It's just a thought...
Attend a seminar as a starting point to learn more about the lifestyle of each country, their general migration process and a broad overview of Visa categories.
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 Australia & New Zealand at a grass-roots level is paramount to your immigration survival, and to give you a realistic view of both countries, its people and how we see the world, as well as updates about any current or imminent policy changes, subscribe to our regular blog posts by entering your details below.
Posted by Iain on March 20, 2020, 8:54 a.m. in New Zealand
At every consultation I have I remind people that the strategy we offer is based on a snapshot of their future eligibility for NZ or Australia. This is because there are so many steps and applications to third parties, English exams, skills assessments, qualification assessments, finding jobs and so on before anyone can file a visa. I warn those looking to make the move that every day they delay executing the strategy we offer, is another day for the Government to change the visa rules or things to change. I am sure more than a few think this is cynical sales talk. It has never been so.
Well, this week is the best example of that very good, non ‘sales’ related advice, I can think of!
What a week.
Last night the NZ Government announced they were closing the border from midnight. This applies to everyone except NZ citizens or (permanent) resident visa holders and on a 'case by case basis' some temporary visa holders whose partner or parent (if the visa holder is a dependent child) is in NZ on a temporary work or student visa (note, not visitor visa) and whose partner or parent is currently in New Zealand. Although the situation is rapidly evolving, INZ's messaging and advice was predictably muddled and confusing.
I have to presume that this border closure for NZ and Australia will be in place for at least a month, but I am picking it is more likely to be 12 weeks at least, as it will take that long to work this virus out of our systems. That is pure speculation on my part based on watching China, Hong Kong and Singapore deal, pretty effectively, with the virus.
I expect more restrictions on movement and gatherings will be put in place locally in NZ (and I expect, Australia).
Last week ‘self isolation’, ‘social distancing’ and ‘flattening the curve’ were all new terms for me, now it is as if they have been part of my vocabulary forever!
My wife, Karina, son Tom and I arrived back in New Zealand on Monday night from South Africa to mandatory 14 day self isolation. I left my colleague Paul behind in South Africa to do a series of seminars starting Monday evening.
We are cutting short his trip and he is flying home today, while we have the chance to get him on a flight. I don't think it will be long before all airlines are grounded except for vital trade/cargo routes. And even then only with Government support.
On Sunday night the South African President decided, belatedly in my view, it was time to address his nation on the imminent threat of Covid-19 and the measures being put in place to deal with the coronavirus, including banning meetings of 100 people or more. I suspect the horse has already bolted.
I couldn’t believe how this time last week while I was in South Africa, Covid-19 seemed such a non issue while it was rapidly spreading around the world and had already arrived in SA. Given our seminars see between 300-400 people attending we scrambled to secure multiple nights at the venues we'd booked to present two or three seminars to smaller audiences.
Unfortunately, all the hotels and venues have decided to either close for the next 6 weeks or so or are limiting meetings to no more than 10 people. No use to us, that's a knitting circle not an immigration seminar.
So Paul is heading home into self isolation.
Our Government has warned New Zealanders if they want to get home they need to leave wherever they are without any delay. As more and more airlines ground their fleets, it is definitely going to get harder to get to Australia or New Zealand over the next few weeks.
We have made a few key decisions this week:
1. All staff in Melbourne and Auckland will largely be working from home for the foreseeable future so we can minimise contact and ensure ‘social distancing’. We will have minimal and purely essential staff in the offices. The decision to spend big a few years ago on our own bespoke CRM allowing us to work from anywhere with wifi now looks like a very sensible business investment. I don’t expect clients will notice any difference to the way they interact with us.
2. Seminars - having had seminars cancelled in South Africa and made difficult in Hong Kong owing to their recent decision for almost everyone landing in Hong Kong to self isolate for 14 days, we are shortly going to offer our first online seminar to audiences in Singapore and Hong Kong. Once we iron out any wrinkles we will start offering them to our South African clients in a few weeks. In some ways I'm quite excited because the technology now exists for us to do this in a way that even a few years ago, we couldn't. Adversity sometimes forces change and those changes can be very positive. The end of my seeming never ending jetlag?
I have been very reassured by the reaction of our clients, virtually all of whom are carrying on with the process of migration and looking beyond the border closures.
For those, particularly in South Africa, who might be worried about their employment prospects, particularly in New Zealand given you need jobs to get enough ‘points’ to get visas, can I add some words of relative comfort. I have been through a few financial crises now - the 1998 Asian Financial Crisis, the fallout from the New York terrorist attacks in 2001 and the GFC of 2009/2010. None were pleasant, yet almost all clients coming to the country were still able to secure jobs. Over the past two years the majority of clients have been taking between two and eight weeks to find employment, I imagine we will be looking at three to four months or so, as clients were back in the GFC of 2008 - 2011.
I don’t want to sugar coat what is happening however. This virus is going to tip New Zealand and Australia into instant recessions. Economists here believe that the fiscal stimulus should limit it to around a 1% contraction.
Governments of both countries have cut interest rates to virtually zero and significant fiscal stimulus packages have been announced. Earlier this week the NZ government announced $5 billion of wage subsidies and health spending to prepare for the inevitable uptick in patients needing hospitalisation, equipment and if they can find them, personnel. Wage subsidies are being put in place for 12 weeks to assist employers keep staff (if you take the subsidy you cannot lay anyone off).
The Minister of Finance advised the package, amounting to 4% of GDP, is ‘just the beginning’.
The advantage NZ has is we have very low levels of public debt which currently runs around 19.5% of GDP (Italy by comparison has debt levels of 134% of GDP, the US in the order of 105% and South Africa around 65%). Our government therefore has a lot of room to borrow big and borrow cheap to get us through the next 12-24 months.
I couldn’t find a single economist finding fault with their announcements on keeping the money flowing. The sharemarket has been pretty stable this week while carnage has been the order of the day on most international sharemarkets.
On Thursday the NZ Government also announced a $54 billion infrastructure spending package covering projects over the next ten years. I suspect they were going to wait for the May budget to announce this (we are in an election year) but they wanted to give certainty to the construction companies and others that big money will be flowing as we build roads, freeways, light and heavy rail and public transport.
I expect other ‘war time’ measures to be announced over the next couple of weeks.
The Australian Government is busy announcing similar policies.
