The Productivity Commission is questioning whether the Government should use immigration policy to manage demand for housing and infrastructure.
It’s also considering whether employers should be required to prioritise the New Zealand labour force before recruiting temporary migrants, and whether prospective migrants are given enough information before moving to New Zealand.
The Commission is raising these questions - along with a raft of others - in an issues paper it has released for consultation, as a scene setter to a major inquiry it’s doing into New Zealand’s immigration system.
The Crown entity is looking at what New Zealand’s settings should be over the next 10 to 30 years.
It’ll give the Government a draft report with proposed recommendations in October, ahead of delivering a final report in April 2022.
The Commission’s inquiry is independent of the Government, which has said New Zealand needs to stop relying on low-skilled migrant workers and prioritise attracting high-value investment. The Government is also looking at changes to some existing visa categories and conditions, like the skilled migrant category and several temporary work visas.
The Commission has provided background in its issues paper as to how the immigration system has shaped New Zealand’s population to date.
Some of the questions the Commission is asking, include:
Which concepts within Te Ao Māori, or Māori perspectives or values, are most applicable to immigration policy and why? What would or should including these concepts, perspectives or values mean for immigration policy?
How should the Commission consider trade-offs between the different factors that contribute to wellbeing? Should there be some bottom-lines that cannot be traded off at all?
Through which channels has immigration contributed to New Zealand’s productivity growth? What evidence is there of this impact?
Are there barriers to migrants fully contributing to New Zealand’s productivity growth?
Would there be benefit in requiring the Government to publicly announce its policy objectives for the immigration system?
How should New Zealand’s special relationship with Pacific Island nations be reflected in immigration policy?
Do you think prospective migrants are given enough information to make long-term decisions and settle successfully? What other information could help, and how could their access to this information be improved?
Currently, most employers have an obligation to prioritise the New Zealand labour force before recruiting temporary migrants. Do you agree with this obligation? Why or why not? If not, are there alternative obligations employers should have if they wish to recruit temporary migrant workers?
Previously, ANZSCO has been used to define “high” and “low”-skilled jobs. Should immigration policy differentiate between “high” and “low”-skilled jobs? Is there a better way of defining skill levels?
What is the best way to identify workforce or skills shortages?
Prior to the pandemic, was the current system working effectively to address skills shortages while prioritising the employment of New Zealanders and ensuring the wages and conditions of New Zealand workers were not undermined?
What criteria (if any) do you think should apply to investor visas in terms of: level of investment, type of investment, duration of investment and obligations to New Zealand?
To what extent should international students have rights to work in New Zealand?
Should the level or nature of qualifications that students are studying affect work rights during or after study? Why, or why not?
What should the objectives of working holidays schemes be (eg, fill temporary labour shortages, enhance international connections, encourage reciprocal overseas work opportunities for New Zealanders, attract longer-term migrants)?
Do you think the number and set of countries New Zealand has agreed working holiday schemes with is set at the right level?
Should the immigration system give more weight to the skills and employability of partners? Are there other factors that should be given more weight?
Do immigration settings for family visas (eg, parents, dependent children) have a material impact on a migrant’s decisions to come to and stay in New Zealand?
Could or should the Government use immigration policy (eg, visa conditions to settle in specific places) to ease pressures in some regions? If so, what would be the best way?
If the Government does regulate volumes of permanent residents or temporary migrants, what should it be trying to achieve (eg, stabilising population, managing pressures on housing and infrastructure demand)? How feasibly can the Government achieve these goals through immigration policy?
100 Comments
Whatever the review recommendations are, it should at least highlight that the population should be capped at current levels. We do not have the capacity to accommodate more. Then should focus on reducing population cap to a more sustainable figure (3.5 - 4 mil) over the next 30 years or so.
What we need to understand is that we have immigrants because they don’t have quality of life in their home country so they are looking to come here to enjoy better quality of life.
In that same breath, we have kiwis leaving in droves as quality of life is fast deteriorating in NZ. We have a low wage, high cost economy that’s pushing kiwis out. Going to 4 mil will probably just take us back to 10 - 12 years ago when quality of life was still suffering and we had high brain drain.
Immigration should be based on quality of life in NZ not quantity.
On the one hand you want to reduce NZ's population and stop immigration and on the other lament our "talent" moving to Australia.
So what do you want, to keep the white NZ'ers and stop the brown ones coming?
If our graduates/tradespeople do move to Australia (where housing is actually more expensive anywhere you would want to live anyway), that should reduce demand for our housing stock and push up wages locally.
