Ridiculous
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
A blogger who came to New Zealand from Britain has been warned to stop giving immigration advice on her blog – or face prosecution under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act.
The Immigration Advisers Authority says Helen Winterbottom was breaking the law by posting on avalonsguide.com, and has told her she must get a licence if she wants to continue.
Yes Immigration advisers are now licenses, but those enforcing the law should be able to recognise the difference between someone who is in business charging fees for immigration advice, and a blogger talking about their immigration experiences online.
And if no such discretion is possible under the law, it is a damn stupid law that should be repealed.
Sadly it may not be the only one. The new regulating of financial advisers may also capture far more widely than intended, according to Stephen Franks.
But the former pharmacist said she was only “speaking her mind” on her blog, which she started last November, and did not have any intention of becoming an immigration adviser.
Ms Winterbottom said she did not have the written warning, but had been told by the authority that one of her blog entries broke the law.
“I can’t believe that in New Zealand we have a law that makes it a criminal offence to offer advice to someone,” she said. “It really takes away our basic right to freedom of speech.
“My blog is an immigration support forum, so discussing the topic openly is what we do, just like support forums for people who have a specific illness.
That sort of blog should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Mr Smedts said the act was in place to protect migrants from poor advice.
“If someone is giving immigration advice, they must be licensed, unless exempt.
“Helen Winterbottom has suggested in her blog on July 6 that she is exempt, but she does not fit any category of exemption that we are aware of.”
Lawyers, diplomats and MPs are exempt from licensing.
“If bloggers wish to continue writing about immigration issues, they need to consider if they are giving immigration advice as defined by the act,”Mr Smedts said.
“If the answer is yes, are they licensed or exempt, and if not, I recommend they either apply for a licence or invite a licensed adviser or exempt person to contribute to their blogs.”
My suggestion is every blogger in New Zealand starts giving immigration advice on their blogs, and we all appear in court together.
The Act may be well intentioned, but the vast majority of people realise that free advice on a blog or a forum, is just that – free advice. It is not official advice. It is not paid advice. It is not expert advice. It is people sharing experiences. Now the site does have an e-book available for sale but it appears to be a general read about why people should move to NZ etc.
I hope Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman investigates this situation, and if a law change is needed, promotes one. The Government does not want a blogger in court charged with the crime of talking about immigration issues.
Related posts:
- A wrong call
- More free speech under attack from Immigration Act
- Labour’s package
- Ridiculous criticism
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:21 am
I had a small and insignificant blog which I closed because the terms of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act of 2007 made it impossible to even say to a person qualified in a field on the skills shortage list that “it is better to settle in [name of NZ city, town or district] than [name of NZ city, town or district]“.
Vote:The act was not well intentioned; it was meant to keep the Immigration Department secure from informed criticism, but pretended to be about protecting immigrants; it may have had some clauses with the latter intent, but central to it is the idea that the immigration department should not be held accountable by amateurs.
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:43 am
I advise all would be immigrants to complain to the immigration department that the only decent advice they can get is from unlicensed advisers.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 7:49 am
If a potential immigrant got their advice from a blog and this turned out to be poor information which caused them issues of some sort I would have no sympathy for them unless they had supplemented this with information from more official channels. Let the buyer beware/personal responsibility etc.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 7:52 am
This why we need a Constitution in NZ. One that protects freedom of speech and keeps snivelling little power drunk bureaucrats in their place.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am
The Act was not well intentioned it was a means for lawyers to ring fence work and increase their fees.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 am
Like religion it is the homo sapiens who administer that are the problem rather than the idea. It is not their fault they are humans.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 am
FFS if this sort of thing keeps up then the only immigration advice worth giving will be to go to Australia…
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
What else can you expect in a country where you can’t even write “Nuke the Talibans” on your own bomb before using it.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
Persecuting this blogger is appalling hypocrisy given the gross incompetence and even corruption of the immigration bureaucracy in NZ.
