NEW ZEALAND IMMIGRATION BLOG
Letters from Southern Man
Posts in category: Auckland
Note: If you have previously registered for the Southern Man newsletters but are no longer receiving our email notifications you may have been unsubscribed by your spam filter. Simply register your details here and we will add you back to the database right away.
Comments: We welcome debate and discussion in our blogs, whether you agree with what we say or don't. We encourage intelligent and informed discussion and invite anyone to comment. However anyone posting comments with abusive or foul language or people 'simply having a rant' we will delete them immediately.
Letters from the Southern Man
Migrating is more than just filling in forms and submitting paperwork, its a complex process that will test even the most resilient of people.
Understanding New Zealand is paramount to your immigration survival and to give you a realistic view of the country, its people and how we see the world, read our weekly Southern Man blogs. Often humorous, sometimes challenging, but always food for thought.
Posted by Iain on Jan. 20, 2017, 3:06 p.m. in Auckland
In this business, certainty for clients can only come about when, as Advisers, we fully understand definitions and eligibility criteria.
Our greatest challenge is that the rules are often poorly written, vague and open to multiple interpretations. The meaning is in the mind of the reader. When you have two immigration officers reading the same rule differently, you get inconsistent decision making and this - when you are talking about resident visas - has enormous implications for clients financially, emotionally and, it is not "OTT" to suggest, truly life changing.
With the recent jump in pass marks to 160 (from 100), the only way a lot of skilled migrants can reach that new entry threshold is by having an offer of skilled employment ‘outside Auckland’.
You’d think ‘outside Auckland’ was pretty easy to define, wouldn’t you? 'Auckland' is defined as the Council’s legal regional limits in terms of its administration.
Your job is either in the Auckland City Council regional boundaries, or it is not.
However, like all the work we do, things are not what they might at first appear. Daily, we probably spend between 30-60 minutes having what we call ‘round tables’. This is where the Advisers gather and throw around and debate a particular circumstance and client situation and how a rule might be interpreted against it. A case of many heads being better than one. Even then, there are times we cannot agree.
None has caused more robust discussion this year than the question ‘when is outside Auckland in Auckland (or in Auckland outside)?
Stick with me if this is starting to sound like something out of Monty Python movie...
The rule book defines where you work as, essentially, the location/place where you primarily or customarily apply your skills. Seems pretty simple, right?
So, if you are employed by a large insurance company that has one office and that is in downtown Auckland, you operate a desk there and don’t move Monday to Friday then I think we can all agree that you work 'inside Auckland'.
Or, you work for an insurance company in Christchurch doing the same thing and you go to the Christchurch office every day and operate a desk there so you are, it seems reasonable to conclude, working ‘outside of Auckland’.
What say, however, you are employed by that same insurance company which is itself based in Auckland, you live in Auckland, but in your role as Training Manager, you physically carry your work in centres other than Auckland; say 4 days of each and every week, and that is specified in your employment agreement?
Is this is a job inside or outside of Auckland? Is it a 50 point job offer or an 80 point job offer?
There has this week been a series of emails between us and INZ over this.
If the rule is really only interested where an applicant primarily carries out their work, then in the third example above they cannot be deemed to be working in Auckland, surely? Just because the ‘head office’ is there, the company is managed from there? If the important bit is where the migrant primarily or customarily does their work and that is geographically and physically outside of Auckland, is that not an 'outside Auckland' job?
Well, not according to INZ but they have conceded that this is not a one size fits all rule and that officers have to assess individual circumstances. This, in my long experience, is a recipe for inconsistency and with inconsistency comes frustration and misery.
INZ has this week said in response to a number of emails that they look at other factors such as where the migrant lives (even though this is not part of the published rule which is only concerned about where they carry out their job), where the migrant might return for their ‘performance reviews’ (Really? Also not mentioned in 'the rule'), where the employer is physically located and so on.
This is not hypothetical. We have a client who is in sales. His employer is physically located in Auckland. The client however spends well over 50% of his time each and every week (‘primarily’ or ‘customarily’, to quote the rule book) outside of Auckland meeting with clients. Sounds to me like he works outside of Auckland.
These additional points were put in place to encourage more migrants to settle outside of Auckland in order to reduce pressure on roads, housing, schools, hospitals, etc. Therefore there is logic to this client being deemed to work ‘inside Auckland’ as that is where he lives and his family live.
Yet the rule does not mention, nor even imply, that where someone lives forms part of the definition.
