Posts with tag: policy changes
Update: If you have previously registered for the Southern Man newsletters but are no longer receiving our email notifications you may have been unsubscribed by your spam filter. Simply register your details using our online form and we will add you back to the database right away.
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.
If there was a way for the officials that run the immigration system in this country to ‘walk a mile in my shoes’, I would gladly hand over my size 11’s.
In this business we have learned that you can never underestimate what it means for someone to pack their lives into a box, burn bridges in their homeland and head for New Zealand in the hope that they will be able to establish a new life here. For some it’s a choice but for many it’s the only option.
And for all their talk about ‘customers not numbers’, ‘positive settlement outcomes’ and ‘trusted partnerships’ I doubt that there are many people within the immigration machine that truly understand (as we do) what it means to migrate. There are some officers out there who do get it and these are the ones we try to work most closely with, but unfortunately for the majority, it’s a system of numbers and forms, KPI’s and targets with little in between.
I recently came to the end of what was one of the most complex cases I have ever handled, the kind of stuff that gives a Licensed Adviser insomnia and cold sweats. The kind of case that also makes you realise just how much is involved in a person’s decision to migrate.
This particular client had, through a series of unfortunate circumstances, ended up being deported from Australia back to a country he had fled over a decade earlier. He had for a large part of his life been living under the immigration radar without a Visa and without being able to truly settle anywhere. In the midst of all of this he had met a girl and that girl, although she happened to live in Australia (where they met), was New Zealand born. So not only was this particular client abruptly removed from a life that he had built over many years to one that was completely foreign; but he was also torn away from the love of his life.
They had been through the immigration process in two countries and failed. Their attempts to tell their story were never really heard and they felt like their options had been exhausted. I recall the first conversation I had with the New Zealand partner and it sounded like the wind had been knocked clean out of her. Put simply they were just another number in a statistic on someone’s spread sheet.
As an Adviser taking on a case like this you need all the facts. We need to know pretty much everything there is to know about the history and anything less just won’t cut it. I listened to this couple and the story they told made sense. In this particular case, as it is with anyone that has been anywhere unlawfully for that long and then deported, it was always going to be 50/50 and I had no reservations in telling them that we were in for a lengthy battle. My role in all of this was to simultaneously minimize the risk of failure whilst maximising the chances of success. There was a lot at stake here and this was a couple that were prepared to go to hell and back to make it work.
After 20 months, 520 emails and numerous lengthy discussions with Senior Immigration Officers that, to their credit, also listened; the outcome was successful. What this means for this couple is best left to the partner to say. Here is what she emailed me when she was given the good news:
“…he hasn't felt like he has belonged anywhere ever, he has never felt comfortable to call a place home and actually make solid decisions about how he wants to spend his future - he can now do that...”
Are we proud of this? Yes. Did we pull off a miracle? Well not quite. In reality we simply knew how to navigate this process, who in the system to talk to and how to talk to them. We listened to the client, understood the situation and then set about minimising failure and maximising success.
As Advisers we constantly advocate that the machine should deliver consistent and fair outcomes. Sometimes, as was the case in the scenario above, we have to fight a little harder to secure those outcomes particularly when you have a round peg and a square hole. However, there are occasions when even though the system shouldn’t be a lottery, it can feel like you are rolling dice.
Take last week for example. INZ decided it would be a good idea to change the security settings on their online Expression of Interest (EOI) login system. As a result the system didn’t work for a few days and for anyone using Google Chrome there was not much hope of filing an EOI (there is probably a good blog in that). A week later INZ conducts their regularly scheduled EOI selection process and for the first time in seven months, the pass mark fell (ever so slightly).
It wouldnt be silly to conclude that the drop in the pass mark was because fewer people were able to file EOI’s, meaning INZ had less 'customers' to choose from and therefore to get their regular number of plus/minus 600, they needed to select those with a slightly lower score. Or it could be just the computer system making up numbers because demand was lower. Either way the thinking isn't necessarily being done by a person.
For the number crunchers and budget balancers within INZ this would simply have been an ‘anomaly’, possibly a ‘glitch’ or perhaps just 'statistics'. For a few would-be migrants out there who have filed EOI’s in the hope that somewhere, somehow they might get selected, this would have been the very first step in that new life.
No matter how hard you try to understand this process it can sometimes (thankfully rarely) come down to whether the guy manning the IT desk, put a semi-colon in the right place or which way the number crunchers lean.
I know that Iain (the actual Southern Man) has four golden rules when it comes to this process and one of them rings true here – “Just when you think you have the system figured out, they change it”. We know this and it’s probably why we have the success rates we do. Prepare for all situations and never underestimate the system’s ability to get it wrong.
Above all, however, a good Adviser will go further than forms, paperwork and process to understand what’s involved with your situation, to navigate you through the system successfully and remove as much of the randomness and inconsistency as is possible. You should never just be a number.
For my client and his partner, I wish them all the very best. Having not only listened to their story but also being a part of it, I am privileged (and somewhat humbled) to know that New Zealand now feels like home for him, in the truest sense of the word.
For everyone else reading this blog who has thought about making the move but would like someone to walk the journey with them, drop us a line, or if you are in South Africa, Singapore or Malaysia (click on the links to register) we have our last seminars for 2013 in November and December coming up, so why not come and listen to what we have to say and perhaps share your story with us.
I don’t pretend to understand what goes through New Zealand politicians’ heads but “How do I get re-elected next time round” is probably right up there.
Only that thought can explain to me why we are not seeing Government increasing now, with a degree of urgency for next year and beyond, the numbers of well targeted skilled migrants allowed into New Zealand without job offers.
In the past three weeks media headlines have screamed:
- Business Confidence remains at 5 year high (31 October)
- Building consents at record levels (31 October)
- Booming NZ game industry facing skills shortage (30 October)
- Skills Shortage hamper rebuild (26 October)
- Are you ready for the economic boom? (21 October)
- Skills crisis needs fixing (8 October)
Recent statistics suggest that around 90% of all skilled migrants still require skilled employment before they can get enough ‘points’ to qualify for residence. Understandably, given the potentially real or perceived risks associated with getting those jobs, many choose not to join us in New Zealand for fear they will not be successful in their hunt (or as per last week’s Southern Man Letter from New Zealand they will be denied visas to come and look for work or be stopped at the border).
For every ten families we consult with that would have an excellent chance of both securing employment and gaining enough points for residence, probably two actually go through with it.
New Zealand and in particular Immigration New Zealand doesn't make it easy, so understandably many potential migrants don’t take up the challenge. Of course for those that secure the right advice and guidance, the process is overwhelmingly successful.
