Immigration New Zealand advisers' survey

Our advisers' survey evaluates the level of customer service provided by Immigration New Zealand branches worldwide.

May 2016 survey

This report provided a summary of the key findings from the Immigration New Zealand Advisers' Survey conducted in May 2016.

The survey was conducted by Gravitas Research & Strategy for our Evidence and Insights team.

Key finding

Satisfaction with the overall quality of service delivery was:

  • 45%-47% among lawyers and onshore licensed advisers
  • 63%-64% among offshore licensed advisers and other intermediaries (mainly offshore student advisers).

Survey methodology

Survey invitations were emailed to licensed immigration advisers and other stakeholders (ie lawyers and student advisers, who received a visa decision on a client’s behalf), providing a link to an online questionnaire in English.

The surveys asked 8 core questions about satisfaction.

Survey period

The survey covered application decisions made between 23 January and 22 April 2016. The survey was online from 12 May to 13 June 2016.

Survey response rate

A total of 376 completed responses were received, equating to an overall response rate (excluding ineligible responses) of 26%.

Weighting

The response data is not weighted.

For more information on this report, please email MBIE Research and Evaluation.

Key findings

Overall satisfaction

Satisfaction with overall quality of service delivery had remained stable since April 2015 – ranging from:

  • 45%-47% among lawyers and onshore licensed advisers
  • 63%-64% among offshore licensed advisers and other intermediaries (mainly offshore student advisers).
Figure 1: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

Figure 1: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

Total % satisfied (rating 4 or 5 out of 5) - May 2016
Onshore licensed advisers 47%
Offshore licensed advisers 63%
Lawyers 45%
Others 64%
Table 1: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

Service quality ratings were stable for all offices except Palmerston North.

Figure 2: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

Figure 2: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

Total % satisfied (rating 4 or 5 out of 5) - May 2016
Manukau 69%
Christchurch 69%
Wellington 64%
Henderson 62%
Auckland Central 62%
London 58%
Wellington Business Unit 53%
Mumbai 52%
Shanghai 50%
New Delhi 49%
Palmerston North 34%
Table 2: Overall satisfaction with quality of service (total % satisfied) – May 2016

About half of all advisers reported an improving service from INZ over time.

Service performance

Satisfaction was generally highest for: Staff did as they said they would do, Staff respected my role as a professional, and I was treated fairly.

Satisfaction was generally lowest for: INZ provided regular updates on the progress of the application, Applications were processed within a reasonable time, and Received consistent information/advice.

Figure 3a: Service performance measures (total % agree) – Onshore licensed advisers

Figure 3a: Service performance measures (total % agree) – Onshore licensed advisers

Total % satisfied (rating 4 or 5 out of 5) - May 2016
Onshore Licensed Adviser
Staff respected my role as a professional 60%
I was treated fairly 58%
Staff did as they said they would do 56%
Staff were competent 48%
Staff willing to discuss complex cases with me 45%
Individual circumstances taken into account 39%
Applications processed within a reasonable time 37%
Received consistent information/advice 33%
Provided with regular progress updates 26%
Table 3a: Service performance measures (total % agree) – Onshore licensed advisers
Figure 3b: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Offshore licensed advisers

Figure 3b: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Offshore licensed advisers

Offshore Licensed Adviser
Staff did as they said they would do 80%
Staff were competent 73%
I was treated fairly 73%
Staff respected my role as a professional 70%
Applications processed within a reasonable time 70%
Individual circumstances taken into account 53%
Staff willing to discuss complex cases with me 52%
Received consistent information/advice 45%
Provided with regular progress updates 43%
Table 3b: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Offshore licensed advisers
Figure 3c: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Lawyer

Figure 3c: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Lawyer

Lawyer
Staff respected my role as a professional 61%
Staff did as they said they would do 58%
I was treated fairly 57%
Staff willing to discuss complex cases with me 51%
Staff were competent 47%
Individual circumstances taken into account 44%
Applications processed within a reasonable time 40%
Received consistent information/advice 27%
Provided with regular progress updates 24%
Table 3c: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Lawyer
Figure 3d: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Other

Figure 3d: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Other

Other
Staff were competent 79%
I was treated fairly 71%
Staff did as they said they would do 70%
Applications processed within a reasonable time 67%
Staff respected my role as a professional 63%
Received consistent information/advice 61%
Staff willing to discuss complex cases with me 56%
Provided with regular progress updates 55%
Individual circumstances taken into account 53%
Table 3d: Service performance measures (total % agree) - Other

Suggestions for improvement

Suggestions for improvement and reasons for perceiving worsening service over time related mainly to:

  • timeliness: faster processing of applications
  • clarity of process: providing more information and support so stakeholders fully understand application requirements
  • communication: providing regular progress updates throughout the application process.

Note: Results are shown above only for responses with a sample size of at least n=20.

up arrowDenotes a statistically significant higher result compared to previous quarter (at 95% confidence)

down arrowDenotes a statistically significant lower result compared to previous quarter (at 95% confidence)