Editorial: Immigration policy

OPINION: Graven on a tablet within the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York is the poem with the famous words "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses". The latest immigration policy development in New Zealand is somewhat different to this. The new temporary retirement immigration category is more a case of New Zealand being given and welcoming elderly migrants, provided they have enough money to invest here.

Under this scheme foreigners aged at least 66 years can move to New Zealand on an initial two-year permit if they have good health and character, agree to invest $750,000 here, have an income of $60,000 and $500,000 worth of assets.

By international standards the financial criteria for coming here are not huge, which might encourage a reasonable uptake. But even if this did occur the amount which must be invested is also comparatively modest, which suggests that the scheme might not make the contribution to economic growth which the Government hopes would occur.

Rather than encouraging the wealthy elderly to come to our shores, the focus should be on promoting New Zealand as a migration destination for younger people with skills. This would help address this nation's serious skills shortage and contribute more meaningfully to economic growth.

The scheme does have safeguards to protect the interests of the taxpayer, at least in theory. These stipulate that the investments must be "acceptable", by which is meant they must be in bonds or the sharemarket and have the potential to contribute to the New Zealand economy. And the rules would ban direct or indirect investments in residential property in order not to stoke the property market.

But it is not spelled out how it would be calculated a particular investment would boost economic growth. Nor is it yet known how rigorously the rule about residential property would be enforced.

Another rule would demand that the retirees coming here have comprehensive health insurance. But a report to the previous National government a decade ago on a retirement visa-for-cash scheme said that there was a significant risk that even with insurance some of the health costs would be provided by the public health system.

The scheme could therefore add to the problems for the health system which are already occurring because of our own ageing population.

In Canterbury, for example, those over 65 years make up 14 per cent of the population but account for almost half of the health budget. As the region's population continues to age, by 2020 another hospital the size of Christchurch Hospital would be needed.

In a second change to the immigration regime those seeking to migrate to New Zealand under the family category because they have children here could receive priority treatment if they invest $1 million.

Those coming here under this parent retirement category might also have an impact on the health system but this scheme at least has the virtue of enabling parents and their children to be reunited. The temporary retirement scheme does not have such a virtue and this Government should emulate the former National administration and not proceed with it.

- © Fairfax NZ News