Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8370] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill be now read a second time 
. In speaking to the second reading of this bill I first extend my thanks to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee has worked hard and given full consideration to the public submissions received. 
Most immigration advisers provide quality services that facilitate the entry of skilled migrants to New Zealand. Some however do not. Like many MPs in this House I have heard many stories of migrants being ripped off misled or taken for a ride by liars crooks and thieves calling themselves immigration advisers. These dishonest so-called advisers threaten and undermine— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does that include Taito? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There will be no comments from the other side of the House about former Ministers please. These so-called advisers threaten and undermine the integrity of New Zealand’s immigration programme and they must be weeded out. The passing of this bill means that anyone providing immigration advice both onshore and offshore must hold a licence. Those who do not with some exceptions will be prosecuted. 
It is important to review the main aspects of the bill as considered by the select committee and the proposed changes that the committee has recommended. I turn first to the issue of the independence of the Immigration Advisers Authority. One of the major amendments to the bill is the establishment of the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal which will be 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 it will have disciplinary powers to impose sanctions on those immigration advisers. 
The implementation time frame for the bill has been reduced from 5 years to 3 years and I think that that is an excellent amendment. All offshore advisers must now be licensed after 3 years 1 year after their onshore counterparts. Some submitters were against the exemption for offshore education advisers. They thought students deserved the same protections offered by this bill as other migrants. That is an on-balance judgment but the exemption is to remain in place due to the competitive conditions of the international education sector at this time. The bill provides a process to remove the exemption for offshore education advisers should the need arise and competitive conditions permit. 
Exemptions for members of Parliament and their staff employees of the public service and foreign diplomats are now quite appropriately included in the bill and I thank the select committee for making those amendments. The select committee has limited the exemption of employees of the public service to only those who provide immigration advice within the scope of their employment. Practising lawyers remain exempt under the bill and this exemption has been elevated into the primary legislation. I note first that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act of 2006 has enhanced complaints and disciplinary procedures for lawyers compared with those under the Law Practitioners Act of 1982. The New Zealand Law Society has indicated that it will work closely with the Immigration Advisers Authority when developing practice rules for standards of professional conduct in client care and ongoing legal education for practising lawyers who provide immigration advice. 
The bill requires the Minister of Justice to consult with the Minister of Immigration when considering those practice rules submitted by the New Zealand Law Society for approval. It is my intention that those Ministers will have careful regard for the need of migrants to have quality assurance in their legal advice. Should the arrangements fail to work satisfactorily the select committee has indicated that the exemption for practising lawyers should be reconsidered—a most balanced position. 
The select committee recognised that it would not be in the consumers’ interest for not-for-profit organisations to stop providing information to migrants because of the costs involved in getting a licence. Therefore an exemption is provided for individuals employed by or working as volunteers for citizens advice bureaus or community law centres. These organisations already have the appropriate safeguards to ensure the ethical conduct of individuals working for them. Individuals employed by or working as volunteers for any not-for-profit organisation will therefore not be charged a licensing fee. Further exemptions may be made by Order in Council and the process for recommending an exemption by Order in Council has been clarified. I believe that any further exemptions will need to follow a robust decision-making process. 
The list of classes of people prohibited from being licensed has been clarified so that a prohibition on licensing is linked to the term of disqualification under the companies legislation. The select committee recommended that individuals who have exercised powers of discretion on immigration matters such as former immigration officers and I say to Dr Smith former Ministers or Associate Ministers of Immigration would be prohibited from being licensed for a period of 12 months after they leave that role. What then will retiring National Ministers do for a living? This change will prevent former officeholders trading on their reputation and the perception of insider knowledge. I thank the select committee for making that suggestion. 
The bill has been clarified to allow the registrar to take into account a person’s disciplinary record in other occupations or professions—for example a lawyer who had been disciplined under the Law Practitioners Act of 1982. The bill now clarifies the process for cancellation and suspension of licences. The decision to suspend a licence during an investigation is now made independently by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal rather than the registrar. This is a serious sanction; therefore it is important that an independent body makes that decision. 
Changes have been made to the complaints and disciplinary processes. The complainant must specify one or more grounds that form the basis of the complaint. The decision of the registrar to dismiss a complaint because of its trivial nature or because none of the grounds of complaint are disclosed can now be appealed to the tribunal. In relation to sanctions the bill clarifies which payments must be made to the Crown and which must be made to the complainant or another person. 
In respect of inspection powers the bill clarifies that inspection powers may be used when investigating complaints. Inspection powers may be exercised in respect of former immigration advisers and when an entry warrant is required as part of an inspection the application for the warrant must be in writing—all very sensible stuff. 
I refer now to offences and penalties. There are changes to the way that offences are presented under the bill to ensure proper enforcement. Offences have been redrafted so that where the registrar has informed a person of a relevant fact—such as that the person is required to be licensed within the preceding 12 months—that person will be deemed to know that fact which is a knowledge offence. Changes are also made to clarify the nature of the offences. The defence of reasonable excuse has been clarified. A person has a reasonable excuse and does not commit an offence if they did not know that they were performing the act that constitutes the offence and if they took all reasonable care and due diligence to ensure that they did not perform such an act. 
The rights of appeal have been clarified. The right of appeal should be exercisable only by the person who was subject to a sanction. Following the notice of decision being communicated to any person subject to a decision an appeal must be made by giving notice in writing within 20 working days after that date. 
In conclusion the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill is critical to managing the growing immigration advisers industry. Immigration advisers help to facilitate the entrance of migrants to New Zealand and many—no doubt most—do an excellent job. However the liars crooks and thieves who seek to undermine our immigration programme must be weeded out. They must face consequences. This bill will help to achieve that goal. I believe that the bill is welcomed not only by migrants and by the broader community but also by most in the immigration consulting industry itself. As such I commend the bill to the House.