The pre-Covid rates of immigration into New Zealand appear to be unsustainable, the Productivity Commission says.
It bases this conclusion on "the inability or unwillingness to build the infrastructure needed to support and settle people in the community".
The commission has released the preliminary findings and recommendations from its immigration inquiry.and these are contained in its draft report: Immigration - Fit for the Future.
Submissions are now being sought by December 24, with the final report to be presented to the Government in April 2022.
Commission chair Ganesh Nana said immigrants make an important contribution to New Zealand society.
"Immigrants bring diversity and much-needed skills to workplaces across the country, and have supported the delivery of important public services either directly (through their work as teachers, nurses, doctors) or through their net contribution to the Government’s finances.
"But New Zealand has struggled for a long time to absorb and accommodate more people well. Infrastructure and housing supply has not kept up with population growth, creating pressures that affect the wellbeing of both migrants and New Zealanders," he said.
"To ensure immigration contributes to the productivity and wellbeing of New Zealanders, governments need to build the assets and infrastructure needed to support a growing population, in preparation for the number of new residents, ahead of time."
The Commission is recommending a number of changes to ensure that future immigration settings are better connected to other government objectives.
The law should be changed to require governments to explicitly consider how well New Zealand can support and settle more people. And the Government should be obliged to publicly state its objectives and priorities for immigration, and the steps it will take to ensure that public investment matches need, Nana said.
"A country that treats its guests well is more likely to attract migrants, retain their capabilities and enjoy their long-term contributions."
The Commission wants the Government to remove visa conditions that tie a migrant to a specific employer.
"These conditions make migrants more vulnerable to exploitation and limit the ability of migrants to find jobs that best meet their skills and experience," Nana said.
"The number of temporary migrant visas with pathways to residence should be linked to the number of residence visas on offer.
“Large queues for residency have left many migrants in flux and unable to settle. The mismatch between migrant expectations and the reality of residence falls well short of manaakitanga, and is not good for our international reputation as global competition for some skilled migrants intensifies”.
The commission highlighted the following key points and key actions from its report:
• New Zealand’s immigration system is highly adaptive, and able to respond promptly to emerging needs and opportunities. Currently, immigration policy does not undergo the same level of transparency, public scrutiny or robust policy assessment requirements as other public policies.
• High resident numbers, largely uncapped temporary migration programmes and reductions in departures by New Zealanders, have contributed to New Zealand’s comparatively rapid population growth over the past decade.
• Immigration policy’s disconnection from other policy areas has meant that migration and population numbers have grown ahead of the stock and flow of public infrastructure, contributing to burdens for the wider community. It also means the education and training system is less responsive to generating the skills New Zealand businesses need.
• Overall, impacts of migration on the average earnings and employment of local workers are very minor and mostly positive, though overall outcomes can mask impacts in some regions and on some workers. The immigration system endeavours to manage the risk of New Zealanders being displaced by migrant workers, however, there are known deficiencies with the current Labour Market Test and skills shortage lists.
• The years immediately preceding the pandemic saw large and unprecedented increases in net migration, driven in part by large growth in migrants on temporary visas. In addition to putting pressure on the country’s ‘absorptive capacity’, this growth also saw a notable shift towards temporary migrants filling vacancies in lower-skilled occupations.
► Governments should be required to issue regular policy statements on immigration, outlining short-term and long-term priorities for immigration and how performance will be measured. The Government should be required to give explicit consideration to how well New Zealand can successfully accommodate and settle new arrivals.
► The Treaty interest should be reflected in immigration policy and institutions. The Treaty was developed and signed in response to immigration, and directly refers to immigration. The Crown also has a duty to actively protect Māori interests.
► The number of temporary migrant visas with potential residence pathways should be linked to the number of residence visas on offer. Large increases in the number of temporary migrant visas have contributed to uncertainty and mismatched expectations of an actual path to residence.
► Governments should better utilise tools for prioritising migrants when there is high demand. This includes being more selective and transparent with the points system and developing more data-informed and dynamic skills shortage lists.
► Visa conditions that tie migrant workers to a specific employer should be removed. Allowing migrants to move reduces the risk of exploitation and permits them to find jobs that better match their skills and experience.
► The Commission is exploring options for managing volume pressures. These include making greater use of data, evidence and evaluation in designing visa categories and identifying skills shortages, and possibly managing overall numbers of inward migration.
