New Zealand's changing script on immigration
The National Party's script on immigration is changing in the election year. With elections in sight, the script on immigration is not only changing but is fast evolving in the lead up to the elections.
The latest evidence of this fast evolving script on immigration is discernible in the comments of the two National List MP's about the changed residency requirement for the National Party's plan on the New Zealand superannuation.
A relatively new and quite interesting addition in the fast evolving script is the "issue of fairness" as evident in the comments of the two MPs.
Dr Parjeet Parmar argues that the current eligibility requirement for NZ super where people aged 65 and over can claim New Zealand superannuation once they have been residents for ten years create an issue of fairness.
"People who have not made as long a contribution to New Zealand during their working lives are, after living here for only ten years, receiving the same support as people who have paid taxes in New Zealand for their entire working life," Dr Parmar says.
Similarly, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi also invokes the prophecy of "issue of fairness."
"It is an issue of fairness – with those who have not made as long a contribution to New Zealand during their working lives are, after living here for only ten years, receiving the same support as people who have paid taxes here for their working life," Mr Bakshi says.
To be fair to these MPs, there is nothing else to be done other than relaying the key political messages being drafted at the top Party leadership level.
In any democracy, the key political messages are often drafted at the top leadership level, though, after thorough discussion within the caucus.
However, such political messages do suggest that the existing eligibility requirement of 10 years residency had not been "fair," or at best had stopped being fair to everyone in New Zealand.
National Party would have to come out with some facts to substantiate their newly introduced prophecy of "fairness," until then we have to rely on the facts available in the public domain.
According to a New Zealand Treasury Working Paper in 2014 titled Migration and Macroeconomic Performance in New Zealand: Theory and Evidence, a migrant while working contributes more to tax revenue than government expenditure. The net benefit to the NZ government is the larger, the higher skilled the migrant is.
Professor Jacques Poot, Director, National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis (NIDEA), University of Waikato, argues that the net fiscal benefit that immigrants provide to the New Zealand government is one obvious reason to justify paying a migrant a public pension.
"But it is very hard to establish exactly how many years of work would be needed to cover the expected total post-retirement payments of superannuation," Professor Poot says.
In the absence of evidence in public domain, it is apparent that National Party's script on immigration is changing less on the basis of substantiated facts and more on the pulls and pressures of domestic politics.
In a similar vein, Labour's candidate for Maungakiekie in the 2017 General Election, Priyanca Radhakrishnan's comment could also be seen drifting away from the main political message of the Labour Party.
Ms Radhakrishnan says "as far as I’m aware, most OECD countries require immigrants to have been resident in the host country for longer than ten years."
What do OECD countries mean here, is not very clear in this argument as countries like Australia and Canada are also members of OECD group, and they have a minimum 10-year residency requirement in place for becoming eligible for Aged Pension or Old Age Security pension?
It might be a possibility that the emphasis in this statement is on the countries of Europe, as Professor Spoonley of Massey University notes.
"My understanding is that this step will take New Zealand away from our Trans-Tasman neighbour Australia and closer to Europe," Professor Spoonley says.
This is a position that Andrew Little will have to come out clean, sooner than later.
Is Labour Party prepared to take New Zealand closer to Europe on immigration rather than Canada and Australia?
Regardless of the political divide, it is clear that New Zealand's entire script on immigration is going through a change.
It will not be an exaggeration to assert that New Zealand's position as a favourable migrant destination is at some risk.
The National Party's script on immigration is changing in the election year. With elections in sight, the script on immigration is not only changing but is fast evolving in the lead up to the elections.
The latest evidence of this fast evolving script on immigration is discernible in the comments...
The National Party's script on immigration is changing in the election year. With elections in sight, the script on immigration is not only changing but is fast evolving in the lead up to the elections.
The latest evidence of this fast evolving script on immigration is discernible in the comments of the two National List MP's about the changed residency requirement for the National Party's plan on the New Zealand superannuation.
A relatively new and quite interesting addition in the fast evolving script is the "issue of fairness" as evident in the comments of the two MPs.
Dr Parjeet Parmar argues that the current eligibility requirement for NZ super where people aged 65 and over can claim New Zealand superannuation once they have been residents for ten years create an issue of fairness.
"People who have not made as long a contribution to New Zealand during their working lives are, after living here for only ten years, receiving the same support as people who have paid taxes in New Zealand for their entire working life," Dr Parmar says.
Similarly, Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi also invokes the prophecy of "issue of fairness."
"It is an issue of fairness – with those who have not made as long a contribution to New Zealand during their working lives are, after living here for only ten years, receiving the same support as people who have paid taxes here for their working life," Mr Bakshi says.
To be fair to these MPs, there is nothing else to be done other than relaying the key political messages being drafted at the top Party leadership level.
In any democracy, the key political messages are often drafted at the top leadership level, though, after thorough discussion within the caucus.
However, such political messages do suggest that the existing eligibility requirement of 10 years residency had not been "fair," or at best had stopped being fair to everyone in New Zealand.
National Party would have to come out with some facts to substantiate their newly introduced prophecy of "fairness," until then we have to rely on the facts available in the public domain.
According to a New Zealand Treasury Working Paper in 2014 titled Migration and Macroeconomic Performance in New Zealand: Theory and Evidence, a migrant while working contributes more to tax revenue than government expenditure. The net benefit to the NZ government is the larger, the higher skilled the migrant is.
Professor Jacques Poot, Director, National Institute of Demographic and Economic Analysis (NIDEA), University of Waikato, argues that the net fiscal benefit that immigrants provide to the New Zealand government is one obvious reason to justify paying a migrant a public pension.
"But it is very hard to establish exactly how many years of work would be needed to cover the expected total post-retirement payments of superannuation," Professor Poot says.
In the absence of evidence in public domain, it is apparent that National Party's script on immigration is changing less on the basis of substantiated facts and more on the pulls and pressures of domestic politics.
In a similar vein, Labour's candidate for Maungakiekie in the 2017 General Election, Priyanca Radhakrishnan's comment could also be seen drifting away from the main political message of the Labour Party.
Ms Radhakrishnan says "as far as I’m aware, most OECD countries require immigrants to have been resident in the host country for longer than ten years."
What do OECD countries mean here, is not very clear in this argument as countries like Australia and Canada are also members of OECD group, and they have a minimum 10-year residency requirement in place for becoming eligible for Aged Pension or Old Age Security pension?
It might be a possibility that the emphasis in this statement is on the countries of Europe, as Professor Spoonley of Massey University notes.
"My understanding is that this step will take New Zealand away from our Trans-Tasman neighbour Australia and closer to Europe," Professor Spoonley says.
This is a position that Andrew Little will have to come out clean, sooner than later.
Is Labour Party prepared to take New Zealand closer to Europe on immigration rather than Canada and Australia?
Regardless of the political divide, it is clear that New Zealand's entire script on immigration is going through a change.
It will not be an exaggeration to assert that New Zealand's position as a favourable migrant destination is at some risk.
Leave a Comment