Editorial: No cause to fear migrants

It is sometimes said that migrant attitudes explain a large part of the dissimilarity between New Zealand and Australia. The two countries have much in common, the legacy of a shared colonial heritage. But there are also notable differences, perhaps none more than in the Australians' brash, optimistic view of life. This, so the argument goes, stems from the belief of the post-World War II wave of immigrants that they were going to a land of opportunity. Greeks, Italians and others embraced Australia with enthusiasm, vibrancy and an entrepreneurial spirit.

Contrast that with the mainly British flow of migrants to New Zealand. They, so it is also said, were coming from, rather than going to, a country and were less intent on grasping the chances presented by their new home. Willingly they abandoned the obstructive British class system but they did not relinquish an insularity bordering on xenophobia that even now sees many Britons unable to view themselves as part of Europe. Is it a vestige of that sentiment that sees many New Zealanders reluctant to recognise the enrichment a new wave of immigrants is bringing to this country?

The signs of discomfort are widespread. It is reflected in the unanticipated level of support for Winston Peters as he reprises New Zealand First's anti-immigration plank. He is tapping into a vein of unease typified by Janice Wilson, who, in a letter to the Herald, wrote of standing in a queue in a Howick bank. Every other person in that line was Asian or Indian. "Today I felt like an alien in my country," she wrote.

Such is the challenge that immigration always poses for social cohesion. There will always be those fearful not only of the increasing diversity of society but of the pace of change. Their insecurity is fed by allegations that immigrants push up house prices and inflation, and are a drain on schools and hospitals.

Some claims contain a kernel of truth; many more are unwarranted. But in sum they are certainly outweighed by immigration's positives. Migrants generate economic activity far in excess of the charges they may impose temporarily on education, health or welfare services. Equally, society is embellished by the diverse range of people making New Zealand their home; some have made huge sacrifices and shown huge determination to bring their skills to this land of opportunity.

No nation is immune to the strains imposed by immigration. Earlier this year France had a scare before rejecting the racist policies of Jean-Marie Le Pen. And Australia had its own, mercifully brief, flirtation with Pauline Hanson. It is a hopeful sign for New Zealand that Mr Peters is, in this general election, highly unlikely to achieve anywhere near the 13 per cent of the vote that carried him into coalition with the National Party in 1996. Increasingly, people seem aware that a sensible immigration policy is essential if economic growth targets and a higher standard of living are to be achieved.

New Zealand has become a more desirable destination for migrants since the September 11 terrorism in the United States. This, and an increase in returning New Zealanders, has led the Government to tighten entry requirements under the general skills category.

That is a somewhat perverse reaction. With immigration being cyclical, there was good reason to seize the opportunity and to loosen this year's migrant target. Perhaps, however, the Government had its own fears in an election year. It should not have been so timid. Where immigrants are concerned, to borrow a phrase, all anyone has to fear is fear itself.

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.