Lianne Dalziel: Immigration policy shift long overdue

Contrary to a Herald editorial, the Government has not strenuously denied that its "sudden crackdown on immigration" has anything to with the agitation of you-know-who.

What we have strenuously denied is any "sudden crackdown on immigration". There has not been one. What we are doing is reviewing an 11-year-old points system and its criteria to ensure immigration works for New Zealand and migrants.

We all know that the leader of New Zealand First has been beating the anti-immigration drum and that in New Zealand, as elsewhere, there is an audience for that.

Winston Peters claims, of course, that his rhetoric is not aimed at any one group but at overall numbers.

Our message to him is that the Government's announcement is not aimed at reducing numbers. It is about ensuring that those who come under the general skills category are meeting labour force needs, rather than having a 30 per cent unemployment rate, as is the case at present.

The changes apply what we know about how well people settle when they are able to get work in line with their qualifications or experience, and translating that knowledge into the criteria for residence.

It's a win-win. It's good for the migrant whose expectations are met or exceeded, and it's good for New Zealand because we get the people we need to drive our economy and development.

In uninformed commentary on the changes, there has been an assumption that people from English-speaking backgrounds will replace people from non-English-speaking backgrounds. That is not necessarily so.

The changes mean that people who have modest levels of English will be replaced by people with greater competency in English, and, as a result, more migrants will do better, regardless of where they come from.

The poorer the English, the poorer the chance of qualified employment. The poorer the chance of qualified employment, the poorer the prospect of successful settlement.

If it means people have to increase their language skills before they get residence, then that must be a good thing.

The Government has been working on these issues in a systematic way over the past three years.

It has been informed by the business community about the skills that business cannot find locally, and specifically by the substantial report received last year from LEK Consultants on the talent needed for economic development.

Changes introduced so far include:

* New settlement programmes (including skill-based job-matching such as the Auckland Chamber of Commerce website www.newkiwis.co.nz).

* Changes to the immigration programme so that at least 60 per cent of places are allocated to the skilled/business stream.

* Regional immigration scheme pilots in the Wellington region and in Clutha-Southland to encourage potential migrants to consider opportunities outside Auckland.

* Work-to-residence policies, including the Talent Visa, which allows accredited employers to access the global labour market, and the Priority Occupations List Work Permit.

Changes like these show the high priority the Government attaches to realigning immigration policy with settlement results, rather than having the narrow focus on numbers which was implicit in the unmodified points system of the 1990s.

We have been reviewing all aspects of immigration policy, and implementing changes in the process.

It is simply absurd to attribute changes like those announced this week to xenophobic pressure from New Zealand First. They are outcomes of the continual review of policy which has been under way since the Government was first elected in 1999.

The decision on the English-language tests is based on the knowledge that language competence holds the key to successful engagement and settlement in a new country.

Business migration policies also needed to change.

I was appalled at the results of the Evaluation of the 1999 Business Immigration Policy. It found that most business migrants were unavailable or unwilling to engage in the evaluation of the policy; that 98 per cent of investor migrants put their money in the bank for two years to meet the criteria and then withdrew it; and that a significant number were absent from the country during those two years, indicating no desire to take up residence.

This exposes New Zealand to being used to avoid things like international student fees, thereby creating costs to our economy with little benefit.

I have had positive discussions with the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, which wants to work with the Government to develop investor migration policies that will benefit New Zealand.

The Long-Term Business Visa established in 1999 was designed to attract entrepreneurs.

In reality, it attracted people to buy existing small businesses (like dairies and other small service outlets) who would not have qualified under other categories and it had no English test at all.

I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that buying corner dairies was what those who designed the policy had in mind.

Informed comment on immigration would offer analysis on the flaws in the 1990s policies and on the corrections being made.

It is absurd to suspend critical faculties, ignore the fact that the Government has undertaken considered changes to immigration policy over a period, and claim that last week's moves are a response to Winston Peters' unpleasant rhetoric.

* Lianne Dalziel is Immigration Minister.

* The Herald wants people to have their say on the immigration issues needing debate. Send contributions to dialogue@nzherald.co.nz.

Herald feature: Immigration