Why New Zealand immigration stance differs from UK's new hardline approach
Massey University distinguished professor Paul Spoonley told The Front Page that the move comes after nearly 900,000 people arrived in the UK in 2023.
" The numbers have dropped by about 40% since that peak. So they were already falling, but they want to reduce them by a further 100,000 a year by 2029," Spoonley said.
While anti-immigration sentiment has swept Europe, the UK and the US in recent times, Spoonley said he doesn't think the same can be said for New Zealand.
'There are some important differences in terms of immigration. In most of Europe, the immigrants we're talking about there are actually refugees. In 2015 and again in 2016, over a million people arrived at the borders of various European countries.
'Australia, Canada, and New Zealand target skilled migrants, and we use our point[s] system to identify who's going to be appropriate. We have a very managed immigration system. Most of Europe does not.
'When you approve migrants who are well-skilled, well-educated and, in New Zealand's case, they're better educated and sometimes more skilled than the New Zealand population, the settlement outcomes for those migrants tend to be much better.
'But of course, Europe is dealing with people who are traumatised, who are refugees. Very significant numbers of asylum-seekers. And there are issues around settling those migrants into society.
'I just think New Zealand, Australia and Canada's general approach to migration is much more positive. The way we manage it is very different. And we just don't have those very strong anti-immigrant politics. We have people who are very anxious about it, but they don't represent significant parts of our political constituencies,' he said.
Spoonley said people's attitude often changes towards what is perceived to be 'different kinds of migrants'.
'[In New Zealand] refugees are always seen as different from migrants more generally and are seen in a more negative light.
'People from the UK, and to some extent, places like South Africa, are rated much more positively as migrants we want compared to those who are from Asia. And unfortunately, migrants from the Pacific tend to be rated as the lowest, the 'least desirable' by New Zealanders answering these surveys,' he said.
The latest Stats NZ data released yesterday showed a net migration gain of only 26,000 in the past year, against more than 100,000 the year before.
Provisionally, we had almost 150,000 migrant arrivals and more than 123,000 departures.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
an hour ago
- 1News
Trump injects new dose of tariffs uncertainty as start date pushed back
For weeks, President Donald Trump was promising the world economy would change with his new tariffs in place. It was an ironclad deadline, administration officials assured the public. But when Trump signed the order Thursday night (local time) imposing new tariffs, the start date of the punishing import taxes was pushed back seven days so the tariff schedule could be updated. The change in tariffs on 66 countries, the European Union, Taiwan and the Falkland Islands was potentially welcome news to countries that had not yet reached a deal with the US. It also injected a new dose of uncertainty for consumers and businesses still wondering what's going to happen and when. Trump told NBC News the tariffs process was going 'very well, very smooth". But even as the Republican president insisted these new rates would stay in place, he added: 'It doesn't mean that somebody doesn't come along in four weeks and say we can make some kind of a deal.' Trump has promised that his tax increases on the nearly US$3 trillion (NZ$5 trillion) in goods imported to the United States will usher in newfound wealth, launch a cavalcade of new factory jobs, reduce the budget deficits and, simply, get other countries to treat America with more respect. The vast tariffs risk jeopardising America's global standing as allies feel forced into unfriendly deals. As taxes on the raw materials used by US factories and basic goods, the tariffs also threaten to create new inflationary pressures and hamper economic growth — concerns the Trump White House has dismissed. ADVERTISEMENT Questions swirl around the tariffs despite Trump's eagerness President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. (Source: Associated Press) As the clock ticked toward Trump's self-imposed deadline, few things seemed to be settled other than the president's determination to levy the taxes he had talked about for decades. The very legality of the tariffs remains an open question as a US appeals court on heard arguments on whether Trump had exceeded his authority by declaring an 'emergency' under a 1977 law to charge the tariffs, allowing him to avoid congressional approval. Trump was ebullient as much of the world awaited what he would do. 'Tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again,' he said on Truth Social. Others saw a policy carelessly constructed by the US president, one that could impose harms gradually over time that would erode America's power and prosperity. 'The only things we'll know for sure on Friday morning are that growth-sapping US import taxes will be historically high and complex, and that, because these deals are so vague and unfinished, policy uncertainty will remain very elevated,' said Scott Lincicome, a vice president of economics at the Cato Institute. 