► The Commission is considering options for how to promote migrants’ commitment to New Zealand. Options include recognising efforts to learn te reo in decisions about residence or permanent residence, and limiting rights of return for permanent residents who re-migrate.
82 Comments
There's definitely a large amount of Kiwi's taking advantage of immigrants, as far as the system allows. However it seems when that abuse is outside what the law is i.e paying below minimum wage, it is disproportionally not Kiwi's (2nd generation or greater immigrants, as we are all immigrants)
No xingmowang ....people immigrate to NZ because they really wanted to go to the USA - they said "No" ..so they think how about Canada ...."No" again .....then the UK "No" ....then Australia "No" again ......OK what about New Zealand, they're a "soft, easy, very "PC" target" - at least we may be able to get to Australia later.
I have nothing against immigration, as long as the people who immigrate to a country "genuinely" want to be there.
While as NZ is a very small country, it is mostly always the largest city ie Auckland that attracts migrants......NZ per capita has 3 times more immigrants than the UK.
Time for a breather.......
i just watched i am this week and that is exactly what she said, she tried to into australia but it was too hard so came to NZ because it was easier, don't get me wrong i am glad she came and became a top policewomen.
but for so long we have made it so easy to come here, only lately have they made it harder to stay and i feel sorry for those that were stuck in limbo, for to long our immigration was tied to second rate education providers, and should have been for degree skills we need.
also we have no targets for training our own in skills we lack ie trades people , because it become easier for big business to import
The pre-Covid rates of immigration into New Zealand appear to be unsustainable, the Productivity Commission says.
They were unsustainable in 2017 too, when Labour campaigned on a platform of reducing immigration to sustainable levels. Rather than reduce it as promised, though, they oversaw an increase to record levels, and are now complaining that our infrastructure can't keep up.
I doubt a report is going to change anything. This government has a history of commissioning reports and then ignoring their findings.
That diversity is found in Auckland hospitals - where too many immigrants are the proof NZ under values its own medical staff. In Auckland hospitals I have had great service from dozens of different countries [my minor eye operation involved Thai, Serb, Carribbean, Israeli, Chinese, Samoan, Iranian, etc]. However try finding that diversity in multi-ethnic Auckland bottle shops, petrol stations and computer stores. Other countries put a limit to the number of immigrants working in a specific area. For example if all the builders on a site are Chinese what diversity dividend is there for NZ?
"... where too many immigrants are the proof NZ under values its own medical staff."
That is where the problem is. Just because there are immigrant workers, the locals view the hospitals are undervaluing them. Are the local health workers paid lower than the immigrants for the same job?
There's a phrase for this phenomenon- inferiority complex.
For various reasons I've taken an interest in NZ immigration and the performance of INZ over many years. Therefore after a few provisos admitting they have some things about right such as a reasonable gender and ethnic balance, I am confident that I can answer your question. Why have the numbers not been reduced? It is simply staggering incompetence. The problem starts at the top (no bottom level activity could manage to produce such levels of ineptitude and heartlessness). The reason it has remained the same for at least the last two decades is well expressed in this report "" Currently, immigration policy does not undergo the same level of transparency, public scrutiny or robust policy assessment requirements as other public policies. ""
That's a wishy washy report.
We should be looking really at our desired 'population' and immigration is just a subset of that.
Our long term prosperity will come from a stable population number. I would agree to a five million limit, but really would prefer two million. It was a better place then.
The options are stable, declining and growing - businesses, academics, journalists and politicians all have a vested interest in growth. Sensible people worried about sustainability would prefer declining but that is dreaded by politicians and bureaucrats. Stable is acceptable or even mild growth that never exceeds infrastructure.
A population plan is the start. It can then be achieved by reducing immigration or alternatively by making living in NZ so unpleasant (house prices, rental costs, pollution, congestion) that Kiwis emigrate. If the govt has a secret population plan then clearly they are using the second option.
FFS alright. The mindset is fixed and flawed! Nana's comment -
"......... governments need to build the assets and infrastructure needed to support a growing population, in preparation for the number of new residents, ahead of time."
So the start point is we just keep growing... like..forever??
Not always true. When the Victorian's built a sewer system in London they constructed sewers that were eight times larger than needed - a hundred years later they are still in use but needing maintenance. Auckland's harbour bridge was built with four lanes but it was built sufficiently well that it has been handling double that.
