A wrong call
October 7th, 2009 at 6:23 am by David FarrarI think Jonathan Coleman has made the wrong call here:
Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman says there are no plans to review or change the Immigration Advisers Act, which makes it illegal for anyone who is an unlicensed immigration adviser to give any advice on immigration matters.
This means people who do not hold an immigration advisers licence can be prosecuted if they discuss, direct, assist, or even blog anything that can be constituted as immigration advice.
The intention of the Act was excellent – to deal to the shonky advisers who exploited migrants. But it seems to have massively over-reached.
Kiwi Immigration Watch, an immigration watchdog group headed by former United Future MP Bernie Ogilvy, says the act breaches the Bill of Rights and the basic human right to freedom of speech.
He wants the act to be scrapped or reviewed.
But Dr Coleman said the act had been passed with the support of all political parties in Parliament, and the question of whether it breached the right to freedom of speech was never raised.
“Part of the act’s passage was subject to expert scrutiny in terms of New Zealand’s human rights commitments,” he said.
“No inconsistency with those commitments was raised.”
That’s a process argument. I want to hear a common sense argument. Was it really the intention of Parliament that people offering their own experiences of immigration be banned from publishing those views on the Internet?
The Immigration Advisers Authority defines immigration advice as “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.”
The authority, which administers the act, has issued 18 warning letters since the law came into effect on May 4, and has warned one blogger, Helen Winterbottom, to stop posting immigration suggestions on her blog.
And this has a whiff of the EFA about it – a definition that is too widely reaching. The prohibition on giving advise, not for gain, seems to have little benefit and is what concerns me the most.
If I were to blog that prospective migrants to New Zealand should not joke on their interview forms about wanting to blow up Parliament on Guy Fawkes Day as in my experience that goes down badly, would that mean I breach the law?
At the least why doesn’t the Minister commission a review of the wording. Maybe ask the Human Rights Commission to consult with stakeholders on it, and see if a revised wording could still achieve the laudable aims of the Act, but lessen the impact on non-commercial personal advice.
Related posts:
- Ridiculous
- More free speech under attack from Immigration Act
- A good speech by Cullen
- The battle against the Electoral Finance Bill goes legal
October 7th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Seems he gets texts from Helen too. These tired party hacks need a boot out the door and replaced with some with brain power. And you all thought things would change. Ha
Vote:The list of continuing under performance and carry on as before gets longer every week. Time for another election and get rid of the status and unfortunate balance of power that currently exists.
Looks like Sharples is going to get his more than 3 million to spend on rugby as well. What a waste of money, opportunity and all.
No tax cuts for the next 60 years at this rate.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:15 am
The irony is that leaving people free to express their experiences in immigrating to New Zealand will help steer prospective immigrants away from fraudsters.
Shutting down forum and blog comment simply makes it harder to research how to do it safely. Government officials and licensed practicioners either cannot or will not name names on who to go to (other than themselves) and who to avoid. Blogs and forum posters do.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Presumably it refers to people giving technical advice on how to apply, New Zealand requirements and so on. If the advice is free then it is up to the receiver whether to take notice of it or not. I am concerned at the attempt to shut people up. It reminds me that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 8:19 am
Indeed. Perhaps we should also ban the sharing of recipies from anyone other than NZ Food Safety registered advisors.
This whole thing underscores something important for me. If the kind of people we allow into NZ are not savvy enough to distingush between formal advice offered by a registered immigration advisor, from informal advice offered from blogs and other sources… then we probably don’t need these migrants. Harsh, but there you have it.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 8:45 am
It is obvious that Coleman doesn’t want to acknowledge that the ‘collective wisdom’ of Parliament* could be wrong becuase he is currently part of it … while those of us can see that it is plain stupid and unreasonable. The ‘not for proffit’ should be the key to the question as to if somebody is breaking the law. *Frequently just half a dozen people carrying the voting power of the rest a lot of the time.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 9:17 am
There are a couple of issues here in my view:
One: this is again the thin end of the wedge, where government tries to get a grip on what people can and cannot say on their own blogs or websites. This thin edge tends to start with something that can be defended somewhat or makes some sense, and is then gradually built out to ever increasing control. Remember: giving away 1% of your freedom means you loose 100% of control. Free speech is free speech, no ifs and buts.