'The rest is very much TBD.' ADVERTISEMENT The new tariffs build off ones announced in the spring President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shake hands after reaching a trade deal at the Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland Sunday, July 27, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) Trump initially imposed the Friday deadline after his previous 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April resulted in a stock market panic. His unusually high tariff rates announced then led to recession fears, prompting Trump to impose a 90-day negotiating period. When he was unable to create enough trade deals with other countries, he extended the timeline and sent out letters to world leaders that simply listed rates, prompting a slew of hasty agreements. Swiss imports will now be taxed at a higher rate, 39%, than the 31% Trump threatened in April, while Liechtenstein saw its rate slashed from 37% to 15%. Countries not listed in the Thursday night order would be charged a baseline 10% tariff. Trump negotiated trade frameworks over the past few weeks with the EU, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines — allowing the president to claim victories as other nations sought to limit his threat of charging even higher tariff rates. He said there were agreements with other countries, but he declined to name them. Asked if countries were happy with the rates set by Trump, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said: 'A lot of them are.' Thursday began with a palpable sense of tension ADVERTISEMENT Vehicles for export are parked at a port in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, Thursday, July 31, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) The EU was awaiting a written agreement on its 15% tariff deal. Switzerland and Norway were among the dozens of countries that did not know what their tariff rate would be, while Trump agreed after a phone call to keep Mexico's tariffs at 25% for a 90-day negotiating period. The president separately amended an order to raise certain tariffs on Canada to 35%. European leaders face blowback for seeming to cave to Trump, even as they insist that this is merely the start of talks and stress the importance of maintaining America's support of Ukraine's fight against Russia. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has already indicated that his country can no longer rely on the US as an ally, and Trump declined to talk to him. India, with its 25% tariff announced by Trump, may no longer benefit as much from efforts to pivot manufacturing out of China. While the Trump administration has sought to challenge China's manufacturing dominance, it is separately in extended trade talks with that country, which faces a 30% tariff and is charging a 10% retaliatory rate on the US. Major companies came into the week warning that tariffs would begin to squeeze them financially. Ford Motor Co. said it anticipated a net US$2 billion (NZ$3.4 billion) hit to earnings this year from tariffs. French skincare company Yon-Ka is warning of job freezes, scaled-back investment and rising prices. It's unclear whether Trump's new tariffs will survive a legal challenge President Donald Trump meets with Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer at Trump Turnberry golf club on Monday, July 28, 2025 in Turnberry, Scotland. (Source: Associated Press) ADVERTISEMENT Federal judges sounded sceptical about Trump's use of a 1977 law to declare the long-standing US trade deficit a national emergency that justifies tariffs on almost every country. 'You're asking for an unbounded authority,' Judge Todd Hughes of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit told a Justice Department lawyer representing the administration. The judges didn't immediately rule, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court eventually. The Trump White House has pointed to the increase in federal revenues as a sign that the tariffs will reduce the budget deficit, with US$127 billion (NZ$216 billion) in customs and duties collected so far this year — about US$70 billion (NZ$119 billion) more than last year. New tariffs threaten to raise inflation rates President Donald Trump talks to the media as he meets with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at Trump Turnberry golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, Monday, July 28, 2025. (Source: Associated Press) There are not yet signs that tariffs will lead to more domestic manufacturing jobs, and Friday's employment report showed the US economy now has 37,000 fewer manufacturing jobs than it did in April. ADVERTISEMENT One crucial measure of inflation, known as the Personal Consumption Expenditures index, showed that prices have climbed 2.6% over the 12 months that ended in June, a sign that inflation may be accelerating as the tariffs flow through the economy. The prospect of higher inflation from the tariffs has caused the Federal Reserve to hold off on additional cuts to its benchmark rates, a point of frustration for Trump, who on Truth Social, called Fed Chair Jerome Powell a 'TOTAL LOSER'. But before Trump's tariffs, Powell seemed to suggest that the tariffs had put the US economy and much of the world into a state of unknowns. 'There are many uncertainties left to resolve,' Powell told reporters Wednesday. 'So, yes, we are learning more and more. It doesn't feel like we're very close to the end of that process. And that's not for us to judge, but it does — it feels like there's much more to come.'
