Editorial: Refugee diversity enriches nation

The Weekend Herald brought some telling figures about the number of people coming to the country as refugees these days. There are many more arriving without permission than are admitted under the quota for acceptance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

They land here from aircraft or ships, claiming to be in mortal danger in their country of origin. They put the taxpayer to considerable cost while their stories are checked to the extent that the Immigration Service is able to do so. In most cases their request to remain is declined, suggesting they are judged to be seeking not safety but economic opportunity. Is there very much wrong with that?

"Economic refugees" is not a term to use sneeringly. There is something to be admired in people who have the energy and determination to come this far in search of a better life. It is unlikely they have gone to such trouble simply to survive on social welfare. If allowed to stay, they would probably become enterprising citizens, more than repaying in tax and job creation the money it costs to deal with them on arrival.

And that cost is probably a great deal less than the expense of refugees brought here under the quota. The Herald investigation has discovered that the Immigration Service alone spends $4.1 million on selecting and transporting the quota of 750 people a year and running an induction programme for them.

It seems we pay for teams of officials and interpreters to go overseas to select suitable candidates for settlement from the refugees certified by the UNHCR to be genuinely at risk. Once here, the refugees spend six weeks at the Mangere resettlement centre. Thereafter they receive some help from community volunteers to see that they are housed, that they know where to find the services they will need and that any children are enrolled in school.

It is to be hoped the volunteers are only the first friendly people the refugees encounter. We are enriched by the wish of diverse people to come and live here and doubly enriched by the opportunity to help them. They are people who have endured conditions and dangers unknown to anybody born and raised in this country.

The pity is that most of us cannot hear their stories because publicity might endanger family, friends and associates in their countries of origin. At least, that is the official reason for the strict secrecy maintained about their arrival and their fortunes here. The recent Tampa saga made an exception to the usual level of secrecy for one group of asylum seekers, and it has been a useful public example of the procedures. It has also given the authorities an indication of public opinion towards such people. After the Prime Minister's offer to take some of the stranded boat people, opinion polls found a majority grew to like the idea.

The full cost of the refugee quota is a fact we should know. All costs should be open to question. The cost of the quota - estimated at $11.8 million a year for living allowances, perhaps $6 million for health care and $3 million for education, on top of the $4.1 million bill for immigration procedures - does not seem excessive.

In fact it might be time to ask whether the country could not do somewhat better than 750 people a year. But, then, since we have been allowing 300 or 400 unexpected asylum seekers to remain each year, we are probably getting close to the mark. With the facts available, we can reassure these people they are not a problem.