On the one hand with local unemployment sitting stubbornly around the 6.5% mark it must be tempting for Government not to be seen increasing the numbers of skilled migrants allowed in without needing jobs. As recently as two years ago they did when around 50% of skilled migrants gained Resident Visas that way.
On the other hand there are very real, concerning and increasing levels of skills shortages across many sectors. Not a day goes by when the headlines don’t scream we are short of architects, quantity surveyors, CAD experts, construction related trades workers, IT professionals and many many more. The Government risks losing the support of some of its traditional business power base at next year’s election if companies feel constrained by a lack of available labour to fill roles vital to their businesses.
Of course politicians the world over know that standing on a platform of increasing immigration wins no one any votes anywhere. This, despite the reality that skilled migrants do not compete with the locally unemployed in this country and skilled locals will always be ahead of migrants in the job queue. So the skills difference between these two sets of people mean their paths will seldom, if ever, cross and politically our Government should be confident enough to call it how it is.
Oh that they were so brave.
In the past two years the Government has issued 18,000 fewer skilled migrant visas than their own programme demands. So far they don’t seem bothered about it but when the good people of Christchurch continue to step over the rubble of their humbled city in a few years or Aucklanders face building costs going through the roof because of a lack of skilled workers it might have some political fallout.
If skills shortages start filtering through into wage/price inflation and all home owners watch their mortgage interest rates increase it won’t do anything for the Government’s popularity.
As the construction boom has moved to Auckland this powerful bloc of voters could easily be turned off the Government if they see their ability to maximise their commercial opportunities impeded by lack of skilled workers or it feeding through into cost of living increases that have largely been absent these past few years with inflation well under control and under 1%.
The New Zealand economy is on a roll – growth is forecast at between 3 and 4% over the next year. Every sector of the economy is expanding. Thousands of jobs are being created and hiring intentions are high and climbing. The country’s terms of trade are the strongest in years.
In recent months net migration has turned positive but not thanks to new residents being granted visas – instead largely by New Zealanders returning home from Australia as their economy cools following the end of the mining boom. This is adding several thousand skilled and semi-skilled workers to the local pool which is a good thing but Government cannot target the specific skills sets we require – we might just be getting back many low to semi skilled workers chucked out of manual work in and around the mines. Again the skills mix might not be what the businesses of New Zealand need.
So there needs to be a sensible balance struck. Right now the Government is on auto pilot when it comes to migration and it would be nice, if only once, a New Zealand Government was proactive and ahead of the game rather than reactive and two years behind.
A skilled migrant who has the points to qualify for residence without needing a job is at least 12 months away and probably closer to two years away from being able to deliver these skills to the labour market of New Zealand.
A sensible approach would be to slowly ramp up the numbers of migrants approved who don’t have jobs but who have excellent English (given linguistic compatibility more than anything drives employment outcomes) and who have the skills sorely needed in New Zealand – Engineering, construction and IT being at the forefront.
A real problem for the skills strapped employers of New Zealand in 2014 is an election year and I cannot see the Government changing its current insistence on the majority of migrants burning bridges at home, travelling to New Zealand, running the airport gauntlet, trying to find work and taking the risk they will be successful.
Perhaps it is time for the politicians to look beyond next year’s election and get bold about migration.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod - Southern Man
We are constantly bombarded with questions from clients who need skilled and relevant job offers to secure their Resident Visas who are entering New Zealand to find employment ’What do we say at the airport, if asked the purpose of our visit?’
Clients are understandably nervous and tell us they have variously been told:
- You cannot look for work on a visitor visa;
- You should not travel with any documents like CVs, qualifications and work references on your person or in your baggage
- You should not bring your notebook computer or tablet with you
- You should not pack a suit (who takes a suit on holiday?); etc
Because you are after all on ‘holiday’ right?
I have been made aware of an internal memo dated April 2011 sent to all Immigration New Zealand Branch Managers (and which most offshore branches and officials at Auckland Airport have either forgotten about or never read) which confirms quite unequivocally that visitors entering New Zealand to ‘holiday’ (as the main purpose of entry) but who are also intending to scope NZ as a place to live which includes job hunting are quite entitled to do so and should be granted entry. Unless of course there is any obvious risk to the integrity of the immigration system such as previous stays beyond their temporary visas and insufficient funds to support themselves being the main two.
In the past year we have had a South African client detained at Auckland Airport for 5 hours. A Diesel Mechanic who was coming here to look for work and was totally upfront and honest about it when questioned. With a job offer he had come to find he would have his points for residence. He never lied about the purpose of his visit. He got his entry visa in the end (and went on to secure the job and he is about to secure his Resident Visa). It should never have happened however.
A Filipino client was granted a Visitor Visa through the NZ High Commission in Singapore before he travelled here with our assistance. When we applied we were totally honest that he was coming to look for skilled employment and he passed the ‘risk assessment test’ and the visa was granted to travel. He was detained for two hours at Auckland Airport. Told he couldn’t look for work. But was in the end granted entry. He now has a job and a work visa.
I recently helped extricate another South African who made it past the airport guards (just, having been detained and questioned), who went on to find employment, filed his own work visa application and was about to be declined on the grounds of ‘poor character’ when he came to me for help. His crime? He told the officers at the airport he was coming to visit family (he was), brought his scuba gear with him as he was on holiday (all true), had no job (he didn’t) but nonetheless INZ sent him a letter following receipt of the work visa accusing him of lying at the border. Why? He produced documents in support of the work visa that pre-dated his entry to NZ – ergo, he must be a liar and therefore was of poor character. I got him his visa but he never should have been challenged the way he was either at the airport or by the work visa processing officer.
So what do you tell the officers at the airport if you are challenged?
The truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth.
There is no need to panic. There is no need to lie. There is no need not to emphasise an important part of your holiday is to look for work.
And here is what their memo says:
“There is some confusion as to the correct declaration on an arrival card and its consequences when people enter New Zealand for the following reasons:
· When the main purpose of the visit is holiday but they are also considering living and working in NZ in future; or
· For the purpose of a job interview”
Offshore Branches (for people applying for a visa to enter NZ for one of the purposes above to “look, see and decide”) are advised in the memo:
“If an applicant declares on the application form the purpose of their visit is to holiday but also to assess whether they want to live and work in NZ, then these should be considered on a case by case basis (as usual) with particular care to assess the likelihood of obtaining lawful work in NZ and the risk of non-compliance”.
For those arriving at the border (who came of a visitor visa issued by an offshore Branch or who are from a visa free country e.g. South Africa, Malaysia, Singapore) the memo says:
· Passengers must make a full and honest declaration of their intent if questioned
· Meet the minimum finds requirement
· Met the outward ticket back to home country requirement
· Meet the valid(ity) passport requirement.
