Posts in category: Immigration

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.

The Government giveth and the Government taketh away

 

I wrote a few weeks ago about the leaked cabinet paper that indicated a big shakeup was under way under the Parent and Sibling (Reunification) categories. If you read that Letter I indicated that it was going to become far more difficult for some parents to join their children here in NZ on a permanent basis. For passing on this market intelligence I received a couple of fairly nasty emails from a few people as if I had redesigned the policy for our Government rather than bearing the message of change and trying to explain it.

To the young man who suggested that he would ‘spit on any New Zealander’ that he meets in Mumbai given our lack of respect for the ‘Godlike parents’ of migrants I can only say I shall remember to wear a raincoat next time I happen to be in town and will put on my best Australian twang….. 

This morning the new policy was released and while it is pretty clear how things will work there are, as always, important questions that have gone unanswered by the Immigration Department. When we get those (if we can find anyone inside INZ who actually knows the answers) we will let you know.

The surprising thing is how this policy appears to actually loosen up requirements for many parents and make their entry easier and quicker. But it will take money invested in New Zealand, a ‘guaranteed lifetime income’ or a sponsor with a reasonable, but not excessive, pre tax income and a reasonable command of English (or the willingness to buy your way out having to) to achieve it.

Essentially this category has undergone a major shift in focus from its historical basis of being a policy based on ‘social’ outcomes to one based on ‘economic’ ones. At the risk of provoking the ire once again of my friend in Mumbai the New Zealand Government has decided it only wants parents who are largely financially self-reliant or have sponsors who can ensure that they won’t ask for Government assistance and who can ‘fit in’ thanks to being able to speak English (or as I say, buy their way out of it – which rather begs the question why have English as a criteria in the first place?).

Currently a parent (or parents) must:

I. Either be alone in the home country with all their independent children living elsewhere; or

II. have the same number of adult children ordinarily and permanently residing in NZ than any other country including the home country. This was known as the Centre of Gravity.

The surprising but good news is that the requirement for the Centre of Gravity to be in NZ has been dropped.

This has huge implications for those with fewer children in NZ than in the country in which the parent applicants live.

So for example if a parent has only one child in NZ with a residence visa and who is living here and say three children in their home country but they meet the remaining requirements of income or wealth and English language  they can according to the policy still be approved residence – and fast tracked to boot.

So for many parents who previously had no chance of qualifying they now do.

So as always happens with these policy changes there are winners and losers. The doors close on some but open to others.

There will be two streams known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 and all applicants will need to file an Expression of Interest and if selected  will be invited to apply for residence if it appears they are healthy and of good character based on statements they have made.

Selection is based on the Tier they are applying under (first dibs got to Tier 1) and applicants will be selected in the order in which the EOIs were filed – so it is not a points system and should not be confused with the Skilled Migrant Pool.

Here are the main criteria:

All applicants under either Tier must continue to meet the general requirements of family relationship (with their sponsor – being the biological, adopted or step child of the Principal Applicant), enjoy good health and meet the character test. 

Tier one applicants must have either a ‘guaranteed life-time minimum income’ of $27,203 per annum if there is only one parent applying or $39,890 per annum for a couple, or minimum settlement funds of $500,000 which they bring to New Zealand, or the sponsoring NZ resident child must provide evidence of pre-tax income of at least $65,000 per annum or $90,000 per annum when  combined with the sponsor’s partner’s income and they must meet at least two competencies of International English Language Testing System (IELTS) Level 4.0, meet an equivalent requirement or pre-purchase English for Speakers of Other Languages tuition at a cost of $1,735. 

There are a few obvious questions that arise from these criteria:

• Who can ever guarantee a life time guaranteed minimum income? Hasn’t INZ heard of share market corrections, property rental income fluctuations, bank deposit interest rates moving up and down and so on? I’ll be interested to see how that is interpreted (or maybe INZ has a financial markets crystal ball the rest of us don’t possess). 

• Are parents going to have to report in every year with evidence of what their income is till the day they breathe their last?

• If the application comprises two parents do they both have to demonstrate English language ability? 

When I know you will know…..

The losers in this change are going to be the Tier 2 parents and a close examination of the criteria demonstrates just who is being targeted as being less welcome here. These are the ones who: 

• have no adult children living in the home country and at least one adult child lawfully and permanently resident in NZ

• Will be sponsored by a NZ based adult child who has an income of at least $33,675 (pre tax). 

• Must also meet the same English language a standard as outlined above.

Tier 2 parents will go to the back of a very long queue and it will be a case of don’t call us we’ll call you and oh-gosh-the-phone-lines-appear-to-be-down. Tier I applicants on the other hand are going to get priority processing. We are assuming that the current three year requirement to the NZ sponsoring child to have held a residence visa remains.

Parents who wish to apply under both categories are still not allowed to stay beyond the usual 12 months as a visitor while their residence is being processed so while this may not impact much on Tier 1 applicants it may mean further misery and heartache for those applying under the second Tier. Just like now.

It is a shame the Government hasn’t moved to allow families to stay together while residence cases are being processed but at the same time these changes are clearly designed to focus on a more targeted migrant audience. Those from wealthier backgrounds who speak English or buy their way out of having to learn it.

What is equally clear from our analysis is Tier 2 parents will have little to no chance of being selected from the ‘pool’ (now being set up) given the existing numbers of parents who apply and the reduced annual quota being put in place so while it will become easier for many parents with money or children here who enjoy reasonable incomes to qualify, for those without we believe the door has pretty much just shut.

The Government giveth and the Government taketh away……

Until next week

Four Golden Rules Sorely Tested

 

I think I have in the past shared with you my four golden rules for surviving the immigration process with some of your mental faculties left intact:

1. Assume nothing about your eligibility
2. Suspend logic – there is little to be found in the visa process
3. There’s a good chance when you think you understand the rules your Visa will be processed by an immigration officer who does not understand the rules
4. Don’t believe everything you read on the Immigration Department’s website

If this sounds a little uncharitable to the Department become a client of ours and you will very soon see what I mean.

Only this week I can give you good examples of all four rules in action.

Last week I wrote of the little drama over claims coming from the Christchurch Branch Work Visa Manager that he and his colleagues were going to ‘get tough on those entering New Zealand as visitors and subsequently applying for Work Visas’. This was obviously a real concern because entering New Zealand as a visitor with a view to exploring the country and checking it out (including employment opportunities) as a visitor is entirely lawful. If someone decides they like it, they find a job and wish to apply for a Work Visa that is not only entirely lawful but the way the labour market works. The Work Visa Manager in Christchurch expressed his surprise that employers and recruiters demanded to interview applicants in person and in New Zealand.

I asked his boss, the Branch Manager, to both explain what her position on those comments were and to consider granting my client a short term Work Visa as an exception while we resolved a relatively minor health issue that was holding things up.

