Well I never: An interesting Immigration report
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
So fair play, reading through the two reports from Dept. of Labour has actually been interesting. Well written, with conclusions and recommendations, not just dry statistical facts.
Something interesting from INZ/DoL for a change. Whatever next, Winston Peter’s as Immigration Minister? - Well stranger things have happened!
Seriously, the two reports;
International Migration Outlook & Migration Trends & Outlook sound similar – and to be honest there really isnt much difference (but hey – its waste some extra tax money writing 2 reports instead of one.)
Both are well written, and for a change have dozens of citations. So you can actually check where they are getting some of their facts from, and that they aren’t lying through their teeth. I was pleasantly surprised to find most of the cited reports are publicly available too. So you can read & draw your own conclusions.
Anyhow, interesting things/facts/observations from the IMO;
23% of NZ’s resident population as of June 2009 were not born here – and that number has been going up. Here’s a table showing where that 23% came from;
If you look at the ‘working age population’ that 23% turns into 25%.
This means that more migrants are staying in NZ longer, it’s now only 24 leavers for every 100 new migrants during the 2001-2006 period. Which, as we’ve mentioned earlier, is actually showing more loyalty to their new home than the 40%-ish of Kiwi’s who leave.
The employment numbers are a little worrying;
Unemployment rates for immigrants are about 3% above the national average. Perhaps not surprising with plenty of migrants coming in as Skilled Migrants or on Work To Residence without job offers.
New migrants are paid $10k-$15k less than their previously resident Kiwi colleagues.For performing comparable work
And it ‘only’ takes 15 years for that gap to close! 
15 years! OMG, you gotta be kidding? Come to NZ, take a huge pay cut, and if you’re lucky, you’ll earn the same as your colleague in a mere 15 years. humpfhh.
Still this may have something to do with another finding. That there was no evidence from another Dept. of Labour report that migrants were choosing to settle in an area which had higher than national average salaries, or lower than national average unemployment. i.e. new migrants weren’t actually picking the geographical area’s with fewer people having the in demand skills. hmm, perhaps we were just a little strange that way. We came to Wellington because the pay is better and its where the demand is – mostly because its where the government is. Most migrants still gravitate to Auckland, where the wages are lower and house prices are higher. Take note!
Wowing an potential employer at interview is going to do you a lot better than hoping that ‘averages’ will mean you get a better salary. Clearly some of this report points to studies showing that isn’t the case and you’ll get less than the average of your new Kiwi colleagues.
Time to brush up the interview skills.
Of course if you bring kids over with you when you migrate, then they don’t have to work to close that 15 year gap. The study showed that 18 year olds entering the work place faced no discrimination over salary whether they were Kiwi born & bred, or had arrived the day before their 18th birthday. So that’s reassuring.
There is also a (brief) section on the economic impacts of immigration. Only based on one study mind you. Basically, immigrants are good for the economy. In ‘productive’ terms;
- Migrants bring cash which they spend (really?! – you don’t say),
- Pay more in taxes to Govt. than they draw in benefits (shock horror, migrants aren’t here to sponge off the state!)
- Migrants reduce production costs (read as: are forced to accept lower wages)
- Improve the competitiveness of NZ goods & Services, which helps exports. (same as above really)
So I’m not so sure that this study really does justice to the ‘immigrant’ contribution to the NZ economy. I wonder if they actually asked migrants what their ‘contribution’ was?
Fascinating numbers
Filed under: For the numpties amongst us, Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, NZIS & Immigration issues
Well, okay, perhaps not for a lot of people. However, I’m one of those sick puppies (meow) who finds spreadsheets and numbers quite fascinating when they tell you something interesting.
So much to my surprise, we found at the weekend that Immigration now have a statistics page on their website. Seems to have been there for a while too. So kudos to INZ for releasing the information as part of open Govt.
So what can these numbers tell us?
Well for starters download the Excel files, since you can play with the numbers. Thankfully someone at INZ knows how to use Excel and has created lots of pivot tables – yippee. Although they’ve not created enough graphs I think. Graphics, pictures, we need to see more coloured lines.
So, if you really want to find out how many parents, originally resident in the UK made an application for NZ residency, via the London branch in a random month anytime in the last 14 years – you can! Download R6 – Residence applications accepted for processing.
Want to know how many of those people applying got approved or declined? – Download R2 Residence decisions by month.
Of course, it may have been too simple to put all those numbers into a single spreadsheet. Still, the info is there.
