immigration policies
p. 40 · Read in the full issue
Loopholes in NZ’s immigration policies
NEW ZEALAND is a country of immigrants. The Maori were the first settlers, establishing them selves as the tangata wheenua in a suc cession of legendary canoe voyages from islands in the Polynesian Triangle many hundreds of years ago.
The Europeans began to come in the late 18th century and British settlement began in earnest after the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Then came Australian goldminers and thousands of Chinese, also bent on prospecting for a fortune in the newly-found goldfields of the South Islands, followed by Dalmatians.
After a long period from the turn of the 20th century, during which immigration was largely restricted to British and Irish citizens, New Zealand’s make-up began to diversify after World War 11, with
refugees from continental Europe joining
Britons enticed here with the offer of free passages.
The country’s ethnic balance and cultural base was changed dramatically with the arrival of Hungarian, Greek, Italian and Dutch immigrants.
Despite increasing numbers of newcomers from the Pacific Islands, New Zealand slowly but surely was transformed from a Polynesian land founded by the Maori into a European country.
Today, it is fast becoming like America’s melting pot, with migrants from more than 100 different countries taking up residence here last year.
They were headed, as was traditional, by newcomers from Britain. But a new factor in the immigrant make-up was that the second largest source of migrants was South Korea, followed by Taiwan and Hong Kong. They in turn were followed by South Africans.
This year, the influx of South Africans, virtually all white and apparently fleeing the advent of black majority rule in their homeland, has gathered pace. From a monthly total of 68 in January 1993, their number rose to 487 in April, 1994.
In the 16 months since the start of 1993, 4412 South Africans moved here to start a new life.
New Zealanders who were beginning to get twitchy about the level of Asian immigration are now worried about the arrival of so many South Africans and what effect they might have on the country’s multi-racial society.
These fears blew up with the arrival here of one Dr Jan Smith, one-time head of the South African chapter of an American organisation called the Church of the Creator which was reportedly dedicated to the supremacy of the white race.
Smith, New Zealanders were told, had written to his members back home “The biological and cultural heritage of the white race is threatened by our deadly race enemies Jews, kaffirs and the mud races.”
Saying that in New Zealand would certainly have the man in trouble with this country’s human rights laws. But he had not said it here and his application for perma nent residence was approved with out any check on his racist atti tudes.
The case, the opposition and anti-racist groups said, highlighted a glaring hole in New Zealand’s immigration policy. There is noth ing in the policy that requires an immigrant’s racial or political be liefs to be tested applicants are not even interviewed, except for those applying under humani tarian, de facto relationship and
some family reunification grounds.
Pacific island MP Taito Phillip Field was quick to draw a compari
son with the many Pacific Island people who he said faced stringent questioning when they sought permanent residence.
Field said his constituency office was swamped with cases of Pacific Islanders treated unfairly by the Immigration Service.
He cited the examples of young Samoan mothers deported as overstayers and forced to leave their children either New Zealand citizens or legal residents behind. The Court of Appeal has challenged this practice in an interim judgement, but at the time of writing the final outcome was unclear.
“I think all New Zealanders would be very concerned with the volume of white South Africans coming here in light of the fact they benefited from a racist regime which is now dismantled,” Field said. “Rather than helping to build the new South Africa they’re looking to run away and find other
alternative places.”
The government, which last revamped its immigration policy in 1991 with the express aim of wooing “quality migrants” from all over the world, has denied it is deliberately setting out to attract South Africans.
But observers said the policy, which is based on a points system, was designed to attract young university graduates and the whites who wanted to leave South Africa qualified easily.
Immigration Minister Roger Maxwell ruled there were no grounds for revoking the residence permit of Jan Smith, who disavowed the remarks attributed to him anyway. But Maxwell directed staff to tighten up character checks on
prospective immigrants.
New Zealand’s immigration policies have always been controversial and seem to satisfy no one. In addition, the 1991 policy has singularly failed to meet the government’s target of a 20,000 net gain in population every year. Yet another review of the policy is under way. New Zealanders, immigrants and prospective applicants await the outcome with interest.