Are more than a third of all Immigrants being sponsored under the Family Sponsorship System?
According to the media storm whipped up over changes to NZ Immigration Policy:
Last year, 36 per cent (or 14,826) of all New Zealand residence approvals were family-sponsored migrants.
Of these, 4036 were approved under the parent policy and 1186 under the sibling and adult child category
This was repeated this morning on tv3 news – so it must be right? Well, I am just sad enough to check!
- Yes – last year (2010/2011 Immigration) there were 48,015 immigrants granted residency in New Zealand.
- Of that there were actually 17,038 people who came in under Family Sponsorship Categories.
- That’s 35.5%.
- However, the bulk of those (9,189) are actually partnership applications – so possibly a large number of those are Kiwi’s apply for partners.
So – is that the whole picture?
Well – err – no not quite. Unsurprisingly, Immigration is a hot potato when you need to try and make a political fuss. It’s the same in any country, so this is certainly not an NZ issue, and its the same whichever party is in power vs whichever party is in opposition. Truth gets massaged to try and fit what you want to claim.
So what is the big picture?
The fact is that right now there are not many skilled migrants applying to come to New Zealand. This is probably for 2 main reasons: there’s still a recession in most countries making it hard to sell property and move on, and the even if you manage that, the exchange rate is so bad it make moving here VERY expensive.
So it is quite likely that the proportion of family applications that get accepted is going to rise simply because the number of skilled/business applications is falling.
Here are the numbers since 1997.
So what does this mean?
Well, for the past 14 years, the average percentage of all people approved which have come from the Family Sponsored Categories is 33%. And while last year the percentage was higher than the previous 10 years, it certainly wasn’t the highest. In 97-2000 the average was 41.5% coming in under family sponsorship.
It’s also clear from looking at the real numbers, that the NUMBER of PEOPLE coming in under family schemes isn’t really changing. Which makes sense as Parent and Adult Sibling Sponsorship is capped. I.e. They only let so many in every year anyway. And the bulk of the uncapped family applications is for Partners.
So the upshot is perhaps that while less skilled migrants can afford to emigrate, more Kiwis are looking abroad for wives / husbands??? Partnership applicants make up nearly 20% of the total number immigrants in the last year.
Either way – it’s really nothing new that around a third of all immigrants come in as family.
Are immigration New Zealand Categories and rules about to change?
The news is full today of “leaked” (turns out “released under the Official Information Act”) government plans to make it substantially harder for people to immigrate to New Zealand. (Second article here with some different information).
So, reading through a lot of emotional guff about this, this is what I am pretty sure it’s all about:
- Immigration categories may be changed to try and stop immigrants coming to New Zealand and being unable to get a job.
- In the last EOI selection for the Skilled Migrant Category, 80 applications were selected without Job Offers.
- This was the whole point of Labours massive change to the Immigration system back in 2004 – no immigrant was supposed to be able to come here without a job in hand.
- Parent Sponsorship applications will be placed into different streams depending on the income of the sponsors.
- At the moment you only need to be able to prove an income of around $27,000 in order to sponsor parents, and bearing in mind that you sigh to say you will support them for 2 years – that is frankly a joke.
- You will now have to support your parents for 10 years before they would be eligible for any benefits. This is quoted as being up from 5 years – it’s actually 2 years at the moment.
- The new rule, if it comes in, will give priority to the parents of high income earners.
- Top Tier applicants would not have to meet Centre Of Gravity requirements
- Second tier applicants would not be able to immigrate if they had a second child in their home country.
Something that is being ignored is that back in May 2010, the government already introduced a 2-teir system for Parent Sponsorship – with the Parent Retirement Category – parents with $1m to invest, $60k a year income, and $500k in settlement funds catapulted to the front of the queue, and not having to wait or their children to have spent 3 years as New Zealand residents.
- Parents would no longer be able bring in Dependent Children.
- Now I am going to assume that this should be written as ADULT dependent children. I just cant see New Zealand telling parents they can have a visa, but you cant bring your kids.
- Essentially, if you have an adult child, they need to be able to work and/or support themselves.
- The sibling and adult child category (which my brother came in on) is to be scrapped.
- Applicants who can’t speak English will have to pre-pay for courses.
- Which as far as I know they already have to – so this isn’t going to make the slightest bit of difference.
- No mention of whether they actually have to attend, complete or even pass the course!
- Besides, there are plenty of Kiwis who are barely able to be understood – speaking or writing!
The article also states:
Last year, 36 per cent (or 14,826) of all New Zealand residence approvals were family-sponsored migrants.
