• The employment status profile (and the income profile) of new arrivals from Asian countries strongly indicate that they are decidedly handicapped on arrival when compared with the arrivals from Britain, Ireland and other western European countries. This is in spite of the fact that very stringent considerations were applied in the selection process (as evidenced by the significantly higher failure rates in their residence applications in the last five years).

• A significantly large number of people who have been given residence visas by New Zealand have not turned up at all.

• Some 'quality migrants' that New Zealand have chosen after lengthy screening and who actually turned up in this country have not been able to be gainfully employed.

The above points strongly suggest that we may have been heading in the wrong direction and labouring under false assumptions so far. They show up as a fallacy the assumption that migrants who have excellent personal qualities (education, skills and business experience) can come into New Zealand and be just equally successful, without help, without extra information, and without much preparation on the part of the host country.

Public attitudes towards immigration in general and Asian immigration in particular has been strikingly-manifest in the well-known results from various opinion-polls. New Zealanders were asked 'Do you think there are too many…too few…just the right number …of Asian / British / Polynesian migrants to this country?' Such polls were conducted at random but frequent intervals by both the print and electronic media. The results have been tediously predictable. The public generally found there were too many Asians, too many Polynesians, and just about the right number of British ( National Business Review Hunt 1995, Hunt 1996). Fig 8 NBR Consultus Polls 1994-96.

The actual number of immigrant arrivals probably bear little relationship, if any, to the public perception of whether there were too many or too few of whatever kind of migrant. They are actually pointers of public perception of kinship and social distance towards different ethnic groups. (Trlin 1974, McKinnon 1996, Spoonley 1996.)

The importance of these numerous polls is that they show how ill-prepared New Zealand is in opening its doors to migrants who are non-British and non-white. Immigrants whose physical features differentiate them from the dominant ethnic group are generally regarded as undesirable and unwelcome. In the 1990s, they are mostly tolerated for perceived short-term economic gains by New Zealand.

What is worse is that the migrants are usually keenly aware of this ambivalent attitude of New Zealanders. In the 'New Chinese New Zealanders Survey', a perceptive interviewee described the underlying message he received often, 'We shall suffer your presence. Just effect your economic miracle real fast!'. Such contradictory messages came from both the public as well as from various populist politicians. Is it any wonder that unsuspecting immigrants were confused, put on their back foot, and floundered? Is it any wonder that discerning would-be migrants are staying away even when they have residence visas? (Barber 'Racism puts off immigrants' SCMP Aug.16 1997)

VII.A  Some Possible Immediate Remedies

1)

In the short term, the NZIS could

• start to take the basic step of recording the arrival of people who holds the residence visa so that there is an accurate record of the percentage of applicants taking up residence.

• start a simple monitoring system of new arrivals similar to that used in Australia and Canada so that migrants actual performance is recorded and studied.

2)

There should be some basic induction service available to all new immigrants. Far from being interfering or being over-protective, such programmes are in fact common practice when new recruits start work for private corporations or government departments. It is simply proper procedure and efficient practice to have your department's new entrants start by knowing all the 'rules of the house' so that they can operate confidently, contributing as valued and loyal employees.

It simply does not make economic sense to challenge our new arrivals to sink or swim. When a new immigrant fails to make headway in New Zealand and has to leave this country disaffected, he or she will be a living witness to our tarnished image of a tolerant and cohesive society.

3)

An even more self-actualising prophecy is the accusation that new arrivals are 'not committed to New Zealand'. When new immigrants fail to find employment or fail to set up a business in the country of settlement, they have two obvious choices. They could either stay and go on unemployment benefits or return to their country of origin and support their families with overseas funds, awaiting new opportunities to try some new ventures. In the current economic climate when the Asian economies are so much stronger than that of ours (true even after the most recent October '97 stock market crash), many new Asian immigrants understandably would choose to return to their countries of origin to work and commute frequently to and from New Zealand. Since such kind of 'astronaut' lifestyle is stressful to all members of the family, a more satisfactory arrangement would need to be made within a few years. When the new immigrant community finds that there is no space and time allowed, no understanding shown, then feelings of alienation will set in. Why should they be committed to a country which apparently cares for nothing but the hard cash that they can bring?

