Client grab costs ex-Aon broker $70k
In the early ’90s I was part of the Government’s first global immigration marketing Initiative (five-pound Poms notwithstanding). Tired of reactive responses, the (then) immigration minister Bill Birch wanted to have a go at proactively identifying skilled migrants and encouraging them to come to New Zealand.
Source-wise it wasn’t exactly a rich diversity of new countries he decided to target: Britain and the Netherlands, countries where New Zealand already had a decent profile. And it’s fair to say the approach wasn’t the most complex you’ve ever seen.
We ran two advertisements in the Sunday Telegraph, the Independent and the Financial Times newspapers, saying New Zealand was looking for quality migrants and to call an 0900 line for an information pack.
After they received the packs the prospects got invited to a series of seminars being run across the country. We figured we might get 1000 or even 1500 requests in a month, so played it safe and printed 2000 copies.
We were wrong. Two weeks after the first advert ran we had 3500 requests and they were still pumping in – the total number ended up just under 6000.
After some hasty reprinting, myself and other 20-somethings had long nights at the New Zealand High Commission in Haymarket stuffing envelopes, sticking down labels and walking them to the post office.
A month later the colourful migration director and I hit the road in an aging Sierra station wagon bulging with overhead projectors, brochures, peanut slabs and a healthy appetite to lure quality migrants to Godzone. Over 14 weeks we delivered 35 seminars in England, Scotland, Wales and the Netherlands.
Then came the job of processing the residence applications. I heard that about 900 ‘‘family units’’ ended up coming across as a result. If that’s true, then it wasn’t a bad hit rate and good for the economy (though not so good for the Sierra which blew its radiator).
So I was interested to read in the Sunday Star-Times that moves are afoot to take a fresh look at immigration and once again have a go at targeting attractive migrants, but this time without tying them down to job offers.
Consultant Treasury economist Julie Fry and statistics guru Hayden Glass have just published a book suggesting it’s time for a radical overhaul of immigration policy.
Having identified what they believe are just modest economic benefits from immigration, Fry and Glass reckon it’s time to tweak the settings.
The timing of the book is interesting, as nine months ago the prime minister announced the Government would consider a new global impact visa.
This would be targeted at young and successful technology entrepreneurs and start-up teams, who want to be based in New Zealand and employ New Zealanders but deliver their services to the world.
This produced a lot of discussion at the time, but went quiet until last week when an Immigration New Zealand spokesperson observed we were potentially missing out on the more innovative, global entrepreneurs. There’s nothing potential about it.
Over the last month I have been along to two entrepreneurial conclaves – Nat Torkington’s infamous ‘‘Foo Camp’’ in Warkworth and Kiwi Connect’s ‘‘New Frontiers’’ in Whiteman’s Valley. Both have been chocka with local innovators as well as rock-star foreign technologists.
The common question from them was, ‘‘Hey, this place is cool; what would I have to do to live here?’’ To make the answer an easy one, we need change.
The good news is that I reckon the two folks with their hands on the levers are up to the challenge.
Nigel Bickle is the head of Immigration New Zealand and a world away from some of the dropkicks they’ve been stuck with over the last decade.
Meanwhile, as it’s an economic growth lever, it comes under Economic Development Minister Steven Joyce.
Joyce’s answer to many questions is, ‘‘We just need to innovate faster,’’ and I reckon he’s right. And by making it easy for seasoned entrepreneurs with proven technology businesses, we’ve got the ability to enrich the innovation ecosystem and give the business growth agenda a decent nudge as well.
I reckon there are four things they need to get right.
First they need to ensure they’ve got the entrepreneurial filter set right, not something the government has a brilliant record of. We want seasoned entrepreneurs with a track record of doey, not hoey.
Second, they need to take a longtrousered approach to measuring the outcome. Part of this will be economic, but part of it will also be the crossfertilisation that occurs.
Third, we need folks who actually run their businesses from here, rather than using the new policy as a way to finagle a South Pacific bolt-hole.
Lastly, we need velocity. The thing I most remember from my brief career at the High Commission was that while it only took a couple of months to attract the migrants, it took a year to actually grant their residence visas.
No-one any good is going to wait that long. An insurance broker has been ordered to pay more than $70,000 after he breached a restraint of trade clause that was meant to stop him taking clients with him when he left his job at insurer Aon.
Aon took Andrew West to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), seeking $364,709.51 in damages.
West left his job as a senior account manager at Aon in mid-2014 to set up business on his own. He had developed a database of clients, some of whom were friends and family.
When he left, he was reminded of a 12-month restraint of trade clause in his contract which prohibited him from dealing with any Aon customers he had dealt with in the two years prior to his resignation.
But during his one-month notice period before leaving to set up his own business, West advised clients of what he was doing and forwarded documents to his personal email address, which Aon said were confidential.
They included a spreadsheet containing client names and details of their policies and information about Aon’s products.
West dealt with 18 clients in breach of the restraint, which he argued was unenforceable because it sought to restrict competition.
But ERA authority member Vicki Campbell said it was enforceable because as a senior accounts manager West had significant information about Aon’s business, had the opportunity to forge strong links with clients and had highly confidential information about Aon’s business.
Campbell said Aon had suffered an actual loss of $60,449.88 from lost brokerage fees for the 18 clients who switched to West during his restraint of trade period. He was required to pay Aon that amount.
She said because the clients indicated that they would have moved at their next policy renewal any way, it was not possible to project future losses, as Aon had requested. Campbell also imposed a penalty of $8000 for breaches of his employment agreement and a penalty of $5000 for West’s company.