Big changes to immigration policy kept very quiet. Pt 1
Like silent.
The hat tip for this goes to Iain Macleod of Immagine, an Immigration agency with 4 licenced advisers. And a good blog.
It seems that Iain, like us, likes numbers, and has been tracking immigration numbers and noticed declining numbers of skilled migrants being chosen out of the pool. There has always been a “quota” of about 45,000 immigrants a year allowed in, and that has always been split between the various types of visa with about 27,000 of that supposed to come from skilled or business migrants. Now it appears that they have done away with the yearly quota for skilled migrants, and instead brought in a 3 year rolling target of 135,000 – 150,000 total immigrants across all streams.
According to Iain:
Over the past twelve months or so we uncovered what we believed to be a fundamental untruth being perpetuated by our Government on potential skilled migrants. This was that they had no real intention of approving their 27,000 (plus or minus 10%) quota of skilled migrants but nor did they want to officially ‘cut’ numbers. So they manipulated the number of EOI’s selected each fortnight and selected one third fewer EOI’s every two weeks. In other words they cut numbers…
By the end of the immigration year on 30 June they approved, at best 14% fewer skilled migrants than their lowest quota suggested they should. Or about 25% fewer than their upper quota.
History tells us that in order to meet the annual quota of 27,000 migrants around 750 EOI’s needed to be selected each fortnight from the ‘pool’.
Now, this may surprise some people (though it actually shouldn’t)- but I have to say I am damned impressed with this guy and this company. Firstly they noticed. Then they checked. Then they asked for confirmation. Then they spoke out. And it is not always easy to work through numbers provided by INZ – we have done so a number of times and sometimes it can take an awful lot of digging to find what you want.
Official approaches to the Department of Immigration were met with the usual stone-walling and eventually ended with ‘we are satisfied we are selecting enough EOI’s to meet our targets’. I said at the time that was simply ‘bull’. You didn’t have to be Einstein to see the math simply didn’t add up. Either the Department was lying, they can’t do math or they were being told to cut their numbers by the Government. I speculated it was the latter.
Then a few weeks ago I finally received from the Head of the Immigration Department a rather feeble justification and tacit confirmation that our analysis had been right all along. They did cut numbers.
It is not about ‘quantity but quality’ was the official line. This is another way of saying, yes we cut the numbers but didn’t want to tell anyone.
As the economy improves we will increase the numbers of EOI’s being selected he said. This is another way of saying, yes we know we were never going to meet our annual quota but trust us we may at some point actually be honest and look to issue the number of skilled migrant visas our Residence Programme says we will.
Ok, now I really like these guys. And it is somewhat comforting to know that INZ will try and fob off agents as well as us mere mortals! But also really good to see an agent prepared to actually call INZ out on it.
So basically, unless you are tracking the selection numbers each fortnight, you would have missed this. When we applied (way back in the mists of time when the SMC was new) we did just that, in a frantic effort to see how long it was going to be before we got selected. But most people do not do this.
So, here’s the proof that what Iain is saying is actually true. These are tables taken straight from the PDF’s that come out at each selection of Skilled Migrants out of the EOI pool.
Table 1: February 2009 – February 2010
Table 2: July 2010 to July 2011
So not only are they taking less applications out of the pool, but the pool is therefore getting bigger. Also notice that no one is being selected under the “additional criteria” anymore.
Be aware – it is now a lot harder to emigrate to New Zealand! Basically no job – no visa.
Strange spam comments from a Licenced Immigration Adviser
One of the “joys” of blogging is the inevitable spam – but we use Akismet as a spam filter, so we really don’t have to wade through much of it. Every so often I clear out the blog’s spam filter, and did just that a few weeks ago – when I didn’t have pages and pages of the stuff to work through. I came across 2 comments apparently from Woburn International (Licenced Immigration Agents)- that Akismet had filtered as spam:
Now, these aren’t “typical” spam, in that unlike most spam, they actually relate to the post they comment on. Most spam is gibberish, just like spam you get in your email box, and is produced by spambots – it’s all automated, and relies on the blog not having a spam filter and the blogger not having comments needing moderation for first time commenters. The first one actually responds to a previous comment :
Martin Says:
June 17th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
Well, a bachelor’s degree from an Indian or Indonesian university does not mean there are heaps of job waiting for you in NZ.
Even if you are fast enough to get in the system in 30 seconds as one had to this year.
These visas are a joke. The system needs to be mended and made simpler, but not like this.
And – the web address actually takes you to the real Woburn International Website – complete with IAA licencing logo, and the principle Licenced Adviser at Woburn International is one June Ranson. And it really is June’s email address, as listed on the IAA website. So why is “June” - A licenced adviser – leaving comments on an Immigration blog, pretending to be a client of Woburn International and saying how great they are?
And WHY would you do such a crappy job of it? I mean if you are going to say “Use this company – they are really great and they really helped me” – WHY oh WHY would you use the email and web address of the company?
Well, thats where the IP address comes in – it’s logged to the Philippines.
