News

Media enquiries

Survey of New Zealand visa and permit applicants who have used an immigration adviser

Context – Use of Advisers

More than half of the applicants had used an immigration adviser/consultant/agent (53%).  A further 17 percent had used a travel agent, 13 percent an educational institute/agent, nine percent a lawyer and four percent an employer. Less than one percent of applicants had used a Citizens Advice Bureau, Community Law Centre or MP.  Three percent of applicants had used another type of adviser.

They type of adviser used by adviser status was as follows:

The primary means of finding an adviser was via friends and family (52%). The second most common means was via the internet (19%).   Other means of finding an adviser, mentioned by five percent or less of respondents were work, walked past/saw office, register at iaa.govt.nz (4%), through other agent(s), media, phone book, school/college and expos.  Those who heard of their adviser via the IAA register were more likely to be clients who used a licensed adviser.

The location applicants were in when they made their application was also profiled. Forty percent of applications were made onshore and 60 percent of applications were made offshore. The location by status was as follows:

The offshore locations applicants were in when they made their application were as follows: India (23%), Philippines (13%), Malaysia (4%), South Africa (3%), United Kingdom (3%), China (2%), Fiji (2%), Australia (1%), Bangladesh (1%), Russia (1%), Saudi Arabia (1%), Singapore (1%), Sri Lanka (1%) and Thailand (1%).

The location of the advisers used was also profiled. Fifty-three percent of advisers were onshore and 47 percent of advisers were offshore.  The location by status was as follows:

The offshore locations advisers were in were as follows: India (20%), Philippines (9%), Malaysia (3%), South Africa (2%), United Kingdom (2%), Russia (1%), Saudi Arabia (1%), Singapore (1%), Sri Lanka (1%), Australia (1%), China (2%), Fiji (2%) and Thailand (1%).

Applicants who had used a licensed adviser were asked whether they had received a copy of the ‘Code of Conduct’ from their adviser. Forty percent said they had, 34 percent said they had not and 26 percent said they were unsure.

All applicants were asked if their adviser had provided them with a written agreement outlining the services they would receive. Of the total sample 47 percent said yes, 36 percent said no and 17 percent were unsure. 

Receipt of a written agreement by status was as follows:

All applicants were asked if they had paid for the services provided by their adviser. Of the total sample 76 percent said yes and 24 percent said no. Payment for services by status was as follows:

Applicants who had paid their adviser for services were asked what proportion of the services they had paid for upfront. Of the total respondents a third (37%) had paid 25 percent or less upfront, a third (30%) had paid between 26 and 75 percent upfront, a fifth (20%) had paid between 76 and 100 percent up front and the remaining 12 percent did not know. Payment for services by status is shown in the graph that follows.

Clients using an licensed adviser were more likely to have paid up to 50 percent of the cost upfront, while those using an unlicensed adviser were those most likely to have paid three quarters to 100 percent up front.

Proportion of total cost paid in advance(image links to large version)

Previous section | Next section