If however these other (unwritten) criteria are to form part of the decision, let’s turn the situation around. A person lives with his family one kilometre outside the legal Auckland City council Boundary. Let's say he is an Electrician. The employer’s office is a further one kilometre outside of the Auckland boundary. Every day, however this Electrician travels 3 kilometres up the hill and over the Auckland boundary to wire houses in one of the massive new housing developments springing up around Auckland’s periphery.
Is he now working inside or outside Auckland and is this a 50 point job or an 80 point job?
Using INZ’s logic this week he is surely going to get 80 points. I wouldn’t trust them to rule in such a way, however.
(See why I lost my marbles a long time ago?).
I think the solution is a little simpler than INZ is making it (just for a change).
In the end it should be more a ‘where do you primarily live’ test, not a ‘where do you carry out your work’ test, in my view.
If, in the end we are looking to take pressure off schools, hospitals and housing in Auckland then isn’t a better test where you are consuming/adding pressure to infrastructure?
If you live outside of Auckland but travel to it every day then yes, there is an argument you are adding to gridlock and that is a fair point. However if your house is outside Auckland, your children go to school outside Auckland, if you drop your De Walt power drill on your toe and you go to a hospital outside of Auckland, hasn’t the aim and intent of this policy been satisfied? You are taking pressure of Auckland house prices, amenities and infrastructure.
As with all these issues there is seldom a totally ‘clean’ definition and there are always cases around the margins but INZ should be able to do better.
INZ unfortunately is so slow to identify, understand and grapple with the issues caused by their more ‘random’ definitions that often have little relation to the real world and that we end up with real people getting confused and hurt by the inevitable inconsistencies in visa outcomes. When a migrant interprets a rule one way (often logically) yet INZ interpret it another (often illogically) futures can be wrecked.
This really wasn’t an issue before October 2016 but when the pass mark jumped to 160 it was so predictable many migrants would start to look ‘outside Auckland’ for skilled employment, even though they might have been living ‘inside Auckland’; it is now a very real problem.
It didn’t take a Nobel prize winning effort to realise it was going to become one yet here we are 12 weeks fter the policy was put in place and the rule is written so poorly it is causing cconfusion.
Not sure it will need a Nobel winning scientist to come up with a better definition either. I suspect though by the time INZ gets round to it, the pass marks will have fallen or the new Skilled Migrant Category rules will be in place rendering the solution pretty irrelevant.
Yet again, a very good illustration of IMMagine’s old mantra of assuming nothing and suspending logic.
Until next week...
Iain MacLeod - Southern Man
Posted by Iain on Oct. 7, 2016, 2 p.m. in Auckland
I am not really into writing dry pieces on the state of the labour market but given the reality that many of you need jobs to secure your resident visas, most of you are not all that familiar with skill demand in the NZ labour market, and your world view is shaped by local conditions in your own countries (affirmative action policies in South Africa and Malaysia, for example), it is worth the effort then to ‘paint a picture’ of the state of things in NZ though to June this year.
It is all looking very encouraging.
Looking at the full report recently issued by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who track these things, I have never seen so many ‘hockey sticks’ in their graphs of everything from net migration through labour market participation rates to new fulltime jobs being created.
It is a good time to be an English speaking migrant looking for a job in New Zealand.
Key highlights are:
- Economic growth in the year ending September 2016 was 3.6% - highest in the developed world
- In the calendar year to the end of September approximately 78,000 new fulltime jobs have been created. Growth in new jobs is outstripping population growth
- Average hours worked increased by 5.7% (indications of labour and skill shortages) in the June quarter
- Record levels of net migration has seen the labour market participation rate expand to its highest level ever i.e. there are more people working than at any point in the past and this number is up by 105,000 people in the year ending June 2016 to around 2.4 million
- Auckland and Canterbury continue to be the centres of job creation
- Wages are growing faster than inflation (0.4%) at around 2% net wage growth – so we are becoming incrementally better off
- Construction drove growth over the first quarter of the year, jobs filled expanding by 4.9 percent.
- Health care and social assistance (both private and public health care) was up 2.7 percent.
- Accommodation and food services (14,000 new fulltime jobs) and construction (12,000 new jobs) contributed the most to the increase in the number of filled jobs over the year to June 2016
- Business confidence remains high with all sectors of the economy expanding from services to manufacturing to horticulture. The one gloomy industry in recent times has been dairy with low farm-gate prices over the past two years also turning around in recent weeks with auction prices up around 30% across the board
Tourism numbers continue to surge particularly from China and more airlines than ever are flying into the country – American and United are once again flying into the city and on an almost weekly basis a new Asian airline touches down.
