Introduction & Session Notes. Opening Address. Plenary 1, 2, 3, 4. Panel Discussion 1A, 1B, 1C. Review & Preview. Plenary 5. Panel Discussion 2A. Session Notes, Population Change & Social Services. Panel Discussion 2B, 2C, 2D. Plenary 6. Panel Discussion 3A, 3B, 3C. Closing Address. |
PANEL DISCUSSION 3C - POPULATION CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL LINKAGES |
Chief Executive, Asia 200 Foundation
JAMES KOH,
SESSION NOTES,
|
-
PANEL DISCUSSION 3C: POPULATION CHANGE AND INTERNATIONAL LINKAGES
PHILLIP GIBSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ASIA 2000 FOUNDATION
INTRODUCTION
- Let me show you two faces of New Zealand. In 1953 Acting Prime Minister Keith Holyoake publicly congratulated Edmund Hillary on having climbed Mt Everest. Hillary, he said, " has put the British race and New Zealand on top of the world."1 Note the order: British first, a New Zealander second.
Fast forward to 1997, where a different face of New Zealand is being presented to Britain. Last month we read that Madame Tussaud's is adding to its waxwork collection another New Zealander who put his country on top of the world: Jonah Lomu. As an All Black he is certainly a representative New Zealander. But it is unlikely that any Prime Minister will describe Jonah as representing the British race.
These two stories illustrate the way that the face of New Zealand has changed dramatically over that time from one that was essentially British to one that is more ethnically diverse. A major part of that change has come through the international movement of people - including, but not limited to, immigration.
I want to talk about the role of flows of people in international linkages, with a particular emphasis on New Zealand and Asia. This reflects the considerable importance to New Zealand of Asia, and the focus of Asia 2000 in building New Zealanders' understanding of Asia and ties with that part of the world. But many of the points I will make are apposite to the world as a whole.
I want to make three main points today.
- First, movement of people has been a major influence in shaping and reflecting our identity as an Asia-Pacific nation. That identity is richer, more diverse and more complex than the essentially British society we knew before. And it gives us a broader outlook on the world.
- Second, two-way flows of people and knowledge are an integral part of the open economy. Increasing mobility is blurring the distinction between short-term and long-term flows (immigration). These flows provide necessary skills and expertise, give access to regional networks, and contribute significantly to trade and capital movements.
- Third, as a result of a preoccupation with short-term issues, and a narrow approach to our own interests, we are failing to take full advantage of these opportunities, and causing significant damage to our external interests. Current policies are perceived to be discriminatory and anti-Asian. The English language test in particular needs to be revisited.
PEOPLE FLOWS AND NATIONAL IDENTITY
- The flow of people in and out of New Zealand is a major influence on the way we perceive and are perceived by the rest of the world. From the point in the mid-19th century when the Pakeha population outnumbered the Maori until quite recently - perhaps the 1970s - European New Zealanders have been fundamentally British in our outlook. Ours was a colonial mindset. We relied on the Mother Country to provide for our prosperity and security and looked uniquely to Britain for our migrants. In 1946, the Government held a Population Conference very like this one, where it specified that immigrants were to be British or, if not, as near as possible. "If any positive steps are taken to encourage immigrants other than from Great Britain," it declared, "they should be found in northern European countries".2
Although New Zealand somehow managed to avoid the opprobrium that befell Australia for its "White Australia" immigration policy, our own policy in practice was little different, barring non-Europeans almost completely until at least the Second World War3. British were treated like resident New Zealanders until 1974. The de facto preference for British and near-British immigrants (eg North Americans, Dutch and Australians) continued through to the 1980s4 .
Hence, unlike other immigrant nations such as the United States, or even Canada and Australia, New Zealand has not had a tradition of welcoming a wide variety of immigrants into a "melting-pot" of cultures. Although the nation was founded on a partnership between Maori and Pakeha, for most of our history we have been homogeneous and exclusivist in our immigration policy - matching the insular and protectionist stance we took towards external economic ties generally.