VII.B.  Understanding the Circulatory Habits of the Transnationals

In our New Chinese New Zealanders research, there are a number of findings which can compliment the present paper. The new Chinese immigrants display several characteristics which are of relevance when one considers successful settlement factors: As young and highly-skilled professionals, they tend to move where their jobs take them. Since New Zealand traditionally measure migrants' success by looking at how long they stay put (compared with a rural farming career timescale ), the different behaviour pattern of these new immigrants will be looked upon as 'strange' and probably suspect. In modern industrialised societies, a career of one as short as 3-4 years is normal.

• Many of these Chinese immigrants migrated to New Zealand as nuclear families. Their parents as well as siblings are mostly located either in their countries of origin (60 percent of the sample), or in Canada, Australia, the United States and Europe (over 30 percent of the sample). A higher percentage of their siblings are in these countries than in New Zealand (only 6 percent of the respondents have siblings here). This aspect points to the end of the traditional chain-migration phenomenon which has promoted stability and long-term settlement. Although our immigration policy caters for family reunion, so far few recent migrants have made use of it. This suggests that their families are also middle-class professionals who tend to locate themselves wherever their jobs take them.

• Under such circumstances, frequent short-term circulatory movements of the new immigrants may well be the norm. Family networks are often also business networks as well. We suggested that the wide international dispersion of the extended families of these new Chinese migrants may be called a 'transnational corporation of kin'.

• Staying put has never been a characteristic of those Chinese from the coastal regions of China, or from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Malaysia or Singapore. They and their forebears before them have been on the move literally for centuries. Relocating to places of opportunity is a survival strategy. Frequent travelling is of course the necessity of any business person. "How can you conduct and promote business by sitting within New Zealand?" they asked.

VIII

SETTING IMMIGRATION TARGETS

From our Chinese New Zealanders survey, we found that most of the new immigrants chose to come to New Zealand for lifestyle reasons. The country is less hectic, more peaceful, and generally more pleasant than many Asian regions. Many also said they came to give the children a better education environment. Few mentioned that they came to conduct businesses in New Zealand.

Considering New Zealand's assets (clean, green, uncompetitive and all-round education system) and weaknesses (small domestic market, low buying power, long-distance from overseas market, high labour cost), our immigrants' viewpoints are in fact totally understandable and unsurprising.

However, NZIS stated that they will select people 'who are genuinely keen to settle, rather than those who use residence status solely for other reasons, such as children's education or as a 'back-up option' should the situation in their own country deteriorate.' (New Zealand's Targeted Immigration Policies: summary of October 1995 policy changes July 1995, p.5) The implication here is that people who immigrate for their children's education are not genuinely keen to settle. This flawed thinking totally ignores the fact that many Asian parents are willing to sacrifice a lot for their children's future. It also ignores the fact that education nowadays is frequently looked as an export industry and is far from being free.

To be attainable and workable, any targets set should be realistic. In my view, our manifested failure as outlined in Section V is precisely because our policy makers ignored both our own strengths and our clients' expectations.

VIII.B  Treating Migrants as Fellow-citizens

If we are serious about wanting to attract good migrants and also wanting them to eventually stay, New Zealand has to try to turn the country's collective attitude around. We must learn to see that the migration experiment needs to be satisfactory to both New Zealand as well as to the migrants. We must learn to think beyond short-term immediate economic goals. We must learn to look beyond 'migrants as worker or investor' view.

We must ask: What has the country to offer and to entice migrants to come? What encouragement and support is there to ease the migrants' rite of passage and help integrate them as part of the community? What chances are there to make sure that the immigrants' talents, skills, training and experience can be maximised and utilised for the betterment of both themselves and New Zealand?