Border staff will assess:
· The likelihood of them breaching the conditions of their visa
· The likelihood of them overstaying
Interestingly the memo goes on to say:
“If there are concerns about either of these then officers at the border may consider the demand for their skills in NZ and the likelihood of them obtaining work, based on their skills and qualification, to assist in their assessment”.
There is enough in there to still give fairly wide and a concerning degree of subjective discretion to an officer that seeks to be over zealous or just plain nasty. How are immigration officers experts on someone’s employability? How are they experts in the local labour market conditions?
For those coming with a pre-arranged job interview they must select on their arrival card the purpose of their visit as ‘business’ not ‘holiday’.
In regard to those here for a pre-arranged and confirmed interview the memo states:
“Visitor Visa holders who apply for a work visa onshore (in NZ) and have previously declared on the arrival card that the MAIN reason for coming to NZ is for ‘Holiday/Vacation’ should not be sent a Potentially Prejudicial Information letter raising character issues based on providing false and misleading information provided that they were honest about their intentions at the border. The fact that they have obtained a job offer does not necessarily mean that their stated MAIN reason for coming to NZ was falsely declared”.
So my scuba diving friend should never have been questioned by the local INZ branch and accused of being of poor character for having documents that pre-dated his arrival in the country filed with his work visa. As I argued with the officer at the time – you’d penalise a guy who told no lies at the airport and works in an area of absolute skills shortage who was organised based on a whole lot of ‘what ifs’? As in, what if he got here and liked it? What if he changed his mind about staying? What if he decided to stay? What if he found a job offer he liked? What if he decided to apply for residence?
Of course that officer maintained my client was a liar. My view is the officer should be looking for a more rewarding career (but didn’t share that advice).
Ultimately no one is guaranteed a visa at Auckland Airport but if you travel with sufficient money, have a clear idea of how employable you might be (pull out your research), explain the purpose of your visit (holiday being the main purpose but you are also keen on exploring opportunities including employment) you should be given a visa and wished well in your stay. You should not be detained for hours and treated with suspicion.
If you are led off to a side room and treated like a criminal – tell the truth, stick to your story and be honest at every turn. If you are still being hassled for coming here to ‘look, see and decide’ suggest the officer re-read his Departmental memo of April 2011. I suspect the message contained therein might shortly be updated (I understand a bit of a refresher is about to take place with immigration officers locally, overseas and at the airport) and don’t take ‘no’ for an answer – you are doing nothing wrong.
Fly with a copy of this blog if you wish!
Until next week
Southern Man - Iain MacLeod
One of the most confusing pieces of Immigration Policy is the difference between ‘Residence’ and ‘Permanent Residence’. We spend countless hours explaining this to clients simply because INZ have made it rather difficult to understand. So in this week’s blog we are going to explain it to you, unravel the mystery, tear down the myths and hopefully simplify what can be a pretty mind boggling set of rules.
Unlike many countries around the world, when you secure Residence of New Zealand it is exactly that – permanent. It doesn’t expire in five years, two years or two weeks and it doesn’t need to be renewed periodically. It also grants the holder essentially the same rights and privileges as a New Zealand citizen without having a passport of course. There are a few exceptions such as a 12 month stand down period before you can vote (after 12 months you can vote for whoever you want), a two year stand down on Student Loans and Social Welfare benefits and some restrictions on being able to represent New Zealand internationally for various sporting codes, however, these restrictions are few and far between.
Residents pay the same taxes, can buy the same houses and take advantage of the healthcare and education systems in the same way a citizen can. We are a pretty generous lot.
However, New Zealand does want you to commit in some way before they will make all of these things available to you permanently and this is where the difference between ‘Resident’ and ‘Permanent Resident’ Visas comes in.
So how does it all work?
The following rules apply to most application types however, there are some slight differences for Investor or Parent Category applicants. These come with some additional conditions which your adviser should explain to you.
When your application for Residence is approved the first thing you will be issued with is a Resident Visa. If this is granted offshore, all family members included in the original application must enter New Zealand within 12 months from the date that the visa is issued. This is called the ‘First Entry Before’ date and will be listed on the top right hand side of the Visa label. It is important to remember that all family members who were included in the original application must enter NZ at least once before this date or their Visa will lapse which means they will lose their Resident Visa entitlement. Having said that the family does not need to enter on the same date within that 12 months and can travel separately.
If your Resident Visa is issued when you are onshore then your Visa won’t have a ‘First Entry Before Date’ as you are already here.
The second condition contained within your Resident Visa (which is usually the one that confuses most people) is the “Expiry Date Travel”. This is usually valid for two years from the date of your first arrival. So when you and all of your family members included in the application make your first entry you will all be given further ‘Travel Conditions' (the ability to enter and exit NZ as a Resident) for two years from that date. As this date is not written down anywhere it’s important that you make a note of this somewhere.
If your Residence was approved whilst you were in New Zealand the two years starts on the day that your Resident Visa was issued as you have already ‘entered’ New Zealand.
The initial Resident Visa you have allows you to live and work in New Zealand indefinitely, so if you never left you could legally stay even if your two years’ worth of travel conditions came and went. However if you were to leave New Zealand after those two years and return your Residence would be deemed to have lapsed.
This is where the Permanent Resident Visa comes into it.
A Permanent Resident Visa has the same rights and privileges as your Resident Visa however, the travel conditions (your ability to exit and re-enter NZ as a Resident) never expire. This is the ‘permanent’ part of the Visa. You can only apply for this at the end of the two years of your initial Resident Visa however, once you have it then you are essentially free to come and go and spend as much or as little time in New Zealand without jeopardising your ‘permanent residence’.
To qualify for a Permanent Resident Visa the principal applicant in the original application must satisfy one of five criteria. Generally it is only the principal applicant that must satisfy the criteria, however in some cases the other family members will need to have spent time in New Zealand.
The five criteria are as follows:
- Significant period of time spent in New Zealand
- Tax Resident status in New Zealand
- Investment in New Zealand
- Establishing a business in New Zealand
- Establishing a ‘base’ in New Zealand
Explaining all five criteria would take a separate blog (for each) however the easiest one to meet and the one I will explain here is the first – significant period of time spent in New Zealand. In this case the principal applicant only must spend a period of 184 days in each of the two years from the date they first entered NZ. For example, if the whole family entered NZ on their initial Resident Visas (or were already here) on 01/01/14 then the principal applicant must spend:
- 184 days in NZ between 01/01/14 and 31/12/14 and
- Another 184 days between 01/01/15 and 31/12/15.
The 184 days does not need to be consecutive and can be broken up however, it must be 184 days in each year, e.g. you cannot combine the two 184 day periods into one year.
