Editorial: Peters leaflet crude and deplorable

Truthfulness and principled behaviour are rarely part of a populist politician's repertoire. Certainly, they have never featured in Winston Peters' crude and deplorable appeals to prejudice and xenophobia. The New Zealand First leader has, however, plumbed new depths in the anti-immigration pamphlet being deposited in letterboxes. As always, the vast majority of his claims are absurd, and the vast majority of New Zealanders will recognise them as such. But there is a danger of real damage in the households of hard-working and law-abiding immigrants, where the assumption might be made that this bigoted balderdash represents a significant community viewpoint.

In fact, all but a small minority of New Zealanders have come to resent the ranting of Mr Peters. Only the culturally insecure still entertain the idea that the country is being engulfed, and destroyed forever, by a flood of immigrants and refugees. The rational see, instead, the benefits that flow from the import of skills, enterprise and wealth, the establishment of new businesses and a greater demand for local goods and services. They also recognise that immigration is a necessity, given the country's serious skills shortages, the movement of New Zealanders overseas, and the ageing of the population.

Mr Peters' concerns cannot begin to measure up against these economic imperatives. "We are being squeezed out of our own country," he says. Hardly. If he is referring to the number of Asian immigrants, the fear is groundless. By 2016, Asians are expected to make up just 9 per cent of the population. If he is referring to an increasing population, there are, equally, no grounds for concern. The population has grown by 1.1 per cent since 1990, of which migration contributed just 0.2 per cent.

And contrary to what Mr Peters maintains, hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants have not arrived since Labour was elected in 1999. The average annual migrant intake from all sources is about 40,000 - a number potentially set to decline, given the sweeping changes announced by the Government in mid-year. Even if the number were far higher, it would not be a cause for great alarm. Our population is far less than that contemplated 50 years ago, and there is still plenty of room without the environment and our lifestyle being threatened seriously.

Most foolishly of all Mr Peters attempts to argue that, rather than stimulating the economy, immigrants are a burden on it. "Official papers show that many immigrants become burdens on the welfare system at the expense of New Zealand taxpayers," he says. They show no such thing. The perception that many immigrants go straight from the airport to the dole queue is, quite simply, wrong. According to the Government, only 1.3 per cent of migrants were on the unemployment benefit in the latest financial year. What cannot be denied is that immigrants generate economic activity far in excess of any charges they impose temporarily on health, education or welfare services. So much so that immigration plays a significant role in driving economic growth.

Mr Peters, of course, provides no indication of what might replace that stimulus, and how our present standard of living might be maintained were it to disappear. Rational discourse is not the way of populist politicians. They deal in divisiveness and intolerance, no matter how debilitating that might be to the subjects of their prejudice, and no matter how damaging that might be for a country's international standing.

Mr Peters has the right to raise questions about the Government's immigration policy. The level of the intake and issues of cultural insecurity need to be debated. But this debate should not include baseless claims, unprincipled behaviour and the outright hostility implicit in the NZ First pamphlet. That demeans the very essence of a multi-cultural society.