11/09/09 - IAA Response to The Press

• Email a Friend

Published 11 September 2009

The Immigration Advisers Authority was established in 2008 to regulate the immigration adviser industry.  In a recent news report in this paper (‘Migrant advice prompts anger’ The Press, 9 September 2009), one commentator has suggested that the standards for getting an immigration adviser licence were set low to prevent a black market industry.

This assertion is plainly wrong.  Applicants are asked to complete a rigorous, evidence-based assessment process before I, as Registrar of Immigration Advisers, am satisfied that they meet the standard required of a licensed adviser.  The assessment is based around seven core competencies which reflect the professional standard we expect of them.
Competency one looks at relevant qualifications.  Over 70% (not 16% as quoted in the article) of all licensed advisers have some form of tertiary qualification.  This is encouraging, as the industry is moving from a deregulated environment.  However, having a tertiary qualification does not of itself bear any relevance to the work advisers do.

Developing an entrance qualification is an important goal for the Authority, as it will allow new entrants to the industry.  At present, once new entrants demonstrate a basic understanding of immigration rules and procedures through case studies, they are granted a provisional licence and must work under the direct supervision of a fully licensed adviser.  A qualification for advisers will, at some point in the future, be essential evidence for new entrants to the profession.

Applicants are also asked to demonstrate their knowledge of both the immigration advisers licensing scheme and their knowledge of New Zealand immigration law and policy (competencies two and three).  This is vital in ensuring advisers understand the structure they are working in.  It also gives migrants confidence that the information they receive is up to date and accurate.

Competency four examines the ways in which applicants prepare, lodge and administer immigration applications, appeals, requests and claims.  Again, I must be satisfied that applicants are able to develop and maintain professional relationships across organisations while also providing appropriate service to clients.

I understand the Christchurch Zhonghua Chinese Society president, Longyin Li has raised objections regarding competency five, the English language standard.  I accept an IELTS overall academic score of 7 to achieve the English competency standard.  I also accept evidence of attendance at primary or secondary schooling conducted in English. I will then decide whether an IELTS test is still required having reviewed all the assessment material and conducted a telephone interview.  I may also consider an applicant’s individual circumstances.

Put simply, advisers are expected to communicate in writing and in person with Immigration New Zealand officials and tribunals, and this can only reasonably be achieved if the adviser has a high standard of English.

Equally, we expect all advisers to conduct their business professionally, ethically and responsibly (competency six) and we ask them for specific examples of their work practices to date as evidence of this.

Another area of inquiry for the Authority is to consider the applicant’s commitment to their continuing professional development (competency seven).  We currently encourage all licensed advisers to engage in a minimum of 20 hours CPD during each year of licensing.

While the Authority has received complaints about people giving immigration advice which may be misleading or inaccurate, the vast majority of issues to date involve unlicensed advisers.  This is not surprising to the Authority, as our licensing procedure is of sufficient rigour to make it difficult for poor practitioners to join the licensed adviser community.

The Authority is aware that some advisers are continuing to provide immigration advice without the benefit of a licence.  This is of concern to us, but we have tried to take an educative approach with many of the unlicensed advisers we come across.  Immigration New Zealand will not accept applications lodged by unlicensed advisers, so ignorance of the law is not an issue.

It is my belief that as adviser licensing requirements become more widely known and understood within the migrant community, opportunities for unlicensed advisers to continue to practise will be severely curtailed.

The Authority recently conducted a survey of visa and permit applicants who have used an immigration adviser. The aim of the research was to provide benchmark measures of the performance of immigration advisers from the perspective of their clients over time.

In total, 72% of respondents who consulted a licensed adviser were satisfied with the service, compared to only 57% who consulted an unlicensed adviser.

Mandatory licensing has been in place in New Zealand since 4 May 2009 and will be introduced to offshore advisers on 4 May 2010.  To help offshore advisers through the application process, we have produced a web-based step-by-step guide.

We expect the good advisers to welcome the opportunity to show that they meet New Zealand Government standards.  Poor performers should look for business opportunities in fields other than the immigration adviser industry.

Source Barry Smedts
Registrar of Immigration Advisers