The cost of lifting entry barriers

By CHRIS BARTON

Jay Burston desperately wants to sell his small, three-bedroom, "mid-terraced" home and move to New Zealand. The 26-year-old IT hardware engineer and his family are fed up with life in South Wales.

"House prices have become ridiculous ... kids rule the adults, throw stones at people's windows and have caused £1500 worth of damage to my car within three weeks. Jobs are being de-skilled everywhere to promote low incomes and large businesses are closing down all over, creating massive redundancies. Needless to say the outlook is bleak."

So he and his wife Lisa decided to get out. New Zealand was first choice, mainly due to knowledge of the country from distant family, "and because of its renowned scenery and laid-back lifestyle".

America didn't appeal - "we were not keen on people carrying guns as their national right". Neither did non-English-speaking countries because schooling for the kids would be difficult. And they were put off by Australia's "too many nasty creatures".

But after a year of trying, Jay's goal is still very much a distant dream. His quest began in July last year when he discovered he was two points shy of the required score under New Zealand's general skills category.

Undaunted, he enrolled for a university degree to increase his points tally and started researching everything he could about New Zealand.

He wasn't to know New Zealand immigration policy was about to change and the general skills category would be scrapped, leaving Jay and thousands of other would-be applicants in the lurch.

On the plus side his IT skills are now desirable under the new "skilled migrant" policy, giving him a points score of 125. But while that's over the pass mark, he is still not making the grade because the pool of migrant seekers is so large and only those with 160 points or more are being allowed to apply.

Worse still, Jay's 125 points tally is reached only if he has a job offer which he is finding very hard to get. That leads to a vicious circle. "It's a catch-22 because you can't get a permit without a job and you can't get a job without a permit."

Not that Jay's giving up. In February he used his web design skills to launch a website (www.movetonz.org) to "provide anything you could wish to know about emigrating to New Zealand", an online discussion noticeboard for people to ask questions and share ideas about emigrating. Jay's predicament is the result of much tightened New Zealand immigration rules brought in suddenly last year because of a flood of applications.

The retrospective changes were overruled in the High Court but the Government subsequently amended the law to allow it to change the rules at will and lapse 11,600 applications already in the queue.

"In terms of unethical, unlawful at the time, and downright dastardly deeds that this government has done that has got to be one the best," says immigration lawyer David Ryken.

Under the old scheme a lot of highly qualified people were getting residence but finding it very difficult to get jobs to suit their expertise. Penny Jorgenson, executive director of the Auckland Regional Migrant Centre, says while it's still too early to tell if the new policy is working, it is designed to be a better match to the employment market.

"We want people who will settle well," says Auckland central Immigration service manager Wayne Levick. The Government wants 60 per cent of its 45,000 immigrant quota to be skilled business migrants.

But Jay is finding the yo-yo effect of changing Government immigration policy hard to follow and is getting a lot of feedback on his website. "People are getting very disheartened about wanting to bother to move to New Zealand because they keep getting messed around so much."

He wonders whether the shifting-goalposts strategy is some kind of filter to discourage all but the most dedicated.

"I know New Zealand is looking for people who want to succeed, so if you've given up on the first hurdle you're no good to them anyway."

Jay has looked at using immigration consultants to help his cause, but is put off by the high cost.

"At the end of the day they look over your form. They've got no say in the application process - whether the Immigration Service accepts it or turns it down - and they charge thousands of dollars for that. It's daylight robbery."

Not surprisingly, Malcolm Pacific operations manager David Cooper disagrees, saying consultants can make a difference and that immigrants use them just as they would any other specialist to get a complex job done properly.

"Probably 85 per cent of people we see or speak to on the phone we tell we can't help them. That's been the cornerstone of our business - only taking on clients we believe are capable of succeeding within the framework of whatever the Government wants to select."

He says the key to assisting immigrants is understanding the Immigration Service Operations Manual - a weighty tome laden with complex rules, definitions and terms.

"It's an issue of interpretation and those interpretations change from time to time - policy itself changes frequently."

