The Government seems likely to pick up the Productivity Commission's key immigration inquiry recommendation around the issuing of a Government policy statement on immigration policy.
However, while the Government has responded favourably to most of the commission's 24 recommendations, it seems to have given short shrift to the idea of discontinuing the issuance of new Permanent Resident visas for new Residents and require new Residents to renew their Resident visas every six years.
The commission's final report into its inquiry into New Zealand’s long-term immigration settings was given to the Government nearly a year ago.
That final report recommended an Immigration Government Policy Statement (GPS) that would require governments to set a clear strategic direction for immigration policy. Governments would also be required to specify how the demand for temporary and permanent visas would be managed to reflect the country’s capacity to settle more people and how it would invest, if necessary, to expand that capacity. Ideally the GPS would look ahead for five to 10 years.
In its interim response the Government says on this recommendation that it "supports the intent" of it.
"There are opportunities to improve transparency over the strategic intent for the immigration system and to address the recommendations relating to the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in immigration policy settings and institutions," the Government says.
"...A GPS is an attractive option for bringing together the Government’s strategic intent for the immigration system, transparency and a link to absorptive capacity considerations."
The Government says officials also have work under way to identify how to better track the total number and composition of both temporary migrant workers and recent skilled residents.
"The aim is to inform choices about when settings might need to be adjusted. This work is at an early stage and involves considering relevant economic, labour market and other factors to identify whether there is an issue and what responses (immigration or non-immigration) may be appropriate. Officials will report back to Cabinet by mid-2023 with options."
Immigration Minister Michael Wood said the Government's priority is to improve how it communicates the goals for the immigration system and that it balances immigration policy objectives with broader government objectives, including how it manages demands on housing, education and health services that migration brings.
"I have asked officials to provide advice on what a Government Policy Statement (GPS) for the immigration system will look like. This will included targeted consultation on an initial outline of a GPS.
"We will also progress work on the commission’s recommendation for more engagement with mana whenua on how to reflect Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Ao Māori in immigration settings and institutions."
However in response to the recommendation of ending Permanent Residence Visas, the Government says it is "not considering" the recommendation "at this stage".
"While the recommendation has some merit, other priorities on the immigration policy work programme this year mean that consideration of this proposal will not occur before 2024," the Government says.
"The permanent resident visa policy settings have been in place since 2000 and strike the balance between ensuring migrants demonstrate an ongoing commitment to New Zealand and to make New Zealand an attractive destination for highly skilled migrants."
The commission's final report to the Government had said on this recommendation that New Zealand has large numbers of Permanent Resident visa holders offshore and it had said that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) had estimated that over 110 000 Permanent Resident visa holders had been overseas for at least six months at the end of February 2020 (just before the border closures due to the pandemic) with almost 80% of them being overseas for more than two years.
Moreover, Immigration New Zealand issued an average of around 40 000 residence class visas every year from 2011 to 2019.
"If this trend continues, another one million people will obtain New Zealand residency over the next 25 years – suggesting that the number of Permanent Resident visa holders living overseas is likely to reach 200 000 in a couple of decades.
"This situation increases the risk of future population volatility and makes planning for housing, infrastructure, and public and private services more difficult," the commission had said in its report.
The statement issued by the commission following release on Monday of the Government's interim response to the commission's final report made no reference at all to the recommendation that had been made about Permanent Resident Visas.
Commission chair Ganesh Nana said the interim response from Government "highlights general agreement with the recommendations made in the Commission’s final report".
"I am particularly heartened by the positive response to the need for a Government Policy Statement and look forward to seeing how the draft Statement will bring immigration objectives together with other government priorities around infrastructure investments and education and training," he said.
"I am also encouraged to see that there will be engagement with Māori and consideration of what Te Tiriti means for future immigration policies.
"While immigration is neither the cause of nor the solution to, New Zealand’s productivity woes, an immigration system fit for the future will be a vital part of lifting New Zealand’s productivity and improving the wellbeing of all New Zealanders - now and for generations to come."
42 Comments
The business model goes like this - immigrate to NZ and get Permanent Residency, buy up a ton of houses for investment purposes (mostly left empty), import your parents on a parental visa, and as soon as they qualify for the pension then leave for greener pastures overseas.
First place to start, is to stop the parental visas and ban the ones already here from ever getting pensions.
I disagree. Nothing is wrong with parental visas if they are properly financed (proof of a pension that is equivalent to NZ Super and adequate health insurance). My son's school lost a science teacher because he chose to return to Scotland so he could look after his elderly parents. It would have been better for NZ to bring them here. Similarly my American cousin married a Filipino professor of nursing and brought her mother to the USA - the mother had no other close relatives alive in the Philippines. NZ should permit similar.
Health insurance doesn't serve the purpose in NZ's health system from a capacity perspective.
Our private healthcare industry has insufficient capacity in primary care, A&E and elective surgeries. This means insured parents will still show up to the same GPs and public hospitals albeit for nontaxpayer-funded care.
Of course there should be no rorts. But the state cannot define what is genuinely critical except in a genuine unexpected emergency (for example my wife's stepson arrived as a consultant electrical engineer after the Christchurch earthquake. Nobody could have predicted the sudden need for a half-dozen experienced consultant electrical engineers).