Wages are higher in Aus, with more opportunity. Rents in large cities there have generally dropped over the last 12 months. Places like Brisbane are much cheaper to buy than our main centre's. Personally I wouldn't move there, if I was my kids ages, I probably would.
Rents dropped in the CBD apartment market, but held up and went up in houses and coastal property - no different to the trend in most major cities.
https://www.afr.com/property/residential/queensland-s-rental-crisis-set…
Is this the cheap lifestyle you are heading over for?
All I’m saying is we need to lift the quality of life in NZ whatever your skin colour may be. Only you can bring racism into this. NZers should be able to get into homes, be able to life a life rather than struggle to get by everyday. If you reduce influx of migration and pay NZers a decent wage, the quality of life across NZ improves. Coming from a brown person mate.
My comment was tongue in cheek, but there is a real inconsistency in the argument. What would happen to NZ house prices if the 650k Kiwi's living in Australia all moved back to NZ? The reality is skilled Kiwi's heading offshore reduces demand for housing here. All Western economy's import cheap labour, seasonal and permanent. I would argue NZ would be better with 7m than 3m. More people means better road's, train lines, more retail competition. Why is the cost of living cheaper in Australia? More people and more competition.
""All Western economy's import cheap labour, seasonal and permanent."" - Denmark, Norway, Finland?
You make a mistake by mixing seasonal and permanent - I arrived 18 years ago to do a skilled IT job that they couldn't find a Kiwi to do. Being a permanent resident I brought 5 family members, I'm now retired on Super, the children received free education in NZ (unlike place of origin) and both my wife and I and one of the children have had expensive life saving medical conditions all paid for by the NZ govt. I'm not complaining, nor saying policies should be changed but I do think full cost should be given consideration when making decisions about immigration.
The seasonal fruit pickers do a good job for NZ and return much needed wealth to the PI home countries. Its a win win situation.
We pay our taxes. Well I don't because I'm retired but the kids have grown up and work. I reckon on balance my family has been winners - one because NZ is a lovely and peaceful country but also because other Kiwis long before we arrived have built the infrastructure, taught the teachers and doctors, etc that we benefit from.
Have we put in what we have taken out - probably not. Should we sell our house (our only source of wealth) to reimburse the NZ govt and its taxpayers? No we shouldn't; not until everyone else does and that includes all those Kiwis who are similarly financial debt to NZ - that includes those leaving school, had an expensive operation, being on benefits for an extended period, had their degree seriously subsidized, etc. The time for my family to pay was when we applied in 2003. Then they asked me for $200,000 and I thought that was a bargain until I discovered I didn't have to give it to the govt just have it for my point count.
NZ immigration policy is barmy.
TK you can't be serious here?"NZ would be better with 7m than 3m. More people means better road's, train lines, more retail competition" The current situation proves the fallacy of that argument. Such an increase in population means nothing of the sort. what it does mean, and I am surprised PDK hasn't picked up on it, is a significant increase in the demand on resources, water, and land especially. Auckland has long proven the population is more than the land can support, and you would have more come in?! A sustainable future with a land that our rangitahi and moko will thrive on requires less population than now, not more.
Is Singapore sustainable? I assume that is your comparison. Besides you provide no answer to how our governments will be made to spend more on infrastructure? It has been acknowledged that infrastructure has been neglected for at least the last 20 years, and the population has grown by at least 25% in that time, why would you think that further growths would lead to infrastructure being properly funded?
I dont think kiwis were leaving in droves (Pre Covid), numbers were dropping especially to Australia as the immigration settings basically have converted what was once a lifestyle change to now just a glorified working holiday. Australia has made it clear that it does not want kiwis to stay long term. Many will also be scarred by how they were treated by Australia during the initial COVID wave of redundancies etc where many had nowhere to go.
During this time too - NZ has seen the return of many skilled NZ'ers formally based overseas, including their families with many looking to settle down here. It is unlikely a large % of them will return back to their former lives when borders re-open, some will but overall it will likely end up being a net gain of skilled kiwis.
Australia in these skills shortage times would be wise to reverse their punitive immigration settings for kiwis, they now need us more than they used to. However it seems like they are not interested in making it more attractive.
It remains to be seen if kiwis will leave in droves permanently when borders re-open normally (asides from the usual travellers, working holiday makers etc). Given the technology changes, it is less required to physically be in a certain place now for work than it used to be. Who knows what will happen, but i think the whole kiwis leaving in droves is a current fantasy of right wing blogs and twitter that is yet to be backed up by any evidence.
