The obvious question

Shub has a story about a pair of rich Australians whining that they had to look after their own kids on their New Zealand holiday because Immigration saw through their scam to get their nanny to work illegally on a visitor's visa. The story focuses on the fact that the nanny had to spend a night in jail while waiting for turnaround, and I agree that's neither desirable or really necessary. Meanwhile, it misses the obvious question: why weren't those rich Aussies charged? Because they seem to have violated s343(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009, which says that it is a crime to:

for a material benefit, aids, abets, incites, counsels, or procures any other person to be or to remain unlawfully in New Zealand or to breach any condition of a visa granted to the other person

The penalty for that is up to a $100,000 fine or seven years in jail, and the rich Aussies have as much as admitted the offence in the media. Instead, the person they put up to it is punished (she won't be able to travel for years as a consequence of her deportation), while those actually responsible walk away scot free.

But I guess we couldn't possibly punish rich people when they break the law, could we?