Editorial: Steady hand needed on immigration

Opinion

It is odd at a time of chronic skill shortages for the Government to be trumpeting a wide-ranging review of the Immigration Act that will take two years to produce a benefit. It is equally strange for it to be making much of a parallel examination of security risk issues when that was always going to happen once Ahmed Zaoui's case had run its course. Such, however, is the Government's trepidation about the launch tomorrow of New Zealand First's immigration policy. It will, it seems, display even its most cynical face if there is a chance of spiking Winston Peters' guns.

The NZ First leader has indicated that immigration will again be a central plank of his party's election platform. Again he will appeal to the small minority who do not acknowledge that this country needs to lure more people with skills and capital, both to replace the loss overseas of some of its own and to bolster population growth.

The Government seems oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of people understand the whys and wherefores of immigration. Rather, as in the past, it is fixated on claiming votes from NZ First, even if that means threatening economic growth. On an issue that demands a steady, long-term focus, it has indulged in the most knee-jerk of reactions. The likes, for example, of the introduction of a tougher English-language test, which, predictably, produced a whitening immigration trend. And just as predictably, it slowed the flow of migrants to an unacceptable level, requiring a reopening of the gate in the middle of last year.

It is, therefore, rich for the Minister of Immigration now to be promoting a comprehensive approach on the pretext that it will overcome previous "piecemeal" changes. Equally, it makes no sense for Paul Swain to claim that process must grind slowly because of the need to develop a "public consensus" through extensive consultation. There is, in fact, no real debate about the wisdom of attracting more migrants.

People by and large do not resent or fear immigration. They appreciate that in an open market New Zealand needs to entice its share of energetic and enterprising migrants from round the world. And that this, allied to a restructuring of the economy, has provided the stimulus for the economic growth of the past decade. As Mr Swain says, a comprehensive approach is required. But at the heart of this must be the removal of politicking from the immigration equation.

There is no doubt, however, that the security risk issues highlighted by the Zaoui case need attention. Last year the Prime Minister, quite accurately, labelled the relevant 1998 legislation "a dog's breakfast" and said a review would take place. Mr Zaoui was the first recipient of a security risk certificate and his case has taken off in a direction that Parliament never intended. Even his lawyers accept the need for change.

The problem, as Mr Swain says, stems from the balance swinging too far away from New Zealand's right to determine who comes and goes. The system must be made simpler and faster while retaining an essential fairness. It is farcical that overstayers who fight removal orders can spend as long as five years proceeding through four avenues of appeal. Furthermore, some of the process is flawed. The Refugee Status Appeal Authority, for example, was denied access to presumably significant Security Intelligence Service information on Mr Zaoui when it decided there was nothing to implicate him in terrorist activity and granted him refugee status.

The Government's losing legal hand in the Zaoui case has been an embarrassment. As have Mr Peters' revelations about a retired Iraqi diplomat and former Cabinet minister in Saddam Hussein's regime gaining entry to New Zealand. But good government involves rising above that to promote sound policy, not scrabbling about for the votes of a party dredging the bottom of the xenophobic pool.