Malthusianism is the fixed and flawed mindset (it’s been constantly and completely obliterated for 200 years by the real world, capitalism, science, and technology). It’s apparently edgy, but a depressingly common viewpoint held by dim/mid-wits.
Trying to limit population growth right now would be idiotic. The world is facing a demographic collapse, and New Zealand isn’t anywhere close to any “limit” (putting aside the fact that any limit is a function of technology, which is perpetually improving). Within 20 years, we’ll be competing with the rest of the world FOR immigrants, even the younger “low skilled” ones who do physical work.
We have one of the lowest population densities in the world, flat birth rates, and a middling economy. We can’t afford to go the way of the moribund Southern Europe and Japanese yet. We can and should attract more immigrants, and build the infrastructure required.
Usual b-lls--t from the one who couldn't even think up an original monniker.
Can't afford?
Try doing some learning, and some real accounting. We are grossly overshot (globally), mildly so locally, in terms of resource draw-down and energy-stock depletion and remaining sink-capacity.
Suggest you read something. Anything. Once you begin to learn, maybe you can get more selective.
https://www.amazon.com/Overshoot-Ecological-Basis-Revolutionary-Change/…
https://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Progress-Ronald-Wright/dp/07867154…
https://www.amazon.com/Blip-Humanitys-self-terminating-experiment-indus…
https://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552
That'll do for starters, coming from where you are presently. I can suggest more, if you get through that lot before, well,...........
Are you able to argue anything without a 300-level prepper reading list?
I’ve read Wright’s one. It was light, and somewhat entertaining. I’ve read the Third Chimpanzee, and half of collapse. I didn’t make it to GG&S, as his writing is mostly just a boring series of anecdotes, and it seems like much of his writing has been discredited.
I’ll give you some simple graphs instead of a reading list: https://mobile.twitter.com/MaxCRoser/status/1454790570593955840
(though I’d recommend you read this, especially for its takedown of Diamond: https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Infinity-Explanations-Transform-World/…)
Unsustainable from both an infrastructure and social perspective.
How is the govt supposed to "reduce emissions" if they keep adding 50-90k people every year?
Next year they will likely open the borders to boost GDP, suppress wages, ensure the housing market is kept propped up, thereby keeping big business happy
Bollocks.
But oh dear, he did economics 101.
Doesn't explain all of it, but explains a bit.
Our emission have been offshored. Period. That the ALL of it. Every time we buy an item, it was manufactured somewhere else. From stuff dug up somewhere else. And until they kicked up a fuss, we used to send our wastes 'somewhere else' too.
Don't pull that old chestnut.
Yes, the emissions are falling. But a person in a developed country still creates on average 100x/1,000x the emissions of someone in a non-developed country.
To drop emissions, the west need to un-develop and move away from mass consumption of non-essential items. i.e. the west need to live how the 99% do.
Yeah stop bringing in uber drivers and cleaners. We got to bring in smart professionals if we do. And don't let dumb people piggy back on professionals. Make sure if a couple is allowed in both of them are educated and professional. Not like one is a nurse and other is a uber driver or a cleaner.
I agree, the level of intelligence in locals in NZ is diminishing yearly.
The education system is low, competitiveness is non existant since we do not develop anything meaningful.
We only like a game contact called Rugby which creates a few good players but lots of broken ones with all those brain and mental issues due to contacts.
Our bureaucrats are just too lazy to do anything meaningful since they get paid to warm their chairs and be yes men/women to the government.
We want to pay free money up anyone who doesn't want to work.
Want me to write now? I can write a book on it.
Yes, Education is particular is overlooked. We have been consistently slipping in rankings for years and it is clear our young people are leaving secondary and tertiary training with no real viable skills.
The future is already here. We are nothing more than a country of Hospo workers and house buyers.
An education system so bad it fails to provide locals with the basic skills, but so good it draws in hundreds of thousands of edu-migrants. You would think only one of those things could be true.
Might be time to remove the lure of post-work study visa's and pathways to residency and let the "export" education sector rise or fall on its own merits.
Not quite -- not everyone is cut out for especially mentally, or physically demanding work -- but the majority of jobs can be done by anyone. If -- and it's a bloody big 'if' -- you have a really good education system and strong social networks. Which we increasingly don't. But look at a very small country like Iceland, or even NZ in the 60s, and you see that a very high standard of professional ability can be reached by any population that has the right educational and cultural infrastructure.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/455107/auckland-infrastructure-proj…
"" City Rail Link chief executive Dr Sean Sweeney said it was facing challenges in sourcing and retaining specialist staff across the board, and getting the right people had been complicated by Covid-19. He said the types of workers it needed ranged from steel fixers, block layers and mechanics to crane drivers, electricians and engineers. ""
That is six types of workers. How many will be immigrants? How many should be to be immigrants? How many could be trained Kiwis? Will management pay top dollar to get Kiwis in these jobs or take the easy way out by employing foreigners - the latter are more docile and unlikely to leave just when they are needed.
