Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is conceding that the current level of inbound migration into the country "doesn't feel sustainable at all", but he's not being drawn on what sorts of numbers the new Government would look to achieve.
Luxon made his comments in an interview to RNZ, with the context being the plans for Australia to drastically cut back its numbers of inbound migrants.
In New Zealand, official figures for the 12 months to September show that we had a net inbound gain of migrants of 118,800 - a record high.
The Reserve Bank, in releasing its latest Monetary Policy Statement (MPS) late last month devoted much comment to the surging migration, with the MPS noting that "there are signs that a stronger demand impulse from high population growth is emerging, contributing to an upward revision of our outlook for capacity pressure" and that "in recent months, high net immigration appears to have put more pressure on rental price growth".
Asked about New Zealand's migration situation, Luxon said: "Really, to be honest, we are inheriting a system that’s been a complete hash."
He said New Zealand’s immigration system "closed New Zealand off" to all immigration for two years "at a time when employers were desperately looking for workers".
“And then Labour opened the floodgates just as the economy was starting to slow."
Luxon conceded that a net migration of 118,800 people "doesn’t feel sustainable for New Zealand at all".
“We’ve got to make sure we are working with Immigration New Zealand to make sure there are audits and checks in place – that it’s not just carte blanche and it isn’t just keep opening the floodgates and letting anyone and everyone into the country. That it is actually linked around skill and where we have skill shortages.
“We have to do a much better job," Luxon said.
“When net migration is 118,000 but at the same time 60,000 more kiwis on unemployment benefits and on welfare – that isn’t a good outcome either at a time when there are job vacancies to fill. We’ve got to work both sides of that equation.”
Luxon said he understood why Australia was pulling back on inbound migration.
“We are also watching and monitoring very closely…118,000 migration is very, very high for New Zealand. It’s the highest it’s been.
“We understand that there’s a little bit of catch-up that’s been needed to fill some shortages that’s existed since the lockdown periods but having said all that we expect that to be slowing month on month. And actually making sure it’s linked very strongly to the jobs shortages."
But Luxon would not be drawn on what sort of numbers of inbound migrants he would like to see.
Asked if a number of perhaps 50,000-60,000 should be targeted, he said: "Well, again it’s actually very hard for any government to lay up a number, a hard and fast number. What we’ve got to do is make sure that any migration is linked very strongly to those worker shortages that we have."
Luxon said the Government can’t control numbers of Kiwis returning or Australians coming here.
"But what we’ve got to do is make sure that we are getting the settings right.
"They’ve gone from being way too restrictive to being way too loose and we’ve got to find that balance."
He said this would be the work new Immigration Minister Erica Stanford would be getting into in the next few months.
108 Comments
was not erica the one yelling from the rafters that we needed to let more people in, now she is in the hot seat suddenly to many are coming in. so typical of an opposition party happened last time the government changed as well, labour tightened up and business owners were loud that they were having to pay to much for staff so they opened the door.
same will happen this time they will tighten up then business will start yelling and they will fling the doors open
Did you even bother to read the article where the answer to your question is in black and white?
Initially not enough because the criteria was too strict, then the criteria was too relaxed.
The data has changed, and they're adjusting their position accordingly, what's wrong with that? Would you prefer they just blindly stick to ideologies and ignore the data?
Back in April, Albanese thought that it would be a great idea to let 400,000 net, new migrants into the country $$. But with a massive rental and housing shortage, the entire country was gobsmacked!
Today he gets back up on his high horse again, and has "promised to fix Australia's broken migration system" and bring it back to "sustainable" pre-covid levels.
It's no wonder they call this arrogant little toadstool, Each-Way-Albo.
"could it be they're starting to take notice of public opinion.?" No, what it means is that they will do nothing while keeping third world population growth rates. I'm guessing you are young and inexperienced enough to believe politicians pursue anything other than their own agenda?
On top of the floodgates being opened. The appalling stat here is .. "at the same time 60,000 more kiwis on unemployment benefits and on welfare". Strikes me (in AKLD) we have a lot of physically and mentally able folks, begging for spare change at the lights and outside supermarkets. Or lying around the park drinking during the day.
I do occasionally talk to people like that and while sure they have, reasons/excuses sometimes, very sad reasons why their life is hard. Reasons like drug addiction, smoking addiction, rape, massive debts, cancer etc...
But in the end, the only way to get out of that is to stop feeling sorry for your self, and start working. There is no white knight coming to save you. There are plenty of caring people in society but none of them are going to make you rich.