If you recall both the case officer and the Work Visa Manager had flatly refused to consider this simple request.

To her credit she agreed and the client is now working with a 12 month work visa granted as an exception.

She has also in a nice sort of way put her employee back in his box by confirming my understanding of the law is accurate.

Which is good news for the city of Christchurch because if they wish to avoid living in the ruins of their downtown for all eternity this office is going to need to take a sensible and pragmatic approach to the conflicts that exist across Visitor, Work and Residence Visa policies and take a ’big picture’ approach to those, like my client, who travel to New Zealand as visitors, establish they are employable, establish this is a country they wish to settle in, secure work and apply for work visas followed, quite legitimately, by Residence Visas.

The Government could of course assist the officers in their task quite simply.

If a person has been selected from the skilled migrant pool with a job offer and they have been invited to apply for residence, the prima facie claim to that residence has been established. While we know that guarantees nothing in terms of Residence Visa outcomes and significant numbers of people who are invited to apply for residence are subsequently declined (often through no fault of their own) surely the creation of a temporary class of Work Visa for these people does not threaten the integrity of the immigration process?

To do so of course would be a clear breach of Golden rule # 2……

I have also been analysing some statistics on skilled migrant approval, decline and work to residence rates for INZ London, Beijing and Shanghai branches as part of our ongoing monitoring of decisions in those markets.

Those of you that have been reading this blog for a while will know that skilled migrant decline rates coming out of China two years ago were significant and hovered around 80% in Shanghai and Beijing for some time. After months of work and investigation we were able to force change on the Chinese branches which has led to the decline rates plummeting for all applicants. Although none of our cases were being declined we were being asked constantly to help those that had been declined who used other agents or had tried negotiating the process themselves.

In the latest statistics Work To Residence (WTR) Visa decisions still dominate with Shanghai granting around 80% of all Skilled Migration applicants the WTR visa and Beijing coming in just behind at 75%. Without tempting fate (or immigration officers) I can confirm that all of our clients since these officers were given ‘refresher training’ in the policy some 18 or so months ago have been granted Residence Visas following their interviews without leaving home.

Officers in those two Chinese branches continue to appear to ask them after the interview – ‘Is there any compelling reason why I should grant this family a Residence Visa?’ when the question policy actually asks is ‘Is there any compelling reason why I should not grant this family Residence Visas?”

While the fact that decline rates have plummeted is a vast improvement it is clear the de facto position of these two branches is to think that a Work Visa is the most appropriate outcome for applicants from their ‘catchment’. They expect virtually everyone they want to approve residence to get on planes, fly to New Zealand, find employment and then secure their residence.

When their colleagues in London continue to grant Residence Visas to the significant majority (upwards of 80%) of applicants from their markets of Europe, Africa, North and South America one can only ask why? What is the difference between Brazilian, German, French and Swiss applicants all of whom have English as a second language (and processed in London) and a Singaporean, Filipino and Malaysian most of whom have English as a first language (processed in China)?

Are Germans more employable in New Zealand than Singaporeans? Not in my experience. Are French more employable than Malaysians? Not in my experience.

So you see what I mean about my four golden rules – so much depends not on what category you apply under, whether that be temporary Work Visa or skilled migrant Residence Visa – it is where your visa is processed that is the single biggest indicator of the outcome on your application.

And that is quite wrong.

Until next week.

Southern Man - Iain MacLeod

 

The Price of Inconsistent Decision Making

I was mildly irritated recently to read the latest glossy release from the Immigration Department called ‘Vision2015’.

Sent out to all and sundry (I guess in the parlance, ‘stakeholders’) it was pages and pages of, well, as far as I could tell, nothing but a commitment to make consistent decisions.

Which is of course a frank admission that they don’t.

As I somewhat embarrassingly sit here in Singapore this week spending hour after hour outlining to potential clients that the average skilled migrant will spend between NZ$3000 and NZ$4500 on Visa fees and Government charges alone to secure their Residence Visas I wonder how much of those exorbitant costs fund this type of utterly meaningless publication.

I know that it is trendy these days even for Government Departments to employ expensive PR people and come up with ‘visions’ but, when your reason to exist is to control entry at the border and to assess and issue visas, why on earth do you need to have a vision or issue an expensive glossy publication?

Surely you have one reason for existing if you are the Immigration Department – to make accurate and timely visa decisions. That’s all the ‘vision’ you need isn’t it?

And we know they aren’t much chop at that.

The perennial frustration we have as Advisers is the constantly moving goalposts – the seeming inability (or unwillingness) of Immigration officers to learn their own rules or to implement them consistently. It can’t be that hard – they aren’t putting anyone on the moon. Immigration policy and process is not rocket science.

A perfect example is a case I am arguing with Christchurch INZ over.

In a nutshell, the situation I have is a highly skilled client who has come to New Zealand as a visitor and secured a Management level position; we filed his Expression of Interest in Residence as he now has enough points to get residence; he was selected and Invited to Apply for Residence and we have recently filed a Work Visa so he can take up that job while the Department spend the thick end of year processing his residence visa.

The one fly in the ointment (and it is incredibly common) is that his immigration medical lab tests showed some readings that fell outside of the ‘normal range’. Marginally, but outside, and like 50% of all medical certificates that accompany all visa class applications his medical was referred to a Department Doctor for an opinion. That process, thanks to the sheer volume, takes around 4 - 6 weeks to resolve and can mean the difference between getting a Work Visa or not – as employers are only so willing to wait for Work Visas to be issued.

The head of the Temporary Visa team in Christchurch has flatly refused to consider granting a short term Work Visa as an exception to policy while their Doctors make some decision. This is something other branches will consider on a case by case basis and, indeed, Christchurch branch has done for us previously.

The officer said that ‘We are taking a tougher line on those who enter New Zealand as visitors and subsequently lodge Work Visa applications.’

I know that potential clients freak out at such talk and the chat rooms and forums are always abuzz with this rumour that you are not allowed to enter New Zealand to look for work. Don’t get caught with a CV in your suitcase on arrival. Don’t bring a suit if you are on holiday, etc.

I always thought this rubbish came from the uninformed immigration experts that frequent these chat groups. Now I am not so sure. Perhaps it is the employees of the Immigration Department themselves who are responsible for this tripe.

Such a threat to people legitimately in the country as visitors who legitimately secure jobs and who then legitimately apply for Work Visas to remain is out of line with virtually every other branch of this Department if that statement is taken at face value.

This Manager and the initial case officer both told me that the client should have applied for a Work Visa before he came to New Zealand. This appears to suggest they do not understand that you can’t get the Visa without the job.  Even more bizarrely when I explained to this officer that recruiters and employers demand to meet the applicants in New Zealand before offering positions for all sorts of reasons – he expressed his surprise.

