Dalziel bites back on suggestion of betrayal

By AUDREY YOUNG

Immigration Minister Lianne Dalziel is defending herself against claims that Labour has betrayed immigrants by imposing a tougher English language test that is being compared to the "Jim Crow Laws".

Act leader Richard Prebble is the latest to suggest that the Government has done a u-turn and is now carrying out policy promoted by New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Principal applicants in the general skills category will need a 6.5 average on the International English Language Testing System general training module, up from five; and and average of five in the business category, up from four.

"The new English language test is no better than the infamous Jim Crow Laws in southern states of America to prevent blacks from voting," Mr Prebble said.

"The sudden u-turn on immigration is a complete betrayal of immigrant communities whose votes Labour sought only three months ago.He said the new test was so harsh, very few people from non-English speaking countries would be able to migrate.

The test was racist because migrants from Britain were not required to sit it.

Mr Prebble said that when he had been a business investor in Vietnam, the Vietnamese had not required him to pass a Vietnamese test.

"Mr Peters claims correctly that the Labour Government is carrying out New Zealand First policy."

Lianne Dalziel denied that the tougher test was an about-face.

"It's part of an on-going systematic review of immigration policy."

She had had to announce the change more quickly than planned.

Her original intention was to introduce the English language test on December 9, but a newspaper story suggesting the Immigration Service was conducting a confidential review of the general skills category prompted her to advance it to last Tuesday to avoid a possible "deluge" of applications by people trying to beat the changes.

"I can't risk the area of giving notice when I know that people will use the notice period to try to defeat the policy change.

"We are only introducing the policy because we want to improve the outcome,"she said.

"If I were responding to Peters, wouldn't I be reducing the numbers of immigrants? This is not about reducing the numbers."

Asked if she believed the changes to the language policy would reduce the number of Asian immigrants, which Mr Peters has wanted, she said: "No. It will reduce the numbers of those gaining residence with a modest level of English use and replace them with people who have a competent level of English use.

"I can't stop what I'm doing simply because others will criticise me for responding to him. I'm not responding to him and I'm not stopping because of him either.

"He is utterly irrelevant.

"I am very happy to debate immigration issues anywhere but I insist that the debate be reasoned, informed and balanced and Peters' contribution to the debate thus far has been ill-informed, unreasonable and unbalanced.

"He has actually become quite unhinged on the issue and obsessive about it simply because it gets him in the headlines."

Ms Dalziel said the changes might have been unexpected to Mr Prebble but they had been planned for a long time. If he had been reading her speeches, he would know the Government had been working on all aspects of immigration policy.

Ms Dalziel said some of the criticisms of the changes were based on misinformation, such as a claim that business migrants were required to pass to level 6.5 of the International English Language Testing System.

"There is a lack of appreciation of the detail of the policy which, given some of the claims made by immigration consultants, suggests they are not competent to do the job they pretend they are competent to do."

Herald feature: Immigration