Of these, 4036 were approved under the parent policy and 1186 under the sibling and adult child category
Bizarrely enough – the INZ website is “unavailable” so I can’t do a check on numbers, but will do as soon as it miraculously starts working again. Because that doesn’t quite make sense to me.
Do you need to worry?
Hmm. Honestly don’t know. Nathan Guy is MIA on the issue today, but I think it’s worth noting that this is a discussion document only at this stage. However – you need to be prepared. This is very bad news for people who, like me, can only really contemplate the move if it involves the whole family. If all these changes were in fact made, they would stop me coming here if I was still in the UK. That is a frankly appalling thought, and I imagine there are plenty of people who are going to be devastated if this does go through.
As always, comments on the articles are worth a read – you can find out more about life in New Zealand and what Kiwi’s are like via the comments on news sites than you ever will from the Official line of INZ.
More on INZ keeping decisions secret so people won’t complain.
After I finally blogged about this issue – I noticed another article on Google News about it, with further quotes of interest. That article also said that the issue was first raised by a New Zealand blog, No Right Turn. So I have been having a fascinating read of what they have to say.
No Right Turn first raised the issue back in November 2011, and sent an OIA Request to Immigration New Zealand for details.
These posts also contain links to the Circular put out by INZ explicitly telling staff not to record their reasons for declining visas under section 61, and emails rationalising the decision, from Kathy Tait, the Team Manager (Acting) at INZ. (Side Issue – in 8 years if dealing with INZ – most people we come into contact with when escalating anything are only “acting” in the role. Says it all really!)
The circular was sent to staff dated 14th November 2011. It was in September 2011 that I found out that INZ had hidden the complaints process again and it was no longer prominent on their website, which it had been after I complained to the Ombudsmen about the total lack of it anywhere on the internet. I actually contacted INZ about this and their response was
The complaints resolution process is accessible on the right-hand side of the “Contact us” page (www.immigration.govt.nz/
migrant/general/aboutnzis/ ) . ”Contact us” is positioned on the banner of all Immigration New Zealand webpages.contactus/
Right – so basically – we know, we don’t care, it’s there somewhere, it’s not our fault if people are too dumb to find where we hid it.
Coincidence?
Are INZ already sick of Immigrants making complaints? Do I care? Do I have an iota of sympathy?
Now, back to the issue.
No Right Turn shows that the earlier draft of the Circular states that:
(records) should show that the Immigration Officer has taken into consideration all the relevant facts of the case and has come to a logical, reasonable decision based on those facts.
The new version says the opposite – that decisions should not be recorded.
As for the recording of reasons for decisions, according to the timeline provided [DOC], this decision was made in early July after concerns were raised by “Resolutions” [PDF]. The immigration officers concerned were remarkably frank about their reasons [PDF]:
[Resolutions] strongly feel that including rationale just opens us up to the risk of judicial review and ombudsman complaints.And the ultimate reason for excluding them?
I wouldn’t want to make it mandatory to put something (rationale) in AMS [DoL's database] which is likely to generate more work and complaints for branches.Yes, that’s right: they did it explicitly in an effort to thwart complaints.
Which is exactly the behavior many of us have come to expect from the department. It’s immensely dishonest from the top down to the bottom. Unsurprising, the Ombudsman has stayed silent on the issue.
Now I really recommend wading through the posts at No Right Turn. The work he has done on this is seriously impressive – but I would like to show a screenshot of one of the emails he has linked to – because I think people should know the kind of people who are employed by INZ, and have almost unlimited power and zero oversight from a government who believe that “protecting the borders” is more important than law.
So, what we have here, is a Manager at INZ redrafting a circular, taking out the need to record Adverse Decisions on specialVisas, and replacing it with an instruction to NOT record the rational for turning down a visa, without discussion, without review, without proper process, and see if “people scream”.
Seriously? This is the kind of person who is making this level of decision?
So, what on earth is s61 anyway? What is all this about?
Section 61 refers to a Special Visa being granted. This is a Visa which legalises people such as over stayers, or people who would not normally be given a visa. It can be granted to anyone – regardless of the visa being applied for – temporary or residence visa, unless they are in the process of being deported. You cannot ask to be considered, and the decision to even consider anyone for a Section 61 Visa, let alone deciding whether to grant one, is entirely up to the Visa Officer.
You have also never had the right to be told the reasons behind the outcome of a decision. This is made clear in the Operations manual, and three circulars, dated April 2008 (Prior to the New Immigration Act 2009, so refers to Section 35a rather than Section 61), September 2010, and the recent update in November 2011.
The difference is that in the November 2011 circular, it expressly instructs staff:
9.