What an appalling mess NZ immigration is. Led by former politicians, the country has been ethnically re-engineered by immigration firms and private entrepreneurs without consultation let alone consent of the voting public. A new industry has been created of advisers and foreign language colleges, which seem to be boosted by being able to facilitate NZ residence permits.
Prospective Anglo immigrants need all the help they can get to negotiate their way into the country through the bureaucratic morass and the immigration vultures.
Similarly with the financial blogger. MSM journalists have been exempted from the controls on investment advisers. What happens if she blogs under a pseudonym on an overseas blog?
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 am
While I agree with all comments that the immigration service should be subject to much more scrutiny, and I agree that this new law seems to cut across the freedom of speech, and I also agree that we need a proper constitution, with all the attached effects, there is one thing I want to point out.
This is not just a lady talking about her experiences, she is selling a book on immigration advice on that website. This means she is trying to make money out of giving advice. Under the law that probably makes her a commercial advisor, and hence subject to registration. While many may disagree about the wisdom of that act, as long as it is on the books it ought to be enforced, how unfortunate that this may seem.
This is perhaps a good case also to compare with the slapping legislation, where we now have the PM saying that discretion ought to be applied. Perhaps that should also be applied for this immigration lady. We all know were we end up if we start to make more and more laws that then must be applied with ‘some discretion”.
The only conclusion is that we have too many laws, therefore too much discretion and problems with enforcement, and the end result is lawlessness. The best way to do something about that is to restrict the ease by which laws are made, i.e. the state must be schackled, which then brings us back to having a proper constitution.
It all ties in, we must start by getting the first principles sorted, which at the moment is a mess….
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Is it still the case that a lot of immigration advisers are people (and even Ministers) who have worked in immigration previously? They set up a system where it appears that who-you-know (Thompson, Field, and all the Labour MPs who were taking donations from immigrants) is more important than what-you-know and then they profit from it as an adviser.
My advice to immigrants is that NZ is generally not a corrupt country. Except for the Immigration Department and the Labour MPs who will hit you up for a bribe in return for permanent residency.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:25 am
Why are lawyers and MPs exempt?
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
I hope she ignores them. People aren’t stupid; they know that info outside official channels is as-is-where-is. The Immigration Advisers Authority look silly.
The fact that people look elsewhere for immigration info in an indictment on the service. Having been through the NZ, UK and US services, the similarities are striking. Arcane and complex hoops to jump. Little or no feedback. Poor information. Opaque practices. (Actually NZ was the better of the three).
There’s a cosy arrangement between the immigration services and the league of early retirees who move into the Immigration Consultancy business. No incentive to fix the system. The failings of it are what give you your next job. This is particularly prevalent in the UK and it seems also in NZ (so much so that former MP’s get in on it)
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:35 am
DPF – “My suggestion is every blogger in New Zealand starts giving immigration advice on their blogs, and we all appear in court together.”
You inciter you! Excellent idea, a wee bit of minor civil disobedience to let this “law” be shown for the arse that it is.
If she isn’t profiting from it or holding herself out to be an immigration consultant then they deserve to be told to bugger off.
I’ve given advice in years gone by to people considering coming here, normally friends or family. Not on a blog but in emails and phone calls. I will start putting it on a blog.
This smells of protecting the turf.
It’s a sad indictment that the process is so complex that people need an adviser in the first place.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am
dimmocrazy – I just went over there to have a look. That’s a good point you make re the book she is promoting for sale, that muddies the water a bit. *goes away to think about it for a bit…….*
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
dimmocrazy – it looks like she has a disclaimer on the site saying she is not a lisenced immigration consultant (consultant – has ever a title been bastardised so much?), not sure about on the book. Would this not be the same as the difference between an accountant and a book keeper? I can get someone to do my paperwork for me but the end of year accounts have to be done by an accountant?
If I am looking for advice or information I do my own research first and as long as the person can qualify what they are saying I don’t really give a toss what letters or titles they have.