Auckland continues to groan under the pressure of these tourists with not enough hotels being built to accommodate them all. Nice problem to have.
We are about to kick off the busiest cruise ship season ever with around 100 cruise liners expected to tie up in downtown Auckland.
Major roading and infrastructure projects are now coming online across Auckland with the last piece of our extensive new freeway network set to open by year's end transforming the travel times across this city (not before time) and driving urban and commercial growth away from the central isthmus.
It is all go!
Told you it was dry, but at least it’s a happening little corner of the world.
Until next week.
Southern Man – Letter from New Zealand
Posted by Iain on July 29, 2016, 11:19 p.m. in Auckland
Four years of wrangling with Councillors ducking for cover and refusing to stand up against vested interests and "Nimbyism", Auckland finally has a blue print for its development over the next 50 years and beyond.
Making Auckland the ‘most liveable city in the world’ has long been a catch cry of local politicians and while it is consistently voted in the top three most desirable cities in the world to live, we have of late been suffering from our own success.
Record levels of inward migration, thousands more New Zealanders concluding the grass is not greener elsewhere, record numbers of Australians pouring in coupled with not enough houses being built to cope with demand, 40,000 more cars on the road this year over last and public transport struggling to cope with demand – has made this wonderful city of ours start to groan under the pressure.
Now, however, with the release of the city’s ‘Unitary Plan’ everyone can start planning a future that integrates even better public transport, moderate intensification of housing along major public transport corridors, modest new height limits in ‘village’ shopping precincts (for retail and commercial buildings) as well as the limited (but necessary) freeing up of rural land around the fringes that will enable more housing in the surrounding satellite towns that lie 50-80km north and south of Auckland.
Our biggest city, already outward looking, globally integrated and cosmopolitan has, I believe, struck the right balance between growing out and growing up and encouraging more intense housing that will in turn reinforce a city based more on public transport than car use. With intensification of housing, it will encourage the growth of communities and allow people to meet their daily shopping needs within an easy walk of their front door.
I can tell you, as an Aucklander, we notice those additional 40,000 cars per year on our roads.
In my own street, our current 'single unit dwelling' status has been changed to allow apartments of 3-4 stories in height.
I have written before that I welcome the change principally because this intensification will (one hopes) stop the relentless rise in property values across the city and allow my children’s generation to enjoy the home ownership dream my generation and those that came before me took for granted.
On a personal level, imagining our beautiful Victorian Villa which is full of character (not to mention memories) that has stood for nearly 110 years being bowled to make way for 3-6 new and smaller apartments does sadden me on one level. There have been more than a few nights lately I have wandered around admiring the pressed steel plaster ceilings, the native timber flooring and the carved hardwood arches that line the hallway, telling myself that it would be cultural vandalism to knock it down.
Then I ask myself if such an early 20th century building represents the peak of urban architecture and I conclude that it does not. While it is a wonderful example of its period, it is cold in winter even with double the legally prescribed insulation in the roof cavity, walls and under the floors, still requiring heaters for 5 months of the year. In summer it is like a Turkish bath – the heat from outside creating heat inside where we need fans constantly whirring.
In this age of wanting to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, such houses are an aesthetic luxury we really can no longer afford to have or sustain.
The future is in smaller, more energy efficient and affordable homes close to work, schools, shopping, leisure and public transport.
Public and green spaces have been preserved (and more are zoned) in the new plan which was non-negotiable for Aucklanders who demand parks, playgrounds, trees and natural spaces for everyone to enjoy.
I can but imagine what this city will look like to my grandchildren, but I suspect very habitable and still on a human scale.
Already, with increasing density of some housing in our suburb of Mount Eden, my eldest son has all but abandoned his car (in my driveway I might add), and when he isn’t catching buses tends to use Uber. At 22 years old he can’t understand why I bother with a car; ‘it’s just an expensive hassle’, he tells me, and he may not be wrong.
Once the ‘City Rail Link’ is complete (construction is currently underway) our already excellent electric train service will become even more appealing to commuters and those looking to get from one side of the city to the other, who can also now live close by the train stations being expanded and developed along the link's winding path.
With such plans come change and while debate will no doubt rage among some over the details, having looked at the plan in some depth in recent years I have no doubt that we will end up with a city that is more liveable for more people.
The time for arguing about it is over. The plan is in place and Auckland is set now to become an exciting, even more vibrant grown up ‘big’ little city of 2 million people, equipping itself for a more energy efficient and sustainable future.
Auckland has done well in my view.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod, Southern Man