If you are sitting wondering if you are about to jump out of a frying pan into a fire (particularly those of you in South Africa) allow me to offer you some perspective on the risks. South Africa, before the outbreak of Covid-19 a couple of weeks ago, had 30% unemployment, was in a recession, had an insecure energy supply leading to power black outs virtually every day of 2-4 hours, had an insolvent national airline, bankrupt municipalities and affirmative action policies meaning the first people to lose their jobs as the recession deepens, as it will, will likely be you.…
However bad South Africa has got in recent years, it is about to get worse by degrees.
How will South Africa be able to respond when, not if, the virus gets into the overcrowded and unsanitary townships when you already have a health system that in the best of times cannot provide care for the majority of South African citizens?
New Zealand has been creating thousands more jobs every month for two years than we have had pepole to fill them. We continue to not produce enough teachers, engineers, IT workers and many more. Demand will take a hit but we come off a base of such accute skills shortages, the demand will not dry up.
If you lose your job or fear losing your job in South Africa you will still be far more employable in New Zealand than in South Africa no matter what happens here. I have long liked the frying pan and fires analogy when it comes to leaving South Africa (understandably worried about job prospects) and many South Africans and other potential migrants have asked themselves if in search of a better future they are jumping out of a frying pan into a fire by considering migration at any time. My view on South Africa has long been, that you are actually already sitting in the fire, upon which fuel is about to be poured. Migration is always hard and it is about to get a lot harder. It won’t be comfortable for a while but you won’t burn in the fire either.
I was in Hong Kong a little over a month ago. The economy is tanking there the strict border control and isolation measures, including shutting down schools, but they have shown the world how to get on top of this virus. Singapore has achieved it slightly differently but no less effectively.
I am absolutely confident NZ will cope with this. And the border closure is part of that. Shutting down the economy for three months works. It's incredibly painful and that pain awaits New Zealanders and Australians, but shutting down the border is really the only way of stopping more cases of those with the virus entering our countries.
In NZ, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore these measures are by and large understood and accepted by almost everyone.
I am less confident about South Africa and if I had the chance to leave I’d be looking to do so, no matter how long our borders remain closed.
For those clients headed for Australia, short of any change in Government policy you are in a very good position. The process to get the visa is taking around a year to 15 months at the moment, you have the thick end of 12 months to get to Australia to activate the family’s visas once approved and you have at least another 12 months, if you headed home, to go back to Australia and settle - that’s a very enviable four year window which allows Australia plenty of time to right the economic ship which will be listing for a year or two like the rest of us.
Make no mistake, as someone who has seen a few recessions, the next few months will be brutal on all of us to a greater or lesser extent.
NZ has taken the first step in closing ourselves off from the world and although it is not good for the economy, it is the only thing to do. The US, Europe and every other nation on this planet need to do the same thing or this virus will linger and fester and destroy economies, and kill thousands more people. If we can take the hit, bear the pain and then rebuild, we will get through this.
I’d far rather take that hit in a first world, law abiding land of plentiful energy and food like New Zealand than anywhere else on this planet.
Until next week,
Posted by Myer on March 13, 2020, 12:22 p.m. in Immigration
If you’re thinking of emigrating you might also be wondering when is the appropriate time to have a consultation regarding your visa options (and the smart migrants do seek out some good advice before they move).
I’m frequently told by those interested in immigrating to Australia or New Zealand that they will have a consultation with me but only after they obtain an offer of employment or for those I have met, they will engage in using our services once that job is in hand. In my opinion the consultation should have taken place long before the job search begins for both Australia and New Zealand and certainly if your mind is made up, then getting us on board ahead of time is absolutely crucial. The reasons differ slightly because the immigration policy for both countries is different even though the process of securing employment is largely the same.
I was prompted to write this blog by the experience of one of our clients, who was fed up with waiting for a general skilled migration visa (these visas don’t require offers of employment) and decided to travel to Australia for the purposes of securing employment in order for us to submit an employer sponsored visa.
He was qualified to be both an accountant as well as a finance manager. Much of our initial discussions were focused on an explanation that a job offer as an accountant in the non-regional areas of Australia, namely Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane could potentially result in permanent residence under an employer nominated residence visa. However, an offer of employment as a finance manager in these cities would not, notwithstanding the fact that the occupation of finance manager is often more senior in nature and often would be managing a number of accountants, consequently earning more than the accountants working under him.
If this sounds weird, welcome to my world.
Australia’s immigration program can broadly be described as lists of different occupations for different visa types. Some of these occupations will be suitable for work visas, some suitable for general skilled migration visas, whilst others will require one to live in regional areas of Australia.
So there is no point in a sales and marketing manager obtaining an offer of employment in Melbourne for example, if he intends to become a permanent resident of Australia through an employer sponsored residence visa program. This is because the occupation of sales and marketing manager doesn’t appear on the relevant list that allows a company based in this area to nominate the position. This isn’t affected by the salary one earns or the nature of the employer, the simple fact is that the sales and marketing manager isn’t suitable for non-regional Australia but would be a great occupation for regional Australia (the whole of Australia excluding Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane).
On the other hand a general manager would be suitable for non-regional Australia however the salary requirements for this particular occupation are that the applicant would have to have an offer of $180,001 salary per annum which is a reasonably high salary by Australian standards. The logic is fairly obvious, to avoid your smaller businesses employing a “general manager” as a means of obtaining permanent residence for the applicant.
There is even a list of occupations suitable for temporary work visas in Australia (known as a temporary skill shortages visa). Depending on the occupation that you are employed in, you can either be issued a longer term four-year visa that can be renewed thereafter, or a limited two-year work visa with an option of only gaining one more two-year term. There is no point in securing an offer of employment in Australia if you are not going to be in an occupation suitable for a work visa, and to potentially gain permanent residence in a few years time.
Some of these occupations that are suitable for work visas will require a skills assessment by one of the assessing authorities. At the moment it’s mostly trades that require skills assessments but they can take several months to obtain and no employer is going to wait this length of time for the assessment to be completed before applying for the work visa.
With so many variables and differing requirements, you need to have a consultation at least six months before you commence the job search to make sure you have an immigration plan. Just like you wouldn’t consider building a house without a building plan, so too do you need an immigration plan that has considered factors such as the requirements of each visa type (both temporary and permanent) the timeframes involved, the documentation required for each visa and an appreciation of the risks as well.
New Zealand has moved away from lists of occupations and instead focuses on skill levels and salary requirements for each occupation to determine if it meets the definition of ‘skilled’. There are different requirements for temporary work visas from permanent residence visas, with the former being focused on satisfying skill shortages and the latter focused on satisfying a points test.
