New Zealand Herald — 21 June 2010
Minister driving again after Peda detour
Funding affair’s explanations probably more mundane than conspiracy theorists would have it
POOR Georgina te Heuheu. It’s tough being a Minister of Pacific Island Affairs in a National-led Government. No matter how many Pacific sporting icons you get to sing your party’s praises, sooner or later the maths start to catch up with you.
Like the inconvenient fact that unemployment for Pacific people is more than double what it was under Labour (from 6.3 to 14.4 per cent), that more than half of all Pacific households experience hardship, and so far there’s no evidence the economic “recovery” is trickling down to unemployed young Pacific.
After the slim pickings of last year’s Budget round, in which new money for Pacific initiatives was conspicuously absent, te Heuheu must have been relieved to finally have something she could crow about this year _ a Budget allocation of $4.8 million of new money for projects which would “significantly improve the economic wellbeing of Pacific people in Auckland”.
At just over $1 million a year, it was cheap at the price. Who could look such a gift horse in the mouth? Quite a few, as it turns out.
If te Heuheu and her colleagues were surprised at the reaction, they shouldn’t have been. The fact that uncontested funding had been earmarked in the Budget for a two-year-old private company that no one had heard of was always going to be problematic.
Indeed, te Heuheu’s own ministry had warned in March that the company, the Pacific Economic Development Agency (Peda) posed “significant risks” for the Government. It was “untested and unproven”, had “not delivered on projects of any note”, and “does not have a good record of working collaboratively with other agencies”.
Furthermore, the ministry cautioned: “The inability to tender for an appropriate provider or range of providers capable of delivering these initiatives may be inconsistent with government procurement procedures.”
To put it politely. Not so polite have been the unsurprising allegations of backroom deals, jobs for the boys, and political patronage. Which begs the question: What on earth was te Heuheu thinking when she and her ministry made the funding decision _ as John Key implied?
Last week it became quite clear that te Heuheu hadn’t done much of the thinking at all. Her role had been peripheral at best. The initiative had come from the Finance Minister, Bill English, who seemed unusually reticent about admitting his part.
As te Heuheu told Morning Report in response to questions about the apparent flimsiness of Peda’s proposal: “The application is part of the written material that I would imagine that the Minister of Finance received … but in addition to that, of course, he met with [Peda] on several occasions”.
It’s obvious from the ministry’s advice that its involvement was after the fact. By the time it analysed Peda’s proposal in late March, Bill English had already allocated the funds and named Peda as his preferred provider.
Why? The reasons are probably more mundane than most of the conspiracy theories currently in circulation.
Did this have something to do with the National Party endorsements by Michael Jones and Inga Tuigamala at the 2008 general election, as some have suggested?
I doubt it. Jones and Tuigamala have denied that they have any links with Peda or played a part in supporting its funding bid, and there is no reason to doubt them.
More likely this is about English (who has Pacific connections through his wife) being well aware of the need to get some runs on the board, and allowing himself to be persuaded that J.R. Pereira and colleagues were the best for the job. He should have known better.
You can’t blame a company for putting itself out there. Pereira says his company pitched its proposal to anyone who would listen. And whatever anyone thinks about them, they seem at least as passionate and sincere about making a difference for Pacific people as their detractors.
Pereira, who shifted to New Zealand in 2001 when his children were starting their tertiary studies here, has been taken aback at the criticism, saying: “Why should we be penalised just because this Government decided to do something different?”
That seems a little naive. As Bill English should have told him, the appearance of political patronage is at least as damaging as the real thing.
In any case, thanks to the controversy, the story has moved on. With Bill English’s office saying that the $4.8 million is for Pacific economic development, rather than Peda per se, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs is now firmly back in the driver’s seat. And it seems determined to put the money to good use, whoever the provider might be.
Tapu.Misa@gmail.co.nz
Media release
EMBARGOED until 4 May 2010
All immigration advisers must now be licensed
The introduction of mandatory offshore licensing for people providing immigration advice about New Zealand means there is greater protection for migrants, Registrar of Immigration Advisers Barry Smedts said today.
From today, all advisers providing advice about New Zealand immigration matters must be licensed unless they are exempt, no matter where in the world they provide that advice.
“Immigration adviser applicants are asked to complete a rigorous, evidence-based assessment process before I 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,” Mr Smedts said.
The competencies are: relevant qualifications; knowledge of immigration advisers licensing scheme; knowledge of immigration law and policy in New Zealand; ability to lodge applications and appeals; English language proficiency; professional, ethical and responsible business practices; and maintenance of professional development activities.