Personally, I have lost 2 friends to Australia as the bubble opened up. Really lovely kiwis but couldn’t afford to live in NZ. It has been a few months but I still feel sad about it. I have others thinking of leaving (not necessarily Oz) as the cost of living isn’t worth it for them. We are not yet as frustrated as them but with ailing parents and the fact that we have children, we are not in a position to just pack up and leave. If we are talking us pre kids, we would have 100% left. The stress of living here is quite hard on mental health. Hey that’s just personal experience, from a left wing voter who doesn’t have a Twitter account.
Thats a fair assessment and I think it remains a great option for some. But overall the numbers have not shown any spectacular move one way or another. It is early days. but i do think the Aussie Government should have moved by now to reverse their immigration changes and make a pathway to residency easier. They have definitely missed a trick.
If we are going to cap population then we need to be training people in areas of need, and setting remuneration rates to match so we don't have systemic shortages.
Its easy for the Govt to say to the private sector - if you want people to do the job pay more (ie fruit pickers). When the shoes on the other foot (ie Nurses) the Govt is happy in import them from SE Asia. That's far cheaper than paying better, like they tell the private sector to do from up on their high horses. The very definition of hypocrisy...
"Through which channels has immigration contributed to New Zealand’s productivity growth? What evidence is there of this impact?
Are there barriers to migrants fully contributing to New Zealand’s productivity growth?"
We need to understand what is 'productivity' before answering the above questions. Essentially it is the ability to produce more at less cost. What is immigration doing to help this? As others have indicated on this site before immigrants are most commonly brought in, not to fill skill shortage gaps, but actually to drive down wages. But short of outright slavery this approach to productivity is very shallow and short lived. Big business has successfully lobbied Governments over the years to gut and undermine long established pay and work conditions (40 hour week) to create the current mess. They have avoided having to introduce innovation to produce real gains in productivity that would be enduring and substantial. My view is that we need return to the traditional working conditions, and avoid the reliance on foreign labour, and force business to employ Kiwis first.
Productivity is input over output. So just looking at cost (of producing the widget) doesn't give the full picture.
Increased immigration is costing us all with congested roads, lack of shelter, a health system that can't keep up etc.
But yes, the typical accountant type approach would look at the margin of the widget and report that we have achieved success.
Every input has a cost which on occasion I have noted is ignored. And that was the intent of my comment.
But I do agree with you that using immigration as a productivity solution has costs to the country that in the long term may well be unaffordable. One must hope that the Commission has the sagacity, insight and courage to identify this and consider it in their report.
Need to distinguish between gross output changes, simple labour productivity vs multifactor economics measures. GDP notional increases are almost "automatic" with the extra million population (+25%) since 1990 from higher consumption. However as a large proportion of the immigrants were tactically designed to lower wages, meaningful Productivity measures remained flat or reduced for extended periods.
NZ’s housing stock and basic services, health,education,welfare have been pressured by increasing demand for a long time. Immigration has simply been compounding the problem, how that extraordinary spike in 2019, pre CV19 was allowed evidences sheer inanity. CV19 if nothing else put a bung in it. There has been sufficient NZ returnees in their own right, to make it clear the bung needs to stay put.
FG. I'd suggest 'causing' in place of 'compounding', arguing that excess immigration is a direct rather than just contributing cause of housing shortages. Sure there are multiple inputs to our present issues, including the compounding effects of the kiwi mania for owning houses and QE, but our supply/demand imbalance could have been avoided or at least moderated by direct and competent government regulation of inward migration.
Recommendations that may never see the light of day...
"Unless you own appreciating assets you have no chance."
Should probably read, "Unless you own additional appreciating assets you have no chance" as ultimately need to be able to cash in the asset. Unless you really want to become a debt slave and mortgage the additional equity when available.
Having lived in Sydney for many years, anyone not tied down in NZ or not in the property market yet should definitely leave for Australia and have a higher standard of living while being able save more. The government here wants property to increase from these extremely high levels while at the same time telling nurses they don't deserve pay rises from low levels - they are giving the middle finger to a huge portion of our society which is being ripped apart.
It's like the government thinks NZ is so great that people wont leave not matter how poor of a future is provided to younger generations. NZ is for asset holders to make tax free capital gains, if you're not in that group then leave to at least make a decent income and have a better standard of living in Australia.
Having lived in Sydney for 8 years we lived very well as a DINKs.
However when it comes time to start your family if you are not living inner city and on huge money you will just be a battler out west where daily competition is crazy. Total rat race.
If you’re a battler in Auckland you ain’t seen nothing until you move to Sydney but do go and try it.
I think this Brain Drain idea is yet to be backed by any evidence - the border with Australia has been opened for some time, yet we have not seen a large exodus. If you were in a bad place and wanted to make the move - why wouldn't you have gone already?