An immigration officer should not record any reasons or rationale for refusing to consider the request in either AMS notes or in the communication with the client. The requestor should be sent the template letter s61 Refuse to
consider. The immigration officer must complete the section 61 template by indicating they have refused to consider the request, then sign it and attach it to the file.
So we have gone from – the Immigrant has no right to be TOLD the reasons for the decision (which means it is still in the record and can be tracked by people such as the Ombudsman), to “don’t write it down so that no one can ever find the reasons, and kick our arses over it”.
As No Right Turn says -
All-up, we have a government department which has acted deliberately to thwart judicial and Ombudsman oversight, for reasons of its own convenience, apparently in violation of New Zealand law. The question is whether the Minister will act – or whether he will effectively endorse this situation with his silence.
The Minister, Nathan Guy, believes this is fair and right. Frankly – it stinks.
INZ to be given new secrecy powers – WTF?
This was actually hidden away on the stuff website back on the 17th February, Somewhere where most people would never see it. Which I personally believe was done entirely on purpose.
The reason I have not published this blog until now is that I knew we had one more visa application to go – my brother’s IRRV / Permanent Residency application, and I wanted to post nothing that could possibly compromise that visa. Yes – I am that paranoid when it comes to dealing with INZ. Now that we have the visa – I feel safe to publish.
So what is going on?
Well, INZ staff have been given the power to keep secret the reason for denying discretionary visas.
Immigration officers have been instructed to hide their reasons for refusing discretionary visas for fear they will be open to legal action.
Section 61 of the Immigration Act allows officers to grant visitor, work, student, residential or limited visas in special cases.
The provision gives officers absolute discretion and is used in cases such as where someone has inadvertently overstayed or made an error on their immigration documents.
The section was reviewed last year and in November an internal circular was sent to staff saying: ”the rationale and reasons for the decision should not be recorded, either on the template, in the notes or in the communication with the client.”
Correspondence between officials who redrafted the section, released under the Official Information Act, show the Immigration Service wanted the requirement for including rationale removed.
”They strongly feel that including rationale just opens us up to the risk of judicial review and Ombudsman complaints.”
There was also concern making it mandatory to include rationales was ”likely to generate more work and complaints for the branches”.
So lets get this clear. Immigration New Zealand – who already have extraordinary levels of power to abuse the system they work with, want MORE power to hide behind, because too many people are making complaints. I cant help but wonder if that is the reason they have once again hidden the complaints process. I am damn sure it is.
Perhaps if they did their jobs properly, and stopped making the rules up as they go along, and ignoring the rules they don’t like – there would be less complaints. Its a staggering thought – but one that appears to elude many people.
However, not all staff were happy about removing rationale.
One official wrote: ”I’m not convinced Visa Services are completely comfortable with dropping it entirely”.”If everyone is happy for it to disappear, I’ll take it out entirely, but I’m not sure we want to go in that direction yet.”
Labour’s immigration spokeswoman Darien Fenton said decisions under section 61 could not be appealed but people had the right to complain to the Ombudsman.
”That right is essentially being removed because there will be no reason that can be traced or checked by the Ombudsman.
But the ombudsman doesn’t check anything anyway. They merely act as a secretarial service for INZ and pass on whatever information INZ tell them too. And besides, the Ombudsman, even if they did their job properly, can only “Investigate” procedural issues with your application. They cannot actually investigate the outcome of the application – I.e. if you get turned down for a Visa, they have no power to make INZ overturn the decision.
Decisions by the Immigration Service had been criticised in the past so it was important the integrity of officers could be guaranteed, she said.
”This is a matter of convenience and covering up of what needs to be a very transparent process for their own protection.”
Its not very often I agree with Darian Fenton – but she makes the point perfectly. Its a cover up. Pure and simple – and it stinks.
The Department of Labour’s general counsel George Mason said yesterday the Law Society’s immigration group had raised concerns about the decision to remove rationale.
”It’s a matter the department is currently discussing with the Ombudsman.,” he told Parliament’s transport and industrial relations select committee.
There was no legal requirement for immigration officers to record their reasons.
”But the points that have been raised… are being worked through in a couple of forums.”
Immigration Minister Nathan Guy said hiding rationale was not inappropriate for an agency charged with protecting New Zealand’s borders.
”Persons who are unlawfully in New Zealand can’t expect to be treated in the same way as those who lodge proper immigration applications.”
The Immigration Service was ”highly transparent”, he said.
Bollocks.
