Discussion

The Settlement Experiences Feedback Survey (SEFS) was designed to monitor the short term settlement outcomes of migrants who came to New Zealand through the Skilled/Business Stream, 12 months after residence approval or arrival. The purpose of the Skilled/Business Stream is to attract qualified and skilled migrants who will assist with New Zealand’s economic transformation by contributing to New Zealand's economic growth, innovation and global connectedness. Gaining residence through the Skilled/Business Stream is based on employability and capacity building factors and an applicant’s ability to settle in and contribute to New Zealand.

Settling into a new country takes time, and the process is different for each person and family. Settlement starts with people’s expectations of life in New Zealand and the information available to them before they arrive, and it is achieved when those expectations are met and people are able to reach their full potential in New Zealand.

The integration of migrants into New Zealand society depends on many factors. Like all New Zealanders, migrants need a foundation from which to contribute to society. The top priority for migrants is to secure employment and a place to live and to understand how to access health, education and other services. The results from this survey provide the Department of Labour with a snapshot about the early settlement outcomes of skilled migrants.

Employment and income

As with previous years, the findings from this survey show that employment outcomes were generally very good for all migrants approved through the Skilled/Business Stream. Employment remained high for principal applicants and relatively high for secondary applicants as well. This high level of employment is consistent with the previous two years.[20] This suggests that the Skilled/Business Stream policies are attracting well-qualified migrants who are employable and are contributing to New Zealand’s economy. These results support findings from a recent study that showed that the migrant population in New Zealand had a positive net fiscal impact of $3,288 million in the year to 30 June 2006.[21]

In addition, the majority of principal and secondary applicants were very satisfied/satisfied with their main job. However, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of skilled principal applicants who were very satisfied with their main job when compared to earlier surveys. Similar to the 2005 survey, the main reasons for job dissatisfaction for both principal and secondary applicants were around low pay and underutilisation of skills.

Almost half of the principal applicants surveyed reported having an annual income of over $50,000 before tax, whereas the majority of secondary applicants earned less than $50,001. This is partly due to the fact that secondary applicants were more likely to work fewer than 30 hours per week (30 percent compared to 10 percent of principal applicants). To put these findings in the context of the national average, the median annual pre-tax income of employed New Zealanders in 2006 was $25,220 and in 2007 was $26,988, suggesting that New Zealand is attracting migrants who are highly skilled and contributing to the current labour needs.

The most common occupational classification for all migrants was Professionals, followed by Legislators, Administrators and Managers, and Associate Professionals and Technicians. One change over the years was the decrease in the proportion of principal applicants working as Professionals and Associate Professionals and Technicians. These differences could reflect changes in New Zealand’s labour market needs.

Where migrants live

Consistent with the previous surveys, almost half of the employed migrants were working in the Auckland region, while a third were working in other regions of the North Island and a fifth in the South Island. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that similar proportions were living in these regions. Almost all migrants surveyed were living in a house, flat or apartment, with 43 percent reporting that they owned their home with a mortgage and 14 percent without a mortgage, which is similar to that of the New Zealand population.[22]

Difficulties with finding suitable housing were an issue for the majority of migrants. Of those who did have difficulties, the main issues around finding suitable housing were the high costs of rent/mortgage, lack of suitable housing where they wanted to live, high cost of moving/setting up a new household and the poor quality of available housing. Despite these issues, a high proportion of migrants were very satisfied/satisfied with the quality of their housing.

Further education and training, children and social networks

Over a third of migrants had taken up study or training since taking up residence, in order to upgrade their qualifications or to get a better job. Migrants were very satisfied/satisfied with their children’s schooling, and two-thirds were involved in a club/network. This suggests that migrants were integrating into New Zealand society through their children and themselves accessing education and extending their social networks by joining various clubs in New Zealand.

Access to services

As in the 2005 results, migrants reported needing help with getting a driver licence, the tax system and finding a general practitioner/family doctor. Although a quarter of migrants did not seek help from a government or private organisation, it is important to be aware that there might have been other areas that they needed help with that were not covered by the survey.

The proportion of principal applicants seeking help with government income support was found to have increased significantly, from eight percent in 2005 to 12 percent in 2006 and to 16 percent in 2007. This is in contrast to a report (based on a data-match between the Department of Labour and Ministry of Social Development) that showed, since 2001, the proportion of all migrant groups receiving income support was declining.

Further, this report showed that the benefit uptake rate for those approved through the Skilled/Business Stream in the two years between July 2004 and June 2006 was 0.4 percent or one in 250 compared to 1.3 percent or one in 100 in 2001.[23] A likely explanation for this could be the introduction of the Working for Families Tax Credits, rolled out during the 2005 to 2007 period, which do not require migrants to have held their residence permit for two years.

The SEFS, in its current form, does not differentiate between main and supplementary forms of government income support, or even between seeking information about government income support as against actual receipt of a benefit.

Living in New Zealand

Two-thirds of migrants expected to live in New Zealand for five years or more at the time they were approved for residence. This increased after 12 months to 70 percent who reported that they planned to live in New Zealand for five years or longer. Migrants approved in certain categories, like the SMC, LTSSL and Talent category, were found to be significantly more likely to report that they planned to live in New Zealand for five years or more than those approved through the Entrepreneur, Investor and LTBV category.

There were a number of things that migrants liked about New Zealand including New Zealand’s climate, natural beauty or clean and green environment; the relaxed pace of life or the friendly people; the recreation and leisure activities; and the small population in New Zealand. Compared to the previous surveys, principal applicants were significantly more likely to report liking New Zealand’s educational system in 2007, but were less likely to report safety from crime and violence, or the ability to achieve desired lifestyle as things they most liked about New Zealand.

The main dislikes given by migrants were related to the cost of health services, New Zealand’s high tax rates/tax system difficult to understand, the distance of New Zealand from home or family, poor quality of housing/cost of housing and poor public transport/lack of public transport in New Zealand. In 2007, principal applicants were more likely than in previous years to report disliking New Zealand’s poor quality housing or cost of housing, employers wanting New Zealand work experience and New Zealand not being safe from crime and violence. On a positive note, principal applicants were less likely to dislike the distance of New Zealand from their home or family, and the inter-racial, ethnic or religious tensions than in previous years.

Despite the dislikes, the majority of migrants reported being very satisfied/satisfied with living in New Zealand. This high level of satisfaction is found regardless of the migrants’ region of origin, applicant status or application category. Consistent with the 2005 and 2006 surveys, the majority of migrants (87 percent) would recommend New Zealand to others as a place to come and live.

The majority of migrants (85 percent) reported that they had enough or more than enough money to meet their everyday needs in the country they lived in before coming to New Zealand.

In contrast, less than ten percent reported having more than enough money now that they were in New Zealand, while a third (35 percent) said they did not have enough money (compared to 15 percent reporting this was the case in their source country).

These findings should be considered in the context of 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. Furthermore, additional financial resources may be required for some migrants during the establishment of a new home during the first year of settlement in a new country.

Conclusion

The findings from the Settlement Experiences Feedback Survey provide a wide range of useful information about early settlement experiences and outcomes for migrants who gained residence through the Skilled/Business Stream. For the most part, the findings from the survey are positive in relation to employment outcomes for skilled principal applicants. The trend analysis provides comprehensive information on what areas and aspects of settling in New Zealand have improved or need improvement. The information from this report will be useful to the Department of Labour in developing settlement resources and services for migrants, as well as providing useful information for the review of the Skilled Migrant Category.

Future surveys

In the future, the SEFS will be part of the Immigration Survey Monitoring Programme. The programme is being developed to provide a comprehensive monitoring base on a three-year cycle for understanding the experience of all migrants who come to New Zealand, including other residence streams such as the Family Sponsored Stream and temporary work permits. Additional surveys studying the perspectives of employers of migrants will also be undertaken as part of the Survey Monitoring Programme. The Survey Monitoring Programme will also be used as a tool to understand the impacts of changes in immigration and settlement policy and practice.

---