Posts with tag: migrants
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.
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:
- Assume nothing about your eligibility
- Suspend logic – there is little to be found in the visa process
- 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
- 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
Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody…
As you will no doubt be aware from last weeks blog, the Southern Man has taken a leave of absence this week, pursuing his own personal equivalent of the Tour de France, through Central Otago on the world famous (in New Zealand) Otago Rail Trail.
He has been updating the office regularly with tales of climbing great peaks, pedalling for hours, freezing cold mornings, and stunning scenery; all part of the fun I am sure. Thus far it appears he will be back in one piece next week and no doubt reporting on his adventures, but in the meantime he has entrusted the weekly blog to me.
It wasn’t difficult for me to pick a topic for this week’s blog, simply because when you do what we do there are always interesting stories to tell. There is one, however, that has been a simultaneous source of laughter and frustration for me and one of my colleagues over the last couple of months. A story which I believe has to be shared. For those of you in South Africa, this will be familiar territory; for those of you in other parts of the world, it may surprise or shock you (or might also be familiar), but will definitely prompt at least a few chuckles.
Before I tell my story let me share with you a great and very relevant quote, which I have stuck on the wall in my study at home:
“There was an important job to be done and Everybody was asked to do it. Everybody was sure somebody would do it. Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it. It ended up that everybody blamed Somebody when actually Nobody asked Anybody.”
I often refer to this during heated conversations with my wife, over why various domestic chores never get done (don’t try this yourself - it doesn’t work) and also to remind me to remain calm when doing my day job. We deal with Government departments all day every day, not only in New Zealand but all over the world in an attempt to gather together all of the bits of paper one needs to file an application for Residence. If there was ever a position created to administer every Government department in the world, and I was elected the Chief Executive, my first point of order would be to add the above quote to the mission statement.
For anyone that has had to deal with a Government department in South Africa, I am pretty sure they would want that quote emblazoned across the department’s front door in neon flashing lights.
The following is just one example of the hundreds of stories we could tell, but it is a particularly humorous one (something light for the Easter break).
We routinely send off requests to the South African Police for ‘Clearance Certificates’ on behalf of our clients. It is supposed to be a fairly straightforward process where we send the applicant’s fingerprints, a copy of their passport and the fee to the SA police in order for them to search their database (rifle through stacks of paper) and issue the clearance.
For this particular client we followed the ‘normal’ process and the application was sent away by courier. Eager to follow up on its progress and knowing that they usually take around 6-8 weeks to do anything about it, my very diligent (and patient) colleague Jo, followed up a few weeks later to check on progress. What followed on from there makes me laugh every time I think about it.
Firstly the person in charge of this request (let’s call her Janice – not her actual name) asked whether or not our client was a South African citizen, this would have been plainly obvious from the copy of the passport that had been provided; nonetheless we confirmed that he was.
The next email from Janice was a request for his South African ID number, which again would have been pretty obvious from his passport; however we confirmed his ID number and asked for an update.
We were then advised by Janice that the cheque payment included with the application was ‘unacceptable’. We still to this day don’t know why it was unacceptable or where the cheque is, but that doesn’t surprise me greatly. There was also no suggestion as to what to do next, so of course we asked and shortly after we were given bank account details to complete a telegraphic funds transfer for the R59.00 fee. Despite the fact that the fee in New Zealand dollars was equivalent to $6.00 and the cost to send the transfer was more than the fee itself, the client immediately did this and we advised Janice accordingly.
Having received no update we followed up again and received the following response: “Hi, Are you an (sic) SA citizen”. At this point I was about to give up and I was conjuring up all sorts of expletives to put down in an email as a response. My very patient colleague however responded politely (not sure how she managed that) and reiterated the fact that the request was for my client and they had all the information they needed.
Shortly thereafter, Janice informed us that the clearance was ready for collection. We contacted our courier company to collect it and have it returned to us. The courier called the next day to advise that it was in fact not yet ready and hence no Police Clearance for my client. It turns out that the bank details that Janice had given us were incorrect and the payment hadn’t been made. I am not sure how that translated into her email that the Clearance was ready, but frankly at this point I wouldn’t have been surprised if the Police Department had relocated its offices to the moon and they actually wanted us to complete an intergalactic funds transfer.
We emailed Janice again and, understandably, Jo’s patience by now was about as thin as the paper you would print a Police Clearance on. Janice in her wisdom sent back the same account details – leaving us all scratching our heads. Searching for a solution, as we do, we suggested that the client pay the fee again, this time asking someone in South Africa to physically deposit the money; which he did.