Which suggests (and it is only a suggestion) that Woburn are paying people offshore to leave comments on blogs and websites to drum up business. It’s a really shitty and stupid way of “internet marketing” and tends to get you nothing more than a bad reputation – but still – many people do it – often because they have been told by some internet marketing “guru” that it will drive loads of traffic to their website.
Now there is obviously a chance that this is not June Ranson, and that Woburn International have nothing to do with this. So I sent them a message through their “Contact us” page on the 23rd June, asking if it is legitimate and if they really did send the comments. I did get a response, and have tried to work with the company on this, and given them a few opportunities to come clean, but they currently deny all knowledge of it. I have explained where the problem seems to lie, and that this is actually quite serious. You see there is another alternative – which is that someone is deliberately trying to crash the companies reputation and get their website listed as spam – which is something I have suggested to them. I am still getting no response other than the first response which is that they didn’t do it.
Unfortunately – this is not something that can “accidental happen”. Either someone at Woburn is paying someone to do this, or someone is deliberately trying to muddy Woburn’s reputation.
Only now, a few weeks later, I have another comment left on the blog, this time with a private hotmail email address, but still linking to Woburn’s website. So having taken the time to alert the company to the fact that they should not be doing this – they carry on doing it. The third comment is better – in that the English is much improved, and doesn’t outright pretend to be a client telling you all you should use Woburn because they are so good. But it is still someone commenting on a blog and attempting to drive traffic to the Woburn website, and not openly commenting as someone who works for the company. It’s also still coming in from a Philippines IP address.
The first comment shows a typical spam comment.
Sloppy – completely unprofessional – and shocking behaviour from the company of someone who was not only one of the first agents to get a licence, but also sat on the IAA advisory board. But then this is not the first time that Woburn have tried to use this blog for free advertising. When I first started highlighting issues with the Immigration Advisers Licencing Act, one of their staff made numerous comments here, and in the end was banned for being abusive. He had offered to act as a “supervisor” for my posts, and I then found out he was not licenced – so actually not legally allowed to make that offer. When I questioned him about it, he became abusive. He also claimed that he could get away with it because he knew people in the IAA, so he was not concerned about the possibility of me making a complaint.
And these people want to be taken seriously as a “profession”. Get real!
So I am now giving them (free of charge) the advertising they so desperately want. Much good may it do them – and serve them right. Dishonesty like this is is actually also in contravention of the Code of Conduct that all Licenced Advisers sign up to:
I personally think that paying people to pretend (badly) to be a client of your own company and leave false and fake comments all over the internet is covered by that. The third commenter has also started writing articles on article directories, which also link through to Woburn’s website – without ever saying in the article that he is writing on behalf of a company looking to make money out of selling Immigration “Advice”.
This one will be going to the IAA complaint section, because I am actually quite upset at an immigration agent trying to use my blog like this. I have given Woburn every opportunity to clear this up and I am being ignored. The person I was dealing with directly was very polite (and happens to be someone who worked for INZ and treated me very kindly – so I held off doing anything about this until this third attempt to blag free advertising via my blog) however agents need to be told that if they want to claim they are worthy of licencing – they need to start behaving like professionals.
It’s not as if the code of conduct they have to agree to is at all strenuous or complicated. Real professionals have entire books of codes of ethics to deal with.
I personally doubt that the IAA will take this any more seriously than Woburn has, but then if the comments from Ivan Flynn were anything to go by – I guess they feel they have nothing to worry about, and they will be protected by their influence with the IAA. But the fact remains that while IAA licenced advisers keep pulling this kind of crap, people such as myself and Move2NZ are not going to take the licence seriously, or the people who get it. And if any Advisers out there want to know why this blog wont actually just shut up and go away? Well – this is why. I was berated quite rudely a while back by an agent who objected to my continuing dislike of the industry, and told in no uncertain terms that I should say nice things instead. Well, as I said then – I would love to, it’s just that it’s actually not my fault that companies like this refuse to follow the IAA rules and behave appropriately.
My “advise”? Stay well away from Woburn International and if you really must use an immigration agent – use one that advertises honestly and puts it’s name to it’s adverts – and preferably has the decency to pay for its advertising through proper channels.
Meeting with IAA – why the beef about blogs?
In November 2009, a few months after this blog appreared in the New Zeaalnd Herald, the IAA released a news letter than states:
When is a blog a breach?
Licensed immigration advisers will be aware that the Immigration Advisers Authority strives to take an educative approach to any individual whose activities appear to be in breach of the Act. As a general rule, we’d prefer to encourage people into the licensed adviser community, than hound them out of the industry.
Much of the recent media interest in the Authority has been as a result of complaints from individuals who host websites. There have been recent instances when people have approached the Authority asking for clarification of their particular circumstances. We have given guidance to these individuals on whether their activities appear to breach the Act.
People who occasionally visit migrant websites and discuss their personal experiences as a migrant in response to questions from prospective migrants would appear to be exempt under Section 11(a) of the Act (providing ‘immigration advice in an informal or family context only, so long as the advice is not provided systematically or for a fee’) but website hosts, who lead and direct discussion topics, may be operating in a systematic manner.
