Editorial: Modest refugee intake should be much higher

Children play at a World Vision Child Friendly Space in the Bekaa Valley, Lebanon. Syrian Refugees for World Vision 2015.

Previous experience has been positive and benefits would outweigh the costs.

As diplomacy dictates, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees is very polite in its references to this country's refugee intake. New Zealand, it notes, has a "modest but well-managed resettlement programme".

But if diplomacy could be cast aside, the UN agency would doubtless contend that the programme was far too modest in a world of 51 million displaced people, including 12 million left homeless by the war in Syria.

This has been underlined by Human Rights Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy. In calling for this country to increase its quota of refugees, she made several telling points. None was more compelling than the fact that the quota has stood at 750 refugees since 1987. In some exceptional circumstances, such as the Kosovo crisis, more refugees have been accepted.

But by any international yardstick, such as intake per capita, this country is a laggard. Even Australia's now reduced intake totals 13,750 refugees a year.

The obvious argument against accepting more refugees is that of cost. But this would be more than offset by the benefits. New Zealand's experience with refugees has, by and large, been positive.

Refugees tend to be particularly keen to contribute to the country that has taken them in. There can be no doubt that New Zealand has the capability to accept more.

Its place on the UN Security Council signifies its desire to be a fully participating member of the international community. That approach, however, is hardly substantiated by its paltry refugee intake.