Healthcare and education need qualified staff but using immigration to counter our govt's failure to train, pay and retain critical staff is no long-term solution. I'd be happy to recruit foreign medical staff if the pensions of past health ministers were cut equivalent to the degree of shortage. Increase pay and that might stop our staff going to Australia.
Let's define 'critical' staff by salary paid and/or cost of work permit. When I was working PNG I had no right to permanent residence and the work visa that was paid for by my employer was the equivalent to the annual salaries of two secondary school teachers. NZ should do the same then we would know if those 'skilled chefs' were really skilled.
You cannot revoke rights to pensions that have been offered - that would be unfair. Of course getting Super in NZ shouldn't be so easy. In the UK you get a fraction of the UK pension equivalent to the number of working years you have resided in the UK up to 30 years for full pension.
Of course. So long as you and your spouse have paid enough tax in the past eleven years to cover the present value of an annuity pegged to 60% of the average wage for say the thirty or so years you’ll probably be around for, and whatever medical expenses you might incur, naturally.
Otherwise as you say, bit of a rort isn’t it?
What you are not including in your statement here is the UK pension credit system. If you return to the UK after never contributing a cent you are entitled to the equivalent of the full pension providing you have less than 10,000 pounds in the bank, basically means tested against your savings. In the UK they do not exclude pensioners/retired from a decent standard of living based on pension contributions. It's complex but provides for everyone no matter what. I'm sure everyone would agree, you don’t want 80 year olds sleeping rough.
Thanks for the info. Half my working life I was overseas but I listened to my mother when I left the UK - she said a national pension was a wonderful thing and I should make voluntary contributions while working abroad. I do remember in 1970 having a Jewish Irish landlady who had lived in South Africa - she was getting ten fortieths of the UK state pension and said that was why she had to rent out her apartment.
You are correct. The parental visa was curtailed arbitrarily in I think mid-2016. No debate in parliament. It is a classic example of why it is so important that the transparency recommended by this report is achieved.
Clearly from the comments some of us want more parental visas and some want fewer and both have their arguments. But nobody wants such decisions made arbitrarily in secret and with no debate. Every such immigration policy decision should be weighed against the agreed stated aims of a national immigration policy.
Agree. Just can't stand when people can't bother to check the basic data on immigration but have time to go full-on commenting out-of-touch opinions. Getting the most likes tho, which is quite telling!
My partner and I are both eligible to bring our parents to NZ. Our household income is ~4x of average NZ household income, so we're pretty privileged. But guess what, none of our parents wants to move to NZ. And no, they never cared about receiving a pension here.
I mean, they visit us every year or two, and we have a good time showing them the beautiful places around, but... But stating that it's a common business model to come here, buy houses, bring parents and emigrate is ridiculous.
And you've done the same to prove the point? (Provided an opinion with no data).
As I said earlier, check the requirements for bringing parents to the country & check the number of parents & overall visas issued over the past years. Compare the numbers of overall immigrants vs the number of parents they brought vs the $$$ tax one household pays to be eligible to do so, and you'll see that NZ is getting a pretty good deal financially.
Happy to send you links to Immigration & Stats NZ websites if it helps. They have info there available.
Savage is not uncontrolled nor primitive. It is fierce and violent. When Victorians (especially missionaries) wrote about savages they were not necessarily thinking the people were primitive.
Woke is a word of shifting meanings - whether it is positive or negative depends on which of my two sisters I'm talking to. Incidentally they get on very well, converse several times each week and enjoy holidays together.
""the Government's priority is to improve how it communicates the goals for the immigration system"". This is essential otherwise INZ will remain unsurpassed for unfeeling bureaucracy and general incompetence. It must be such a terrible place to work when nobody knows what are the aims of the organisation.
I am concerned that the goal is to communicate the government's goals for immigration, but no discussion about talking to people to work out what they should be. It's been a mindless 'immigration good, immigration good' mantra for years. The productivity commission does more of this. However, they fail to take into account the impact of immigration on lower skilled New Zealanders.
Here is where the biggest pay rises have been, according to Seek | Stuff.co.nz Biggest pay increases are at the bottom of the ladder because there isn't endless cheap imported labour to drive down people's bargaining power. My uncle who works at a supermarket just got his first pay increase in 3 years.... because management were seeing people leave for better pay. All we hear is how hard it is for businesses, but people who suddenly find themselves with a smidgen of bargaining power are nowhere to be seen.
I'd agree with you. But we know many Kiwi businesses and many academics think differently. It would be great to have the subject debated without accusations of xenophobia (well except when it is xenophobia).
Covid among many other issues meant minimal immigration and the NZ economy didn't crash. Rents in Auckland CBD dropped dramatically. I even saw Caucasian's and PIs working among the Asian checkout operators (Auckland North Shore).
""The commission's final report was given to the Government nearly a year ago."" - it took a year to read it?
""The Government says officials also have work under way to identify how to better track the total number and composition of both temporary migrant workers and recent skilled residents."" and ""This work is at an early stage"". So after seventy years of very high legal immigration by international standards this work is still 'underway' but at an early stage!
This addiction to delay is characteristic of INZ. They took over six months to produce a visitor's visa for a friend's mother-in-law because she had the misfortune to be a Pacific islander. Yes it was a mere VISITOR's Visa. And INZ took three months processing my son-in-law who wanted to be in Auckland for the birth of my daughter's first child - the baby arrived on time but the basic Visitor's visa was two months late. He has forgiven and forgotten but I will never forgive INZ.
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.