Editorial: Cynical appeal to prejudice

Populist politicians do not let principled behaviour or rational thought stand in their way. Cynicism and crude appeal to prejudice are their stock in trade. Thus it is with Winston Peters' latest cavalcade of preposterous claims. New Zealand, he says, is headed towards the ethnic and religious conflict of places such as Kosovo, Sri Lanka and Northern Ireland. This country was being "Balkanised" and there would be race riots like those in Britain, the New Zealand First leader told his party's annual conference.

He is being absurd on any number of levels. In the first instance, New Zealand cannot be equated to Kosovo or Northern Ireland. There, antipathy stems not from a fresh inflow of immigrants but historical grievance. A glance at Statistics New Zealand forecasts indicates there is little prospect of New Zealand becoming similar. By 2016, the Asian population that so exercises Mr Peters and his followers is expected to make up just 9 per cent of our population.

The future suggested by Mr Peters would be possible only if we were witnessing an unbridled inflow of migrants; that immigration is out of control and will continue to be so. It is far from the case. Over the past decade New Zealand has sometimes struggled to attract enough immigrants to compensate for the departure overseas of many of our most skilled and talented people. The population has grown by 1.1 per cent since 1990, of which migration contributed just 0.2 per cent.

Mr Peters might be excused if he presented a viable alternative for economic growth and the maintenance of living standards. As is the way with populist politicians, he does not. His claims, however, have the potential to stunt growth. It is ludicrous for him to claim there is no connection between immigration and New Zealand's increasingly important trade with Asia.

Perception and face-to-face contact are highly significant in Asia. How can there be no impact when Mr Peters' comments are widely reported there, usually with no reference to the fact that 90 per cent of New Zealanders did not support his party at the last election? Racially divisive statements will inevitably affect trading links, and Asian students will think twice about attending our English language schools.

Prospective migrants will also be discouraged. Even without Mr Peters, there is cause for concern in that area. Lianne Dalziel, the Minister of Immigration, has condemned the "tap on, tap off" approach that held sway for much of the past decade. Yet three times since June, she has overseen the ratcheting up of the pass mark for general-skills applicants, the biggest migration category.

Ms Dalziel says she is simply managing a surge in applications and that the Government is committed to a stable policy. Yet it is widely anticipated that the criteria for the business and investor migrant categories will also be tightened. From the migrants' side of the fence, it could easily be perceived that a twitchy hand is again meddling with the tap.

The last time this perception took flight, in 1999, New Zealand suffered its first net migration loss in nine years. Constant knee-jerk reactions to short-term bulges and troughs, allied with Mr Peters' rhetoric, finally tipped potential migrants towards countries with a more rational, long-term and welcoming approach. The Government risks a similar response now, even if, in the wake of terrorist outrages, New Zealand has become a favoured destination.

Ms Dalziel must convince prospective migrants that short-term variations do not represent a retreat from a desired level of about 45,000 immigrants a year. That task is being made more difficult by Mr Peters. The first time he played the race card, the then Government put a brake on immigration. An increasing clampdown would kindle the belief that he is again drawing the wind from the Government's sails. And that, given the time lag before tightened criteria filter through into immigration numbers, an attempt is being made to take the heat out of the issue before the 2005 election.

If such were the case, it would be sadly counterproductive. An election campaign that descends into xenophobia is in nobody's interest. But Mr Peters is at least right in saying that New Zealanders need to debate the level of immigration with which they feel comfortable. They need to discuss issues such as the impact on society, the ability of infrastructure to cope and ways to encourage a more even spread of migrants throughout the country.

If New Zealanders think their lot has not been improved by migrants, they will not support Government policy. And if they think their views are being ignored, there could be a Europe-style violent backlash. To orchestrate rational debate on immigration, the Australian and Canadian Governments have an annual consultation process. A similar technique for gaining community feedback could be introduced here.

There is good reason for New Zealanders to back today's immigration policy. Migrant unemployment and welfare dependency are falling. The Immigration Service is making a better fist of matching migrants to jobs, and employers are showing a greater willingness to hire skilled migrants. We are starting to see the promised benefits that flow from the import of skills, wealth and enterprise, the establishment of new businesses, a larger tax base and a greater demand for local goods and services.

For those benefits to continue, there must be a consistent, coherent and long-term immigration policy. Community debate must help to shape that policy. But, as befits a multicultural society, hostility, intolerance and unprincipled populism should play no part in that debate.

Further reading
Feature: Immigration