I think until Australia reverses its changes to its immigration settings, kiwis are going to remain weary. The issues of not having a proper safety net in case you get sick or unemployed has not gone away and that's ok for a working holiday, but not to make a permanent shift you move your family. They would be wise to make changes to make it more attractive. But until it does, i don't think were going to see a big brain drain like we used to - as it would already be underway.
I do however agree with you on building up internal talent. For too long NZ has taken the easy route of being a low wage economy held up by an immigration tap that turned from a dribble to a fountain and no one knows how to turn it down. We also work some of the longest hours in the OECD and have nothing to show for it. It's time to look at what we can do to make NZ a better place to live and work.
Your problem is you're using the average wage when you should be using the median.
The median wage/salaries of all NZ workers from June 2020 quarter is just $1,060 per week ($51,120 PA). That's excluding people who are only on a benefit or superannuation as well, so you know that the median earnings per person once those are included are going to be much much lower.
Also don't get seduced by the 'household income' stats either - the figures aren't too bad if you're assuming a married couple where husband and wife both work, but they also include many other scenarios too: multiple university students flatting together each earning $15k part-time can quickly add up to a lot for the household earnings, even though they're all living quite frugally, and large families occupying a single house where children are also working, and even just groups of 20-30 something professionals flatting together but who aren't sharing income skew those figures dramatically.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/australias-average-salary-revealed-to…
The average salary in Australia is now just over $60,000, new data from the Australian Tax Office has revealed.
Data from the 2018-2019 financial year shows that the average salary for Australians who submitted tax returns was $63,085, up by $1634 from the year prior.
The median reported salary (which provides a more accurate picture of the "average" Aussie as the figure is not pulled higher by millionaires) for 2018-19 was $52,732.
I'm a Kiwi living in Melbourne,
Salaries for skilled tech and professionals have jumped 25% in the last two months. It is nuts!!
I can guarantee recruiters are combing NZ Linkedin boards for young talent with low commitments. Which is most of the millennial work base.
Big moves coming!!! Backed by evidence? You're probably right, it's not yet evident. This reminds me of the proverbial stable door.
NZ's taxation policy heavily favour's the elderly asset rich. Australia is a much more balanced society in this regard. They have a CGT with main residence exemption which has put a dampener on property prices & prevented their economy developing the sort of distortions we have here. They also have higher wages. I take my hat off to any kiwi that shows imitative & makes the move. You have to do whats best for your family.
To retain internal talent the first thing we should do is implement a capital gains tax with main residence exemption & use money from this tax to lower income & corporate tax rates. This will make our "real economy" much more competitive.
Australia encourages leverage, their entire personal balance sheet economy is based on negative gearing. They have to have a capital gains tax because investors have avoided so much personal income tax from negative gearing.
Australia's wealth is founded on exporting minerals, an extraordinarily lucrative industry with high wages.
It's good to see these issues getting more attention.
It's tedious seeing various sectors complaining about a shortage of workers when in fact they just mean there's a shortage of workers who are willing to work for minimum wage, along with some combination of challenging conditions and high living expenses.
It'd also be good to take a closer look at how population growth combined with overburdened infrastructure has affected general productivity. For example what has happened to the average commute time in Auckland over the last 20 years and how has that hurt productivity?
Centuries, in hindsight.
https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/63fae3tq9780252008184.html
""Which concepts within Te Ao Māori, or Māori perspectives or values, are most applicable to immigration policy and why? ""
The commission should read Ranginui Walker's 1994 article
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_316.sh…
""The original charter for immigration into New Zealand is in the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi. There, it states that Her Majesty Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom has deemed it necessary, in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's subjects who have already settled in New Zealand, and the rapid extension of Emigration from both Europe and Australia which is still in progress, to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands.
The present generation of Maori leaders abide by the agreement of their ancestors to allow immigration into New Zealand from the countries nominated in the preamble of the treaty, namely Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom. But, for any variation of that agreement to be validated, they expect the Government to consult them as the descendants of the Crown's treaty partner. The Human Rights Commission endorsed that position with its recommendation to government that the Treaty of Waitangi should be considered in any decisions on immigration policy.""
I admit grievous ignorance of the treaty but was under the impression Ranginui Walker was an authority. One certainty is he could write clearly.
""This glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on the people below.""
