So, how exactly did we get residence for my brother so quickly? Part 1.
Filed under: NZIS & Immigration issues, The Family Sponsorship Saga
I’m sorry it has taken me so long to write this. After just over two years of dealing with the family sponsorship process, which is without a doubt much more difficult and stressful than getting residency as a skilled migrant – I’ve been knocked out with a chronic migraine.
I can only assume my mind decided to shut down for a few days.
So first, to recap:
The application went in in July 2009. We expected things to run fairly quickly – because the Adult Sibling applications require a job offer to be included. SO it was with a certain amount of shock and frustration to be told it would take 12 months for a case officer to be assigned. How on earth can you keep a job offer open for 18 months to 2 years.
I asked some questions, and got the usual crap pointless answers back. The kind of answers that mean people like me spend so much time answering peoples questions instead, because we actually give sensible answers.
And then we slapped in an application for an extension to my brothers visitor application. And then hit our next shock when immigration said they had approved it, but the permit came back dated the same day as his original permit expired.
Fortunately, the case office who had cocked this up, fixed it immediately. We went into the Wellington branch to get it sorted in person, and found out that any further extensions would require an “exception to policy” and that the only person who could do that was the Immigration Minister.
And then I started to panic.
I mean – I’ve probably not made myself too popular in the ministry. It’s a bit scary to think that my opinion of Immigration Agents could ruin my family’s chances. We were advised to put in a further application nearer the time it was needed, and with it, give as many reason as we could why my brother should be allowed to stay as a visitor while his residency was being sorted out. It was suggested that a letter to the branch manager was in order at this time.
I still cannot believe that applicants are being forced to do this. It’s nuts. It doesn’t hurt New Zealand in any way to allow long-term visitor visas for family members who are applying for residency. They cannot work; they cannot take benefits, except for ACC accident compensation, which is available to any tourist anyway. All they can do is spend money in New Zealand. Not allowing it causes a huge amount of frustration and stress for the whole family.
Anyway, we had managed to get an extension to the visitor permit, which meant that my brother could stay in New Zealand till June 2010. It also meant that I could take a few months off from panicking about the whole situation till at least the end of January.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
An interesting Immigration report – part 2
Filed under: Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
I blogged last week about the two immigration reports that were published side by side.
The first one was fascinating.
I’ve now read through the second one, Migration Trends & Outlook.
It was nowhere near as interesting as the first. Which is strange.
This second report is the one produced annually, is the major report that the first one uses as a basis, it has more content, more statistics & should be able to discuss trends better – and yet it does not. If anything the ‘trends’ part of the title is highly deceptive, as there is very little analysis or discussion of trends. Let alone any extrapolation of those trends in to the future. So the ‘outlook’ part of the report is also fibbing.
So we’re left with a report on Migration.
Which about fits, since it’s a mainly dry analysis of the statistical facts, with few conclusions drawn. And a lot of repetition. Apart from the odd self-congratulatory back slapping about what a good job INZ is doing. Which is repeated a few times just in case you didn’t get the message the first time round.
So what interesting information can we gleen from this report?
1. The Foreward tells us that 60% of the growth in the working age population from 2001-2006 has been from inward migration.
Which is then set against actual population growth in NZ. Natural population growth (births) is seen as the main driver, although that number is only an estimated figure put at 28,000-35,000 per year – compared with net migration of some 4,500 in recent years. Put a different way around, the spikes in NZ population growth are due to net inward migration, and most of those people (not unsurprisingly) are of working age.
2. The first major piece of spin we come across is in the section on how the impact of the global economic slowdown has been felt on migration to NZ.
In a very ‘we’re better than anyone else in the world‘ manner, it’s pointed out that every other country in the world has had to take action at a policy level to stop the flow of migrants into their country. But since INZ are so good at their job, and the NZ policies work so well, NZ hasn’t had to do that. It’s all labour market driven, and with more Kiwi’s competing for jobs, fewer migrants get those jobs.
Which is exaclty what happens in other countries, you don’t give temporary work visa’s to migrants to do jobs, since the locals are getting those jobs.
Then three pages later they actually say that NZ did make policy changes;
Taking some occupations off of the skills shortage list. Just like the UK, USA, Ireland & others.
They then forget to mention that they [INZ] have made it more difficult to renew temporary permits, just like other countries.
