The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act
Since I didn’t know there was an All Blacks vs Australia rugby match on Saturday evening (we won I’m told), I didn’t think it odd that I sat down to read The Immigration Advisors Licensing Act (2007)
With all the hullabloo about SMIRC & Move2NZ being ‘warned’ and told to shut down. Plus the unhelpful answers we’ve been getting to our queries to the IAA, I thought I’d find out what this innocuous piece of legislation actually tells us.
At 60 pages long, it’s not as fascinating as it sounds. So please trust me that I’m pulling out the most interesting and pertinent things;
s3 The purpose of the act is to
“.. promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice…enhance the reputation of NZ as a migrant destination..”
Hmm – off to a flying start there then by stopping someone conning thousands of Pacific Islanders out of money.
s7 What constitutes Immigration Advice.
“Immigration Advice means using, or purporting to use, knowledge of or experience in immigration to advise, direct, assist or represent another person in regard to an immigration matter relating to New Zealand, whether directly or indirectly and whether or not for gain or reward”
Bit woolly this – that I have emigrated to NZ, I know it exists, know where it is, how to travel here, how to apply for a visa (of any type) etc. could then constitute ‘advice’!
So – don’t tell anyone NZ exists, or how to get here – not that it exists 
Advice does not include;
“Providing information that is publically available, or that is prepared or made available by the Department.” [of Labour]
Cool – so
1. I can tell you that NZ exists
2. I can point you towards an airline that flys to NZ
3. I can point you to the DoL/NZIS website for information about visas
- So we’re all good then?
If DoL/NZIS write it down, anyone repeating it isn’t providing advice. Or indeed if anyone else makes the information publically available, you can repeat what they’ve said without actually giving advice yourself. (though if the person who wrote it down in the first place was not the DoL then they are in the poo!). I envisage a plan involving a patsy who will write down everything I say, publish it, and then I can quote them. I ain’t giving advice!
Advice does not include;
“Carrying out clerical work… or settlement services”.
Now this is where it gets important – what’s the difference between ‘Immigration Advice’ and ‘Settlement Services’?
s5 defines Settlement Services as;
“Settlement Services means all or any of a range of targeted support services provided for migrants…including services for the purposes of enabling migrants… to settle into the community… and find out how to access essential community services”
Hmm – so am I still advising? Or am I providing Settlement Services? Or am I just repeating what someone else, obviously a DoL/NZIS employee, has already said? This seems open to interpretation, which good legislation shouldn’t leave room for.
Well – 30 pages of legislation later we come across the offences under the act. Which irrespective of what else the act says, this is where ‘breaking the law’ is defined.
s63 – Offence to provide immigration advice unless licensed or exempt.
“A Person commits an offence if the person,
a) Provides immigration advice without being licensed.., knowing that they are required to be licensed or exempt”
“for the purposes of [the above] a person is deemed to know that they are required to be licensed or exempt if, at any time in the last 12 months preceeding the date of the alleged offence, that person had been information of that fact in writing [by the IAA]”
Wehey – your first strike is free!! Unless the IAA actually tell me that within the last twelve months I have provided Advice, and that I shouldn’t, then I’ve not committed an offence.
However it all gets a bit silly.
1 – You should note that elsewhere (s74 Presumption as to non-exemption) the legislation does identify that unless you have been told you are exempt from having to be licensed, it is presumed that you are not exempt from being licensed. That’s fine in itself, otherwise the legislation would be pointless!
2 – s5 Interpretation, helpfully identifies that an “Immigration Adviser means a person who provides immigration advice”
While we have to refer to s7 (What Constitutes immigration advice), to find out what it all means still. Do we appear to be going round in circles yet?
3 – Buried at the back of the legislation (Part 2 s92, subsection 11 – Disclosure of personal information overseas) is a different definition of an ‘immigration adviser’
“immigration adviser means a person who provides, or purports to provide (whether lawfully or unlawfully), immigration advice, whether or not that advice concerns an immigration matter under NZ law, and whether or not relating to NZ”
Got that? Take out the whethers, and we’ve left with;
“A person who provides advice”
So an immigration adviser, is anyone who provides advice. Therefore I can’t advise about immigration, to NZ or anywhere else, or indeed advise about anything whether or not it’s got anything to do with immigration.
Who the hell wrote this – who did they get ‘advice’ from?
Certainly not from me – since that would be illegal under this Act.
Related posts:
- Survey time – licensed Immigration Advisers
- Immigration Advisers Licencing Act: Update 2 Responce from the minister
- NZ Herald article
Comments
2 Comments on The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act
-
Hubby on
Mon, 20th Jul 2009 7:52 pm
-
The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act | Avalon's Blog « Immigration on
Tue, 21st Jul 2009 7:41 am
The article is left deliberately open and unanswered – the Act doesn’t make anything clear, and the IAA are also not clarifying. We’re just as confused as the next person.
[...] Read the rest here: The Immigration Advisers Lic… [...]
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