We encourage migrant website bloggers to work alongside a licensed immigration adviser or exempt person, to ensure the information on their site is accurate and up-to-date.
Since this came out, my question has always been – why on earth is there a difference in the eyes of the IAA between me writing on a blog and me writing on a forum. The cynical answer is that forum posters are a lot more anonymous than bloggers, something that Mr Smedts agreed with. But just because you can find me and prosecute me, doesn’t make what I do (or not do) any more or less illegal just because of where I do it. We talked at length about this, and to be honest, I am not sure I got my point across. This is a huge issue when people in positions of power make decisions when they clearly do not understand what they are talking about.
Mr Smedts just doesn’t know what the difference between a blog and a forum is. In fact, if I go back and look at my early emails, the language from the IAA shows a huge incomprehension of the world of the internet – referring to forumites as “chatters”
. The fact is, if giving “advice” is illegal, and if someone somewhere would bother to define that in a way that doesn’t require logical gymnastics, then it should be illegal whether you speak it, write it on a forum, write it on a blog, write it in a Newspaper or write it in a book.
The minute you class one method of giving advice as fundamentally different from any others, you totally invalidate your argument. The minute you say that “I” am automatically giving advice systematically, but someone writing on a forum isn’t, then you have stepped way over the line.
So let’s look at the numbers.
I have explained to Mr Smedts that in over 2 years of writing this blog, I have written a massive 22 blogs which could be considered “advisory” in nature – out of 688 – or 3.2% of my posts. As compared with over 1500 posts I made on the ENZ forum in 18 months, of which literally hundreds were giving people specific advice and information in answer to very specific questions.
This is what forums do – people ask questions and other people answer them. Whereas on a blog – someone like me waffles on about what interests them: we do not answer questions as a whole, and while comments are made – its nothing like the question and answer sessions that go on on forums, something I would certainly deem to be systematic- you ask a question, I (or any one of the thousands of members) answers it to the best of our knowledge based on our own experience and what we look up.
Yet the stance of the IAA is still that Blogs are more dangerous.
Anyone else think this is just a little barmy?
New Zealand politics seems to have a real bee in it’s bonnet over blogs. They seem to think we are all subversive, troublemakers and that anything written by us is automatically dangerous to the rest of the public. I have no idea how you fight that level of silliness and lack of understanding – we just could not successfully explain to Mr Smedts that he was totally barking up the wrong tree on this issue.
Of course – the fact that this is possibly the only NZ Immigrant blog currently being written that isn’t a personal lifestyle blog is also lost on them (as far as I know anyway)
Another blogger in NZ is being sued for $250,000 for defamation after writing about Peter Jansen, a senior medical adviser at ACC. It’s a tiny blog (even smaller than mine – with less views and followers- 15 in fact), and yet Dr Jansen believes that the harm and embarrassment received from this blog is worth suing over. And totally lost is the fact that as happened with Avalon’s Guide – the issue got into the media BECAUSE of his action, and worse – ended up on Kiwiblog – the most popular and widely read blog in NZ, let alone being splashed all over the papers, internet in general and in parliament. Now everyone knows who he his, and what the blogger alleges he has done (or not done) – and that he was enough of an idiot to take legal action over comments on an arse-end-of-nowhere blog and thus ensure everyone got to see the comments. It’s called the Streisand Effect.
(To put this in context, my blogs gets around 200 “views” a day. Kiwiblog gets around 11,000 views a day. Note to NZ politicians and anyone with any power whatsoever:
WE ARE NOT ALL KIWIBLOG!
And even if we were – we have the right to speak out, and we (should) have the right to offer advise and support to people who ask for it.
Mr Smedts knows that he doesn’t understand this, and has said that he will be looking into this for which I am exceedingly grateful. I have asked him to specifically look at retracting the stance taken in the November 2009 Newsletter, and acknowledge that there is no difference between bloggers, website owners and forum posters. Either we are all breaking the law, or none of us are.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Meeting with IAA – What is immigration advice?
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Immigration Advisers, NZIS & Immigration issues
So to recap – my issue with the IALA is that the way it is written means that immigrants are the only section of the New Zealand public who are not allowed to give each other advice. Talking to Mr Smedts, the issue still revolves around whether the advice you give is “informal” or “Formal” and my own person piece of irritating claptrap “systematic” or “not Systematic”. Since nearly two years down the line, no one can actually tell me what those two things mean – we are still basically nowhere further on than when I first discovered that the IALA didn’t actually do what it was supposed to do.
As far as I am concerned, any advice I do happen to give to people is always informal and is in no way systematic and is therefore not covered by this law. I have never been an Immigration agent, am not an immigration agent and never want to be an immigration agent. I still find it quite offensive that this law essentially says that immigrants are too stupid to know that the advice they are given on forums or by people they meet on their journey is not being given by someone who works in the industry. (I would say who is not qualified to give the advise – but as yet no immigration agent is actually qualified – though that will change in the future).
