Just over 4000 people a month gaining residence visas

Economy / news

Current residence visa approvals about a third higher than pre-Covid levels

24th Jul 24, 10:15am by Greg Ninness

The number of people receiving residence visas to stay in New Zealand appears to be settling at just over 4000 a month.

The latest migration figures from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment show 25,293 residence visas were approved in the first half of this year.

That's an average of 4216 a month.

In the first six months of 2024 the number of residence visas approved each month stayed within a fairly narrow band of between 4038 and 4497, suggesting current residence approvals are fairly consistent.

That follows a period of extreme volatility, with more than 10,000 a month being approved in the 18 months from the beginning of 2022 to mid-2023 as a result of the previous Labour Government's 2021 Resident Visa Scheme, which fast-tracked residence visa approvals for people already in the country on work visas.

Although the current rate of residence approvals has dropped back significantly form that level, it is still higher than pre-Covid levels by around a third, when about 3000 residence visa approvals a month was the norm.

Of the 25,293 residence visas issued in the first half of this year, 13,560 (54%) were to principal applicants and 11,739 were to secondary applicants such as other family members.

The age breakdown provides a broad indication on the likely demands the new residents will have for services such as health and education.

Nearly a third (30%) of the new residents were aged 0-19 years, meaning they would either be very young children or of school age or school leavers possibly starting tertiary studies

The older age groups are also well represented with just under 3000 (12%) being aged 50 years or above, a group likely to have higher demands for health services.

The breakdowns by age and applicant types over the first half of this year are shown in the charts below.

The comment stream on this story is now closed.

•You can have articles like this delivered directly to your inbox via our free Property Newsletter. We send it out 3-5 times a week with all of our property-related news, including auction results, interest rate movements and market commentary and analysis. To start receiving them, register here (it's free) and when approved you can select any of our free email newsletters.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

121 Comments

by Advisor | 24th Jul 24, 10:32am 1721773935

What did the previous government do to make sure our public system was ready for additional demand from hundreds of thousands of new users? Sweet f-all.

So, let's not pretend all the deep cracks appearing in our underfunded healthcare, education, transport and local infrastructure has nothing to do with cramming more low-wage workers into the country.

Doesn't take a PhD in economics to understand that bringing cheap labour from poorer countries by the planeloads is going to turn this place into a third-world country as well.

by kiwi_overseas | 24th Jul 24, 10:45am 1721774742

Previous governments ( not just the previous govt).

Unsustainable net inbound immigration has been rampant for some time.

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 11:06am 1721775963

Of all the failings of the previous government, letting so many additional people settle permanently in NZ as a means of kowtowing to the business lobby's crack addict-esque need for cheap labour and artificial demand stimulus of dubious real value - when you consider 'per capita' economic performance (with an added side of 'be kind' guilt assuaging) - has to be one of the cruelest strokes ever pulled against the working class the Labour party supposedly represents. Our own version of Tony Blair/New Labour in the UK punishing the traditional working class with mass immigration to 'rub their noses' in it.

Other governments have been complicit in this, but considering the previous government was in a position to easily do what it wanted it could have pulled a middle finger to the business lobby and done good by the country for once.

Remind me again who are the people most likely to face ill consequences from all that extra demand placed on public services, housing etc? The wealthy can insulate to a decent extent (pay for health insurance, pay for private schooling for the kids, live in more convenient locations where traffic is less of a concern, and so on).

Nothing wrong with immigration if it's genuinely skilled (and those skills aren't something we can acquire from re-training existing Kiwis in a sufficiently short timeline, e.g. we can't conjure up brain surgeons overnight) but you'd have to be wilfully ignorant to believe that is what went on.

by HouseMouse | 24th Jul 24, 11:10am 1721776223

Really well put

wokeness ahead of real genuine human need

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 11:31am 1721777501

Worse. Once those 210,000 temporary workers got permanent residency they were no longer obligated to work in the job they were brought here to do. They could go compete with Kiwis for the better jobs, move to the cities, or go on welfare. So they all needed to be replaced by bringing in even more unskilled workers from the third world to do the jobs that these new residents have left.

by Alittlebit | 24th Jul 24, 2:16pm 1721787369

210,000 yup. A nurse I interviewed from UK had been fast tracked was amazed that she could even get onto the benefit [and have a holiday].

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 3:43pm 1721792591

A betrayal of the highest order, nothing less than that.

Never mind all the angst about renaming government departments, or who has what seats at the table with respect to water management, or a lot of the other 'noise' around the last government that probably doesn't change much for the average Kiwi day-to-day - this, in my view, was their most egregious offense when you consider their ability to have done the complete opposite if so desired (it's not like there were any pesky coalition partners to keep happy).

by ChrisOfNoFame | 24th Jul 24, 3:16pm 1721790991

"What did the previous government do to make sure our ...."

Every time someone starts like this ... I switch off. Or put another way ... Is it us? Or is it them?

Isn't it about time we had some nationally - democratically agreed - limits of per annum immigration?

by Let me be Frank | 24th Jul 24, 6:11pm 1721801464

"Isn't it about time we had some nationally - democratically agreed - limits of per annum immigration?"

