Life in New Zealand: Settlement Experiences of Skilled Migrants Results from the 2007 Survey
Living in New Zealand
All migrants were asked to provide an indication of how long they originally planned to live in New Zealand at the time of receiving residence, as well as 12 months into their residence.
As shown in Figure 25, 65 percent of migrants expected to live in New Zealand for five years or more at the time they were approved for residence. However, 12 months later, 70 percent of migrants reported they planned to live in New Zealand for five years or longer.
There were no significant differences in relation to this finding when comparing principal with secondary applicants, whether a migrant’s application was approved onshore or offshore, or approval category.
Figure 25: Lengths of time migrants planned on living in New Zealand at time of residence and after 12 months (n=598)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Analysis by region of origin (Figure 26), also found that the majority of migrants from each of the different regions (between 58 and 70 percent) expected to live in New Zealand for five years or more at the time of receiving their residence.
When asked about their expectations 12 months into their residence, 73 percent of migrants from the United Kingdom/Ireland said they intended to live in New Zealand for five years or more, whereas only 68 percent of these migrants had planned to do so at the time they received their residence.
Also, while the proportion of migrants from Other regions who expected to live in New Zealand for five years or more dropped from 70 percent at the time of receiving residence to 63 percent 12 months into residence (the only group to have a noted decrease), the observed change relates primarily to an increase in the number of migrants from Other regions who were not sure how long they will stay in New Zealand (from 17 percent at the time of receiving residence to 30 percent 12 months on).
Figure 26: Lengths of time migrants planned on living in New Zealand at time of receiving residence and after 12 months by region of origin (n=598)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Though not statistically significant, the results also suggest that the proportion of principal applicants approved under an SMC, LTSSL and Talent category (as a group) who planned to live in New Zealand for five or more years when they first took up residence (65 percent) was greater than that for principal applicants approved under an Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category (56 percent).
However, 12 months into their residence, the difference between the two principal applicant groups had increased significantly, with 75 percent of those approved under an SMC, LTSSL and Talent category planning to live in New Zealand for five or more years, while the contrasting figure for those approved under an Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category had increased only slightly to 58 percent.
Twelve months into their residence, 21 percent of migrants reported that they did not intend to live in New Zealand for more than two years or were not sure how long they would stay.
When asked what country they were going to live in when they left, 69 percent of the sub-sample reported that they did not know. However, 11 percent said they might migrate to Asia, 10 percent to the United Kingdom/Ireland, six percent to Australia, and three percent reported ESANA or an Other region, respectively.
Likes and dislikes about New Zealand
When asked to select from a range of options on what they liked most about New Zealand (Figure 27), respondents most frequently identified New Zealand’s climate/natural beauty/clean and green environment (85 percent), the friendly people or relaxed pace of life (77 percent), New Zealand’s recreation and leisure activities (57 percent) and its small population (56 percent). In contrast, migrants were less likely to report liking the quality of New Zealand housing (20 percent) or its economic conditions (18 percent).
Figure 27: What migrants liked the most about New Zealand (n=600)
Total may exceed 100% due to multiple response.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
As shown in Figure 28, in 2007, principal applicants were significantly more likely to report liking New Zealand’s educational system/educational opportunities than in previous years (35 percent in 2007 compared with 28 percent of principal applicants in 2005 and 27 percent in 2006).
Principal applicants in 2007 were significantly less likely to report being safe from crime and violence as one of the options they liked most about New Zealand (47 percent in 2007 compared with 55 percent of principal applicants in 2005 and 53 percent in 2006). They were also significantly less likely to report they like New Zealand as a place where they can achieve their desired lifestyle (50 percent in 2007 compared with 56 percent of principal applicants in 2005 and 54 percent in 2006).
Figure 28: Significant changes in what migrants like about New Zealand - principal applicants only (2005 n=1,193) (2006 n=872) (2007 n=354)
Excludes missing and not stated data.
As detailed in Tables 14 and 15, there were no significant differences in relation to what migrants reported liking most about New Zealand when viewed by applicant type or region of origin, with the only exception that secondary applicants were more likely to report liking the fact that family were in New Zealand (30 percent compared with 19 percent of principal applicants).
