Pauline Hanson’s New Zealand migration plan misses the mark

Pauline Hanson’s New Zealand migration proposal would create more problems than it solves, writes Dr Abul Rizvi.

SENATOR PAULINE HANSON has told the Daily Mail that she wants to reduce migration from New Zealand by limiting migration to Australia “until you've been a New Zealand citizen for at least eight to ten years”.

While there are merits in reducing migration from NZ, Hanson’s approach is ham-fisted as usual.

Migration from NZ has increased significantly in recent years due to NZ’s poor labour market compared to Australia’s, as well as changes made by the Labor Government to make it easier for NZ citizens to directly acquire Australian citizenship without going through a permanent resident visa stage.

If net migration is to be lower in future, as proposed by Labor, the Coalition and One Nation, migration from NZ would need to be tightened. But One Nation’s approach has three main problems.

Australians are waking up to the One Nation con

One Nation's support is slipping as voters increasingly see through the party's rhetoric on multiculturalism, economic competence and whose interests it really serves.

First, it means NZ citizens born outside NZ would have to be much older before they can migrate to Australia, noting that NZ has a five-year residency requirement before a migrant can secure NZ citizenship. Thus, they could be 15-plus years older than when they migrated to NZ. Focusing migration policy on much older people will result in poor outcomes for Australia from demographic, economic and budgetary perspectives.

Second, the existing highly streamlined Subclass 444 visa for NZ citizens would need to be significantly redesigned to filter out people born in other nations while allowing entry by those born in NZ. Assuming Hanson is not proposing to limit non-NZ-born NZ citizens from accessing other visas (such as visitor visas, skilled temporary visas), there may also be a need to distinguish between people who have another purpose for coming to Australia from those who intend to migrate.

NZ citizens are either the biggest or second biggest source of tourists to Australia. A more complex visa system will attract strong criticism from Australia’s tourism industry, particularly from Queensland, which is the major focus of tourists from NZ.

Third, the NZ Government will object to these changes that divide NZ citizens into two classes. While the NZ Government may not fully retaliate, it will become a major irritant in the bilateral relationship. One Nation and its followers may not be fussed about that.

A far better approach would be to return to the changes the Howard Government made in 2001, as that did not impact how the SC 444 visa worked (thus avoiding a negative impact on tourism) but did reduce access to social support for NZ citizens while they were in Australia and had not secured permanent residence. That ensured NZ citizens in Australia were a net Budget positive.

Dr Abul Rizvi is an Independent Australia columnist and former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration. You can follow Abul on Twitter @RizviAbul or Bluesky @abulrizvi.bsky.social.