Migration debate triggers a logic bypass
Another month, another record immigration number. Cue another round of political point-scoring. It probably took Labour all the restraint it could muster to wait a full 90 minutes to react to the latest data, showing a net 71,900 people had come into the country and a total of 129,500 ‘‘migrant arrivals’’ on these shores in the past 12 months.
Leader Andrew Little has reiterated Labour’s plan to cut migration numbers by ‘‘tens of thousands’’ but refused to name a figure. Labour would, he said, ‘‘better match migrants with the skills our industries need, accelerate investment in vital infrastructure and build the houses that a growing population needs’’.
The last two – infrastructure investment and house building – are necessary responses but not in themselves an immigration policy. Matching migrant skills to need is closer to the mark, but begs a number of questions. Which skills? How highly skilled? How many?
They are also the questions Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse partly tried to answer with his move to ‘‘remuneration levels’’ as a proxy for skills. But he too failed at the crucial hurdle, talking only airily about ‘‘control’’ of immigration without answering the key question: How many?
If you want to be kind to both you could argue that it varies. What is needed in a downturn will change when the economy is running hot. And the numbers can be radically biffed around, say, by Kiwis returning after an overseas terrorist attack.
But both men are guilty of familiar political crimes – keeping it vague or, as the old saying goes, using statistics much as a drunk uses a lamppost; for support rather than illumination
While Opposition politicians – yes, Winston, you too – toss around the big numbers on record migrant flows and the highly variable ‘‘net migration’’ numbers, they are not the figures that are easily in their power to affect (though they do signal the level of pressure on school, hospitals, housing and roads).
The ebb and flow of New Zealanders, and others with the right to come here, is out of politicians’ control.
Where they can have an impact is in the flow of work visas and student visas. At the border they show up as dominant in the statistics: 43,700 work visas and 23,900 student visas in the latest data, with a total ‘‘non-New Zealand citizen’’ inflow of 73,200.
If politicians want to look somewhere for a solution, they should start there.
In 2005 some 9650 student visa holders came in. In 2008 that rose to 13,139 and it hit 23,861 in the latest March year – actually 3800 lower than the February figure.
In the work visas category the growth is equally stark. The number was 17,056 in 2005, 21,883 in 2008 and 43,725 this March.
Over the same period numbers of those coming in on a ‘‘residence’’ visa have barely moved; from 14,943 in 2005 and 17,772 in 2006 to just 16,763 in the latest 12-month period.
Unless there has been a sudden slump in the skill level of the Kiwi workforce, there is clearly something else going on here.
And unless there has been a fundamental change in the New Zealand economy over the last decade, there seems considerable room for New Zealand to allow ‘‘tens of thousands’’ fewer visas, if not the same cut in migrant numbers that Little has talked about, though he has made a dog’s breakfast of explaining it.
But even the big jump in work visa numbers at the border paints only part of the picture.
Statistics NZ’s data is largely based on ‘‘stated intention’’ by migrants as they arrive.
Yet according to the number crunchers, the vast majority of work visas is approved onshore, so they do not necessarily show up in the information collected at the border. And once someone is here, there can also be changes in how long they stay and in the types of visas they move on to.
Again, Woodhouse’s ‘‘remuneration tests’’ are a step in the right direction. As has been pointed out, they might help distinguish between a chip-fryer at your local takeaway and a top flight Michelin Star chef but they are only tangential ways to affect over all numbers.
If the Government or Opposition want to ‘‘control’’ immigration they need to look at the number and skill levels of those granted a visa both inside the country and out, not waffle around or indulge in ‘‘dogwhistling’’ about the country being swamped by migrants.
The whole debate crackles with emotion and is electric with false leads and half truths.
Take one example: that the boom in migrant numbers is being driven by returning New Zealanders. In comparative terms – how many are coming back and leaving compared with the days of a ‘‘Westpac Stadium-sized’’ exodus – there has been a big shift.
However, as Statistics NZ itself pointed out, more New Zealand citizens are still leaving the country each year than return as migrants. There was a net loss of 1300 citizens in the year to the end of March 2017.
The net migration of non-New Zealand citizens was actually 73,200; higher than the total ‘‘net migration’’ figure of 71,900 because of the net outflow of Kiwis. As Westpac economist Satish Ranchod has pointed out, arrivals only account for half of the strong pickup in net migration since 2012.
Don’t hold your breath for a change of tack ahead of September 23, though. Sadly it is too potent an election issue for the Opposition to grant the Government a free pass in return for a spot of ‘‘tinkering’’ around visa requirements.
After all, the international debate about migration, and tensions in Europe and the US, did not get where it is today by a rational analysis of the options.
‘‘. . . the vast majority of work visas is approved onshore, so they do not necessarily show up in the information collected at the border. Vernon Small
The number of people arriving in New Zealand intending to stay continues to surge, sending net migration to a new record high.
Statistics New Zealand said the net gain from immigration rose to 71,932 in the year to March 31, up from 71,333 in the year ended February 28. In the month of March alone, the gain was 6100.
While the number of people leaving New Zealand to live overseas is now slowly rising, annual arrivals continue to climb.
Statistics New Zealand said 129,500 people arrived in New Zealand intending to stay for at least 12 months in the year to March 31, up from 128,800 in the year ended February 28.
The largest number of arrivals came from Australia, accounting for 25,557 arrivals.
However, the figures, based on arrivals cards individually filled out, do not give details of citizenship, so many of those could be Kiwis returning home or those from other countries who had been living in Australia.
Just under 15,000 people arrived from Britain, 12,358 from China and 9547 from India.
More than 5500 arrivals did not state which country they had arrived from.
Westpac economist Satish Ranchhod said much of the gain in net migration was actually down to fewer Kiwis moving to live overseas, because of the strong job market here.
‘‘Arrivals only account for half of the strong pick-up in net migration that we have seen since 2012,’’ Ranchhod said.
‘‘The other half relates to flows of New Zealanders in and out of the country. On an annual basis, this is at the lowest level since 1984. New Zealanders are being encouraged to stay onshore or come back from overseas by our positive economic conditions.’’
Westpac forecasts that net migration will stay close to the current levels for the next two to three months, before gradually dropping to an annual gain of about 60,000 by the end of the year and about 45,000 by the end of 2018.
The drop would come as departures picked up, with New Zealanders beginning to move overseas in numbers they usually would as the global economy picked up.
But Ranchhod said the total number of arrivals – currently about 130,000 a year – was likely to stay strong.
‘‘At least for the next year or so we think arrivals are going to continue at pretty firm levels.’’
Migration is shaping up to be a major election issue.
Earlier this month, Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse announced plans for changes to visa rules in the skilled migrant category, including adding new bands on pay.
But it was unclear what difference the changes would make, especially in the next few years.
ASB, which had forecast that net annual migration gains will stay above 70,000 well into 2018, decided to make no changes to its forecasts as a result of the Government’s proposals.
The day after the proposals were announced, Labour leader Andrew Little said the level of net migration needed to be cut by ‘‘tens of thousands’’, indicating the party would target gains of 20,000 to 25,000 a year, without releasing the policy.
ACT leader David Seymour questioned where the Opposition would make the cuts, with close to 9000 of the arrivals coming for construction-related roles, at a time of housing shortage.
‘‘Cracking down on chefs and sales managers will only get them so far. Are they going to pull New Zealand out of our free travel arrangement with Australia? Or stop expat Kiwis from coming home?’’