Today we have sent off what we hope is our final response to Janice to try and track down one piece of paper which has taken three payment attempts, 20 or so emails and a good deal of patience to obtain. I only hope they spell his name right.
You might be wondering what the client thought about all of this, which is best summed up in his email to us (and is going to be the next quote on my study wall – perhaps in neon lights):
“Hi Jo, ‘If you are not confused, you are misinformed’ - South African Police credo.”
With any luck we will almost be at the end of the process and within a few days he should have that lovely yellow certificate that we have been chasing for the last two months, that is of course unless Janice, (who is all at once the Nobody, Somebody, Everybody and Anybody from my original quote) still isn’t sure whether he is a South African citizen, or we are or whether or not she is … I’ll keep you posted.
Until next week when the Southern Man returns – Paul Janssen (acting Southern Man)
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
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
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
Immigration changes and review...
As the end of the year bears down on us like a runaway freight train and I ponder the holiday season ahead it is worthwhile reviewing some of the changes to immigration policy and processes that have taken place this year.
Those of you that have followed our strong and sustained efforts to effect change in Immigration New Zealand (INZ) Beijing and Shanghai offices will be interested to know that Skilled Migrant decline rates this year:
• have fallen in Beijing from roughly 85% of all applications filed a little over a year ago to 35% today which brings that office pretty much in line with global INZ averages; and
• have decreased in Shanghai from roughly 85 % a little over a year ago to 50% today. That number is still too high and it is hard to understand with new management in place in both offices why this office has persistently high decline rates totally out of step with the rest of the world; and
• for all our clients through those two offices remains zero. In fact it is better than that – as far as I am aware every client, bar one, in 2011 has been granted a Residence Visa following their settlement interview, one were granted Work to Residence Visas and none were declined. This reinforces the view that if you know what you are doing in this environment and don’t mind investing in services like ours there is no reason for your application to be declined.
On 5 December new Long Term Skills Shortage List criteria have opened the floodgates to Engineers of many disciplines. Up until last week most Engineers needed job offers to qualify for residence of New Zealand.
To avoid the need to get jobs, most Engineers had to gain bonus points for qualifications or work experience but the policy made this difficult for most as it was incredibly prescriptive and restrictive. The policy limited bonus points only to those Engineers who had a degree comparable to a New Zealand degree and whose degree was issued by a Washington Accord Signatory country (and only from the date the Accord was established). This meant those bonus points were very hard to get.
The new rules will allow far more Engineers to potentially qualify for Residence Visas without having job offers first which, as we all know, is like being helicoptered half way up Mount Everest rather than being made to climb it one step at a time from the bottom.
If you are an Engineer who holds a Bachelor’s Degree we urge you to get (back) in touch with us – your Christmas might have just come early.
However the party might be short lived given these lists are reviewed every six months and in a meeting with senior Government Officials earlier this week we did warn them that in our view they have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and this change really opens the floodgates.
Their response was just as we expected ‘Well, we can always take the occupation off the List of course…..’.
Therefore there is a window of opportunity here that might not remain open for long. So this is a call to action for all those Engineers who might fancy moving here……
In other changes the criteria for ICT Specialists has changed but in discussing this with the INZ Officials we pointed out their changes were practically meaningless because of the way the new policy is worded. I won’t bore you with the detail but we are talking about the use of the word ‘and’ when they say “they think” they meant ‘or’.
How important it is to get this right because the policy as it is currently written will have zero impact when it was designed to open the game up a bit in particular for Telecommunications and Communications Engineers.
Change the word ‘and’ to ‘or’ and the outcomes will be very very different.
In the meantime however immigration officers and advisers can only base decisions and advice on the policy as it is written not as it was meant to be written. So right now it is no easier to claim and be awarded those bonus points but it may be soon. Watch this space.
We also raised the issue with INZ about English language. As many of you will know my colleagues and I have been undergoing in-depth training on Australian General Skills Policy by my business partner and great friend Myer Lipschitz who runs our Melbourne office. It seems logical to have a working knowledge of the policy and experts at our fingertips when the New Zealand Government has made it so hard to get in here and given it is often far easier to get PR of Australia.
One clear advantage of the Australian policy over ours is that applicants can score points for their level of English language. Certain applicants from particular countries are exempt from mandatory English testing so long as they are citizens of and ordinarily live in that country. If they need more points to qualify they can sit the IELTS and are rewarded for it – the better the English the higher their score and the ‘easier’ it is to meet the current pass marks.
