Editorial: Crack down hard on migrant scams

The ripping off of migrants by immigration consultants is not a "particularly major" problem, says a director of one of Auckland's leading consultancies. The implication is that the Government's plans to regulate consultants are an overreaction. It is not a view that stands scrutiny. Neither is it a view that coexists comfortably with the increasing need to promote New Zealand as a welcoming place to settle and invest.

There is, in fact, considerable evidence that crooked immigration consultants are a major problem. The Citizens Advice Bureaus Association highlighted consultants' practices in a report last year on the obstacles confronting migrants.

"The lack of recognition of qualifications, misleading advice from immigration consultants and difficulties in equal opportunities for employment are compounded by no specific support once they arrive," it said.

And if there were no significant problem, why would a Tongan community worker take it upon himself to offer free immigration advice? Alexis Huni's beef is with consultants who, he says, charge up to $5000 just to lodge an application on behalf of a client. Yet even more exorbitant fees are associated with rogue consultants who promise migrants anything from open work permits to marriage arrangements. One notable scam, now somewhat negated by a law change, involves the lodging of refugee-status applications to obtain work permits for clients who think they are waiting for residency.

Such exploitation is particularly unpalatable because people are rarely more vulnerable than when new to a country. They approach consultants because they are not fully aware of their legal rights and status. In addition to their inherent confusion, some may be desperate enough to accept without question the advice - and the bill - they are tendered. At the moment, protection is provided by broad consumer protection laws and Disputes Tribunals. Neither offers a straightforward remedy. More specifically, a 1999 amendment to the Immigration Act provides a maximum $5000 fine or three months' jail for anyone who wilfully misleads or acts negligently or unprofessionally, including charging excessively, in assisting an immigration application. The penalties are so insignificant as to offer virtually no deterrent.

The Government's choice now lies between setting up a statutory registration board for consultants or requiring the industry to regulate its own behaviour. Those who believe the problem has been overstated would doubtless plump for self-regulation. Yet the industry has had the chance to establish its own procedures through a voluntary association which would set ethical and professional standards. It has not succeeded.

The Association for Migration and Investment, which represents about 70 consultants, has been divided on the issue. It is telling that it now favours a compulsory registration board. Voluntary self-regulation has not worked, it says. In saying this, it recognises that consultants who behave ethically and professionally will have nothing to fear from compulsory registration. They will not be troubled by a disciplinary system which suspends or strikes off those who behave fraudulently or unethically.

Likewise, the vast majority will have little to fear from a requirement for minimum educational requirements. Certainly, other countries - Australia, for example - are far stricter. Their licensing systems include entry examinations and industry training.

But cracking down on unscrupulous local consultants will be no panacea. It is likely to be rather more difficult to govern the behaviour of the large number of overseas consultants. Furthermore, the Immigration Service is hobbled by a lack of officers. Most applications take up to six months to process. At the most benign level, this may encourage migrants wishing to short-circuit the process to seek the support of immigration consultants. In a more unfortunate way, it may aid the cause of fraudulent consultants.

A reinforced and more efficient Immigration Service would, of course, take away some of the need for consultants. It could offer a service as professional as that of most consultants and for the basic cost of the application fee. But if that is a threat to consultants, it is far less so than the blows being struck at the industry's credibility by unscrupulous operators.

A statutory registration board is the best way to restore respectability. And it offers New Zealand the chance to put out a welcome mat no longer bearing the stains of exploitation.