|
Comments
on the Discussion Document
We
have formatted our submission based on some of the questions on
page 6 of the discussion document. We would be very keen to discuss
our submission further with the New Zealand Immigration Service
(NZIS) and the Minister for Immigration.
To
what extent do you consider that immigration applicants are vulnerable,
and to what types of harm?
The
cases below highlight some typical situations of migrant experiences
with immigration consultants that bureau have seen over the past
year, including:
- Provision of incorrect and inaccurate information
- Failure to complete applications on time
- Lack of understanding of application processes
- Misleading clients about employment prospects
In
addition, NZACAB are appalled to find immigration consultants directly
using or referring clients and then charging for our free service.
The
biggest risk to which migrants are exposed is when applicants are
adversely affected by immigration consultants’ actions. In some
cases below, for example, immigration consultants have misrepresented
availability of work or even promised jobs to migrants to New Zealand,
who are then unable to get work in their profession (or at all)
and face hardship when they arrive.
An
immigration consultant sent a client to the bureau for advice
because he did not have all the necessary information. The client
was subsequently billed by the consultant for our free service.
-------------
A client sought a bureau’s help to fill in an immigration form.
In the course of the conversation our worker discovered that
the client had already paid a lawyer to do the work but the
lawyer had not met NZIS deadlines.
-------------
An immigration consultant asked the bureau to complete applications
on behalf of his clients, for which he was going to charge.
-------------
A bureau has had several clients, usually health professionals
but also engineers and architects, who had been told by an overseas-based
consultant that work would be available to them on their arrival
to New Zealand.
The consultant did not inform them that they would need to apply
for registration (with the relevant professional body). Nor
had they been told of the fees, examinations and so on required
for a New Zealand qualification.
-------------
A Chinese client had paid $4000 to an immigration consultant
who promised her a job and permanent residency. She had not
heard from consultant for over 3 three months when she came
into the bureau for help.
-------------
A Chinese client had given his passport to an immigration consultant
who later went into liquidation. His passport disappeared.
The man was a victim of the recent well-publicised scam between
the consultant and an Internal Affairs official.
-------------
What
information is available on the scale of the problem?
From
NZACAB statistics, in the 1998-1999 year bureau received over 6,800
enquiries about immigration issues. In 1999-2000 enquiries in this
category have increased. However, we are unable to extract enquiry
data specific to immigration consultants.
NZACAB
does have a wealth of anecdotal cases describing situations where
migrant applicants have been disadvantaged, and in some cases exploited
and ripped-off, by the actions of consultants. Some of these have
been cited above.
NZACAB
concerns about the experience of immigrants to New Zealand
were discussed in our report, The Forgotten People, which
is attached to this submission.
NZACAB
are very willing to make our cases studies and statistics available
for further research and analysis of the issues.
How
can immigration applicants overcome the problem of inadequate information?
What is the role of government in this regard?
NZACAB
suggests that the information produced for migrants is useful and
covers most key areas, but that it is not well disseminated.
The
NZIS website, the Settlement Kit and the Ethnic Communities
Directory, produced with the Office of the Race Relations Conciliator,
are good resources for migrants, and are indeed used extensively
by bureau when giving advice and information to migrant clients.
These cover basic immigration processes (visas, etc) as well as
wider subjects, such as business, housing and schools, and offer
details of further places to go for advice and information.
Dissemination
and availability of information can and should be improved. Using
the NZIS website as an example: the full Settlement Kit and
the Ethnic Communities Directory could be published on the
site, with links to relevant organisations (Citizens Advice Bureau,
ethnic councils, registration bodies, etc). NZACAB strongly recommends
that NZIS make its website multilingual; this could simply be achieved
by publishing the various language versions of the Settlement
Kit online.
Government
has an important lead role for information for migrants. NZACAB
acknowledges the work of Government in beginning to develop a clear
and considered population policy that will in turn provide direction
for immigration, education and labour market policies. NZCAB would
welcome the opportunity to discuss these broader policies with Government.
