Barnett Tim: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
Barnett Tim: Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:638;Page:8793] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise with I guess three hats on to welcome the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Firstly I am myself an immigrant to New Zealand. Secondly I am an electorate member of Parliament in a central city area that is often the first port of call for refugees and migrants coming to live in the beautiful city of Christchurch. Often the local MP’s office is the place they head off to to get advice and help. Thirdly I am a Labour member of Parliament who believes in fair and balanced law.  
I would like to just briefly talk from those three perspectives. I was fortunate enough to come to New Zealand right back in 1991 when probably the pressure on immigration was somewhat less.  
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: You wouldn’t get in now Tim. 
TIM BARNETT 
: The member has started to heckle already.  
The points system had just come in I speak English as a first language—after a fashion as the Minister of Immigration has just commented—and I was in a position where I did not have to seek paid work immediately. So I was one of the fortunate people. I did not need to go to a member of Parliament in my local area to get help. I conflicted against other parts of the immigration system particularly living in a same-sex relationship but that is another story for my autobiography one day. But anyway I was the fortunate one in that respect.  
Secondly I now find myself in the position as an electorate member of Parliament where my office is heavily burdened by immigration casework. We reckon out of the 75 hours of paid staff time in my electorate office that about 30 of those hours is spent doing immigration casework. Fortunately we are one block away from the local immigration office and we also have very strong links with the ethnic and refugee communities from which a lot of the issues are generated.  
I often wonder why people come to a member of Parliament rather than always going to a lawyer. Obviously there is an issue of money and together with money comes the issue of specialism of lawyers because back in the early 1990s very few lawyers had a real expertise in this area. Now a whole group of immigration advisers has grown up and that is why we need this legislation today. Their expertise is variable and until this legislation goes through the consumer guarantees really are not as great as they should be. So one reason people tend to come to members of Parliament for help in this area is entirely because they do not have a great trust in the advisers and the wider legal profession in this particular area.  
The second issue is that a good member of Parliament—from whatever party—will create strong links with the various ethnic communities and through that those communities will often be host to people who are coming to New Zealand who have immigration problems and who want to go to a friendly face for help.  
Then the third issue is that the availability of free independent advice agencies is limited. My electorate office is fortunate enough to be a couple of blocks from a community law centre. I used to be its coordinator so I know the place well. It also has resources that are quite strained by the amount of immigration casework that it has had to take on and it is unable to deal with the caseload that every one of the electorate offices in the city—four Labour one Progressive and one National—take on in terms of immigration.  
The work we do is not to replace the role of an adviser or a lawyer. The role of a member of Parliament in this area is to be a translator of the system and an advocate back into the Immigration Service. I have to give great credit to the local immigration office because I think nowadays it has developed a real expertise in dealing with members of Parliament to pick up these issues without the issues having to go any further. Just because one is a member of Parliament in an area generating lots of immigration cases does not necessarily mean to say that there will be lots and lots of letters through to Ministers to ask them to use their discretion. There is a whole range of issues that cause people to come to members of Parliament as a friendly face in order to get advocacy for their immigration issues.  
One thing I have noticed when reviewing those cases is that it is not one size fits all. Often we get cases coming to us as politicians that really resist any easy description. The matters are quite complex and any law and any rule is going to struggle to be relevant and to be applied to that particular situation. For all those reasons I think it is really important that we recognise the role of members of Parliament in this area. I am glad to see the protection for MPs in this legislation so we can continue to do our work which is to give a bit of advice and a bit of information.  
The third point just briefly is that this law is necessary. This law is about protecting people in New Zealand including New Zealand residents to ensure that they get a fair service. We have heard from my Labour colleagues examples of shonky operators in this area. I will be pleased to report back tomorrow to those groups in my electorate and my city that we now have protections in place and we now have fair law in this area.  
I commend our new immigration advisers licensing regime to the House and I am very pleased to be the last speaker in this debate. Thank you Mr Speaker. 
Bill read a third time.