Many of our new immigrants are extremely resilient and enterprising people. However, in order to make them try that much harder to start businesses in a less than ideal environment, we must make them feel that New Zealand is worth their extra effort, and will reward them for taking that extra risk for what they know to be smaller returns. When newcomers feel welcome and valued, there is an extra sense of appreciation and solidarity. We can only have successful migrants when we are prepared to welcome them as fellow-citizens.

VIII.C  What Type of Migrants?

To the question of what type of migrants we should have, my answer is: migrants are self-selecting. Immigration is a huge exercise and very costly in terms of time and money. Few would uproot their whole families, interrupt their careers mid-stream and relocate themselves in a new country if they do not have a commitment to their country of adoption. We attract the kind of migrants we deserve. If we don't fit them, they will leave, as many of them are doing now.

It is unlikely that we can attract too many international corporate businessmen. Our geographical remoteness and small population precludes us as an international business hub. We can only attract small-medium size businesses because that is the type which are most commonly successful in New Zealand.

VIII.D  What Sort of Numbers?

There cannot be any absolute number that we must target. It would be good if we can attract enough to offset the annual outward long-term migration (usually 10,000 upwards) and on top of it have a population growth rate which can maintain our GDP growth. I shall leave it to experts like John Yeabsley to work that one out.

• It is no use to stipulate an absolute size of intake because international situation will vary from year to year. Political or social turmoil in other parts of the world may act as push factor and encourage people to migrate to New Zealand's shores. If people suit our criteria, they should be invited in. It does not make sense to accept more people from a dwindling pool of applicants in order to meet a certain pre-set number. A yearly range should be set. But flexibility and vision should be shown in the application of the policy.

• Immigration policy (like all government policies) should be stable and long-term. Short-term stop-go measures and frequent changes can be confusing and counter-productive, lending to the view that the government is making knee-jerk reactions to situations as they arise rather than having a clear vision of nation-building and economic growth.

• In order to make New Zealand attractive to internationally mobile people, to entrepreneurs as well as capital, an enlightened immigration policy (built upon the vision that all migrants are potential fellow-citizens) is essential. A decline in human capital will lead to a collective decline of skills, knowledge and opportunities within the nation.

• Successful migration will lead to the building up of the critical mass which is so essential to any modern nation state. Without the replenishment of young blood, New Zealand can only anticipate a greying future. Not only will the country sink in international competitiveness, its inevitable shrinking opportunities will further drive our own home-grown young talents overseas, thus further quickening our downward spiral. A nation that cannot attract migrants cannot keep its own people.

• Immigration policy controls only the initial process of a migrant's experience, i.e. the selection of incoming migrants. Besides this initial control of this inward flow, we have no control or even moderating influence over their circulatory traveling habits, their attempts in settling down, and if they are disaffected, their eventual departure.

Immigration policy can never control the absolute number of migrants who will arrive in any given year, nor can it ever prevent people from leaving, thus starting some enforced settlement period. Any assumption that selection criteria can influence eventual settlement patterns is a fallacy.

A well-administered immigration policy enhances the quality of the populace and fosters the country's international linkages. Immigrant success stories are good public relations stories. But to ensure the immigrants' integration lies far beyond the immigration policy. It falls more to the arena of education and social policy, which is beyond the scope of the topic assigned to me, although it is well within the scope of the Population Conference.

Basically that is why the country's immigration policy has had such mixed results: it has been instituted without integrated support from other sectors of government and the public. We still have this inherited and defunct vision that immigration is part of the Department of Labour. The task for New Zealand is to broaden our collective vision, and to view immigration as both an opportunity and a challenge to our nation's future. Far from being the short-term immediate chance of gaining some immigrants' incoming funds, we should set our sight on what New Zealand could become with an infusion of human resources who would help integrate us into our true geo-political destiny -- '…as a Pacific nation which has a place for Asian people and a place in an Asian economy.' ( Department of Internal Affairs, The NZ Government and National Identity, June 1996)