The politics of immigration

English couple Russell and Jackie Jackson moved to New Zealand this year, in part to get away from Britain and in part to enjoy a new lifestyle in a "Brit-friendly" country.

But the pair see nothing friendly about National's proposed four-year probationary period for new immigrants, who would have to meet good-conduct requirements to gain permanent residency.

If such a policy had been in place already, they simply would not have chosen to come to New Zealand.

"I sucked in a lungful of air when I saw that," said Mr Jackson.

The specialist instrumentation engineer did not consider himself a likely candidate for expulsion but said such a rule would create unwelcome doubt.

"Certain things can happen to anybody."

The Jacksons and their two teenage children were attracted to New Zealand for its climate, lifestyle, small size and friendliness.

Mr Jackson's qualifications met identified skills shortages here. The family arrived on a two-year work permit and are now seeking permanent residency.

Mrs Jackson, a teacher-aide, said they had thought about Australia but heard New Zealand treated the British more kindly.

She would not have been so keen, however, had she known political parties were considering dishing out good behaviour bonds.

"How can you get into a new life when it is hanging over you that you may get kicked out?"

Immigration lawyer Richard McLeod said the National policy implied some immigrants might have to wait up to nine years to gain citizenship.

"Is that the kind of message we want to be sending out to potential migrants around the world?

"I don't know any country in the world where citizenship would take that long to be granted."

George Deeb, another Auckland immigration lawyer, said the move would deter many people from applying for permanent residency.

"It would make it extremely difficult for people to contemplate coming here ... too much to gamble."

Mr Deeb, who emigrated from South Africa, said there was too much uncertainty surrounding immigration.

"Under current regulations people have to be invited to apply. Previously they were entitled to if they had the right qualifications."

Mr Deeb said constant changes to legislation did not inspire confidence.

"It creates uncertainty. Immigration policies have been very unsettling for migrants, and the fact immigration has been kicked around like a political football is not doing anyone any good."

David Besley, a former chairman of the Association for Migration and Investment, agreed National's policy was off-putting and said all the political parties demonstrated degrees of negativity about immigration at election time.

Mr Besley said New Zealand could be a "little precious" as a nation and he firmly believed the economy would never get off the ground with a population of just four million.

He was particularly critical of the English language requirements as he knew of people who ran worldwide businesses who did not speak a word of English.

New Zealand also suffered from not being the easiest place to start a business, and many migrants moved to Australia instead, he said.

The association's current chairman, Marcus Beveridge, was equally dismissive of the English language tests which he said had all but killed off the lucrative migrants interested in coming under the business and investor categories.

His clients were also put off by a requirement to invest $2 million into infrastructure for five years.

But Mr Beveridge overall thought the Immigration Service was doing a fair job of attracting skilled migrants. "The field is fairly wide open and applications are been dealt with in a timely manner."

Mark Tarrant, a New Zealand immigration lawyer based in Australia, said National's policy was foolhardy.

"There is no way if I was a migrant coming from the UK that I am going to uproot my family to come to New Zealand for a provisional visa.

"I'd think twice - it's high risk."

Mr Tarrant said Australia was much more open and proactive about getting skilled labour. It had sent teams to India and China to recruit workers.

Migrants in Australia had to meet English -speaking requirements to a vocational level, he said, but New Zealand demanded University Entrance-equivalent English.