Part 4: Co-ordinating the governance of settlement support throughout government

4.1
In this Part, we discuss how effectively Immigration New Zealand has co-ordinated the governance of settlement support throughout government to achieve the intended results working together with other public entities.

4.2
To assess how effectively Immigration New Zealand co-ordinates the governance of the settlement support strategy throughout government, we looked into:

• whether the settlement governance structure was put into effect as intended and has achieved the intended outcomes;
• whether the roles and responsibilities of the various organisations involved in the governance groups were clearly understood;
• how effectively Immigration New Zealand has co-ordinated the governance of settlement support throughout government to achieve the objectives of having a whole-of-government strategy set out in the Settlement Strategy and regional strategies; and
• what outcomes have been achieved by investing resources for a whole-of-government approach.

Summary of our findings

4.3
Immigration New Zealand has narrowly interpreted its role in co-ordinating the governance of settlement support throughout government. This has been a missed opportunity to use the governance structures put in place to make more progress towards some of the specified objectives for the Settlement Strategy. The governance arrangements have not worked as intended, and Immigration New Zealand has not used them as fully as it could have to provide clear governance and leadership.

4.4
The Settlement Strategy and regional strategies were designed to help co-ordinate settlement services throughout government agencies for new migrants. Since 2009, priorities have changed to settlement and achieving better outcomes for refugees. As a consequence, progress on the national settlement strategy has not been the main focus. This has affected delivering desired outcomes for new skilled migrants. During our audit, Immigration New Zealand was considering options for co-ordinating governance and leadership throughout government to help make strategic governance work for new migrants more effective.

4.5
Settlement Support New Zealand staff told us that sharing information about settlement activities and matters throughout government that has happened through the current settlement governance structures has been of value. However, the national and regional settlement structure has not been put into effect and sustained to achieve the intended results over time. Organisations working with Immigration New Zealand on settlement support share this view.

4.6
The purpose of the Settlement Strategy, and supporting regional strategies, in co-ordinating settlement support activities has been unclear to those involved. There are also strong indications of some duplication of settlement services and resourcing. Better information about settlement support resourcing is needed to effectively and efficiently use and co-ordinate settlement support resources.

Recommendation 1
We recommend that Immigration New Zealand work with its government agency partners, to provide advice to the Government about an improved settlement governance structure and approach that supports targeting and delivering services effectively to where they are most needed. Target time frame: by June 2014.

Recommendation 2
We recommend that Immigration New Zealand use the governance structure decided on to work with government agency partners to make better use of resources throughout government towards measurable settlement outcomes for new migrants. Target time frame: by December 2014.

Recommendation 3
We recommend that Immigration New Zealand monitor and review the governance structure to ensure its ongoing effectiveness. Target time frame: ongoing.

Expectations of Immigration New Zealand

What is expected of Immigration New Zealand's work co-ordinating settlement and governance

4.7
A fundamental part of the Settlement Strategy was a whole-of-government approach to settlement support. Immigration New Zealand received funding to co-ordinate the governance structure and provide leadership for settlement support throughout government specifically to:

• address the lack of co-ordination and sharing of information between public entities working on settlement support;
• address the lack of consistency in settlement support services;
• enhance settlement outcomes for new migrants;
• evaluate and report on settlement outcomes achieved; and
• work with partners to use public resources more efficiently.

4.8
We spoke to Immigration New Zealand staff, reviewed documents and research reports, and considered the views that stakeholders have about how effectively Immigration New Zealand leads settlement support. We spoke with staff from various central and local government organisations and non-government organisations who have worked with MBIE to support migrants' settlement.

Immigration New Zealand's roles and accountabilities co-ordinating the governance of settlement support throughout government

4.9
In 2006, Cabinet gave Immigration New Zealand, then part of the Department of Labour, the role of leading the development and implementation of the Settlement Strategy and the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy (the Auckland Strategy) and the governance structures to support the national and regional action plans. This role was given to Immigration New Zealand to address a lack of co-ordination and information-sharing between central government, local government, and other stakeholders, and to use collaboration to lead a coherent approach to settlement and focus on achieving outcomes. Immigration New Zealand was also given evaluation and reporting responsibilities, which we discuss in Part 5.

4.10
One of the main objectives of having a whole-of-government strategy and a national settlement secretariat was to make the most of resources to achieve settlement outcomes and to address the service gaps and duplication of effort. The national and regional action plans were intended to bring about tangible and measurable results through well-designed and executed action plans and bring an enhanced strategic focus to the Settlement Strategy.