Similarly, there were no significant differences between those admitted under an SMC, GSC, LTSSL or Talent category and those admitted under an Entrepreneur, Investor or LTBV category, with the exception that the first group were more likely to report liking the fact that family were in New Zealand (24 percent compared with 16 percent of those in the second group).
| Principal | Secondary | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Climate or natural beauty or clean and green environment | 323 | 86 | 186 | 83 |
| Friendly people or relaxed pace of life | 289 | 77 | 175 | 78 |
| Recreation and leisure activities | 221 | 59 | 119 | 53 |
| Small population | 219 | 58 | 119 | 53 |
| Can achieve desired lifestyle | 188 | 50 | 100 | 45 |
| Safety from crime and violence | 177 | 47 | 113 | 50 |
| Political stability and freedom or lack of corruption | 118 | 31 | 81 | 36 |
| Education system or educational opportunities | 133 | 35 | 79 | 35 |
| Cultural diversity | 105 | 28 | 76 | 34 |
| Lack of inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions | 118 | 31 | 56 | 25 |
| Job opportunities | 110 | 29 | 61 | 27 |
| Good provision of services | 103 | 27 | 61 | 27 |
| Good housing | 78 | 21 | 40 | 18 |
| Economic conditions | 70 | 19 | 38 | 17 |
| Having family here | 71 | 19 | 67 | 30 |
| Other | 24 | 6 | 16 | 7 |
| Total | 376 | 63 | 224 | 37 |
Excludes missing and not stated data.
| UK/Ireland | ESANA | Asia | Other | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Climate or natural beauty or clean and green environment | 149 | 87 | 74 | 89 | 72 | 83 | 28 | 80 |
| Friendly people or relaxed pace of life | 132 | 77 | 66 | 80 | 65 | 75 | 26 | 74 |
| Recreation and leisure activities | 100 | 58 | 51 | 61 | 52 | 60 | 18 | 51 |
| Small population | 100 | 58 | 45 | 54 | 51 | 59 | 23 | 66 |
| Can achieve desired lifestyle | 85 | 50 | 47 | 57 | 41 | 47 | 15 | 43 |
| Safety from crime and violence | 82 | 48 | 41 | 49 | 39 | 45 | 15 | 43 |
| Political stability and freedom or lack of corruption | 48 | 28 | 31 | 37 | 28 | 32 | 11 | 31 |
| Education system or educational opportunities | 60 | 35 | 29 | 35 | 31 | 36 | 13 | 37 |
| Cultural diversity | 46 | 27 | 22 | 27 | 27 | 31 | 10 | 29 |
| Lack of inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions | 51 | 30 | 30 | 36 | 25 | 29 | 12 | 34 |
| Job opportunities | 52 | 30 | 23 | 28 | 25 | 29 | 10 | 29 |
| Good provision of services | 48 | 28 | 22 | 27 | 26 | 30 | 7 | 20 |
| Good housing | 33 | 19 | 20 | 24 | 14 | 16 | 11 | 31 |
| Economic conditions | 30 | 18 | 17 | 20 | 17 | 20 | 6 | 17 |
| Having family here | 36 | 21 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 17 | 10 | 29 |
| Other | 14 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| Total | 171 | 45 | 83 | 22 | 87 | 23 | 35 | 9 |
Excludes missing and not stated data.
When asked about what they dislike most about New Zealand, identified most frequently were the cost of health services (46 percent), New Zealand’s high tax rates/tax system difficult to understand (43 percent), the distance of New Zealand from home or family (40 percent), poor quality of housing/the cost of housing (39 percent) and poor public transport/lack of public transport (36 percent) (Figure 29).
Figure 29: What migrants disliked the most about New Zealand (n=562)
Total may exceed 100% due to multiple responses.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
When compared with previous years’ results, the 2007 SEFS found that there were a number of issues or aspects about New Zealand that principal applicants were significantly more or less likely to dislike than in previous survey years. These specific issues are summarised in Figure 30.
In 2007, principal applicants were significantly more likely to report disliking:
- New Zealand’s poor quality housing or cost of housing (37 percent compared to 32 percent in 2006 and 26 percent in 2005)
- employers wanting New Zealand work experience (27 percent compared to 21 percent in 2006 and 19 percent in 2005)
- New Zealand not being safe from crime and violence (14 percent compared to 11 percent in 2006 and nine percent in 2005).
