by Iain Macleod
4. July 2009 02:04
Does the New Zealand Immigration Advisers Authority have any teeth?
The IAA has its first real test of its powers and commitment to 'protecting vulnerable migrants' on its hands but I strongly suspect it would prefer something less complex and politically explosive. Two weeks ago local Maori man Gerard Otimi was charged with fraud and deception offences by police in connection to what they have called a 'passport scam'. The basic alleged 'crime' was that Mr Otimi was issuing visas to 'overstayers' (people unlawfully in New Zealand) in exchange for $500. He argues he has every right to do so given the Treaty of Waitangi and because 'someone' has to help these people and no one is.
My interest is not so much whether what he was up to was a scam or he was indeed as he claims simply trying to help people that he saw as victims of a political and immigration system he chooses not to recognise but the fact that since it became law on 4 May that anyone offering immigration advice that was not exempt must be licensed or face up to seven years imprisonment or $100,000 in fines. On several occasions post 4 May 2009 Mr Otimi has been heard on radio and seen on TV confirming that indeed he does advise people on immigration matters as well as issuing them with their 'visas'. That is as close to an admission of guilt as you can get!
It is interesting that the IAA has issued a press release or two confirming they are 'looking closely' at the case. When an unlicensed adviser says publicly he is giving advice how much closer do they need to look before he is charged with breaking the new law? Some two weeks after Mr Otimi was charged with fraud and deception related charges we are yet to see any move to bring charges in relation to the Immigration Advisers Act 2007 and his self confessed work as an unlicensed immigration adviser.
If what at face value appears to be a flagrant breach of the new law and no action is taken against Mr Otimi it will represent a failure of the new law and the IAA itself.
Having spent many thousands of dollars on each of my staff members to ensure that all are licensed to offer advice any lack of meaningful action will be interpreted as a failure of a law I did not support (because I didn't think the vulnerable really can be protected if someone wants to rip them off badly enough) and the body established to control the 'sale' of New Zealand immigration advice.
So what will it be IAA? A true protector of vulnerable migrant tiger or toothless bureaucratic pussy cat?
.jpg)
Subscribe