4.11
In our view, Immigration New Zealand had an enabling role that required it to exercise strong and effective governance to bring about collaboration and co-ordination between agencies, including by seeking clarification and direction from decision-makers, where needed and opportune, to make progress and achieve the intended outcomes. Immigration New Zealand interpreted its role as being more limited in that it did not have authority to direct other agencies.

Governance structure not used as effectively as it could have been

4.12
In 2004, the Settlement Strategy established Immigration New Zealand's role as lead agency for migrant settlement. After a period of consultation, the 2006 Action Plan was developed to strengthen the co-ordination of inter-agency engagement with the Settlement Strategy. Cabinet reconfirmed the Department of Labour's role in leading the development and implementation of the Settlement Strategy and the Auckland Strategy through the national governance structure for overseeing the settlement strategies and the associated action plans (see Figure 5).

4.13
In May 2008, Cabinet approved the 2008-2013 Wellington Regional Settlement Strategy (the Wellington Strategy), which included 33 activities under seven strategy goals, known as the Plan of Action for the Wellington Regional Settlement.

Figure 5
National structure for new migrant settlement

4.14
The Settlement Unit surveyed representatives of inter-agency groups between 2005/06 and 2008/09. In the remainder of Part 4, we discuss results from the annual surveys along with other sources of evidence gathered for this audit.

How Immigration New Zealand co-ordinates settlement governance throughout government

4.15
Immigration New Zealand's interpretation of its role and responsibilities for co-ordinating the governance of settlement support throughout government differs from the expectations for this work that we found in documents, as described in paragraphs 4.9-4.11.

4.16
Immigration New Zealand interpreted its leadership and co-ordination responsibilities as requiring the authority to direct other organisations and be accountable for their activities. This is a narrow interpretation and misses the opportunity for a more enabling approach through governance. Our broader interpretation is that Immigration New Zealand's role is to provide effective governance and enable strong leadership.

4.17
In our view, Immigration New Zealand could have better facilitated decision-making about achieving the best settlement outcomes through the collective, well-targeted efforts of the agencies involved, based on good information about outcomes and evaluating settlement services. Immigration New Zealand could have made better use of opportunities to make recommendations and seek direction where needed and as opportunities presented themselves (for example, on how the change in priority to refugee settlement affected progress with the Settlement Strategy).

4.18
In our view, Immigration New Zealand's narrow interpretation of its role contributed to limiting the effectiveness of the governance structures put in place. The governance structures have not operated as intended, and Immigration New Zealand has not used them as fully as it could have to provide clear governance and enable strong leadership. This has been a missed opportunity to achieve more progress towards some of the specified objectives for the Settlement Strategy.

Effectiveness of the National Settlement Structure

4.19
The approved Settlement Strategy and action plans included details on a National Settlement Structure. As outlined in the approval proposal, the purpose of the National Settlement Structure was to address the lack of co-ordination and information-sharing between central government, local government, and other stakeholders. The National Settlement Structure was intended to foster collaboration to encourage a strategic view. It was also intended to lead a coherent approach between agencies, encourage the flow of information, identify gaps in service provision, and seek solutions without duplication.

4.20
Approval for the settlement structure included a requirement for Immigration New Zealand to carry out evaluations every year to assess whether the national structure and associated committees were achieving the intended goals. Annual reviews of the structure for the Settlement Strategy were carried out until 2008/09.

4.21
The Settlement Secretariat did not carry out any further reviews of the governance structure because the groups have not met to discuss work on the Settlement Strategy since 2009. Therefore, reporting on the National Structure, the Settlement Strategy, and action plans stopped in 2009.

4.22
The remainder of Part 4 focuses on Immigration New Zealand's work leading and co-ordinating the implementation of the Settlement Strategy and its governance structure as approved by Cabinet. We focus on two phases of Immigration New Zealand's work:

• the first phase to 2009 when the governance structure was active; and
• the period after 2009, including the activities that Immigration New Zealand worked on towards achieving settlement outcomes within the Settlement Strategy.

Immigration New Zealand's stakeholders value information-sharing and networking

4.23
One of the objectives of the whole-of-government settlement strategy was to improve information-sharing between government agencies and non-governmental organisations involved in settlement support.

4.24
Stakeholders in the national and regional settlement strategies told us that it was of value to be part of the settlement network established by the national governance structure. As a result, they were more aware of settlement support work throughout the sector.