Mr Smedts was surprised to hear from me that his staff have already told me, and his newsletter of November 2009 already states, that Blogs and Forum owners are deemed to be acting systematically (and therefore are giving what, under the law, is now called “immigration advice”), whereas people posting on forms are unlikely to be. I tried my best to explain that there is bugger all difference between advice no matter where it is written (blog, newspaper, forum, book) but I think we reached an impasse there to be honest.
Then we still have an issue that the IAA believes that an awful lot of harm and damage is being done to immigrants by this “informal advice” on blogs and forums. I would like to see one piece of immigration advice written on a blog mind you – because I would bet there isn’t any – other than what I have written that the IAA could deem to be advice if they chose to. (If you happen to be reading this and know of, or write a blog on such issues – do let me know!)
Yet, as part of the preparation for this meeting – I reviewed the three Bill Readings that the IALA went through.
And I still can’t see one speech by any politician from any party who even vaguely suggested that the harmful “advice” they were trying to prevent us from being harmed by was ever from another immigrant. The only people who ever mentioned it – in the submissions – were (you guessed it) Immgration Agents with a rather large vested interest in forcing immigrants to pay them money for advice they could have got for free before.
In fact the most classic illustration of what went so utterly wrong when the IALA was written is this, from the very first reading of the bill in parliament:
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) :
This bill, though, could be termed the “Tuariki Delamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs, so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires, but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked, and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it, I found that the New Zealand Herald was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category.”
So look – the IALA was set up to stop people like Mr Delamere causing harm and damage to immigrants (and the reputation of NZ), not other immigrants like me. So why:
Now to be clear – Tuariki Delamere was acquitted of all charges. Not because he didn’t recycle $1,000,000 dollars of his business partner’s money through 7 immigrants – but because technically it wasn’t illegal to do so at the time. It was however contrary to the whole sodding point of the immigration laws and beyond unethical and considered exactly the kind of thing that a new law was needed to prevent.
It was never considered necessary to write a law making it illegal for me to answer questions on how to immigrate to New Zealand.
Yet he has a licence and still makes a lot of money from immigrants to act as their agent, and I, according to Mr Smedts should not do anything more than cut and paste from the Ops Manual. If I do, I am customising the advice, and therefore am giving “immigration advice”.
An example I asked about.
Say I am asked by someone who has had a Kidney Transplant if they can emigrate here? My Answer would be (if it was legal) that you will basically have a bloody hard job getting in, because transplants are an Apendix 10 condition and that means you do not have an acceptable standard of health. You would have to apply for and be granted a Medical Waiver. I would then copy and paste the relevent bits of the ops manual with links as to where to find them.
Mr Smedts would prefer that all I do is the copy and paste bit. Saying you are going to have a really hard time of it is customising the advice, no matter how true it is. I have no idea why- it makes no sense to me, and to be honest I don’t think it ever will. And by the way – this didnt stop a fully licenced agent from NOT telling a client of his this information and costing the an awful lot of money in INZ fees, and the RRB & INZ [RRB case 15350 if the link doesn't work] taking a very dim view of the crap “advice” the licenced agent gave his client.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Meeting with the IAA – Introduction
Last week I had a meeting with Barry Smedts, the registrar of the IAA. This was a meeting that I was invited to, so I have to confess to be more than a little nervous. I mean – with the best will in world, when the head of a govt department asks to see you – it is a tad terrifying, especially when you have often been less than complementary about said department. I’m blogging this in parts because there was an awful lot of information!
Well, Mr Smedts was very friendly and approachable – for which I have to say I am ever so grateful and quite impressed. As I have often said (so Hubby reminds me) that you should be able to sort out most issues if people would just sit down and have a chat over a coffee and piece of cake – this seemed like a really good (if scary) opportunity to put that to the test (sans coffee and cake but what the hell).
I actually didn’t know what the meeting was going to be about, so tried to be as prepared as I could with printouts of emails and various useful tidbits I’ve saved over the past 2 years or so. (The file I have at home is actually quite large!)
Essentially, Mr Smedts wanted to go over with me difference between the IAA’s role in looking at Offences against the IALA, and complaints against licensed agents – which are two of their areas of operation. Offences are where they look for and prosecute people acting as unlicensed agents. Complaints are where immigrants who use the services of an agent are complaining about the service they have received. Their latest newsletter has a piece about this – I personally find the difference in language used when discussing complaints about advisers (rather soft and fluffy) and that used when talking about offences (aggressive and all we-will-throw-the-book-at-them) to pretty sum up what I see as the problem.
I have already been told (and sorry – I am way behind in blogging about this) that the IAA is unable to look into the actions of Licensed Agents – even if it is made blatantly obvious in newspapers articles or the RRB now Immigration Protection Tribunal cases – unless someone makes an official complaint. Mr Smedts has confirmed this, and understands my frustration at it. But it should also be noted that this in itself is not the fault of the IAA – but the sodding lousy way the Immigration Advisers Licensing act was written. I hope whoever did it is never allowed anywhere near another law in their life!