We don’t operate like that but we should and we have suggested Immigration New Zealand look to adopt something similar.
The reason for this is clear – there is no greater factor influencing a migrant’s ability to secure meaningful employment at the level they want and our policy settings seek than English language. The better, more fluent, less accented your English the more attractive you are to a New Zealand employer.
This would allow for better settlement outcomes through employment and we have urged the officials to take this message back to Wellington.
It has also been fascinating to learn through Myer how for some clients who might need a job offer to qualify for New Zealand can in fact get PR here using Australia as the back door – and without a job.
This is because Australia is less concerned about jobs before dishing out PR Visas. In fact there are many clients that we can get into Australia without their leaving home.
Which is brilliant because if they really wish to settle here in New Zealand all they have to do is travel through Australia on their way to NZ; activate the Australian Residence Visa automatically at the Australian airport on arrival, get on the next plane and be granted a Residence Visa of New Zealand automatically on arrival here. And we are done – hey presto! New Zealand PR.
Australia has become the welcome doormat to paradise!
Delicious!
If then we have assessed you as not qualifying for New Zealand without a job offer but you wish to explore using Australia as the welcome doormat and back door to New Zealand let us know and we can assess the possibilities. This pathway won’t suit everyone but if it works, is less risky and gets you here without having to actually live in Australia it might be worth some serious consideration.
With this the second to last Southern Man letter before I head to the beach house and spend a few weeks fishing, planting some more native trees and drinking (in some unhealthy quantity) great NZ, South African – just arrived by boat - along with Australian wine, sleeping in, swimming in the warm Pacific Ocean, barbequing in my new fire pit and lying on the beach under that quintessentially New Zealand of trees, the Pohutukawa, I look back on what has been another crazy year. And crazy it seems to have been.
Crazy economy
Crazy Earthquakes down south
Crazy bureaucrats
Crazy Europe
Crazy America
Crazy Julius Malema
Here at Immagine we are finishing on a very busy note which augurs well for next year. As we all take a bit of a break and reflect on our lives and the futures of our children where ever we may live, the uncertain economic times in which we exist, the seeming never ending pressures to deliver economic comfort to our family, being slaves to the capitalist machine, doing our best to keep our heads above the stormy economic seas economically, I hope gives us an opportunity to pause and think hard about what sort of future we really want for ourselves and our family.
Notwithstanding the difficult journey that migration presents, New Zealand really does present something of an oasis of sanity in a world seemingly mad and getting madder by the month.
As we always say, ‘NZ ain’t perfect’ but there are few places better in the world to raise a family than right here.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod -Southern Man
Elections and Imbeciles
We have just had our national elections and as expected the centre right National Party was returned to power and will form the next Government with two (very) minor parties in coalition for the next three years.
I was going to write about the upcoming election last week but decided it was too dull and boring (one thing about living in a highly stable democracy is that politics here really will put you to sleep most of the time) but an article that appeared in the New Zealand Herald this morning has made me think.
The article suggested that significant numbers of new immigrants do not register or vote in elections.
Given the fact that many of our migrants come from countries that do not have true democratic elections or come from (effective) one party states like South Africa I would have thought that most would jump at the chance to be involved in this process.
On Saturday only around 65% of all eligible voters (not just migrants) turned out for this year’s election which is the lowest in percentage terms for 120 years.
I don’t know if migrants vote or don’t vote (feedback please!!) but in terms of those who have been here a few years or were born here I rather suspect the main reason for this is that the two major parties that slug it out to be the biggest political party in Government were polling so differently that many people probably thought it just wasn’t worth turning out to vote.
The National Party were so far ahead in the polls that I am sure some of their own supporters probably thought there was no point in turning up. Arguably the major opposition Labour Party supporters perhaps thought the same – their ticket was polling so poorly that they were going to lose heavily and thought that their vote would make no difference.
Which I find really odd.
I wouldn’t miss voting for the world.
When I have been overseas during elections I have always cast a special vote.
My eldest son turned 18 in September and I felt it was extremely important that he register to vote and to then accept the responsibility that comes with living in a democracy and have his say in this his first election.
It is so easy here – you can register online to vote and it takes all of five minutes. Within a few days you will receive a pack where you have to decide which of the Electoral Rolls you wish to be on – the General or the Maori (those who identify as being of Maori descent have a small amount of seats available to them out of the 120 seat Parliament – that is another story for another day).
