Peter Lyons: A fair go for all the New Zealand way

COMMENT

Several weeks ago, a group of students were abused by an individual in the university library. Last year a student from the hostel I manage was knocked from his bike by a group of thugs. He broke his thumb and subsequently withdrew from his course.

Two years ago, two students, also from my hostel, were pushed through a plate-glass window during an altercation at a local supermarket.

The common factor was that the students were Asian. These incidents may be the ugly tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.

Most countries are founded on national myths. The United States pays homage to the rugged, self-reliant frontiersman and the concept of the self-made man. New Zealand prides itself on being a tolerant, friendly, accepting society willing to give all-comers a fair go. We represent the best of British fair play.

A study of our immigration history reveals the fallacy of this claim. Ready acceptance of new migrants has, in the past, mainly extended to those who share a common heritage, in particular those of British stock. Other migrants have been subjected to various forms of discrimination, both official and unofficial.

It is unlikely that racist attitudes are any more prevalent here than elsewhere. But we should stop deluding ourselves that such attitudes are any less prevalent here. Our tolerance and acceptance of other cultures and races is probably no more developed than in many other countries.

There is little point in beating ourselves up about this, but let's stop pretending that we lead the world in the tolerance stakes.

In my experience, the vast majority of foreign students studying here are decent, hard-working individuals desperate to do well. They are aware of the sacrifices their families have made to allow them to study here and many are not from particularly wealthy families. Those students driving around in fancy sports cars are not the norm - they just tend to be more visible.

Many of these students are desperately homesick when they arrive. They are then accused of sticking together and failing to mix and fit in. The irony in this accusation should be evident to any New Zealander who has done an OE to Britain and Europe and seen the flock-like habits of the average young Kiwi abroad.

Asian fee-paying students have been caught up in the tensions created by the immigration debate that has been skilfully manipulated by self-serving politicians. Little distinction has been made in this debate between migrants, refugees and fee-paying students.

Education services are now a major export earner. The growth in the past 15 years has been haphazard and poorly co-ordinated. There have been shoddy practices by a number of education providers, which is typical of a rapid-growth industry in its infancy. There has also been little public discussion to raise awareness about the value of this industry.

The attacks described were repugnant and cowardly. Such incidents can also have enormous potential economic implications. The export of education services earns about $7 billion a year. Although the service is consumed in New Zealand, it is still an export. It earns export revenue exactly the same way as the sale of commodities sold overseas.

Most New Zealanders benefit either directly and indirectly from our education export sector. It is an industry in which the earnings are spread widely rather than confined to the shareholders of a particular company. Some who benefit include the education institutions and their employees, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, restaurateurs, travel agents, homestay families, landlords, the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer through the collection of GST and other levies.

Overseas students subsidise the education of New Zealand students, particularly at secondary and tertiary levels. They pay significantly higher fees than New Zealand students for the "privilege" of studying here. Without this source of revenue, many secondary schools and other institutions would be forced to reduce staff, cut options and provide fewer facilities.

Teacher unions should be highlighting, in their pay claims, the fact that schoolteachers are now major export earners.

Criticism of foreign students for being too studious and overachieving is a sad cop-out. These students usually do have a more focused and motivated approach to learning and study than many of their New Zealand counterparts, but this is certainly not always the case.

Anyway, it is not surprising given the substantially higher fees they are paying and their awareness of the sacrifices their families have made for them to study here. They are also under enormous pressure through family expectations.

If this is cause for resentment by New Zealanders, it is a sad indictment on our own work ethic, attitudes to education and willingness to compete in the wider world.

It is doubtful that appealing to the humane or thoughtful side of those responsible for harassment will have much affect. Their cognitive skills probably prohibit them from recognising the potential implications of their actions.

The international market for education services is fickle and competitive. Last year's outbreak of Sars, the war in Iraq and the high New Zealand dollar illustrate how susceptible this market can be to harmful influences.

Should New Zealand develop a reputation for intolerance and ill-treatment, demand for our services could quickly diminish. This would have major flow-on effects on employment and incomes in a variety of sectors in the economy. It could also affect the quality of education available to New Zealand students.

The ill-considered, ignorant actions of a few could affect the livelihood of many. Such actions also serve to embarrass and humiliate those New Zealanders associated with this valuable export industry.

* Peter Lyons is the manager of a student hostel for overseas students.