I always thought Christchurch was on planet Earth but I confess I am less sure after this exchange.

If he is serious and we take his comment at face value it has enormous implications – simply put – migrants who need jobs to qualify for Residence will stop coming and looking.  And with that the Government’s Skilled Migrant Residence Programme will collapse in no time at all.

What is gobsmacking about that is that we are talking about Christchurch – a city that we are told will need between 30,000 and 35,000 skilled workers by this time next year to help them rebuild their city. My client is highly skilled, has enough points for his Residence Visa, has been invited to apply for that residency but also has a job to start – we suggested a solution other branches are willing to offer, but Christchurch turned us down flat.

While I accept INZ needed to refer his medical certificate to their own Doctor to be met with a blanket and abrupt refusal to contemplate a short term Work Visa solution while this process plays out beggared belief. Especially when so many other branches will do so.

The law is pretty clear – if you have a job offer in your back pocket and try entering New Zealand as a visitor then you have crossed the line – such people must travel to New Zealand on Work Visas or risk being turned around at the airport.

However, people who travel to New Zealand as visitors are quite legally able to do so to explore the country, establish how employable they might be, to have interviews with employers, check out schools for their kids, assess the cost of living and general living conditions and if they are offered a job to lawfully apply to change their status to that of Work Visa holders.

The sorry fact is that Visitor Visa, Work Visa and Residence Visa policies conflict with one another and they exist in isolation with their own aims, intents and criteria. Thankfully, enough immigration officers will take a sensible, pragmatic and strategic view and appreciate that Visitor and Work Visa classes can undermine the aims and intents of residence policy and react with sensible short term solutions that do not affect the greater integrity of the Immigration Act.  It is fair to say that if these three Visa classes were all interpreted strictly (not withstanding they are open to interpretation at some level) then there would be no Skilled Migrant Residence Programme.

If Christchurch ‘wants to get tough’ on people who are applying to change their status from Visitor to Work Visas I am afraid that I will be advising all my clients to steer clear of the South Island  and bring their skills north where some branches offer a more pragmatic ‘big picture’ service to clients and Advisers. 

The inconsistent thinking and implementation of this Department has not changed in my 23 years and with the culture so entrenched in so many branches I cannot see that it will ever change.

Perhaps a few copies of the glossy “Vision2015” brochure might be dropped on a few case officers’ desks in Christchurch. And maybe they might even be encouraged to read it. They might then see the ‘big picture’ and implement the same interpretations of policy as many of their colleagues elsewhere leading to happier employers and migrants.

I binned mine. Not worth the (glossy) paper it was written on.

Until next week

Southern Man - Iain MacLeod

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

You know I have a distrust of the mass media and little respect for the standards of journalism in New Zealand. The print media here are increasingly tabloid in flavour and excel in negative headlines and stories. Their reporting is shallow with few exceptions. I do not subscribe to any local newspapers as a consequence.

Nothing could be better illustrated this point than an article that appeared in this morning’s New Zealand Herald with the by line ‘Jobs-driven migration to Oz at high of 53,000’.  As I read this article online this morning my blood started to boil and I sputtered and choked on my Corn Flakes.

The article bemoans that  ‘New Zealand suffered a net loss of 39,100 people after departure numbers were partially offset by 13,900 arrivals, most of them returning citizens. The overall net loss of 4100 people in the year to February 29 is also the largest since the year ended August 31, 2001, when 4400 people left New Zealand. The highest single month loss to Australia was 5000 people, in February 2001.’

All true. On the money. Right on. So far so good.

On the face of it one might think – Gee more people are leaving, will I be the last one out and will the responsibility be mine to turn off the light?

However like all poorly researched and presented news stories there is far more to it than meets the eye – like putting those raw numbers in context.

It is quite true that there has been 4100 more people leave New Zealand than entered it in the past 12 months. This has everything to with the fact that the Government has, as readers of this blog are only too aware, slashed skilled migrant numbers – so they are not granting as many residence visas in the first place.

All other things being equal, if you grant significantly fewer residence visas and the same number of people leave, you end up with a net migration loss. Had the numbers of residence visas been allowed to reach historical levels then the migration gain would have been positive.

Furthermore and as the Labour and Immigration Research Centre (part of the Department of Labour which runs the Immigration Department) rightly points out in a recent report:

Permanent and long term migration to and from New Zealand has followed a cyclical pattern over the last 60 years and current patterns are consistent with the long term trends. New Zealand’s population growth provides context to the relative size of migration flows to and from New Zealand but is often overlooked’.

I would say ‘is always overlooked’ myself and the impact can be very damaging because of the perception it can create. 

Many New Zealanders have some strange dark energy that manifests itself by constantly putting this country down – I really struggle to understand why except to suggest they get out a little more and see a bit more of the world and they will appreciate just what they have here in terms of lifestyle, social support, education and health care. 

The first and most important point in adding context to these numbers is that New Zealand and Australia have an open border policy and citizens of each country can move and settle freely between the two nations without visas, permission or either state standing in the way. We spend weekends in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane because they are all so close. I spend more time in Melbourne over weekends than I do in Christchurch or Queenstown. 

The second point is we all but share a common economic zone and the two economies are highly integrated.  People are often moved both ways by their employers who are often Australian. Of course some go for reasons of family, lifestyle or a better employment opportunity but do these ’record’ numbers suggest New Zealanders are leaving en masse?

No. Quite the opposite in fact.

When the numbers of those departing and those arriving are viewed as a percentage of the New Zealand population the picture that emerges is very different.

The fact is that the highest net loss from New Zealand occurred during the late 1970s and early 1980s when the country was on a one way trip to third world status – going broke extremely quickly and lead by an almost Soviet style interventionist Government. At the end of the 1980s the numbers leaving picked up again, also for three years 1999-2001 and since 2002 net migration has been positive (until now).

Clearly what the headline writers  and journos never like to report in their ‘turn off the lights’ stories is that the population has grown enormously since these net migration records began. 

When viewed as a percentage of the population more people than ever are staying in New Zealand and getting on with their lives.

In a global labour market coupled with population increases caused by natural growth and migration you might expect the raw numbers of people departing to also increase which is funnily enough exactly what we see.

When the fact there is now 4.5 million people living here is taken into account the percentage of people ‘leaving’ for Australia has decreased steadily since the 1970s!

The headlines then should probably trumpet – ‘Record low levels of migration of New Zealanders to Australia’.

But that doesn’t feed into the seeming genetically inbuilt inferiority complex New Zealanders suffer from and the mass media feeds off.

I have yet to read a headline which says ‘Australians moving to New Zealand in record numbers’ yet that is the reality. Over quarter of a million Australians ‘flee’ that country for a better life, opportunities, pay packets and a myriad of other reasons every year for which New Zealand is the destination for roughly 5000 - 6,000 of them.