As an example of the complexity, he points to the fact that nearly 30 per cent of applicants in the skilled migrant category are incorrectly claiming points: "People thought they understood but they didn't."

Cooper says the firm - which helps 2000-3000 families a year, charging $3000-$4000 for a work permit and $8000-$10,000 for residence - plays a significant advocacy role. That involves not just guiding the application through what can be a lengthy process, but also keeping temporary visas current and sometimes taking cases to the High Court for judicial review. The company also offers a refund - minus costs outlaid - if it's unsuccessful.

Ryken says law firms like his provide similar services, the main difference being applicants have access to a wider range of legal services in-house if needed.

"The Immigration Service, rightly so, is not an easy forum. It's like a court - you need your supporting evidence, to present it in a persuasive manner and sometimes you have to disabuse the decision maker of problems."

He says the bureaucracy involved in applications is daunting - "you have to put together quite a dossier just to get a work permit" - and that arguments with the Immigration Service over the smallest thing are common.

"One of our problems dealing with Immigration is dealing with people who know far less than we do - and they're the decision makers. The level of knowledge and competency is so variable. They want to decline everything - some of them feel as if they're little gods."

But both Ryken and Cooper agree that regulation of the consulting industry is long overdue to deal with the problem of anyone being able to set up as consultant.

"The days of shonky operators are numbered," Immigration Minister Paul Swain said in May announcing plans for immigration agents to be licensed and provide minimum standards for the provision of immigration advice.

The changes due next year will see an independent governing body responsible for administering a Code of Conduct. There will also be penalties for operating illegally, and the Immigration Service will be able to refuse applications from unlicensed agents.

Until then stories of unethical and fraudulent dealings with "consultants" are likely to continue.

As well as last week's arrest of a woman with large numbers of fraudulent qualification documents, the Immigration Service National Fraud Unit has cases where between $6000 and $8000 has been paid for false documents for temporary visa applications and upwards of $100,000 to obtain residency.

Investigators have also found 70 to 80 per cent of job claims and 50 per cent of marriage claims referred to the unit could not be substantiated.

Jorgenson is also aware of migrants being ripped off by consultants - mainly from those based offshore - and agrees with the need for registration. "We have some people coming into the centre that we would really have to question how they managed to get through the system."

The Immigration Service's Levick says while some cultures are more comfortable with the concept of a middleman, agents aren't necessary.

"There's nothing in our process that requires the use of an agent and we don't think our forms are so complicated that the use of an agent is required."

He says Immigration is making efforts to improve customer service - the most recent being changes in the Auckland office to reduce queuing for temporary permits. From July 5 applicants wanting visa extensions will have to apply by post or online without having to send their passports.

The Service is promising to respond within five working days - either by confirming the issue of an electronic permit by email or letter, or asking the applicant to come in for an interview.

"In Auckland we've taken a lot feedback on board about the forms. We've redesigned them significantly and added checklists to make the forms simpler and to spell out right up front the things you must provide. We think that will make things a lot clearer for customers and reduce the need for people to use agents."

Immigration figures show that most people apply for residence without an agent. In the 2002 year 18,622 out of 42,227 applications were via agents. In 2003 it was 12,245 out of 29,714. For this year due to end in July 6267 out of 20,108 applications have taken the agent's path.

But in the Skilled Business category 39 per cent of applicants used agents and under the Long Term Business visa group the figure was 63 per cent.

Jay says once he gets a job offer, he feels confident about wending his way through the 30-page expression of interest form.

"Although it's hard work, at the end of the day it's only questions about yourself."

Levick says Immigration staff are always willing to help. For people like Jay he suggests a reconnaissance visit first to meet prospective employers face to face.

"What we're finding is an increasing number of people are making a visit here, doing the research and getting the lay of the land employment wise. That's who the skilled migrant category is trying to attract - the self starter."

But if people like Jay are finding the process daunting, one can't help wondering if the new rules - designed, as one consultant put it, "to restrict immigrants from certain countries" - are keeping out some people who would be an asset to New Zealand.

* Email Chris Barton