Unclear roles, responsibilities and purpose of the New Zealand Settlement Strategy

4.25
Immigration New Zealand's 2006/07 and 2007/08 reviews of the National Settlement Structure found that the roles and responsibilities of participants in the Senior Officials' Group and Interdepartmental Committee on Settlement were unclear. A PricewaterhouseCoopers review in 2010 found that participants did not understand their roles and responsibilities.

4.26
We also found lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities. Many stakeholders we spoke to were not clear about the purpose of the governance groups or the Settlement Strategy, the role and purpose of the Settlement Strategy, or whether the Settlement Strategy remained relevant.

4.27
The Settlement Unit told us that, since 2007/08, there has been only one overall governance group for implementing the Settlement Strategy. We understand that, since 2009, the same members of the governance group continued to work on the refugee strategy. However, their meetings did not sustain a focus on the Settlement Strategy and there has been no reporting on the Settlement Strategy and Action Plan since 2009.

More effective governance arrangements needed, and progress towards achieving the Settlement Strategy's outcomes limited since 2009

4.28
In our view, Immigration New Zealand needed to put more effective governance arrangements in place to make better progress in achieving the intended results for the whole-of-government settlement work. The governance work was not sustained, which made it less effective.

4.29
Central and local government representatives involved in the national and regional settlement strategies told us that progress on the Settlement Strategy and regional strategies has stalled. Several representatives involved in the settlement work said that they were unclear about the strategies' current status. Stakeholders told us that agency representatives had become disengaged because the whole-of-government settlement structure has not been maintained and lacks purpose. Some told us that they were frustrated at not knowing the status of the strategies and various inter-agency settlement groups. The results of Immigration New Zealand's reviews of the National Settlement Structure support these comments.

4.30
In 2009, developing a refugee strategy was one of the actions within the Settlement Strategy as well as other actions that were yet to be completed. The focus on preparing the refugee strategy hindered other work on the Settlement Strategy.

4.31
However, we found no evidence of Immigration New Zealand seeking clarification about its role leading and co-ordinating the Settlement Strategy, which was a missed opportunity. By seeking clarification, Immigration New Zealand might have been more able to continue to co-ordinate a more effective governance structure and focus on delivering agreed priorities and retain the commitment and understanding of stakeholders and partners.

4.32
Several stakeholders told us that Immigration New Zealand did not show enough leadership to achieve results through the governance structure. The 2007/08 review of the National Settlement Structure supported these views. In that review, stakeholders indicated that the Settlement Secretariat's work on co-ordinating the whole-of-government settlement governance structure needed to improve. Immigration New Zealand and some other staff at MBIE told us that they were aware that leading and co-ordination needs to improve.

How effectively the National Settlement Structure met objectives

4.33
There were several useful reviews of the National Settlement Structure. These reviews included questions about the effectiveness of the governance arrangements in meeting the intended purpose and objectives. We discuss results from the surveys related to our audit questions in paragraphs 4.35-4.43. Although some respondents commented positively about some aspects of the way the governance groups work, there are signs that improvements were needed.

4.34
The Senior Officials' Group was set up in May 2005 and stopped meeting after 2006. The Group's purpose is to provide strategic direction, share information, co-ordinate the work of public entities, support regional settlement strategies, and increase awareness of connections between regional and national work on settling migrants.

4.35
In April 2006, an Interdepartmental Committee on Settlement was set up. This committee was intended to include officials working in operational aspects of migrant settlement and refugee resettlement initiatives. The committee was set up to co-ordinate preparing and putting into effect settlement policy and services. Meetings were intended to provide the opportunity for sharing information and joint planning so that public entities could deliver settlement services effectively.

4.36
In 2006/07, a review invited 77 representatives to answer a survey, with 22 responding (a response rate of 29%). Immigration New Zealand provided us with data that shows that, when asked "How well has the Senior Officials' Group met its purpose?", a little more than half the respondents answered "Neither well nor poor".³ A further third of respondents answered "Well" to the same question. Less than a fifth of respondents answered "Poor".

4.37
Members of the Senior Officials' Group reported in Immigration New Zealand's 2006/07 review of the National Settlement Structure that they need to understand the group's role and purpose within the National Settlement Structure for it to be effective. The 2006/07 review noted that the Senior Officials' Group had been in recess since 2006 and that some of the members considered that the group had "wound down" because it needed a clearer mandate and that the intention was to restart the group when the Settlement Secretariat was staffed appropriately. The 2006/07 review indicated a need to clarify roles and responsibilities and the status of the group.

