The past few months have seen a series of tweaks to New Zealand’s immigration settings. While criticised by opposition parties as election year tinkering, the changes have introduced greater flexibility for entry by highly skilled migrants. And they have closed loopholes open to abuse.
In the former category is Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse’s recently announced new rules to let high salaries count toward a migrant’s points tally – a move recommended in The Initiative’s January 2017 report, The New New Zealanders: Why Migrants Make Good Kiwis. The announcement was the epitome of common sense.
In the latter category, is Prime Minister Bill English’s March announcement that, if re-elected, National will increase the time immigrants must be residents before becoming eligible for New Zealand Superannuation. Doubling the requirement to 20 years, from an OECD-low of 10 years, was met with broad support.
Of course, that was hardly a surprise. With current life-expectancy meaning superannuation is now paid for close to 20 years on average, permitting migrants to receive it after residency of only half that period was an obvious anomaly.
More surprising, though, is the government’s failure to do anything about New Zealand’s other immigration anomaly: permanent residents with only a fleeting connection with New Zealand taking advantage of the state-funded education system by sending their children back here to be educated on the New Zealand taxpayer.
Growing problem
The phenomenon is a growing problem in Auckland, where secondary school-aged children entitled to permanent residence are parachuted from overseas into the zones of secondary schools across the city. The children may have spent none of their primary schooling here.
Indeed, they may have only a fleeting connection with New Zealand and may not even speak English. And one or both of their parents may continue to work (and reside) in the country of their citizenship, content to leave their children in the hands of the non-working parent or a New Zealand-based guardian.
The problems with the phenomenon are obvious. Because the students have not attended local primary schools, secondary schools are unable to plan for student “re-entry,” creating challenges with managing school rolls. And there are social problems too, with integration into the community and supervision.
But perhaps the main problem is fiscal: The taxpayer is left to pick up the tab for educating children of parents who may be permanent residents in name only.
How is this possible?
Compared with most countries, New Zealand has very migrant-friendly permanent resident rules. Migrants who hold residents' visas can apply for permanent residency after just two years, provided they have complied with the terms of their visa and can show a “commitment to New Zealand.”
However, the commitment does not need to be strong. Indeed, an applicant can show a commitment to New Zealand without even living here.
To meet the criteria, the applicant need only have invested $1 million in New Zealand for two years, or have bought as little as a 25% interest in a business more than a year before the application. And, once the application is granted, the new permanent resident is not obliged to retain these investments.
Alternatively, an applicant with dependents can rely on personal residency of just 41 days in the previous 12 months – provided the applicant has bought a home in New Zealand and his or her dependents have been resident in New Zealand for 184 days in each of the previous two years.
Yet despite these comparatively low thresholds, once a migrant becomes a permanent resident, he or she is entitled to most of the benefits of citizenship, including access to state-funded healthcare, education and welfare.
No commitments required
And, more importantly, permanent residency in New Zealand does not expire. Unlike Australia, where it is granted for an initial five-year term, or Canada, where it comes with continuing residency obligations, permanent residency in New Zealand requires no commitments at all.
Consequently, parents with infant children can come to New Zealand, be based here temporarily and apply for permanent residency two years later. Then, having obtained it, they can leave New Zealand for a decade (or more) but keep their status as permanent residents.
That state of affairs may persist indefinitely, with all the benefits of permanent residence banked for future use.
Like the superannuation anomaly, the rules invite abuse. They need to be fixed.
The example of Canada provides at least part of the solution. To retain their status, Canada’s permanent residents must be physically present in Canada for two years out of every five.
While still providing flexibility, the residency requirements recognise that status as a permanent resident is a privilege that comes from being a resident. It is not a lifetime ticket to a free ride on the Canadian taxpayer.
The government would do well to provide the same protection for citizens here.