A total revisit of our immigration regime is clearly necessary as almost daily we hear of decisions made in accordance with the law that, on the face of it, don't make a whole lot of sense.
Get back to basics
It is important that any review undertaken goes beyond the question of "how can we do what we do now better?" However, rather than undertaking a protracted review, maybe we should simply ask the basic question, "why does Norfolk Island have immigration responsibility at all?" Elsewhere in the Commonwealth immigration is a national responsibility. No other state or territory has immigration responsibilities.
It can, and has, been argued that a separate immigration regime in the hands of the NIG is no more appropriate than one in any other state or territory of Australia. Imagine if you needed a passport to go to Canberra!
If you are a British citizen you do not require any clearance from the Immigration Office to live in the Isle of Man. You may require a work permit issued under the Isle of Man Control of Employment Act if you want to work on the Island (or take up self-employment).
Maybe that's all we need?
The role of immigration policy
Governments all around the world seek to develop immigration policies that will achieve social and economic goals through the temporary and permanent movement of people and skills. Important criteria for migrants are that they will quickly add economic value to the place to which they are immigrating. Whatever the policy objectives underpinning the Norfolk Island Immigration Act are, or were, it's difficult to discern any positive outcomes that can be attributed to its application.
If the aim of the policy objective is to achieve managed population development and growth and an environmentally and economically sustainable economy, then those objectives have not been achieved. But we have paid and continue to pay a high price for this gatekeeper role both in administrative cost and lost opportunity. Norfolk Island's population is going backwards and the economy continues to shrink, so, in a nutshell, it's far easier to argue that the current immigration controls have been a failure for Norfolk than to argue that they have been a success.
More reviews than a critics convention
A review of the operation of the Customs, Immigration and Quarantine service to examine the degree to which the legal obligations of these border security roles were being met and to make new policy recommendations, was to commence in 3rd quarter of 2010, take 8 weeks and be completed before Xmas 2010. My understanding is that this will now take substantially longer. Perhaps it has been overtaken by events!
The previous Minister for Immigration in the 12th Assembly apparently spent a lot of time reviewing aspects of the immigration arrangements, but no change resulted. Or if it did, it was not substantial.
Why just make it hard to come to Norfolk when with a little effort we can make it harder!
The Norfolk Island Immigration Act was established shortly after self government and it is fair to say that the intent of the Act was to create a very protectionist regime.
It is apparent, also, that there was a perception that Norfolk would be overrun if the gatekeepers went to sleep. Protectionist policies pervade many aspects of life on Norfolk Island and this approach has not served us well.
The Immigration Act continues to function as a means of regulating commerce on Norfolk and the movement of people and the consequential influx of new talent, even when such movements would be in the interests of the community.
Effective population management for Norfolk Island should accept that people make choices to come and go for reasons of health, education and economic needs and of course a percentage of the population will choose to live out their lives on the island.
Outdated controls based on outdated premises should not get in the way of those choices impeding, as they do, our ability to add to the sum of human capital on the island.
If we wait for the outcome of a review a year from now, nothing will have changed. That's too long. We need something to kick start this economy without delay. Practically anyone you ask on Norfolk will tell you that tourism would benefit if travelers coming to Norfolk departed from the domestic terminal, and that the requirement for a passport is a disincentive for spontaneous travel.
The Commonwealth should put its house in order and fix the Norfolk Island immigration anomaly. Freedom of movement by Australian citizens throughout the Commonwealth, including Norfolk Island, is surely a constitutional right. Maybe now is the time to dispatch the Norfolk Island Immigration Act to the history books and look at more appropriate ways to ensure a sustainable future for Norfolk Island.
Yes indeed, a very sad history of 'immigration' administration. You are right about the present immigration regime appearing soon after self-government but of course regulation of immigration commenced in 1922 with legislative measures restricting outsiders coming and staying. That law had little teeth and was not considered sufficient to deal with the influx of new migrants (mainly from New Zealand)in the late 60s, attracted by the economic benefits of an emerging tourism industry.It was at that time that the immigration laws were amended to establish a regime of temporary work permits (the birth of the TEP) and a pathway by which an intended long-term migrant could gain secure residence. The 'quota' system of long-term residence permits began then, designed to regulate and balance population growth. This 'quota' system has carried over to the present regime. It never worked in the 60s or thereafter and it certainly doesn't work now.
ReplyDeletePopulation grew fairly rapidly during the economic boom years of the 60s and 70s but by the 80s it had stagnated and remains so. Interestingly the stagnation coincided with the commencement of the current immigration regime. There was a fear, real or imagined, that Norfolk might be overrun; the fear is evident in the transcripts of Assembly debates to set annual long-term entry 'quota' in the 80s and 90s and in the standard-type letters of the same time sent from the Administration to aspiring settlers; letters which effectively dissuaded and dampened enthusiasm.
To some extent the 'fear' was justified. Norfolk Island at that time had enjoyed significant economic expansion over say 2 decades; it offerred good returns on investment. Many Australians and New Zealanders aspired to settle or retire in the island.
Any attempts to set an annual immigration 'quota' to achieve objective balanced population essentially failed at the political level because the formula produced a 'quota' number which was politically unpalatable and unable to be 'sold' to the community.
It is only now after the economic boom years have passed (as was inevitable to a great extent)that we (some anyway) are beginning to realise where our fickle and futile efforts at planning (read 'protectionism') have taken us. As Miles has suggested there are some measures which can be taken almost immediately to reflect a change in immigration policy. It is doubtful however that any immediate 'immigration' measures can produce the kind of short-term economic stimulus that we sorely need. Policy impact requires long-term assessment and we have not demonstrated much of that at all.