It seemed fairly clear before last year’s election that NZ First wanted to slash immigration numbers, and Labour wanted to cut them significantly.

But that hasn’t happened.

Winston Peters now says he ‘lost that argument’ after being asked about a small drop only in net immigration numbers, but Labour also seem to have given up on their campaign arguments on immigration.

Despite assurances in mid October last year Jacinda Ardern seemed to have backed right off Labour’s immigration policy by early November.

Last year (April)Andrew Little had aimed for high (low): Andrew Little’s big call to cut 50,000 immigrants

“We have typically had inward migration, net migration of 20 to 25,000 – you want to target that sort of level,” Little says.

Labour’s immigration policy

Labour will invest in housing, infrastructure, public services, and in training New Zealanders to fill skills shortages. At the same time, we will take a breather on immigration. Estimated reduction: 20,000-30,000

(student visas 6-10,000, post-study work visas 9-12,000, work visas 5-8,000)

After the election (20 October) Jacinda Ardern indicates big immigration cuts coming

Speaking to Newshub, she said the immigration policy Labour took to the election would continue. Under that policy Labour estimates net migration will fall by 20,000-30,000 a year. In the year to August net migration was 72,100.

During last year’s campaign from where do the parties stand on immigration?

NZ First leader Winston Peters has vowed to drastically reduce net immigration well below what Labour wants, to a net migration level of around 10,000 a year. His message to voters who want a big drop in immigration levels is that Labour can’t be trusted, given they had only recently called for sizeable cuts, and National will continue the “economic treason” of “mass immigration”.

Peters kept using the blatantly incorrect term “mass immigration”.

Greens had a very waffly immigration policy.

Our immigration policy is based on our principles of nonviolence, ecological wisdom, appropriate decision-making, and social responsibility. The first principle of the Green Party calls for us to recognise the limitations of our natural environment, and that “unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.” Take all reasonable steps to prevent immigration numbers, and the sale of land to rich immigrants, from having an adverse impact on Taonga.

From where do the parties stand on immigration?

The Green Party had proposed capping migration at 1 per cent of population growth, but later abandoned that policy, with leader James Shaw apologising for focusing on numbers, saying he was “mortified” at accusations by migrant groups that the Greens had pandered to anti-immigrant rhetoric.

So what happened when the Government was negotiated?

There is no mention of it in the Labour-Green Confidence & Supply Agreement.

It was included in the Labour-NZ First Coalition Agreement:

Immigration As per Labour’s policy, pursue Labour and New Zealand First’s shared priorities to: Ensure work visas issued reflect genuine skills shortages and cut down on low

quality international education courses.

quality international education courses. Take serious action on migrant exploitation, particularly of international students.

That was surprisingly non-specific.

By 7 November New Zealand PM says no immediate cut to immigration

Newly-elected Ardern said the minister for immigration was currently working through various proposals but she did not expect any announcement soon. “That was never within our 100 day plan, there were other priorities around housing, around health, around incomes that we were much more focussed on,” she said. Ardern’s plans to reduce immigration led some international media to make parallels between her and U.S. President Donald Trump, who came into office on a pledge to toughen immigration policies and build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. She said the misrepresentation of her government’s immigration policy “absolutely bothered” her.

So it looks like NZ First did not insist on immigration cuts, apparently deferring to Labour’s policy.

And Labour backed off their pre-election (and post-election) policy position significantly.

That looks amazingly soft from Peters given his campaign rhetoric in immigration. I suspect that some of those who voted for NZ First will be very disappointed in this apparent capitulation, especially given Ardern’s rapid backing off from Labour’s campaign commitments and post election assurance.

On Q+A in Sunday:

Corrin Dann: One thing you could do, again which I don’t understand, you campaigned on cutting migration, Labour campaigned on turning off the tap, and correct me if I’m wrong, but immigration at the moment is still running at sixty five thousand net.

Winston Peters: It was seventy two thousand net, remember.

Corrin Dann: So it’s dribbled back a tiny little bit.

Winston Peters: Well yes, but it’s a start in the right direction…

Corrin Dann: Can you show me one thing you’ve done that’s made that drop?

Winston Peters: Well I’ve just proved it to you, down eight thousand for a kick off.

He hasn’t proven that he has done anything except subtract incorrectly.

Corrin Dann: What policy change?

Winston Peters: Well we said that certain type of people who are coming here would not be welcome because they weren’t bringing the skills we needed. And it’s skills we need now, so we’re far more cautious as to who’s coming, and we’re far more focused on the regional economy and the provincial economies as to their needs.

So many more will be going to the provinces and the regions where they are needed. Not all screaming to Auckland

He avoided answering. And he is quite inaccurate implying that all were ‘screaming to Auckland’.

Corrin Dann: How is it fair, for those struggling to get into houses in Auckland, that you are continuing, your Government, to run a policy of record migration levels, a boom that is continuing? Winston Peters: You can’t get away with that. The record was seventy two thousand eight hundred. Corrin Dann: And now it’s sixty five. Winston Peters: Sixty five and falling, yes, And it’ll be far more focussed now, and it will possibly focus come all the way down another thirty, in all about between twenty five and thirty thousand, somewhere in that region. But we’ve also got to watch the employment market to ensure that none of our export product is being hindered by a lack of staff. That’s likely to be acknowledging the need for dairy farm workers, vineyard workers, fruit pickers. Corrin Dann: You told your supporters you wanted it at ten thousand. Winston Peters: Yeah well I lost the argument because I didn’t get enough votes because people like you said it wouldn’t work. Now you say it will.

His smirk after that comment as if he thought he was a clever bugger.

Blaming it on the media.

But Peters has just virtually said it wouldn’t work, that workers were needed for export industries, and now he says immigration is necessary to sustain exports. Either he didn’t recognise that obvious need before the election, or he was duping voters.

“His message to voters who want a big drop in immigration levels is that Labour can’t be trusted”.

Neither can Peters be trusted by the look of this. That won’t be a surprise to many, but a significant number of those who voted for NZ First expecting big things may justifiably feel shafted.

Labour have also not delivered on their promises, despite this claim after the coalition negotiations: Labour wins on immigration

Peters’ demurring to Labour’s more modest immigration policy was done with barely a murmur. Prime Minister-designate Jacinda Ardern was firm last week in stating Labour would be sticking with its own immigration plan of reducing net migration by 20,000 to 30,000, and repeated it in the announcement of Labour’s deal with New Zealand First. “We had a conversation which demonstrated we shared the concern of exploitation, particularly in our export education sector, the need to strengthen those labour market tests, we’ve referenced that policy in the agreement, and of course that policy came with an estimate of the reduction of net migration would bring so that’s entirely consistent with our policy and nothing in that regard has changed.”

It looks like it has changed significantly.

In a rare moment, Peters then accepted that he had not gotten exactly what he wanted, but was not too fussed. “We’re happy to accept that resolution in the way the Labour party has framed it, and it just so happens there’s an enormous amount of public controversy about those two issues right now carried by you in the media and carried by experts, so maybe it will work out.” Peters may not have got exactly what he wanted, but immigration numbers are still set to drop.

But there has been no significant drop. Trust in political promises may drop, if that is possible.