The latest changes announced in the current immigration system seem to be an exercise aimed at keeping everyone happy, rather than implementing a robust change in any one particular sector or segment.
Although any major policy announcement is expected to bring changes in a way that does not disturb the existing delicate balance.
However, the changes envisaged and promised in the narrative around current immigration system were never meant to be “balanced.”
Those who recalled the high-decibel electoral campaign around record levels of net immigration and the call for culling immigration numbers in the league of 20-30,000 would agree that a so-called balanced solution was never on offer.
The call was always for a radical change – be it in the record levels of net-immigration or international students abusing current international regime through the so-called backdoor pathway to residency.
If that was the cherished goal, then the first round of immigration changes would fail to achieve any robust change and is instead a timid exercise to appease everyone.
For sometimes, achieving something meaningful requires decision-making that is not necessarily aimed at keeping everyone happy.
On Saturday, June 2, the Immigration Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, announced a small set of changes, which could be safely described as government’s first round of changes in the current immigration system.
The announcement was long due and much anticipated, and therefore generates huge interest in the efficacy of the new changes proposed.
The fact that a radical cut in immigration numbers was coming was an open secret ever since the new government was formed in October last year, given that Labour Party had campaigned in the election for reducing immigration numbers by 20-30,000 – a promise that they had backed down since then.
However, since the change of the government, the narrative of cutting down of immigration numbers was tactfully changed from the need of reducing net migration-level, to stopping the rampant migrant exploitation.
It is noteworthy that before elections dominant voice was on reducing net immigration levels and overburdening of Auckland’s civic infrastructure.
In the new dominant narrative, it began to be articulated that preventing migrant exploitation was the key objective of the new government, for which the number of international students arriving in the country had to be drastically reduced so as to reduce the probability of them falling victim to unscrupulous employers and education agents.
In this narrative there seemed to be a tacit acceptance of the fact that New Zealand does not have adequate resources to tackle migrant exploitation onshore and would rather prefer a strategy that would keep away a large number of international students from the shores - a policy choice that would directly threaten the $4.5 billion international education industry.
Also, the majority of noise in this new narrative around international students has been about stopping the so-called backdoor “pathway to residence” and regulating the unscrupulous education agents, who are primarily based overseas.
The latest announcement on policy changes needs to be assessed in this light to find out if the government would be able to achieve the above stated desired objectives.
By restricting, post-study work rights of international students in education courses of level 4-6, the government is hoping to cut down a large number of international students, although no accurate numbers have been given in the recent announcement.
Simultaneously government is hoping that the dent in New Zealand’s $4.5 billion international education industry will be minuscule at the level of $260 million.
Despite the estimates made by Ministry of Business, Innovation and Enterprise (MBIE), these numbers appear to be on the conservative side.
A commonsensical extrapolation of numbers of international students in level 4-6 courses enrolled in PTE’s, which roughly corresponds to one third of the total number of international students coming in NZ, (Universities and ITPs are other major education organisations where international students get enrolled), the hit should be far more significant than what is being projected.
Similarly, by keeping the options open for international students in level 4-6, to apply for work visas other than post-study work visa, a potential room has been left open for a much higher level of exploitation by unscrupulous employers than what is currently believed to be happening.
To be fair to the government, there are too many stakes involved in the international education-immigration to be able to be managed in such a way without risking one or the other.
It is to say, if the number of international students coming to NZ is to be risked by restricting their work-rights, then it is bound to affect the international education $4.5 billion industry.
However, the current changes proposed by the government, coming eight months after a high-octane pitch for the need for some radical action to weed out the source of problems in our international education-immigration system, the changes are not radical and is a timid exercise to keep everyone happy.