Only if it is part of a total population strategy....what population can we sustain and provide infrastructure for?...NZIER think 15 million by 2050 and it appears the political class are on board...personally I think the 5 million we have are more than enough and its about time we looked to provide the requirements for that level before we consider any increase....or decrease.

However, it is all likely moot, as I suspect within a relatively short period of time 'events' will overwhelm any attempt to plan.

by Toye | 24th Jul 24, 10:36am 1721774179

Before the spruikers get in here I'd just like to remind everyone that we've started losing people, net, from May this year.

The rental market has turned on its head since that time. Finding tenants is very difficult.

by Retired-Poppy | 24th Jul 24, 2:23pm 1721787812

"Finding tenants is very difficult"...

Finding good tenants is even harder. Not many investments are worse than an empty rental leveraged with debt that's also declining in value.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 10:48am 1721774937

I was a landlord for 50 years, and in all that time I never had any trouble finding tenants.

by Nzdan | 24th Jul 24, 10:46am 1721774800

Great, jump on the NZ Property Investors Facebook page and offer a tenant-landlord matchmaking service.

by Retired-Poppy | 24th Jul 24, 10:47am 1721774866

Keyword - "Was"

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 10:52am 1721775166

Never had a problem finding good tenants...no smokers, well behaved.

I had a lot of trouble getting tenants out of a property I bought at a mortgagee sale though...that was pretty major.

by Toye | 24th Jul 24, 11:24am 1721777088

The future is now old man

by DingleDorf | 24th Jul 24, 12:09pm 1721779751

Have seen a few of wingdings comments on here. An expert in everything, never makes mistakes, any problems other people face never happen to him. A huge risk taker that's always rewarded and never loses.

Full of luck or full of s##t who knows? A chronic "one upper" by the sounds of it.

by Retired-Poppy | 24th Jul 24, 1:47pm 1721785623

A poster recently retorted that he would never invest in anything that yielded less that 45%. I just assumed this person was heavily vested in "medicinal" Hydroponics.

Some people's stories are so convenient they're unbelievable. They do themselves no favors whatsoever as their posts often ring more of warnings than opportunities. Pyramid schemes then come to mind.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 1:16pm 1721783777

I've heard it all before...."It's different this time"...what a load of BS.

by ex agent | 24th Jul 24, 12:34pm 1721781263

Shows you how old he is. He will also tell us he had it harder than what our children are experiencing today. His children live in Australia because the boomers have made it hard here to get on the ladder.He obviously does not have the money to help them get ahead in NZ.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 1:23pm 1721784223

My children live in Australia because of the opportunities Einstein. Why do you think so many kiwis are decamping to Australia? They earn lots more money.

If you own a few properties, you tend to become quite wealthy...give it a try sometime.

by ex agent | 24th Jul 24, 1:31pm 1721784682

Their boomers have not been as greedy as us boomers in NZ. My children are educated, work hard and have done well here. They do not need to go to Australia to get ahead. I also am dishing it out before I pop off. There is no point in them having debt when I have capital I would never be able to spend.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 1:59pm 1721786349

Since you made me feel so bad the other day that I've only give my kids $50k each, I got my wife to drop $225,000 into each of my kids respective bank accounts.

Is that OK, or should I have given them more?

by ex agent | 24th Jul 24, 2:19pm 1721787568

It’s a reasonable start compared with me. $50k is pretty miserable if you are as rich as you say. If you have to be inspired to be generous to your children while you are alive it obviously does not come naturally. Our estate will be minimal when the survivor of us dies. The older you get the less you spend.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 4:01pm 1721793678

The older you get the more likely you're going to need it, especially for medical procedures and accommodation. Unless you want to rely on da gubbermint.

You can give all yours away, but I won't be.

by Norm | 24th Jul 24, 6:05pm 1721801111

Can you two at least pay a contribution to Interest.co.nz if your going to continue to comment, it's the least you could do. If not, seriously, piss off!!!

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 6:42pm 1721803345

On what basis Normy?

To be honest, if I do, I probably wouldn't miss it, it's infested with socialists.

by Norm | 24th Jul 24, 7:50pm 1721807420

On the basis you add nothing and the comments that respond to your comments add less. We certainly won't miss you.

by Norm | 24th Jul 24, 9:51pm 1721814699

And on the basis you invest so much time on here, the least you could do is invest a few $'s, especially since you say you've made a small fortune.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 24th Jul 24, 3:58pm 1721793485

wingman: "I was a landlord for 50 years, and in all that time I never had any trouble finding tenants. "

I agree.

When one great tenant leaves - replace them with another. (Location is key!)

Each time one leaves - pitch under 'market'. Get lots of applications. Vet them! Pick the best. Usually young and with young children. (Location!)

And then ... And here's the trick to great tenants ... 'Be their friends.' Talk to them often. Find out what they need. Share what you can - knowledge and everything else.. Always stay under 'market rents'. Always fix stuff promptly. Always upgrade ("they get the new - you get theirs".)

Tenants are part of your family. Best to treat them like that.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 4:18pm 1721794696

That's right. I had very good tenants and I treated them well. I always gave them a great deal on the rent and fixed any problems instantly.

