levy distinction to my attention after the select committee had considered the functions of the authority and the tribunal and reported back on the bill.  
The bill clarifies that fees will apply to the application-processing service and to the services of being licensed such as consideration of an application or renewal of an application to be licensed and to the licensing functions of the authority. A levy is required for the authority to be able to provide other previously agreed functions such as continuing professional development and to cover the complaints and disciplinary processes which are now to be handled by a separate independent tribunal. The introduction of a levy as well as fees does not foresee any increase in the total amount to be paid by people seeking to be licensed; it merely better distinguishes between funding the cost of the services that they will receive directly that is by fees and those that they may not receive directly but will benefit from that is by levies.  
The importance of the Treaty of Waitangi was also discussed during the Committee stage. A member proposed the establishment of a Maori Immigration Education Council to advise on matters of cultural education and to make recommendations binding on the Crown on all immigration education matters. Of course the Government is sympathetic to the need for migrants to be informed and advised about Treaty of Waitangi issues and we consult closely with the Government’s Maori caucus on those matters. We recognise it is important that migrants to New Zealand are aware of the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand. It is equally important that people advising and assisting new and potential migrants are conversant with the Treaty and aspects of tikanga. Indeed the Department of Labour already provides migrants and its staff with information on the Treaty for example. The bill will ensure that immigration advisers are as well informed as departmental staff on the Treaty and tikanga through the knowledge element of the competency standards. As Minister I will ensure that Treaty and tikanga matters are explicitly covered in those standards.  
In conclusion I take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge some of the key people and groups who have assisted in the passage of this legislation. Firstly I acknowledge the two previous Ministers of Immigration: the Hon Lianne Dalziel whose work pioneered the bill and the Hon Paul Swain who brought it through the Cabinet process. Secondly I acknowledge the very hard work of the select committee. The committee conducted a robust and careful process of considering the submissions. It made a number of recommendations which the Government supported. I want to give due recognition to the chair the Hon Mark Gosche who led that fine process. The process has meant there is support for the bill from all sides of the House and that support is welcomed. Finally I thank all those who took the time to make submissions on the bill particularly the submitters from the immigration advisers industry. It was very important for us to design the legislation with the input and support of the industry and we have appreciated the opportunity to do so.  
I commend this bill to the House.