Reply from the Minister.
Following on from my letter to the minister of Immigration, I now have a reply. It ignores almost all of what I said (not really surprising, but it would be nice if they actually read the letter and answered it), and is basically just propaganda exercise for the IAA.
Dear Ms Winterbottom
Thank you for your letter of 2 October 2009 regarding the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act).
The Act has been put in place to protect migrants from poor immigration advice and to ensure New Zealand’s international reputation is not damaged as a consequence of such advice. Poor advice has been provided in the past by people who have set themselves up as immigration advisers without having adequate resources to do so.
The Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill (the Bill) received a total of 34 submissions as it went through the Parliamentary legislative process. All submissions which were considered by the Select Committee either supported or conditionally supported the Bill. In addition, the Bill was subject to expert scrutiny in terms of New Zealand’s human rights commitments. No inconsistency with those commitments was raised. The Bill was passed into legislation with the support of all parties in Parliament. There is no intention to review the Act at this very early stage of its operation.
Once a person is licensed, the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) and Immigration New Zealand (INZ) provide guidance and support on immigration matters, continuing professional development and best practice client management systems.
Research recently commissioned by the IAA shows clear evidence that migrants are more satisfied with the service they receive from licensed advisers than from unlicensed advisers. This result shows that there is a correlation between the high professional standards of licensed advisers and the level of satisfaction that their clients receive.
When mandatory licensing of onshore advisers came into effect on 4 May this year, the IAA took an educative role to point out to individuals or companies where their activities may fall short of the law, before it considered any further action.
Individuals such as yourself who regularly write about immigration issues on a website have several options open to them. You can provide publicly available information, such as information found on INZ’s website. You can also apply for a provisional licence, which requires evidence of knowledge of immigration issues but does not require the applicant to submit client files. Another alternative you can employ is to invite a licensed adviser or exempt person to contribute immigration advice to your website, For more information about who is an exempt person under the Act, please visit the IAA website at www.iaa~qovt.nz
Thank you for writing to put your concerns forward.
So, things to note.
I’ve read all 35 submissions (yes – there’s an extra one they didn’t count – I think because it came in late – and was basically weird ravings anyway), and I’ve read all the other documents, including the transcripts of all three readings of the bill. While this may suggest that I desperately need to get a life – it was actually rather interesting. Not ONCE did any MP from any party EVER talk about bad advice from other migrants. EVERY SINGLE instance of a complaint they had to deal with refers to agents charging extortionate amounts of money, and INZ staff stuffing things up. There isn’t one single mention of blogs, forums or individuals.
In fact, in all the research I’ve done, the only mention of the damage done by “informal advice” is – wait for it – from Agents. Shocking!
And yes – in a recent survey (run by the IAA so no worries about bias there then) it was found that 72% of people who used licensed agents were happy with the service, compared with “only” 57% from unlicensed agents. However – 76% were happy with the advice they got from Exempt advisors. Hmmm. So not only does the survey actually show that exempt advisors are better than licensed advisors, but it shows that despite all the rhetoric, licensed advisors have more than 25% of their clients still leaving unhappy with the service. It’s not a resounding success, no matter how they try and spin it.
And regarding the Bill of rights “Expert Scrutiny”: well, this is a case of they didn’t bother scrutinizing any part of the bill of rights except for search and seizure rules – because the original draft of the act allowed the IAA to search and seize without warrants.
Not one person EVER bothered to look at freedom of speech. They just didn’t look. So to say this bill has passed expert scrutiny is frankly a load of cobblers. They did a piss poor job and should be raked over the coals for it.
As to whether I can indeed apply for a Provisional license: well, I am awaiting news form the IAA as to whether this is in fact true, and if it is why they didn’t mention this in the first place. Lets face it – If I’m honest about this – being told I could get a provisional license would have meant that this never became an issue, and would have saved everyone a lot of hassle. Ill let you know what they say.
However, from the IAA website:
Provisional licence: allows an immigration adviser to provide immigration advice, but only under the direct supervision of a fully licensed immigration adviser. A provisional licence may be granted to new entrants to the industry, who have some knowledge of immigration matters but little or no experience and people who do not qualify for a full licence but are otherwise sufficiently competent to provide advice under supervision.
So, despite what the minister says, it isn’t suitable for people like me. I find it absurd that even the minister doesn’t understand the new law! And bearing in mind that only 72% of the time are these people doing a good job anyway – why on earth would I want to be supervised by them? If my Pharmacist supervisers were that bad – a lot of people would have died!
So, ill be putting together a further document to the minister outlining what I’ve found out and what has been missed.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Related posts:
- Immigration Advisers Licencing Act: Update 2 Responce from the minister
- So, what are the IAA doing to protect migrants?
- Letter to the Minister
Comments
3 Comments on Reply from the Minister.
-
Deborah on
Thu, 5th Nov 2009 4:46 pm
-
Deborah on
Thu, 5th Nov 2009 4:47 pm
-
Avalon on
Thu, 5th Nov 2009 5:05 pm
Dear Ms Witterbottom
At least you are special enough to receive a reply from the good Dr C!
Kind regards
ObviouslyDeborahnomates
Oh for pity’s sake! You know I meant WiNterbottom.
Apologies for not putting brain in gear before pushing submit.
D X
Im sure you will soon be getting a copy of the lovelying presented and well thought out document
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
