ANZ‐Pacific Migration Governance System

Abstract

International migration governance can be represented as a system set up to manage cross‐border mobility of people in the interest of participating states; mostly by means of bilateral agreements between countries and top‐down, UN‐mediated multilateral and EU‐directed plurilateral arrangements. The latter have often failed to work effectively, so we ask if there is another way. We argue that Australia and New Zealand, together with several Pacific nations, form the ANZ Pacific Migration Governance System (ANZPAC), which provides an alternative way of regional migration governance. We call it an idiorhythmic system of governance: a bottom‐up arrangement between states using devolved and/or self‐regulating coordinating mechanisms to allow participating states sufficient freedom to pursue their own agendas at a pace determined mostly uni‐nationally. ANZPAC facilitates enhanced mobility of migrants to and within the region while also helping to reticulate inflows of unauthorized immigrants. It offers interesting, albeit at times controversial, lessons for other countries. Polish Research Foundation NCNOPUS 10 research support scheme (research project 2015/19/B/HS4/00364 ‘The impact of wealth formation by economic migrants on their mobility and integration: Polish migrants in countries of the European Community and Australia’).

‘Fair Dinkum’ migration policy

“…One model is to incorporate an archipelago such as Hawaii as an offshore state of the US. Another has been based on the special relationship between Australia and New Zealand, which Chand and Markowski (2018) describe as a self-regulating and relatively unstructured club -an alternative to the Buchanan-style arrangementand label an idiorhythmic economic club.…”

“…In Australia, this is provided through the Seasonal Worker Program (SWP) and in New Zealand through the Recognised Employer Program (RSEP). It is these arrangements, together with the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, that form the basis of the ANZPAC migration system (Chand and Markowski 2018).…”

“…• the evolving history of immigration and integration strategies, policies and procedures has been a rich source of positive and negative lessons for other countries. The lessons cover such diverse policy options as the controversial White Australia policy, government-sponsored immigration, the progressive opening of the country to immigrants from Southern Europe, East Asia and now all parts of the world, the policy of multicultural integration of immi grants and the controversial policy of offshore detention and reticulation of unauthorised immigrants (the so-called Pacific Solution); • the progressive transformation of the traditional settler immigration scheme into the competitive sourcing of human and social capital through a two-step programme of temporary work permits and educational opportunities (based on 'merit points') which subsequently funnels short-term migrants into the pool of permanent immigrants and naturalised citizens (Withers 2016); and • the 'idiorhythmic' regional migration governance of Australia has been an interesting, albeit only emerging, alternative to the top-down, centralised EU model of migration governance (Chand and Markowski 2018).…”

Managing International Migration: Rethinking Transaction Costs, Red Tape, and Their Impact

“…In the absence of an efficient global migration governance regime, countries escape to one‐off solutions and responses. Red tape is one of them, as several authors contributing to this Special Section indicate implicitly (Chand and Markowski, ; Krakhmalova, ; Klaus and Pachocka, ). The concept of red tape, originating from the field of public order and then applied to the field of public administration, signifies the practice of erecting unnecessary administrative barriers (in the form of additional paper work, time lags, etc.)…”

“…Despite the fact that Australia and New Zealand are part of the Global North, Chand and Markowski () in their article, ‘ANZ‐Pacific Migration Governance System’, point out that these countries, considered in a wider context of the Pacific region, create a specific regional migration governance system. They employ a comprehensive global public and club goods perspective to view and understand the functioning of diverse arrangements aimed at managing migration in a region.…”