It is as important in the New Zealand context (if not more so) to have a consultation well in advance of the job search and if we deem you eligible to start preparing yourself ahead of time, so that you are “document ready” when you commence your job search in New Zealand. Not only do you need to know the requirements of the different visa types but you need to know the documents required for both permanent and temporary visa applications because, while an employer will wait a period of time between offering you a position of employment and the date you are expected to commence work, they will want this period to be as short as possible and excessive delays can jeopardise the validity of your employment offer. Too many times we have seen applicant’s (not our clients necessarily) race ahead to secure a job, only to then discover that without the documentation they need, the Visa process becomes lengthy, complicated and more stressful than it needs to be. The worst case is the employer gets the “wobbles” because the application hasn’t been submitted quickly and the job is at risk. Why take that sort of chance, particularly when you consider the effort required to secure that job.
Contrary to the popular belief, it’s not all about obtaining a job in both Australia and New Zealand. With many having to quit jobs so they can spend enough time in Australia and New Zealand to secure employment, you need to be aware of the immigration requirements, documentation and strategy well in advance of your journey to a new life.
Being both employment and Visa ready are really important parts of the overall plan and can be the difference between success and failure.
Posted by Iain on Feb. 21, 2020, 1:26 p.m. in Skilled Migrant Category
Writing these weekly blogs is a delicate balancing act between informing over matters relating to visas and migration, hopefully with a bit of explanation into the whys and wherefores, and frightening people who might start to wonder if they are moving from or to a disorganised third world county.
I can assure you New Zealand is overwhelmingly ‘first’ world but right now the Immigration Department is operating like something from the DRC (which might be an insult to the Democratic Republic of the Congo). It isn’t corrupt but it is not functioning well. Much of that is self-inflicted but some of the blame must be directed squarely at the Minister of Immigration and his parliamentary colleagues.
On the positive side visitor visas are once again slowly being processed which is great news and we seem to be seeing more of these taking around 4-5 weeks to get through the system.
Work Visas are largely back to historical processing time norms and for most of our clients coming through in around a month for clients without health issues or any other complications.
ARTICLE UPDATED Saturday 22 February - INZ has just released advice confirming they are moving officers who process Essential skills Work Visas to process visitor visas - they are warning now of significant delays processing work visas. Allocation times on these which have been ten days to 6 weeks.
The problem continues to be resident visa processing. With every passing week the visa allocation queue gets longer and longer and longer. The greater issue now is the Government’s delay in publishing its residence programme (quotas) that was meant to be published at the latest in December last year with a start in January 2020.
All the while the Government continues to spend millions (around $11 million a year to be precise) every year marketing and encouraging skilled migrants to join that queue. Say what? You encourage them to come and find jobs, you invite them to file and pay thousands of dollars for a resident visa application and you don’t have any residence programme in place? If I did anything like that I’d lose my license, my business and I imagine I’d be facing fraud charges. It is more than a little disturbing that in all their glossy advertising they don’t warn their ‘customers’ what is happening (or more to the point, not happening). More than a little dishonest, actually.
I am not saying that those that have applied will be declined, only that we cannot tell them when they are going to be approved.
All the while, INZ continues its 30% staff churn every year, meaning as fast as they develop some institutional knowledge of policy, which should lead to higher productivity, faster and better decisions…people leave. The department continues to be undermined by the good people leaving and the deadwood hanging around.
My senior colleague Paul was bemoaning the fact that on Wednesday this week he was having five pretty inane yet critical conversations with five different immigration officers about visa rules that are plain and simple to understand if you’ve been doing this as long as he has, but which the officers not only did not understand, but when it was explained how they were misinterpreting or misunderstanding the rule in question, they ran off to their line supervisors who circled the wagons around them and defended them (God knows how) and the line managers above both, then joined the defensive lines.
I’m all for a united front when it is justified, but when the rules clearly require a particular type of evidence and these officers insist on something different, despite history and precedent (if not common sense) supporting our interpretation, it is embarrassing for the department and by extension, the country. Yet no one ever blushes. Managers generally won’t intervene in applications (they probably call it ‘empowerment’, I call it abdication of professional responsibility) and they let the junior and inexperienced staff get on with ruining lives.
The Department might be staffed and managed by people that as a colleague snidely suggested after this weeks antics, ‘I wouldn’t let manage my Big Mac Order’ but they are not entirely to blame.
While the Department in my experience has weak leadership, the Minister of Immigration and the current Government has an awful lot to answer for. With every passing month they continue to demonstrate they are clueless.
The Government was supposed to announce their residence programme last year for the 18 months from January 2020. That programme confirms how many resident visas they intend dishing out over the following 18 months. The target was 60,000 in the 18 months ending December 2019 under all categories. Previous Governments released their programme before the end of the current programme. The current one is now two months overdue.
Without a programme INZ cannot approve too many resident visas. The Government will at some point soon get around to releasing the programme quota or targets but in the meantime, they are keeping everyone, including INZ, guessing.
Therefore INZ is restricting themselves to only giving priority processing to those skilled migrants earning a high salary ($104,000, about to become $106,000) or those with NZ occupational registration. I still cannot fathom why they believe those applicants are better ‘value’ for New Zealand and more worthy of priority than the rest of the applicants who paid the same fee. Everyone who is non priority as I have previously written about is being told to suck it up and wait, no matter the uncertainty, inconvenience, cost and frustration that is causing them.
One presumes the Government will come up with a number but in the meantime no ‘non priority’ resident visa application receipted after 11 December 2018 has or will be allocated until INZ knows what their target/quota is.
I am certain that the upcoming election in September is dictating the thinking inside the halls of power. Having promised to cut skilled migrant numbers and doing it when they took power in 2017; having abandoned the promise to build us 100,000 houses over their first ten years in power (not least because of skills shortages), recently over turning their own 2017 cancellation of over $8 billion worth of much needed infrastructure projects of road, rail, hospitals and schools, they now find themselves in a visa numbers pickle.
To deliver on these new infrastructure projects, to keep Auckland employers happy and the country growing, they need more, not fewer, skilled migrants. But they promised the cut and I cannot see them backing down on it. There’s only so many back downs and u-turns you get away with before the voters realise they voted in a bunch of wallies.
So things continue in processing limbo for the vast majority of skilled migrants.
I am increasingly recommending Australia over New Zealand (those that know me know how much that hurts!). The problem with Australia these days is not so much processing delays (they too cut their numbers which has led to faster processing times) but they are increasingly only issuing five year ‘work to resident visas’. That doesn’t suit a lot of people looking for certainty in troubled times particularly in South Africa and Hong Kong.
