More variety in migrants would help

By FRANK MULLER*

Because our birth rate has fallen below the level needed to maintain an economically and socially viable population profile, we have little option but to look to immigration to build a healthy demographic framework for our future needs.

I shudder to think of the consequences for future generations if we do not take steps to rejuvenate and keep rejuvenating our steadily ageing population. We owe it to future generations to help them to maintain healthy economic growth which, in turn, will feed into the growing demands for health, education and what might be termed social insurance.

The major issues flowing from that are the required level of immigration at any one time and, of equal importance, the sort of people we should be seeking.

The numbers game is the less problematic. Depending on such factors as the state of the economy, the employment situation, the pressure on social services and housing, the flow ought to be subject to reasonable control by means of an efficient, well-informed and co-ordinated immigration service.

Obviously, we need to set targets, looking ahead two or three years but always subject to adjustment if circumstances require.

The targets must also take into account the ability of our relatively small population of four million, increasingly concentrated in Auckland, to absorb inflows without causing too much social strain. The inflow over the past year or so seems to have imposed severe pressures on Auckland. It has understandably attracted the great majority of immigrants.

While the target figure for inflow is said to be 50,000 to 60,000, Statistics New Zealand figures show an inflow of more than 95,000 for the October 2002 year. To put this into perspective, this rate of immigration is equivalent to, say, Australia absorbing about 450,000, Britain 1.4 million, and the United States nearly seven million - all in a year. Their figures for official immigration would not be anywhere near those levels.

So the Government needs to think carefully about target numbers over the next few years. We may be at the limit of our ability to absorb such inflows unless an effective way can be found to entice immigrants to other parts of the country.

The really difficult part of the problem is deciding what sort of people we should be seeking. In this respect, there are a couple of given factors or commitments that need to be taken into account.

We have an obligation as a relatively affluent country to take a share of the growing numbers of refugees escaping political, religious and ethnic upheavals. Then we have a further well-established commitment, on humanitarian grounds, to help with family reunification as part of the flow-on from immigration. The latter, however, needs to be administered carefully since it can lend itself to abuse.

In both areas New Zealand can hold its head up internationally as a humane and compassionate nation.

According to the Statistics NZ table showing the 10 main source countries of our 95,000 immigrants in the latest October year, I estimate that roughly a third come from English-speaking countries (Britain, Australia, South Africa and the US), a third from Asia (mainly China and India, Japan and Korea) and a third from other unnamed sources (with the big majority presumably from the Pacific Islands).

While the mix is not as lopsided as many might have assumed, it is far removed from what, ideally, we should be aiming at.

The figures for European countries in general, including Eastern Europe and Russia, are not given. Nor are those for Latin American countries.

No doubt we attract small numbers from those sources but casting our net more widely to try to attract a greater mix of people from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds would be most advantageous. It would also act as a counter-force to the growing tendency among larger groups to create ethnic ghettos.

The real basis of our immigration inflow must clearly be the skilled worker category, encompassing a wide range of modern skills, professional expertise and trades. For any effective contribution to be made in these areas, however, a reasonable level of English language proficiency is required.

I was pleasantly surprised to have a blood test administered by a young Romanian woman who spoke excellent English, despite having been here for only 18 months. She had received a good grounding at school in Romania. Similarly, I have met several young Russian men in a variety of trades. There must be many more like them out there.

The next category of immigrants - the business investor, whether short or long term - has been nowhere near as successful as it might have been, largely because, in the absence of any effective monitoring or controls, it lends itself to flagrant abuse.

The short answer to such abuse must be to monitor the activities of the investor category much more closely, by means of tax records, reviews of progress and granting provisional residence in the first place. I have no doubt that in recent years New Zealand has come to be regarded as a soft touch as an immigrant destination.

Finally, we must distinguish between immigrants and the growing numbers of fee-paying overseas students in our schools and tertiary institutions. We need to know more about what happens to the students when they complete their studies or, as must surely happen in some cases, if they fail to complete them. Do they generally return home or go elsewhere seeking employment, or do a significant number seek permanent residence and work here?

If they stay, I would strongly support it in the case of those who have successfully completed their courses and urge that we look for ways to encourage more to find a place in our society.

* Frank Muller, a retired diplomat, lives in Auckland.

* Have your say on immigration issues:
Email a contribution for our Dialogue section.

Herald feature: Immigration