By PETER LYONS*
Winston Peters' attacks on immigrants have reached a new nadir. To accuse him of racism would be insulting to those who use this moniker. Racism, while unthinking, is at least an emotive stance.
Mr Peters' motives appear more reptilian and calculating. They centre on his desire to maximise public
support for himself and his party.
The history of immigration policy is littered with shameful practices. Mr Peters' stance is a continuation of such efforts. His success is a reflection of the failure of successive governments to articulate clearly the rationale behind immigration policies since the mid-1980s.
Poll taxes on Chinese workers and dawn raids on suspected Polynesian overstayers are just some of shoddier practices employed by governments towards migrant workers. Our history is stacked with official and unofficial discriminatory actions against non-British immigrants.
Many of these non-British immigrant groups have been instrumental in the country's economic development. The Dalmatians in the wine industry, the Chinese in market gardening and gold mining and the Swiss in the development of dairy processing are just some examples.
New Zealand has no reason to be proud of its past immigration policies. Until the 1972 Labour Government these policies were based on a desire to maintain the homogeneous nature of society. This involved a policy preference for British migrants, effectively an implicit whites-only policy.
This reflected the strong historical ties with Britain until the 1970s. These ties were reduced with the admission of Britain into the European Economic Community, which led to a gradual realisation that New Zealand was not the England of the South Pacific.
Since the mid-1980s immigration policy has been mainly economically driven. The emphasis has been on selecting migrants whose skills complement the needs of the domestic labour market or who fit the categories of business migrants.
A key criticism of this policy would be the failure of appropriate skill and qualification selection processes by immigration authorities. This has resulted in highly qualified migrants being unable to find relevant employment. This has led, in turn, to disillusionment and in some cases remigration.
Mr Peters' fear of being swamped by Asian immigrants is unfounded. Swamping implies an overwhelming influx resulting in a potential loss of political control by the "local" population. Malaysia and Fiji are two obvious examples of this occurring. In both cases the migrant influx was a result of British colonial policies.
The lack of substantial political representation by any recent migrant group in New Zealand suggests any such fears lack substance.
Mr Peters' anecdotal evidence of abuses of education and welfare systems by recent migrants lacks substantive proof of widespread abuse. No doubt such practices do exist. Such activity is not the exclusive domain of migrants.
Criticisms of migrant flows have included rising house prices, pressure on education facilities, burgeoning criminal activity and even poor driving.
For every Asian house-buyer there must be a seller, which implies residents have been more than willing to accept the inflated prices which they received. The pressure on educational facilities reflects the inadequate funding of the public sector. Overseas fee-paying students and, in particular, Asian students are effectively propping up our underfunded state education system.
Statistical evidence does not show an overrepresentation of new migrants in criminal convictions. As for erratic driving, this tends to be a national pastime anyway.
The issue of national identity and immigration lies at the heart of this debate. Much of Mr Peters' rhetoric adds little to its quality. All countries have the right to develop immigration policies based on national self-interest. By actively pursuing skilled and qualified migrants New Zealand could stand accused of poaching the investments of other countries in their own human capital. Most Western countries have adopted such polices in the past few decades.
The movement towards accepting immigrants from Asia has been a conscious policy decision by governments. In a democratic society such as this, the policy shift reflects a degree of consensus as expressed through the democratic process. By directly attacking immigrants and refugees, Mr Peters is undermining the democratic mandate given by voters.
New Zealand's future lies within the Asian region. This does not mean that we should indiscriminately encourage migration from these countries but it does explain the change in focus of migration policy away from the earlier preference for white British settlers.
This policy shift has been a conscious move by governments rather than the result of hordes of would-be Asian migrants beating on our doors.
The economic changes here since 1984 have alienated sectors of society. Immigrants provide an easy scapegoat for many fears and insecurities, particularly concerning the rapid pace of change in society. Immigration policy debate based on prejudice, innuendo and misinformation will serve only to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Mr Peters is effective because there are elements of truth in his arguments. There is a need for greater awareness and debate regarding immigration policy. But inflammatory remarks designed to maximise voter appeal do little to enhance the quality of this debate.
* Peter Lyons is a lecturer in foundation studies at Otago University.
Further reading
Feature: Immigration
By PETER LYONS*
Winston Peters' attacks on immigrants have reached a new nadir. To accuse him of racism would be insulting to those who use this moniker. Racism, while unthinking, is at least an emotive stance.
Mr Peters' motives appear more reptilian and calculating. They centre on his desire to maximise public
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.