I just wish politicians might appreciate immigration isn’t ideological, it is driven by labour market reality. If employers cannot secure the skills they need on a long term basis they will not grow - in fact with an ageing population, businesses will shrink. Surely it a non-partisan issue? We either need Teachers, Engineers, Solutions Architects, Nurses, Carpenters and Welders among others or we do not.
If we continue to not encourage (force if they want subsidised tertiary study?) our own young people into courses the labour market wants (enough lawyers, already!), we will continue to need to supplement our work force with foreign talent. If we restrict those foreigners with the skills we desperately need because we are creating so many jobs, to a few years on a work visas, most won’t come.
These delays for those applicants in the system already has more than an emotional impact. Even if no one in Government gives a toss about the migrants, I am hoping they give a damn about the employers of New Zealand, the tax take and all the New Zealand jobs at risk if businesses have to start thinking about downsizing or not taking on that additional export order because they cannot offer certainty to the migrant they need to complete their labour force planning.
This numbers question will pass (the fools inside INZ will remain) and a degree of certainty will return, but right now it has never been as bad as it is currently trying to help people make decisions and plans.
I can just imagine the Government announcing an unchanged quota or even a reduced one and with a straight face tell us all that the decision was not based on internal squabbling between the Labour Party and the tiny but powerful anti immigrant NZ First party (to whom the Labour Party must daily grovel to stay in power) but something like ‘the economic fundamentals of New Zealand remain strong but the external economic environment is becoming less certain, creating short term challenges for local businesses caused by the coronavirus and head winds in our export markets, suggesting to the coalition government that it is appropriate to take a cautious approach to the numbers of visas we approve.’
And the Minister or the Prime Minister will say, ‘We think on balance we have the numbers about right’.
Bullshit we do.
Until next week
Posted by Iain on Jan. 31, 2020, 5:09 p.m. in Skilled Migrant Category
Two weeks ago I wrote a blog which explained how the immigration department is allocating Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) Resident Visa applications and how they are choosing to prioritise.
I did that in part because we have received a small number of emails from clients in recent months along the lines of "Why is my application going to take one year to be allocated when my friends were allocated more quickly and they lodged their application after we did?”
I contacted the Regional Manager and the Resident Visa Operations Manager for the Manukau branch where all SMC migrant cases are now processed and put this question to them.
They replied, very emphatically, that unless an application meets the criteria for priority processing, which is either the principal applicant has a high salary ($104,000 per annum) or they work in an occupation for which registration in New Zealand is a statutory requirement and they hold that registration, they would not be afforded priority. All those applications are going to be allocated in ‘strict chronological order of receipt’. I have no doubt that once allocated, our cases will be processed very quickly because they are "decision ready" when they are submitted. Those going it alone I imagine will take many months even once allocated so most people are probably looking at 18-24 months more or less from the time the file their application.
These Managers went on to confirm that the only cases being bumped up the queue are those that are already in the priority queue.
That is to say they are now prioritising some of the prioritised cases! One example I was offered was a surgeon living in a regional area i.e. outside of Auckland. I have no idea why that person is more important than the local electrician (registration) or the Accountant earning $104,000 but there you are. A priority system within a priority system - how very INZ.
What we tend to find is when clients give us their “But my friend…” stories and we get more information about those friends, we usually find that the applicant meets one of the criteria for prioritisation.
I don't believe that the senior managers are lying and I do stand by the piece I wrote two weeks ago in which I explained that the backlogs are growing because the government is now holding INZ to what appears to be an annual quota of SMC resident visas they can issue, rather than the "target" they previously described the annual visa numbers as.
There is no doubt in my mind that it’s politics at play and the fact that we have an election coming up in September, the country is groaning under an infrastructure deficit and the last thing the government wants going into a new election is even more population pressure and the house price inflation that has been created in recent years. Especially when all three parties to the current government campaigned in 2017 on cutting immigration numbers and set out to do so.
I am going to be intrigued to see what the biggest party making up government, the Labour Party, announces its immigration policy to be this time round. Given that they rule at the pleasure of the very small New Zealand First party, a small anti-immigration party (at least whilst not in Government), I am not sure they will have the courage of their historical convictions that migration is a positive force not a negative one. Things change when you want to get your hands on the levers of power.
I outlined three possible options two weeks ago that the government might adopt to deal with the backlog that is rapidly growing:
1. Increase the pass mark significantly but that has downside economic risks particularly in Auckland as we need every single skilled migrant that is finding work in New Zealand or live with the economic contraction keeping them out will almost certainly cause; or
2. Let the visa allocation times get longer and longer and effectively kick the can down the road at least till after the election. I suspect this is what they will do until the election is out of the way. All bets are off once a new government is in place.
3. Nuclear option - shut down the policy temporarily. They did it with the parent category but I don't believe they would be stupid enough to do it with the skilled migrant category. There is simply too much at stake economically.
The smartest move would be to recognise that every skilled migrant who jumps through the hoops to find a job whilst on a Visitor Visa is obviously in acute demand in New Zealand. No New Zealand employer employs migrants and deals with the Visa process if they can find locals. A simple truth, always ignored by all those who complain about "mass migration" and filling up New Zealand with "cheap foreign labour” (and you would be quite surprised how many people think that!). We have neither mass migration, nor is New Zealand being flooded by cheap foreign labour. Foreigners actually have to earn around 20% more than locals or they don't get work visas.
The government should have the courage of their economic convictions and revert to describing the annual number of resident visas they are prepared to issue as a ‘target’ and not a quota. Funny how when they weren't filling the annual numbers two years ago we were told the ‘magic number’ wasn't a quota but a ‘target’ and it was about ‘quality not quantity’. Now however it seems to be a quota and it is about quantity and not quality.
Back to the ‘My friend’ stories however. If you know of anybody that has filed a resident Visa application under the SMC policy who is not earning $104,000 a year or does not hold registration in New Zealand in their occupation, but has been given priority, I would very much like to hear about it. Email me at
I do believe the senior departmental managers when they tell me they are not prioritising anybody else and not allowing people to queue jump but at the same time I know the immigration department is consistently inconsistent and its management doesn't always know what is going on at counter level.
I don't rule out INZ management believing people are not jumping the queue, but that doesn’t mean queue jumping is not taking place nonetheless.
I'd like to find out.
