ACT leader David Seymour
Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
Ethnic leaders have slammed the ACT Party’s proposed immigration policy, with some even drawing comparisons to the discriminatory poll tax that was imposed on Chinese immigrants from the late 19th century.
Unveiled by ACT leader David Seymour over the weekend, the new immigration policy promised harsher rules around deportation and overstayers.
It also proposed a five-year welfare stand-down period for all resident class visa holders, a $6-a-day infrastructure surcharge for temporary work visas holders, a yearly review of work visa skill categories and stronger English requirements.
The policy was questioned by some of Seymour’s political counterparts.
Vishal Rishi, chief executive at The Asian Network Incorporated
Photo: RNZ / Liu Chen
Vishal Rishi, chief executive at The Asian Network Incorporated, expressed disappointment at the policy.
“I think their policy is cruel, heartless and lacking compassion for all migrants,” Rishi said.
Immigration levies and fees have already skyrocketed over the past two years, and the $6 fee would place “huge pressure” on migrants and employers, he said.
Rishi described the five-year welfare stand-down period as “horrific” and “inhuman”.
“You want all the money from the migrants who are coming, but you don’t want to invest anything in their wellbeing,” he said.
Migrant communities were already falling behind in many areas, including the lack of representation on decision-making tables and funds, Rishi said.
“Migrants contribute to taxes, but when it comes to giving back as a social system, I think we’re failing there,” he said. “We’re failing drastically.”
In its immigration announcement, ACT said migrants should “share [the country’s] values of tolerance, freedom and democracy”, but Rishi said mainstream populations should also be provided with social cohesion education.
With an election approaching, ethnic communities should be more proactive in terms of expressing themselves, he said.
“We have to be more vocal,” he said. “We have to ask our politicians – our decision-makers – about our wellbeing and what is in it for the migrant population.”
Kelly Feng, chief executive at Asian Family Services
Photo: RNZ / Liu Chen
Kelly Feng, chief executive at Asian Family Services, said her organisation supported a mature conversation about immigration.
But such a conversation needed to refrain from blaming migrants for the pressure points, she said.
“We understand there are real pressures around housing, infrastructure, health services, schools and employment. But migrants did not create all of these pressures,” she said.
“These are long-term planning and investment issues. We need an immigration policy that is linked with infrastructure, workforce planning, settlement support and community wellbeing.”
A blanket five-year stand-down period for welfare could have some unintended harm, Feng said.
“What happens to people experiencing family violence, gambling harm, sudden job loss, exploitation, mental distress or children in hardship?” she asked.
“Rules must not stop vulnerable families from accessing safety and basic support.”
ACT’s policy also promised to introduce stronger English-language requirements, but Feng said limited English should not be treated as a lack of contribution.
Arish Naresh, president of the Tairāwhiti Multicultural Council
Photo: Supplied
Arish Naresh, president of the Tairāwhiti Multicultural Council, was unsurprised to see such policies unveiled in an election year.
“A lot of it feels quite vague and, in parts, confusing. It comes across as aimed more at appealing to a particular voter base rather than clearly setting out how it would work in practice,” he said.
“New Zealand relies heavily on skilled migrants, and, while it’s absolutely important to have fair, transparent processes that reflect the country’s needs, we also need to be careful not to create unnecessary barriers.”
If migrants perceived New Zealand to be difficult or unwelcoming, they were likely to choose other countries instead, which could have long-term impacts on sectors that depend on international talent, he said.
Writer and sociopolitical commentator Tze Ming Mok
Photo: Supplied
Writer and sociopolitical commentator Tze Ming Mok compared elements of ACT’s immigration policy to the discriminatory poll tax the government issued an official apology for in 2002.
New Zealand imposed a fixed-sum poll tax on Chinese immigrants from 1881 to restrict entry, which was eventually scrapped in 1944.
“It’s very interesting that a party that courted Chinese voters for so long with ‘low tax’ promises, now wants to reintroduce something close to the 19th-century poll tax levied on the Chinese,” she said.
“ACT knows very well that migrants already contribute more tax per capita than non-migrants because they are more likely to be of working age,” she said.
“It is a pretty obvious play for the NZ First vote, which just goes to show how expendable Chinese and Asian voters are to ACT, and how willing they are to throw us under the bus.”
However, ACT supporter and immigration advisor Peter Luo said the party’s new policy could help deal with existing problems in immigration.
For example, the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme had not been handled well, he said.
Some had exploited the system to recruit positions that didn’t exist, and some low-skilled workers had come into the country on fake documents, he said.
“Four of the six ACT proposals are in relation to law and order, and these aspects indeed all need improvement,” Luo said.
“There are many problems around the Accredited Employer Work Visa … the government needs to fix, and it’s important for ACT to point them out.”
Luo said a surcharge on overseas workers wasn’t unheard of, noting that Singapore charged a foreign worker levy.
ACT immigration spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar
Photo: RNZ / Blessen Tom
ACT’s response
ACT immigration spokesperson Parmjeet Parmar said migrants were making a valuable contribution to New Zealand.
However, she said the country’s infrastructure was under strain, and the $6 surcharge was a solution that would increase public confidence in the immigration system.
“We need to build more homes and more infrastructure, and there is an opportunity to ensure our immigration settings help with this. That’s why we’ve proposed an infrastructure surcharge,” she said.
“At around $6 per day, it’s modest and comparable internationally. While it may discourage some lower-skilled migrants, it is not a large expense for those with valued skills. Migrants to New Zealand expect first-world infrastructure and the surcharge supports this.”
Regarding the welfare stand-down period, Parmar said residence was granted with the expectation that people could support themselves, noting that ACT’s policy reflected this.
“Core services like healthcare and ACC remain, and existing special pathways to welfare for refugees and family violence victims are unchanged,” she said.
She also rejected comparing the proposed $6 surcharge to a poll tax.
“This is a standard visa charge applied consistently to all Accredited Employer Work Visa holders, similar to levies on visas in Australia and the UK,” she said.
“It is not targeted at any nationality or group.”
Parmar also said ACT had consistently supported migration that contributed to New Zealand, and the policy’s focus was on restoring trust in the system.
When asked if migrants had an opportunity to define New Zealand’s value, Parmar said ACT had a long-standing view that new citizens should explicitly affirm basic democratic values such as freedom of expression and political equality between the sexes.
“These values are not just part of the Kiwi character,” she said. “They are fundamental to our democracy.”