Editorial: Migrants still the lifeblood of economies

During fraught economic times, competition for jobs can have malign consequences. One of these is hostility to migrants, who are accused of stealing employment opportunities. Already, there has been evidence of this in Britain, with demonstrations outside oil refineries, and a reaction in Australia, where the migrant intake is to be slashed. Stirrings of a similar resentment have also begun in this country. It is to the Government's credit, therefore, that it has stated that not only will it not follow Australia's lead but it will make it easier for business and investor migrants to come here.

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman will be building on a repair exercise begun two years ago. This saw the previous Government removing obstacles placed in front of investor migrants in 2005 when it was spooked by an outbreak of Winston Peters-inspired anti-immigration sentiment.

The calamitous outcome was the almost total evaporation of investor migrants and their investment dollars. Now, Mr Coleman says that, within months, he intends to offer even greater encouragement by lowering English language requirements and bringing minimum investment levels to "more realistic levels".

There will be few qualms about continued improvements to the investment prescription, but the language requirement will always be controversial. Proficiency in English is often an important factor in determining the ease of settlement. But it must also be recognised that the market for rich investors lies in North Asia, where most people do not speak English. They can go elsewhere if the rules of entry here are too restrictive. On balance, this country has created a rod for its back by imposing too tough a language test.

Most importantly, the Government's intention signifies a consistent approach to immigration, and a departure from the stop-go approach that has blighted policy for many years.

Indeed, it is now Australia, the long-term beneficiary of steady immigration streams, that is guilty of this. Less than a year ago, the Rudd Government announced plans for the biggest annual lift in permanent and temporary migration since the 1940s as an antidote to labour shortages and an ageing population. Now, it will cut Australia's skilled migrant intake by nearly 20,000 to 115,000 this financial year.

This is being portrayed as a response to lay-offs in the mining industry and a downturn in the building industry. It is not, says Immigration Minister Chris Evans, xenophobic or an anti-migration response. Maybe not, but, even if that is so, it is astoundingly short-sighted. This is a recipe for skill shortages when demand returns. It also denies Australia the positive contribution delivered by migrants, such as their need for housing, their strong retail spending and the jobs created by their entrepreneurship.

The policy may be popular with those looking for a scapegoat for Australia's unemployment. But all governments should resist it, not only for the benefits derived from immigration but for the fact that the approach imprints the idea that migrants take jobs. Things are never that simple. And, at their core, such controls on migrant flows amount to nothing more than another form of protectionism.

This approach will inevitably rebound on Australia, and New Zealand could be one of the beneficiaries. Despite a rising unemployment rate, this country still faces a skills shortage.

Skilled workers who might previously have had Australia as their favoured destination could now come here. If so, New Zealand will not only profit now but be better placed when the global economy improves. Such are the advantages of a stable and welcoming immigration policy.