Bennett David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
Bennett David: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:638;Page:8669] 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I find it quite distressing that a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Sue Moroney would say that a levy was discussed at the select committee when it was never discussed. No documents relating to that select committee mention the word “levy”. It was never discussed at that select committee. The issue came up only when the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced today. 
This is a major issue. Sue Moroney is saying that we discussed the word “levy” and that we were cognisant of the idea of a levy being employed in this case. That is simply not the position. I take offence at that member trying to imply that I was part of any negotiations on a levy because there were no negotiations on levies in the select committee. I can give written proof of that from the Minister of Immigration David Cunliffe because the explanatory note to Supplementary Order Paper 104 states: “There is a need to provide for a levy as well as fees”. 
In the select committee we talked about fees constantly. If one looks at all the documents one sees that they refer to licensing fees. There was never any discussion about a levy in addition to those fees. The idea of a levy has come only at this subsequent stage when the Minister has found that the system to be employed may not cover the cost of the new system for registration. So the Minister has brought in a levy to bump up the cost on immigration consultants. 
The members opposite who were on that select committee know that a levy was not discussed in that select committee. They know that it is not proper and right to come into this Chamber and talk about something that did not happen in a select committee. They know they should stand up and take a call to say that they are sorry and that they made a mistake. But they did not do that. Sue Moroney misrepresented other members of that select committee and that is an offence in this Chamber that that person should take very seriously. It is a matter of pride and dignity for that person to actually stand up and deliver an apology for misrepresenting the members of that other select committee and all that. 
Let us talk about licensing fees. The document I have states that many people who submitted on this legislation were concerned about the level of any licensing fee. Most people on the select committee expected a fee between $1000 and $2000 and that was based on a general concept that there would be 1000 licensed advisers. So a budget was expected basically in the range of $1.3 million to $2.4 million for the new licensing regime which was to be made up of fees between $1000 and $2000. 
That gives quite good support when we look at all the documents presented to the select committee for the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Pansy Wong. Mrs Wong’s Supplementary Order Paper looks for a limit of $2000 but the Minister has said that we cannot have any limits because that is bad law—you know that is not how it should be done. But the reality is that in the select committee all the information that was provided to the members of that committee was that $2000 would be the top cap anyway on the basis of the number of advisers expected. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It still is. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: If that is still the case as the Minister says why does he want to bring in a levy at this stage? He wants to bring in a levy at this stage because he and his officials are now aware that 1000 providers of immigration advice may not actually be the case. They are also aware that if they charge people $2000 to do this kind of work that number of 1000 advisers will actually go down because people will go out of business. They realise that they will be left with a white elephant of a licensing system which will have potentially only 500 people providing advice and having to pay for a $2.4 million system. That is why they have brought in a levy because they are trying to save themselves from a system that was not designed properly in the first place. 
For members on the other side to say that it is all about levies that were discussed I tell them that that is not the case. We discussed fees and fees were seen on the basis of being from $1000 to $2000. The word “levy” was never approached in that manner. To bring it in at this stage is really a show of no faith in the industry. It is a show of no faith in the people out there who are providing that immigration advice. 
Another part of the fee and levy system that I think we need to consider is in regard to community advisers. A number of submitters talked about organisations that do things on a community basis—such as the Citizens Advice Bureaux Inc. There are also other organisations—for example in Hamilton the Waikato Migrant Resource Centre. These places provide a lot of immigration advice and they were originally not going to get the exemption. The National members on that select committee pushed hard for the distinction for those being exempt to be on a not-for-profit basis rather than having an exemption just for the Citizens Advice Bureaux which Labour members felt they could sell to their colleagues. 
A not-for-profit basis is much more appropriate because that includes organisations like community law centres. It includes places like the migrant resource centre in Hamilton. It also includes an Indian group from Auckland which provides its own advice. Those kinds of organisations should be exempt. They have no intention of paying between $1000 and $2000 and they have no intention of paying an open-ended levy that will now be in addition to the fee. 
Those groups will be the ones that will really be hurt by this Supplementary Order Paper. This Supplementary Order Paper actually hurts the most vulnerable people who are giving advice. Its provisions will go out there and make those community groups—like migrant resource centres—the ones that will have to pay huge levies just to make up for this Government’s vision which is misguided. 
This is an example of a Labour Government that has no comprehension of the impact of its legislation and that comes into this Chamber and just changes its mind at the last minute in trying to cover all the gaps. It is a Government that then blames the select committee and its members for things that were never discussed in that committee and it is a Government that will not take responsibility for its own mistakes. It is a Government that knows that although this legislation had a good purpose it is now misguided in the sense that the Government has brought in a Supplementary Order Paper that will add a levy on to the fees that were discussed in the select committee. I encourage those members— 
Darren Hughes 
: Ah so it was discussed in the select committee now. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: The fees were discussed but not the levy. 
Sue Moroney 
: Ah now he’s changed his mind. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: So the member on the other side needs to stand up and take a call to acknowledge her mistake in misrepresenting the select committee deliberation because the word “levy” was never discussed at the select committee. Licensing fees were always discussed but these levies are in addition to the licensing fees. That member knows that and she should get up and apologise to the Committee and to the members of this Committee whom she has made such false accusations about.