Even if you can’t get to a polling booth on the day the Electoral Commission will arrange for someone to either come and pick you up (seriously) or if you are disabled or sick they come and help you to cast a special vote. My colleague Chris flew out to Malaysia late last week and there was even a polling booth in the Qantas Lounge at Auckland airport! How cool (and organised) is that?
Back to my son, I even took photos of him with his first ever ‘quick vote’ card outside the polling booth. He of course thought I was “being a dick as usual” but having taken both my sons down to the local polling booth every year since they were very young to share in this three yearly rite I was so keen to join him as he cast his first ballot. More excited than he apparently was to have me with him…
In fact it has to be said that I was extra excited this year given we had another contributing member of our great little democracy off to do his bit.
When I enter the local polling station to cast my ballots I am always struck by how serious and solemn I feel about it – as if my vote really will make a difference to the country in which I live.
Which when you think about it is kind of silly but I guess democracy is based on the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. I always feel as though my votes are the most important ones made on the day. Really, I do.
We get two votes under this system – one for the local electorate candidate and one for a political party. It is a system called Mixed Member Proportional representation or MMP for short. It means that parties end up with the number of seats in Parliament that reflects the percentage of their national vote (more or less). Similar to Germany it generally leads to coalitions with one dominant party supported by one or two smaller ones.
The system is effectively designed to prevent any one party having an outright majority of seats in Parliament and exercising unbridled power. I for one am a bit of a fan of this system although critics will tell you that it means too much horse trading. Some might just call it compromise. Tails don’t wag dogs in our Parliament however and by and large it seems to work.
This year we also got to vote in a referendum on whether we wished to retain the current Mixed Member Proportional voting system or change it. As a result we had two ballot papers – one for the referendum and one to vote for Parliament.
Having entered the hall, handed over my ‘Quick Vote’ card and being ‘ticked off’ the electoral roll (all in the space of about two minutes) I was handed my two voting papers – one orange and one purple.
I solemnly reminded my son how the system worked and how he goes about selecting his Party and candidate and in grateful reply received a “Yeah dad you’ve like, only explained it, like, a thousand times already” so I left him to it, scuttled off into a ‘booth’ and made my sacred marks on the coloured ballot papers.
Having done so I then went to the very helpfully marked orange and purple boxes and proceeded to put the purple referendum voting paper in the orange box and the orange election voting paper in the purple box!
I couldn’t believe it. I broke into a cold sweat. I laughed nervously when I told my wife what had happened. Would my votes be disallowed? Not counted? Would ‘my’ party not get elected? What if my local candidate lost by one vote? I couldn’t bear the thought of it. You may well laugh dear reader but in the Christchurch Central electorate there was a dead heat on Saturday with two candidates getting something like 10,349 votes each so it does happen!!
We’ve all heard of the butterfly effect – had I just changed the course of New Zealand history owing to my idiocy?
I felt like a complete imbecile of course and had to ask one of the ‘officials’ if they would recognise my precious votes when it came to counting time. They actually didn’t say yes but I think they indicated they would. I was so gutted that I may have blown it that I wasn’t really listening.
My son just laughed. You have to love teenagers. He ticked his boxes, made his ‘political statement’, placed his votes in the correctly coloured boxes and went to the sausage sizzle being run by the local Russian Orthodox church members (in whose hall the voting was being done) and snacked merrily on a snag in bread dripping in tomato sauce. No doubt secure in the knowledge he really is the son of a ‘dick’.
So it is over for another three years.
And just for the record my party ‘won’ and the local candidate I voted for was also elected to Parliament.
For those of you recently arrived or not yet here a few ‘need to knows’ on voting:
1. It is mandatory as a citizen or permanent resident when you turn 18 to enrol to vote and to get registered on the Electoral Roll.
2. Voting however is not compulsory.
3. You get two votes – one for the party you wish to see in Parliament and a second electorate vote where you vote for the person in your local electorate you want to send off to Parliament.
All rather simple really.
A little bit of housekeeping to finish up.
We are closing for our Christmas break (I’m counting the days) on Thursday 22 December at mid day and we re-open on 9 January 2012. If you have any visa applications you need filed please ensure they get here no later than Friday 17 December. The Immigration Department will close on 23 December and likely reopen on Wednesday 4 January so nothing will happen over that time with applications even if filed.
Over the Christmas break we will not be clearing phone messages. Emails may be answered from time to time but I will leave this up to each consultant. Any mail that arrives will be held at the Post Office/Courier depots etc. awaiting our re-opening on 9 January.
Those of you in Singapore – Chris Noakes is heading your way to present his final seminar for 2011 this Saturday. You can register here.