In contrast, principal applicants in 2007 were less likely to dislike the distance of New Zealand from their home or family (38 percent compared to 45 percent in 2006 and 43 percent in 2005) and the inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions (seven percent compared to eight percent in 2006 and 12 percent in 2005).
Figure 30: Significant changes in what migrants dislike about New Zealand – principal applicants only (2005 n=1,193) (2006 n=872) (2007 n=354)
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Tables 16 and Table 17 show that there were no significant differences in relation to what migrants dislike about New Zealand when viewed by region of origin or applicant type.
| UK/Ireland | ESANA | Asia | Other | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Lack of job opportunities | 50 | 20 | 27 | 21 | 28 | 24 | 7 | 15 |
| Poor employment conditions | 42 | 16 | 22 | 17 | 21 | 18 | 5 | 11 |
| Employers want New Zealand work experience | 64 | 25 | 35 | 27 | 37 | 32 | 11 | 23 |
| Cost of health services | 118 | 46 | 59 | 46 | 55 | 47 | 25 | 53 |
| Climate or landscape | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Not safe from crime and violence | 37 | 15 | 13 | 10 | 17 | 15 | 13 | 28 |
| Poor economic conditions or cost of living | 56 | 22 | 17 | 13 | 16 | 14 | 14 | 30 |
| Lack of cultural diversity | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions | 22 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 17 |
| Cannot achieve desired lifestyle | 17 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Poor quality housing or cost of housing | 92 | 36 | 55 | 43 | 49 | 42 | 22 | 47 |
| New Zealanders' attitudes to migrants or discrimination | 40 | 16 | 23 | 18 | 12 | 10 | 12 | 26 |
| Poor public transport or lack of public transport | 97 | 38 | 51 | 40 | 37 | 32 | 17 | 36 |
| Distance of New Zealand from home or family | 108 | 42 | 53 | 41 | 45 | 39 | 18 | 38 |
| High tax rates or tax system difficult to understand | 116 | 45 | 54 | 42 | 44 | 38 | 29 | 62 |
| Total | 255 | 47 | 128 | 23 | 116 | 21 | 47 | 9 |
Excludes missing and not stated data.
| Principal | Secondary | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | % | n | % | |
| Lack of job opportunities | 65 | 19 | 47 | 23 |
| Poor employment conditions | 54 | 16 | 36 | 18 |
| Employers want New Zealand work experience | 94 | 27 | 53 | 26 |
| Cost of health services | 166 | 48 | 91 | 45 |
| Climate or landscape | 16 | 5 | 14 | 7 |
| Not safe from crime and violence | 51 | 15 | 29 | 14 |
| Poor economic conditions or cost of living | 69 | 20 | 34 | 17 |
| Lack of cultural diversity | 15 | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| Inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions | 25 | 7 | 24 | 12 |
| Cannot achieve desired lifestyle | 19 | 6 | 16 | 8 |
| Poor quality housing or cost of housing | 131 | 38 | 87 | 43 |
| New Zealanders' attitudes to migrants or discrimination | 53 | 15 | 34 | 17 |
| Poor public transport or lack of public transport | 130 | 38 | 72 | 35 |
| Distance of New Zealand from home or family | 136 | 40 | 88 | 43 |
| High tax rates or tax system difficult to understand | 159 | 46 | 84 | 41 |
| Total | 343 | 63 | 203 | 37 |
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Cost of living
As shown in Figure 31, the majority of migrants reported that they had enough money to meet their everyday needs (51 percent), or more than enough money (34 percent) in the country they lived in before coming to New Zealand.
In contrast, only nine percent reported having more than enough money now that they were in New Zealand, while 35 percent said they did not have enough money (compared to 15 percent reporting this was the case in their source country).
Figure 31: How well migrants’ income met their needs in New Zealand compared with their source country (n=582)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
There were no significant differences in relation to the above findings when viewed by applicant type or approval criteria.
Figure 32 provides the breakdown of how well migrants’ incomes met their needs in their source country, as well as now that they are in New Zealand, by region of origin. Notably, migrants from ESANA were more likely to feel they had enough/more than enough money when they were in their source country (90 percent) than they do in New Zealand (63 percent).