So you can indeed see how many people applied from each coutry, broken down by month, and which stream, whether they were primary or secondary applicants, and whether they got accepted or not. There’s loads more statistical info buried in them thar’ numbers, so I may start coming out with interesting factoids. Personally, I’m interested to see if anyone from a ‘first world’ country managed to get into NZ via the ‘humanitarian’ stream – normally reserved for refugee’s of the non-economic variety.
Of course more really interesting stuff is buried in R8 – Residence applications on hand. INZ talk a lot about having a large workload, lots of decisions to make etc. Which they do. How much of a workload is this? Well take a look at R8, these are all the applications that people have made to come to NZ. Whether or not INZ have even started working on the application or not. One of the few graphis provided in the three noted sheets is below, ranging from July 2000 on the left through to January 2010 on the right. {you can click on the image to load it full size}
Uncapped family sponsorship (non-Kiwi family of Kiwi citizens) has grown steadly since 2000 from approx 3,000 to almost 7,000 per year.
Parent & Adult sibling capped family sponsorship applications have gone from ~4,500 to ~10,500 – with no change in the number of places made available. And anyone wonders why there’s a queue?
For a big wow!, the Business/Skilled migrant stream peaked at a queue of ~51,500 applications at the end of 2002.. Dunno what happened there, but I’m sure gonna go find out.
Stay tuned for more (possibly useless) interesting factoids.
Squandering skills
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Jobs & Work
The Herald on Sunday today had a small article in their Career10 section, about how the ‘in demand’ skills of migrants are being squandered – or rather being ignored in the first place. [Sorry, no online copy that I can find]
It’s an all round in-offensive article that doesn’t really go anywhere. However it does provide a couple of useful pointers;
1. There is a mentoring scheme called OMEGA running for new migrants who don’t have a job yet. Only it’s limited to Auckland. Ho hum..
Still, OMEGA has the right idea, and it’s better than nothing. They run a number of different scheme’s to help new emigrants link up with employers and get some experience, understanding and knowledge of the Kiwi workplace.
I’m not familiar with OMEGA, more reading to come, so I’m not in a position to endorse it as such. They are there though, and in place to help new migrants. Something that’s rare and very welcome.
2. Kiwi employers tend to give preference in jobs to people they know. This is something we’ve mentioned previously, and the general thing is that most NZ cities are so small, anyone knows pretty much everyone else, or is related to them. {For example, a German migrant friend of ours was appearing in a Terry Pratchett play being put on by a local amateur dramatic society. We went. It was good, I talk about this to a colleague at work the next day. His aunt was playing one of the lead witches. It just works like that.}
Since many Kiwi companies are (relatively) small, they are indeed interviewing someone as if to invite them to join their family. They want to have confidence you will fit in with everyone else. Rather than being particular on exactly which industry certifications you’ve got in the last few years. Of course the down side is that if you’re new to the country, you wont know many people. And many people wont know you.
While you first job may not be ideal, it gets you working, bring money in, and starts to get you connected with others in the industry. This is when the whole ‘contacts’ and knowing people kicks in.
So my take? Don’t worry that much about not knowing people from the start, it’ll happen once you’re working and your next job can be that ideal one it would be great to land.
Which is exactly where OMEGA can fit in, helping people start even if it’s just a stepping stone to the job that really spins your wheels.
Immigration New Zealand is still misleading people about Work To Residence Visas.
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
Lincoln Tan is reporting on the continuing trauma being caused to people who are being led to believe that a Work To Residence Visa will automatically mean you get Permanent Residency.
It won’t. And this is a prime example of why outlawing blogs like this is morally repugnant. INZ are misleading people, and it’s illegal to advise people what they should be doing. The Immigration minister should hang his head in shame.
The agency issued 2261 work-to-residence visas and permits last year despite 44 per cent of those immigrants already here on such visas failing to find employment.
But Agnes Granada of the Migrant Action Trust said the system was frivolous and totally irresponsible because it was destroying people’s lives.
“The work-to-residence permit is not a straight work permit, and migrants come here on the promise of permanency once they can get employment – but when there are no jobs for them, it becomes a trap.”
Make sure you too are not misled by either INZ itself, or your “licensed immigration advisor”. It is not in their interests to ensure that you understand what a work to residence visa is. They want your money, and if you get stuck here having sold everything up to make the move – you will find you are on your own.
Please, please, please understand that until you have Permanent residency – you do not have permanent residency.
It’s as simple as that. No matter what you are told by INZ or Advisors – that’s the simple fact. A work to Residency visa, work visa, or silver fern visa is NOT a residency visa. If you have any of those – be exceedingly careful of selling up everything, and be prepared to lose the lot if you do not keep some funds back to get home. Because INZ won’t give a toss about you once you have to go home.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Immigration reports x2
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
The Dept of Labor have actually come out with two reports on migration, as a contribution to some OECD studies.