Sure your life is hard, but is it harder than the guy who works next to me in a wheel chair? Or my 78 year old father that works in a physical job, but still manages to go to work full time?
The problem as I see it, is we help the poor stay poor, but do very little to help people get out of poverty. As soon as they start making money we also ply them with debt.
If you truly want to live in dignity then get a job, no amount of money or excuses will do that.
I don't disagree there is no "white knight coming to save you" nor that there are some bad incentives that keep a small number of people faffing about on the dole etc instead of working, however I think you're really underestimating the effects of mental illness - for example up to 50% of people with schizophrenia are alcoholics - no amount of 'stop feeling sorry for your self' is going to make an alcoholic schizophrenic a reliable electrician. Someone with treatment resistant depression isn't going to shower let alone 'learn to code'. Old mate who was abused then abandoned as a kid is probably doing well if they're staying out of jail.
If you take all the people who have low IQ, low impulse control, mental illness / personality disorder, disability or a mix thereof, you're going to get a solid few percent who will comprise the 'underclass', and there is nothing anyone can do at this stage of tech to make most these people anything but dependent on society's largess.
There has been a 51% increase in the number of Maori on JobSeeker under the last Labour Govt. You'd think this would be the kind of stuff the Maori Party should be protesting about (along with the increase in the number of Maori babies being bashed to death) but no, apparently they are more concerned with the country returning to speaking English again. Add to that the 28% increase in the number of solo mothers pumping out kids on the Single Parents Benefit which Labour removed the requirement to look for work from. An average family of 4 on the unemployment benefit earns more than the median wage now. So why bother working at all? Just go on the dole/SPB and vote for parties who will tax the "rich" so they can continue to not work.
There wasn't an increase per se. These beneficiaries always existed. The last government just ensured they got what the were entitled too. Obviously, the pendulum will now swing back under this current government. (Do I need to point out - again - the cost to the state of these beneficiaries pales into near insignificance when compared to the huge sums handed out to retired people ... whether they need it or not.)
State pensions should definitely be proportional to total tax paid. So those that contibuted the most recieve their fair share.
Or do u mean (again) to withold it from those that contributed the most and actually saved for retirement and yet more handouts to those that couldnt be arsed.
This country seems to reward laziness where it really needs a hard turn and a reminder to make it clear that those that contibute most will always get rewarded most.....
Oh rubbish. Unemployed people dont just "appear" when there is a change of Govt. Nobody is going to be unemployed and thinking "oh I just won't bother applying for my unemployment benefit because National is in Govt". The solo mums either were receiving the SPB or they were in a relationship, didnt have children, or were working. Its hard to see how Labour has improved the lives of kids or "got them out of poverty" by encouraging relationship breakups, having more children they can't afford, or not bothering to work. That's how intergenerational welfare dependence occurs.
I still maintain you might need to do a bit of research on this around how the current welfare systems are set up and the barriers people face in looking after their young kids and also trying to work. When was the last time you talked to a single mother on a benefit and heard their stories first hand? I hear a few. They're all trying to balance the impossible. From what I can tell, it's easier to just look after your kids and stay home, rather than trying to deal with secondary tax, benefit limits and finding child care to match working hours.
Single parenting IS work. They ARE working. They're taking care of their children. That's a full-time, nearly 24/7 demanding job unless you can afford to pay for support or have family you can lean on. Many people don't. Research shows that the issue for most is just not enough money coming in vs. household expenses.
If it's just about getting more mothers into work, there are some easy changes that would help reduce these barriers: getting rid of the outdated relationship rules on benefits, and making sure that WINZ appointments are available outside single mother working hours (i.e. school hours) would be a start. Here's some good research into this issue: https://www.birthright.org.nz/research-reports
This coming year and next, we're likely to see a bunch of people newly experiencing our welfare system (and sadly, our Family Court system) if our economy tanks as expected (as has been obvious from the current trajectory for a year or two). It'll be eye-opening for many who previously looked down on others in this position. I kinda hope their collective shock and anger at finding out how little is available and how begrudgingly it's given, makes a change for everyone.
I'm sorry, but most women take 12 months maternity leave and then return to their jobs. They manage to juggle working and looking after their children. But you want us to believe that this is somehow impossible, and a woman's only job is to stay home and look after her kids? Why does a working woman only get 26 weeks Govt paid leave, another 26 weeks from her employer if she is lucky, while 80,000 of them get to sit at home doing nothing all day while the kids are still going to their free daycare? Every woman I know with children work. If its good enough for them, its good enough for the benefit bludgers. They can go and get a job, and teach their kids some decent values and a work ethic.
