Current Employment

The purpose of New Zealand’s skilled immigration policy is to maximise and accelerate the contribution of immigration to New Zealand's capacity building, global connectedness, and thriving and inclusive communities. The ability of migrants to integrate into the labour market and find work that fits their skills and qualifications are therefore important indicators of their settlement progress

The following section looks specifically at five labour market-related indicators:

• Employment outcomes (including employment experiences).
• Occupation.
• Industry of employment.
• Personal income.
• Job satisfaction.

Employed and not employed

Principal applicants

The 2007 SEFS found that the majority of principal applicants were employed (i.e. working for pay or profit) at they time they were surveyed (92 percent), as were 70 percent of secondary applicants. [5]

When asked whether they had been working for pay or profit six months earlier, 93 percent of all principal applicants and 67 percent of all secondary applicants reported that they were, indicating that the majority of migrants who were approved and arrived between January 2006 and June 2006 had integrated into the labour market and were working six months after their approval date.

When analysed by region of origin (Table 4), there were no significant differences in relation to employment outcomes for principal applicants, with 91 percent of those from the United Kingdom/Ireland reporting they were employed at the time of being surveyed. Similarly, 91 percent of principal applicants from ESANA, 93 percent of those from Asia and 94 percent of those from Other regions were employed.

Table 4: Proportion of principal applicants working for pay or profit by region of origin

	Working for pay or profit		Not working for pay or profit
	n	%	n	%
UK/Ireland	154	91	16	9
ESANA	74	91	7	9
Asia	82	93	6	7
Other	33	94	2	6
Total	343	92	31	8

Excludes missing and not stated data.

Notably, there were no significant differences in relation to current employment status among principal applicants when viewed by application category type, with 91 percent of those approved under an SMC, LTSSL and Talent category working for pay or profit at the time of the survey and 94 percent of principal applicants approved under an Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category.

Table 5 provides a breakdown of these results by principal applicants’ application category.

Table 5: Proportion of principal applicants working for pay or profit by application category

	Working for pay or profit		Not working for pay or profit
	n	%	n	%
SMC	208	90	23	10
GSC	27	93	2	7
Entrepreneur	45	92	4	8
Investor	15	100	0	0
LTBV	18	95	1	5
LTSSL	12	92	1	8
Talent (Accredited Employers)	18	100	0	0
Total	343	92	31	8

Excludes missing and not stated data.

These findings are consistent with the employment outcomes reported by principal applicants accepted under various application categories in 2005 and 2006 (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Application category of principal applicants working for pay or profit by year (2005 n=1,282) (2006 n=917) (2007 n=377)

Data Table for Figure 04

Excludes missing and not stated data.

On a further positive note, there were no significant differences in relation to current employment status for all principal applicants who participated in the 2007 SEFS when compared with those who completed the survey in 2005 (93 percent) and 2006 (94 percent), as detailed in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Principal applicants' employment status by year (2005 n=1,272) (2006 n=913) (2007 n=374)

Data Table for Figure 05

Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.

Similar to the findings for principal applicants approved under different application criteria, when the employment outcomes for principal applicants who were surveyed in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were analysed by region of origin, no significant differences were found from year to year between the different regions.

Table 6: Region of origin breakdown of the proportion of principal applicants in employment by year

	2005		2006		2007
	n	%	n	%	n	%
UK/Ireland	549	94	354	95	154	91
ESANA	224	94	162	92	74	91
Asia	330	92	254	94	82	93
Other	82	93	87	92	33	94
Total	1185	93	857	94	343	92

Excludes missing and not stated data.

Secondary applicants

Secondary applicants from different regions also had relatively high employment outcomes (Table 7), with 72 percent of those from the United Kingdom/Ireland, 65 percent of those from ESANA, 70 percent of those from Asia and 74 percent of those from Other regions being employed. Also, while not statistically significant due to the size of the sub-sample, the results suggest that employment rates for secondary applicants have increased from 67 percent in 2005 to the current level of 70 percent.

Table 7: Proportion of secondary applicants working for pay or profit by region of origin

	Working for pay or profit		Not working for pay or profit
	n	%	N	%
UK/Ireland	76	72	30	28
ESANA	35	65	19	35
Asia	30	70	13	30
Other	14	74	5	26
Total	155	70	67	30

Excludes missing and not stated data.

New Zealand regional employment

Figure 6 examines where employed migrants are working, dividing New Zealand into three regions – Auckland, the rest of the North Island (excluding Auckland) and the South Island).

The 2007 SEFS found that 46 percent of employed migrants were working in the Auckland region, while 32 percent were working in other regions of the North Island and 23 percent in the South Island.

Figure 6: New Zealand region of employment by region of origin (n=493)

Data Table for Figure 06

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.

These results are very similar when viewed by region of origin. One significant change from what was found in the 2005 SEFS is the apparent decrease in the proportion of survey respondents from Asia working in the Auckland region (47 percent in 2007, compared with 60 percent in 2005). It is not known if this is a result of variance in the sample frame, response bias or a trend reflecting policy initiatives in encouraging migrants to work and live outside of Auckland; however, it merits monitoring in the future.

Table 8 details the breakdown of employment outcomes among those migrants who participated in the 2007 SEFS by regional council and shows that 71 percent of all migrants are employed in the Auckland, Canterbury or Wellington regions. This is consistent with the results from Migration Trends 06/07, which show that 44 percent of SMC principal applicants were employed in the Auckland region, followed by 14 percent in each of the Wellington and Canterbury regions. [6]

Table 8: Migrants employed by regional council

	Working for pay or profit
	n	%
Auckland	225	46
Canterbury	68	14
Wellington	59	12
Bay of Plenty	33	7
Waikato	27	5
Otago	21	4
Manawatu-Wanganui	20	4
Nelson	8	2
Northland	7	1
Hawke’s Bay	7	1
Marlborough	7	1
Southland	6	1
Gisborne	*	*
Taranaki	*	*
West Coast	*	*
Total	498	100

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
* Percentages not calculated for counts of less than five.
Excludes missing and not stated data.