If you believe you may not qualify under this rule and would like to explore one of the other options you definitely need to speak to us. The other options can be complicated (not impossible) however we need to assess each situation carefully.
It is vital that you take steps to qualify for a Permanent Resident Visa within the original two year travel conditions; this will make your transition to Permanent Residence much smoother and less complicated.
Remember that a Resident Visa allows you the same access to education and health services as an NZ citizen and once you have spent 12 months in New Zealand you can vote in local and National Elections.
You can only apply for Citizenship once you have resided in New Zealand for 5 years, can demonstrate you have settled and integrated, speak fluent English and this country is your home. Citizenship is decided on an individual basis – so it is not like a residence application which is a family affair in which if one qualifies all qualify.
But that is a story for another day. We can assist you with your citizenship when the time comes but remind us in four and half year’s time.
Until next week – Paul Janssen (standing in for the Southern Man)
Sometimes we are asked to justify the costs of our services. Which is valid but also signals to us that anyone who asks doesn’t deal with immigration rules or bureaucrats very often . In this business one wrong move with a visa application and your grandchildren won’t be Kiwis and therefore we play for very high stakes. We are the best at what we do. Our record suggests that more than 99% of the time our clients get their visa.
At such times it is good to offer examples of just how complicated, if not insane, immigration policy, processes and criteria can be and why navigating a client through it is a challenge. The complexity is often caused by poorly written policy and added to by the varying interpretations put on it by the Departmental Officials across the various branches we work with.
So if by chance all you think we do is fill out application forms ask yourself this question as we have been grappling with for the past 18 months – when, for immigration bonus work points purposes, is an Engineer an Engineer?
This believe it or not is a question that Immigration Department Officials still cannot answer after about 18 months of wrestling with the question and several attempts at issuing what they call Information Circulars and revised skills shortages definitions which set out to clarify such imponderables. We first raised some questions 18 months ago with INZ over the varying interpretations of this policy by case officers. In January 2012 we were given written clarification and took that to the market. Within months case officers were telling us that we were wrong (despite only basing our advice on written advice from their own National Office). The head of INZ forced the advice we were given to be honoured but more ‘clarifications’ were issued. Officers became more confused. Internal departmental circulars were rescinded. A new Long Term Skills Shortage List has just been published to ‘clarify’ how applicants claiming to be Engineers get bonus points. Unfortunately it still doesn’t answer the fundamental question and it looks like parts of the latest release are back under committee discussion in National Office. After 18 months…..
If you are after bonus points for work experience as an Engineer policy says you must meet one of the following criteria – you must have a qualification (note, not work experience) which is:
1. A Washington Accord accredited Engineering Degree
2. Either a qualification comparable to a:
a. Bachelor of Engineering, or
b. Bachelor of Engineering (with Honours), or Master of Engineering Degree
3. A qualification at Level 7 or higher with a letter from IPENZ certifying that the Degree and any further learning meets the academic requirements for registration as a ‘Chartered Professional Engineer’ in New Zealand
4. NZ registration as a ‘Chartered Professional Engineer’
Forget the last criteria unless you have been working in New Zealand a few years in which case you’d have enough points for residence without needing these precious bonus points in the first place. It’s a criteria that shouldn’t be there as it adds no value.
Only a few countries are signatories to the Washington Accord and even then many Engineers have degrees conferred on them from a University in a signatory country before that country signed up This immediately means they don’t satisfy the criteria.
An Engineer can chance an application to IPENZ to try and meet the third criteria but we know that more than 85% at least initially, are unsuccessful with that process.
So that leaves the third criteria but what does it mean when you must have a qualification ‘comparable to a Bachelor of Engineering’?
You might reasonably argue that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and flies like a duck it is a duck.
You’d be wrong. The Immigration Department will often tell you it is a horse, despite being covered in feathers.
Take for example a client we are representing right now.
He has a Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Mechanical) from The University of Leeds. He qualified in 1982. A few years after he completed his Degree the University course title was changed to Bachelor of Engineering but the course content was, as far as I know, exactly the same. He was registered with the Engineering Council (UK) and has worked as an Engineer all his life.
So it’s obvious right? He has an Engineering degree, works as an Engineer and was, at least for a time, a registered professional Engineer so he should get the bonus points for working as an Engineer.
Not so fast.
Although the United Kingdom was a founding signatory to the Washington Accord, the Accord was only ratified in 1989. So he fails the Engineer test based on the first criteria. He got his Degree in 1982.
He has no letter from the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) and we have spoken to them about the likelihood they will give him one. There is no guarantee he will get the letter either (although they tell us he might). So option 3 is uncertain.
We know he can’t meet the fourth criteria because he does not yet work in New Zealand so he simply cannot get NZ registration as a ‘Chartered Professional Engineer’.
Which leaves us arguing his qualification is ‘comparable’ to a Bachelor of Engineering.
So it’s obvious right? He must get the points that way. After all the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Immigration Department both automatically recognise his Degree as being comparable at the very least to a New Zealand Bachelor Degree. The question case officers have to grapple with is ‘Yes, but is it an Engineering Degree?’
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines comparable as ‘able to be likened to another; similar’ so it has to be a no brainer, you might be thinking.
I say it again - not so fast.
And you must surely be thinking – but it’s obvious – he has a Degree that is automatically recognised by the Immigration Department as being comparable to a New Zealand Bachelor Degree and his academic record proves he studied engineering, passed in Engineering and has worked as an Engineer (the more of this I type the more insane it seems) so what he has is ‘similar’ to a Bachelor of Engineering offered in New Zealand right?
Well life could never be so simple.
The Immigration Department right now is saying he does not automatically get the bonus points.
After issuing their new criteria a week ago we seem to be back to square one and I imagine more committee meetings will be taking place at National Office of INZ as they now try to explain to case officers how to determine if clients like mine should get the bonus points.
I say he should get them – he walks, quacks and flies like a duck. I am picking then he is a duck.
Of course this would all be made so much simpler if the Department changed that one criteria to read as follows:
“A qualification comparable to a Level 7 Bachelor degree and three years highly relevant work experience in the past five years”.
Then you are going to get Engineers and nothing else. In fact we suggested something similar to this a few months ago but it appears to have been ignored in the review of the review of the review.
With our definition the work experience bonus points test becomes just that, a test of recent Engineering work experience while preserving the requirement for a recognised University Degree.
It all begs the question why something which in fact is pretty simple is made so horrendously confusing and difficult. And takes 18 months to go round in a big wide circle.
Remember among all of this chaos we still have a success rate in excess of 99%. And that is why we charge what we charge.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod - Southern Man
What a week.