Why on earth does NZ need 118k extra people annually?
It's also a frustrating duck from Luxon not putting a number on it. How about a net number ignoring NZ and Aus citizen movements?
How can you set policy, plan for infrastructure, and fill very specific labour shortages unless you have targets?
Also, the idea of being perennially short of nurses, teachers and other professions is an indictment on the government settings on pay rates, cost of education etc, in these industries. Importing more people does not fix structural problems in supply of specific roles in our society.
re ... "Fairly debatable for about 90% of our white collar workers."
Was this supposed to be funny?
If not, please provide evidence that 90% of our white collar workers are not holders of higher educations.
In almost all offices I've worked in just about everyone has Bachelor degrees, many have Masters or better. Hospitals? ditto. Schools? Ditto. IT companies? Awash with them! Government departments? More than half. (But banks? Not so much.)
I have two degrees, and can identify the value of an educated population.
But from a commercial and life span perspective, it's failing more people than it's benefitting. Start a career 3-5+ later, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Feel free to have a discussion with me about the subject matter at hand at any time, rather than talking about me, or what you assume about me.
I would say that's good, given the bottom of the barrel places we import nurses from. Once you sign them up to the job it's done, you can't further weed them out.
That they can communicate and have a real, equivalent medical qualification that they didn't buy from an unscrupulous bureaucrat is the only thing stopping our nursing shortage crisis turning into a hospitals killing people crisis.
It would do a big disservice to those who go through nursing training here to see people coming in from overseas with half their knowledge sailing into the same jobs.
re ... "I would say that's good, given the bottom of the barrel places we import nurses from. "
Like where? Do you know this for a fact? Care to share your sources?
Nurses I've spoken to report many immigrant nurses are well trained and are hard workers. (And actually better and more productive than locally trained nurses in some instances.)
We mostly import nurses from the Philippines, India and the UK. Here's a source. Remember the nurses you've talked to can only comment on the immigrant nurses that met the bar and made it into the country, they can't comment on the ones that were turned down. Which is kind of my point. Is there a problem to solve here in loosening the requirements?
I'd agree that the ones we've let in are of reasonable quality. I've spent enough time in and out of the public health system over the past decade to get a feel for what makes a good nurse. In many cases it's just their attitude and willingness to help, or to lobby on your behalf to a doctor. I'm sure you could have a lesser qualified pool of people that could do that without imparting medical skill, so maybe there's grounds for hospitals to have a lower tier of worker that's not actually medically qualified but is not an orderly...
Its more about the 8 weeks and $13,000 cost to do the Treaty of Waitangi "cultural safety" training - nothing to do with their actual medical prowess. Compare this to the 2 hour online "cultural safety" course that costs a couple of hundred dollars in Australia to do. Where would you go?
I totally agree with you nnz! I spent 3 nights in hospital a couple of weeks ago for a knee operation. I had seven different nurses during my stay, five kiwi nurses and 2 from offshore. One older kiwi nurse was next to useless! the two foreign trained nurses were just average. The four other NZ trained nurses were absolutely excellent!! A quantum leap ahead of the other three! I cannot understand why we don"t value our own nurses much more!
I am of 2 frames of mind. Firstly, I am looking forward to population growth easing under National (as they claim). But I am also looking forward to population carrying on at its usual pace, putting to bed that the issue is partisan and instead lies squarely at the way Immigration NZ is structured.
With unemployment heading up, either this unsustainable influx is addressed by policy or it happens naturally. Rents are under upward pressure but nowhere near a point where Landlords want them. In the near future, it's not unrealistic to expect rents to come under renewed downward pressure as employment drops, immigrants on work permits drops off in response and general cost of living continues to tighten its grip on existing household finances. I think as the work runs out immigration will naturally drop off. An aggressive policy response may not even be required. By world standards, NZ is too expensive in which to live and with an ailing infrastructure to boot, to a growing number of arrivals, is an epitome of declining value for money.
it's not unrealistic to expect rents to come under renewed downward pressure as employment drops, immigrants on work permits drops off in response and general cost of living continues to tighten its grip on existing household finances
People said the same thing about rents as inflation and interest rates rose, and landlord deductability of interest was phased out. Hey presto, turns out that assumption was wrong.