What would Nathan Guy know about how transparent INZ is or isn’t? (It’s not by the way – which is why we are plowing $95million into a new computer system to help them get with the 20th Century!) He hasn’t had to deal with the abusive behavior of some of the staff their, and their undying refusal to be open and transparent about a/ what they doing, b/ what information they want, and c/ what they are doing about it. They are so lacking in transparency that staff can tell you any old crap, and another member of staff can turn round and tell you that you shouldn’t believe everything you are told by INZ staff.
You couldn’t make it up – really!
I agree – people here unlawfully are different from those trying to wade through the system lawfully – except that many people are here unlawfully because INZ staff are incompetent, and force people to be illegal over-stayers because they do not know how to do their jobs.
It does not take skill to get a job at INZ. It does not take a great deal of training, and clearly it does not take a huge amount of intelligence, as many people can attest. To give people like that MORE power is absurd.
If INZ are so crap at their jobs they need a law change to give them the power to hide their decisions and thus cut complaints – Nathan Guy should be asking why. Not giving them more power when they clearly can’t handle the power they already have. Moreover – articles like this, while they are being written, are getting harder to find. Changes to Immigration Policy are being pushed through with barely a whisper of it making it into the papers.
We NEVER have to deal with Immigration New Zealand again.
On 2nd February 2004, we had our first correspondence from Immigration New Zealand (Then NZIS). That was a letter verifying an application had been received by my parents for a Long Term Business Visa. Mine and Hubby’s application wasn’t accepted till later that year, due to the changeover from the old General Skills List system to the current Skilled Migrant Category.
Today, 8 (very) long yrs and 25 days later, we finally the last Visa we ever need from Immigration New Zealand, the Permanent Residence Permit (IRRV) for my brother.
Other than getting visas transferred to new passports – which is purely a rubber stamp exercise (in return for some $$$ of course), we never have to apply to INZ again for anything. Once my Parents and Brother have been here another 3 years – they can of course apply for passports, but that has nothing to do with INZ.
Out of interest – the IRRV / Permanent Permit can actually be processed while you wait.
So I guess, finally, it’s over for us. It does seem a bit odd to be honest. After so long, and so much aggro, it seems strange that we will never have to deal with the nightmare bureaucracy again.
I don’t think it’s sunk in yet to be honest.
Picture Credit: James Hance – source of much awesomeness.
Did we say $75 Million???
Silly us, we meant $90.5 million.
There is no explanation as to why there is a difference.
Although I have to be honest – no matter whether this is scope creep or just a more honest number, it is probably money well worth spending. They cannot continue as they are with an antiquated system. But I doubt the increase in budget will actually end at 90.5 million.
Datacom wins the contract for the new INZ IT system
So, INZ is going to get a sparkling new IT system, which it desperately needs to replace the steam powered and carrier pigeon system it currently uses. It’s going to cost $75 million.
Datacom have won the contract to put the system in.
Which is really good – Datacom is a New Zealand owned company – whereas these contracts often go to the multinationals.
Government information technology projects the size of IGMS have usually been awarded to United States multinationals. IBM won a similar-sized deal to renovate Customs’ Cusmod computer system in June.
However, a decade of consistent, strong growth has put Datacom in contention for larger projects. The privately owned firm upped its revenues to a record $725 million last year. About half its 3800-plus staff are based in New Zealand. It also has sizeable operations in Australia and Asia.
The Wairarapa is getting popular with big names
Filed under: Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
It turns out that James Cameron has bought two large plots of land near lake Wairarapa, after getting consent through the Overseas Investment Office.
I have to admit to finding that a little bit exciting.
Apparently according to the article, he and his family are going to be living permanently in New Zealand after setting it up as a farm.
”James F Cameron and his family intend to reside indefinitely in New Zealand and are acquiring the property to reside on and operate as a working farm,”
I do kinda hope that doesn’t mean he’s going to give up making movies, though personally I don’t really want to see Avatar 2&3 in yet more 3D. Peter Jackson also has his main pile in the Wairarapa – near Masterton.
There are a couple of issues here – that I am sure we won’t get any answers to but here goes anyway:
1/ There’s a loud (very loud) hoo hah going on in New Zealand at the moment because a Chinese company is buying up the Crafar Farms (had to be sold as they went into receivership). It seems James Cameron alone is buying about 15% of the amount of farm land involved in that deal, and so far not a whimper about “selling New Zealand to foreigners”.
Personally I don’t think its a big deal either way – but I do dislike the hypocrisy when people scream at selling land to the Chinese, but couldn’t care less when selling it to non-Asians.
2/ Of personal interest – what are the Immigration issues – you cant just buy a farm and have the right to live in New Zealand indefinitely. It doesn’t work like that. People buying farms generally do so under a business visa, and you have to have experience in that business. Is this another investor category?
