Pippa

Does anyone know what the plans are for the month of Octobers passmark for PR to NZ.

Currently of course its 29 and this has shut us out by one point (we have 23 points, enough for work a search visa if it comes down to 28)

We are going to hold on until it comes down one point.

Whats the word on the grapevine ?????

Love Pippa xxx

Don

No secret knowledge I'm afraid. But I think: no change this month. Passmark drop by March 2003 IMO.

Cheers - Don

Emmy & Phil

I agree, sorry but its to soon after the election to bring it down just yet.

Emily

"pleasancefamily" wrote in message
news:428749.1033318491@britishexpats-
.com...
    > Originally posted by Pippa:
    > > Does anyone know what the plans are for the month of Octobers passmark
    > > for PR to NZ.
    > >
    > > Currently of course its 29 and this has shut us out by one point (we
    > > have 23 points, enough for work a search visa if it comes down to 28)
    > >
    > > We are going to hold on until it comes down one point.
    > >
    > > Whats the word on the grapevine ?????
    > >
    > > Love Pippa xxx
    > No secret knowledge I'm afraid. But I think: no change this month.
    > Passmark drop by March 2003 IMO.
    > Cheers - Don
    > --
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

jseni01d

Unfortunately the answer is "It's gone up to 30." The rise comes into effect on October 7, as announced here:
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/

Someone said that NZIS have a target for how many people they let in each year (45,000?), and will get told off by the government if they stray more than 10% either way of that target. The logical explanation for the recent rises is that they have already received enough applications to fill this year's quota, so they want to discourage applications for the rest of the year, thus avoiding a ticking off.

I'm not sure whether their years start in January or April, but once this year is over, and once they have the backlog under control, they'll need to attract people to fill next year's quota, which they surely won't be able to do with the passmark at 28/29/30+ points.

Considering the mess they're in now, they're not going to make the mistake of suddenly reducing it to 25 and getting swamped again, so the most likely scenario is that they'll bring it down a point at a time until the flow of applications puts them on course to meet their target for next year. With increasing numbers of people now waiting to pounce at 28, then 27 points, my guess is that the passmark will stabilize at one of those two figures sometime next year.

John,
Tokyo

Don

Seconded, exactly right IMO - Don

jseni01d

A quote from a NZ Herald article on Korean migrants (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydispl...reportID=55514) touches on another factor that could have a major impact on the NZ passmark.

"Immigration agent Bill Milnes of the Association for Migration and Investment says one solution would be to raise the English language requirement for migrants from level 5 - the ability to conduct a basic conversation, with mistakes - to level 6. The Cabinet has ordered officials to report on the language test by Christmas. "

The idea of making the English requirement more strict was also mentioned in the NZIS's recent policy bulletin. Both politically (appearing to "get tough" on Asian immigration without doing anything overtly racist) and in terms of simply reducing the backlog, this looks like a very attractive policy for the government, and I suspect it will be adopted some time next year.

The difference between level 5 and level 6 of the IELTS doesn't sound much but is actually pretty big. (A Japanese friend of mine got around 5.5, and I know very few Japanese who speak better English than him. There must be a lot of Koreans and Chinese with scores between 5.0 and 5.9, too.) Raising the required IELTS score could have a more dramatic effect on the number of applicants than the recent passmark rises because, job offer or no job offer, there would be no way round it.

And, of course, any dramatic drop in numbers would eventually lead to a reduction of the passmark...

John,
Tokyo

ptlabs

It's as good as saying "let's be racist, but let's not tell the world because we want to look civilized and multiracial".

I support the idea of tightening up English language requirements, but I don't think it should be done to target any particular ethnic group, for political mileage or as an immigration policy.


Peter

Don

I know what you mean, Peter, but in the Briefing alluded to, English language proficiency was pinpointed as one big reason why migrants integrate well into NZ society or not, so I think it's reasonable to insist on a good level of English before migrants are accepted. IELTS 5 is not that proficient, 6 is reasonably good English and 7 is definitely good enough to operate properly in an English speaking firm/ environment.

Of course, younger people (under 45) living and working in NZ, and for whom English is a second language, will rapidly improve their English skills just by dealing with life's issues on a daily basis in NZ, so for me 5 is OK at the moment because 5s will rapidly become 6s and 7s once they move to NZ.

ptlabs

IMHO, I've always felt that the IELTS 5 standard is a joke, for Australia and NZ skilled immigration. People with such low proficiency in English will probably have two options:

1) crowd back into their own communities where they can be understood easily - not healthy for the country as a whole.

2) learn the language along the way - it's not impossible, but it will take tremendous amount of effort and determination.

I suspect that it's option 1 that puts off most local and English-speaking folks, and sadly that's usually the path of least resistance.


Peter

jseni01d

I agree 100%, but tightening the English requirement automatically favours people from English-speaking countries (overwhelmingly white) over those from other countries (in the case of prospective NZ migrants, overwhelmingly Asian), whether that's the stated policy goal or not. It's all a question of presentation.

If Winston Peters was PM, he would raise the English requirement for explicitly racist reasons, almost certainly involving nasty references to NZ being "swamped" by Asians. Helen Clark has rightly expressed her disgust at that kind of politics, BUT the fact is the government need to cut the number of applicants in order to avoid overshooting their own targets. Raising the passmark seems to be having limited effect, and stricter English requirements looks like the next policy they're going to try.

I expect they'll justify it by saying that people need better English in order to settle into society, which is a perfectly genuine and reasonable argument, but some people - not least those with IELTS scores of between 5 and 5.9 - will regard it as a policy designed to disadvantage certain ethnic groups.

John,
Tokyo

BritboyNZ

I wouldn't be suprised if Health and possibly character requirements aren't tightened up as well. In the briefing for the incoming immigration minister NZIS released a month or so ago there was a mention of possibly including tests for HIV and/or other infectious diseases in the medical. That with an increase in the English language requirement will make it harder still to get into NZ. I definitely think there are racial undertones here, although it wouldn't suprise me either if the Australian government isn't putting pressure on NZ to tighten up its immigration policy (as once you're in NZ, you're virtually in Australia as well).

Don

I agree that IELTS 5 is not that good a level - but don't forget most Gen Skills migrants are on the young side of 45 when they are more open to change and picking up English to a good level. They probably also tend to be enthusiastic about the new opportunities to be had in NZ - and English language is obviously key to this.

I think it's mostly down to the individual as to whether he has learned English to a good level by the time he comes to think about migrating and has got the points (say, minimum 28 years old these days and more likely early-mid thirties). English language is available to all at school in Europe; English is an official language of India and Pakistan and widely spoken in parts of Asia esp Singapore and Hong Kong. For non-HK Chinese, I guess the task is harder.

Having worked in Calcutta, I can tell you that official language status does not necessarily mean that too many Indians are at what I would call IELTS 5, but I would guess that because English language is constantly there around them it could easily be brought up to a good level with study.

I haven't read that there is much of a ghetto or 'withdrawal into own racial community' problem in NZ, unlike the UK where there has until now been no English language proficiency requirement for most immigrants.

In summary, I don't think putting up IELTS requirement to 6 or 6.5 would be much of a barrier to the determined migrant and might be welcomed by most if it went hand in hand with an easing of the points passmark.

Cheers - Don

Don

I agree those changes are likely (well, medical anyway - don't see why character cneeds changing from current police checks). But I disagree that there need to be a racial undertone to it. Sure, HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis (the 2 most likely excluders) are more prevalent in Africa/ Asia than Europe. What can NZIS do about these geographic/ demographic facts? - not much.

I don't think it would take any political spin to show that eg Aus has stricter medical requirements for prospective migrants and NZ is just coming into line with generally acceptable practice - to avoid excessive medical expenditure by NZ's health service on new migrants.

Cheers - Don

ptlabs

I don't think raising English proficiency standards for skilled immigrants is racist. Requiring future residents of a country to be able to speak the country's national language is a very expected (and required) policy. Lumping it to a political agenda, however, is, well, politics...

Yes, most people with IELTS 5 scores will cry foul - but these people should spend their time improving their English than accusing others of being racist. Some even insist that it's racist to subject them to sit for the IELTS test.

An immigration policy that has strict national (English) language requirements is a sensible policy, although unpopular among rich Far Eastern migrants, and should be implemented and supported. What baffles me is that Australia and NZ both have IETLS requirements that are, quite simply, rubbish. And that's coming from me, one who's not British, never lived in the United Kingdom, and don't claim to be a native English speaker.

Winston Peters will be a more credible racist if he included a test of "Knowledge of the British culture and customs" into the General Skills migration points system. That will ensure no Central European, no South/West/East/Central Asian, no South/Central American, and not many non-Brits for that matter will ever make it to the shores of NZ. And he would be a happy man then.


Peter

ptlabs

> Originally posted by pleasancefamily:
> I agree that IELTS 5 is not that good a level - but don't forget most
> Gen Skills migrants are on the young side of 45 when they are more
> open to change and picking up English to a good level.

Agreed.


> I think it's mostly down to the individual as to whether he has learned
> English to a good level by the time he comes to think about migrating
> and has got the points (say, minimum 28 years old these days and more
> likely early-mid thirties).

Absolutely.


> English language is available to all at school in Europe; English is an
> official language of India and Pakistan and widely spoken in parts of
> Asia esp Singapore and Hong Kong. For non-HK Chinese, I guess the task is harder.

Official language status doesn't hold much water in most Asian countries. Here are some statistics:

1) Hindi is the official language (if not the national language) of India. However most southern Indians don't give two hoots about Hindi.

2) Singapore's national language is Malay. 70% or so of the population who are non-Malays do not even understand the national anthem which is sung in Malay.

3) English has been the official language of Hong Kong for 150 or so years. Most (not all) of the populace there aren't comfortable uttering a complete English sentence in public.

However, I've noticed that mainland Chinese people tend to accept their English deficiency and work towards improving it. Most of them have no issues taking up lessons to improve their IETLS scores. (Disclaimer: I do not hold Chinese citizenship)


> Having worked in Calcutta, I can tell you that official language status
> does not necessarily mean that too many Indians are at what I would
> call IELTS 5, but I would guess that because English language is
> constantly there around them it could easily be brought up to a good level with study.

If the level of English displayed by some posters here is anything to go by, IELTS 5 would be a compliment to their true ability.


> In summary, I don't think putting up IELTS requirement to 6 or 6.5 would
> be much of a barrier to the determined migrant and might be welcomed
> by most if it went hand in hand with an easing of the points passmark.

Well, if a determined migrant brushed up on his/her English to meet the standards required for migration, he/she deserves a chance at it. That would be a much more positive approach than to sit back and sulk and cry racism :-)


Peter