Recent media reports of skilled migrants coming to New Zealand on Work to Residence Visas, failing to obtain skilled employment, being ‘forced’ to return home having had their residence cases declined, has drawn calls for this policy to be dropped.
The Skilled Migrant Policy seeks to identify those who are more likely to settle well and contribute to the New Zealand economy through their skills. Space does not allow for details here of all the policy (you can find that on our website under Immigration policies) but some applicants need to demonstrate that they meet all the criteria, bar being in possession of skilled employment, and they may then be granted a Work Visa to travel to New Zealand to find that ‘skilled’ employment.
Statistics obtained by the NZ Herald (26 January 2010) suggest about half failed in 2009 and some may argue this is a failed policy. I view it differently.
The policy is well designed, but arguably poorly targeted. It needs some modification given the recent recession, but calls for the policy to be dumped are shortsighted.
To be eligible for a work to residence Visa applicants must be from labour markets deemed ‘comparable’ to New Zealand and/or have particular qualifications and work experience in an occupation on what is known as the Long Term Skills Shortages List which is a list of occupations ostensibly in acute and ongoing demand (whether it is accurate or not is another story). What is quite clear is that the notion that all the countries listed as having comparable labour markets by Immigration New Zealand is highly misleading. Although it may make some New Zealanders squirm uncomfortably there is no doubt that New Zealand employers view migrants from particular countries very differently to others. Those from South Africa, the UK and the United States are usually (but it has to be said not always) more employable than those from China, India and the Philippines. That is a fundamental reality that the policy makers in Wellington have accepted by adding a degree of discretion to whether such applicants are declined or granted a Work to Residence Visa.
How they exercise that discretion is another story in itself.
It may be unpalatable to some to consider that an Accountant from England has a greater chance of quickly obtaining employment here than one from the Philippines, but the verdict is in – employers have spoken. That is the reality.
As licensed immigration advisers we are brutally honest with potential clients about this fact but unfortunately the Immigration Department is less forthright. The Immigration Department’s own website actively encourages highly skilled people to come to New Zealand with little in the way of advice about what they can really expect when it comes to the labour market.
It is those migrants, so adversely affected that often turn to the news media in the hope the Government will be too embarrassed to make them leave. Others simply return home quietly, their hopes for a new life in tatters.
As recently as last week it was revealed that INZ is about to start actively marketing in Singapore. If the Immigration Department knows anything about that market, they will know that there are many migrant groups living there the campaign does not seek to attract but who run the risk of being caught up in the campaign, will be encouraged to spend thousands of dollars on Government fees but who are doomed to fail before they even begin. They will fail because they will not be granted work to residence visas or they will be but when they get here they will find they are unemployable. Even Singaporeans themselves can struggle to get work here unless they are well researched, have fluent English and have skills in real, not imagined, demand.
Getting involved in promoting New Zealand as a migrant destination and actively encouraging people to apply is at odds with the department’s role as border guard and gatekeeper. How can any Government Department actively promote and encourage applicants, then draw them into a process that will cost them thousands of dollars in fees, medicals and so on that will result either in their not being given the chance to come to New Zealand to find that skilled job or who are damned by local employer sentiment to fail if they do.
The Immigration Department should not try and be both. They aren't that flash at much of what they do at the best of times and in my view their role should be to process visa and permit applications.
The question also has to be asked how much responsibility the unemployed or unemployable migrant must accept for the situation they find themselves in. In the age of the internet, potential migrants to New Zealand should not be short on information. The internet is awash with forums and chat groups often set up by migrant groups to share their experiences – good and bad. Half an hour on most of them will make it very clear that New Zealand employers are very particular about who they employ.
Surely, if you were considering moving from one side of the planet to the other and you were relying on employment either to secure your permanent residency or to put bread on the table, the first thing you would want to understand is how employable you were. There is no doubt many migrants misunderstand that being on a skills shortage list or being “Invited to Apply” for residence by the New Zealand government is some guarantee that they are employable. Unfortunately the Immigration Department does precious little to warn them otherwise. This has to change and there are a number of licensed immigration advisers who have made very strong suggestions to the government that the Immigration Department start doing so.
No immigration policy is ever perfect and unfortunately there will always be winners and losers. Pointing fingers is easy.
Migrants need to accept the process is risky and they are playing for high stakes and they cannot lay the blame for the outcomes totally at the door of the Immigration Department and the New Zealand government. Equally the New Zealand government needs to ask itself whether it should be acting as marketer and gatekeeper and take a very close look at whether through its poor advice and communication with its own customers, it is not leading many to their visa doom.
.jpg)
Subscribe