As detailed in Figure 7, of those migrants who were working for pay or profit, 79 percent of principal applicants and 81 percent of secondary applicants were working for salary or wages in their main job, while a relatively small proportion (20 percent of principal applicants and 16 percent of secondary applicants) owned the business they worked in.

Figure 7: Main job (work the most hours) by principal and secondary applicants (n=496)

Data Table for Figure 07

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.

Occupation and industry

The occupations of the migrants who participated in the 2007 SEFS were classified according to the New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (NZSCO).

As detailed in Figure 8, the most common occupational classification for all migrants was Professional (29 percent), followed by Legislators, Administrators and Managers (15 percent) and Associate Professionals and Technicians (12 percent).

Principal applicants were more likely to be working as Professionals (35 percent compared with 16 percent of secondary applicants) [7]. Secondary applicants were more likely to be working in Service and Sales (17 percent compared with seven7 percent of principal applicants) or as Clerks (15 percent compared with six percent of principal applicants).

Although 12 percent of principal applicants were working in the Elementary Occupations, it should be noted that 78 percent of the occupations in this category were not classifiable.

Figure 8: Occupation in main job by principal and secondary applicants (n=503)

Data Table for Figure 08

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
* The majority of those in this category (78 percent) could not be classified in terms of their main occupation.

Figure 9 provides details of principal applicants’ main occupation, when viewed by region of origin.

The most frequent occupation classification for migrants from all four regions was Professionals, and while the results suggest that principal applicants from Asia are more likely than migrants from all other regions to be working as Professionals, the observed differences are not statistically significant at either the 95 percent or 90 percent confidence estimate.

It should be noted, however, that principal applicants from ESANA and Other regions are significantly more likely to be working as Service and Sales Workers (12 percent and 18 percent respectively), when compared with principal applicants from the United Kingdom/Ireland or Asia.

Figure 9: Principal applicants’ occupations in main job by region of origin (n=346)

Data Table for Figure 09

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
* The majority of those in this category (78 percent) could not be classified in terms of their main occupation.

With the exception that male principal applicants were significantly more likely to be working as Professionals (40 percent) than were female principal applicants (27 percent), there were no significant differences in principal applicants’ main occupation when viewed by gender.

When the results for principal applicants were examined by application approval category, the only significant difference found was that principal applicants approved under an SMC, LTSSL and Talent category were less likely to be working as Professionals (29 percent) and more likely to be employed in an Elementary Occupation and Not Classifiable category (14 percent). In contrast, 54 percent of principal applicants approved through the Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category said they were working as Professionals, while only five percent reported being employed in an Elementary Occupation.

The proportions of principal applicants working in certain occupations have changed significantly between the 2005 and 2007 SEFS. Based upon the 2005 survey results, 41 percent of principal applicants reported working as Professionals and 15 percent as Associate Professionals and Technicians, whereas, in 2006, the proportions of principal applicants working in these occupations were 36 and 15 percent respectively and, in 2007, 35 and 11 percent respectively.

Of principal applicants, seven percent reported they were Service and Sales Workers, and six percent said they were employed as Clerks in 2007, a significant increase over the proportions of principal applicants working in these occupations in 2005 (four and two percent respectively). The 2006 survey found that three percent of principal respondents reported working as Clerks in 2006 and six percent as Service and Sales Workers.

Figure 10 details the main industries in which the SEFS 2007 respondents (both principal and secondary applicants) were employed.

Most frequently, these migrants were employed in Health and Community Services (15 percent), Retail Trade (14 percent), Property and Business Services or Construction (both at 12 percent) and Education (11 percent).

Figure 10: Industry of main job, all employed migrants (n=485)

Data Table for Figure 10

Total may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.

Notably, there were no significant differences in relation to these findings when viewed by principal versus secondary applicants, gender or region of origin.

When the results for principal applicants were examined by application approval category, the only significant difference found was that principal applicants approved under an SMC, LTSSL and Talent category were less likely to be working in Education (eight percent) compared with 18 percent of principal applicants approved under an Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category.

Income levels

As detailed in Table 9, 45 percent of principal applicants reported having an annual income of over $50,000 before tax, whereas the majority of secondary applicants (85 percent) earned less than $50,001, though this is partly due to the fact that secondary applicants are more likely to work fewer than 30 hours per week (30 percent compared to 10 percent of principal applicants). It is important to note that the minimum salary requirement under the SMC is $45,000. Therefore, since the majority of approvals were through the SMC, it is not surprising that principal applicants earned over $45,000.

To put these findings in context, the median annual pre-tax income of employed New Zealanders in 2007 was $26,988. [8]

Table 9: Annual incomes from main job before tax by principal and secondary applicants

	Principal applicants		Secondary applicants
	n	%	n	%
$20,000 or less	33	10	58	38
$20,001 to $30,000	33	10	31	20
$30,001 to $50,000	120	36	42	27
$50,001 to $70,000	79	24	15	10
$70,001 to $100,000	53	16	5	3
$100,001 or more	17	5	*	*
Total	335	100	153	100

Totals may not add to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
* Percentage not calculated for counts of less than five.

When viewed by region of origin, there were no significant differences between the reported income levels of principal applicants (Table 10) [9]