It’s possibly sad that I’m working my way through both of them at the moment. At 62 & 125 pages I should at least get some sleep, even if it takes longer to finish reading them.
My first question will be what’s the difference between;
International Migration Outlook
&
Migration Trends & Outlook
‘cos I sure can’t tell the difference first off. Still, why publish one paper using a set of research when you can publish two? It’s at least efficient if the reports have completely different purposes.
So I shall work my way through the reports. There’s some fascinating info buried in the tables and numbers already.
Still, it’s an excuse to swan off to the beach and read the paperwork in some sun 
How many Migrants leave New Zealand?
Apparently almost 20% of people who got residency in New Zealand between 2002 and 2008 have packed up and gone elsewhere.
Missing Migrants
Long-term absence for migrants approved for residence between 2001 to 2008 (top 10):
1. Taiwan: 2679 / 50 per cent
2. Hong Kong: 1132 / 40 per cent
3. Singapore: 1107 / 37 per cent
4. Indonesia: 1160 / 31 per cent
5. Canada: 1204 / 30 per cent
6. Malaysia: 2593 / 29 per cent
7. United States: 3511 / 29 per cent
8. Pakistan: 527 / 26 per cent
9. China: 14,868 / 25 per cent
10. Somalia: 519 / 25 per cent
21. United Kingdom: 14,650 / 16 per cent
22. South Africa: 6022 / 16 per cent
Total: 83,983 / 19 per cent
So – good news if you are emigrating for the UK or SA – looks like you are more likely to stay. Bad news if you are from Taiwan – you have a 50% chance of going back.
Unfortunately the article does say why people leave – except to speculate that people do their 2 years to get their IRRV and then bugger off to earn some real money so they can then fleece the free education system and wonderful healthcare and retirement system.
Theres no mention of people having to leave due to stupidly low wages and inability therefore for their families to have a decent standard of living.
What makes these figure really interesting – is it actually looks at people who have been granted residence – so actual immigrants – who leave. The more commonly seen figures are the net migration figures – which show how many people enter NZ vs how many leave. But that mixes up migrants and kiwis leaving. These figure show exactly how many immigrants turn round and go back home. It doesn’t however show how long they stayed – or whether they got the IRRV.
Despite not residing in New Zealand, these absent permanent residents – whom migrant advisers say were granted residency mainly through the business stream – will still be eligible for health and education subsidies should they decide to return.
Should they maintain their residency status, their children could also be entitled to New Zealand residency, which will make them also eligible for these subsidies.
Migrant advisers have raised questions whether this allows migrants to use New Zealand as a “second option” for retirement, as a springboard to Australia or use its services without contributing to the economy.
Of course completely ignoring how much money they coughed up to NZ to get here, including getting fleeced by so-called “advisers”.
This is where these articles are going a bit off the rails. Migration is often a give and take scenario – especially here in New Zealand because it actually has tough entry requirements. In order to get that IRRV and get those “subsidies” these people have to bring in a lot of money, and employ New Zealanders. Many Skilled Migrants have to live on subsistance wages to make that 2 years. They actually do contribute a huge amount – and put up with just as much and for migrant “advisers” to be spouting this kind of rhetoric speaks volumes about why they should not be given the veneer of respectability that comes with licensing.
Why the hell shouldn’t migrants come here, get their IRRV’s and then go elsewhere to earn a decent wage and then come back. If New Zealand really wants to change this – then maybe it should stop telling migrants they can’t earn much money here because they are foreigners and aren’t worth that much.
Just a thought.
Sometimes the solution to a problem is very simple. It doesn’t take a huge amount of hand wringing and high-level government law changes. Usually it requires no more than the application of (un)common sense.
Dr Coleman said the OECD has recognised New Zealand did as well as Canada and the US, and better than European countries, at retaining immigrants.
“Research shows that in general, business migrants are focused on establishing successful enterprises in New Zealand, and that they tend to be more profitable than similar-sized New Zealand firms.”
So possibly when you look at the global situation – there isn’t really a problem at all? Fancy that.
But business analyst Keng Lim says the fact a fifth of immigrants chose overseas showed they are not committed to New Zealand, and wanted permanent residency only as a “stand by option” or for “personal gain” – such as sending their children to New Zealand schools as domestic students.
The highest levels of resident absenteeism are from Taiwan (50 per cent), Hong Kong (40 per cent) and Singapore (37 per cent). At the other end of the scale were Tonga and Afghanistan (both 5 per cent).