Although it could of course be argued that INZ refusing to renew a permit and people being forced to leave isn’t limiting the possibility to renew a permit, it’s just stopping it dead.
So beyond the spin, INZ is doing a job just as effective as any other country.
Which then leads us neatly into another interesting finding about the number of temporary vs permanent visa’s INZ has been issuing.
3. While some of the numbers vary in the report, and I’ve not quite got my head around why that is, the vast majority of people who were granted residency in the last couple of years previously held another type of temporary permit, such as Student or Work. What this means is that less people currently outside of NZ are being granted residency before they get here. On the latest numbers, look at figure 5.2, 81% of all successful residency applications are lodged within NZ.
Back when we applied you could only get residency with a job offer in hand, and then they relaxed the rules a little, so people got residency without job offers. While that still may be happening, INZ appear to be giving out more temporary visa’s to people, who are then told to come to NZ, try their luck and get a job..
Very Dangerous for the migrant in our opinion!
Because of course if you can’t find something, then tough, and you have to head back to your home country. INZ wrap this up in a nice little bow by saying they are allowing immigrants the ‘opportunity’ to labour market test their skills. i.e. your problem, your risk, that’ll be a temporary visa fee thanks, and another permanent visa fee if you are lucky enough to get a job.
And by the way, aren’t out policies great because they minimise effort required by Govt. to respond to changes.
4. There’s a lot more family members coming in from China. With China being the largest source of Parent/Sibling sponsorship & uncapped family (partners of Kiwi’s) applications. With the high number of Chinese students studying in NZ, I feel the only surprise is that it’s taken this long to notice that a lot of them were bringing their family over. After all, it’s a (relatively) quick and risk free method of migrating the family out of China. Study here for a few years, work part time, you’ve then got a degree & NZ work experience, get your permanent residency and sponsor the family in a few years time. Mum & Dad don’t need skills, or lots of money to invest in a business to get them over here, and the youngling has had a great experience leanring to live away from home in another culture.
All round good for them, and well done on making immigration policies work for them.
5. There’s finally another admission that the main interest with foreign students studying in NZ is the income NZ derives from them. Education, when classed as an export (same as tourism is classed as an export) is now one of NZ’s top five export industries. (Dairy is joint first with Tourism, with Meat & Mineral fuel exports being 3rd & 4th respectively).
Which would explain why anyone can give advice to a foreign student, you don’t have to be a licensed Immigration Adviser to do that - it’s ALWAYS about the money.
6. Figure 3.5 on p25 makes for some interesting study.
Arrivals (i.e. returns) of Kiwi’s to NZ has stayed approx the same, in a 10k band.
Arrivals of non-Kiwi’s has trippled in the same time.
Departures of Kiwi’s has fluctuated a lot, however remains consistently higher than arrivals(returns).
Departures of non-Kiwi’s has remained relatively flat, and it’s only in the last few years that the number has increased, to the point where it’s almost as much as Kiwi’s returning to NZ.
All four numbers taken together give you the view of net migration.
So if you step back from the hullabloo about the percentrage of migrants who don’t stay in NZ, and look at the raw numbers, there’s still a much greater number of Kiwi’s “buggering off” from NZ than non-Kiwi’s. More detail on the source countries for those migrants who are absent is included in Appendix D of the report, and makes for some interesting reading again.
7. By the numbers, China has the highest absent number of 14,868 (25%), while the UK is 2nd with 14,650 (only 16%). By the numbers, that accounts for a third of all the absent migrants. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the NZ economy, job market etc. if all those from the UK or China who were entitled to be here actually returned.
8. table 3.4 provides a year by year view of those absent from NZ. I’m sure I saw a nice chart of this somewhere, but can’t find it now, so we’ll stick with showing you the table.
This shows, the longer you’ve been in NZ, the higher the chance that you’ll leave next year. It is worth noting that those who have come here via a family category, are much more likely to be here in a few years time. Although the numbers don’t say whether the numbers of family sponsored people staying has a link to the original sponsors also staying, it would make sense. I just don’t have the linked numbers to prove it.
9. Figure 6.5 is also curious, more for the information about ‘other’ which is absent.
We look at the settlement regions of migrants to NZ. Auckland accounts for about 44%, with the rest of the country getting the remaining 56%. However, if you add up the numbers, you find that after the top five regions, there’s another 17% of migrants unaccounted for – which would make ‘other’ the 2nd largest settlement region for migrants in NZ. While we don’t have a clear citation for where this graphic comes from, you could probably find out through one of the Longtitudinal studies that StatsNZ carries out. I’ll have a dig around and see what I can find.
