Among the rumble created after the immigration minister's announcement of what he believes as a "small change" in the NZ immigration system, this piece submits 4 things that the minister could have done differently.
First. The first thing is that the minister could have defined the problem clearly that has driven him to introduce those "small changes" that he is talking about.
Although minister has mentioned intermittently about some of his concerns such as "unmet commitments from the sponsors of parent visa apparently resulting in millions of dollars burden on taxpayers' money," yet he does not lay out his concerns in detail to signify the extent of the problem deserving such a punitive action.
This obviously has left everyone chasing the wild goose to guess if this ministerial action is a response to some fundamental error in the immigration system, or abuse of the state health and welfare system, or is targeted at Auckland housing, or anything else.
A clear layout of the problem would have left fewer bloodbaths among the stakeholders than it has left now.
Second. The punitive measure of slashing parent category visa by more than 60% for future applicants on the pretext of an alleged non-complying behaviour of some existing residents who are currently enjoying that privilege is beyond comprehension.
It leaves several questions unanswered about the efficacy of entire immigration system.
To say that government is struggling to find, and extract, commitment from those non-committal sponsors, is to undermine the whole system of sponsoring within our immigration system.
Then probably we need a radical, rather than a cosmetic change as suggested by the minister.
Instead of finding those guilty of undermining our systems and imposing a cost on them, so as to deter others from abusing the system, the minister has opted for an easy and populist way of shifting the blame on others.
This very much reminds me of the case when, not long ago in the past, Australia introduced laws that allowed for the mandatory cancellation of visas for foreigners sentenced to at least one year's jail, thus, sending back many Kiwis who have spent almost their life in Australia. If my memory serves me well, then this Australian policy was not received well within New Zealand, exactly for the reason that "shifting away your responsibility" was not considered a just solution of a problem.
Although this is an imperfect analogy, but the point being made is that both government's acceptance of their helplessness to solve issues on their own and better opt to shift responsibility on a ‘distant other’.
Third. If the intention to reduce parent visa applicants is to prevent strain on public health and welfare system then the Minister could have either de-coupled parent visa category, from the state health and welfare funding, and imposed the condition on new migrants to compulsorily buy health insurance for their emigrating parents.
In fact this way, immigration could have continued to bring more value to the NZ economy, simultaneously ensuring emotional well-being of many new migrants.
At best it could have saved NZ from being seen globally as a country that is not a desirable destination anymore.
Fourth. While the decision to reduce skilled migrant resident visa by 5000 in short to medium term is well within the exclusive right of any country to allow or disallow migrants in that country, yet the accompanied tweaks like raising points from 140 to 160 and raising English language barrier are slightly over the top.
As it clearly sends the signal that the route from international studentship to skilled migrant visa in New Zealand is getting murkier, if not unrealistic.
Thus raising the question mark on the effectiveness of their choice of NZ as a preferred international education destination.
In absence of exact figures, it is hard to suggest what percentage of international students manages to get through the skilled migrant visa route to the residence in New Zealand.
But it is also equally hard to assume that in absence of a reasonably achievable route from international studentship to skilled migrant visa, the temptation to come to NZ for international education will remain same at the current level.
As a consequence, results could be oblivious to our now booming international education market.
Probably a cut in numbers alone would have been effective in what Prime Minister John Key says “managing the increased demands on NZ immigration.”
Now there is a real possible risk of tipping over that demand.