Two: there is a weird sense of protectionism around immigration in this country, and methinks this has to do with the fact that so much of the economy is reliant on a steady stream of people coming into the country with their life savings, people that bring essential skills, and people that seem to be brought in just because they are ….well, people. We seem to have this silly notion that the population needs to continuously grow without paying much attention the the quality of that growth.
Well informed websites that provide some countermedicine to the overhyped information provided by the government will tend to turm away the most desirable immigrants, while probably reducing customer numbers for the ‘advisers’ dealing with the most ignorant or blatantly non-english speaking immigrants (possibly the least desirable category).
Three: this whole ‘registered adviser’ thing is a scam that basically protects the happy few that were first in the racket and all those ex MP’s that make a living out of this. No doubt there is substantial pressure from within parliament to keep this racket afoot. Also, for many MP’s immigration is an important aspect of their ‘constituency’ work, and probably a relatively simple one too. All in all, not musch political capital to be had from being staunch in this area.
End of the day, my opinion is to simply kill-off the entire immigration advice business (including MP’s involvement) by setting clear and restrictive standards and processing the whole thing by the immigration service through an online system, with some telephone and skype interviews, while outlawing everybody who tries to make money out of it. If applicants are too stupid to do their applications online, or can’t read the english, or can’t organize and be cohesive in a skype-like interview, they shouldn’t be in the country either, best to leave them where they are.
I bet that about 250K of programming effort would allow scrapping 50% of all immigration employees and improve the process by 100%. This is all about common sense and some decent management, both of which we seem to have very little of in the lofty halls of power.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 9:23 am
getstaffed –
“Indeed. Perhaps we should also ban the sharing of recipies from anyone other than NZ Food Safety registered advisors.”
I posted this last night, slightly off topic but relevant in context to this.
—————————- “Close up tonight was a tragic case of “When bureaucracy goes REALLY bad…..”
A couple of ladies had been making jams and cakes for the local hospice to sell for fundraising which raised the hospice about $5000 per year. The council shut them down because someone complained they weren’t in a commercial kitchen and didn’t comply with Food Safety regulations………………
OK the dude from FSA fronted and looked suitably sheepish, though he did say they had been working to resolve the regulation for a couple of years. WHAT?????!!!! HOW LONG????!!! He did look embarrassed poor bastard, must have drawn the short straw.
Alison Lees, media person for the Far North District Council came across well, right up until you interpret what she actually said. “We received a complaint and we have to act on it, not what we want to do but……..” She deserves the old Noel Edmonds award The Jobsworth. Wouldn’t you just tell the complainant to go and boil their head then sit back and accept the applause of 99.99% of the country? ————————————–
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 9:25 am
But Dr Coleman said the act had been passed with the support of all political parties in Parliament, and the question of whether it breached the right to freedom of speech was never raised.
“Part of the act’s passage was subject to expert scrutiny in terms of New Zealand’s human rights commitments,” he said.
“No inconsistency with those commitments was raised.”
We are raising it now
The problem with this is everyone on the forums and blogs never for one minute thought that New Zealand was a country that would pass such a shite law and make us all criminals. SO we never thought to “make submissions”. It was assumed that the dividing line would be whether or not a person charges: ie. are they an Immigration AGENT or are they a general member of the public.
I dont think anyone for one minute thought that the NZ government would be so stupid.
And who the hell are these “experts” anyway??? Did they bother to look at the forums and blogs and realise that thousands of immigrants were overnight going to be criminalised?
Or did everyone see that the number one piece of advice is: “Dont use immigration Agents because they are a complete waste of time and money”. Hmmmm.
The complete letter to the minister can be seen here (hope its OK to put a link in), and Im running a Poll for laughs
Vote:http://www.avalonsguide.com/anab/2009/10/letter-to-the-minister
October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 am
dimmocrazy – very good post. If you haven’t got the ability to go through the process yourself then either you haven’t got the desire to be a New Zealander or are too stupid to be allowed to become one. Those with desire are much more important and will contribute more than those with only a cheque book approach. Many of the latter don’t give a toss about being part of the country, there will be some other motive.
Vote:As with most problems with central and local government it comes down to the need for control. The internet terrifies those who like to keep their little fiefdoms closed shops. Then they can charge greater fees and the government or council comply because they can clip the ticket.
