Transtasman migration agreement: The worst of both worlds

Our Government has curbed New Zealanders' rights when living in Australia for a deal that will strip the country of talent, says a study. GREG ANSLEY reports.

A study by the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University in Melbourne says Wellington willingly agreed to new rules stripping New Zealanders of the full rights of automatic permanent residency in Australia for several reasons.

One was to protect New Zealand's sovereignty and prevent Canberra dictating its immigration policy. Another was an abhorrence at paying the benefits of Kiwis who turn their backs on New Zealand.

A third reason, authors Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson suspect, was that the deal might help plug the people-drain.

But the study questions whether the new restrictions on New Zealanders' access to Australian benefits will stem the flow, especially of overseas-born New Zealanders.

It says the new deal will allow Australia to cherry-pick the best and most talented New Zealanders and gain the benefits of a large, motivated workforce with high employment and low welfare dependency - without meeting many of the costs of even temporary casualties - and be able push the rest back home.

What does the new deal mean?


There will be two classes of New Zealanders in Australia: those who qualify for permanent residency, with access to all rights and benefits, and those who can work, live and stay as long as they like, but have no access to key welfare benefits - and can never become Australian citizens.

Are all benefits affected?


New Zealanders who fail to gain permanent residency, based on the same skills tests and quotas applying to other migrants, will not be able to get labour-market benefits such as Newstart, youth allowance and the low-income parenting allowance.

But, unlike other temporary residents, they will be able to claim family allowance, rent assistance and family-oriented allowances, Medicare, public housing and education services. After 10 years they will be eligible for one six-month spell on Newstart and youth and sickness allowances.

Is there a limit on New Zealanders who can become permanent citizens?


No. Kiwis will not be affected by any caps on Australia's migration programme - but they will have to pay $A1000 each to apply for residency.

What led to the new transtasman agreement?


The steep increase in the number of New Zealanders moving to Australia. At last estimate, 435,000 lived there and more than one in three recent new settlers entering Australia have been New Zealanders.

Canberra was alarmed by three main problems caused by the influx:

1. The subversion of its managed migration programme by unregulated New Zealanders.

2. A large social welfare bill.

3. A disturbing rise in other nationals moving to Australia after gaining New Zealand citizenship.

Birrell and Rapson say New Zealand's severe economic reforms have produced many casualties, without a compensating growth in jobs.

They say Australia looks much more attractive, not just to well-trained New Zealanders after new careers and higher pay but also to relatively low-skilled people who are likely to compete with Australians in a tight jobs market.

How big a problem is the number of people using New Zealand as a back door to Australia?


The transtasman flow of New Zealanders who were born in a third country has risen sharply in the past decade.

They made up 30 per cent of all New Zealanders who moved permanently to Australia in 1999-2000, compared with 12.7 per cent in 1991-92.

They left for Australia because qualifications were not recognised in New Zealand, work was hard to get and businesses difficult to set up and because prospects seemed brighter in Australia.

This movement shows little sign of abating. There was a sharp upsurge in Asian migrants to New Zealand moving on to Australia in 1999-2000, with others from Russia and the Balkans joining the exodus.

Most were people who had only recently arrived in New Zealand: 60 per cent of the Northeast Asian Tasman-hoppers had been in the country less than three years.

In the four years up to last June, 10 per cent of New Zealand's Chinese, Taiwanese, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese and former Soviet republic communities had decamped to Australia.

What has been the Australian reaction to the report?


The Sydney Morning Herald noted that many New Zealanders arriving in Australia would have been refused permanent residency if subjected to the same rules as other immigrants - including up to 253 doctors who arrived last year, despite Australia's policy of excluding overseas doctors because of a perceived oversupply.

The newspaper also noted the study's comment that "Australia had been hostage to the vagaries of a New Zealand selection system which placed more emphasis on family reunion, non-skilled and humanitarian categories."

What were New Zealand's concerns about the previous arrangement?


The continuing loss of population - especially the well-educated and well-trained - and the implications of this and declining immigration on the maintenance of population growth.

Plus the inevitably rising costs of recompensing Australia for benefits paid to expatriate New Zealanders.

How serious is the brain-drain?


Very. Much of the talent New Zealand attracted from overseas is moving on. Although many would not meet Australia's stricter immigration rules, most of our migrants who left for Australia last year were professional, and overall they comprised more than 40 per cent of all New Zealand professionals who leapt the Ditch.

In the past three years the number of professionals quitting New Zealand has almost doubled, to more than 4000. Since 1997-98 Australia has gained 10,810 NZ professionals and associate professionals, 5476 tradespeople and related workers, and 1022 senior clerical and service workers.

The New Zealand welfare dependency rate is lower than for any other group.

Will the new deal solve the problem?


Doubtful. Even if New Zealanders cannot gain permanent residence, they can stay and work there and get a range of important benefits. New Zealanders were not deterred by the introduction of a two-year wait for the dole and similar benefits. If the Australian economy and employment prospects continue to shine more brightly than those in New Zealand, Kiwis will continue to fly the Tasman.

What did New Zealand gain from the deal?


Not a lot, apart from the freedom to run its own immigration programme without Australia breathing heavily down its neck. Wellington was supposed to win because it would not have to pay the projected rising costs of welfare benefits for expatriates.

But, Birrell and Rapson say, this is hard to swallow because New Zealand was not actually paying the bill in question.

What did New Zealand lose?


The long-standing and important right of its citizens to move between the two countries while enjoying the full range of opportunities and protections of both. Australians at present retain that freedom.

So who won and who lost?


Birrell and Rapson say the clear winner is Australia, by preventing Kiwis who do not come up to scratch from becoming permanent residents.

The Australian Government was mainly concerned about third-country migrants, but the new rules apply to all New Zealand citizens.

Birrell and Rapson say it is also hard to seen any wins for the New Zealand Government, including the reputed expected financial gains.

It was not meeting dole and other labour benefits under the old agreement and this continues to be the case in the new deal.

All it has achieved is to deflect pressure from Australia.

Further, any stemming of the transtasman flow - in the doubtful event this occurs - will have mixed benefits. New Zealand keeps only those who cannot meet Australia's selection standards. Those who have trouble finding work are the most likely to return to New Zealand, because that is where the social security net is.

* Source: New Zealanders in Australia: The end of an era? Bob Birrell and Virginia Rapson, People and Place, vol 9, no. 1, 2001, Monash University Centre for Population and Urban Research.