Posted by Iain on Jan. 17, 2020, 6:50 p.m. in Skilled Migrant Category
What does 2020 bring for skilled migrants?
The short answer is delays and frustrations.
INZ continues to advise that they are placing skilled migrant (points) resident visa applications into two queues — those that warrant prioritisation based on two limited criteria and those that do not.
Priority to INZ today means you earn a "high salary" of $104,000 or higher. Alternatively your New Zealand job is in an occupation that requires statutory registration.
The priority cases are being allocated within a few months of receipt and everything else I am continuously told by the senior management will be allocated “strictly in chronological order of receipt of the application”. As recently as yesterday.
INZ has essentially stopped allocating for substantive processing, non-priority resident visa applications received after December 2018 (not 2019).
It is extremely difficult to explain to a Software Engineer earning $103,000 that his case will now take 2 years to be allocated and processed when his colleague sitting at the next work station on the same work visa is getting priority because he earns $104,000. Or tell the Auditor they don’t warrant priority but the Electrician does.
What makes the (registered) Electrician more valuable to the country than the Auditor?
And where did these prioritisation criteria come from anyway? Who dreamed them up?
It is arbitrary and a mess. And it is getting messier. The Minister of immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway was warned and acknowledged this problem in April last year. He has done nothing about it.
The reasons we got here are clear and were predictable. The consequences of a wrong move now by Government is frightening. All the solutions are unpalatable.
INZ is contractually obligated and resourced by their political masters to only process and approve the number of skilled migrant resident visas that the government has set out in the publicly listed residence program (which lasts 18 months before being revisited). Although for years, and when convenient because they issued fewer resident visas than their annual ‘target”, the politicians constantly told us that they operate targets and not quotas (‘the numbers aren’t important, it is about quality”), yet all of a sudden, when the economy is on fire and lots of migrants have skilled jobs these ‘targets’ cannot be exceeded. Which rather makes them sound more like quotas to me. Targets when it suits. Quotas when it suits.
As of yesterday I am informed that there are 10,000 priority and non-priority applications covering approximately 37,000 people sitting in the queue waiting to be allocated. What took six months last year will take 18 months now.
So how did we get here?
It is the government that sets the annual targets/quotas and it is the government that sets the pass mark to be selected from the skilled migrant pool. I have written previously that the pass mark is clearly too low and the number of migrants getting skilled jobs in the economy is too high.
In many ways the immigration department's hands are tied. They cannot increase the target/quota which means they say they must delay allocating cases for processing system (or at least that is their story and they are sticking to it). They cannot put the pass mark up (that is true), the Government does that. At 160 points to be selected, the numbers building up in the system awaiting allocation is increasing with every subsequent pool draw.
So what are the solutions?
1. Significantly increase the pass mark to perhaps 190 or 200 which will certainly lead to significantly fewer applicants being invited to apply for residence. That is what the pass mark is for — it acts as a valve system to control the flow of applicants into the system. So why doesn't the government put up the pass mark?
I can think of a few reasons — the most important is it will screw the Auckland labour market and the Government needs Auckland votes. Auckland continues to be a ‘jobs factory’ and we have a critical shortage of workers across most sectors and industries. Already around 70% of skilled migrants are being forced out of Auckland in order to secure enough points even to reach the 160 threshold.
In construction, hospitality, tourism and child care, the impacts are already being felt with the current pass mark exacerbating existing skills shortages. If they put the pass mark up the government is going to have Auckland employers screaming even louder. Given the importance of Auckland to the national economy, if the Government restricts the labour market there too much, you're going to see a significant decrease in economic activity. That is not politically very palatable for the government.
Another reason is that many of the skills we need desperately (and tradesmen spring immediately to mind) already struggle to secure 160 points, even outside of Auckland. Put the pass mark up higher and you'll be excluding some of the most critical skills we lack.
2. Let the allocation of processing times continue to get longer and longer.
That also creates a political headache for the government which is already getting it in the neck because we have some 150,000 odd people in New Zealand on work visas. The reality is many migrants are only here on work visas because there is a potential pathway to residence. If they think they can secure that future more quickly in Australia, Canada, the UK or the US then that is where they will go. Migrants will put up with a certain amount of crap to get where they want to go but they do have limits and many of them have choices.
3. The nuclear option — shut the program down and don't accept any more applications into the skilled migrant pool until the current backlog is cleared. Based on current estimates that would take two years.
It would be simple, it is clean and it turns off the tap. Experience demonstrates however that when you want to turn the tap back on you've lost the trust of the market and the skilled migrants the economy demands will go and settle in countries with a more forgiving and certain process. That is if we had any economy left to worry about.
I'm sure there are many policy makers in Wellington who would argue that it takes two years to get residence of Australia for example. That is true but the significant majority of our clients secure that residency while they are sitting in their home country. They are not uprooting, they're not selling houses before their future is secured and they are not taking the risk that skilled migrants coming to New Zealand are.
The bizarre thing is all this interest in New Zealand is actually a good economic news story (it’s just a bad political one for the parties in Government because of the things they said to get into power back in 2017). To get into this country you must be able to get skilled employment and given the very real barriers to getting work for migrants without work visas, (our old friend the ‘chicken and the egg’), the fact that so many employers are still willing to play the visa game is testament to what full employment in the local labour market looks like when your business is expanding or you need to replace someone who is moving on. These migrants are getting jobs because we have more jobs than we have people to fill them and it is as simple as that.
Simply put, employers have no choice but to employ immigrants. They aren’t doing it because they want to. A fact usually lost on the anti-immigration politicians and voters.
Now, put yourself in the shoes of the current government. This is an election year and all three parties making up the current government campaigned in 2017 on cutting immigration and they did cut skilled migration targets by around 20% when they gained the treasury benches. Oh for that breathing room now!
The current government also promised to build 100,000 houses over 10 years, a policy since abandoned as unachievable (surprise, surprise, we don’t have the skills to build them!) and house prices have continued to climb, pushing many people out of the permanent home ownership market. While many migrants have been pushed out of Auckland in order to score the 160 points, that is now putting infrastructure pressure on other centres. It is interesting to note for example that in recent months property prices in Wellington have almost caught up to Auckland.
Obviously more migrants means more infrastructure is needed and the lack of a comprehensive population policy and planning for the numbers is the root cause of the problems today.
If we don’t want migrants, fine.
The only alternative to that however is to ensure we are producing the right sets of skills we need locally. We are not, and have never done so. How do you force a kid to become an Electrician or a Teacher or a Brain Surgeon if they want to be a Lawyer or Tattoo Artist or Software Developer?
