John Armstrong: Peters' race card trumped by canny Dalziel

First shroud your announcement in mystery. Then promote it as the most sweeping change in policy in a decade. If that does not grab people's attention, nothing will.

Thus did the Government engineer a publicity splash on Tuesday with an overhaul of immigration rules to stop highly qualified people ending up in low-skilled jobs. And, without saying as much, start stemming inflows from Asia.

Word spread around Parliament that something big was in the offing. So big, opposition parties would be granted a rare official briefing.

The secrecy surrounding Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel's late-afternoon announcement was argued on the grounds that there would have been a last-minute rush of applications under the old rules before legislation implementing a cut-off point could be passed by Parliament sitting under urgency that night.

Still, the cloak-and-dagger behaviour enabled the Government to get its message up in neon lights.

Effectively, it was saying: "You may think immigration is out of control - that the wrong people are coming from the wrong countries in the wrong numbers and settling in the wrong place. We are bringing it under control."

Well, sort of.

Labour is obviously and acutely vulnerable on the vexed issue of race. And immigration is the second leg of the double after the Treaty.

Just as the latter provokes a clash between Labour's Maori and non-Maori constituencies, the public backlash against immigrant numbers runs smack into the economic imperatives driving them.

Maintaining a balanced workforce in the face of serious skill shortages, New Zealanders moving overseas and an ageing population inevitably necessitates a compensating influx of migrants.

However, Labour is also trumpeting immigration as a key component of its showpiece "growth and innovation strategy" through mounting a "talent hunt" for migrants who can contribute to the wealth of the nation.

These economic drivers have prompted the Government to maintain the annual number of immigrants at 45,000 - not far below levels which provoked so much unease among voters.

While Labour might claim economic kudos - the policy revamp has been warmly received in the business world - the numbers mean Winston Peters is correct when he says Labour cannot win the political argument over him.

The best it can do is to contain it. And it is doing so both overtly and covertly.

Out goes the general skills category for migrants, under which people who secured enough points were automatically granted residency.

In comes the "invitation only" skilled migrant category, which will require would-be immigrants to register their interest after meeting health, character and English language requirements.

Some will be fast-tracked residency if they have job offers.

A two-tiered approach will see others given up to two years to show they could get relevant jobs. Only then will they be granted residency.

That is designed to puncture the perception that many immigrants go straight from the airport to the dole queue, even though the numbers are quite small.

Pressures on Auckland's infrastructure are also being addressed by awarding bonus points to applicants with job offers from outside the metropolis.

Overall, the new policy gives the Government far more control by giving far more discretion to immigration officials. The price of that could, at best, be inconsistency in the application of the new rules, and, at worst, corruption.

In scrapping the general skills category, the door will shut to tens of thousands of people already in that queue, forcing some already living here, but still seeking residency, to leave.

However, clearing the backlog would have delayed implementation of the new skilled migrant category by two years - thus increasing the time-lag by which the new policy could be shown to be paying dividends until well after the next election.

Some non-New Zealanders will suffer in the process.

The Government will not suffer from appearing tough.

To the contrary. Peters, for one, should be applauding elements of the new policy. However, the NZ First leader is hardly going to congratulate the Government for taking the heat out of his most potent issue.

In the same vein, the Government is not going to offend its more politically correct elements by admitting just how the revamped policy will likely alter immigration flows both in number and in source.

For starters, the 45,000 target for the next three years is now "indicative" - an admission, perhaps, that there will be difficulty attracting that number.

Labour Department briefing papers to Dalziel last year warned that a shift from passive acceptance of residence applications to active recruitment of skilled migrants using more rigorous selection criteria could mean "an acceptance of lower flows".

Officials also told Dalziel that the ageing workforces in most developed countries meant New Zealand had to expect increased competition for skilled labour.

That required New Zealand to market itself as a destination for migrants, and money was set aside in this year's Budget for doing this.

But the indications from this week's announcement are that the marketing will be done in North America and Europe - not Asia.

Those who register an interest in applying for residence will also be assessed according to, so far, vague criteria measuring their "ability to settle and contribute".

Add far stricter English language requirements to the mix and you begin to get the picture - a white or, at least, whiter-looking one.

Dalziel denies the new policy is biased against Asians. Those of Asian extraction, such as the National Party's Pansy Wong, think otherwise. And it will suit some in Labour for that impression to gain currency.

In Dalziel's defence, the existing policy was not working. Constant tinkering failed to rectify its inherent flaws.

Officials were flagging the need for a review before Peters started making his three-fingered salute on the election trail.

Dalziel has been hinting for months that a fundamental change in policy was under way. By acting now, she has avoided the risk of being accused of panicking later.

Her colleagues should thank her for that.