Garth George: Breathtaking hypocrisy in Labour's immigration u-turn

You'll have to excuse me if there are a few typographical errors in this column. I'm laughing so hard I'm having difficulty operating my keyboard.

I find it hilarious that while people like Winston Peters and me - who have been warning of serious social, economic, infrastructural and social consequences from too much immigration, particularly Asian immigration, for years - are still being labelled xenophobes and racists, Helen Clark is back-pedalling so fast on immigration policy that we're almost back to 1991 already.

The hypocrisy of the Labour Government is breathtaking. While Miss Clark and a number of her dirtiest parliamentary fighters have been reviling and abusing Mr Peters and even refusing to allow a debate on immigration in Parliament, her Immigration Minister has been quietly beavering away changing the rules to slow down the flow of immigrants and particularly the inordinate numbers of Asian immigrants.

The fact is that whether we like it (or him) or not, for the non-politically correct and therefore bulletproof Mr Peters, this represents an astonishing political victory which entitles him to claim the mantle of Leader of the Opposition.

If it had not been for his persistence in raising the immigration question again and again, nothing would have been done and the festering problems and nasty rorts that infect the immigration business would simply have carried on and become worse.

Granted, some of his statements have been so far over the top that they did his credibility no good, yet behind each and every one of them was a grain of truth that struck home to the man (and woman) on the Mt Roskill bus.

So when several polls suggested that Mr Peters' campaign had widespread support throughout the country Miss Clark, wily politician that she is, had to do something, and she's doing it while still accusing her nemesis of whipping up xenophobia.

Does she really think New Zealanders are that silly? Probably. It is a fault of academics to look down on us peasants, particularly those of us who didn't go to university, and treat us as if we were mentally retarded.

Meanwhile, the debate on immigration has occupied tens of thousands of words and square metres of space in this newspaper while all the trite old arguments in its favour and against Mr Peters have been trotted out by those with an axe to grind.

What else would you expect from politically correct academics like Manying Ip and Peter Lyons, politician Pansy Wong and pinko liberals like Brian Rudman.

Of them all I got the biggest laugh from Dr Ip, an associate professor of Asian studies at Auckland University, under the heading "Migrants needed if nation is to flourish", in itself a discredited theory which is given the lie by our economic stagnation and increasing poverty, among children particularly.

And much of the argument she puts forward is based on trends so many years out of date as to have no bearing whatsoever on today's conditions.

She writes, in the patronising manner of the academic, of immigration being "a contentious issue because it goes directly to some of the oldest fears and prejudices that many societies face".

She is half right. She portrays this prejudice as if it is something of which we should be ashamed.

Nonsense. If I am prejudiced because I deplore the huge inflow of aliens into this country, I wear my prejudice comfortably.

But it doesn't scare me. It brasses me off to have to put up with the social and infrastructural consequences, but I am fortunately able to choose where I live, pick my friends and those with whom I do business.

The epithet "racist" is thrown around by the mouthful these days, but I have yet to discover what it means in the mouths of those who spew it forth.

Does it apply, for instance, to the nearly 15,000 people who informed Holmes on Tuesday night that they did not favour the level of immigration imposed by the Labour Government, but not to the 900-odd who were in favour?

Does it apply to the 46 per cent of New Zealanders and 54 per cent of Aucklanders who think immigration is out of hand, but not to the rest?

Does it apply to Rudman, who writes in a derogatory fashion of "pasty-faced Poms"?

If I am a racist because I prefer New Zealand to be populated principally by Pakeha, Maori and Pacific Islanders, I'll wear the epithet like a rosette.

Because that's the bottom line, isn't it? We are New Zealanders and we want our population mix and our society to stay pretty much the way it is. We don't want to have to assimilate alien cultures, many of which obviously don't want to be assimilated.

I am careful whom I invite into my home. Because it is my home I am entitled to be choosy.

And New Zealand is as much my home as the house I live in. The Government, on my behalf and not before time, has decided to go back to being choosy about who gets invited to come to stay.

Manying Ip says migrants from Asia have options other than New Zealand. Good. Other countries are welcome to them.

* garth_george@nzherald.co.nz

Further reading
Feature: Immigration