Migrants only get residence because we are creating jobs we simply cannot fill ourselves. Deny them the possibility of residence and a long term future, and for the majority, they will go elsewhere. For those who might be inclined to let out a rip roaring ‘hurrah’, consider how you might feel when you have no one to teach your kids at their school or a plumber to fix your burst water pipe, or Brain Surgeon to remove your tumour...remember you wanted fewer migrants so please don’t whine about it.
There is a big problem to fix with the Skilled Migrant Category and right now all we are seeing is the can being kicked down the road through longer allocation and processing times — no doubt in my mind to keep immigration as far away from the election campaign as possible. It won’t work.
Whatever they do or don’t do, the pressure is building on Government with every passing week. The lack of policy or even foresight on this issue by this Government is incredibly disappointing — they had nine years in opposition to come up with some (costed) plans. They spend a whole lot of time talking and ‘virtue signaling’ but very little time actually doing anything, because I strongly suspect they are clueless when it comes to solutions.
And given how hard they campaigned that we had too many migrants, they are now lying on a bed of nails that they hammered into place.
Going to be an interesting year.
Until next week
Posted by Myer on July 20, 2018, 8:16 p.m. in Australia
And the place where you belong, contrary to what the song would indicate, is not West Virginia, but Geelong, Adelaide, Hobart or any other part of Australia that is “regional”.
Recent changes to Australia’s skilled migration program is going to have the effect of placing more of you on country roads than ever before.
Figures just released evidence that Australia accepted approximately 162,000 permanent migrants in 2017/18, down from about 183,000 the year before, and well below the 190,000-a-year quota. Net migration was 240,000 but this includes those who are not only arriving as permanent residents but those on visas allowing a stay of 12 months or more, which is a fair number of people to accommodate in terms of accommodation, transportation, healthcare facilities and education facilities.
We also learned this week that Australia’s population is set to reach 25 million in August 2018 some 24 years earlier than predicted in 2002.
Australia’s larger cities such as Sydney and Melbourne are suffering from congestion, infrastructure that cannot support a growing population, rising property prices (although having said that, at time of writing property prices in Melbourne and Sydney are forecast to decrease by 1 – 2%) and in the context of these issues migration to the larger cities is said to be adding to the burden.
Yet on the other hand, Australia has a shortage of skilled people in regional areas. Regional areas would constitute some of the smaller cities in Australia such as Adelaide and Hobart as well as anywhere outside of the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, Sydney, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Perth to name a few.
Since late 2016, job vacancy growth in regional areas has outstripped vacancy growth in our largest cities. According to the latest Internet Vacancy Index released by the Australian Government, vacancies in regions have grown by 20 per cent since February 2016 compared to only a 10 per cent increase in our largest cities.
These growing vacancies are occurring across a range of job opportunities.
This is the context in which some of Australia’s recent policy changes have taken place aimed at reducing the number of migrants destined for Australia’s major cities and encouraging migration to smaller cities and towns. These changes include:
As most of these changes have occurred in the months April– July 2018 they are to soon to have caused the reduction in permanent migrants in 2017/18, from 183,000 to 162,000 and their effects both in terms of the annual quota of permanent migrants as well as the effects on diverging migrant flows from metropolitan to regional areas is yet to be felt.
In fact it may take some time before the true effects of these changes are felt because of transitional provisions available to those on work visas in Australia at the time these changes came into effect. Those on temporary 457 visas still have a greater number of occupations to transition to permanent residence and it could be as much as 4 years before the full effect of the changes take place.
It’s therefore ironic that we are having a debate about migration numbers in the context of some of the harshest changes to immigration policy that I have seen in the last nine years.
It is, however, overdue that we should have an informed debate about population size and whether the vision for Australia is a “big” Australia, or “sustainable” one as some of the terms that politicians have been bandying about and to then design in immigration policy designed to meet that target. Instead of what we have been doing the past is to come up with an arbitrary annual quota because in the absence of a formal population policy, Australia’s immigration policy is its de facto population policy.
For the foreseeable future I expect that there will be more Van der Merwes, Singhs and Lees found enjoying the country lifestyle of Australia.
- Myer Lipschitz, Managing Partner (Melbourne Office)
Posted by Iain on March 16, 2018, 10:22 p.m. in South Africa
You have to love Australia! It is not very often I agree with Julius Malema and his Economic Freedom Fighters but strangely this week, I find myself doing so but for very different reasons.
It is interesting and completely understandable that the South African Government has reacted with affront at the Australian Minister of Immigration’s suggestion that they must look very carefully into trying to help and "fast track visas" for “white South African farmers who are being persecuted”. To suggest that these people need help “from a civilised country like ours” actually made my skin crawl. Not because South African farmers are not being targeted by their Government and criminals, but because virtually everyone in South Africa that is not black is being marginalised for reasons of ‘economic transformation’, and not a small dose of political retribution.
Australian hypocrisy seems to know no bounds. And nor their racist tendencies.
This all comes about as Australia responds to the recent passing of legislation in South Africa allowing expropriation of land without compensation. There’s no doubt that South Africa is increasingly a tinderbox as the ANC Government continues to fail to deliver the sort of economic conditions that create employment, leaving millions of overwhelmingly black people (but more than a few whites, Indians and others it must be said) without work or prospects and with every passing month the politics becomes more radical to keep Mr Malema the leader of a minority support political party and not a majority one. He could easily hold the balance of power at the next national elections. The ANC rightly fear his politics and promises.
When President Ramaphosa said the law would now change to take land, he was clearly doing it to appease the increasingly-powerful firebrand and leader of the EFF. Of that particular fellow, everyone in South Africa should be frightened; irrespective of their skin colour. The reality is, however, that he is increasingly popular and he clearly does not like white people, no matter what he says.
Part of me says good on the Aussies, but the other part says what about every other person in South Africa who is being 'discriminated' against because of their skin colour, and who is now paying for the sins of their (grand)fathers?
I happen to be in South Africa at the moment and I’m noticing that those looking to leave the country are increasingly young and desperate and usually, but by no means all, white. I am seeing more and more young black South Africans as well. Most whites are leaving because they are being shut out of tertiary education and employment opportunities. I’ve always accepted Affirmative Action (priority given to black applicants for jobs and places at University for example) was a necessary ‘reset’ in trying to redress the social and economic inequality created by Apartheid. The fact that it is also economic suicide on so many levels is a price the ruling party and the majority of people of South Africa seem willing to pay. It smacks to me of short-term political gain for long-term economic pain.