In times of economic buoyancy in Australia and economic weakness in New Zealand it is obvious that people will move there to find work given the geographic closeness, the cultural (fit – well, they are like our cousins if not like our brothers….) and general familiarity. And when Australia falls on harder times and our economy is buoyant the flows reverse. This is what an open border was in part designed to achieve.

It isn’t a bad thing. It is a 21st century thing. My generation and that of my children move between countries the way our parents moved between cities. When Australia is a two hour flight away it is the natural choice for New Zealanders. I just hope they find what they are looking for when they go there.

So if the New Zealand Herald and other rags wish to bring ‘news’ to us all they have in my humble opinion a responsibility to report things accurately that they have bothered to research or at least provide a context to. Not to publish the sort of headline grabbing trash that they seem to specialise in. 

Do they really believe the headline ‘Record low percentage of New Zealanders departing for Australia’ not be of any interest to its readership?

I suspect they are wrong.

I think it would be of interest to a great many people and play a positive role in the national debate.

I have often said that I know nothing about a whole lot but when it comes to the subject of immigration I know an awful lot. I seldom if ever read anything related to immigration that rings true in newspapers in this country. And if they can’t get this right what chance is there that anything else I might read on unrelated topics is actually approaching the truth either?

This is why and a great many of my friends cancelled our subscriptions a long long time ago.

Until next week

Southern Man -Iain MacLeod

South Africans soon to require Visitor Visas before they travel?

 

In an interesting development last week the New Zealand Government signalled they are reviewing the visa free status of South African passport holders who wish to travel to New Zealand as tourists, to visit friends and family, to check the country out as a place to settle, to look at schools for their children, to attend job interviews and so on.

I would predict right now they will go through with it. 

They are justifying forcing all South Africans who wish to visit here to obtain visitor visas prior to their departure from South Africa on the basis of the risk presented by an increasingly corrupt public service in South Africa that sells passports. Our Government, among others, feel this risk to the integrity of our borders and the potential increase in the risk of terrorism makes this change prudent. It is common knowledge that significant numbers of Al Qaida suspects have been picked up travelling on South African passports. Why terrorists travelling on false South African passports might be interested in New Zealand is a little beyond me, but that’s the official reason.

I suspect to a large extent this is a case of our Government simply being politically correct. While it is fair to say the UK Government used the same reason to justify imposing visas on South African travellers a few years ago I strongly believe the real reason is that visa free access to South African passport holders means the Government cannot prevent all South African passport holders attempting to enter New Zealand – rich, poor, skilled, unskilled, ones they want, ones they don’t……..have an airline ticket, can attempt travel equals risk.

Being able to travel to New Zealand without a visa has never guaranteed entry to anyone (ever watched those stupid Border Security programmes??) but forcing people to get visas allows mitigation of risk from the New Zealand Government’s perspective. In my judgment the risk is actually very small given most travellers to New Zealand are not members of terrorist groups and poor South Africans or refugees to South Africa have limited financial means and most could never afford the Visa application fee let alone the airline ticket to even attempt to travel here. 

I would also venture to suggest our Government is ‘future proofing’ against a South Africa as more and more people of all backgrounds may wish to depart.

It is, it has to be said, a sorry indictment on the ‘new’ South Africa. Corruption and fraud are undermining other Governments’ faith in the country’s Institutions and their integrity. 

I recall a conversation a few years ago with a senior official at the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA). When they decided they should start verifying the authenticity of South African Trade qualifications they found that one in three was false.  

South Africa now holds 1st equal status as the nationality with the highest risk profile for immigration fraud in New Zealand.

No longer are University degrees from once proud world class Universities there automatically recognised within our education system as being comparable to degrees conferred by New Zealand Universities. Any degree issued in 2010 or more recently now has to be assessed/verified by NZQA.

Although New Zealand employers haven’t caught up with this change in recognition this decision by the Immigration Department and NZQA to potentially ‘downgrade’ the status of many South African degrees is caused not just by fear of fraud but by well publicised declining education standards in the Republic. 

Requiring all South Africans to obtain Visitor Visas before travelling here will impose even more bureaucracy on our South African clients, but we do hope that those who are honest about their intentions of visiting here – to scout the place as a possible destination to settle, to check out schools for their children, to see feel first hand the cost of living, the cost of housing, renting, employability and even to apply for jobs is not going to be given as reasons to decline visitor visas as they are not ‘bona fide’ tourists. We routinely deal with this nonsense in many other markets (and I would add virtually always get the visa).

No one should read into this that the New Zealand Government is closing the doors to South Africans – I don’t see it like that at all. What I do know is that politicians and their public servants often end up ‘throwing babies out with bath water’ however and they need to be very careful they continue to allow the South Africans we (they?) do want to visit here in order to ensure the success of our Residence Visa programme.

There is no way the New Zealand Government does not want South African skills here and I will put my reputation on the line in saying so. Nobody should fear any sort of closing of the doors.

Why?

South African migrants are highly skilled, demonstrably employable, linguistically identical (or very close) and present a close cultural fit. No one else outside of Australia or the UK comes as close although Singaporeans and Malaysians might dispute that if they were to settle in or around Auckland given the increasingly Asian nature of this city.

The simple reality is to get those jobs the Government demands of skilled migrants in order to migrate here these people need to be here to apply for jobs. New Zealand employers overwhelmingly demand that so to close the door would be unthinkable and I strongly suspect not in the minds of the Ministers.

Having said that a lot of policy gets lost in translation and as it filters down to counter level immigration officers working thousands of kilometres away policy intentions and policy outcomes can become confused and twisted. 

With different policies seeking different outcomes – visitor visas to protect against non-genuine ‘visitors’ yet residence policy demanding jobs which requires migrants to visit New Zealand for starters can, for your average immigration official, cause all sorts of cerebral contortions and confusion. And given the reality is that most immigration officers exist in a somewhat paranoid world of risk assessments and belief that everyone will lie and cheat their way to ‘Paradise’, unintended policy consequences occur. 

'If in doubt, keep them out!' would appear to be the motto.

So for us life will get even more complicated and for South Africans wishing to visit here the scrutiny placed upon you will become even greater. 

We will be working extremely hard to ensure that the sorts of skilled migrants this country needs out of South Africa (and anywhere else that visas are required to travel here) will continue be strongly represented to ensure they have the maximum chance of becoming employees of New Zealand businesses.

And that those who wish to visit friends or family will not be prevented from doing so by the officials that work in the New Zealand Embassy in Pretoria.

Until next week

 

Iain MacLeod

Southern Man

It's curtains for many parents

In a recent blog I questioned why the Government appeared to discriminate so strongly against parents of migrants.

