Editorial: Let migrants live where they want to

The Immigration Minister is right: New Zealanders do not want to see skilled migrants driving taxis and cleaning offices. Reducing the likes of heart surgeons to jobs such as these does nothing to advance the country's economic wellbeing, the fundamental purpose of any immigration policy. Equally, the waste does nothing for the aspirations of the individual migrant. Each is bound to see New Zealand as a disappointment and to ponder fresh fields. There is, thus, much to commend an immigration policy that seeks to ensure that migrants have the right skills to fit available jobs. There will be even more to celebrate if, after more than a decade of policy flip-flops, this sensible approach becomes a consistent policy.

New Zealand's constant tinkering with immigration has undoubtedly been bad for its image overseas. Sometimes the manipulation of the migrant tap has reflected the ebb and flow of economic fortune. On other occasions it has represented a shortsighted reaction to xenophobia whipped up by an opportunist politician. At all times, it has been a source of confusion and controversy. A main requirement of the new policy will be that migrants not only have jobs but can prove they will be able to settle and contribute to society. People likely to be offered residence quickly are those with job offers who show they can adapt to our lifestyle, perhaps because they have studied or worked here in the past. A smooth absorption will clearly benefit both the migrant and the country.

But the acid test will be whether the policy's greater selectivity results in a migrant shortage. Moving from an application-based system to one of invitation may present few problems during times of prosperity. The key is whether the tap dries up when the economy falters. Such times see greater emigration by New Zealanders and, if immigration cannot compensate, there is potential for a net population decline. Remedying that would inevitably mean yet further tinkering to encourage more migrants.

Certainly, one aspect of the new policy cannot stand. Any attempt to induce more migrants to settle outside Auckland is futile. The appeal of taking pressure off the city's groaning infrastructure is obvious, but several facts are being ignored. First, Auckland's growth is driven as much by the inflow of New Zealanders as migrants. Secondly, the chosen method - rewarding potential migrants with bonus points if they have an offer for a skilled job anywhere outside Auckland - has inherent flaws.

How, for example, are migrants going to be kept from quickly shifting to Auckland once they are in the country? Is a bond or some other form of contract proposed? There is plenty of experience to show how fraught this would be. Worse still, the bonus-point plan could result in this country losing out on valuable talent. Is it proposed to block the entry of an eminent heart surgeon - and allow in a person of far lesser skill - because the work on offer is at Auckland Hospital? That makes no sense.

The Government must forget this misguided attempt at social engineering. Skill shortages exist in Auckland, as elsewhere. If overcoming these in a more rational and more effective manner is the ambition of the new policy, there can be no favouritism. Because it is distortionary, the Auckland clause will at some stage have to be retracted. And that will lead to further accusations of chopping and changing.

The damage can be averted only if the clause is removed forthwith. That would allow what appears to be a reasonable framework for a consistent policy to be given the chance to prove its worth. And, if successful, to keep proving its worth.