Returning to Dutton’s concerns however, it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that a nation known for “discouraging” refugees by dumping them in detention centres in the middle of deserts, shipping them off to third-world countries or locking them up on islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean misses a couple of points — many of those (non-white) refugees will be Engineers, Teachers, Software Developers and otherwise simply hard-working people looking for a break who would give as much to Australia as South African farmers would, and who also have a genuine and well founded fear of persecution if they stay in their home country which is discriminating against them.
Is being a white refugee better for Australia than being a non-white one?
What makes white South Africans so special? And what makes farmers more special than other people looking to get out of South Africa? Does Australia have a shortage of farmers? Would it also take non-white farmers under their fast track visa thinking or is it limited to whites (the legislation in SA is not limited to taking white owned land without compensation)? How about all the skilled white South Africans who are not farmers who would saw off their left arm for a chance to raise their children in a country where apparently skin colour doesn’t matter?
How ironic that a country apparently outraged at the racist treatment of white farmers is happy to have, at its core, an openly racist visa policy based on skin colour.
Someone tell me why you would single out white South African farmers for special treatment over and above the thousands of other whites (and other highly skilled but non-whites) in South Africa that are being cut out of the country's economic future? It is incredible they even think it let alone publicly declare it and it is racist. I am sure if they go through with it and you were a white South African farmer you won’t care, and I wouldn’t blame you.
The Australian Minister of Immigration has long been a highly-controversial character with some of his world views, and I accept it’s up to each country to decide who they want, what skills they want and in what numbers. it has been a long time however since Australia chose migrants based on skin colour - a return to the pre 1950s whites only policy?
If however, Mr Dutton thinks that white farmers who are having their livelihood put at risk might be good for such a “civilised” country, what about all the rest of the white and other recently marginalised people in South Africa also being “persecuted” because they happen to now be growing up in a country in which their grandfathers ruled that whites and non-whites would be treated differently?
It says a lot to me about what makes Australia 'tick'.
Until next week...
Iain MacLeod, Southern Man
Posted by Iain on March 8, 2018, 8:35 p.m. in Immigration
I’m often asked to write pieces on Immigration Policy by my marketing team because they are more widely read than my musings on the life and times of New Zealand. I confess some reluctance to do it because the fundamental reality of Immigration Policy decision-making can’t usually be broken down into bite-size chunks. It is often the case of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts on the one hand and different Immigration Officers interpreting the same rules in different ways on the other.
Today I want to attempt to explain how the Immigration Department decides whether the job offer that you have in New Zealand is ‘skilled' or not.
The first thing they have to do is to decide whether the job that you have in New Zealand falls into a Skill Level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 category. The lower the number the more highly skilled the occupation is, on the face of it. Occupations that fall into Skill Levels 1, 2 and 3 are assessed one way and those which fall into Skill Levels 4 and 5 another.
Dealing with the lower skill level first; if your occupation is Skill Level 4 or 5, the first consideration is what it will pay and the effective hourly rate earned. You must also hold a relevant, recognised qualification comparable to the learning outcomes of a Level 4 New Zealand qualification or higher, a qualification at Level 3 on a New Zealand Qualifications Framework which is exempt from assessment by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) or you must have three years of “relevant” work experience as a substitute for one of the two qualification options.
In terms of remuneration, the effective hourly rate before tax in terms of guaranteed income is NZ$36.44 per hour or higher excluding bonuses, commissions and the value of perks such as motor vehicles, cell phones and so on.
For the Skill Level 1, 2 or 3 occupations (which I should add covers most of our clients), the effective hourly rate must be at least NZ$24.29 per hour. These applicants must also have ‘relevant’ qualifications that are recognised for points and they must have a qualification at the level or above as dictated for their occupation in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) or a certain number of years of work experience in that occupation that might substitute (usually five, but never less than three).
In this regard, New Zealand has adopted an assessment process on jobs which increasingly looks like the Australian General Skilled Migration process and that is to say that you are expected to effectively ‘nominate’ an occupation that you believe fits with your job description. You need to be extremely careful what occupation you choose.
Irrespective of which occupational title you do choose, the Immigration Officer assessing your application is still meant to treat each case on its merit and assess your primary tasks in your role with the task lists for that occupation contained in the ANZSCO or another, more suitable. It can help you influence the outcome if you can work out the right one — which I should add is often almost impossible because in the real world most job descriptions overlap with that of other related occupations.
And that’s when the trouble really begins because the rule book says that an applicant must complete “most” of the tasks listed for that occupation in ANZSCO. The problem with that is the task list provided in the ANZSCO for your job is often, at least in part, shared with other similar occupations which may or may not be ‘skilled’.
Take for example; Retail Manager. ANZSCO has a number of occupations which fall under the general title of Retail Manager and these include: Antique Dealer, Post Officer Manager, Travel Agency Manager, Hair Salon Manager, Betting Agency Manager and General Retail Manager. They are all different but will have some tasks in common. The rule book lists up to eight primary tasks that these occupations might do. The Immigration Officer must therefore decide which of the 8 tasks apply to your particular ‘retail management’ job. On that, in my experience, they do not excel; not made any easier for them that applicants increasingly design their job descriptions and employment contracts around these ANZSCO tasks, for which I cannot blame them. INZ often these days starts with the assumption the role has been embellished or designed to fit the ANZSCO task list and sets out to satisfy themselves the applicant and employer have embellished the role. Sometines they are right but in our experience with our clients, they are always wrong as we make sure this never happens - if the role isn't skilled, our clients are told to go find one that is.
I’m sure I have lost you already and this is why I don’t like writing blogs about it because it’s really hard to explain but in a nutshell, what you need to do is:
As an important aside, how does the Immigration Department calculate what your effective hourly rate is?
The answer is that they look at the hours that you “may” work and that is full of fish hooks. Most Employment Agreements in New Zealand will confirm that the normal weekly hours are 40 but other such hours as may be required from time to time are expected to be worked without additional remuneration. Sometimes, the Employment Agreement might say employees are expected to work “up to 45 hours a week”. If you might work 45 hours per week then Immigration will look at your gross salary, divide that by 52 and divide that by 45 and that will usually push down the effective hourly rate. That is, even if you only work 45 hours once a year...