If I wish action to be taken about the cases of blatant incompetence that I have been told about or read in the papers, I need to make a complaint. To be honest – I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. It is frankly not my job, and I feel the IAA should do that if they wish to retain the tag line Licenced Professionals = Protected Migrants. They after all get paid a wage to do that. I do not.
He has also told me that there are 4 complaints currently being heard against Licensed Immigration Advisers, by the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. 43 complaints have been put forward to the tribunal, and it was only in October last year I believe that someone was appointed to head the tribunal. So again – in all fairness, it does look like the cases before the tribunal will now start going ahead. I personally think that is a huge step in the right direction. I would like to see more of that and less mind boggling belief in the danger of immigrants advising other immigrants.
You can look at the decisions that have been made some of them are anonymous (which is really helpful if, as a migrant, you want to know which advisers not to touch). Its all in PDF form and seems remarkably complicated but hopefully it will get easier to search as more decisions are made.
The rest of the meeting was centred around my blog, what I do (and more importantly what I do NOT do) and what we should all be allowed to do but the law technically does not allow us to.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Answers from the Immigration Advisers Authority (part 2)
6. Could we please have a copy of the last yearly financial report.
The Department of Labour’s annual report which contains a summary of the Immigration Advisers Authority financial performance in 2010 is available online at http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/general/ar0910/ar-0910_15.asp.
A summary is not a financial report. I mean – imagine telling the inland revenue you owe them 5c in tax based on a “summary” that, it turns out, actually doesn’t even include all your spending? They wouldn’t bother laughing at you – they would do you for tax evasion!
It is simply not possible for any organization not to have a proper breakdown of income and expenditure – without it you can’t have a budget for a start.
Anyway – I sent an email about this issue.
Unfortunately, one of my questions wasn’t really answered, so I am afraid I need to ask you to re-look at it please? This regards the financial report I asked for. I did not ask where I could find a summary of the financial report – I asked for the report itself (i.e. what is submitted to the DOL). I already had access to the summary, indeed, I have a copy of it on the blog already, which is why we have some questions about it and want to see the underlying figures.
So while I really don’t wish to be awkward, could you please forward a copy of the IAA financial report for last year as requested.
The response to this was
I’m sorry for the delay in answering your question. The reason for the delay is that there is no financial report other than the one we provided to you. I needed to do a number of checks before responding to you with this answer.
The Immigration Advisers Authority is part of the Department of Labour and does not have separate financial reporting obligations. The legal background to this is set out below:
The Department is required under the Public Finance Act to:
- Provide a set of financial accounts for the Departmental expenditure.
- Provide a set of financial accounts for non Departmental expenditure if section 32A is met.
The Immigration Advisers Authority has both Departmental as well as Non Departmental income and expenditure.
We do not produce financial accounts separately for the Immigration Advisers Authority’s Departmental costs.
Section 32A does not require the Immigration Advisers Authority to produce separate accounts for the non Departmental costs.
My response:
What I want to know is what makes up the $391,000 income shown on the DOL report, and what makes up the $1.286m expenses in the last year. I was working on the presumption that someone, somewhere should have a breakdown for that. If it actually isn’t the IAA that holds that information – would you be able to pass me on to whomever does?
At this point, the lady I was speaking to called me, as it was going to be easier to work this out via a chat. One of the issues with someone like me (as opposed to someone with a background in journalism or government departments) is that I really don’t know the “magic words” that will unlock the information I want. I know exactly what I am after, but if it’s called something very different in the hallowed halls of power – I won’t get the answer I actually want.
What I did find out after that call is that the $391,000 income is from License fees paid by the Agents, and the $1.286m is the cost of providing those licenses.
I kid you not.
There are a whole bundle of other expenses which are not included in the DOL summary. Strange that. I have asked for that breakdown as well. I did mention in the chat that this department is supposed to be self funding. This came as a surprise to my contact, who said that this was not true. So now I have to read through all the bumph I have to find out where I read that (as I recall I read it several times). It’s not something I would make up – I must have got it from somewhere.
The fact as I remember it is that the Licensing fee was set so that with a certain number of agents licensed, their fees would cover the cost of the IAA.
Of course – I have to wait 20 days for the “new” official information request.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Answers from the Immigration Advisers Authority (part 1)
1. How many staff currently work for the IAA.
As at 25 January 2011, 21 staff worked for the Immigration Advisers Authority including permanent and fixed-term staff.
a. How many are full time and how many are part time?
As at 25 January 2011, 20 staff were full time. One staff member was part-time.
This clears up an issue highlighted by Mike Bell, who said that he was told they had 50 staff. I am advised that he probably misheard 15 – which was the staff level at the time. I was speaking to the same person.
2. You list 170 TTMRA advisers — are they included in the 512 licences or are they on top of that number?
At 23 January 2011 there were 525 licensed advisers of which 156 were licensed through the Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement ( TTMRA).
(So basically – this means that that there are even less agents available than the IAA are advertising. Bearing in mind that the 525 covers all licences - not full licences, and then it turns out that 156 of those are licences granted under the TTMRA – ie for Australian agents who automatically have the right to a New Zealand Licence.