Anyway, all the best advice I ever received in my life came from non qualified people!
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Perhaps I should give immigration advice on my blog http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com, but if I did it would be shut down immediately because of the accuracy of the information.
To come to New Zealand you need the following requirements:
1. Be black from a Third World country
2. Be unable to speak English
3. Be unable to contribute anything to New Zealand
4. Be prepared to drain the welfare system
5. Act in New Zealand much as you would at home so you stand out from the majority of people
6. Train your children to join ethnic gangs (with the children of other black people from third world countries contributing nothing to New Zealand)
7. When you get into trouble you can call everyone racist to avoid prosecution
8. Have a good laugh at the gullibility of the New Zealand authorities for falling for that old trick
I would also point out the people who are forbidden from entering New Zealand to live under any circumstances whatsoever
1. Anyone white and British (because you are colonial racists even if you don’t realise it)
Vote:2. Businessmen (because you are rich parasites)
3. Anyone white with a Masters or PhD (we are too busy processing applications from Bongo-Bongoland)
4. Scientists (they have no experience of filling out WINZ forms)
5. Doctors (ditto)
6. Anyone seeking to invest productively (it interferes with NZ Government policy of being a Third World country circa. 2025)
7. Anyone not stupid enough to believe in Tanawhas
8. Anyone planning to contribute to New Zealand
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Hiya Tom, how’s the scientific carpet laying going?.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
Hi folks
First off I’ll declare an interest, I’m Helen’s other half.
I’m sure she’ll be along in a while to answer questions – which as it happens is how this all started. Answering questions on an emigration forum (yes, personal experience and knowledge about finances & immigration, not ‘official’ advice). She got a stellar reputation for providing useful & accurate answers, with lots of people saying ‘you should write a book’ – which she did.
To answer dimmocrazy & Kaya’s point – the book is very much about personal finances when emigrating rather than immigration itself. It’s very much one of those labour of love things. Most of the information in it was written up (free of charge) on migrant forums, and now on Helen’s own blog. We both love reading, and it was a personal goal to write a book – no small undertaking in itself.
Vote:As to making a profit on the book, being financially savvy I can say we know how many books it would take to just cover our costs (ignoring Helen’s time), and we’re a good three print runs away from that still.
The book wasn’t written to make money, it was written to help people & as achievement of a personal goal.
But I’ll let Helen answer that fully.
Thanks all for your comments, we continue the good fight to get daft laws changed. (of course that’s just an opinion, not advice)
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
DPF I demand you remove Elijah Lineberry’s comment. Not only does it provide immigration advice in breach of the law, it exposes the entry criteria. We don’t know where he would have obtained those as they are covered by the Official Secrets Act. How are we going to succeed in turning New Zealand into a socialist third-world paradise if people know what our goals are? Nope, the only course is to remove the comment.
And Elijah, our people will be around shortly to start the interrogation. We must find out who leaked the entry criteria.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Interesting debate this turns out to be, OK let’s look at the purpose of the act first:
“The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice, and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination, by providing for the regulation of persons who give immigration advice.”
Straight away we can see the garbled sort of thinking behind this legislation. While it can be understood that you would want to apply some sort of quality criterion to certain professions, the lawmakers go a few steps further and think that this is somehow related to the reputation of NZ. (Comparative example: if the car dealers are good mechanics, than the crappy cars they sell are of good quality).
How does it work? Well you can only give “advice” if you are licensed or exempted.
Question is of course what is advice?, the act specifies that:
In this Act, immigration advice—
(a) 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; but
(b) does not include—
(i) providing information that is publicly available, or that is prepared or made available by the Department; or
(ii) directing a person to the Minister or the Department, or to an immigration officer, a visa officer, or a refugee status officer (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1987), or to a list of licensed immigration advisers; or
(iii) carrying out clerical work, translation or interpreting services, or settlement services.