Now we know.

They simply don’t want them to migrate to New Zealand. Not if they are from China, India, the Pacific Islands or other parts of the third world it appears.

In a cabinet briefing paper leaked earlier this week the Government signalled that it is about to change the parent category and:

1. Make it even more restrictive for most; but

2. Fast track and prioritise those parents who qualify and have money or wealthy children here.

Essentially at the moment healthy parents of good character qualify if:

1. They have same or more adult children living in New Zealand than in any other country (including the home country) and one of those children has held a residence visa for three years; or

2. They have no adult children living in the home country but at least one adult children with a residence visa of NZ and who has lived here for three years.

3. If in 1 above the parents still have any dependent children they still qualify so long as they have no more than the numbers of adult (independent) children living in this country

They must be healthy and of good character but that’s where it ends – their English language ability, income, financial position or that of their children here do not enter into the equation.

Until July that is.

Government is I have no doubt about to implement the following changes (and even more quickly than they might have been going to now that the cabinet paper is in the public domain given they have been toying with change for years):

1. Status quo for wealthier parents i.e. they must have the same or more adult children here,, no more dependents living with them as independents living here.

2. If they are alone in the home country and have the at least one adult child resident in New Zealand. 

Poorer parents however will need to be alone in the home country, and:

3. have no dependent children;

4. If they have poor English they will be forced to pre-purchase English language tuition;

5. Their applications will be tossed into the never never queue.

So parents who have funds behind them (capital or guaranteed income) of a certain level (as yet unspecified but one assumes independent enough to not put their hands out to too any Government agencies once they get here) will be fast tracked.

If their adult child here who sponsors their parent(s), is a high income individual, this will also allow the parental residence visa application to be fast tracked.

I assume the three year requirement for the sponsor to be here before they can sponsor their parents will fall away if the sponsor and/or the parent is wealthy enough. That remains to be seen however.

Why are they doing this?

I suspect few categories give the current Associate Minister of Immigration as much grief as this one as she is constantly asked to make exceptions where the ‘centre of gravity’ does not exist in New Zealand (the same or more children here than elsewhere). I field enough desperate adult children seeking our assistance in these situations to have some sympathy for the Minister – she must get close to 100 a week – we probably ‘only’ get one a day.

And of course there’s China and India.

China’s one child policy means that every time a skilled migrant lands here from China (and they make up a significant percentage of our overall migrant intake) the Government knows that after three years we are quite probably going to get two parents who are likely to speak little to no English, be poor and present increased risk of requiring Government support especially in areas of health. If that skilled migrant happens to married then New Zealand is going to get two sets of parents – so we get two skilled migrants adding to our economic base and four parents taking from it. That’s the theory anyway. The powers that be have concluded the economic cost is greater than the overall economic benefit (I’d like to see the numbers because I am pretty sure they could not quantify their argument).

Not belittling (as the Government appears to be) the often vital social and economic role these parents can play with their grandchildren as secondary care givers it is my view that this is a fair enough change. If these parents have money they are going to be more self sufficient. We have our own aging population and increasing pressure on the tax payer funded health system as a result.

I am less convinced as to the importance of speaking English. Especially if they are Chinese or Indian and living in Auckland where you can get by very nicely without speaking English.

That the Government has recognised that those that otherwise meet policy and are financially independent means their applications will be prioritised and fast tracked is quite sensible. It certainly has my support.

People will object to this policy. They will argue it discriminates against parents. Of course it does but Immigration policy is by its very nature discriminatory and to decide which parents come and which don’t is New Zealand’s right. The flip side however is this country will also miss out on a percentage of skilled migrants and Investors (I am dealing with one right now) who will not settle here knowing they may not ever be able to bring their parents to join them. I think right now the new Zealand Government would simply shrug its shoulders and say ’So what?’ given they have slashed skilled migrant numbers as well and as I wrote about recently appear in no hurry to reverse.

When the Government decides however they once again want 27,000 skilled migrants a year along with their dependents and children they might just find that these sorts of decisions limiting the number of ‘social’ migrants, as they like to call parents, comes back to haunt them.

They have also signalled the end of the Sibling Category which is as it should be. A logistical nightmare for applicants and us as advisers, the numbers of these visas are very small and most siblings who want to join family here with skilled job offers will qualify regardless. Less skilled siblings will miss out which is a little cruel but again, we have enough of our own unskilled (no excuse for them to be so given the opportunities here for advancement, but we do).

Until next week.

 

Southern Man – Iain MacLeod

Why does policy discriminate against parents?

I am often asked to explain the New Zealand Government’s seeming aversion to allowing permanent entry to parents of already settled migrants.

It is easy to explain. It is harder to defend.

At the moment I am involved in at least one case where an elderly widowed parent wishes to remain in New Zealand with her only daughter who settled here a few years ago as a skilled migrant. Mum has lived with this daughter, her husband and grandsons for over 20 years since the passing of her own husband. They all moved to New Zealand together – Mum on a Visitor Visa and the rest of the family with Residence Visas already in their passports.

They have continued to live together with what they all identify as their primary family unit ever since.

Unfortunately for her, she still has two sons living in her ‘home’ country and therefore she fails the centre of gravity test which requires her to have the same number or more adult children living in New Zealand than in any other country, including the ‘home’ country.

Although these two sons are in no position financially and indeed geographically to have her live with them, policy takes no account of this.

The rationale for this policy and its restrictions are clear – New Zealand has an aging population and the older we get the greater the cost to the public health system in particular. I know this – thanks to a private meeting I had with a Minister of Immigration a few years ago when they were reviewing and considering dumping the policy.

My question to the Minister at the time was ‘Minister you can tell me what the average public health spend is per annum on a 75 year old, but can you tell me what the gross economic, not to mention social benefit, is when you consider what the children of these parents bring to New Zealand i.e. the combined big picture?”

The answer was ‘No Iain, there have been no studies into that.”

So in a nutshell then, Government can tell us the cost of parents but cannot quantify the benefits. Either economic or social.

It is interesting that the Australians have a policy that allows widowed or divorced parents to be included in their offspring’s General Skill application (the equivalent of our Skilled Migrant Category). The catch is that if the parent is found to not meet an acceptable standard of health then everyone is rejected and the application is declined.

Fair enough in my view. Nice to see the Aussies taking a more practical and humanitarian approach to the issue.

The fact is if we had the same policy, New Zealand would likely get two skilled migrants, their children and one grandparent as a package deal.

The inclusion of the grandparent allows both their children to go out and find work. Grandma is usually going to act as a secondary caregiver taking the financial pressure off their children in terms of costly day care. It allows the state to receive taxes from both the two adult migrants who work. And these taxes should not be under estimated. If both are earning the average annual salary of $50,000 then the Government is picking up close to $16,000 a year in taxes. If Grandma was healthy and remains so she is not going to be a net user of the public health system for many years, if ever, given the incredibly high standard of health all migrants to New Zealand must demonstrate.