It all looks a bit – well – overpromised and underdelivered doesnt it?)
3. Could we please have an organisational chart showing how many people are employed at each level of the organisation.
a. Could this please include job titles where possible?
Well, this is pretty good news – most of the staff are actually visibly front line staff – looking at licencing new agents or investigating current agents.
4 How many of your staff are on secondment from DOL or INZ?
As at 25 January 2011, there were no staff on secondment from the other parts of the Department of Labour including Immigration New Zealand.
5. How many IAA staff are “customer facing” (ie deal directly with agents) and how many are internal staff only and do not have direct contact with agents?
All staff can have contact with advisers. The extent of contact varies between roles. The assessors, investigators. Registrar, senior communications adviser and licensing administration officers are likely to have most contact. The operational policy manager, business manager, executive business administrator and executive assistant are likely to have least contact but do have contact from time to time.
I see this as a good thing in many ways. Perhaps it is a sympton of being a small department, but I feel that not having a huge gap between “management” and the “customers” prevents a lot of arrogance. Its something you see in any organisation – not just Govt. Departments, where there is just no interaction between the people ruuning the department and the people they are supposed to be looking after.
Of course in this case – it should perhaps be stated that the IAA should actually be working for Immigrants – the people they advertise that they protect – and not immigration agents. The organisation chart shows the unblanced nature of the IAA in this regard, with 6 assesors looking at licencing agents, and 3 investigators looking at complaints from immigrants regarding those agents.
And that is one of my main issues with the IAA!
6. Could we please have a copy of the last yearly financial report.
The Department of Labour’s annual report which contains a summary of the Immigration Advisers Authority financial performance in 2010 is available online at http://www.doLoovt.nzipublications/peneral/gen-annual-reportasp.
This deserves and will get a post all to itself, because I did not ask for a summary, and I have actually had to put in another OIR to get the right answers. The summary above by the way – is already posted on this blog, and was one of the reasons why we decided to start asking some questions.
7. How many complaints have so far been made to the IAA about the behaviour of Licensed Agents,
a. How many agents does that involve?
8. How many of those complaints have so far been investigated.
a. (I am not intrested in how many “so called” unlicensed advisers you have targeted such as Move2NZ.)
As at 25 January 2011, 37 complaints about individual licensed advisers had been accepted as meeting the criteria under section 44 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 and had been investigated and referred to the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. The IACDT is an independent Tribunal within the Ministry of Justice.
(Which has only just had someone appointed to run it after all this time)
As at 25 January 2011, a further three complaints about licensed advisers were under investigation.
Of course that also didnt answer the question about how many agents that involved. Was it one really crap agent, or are 37 out of the massive 434 that were fully licenced at that time bad enough to have warrented investigation so far.
And why is this not being mentioned in the newsletters that the IAA put out?
I would also like to make everyone aware that the IAA have no power or authroity it seems to actually read the newspapers, look at cases that are taken to the old RRB or the new Immigration and Protection Tribunal, where there is a mine of information showing that licenced immigration agnenst are failing both ethically and competantly to do ther jobs properly and are causing untold problems for immigrants.
This more than anything needs to change – its just shameful.
9. Could we have copies of any minutes of meetings between INZ and the Authority relating to the creation of the 1NZ email address for immigration advisers.
There are no minutes of any meetings between Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and the Authority relating to the creation of the !NZ email address for immigration advisers. The Authority was informed by email from INZ of the creation of this email address.
Well, isnt that interesting. On the question of who is lying about application put in by agents getting priorirty – the IAA says its INZ that are telling porkies.
As of today, the INZ website still states:
Asking someone to help with your application
We treat all applications equally – whether you apply yourself or through an adviser, agent or representative.
Which is clearly – bollocks.
10. Could you please explain how one Denise Ella Sonnya Ah Tune of Leififi Travel and Tours was granted a licence (no. 201001701)?
This one so deserves its own post!
In general – answers are forthcoming, and I have clearly not been refused any of the information I am after. Where I have not got quite what I want – it seems to be more a case of a lack of understanding between the two parties rather than the IAA attempting to hide anything! This is in contrast to Mike’s experience, but then, we are also coming at this from two different start points – as in the IAA have never actually threatened me, and are not at risk of legal action from me. On saying that – Mike has had a great deal of help from the Ombudsman, whereas my dealing with them suggest they are in the pocket of INZ – so go figure!
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Why my Official Information Request was delayed.
Having being told that for some reason 20 working days was not long enough for the IAA to get the requested information to me and being, I felt, somewhat fobbed off with the response that
We have been requested to consult with the Minister of Immigration on the release and have allowed an extra week for this.
I passed an email back to the Operation Manager for further details.
I am sorry to be a pain, but who has requested the Minister be consulted over releasing information under the OIA, and why? I would also like to know if all the information I have requested is subject to this consultation, or just some of it? If it just certain parts, then could you tell me which parts?
Also, does the IAA have a written policy regarding the handling of requests made under the OIA? Because this seems to be rather an odd way of dealing with what should be a fairly simple request to be honest, and is quite concerning.
