No wellbeing in immigration

The Government’s so-called wellbeing approach leaves much to the imagination, particularly in its draconian approach to immigration policy. The latest policy measures see the reinstatement of the Parent Category visa programme, with some major changes.

To qualify for this category, a single earner would have to make $106,000 a year in order to sponsor a parent, or $159,000 if they want to bring both their parents. The Government has also capped the quota of successful applicants to 1000 parents a year.

In a statement, Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway said the policy was designed to attract and retain skilled migrants.

It has to be said that a government that measures the worth of a skilled migrant only by their income is dooming itself to fail. A highly skilled pregnant piano teacher may not earn a high-end salary, but she certainly contributes to the growth of New Zealand society. Yet our current policy sees us closing the door on these prospects.

Queenstown, for example, doesn’t need highly skilled migrants, but as far as recent headlines are concerned, the town badly needs migrants.

‘‘Queenstown employers struggling with immigration issues – MP,’’ writes RNZ. ‘‘Immigration changes could force closure of Queenstown businesses,’’ exclaims the Otago Daily Times. ‘‘Queenstown employers beg immigration minister for help finding and retaining staff,’’ says Stuff.

In my opinion, Immigration New Zealand’s problems go a lot deeper than the recently announced changes. The Government is merely solidifying a longstanding bias and cultural problem within New Zealand’s framework that has prejudiced many potential Kiwis.

Profiling of applicants from particular parts of the world is regularly done at the outset, and many applicants are effectively guilty until proven innocent. Just take a second to consider that the Government recently changed a policy after it was exposed as being overwhelmingly racist, as it was ‘‘intentionally designed to reduce the number of Middle Eastern and African refugees in the country’’.

The Refugee Status Branch (RSB) is another classic example of this. Refugee claimants are assumed to be lying until proven otherwise. I know of one case where the claimant was a persecuted minority from Afghanistan and the RSB interviewed him on four occasions, just to find enough flaws in the story to conclude he was lying.

Predictably, out of all the refugee claimants I represented, the claims that failed at the RSB level were all successful on appeal at the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.

And this is where the numbers are most damning. In February it came to light that four out of every 10 appeals to the tribunal against decisions made by Immigration NZ have been upheld. In other words, 40 per cent of the time the immigration department is wrong. These aren’t just new officers being mistaken on the job; these problems are systemic.

Despite what Winston Peters and Donald Trump might tell you, immigrants are not inherently bad people. When I think of people arriving on these shores who pose a threat to our way of life and security, I can think of one in particular who slipped through the system and devastated an entire community, and he wasn’t from the Middle East (though oddly enough, he had travelled to and from Pakistan, North Korea, and everywhere in between).

Unsurprisingly, I suspect Peters’ proposed ‘‘values’’ exam would have done nothing to stop him reaching our shores, and nor would it be intended to do so. Makes perfect sense.