“One of the primary motivators for introducing a mandatory licensing regime in New Zealand was to promote and protect the interests of migrants to New Zealand and to ensure they have confidence in the standard of immigration advice they receive.
“Licensed advisers based offshore are required to abide by the code of conduct in the same way that licensed advisers in New Zealand are. It is important to remember that the code has been set according to what is expected in engaging with the New Zealand immigration system. People who cannot meet those standards for any reason, have no business in offering services related to New Zealand’s immigration system.
“If advisers can’t meet the professional and ethical standards set by the New Zealand government, they don’t belong in this industry.”
All licensed advisers must display the Licensed Advisers Code of Conduct in a prominent place at their place of business. Clients should also ask to see their adviser’s individual wallet card ID. Penalties for breaches of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act include up to seven years imprisonment and/or fines up to $NZ100,000 for unlicensed advisers.
There are currently 414 licensed immigration advisers, of which 132 are based outside New Zealand.
“Many people have asked us how we will enforce licensing offshore,” Mr Smedts said.
“Immigration New Zealand no longer accepts applications from advisers unless they are licensed or exempt. This has been the message that we have given offshore advisers from the beginning of our communication with them.
“Migrants themselves are also a powerful tool in encouraging adviser licensing. We will clearly communicate with potential migrants around the world through our website, Immigration New Zealand branches worldwide, and increased presence of licensed advisers, the importance of using an adviser who is licensed or exempt. We will also clearly communicate how migrants can make a complaint against their adviser, whether licensed or unlicensed,” Mr Smedts said.
The Authority will investigate all complaints about licensed advisers, no matter where they are, and all complaints are forwarded to the Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal, to determine. Unlicensed adviser activity is an offence, whether in or outside New Zealand.
“We are already starting to see the benefits of licensing. Migrants can have confidence in their licensed advisers, knowing there is the opportunity for redress if problems arise, and we see an increased level of interest in professional upskilling from licensed advisers,” Mr Smedts said.
ENDS
For further information contact:
Jane Palmer
Senior Communications Adviser
Immigration Advisers Authority
DDI: +64 9 925 8749
Cell: +64 27 290 6070
Jane.palmer@iaa.govt.nz
www.iaa.govt.nz
We’re committed to Fiji, NZ MP John Hayes says
Fiji Sun 5 April 2010
The chair of New Zealand’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee says his country is still committed to delivering aid to Fiji.
Government MP John Hayes has told a Fiji community meeting in Wellington that New Zealand’s overseas development programme to Fiji is continuing.
But Mr Hayes said efforts were being made to ensure the aid did not benefit the Government.
“Our aid is being redirected beyond the government into communities and we’re focussing on the poorest people in Fiji,” he said.
“We’ve moved away from giving aid through the government to NGOs, passing our aid through NGOs. Even in the wake of the cyclone we’ve just given a million dollars, there may be more in the pipeline, we’ve had our planes up there.”
Mr Hayes said New Zealand would always be there for Fiji and would continue to maintain sanctions.
NZ expels Fiji diplomat
November 04, 2009
Fiji’s acting High Commissioner to New Zealand, Kuliniasi Seru Savou, has been declared persona-non-grata and must leave Wellington. Radio New Zealand reports, the reciprocal move follows the expulsion of New Zealand’s acting head of mission in Fiji, Todd Cleaver. Cleaver was formally told by authorities in Fiji today that he is persona-non-grata and ordered out of the country within 24 hours.
In announcing Savou’s expulsion, Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said he expects Clever will be given a reasonable period of time to organise his departure, as the Geneva Convention allows. Fiji’s High Commissioner in Canberra, Kamlesh Arya, has also been called back home.
Fiji Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama triggered the chain of events late yesterday when he announced the expulsion of the heads of missions of its two neighbours. The action is a full-scale retaliation for what Bainimarama said was a “consolidated effort to attack Fiji’s independent judiciary”.
In New Zealand’s case, he said its denial of a visa on medical grounds to Family Court judge Justice Anjala Wati for the medical treatment of her baby was further evidence of the attack on the Fijian judiciary. He said he had hoped for better relations with New Zealand and Australia after changes of government in both countries. “They claim to be our friends yet on the other hand, they fail to recognise the efforts we are making in being a good international citizen,” he said. “They fail to understand that we are creating a country based on equal and common citizenry, a country of modern laws, a country which will have true democracy.”
