Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8667] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is sad to see what was once quite a proud Government reduced to filibustering in this Chamber. This Chamber costs thousands and thousands of dollars every minute and it is sad to see it happen. It is sad to see the Government so reduced that Ministers are so frustrated they use four-letter words in this Chamber. It is a sad day that this Labour Government is reduced to this level. 
I say to the member who has just resumed her seat Sue Moroney that it is actually quite important what one says in this Parliament. That member told this Committee just now that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of the levy. If that is the truth why did the select committee not incorporate it into the legislation? Why did it not incorporate it? The Labour Party has a majority on the select committee. If the issue of a levy was considered at the select committee as that member has just told the Committee—or was she not telling the truth? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Members know very well that they cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw and apologise. The member cannot accuse another member of not telling the truth. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: But I did not. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member did. Please withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: To help progress matters I will withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Now I will ask the other member Mr David Bennett to do the same thing because he said exactly the same thing. Please withdraw and apologise. 
David Bennett 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry I am not debating this. I am asking you to withdraw and apologise for accusing a member of not telling the truth. The member will rise withdraw apologise and say nothing else. 
David Bennett 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: What I was questioning the member on—and I was very careful—is the fact that she told this Committee a few minutes ago that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee discussed the issue of a levy. If that is the truth—and this is important because members should be truthful to this Parliament—why did the Labour members who have a majority on that select committee not amend the legislation to incorporate a levy? Because they did not. The levy has been brought in by a Supplementary Order Paper after the select committee process. I want that member to acknowledge that maybe— 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to clarify the point that in the bill as reported back it was referred to as a fee but the issue was well canvassed by the select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of debate. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It appears that we do now have the truth and the truth of the matter is that there was no levy in this bill when it was brought into this Committee. The key issue—and this is an important issue—is that the immigration industry had no opportunity to make submissions on the issue of a levy. That is important because we have seen Labour doing that all the time with recent bills. It brings in Supplementary Order Papers at the last minute so that those parties that have a genuine interest in a piece of legislation have no opportunity to make submissions. 
Since this Supplementary Order Paper has come in the industry has made it clear that if it had had the chance to make submissions to the select committee—which I presume Sue Moroney was a member of—it would have told her and the select committee that it had a grave fear that a levy like this could drive the industry underground. That is the last thing I believe that the Government wants. National supports the objective of the Government here. We want to see a decent immigration advisory industry here. But we do not want to see legislation that drives the industry underground. That is the key issue. 
The Minister in the chair David Cunliffe has claimed that the levy is only a minor technical thing that the department advised him he should do. It is not a minor technical thing. The issue of whether to have a levy as distinct from fees for licensing is a major one. Is the Minister in the chair telling us that his department is so incompetent that when it was drafting this legislation it did not know that a levy might be required? For the Minister to blame this on his department is not very good. I believe that we deserve a slightly higher standard of debate from these Labour members. If they are going to take up the time of this Committee with filibustering we actually need them to tell us the truth about what went on at the select committee. We have established that what the last member told us was not in fact correct. The issue of a levy was not specifically discussed at the select committee at all. Let me be careful and say that to try to claim to this Committee that a levy was discussed is a misrepresentation of the facts of what went on at that select committee. 
These matters are important and I do not think it is good enough to bring in by way of a Supplementary Order Paper issues such as levies that are unlimited and can be set at any level. The Minister in the chair should tell us whether he thinks the fact that the immigration industry believes that a levy could drive the industry underground is a genuine concern. I suggest that he reflect a little bit on the issues around Taito Phillip Field that I have questioned him on at length over recent months. Money was paid there. There is no question that money was paid to people whom even the police may have trouble sorting out as to whether they are immigration consultants or are paying the money on.