This is causing major problems, especially for Human Resources Departments, as we are now constantly asking that Employment Agreements be written in such a way that it takes into account the hours the employer expect the applicant will work; not what they may be asked to work from time to time. Crazy system for establishing skill and as always when these rules are changed in the minds of the policy people to solve one problem (in this case, making it easier in theory to work out what is skilled and what is not), they end up opening a whole new can of worms.
But that is what they have to do and I hope that is of some use to you.
Please do not post questions below on this - if you have a question, we offer a fantastic discrete question answering service which you can access by clicking here (note we charge AUD$15 per question).
Until next week...
Iain MacLeod, Southern Man
Posted by Myer on Feb. 26, 2017, 4:30 p.m. in Australia lifestyle
I had a recent consultation with someone in Singapore who wanted to immigrate to Australia for the purposes of educating his children at University but didn’t necessarily want to immigrate during the initial five-year period that an independent visa would allow (the children were quite young).
It’s not always not up to you to choose the time when you can apply for permanent residence because of the amount of change that occurs in the immigration process. It’s more likely that the time chooses you.
I’m never able to “time-the-market” when I buy a house or buy or sell equities but I can tell you that the perfect time to apply for permanent residence is the time at which you meet the eligibility requirements and if that time is now then as inconvenient is the time may be, you need to act. Often the only difference between eligibility and and missing the opportunity completely is timing.
Most applicants aren’t aware of the amount of change that occurs in the course of a relatively short period of time. Not only do applicants get older (and one’s chances of securing a visa never improves with age) but there is also a significant amount of change occurring within immigration policy.
Perhaps one of the most significant changes - certainly in terms of general skilled migration visas - is the publication of the Skilled Occupations List which occurs on 1 July of each year. This list determines which occupations will be eligible for obtaining independent permanent residence without requiring state sponsorship and represent those skills that are in medium to long-term demand in Australia.
Certain occupations have been “flagged” for possible removal in the future. Generally, occupations are flagged when there is emerging evidence of excess supply in the labour market.
The list of flagged occupations for the list to be published on one July 2017 is as follows:
Not only does the Skilled Occupations List change, but so do the quotas of each particular occupation sought by the Australian Government under its skilled migration visas.
These quotas are also announced on 1 July and determine the pass marks of independent visas. Several years ago it was possible to obtain permanent residence for an Accountant scoring 60 points with no previous work experience as an accountant, however a cut in the quota of accountants have meant that these days accountants need to score 70 points.
Some applicants might need State sponsorship if their occupation appears on the Consolidated Skilled Occupations List and whilst these state sponsorship lists are reflective of the skills needed by the 8 states or Territory’s in Australia, they too change depending upon the quota of a particular occupation required in a State or Territory.
Australia is, however, quite generous as to when applicants have to commence residing in Australia.
After the visa is granted, as long as you visit within 12 months specified by the Department, you have 5 years in which to immigrate. If you cannot immigrate within the first 5 years, as long as you visit Australia once every 5 year period you can always apply for a Resident Return Visa.
So whilst one has less choice about when to apply for permanent residence one has a greater degree of choice about the date that you ultimately choose to settle in Australia.
Posted by Iain on July 15, 2016, 3:28 p.m. in Education
One of the unexpected consequences of Auckland's house price values and population increase in the past few years is an emerging shortage of teachers.
It is, by all accounts, really starting to bite.
Population growth has meant the government has set aside more money for construction of additional schools, classrooms and teachers particularly in, but not limited to Auckland.
The problem schools face is that many of our own local graduates are accepting jobs outside of Auckland, where on a teacher's salary they can afford to get into the housing market, something which is only going to be a dream for many young and single teachers if they stay in our neck of the woods.
Operating a national pay scale, it matters not where a Teacher is employed in the public sector (which accounts for over 95% of all schools) but how qualified they are. So an Auckland based teacher who begins on an annual salary of around %55 000 earns the same as the teacher at the other end of the country where the cost of living is significantly lower. Average house prices in Auckland are around $900 000. The average house price across the rest of New Zealand is around $500 000. You get the picture.
Until a few years ago we were advising most teachers that get to work as a teacher without a Residence Visa or that precious work visa was possible but usually took many months to secure roles. We had a few coming through but we advised most to be very cautious and realistic about the barriers and the time frames they could expect and the uncertainties of achieving the residence dream if they were teaching.
Most schools (still) prefer locally trained teachers so ironically there has been a relative shortage of experienced teachers for a number of years; but it was the schools rather than the usual 'chicken and egg' situation surrounding jobs and work visas as the cause.
As a company, IMMagine has until recently advised our pre-primary, high/secondary and tertiary level teachers to use Australia as the 'back door' to New Zealand. We have been able to secure NZ Resident Visas off the back of Australian Permanent Residence Visas for a number of teachers. This means when they get off the plane they have full work rights and the schools will talk to them and if not offer them full time and permanent roles then perhaps as 'relief teachers'. If they cannot find anything then they could go and do whatever else they needed to in terms of work to put food on the table.
We have this year however had two high school teachers (one from Singapore and one from South Africa) secure full time and permanent teaching roles without visiting New Zealand (both got jobs in Auckland).
We are now representing a teacher from the Democratic Republic of the Congo who has been denied a visa to take up a job offered at an Auckland High School. The position he was offered was eventually filled locally after many months but the school has another vacancy going unfilled all year they have offered him.
Many schools are now reporting fewer than 5 applicants per vacancy advertised.
How times have changed. Only four years or so ago the Ministry of Education was putting off those from overseas making enquiries about coming over as they said there were fewer teachers leaving the profession (caused by, it was believed, the global financial crisis where higher perceptions of job insecurity meant many were staying in their jobs rather than moving on).
This doesn't mean desperate school principals are standing at the Auckland Airport arrivals hall with some "Teachers Wanted!" signs, but this increasing shortage is real and presents opportunities for some teachers where few existed even 2-3 years ago.
We will likely not stop advising our clients to use the Australian 'back door' pathway as landing here with a Resident Visa trumps even a job offer and the whole NZ visa process to negotiate if a teacher finds a job. It is all about minimising risk and there is no substitute for the certainty of the Resident Visa in the hand!
Until next week...
Attend a seminar as a starting point to learn more about the lifestyle of each country, their general migration process and a broad overview of Visa categories.
Have a preliminary evaluation to establish which Visa category may suit you and whether it’s worth your while ordering a comprehensive Full Assessment.
Let us develop your detailed strategy, timeline and pricing structure in-person or on Skype. Naturally, a small cost applies for this full and comprehensive assessment.