So there you go, a slightly less interesting report from Immigration. Chock full of numbers. If only INZ treated all their clients like this, it would be a much more friendly and personable dept. Oh, wait a minute, silly me, they do. We’re all just statistics.
How to get your case against INZ heard.
Don’t bother going through all the rigmarole of an official complaint the way we did. You will get treated like crap and ignored anyway. Instead – try what Rhonda Aylward did, and confront the Prime Minister at the Waitangi Day celebrations with your ex-immigration-minister -“Licenced Advisor” who somehow managed to get a license despite running a scam of his own in the past involving $1,000,000,000, a Chinese “business partner” and 10 investor residency applications using the same $1,000,000,000.
Hmmmm.
So – the details we do know about what is going on (sourced from various newspaper articles, videos and a forum post on MovetoNZ by Rhonda herself. Unfortunately, the early newspaper articles are no longer available online):
§ 11.9.07 Press Release from the National Party
o Immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith says the system should show more common sense.
o Points out that Rhonda had a skilled job and was contributing
o Points out that the aged care sector was crying out for caregivers while government took the job off the skilled list.
o The Daily news had publicized Rhonda’s case when her job as a rest home caregiver was no longer accepted as suitable for PR
o Her File ended up with the then Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove
o He overturned a decision by NZIS and granted a 12 month work permit to work as a caregiver
o Willow was granted a 12 month student permit to allow her to go to school.
o The permits were fast racked and the fees waived.
o The NZIS decision would have meant that Rhonda had to leave her Kiwi son Cail behind because his Kiwi father would not let her take him out of the country.
o Rhonda believed that media coverage of the case forced the ministers hand
o Rhonda’s sister Roxanne Nolte was sponsoring her for residency.
o Roxanne had only been resident at this point for 2 ½ years so had another 6 months to go before able to legally sponsor Rhonda.
o In 2004 Rhonda successfully stopped Willow’s father forcing his daughter to be returned to South Africa. Willows father now lives in the UK.
· 14.9.07 Rhonda writes on MovetoNZ
o Rhonda and Willow given 12 month permits
· 8.6.09 Letter from minster says “” I have carefully considered your submissions and I am not prepared to intervene. The previous associate minister advised you to provide certain information to Immigration New Zealand by 24 February 2009, yet you have not done so. I do not believe that an extension is warranted.”
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ Rhonda says the extra info was the medical certificate.
o Medical was booked for 15th Feb
o 12th Feb. her mother in Invercargill has heart attack
o Rhonda uses the money saved for the medical to visit her mother
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ NZ Rhonda also says:
o NZIS have said she does not meet PR criteria because she split with her husband
o She has to leave on 23
o .10.09 with her SA daughter (7 years)and leave her NZ son (5yrs) behind
o Herself and Willow are the only members of her family who do not have NZ residency
o She would have to sign over custody of her children to her mother to allow Willow to stay
o She was granted a 12 month work permit with a view to getting PR, and has since has a 6 month permit which expires on 2.5.09
o Her grandmother, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt cousins and other family all have NZ residency.
o She was currently working as a cleaner at Taranaki hospital, after a work accident left her unable to work as a caregiver.
o NZIS gave her an open work permit for 6 months to allow for the change in occupation while she was applying for PR.
o On the 20th April she contacted her local MP Chester Burrows
o He passed her on to Viv Chapman who said it was highly unlikely she would get pr because:
§ The economic climate meant Kiwis should do the job
§ She couldn’t support herself as evidence by not being able to afford the medical
§ Her work/ financial situation had not improved
o She is in Paid employment and that just because she cannot pay a lump sum of hundreds of dollars this does not mean she cannot support her family.
o It is highly unlikely that she will get an extension past 2.5.09 (this was written on 16.6.09)
o Her sons father (A kiwi citizen) is still adamant that Cail must stay in New Zealand.
o She believes that NZIS have bought her silence for 18 months with the extensions.
