New Zealand government rows over easing immigration rules

Construction companies in New Zealand are lobbying the government to further relax immigration rules for wealthy investors.

New Zealand’s Construction Development Alliance is calling for more relaxation of immigration law for wealthy investors over and above the easing of rules allowed five years ago. Pressure is being put on the government to introduce a new immigration category of business migrant visa to allow those with NZ$ five million to enter without a language requirement.

The two current investor programmes, Investor Plus and Investor, stipulate investments of NZ$10 million or NZ$1.5 million respectively. Investor Plus guarantees citizenship after three years and requires no business experience or English language skills, and the Investor scheme requires less cash but insists on English language competence.

The Alliance believes the English language requirement to be outdated in the 21st century, as they consider the wealthy to be international citizens running global businesses. It’s also wrong, they state, to insist that an investor spends a set period of time in New Zealand, although both programmes stipulate just 44 days a year.

The group claims to be supported by Kiwi PM John Keys, although a spokesperson for the Prime Minister has told local media his support or otherwise is ‘a matter for interpretation’. Whether the PM agrees or not, the government considers it’s best to be wary of any loosening of immigration law relating to investors at present.

A major supporter of the group and its ideals is Chinese businessman Donghau Liu, controversially granted citizenship against official advice. After Liu received his citizenship, his NZ$70 million rejuvenation project on a derelict Newmarket site stalled after the first stage was finished.

Liu and other similar applicants for both business investor visas were given exceptions not available to everyday would-be migrants, argue the group’s detractors. Relaxing the rules still further, they say, would create even more exemptions and is not at present necessary.