The proportion of migrants from the United Kingdom/Ireland who stated they had enough/more than enough money in their source country was 84 percent, compared with 68 percent now that they are in New Zealand. The proportion of migrants from Asia and Other regions who reported having enough/more than enough money in their source county was 65 percent and 63 percent respectively, whereas 63 percent and 60 percent respectively report this is the case in New Zealand.
Figure 32: How well migrants’ income met their needs in New Zealand compared with their source country by region of origin (n=582)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Also of note, in 2007, principal applicants were significantly more likely to report they do not have enough money to meet their everyday needs (35 percent) when compared with the findings in 2005, when only 27 percent of principal migrants noted this, while 30 percent of principal migrants reported this in the 2006 survey.
However, this issue does not necessarily equate to a problem solely with the economic conditions in New Zealand, as 16 percent of 2007 principal applicants also reported not having enough money to meet their everyday needs in their source country (a significant increase from just 10 percent of principal applicants noting this in 2005 and 12 percent in the 2006 survey).
These findings should be considered in context with the socio-economic realities of the source countries of migrants and the migrants’ personal circumstances when living there (the details of which were outside of the scope of the SEFS).
For example, it is not known to what degree migrants were able to rely on their extended families and relatives for additional support such as childcare. Migrants from Asia would also be likely to have experienced paying lower taxes in their source country, but this would be commensurate with lower levels of government provision of social services.
Also, for some migrants, additional financial resources may be required during the establishment of a new home during the first year of settlement in a new country.
Satisfaction with New Zealand
The majority of migrants surveyed in 2007 (86 percent) reported being very satisfied/satisfied with living in New Zealand. This high level of satisfaction is found regardless of the migrants’ region of origin (as reflected in Figure 33), and while the results suggest that migrants from Other regions were less likely to be very satisfied, the observed difference is not statistically significant.
Figure 33: Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with living in New Zealand (n=595)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
There were also no significant differences in satisfaction with living in New Zealand when viewed by principal versus secondary applicant (both at 86 percent very satisfied/satisfied) or application category (86 percent of those admitted under either an SMC, GSC, LTSSL or Talent category and 84 percent of those admitted under either an Entrepreneur, Investor or LTBV category).
There were also no significant differences in principal applicants’ satisfaction levels with living in New Zealand in the 2007 survey, when compared with satisfaction levels of migrants who participated in previous years’ surveys (Figure 34).
Figure 34: Satisfaction/dissatisfaction with living in New Zealand by year – principal applicants only (n=3,546)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
The majority of migrants (87 percent) also reported they would recommend New Zealand to others as a place to come and live (Figure 35), though 43 percent said their recommendation would be with some reservations, while 44 percent would do so with enthusiasm.
Figure 35: Recommend New Zealand to others as a place to come and live (n=595)
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
There were no significant differences in the likelihood of recommending New Zealand to others when viewed by principal versus secondary applicants or applicant approval categories.
Similarly, as detailed in Figure 36, there were also no significant differences in principal applicants recommending New Zealand, when compared with the findings of the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
Figure 36: Recommend New Zealand to others as a place to come and live by year
Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Excludes missing and not stated data.
Summary
- At the time of obtaining residence, 65 percent of migrants had planned to live in New Zealand for five or more years; however, 12 months later, this increased to 70 percent.
- Aspects of New Zealand that migrants like most frequently were New Zealand’s climate/natural beauty/clean and green environment (85 percent), the friendly people or relaxed pace of life (77 percent), New Zealand’s recreation and leisure activities (57 percent) and its small population (56 percent).
- Aspects of New Zealand that migrants dislike most frequently were the cost of health services (46 percent), New Zealand’s high tax rates/tax system difficult to understand (43 percent), the distance of New Zealand from home or family (40 percent), poor quality of housing/the cost of housing (39 percent) and poor public transport/lack of public transport (36 percent).
- There has been an increase in the proportion of applicants who report not having enough money to meet their needs in New Zealand since 2005, with 35 percent of principal applicants reporting this was the case in 2007, compared with 27 percent in 2005 and 30 percent in 2006.
- The majority of migrants (86 percent) were very satisfied/satisfied with living in New Zealand.
- Similarly, 87 percent of migrants would recommend New Zealand to others as a place to live.