Editorial: Australia gaining more than it loses

Once it was the image of New Zealand "dole bludgers" sunning themselves on Bondi beach that irritated Australian politicians. Now, people from third countries who use New Zealand citizenship as a stepping-stone to Australia are apparently proving equally irksome. This "backdoor migration," and its impact on welfare costs, has prompted the Australian Government to deliver an ultimatum to Wellington. Either New Zealand pays a bigger share of the welfare bills of Kiwis living across the Tasman or those New Zealanders will lose automatic social welfare entitlements from next March.

The Government, having rejected a call for common immigration rules, seems by and large to have accepted the justness of the Australian position. Helen Clark says she is "not without sympathy" for Australia's stand, given the surge of New Zealanders crossing the Tasman during the 1998-99 recession. But only those who agree that Australia has the wrong end of the deal will accept that view. And just as New Zealanders' better-than-average employment rate finally killed off the dole-bludger myth, so there is much to suggest that Australia is still gaining more than it loses.

Much of the concern surrounding the "brain drain" has focused on the flight of our youngest and brightest. Each departure to Australia represents not only a loss of talent but an unproductive return on expensive, taxpayer-funded education. Australia has contributed nothing but reaps the benefit. And many of the migrants supposedly using New Zealand as a springboard represent valuable acquisitions.

It is verging on the ludicrous to suggest that large numbers of people from Asia, the Middle East and the Pacific Islands are queuing up to use our more liberal immigration guidelines to gain unrestricted access to Australia. Third-country migrants have to serve three years' citizenship here before they are eligible to live and work in Australia. Then they must spend a further two years there before qualifying for welfare benefits.

Citizenship after one year might represent a viable short-cut to Australia. Three years represents a major disincentive. In reality, many third-country migrants leave New Zealand frustrated at being unable to realise their ambition. The tales of doctors working as taxi-drivers and engineers as labourers are legion. Too often, foreign qualifications are not a passport to practise here. This is not only unfair to the migrants but a waste of a talent. Unsurprisingly, such people begin eyeing the more accommodating environment across the Tasman. Again, Australia is the beneficiary.

More fundamentally, Australia's action raises questions about the closer economic relations agreement. If there is a single labour market, why not a single safety net? From March, New Zealand workers will pay tax but receive none of the accepted benefits in return. Nothing in the terms or spirit of CER requires the two countries to have reciprocal social welfare. In some respects, however, that has been tacitly agreed. Such pacts can deliver unexpected responsibilities as much as unanticipated advantages. It appears that Australia's focus in this "special" relationship is now limited to what it perceives as advantageous.

The Australian Government estimates that half the 30,000 people who migrate from New Zealand each year might not qualify for permanent residency and, therefore, welfare. They would fall foul of "insufficient or inappropriate skills, health problems, quota restrictions and other reasons." The upshot, aside from a rush to settle in Australia before March to secure residency status, will surely be fewer unskilled people leaving these shores. Others will choose to come home between jobs in Australia or when they become ill. New Zealand's welfare bill will inevitably climb.

Australia will continue to attract - and accept - much of the cream from New Zealand's tertiary institutions. If that leaves a sour taste on this side of the Tasman, and casts a pall over CER, it is hardly surprising. Our politicians have argued, largely successfully over the past decade, that Australia does very well from those who migrate from this country. Now, however, the Australian argument has been bought. That suggests a certain logic to imposing the same conditions on the 5000 Australians who migrate here annually. Tit-for-tat, however, is a poor start to repairing a tarnished relationship.