The reply I got was a bit clearer to be honest, but I felt it was slightly unprofessional – and getting into the tones that I have come to expect from the Immigration Department.
The request for Ministerial consultation came from the Executive and Governance Support unit of the Department of Labour which co-ordinates all of the Department’s Official Information Act requests. The purpose of the consultation is so that the Minister is informed of what will be released into the public domain prior to its release. It is very standard practice for releases under the Official Information Act to go through the Minister’s office before being released and is no need for concern.
The Immigration Advisers Authority follows the Department of Labour’s guidelines for processing Official Information Act requests. Under the Official Information Act the Department may request the time allowed for any requests for two reasons only. These are set out at section 15A of the Official Information Act and cover requests for large amounts of information and the need for consultations only.
I note that the extension is quite short and we may be able to get the information to you sooner.
You are of course welcome to complain to the Ombudsman as set out in the extension letter if you do not consider that the extension is justified.
I apologise again for the extension. Please let me know if you have any further questions
Now, what really peeves me about this sort of thing (and I should note that I do not for one minute think the IAA is alone in behaving like this) is that the first official reply I had regarding my request was from Executive and Governance Support Unit, and then of course I had a letter from the Registrar. And yet neither of them mentioned that this would be suject to oversight by the minister and that this may cause a delay.
And to be honest – if that is the usual proceedure – you should be making sure you do it within the 20 days allowed, not allow yoursleves extra time by creating an extra step that is actually part of your normal process. I think that decidedly fudging the rules. Extensions should be for when the request means you cannot action it within the 20 days.
I also took issue with the rather condesending comment (again – something common with the INZ) that the time frame requested was quite short. I responded that I found it:
actually quite unhelpful and unnecessary.
I have never mentioned needing to make a complaint, and had no intention of doing so. I think it was entirely fair enough to ask what was happening given that Mr Smedts had not seen fit to explain the process your department uses. And neither yourself in your email or phone call with me, nor (Exec & Governance) in his letter of 8th February, ever mentioned that your response would require oversight from the Ministers office. Especially as (Exec) is an acting manager of the division who apparently asked for this review. One could safely assume therefore that any of you were aware that this is “standard practice” and could have let me know at any time.So I would appreciate it if you would understand the confusion caused and take some responsibility for it. It is irrelevant how short the extension is. The OIA gives a time limit of 20 days, and if you do not feel able to comply with that, courtesy alone suggests that you give a proper explanation as to why your processes cannot accommodate that and which parts of the requested information are causing the issue.
May I respectfully suggest that clearer communication may be in order when dealing with these requests? While a complaint may be made to the Ombudsman, clear and honest communication often avoids the need for such complaints, and surely that is a better outcome for everyone?
I find it amazing that given a common complaint about immigration agents is lack of communication (borne out by even the IAA’s own research) that the IAA behaved like this.
Oddly enough, I did not get an apology or even a response to that final email.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
My Official Information Request with the IAA
As you may know I have decided to ask for some Information from the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) using the Official Information Act.
The questions I have asked are:
- How many staff currently work for the IAA.
- How many are full time and how many are part time?
- You list 170 TTMRA advisers – are they included in the 512 licences or are they on top of that number?
- Could we please have an organisational chart showing how many people are employed at each level of the organisation.
- Could this please include job titles where possible?
- How many of your staff are on secondment from DOL or INZ?
- How many IAA staff are “customer facing” (ie deal directly with agents) and how many are internal staff only and do not have direct contact with agents?
- Could we please have a copy of the last yearly financial report.
- How many complaints have so far been made to the IAA about the behaviour of Licensed Agents.
- How many agents does that involve?
- How many of those complaints have so far been investigated.
(I am not interested in how many “so called” unlicensed advisers you have targeted such as Move2NZ.)
- Could we have all minutes of meetings between INZ and the IAA please?
- Could you please explain how one Denise Ella Sonnya Ah Tune of Leififi Travel and Tours was granted a licence (no. 201001701)?
- In a recent article she claims to have done so by completing 3 exams that were “too difficult to understand”.
- Has the process for applying for a licence changed from that advised on your website?
- Can we please see evidence that this licence was correctly granted?
- Who was she supervised by for a year on a provisional licence?
- Are you aware that this Licensed adviser seems to claiming that she has the authority to decide on Visa issues?
Now straight away I had a phone call from the Operation Policy Manager, because they wanted to just clarify some of the details of what I wanted to know. All perfectly fine, and as far as I can see, really good “customer service” to be honest. Most of this was regarding the issue over this “Licenced Adviser” in Samoa who took these exams. And fair enough, it was clarified that I may not be able to have access to some of the information for privacy reasons – she would have to give the IAA permission to give me the information.
(Actually I have since found out this is not quite true – and I will have to follow it up with the ombudsman. Privacy does not in itself allow an agency to refuse to answer an IOR)
I have stressed that what I need is information that the IAA should be able to give to anyone because essentiallythey need to be able to prove that the licencing system really is robust, and that people are given the licence only if they really know what they are doing. I really don’t need to see any private information, so that’s fine.
