Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Migrant survey

  1. #1
    MotherBear's Avatar
    MotherBear is offline The missing link
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    currently Ras al Khaimah, UAE, ex Wales, UK
    Blog Entries

    Default Migrant survey

    Here's a bit of long-winded reading if you're interested in migrant stats and details of how well they've settled (or otherwise) in NZ. I think you might need Adobe Reader to view it.

    If you don't feel up to trawling through it all, you can just scan through it and pick out the tasty bits.
    Mother Bear

    Try to bloom wherever you are planted.

  2. #2
    KiwiHopeful's Avatar
    KiwiHopeful is offline God like figure
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    New Hampshire, USA

    Default Some highlights ...

    The page numbers refer to the printed report, not the page numbers of the pdf file.

    An objective of the survey was to monitor whether skilled migrants were filling the skill shortages identified by employers in New Zealand. The Long Term Skill Shortage List (LTSSL) contains the highly skilled occupations that have sustained shortages both nationally and globally. A total of 63 percent of the skilled principal applicants who listed their main occupations in the survey matched the occupations listed on the LTSSL. A total of 28 percent of the skilled principal applicant respondents’ occupations matched the Immediate Skilled Shortage List (ISSL), which lists the recognised regional skill shortages and is used for approving temporary work visas. (p 23)

    Those migrants responding to version 2 of the questionnaire were asked how much they earned in their main job before tax. Table 4 shows all skilled (SMC, GSC, Talent and LTSSL) principal applicants’ annual earnings before tax from their main jobs. About one-third earned between $50,001 and $70,000 and one-fifth earned between $40,001 and $50,000, 15 percent earned between $70,001 and $100,000, and 7 percent earned $100,001 or more. (p 24)

    Three quarters of the skilled principal applicants who responded to this question were earning more than the average salary for full time workers in New Zealand. (p 24)

    Employed migrants were asked to rate how satisfied they were with their main job and this rating was then matched to the industry in which respondents worked. ... 79 percent of those who responded said they were ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’, 12 percent were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’, and 8 percent were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. (p 25)

    The respondents who said they were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ (n = 139) were asked to give reasons for their rating. The two main reasons were because the pay was too low (60 percent), and because they were not using their skills or experience (55 percent). When these reasons for job dissatisfaction were compared to the overall number of respondents who answered the job satisfaction question, 5 percent of respondents felt their pay was too low and 5 percent felt there was a mismatch between their skills and job. Twenty-eight percent of those who were dissatisfied said this was because they were not working in their preferred occupation, and 24 percent of those who were dissatisfied wanted to work different or more hours. (p 25)

    Industries with the highest number of ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ migrants were: wholesale trade (18 percent of total respondents in this industry);agriculture, forestry and fishing (14 percent); manufacturing (12 percent); retail trade or construction (11 percent each); accommodation, cafes and restaurants (10 percent); and health and community services (9 percent). (p 26)

    Migrants were asked where they were living in New Zealand. Responses were analysed by region, by city, and by application category. There was a good regional distribution of respondents, with 36 percent living in the Auckland region, 31 percent of respondents living elsewhere in the North Island, 18 percent living in the Canterbury region, and 12 percent living elsewhere in the South Island. ... 63 percent of SMC migrants and 78 percent of GSC migrants lived outside of Auckland. (p 27)

    Eighty-one percent of respondents said that they were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with the quality of their accommodation[/B], while 9 percent said they were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ and 9 percent said they were either ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. (p 28)

    Lifestyle reasons featured highly when migrants were asked why they chose New Zealand rather than another country ... Three-quarters identified climate, natural beauty or a clean, green environment; 66 percent identified friendly people or a relaxed way of life; 60 percent identified lifestyle in general; 53 percent identified safety from crime and violence; 43 percent identified recreational opportunities; and 41 percent identified a small population. Forty-one percent of respondents identified job opportunities as the reason they chose New Zealand. Almost a third (29 percent) identified the education system or educational opportunities, and 15 percent cited both favourable economic conditions in New Zealand and quality services. Other influential factors included political stability and freedom from corruption (26 percent) and lack of interracial, ethnic, or religious tensions (22 percent). (p 30)

    What migrants disliked most was the geographical distance from their homes (40 percent). ... Bad driving or poor road safety, and the high cost of health services were both selected by 35 percent of respondents. Poor public transportation (32 percent), poor quality of housing (22 percent), the high cost of living (22 percent) and a complicated tax system (19 percent) were some of the things migrants disliked. (p 33)

    Overall, 93 percent of migrants were either ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ with living in New Zealand. Six percent were ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ with their experience, and only 1 percent of migrants were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’. (p 35)

    Only 10 percent of migrants responding to the version 2 questionnaire reported they experienced no unwelcome shocks or surprises since their arrival in New Zealand. ...The high cost of housing was cited by 52 percent of respondents, as were the high costs of living (44 percent) and of health care services (37 percent). Other unwelcome shocks or surprises included low salaries and wages (31 percent) and poor public transport (30 percent). Thirteen percent of respondents described other unwelcome shocks or surprises including: poor driving, poor road safety and drivers’ lack of respect for pedestrians; a lack of infrastructure; poor services (childcare and health care); higher-than-expected levels of crime and violence; and environmental or climate shocks such as earthquakes and colder-than-expected temperatures. (p 35)

    Ninety-four percent of respondents to the version 2 questionnaire said they would recommend New Zealand as a place to live, with 55 percent saying their recommendation would be with enthusiasm. (p 36)

    Overall, I'd say it's pretty darned positive!

    Most of the report is dedicated to explaining the purpose and methodology of the report, as well as copies of the survey instrument.
    EOI Submitted: July 20, 2006
    EOI Selected: August 2, 2006
    ITA Received: October 12, 2006
    ITA Submitted: February 2, 2007
    Migrant Levy Paid & Visas Shipped: June 6, 2007
    Arrived in NZ: July 26th, 2007
    Leaving NZ: June 1st, 2008


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46