But, in parts at least, this is not only about opinion, and emphasis, and rhetoric, but also about fact. Luxon says Peters\u2019 claims are \u201cwrong\u201d, \u201cplain wrong\u201d and \u201cjust wrong\u201d. Peters says the prime minister is wrong to say he\u2019s wrong. Who is right?<\/p>\n
The bones of contention\u00a0<\/p>\n
Peters \u2013 who has geared up for an election year with an increased focus on immigration, including warnings of \u201cmass immigration\u201d \u2013 greeted the announcement of the FTA three days before Christmas by stating that, regrettably, they must oppose a deal that \u201cgives too much away, especially on immigration\u201d.\u00a0He added: \u201cBy creating a new employment visa specifically for Indian citizens, it is likely to generate far greater interest in Indian migration to New Zealand \u2013 at a time when we have a very tight labour market.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Peters then put a figure on it<\/a>: the deal would pave the way, he said, for as many as 20,000 Indian nationals to be in New Zealand under the Temporary Entry Employment visa at one time. The deal provided for up to 5,000 of these visas, and successful applicants would be able to bring their spouse and children.<\/p>\n By late last month, he was telling reporters<\/a>, \u201cthe truth is not being told to the public\u201d. His advice: \u201cGo and dissect what it means. It means we could have tens of thousands of people getting here of right and building up employment opportunities in this country for themselves and taking those opportunities away from New Zealanders.\u201d<\/p>\n Christopher Luxon said, \u201cHe\u2019s wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n What does the deal itself say?<\/p>\n In seeking to discern who\u2019s right about the wrongness, a helpful reference would indeed be the literal words in the trade deal. Alas, that\u2019s still locked in legal quarantine, as lawyers pore over the words, and may be there for many weeks yet.\u00a0<\/p>\n A briefing note <\/a>from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade avoids any explicit reference to immigration, but does contain a short section headed \u201cTemporary movement of people\u201d, spanning temporary visa provisions, a working holiday programme and post-study visas.\u00a0<\/p>\n On the temporary employment entry visas \u2013 the bit about which Peters is most agitated \u2013 the ministry note says the trade agreement \u201cincludes simplified entry arrangements for Indian service providers and professionals for short periods of stay\u201d. That would amount to 1,667 temporary employment entry visas a year, but only for occupations in which New Zealand has a skills shortage, \u201csuch as certain ICT fields, engineering, and specialised health services, as well as certain iconic Indian professions such as Ayush (Indian traditional medicine) practitioners, music teachers, chefs and yoga instructors\u201d.<\/p>\n The three-year visas are capped so that no more than 5,000 can be in use at any one time. And a sea change it is not. \u201cThis represents less than 6% of the current average total number of skilled visas issued to Indian nationals each year by New Zealand.\u201d<\/p>\n The working holiday scheme, meanwhile, would provide up to 1,000 places for Indians aged 18 to 30, while the deal \u201ccodifies the right for Indian students to work for up to 20 hours a week (within current policy of up to 25 hours)\u201d. And, finally, students graduating from a New Zealand tertiary institution who meet the criteria \u201care eligible for a post study work visa, ranging from two years for Bachelors, up to four years for PhDs\u201d.<\/p>\n The government response<\/p>\n A fortnight ago, Todd McClay pushed back at Peters\u2019 suggestion that 20,000 Indian nationals might be welcomed to New Zealand under the FTA, telling a select committee that the agreement offered no rights on bringing family members. Peters countered by pointing out that such rights were already provided under New Zealand law for anyone with a work visa of a year or longer. \u201cSo, given a standard family size of two parents and two children, this means 20,000 people in New Zealand at any one time under the new visa which has been created exclusively for Indian citizens.\u201d He noted, too, that \u201cthe Indian government has itself described the FTA as providing \u2018unprecedented mobility opportunities for Indian professionals [and] students\u2019\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n Warming to his theme, Peters concluded. \u201cJudging by both the FTA, and how it\u2019s being promoted in India by the Indian government, we\u2019re likely to see much more migration from India in the years ahead. Neither New Zealand First, nor the Indian government, are \u2018wrong\u2019 about that.\u201d<\/p>\n The trade minister did offer something of a subsequent clarification. He told media <\/a>that, on bringing family along, he had simply meant the deal afforded no extra privileges to those already permitted under the rules. He emphasised, further, that the deal would not oblige any government to keep those settings as they are.\u00a0<\/p>\n A binding cap?<\/p>\n Another objection that has been raised by Peters concerns locking in provisions for students from India. \u201cWe also hold concerns that the deal ties the hands of future New Zealand governments,\u201d he said. \u201cThe proposals around the work rights for Indian students, both when they study and after they graduate, would constrain the ability of future governments to make policy changes in response to changing labour market conditions.\u201d<\/p>\n Just a few hours after Peters issued his statement on January 29, McClay responded to this in the house. He had a caucus colleague ask him questions about the trade deal, including: \u201cDoes the FTA with India give rights of migration or immigration to Indian nationals?\u201d \u201cNo, it categorically does not,\u201d McClay told Peters \u2013 correction, sorry, told parliament. He reiterated that temporary workers were admitted \u201cto meet skill shortages in our economy\u201d.<\/p>\n As for the student visa cap and future governments, McClay said: \u201cIt does not remove a cap on the number of students who can come to New Zealand, because there is not a cap. But it also does not restrict future governments from creating a cap should they wish to. The FTA does not restrict the ability for future and current governments to modify work visas or student policies or settings.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n