Government
also has a role to play in resourcing improvements for information
dissemination. For example, funding the development of NZIS’s multilingual
website.
What
is your assessment of this issue against the steps of the Framework
for Occupational Regulation?
NZACAB
favours regulation, but would prefer more detail on how the types
of occupational regulation could be applied to immigration consultants,
and the advantages and disadvantages of each. We favour regulation
because we see, too regularly, the impacts of reckless and incompetent
behaviour by immigration consultants on migrants. In many cases
NZACAB and other community and ethnic organisations are left to
fix the problems.
At
first glance, certification of immigration consultants offers
some degree of regulation while maintaining flexibility. Any regulation
needs to include a complaints procedure and disciplinary process.
It
does not, of course, solve all the problems that we see. NZACAB
recommends further discussions on this issue with a range of interested
organisations (see below).
What
measures, as alternatives to occupational regulation, might be effective
in protecting migrants from reckless or incompetent behaviour by
immigration consultants?
While
NZACAB endorses regulation and suggests that certification is a
good option, we acknowledge that it will not offer full protection
for migrant applicants, especially protection from the actions of
some offshore immigration consultants. NZACAB recommends that other
tools for protection should be available to migrants in conjunction
with occupation regulation. Examples include:
- Protection under consumer law. Migrants already have protection
under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Consumer Guarantees Act
1993, but should be advised of their rights under these laws when
given wrong or inadequate service by New Zealand-based consultants.
- NZIS employing a degree of leniency in cases where migrant applicants
have clearly been exploited or ripped off by immigration consultants,
including those based offshore.
- NZIS publicising cases where immigration consultants have been
penalised under section 142(j) of the Immigration Act 1987; justice
must be seen to be done, in order to act as a deterrent. Such
cases identifying the offending immigration consultant could be
published in the Settlement Kit and on the NZIS website.
Training
of immigration consultants is another important consideration and
would need to be linked to occupation regulation. A partnership
between industry representatives and NZIS to develop and coordinate
immigration consultant training should also be considered.
What
different consideration, if any, should be given to the not-for-profit
or voluntary immigration advocacy sector?
NZACAB
suggests that voluntary/not-for-profit organisations giving advice
and information to migrants are doing so accurately, professionally
and to a high standard. Indeed, it was the concern about immigration
consultants that prompted this discussion document, and it is voluntary
organisations that have been working on the problems created by
some immigration consultants. Notwithstanding that, NZACAB would
welcome discussions with NZIS and Government about the services
that other organisations and we provide to migrants.
NZACAB
is confident that our bureaux are providing good advice and services
to migrants. NZACAB has rigorous membership standards and basic
and on going training to ensure that our more than 2,700 volunteers
are providing – free of charge - correct and accurate advice to
a high standard. NZIS information is used extensively in bureau
and we also provide a wealth of other information for migrants including
housing, schooling, health and welfare. Some bureaux provide extra
services to migrants, such as free translation services.
NZACAB
welcomes further discussion with NZIS and industry representatives
about whether the voluntary sector should also be regulated. NZACAB
would favour as a good alternative to regulation a formal partnership
between voluntary organisations and NZIS. For example, NZACAB has
partnership agreements with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and
the Human Rights Commission that cover the provision of information
and training.
How
do you think the consultation process should proceed?
NZACAB
recommends that Government establish a working group between officials
(e.g. NZIS, Race Relations), industry and registration representatives
(e.g. Association for Migration and Investment, Medical Council,
Law Society) and migrant, community and non-government organisations
(e.g. Federation of Ethnic Councils, Refugee & Migrant
Service, NZACAB) to examine these issues in detail together. It
is important that all organisations with an interest in this area
work together, if possible, to find common solutions.
Would
you or your organisation be willing to take part in further consultations?
NZACAB
is very interested to be involved in any further discussions.
|
![To see what social issues we are currently working on [through advocacy and media]](../../images/socialp.GIF){kind=small}