“It shows that migrants from richer countries want residency so they can send their children here for free education, and hold on to their residency as a retirement option, rather than wanting to actively contribute to the economy,” said Mr Lim.
“With the high taxation here, many know they are better off elsewhere, but being able to get an indefinite residency makes New Zealand more attractive than Australia.”
I do wonder sometimes if these people actually know New Zealand at all. For a start – Taxation in New Zealand is actually not that high. It’s a LOT lower than UK levels for a start. And why do people think that you would want to fleece the system for a “free” education system that many people here are embarrassed by – and isn’t at all free anyway. It’s like saying we would come here for the benefits system – which is pants compared to what you could fleece the UK taxpayers for.
He said some would also use their New Zealand residency as a way to get into Australia.
Yes – and many people get residence in Australia just so they can get into New Zealand. We were advised to do just that seven years ago. By NZIS staff. Says it all really.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Herald series on Migration Trends
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, The Family Sponsorship Saga
Lincoln Tan at the NZ Herald is running a three part series on migration trends in New Zealand. His first one interestingly looks at parent sponsorship, and shows some interesting figures.
China has now overtaken the UK as the top source of family sponsorship migration to New Zealand. One of the things that make this possible is that it’s much easier for Chinese migrants to meet the “Centre of Gravity” requirements because of the one child policy. This part of the policy has caused a huge amount of anguish for many people who have stepfamilies. It’s a bit of a blunt tool, and INZ tend to be highly inflexible over its implementation. Mind you – flexibility and INZ just don’t really go hand in hand anyway.
“The growth in Chinese immigrant numbers overall reflects the fact that increasing numbers of Chinese nationals are choosing to study here, gain recognised qualifications and then compete for and obtain skilled employment in New Zealand,” said Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman. Dr Coleman said New Zealand’s immigration policy was designed “to attract the type of migrants we want”.
(Ah yes – international students – such a lucrative source of money for New Zealand that you don’t have to be licensed to give them advice – because they might stop coming. Protecting migrants isn’t half as important as protecting the money they bring in.)
The article also shows that the UK is still the source of most of skilled migrants – with many of the Chinese migrants being younger – in their twenties, as opposed to the Brits being in their thirties and forties. This is seen as a bad thing as they are thought not to be able to provide for their aging parents. This does however ignore 2 things about the Family Sponsorship program. First you have to have a certain level of income before you can sponsor them. It’s stupidly low in my opinion – but that’s the policy. Secondly – you actually only have to be able to support them for two years – and as soon as your “aged” parents become residents -they have access to public healthcare.
We are going to be looking into the Family Sponsorship statistics ourselves over the next few weeks. I know that makes us sound like we really have no lives – but we want to try and understand just why INZ are holding back applications for 2 years.
In the mean time – I’ll be interested in what else Lincoln shows up.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Here’s some Immigration advice ;)
Don’t do what this guy did!
And don’t do what this guy did either!
The first chap had been living illegally in Wellington for 6 years, and then left and tried to come back. This is a bit silly really. If you are going to be an illegal overstayer – the last thing you do is leave – because you ain’t ever coming back.
The second chap, who was legally in New Zealand on a work permit, threatened to rob a bank in central Wellington, caused chaos in the city as he claimed there was a bomb in the building, then scarpered and apparently ran to Australia. He’s currently being extradited – presumable to get full residence in one of our prisons.
Not how it should really be done.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Holiday in NZ vs. Here for good
Filed under: Cost of living, Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand
A friend from the UK came to visit yesterday. He’s been holidaying in NZ on an almost annual basis for the past two decades. Before we emigrated out here, he was one of the few people I knew who had really spent any significant time in NZ – so he was a great source of information, places to go, what NZ was really like etc.
This time, he is in NZ for six months after he left his former employer with enough cash in hand to tide him over for a year or so. {nope, he’s not one of the Westpac fugitives}.
So as you do when you’re young(ish) and single, he’s spending six months travelling around NZ, staying with various friends, and enjoying being away from the UK winter. And UK politics (until today – sorry D!)
He’s found this trip quite a revelation. Where as on previous holidays he’s been ‘right which restaurant shall we head to this evening?”, ‘cos you do when you’re on holiday and NZ restaurants are (relatively) inexpensive. Only this time, with no job and much longer here, he’s been to the supermarkets – and looked at the actual cost of living here.
So I asked him, what did he find as the major differences on the extended trip? In order of immediate response he said;
Bloody hell, the cost of [supermarket] food is high
I can’t believe the [high] cost of electricity
OMG, Kiwi’s don’t know how to drive, they’re lethal on the roads
Enough said.