Its important because the Overseas Investment Office is nothing to do with immigration – so its a whole other ball game.
Either way, I wish them the best of luck and a warm welcome to the Wairarapa. It is a wonderful place, and I for one don’t blame anyone for wanting to live there.
INZ incompetance or just plain old bribery?
This weekend the papers all over the world are full of the news that the bosses of MegaUpload have been arrested in New Zealand. MegaUpload is apparently a hub for filesharing pirated tv/movies. Which clearly is highly illegal and should be stomped on forthwith.
Kim “Dotcom” (what a bloody pretentious name), was arrested. He’s German, but has New Zealand Residency.
Now most of the news is about his nefarious dealing in the world of illegal Internet downloads, and his mega luxury lifestyle.
What I want to concentrate on is the Immigration side of this.
Because Kim “I need a silly name” Shmitz, was refused a residency visa on the grounds that he failed the good character test. Now the information in the news is a bit sketchy on this point, but quoting directly from the Dom Post At the weekend:
“his New Zealand residency initially failed the “good character” test, but was granted after he invested $10 million in government bonds”.
Any one else think heads should be rolling at INZ???? Winston Peters MP does and is asking pointed questions of the government. Which I think he needs to do. INZ hound people to breaking point over good character and health issues. Apart from the fact that this guy did have convictions for Internet Piracy and insider trading, he seems also to be way too overweight to have ever passed the BMI 35 or under test. Was he even refered to the Medical Assesors?
BMI <35? Hmmmm.
Amazing just what $10,000,000 can buy you in New Zealand if you know who to pay it to.
A quote from INZ says:
In a statement, the Immigration Service said that “Mr Dotcom made full disclosure of his previous convictions and they were taken into account in the granting of his residence. The Immigration Act allows for discretion to be exercised in certain cases. In this particular case, Immigration NZ weighed the character issue and any associated risk to New Zealand against potential benefits to New Zealand”.
I.e. we don’t actually care if your health is a cost to New Zealand and we don’t actually care if you are a criminal mastermind, as long as you give the NZ government $10,000,000 we will let you in, no problem. On the other hand, if you are a “normal” human being, with a career you have worked hard at, a family you love, and you happen to be a bit over weight – then “Bugger off because you are a danger to New Zealand and our wonderful country has to be protected from you and your filth ever costing us a cent.”
Now interestingly, in one article about this reported some questions put to John Key (Prime Minister), he is quoted as saying that INZ made this decision to accept his good character without reference to the Immigration Minister. Which means they were even slightly concerned. Which also means that they need to take full responsibility for their decision. Bet they won’t.
Another question is: does the New Zealand Government have to return the $10,000,000 in bribes investment funds as they are likely the result of “ill gotten gains”? Will those assests be frozen? Are they part of the MPAA FBI case?
Sometimes, even with my own personal animosity towards Immigration New Zealand taken into account, they manage to sicken me with their ability to make decisions based on how rich you are and ignore how you got the money.
$75 million for a new INZ IT system…
…what could possibly go wrong?
Well now, I’m not saying that it actually will go wrong – I’m just saying I don’t have a huge amount of faith is all.
The Immigration Global Management System is due to start being implemented later in 2012. (Not due for competetion till 2015 though). And let’s be clear – INZ really do need it – the system they use now is a joke, and enables a huge amount of immigration to occur that would be stopped if staff could actually see info from other offices. The system is so antiquated – INZ can’t even access records electronically and have to “Courier” documents between offices. It takes over 3 weeks to get paperwork from NZ to London. Mind you – given the state of the internet access in New Zealand – perhaps I am being unfair.
On second thoughts – no – I’m not.
This will certainly fix part of the problem – but the bottom line is that INZ staff are still a major problem – badly trained and often with bad attitudes and appalling lack of knowledge of Immigration Law and processes. No amount of shiny new IT systems is going to fix that problem .
Scarily – the Auditor General reported on this back in June 2009 and recommended a complete overhaul of the system. Now this being the very security of New Zealand’s Borders we are talking about, I would have thought that perhaps they could have sorted this out a bit sooner.
And just for kicks – Immigration New Zealand itself tells us:
Customers applying for visas will have a transformed experience
You notice they don’t say improved? 
I was trying to find out who was going to be responsible for putting the system in – but all I could find anywhere was cut-and paste reporting of the press release from the immigration minister. Hubby has discovered that as of early December, the decision had not been made about who had the contract to put this system in. Can’t say I envy them!
For the IT people out there – EDS are responsible for the current pile of shite masquerading as an IT system.
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