And stick with me. Yes this week’s Letter from New Zealand is longer than usual but it is a goodie. I think you’ll find it one of the most interesting ever.
I had a brush this past week with state spin doctoring in respect of an article that was being written by the Christchurch Press for which I was being interviewed. It was an interesting lesson in the power of state officials and politicians to talk crap with a straight face. Although not surprised by the verbal gymnastics of the Minister and his Spin Meisters it has been more than a little Orwellian. I do hope the good readers of the Christchurch Press can spot Government spouted B**S when they read it.
The article was premised on my view that the unwillingness of most NZ employers to head offshore to recruit prospective staff but expect them to come to NZ first is going to severely slow down the rebuild of Christchurch. Sectors like construction, trades and engineering are going to see real and crippling skills shortages in the coming years if employers don’t work with people like us who are in constant touch with a database of over 20,000 highly skilled, motivated and fluent English speakers – who on the whole need skilled jobs here to gain Resident Visas.
I mentioned, by way of background to the journalist researching the article, that employers looking offshore are going to be increasingly important because of Government cuts to skilled migrant numbers over the past two years.
I said this with great confidence knowing the statistics and truth were very firmly on my side.
Like a good journo he went to the Department’s own website to check on my claims about cuts and then to get comment from the Ministry’s spin doctor and the (new) Minister himself.
The spin doctor denied my explanation of this incontrovertible truth (I assume without giggling) and the Minister also chimed in with a well-rehearsed line he and his predecessors have been trotting out every time I have raised this issue over the past two years. ‘Not true’ he cried.
‘Funny that’ I told the journalist – I have it in writing from the Head of the Immigration Department.
Even without that it is easy enough to demonstrate.
The Government sets out its three year rolling totals in its Operational Policy Manual and to quote the current Residence Programme in respect of skilled migrants:
‘The allocation of places within the NZRP for the Skilled/Business stream is approximately 80,700 to 89,925 places across the three year period’
The current three year period started on 1 July 2011 and finishes on 30 June 2014.
Business Migrants also form part of that quota, but they can be measured in the hundreds each year so are statistically not significant.
For the sake of simplicity call the ‘average’ target in a year to be 27,000 Resident Visas to be granted (being 1/3 of 81,000). So how many skilled migrant Resident Visas have actually been issued over the first 18 months of the three years?
The answer is around 28,000.
Why so low when the target was 40,500 at this mid point?
Simple. INZ cut the numbers.
How can I be so sure?
The Department’s stats (checked and quoted by the journalist) show that in 2010 INZ was selecting 750 Expressions of Interest (EOI) from the Skilled Migrant Pool each fortnight as they had been for nine years before that in an attempt to hit that midpoint target of around 27,000 skilled migrant Resident Visa approvals a year. Even selecting 750 a fortnight to further process toward residency they seldom, if ever, reached their annual target.
Two years ago they started routinely selecting only 550 EOIs a fortnight.
Last year they selected on average about 580 EOIs a fortnight.
If you needed to select from your ‘Pool’ 750 Expressions of Interest a fortnight to try and get close to reaching your annual quota of 27,000 people but you never actually achieved quota how can you expect to meet your annual quota if you select 1/3 fewer people?
You with me? It isn’t rocket science.
So what did INZ say in response to this glaring if inconvenient truth?
The Minister said ‘There's no directive to cut the numbers of skilled migrants, but we're not going to lower the threshold for applicants just to try and hit or maintain a number.”
Oh really Minister? Who ordered INZ to cut the numbers being selected from the Pool from 750 a fortnight to 550 and then back up slightly to 580?
And what did the INZ spin doctor say to explain this mysterious fall off in skilled migrant numbers (of which there had apprently been no cut)?
The Christchurch Press reported that an Immigration NZ spokeswoman said the number of skilled migrants was not being kept low by design.
''The numbers are influenced by current skill shortages.
''In times of lower unemployment, more offers of employment are made resulting in more approvals under [the skilled migrant process], and vice versa.''
Oh if only it were true.
Demand to be one of the lucky 27,000 a year to get these (supposedly available) Resident Visas is as great as it has ever been. The evidence for this is equally clear – after each Pool draw there are now more EOIs left in the Pool, hoping for subsequent selection, than at any time in the past. This means that as many people want to be selected as historically have, but fewer are being selected leading to greater numbers sitting in the Pool after each Pool draw.
INZ’s mouthpiece claims these are ‘lower quality applicants.’ Well, they were certainly of high enough quality and good enough up until 2011 to be selected and in most cases approved for residence so how come they are now labelled as ‘lower quality’ and shouldn’t be selected?
Anything to do with potential political concern that with unemployment around 7% the Government does not wish for there to be any perception we are letting in migrants when our own unemployment rate is uncomfortably high? Despite of course every study ever carried out on Planet Earth that proves skilled migrants do not compete with, let alone take jobs from, the unemployed?
So I can assure you this fall of over 10,000 migrants year is nothing to do with the local labour market conditions - it is everything to do with fewer being selected from the pool. And that was a conscious decision by the powers that be.
It goes without saying if you continued to select 750 a fortnight these latter day ‘lower quality’ applicants would suddenly become, in the Spinner’s manual, ‘quality skilled migrants who have demonstrated a high potential to settle and contribute to the NZ economy’. That’s how the spin doctors used to publicly justify letting in people who did not have job offers……before the cuts that is.
Put any spin on it you like but a cut is a cut.
Funny how even with the knife in their hands the spin doctors and Minister want to deny they have used it.
I am not sure how dumb these people think we all are.
So all in all an interesting week and a tale which one might be tempted to pass off as simply a case of lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pity then the employers and people of Christchurch who need skills to rebuild their homes, schools, workplaces and city. It’s going to take a whole lot longer than any of them realise, in my humble opinion, to rebuild it all unless and until the Government gets serious about ensuring it delivers to this economy 27,000 highly skilled, English speaking and motivated migrants a year.
That coupled with employers getting off their chuffs and starting to look offshore for skilled employees before they have exhausted their efforts to find those skills locally and starting to panic over not having enough staff.
What would be really smart is a combination of the two – Government lets in more carefully screened migrants with the skills we will need in the years to come by returning to their pre-2011 selection numbers of 750 a fortnight and employers in Christchurch (and the rest of the country) understanding they may well need to look offshore through companies like Immagine and iPlacements – our migrant to business placement service.
Until next week
The Immigration Department is going through another of its restructuring's and this time it involves many Managers (particularly at a branch level) reapplying for their jobs. This is a way, I suspect, of easing out the career deadwood and bringing in ‘outsiders’ who can, in theory, bring private sector disciplines and approaches.