Now it sounds (to us) like he’s living it up here, some motorcycling, off to get his glider pilots license, more biking, horse riding, more motorcycling and the odd biking race, plenty of outdoorsy stuff that is what NZ does best. The joys of free time and no domestic obligations, but he’s shocked at the cost of living.
For example, his UK electricity costs for three months equate to different friends average NZ monthly electricity costs.
For all that he’s spent plenty of time riding the roads of NZ previously, it’s only now that he’s absorbing how poorly some Kiwi’s drive. We’re all still undecided whether this is because;
- People are (relatively) inexperienced, compared to driving in and around London on a weekly basis. Or long stretches of packed motorways for hours on end. Or stuck in half hour traffic jams during a morning rush hour to get into some middle market town for work/shopping/whatever
Or
- With the slower speeds and lower levels of traffic, people are more relaxed, and there really is time to pull out right in front of other cars because they’re only traveling at 50 kph. And besides, the other guy can always stop if he gets too close or almost hits me.
Not that any of this seriously colours his perspective on Quality of Life vs Standard of Living. The Standard of Living may be higher in the UK, but you have to work harder or longer to achieve that, and then work even more to maintain it. The cost of servicing a BMW M3 can be a bugger.
He still see’s that NZ has a better Quality of Life, even if traffic has grown a lot in 20 years. Now he (had) a really good job, with high pay, good bonuses and plenty of perks. So he’s used to spending plenty of money on things as required. The cost of living is still a shock, which is at least reassuring for us that we’ve not got a uniquely daft perspective.
It’s interesting to hear from someone with a long term love affair with NZ, that he see’s the same stuff we did five years ago when we arrived.
And that it’s still worth being here.
Are we a Menace to Society?
Filed under: For the numpties amongst us, Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, NZIS & Immigration issues
There are numerous exploitative activities that laws are there to protect us from. Because sometimes you just can’t patch stupid. Some laws result in a penalty of a slapped wrist and a pocket change fine. Others lead to years in jail.
The DIA (Dept of Internal Affairs) have recently scored a success against a major menace to society, “Herbal King”.
The people at Herbal King ran a large network marketing company, using internet and email as their main communications mechanism. Sales commission for the two New Zealanders at the top of the tree alone was $2m USD over a four month period. So that’s upwards of $12m NZD a year for sending a bunch of emails – nice work if you can get it.
Only this is spam – so it’s illegal.
Their punishment, a $100k fine ($200k being the max). Plus an enforcement order saying, “I’ve been a naughty boy and I promise not to do it again”.
Whoopy Do. 
If you were vaguely involved and didn’t help the officers holding a search warrant when they came knocking, you could have be fined $2,000 and gone to jail for 3 months. Not that you needed to have been earning any of the commission, just that you knew these people were doing something illegal and you didn’t help those investigating when they asked for your co-operation.
So how does this compare with giving free informal advice to someone who is thinking about emigration to NZ?
A $100k fine or up to seven years in jail.
For earning no money, only talking with one person and not involving anyone else in your “conspiracy”.
In true University style:
Discuss, compare and contrast what this teaches us when breaking the law in New Zealand and it’s various penalties. Make specific reference to picking something which impacts a huge number of people, you can make lots of money from, has a minimal civil or criminal penalty, and is really difficult to prove or enforce.
Also consider the economic impact of convincing someone to spend $100 dollars on your herbal product, compared with the economic impact ($100k on top of GDP) for convincing someone that moving to NZ is a really good idea.
For extra credit, consider how much money someone can make selling pills, with how much money someone makes when providing free advice. And discuss how much jail time is appropriate in either case.
For further extra credit discuss why Mr Cunliffe’s response (below) demonstrates the politicians don’t live on ‘palnet (sic) electorate’, and consider why MP’s should be exempt from this law if it is there to prevent so much damage or exploitation being done.
7 December 2005 Subject Social Issues
10978 (2005). Dr Pita Sharples to the Minister of Immigration (07 Dec 2005): What is the justification for the provision in the Immigration Advisors Licensing Bill to sentence non-licensed immigration advisors to seven years maximum imprisonment?
Hon David Cunliffe (Minister of Immigration) replied: The seven years maximum imprisonment is consistent with the Immigration Act 1987, which provides for terms of imprisonment of up to seven years for comparable offences. The penalty is in place to deter people from attempting to earn a potentially significant income by providing immigration advice without a licence, and recognises the potentially serious consequences for victims of incompetent or unethical immigration advice.