- Migration
- High interest rates (effecting both ability of renters to buy - they have to keep renting, and the cost of holding a property)
- Removal of interest deductibility
- Compliance cost of healthy homes
And we're going to spend the next 12-24 months underbuilding new homes. Perfect storm for higher rents.
Job well done Labour 👍🏻
Hey, possibly. We have a range of regulations designed to offer security, that require each and every provider to wear and pass on the costs to the consumer, even though there's only a small fraction of them causing the issues we're trying to avoid.
If you're providing food that's making customers sick constantly, you're probably not going to have the sales of someone that can prepare food safely.
I'm not sure I follow you - installing insulation / venting / heating shouldn't cost anything near $300k.
Do you mean the tenants should leave their windows open all day while they are at work and pay $200 a month to heat an uninsulated house with a fan heater so the slumlord can keep their rents "low"
The way it's being done is:
- New wall linings
- New Flooring
- New plumbing
- New joinery
- New electrical
- New kitchen and bathroom
- Insulation in ceiling, walls and floor
- New roof (about half the time)
- New heatpump, and wall heaters in each room.
I mean, a large amount of moisture can be mitigated by venting bathrooms and kitchens (something that only takes half an hour to an hour a day), and most people have lived in these sorts of houses for over half a century without the majority of occupants getting constantly ill from them. So to counter that, we will spend billions of dollars, to get a minimal reduction in cold/damp related illnesses.
Personally, I'd rather have the option to rent a shitbox at a reduced price than wear the increased costs of a new, or expensively updated older home.
The regulation does not require almost any of that stuff.
The option to rent a shitbox would probably cost you more in heating costs. Unless you wrap yourself in a blanket all day. And it isn't good for emissions either, kind of like removing the need for a catalytic converter on cars to save a few bucks.
"most people have lived in these sorts of houses for over half a century without the majority of occupants getting constantly ill from them" - NZ has a pretty bad record with respiratory illness don't we?
Well, I'm talking about how the government is making their state houses healthy.
I've rented quite a few shitboxes in my time, can't say the power bills have been more than $50 a month more, while the rent has been $100-$200 a week less.
Respiratory illness is usually more common in developed nations, Aussies is about the same as ours yet they have quite a bit less humidity. So not very definitive how much having every home "healthy" here would mitigate that.
If I'm following you at all, you're talking about state houses?
If so, I imagine they're taking the opportunity to catch up on overdue maintenance at the same time as improving compliance.
Unlike private landlords who have a medium horizon for maintenance because they tend to have an exit in mind, the state actually does better designing things to last as long as possible before having to come back. Sure it would be nicer to bowl those houses and build entirely new ones, and sometimes they do, but the next best thing is a renovation that extends their life maybe another 30 years. In that context, $300k is about $10k per year of the extension. Somewhere around half the rent they bring in over that timeframe.
Assuming the state house was debt free at the point they did this refresh, on paper at least it appears a sane use of funds.
Reminds me of the Landlord I had just prior to purchasing. We would leave home at 6 am, get home at 6 pm from work. Spend 10 minutes wiping the windows down in the morning etc. Asked the Landlord, who was a builder, if he'd install security stays or even double tongue window latches so we could keep the place ventilated during the day.
"No".
I'm not sure that in my time landlording I've seen the unemployment rate effect rents. Granted I was not around in the 1930's. Rents seem to be controlled by average wage growth more than anything else. I get that the two factors are related but average wages can grow even as the unemployment rate increases. That has been the case in the US blue belt where automation has taken root.
Baptist, you don't need to research the 30s at all. We were renters throughout the early 90s severe recession and along with an abundance of choice came weaker rents but it did not last very long. We seized upon the opportunity to negotiate a verbal agreement with a worried Landlord nearing his retirement to not raise our rent for five years (then $130.00pw) for a one bedroom. Our Landlord stuck to the agreement too. At the end of the agreed term he raised it to $185.00pw by which time we had saved enough to purchase and we did - during the 1997 Asian Financial crisis.
Timing IS everything....
You can't put a number on it, until you figure out how many you actually need. If its skills based, its not an arbitrary number. And it would also depend on how many are leaving as well, and who is leaving. If half the police force depart for Australia in January after being recruited by Australia, then you can't say "oh well, we've reached our cap, no more people allowed in".