I was the best landlord. I've always been a believer in "you look after me, and I look after you". I don't actually recall increasing anyone's rent, if they looked after the place, I'd keep it at the original price.

I did increase rent on a couple of industrial properties I owned, they were leased.

by FOTC | 24th Jul 24, 6:06pm 1721801166

This comment sounds like a Trump speech. Jokes aside, I'd say based on my own renting experience of around 25 years that landlords like you guys probably make up about 5% of all landlords. So I commend you guys for making the extra effort.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 11:35am 1721777721

Unfortunately, the Labour policy of not being able to evict tenants has meant that tenants now have no idea of what it means to be a "good tenant". They think they don't have to clean the house, weed the garden, mow the lawns, clean the appliances. They can be complete pigs in the house and there was nothing the landlord could do about it. They didnt have to pay the rent on time, or in full. They could terrorise their neighbours. So they are all going to get a rude shock come next year when "no cause" (there is ALWAYS a cause) evictions are restored.

by Baywatch | 24th Jul 24, 12:51pm 1721782274

And you can then "try" and find great tenants to replace them...good luck

by kiwi_overseas | 24th Jul 24, 10:46am 1721774790

Yes the immigration rate went negative but there is still the natural (local) increase in population

by Ocelot | 24th Jul 24, 10:56am 1721775396

Hate to break it to you, but NZers don't breed at enough for even replacement of existing population. Because of economic conditions (expensive housing and misguided tax system) people can't afford kids here. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=NZ

by Toye | 24th Jul 24, 11:25am 1721777155

That is not even the most recent data, we've collapsed to around 1.5.

by Jesse1 | 24th Jul 24, 4:48pm 1721796525

Every quarter the annual rate is currently falling by .04 which is .16 per year and it's likely that the annual rate for 2024 will end up at 1.4. I know many getting close to 40 who are freezing their eggs in desperation and others who are settling on having just one because of the cost of living.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 11:37am 1721777878

Unless you are on welfare, in which case having two or more kids puts you in the top half of income earners in the country. And you get a free "warm and dry" million dollar house from Kainga Ora as well. That's why there has been an absolute explosion in the number of people on the single parents benefit over the last 6 years.

by the Joneses | 24th Jul 24, 12:17pm 1721780255

Over the last four years the number of people on single parent benefit has gone from 2% to 2.4% of the population. Definitely increasing, but not sure I would call it an explosion.

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-r…

by Baywatch | 24th Jul 24, 12:52pm 1721782346

KW does exfoliate..sorry extrapolate...

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 1:17pm 1721783874

In 2018 58,620 people were on the single parent benefit. Today its 76,959. For those of you who are mathematically challenged, that's a 31.3% increase in the number under the Labour Govt in just a few years. Trying to pretend thats not "an explosion" is gaslighting.

Check out todays article - of the nine single parents given new KO houses, three of them have six or more kids. There will be 35 kids living in 9 houses - that's an average of 3.9 kids per house. How's that for a fertility rate?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kainga-ora-opens-doors-to-nine-gisborne-f…

by DingleDorf | 24th Jul 24, 1:56pm 1721786205

Facebook stalked the one named in the article, appears to have an actual job. Can't say much for the other 2 anonymous ones, but aside from our notions that having 6 kids as a solo parent is reckless, we don't know the full story.

These 35 kids aren't going to disappear, no matter how much K.W. hates them. Let's hope that by providing them with a warm, dry roof over their heads, they respect these homes and then grow into young adults that respect other people and their belongings.

by rastus1 | 24th Jul 24, 2:52pm 1721789569

Unfortunately it send a terrible message and creates resentment to the both working young parents in the next unit with a massive mortgage.

This is one reason many of our young are going - they resent being taxed to pay for these floatsome who breed with no concern to ho they will provide for their feral offspring.

by 1harlow1 | 24th Jul 24, 4:45pm 1721796336

Going where though? The situation is far worse in Australia and the UK.

by kiwikidsnz | 24th Jul 24, 1:36pm 1721784970

A proportional 20% increase in 4 years is not an explosion? What would you call it?

by the Joneses | 24th Jul 24, 2:27pm 1721788034

Would you say a share price was 'exploding' if it was beating inflation by 5% a year?

by the Joneses | 24th Jul 24, 2:31pm 1721788311

Are this government imploding our health system?

They have reduced health spending this year by 4.5% - inflation adjusted per-capita spend (page 3).

https://union.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Budget-2024-health-Fina…

by Baywatch | 24th Jul 24, 12:53pm 1721782394

1961 saw the birth rate explode in New Zealand, with more than 65,000 babies born that year alone. The rate of unmarried mothers giving birth also doubled this year, from 12 in every 1000 women of childbearing age in 1945 to 24 per 1000.

by two_pair | 24th Jul 24, 12:57pm 1721782648

Are you suggesting they are having more kids for the sole purpose of increasing the size of their benefit?

by USKiwi | 24th Jul 24, 1:26pm 1721784387

If that is his suggestion - then I agree.