Which has, in theory, its merits, but someone needs to make those that make these calls understand that a monopolistic Government Department that is not subject to competition and has no ‘bottom line’ financial accountability to shareholders or employees cannot and never will be able to be run like a profit motivated private sector enterprise.
When you can charge what you like, can offer service as inconsistent as you like, spread misinformation like confetti and generally screw peoples’ lives with little to no financial penalty (and setting aside the morality of this model) then you can swap public sector for private sector managers and nothing much will change.
I believe that competition keeps any organisation on its toes. You can have ex-private sector managers, KPI’s and all that garbage till the cows come home but when it is not your money on the line and your staff get paid simply because they turn up to work thanks to your operating a cosy monopoly then what real incentive is there to improve your efficiency, productivity or service offerings?
I get the theory, I question the ability to execute.
For starters, what high flying private sector manager would ever want to go and work for the public service? I question the calibre and motivation of such people. Some of you may be thinking – life isn’t all about money Mr Southern Man and I would agree with you. But money and the risk of losing it is a mighty fine motivator for efficiency, productivity and delivering value.
I rather suspect, however, it is a case of our Government saying, well it couldn’t be any worse.
Although I was assured by the Operations Manager two or three years ago that it would in its first Skilled Migrant Pool draw of each year select everyone who has a job offer, this year, they did not.
In our first Pool draw the only people selected were those claiming 140 points.
As it did the last two times it sent a tsunami of uncertainty around the migrant world.
That meant the precedent was set (if the third time something happens is a precedent) and there were hundreds of people sitting in the Pool who had done just what our Government expects of them – risked everything, sold up, resigned their jobs in their home country, came to New Zealand, broke through the labour market barriers, found skilled employment, claimed, say 125 points with that job, filed an Expression of Interest and were not selected from the Pool.
When I explained to the Acting Operations Manager that this was ‘madness’ and I had been assured, if not guaranteed, by the Head of the Department himself that all those who ever claimed a job offer would always be selected from the Pool, the institutional memory must have lapsed.
To not select everyone with a job offer sends a very clear signal – even if you do come and get employment you may never be selected.
The Department’s response?
Oh don’t worry those with jobs will be selected in the next Pool draw.
Don’t worry? But you have set the precedent now – by not going back and selecting all those in the Pool who had jobs in that first Pool draw of 2013 you have sent a strong signal to the market – if you have a job but not 140 points you are guaranteed nothing.
I pointed out to the Acting Operations Manager that to respond with such a lame defence is to totally misunderstand the motivation of migrants and their tolerance for risk.
If he had wanted to know about migrant motivation he wouldn’t have been talking to the Business Analyst (who I assume sets the pass marks). He would have talked to someone else. Nice. Business Analysts who don’t understand their own business.
If this doesn’t demonstrate quite clearly that this operation is run by a number of left hands and a whole lot of right hands, none of whom knows what the other is doing, nothing will.
You cannot separate from your business analysis Pool draws and pass marks and what drives migrants. Signals sent through cuts to numbers, not selecting those with job offers cannot and do not slip by unnoticed.
Now, I cannot go to the market and say with hand on heart that notwithstanding I have it in writing from the Head of this Department that all those with jobs will be selected each Pool draw you have subordinates either unaware of those instructions or who are off doing their own thing.
A second example is INZ fees. I compete with others for my consulting fees in a free market. INZ does not. They outrageously increased their fees in the middle of 2012 by a whopping 17%. This in a country where inflation is running at 0.8%.
How did they justify it?
Because they didn’t have to.
They have a captive audience and they can do what they like and charge what they like.
If only I could increase my fees by 17%.
So to all those Managers on their way out – welcome to the real world of the private sector (assuming anyone in the private sector might want to employ you). To the private sector people heading into this den of unaccountability and monopolistic behaviour – good luck, you are going to need it. It will probably cost you your sanity.
Just do not ever forget that migration is a two way street and if you are going to call migrants your ‘customers’ treat them as such. Do not, as the Department has always done in the past treat them and their employers as ‘captives’ just because they cannot go down the road and get a better service elsewhere.
Until next week
I remember being really surprised when I was in my third year of Primary School when my school report said among other things that ‘Iain never stops asking why’. My curiosity and unwillingness to take things at face value was clearly getting to my then teacher. I am pretty sure it wasn’t a compliment.
Yet to me to question and to delve deeper was, and remains, as normal as breathing. If something doesn’t sound right, requires clarification or to my mind requires deeper analysis or explanation it has never occurred to me not to ask. I’m not a face value kind of guy. And by nature I am curious.
Of late I have begun focussing on the International Qualifications Assessment reports (IQA) that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority carry out which for so many of our clients can be the difference between qualifying for a Resident Visa of New Zealand or not. I did so because increasingly many applicants are spending significant money on this Department’s fees but receiving outcome reports that provide them neither benefit nor advantage in their plans to migrate to New Zealand.
Initially this interest was somewhat restricted to Philippine Bachelor Degree holders’ as their IQA reports were often, but not always, indicating that the five year of degree level study in the Philippines was only ‘comparable’ to the learning outcomes of a two or three year Diploma in new Zealand, if that.
I asked myself why would something that takes five years of fulltime study at a good Philippine University only be deemed comparable to the learning outcomes of a three year Polytechnic level Diploma here in New Zealand?
Thinking about this and digging a little deeper by asking questions of senior NZQA officials and obtaining files under the Official Information Act (OIA) has now made me question the entire assessment process for all countries and the honesty of this process.
What I have uncovered I have found unsettling.
It was always my understanding that NZQA would look at what you studied, where you studied it, what your grades were and what qualification you had. They would then compare this information to a range of NZ qualifications and if yours was similar then the report would be generated confirming the named NZ qualification e.g. your Bachelor of Engineering is deemed to be comparable to the learning outcomes of a named New Zealand qualification e.g. New Zealand Bachelor of Engineering (Level 7).
I no longer believe that to be the process.
What I could never work out is how by simply looking at an academic record/transcript of papers/units studied and grades any state functionary could work out how ‘similar’ that was to the content of say the NZ Bachelor Degree.
I am rapidly approaching the point of concluding NZQA does not do what they say they do.
The assessment, it appears, pretty much only focuses on whether the Institution that issued the qualification is accredited by some higher education authority (itself recognised by NZQA) in that country. If it is, then the assessment outcome seems to be Degree for Degree, Diploma for Diploma, Master for Master.
If the Institution is not recognised by NZQA then the assessment outcome states either ‘there is no comparable qualification’ or it is as assessed as being at a much lower academic level e.g. Degree equals NZ Diploma.
This has major implications for those needing points to qualify for residence, especially those Engineers, IT specialists and the like who can often qualify for residence visas without job offers if their degrees are deemed comparable to NZ degrees.