The NZ problem is that our skilled professionals are being siphoned away by Australia, and even our semi-skilled workers are departing for Aussie due to the high cost of living here. They are being replaced by an influx of unskilled workers from the third world who come here to work in liquor stores and pizza shops, while our own unskilled workers pile up on JobSeeker and the Single Parents Benefit. Implementing a cap on the latter won't help us recruit more of the former. Far more work is required than just figuring out a number.
Not helped by the fact that Labour did away with the Departure cards. Now we have no clue who is leaving permanently. National can start by bringing that back so they can tell who is coming and going, and get a live update of the skills required rather than just measuring "bodies" like the Stats Dept currently does.
The previous Govt opened floodgates of immigrants without any quality specifications for the immigrants and without conducting appropriate quality checks on the employers while approving their accreditation. The GST and tax returns for the businesses should have been thoroughly checked and accreditation should have been granted to businesses with long-standing performance. Also, the relevance and basic English requirements should have been specified for the migrants. The much better way to bring immigrants into the country is through the student visa system. The students have to meet minimum academic and English requirements and bring in a good amount of foreign exchange into the country. Before they can enter the workforce they need to study for a few years, perform academically well, and get accustomed to the NZ Working system. The policy of letting people into the country has led to a lot of money ending in private pockets and creating a mess in the country. There is a need for a high-level enquiry into this erroneous policy.
"The students have to meet minimum academic and English requirements and bring in a good amount of foreign exchange into the country. Before they can enter the workforce they need to study for a few years, perform academically well, and get accustomed to the NZ Working system"
Lol.
Unfortunately the student visa system is usually the avenue of choice for immigration fraud. See Australia, who have just announced they are clamping down on it. Hundreds of thousands of "students" have entered that country, most not even bothering to turn up to whatever class they are enrolled in, because they are too busy working for employers who are happy to pay them under the table for any hours over what they are legally able to do. Fake students enroll in low skill courses in order to qualify for a visa, but they are really here to work.
https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/non-genuine-foreign-students-to-be…
What will happen now that Australia has shut the door to these fake students, is that they will all turn up in NZ, and dummies that we are, we will let them in. And even more of our unskilled will end up on the unemployment benefit.
Exactly. It's why this guy was one of the highest paid CEOs in Australia. Bribe-alicious
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-07/idp-education-ceo-andrew-barkla-…
Luxon on immigration last year "We need to do more to attract migrants": https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2022/04/christopher-luxon-calls…
How to attract skilled immigrants:
We care about health. See our recent reversal of tobacco laws which will allow us to give you $2 back in tax. We may have to take $5 back to fund the health complications of smokers but that just shows we care about people's health.
Worried about the climate crisis? We have you covered. As the COP president who is also in charge of fossil fuel exploration and sales in UAE says: fossil fuels aren't really a problem so chill and support us open up more fossil fuel exploration here in good old New Zealand.
Housing is also great here. We have some of the most overvalued houses in OECD and we'll continue to focus on making them even more unaffordable by reversing the previous government's policies. But don't worry if you can't afford or don't want to put your savings into an overvalued housing market you can rent. By the way, did we mention rents are going through the roof and we've also just rolled back tenant protections so that if you do find somewhere to rent the landlord can kick you out at any time for any reason, but I'm sure they won't hahaha.
Job security for you and peace of mind for your family? If you do decide to come half way across the world to come and live here, you can relax because although the employer can terminate your contract after 90 day, better make sure they really like you :).
And let's not forget about the wonderful opportunity to experience a rich foreign culture. Here you will be able to indulge in old British colonial traditions, speak the exotic English language at all times (did we mention that English is our national language) and just like the old UK motherland you too can victim blame those who have been systematically marginalised for being marginalised.
Public safety? Don't worry we're committed to incarcerating many more of those marginalised people, we have an ambitious prison building programme.
Kids education. We've got you covered, we will ban phones is schools to raise standards because we think this is the only thing holding our kids back, not the increasing inequality at all which is just lefty nonsense.
Look forward to your application.
"Smokers are net tax payers" you're dreaming mate.
"I'm not sure how many competent medical practitioners are getting sacked in this environment conducting 90 day trials." It's the possibility. Would you relocate your family half way across the world to a country that has just shifted it's dial in wrong direction in terms of racism, where there are stories of immigrants being duped into paying thousands of $$$ to come here only to find the job was a hoax. Especially when there are better paid jobs in countries with better work conditions. We will attract only the truly desperate or those that can't get in elsewhere.
Sweet denial though bro.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.