""In March 1991, the Government Working Party on Immigration reported to Mr. Birch, the Minister of Immigration. The report recommended the adoption of a points system for the selection of immigrants with skills and money for business investment in New Zealand. The Minister called meetings with a limited selection of thirteen Maori leaders in Auckland and fourteen in Wellington to consider the report. They were mainly leaders of voluntary organizations. Few represented tribal groups. Although many speakers spoke against the immigration proposals, they were ignored. When the Minister was questioned in Parliament during the debate on the Immigration Amendment Bill, he cited all those in attendance at the Maori meetings as being 'broadly positive' towards his immigration scheme. This glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on the people below. The report was a fait accompli, and the Minister's restricted discourse with Maori leaders after the fact, gave an illusion of democratic consultation. The select committee hearings on the Bill were also a charade. Of the 75 submissions made to the committee, 73 were opposed to the Bill. The two submissions in favour were made by immigration consultants, the people who earned substantial fees from processing immigration papers for clients wanting to get into New Zealand.""
Have we moved forward since 1991?
The full english text of the preamble (the Maori is subtly different):
HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favor the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands – Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.
The immigration is statement of fact, no permission is asked for or conceded by signing.
Have a read of the partnership section (or the whole doc) of this (published after 1991):
https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/WT-Princ…
Government consulting with Maori outside of the scope of the treaty is a political decision that should be done with agreement from the electorate.
Is Walker asserting relevance to the treaty here? Everyone was subject to "procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on the people below" here.
Assertions on top of assertions on what the treaty actually means without referencing and then justifying from the original text is becoming like the commandments in Animal Farm. The treaty is perfectly readable. The courts and tribunal do this, other media does not.
The productivity commission and our government can open or close the immigration tap. Easily achieved without even needing Parliaments approval by drastically increasing the cost of Visas; effectively making it an auction for employers - it will be interesting to see whether our businesses will be more willing to pay for another Nurse, Engineer or Chef. Increasing Visa charges should be done now - no need to wait for another report.
Should be interesting. No one voted for mass immigration and its really stuffed Awkland. Overloaded everything, but the RE speculators are all happy. Unless you want unlimited temporary cheap labor in hospo, tourism, agriculture, construction, age care then most people would prefer not to have it either. That said aging population, youth continuing to export themselves (why is this again...?) there is a case to be made for it.
Is the Govt positioning opening the doors like National, if yes they really the purple party (red mixed with blue).
Maybe, there is definitely the old boys network in play, but how about look at where all our capital is invested... housing... hardly a productive use of capital.
The talk about importing a few "entrepreneurs" with cash to invest, this only works if the government stands on their throats and makes sure they do what they say they are going to do, rather than buying a bolthole in central Otago and building a panic room and a bomb shelter.
New Zealand currently has hundreds of thousand's of people unwilling to leave the state nipple and go and work, as doing nothing is a more attractive option. If the government wont fix immigration, then they need to coax people off state dependency. They cant just sit back and hope for a miracle as more and more businesses go under.
"...hundreds of thousand's of people unwilling to leave the state nipple..."
Can you share some statistics to back up your assertion? As far as I can tell we have a rate of unemployment of 4.7% with a structural rate of unemployment around 4%. Consequently there are around 0.7% of the population still seeking re-employment (34k people) who would normally not be.
There are certainly numerous small towns where a large number of working age people receive some kind of benefit - mostly due to the single employer shutting down such as timber mills.
However, the “hundreds of thousands” on the state nipple are in fact boomers collecting national superannuation & clogging up the public health system. These are the 2 biggest welfare costs - not evil single mums or dole bludgers.
If we are going to cap population then we need to be training people in areas of need, and setting remuneration rates to match so we don't have systemic shortages.
Its easy for the Govt to say to the private sector - if you want people to do the job pay more (ie fruit pickers). When the shoes on the other foot (ie Nurses) the Govt is happy in import them from SE Asia. That's far cheaper than paying better, like they tell the private sector to do from up on their high horses. The very definition of hypocrisy...
The reason the cost of living is so high and the productivity is so low. Is that there are too many people who take their income from the state and offer nothing productive in return. Some of them sit behind desks in corner offices and some behind bongs on the couch. But they still cost the rest of us $$$.
Automation is everywhere and will increase big time. Look at the obvious already in play. Rubbish trucks...single driver vs the gang of 5. Tractors do heaps more than the horse of old. Automated checkin on flights and travel via your phone or kiosk. Online banking and branches shutting. All replacing jobs.
RnD is going into mechanical fruit pickers, robotic block laying, self drive cars , 3d printing, car manufacturing to name a few. How many lower skilled will be unemployed in another ten years...I'm picking a lot.
Key point is we dont need cheap labour. We should constrain it and force more automation.
But we have to change our attitudes to automation and doing things smarter.
This article from RNZ today shows how old fashioned our under-resourced, overworked and resistant to change building sector is:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018800028/a-modular-…
TP
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.