I am intrigued that notwithstanding the key criteria for recognition appears to be the status of the Institution and its accreditation NZQA still suggest there is far more to the process than these files might indicate. NZQA's explanation of the process they claim to have followed when they issue the assessment report is:
“……there are quite substantial differences in structure, focus, content and intent between your qualifications and similarity to the broad learning outcomes specified at the particular learning outcome level on the NZQF. The academic level recognition afforded your qualification, internationally, by other qualification recognition agencies and databases has been taken into account in reaching this outcome.’
Phooey! My reading of a number of files obtained under the Official Information Act shows quite clearly that NZQA did neither analysis nor comparison of the ‘focus, content and intent’ of these qualifications to anything in New Zealand. They only apper to have looked at the status of the awarding University.
Which in some ways makes sense. How can anyone tell by looking at an academic record of say a Bachelor’s Degree from a British, Malaysian, Singaporean or Philippine University and possibly know what the content of those individual papers were, the scope, the focus and so on? Especially given there are potentially tens of thousands of degree and other courses offered around the world.
So why doesn't NZQA advise those that have spent a significant sum getting the assessment of that? Or warn those considering it that from many countries their particular qualification is not going to be rated at the same level in New Zealand.
I would have thought the simplest thing to do would be for NZQA to publish lists for each country which says in effect and for example ‘If you have a five year fulltime Bachelor Degree from X University that was completed from Year Y to now or between 1970 – 2015 (or whenever)’ then your degree is deemed automatically comparable to a New Zealand Degree of the same type’.
They do not need to do it for all countries – just those from which most of our migrants come – so that’s about a dozen countries, tops. That would not prevent some people having to apply for assessments for immigration purposes but for many more would make their (potential) journey to New Zealand not only more affordable but involve less form filling and dealing with bureaucrats.
Only this morning I consulted with a young Malaysian for whom this assessment is necessary. To her the assessment fee this Government outfit charges to ‘assess’ her Degree represents two weeks of her gross wages.
Of course if NZQA were totally honest and transparent and perhaps published lists of which institutions are accredited and therefore recognised so that we could work out if an assessment is necessary or likely to yield the results the client requires to continue her journey to New Zealand it could save an awful lot of people an awful lot of money in wasted application fees.
But then maybe a few less people would need to be employed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, right?
Until next week
Iain MacLeod - Southern Man
Our media seem to love beating up on New Zealand. One of the ways they do it is by regularly reporting on how many of us are leaving for Australia.
I confess I get really tired of it – we have a common border with Australia and the whole idea is to allow the free flow of people between us. It clearly has advantages for the people of both countries.
A recent series of articles in the NZ Herald has highlighted the issue once again but for the first time asked the question if anyone is actually better off in moving over to Australia.
In the past year something like 30,000 New Zealand citizens have moved to Australia with the intention of remaining there for 12 months or more (which is the statistical definition of an emigrant). The newspaper laments these ‘record numbers’ as if it is some indictment on New Zealand. What frustrates me is that as a percentage of New Zealand’s population the numbers leaving are nowhere near a ‘historic record’ when measured as a percentage of our population. The numbers represent about 0.7% of this nation’s people. In raw numbers, yes, the numbers are the highest they have been but surely a better measure is the percentage? Our population continues to grow and the percentage moving across the Tasman appears to not be.
Given 2% of our population living here are Aussies and 2% of theirs are New Zealanders it is clear huge numbers of them don’t fancy living here just as 98% of New Zealanders are quite happy not to be living there.
What I cannot work out is why anyone might care anyway.
The reality is we enjoy a borderless existence with our neighbours in Australia if you are a NZ citizen (not a resident visa holder). This means I can get on a plane and go and live there without visas and they can come and live here with either a Resident Visa or Citizenship – and every year thousands do.
The issue however is a little more complex than it might at first appear and for years the Aussies have been quietly making it less and less palatable for New Zealanders to move there. One can only wonder why given the statistics on who goes in terms of their education and qualifications, income , tax paying and so on fall firmly in Australia’s favour.
Every study ever done on either side of the Tasman Sea shows that New Zealanders living in Australia are better educated than your average Aussie, earn more than your average Aussie and pay more tax than your average Aussie.
Which makes me wonder why New Zealanders have for so long been something of a political football in Australia. About 30 years ago when asked about the Kiwis leaving for Australia our Prime Minister of the day famously quipped ‘that it raises the IQ of both countries’.
Brilliant line and one that has gone down in NZ history.
Increasingly we are being made into second class citizens there.
In 1994 the Australian Government changed the law and created a special class of visa just for us – it is the ‘you can remain indefinitely visa but you are essentially only temporary resident’.
Then in what looks suspiciously like a case of Mathilda throwing her toys out of her Billabong the Aussies decided in 2004 to make things even tougher it appears because our Government wouldn’t agree to a common immigration policy and our failure to be bullied into reimbursing them for any social security and welfare payments made to our citizens there, they changed the rules and restricted New Zealanders access to welfare.
We have effectively become ‘guest workers’ and I, for one, resent it.
It is all so utterly illogical – their own data shows that ex-pat New Zealanders pay A$2.50 for every A$1.00 we receive in welfare and other social security. Call me a maths weakling but I’d call that a good deal for Australia….and question whether our witty Prime Minister wasn’t actually being serious back when he made the comment about IQ.
New Zealanders now living in Australia who have not gone through the same residence visa process as any other migrant are barred from all sorts of entitlements Australians are entitled to in education, unemployment assistance, accommodation support and health care and last year our new lowly status was made very clear to us when a number of New Zealanders’ homes were destroyed in the Queensland floods and only intervention by their Prime Minister on compassionate grounds saw these people being granted emergency assistance. The Aussies were quite happy to say ‘tough luck, you are Kiwis so you get nothing’ despite their being lawfully resident there, paying their taxes and I am sure contributing to the country.
Which contrasts with how we treated the many Australians whose homes were destroyed in the Christchurch earthquakes – they got everything that their New Zealand neighbours got in terms of financial assistance. I cannot imagine a situation where a New Zealander living in Christchurch would look at his Australian born neighbour, shrug and say, ‘nah mate, you are really just a guest worker here and you are on your own…..’.
Why New Zealand tolerates this inequity I will never know.
The old myth that people migrated to New Zealand only so they could move to Australia was never something I experienced in my line of work (and if anyone should have seen it it would be me). No doubt some migrants obtained their citizenship (until a few years ago it was easier to get only requiring PR here and three years spent in the country including time on temporary visas) and did move over but in my experience they tended to be people who were from ethnic minorities that had bigger and better established communities in Australia or who had been offered jobs, were transferred through work or wished to retire.