Of course if Grandma is healthy she may well wish to go to work herself, even on a part time basis, and therefore contributing directly to the public finances of which she will one day become a recipient of.

In the case of my client she is a registered (in NZ) nurse and has in fact been working despite her age. Her skills continue to be in demand and we have kept her in New Zealand so far on Essential Skills Work Visas despite her age.

An approach to the Minister to grant an exception to the requirement to have the same or more children in New Zealand, notwithstanding the clear economic argument, was rejected.

Unfortunately the Minister clearly found no reason to even consider the humanitarian aspects of the case – the primary family unit for this applicant has been her daughter and son-in-law since her husband died over 20 years ago.

Of course a great many parents also are independently wealthy – bringing with them pensions and other capital to fund their housing and day to day needs – often preferring to have private medical insurance to having to rely on the public health system (despite its quality). 

What would be wrong with some sort of means test? We do it for those seeking two year temporary Retirement Visas. We even demand that they hold medical insurance during their temporary stay in New Zealand. If we can accommodate that why can’t we demand the same of parents? I know many of my clients would happily agree to hold comprehensive medical insurance as the price of entry.

I am not arguing here for open slather on parents. I also know, off the record, that this, and the previous Government’s, real issue is China’s one child policy. For every skilled migrant we get from that country we are usually going to end up with two sets, of often poor parents.

I am arguing for policy to at least be able to consider cases like this which have a clear and demonstrable economic as well as social benefit to New Zealand.

Why not have some other criteria such as minimum net worth (I am not suggesting it has to be brought to New Zealand) that migrant parents can draw on if they choose. Limit their access to the public health system (they are like everyone physically in New Zealand covered by our no faults public health insurance scheme). If we had these criteria clearly stated up front, parents and their skilled migrant children would know the parameters required for gaining entry and what their future costs and responsibilities would be.

I can just hear the policy wonks in Wellington sighing as they read this. They will be thinking, yeah so we let them in and say they have to hold medical insurance but five years later they lose everything and can no longer afford it – are we meant to chuck them out?

Well to that line of argument, I would argue the case of a client of mine who got her Residence Visa recently in apparently good (and well tested) health got to New Zealand and was within a few months diagnosed with cancer and has had, and will continue to have, all her treatment covered by the state system. No one is talking of chucking her out. Given breast cancer affects one in eight women, no one is seriously arguing we stop all sexually mature adult females migrating to New Zealand, despite the clear financial risk of doing so.

Ultimately parents have a valuable role to play in strengthening the families they may well have been a part of in the home country when the three generations move to New Zealand.

Right now the attitude of this Government is that my client should leave.  If that means her daughter and son-in-law go with her that is their problem.

Not only is that incredibly cruel, it is short sighted in the extreme given the clear economic benefits of keeping them all in New Zealand and it is an intellectually weak argument. It is a policy built on one factor – future potential health costs – which can be mitigated by a few tweaks of the policy.

We do it with other migrants – why don’t we start doing it with parents?

Until next week

Southern Man - Iain MacLeod

There by the grace of god we go...

 

Coming this week to you from Johannesburg, South Africa.

I remember a few years ago a client of mine who had lived in New Zealand for a few months and tasted his new life shared with me what he thought was the single greatest difference between South Africa and New Zealand.

He said that New Zealand had no problem it could not solve. South Africa’s problems are so big it never will.

You can argue that was an unreasonably pessimistic view of his old home given some of the progress that has been made here since 1994 and perhaps he gave New Zealand more credit than it deserves. I suspect however he was quite right. On both fronts.

Now that I am back in South Africa for my first trip of the year I am reminded of those comments.

One aspect where the South African Government has more on its plate than it can cope with is refugees and often illegal economic migrants from the rest of Africa. This country is being overwhelmed by desperate people seeking a better life. Many of them ‘illegal’, many using asylum as a way of buying time or simply melting into the back streets of the townships and squatter settlements. Many of them with a well justified fear of persecution if forced to return from whence they came.

People who visit our website and express an interest in attending our migration seminars here are often not South African citizens but refugees and economic migrants from other parts of Africa – in particular Congolese, Zimbabwean and Nigerians. Most we decline an invitation to attend simply because they are not going to qualify for residence of New Zealand no matter how much we would like to help them. Of those we do have individual consultations with to assess their eligibility to join us in New Zealand, the greatest impediment to success is variable English, invariably little capital and my Government’s reluctance to issue them Visitor Visas to come to New Zealand to secure those all important highly skilled jobs that allow them to qualify for Residence Visas.

I have to say while that probably comes as a relief to many of the South Africans that come to my seminars (more than one this week has made a comment that I probably shouldn’t repeat here but along the lines of ‘If we wanted to continue living in Africa we wouldn’t be talking to you…..), I feel a deep sadness that I cannot assist so many of these people who are looking for nothing more than all my other clients.

Increasingly those that have gained asylum in South Africa or are here unlawfully (hundreds of thousands if not millions) are the victims of crime. Given the unemployment rate of this country is almost 25%, many of these arrivals are being targeted by local criminals (read, often just as desperate unemployed locals) knowing that their victims will never go to the police. And I am seeing more of these people every time I consult in South Africa.

In Cape Town alone 8,000 illegal foreigners arrive each month to settle and try and carve out  some sort of life which principally revolves around putting food on what passes for a table, feeding a family or remitting funds to the home country and staying warm and dry in housing farmers in my country would keep a few chickens in. Their needs and wants are not complicated. As tough as their lives are here (and believe me New Zealanders would be shocked at how millions of people live in this hemisphere), for the most part they are at least not in a war zone or tribal conflict which is so often what they have left.

But is still a case of frying pans and fire for a great many.

A measure of the desperation of these people and how all things in life are relative; I was reading in the newspaper this morning of eight Ethiopians who walked to South Africa to seek asylum. Walked! That would be like walking from Auckland to Singapore (about nine hours by plane). Or LA to New York and back again. 

Before they could file their asylum claim they were arrested and faced deportation. Under the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees countries are not allowed to deport asylum seekers unless and until their application is resolved. The Supreme Court here ruled in their favour. 

That decision upset the local equivalent of our Immigration Department and they tried to file an appeal. They were sent packing (as they should be).

I can see their point however – this country is being flooded with hundreds of thousands of people. South Africa cannot feed, clothe, employ, offer medical treatment, pensions or much in the way of a dignified life to the majority of it’s own citizenry, yet every year they are expected to take in hundreds of thousands of people desperate for something better. ‘Xenophobic’ attacks here are constant, brutal and little mercy is often shown to the victims and the migrant communities are running scared.