The Spinoff
3 hours ago
- The Spinoff
The Weekend: Oh no, it's starting to feel like 2021…
Madeleine Chapman reflects on the week that was. Usually I try my best not to think about being in lockdown for four months in 2021. It feels like a fever dream now but for a period there a whole million Aucklanders were collectively losing their minds and it felt like no one else, including the government, noticed or cared. And underneath the desperate chaos there was a genuine anger. It was anger at being condescended to, asked to 'do more' without any assurance that help was on the way. But that 2021 lockdown began four whole years ago (in August, even) and most of us are happy to leave it there. So I was surprised to find myself feeling nostalgic while reading Anna Rawhiti-Connell's satirical diatribe as the government's anger translator. A short, aggressive call to New Zealanders to toughen up and get to work. Evidently others felt something too as it's the most-read article of the week but why did it hit such a nerve? I think it's because there's a nihilistic humour in thinking you can simply talk people into doing anything, especially when it's virtually impossible for that thing to be achieved. I guess that's just politics 101 but Anna yelling at all of us to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps while also pointing out that most people can't afford boots really did echo the 2021 calls to just-stay-home-for-maybe-a-long-time-we're-not-sure-just-keep-doing-it-thanks. A tsunami emergency alert and a pandemic lockdown are very different circumstances but New Zealanders feeling deeply frustrated at being told to 'just deal with it' – whether it's Covid restrictions, an unaffordable cost of living or a hostile job market – is always the same. Being called dropkicks by the deputy prime minister is kind of funny when people are feeling secure in their jobs and homes. It's a lot less funny when many feel like they're the ones being constantly kicked. At any rate, it has never served a government well to try to shift blame or responsibility for the country's ills onto the people. Labour has still not recovered its support in Auckland after 2021. How many 'just suck it up and sort it out' calls will be one too many for New Zealanders? The stories Spinoff readers spent the most time with this week 'Fake news. No one's flush enough to waste a whole block of butter on lubing up a goat ' 'A couple of years ago, we had a Tūī in our neighbourhood singing Super Mario music. It was both hilarious and horrifying…'
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
The Government says it's fixing the cost of living, so what happens if voters don't believe it?
It was clearly designed to assuage fears, fanned by the Opposition, that the Government had put the entire Crown infrastructure build on ice, leading to the mass exodus of construction labour to Australia. The tactic isn't an unfair one. All Governments indulge in the vice of reannouncing things to focus attention on them. A billion or so dollars spent on a road earns the Government a few hundred bites of the PR cherry, or so the political arithmetic goes. So no, the tactic wasn't unfair or even ridiculous - but nor was Labour's criticism that a fair whack of the projects were funded by the last Government. (Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop's riposte that Labour might have funded some of the projects, but it certainly didn't do a good job of delivering them, was equally true.) This early success evaporated on Monday, when Luxon held one of the most bizarre press conferences since taking office. Alongside Finance Minister Nicola Willis, he spoke for more than 10 minutes to mark the first anniversary of the Government's tax package coming into effect. He listed every other cost-of-living policy the Government had implemented since taking office. Finance Minister Nicola Willis and Trade Minister Todd McClay spoke about US tariffs yesterday. Photo / Mark Mitchell Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with reannouncing something old. Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern liked to mark anniversaries too. Some years, she'd put out a press release celebrating the fact that superannuation payments were increasing in line with wages - despite the fact that this annual increase is written into primary legislation. But Monday's announcement, coming as voters' economic sentiment bounces along the bottom and the country seems on the verge of rioting over the butter price, seemed vacuous. There was something ever so faintly Soviet about a Government thinking that, simply by telling voters it had a policy to fix their problems, they'd believe those problems were being fixed. There are two obvious pathways for how the next few months might pan out. The Government is clinging to several good forward economic indicators: business confidence surveys report okay-ish vibes from firms and suggest something of a recovery next year; the primary sector, far from being the villain of the butter crisis, is driving an export-led recovery in the regions; the Reserve Bank is likely to continue cutting interest rates, spurring investment and growth in 2026, giving Luxon an economic tailwind of good vibes and rising house prices in election year. The snow will soon melt, the ground will thaw, and New Zealanders may spend their summer holidays contemplating having endured the worst of it. Luxon and his