Now I find it hardly ever happens.
I have written before that we actively market Australia for those that wish to live there but we also use it as a back door to New Zealand. This is because if you secure a residence visa of Australia you are guaranteed a residence visa of New Zealand on arrival here. I love the fact we can offer it from a commercial perspective but from a national pride perspective I’d stop it. That perhaps would be stooping to their racist and jingoistic level and I’d like to think New Zealanders are better than that.
Given we allow Australian citizens and Resident Visa holders to step off the plane, waltz down to the local Work and Income office and register for the unemployment benefit, put their kids into our schools, use our hospitals without ever contributing a single cent to that system and lead a merry life off our sweat and toil, surely it isn’t too much to ask the same in return?
If there was any real evidence New Zealanders were a drain on the Australian economy then perhaps they might be justified but it is estimated every New Zealander who moves to Australia is worth $3000 net to their economy.
As long as we offer such generosity to them it is a little odd to me that our Government does not get a little tougher with them every time they chip away at New Zealanders’ rights and entitlements there.
We either have this spirit of togetherness and oneness with our Aussie cousins or we don’t.
If I was an Australian politician with a long term view (a little oxymoronic I grant you) I’d keep a careful eye on the future. The world’s climate is changing as it always has, only now, possibly more quickly.
Australia was initially settled at a time of relative wet and this allowed them to farm areas that were never suited for the purpose. Professor Tim Flannery (possibly the smartest Australian I have ever listened to or read) believes that the human carrying capacity of Australia is about 8 million people owing to the aridity of most parts of it and the propensity for drought. Of course they have three and a half times that many people. Access to fresh water is already a major economic and political issue and in years to come it is only going to get worse.
Although many parts of this country also gets regular droughts, overall we are not short of fresh, clean water.
I can see the day when the flow of people may well reverse and the Aussies may want to live in a country blessed with consistent rainfall and a less extreme climate.
I’d hate to think we might restrict their entry on account of the fact that there are too many of them arriving here and they are drinking our water…
Until next week
A few weeks ago my colleague Paul wrote a great piece for this blog, busting some of the common immigration myths.
It got good feedback and comment and as I sit here in Singapore interviewing hour after hour and day after day I realised we could, between us, write an entire book on immigration myths that we bust.
Of my four golden rules for clients to survive the immigration visa process with any of their mental faculties intact (assume nothing, suspend logic, just when you think you know the rules your visa will be processed by an officer who doesn’t) the fourth is to be very careful of spending too much time on the Immigration Department’s website – it can be dangerous for the fine print you miss or misinterpret, it is generally pretty confusing given both the way it is written and the annoying way different bureaucrats interpret their own criteria differently and inconsistently.
This week then I thought I would add a few more that crop up by those considering the Skilled Migrant Category (points) all the time.
First myth - The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is compulsory for applicants and partners. False. It is not. There are three ways of proving your English is of an acceptable standard.
1. The IELTS test and the Principal Applicant must score an average of 6.5 across the four modules tested of reading, writing , listening and speaking; or
2. The Principal Applicant has a recognised qualification (as in recognised for the award of points) for which English was the medium of instruction; or
3. Any other evidence that might satisfy an immigration officer.
Given most skilled migrants have to secure jobs right now following last year’s cuts in skilled migrant numbers most of the time we appear able to convince officers that the securing of that job satisfies the policy.
The second big myth is that qualifications, usually degrees, are mandatory to qualify under the skilled migrant category. That too is incorrect. For those aged 28 to 45 so long as they have an offer of skilled employment in New Zealand then the combination of their age, work experience and that job offer is generally enough to be selected from the ‘Pool’. Our message to those in this age bracket is that the key to certainty of outcome is the job offer in New Zealand, not the qualifications.
Myth # 3. In my book the single greatest myth of all, is the belief that it is illegal to enter New Zealand either visa free or on a Visitor Visa to look for work or to attend interviews. This too is incorrect but the confusion is understandable given we have all heard of stories of people being turned around at the airport. I hasten to add it has never happened to any of our clients but a few have come close.
Let me be clear – it is not legal to enter New Zealand visa free or on a Visitor Visa if you are already in possession of a job offer. Such people must apply for a Work Visa before they leave home. Those who are interested in settling in New Zealand and who require jobs to make that happen are acting within the law if they intend on their visit checking the country out as a possible destination to settle, to check out schools for the children, housing, cost of living and to explore their employability which includes applying for jobs. Those that apply for Visitor Visas before they come to the country who say the sole reason for their visit is a ‘holiday’ or to visit ‘friends and family’ but who also have an intention to look for work are treading a thin line and exposing themselves later (once they secure employment) to accusations from the Department that they lied on their Visitor Visa application form. This did happen to one of our clients when they secured a job while in New Zealand and we filed the Work Visa locally but we pointed out to the officer involved that the client was quite entitled to enter as a visitor and change their status once here. At no point did they lie or mislead the Department on any visa application they had made previously.
We deal with this issue by insisting that clients tell the truth on their Visitor Visa applications or if they are asked on arrival at the airport. If they do they have nothing to fear. They should never be turned around at the airport or denied the ability to change their status later.
Finally, I may rank among one of the harshest critics of the Immigration Department and I make no apology for calling them to account when they break or do not understand their own rules given the enormous stakes my clients are playing for, not to mention the horrendous application fees they charge these days. However, I always like to believe that I am big enough to offer credit where credit is due.
In a ‘can’t life be humbling?’ moment I was almost blocked from boarding my Singapore Airlines flight last Friday when leaving Auckland as my passport expires in 5 months. Although to enter New Zealand a passport need only be valid for three months, apparently in Singapore it is six. My understanding (and this was confirmed by a helpful local immigration officer I consulted with this week!) is this is a guideline only. Anyway having been warned by the airline I might be denied entry and having indemnified the airline they let me go to take my chances. On arrival I was pulled aside but granted a 30 day visa. I was told, however, the Malaysians might not be so accommodating this weekend when I head to Kuala Lumpur. So while I was flying my PA called the NZ High Commission in Singapore and asked them if they would be able to issue me a new passport this week. To their enormous credit and my great appreciation, Susan Woods of the High Commission immediately made contact with HQ in Wellington and got permission to issue me an Emergency Travel Document. On Monday I went to see her to drop off the application form and fee and she advised me it could be picked up the next day. I haven’t yet had a chance to collect it given the pressure of meetings but I am confident that it will be ready when I nip down Orchard Road tomorrow.
So to Susan Woods and any other official that played a part in getting me out of this little ironic slip up – a heartfelt thanks.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod - Southern Man