· 22.10.09 Video Clip from Taranaki Daily News
o Fight for residency began in June 2007
o Visa was extended 3 months later (9/07) after minister intervened
o In February 2008 she was told she did not meet criteria for residency as she didn’t earn enough
o Appeal to the minister ended with a another reprieve till 23.10.09 which is when her work permit expired
o On 23.10.09 Rhonda had 42 days to leave or appeal – but she intended to do neither of those things.
o Rhonda says that she has now being diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder which her psychiatric doctor says is brought on by immigration constantly giving hope and then declines.
o Says that every time she is declined a different reason is given
§ She doesn’t earn enough money
§ Her sponsor (sister) doesn’t earn enough money
§ No proof that Willow can live with her
· Apparently she now has a letter of support from Willows father.
· 8.2.2010 Taranaki Daily News says
o Rhonda at Waitangi on Friday to confront PM
o Organized by licensed advisor (ex minister) Tuariki Delamere
o He is told that case with be looked at by PM
o By Sunday, Rhonda still waiting for confirmation of this.
o Rhonda has been fighting for residency since 2006
o Temporary work permit issued in October will run out on 10.2.10
o She then has 42 days to leave the country or become an overstayer.
o Rhonda says she is not leaving.
So, for me, there’s an awful lot about this case that does not make sense. In fairness, there’s actually a huge amount of information missing, and it would be highly unlikely to be reported unless it gets to the Residence Review Board, where you can get what amounts to a blow by blow account of the processing of an application.
So – here’s what we don’t get:
§ Why did Rhonda not ask for an extension to do the medicals?
§ Did she ask for an extension and it wasn’t granted?
o You simply cannot put in an application for residency without one, so at the moment she doesn’t actually appear to have applied for residency.
§ Why did her family not help out with the medical costs?
o If you are sponsoring someone you have to agree to support the applicant for 2 years.
o So why can’t the sponsor support her in this?
o And with so many family here, why are they not helping to fund the $300-$400 it costs to get a medical in New Zealand?
§ Why wasn’t an appeal made in October 09 when she was given 42 days to do so.
o Her refusal to do this makes no sense to me. I get that it is highly frustrating to have to go through these processes, but refusing point blank to work through the process does not really get much sympathy.
§ How can New Zealand force a mother to leave one of her children behind, and force a 5 year old kiwi child to live without his mother?
§ Have NIZ actually done as much as they can to help Rhonda, and has Rhonda done everything she can to help herself?
o I know exactly how hard it is to jump through the hoops, but you just have to do it.
o You cannot decide not to put in applications or medicals and then hope that someone takes pity on you.
o That is brutally unfair to the rest of us who also have to fight for years to get our families into the country.
§ Has this even gone to the residence review board?
o The RRB has the authority to overturn NZIS decisions f there are special circumstances.
o As far as I am aware, they can instruct INZ to take into account these circumstances (such as having a child that you would be forced to leave behind) if you do not meet the normal criteria.
§ What does the boy’s father think of all this?
o Does he support Rhonda in staying here?
o I can’t help but wonder why no one is focusing on the fact that if she left and took his son – he would lose all access to his son too and Cail would never see his father.
I’m mixed on this. On the one hand – I cannot see how any civilized country can force a mother to leave her child behind. In New Zealand child pornographers can have their identities hidden forever to “protect the child” and yet – this mother is not allowed to stay in New Zealand, even if she doesn’t fit the bill as a suitable migrant – to protect her child. There is something very wrong with that.
On the other hand, if the reports are correct (and I stress IF – because there’s a lot missing here), Rhonda doesn’t actually seem to have done that much to help her own situation, other than play on the fact that she would lose her son. I do not understand why applications and medicals are not getting done, and appeals are not being lodged through the RRB when you have the right to do so.
I can’t help but feel a little out of sorts with this – and I feel awful for feeling that way. But we too have had to fight our way through the nightmare processes, and we have had to do so by jumping through every hoop NZIS have forced us to jump. Every step of the way we have worked with the process, and I sometimes wonder if we would have been better off just going to the papers too and embarrassing the country into letting my family in, without all the expense of dozens of unnecessary medical tests (at UK Prices), repeat Applications fees, and being treated like garbage by the establishment.
It’s certainly something to think about.
I wish Rhonda and her children the best of luck. This is a horrid situation to be in, and I hope she manages to get it resolved, and I do hope she gets to stay with her Children, in New Zealand, so that Cail will be able to know his father as well.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
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?
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 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.