That clearly covers just about everything, certainly including what Helen was in fact doing. So she seems prima facie in breach, unless she was licensed or exempt, or perhaps if she can prove that she was providing information that was publicly available.
To start with being licensed, this involves application to a body established within the department, which sets criteria and so on, in other words, your typical bureaucratic hoop-jumping exercise, probably larded with some implicit corruption of its own.
Helen is not one of these persons endowed with this esoteric status it would appear.
One is exempt when one fits within a string of people including MP’s, lawyers, foreign diplomats, employees of community law centres and so on, see the act for details. By the way, if one only provides advice on an informal basis or to family only and not for a fee, one is also exempt, there may be a loophole there for Helen, albeit difficult given the ‘systematic’ character of a website and the book for a fee (it is immaterial that this is not a profit maker).
So it would seem that the only realistic way out is to show that all the information provided is public information anyway, or prepared by the department etc. I haven’t looked at Helen’s site in detail to see whether that is the case.
About this legislation: another perfect example what you get if you have a bunch of over-eager ‘lawmakers’ who can think that you can solve any problem in the world by writing laws about it, and who run short of intellect when it comes to the details and the nitty gritty. They then include powers to committees and bureaucrats and these powers are quickly assumed by semi-corrupt little patch-protecting groups of individuals who merrily start their rent-seeking practices by first ring fencing, then creating personal links with decision makers and so on, the well known practices of maffia professionalism.
Dimmocrazy’s conclusion: scrap this legislation, and let the immigration service deal with ALL this work, for a fee, keep it simple and open, and FORBID that anyone else INCLUDING MP’s can have ANYTHING to do with it.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Just adding that it should of course be open to anybody to write whatever they want on their blogs.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 1:40 pm
We’re talking about a department that is so stupid that when I applied for residency, demanded that I take an English test as I did not have the required documentation to prove my proficiency.
Despite the fact that I am English, lived in England and was educated in England up to age 21. Even attended an English university.
The letter that informed me of this contained no less than FOUR spelling mistakes.
It took an appeal to the minister to overturn this.
My immigration advice to immigrants : assume that the immigration department is staffed by incompetent lazy fools. If the immigration process was done by a private company it would be over in a week. You are lucky with these idiots to have it processed in a year.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
been really bugging me for a while now, and no one seemed to be aware of just what effect this law was having.
To clear a few things up:
Firstly – the IAA have not given me a warning and told me to shut down the blog. They did however send a warning to an Immigration Forum owner after he appeared on the news talking about the fact that migrants on work visas were being sent home. A complaint was made to the IAA by a licensed advisor, and the forum owner was sent a warning. He has not been advised how exactly he broke the law – and as far as I’m aware – he was simply giving an opinion on a topical immigration issue at the time.
The book I wrote actually isn’t anything to do with Immigration Advice, or how to migrate here – it’s actually about budgeting: living on low wages, mortgages, taxes and savings. The blog was intended to be a vehicle for posting updates but became more than that – and went into discussing Immigration Policy and Process. Partly because its actually a bit boring to just talk about budgets, but mostly because I was going through hell with Immigration myself, and it was a way of talking about what was going on, and some of the things we have to deal with when trying to migrate here. The book does not breach the IALA in any way, though it may one day hit a snag with more stringent Financial Advice rules (that’s tomorrows problem J )
With this IAA law – the blog is become more a focus on Immigration issues, and less about the financial side of migrating. I’m sure as hell not making any money out of my blog J
The problem with this law (as I see it) is that the person/people who wrote it – just didn’t understand what they were writing. It is intended to stop immigration agents ripping migrants off – something that badly needed doing. But it’s written so that acting as an Advisor is illegal – not acting as an agent. – and that means that yes – if you answer question about the immigration process on a forum or blog, or write a blog about the process – you can be breaking the law.
Which is stupid.