I know it's uncomfortable for some to accept this view as they appear to live in a fantasy land where they think humans are always good, never self-entitled, and are only ever in bad situations because of what others have done to them. On this site, there seems to be a particular emphasis on how nothing is ever the fault of the individual, but is the fault of boomers who for some strange reason accepted the price being offered for their house when they were selling it at a given point in time...like they would voluntarily sell their own assets for lower than what is being offered because of all the "feels" it would give them.

You must surely have seen some of the beneficiary families with 3, 4, 5 kids out and about. They certainly don't appear to have had more kids because they love them.

by the Joneses | 24th Jul 24, 2:18pm 1721787511

Do you go and ask the families you see around if they are on the benefit? Or do you just know?

by USKiwi | 24th Jul 24, 3:52pm 1721793143

I just know. An obvious indication is that they tend to congregate around ATMs at the same time as dole money is dished out. Coincidence?

by pacifica | 25th Jul 24, 2:19am 1721830749

The same way you "just know" when they are of a certain ethnicity. Look I am not saying you are outright discriminatory and ignorant... Your comments demonstrated that.

Take those from Gloriavale for instance. I would really be interested in your attitudes towards them

by 1harlow1 | 24th Jul 24, 5:01pm 1721797319

No the general derision directed against the boomers is as a result of those in positions of power who have ensured that the opportunities which they benefitted from are no longer available to successive generations, the boomers who voted for such policies in their own short sighted self-interest, and the boomers suffering from an illusory superiority complex because they bought a house or two under such favourable economic conditions..

by Norm | 24th Jul 24, 5:46pm 1721799965

Who could the boomers have voted for to not make it the way it was back then? The alternatives were worse, similar to now. Perhaps you could set up a party to fix everything and we could vote for it, boomers included.

by pacifica | 25th Jul 24, 2:22am 1721830960

That is exactly the financial plan from Gloriavale. Work people to the bone, force women into high sexually producing relationships without any birth control offered and take away their benefits, (because they work but get no wages and have the income support benefits taken by the leaders of Gloriavale), for company profit without their actual consent.

by M0ralHazard | 24th Jul 24, 1:04pm 1721783042

"having two or more kids puts you in the top half of income earners in the country"

Got a link to back that up?

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 1:26pm 1721784413

Earning $1,212 a week, thats $63,024 a year, which is higher than the median wage of $61,639

https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-r…

by DingleDorf | 24th Jul 24, 2:08pm 1721786930

That's for a couple though with 2 or more children.

Couple on Benefit: $635 per week net
WFF for 2 Kids: $310 per week
Accom Supplement: Depends on location but usually $180 - $250 per week

But we get it, you loathe poor people with children and think they should be breaking padlocks on dumpsters behind New World to feed themselves.

by the Joneses | 24th Jul 24, 2:22pm 1721787735

Stop letting facts get in the way of peoples feelings.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 3:32pm 1721791926

If you cant even provide for yourself, there is no way you should be having any children. Mandatory long term contraception should be a condition of receiving the benefit. That would literally eliminate [future] child poverty overnight, and achieve more than Jacinda Ardern ever did. If you want to have kids, get off the benefit and do something productive with your life.

And how does being a couple change anything? The family on a benefit earns more than the family with one parent working and the other staying home to take care of the kids. If that's the case, are we suprised that both parents then choose to stay at home and do nothing. And that's how we end up with a record shortage of workers at the same time as a record number of beneficiaries. And record taxes to pay for them all.

by DingleDorf | 24th Jul 24, 4:44pm 1721796254

They also earn more than the family with one parent working 10 hours per week.

by FOTC | 24th Jul 24, 11:45am 1721778305

I don't think you're breaking anything to anyone. Everyone is well aware of the fertility rates in NZ which is why the conversation is focused on the levels and not immigration itself. The population has grown by about 15% in the last decade so there's obviously more to it than simply combating low fertility rates. The grey area for me is how much of the immigration is needed to replace retiring boomers in the work force and how much is simply to prop up a struggling economy.

by Inthecentre | 24th Jul 24, 11:46am 1721778363

I'm not sure that the cost is the issue. I have a number of child bearing age women at my work and they just aren't interested in having kids as it will impact their lifestyle too much. So the one child of the past that they may have had, has recently become none.

I read an interesting article recently, that said that women who have children will have as many as women did in the past, but those who dont have any has grown significantly as a percentage.

by CrispyKahawai | 24th Jul 24, 12:43pm 1721781805

That is obviously untrue. How many women do you know having 4-10 children? That was extremely common around the time my parents were born (boomers).

by Cheetahlegs66 | 24th Jul 24, 4:00pm 1721793659

You are working in the wrong GP practice. Do a locum in Sth Auckland and you’ll find most families are 4+ kids regardless of the parents income and ability to support adequately eg food/clothing

by two_pair | 24th Jul 24, 12:55pm 1721782511

The evidence would support what your colleagues say. It’s not cost of child rearing, but increasing education for women, better access to contraception and increased economic prosperity that are linked to decreasing fertility rates.

by Baywatch | 24th Jul 24, 1:01pm 1721782897

Add in happiness - For at least 30 years, studies have repeatedly found that people without children are happier than parents in the United States and in many developed countries.

by interesting1234 | 24th Jul 24, 3:27pm 1721791674

I’d add the decrease in male fertility:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26134743-000-sperm-counts-are-down-worldwide-and-researchers-are-discovering-why/

“In 1951, each millilitre of semen contained 107 million sperm; by the 1970s, that figure had dropped by more than 50 per cent – to just 48 million.”

by Jesse1 | 24th Jul 24, 5:26pm 1721798811

The lifestyle impact is a function of cost though and cost is the foundation which many of the other reasons start from.