4.38
In the same year, respondents indicated a more positive view when asked: "How effectively has the Interdepartmental Committee met its objectives for migrant settlement and refugee resettlement?". Most respondents answered "Well" or "Very well", and a little under a fifth of the responses were neutral.

4.39
In 2007/08, 36 representatives were invited to fill in a similar survey, with 17 responding (a 47% response rate). This time, when asked "How effectively has the Interdepartmental Committee met its objectives for migrant settlement and refugee resettlement?", almost half the respondents answered "Poor". A third answered "Well" or "Very well". Slightly more than a fifth were neutral, answering "Neither well nor poor".

4.40
The 2007/08 review identified that inconsistent participation by members of the Interdepartmental Committee on Settlement led to a lack of clarity of purpose, which led to a lack of ownership. In turn, this may have reinforced inconsistent participation.

4.41
Some respondents considered the information-sharing enough, while others suggested that a review of the purpose and the structure of the Interdepartmental Committee on Settlement was needed because the objectives of the meetings had not been met.

4.42
More broadly, the 2007/08 review looked at about how well the National Settlement Structure was meeting its purpose and objectives. Immigration New Zealand told us that when asked how well the National Settlement Structure "is meeting its purpose and objectives", most respondents replied "Well".

4.43
In 2008/09, a third review of the National Settlement Structure was carried out. We cannot make direct comparisons to the results from previous years because the survey design and questions were changed. Also, only seven people answered the survey and Immigration New Zealand is unable to verify how many were invited to take part, so the response rate cannot be identified to confirm the validity of the results. Of the seven respondents to the 2008/09 survey, Immigration New Zealand indicates that six agreed that the Interdepartmental Committee on Settlement was effective in meeting objectives and all seven respondents agreed that the National Settlement Structure was meeting its objectives.

4.44
Stakeholders involved in settlement support told us that:

• communication within the settlement governance structure needed to improve;
• information needed to be streamlined;
• they needed more time to review papers; and
• meetings needed to be more effectively facilitated.

Progress has been more limited on the Settlement Strategy and Action Plan since 2009

4.45
Since 2009, the Settlement Unit's strategy leadership work has focused on preparing the refugee resettlement strategy to get its work more in line with the Government's priorities for refugees. Although preparing a refugee strategy was one of the actions within the national settlement strategy for new migrants and the Government approved Immigration New Zealand's proposal to prepare the refugee strategy, this change in focus has affected the progress of the Settlement Strategy since 2009.

4.46
Although some progress has been made, we consider that several of the Settlement Strategy actions have not been completed since 2009. We outline this in more detail in Part 5.

4.47
Immigration New Zealand has acknowledged that improvements are needed to refocus and improve the effectiveness of the Settlement Strategy. It has identified that it is necessary to "strengthen INZ leadership of migrant and refugee settlement throughout government and non-government sectors within New Zealand".⁴ The Settlement Unit's 2010/11 and 2011/12 business plans indicated an intention to "refresh" the Settlement Strategy and action plan. In 2011, Settlement Unit staff prepared a proposal to make the settlement governance arrangements more effective. However, this proposal was not acted on.

4.48
Immigration New Zealand prepared the refugee strategy between 2009 and 2011, and sought Cabinet approval in 2011. This might have been an opportunity for Immigration New Zealand to clarify what the Government wanted it to do with Settlement Strategy and action plans.

4.49
However, we found no evidence of Immigration New Zealand seeking clarification about its role leading and co-ordinating the Settlement Strategy through that Cabinet process, and a proposal for an amended governance framework was not part of the Cabinet paper for the refugee strategy. We consider this a missed opportunity to clarify Immigration New Zealand's role in the Settlement Strategy and address any resourcing or implementation matters related to continuing to lead and co-ordinate the Settlement Strategy and action plans.

4.50
Although we find that the missed opportunity to get clarity has had a negative effect on progressing the Settlement Strategy, Action Plan, and the National Settlement Structure, Immigration New Zealand has advanced work for new migrants.

4.51
Immigration New Zealand prepared the Attraction and Retention Framework in 2011. This framework defines how Immigration New Zealand will facilitate the attraction and retention of high-value migrants in New Zealand. It is too early to tell how effectively this strategy is being put into effect because it is being rolled out. As part of supporting migrants to settle and work, Immigration New Zealand highlighted the need to strengthen how it leads migrant and refugee settlement throughout the government and non-government sectors.