colleagues may return to work in January, set the election date and wonder what on earth they were so worried about in winter. That's one scenario, sure. There's another. For every positive data point, there is an equally negative one. The Reserve Bank's GDP tracker suggests what every New Zealander feels in their bones: the economy has been shrinking, and could shrink further. A small recession, measured by the glib but powerful two-negative-quarters definition, could be on the cards. The most recent ANZ business confidence survey showed residential construction intentions tanking, to use the words of the bank's economists. If things continue to follow that negative trajectory, another scenario opens up: one of panic, as the once-distant prospect of a first-term defeat becomes more plausible. If the economy continues to worsen, and National's polling materialises into gloomy party vote numbers, don't entirely rule out a leadership change. A change is not 'on' - you'd be a fool to put money on it — but you'd also be a fool to bet against it. There's no real affection for Luxon in the caucus room, and National has little patience for underperformance, particularly from its leaders. Luxon's intense self-belief could count against him. He does not seem to observe that, of all his frontbenchers, he is the one who is struggling the most. Despite the whole Cabinet fighting fires on every front, National's ministers do a decent job of rebuffing their Labour opposite numbers during Question Time. Health Minister Simeon Brown has come under the most pressure, but has so far survived in the House. Chris Bishop seems unbothered by Kieran McAnulty and seemed to be enjoying himself on Thursday when he answered finance questions on behalf of Willis, who was away (the caucus enjoyed it too). Willis herself never breaks a sweat debating her opposite number, Barbara Edmonds. FBI director Kash Patel visited Wellington to open a new office. Photo / Ola Thorsen Luxon is the most challenged of the lot and was devoured, degustation-style, by Chris Hipkins in the debating chamber this week. Hipkins, who can excel in the House when he wants to, wasn't even trying a particularly sophisticated line of questioning. He resorted to a past Luxon tactic of using each supplementary question to list another case of something going terribly wrong in the economy - migration to Australia, construction jobs, board director remuneration - and then asking the Prime Minister what he thinks about it. Luxon should be able to answer questions like that easily, but could not. His belief in the power of political marketing is so fundamental that he undervalues the importance of backing up that marketing with substance; even more than most prime ministers, he's too quick to answer every question with a canned line and not quick enough to respond by substantively dismantling the question and defending himself. He seems to think this doesn't matter. He's disdainful of Question Time, or of anything that happens in Wellington. But it does matter - and you could tell from the ashen faces behind Luxon as he answered Hipkins' questions that the backbench is worried. If the economy doesn't turn around meaningfully, there's a chance the Government could be in serious trouble, however scary they think a Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori Government might be. Slumps such as this one are difficult for centre-right governments. They're instinctively anti-intervention. When the public demands 'something must be done', centre-left governments have no shortage of ideas for that 'something'. The National benches regularly look despondent during Question Time - as pictured here in March. Photo / Mark Mitchell For the right, recovery comes from automatic stabilisers like benefits doing their job, before the fiscal part of the Government gets out of the way of the monetary side, allowing the reduction of interest rates to encourage firms to borrow and invest. It's a less politically attractive recovery because it involves substantially less ribbon-cutting, but that doesn't make it any less sensible a strategy. Ultimately, however much a government tries to pump-prime an economy back to life with fiscal policy, eventually private firms will need to pick up some slack too - and that means low interest rates. Luxon, to his credit, has been explicitly articulating this as his vision for the economic recovery. Last month, he successfully rebuffed one of Hipkins' questions, noting that the construction sector was 'hit hard because of high interest rates. High interest rates happened because Government spending was out of control, and you let inflation get out of control'. Not bad. Grim economic times will always be tough for a government, but they needn't be as tough as these. Back in 2012, net migration to Australia was even higher than it is now and the unemployment rate, in September of that year, was higher than at any point in the past 25 years. Yet that economic malaise failed to find its way into politics. National's party vote polling peaked at 48.8% in October 2012, rising - strangely - in tandem with the unemployment rate. Prime Minister John Key's popularity was unassailable. A government can be popular when an economy is under strain. But that appears to require the public to have faith that the government has a plan to make things better. Voters don't have that faith currently and, after this week, who could blame them?