I think saying it's not cost is gaslighting and puts and unfair amount of blame on young people. If people could buy a house with 3 times their income during the 20s I'm sure we'd have a much higher fertility rate.

by 1689 Baptist | 24th Jul 24, 12:39pm 1721781592

I can only speak from my personal experience. I have been landlording since 2010 and it has never been easier to find good tenants.

Caveats:

i'm in auckland north shore

I do not overcharge

I only have two rentals so not an overly big sample size.

by Eschaton | 24th Jul 24, 1:03pm 1721783015

"only"

by nigelh | 24th Jul 24, 2:40pm 1721788847

A family member is acquainted with two people who have 5 or six rentals so two is not high. I suspect they are a number of people who have more than two. Difficult to find out the exact number per person or company.

by interesting1234 | 24th Jul 24, 3:30pm 1721791825

I have a friend who bought his 1st house years back after tracking down the company that owned it, and the director, then found they owned around 40 properties in the same city. He approached them as their address was listed in the companies register and struck up a deal in 24hrs for a good price.

by rastus1 | 24th Jul 24, 11:07am 1721776054

Should be charging each one a $50k infrastructure fee. These people are getting an ownership share for nought.

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 11:30am 1721777423

Agreed.

We need a reset on immigration, splitting into two 'camps'.

People we need (i.e. genuinely skilled immigrants in critical areas such as healthcare or specialist engineering where we cannot train existing Kiwis in a sufficiently short timeframe) Considering the numbers are relatively low, make the pathway for these people as easy as possible.
Everybody else (the takeaway chefs, baristas, uber drivers etc) if you want to settle here 'for a better life' - which is not something the existing population of NZ owes you - we should calculate the expected cost in terms of public services and charge that as an additional levy on their wages. In this camp we should also prohibit family reunification of elderly relatives who will be a further pressure on our basket case infrastructure and services.

The problem is how we decide on the truly critical skill sets. E.g. I've seen business owners arguing baristas are critical (protip - if your cafe can't operate without imported discount labour it's probably not a viable business). We need some kind of independent body that is free from any business lobby and/or rentier influence deciding the critical skill sets ... and I'm a business owner myself.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 11:41am 1721778091

The problem is how we decide on the truly critical skill sets.

Simple, set a price eg 50k, for a 12mth visa for your category 2. If it's critical you'd pay, if 50k makes or breaks the business then it might be time to face the reality - they've been operating a 'NZ residence is for sale' business while running a cafe on the side.

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 11:58am 1721779122

Don't disagree with the concept of forcing that cost onto the business that supposedly claims the skillset is 'mission critical'. You are totally right that if $50k makes or breaks the business, then it probably tells you a heck of a lot ...

The only problem being we already have issues with dodgy employers bringing immigrant workers in and then exploiting them by paying slave wages (so there's every risk the worker arrives and then the employer claws back that $50k under the table with the worker tolerating it as a means of staying in NZ).

Perhaps more aggressive enforcement and punishment of migrant labour exploitation is required. E.g. seizure of all personal assets if a business owner is found guilty of exploiting migrant labour (after all, is it not a 'proceeds of crime' issue?) deportation with no chance of return if they aren't any NZ citizen themselves, and plenty of porridge if they can't be kicked out for good.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 12:21pm 1721780484

exploiting them by paying slave wages

Fully aware and have been for 20 years. It helps if you live on Dominion Road with a revolving door of flat mates that were often recent arrivals. Also married into the culture.

The only reason they get away with that, and you touched on it, is because of the ability to get permanent residence. Also, you could limit the number of times the same person can come in on a 50k VISA e.g. 24mths. Make it clear there isn't a pathway to residence via the employer.

We have to wake up to what we have here in NZ. Residence in NZ is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and shouldn't be given away by employers, education institutions, or anyone else.

Perhaps more aggressive enforcement and punishment of migrant labour exploitation

I don't really see that as a good option, it is needed to stamp out what we already have here though but you're fighting cultures that make a habit of circumventing rules. They will do the wrong thing until you force them and it cost too much so you have to get the setting right to handle non-compliance (eg take a $50k fee upfront, tax land not payroll). This whole thing is a problem of our own making and is best stopped at the door (border).

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 12:38pm 1721781501

Maybe a simpler change is to say:

Group one (actual critical skills) there is a pathway to permanent residency. We want you and your skills living in NZ permanently.
Group two (discount labour for marginal businesses) you will never be able to qualify for PR

Of course charging $50k or so to the employer to help fund infrastructure/public services is still a good idea.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 1:22pm 1721784138

Something like that. The $50k is more about being an incentive to hiring\training local to me as opposed to funding anything so I could see it being raised (or possibly even lowered) to get the balance right.