I have tried working with the IAA to either get licensed (they wont let me because I’m not an agent and don’t have case files) or to get it in writing that I’m exempt because I’m not working as an agent – which they won’t do. The IAA insist that I’m giving advice on some of my posts – but cannot or will not explicitly state what you have to do to stay within the law. All you get is an answer along the lines of “if you give immigration advice you breech the law” and “immigration advice is giving advice systematically”.
I kid you not.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Just a minute now:
>> So it would seem that the only realistic way out is to show that all the information provided is public information anyway
If it’s on a publicly accessible website, like a blog, then surely it’s public information, right??
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Not if you’re the person putting it there Beautox.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Something got cut from my comment.
I wanted to say a huge thank you for picking up this story and for the kind comments. I have really appreciated it
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Hi Brian
Vote:In terms of people making complaints to INZ/NZIS, that’s something else which has been hidden until recently. It’s only in the last few months that INZ have been made to publish their official complaints proceedure. Before that it was a cat & mouse game of complainents trying to work their way through an unpublished process, which INZ staff knew very well and deliberately obfuscated.
Ho hum.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Hello again dimmocrazy.
Thanks for researching this and providing another opinion. It’s exactly the information we’ve been trying to work through.
So interestingly – even though advice might only be given in a family context and without payment – as far as the IAA are concerned IF it’s systematic (and no, they don’t define that), then you’re still giving immigration advice. So guiding your parents, and then your in-laws to emigrate to NZ could be considered systematic (by the IAA’s poor definition).
Now, systematically actually means using a system, process or proceedure, it doesn’t have anything to do with repeatedly doing something. I have no system to choosing which seat I sit on in the train, but it’s something I do repeatedly.
In terms of what information can be provided without being licensed, you’re quite right – we can only share links to websites where information is published already. Well hoopedy doo, haven’t we always found Govt. websites to be completely helpful and informative? Always resolving our questions and concerns without ever needing to get advice from a real person? Nope? Just me then…
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Hi beautox,
Just for giggles, you should look at the job requirements for an ‘immigration services officer’, can’t recall the exact title but it’s one of the people on the end of a helpdesk call – we blogged about it here [shameless plug, but then I figure you all know where the website is now];
http://www.avalonsguide.com/anab/2009/08/do-you-have-the-skills-to-be-an-nzis-customer-service-officer/
Basically, two years work experience!
Wehey, glad we’re putting our well educated people forwards into those roles promoting NZ as a top migrant destination.
In general they have my sympathy, and while I also believe having foreign language skills for that sort of role would help promote NZ, it also then reduces the requirement for a good standard of English for non-native English speakers.
Still, at least the call centre is still based in NZ – I believe
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
And apologies to everyone for the long posts on my part, this is why Helen does blogging, I don’t tend to do short answers. I’d be useless with Twitter.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Reply to beautox’s ‘just a minute now’
Yep we thought about that one too.. Setting up a shadowy blog hosted in some backwater third world country with no extradition agreement with NZ. Then publishing everything there, and then blogging about it on the main website by referring to the shadowy one.. Anyone willing to be a patsy? Will supply a water pistol, plenty of coffee and a false identity to flee the IAA enforcers..
It all gets really silly. And this is just to express an opinion. My favourite was to start blogging about the NZ Raspberry Service, migration of foreign raspberries into NZ, where they might like to grow, etc., since that is clearly talking about raspberries and not emigration.
So the really funny thing is that Helen’s blog entry about the OFFICIAL NZIS complaints process at the end of March was possibly illegal from the beginnging of May – since NZIS hadn’t published the information publically, it wasn’t in the operations manual etc. We took the view that the IALA covers information made available by NZIS via any medium (email), rather than stuff just proactively published on their website..
Still I’m all up for DPF’s suggestion of a global bloggers day of blogging about emigration. Should keep a bunch of civil servants at the IAA in jobs for years sending out vaguely worded threatening letters to innocent people all over the globe.
Vote:September 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
cha @ 10.26am – Let me know what you’re actually asking and I’ll do my best to give you an answer.
Vote: