Spotlight on Skilled Residence Visas: OAG Report Highlights Persistent Challenges

The recent Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) report on the processing of Skilled Residence visa applications shines a light on an area I am deeply familiar with, having managed a project aimed at improving the timeliness of Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) processing during my tenure at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) prior to 2015. Reading the OAG report resonated strongly with me, given my project work on a similar topic, and the details of the report were a stark reminder of the complexities involved in managing immigration pathways that aim to attract and retain skilled global talent.

The 2014 Skilled Migrant Category process improvements: A Personal Perspective

In 2014, I was part of a project team tasked with addressing processing delays that had become a pressing concern for SMC applications. At that time, SMC processing timelines had stretched beyond 12 months—a situation that alarmed senior leadership and therefore necessitated action. The project team implemented standardized operating procedures designed to streamline assessments, ensure consistent decision-making, and reduce processing times by several months. This effort was significant not only for improving operational efficiency but also for reinforcing New Zealand’s appeal as a destination for skilled migrants by ensuring a timely and transparent pathway to residency. From the details contained in the OAG’s report, it seems that the time has come for another such project, as the state of the current Skilled Residence category processes are not what they should be.

The OAG’s Findings

Fast forward to 2024, and the OAG’s review paints a somewhat mixed picture of current Skilled Residence processing. While the report acknowledges some moves being made towards improvements, it highlights several persistent challenges, including:

• Processing Delays: Despite advances in technology and policy frameworks, applicants are still facing protracted waiting times, which have the potential to deter highly skilled individuals from choosing New Zealand as a long-term destination, as the visa processing system does not meet their expectations
• Inconsistent Decision-Making: The report identifies variability in how applications are assessed, underscoring the need for clearer guidelines and better training for Immigration Officers.
• Limited Transparency: Applicants often struggle to access clear and precise information about their application status, contributing to frustration and uncertainty.

Of particular concern to me was a flowchart in the report which showed a simplified breakdown of the end-to-end process and revealed that INZ is still using the processing method whereby an application becomes known as “non-actionable” at the point further information is requested from an applicant. This effectively causes the application to drift into “no man’s land” until the applicant provides the required information, without effective or timely management on INZ’s part during the period the application is “non-actionable.”

This demonstrates a lack of commitment to active caseload management, and it’s really disappointing to see this “disowning” of applications in instances where further information is required. The onus is completely put on the applicant to take action to get their application moving forward again, instead of a combined effort between applicant and Immigration Officer. Giving Immigration Officers the skills to actively manage their caseloads—including monitoring applications regularly and following up proactively when an application has been “idle” for more than two weeks—would significantly improve processing timeframes.

During my time as an Immigration Manager at INZ, when I oversaw a team of Immigration Officers processing SMC applications, one important tool available to me for monitoring the efficiency of my team was the ’10-day untouched report’. This report identified all SMC applications that had had no work undertaken on them for more than 10 days. In efficiently managing a caseload of SMC applications, an application should not go more than 10 days without some sort of ‘work’ being undertaken on it—whether that be an assessment, requesting more information from the applicant, or following up when requested information hadn’t been provided within the given timeframe. The ’10-day untouched report’ was both a useful performance measurement tool and an effective way of ensuring that Immigration Officers were effectively and proactively managing their caseloads on a regular basis. It helped ensure that officers were actively doing what they could to move applications toward a decision and finalisation.

Good caseload management is not achieved by taking an application up to a certain point, requesting more information from the applicant, and then rendering the application ‘non-actionable’ and forgotten about. It takes both an Immigration Officer and an applicant to actively engage in moving an application toward a decision.

The OAG report notes that queues occurred under the old Skilled Migrant Category due to INZ operating under a planning range or cap on the number of residence applications that could be approved. But this is not the whole story of why there used to be long queues—it was also because there was waste in the process (that is, staff undertaking steps in the process that were not strictly necessary), and a ‘broken’ process can not effectively deal with changing workforce allocations. A news story just last week about 33 new staff set to start work at INZ & the fact that 33 new staff is still just a “drop in the bucket” in relation to overcoming slow processing times highlights the fact that it’s not a case of just getting ‘bums on seats’ to do the work – the process itself needs to be efficient and followed by those who are tasked with utilising it. There needs to be a focus on refining both the recruitment and the training policies at INZ, ensuring that new recruits have a strong ability to weigh and balance information—a skill that often comes from having a bit of ‘real world knowledge’ and well-honed critical thinking skills.

Combining achievable ‘decision targets’ for staff (that is, the number of applications an Immigration Officer is expected to finalise per week or month), good quality control measures, and a slick, standardised end-to-end process will result in a visa system that can handle fluctuations of both staff and application volumes.

Recommendations

The OAG has outlined several key recommendations to address the issues identified.

1. Better use of data: Stratifying data by skilled residence application type & use the data effectively to target improvements.
2. Streamlined Processes: Revisiting and refining workflows to eliminate bottlenecks.
3. Improved Communication: Establishing robust channels to keep applicants informed at every stage of the process.

It would be great to see these recommendations implemented alongside general process improvement of the end-to-end skilled residence process flow, with a focus on eliminating waste in the process (that is, steps that aren’t crucial to a robust assessment).

Reflections on the Way Forward

Reading the report, I couldn’t help but draw parallels between its findings and the challenges we tackled 10 years ago – skilled residence policy has changed in the intervening years, but the issues remain the same; slow processing, not enough transparency with applicants and a mismatch between what INZ wants to see in an application & what applicants are providing. The fact that similar issues persist suggests that while procedural improvements can yield short-term gains, sustainable change requires continuous investment in both people, systems & INZ’s culture.

The OAG report serves as both a critique and a call to action for INZ. The recommendations are a step in the right direction, but robust implementation will be key. As someone who has seen firsthand the difference that efficient, standardised processes & proactive caseload management can make, I hope INZ leverages this opportunity to build a system that not only meets current demands but also anticipates future needs.

I continue to have confidence that Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford will see that the OAG’s recommendations lead to meaningful changes at INZ. I just hope it’s soon enough that New Zealand hasn’t fallen to the bottom of the list as a chosen destination for skilled migrants, and those with the skills and experience we need haven’t already disregarded New Zealand in favour of other countries that have opted to make their residence pathways simpler and easier.

Ultimately, New Zealand’s ability to compete for global talent hinges on its capacity to offer skilled migrants a clear, efficient, and welcoming pathway to residency. Addressing the concerns raised by the OAG will not only improve outcomes for applicants but also reinforce New Zealand’s reputation as a destination of choice for skilled professionals.