Here we go again expressing our prejudices and making myopic observations, shamelessly showcasing the poor understanding of the subject. Don't forget our achievements as a country has a great deal to do with immigration.
The reason we’ve remained a largely rural economy is that we never had a master plan to modernise our industrial base, our kids have drifted away from science and engineering, and that is why we’re exporting commodities and not technology, software, machinery, pharmaceuticals, and other industrial goods.
Poor immigration policies have allowed low-skilled immigration. When your own kids are under par in STEM, there is no wonder why we don’t have any world-class universities, research centers, or high-tech industries. Obviously, why would a business invest here when there is such a dearth of skills. We need to develop our own skills reserve but in the meantime, we need smart people from overseas.
If we as a society are not OK with it, then be prepared to slide down the ranks even further in the value addition chain.
The focus should not be on the numbers but on the economic benefit an immigrant brings. The market system will take care of which skills we need as long as we have a framework that ensures only those with the best skills make it to NZ. At the moment we're losing a great deal of talent to Australia, Canada, and of course the US.
""The focus should not be on the numbers but on the economic benefit an immigrant brings."" So you do want a quota but based on skill. Almost the only way of measuring skill is money. If a kiwi employer is willing to pay $150k pa for a chef then let them do so; if those IT professionals are being paid peanuts why were they allowed in? INZ is attempting to define skills - the communist Russian govt employed better brains in its bureaucracy but they couldn't manage it so why does INZ try? Just set a price for residency (adjusted for anticipated age & health costs).
Canada aims to take in one million immigrants over 3 years: https://settlement.org/news/ontario/over-1-million-immigrants-expected-…
Quota - there is no country with open borders so they all have quotas. The quota in NZ is never discussed. The quota in other countries is simply a number so for example the USA has "" The Diversity Immigrant Visa Program makes 50000 diversity visas (green cards) available annually in a lottery ""; other countries establish limits by trade or simply by charging heavily for work permits. INZ mismanages immigration by a process of bureaucratic endurance; if you have a desperately needed skill (brain surgeon) you wait for months or years to be processed and often you choose another country with less random bureaucracy; meanwhile if you are a desperate Uber driver with no internationally needed skill you just dig your heels in and wait and wait.
Australia, Canada and NZ have grown their economies by adding numbers. All three have very high rates of legal immigration and none of them have performed well when measured by per capita. Canada and Australia are both fortunate to have massive natural resources to be mined, processed and exported. For happy countries look to Denmark, Norway, Finland and even Korea, Japan & Taiwan where immigration is taken more seriously.
While we have people housed in motels, tents and on the street, no immigration is warranted.
Any company so desperate to bring in immigrant labor should be required to build new housing for them and make a hefty contribution to the government for the extra services that they will need to be supplied. On that basis very few would come in and this illustrates the point that our country is making huge sacrifices and bearing huge costs to bring in people who are of very low value to our economy and at best only a narrow selfish advantage to a few individuals with low economic value enterprises.
Last week I drove past a bunch of drugged up undesirables having a right screaming fit in front of kids walking home from school at 3pm.
Under the new tenancy laws they won't get a private rental so no more doctors and engineers into NZ until the taxpayer can build more homes? Sounds like a solid plan.
If Doctors and Engineers are so valuable to their employers, then they should be able to afford to build a home for them. Otherwise as contributors to our economy, they are not an uneconomic proposition. Should the general NZ tax payer subsidize their employers to that extent? if not them who? Somebody has to pay for the houses and infrastructure that they will need.
There are some interesting points in this report.
"" The Treaty interest should be reflected in immigration policy and institutions. The Treaty was developed and signed in response to immigration, and directly refers to immigration. The Crown also has a duty to actively protect Māori interests. ""
The late Dr Ranginui Walker argued that the treaty provided only for peoples who accepted Queen Victoria as head of state as being entitled to live in NZ. This could be generously interpreted to cover all modern commonwealth countries. I've never heard any politician, Maori or Pakeha willing to distinguish between Indian and Chinese immigrants.
