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.
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 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 
The UK State Pension – what happens to it when you emigrate.
Filed under: Avalon's Money Thread, Cost of living, Future Finances, The Book
This is something that I’ve actually had a lot of emails about recently, so I thought I would write a little about it and there seems to be some really whopping great misconceptions out there.
The main thing you need to understand is that you cannot double dip on your state pensions. You do not have the right to take a UK state pension and add it to any New Zealand superannuation you may be entitled to.
You just can’t.
If you choose to take the UK pension you are entitled to – it gets taken straight off any Superannuation you would get. There is a chapter in Avalon’s Guide explaining the nuts and bolts – but this is the bit you need to understand.
- If you are currently receiving the UK State Pension, the amount of pension you will get is frozen at the level it is when you become a resident of New Zealand.
- If you emigrate, and then later become eligible for the UK State Pension, the amount is frozen at the level it was when you left the UK.
- Any UK State Pension that you do get will be taken off any New Zealand state Superannuation you may be entitled to.
- This means that you cannot claim the UK state pension and add it to the New Zealand Superannuation.
- You can continue to contribute to the UK State Pension while you are resident in New Zealand if you wish.
- Any contributions that you make will increase your UK State Pension.
- Remember though that any increase you do gain will simply decrease the amount of New Zealand Superannuation you are entitled to.
As far as I’m personally concerned, I have not been expecting a state pension for the UK government since I was about 20 years old. The pensions system in most western countries is bankrupt, and there just isn’t the money to keep paying it.
You should also be aware that the National Insurance you pay in the UK is not being used to fund your retirement. It’s paying for the pensions of the people currently receiving a state pension. Your pension needs to be paid by future taxpayers. Thus the problem – there aren’t anywhere near enough people to pay it. The number of pensioners is growing, and the number of taxpayers isn’t growing anywhere near as fast.
And it’s no better here in New Zealand. As Gareth Morgan (an investment provider and somewhat annoying “guru” and “commentator”) says in his book Pension Panic:
If you think the government is going to keep you in the style to which you have become accustomed once you’ve retired, think again – unless you’re on the breadline now.
I just wanted people to be aware that this information is out there, and while I probably wasn’t able to think of everything that should go in a book about finances and emigrating to New Zealand, I really did think of most things. If you want to be prepared and not face these shocks, then read it. It may not always be fluffy – but it will mean you are prepared.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
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
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.
Well that was a waste of one year of my life.
Filed under: NZIS & Immigration issues, The Family Sponsorship Saga
Finally – we come to the end of a really shitty year for me. It started with finally deciding we had enough of NZIS pissing about over the medicals, and has ended with the Ombudsman telling us to basically get stuffed.
Our letter starts off quite well, talking about our reference to the lack of published complaints process, and how they now made it accessible. So that’s a tick in the “Done” box. (lets ignore for a moment that the Ombudsman was complicit in keeping it hidden as well). Then we get to our “Concerns about delay”. This is where things get a trifle “distressing”. Basically all the ombudsman is doing is copying parts of a letter they have received from INZ about this.
That’s it.
No investigation, no review of the evidence I provided (and there was a LOT of it – it took 3 A4 envelopes stuffed to the brim to hand it in). Just a cut and paste of what INZ told them to say.
Brilliant.
I’m so glad I wasted my time actually writing to the Ombudsman, let alone ensuring that the files I sent were complete and fully referenced. It seems all I had to do was ask them to ask the nice people at INZ to repeat their crap because I was too stupid to read it the first 27 times.
Importantly – INZ have once again not been completely honest and upfront – and it disturbs me that the Ombudsman – who is let’s remember supposed to be “Independent” is so easily misled.
INZ say,
“escalation of the complaint to the DS [deputy secretary] would have resulted in yet another person having to review the full case history and [dad] would still have needed to provide further medical information”.
Well, what a load of bollocks.
For a start – this refers to the fact that once I discovered what the complaints process actually entailed – I found that the Branch Manager should have investigated the complaint himself – not hand it off to the Head of the Family Residence team. This has nothing to do with the Deputy Secretary – it has to do with following procedures properly and doing the job properly. After all – how many times was I told rather snottily that the staff were “just following the process” and couldn’t possible be helpful by breaking the process to speed things along. They always say this when they want to get out of some screw up, and hide behind it when they don’t want to bend the rules to fix said screw up. I’m sick to death of INZ cherrypicking when to follow the rules and when to ignore them depending entirely on what suits them personally. Either the rules apply to everyone – or to no one.
Secondly – if just one single person involved had had the guts and intelligence, let alone the decency to actually go back to the Medical Assessor and ask him what the hell he thought he was doing, then we should not in fact have had to provide any further medical info.
Then INZ (via the mouthpiece of the “independent” ombudsman) says:
“[the Head of the Family Team] made a real effort to explain to [me] that the residence application was subject to her father providing medical evidence to the Medical Assessor notwithstanding the fact that [I] had her personal perception of what constituted an acceptable standard of health.”
What a load of bullshit!
She broke procedure by inferring quite clearly that Dad had an appendix 10 condition, which he did not, and it is completely outside of her job to make that call. She also could not be arsed to contact the MA to ask for clarification, and became abusive when I asked repeatedly for her to clarify what the MA wanted to know.
Further – it was not MY opinion of my father’s health. By this point he had had so many tests it was not funny – and they all said the same thing – he was in excellent health. “My opinion” – my arse!
INZ also believes
“every effort was made to resolve the situation without the need to escalate it further”.
You have got to be kidding. I’ve dealt with a number of complaints over the years – and I’m telling you – the head of the family team screwed it up big time. You do not start having a go at someone and being rude to them when they make a complaint – you fix the bloody problem. The case office refused to speak to us – how on earth is that making “every effort”? He could have sorted this out months before we even made a compalnt – he just couldn’t be bothered to take an hour out of his day to talk to us.