I also needed to clarify what meeting notes I wanted to see between INZ and teh IAA as theres an awful lot of information and notes. Now this does slightly concern me, as it is not the IAA’s job to be continually meeting with INZ. The IAA are there to licence agents. Supposedly.
During this converstation, I was also told that Barry Smedts, the regsitrar had been reading my blog, and would like a meeting with me. I have said at this point I was more than willing to do this as long as the meeting was more than a marketing excerise, and he was willing to listen to the issues I am raising.
I recieved an email from the Department of labour on the 9th Februaray telling me that Barry Smedts would be responding to my request by the 23rd Februray.
I recieved a letter by email from Barry Smedts on the 14th telling me that they were extedning the time available to it to answer (my) request. The reason given (they have to give a reason) was “that consultations necessary to make a desision are such that a proper responce cannot reasonable be made within the origianl time limit”.
I was given the contact details of the original Operaltions policy manager, and the next day flicked an email to them asking them to explain whay the hold up was, given that they had led me to beleive this was fairly straightforward. I was told:
We have been requested to consult with the Minister of Immigration on the release and have allowed an extra week for this.
So now Im getting a bit peeved. The IAA believe that I am being unfair about them in my blog, but when I ask them for information – as is my right – they start using delaying tactics. What the hell does this have to do with the minister – and why is he being asked to consult on this? I have asked WHO has requested this, and if it is all the information I have requested that is the issue – or just some of it. I am waiting for a responce.
Basically – this still stinks – and if the IAA are concerned that I am not given them the rosy write up they feel I should – perhaps they need to look at how they are behaving. It is easier to get information out of Immigration New Zealand!
(Note: this was written some time ago, but due to completely unconnected reasons, didn’t get posted. Follow ups are now being written.)
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
When will INZ and Immigration Advisers be held responsible for their stuff-ups?
Filed under: Immigration Advisers, NZIS & Immigration issues
Erika Diaz was given 10 days to decide whether to send her daughters, Javiera, 16, and Carolina Vega, 10, home to Chile or quit her studies after Immigration made an error processing her visa application a year ago.
The upshot of this story is that Erika won a scholoship from Chile to study for a Masters degree in New Zealand. She has one year left on the 2 year scholarship. When she got her visa, her children (aged 16 and 10)were given Student Dependency Visas by the embassy in Santiago, which meant they were able to get education in NZ as domestic students. Which is free. However, they were not supposed to get that, and should have been classed as foreign students and been expected to pay for thier education, and prove there were funds available to support them.
So Immigration New Zealand then wrote to the daughters telling them to pay the international fees or return to Chile.
Nice!
So what went wrong?
Well, I have zero experience of student visas, basically because it’s not something we had to look at, but essentially the problem is that unless you have a residence visa or work visa, your children are not classed as domestic students. You would have to apply seperately for them to have student visas, and then you have to prove you have funds to support yourself, and pay international fees of about $19,000:
If you will be studying for less than 36 weeks, you need to provide evidence of funds of NZ$1000 for each month of study.
If you will be studying for 36 weeks or more, you need to provide evidence of NZ$10,000 for each year of study
All the notes for applying for Student Visas are here.
This is a bit of a stuff up. Erica has said that if she had known she would have to pay to send her children to school here she would not have applied for the scholarship. Now I personally don’t really see this as acceptable – we should be aware of the rules before we come here, but I also fully understand that no matter how smart you are (and I think it’s safe to assume she is rather smart) sometimes you just cannot get your head round immigration policy. But the bottom line is that it is up to us to make sure we do understand it.
Indeed – the article has an interesting quote:
“On the basis of this error, INZ will issue three-month visas to allow Ms Diaz’s daughters to continue their education in New Zealand while we work with her to ensure the family meets immigration requirements for a further visa,” he said.
“However, her immigration adviser was told that Ms Diaz’s daughters would have to pay international school fees,” he said.
Well, theres a bit of an almighty cock-up! While it is possible that Ms Diaz missed the bit about her daughters not being domestic students – how the hell did an immigration adviser not bother to tell her this???
And why are these people not being named so that other immigrants know not to use them? Now perhaps the agent wasn’t licenced as they came to NZ in February 2010, and offshore licencing wasnt in place until May 2010. But there certainly aren’t any licenced agents in Chile, so I think its highly likely that it was an onshore adviser and therefore licenced. Ooops! Another Licended agent who can’t be arsed to do thier job properly? Are the Immigration Advisers Authority going to start asking who this is and why they failed to do thier job properly?
Besides – I really don’t think a 3 month repreive cuts the mustard. INZ stuffed up, the agent stuffed up, and Ms Diaz and her children should not have to suffer because of that. Immigration should have to either fork out the fees themselves, or these children need to be exemted. I personally don’t care how it is done – as long as someone with a brain does what is needed to solve the problem – and that does not involve putting these people through the grief of having to apply for anything.
But hey – thats just my opinion.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
