Immigration policy “serves New Zealand”

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32966, 12 July 1972, Page 6

Immigration policy “serves New Zealand”

New Zealand’s immigration policy was designed to serve not the immigrant but New Zealand, the Minister of Immigration (Mr Thomson) said in Christchurch on Monday evening. “It is universally accepted that a sovereign right common to all countries is the right to control the entry of people to their territories,” he told a meeting of the Christchurch Business and Professional Women’s Club. Representatives of 10 other organisations were invited to the meeting. The first legislation dealing with immigration was passed in the 1880 s and was directed at controlling the influx of Chinese to the goldfields, Mr Thomson said. “The entry-permit system was introduced in 1920. This required all persons, other than British citizens wholly of United Kingdom ancestry, to obtain permits to come here.” An amendment in 1961 brought everyone, except New Zealand citizens, into the entry-permit provisions;

and the legislation was consolidated into its present form in 1964. “Apart from certain categories who are prohibited on grounds of health or character—communicable disease or police record—the Immigration Act does not specify who may or may not come here,” said Mr Thomson. “The Act is concerned with providing the machinery whereby entry is controlled and of getting rid of people whose continued stay is unwelcome.” New Zealand policy had maintained a preference for British and European immigrants. as experience had shown that these people fitted easily into the New Zealand way of life, and the numbers wishing to come had never been so great as to be embarrassing. THE PACIFIC Free entry was allowed to all Australian citizens, and clearly identifiable migration links had existed for many years with India, China, Greece, and Jugoslavia. “We continue to accept immigrants from these areas principally on a family-relation-ship basis,” Mr Thomson said. However, he said, the Pacific was a special situation,

and the islands, being New Zealand’s nearest neighbours apart from Australia, must be regarded in some measure as New Zealand’s responsibility. “Those born in the Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau Islands are New Zealand citizens and may come here at any time,” Mr Thomson said. “Western Samoa, as a former trust territory, holds a special place in our policy. The Samoans take full advantage of the oportunities we offer them, and the present inflow is about 1500 a year.” Although it was preferred that immigrants be older than 45 and have no more than four dependent children, specific provision was made for cases which had strong humanitarian appeal, especially if they resulted in the reunification of families, he said. While the New Zealand population was predominantly European and Polynesian, there were smaller groups of Indians and Chinese. “Our policies are slanted towards maintaining this composition,” said Mr Thomson. “Even so, the 1966 census showed that in the previous decade, without exception, the non-European and non-Maori elements of our community increased at rates varying from almost two and a half to 10 times greater than the Europeans. “Of course, we must recognise that they have a much smaller base to grow from,” he said. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS One of the social implications of immigration was that by accepting a large number

of Western Samoans as immigrants each year New Zealand was, among other things, helping Western Samoa to cope with its population problem. “The other side of the picture is that New Zealand can, and does, benefit culturally from the presence of people of different origins. For instance, Dalmatians and Lebanese have had a tremendous impact on the development of the wine industry in New Zealand.”

Perhaps one of the mostj important social aspects of, immigration was that New Zealanders, by having direct contact with people from a wide variety of backgrounds, could learn to appreciate, or at least understand, the habits and customs of people from differing social backgrounds. “However, it must not be overlooked that appreciation and understanding are seldom attained overnight,” Mr Thomson said. IMPARTIALITY Although he believed that New Zealand had reasonably flexible policies which would cater for deserving cases, these policies were not readily discernible in individual cases. “I, and my department, strive to act with impartiality. Consequently, before an exception is made in a given set of circumstances, we must be satisfied that the case stands out in comparison with others. “We cannot subscribe to a policy which will result in favourable decisions being given to some, and others—in like or more compelling circumstances — being refused.”