INZ do go on to say (via the helpful mouthpiece that is the independent ombudsman, of course):
It has duly noted [my] comments and Mr Ross Wells, Manager of the Business Improvement and Risk arm of the Department of Labour has been informed of the situation. Mr Wells proposes to raise the issues when the department outlines its Performance Improvement Action to the State Service Commission, in the near future.”
Well, blimey – that’s OK then. Just a thought – TELL ME THAT IN A LETTER TO ME YOU BLITHERING IDIOTS!
Sheesh – these people really have no clue about how to deal with a situation like this properly. I need to see some action – not a meaningless “apology” that only covers about half of what INZ staff screwed up on. Not that I understand a word of what that says mind you – sounds like “pseudo-scientific-bollocks” to me. It does however win the award for the most capitals used in a sentence that says nothing whatsoever of any importance.
The only other thing the Ombudsman tells me on this score is that she understands my dads application was approved in March. No shit Sherlock. But thanks for telling me. That was nice of you. Really.
Right – then we get on to a heading of “Recent Correspondence”, which concerns that fact that no real action was to be taken against the case officer and the FRT even though they badly mishandled the case, lied and abused us.
The Ombudsman says (No really – they actually said this themselves this time):
“I consider that the appropriateness of whether disciplinary action should be taken against a staff member is an employment issue and properly for the Chief Executive of an organisation to determine”.
So basically: bugger off and shut up.
This is something that is very disturbing about life in New Zealand. Companies and organisations can hide behind the phrase “Employment issue” and use it to slam the brakes on any complaint you have about someone working for that organisation or company. You have no right whatsoever to know the outcome. I happen to know for example that the member of staff in the Labour Whips office who so elegantly called me a “dingbat” still hasn’t been sacked – despite that fact that she has now twice sent abusive emails about people “accidentally” to those people. (I think she should be sacked for gross stupidity apart from anything else). But I was not told that by the people who oversaw the investigation – because I didn’t have a right to know.
By claiming this is an “Employment issue” – the ombudsman neatly and effectively stonewalls most of my complaint – and the far more serious elements of it: why INZ staff can get away with lying – not just to applicants and their families, but to MP’s and also it seems to the ombudsman herself.
I think that’s called a Whitewash isn’t it? Or a cover up?
And finally, the ombudsman sums up with the most unbelievably gobsmacking ending I think I ever seen in answer to a complaint:
“I am pleased that your complaint has culminated in a satisfactory outcome”
Well, after almost a week on from receiving this letter – I am still shocked by this. I really do not know what to say (and as you can see – I usually have quite a bit to say on this subject). How on earth do you answer someone telling you that you are satisfied with something when you are obviously going to be bloody furious?
The fury of that alone is still burning. How bloody dare she?
You now what: as an “immigrant” in New Zealand, I may not have the right to advise people, I may not have the right to free speech, and I may not have the right to insist that INZ treat all applicants with decency and fairness, but I damn well DO have the right to decide for myself whether I am “satisfied” with the outcome of this farce. Similarly, the ombudsman may have the right to “discontinue this matter” but there is no way in hell she has the right to determine for me and my family that this outcome is anything like satisfactory.
Unbelievable.
So, how has this process affected my feelings about having emigrated to New Zealand?
Well, I really wish I could say that it hasn’t changed my perception and view of the place. But honestly – with this and with the IALA crap – my opinion of New Zealand is not much better than my opinion of the UK. I think when you have to scratch the surface of life here, such as when faced with having to deal with obstinate and lazy INZ staff, you find a level of corruption and dishonesty which is completely at odds with New Zealand’s reputation. Much like the 100% pure label that is getting a well deserved drubbing right now – the reputation for being upfront, uncorrupt and decent isn’t actually true in many cases.
I guess what it comes down to is that if you follow the (legal) advice of our local MP and “Don’t Rock The Boat” as an immigrant – then your life here will be very pretty and lovely. But the minute you stand up for something because you have been wronged, our experience shows you will be reminded quite severely that you are an “immigrant” and told to shut up and stop making a fuss.
I personally think this shames New Zealand, and is the very reason why Mary Anne Thompson was allowed to get away with fraud and dishonestly getting residence for her family. At the very highest levels there is a huge lack of willingness to deal with the problem department that is INZ. Everyone knows its broken, and needs fixing, but no one has the guts to do it. And if you as an immigrant try and take a stand – you will it seems face a bewildering lack of concern for what is happening.
It lets down future migrants, it lets down the people of New Zealand, and it also lets down the many staff at INZ who do their jobs properly, fairly and honestly. The fact that the same person is still in cahrge of family applications in London, is still bullying applicants, still doing a crap job, and gets to carry on doing it is scary.
I know I am not the only one who faced these issues. And thankfully – it is not (yet) illegal to publicise these issues on the Internet. So for the time being – the only support immigrants will get is knowing that they are not alone.
Do I think people should complain?
Hell yes! But because I also believe that INZ will not do anything, and obviously the ombudsman doesn’t give a toss either – I also think its worth making the details available on the Internet. Start a blog, put the information up on a forum or do something else, but get the information out there. I’m happy to publish people’s stories anonymously if you do not want to be named. In many cases lately – the people who get bad decisions from INZ overturned are the ones who go to the media. That says a lot about what is going on.
On this matter, and for me though – this looks like the end of the road. I will be writing to the ombudsman to express my disgust at the pointless exercise, but it looks like no matter what INZ staff do, no matter what lies they tell – nothing will be done about it. But I still have the right to tell them what I think of them. For the moment at least.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
