MBIE does a pretty good job of releasing annual immigration data, albeit with quite a long lag. Their Migration Trends and Outlook publication is full of interesting charts, and the accompanying spreadsheets have a rich array of data about people applying for visas to live in New Zealand, temporarily or permanently. But the 2015/16 issue, covering the year to June 2016, was released in late November last year. But it is now late April 2017 and we won’t have any official data made generally available until, presumably, late November this year. Given the significance of immigration in the New Zealand economy, let alone in the political and social debate, it is staggering that only annual data are available, and even then with quite a long lag. I’m surprised that, for example, Statistics New Zealand does not put more pressure on MBIE to bring its immigration statistics up to the sort of standard we expect in other areas of the economy. Apart from anything else, nature abhors a vacuum, and in the absence of good timely (readily useable) immigration approvals data, people fall back on using the Statistics New Zealand permanent and long-term migration numbers, which (a) aren’t that accurate, as SNZ research itself has found, and (b) aren’t a good basis for analysing immigration policy developments (immigration policy affecting only non New Zealanders).
And in this day and age, the data must be quite readily available internally – it isn’t, presumably, as if they are using paper-based systems and only compile the aggregates once a year. I’d urge MBIE to look at upgrading their publication of statistics. Key data – approvals under each visa stream and main category – should be able to be made available monthly, within days of the end of the month, and should (as relevant) be published on a seasonally adjusted basis (as most other official economic data are). The sorts of detailed tables published with Migration Trends and Outlook should be published quarterly, and again it is difficult to see why we should expect, or tolerate, a lag of more than four weeks after the end of the relevant quarter. It takes SNZ much longer than that to calculate GDP, of course, but immigration approvals data is all generated inside MBIE. All this data should, in turn, be made available on the Statistics New Zealand platform Infoshare. To the usual complaint, when better data is sought, that “there is no money” my response is twofold: first, this is a really major component of New Zealand and social life, and timely information would inform a better debate and analysis, and second, immigration (including the associated research and analysis) is supposed to be self-funding. If the fees aren’t quite high enough to cover the regular production of good data (all from internal systems) put them up (a very little surely). In the meantime, it is tempting (but would be tedious) to lodge an OIA request for the data on the last day of each month, which would at least ensure it was available 20 working days later.
As an inadequate, but perhaps convenient for them, substitute for good generally-available data, MBIE does seem from time to time to provide bits and pieces of data to selected journalists. That is no way to run a democracy.
A small example leapt out at me as I read today’s Herald over lunch. In an article on yesterday’s announcement we find that:
In figures released exclusively to the Herald, a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment sample of more than 600 skilled migrant category applications being considered as at March 1 found more than two in five would not have met the new income threshold.
Just 42.5 per cent of applicants earned over the New Zealand median income of $48,859 per year and 14 per cent earned over $75,000.
The figures are staggering. Recall that skilled migrant principal applicants make up only about half of those granted approvals for residence. These are (the bulk of) the “best and brightest” of those we bring here – others are partners, children, family members, refugees, and Pacific Access people, who themselves wouldn’t get over the Skilled Migrant category thresholds.
Now, sure, it is a small sample (600 of the SMC applications being considered) – and there seems to be a potential contradiction between the two sentences in that paragraph – but at best it seems that only around half of the skilled migrant applicants earned more than the new, quite modest, income threshold. Sure, the median income numbers cover people of all ages, and most SMC principal applicants are between 20 and 40, but….these have been the transformative skilled migrants MBIE and successive governments have been counting on to help transform the economy, and lift our dismal productivity, and that is all they can command in the labour market? Really?
I suspect the Reserve Bank and Treasury are now paying freshly minted 21 year old economists, with just an honours degree, at least that $48,859 per annum by now. And those people will achieve significant pay rises in the following few years. In fact, on checking teacher salaries, a primary school teacher with a BA starts on $48165 per annum. These will all be able people, but they are 21 or 22. How can it make sense – if our immigration programme is really skill-focused – to be letting in as residents so many people who at, say, an average age of 30 can’t even command what a starting primary teacher makes?
Even though the official rhetoric has long been skills-focused, it increasingly looks as though we’ve actually been somewhat closer to lower-skills end of the immigration spectrum. There hasn’t been anything much in the way of productivity spillover – which could really only come from the very able and innovative, and we’ve not attracted many of them – and the evidence suggests that the low-skilled migration hasn’t done much for us either. Recall that the advocates of high immigration both argue that high immigration of relatively low-skilled people hasn’t dampened native wages and that we benefit economically from low-skilled migration. But if wages haven’t been dampened, it can’t – under the totally orthodox neoclassical economic model – have done any good for New Zealanders as a whole either. And if they have….well, we know that despite all those inflows business investment has been weak (share of GDP) relative to population growth, the tradables sector has been weak, and we’ve seen little sign of any other sorts of gains.
Perhaps the data MBIE provided the Herald aren’t quite as bad as they look. But we can’t tell, because MBIE provided the information simply to one media outlet and we rely on what their journalists made of it. As a material piece of background to a major government policy announcement, that really isn’t good enough.
UPDATE: This interest.co.nz article, informed by MBIE, adds a bit of detail
An Immigration NZ spokesman told Interest.co.nz that the department undertook a random sample of more than 600 live SMC applications on 1 March. All applicants were claiming for employment at skill levels 1, 2 or 3 under New Zealand and Australian classifications (ANZSCO).
Of the sample, 57.5% were for roles offering less than the new threshold of New Zealand’s median wage, the spokesman said. That meant 42.5% were for roles with wages above $48,859. Meanwhile, 14% earned above $75,000. The results were given a margin of error of plus or minus 5%, the spokesman said.
19 thoughts on “Immigration data”
Could OIA the data released to nz herald? Not that it will help much.
Yes, altho no doubt they would do the usual govt dept thing and take the full 20 working days to release what would take them, at most, five minutes to process.
Your comment prompted me to lodge the request. In a recent interview the Ombudsman claimed that there was a whole new attitude afoot in the Wgtn bureaucracy to the OIA now that he is on their tail. In particular, he claimed to be cracking down on agencies who take the whole 20 working days to provide readily available information. SInce I’ve requested exactly what they’ve already provided the Herald, it should take no time at all.
I’m not holding my breath…..but just perhaps I’ll be pleasantly surprised.
If they release in five minutes, the question can be asked – why not every month. If they release in anything longer than five minutes, a complaint to ombudsman is legitimate. Either way they lose?
For that specific information – the per cent of applicants with income below the new threshold – i probably wouldn’t be looking for regular release (it will have been a one-off exercise to inform this particular Cabinet decision). But, having taken more than 5 minutes already, if they do take many more days I will probably go to the Ombudsman, to make a point. As for the other (approvals) data, it is quite clear they can generate it very quickly. I’ve learned that they already supply some of what I want regularly released to the public to industry bodies within days of the end of the month.
Of course, a serious commitment to open governmnet would have had all the background papers, and relevant Cabinet papers, pro-actively released at the same time the new policy package was announced.
To their credit, they have given me the data they gave the Herald (in under 24 hours). There is no more detail than in the interest.co extract above.
Does the raw data from Immigration NZ not fill some of that vacuum? https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/research-and-statistics/statistics
it does in some areas, but it isn’t exactly very user-friendly, compared to typical official data. it would like being given a gigantic spreadsheet of every loan, and be left to calculate the credit aggregates, or of every building permit etc
Oh, and now I remember the real problem – the residence approvals data are still only annual
The real data you should seek is how many actually leave NZ. That is called churn rate which seems to be a consistent failing in your various commentary.
Yes, of course I agree that we need to take account of those who don’t stay. I do from time to time run a chart of the net inflow of non-citizens, which takes account of all that – in fact i was preparing another such chart just before i saw your comment. But as I’ve noted repeatedly, the PLT numbers (inflows or net) aren’t ideal either. Census data are better, but sadly the last census was more than 4 years ago.
Can’t use PLT because it includes international students, foreign workers and returning New Zealanders. What you need is the net of the 17k gross residency migrant arrivals. Every time I bring this small gross number out you throw in a one liner that international students offered residency is also included. We now have a number and again that is a tiny 4,991 study to work visa per annum and from that 4,991, you may some convert from work visa to residency visas. You have far too many unsupported one liners.
This is becoming a futile exchange. returning NZers are irrelevant to the nonNZ citizen numbers, which is what i was talking about. And residence approvals in total average around 45000 a year – some granted to people offshore, most granted to people who were previously students or on work visas. These are MBIE’s own adminstrative numbers – not some creation of mine. Of course, not all people who get residence end up staying for ever. We don’t (that I’m aware of) have very good numbers on that. Population numbers from the census, incl data on birthplaces, remains a vital source over time.
You have a number on census and it tells you that 25% of NZ population is born outside of NZ , around 1 million but I am now a 30 year veteran. There are others much older than I am who have been in NZ and still alive and kicking who have been here from 40, 50 and even 60 years ago. Therefore your commentary again is unreliable. We are going around the merry bush because you force an interpretation without the correct churn numbers. I agree you do not have any reliable data. Statistic NZ is just too lazy to tell us.
But similarly that residency migrant number is a gross number in PLT and that has been consistently around 15k a year for the last 15 years. This year rising to 17k.
A target of 45,000 simply results in only around 15,000 settling in NZ. The churn rate is high. You keep saying our young leave NZ in droves. That is true but it is also true that a large number of New Zealanders living overseas are also new migrants that have just found it difficult in NZ and have moved back home to more familiar surrounds overseas and better jobs and careers after finding out that fresh air and beautiful scenery does not feed children when there are no industries that provide high paying jobs.
yes, census isn’t ideal, but it provides a steer thru the change in the foreign born population over the five year period.
of residence approvals in the year to March 2017, 80 per cent were granted to people who were already here.
also worth noting that the net outflow of NZ born people last year (2596) was very similar to the outflow of NZ citizens.
for what it is worth, last year the outflow of NZ born people (2596) was very similar to the outflow of NZ citizens
Breaking down the different work visas
The 43,025 work visas are made up of categories that pose very difficult to cut.
The main ones are:
Essential Skills visa – these are for migrants who will fill a job in a sector classified as having a skills shortage. It includes farming, viticulture, horticulture, etc. – 6,443
Working Holiday Scheme visa – these allow citizens of friend nations (U.K, Canada, U.S) to come and work here for a year or two. It is reciprocal, so it allows Kiwis to do the same in their nation. – 14,962
Family/spouse visa – this visa is given to partners of both migrant workers and foreign students. – 6,788
Study-to-work visa – This visa allows international students to work in New Zealand once they’ve
graduated. – 4,991
Seasonal visa – this temporary visa is part of a deal with a handful of Pacific nations for workers to plant, maintain, harvest or pack crops. – 2,451
Other visas- this category includes a broad range of work visas like free-trade agreement special visas (China, Korea, Philippines etc). It also includes special event and entertainment worker visas. – 7,390
The data still consistently suggests that a 45,000 residency visa target only results in around 15,000 permanent residents that would stay in NZ. The target setting of 45,000 is therefore correct. You continue to ignore churn rate, ie most new migrants and most international students do not stay after they complete their studies and even when offered work permits will depart NZ in 2 or 3 years with better development prospects in larger populated cities which our small and tiny populated cities do not offer.
[…] is that flawed articles like this really should reinforce the message to MBIE, that I made in a post the other day, that while MBIE’s annual immigration approvals data are good and useful, they are only […]