4.52
Immigration New Zealand has progressed work to improve the information it provides to new migrants through websites as well as focusing on working with employers to overcome barriers that new migrants face in finding and settling into work (see Part 5). Although this work does not replace the need for an integrated whole-of-government strategy for new migrants' settlement and the objectives of the Settlement Strategy and the Settlement Secretariat as was intended, we acknowledge progress in these aspects.

Leading and co-ordinating regional strategies more effectively

4.53
The Auckland Strategy was prepared in 2006 and put into effect in 2007. The Wellington Strategy and action plan were launched in 2008.

Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy

4.54
According to the Auckland Strategy, settlement in Auckland is important for achieving New Zealand's economic goals. Auckland has broad and complex arrangements for Immigration New Zealand to co-ordinate and lead. Document reviews and evidence we collected from stakeholders involved in the Auckland Strategy indicate that co-ordination and leadership provided by Immigration New Zealand has not been effective in delivering a co-ordinated approach to settlement services in Auckland.

4.55
It is not clear whether there are enough resources and capability to deliver the Auckland Strategy. Because such a large proportion of new migrants initially settle in Auckland, several stakeholders and some staff we spoke with questioned whether Immigration New Zealand had enough resources (budget and staffing) in place to ensure that it had the capability to manage such a complex and important regional strategy.

4.56
Our interviews with Immigration New Zealand staff and other stakeholders involved in migrant settlement in Auckland indicated that many had concerns about how effectively the Auckland Strategy had been managed. Stakeholders told us that it is unclear what the Auckland Strategy has achieved other than raising awareness and getting organisations to collaborate more.

4.57
In March 2012, Auckland Council commissioned a research project looking into services provided to migrants and refugees. The research was based on comments by 90 people from organisations that receive funding for settlement work from central government, Auckland Council, philanthropic organisations, and other sources. The report indicated that settlement services in Auckland need to be better co-ordinated.

Ongoing change limits Auckland Strategy's effectiveness

4.58
Since 2007, when the Auckland Strategy and action plan were launched, a lot of time and resources have been focused on consulting on, reviewing, and updating the strategy, governance structures, and action plans. The creation of Auckland Council was notable in this. This repeated review and renewal of processes has probably diverted attention and resources from achieving results.

4.59
As a part of the review, Immigration New Zealand settlement staff consulted members of the Auckland Strategy Strategic Leadership Group in 2011. The Group's members called for a clearer "value proposition" and a new approach that would be able to show what difference was being made for improved regional settlement outcomes. When we carried out our audit, the new proposed governance structure for the Auckland Strategy and action plan work streams were in the early stages of being put into effect. It is too early for us to comment on the effect of the revised strategic approach and action plans.

4.60
Although the 2007 Auckland Strategy and action plan have not been formally evaluated, Immigration New Zealand settlement staff reviewed and reported on their first implementation in 2008. The report to Immigration New Zealand's senior executives identified three gaps. These were:

• not completing a monitoring framework;
• "insufficient integration across workstrands"; and
• "a lack of resources behind workstrand efforts".

4.61
The report said that the effect of these three gaps was "stalled actions and loss of impetus in key areas".

4.62
In 2009, Immigration New Zealand approved a new medium-term implementation framework for the Auckland Strategy and second action plan (2009-14). However, midway through 2010, the Auckland Strategy chairpersons identified that the governance structure was not working at the right level to support the framework and began another review.

Settlement outcomes in Auckland cannot be identified because of lack of evaluation framework

4.63
Because there is no evaluation framework and performance reporting of the Auckland Strategy, we cannot identify evidence or information about what Immigration New Zealand's work on settlement support in the Auckland region has achieved.

4.64
Settlement Unit staff identified the lack of an evaluation monitoring framework in 2008. To address this lack, the Migration Research, Evaluation and Analysis Team started to prepare an Auckland Settlement Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. However, this was not completed, and staff told us that a decision was made to discontinue work on it because it was no longer fit for purpose. Although we recognise the challenges of preparing and putting into effect an evaluation framework for a complex, multi-party strategy, this was a part of MBIE's role and was needed to show the value of the work towards achieving settlement outcomes.

Wellington Regional Settlement Strategy

4.65
The Settlement Secretariat's management of the Wellington Strategy has not been effective, resulting in a lack of clarity about mandate, the roles and responsibilities of members, and what outcomes have been achieved.

4.66
Groups that support the Wellington Strategy include:

• the Strategy Leadership Group;
• the Newcomers Advisory Group; and
• the Working Group of Action Leaders.

4.67
A member of the Settlement Unit and a local government representative co-chair the Wellington Strategy. The chief executive of Hutt City Council has recently replaced the chief executive of Porirua City Council as the local government co-chairperson.

4.68
As a part of our audit, we interviewed central and local government representatives involved in the Wellington Strategy. They expressed an interest in seeing reporting of outcomes achieved rather than reporting against individual milestones.

4.69
An independent review of the Wellington Strategy carried out in 2010 confirmed a lack of focus on outcomes. The review indicated that people struggled to identify what settlement outcomes had been achieved. Further to this, the review said that:

… the focus remains on monitoring the individual actions within the [action plan] and the extent of progress against individual milestones. As a consequence, the [Settlement Support Leadership Group] does not grapple with bigger questions such as: what outcomes are being achieved; are the actions still relevant; are there any gaps; does anything need to change?

4.70
The independent review also found that the distinctions between the groups and how they inter-relate were not clear. Feedback in the review questioned the effectiveness of the Settlement Secretariat's leadership.

4.71
Immigration New Zealand is aware of the need to strengthen its "leadership of migrant and refugee settlement across government and non-government sectors" as identified in its 2011 Attraction and Retention Strategy Framework. When this audit was being carried out, Immigration New Zealand had contracted another review of the Auckland Strategy and Wellington Strategy to identify ways to make its work co-ordinating the governance of settlement support with regional stakeholders more effective.

Using resources for settlement support better

4.72
There are strong indicators of potential duplication of services and resources at national and regional levels, and work has started to identify and address this.

4.73
One of the main objectives of having a whole-of-government strategy for settlement support was to make the most of resources to achieve settlement outcomes. As outlined in Part 2 and Figure 5, there are many complex funding streams and programmes for settlement support. We found strong indications that some services and resources for settlement support are duplicated. Several stakeholders who work with Immigration New Zealand on settlement support in the regions told us that events held by Settlement Support New Zealand can often be similar in nature to other events held by other organisations in the same area within a similar period. In a recent external review of the Settlement Support New Zealand delivery model, Settlement Support New Zealand co-ordinators reported that the replication of services and duplication of meetings with similar people from different organisations was a problem.

Information to inform efficient and effective targeting of resources not available

4.74
One of the intended outcomes of having a national settlement secretariat and national strategy was to better use public resources. We expected that Immigration New Zealand would have:

• prioritised having good information about resources for settlement support throughout government to effectively lead and co-ordinate the settlement strategy and oversee the review and administration of the Migrant Levy; and
• shown leadership and worked proactively with other stakeholders to rationalise and better target resources to achieve settlement outcomes.

4.75
However, Immigration New Zealand does not have a clear understanding of the public resources being used to support new migrants. Better financial information would help Immigration New Zealand target resources more effectively.

Work under way to prepare a common funding framework

4.76
There has been a positive change during the past year, and Immigration New Zealand has re-engaged the Settlement Strategy stakeholders to discuss a common framework for funding settlement services and activities throughout government.

4.77
In 2013, progress has been made to clarify whether duplication of services is a problem. In February 2013, the Settlement Unit held a meeting with some of the central government organisations involved in settlement work to discuss a "Common Funding Framework". This is intended to:

… focus effort on delivering value to Government and to migrants, clarify current perceptions about funding overlaps, enable broader understanding of settlement gaps and provide broader transparency for the funding of settlement services going forward.

4.78
Meeting attendees reported that:

… the Group thought that sharing information on their current settlement funding had been a worthwhile exercise, and identified some potential areas of overlap and opportunities for future collaboration.

4.79
Although we acknowledge that the work to prepare a more integrated approach to funding settlement work throughout government is a positive step, we expected that Immigration New Zealand would have prioritised this work early in its work leading and co-ordinating the national and regional strategies to ensure that the objectives of better use of resources was achieved.

3: The survey questions and results were included in Department of Labour (2007), Evaluation of the National Settlement Structure. Respondents had a choice of five answers: "Very well", "Well", "Neither well nor poor", "Poor", and "Very poor".

4: Attraction and Retention Framework, 8 September 2011 Briefing to the Minister of Immigration.