When this immigration issue was first raised on Kiwiblog someone suggested that every blogger in the country should offer advice on coming to NZ. Sounds like a plan. At some point you stop trying to be reasonable to people and just tell them to fuck off.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
“A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves.”
Bertrand de Jouvenal
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 10:17 am
@Kaya – nice quote. Thx for sharing.
So, Dr Coleman says our illustrious MP’s saw no problem with the act. Well of course not, they are exempt. Just like lots of other stuff, one rule for MP’s, one rule for the rest of us plebs who pay their salaries, expenses, living costs etc.
The IRD would not look kindly on me renting a house from a Trust I had a beneficial interest in, and paying that trust twice the market rent. But it’s okay for MP’s.
Oh, lets not forget the 34 other submissions at the time, other people who also said it was okay. Well fine, how many of them stood to benefit from the legislation? Like Immigration Advisors.
No one may have spotted a problem at the time, we are spotting a problem now. They may just be playing for time while they get a decent legal opinion.
I’m ‘advised’, that lawyers had to lobby very hard to also have an exemption from this law. The very professionals who have to protect client privilege and advise their clients on the law – which may include immigration matters.. Shock horror, what would TPF have done if he couldn’t get confidential advice from his lawyer about employing immigrants.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 10:18 am
End of the day, my opinion is to simply kill-off the entire immigration advice business (including MP’s involvement) by setting clear and restrictive standards and processing the whole thing by the immigration service through an online system, with some telephone and skype interviews, while outlawing everybody who tries to make money out of it. If applicants are too stupid to do their applications online, or can’t read the english, or can’t organize and be cohesive in a skype-like interview, they shouldn’t be in the country either, best to leave them where they are
And thus we have the issue. Many people THINK the forms must be difficult, and that they couldnt possibly be filled in by mere mortals. The Blogs and forums say (or said) otherwise. Thy said – Do it yourself – its not hard! Save your money!
And the people that have problems with the process (there are lots – mostly due to Immigration New Zealand staff) – agents dont really help anyway. Ive seen it time and again – the agents deny all responsibilty and just hand letters and emails back and forth. The applicant has to do all the running around and fight thier own corner anyway. The new law doesnt change that – some of the licneced agents are still crap, and are still ripping off migrants. They just now have a high level of legal proetction from bad publicity!
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 10:27 am
@Dimmocrazy
I was having a similar thought.
Limit free speach on a topic most people get emotive about ‘emigrants stealing jobs from Kiwi’s and putting hard working Kiwi’s on the DPB’, and you would think would be easy to get the population behind. And then extend the principle.
While I’m not up to speed, I believe a very similar debate is taking place about Financial Advice. The law isn’t enacted yet I think. Only Certified Financial Advisors will be able to provide financial advice.
If the same principle is extended, then “Should I spend this $3 on a coffee, or put it into Kiwisaver?” means only a Certified Financial Advisor can tell you what you should do. And charge $$$ at the same time.
If you look at any money matters column in the press and you get the disclaimer that “the advice is non-specific, it’s at your own right, don’t believe us, we might be wrong, your loss entirely etc.” – As Bob & Getstaffed say – most people can tell the difference between different sources of advice.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 11:13 am
This forum should ring alarm bells to any intending emigrants reading. Come to New Zealand, land of free speech, land of democracy, land of human rights, yeah right and I’m a hairy horse’s arse. If their soul reason in emigrating to NZ is to become more “free” they may wish to think twice.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Turns out Taito Phillip Field was on the commitee who reviewed this legisltation. PMSL right now.
Im reading thorugh the Hansard reports of the readings. The one thing it shows with crystal clarity is that Parliament was trying to crack down on Rip Off merchants. There is not one single reference to bad advice being given on forums, blogs or by menbers of the public as a whole.
Its a real shame, Dr Coleman has an opportunity to put this right and look like someone doing the right thing. If he doesnt do it soon, he risks looking like someone who does not believe in free speech and democracy. I dont think this issue will go away for a while.
Vote:October 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
> to advise, direct, assist, or represent another person in regard to an immigration matter.
The solution is simple. Leave the individual out of the advice. Talk hypothetically. If someone asks for information or advice, the advisor can say “Well, I can’t help you with your specific question or case but if I were an immigrant and was faced with X,Y, or Z, this is what I would suggest…”. That is not giving advice to anyone in particular. So in my opinion it does not breach the law.
Vote: