The ACT Party is proposing major changes to the immigration system in its Immigration Policy, released at a function in Hamilton on Thursday.
Two of the key changes involve freeing up visas for workers and the parents of existing migrants.
It would scrap the existing temporary work visa scheme and replace it with a fee-based scheme that aims to make migration more demand driven.
Under its proposals, employers wishing to sponsor a migrant to work for their business would pay a levy to do so. The levy would be the same for all employers regardless of their industry and could be adjusted up or down from time to time.
There would be no requirement for migrants to work in specific industries to obtain a work visa. Instead the Government would rely on the cost of the levy to act as a market mechanism to regulate work migrant flows.
"Instead of passing a labour market test or hoping to get on a government-devised list, employers pay a simple levy at the point of sponsoring a migrant," ACT's Immigration Policy document says.
"The advantage of a price system is that employers can assess whether it's worth paying the fee or hiring locally, instead of the bureaucracy trying to decide which employers deserve workers," it says.
ACT will also make it easier for migrants with NZ residency to bring their parents to live in this country.
NZ already has a parent visa scheme but this was suspended because many of the parents coming had high healthcare needs which was putting pressure on the health system. The Government has just reopened the scheme but with a cap of 2500 parent visas a year.
ACT's policy is to remove the cap, but require all people coming into NZ on a parent visa to make mandatory contributions to a bespoke public health insurance scheme.
Parents of migrants would not be eligible for free healthcare until they had been in NZ for 20 years.
ACT's policy document does not say whether the mandatory health insurance scheme would be provided by existing health insurance providers, or whether the Government would set up its own.
The comment stream on this story is now closed.
110 Comments
"The advantage of a price system is that employers can assess whether it's worth paying the fee or hiring locally, instead of the bureaucracy trying to decide which employers deserve workers," it says.
Clearly the fee is going to be so low that it will always be worth paying the fee rather than hiring locally. The fee should be dynamic and set at the cost of training a worker locally for the particular job they are hiring for. The only reason we should be importing workers is where we genuinely can't find someone to do the work.
This will be massively abused. essentially it’s offering visa’s for cash, because it won’t be the employer paying the fee it will end up being paid by the worker.
Basically if the fee is less than the difference in what someone can earn in their home country, vs what they can in NZ, then they will pay the fee.
So for NZ employers it will always be worth bringing in a worker if they will work for less (or put up with worse conditions etc) as the cost will be zero.
I'm seeing a shortage of teachers, parents at my daughters school are unhappy about the very strict teacher who replaced the unvaxxed one that lost her job. Most of the teachers at the other nearby school are still in training and not yet qualified. In this case the employer is govt. hopefully for the sake of kids who have already fallen behind because of the lockdowns, govt. can sort this quickly. This is not an abstract future problem, education is a very important factor for the future of any child.
...."unhappy about the very strict teacher"..... Must be by today's standards. Probably the same "strictness" as most teachers 40- x years ago, pick a number.
100%.
The problem we seem to have at the moment is there are effective two camps of employers who are angling for importing labour:
- Employers who need skills that genuinely cannot be found in the labour pool here in NZ (I have a couple of clients in this camp, e.g. one who needs engineers trained in a specific type of robotic automation. They are hiring juniors from NZ and training them up but they need people with existing skills now as well in order to continue delivering for their customers. They are offering excellent salaries and benefits but the talent simply isn't here in NZ yet)
- Employers who simply want to undercut the local wage/employment market, by importing cheap labour - often with reciprocity in the sense that the worker knows they are being exploited, but can then bring their family here etc.
I have genuine sympathy for employers/businesses in the first camp. The problem is that the employers in the second camp (who seem to be the majority) have ruined it for everyone else.
If we are going to have a "pay to play" immigration model as ACT proposes, then the fee would need to be dynamic and sufficiently high, but I would also suggest that the fee should be higher for jobs that would be easier to fill domestically.
For example, maybe its $50k to import a skilled robotic engineer, but $100k to bring in a bottle store worker. The big challenge then becomes how do you ensure that the employer is paying, and not just the employee being forced to pay it back - you'd need some mechanism to crack down on this, and remove the privilege of using the system from any employer that abuses it.
The kick-back rort is common today. The levy would not make it any worse. If an employer is willing to pay $50k to bring in a skilled robotic engineer then they will be paying that person generously - at least the going international wage - at a guess $200k pa so even if the employee does either reimburse his employer or accepts a lower wage it is no big deal since no Kiwi suffers.
I got curious about this the other day.
I went on seek and searched for "apprenticeship" in Napier.
There was one- a diesel mechanic cadetship.
Just one apprenticeship! I didn't bother to look at other regions.
No wonder kids are joining the gangs.No wonder we have a skills shortage.
Employment for young kids is through the roof, and many apprenticeships pay less than minimum wage.
Builders take on 16 year old as apprentices on a contract basis. And yeah at well below minimum wage.
It's a rort and I don't understand why the govt/MBA/ ITO's don't do something to sort this mess out.
The photo at the top is taken at a Chinese immigration point. I wonder why this is? Surely we have a photo of a NZ immigration point, which is more relevant, since we're talking about foreigners (of any nation) immigrating to NZ.
It is not Chinese. It is Japanese.
Quite right, I stand corrected, thanks. The basic point still stands though.
Its a topic based file photo. Who really cares?
It's a stock file photo of Narita Airport, which is free to be used or shared without license from Wikimedia.
If you have had a chance to visit any hospitals lately, its eye opening the amount of elderly Chinese in the waiting rooms. I also noted that almost none of them spoke English, which would be the main indicator as to the amount of tax they paid in NZ over their lifetimes...for clarification "none". Not bagging Chinese people, have many as friends, both born and raised here and recent arrivals. Merely pointing out a a fact from from a recent hospital visit. Its always possible that Mondays and Tuesdays is some secret regular elderly Chinese peoples day...
If NZ is subsidising the health costs of elderly Chinese immigrants well that is the fault of our past immigration policy. It was being commented on when I arrived in 2002. It has been tightened up since. Our govt has to do is learn from the past and produce a sensible policy. Most but not all of the common objections to our rapid rate of immigration would dissolve if every immigrant could hand on heart assure any Kiwi who asks that he is on average to be a bigger asset than cost to NZ.
One doesn't need to single out Chinese parents. It's any immigrants parents. Winston is one of the few if only politician to rail against this. Unfortunately as is usual with Winston he doesn't achieve very much when acting as the handbrake. His handbrake is full on before elections but seems to drastically ease off after he has himself a cushy job and enjoying the baubles of office.
When I was an expat in PNG and my bright Papuan junior colleagues grumbled about my massive salary I could tell them (a) that the cost of my work permit would be paying for two teachers and (b) that when they could localise my job I would be leaving. That work permit charge was a major incentive to my employer to train locals. And I was taxed top band at 48%.
And when they receive NZ Super they get to keep their Chinese pension where folk from most other nations have to hand it in or get it deducted. How stupid are we?
Very.
its eye opening the amount of elderly Chinese in the waiting rooms
Averageman, how do you know they are all Chinese?
Yvil, do you suspect he used the same indentification method as you used for the file image above?
Yes we dont want the parents !!
ACT will lose Epsom if migrants can't bring parents.
The ACT fans are going to be tieing themselves in knots? Act policy good. Migrants, and especially their parents, bad. What to do?
Oh they can bring parents but they will not qualify for NZ Super or free mediacal care, so who will be able to afford that?
A stand down for medical costs seems reasonable to me.
It won't work though. When these people are 85 and they break there hip. If they lack the money who will pay for it? The tax payer. Also a lot of elderly people need serious healthcare & support in there final few years. Who will pick up the tab when there children take off to Australia? The tax payer.
There is no way the NZ is going to deport and 85yo with serious health issues. So if the kids take off the tax payer will be left with the burden.
The only reason Act is pushing this policy is that there are a lot of wealthy immigrants in Epsom/Remuera. These people would naturally like to bring there parents over. This is all well and good but at the end of the day the NZ middle class tax payer can not afford this burden.
The medical insurance which they have to get in order to comply with the visa, will pay for it.
But they get to a point where they can'/won't pay for there medical insurance. It gets obscenely expensive at a certain point. But the govt can just send a bill right? Wrong. Because they have no assets in there name. Every thing has gone into a trust. Make them bankrupt? That won't happen. The NZ govt is too soft. Tell me again how many people who were meant to by for Covid quarantine actually paid for it. Besides does an 85yo care if they get made bankrupt? Well why not just bill the kids right? Kids are gone, they live in Australia or Singapore. Besides everything is in a trust. Deport them? Can't do that, human rights etc etc.
This is just pork barred politics from Act. It will benefit wealthy migrants and cost the middle classes.
Keep the proposal but add on a condition the kids must put up a 2 million bank bond per parent to be made out in favour of the NZ government for maintenance of their parents. I think that would be fair on the NZ taxpayer.
Very simple, you can ask them to prepay, like a bond before they come.
Not everyone reaches 85; not everyone has medical conditions. A sufficient levy invested by a wise govt will pay for the medical costs if needed say 20 years later.
... I'm an ACT fan , and I'm not trying myself up in knots ... ... I pay a dominatrix to do that for me ...
Change dominatrix GBH, use one who can actually tie you up rather than just try to do it, it's more fun!
... ahhh ... foiled by the predictive text doohickie , again ... no regerts ..." tying "... yay , got it ...
This levy would appear very much open to abuse by various sectors in the workplace.
Yeah , and setting up bogus employers to "pay" the levy, and bring in whoever can afford it . Probably get a dairy with 500 employees.
Yeah, surely they see this potential for abuse, so they must have another reason for promoting such a "fee-for-all".
Makes sense in theory to be used in place of caps. If an occupation is overrepresented among visa applicants, the fee should go up to make it less economical to hire from overseas.
You can expect a country like Singapore to do this well but I have limited faith in the short-termist NZ political classes.
Also, the fees should be high enough to cover the infrastructure cost from the resultant population increase and be put into the Treasury's capital envelope. I am sure our pollies would like to get their hands on this to bribe voters instead.
I'm still not sure why we need immigrants parents? Cheap childcare for their children?
Companies paying a levy is a good policy - but is it, like the current system, a one time thing, or per employee?
I had a discussion with INZ a few years ago about this, because it turned out once a company had permission to sponsor a worker, it could only be revoked if they were convicted of pretty much slavery. Which meant all companies had to do was say they couldn't find a NZer to do the job - which was terrible given HRs like to assess people based on 'cultural fit' rather than ability (at least in the high-end tech field).
I argued that a company should not be able to reject people on 'cultural fit' and then claim they couldn't find a skilled worker - and I would like to see a system where people who are rejected on such grounds can report the company and the company loses their ability to sponsor. Cultural fit != skill set.
PS. I employed immigrants whilst I ran my company, and I paid them a higher hourly rate than myself, as I quite literally had no NZ applicants! So I'm not against immigration - if our government were actually doing their job and maintaining infrastructure and critical services effectively, I would be all for an open door policy. But you can't put the horse before the cart.
I know people who hired an IT Guy (from India or straight out of a business school level 15 queen street etc ) paid him a salary of 35k for two years so he could qualify for NZ residence, The deal was the guy paid half back in cash, ie they where selling residency, it was not uncommon, I know a few of these situations. this was why that english lang / business school shit was so profitable, it was ALL REALLY a buy a visa scam and EVERYONE knew as much. Hence why these people struggled to integrate into NZ corporate jobs, where some understanding of your speciality is required.
This happens at the Indian restaurant opposite us. Full change of staff every 6 months. No shortage of staff there.
Yes, I and my business friends had stories of interesting applicants like that.
My favourite still was the cover letter that said "I don't know your tech stack, but I can do your job", and the CV listed a dodgy overseas qualification that was equivalent to NZQA levels 3-5 [they didn't specify which level they did either]. Which apparently was enough to get into Waikato's Master's programme... but no, they couldn't do my job.
It was a very embarrassed recruitment consultant when I asked "did you actually read their application?".
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that HR reject applicants due to ‘cultural fit’ rather than ability? I understand it is extremely difficult to determine the real reasons behind turning an applicant down. This information is a closely guarded secret normally.
Must be able to pass a drug test, valid full drivers licence, no criminal record etc.
Trust me, people have a range of things they aren't 'supposed' to be able to decline hiring someone for. The issue its that the decision makers make these decisions behind closed doors so it does happen, the applicant simply gets told some waffle for why they aren't selected. People at leadership level in many govt sectors will hire on fit, e.g hire people of different ethnicities who have less experience because it will make the office more diverse, instead of hiring on merit alone.
It may depend on your industry, perhaps. When you have a multi-stage interview process, which includes technical tests you get to see the results in, it's fairly obvious where and why you fail. Bar of course the phone-call, letters explaining "your skills are exceptional|you tested well above the requirements for the job, but we think you would have a personality clash with the boss|you wouldn't be a good fit for our team|we don't think this career pathway would fit you", etc., which are always fun.
Also, I have fun discussions with my cousin who is an HR Manager for a very large multinational about this. She hates most of what HR does - says its full of incompetent people on power trips.
Making them pay for healthcare is one thing (and who is going to play debt collector?) but it still doesnt stop them from clogging up the hospital system, surgical waiting lists and taking all the aged care beds. We dont have any spare capacity in the healthcare system to go gung ho on importing an unlimited number of elderly people. Until the healthcare and aged care systems are substantially overhauled and fixed, the parent visa should be suspended again.
Survey of GPs just released show most of them aren't coping and are burnt out. One example of many. ACT need to address such issues before admitting more people.
Opening the floodgates is the reason I can't vote for ACT despite them making a lot of sense in other areas. The long term damage to our our quality of life and environment from overpopulation is too much to ignore.
There are plenty of capacities in the private health sector. It is only the public system that's clogged up.
I am an ACT supporter. But this immigration policy is so bad. I want to see a population policy - with a capped number.
I was an ACT supporter, but they've thrown away every libertarian policy they had in an effort to become a generic centre-right National-lite - presumably to capitalise on the Nat's ongoing leadership debacles. There's just nothing substantive to differentiate them anymore.
I'm sure you don't mean exporting people when the population cap is reached.
No I don't. Quit the jokes.
This is good. I like a lot of this. Much better than ACT's former immigration policies and is actually similar to Michael Reddell's idea. Providing of course that the levy was high enough. $20,000 per migrant, but paid by the employer (but how to enforce this)?
$20,000 - possibly small change if you can pretty much automatically get in and later merrily bring in your parents - and from the sounds of it sums of $20,000 or thereabouts are already used in the employer/employee roundabout.
Yes $20k is less than the money paid to immigration agents in country of origin. Less than the fees at a pseudo-tertiary college. less than airfares plus rent. Something nearer $100k. It could be temporarily adjusted for specific high need jobs (GPs, care nurses).
In 2003 I applied for residency and was told I needed $200k to met the point count. I was and remain stunned that they meant I had to have it in the bank not actually give it to the govt of the people of New Zealand. Madness.
20k would be too low - that would still push local incomes down.
100k feels about right to me - not too expensive if you actually have a business case for the employee, but high enough to make locals more attractive. Maybe inflation adjusted..
I stand corrected. Yes, it needs to be high enough so that it's worth the employer's while and there's a business case for it but not so low that the migrant worker isn't exploited like so many chefs and farm workers are that we hear about in the media.
Mechanisms to sort out exploitation? Payment made by the business before the visa is issued? It's then on the business to ensure the worker is happy so they don't take off for another job. Because bonding wouldn't be a good move. That's when exploitation happens - the worker can't speak out because they fear deportation.
You can exploit a low paid worker doing a low paid job. Try exploiting a consultant electrical engineer or experienced computer professional or a GP.
That was my point. If it's high enough it won't be worth bringing in a low paid person because they'll just leave for a place with better conditions.
In some small businesses where the business model relies on imported labour (typically from the home country of the business owner) the migrant would ultimately pay the $20,000 levy. A rogue employer will require a payment in cash when the migrant gets the visa and/or residency. This is not uncommon in some Vietnamese nail salons as an example ($40,000 in cases I am aware of). Currently the "accredited employee" system is being introduced to limit this activity, but the system remains open to abuse due to lack of enforcement, and penalties are insufficient, and cultural pressure is applied by the employer against the migrant, and of course the migrant is also bending the rules so has no incentive to speak out. I cannot see ACT's proposed policy solving this problem.
The last time I checked there were under 30 labour inspectors employed by the INZ. And when I asked if they ever checked IRD returns against residency visas I was told it was impossible because of our privacy laws (it isn't in Australia). I hope someone can tell me this has changed.
"Instead the Government would rely on the cost of the levy to act as a market mechanism to regulate work migrant flows."
So does their policy have any total numerical target of annual migrants, or any targets in terms of work place type or skill sets - do ACT have a population policy or is it swing the door wide open and see what happens.
Last time that happened we were getting just shy of 100,000 per annum - is that what ACT want?
Making mandatory contributions to a bespoke public health insurance scheme - all very good but you are still going to require beds, staff and facilities to actually provide the services to a group that already high health care needs - how is that going to be provided for?
And since we are short of aged care staff, we will have to import more foreign aged care workers to service all those migrant parents. Then the new migrant workers will want to import their elderly parents, so we will need to import more aged care workers to look after them, and so on and so on.
The 'aged-price' spiral?
At present NZ has over 35,000 in care homes. That is 7 in every 1,000 of our population. So bring in 500 aged care staff each with their two parents and eventually as these parents age it will mean those 500 new care staff will be responsible for 7 decrepit people unable to look after themsleves. No big deal and from what I've seen of the best of our aged care nurses they will look after them at home for as long as possible.
You cant work full time and look after a dependent aged parent. If they have permanent residency they can quit their job and go on the Supported Living Benefit to look after their parents, like many New Zealanders do, but in that case you will have to import another worker (and their parents) to take their place.
"employers ....would pay a levy...."
Sure they would. One way or another, the employee would pay.
Don't bring in a levy and we all pay.
so if auckland hospital needs 100 nurses at 20k they would have to find 2 mil as i understand this logic.
meanwhile some liquor store will go through worker after worker
too many fish hocks in this policy for good employers that need staff
I guess this is another way to reduce immigration to the wealthy only. The ones where they can afford to pay their parents healthcare insurance. How many not so well off immigrants would be keen to apply given these restrictions. I suppose it will appeal to those who oppose immigration and believe in ‘user pays’. I like the idea of charging a fee high enough to encourage recruitment and training of a local for an applicant company.
""another way to reduce immigration to the wealthy only"" - good!
Of course the general public is entitled to sponsor poor immigrants. I can imagine some poor Pasifica being sponsored by church groups. And why not?
It's jolly good that he returned to do what is expected of him. We don't need elderly people coming here. The deal should be parents don't get a free pass. It's not being callous on our part.
Ahh yes housing crisis but let's open doors to more foreigners. I'm in my early 20's and NZ has such a sad futuristic outlook, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
Was quite a strong ACT supporter but somethings do not make sense. Maybe a change in vote.
The rationale behind this policy is that the current system of officials picking which skills are needed is not working. If anyone who can't get the skilled workers from NZ can afford the fee, they can get the skills in. This is good, because ACT is right about this aspect. The devil will be in the detail. For this policy to work there should be a salary minimum so the people who get abused like chefs and farm labourers won't be eligible.
Lmao if you think officials actually pick what goes on the skills shortage list.
I don't get the parent thing. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but as an Englishman I wouldn't expect to bring my parents over to any place I settled in. They stay in the Old Country.
Pretty sure its the sons cultural role to look after the parents. This is a good thing that kiwis could take a lesson from in many cases. Also why there was a high pregnancy termination rate for daughters under the one child policy. My only beef would be that its at the expense of NZ taxpayers.
This is a good thing that kiwis could take a lesson from
We all got together and agreed to buy each others parents houses off them at stupid prices so they could retire in comfort while we worked an extra decade to pay it off, I'd say they are pretty well taken care of.
well they can go back home and look after them or send funds - are we importing 60 yo with 80 yo parents? maybe we should be aiming for under 30's or 40's max.
If an 80yr old came to NZ they would be paying a significant health insurance cost which would be required so they do not cost the health system. The issue we have currently is capacity which cannot support the extra people let alone the current population
A few years ago my son's maths teacher at a reputable Auckland school left NZ to return to Scotland so he could look after his elderly parents. We will lose good people and retain the poor and the callous.
My vote is to ACT now. Thanks David Seymour.
... me too ... only ACT & TOP appear to have policies designed to improve our lives in NZ ...
Labour & Gnats seem hell bent on bribing their way into power ...
Raf Manji, new leader of TOP, is a complete tool. TOP today is not the TOP we all knew and loved from a few years ago.
... no ... the standard for being " a complete tool " was set by Trevor Mallard ...
Raf's not even one tenth of the way to mallardodium ...
Wikipedia: ""Mallard's new position as New Zealand Ambassador to Ireland had a salary between NZ$180,000 and NZ$250,000. In addition, Mallard was entitled to accommodation and two trips home over the three-year appointment. In response, ACT Party leader David Seymour criticised Mallard's diplomatic appointment as an example of bad behaviour being rewarded.""
It isn't a core matter who is in charge of TOP, but the policies they would implement, a party can always rid themselves of a poorly presented leader, but the core party values and policies are of real importance
By the time ACT get in with the Nats, NZ will be deep in a GFC style recession, if you think hospo are int rouble now, by then they will be propper f$%ked.
Tourism and Queenstown will be in a simillar position, It's highly unlikely only NZ will enter this GFC like recession (Tho ours may be prolonged due to a deeper housing collapse, German and the UK look pretty propper f$%ked to me as well) so Tourism will be well down. All those AirBnBs in Queenstown will be back on as rentals.
China are so over leveraged on property and building I do not even have an adjective to put in front of f$%ked. Anyway they will still be locked down by next year.
NZ will lose the GDP from tourism and residential construction, furniture and appliance sales, and much of hospo, leaving Agriculture / Diary etc.....
And this government want to drive 20% lower herd numbers .......
I think there will be a lot of construction workers willing to do whatever job they can get, even at minimum wage when push comes to shove people will do anything they can to survive, and you cannot make mortgage payments on dole....
I like ACT but think this is a somewhat cynical slap at Labours immigration policy , that will never need to be enacted once in power. Winstone was good at this. Perhaps its been misrepresented here so I will go look for more analysis. Bringing in a lot of elderly people is NUTS.
The employer should be made to pay for the full consequences of adding an extra person to our population.
I.e. the share of all infrastructure, schools, hospitals roads etc. They should also be required to build a new house to house the new immigrants, because we already do not have sufficient of them for our existing population. in other words 10's if not 100's of thousands of dollars.
At the moment employers are bringing in low wage workers because they will not pay an adequate wage for Kiwi workers. The rest of the Kiwi population is having to pick up the tab for all these consequential costs or suffer the their deficits as we are all experiencing.
It is the employed Kiwi who picks up the tab. Worst of all is the unemployed Kiwi who is kicked in the teeth every time a low paid immigrant takes a low skill job.
Im not in favor of any of it .. I would however be in favor of importing wealth into NZ (100 M plus) I dont see the highly skilled folk the Act party imagines and would rather see our educational system(s) adapt to better cater too NZers . I dont doubt that there are some skill categories that are in need of filling but these shortages could be met with better training and education options within NZ. I would rather see more tutors/ trainers and cheaper access to education . Reason is unless these sectors are adjusted to demand, the expectation to import skills will just continue . Something needs to change and its the way we attract locals into our workforce. Importing skilled workers sounds good but if you think about how many imports we already have in many of our industries the results are just not as spectacular as our politicians would have us believe. The way we regulate our industries could do with a review ... Im thinking we have more mis-managers than managers presently...and dare I say it, Is this the mis-managers way of compensating ? Local and larger government leave much to be desired ,it is no small wonder that all is not as it could be in NZ. We must have one of the most frustrating environments any new entrepeneur faces. Regulations bury many aspiring at paperwork stage (the math doesnt make it viable) . Lets not talk about how greedy some folk in NZ are and the effect this has on our overall economy we can leave that for another day...lol
So if you pay the levy and the migrant quits, is there a refund?
Should be but partial. The levy could be paid annually until the immigrant becomes a citizen.
what the heck? why are parents included? let them repatriate funds to support their parents in their current homes. I left home at 17 and my parents had to fend for themselves - lol
Yeah it's weird. The whole point of this immigration is to import ready trained and experienced workers to hit the ground running and be able to pay taxes to support the parents of Kiwis already here.
we already have 870k people collecting the super why not add to it so we hit the mil,
the cencus has 55 % of people living in auckland central as being born overseas, soon that will spread to other parts of auckland
this is bad policy,
im not against immigration but first let's train our own young people, then fill places that cannot be filled in the short term or specialist skills are required. and have some balance between immigration and local training and need
i have heard too many times we cannot get workers (even from my own job) and 9 times out of 10 if is due to pay and conditions, workers are going where that is better whether it be here or in other countries, this has been a long term issue created by lazy government after lazy government doing away with all sorts of training setups
Try leaving home at 17 in NZ today and paying huge rent on mediocre pay with high transport, food and power costs - there's a good reason so many stay with the folks for years, they'd never get anywhere otherwise with their income eaten up by essentials
Is there even a single solitary political party that doesn't worship at the alter of low paid foreign workers? Everyone thinks devaluing voters wages is a good idea.
One would think the Greens might be that party but apparently not.
They seem to equate low- moderate levels of immigration intakes with xenophobia…
You are damned either way.
Suppresed wages from increased competition.
Higher taxes from a lower tax base paying for an increasing number of dependents. And stuff just doesn't get done.
No. They all want unfettered immigration, they just want it for different reasons. The Left wants open borders to facilitate the easy movement of people from third world countries to developed countries to mitigate inequality and poverty, enhanced multiculturalism (just dont mention assimilation), all in the aim of building a WEF/UN ideological global Govt entity. The Right wants unlimited access to cheap labour and skills they don't have to pay for. Anyone who complains about either the Left or the Right immigration policy will immediately be branded a racist, and shut down, like Dick Smith in Australia.
I dont agree with ACT on much, but fee based immigration is the right way to go.
It needs to be covered by:
a) a population strategy that seeks to maximise the wellbeing per capita of NZ (economic+social+environmental outcomes). The population strategy would set the required migration quota to meet this outcome.
b) employers would have to bid to bring in an immigrant as part of the quota. This allows the market to set the price of the fee and the decision sits with the employer whether to bid that price, offer an existing worker a higher salary or to train up someone new.
c) strong monitoring to ensure that the immigrant doesnt end up having to pay the fee (the monitoring fee would be included in the immigrant fee)
This approach would allow the absurd government bureaucracy that currently sets the job categories etc for immigration to be disbanded & thus cheaper overall for NZ.
Sensible.
While I agree with the majority of your premise, I can never support anything that tries to gauge wellbeing as a metric and especially when it is used for important decisions and formulas. Using wellbeing as a metric can be manipulated in any way fit to prove a point of those implementing it and sets a dangerous precedent for what those higher up in both business and government can do. For example some could say they put in a government pay freeze in 2020...."but the wellbeing of our workers increased through x, y, and z being implemented so we are doing a great job". Textbook Labour practices filtering through
Hi, No.
The wellbeing has to measured across the whole of NZ, not for a specific group.
ACT revealing itself as the part of the People Farmers. Pay a modest fee for the right to bring in a Modern Slave. Modern Slaves are great. They pay their own way to the country of work and they pay their own food and accommodation expenses as well. If you are really lucky you get to sell them the food and accommodation as well at an inflated price to claw back some of that 40 hours of pesky minimum wage you had to pay them for the actual 60 hours you forced them to work.
That describes the Immigration NZ has seen for the last 20 years. Check prof Stringer's report on worker exploitation (Dec 2016). However does not apply to professors, GPs, Surgeons, Electrical and Civil Engineers, etc. Paid enough combined with a more than modest visa fee and this 'modern slavery' will disappear.
Those people would have a virtually guaranteed pathway under the skilled migrant points based system on basis of pay rate and qualifications. No need to charge anyone a fee. But unfortunately there is a real global market for those skills and NZ may not be able to attract them vs other countries with potentially better living standards.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.