From a fundamental perspective, I don't like the idea of actively pulling people from less well-off places as I try and run a 'do unto others as you'd have them do to you' philosophy. I don't want Aussie taking our police etc. Everyone seems to be not wanting to train or pay for the so-called critical shortage as we have plenty of unemployed to deploy if we're prepared to make an effort (and it will be a big effort in some cases). I think we're big enough to train our own Dr's and nurses, I'm also happy to have said training come with bonds or move over A+ and let the B+ be a GP who actually wants to do it instead of just trying to get into the hardest to get into course because they can. I think things were more settled when we had immigration from similar places with reciprocal equivalents in terms of pensions and health care e.g. Aussie, UK, Canada. But as we, or our ancestors, were all immigrants once upon a time so I accept there has to be some immigration to avoid being completely hypocritical. We just don't have the export earning jobs like we used to, so let's be honest about what we're trying to accomplish with immigration because no one could tell me why we're importing taxi drivers when I moved to Auckland in 1999.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 1:35pm 1721784942

60% of the med school places already go to B- students, so that's already been happening for years. Someone should look into where those graduates end up, considering that they got special treatment throughout their training. There should definitely be a bond for those students, if you get special entry you must work in NZ for at least 10 years.

by CrispyKahawai | 24th Jul 24, 2:30pm 1721788257

Please show me evidence of your (frankly, rubbish) claim.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 3:43pm 1721792603

Its not rubbish. 60% of med school students are special entry students, who's grade average is a B-. The other 40% is standard entry, and their average grade is an A+. In fact, even an A+ is not enough to get you entry any more, standard entry places are so limited.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/122620821/special-entry-categories-und…

I'll leave it up to you to figure out what happens to our healthcare system and patient outcomes when the best and brightest of us are denied the opportunity to become doctors, while those of more average abilities are funneled through the system which now has substantially lower standards in order to cope with them.

by Baywatch | 24th Jul 24, 4:00pm 1721793604

But they all have to pass the same tests once they are enrolled ..how is the standard lowered in your perfect beige world?

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 4:38pm 1721795905

They lower the difficulty of the tests. There is no way you can set the exam at a level that only A++ students can pass, it has to be dumbed down so the others can pass it too. The problem with this is that the A++ students are now getting a lower quality of education than what they would otherwise have had.

We all get lower quality medical care as a result. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/health-disability-commissioner-cervical-p…

by CrispyKahawai | 24th Jul 24, 5:38pm 1721799501

"They lower the difficulty of the tests"

Any more reckons? Firstly, you're using the lowest grade that qualified an individual entry into medical school, which was roughly a B-. This suggests that all others from that cohort, whether they be Māori, Pacific, rural or socioeconomic entries, scored higher than this. I've been unable to find information on average GPAs, and found an OIA request where this data was not given. Admittedly, the lowest grade that qualified entry for the general admissions was much higher (between A and A+). But as somebody else pointed out, these people still have to get through medical school.

The tests are definitely not 'dumbed down', and beyond medical school there are a number of different specialist exams (depending on specialty) that one has to navigate - these are usually set by an Australasian College (i.e. NZ and Australia) and by and large are extremely difficult exams - much more so than medical school.

NZ and Australia have an extremely high standard of medical specialist training. There is no evidence in that link you sent that this medical misadventure was due to a lowering of standards. That doctor might have had the highest GPA in their whole class for all you. Some of the worst doctors are extremely intelligent, and some of the best were totally average at medical school (although this is certainly not the trend).

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 10:16pm 1721816203

If they were capable of passing exams with A++ grades, they would be A++ students, and "special entry" would not be required. Its obvious that training has been dumbed down in order to pass the majority of students who possess average intellects because there is no way the Lefties are going to admit that their racist selection criteria has backfired and caused a higher failure rate. So now its a "pass everyone" policy, even if this involves bumping up their grades to get them to a pass point. "Participation" is now the qualification, not performance. We are no longer training the best and brightest of the population, but the one's who couldnt even get in to accounting or law courses.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 2:42pm 1721788949

That seems very low compared to when I was at Uni - I guess that grade average includes all the special category applications.

If I'm reading this correctly, they make up half admissions which also seems high: Admissions into the 2021 MB ChB class.pdf (fyi.org.nz)

by Taxbreak | 25th Jul 24, 1:53pm 1721872413

In my experience, "enforcement and punishment of migrant labour exploitation" is not effectively possible in NZ. There is a range of reasons, here are some:

- Those rogue employers that are prosecuted are just the tip of the ice berg. Dept of Immigration and Labour Dept are under resourced and cannot effectively police it.

- It is extremely costly and time consuming (up to a year) just to investigate and assess whether to prosecute just one rogue employer.

- We have a new generation of recent immigrants operating small business which utilise and rely on migrant exploitation within their own ethnic groups and communities, often using and paying of agents in their country of origin to sponsor new migrants on work visas.

- The way exploitation is investigated (my observations in an exploitation case), if the complainant cannot speak adequate english and does not have kiwi to assist them and does not understand our legal system, then the complaint is likely to fail because of limitations with the investigators.

- Exploiting employers use fear, threats, do not document illegal transactions (so no evidential paper trail), use cultural pressure to isolate and intimidate exploited employees in their own ethnic communities, target non-english speakers, and collaborate with similar employers in their industries (e.g. restaurants, nail salons, horticulture contractors) on ways to beat the system.

- The threat of being caught and properly punished is low (exploiting employers are not scared of the system) and any risk of being caught is outweighed by the ability to make fast money by charging migrants money for sponsorship, underpaying holiday pay and sick leave, under recording (or not recording) actual hours worked, under paying employees, and charging kick backs. This is one of the only current growth industries in NZ.

by Murray Falconer | 27th Jul 24, 8:35am 1722026109

100% agree.

Thanks for doing the detailed version of why enforcement is practical.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 11:42am 1721778132

There is also the Working Holiday visa holders who do a lot of hospitality and agricultural work. These people are not looking to become permanent residents and a burden on society (unless you are a Mexican backpacker looking for a husband and a cushy job as a Greens MP). This programme could be expanded while the other visas are reduced. As an example, Americans can only get a one year working holiday visa - why not double that?

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 12:23pm 1721780615

I have been seasonally working in ag since covid. These are a lesser evil (since most are after the experience and not permanent residence) but make no mistake, I couldn't have switched into it if it wasn't for the boarder being closed (they were desperate and took people from all walks, a lot of unvaccinated forced career switchers). While I wouldn't pretend to be half as good as some of these overseas operators, do not be fooled that having them here doesn't take away opportunities from locals.

As a side hobby truck driving is on the skills shortage list, I have all the licences, but I cannot get a job as I have no experience. Experience isn't a problem when they cannot get in overseas people is my point. There are shortages, then there are those just not prepared to train...

by Inthecentre | 24th Jul 24, 11:51am 1721778662

A big issue is the education sector degree for residence rort.

by Puddleduck | 24th Jul 24, 3:19pm 1721791177

Absolutely - if your business model depends on (cheap) low-skilled imported labour, you should not qualify to have access to it. Full stop.

by EdwardD | 24th Jul 24, 2:23pm 1721787816

I agree. In addition, to your category 2. (above), I would add that individuals must have worked (and paid tax) for a minimum of 20 years before receiving Super.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 11:42am 1721778169

The secondary applicant bar graph is interesting, we're getting one person we didn't ask for every person we initially approved.

I say halt immigration (anything that gives permanent residence) but allow businesses of families to pay 50k (each person) to bring in whomever they want for 12mths. Want them for another 12mths? Fine, pay another 50k.

Then divert INZ's recourses into a detailed analysis of each person they've approved over the last 25 years (random sampling accepted). Then we might actually have some real data on the type of skill sets that have benefited NZ and those that haven't.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 11:45am 1721778303

Yes, so their tax contribution is negligible considering the country now has to support all their hanger ons - all the elderly parents and the children. Immigration was supposed to provide tax support, but its actually a welfare burden.

by Murray Falconer | 24th Jul 24, 12:00pm 1721779203

Exactly why I want a bit of money directed to studying this.

We've grown our population from 3 to 5 million in my lifetime - it would be nice to know if it stacked up!

by Takere | 24th Jul 24, 12:42pm 1721781723

Excessive immigration when there is a recession-stagflation and high real unemployment of 11.6% and CPI which is not inclusive of mortgages, land valuations and related banking transactions. 15%-20% in real inflation terms at pre-1996-1998 at CPI measures that included mortgages and land values.

Somethings gunna give...

by bw | 24th Jul 24, 12:39pm 1721781578

We know that that will be. The OCR, silly!

More Debt, at a cheaper price, always saved our bacon in the past. And of course we need all the additional borrowers, sorry - Immigrants, to assume all that new Debt and set about making themselves rich in the good ol' Kiwi way - by accumulating a property portfolio to sell to future Kiwis at a higher price. It's always worked in the past, so it has to again....

by Palmtree08 | 24th Jul 24, 3:12pm 1721790734

The kiwi way? Don't you mean the big finance way? There are few ways in NZ to create wealth for the average Joe. Banks shovelling out credit are orgasmic about the money they can suck by creating property bubbles.

by USKiwi | 24th Jul 24, 1:52pm 1721785944

Is it really that hard to determine what population our current infrastructure can support? If our current infrastructure cannot currently support 5 million kiwis - then it should be law that the government cannot allow net positive migration into NZ, until said infrastructure is complete and ready to cater to more kiwis, and then you can turn the tap back on? It's not rocket science, or am I missing something?

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 2:09pm 1721786950

Three of NZ's political parties rely on increasing poverty and Govt dependence for votes. So no, things will never change.

by Palmtree08 | 24th Jul 24, 9:48pm 1721814508

Which one is the party of evangelical dimwits that have the "lets go for 10 million" as their back room slogan?

by dumbthoughts | 24th Jul 24, 2:11pm 1721787089

It does seem a bit of a 'no brainer' but then again there are a lot of vested interests for whom immigration is critical:

Business owners/lobby who want access to cheap labour that is going to 'put up with more $hit' conditions-wise in the hope for PR
Rentiers who want more demand for housing
'Big New Zealand' right wing think tank lobbyist types
Lefty types in academia, politics or who lurk Reddit for fun who love immigration because 'diversity is our strength' and it's a convenient means to undermine the supposed evils of a more homogenous Western culture (just as long as you've got enough $$$ not to have to be exposed to the downsides - but it doesn't matter what happens to the working class you claim to represent)
Now a very significant immigrant population who will want their family, friends etc to be able to move here

I'm personally very much in favour of establishing a population target based on infrastructure and service capacity, and if we have to shut the border to inbound arrivals for the next 5, 10, 20 years - whatever it takes to catch up - then so be it.

by nigelh | 24th Jul 24, 2:05pm 1721786735

We are not alone. The only difference is we allow thousands to obtain legal residency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clbXZP7JM8g

by nigelh | 24th Jul 24, 2:10pm 1721787059

I suspect Minister for Immigration Erica Stanford has been told to keep quiet about too high immigration by Luxon and other elites. Missing in action is Winston first enjoying the baubles of office and away from the local action.

by April Spruiker | 24th Jul 24, 2:28pm 1721788091

Does anyone know where to find the top ten occupations that entered under temporary working visas? I can't find this data anywhere - would appreciate a steer. Also, shouldn't immigration be dropping right back given that unemployment is about to go through the roof? A third higher than pre-covid levels sounds too high still.

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 3:48pm 1721792888

The employment categories are completely bogus. Everyone is a "manager". Retail Manager = liquor shop worker. Restaurant Manager = Waiter. Chef = kebab shop worker. Logistics Manager = Uber driver. IT Manager = code monkey

by K.W. | 24th Jul 24, 3:52pm 1721793128

Just been looking at recent birth data. For the first time ever, there were more Asian births in New Zealand this year than Maori.

Also, European births have dropped from 35,286 births last year to 30,951 this year (year end March). Have they all gone to Australia?

by ChrisOfNoFame | 24th Jul 24, 4:09pm 1721794190

After reading the comments ... Seems the title "redneck" works for some. But perhaps not.

Redneck has almost become a honorific now when compared to a lower term, and one that fits some comments, 'a Trumpist'. I expect Neo-Trumpist will emerge as a term too.

by Murray Falconer | 27th Jul 24, 8:43am 1722026626

If you disagree with a particular comment, then perhaps point out where you believe they are incorrect Chris.

I have changed my opinion on topics based on the logic and reason of posters here.

by smudge1 | 24th Jul 24, 4:15pm 1721794514

Employed a couple of good people recently on work visas. Tried for the better part of a couple of years to get kiwis to apply. Zip. Then when they came to renew their visas INZ were very unhelpful. Despite our organization being accredited. Both are now working in Australia. INZ are a waste of space.

by loveyourwork | 24th Jul 24, 4:17pm 1721794665

Friend and his partner (two switched on, young kiwis with great careers) have combined income ~250k ,struggling to Live in AKL + service their $1m mortgage.

Said friend has a recent immigrant working under him, supporting a family of 3 with a wife that doesn't speak english. The worker wants to reduce his hours from 5 days to 4 days a week.

He also goes on regular holidays to Australia. My friend asked him how he afforded the lifestyle with 3 kids on a single income. Turns out they are living in state housing for $250/week, and getting $400/a week from the taxpayer due to the single income. Why he's asking to reduce his hours? So he qualifies for more of a benefit.

I'm all for targeted immigration however we are shooting ourselves in the foot in NZ.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 4:36pm 1721795790

They must be big spenders. $250k - tax = $170,100 p.a. (A bit more than that if they're both earning.)

Mortgage of $1m about 7% = $70,000 p.a.

$100,000 left over.

by loveyourwork | 24th Jul 24, 4:46pm 1721796410

Their mortgage is 1700/week currently. Rates/Insurance/Cars/fuel/food on top. Granted they have been doing small renos when possible but they are operating a tight budget.

The bigger point is the discrepancy between the two households- one a Kiwi household and one an immigrant.

by wingman | 24th Jul 24, 5:48pm 1721800135

I'm obviously not au fait with this particular case, but many people make very bad financial decisions.

Consumer debt, driving expensive cars, living beyond their means, keeping up with the Joneses, divorces, pumping out kids, there's myriads of ways to squander money.

I always find it interesting that very successful sportsmen and women, who earn tens, and sometimes over a hundred million, end up bankrupt. There's lots of ways to do it.

Mike Tyson was worth about $400 million, but still went bankrupt.

by loveyourwork | 24th Jul 24, 5:15pm 1721798105

No I agree, he's the first to admit he could have made better decisions earlier on, but has all changed since the mortgage. They are in their late 20s, no kids. Not in financial trouble but definitely not able to afford regular holidays or the likes.

by John Mendel | 25th Jul 24, 10:56am 1721861795

Why do we need new 4K residents each month?!

The only ones we need are doctors and nurses, all the rest can be stay on work visas for 3y and then can be replaced with new ones.