I can only imagine what the lives most of these people left behind can be like because their lives here appear to be pretty dismal and a constant struggle to survive. They are targeted by local criminals and a minority of them have themselves turned to crime. They are more or less despised (or ignored) by most South Africans of all races and backgrounds. The police here have always been stretched. South Africa breeds enough of its own criminals to not want to be bothered by imported ones.

I don’t see countries like my own standing up and saying – we will take more. New Zealand will accept a maximum (maximum!!) of 750 UN sponsored refugees a year. And before anyone says ‘Thank God’ you should talk to a few of these people. It is heartbreaking what so many of them have left, what they have here and what they endure.

We could easily take several thousand but I can hear the outcry from my fellow New Zealanders – what about our miserable lives? Look after us first!! They wouldn’t know misery if it were a brick hitting them between the eyes.

As I battle the paranoia and unhelpfulness of my own Immigration Department on a daily basis I can only imagine their collective relief that they are not the South African Immigration Department. At least New Zealand is surrounded by an awful lot of ocean which means we don’t have the refugee ’problem’ that so many other countries, like this one, have as a consequence. You only have to look across the Tasman at Australia to see how ‘lucky’ we are.

Close enough to be reached by sea the Aussies have a real ‘problem’ and one might argue a responsibility they abrogate to the very best of their ability. They largely try and deal with the issue by building prisons in deserts and dumping asylum seekers in them until they can process (and generally decline) them and send them packing. But even for them they have a reasonable amount of ‘protection’ thanks to the amount of sea between them and the demand for a safer and better life.

I reflect at such times on New Zealand. On our ‘problems’ like our obesity epidemic. Listening to my fellow (fat) New Zealanders who whinge and moan and demand this and demand that and complain about their lives I can only shake my head at their ungratefulness at the lives and opportunities they have. We don’t really have ‘poor’ people – not African poor. No one in New Zealand does not have access to food, housing and medical care. If people want to work they can (even if it means moving from their home town to find work – maybe you have to live in New Zealand and appreciate our generous welfare system to understand that comment).

I appreciate (for many of you South Africans reading this) that many nations in Africa have arguably brought much of this misery on themselves and there is ample evidence to support that view. However until, among other things, we have a global trading system that allows all these poorer countries equal access to our markets they will continue to struggle. Until they can stop worrying about where their next meal is coming from they will continue to walk the length of continents hoping for something better.

I for one would love to be able to offer some of these people visas for New Zealand if my Government allowed me. What wonderful New Zealanders they would make – grateful for the boundless opportunities in New Zealand. Grateful for a roof over their heads. Grateful for a full belly. Grateful for tax payer funded education and health for their children. Grateful for a chance to live with dignity. All of which I know they would happily contribute to through their taxes.

Until there is a significant change in the attitude of those of us in the west and an acceptance the world has enough food and resources to go around if only we opened our markets up to all comers and perhaps consumed a little less, then countries like South Africa will continue to be a magnet for this continent’s impoverished, displaced and desperate. And carry the burden of the refugee ‘problem’.

One far too large and expensive in economic and social terms to cope with.

Until next week

Iain MacLeod - Southern Man

Auckland hits 15 million souls

Somewhere in Auckland earlier this week the city’s population increased by one to reach 1.5 million.

Chances were that the baby was of Polynesian ethnicity, has four or five brothers and sisters, its mother is 30 years old and our newest Aucklander was born in South Auckland. (Stop Press – the news media reported yesterday she was a little girl born of Samoan parents at Middlemore Hospital in South Auckland – now how was that for a prediction?? -Ed). 

How this city has changed over the past 25 years.

As my wife and I enjoyed a stroll up the spectacular (and thankfully extinct) volcanic cone of Mount Eden/Maungawhau last night we paused (for breath - its a steep climb) and discussed how big this city has got. Sky scrapers, the Sky Tower, a huge light drenched 24 hour port, bustling harbour, rainforest covered Waitakere Ranges to the west, the eight lane freeway snaking through Auckland's heart and sprawling suburbs stretching as far as the eye can see.

I for one love it as do most of the people I know. 

It is not just that the population has increased by some 500,000 in the past 15 years but the face of the city is literally changing. 

Auckland now has the most ethnically diverse population in the country. I have often touched on the fact that it is increasingly difficult to know what it is to be a New Zealander - and nowhere more so than in Auckland. With so many different cultures here each has its own makeup - some combination of local versus imported values, standards and ideals. When I was a small boy in the late 1960s and early 1970s I knew one Chinese boy (his dad owned the local green grocers). I went through my primary school years with one Pacific Islander that I recall – a boy from Tonga and I only recall his runny nose and penchant for doughnuts and potato chips (crisps - I was green with envy and often tried to swap my egg sandwiches for some of his lunch). Everyone I knew was basically white and 'European'. Immigrants, such as there were, were either British or occassionally Dutch. South Africans were as rare as hen's teeth, Indians were few and far between and the Chinese were all in the future. It was incredibly monocultural. And dare I say culturally very dull.

My own children on the other hand enjoyed the company of 41 nationalities at their local primary school 30 years later.

A quarter of a century ago 23% of Auckland's population was born overseas. By 2006 this had increased to 37%. It is now somewhere north of 42% and climbing. 

Around 53% of the city’s population now identify with the label ‘European’. I confess that it is a label I detest - I am not a European - Germans, French and Polish people are European - I am proudly Pakeha - a Maori word describing New Zealanders of European descent. My father's family have been here for over 150 years and I am a 5th generation Pakeha New Zealander. 

It is estimated that around 27% of people in this city identify as ‘Asian’, 17% Pacific Islanders and 12% Maori.

As you might expect in the migrant city Auckland has become, many identify with more than one ethnic group hence those numbers adding up to slightly over 100% (in case you thought I couldn't count).

There I was yesterday afternoon pondering this evolving Auckland standing while in the local Asian Supermarket (and I mean supermarket, not convenience store) of which there are two within two minutes drive of my home in Mount Eden.  I was in there buying some pork. That is a meat my family have never traditionally eaten but if I may say so myself with the help of some marinade manufacturer from Shanghai I make rather good Pork Spare Ribs. 

Two things struck me during the visit to their butchery given this is the week we welcomed our 1.5 millionth Aucklander to town. The first (vegetarians and vegans should look away or skip the next few lines) was the choice of flesh is basically pork (including their tails, ears - the mind boggles but good on them for a zero waste policy -heads, feet, bones, intestines and other body parts I could only speculate as to their function, or chicken (including their feet, their kidneys and assorted other bits of their deceased fowl selves (I assume feathers are inedible or no doubt something would be done with those as well!). A tray of ducks' heads greeted me with their bald heads and their unblinking eyes. Now you don't get any of that down at the local 'New Zealand' supermarket. 

