Shane Jones' rhetoric on immigrants continues to attract attention. The latest bout is over an offensive remark regarding Indian students.
The comment was made during his promotion of a "population policy" for New Zealand in a Newshub interview. Jones also said: "I think one of the problems in NewZealand with infrastructure is our population has grown well beyond what originally the architects thought was the case."
Questions he believes should underpin a public debate on a policy include:
"What blend of policy do you want for your population; what size; what skill-base; how many untrained people; how many investors?"
All points which have been overshadowed by his comment on Indian students.
I am acutely aware the phrase "population policy" would slide easily into a handbook for nationalism. I also understand discussing details of who should qualify for life in New Zealand has, and will continue to inspire unhelpful debate.
However, that does not mean it is a conversation which should not take place. Yes, call out Jones for dog-whistle politics and racism, but lets also examine the relevant issues being used as a springboard for his rhetoric.
One of the key questions that must be asked is whether immigration policies have been executed responsibly in this country.
Is it really fair that visa and residency applicants who have shelled out thousands in fees wait for months, some more than a year, for an outcome because of an overwhelmed Immigration NZ?
What about students and overseas workers who are exploited? What does their treatment say about immigration policies? I know a group of migrant workers who raised concerns about their employer more than two years ago. It took more than a year for an investigation into their complaints to commence, with the assigned labour inspector citing caseload issues. Even now, they continue to wait on an outcome in their case.
Then there's the impact on local resources. More people adds pressure to infrastructure and social services, particularly housing.
One of the key questions that must be asked is whether immigration policies have been executed responsibly in this country. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Labour's stance on immigration in its 2017 campaign summed it up neatly. "The rate at which our population is growing is placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure, especially in Auckland," it said in its election manifesto. "Higher numbers of migrants are heading into low-wage work where they are vulnerable to exploitation."
The party promised changes that would reduce net annual migration, via limits on student and temporary work visas, by an estimated 20,000 to 30,000. It even said without a reduction in this amount "there would be up to 10,000 more houses needed and up to 20,000 more vehicles on our roads annually".
Fastforward and reports show that while net migration is easing, it remains historically high. Significantly, the overall recent decrease has not been due to less student and temporary work visas. In fact, an analysis by Newsroom shows the average number of these visas the Government has granted each month since it was elected is 25 per cent more than the previous National Government's monthly average from its nine years in office. Instead, the downward trend in net migration has been attributed to lower permanent residency approvals. Meanwhile, we are still trying to address significant shortfalls in infrastructure, roading and housing.
I do not expect the current Government to fix problems that ballooned when it was not in power. However, its failure to do little more than tinker at the edges with immigration policy is incredibly frustrating.
So, this year, I would like to see a refreshed tact. Policies under both the previous National Government, and the current coalition, have failed to effectively address the type of population growth New Zealand can realistically manage. Our ability to have steamrolled through several years of red flags, including numerous cases of student and migrant exploitation, accommodation shortages and extensive visa processing times, shows the status-quo is not working – even if net migration is easing.
A debate around population policy and how migrants fit into that is an important step in addressing long-term questions around skills and labour needs, roading policy, infrastructure growth and the list goes on. Jones' questions, cited earlier, are also important and should be discussed alongside current policies and the problems they have contributed to. And yes, there will be racists remarks. When that happens, recognise and label them for what they are. Just don't let their ignorance and vitriol detract from a most pertinent issue this election.
