Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Wong Pansy: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8593] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 First of all I would like to say that National supported this bill during the first reading and the reporting back. I will share with the public the reason we have supported this bill so far. It is because of headlines like the one in the Christchurch  
Press  
in December 2006 that stated: “Recruitment company leaves migrants short of $600000”. A Christchurch recruitment company owed 229 potential migrants about $600000 after reneging on the refund policy. At that stage in the advertisement of the particular company it described itself as a “registered immigration agent”. Mary Anne Thompson who heads Immigration New Zealand said that because currently there is no authority that oversees the registration of immigration advisers agents can describe themselves in the way they like. 
However with the enactment of this legislation there is a channel whereby victims can complain. For example they can complain about registered immigration advisers’ negligence incompetence incapacity dishonesty misleading behaviour or breach of the code of conduct. It is because of this that we have supported the passage of the bill up until now but we are developing some reservations particularly on Part 2 which we will explore further. 
We welcome the Minister of Immigration David Cunliffe to the Committee because I have a problem and I want him to take a few calls and share with us the rationale behind some of the new clauses that have been inserted. During the select committee deliberation a new clause was inserted—one we call a restraint of trade clause—clause 12(2). The Minister apparently believes that anybody who has held any immigration “offices or employment” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser at any time within 12 months of leaving the office or employment. That would mean that any “immigration officer visa officer or refugee status officer” would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser in the 12 months after that person had left immigration employment. I think the Minister needs to take a call to explain to the public why he has no confidence in the current employees of Immigration New Zealand. Let us rehearse this again: the Minister is publicly declaring he has no confidence in the current employees who hold the positions of immigration officer visa officer or refugee status official. He has no confidence in them; if they leave their jobs they are not allowed to register as immigration advisers. 
The reasons given are that they would have an unfair advantage and they might have a close relationship with people who continue to work in the department. I need the Minister to take a call because these two reasons basically spell out that he has no confidence in either the competence or honesty of current employees of or employees who have just departed from Immigration New Zealand. He is saying that any immigration officer visa officer or refugee status officer would not be allowed to be registered as an immigration adviser. This is despite the fact that we are told that this registration process will be robust and that if there are complaints there will be penalties for misbehaviour. But the Minister is saying that he has no confidence in the staff and the people who hold those positions. If they finish with Immigration New Zealand at least for 12 months he does not want to see them operating as immigration advisers. 
So what are these people going to do for the 12 months? Are they going on to the unemployment benefit or are they going to be taxi drivers? They are not allowed to use their skills. I think the Minister owes an apology to his own staff as to why he has no confidence in their competence or honesty and as to why he has no confidence in existing employees who would not treat differently any staff who have left Immigration New Zealand. If those people become immigration advisers their applications will be processed just like any other applications and there will be no favours. The Minister should have confidence in the people who work in Immigration New Zealand. 
 The other group of people whom he believes should not be allowed to register as immigration advisers includes himself. He says under clause 12(2)(a) that if any ”Ministers of Immigration and Associate Ministers of Immigration in the New Zealand Government” have completed their positions they would not be allowed to be registered as immigration advisers for at least 12 months. It was very clear when this clause was introduced that one of the many former Ministers of Immigration the Hon Lianne Dalziel was obviously targeting the Hon John Delamere. But I want to share with the public that the Hon John Delamere was acquitted in court of 20 charges relating to when he ran his own immigration consultancy firm between 2001 and 2004. I ask the Minister to take note of the dates. John Delamere left Parliament in 1999. This restraint of trade clause will never apply to him so it seems to me that the currency of former Ministers of Immigration is running for much longer than 12 months. If the Minister is serious in trying to stop the so-called problem he may have to bar those people for life—including himself. Of course one questions what will happen to existing politicians in the New Zealand Parliament who may come under suspicion for their dealings with regard to immigration issues. 
I am looking forward to the Minister giving us an explanation as to why he has no confidence in his staff in Immigration New Zealand. He may like to explain why he thinks it is effective to bar former Ministers of Immigration. At least Mr John Delamere’s case has shown the public that Mr Delamere was out of the job for more than 12 months and was prosecuted for his activities almost 3 years out from the time he left Parliament. This clause is totally ineffective and I think it is a slight on existing Immigration New Zealand employees. If the Minister does not think they are trustworthy honest or competent then they should not be in the service’s employment. 
I have an amendment lying on the Table to delete clause 12(2). I am seeking the assistance of other parties across Parliament to reflect on this clause and to support my amendment to say that it is not effective and in fact is an insult to the existing staff of Immigration New Zealand. I think having a Minister declare in such a public way that he has no confidence in the honesty and competence of the people of Immigration New Zealand is quite devastating for them. 
As I say the National Party has so far supported the bill and particularly Part 1. I do not have too much of a problem with the other part. Firstly I would like to say let us not pass a provision that is ineffective. Secondly I say that in fact it is a real stigma reflecting badly on the existing Immigration New Zealand staff. Either we have confidence in the licensing regime that is put in or we do not so I seek the Committee’s support for my amendment.