Two decisions of the National-led government over the last few weeks have raised serious concerns about its understanding of the interests of ethnic communities and the cynical approach the government is taking towards them.
In May 2011, Prime Minister John Key and his cabinet made a number of decisions, which will affect family residency categories.
The substance of the changes will be (a) preferential treatment of applications from parents whose sponsors are high-income people and (b) removal of the Sibling and Adult Category.
High-income people will be able to sponsor their parents no matter where their other siblings live, with their applications placed on a fast track (so called ‘Tier One Parents’).
Other sponsors, namely those who are not high-income people (‘Tier Two’) will not be able to sponsor their parents if there is another sibling living in their home country, with their applications placed on slow track.
I would certainly like to know more about the problems that these policy shifts are trying to address and the options pursued for their resolution.
However, I am most concerned about the underhand way in which the John Key- led government has addressed them.
These decisions were made in May last year, six months before the election.
In that time, the Prime Minister, his cabinet ministers and his ethnic members of Parliament attended many functions and events in the ethnic community but did not breathe a word about these changes.
They would have known that ethnic communities would be concerned about the policies being pursued but they stayed silent. Why?
Eroding Human Rights
There is a second decision that the Government made last year that will impact seriously on the interests of ethnic communities.
The Human Rights Act is to be changed so that the position of Race Relations Commissioner will no longer exist.
Race Relations will become a work programme led by one of the generic Human Rights Commissioners once the Bill is passed.
Race relations is central to the interests of all New Zealanders, especially the significantly sized and visible ethnic communities.
The Race Relations Commissioner (previously Conciliator) has played a critical role in shepherding sensitive race relations issues since 1972, when the role was established. This led to the establishment of the Ethnic Councils, which have been active in resolving many cases of racial discrimination, and in advocating a positive race relations climate effectively.
New Zealand is a leader in race relations and many of its activities centre on the Office of the Race Relations Commissioner.
It has maintained this separate role since 1972, the first country in the world to do so. The Australians also place high value on race relations and have a dedicated Race Relations Commissioner in its Human Rights Commission.
I have not heard even one comment from a respected commentator on race relations that this organisational change is necessary.
So why is the government doing it and what problems is it trying to resolve through this policy response?
In both cases, the current government is playing fast and loose with ethnic communities, which make a significant contribution to New Zealand.
The government, as recently as March 7, 2010, was positively highlighting the fact that immigration added an estimated $1.9 billion to New Zealand’s GDP every year and that international students added another $2.3 billion annually.
In both these cases, the government has failed in its duty to properly consult ethnic communities on the changes proposed.
The government is guilty of taking the ethnic community for granted.
Its ethnic members have not stood up to their ministers and the Prime Minister and spoken about the interests of the communities they say they represent.
The government has deliberately hidden the Cabinet decision to change the system that they knew would affect ethnic communities when it was campaigning for their votes in the last election.
Questionable secrecy
They knew their decisions were controversial but did not have the courage to front up at a time ethnic communities were deciding on how to cast their vote.
If the Government was serious about the role of ethnic diversity in the 21st century New Zealand, it would then articulate its strategy more effectively than simply fronting up at events, voicing appreciation for their contribution to New Zealand but not trusting them with meaningful consultation and involvement.
Members of ethnic communities are not stupid.
They can spot when they are being taken for granted, when their votes and resources are being targeted and when their interests are not addressed.
Ethnic communities are first and foremost interested in enhancing the interests of their new home New Zealand.
Many have been here for a long time. They have a great deal to offer New Zealand domestically and in opening up doors for commercial relationships with their countries of origin.
All they ask in return is to be treated like all New Zealanders and be meaningfully consulted when governments make decisions that affect them.
That is not the case with this government as their actions in the two examples show.
I urge Mr Key and his government to desist from being cavalier in dealing with ethnic communities. This is also the case in its decision to direct immigration officials not to record the reasons for their section 61 decisions under which they can grant visas to those unlawfully in the country and not subject to deportation orders, only to avoid the risk of investigation by the ombudsmen and judicial reviews.
That is cynical, to say the least.
Dr Rajen Prasad is Member of Parliament on Labour List and the Party’s spokesman for Ethnic Affairs. Indian Newslink occasionally invites contributors and columnists from both National and Labour to write no-holds-barred guest editorials, which do not reflect the policy if this newspaper.