"" The immigration system endeavours to manage the risk of New Zealanders being displaced by migrant workers, however, there are known deficiencies with the current Labour Market Test and skills shortage lists. ""
'Known deficiencies' is a polite way of saying they are a joke.
At least this report tries to start a discussion of surely what must be the highest importance to any govt: who can live in its country. I'll nominate this as the most important sentence: "" A country that treats its guests well is more likely to attract migrants, retain their capabilities and enjoy their long-term contributions. "" It seems to be the first official admission agreeing with Prof Stringer's report from 2016. From detailed interviews with 96 immigrants, she deduced that rorts and corruption are rife in NZ. The article about that report in the NZ Herald was titled with a remark made by an employer to an Indian woman "No sex, no visa".
This country needs more immigrants and students not less.
Infrastructure to accommodate rising population is falling behind because the political parties uses it as an election candy to run their pork barrel politics to get elected into the office. Whether those promises are within their competency or within the budget capacity of the crown was never considered thoroughly when those promises were made. As soon as the elect enters office, the promises are deferred into the next election cycle to be recycled as a new candy. Just refer to Kiwi Build, Gully and Whangerei highways and light rails to witness for yourself how the public are constantly being deceived to elect those who has neither competency nor integrity into office.
Migrants and students contribute significantly to the country. Here is one example- do your own research to find much more. Like some guy complaining higher up in the comments post about too many migrants in the medical team working on his operation, he should instead be grateful that his operation is even possible because of them!
The suggestion that immigrants bring along their family and hence aren't net positive is one of the greatest myopia of anti-immigrant fascists. What the latter failed to realised is that the second generation will be Kiwis just like them, sound like them, eats like them and works like them- except even harder. Failure to see beyond the present is what brought this country into the current social and economic quagmire.
The you versus them stems from personal insecurity that runs deep in this country's culture. If you truly afford your hospitality, treating migrants with the same dignity and respect as you would expect it yourself, will you still truly think they are different or sub-human? And those who stereotype immigrants as low pay servants hasn't yet to work their way up the career ladder.
I am a Kiwi and I embrace immigrants. Those who claimed to be Kiwis but view immigrants as commodities should be ashamed of themselves. We were up in arms when fellow Kiwis are commoditised the same way overseas, what then makes us morally superior to do the opposite of what we profess when it is our turn hosting migrants?
Everyone needs to have a good re-look at themselves in the mirror.
I made the comment about the high number of immigrants working at Auckland eye hospital. Much the same at North Shore hospital. I was delighted by their competence and friendliness. But you find Kiwi nurses in London looking after Boris. We train them and they leave. Because we do not pay enough. Now we have ICU beds in NZ with insufficient nurses to support them just when they will be needed because of Covid. I take most of your points but still believe when you have too many immigrants in a job type then there is a problem - either low pay or bad conditions or no training.
To repeat myself I'm eternally grateful for the treatment both my wife and I have had in Auckland hospitals.
And just to add support to your comment when in hospital I asked the clearly Korean trainee nurse where she would recommend finding a local Korean restaurant. Her reply "Well I only arrived recently" - with a little discussion we ended up with her realising I was an immigrant whereas she was born in and had only recently arrived from Christchurch.
Immigrants are usually delightful and hard working. It is the rate of population growth that is bad and also the terrible rorts and corruption embedded in the system usually among the low paid.
At some point the human race will have to confront or be confronted with the fact that we have overpopulated this planet, have set it on a path to catastrophic warming and have destroyed the environment and other species like there is no tomorrow (at this rate, there isn't)
Clinging to the notion that a rising population is a good thing needs to become a thing of the past.
At COPOUT26 I saw young climate activists fighting for their tomorrows, while those in power fought for their yesterdays.
It's all over, Rover
"impacts of migration on the average earnings and employment of local workers are very minor and mostly positive"
Hahahaha I'm going to have to check the citation on that one!
Anyone care to take a stab at explaining how that works...? We have our first 'breather' in NOM for about 20 years and .... nek minnit...
Key labour market measures showed an increasingly tight labour market, with unemployment and underutilisation near record lows, employment at an all-time high, and wage growth strong, Stats NZ said today
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/unemployment-and-underutilisation-contin…
Everyone knows high immigration drives down wages despite the false claims of the pro-immigration "productivity commission "
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/politics/federal/former-rba…
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.