ACT And NZ First Pitch Tighter Immigration Controls, Others Warn Against Anti-Immigration Policies

Russell
Palmer Political reporter

With
ACT and New Zealand First pitching tighter controls on
immigration, National, Labour and the Greens are warning
against populist anti-immigration policies.

Party
leaders and spokespeople were giving speeches at the annual
Immigration Conference in Auckland on Friday.

New
Zealand First’s Winston Peters launched
more than a dozen proposals – almost all of which would
curb or restrict migration.

Labour’s Phil Twyford also
came prepared, proposing a mix of policies including a
citizenship pathway for children born to undocumented
parents, a longer permanent residency process, and a review
of the financial criteria for parent visas.

However,
he spent much of his speech decrying a “dumpster fire” of
right-wing populists demonising migrants and
refugees.

National’s Erica Stanford, who is the
current minister, said she did not support ACT’s
proposal to abolish permanent resident
visas.

While some permanent residents could apply
for citizenship, it would force those whose country of
origin did not allow dual-passport holders to make a
“heartbreaking” choice.

“Our permanent resident visa
provides certainty and stability for people who have
demonstrated a commitment to New Zealand. It also provides
that competitive advantage … to attract skilled workers,”
she said.

She also criticised the New Zealand First
and Green amnesty for Pacific overstayer policies, saying
such approaches “do not work”.

“What they do fuel is
the next generation of overstayers who think if they wait
long enough they will have a pathway to residence or a valid
visa.”

Stanford told reporters National and NZ First
were “very aligned” on immigration but parties proposing to
seriously restrict immigration needed to explain who would
be turned away, with nearly half of primary applications
based on partnership visas and nearly as many on filling
skills shortages.

“It is a real juxtaposition to say
‘we want the best people’, but then ‘we’re also going to
restrict the numbers’ … they’re proposing saying ‘well if
you’re here illegally we’ll give you some kind of amnesty’,
those two things are the polar opposite: ‘if you’re doing
the wrong thing, welcome, but if you are people we just
really need, well we’re going to restrict your right to
residence’.”

She would not express concern, however,
saying many parties “announce a range of policies that never
actually make it through coalition negotiations. So it would
be wrong of me to say I’m concerned about anything because
we have to wait and see”.

Greens spokesperson Ricardo
Menendez March also criticised parties that would conflate
New Zealand’s challenges with immigration.

“In our
country we face a huge amount of challenges: we have an
infrastructure deficit, an ageing population, we have low
wages compared to other comparable nations, we have a tax
system that overtaxes work while it doesn’t really want to
touch wealth.

“None of these issues were caused by
migrant workers, and none of these issues will be addressed
by throwing dog whistles on getting tough on immigration, or
extending the time that it takes for someone to become a
permanent residency.”

Governments trying to change
residency requirements to meet labour demand, he said,
ignored the reality that it was people who affected and who
had often already put down roots.

The Greens’ “settled
residency pathway” policy would provide a pathway to
residency for those who had been living in New Zealand for
five years.

The party would also end 12-month
stand-down periods requiring workers to leave the country
between visas, and allow migrant workers to change
jobs.

March defended the Greens’ amnesty proposal,
saying migrants often had no ties to the countries they were
being deported to.

“[New Zealand has] around 20,000 or
so overstayers in this country, and a regularisation
programme won’t add significant infrastructure pressures
considering the people are already here, many of them are
already working, many of them are already paying
tax.”

Parmjeet Parmar for the ACT Party talked up
removing any ballot system for the parent resident visas and
instead having a queue, and clarified that removing the
permanent residence category would not stop migrants from
settling in New Zealand.

“People will be able to stay
here indefinitely, but there is going to be a physical
presence test … people will have to show that they have
been here in New Zealand for 730 days, which is two years,
in [any given period of] five years.”

She said the
policy was very similar to Australia and Canada’s approach,
warning that the immigration system was being
“abused”.

“I have heard many, many cases where people
have gained permanent residency, but then have left New
Zealand and haven’t come back for very, very long time. I’ve
also heard cases where people are coming back when they need
our free or subsidised education system, or they need
healthcare here to New Zealand.

ACT has also been
pushing for stronger deportation laws, and Parmar
highlighted the party’s
plan to establish a dedicated overstayer enforcement
unit inside Immigration NZ.

“If somebody works
illegally the lawful migrant who paid the fee and met the
requirements is being undercut. If an employer exploits
workers every responsible employer is forced to compete
against someone who has decided the rules do not
matter.

“That’s why we have proposed a dedicated unit
to deal with
overstayers.”

© Scoop Media