There was little in the way of beef (except their stomachs, intestines and God only knows what else) and no lamb, both of which are of course two historical staples of the New Zealand diet. So now we buy more pork because we can't buy the lamb without going to another supermarket.

The other thing that struck me is that when I am in there 95% of the shoppers are Chinese, everyone is speaking Chinese and most of the labeling is in Chinese - a habit I find frustrating because most of the time I have no idea what the bottles and packages contain and the shop owner is missing out potentially on my business (and my neighbours who don't read Chinese but cook a lot of 'Asian' food).

And there is the rub. These ethnic communities have in many cases reached a critical mass and they are now able to trade and do business among themselves in their native languages without having to communicate with nor worry about selling anything to me.

This can cause some locals discomfort - especially the 'we should all be the same and this is New Zealand so speak English and integrate or bugger off' brigade. I am pretty relaxed about it. Their children all go to the local schools, have accents like my children, think the All Blacks are the beginning and end of world sport, can't work out why Brendon McCullum doesn't score more runs at cricket and identify with most of the fashions, values and aspirations of their school mates.

All over this city now there are pockets of migrants turning whole suburbs into their own. Indians in Mount Roskill, South Africans in Browns Bay and Howick, Chinese in Botany, Mount Eden and Sandringham, Filipinos in Glenfield, Vietnamese in Onehunga, Samoans, Tongans and other Pacific Islanders in East Tamaki, Otara and Mangere.

I'm not into empty platitudes but I love this diversity and find none of this threatening (and that I hasten to add has nothing to do with my day job). The diversity does enrich my city.

Perhaps our 1.5 millionth Aucklander wasn't a Samoan New Zealander in reality. Maybe she was a Pakeha like me, or maybe Tongan, Fijian, Chinese, South African, Vietnamese, Polish or Brazillian. I really don't care.

To me she is just another Aucklander and a very special one.

Iain Macleod - Southern Man

Engineers, Websites and Seminars...

 

Back behind the desk as summer continues its balmy journey out my window. No more fresh sea breezes or sun on the face, only the gentle, occasional waft of bus exhaust fumes seeping in my window from Queen Street, the only light that provided by fluorescent tubes and the shriek of seabirds replaced by the wail of sirens and parping horns. And people everywhere.

I would almost add, how depressing - but it isn’t. I have been away and enjoying sun, sea, surf, friends and family for the past three weeks but the truth is I took all my clients with me. What I love about living in the 21st century is being able to stay in touch with my team in the office (or wherever they were during their holidays) and clients from the comfort of a lounger on the deck up north at my beach house. Thanks to Mr Jobs and the good folk at Apple.

We rounded off the holiday with another fantastic coastal walk last week from Sandy Bay to Whananki (Google Earth it and add it to your things to do when you can).  A big cloudless sky overhead, a warm day saw eight of us wandering a gravel service road through steep rugged coastal farmland for about 7kms. Wonderful but that is a story for another Southern Man Letter.

There are three things on my mind this week that I want to share with you.

Our new websites

Late last week we finally launched our new websites here and in Australia. It has taken six months of slog to get the new sites designed, built, tested and up and running. We have tried to simplify its navigation, provide better more relevant content, offer better links to other service providers that are useful to those of you migrating or thinking of doing so and generally upgrading the experience.

To visit Immagine Australia's website, click here >>

I encourage you to check it out.

 

Seminars

I am also heading back to South Africa in ten days and will be presenting seminars in Johannesburg (6 February), Durban (13 February) and Cape Town (16 February). Its my first trip back to South Africa since September so if you have friends or family that are seriously considering a move here (or Australia) I urge them to attend. The year has begun with a bit of a hiss and a roar out of South Africa and I know I am in for a busy old time. Registrations are open and filling.

My colleague Paul Janssen will also be presenting seminars in Singapore (25 February) and Malaysia (3 March).

To register go to our Seminar Registration page on the website.

 

Policy changes – Engineers and IT

Last but by no means least the Government has changed some Skilled Migrant policy that has direct implications for Engineers and IT professionals.

On 5 December the Government released changes to the Long Term Skills Shortage List which has made entry without jobs potentially easier (or should I say less complicated?) for Engineers of most flavours along with many IT professionals. 

It isn’t an open door or anything like that but until 5 December the vast majority of Engineers required offers of skilled employment to gain entry. This wasn’t because that was the Government’s plan, it was because as usual the policy was written in such a stupid way which denied case officers the ability to award bonus points to many Engineers for their degrees or work experience. These days with the cuts to skilled migrant numbers these bonus points, especially for work experience, are for most migrants a virtual pre-requisite for gaining entry without having a job offer first.

So the new policy was released. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, to those of us who work in this field once again it was worded in such a way that it was not only open to interpretation as to what criteria needed to be met to get the points but also it implied that only those with Engineering degrees with majors in Electrical and Electronic and Technology could be awarded the points. We felt that surely the authors of the policy meant ‘or’ and not ‘and’.

In 23 years I have met many hundreds of Engineers but I can with hand on heart say I have never met one with all three majors.

So we got on the phone to our senior contacts in INZ Wellington and asked them what was going on. Emails flew and a meeting with us took place before Christmas. We explained what we saw as the problems and why the policy as released simply would not work.

We asked whether instead of requiring all three majors to get the bonus points perhaps the policy makers meant to type ‘or’ in between them rather than ‘and’.

Six weeks later and we have within the past few days finally been advised that indeed Engineers need, among other things, to have a major in only one of the three disciplines and not all three.

Furthermore those that have Engineering degrees from Washington Accord countries that pre-date either the Accord itself (signed in 1989) or whose country joined the Accord after they got their degree can now be awarded bonus points. Quite sensible.

Furthermore Electrical, Electronic and other Engineers can be awarded these bonus points if NZQA assesses the qualifications as being comparable to NZ Bachelor degrees, Master degrees or PhDs whether or not they come from a country that is a signatory to the Washington Accord.

This might not sound like much of a change but if you are qualified in IT or Engineering it is seismic.

This creates opportunities for Engineers from non Washington Accord countries that have not previously existed. It creates opportunities for Engineers from countries who got their degrees before their country signed up to the Accord. It creates opportunities for Engineers who have made a career in IT and IT graduates who have followed careers in Engineering. None of this was ordinarily possible before.

If there is a potential fly in the ointment it might be that the Department has gone from allowing a trickle of water through the dam to opening the floodgates. If they get too many Engineers then of course they can always shut down the flow.

So the simple message to all IT graduates with degrees and Engineers with degrees is to make contact with us, let us assess (or reassess) your eligibility because you might find you can now qualify for Residence Visas of New Zealand without needing the job offer first.

Until next week

Iain MacLeod - Southern Man