This historical context helps to explain the shock felt by many New Zealanders at the substantial influx of migrants from non-traditional countries over the last ten years. New Zealanders have had no tradition of welcoming different ethnic groups in any number into the country. Far from accepting the rights of different groups to preserve their own ethnic identity, the Government has consistently sought to have them assimilate - or 'integrate' - into "mainstream" white New Zealand society5. This homogenising approach and the absence of established local communities has in turn made it much harder for recent immigrants to find their feet in New Zealand.
The flow of migrants since 1986 has been rapid and substantial by anyone's standards. The most conspicuous - though not the most numerous6 - group, those New Zealanders identifying themselves as of Asian ethnicity, has increased from 53,541 in 1986 to 173,502 in 1996 - an increase of more than three times7. At last year's census 61,272 Asian-born New Zealand residents had lived in New Zealand for less than five years.8 Asians now make up five per cent of the total population; and ten per cent of the population of Auckland. New Zealand now has the same proportion of Asians in the population as Canada, and nearly as many as Australia, despite a shorter history of large-scale immigration from Asia.9
In addition to increasing overall numbers of Asians and other groups, immigration during this period has created some ethnic communities within New Zealand that simply did not exist before, such as those of the Taiwanese and Koreans. There were 441 Koreans resident in New Zealand in 1986. Last year there were 12,183, of whom 98.4% had lived here for less than 10 years.10
To a large extent these new migrants have been replacing departing New Zealanders (of all ethnic origins including Maori). New Zealand experienced net migration losses over the 11 years 1980-1990, a total of nearly 150,000 people. Some 10% of the labour force left the country in that decade.11 Net flows have been positive since 1991, but some forecasters are predicting a return to a net outflow in the next year or so as demand from North Asia in particular has dropped off.
The existence of this fairly constant outflow of New Zealanders means that the impact of the new arrivals on the composition of the population is much greater than if New Zealanders were staying put at the same time. To look at it another way, if there had been no Asian immigration into New Zealand at all over the period 1987-1995, New Zealand would have experienced a net loss of 76,883 people instead of a gain of 1430.
The result of these flows has been a significant change in the ethnic mix of New Zealanders. No longer two separate but homogenous groups of Maori and Pakeha (or British), New Zealand now includes a range of distinct cultural and ethnic groups, including large and growing populations of Asian and Pacific Islands origin. This composition is in turn broadening and complicating New Zealand's outlook on the world. In other words, the same force which kept New Zealand resolutely British for so long is now turning our identity towards other cultures, in particular the Pacific and Asia.
Immigration has also changed the way New Zealand is viewed by other countries. It raises our profile and creates a whole new set of ties with other countries. Where New Zealand tends to ignore its expatriate population, many Asian countries pay close attention to what happens to their overseas communities, including those in New Zealand. This has long been true,12 but the development of strong local communities in New Zealand of Filipinos, Taiwanese and Koreans, for example, will see increasing attention paid by their media and governments to their welfare.
ENGAGING WITH THE WIDER WORLD
- Migration is a two-way street - and New Zealanders are a large and enthusiastic part of the traffic. We are very aware of immigrant communities in our midst. Most of us are aware of the large community of New Zealanders, including many Maori, in Sydney and London. Australia contains some 300,000 New Zealand-born residents. But New Zealanders are increasingly scattered far and wide around the world, wherever employment, adventure and excitement offer. Over 15,000 New Zealanders are currently living and working in various Asian locations13.
Thanks to ever cheaper and easier transport, people are travelling more than they have ever done before. Increasing numbers of tourists visiting New Zealand are matched almost as dramatically by the numbers of New Zealanders travelling overseas. For example, the number of short-term visits to Asia by New Zealanders has tripled since 1987 from around 50,000 to nearly 150,000. As the following graph illustrates14, holiday-makers account for some of that increase.
But the fastest growth in travel to Asia has come in business travel, up from 12,072 to 42,016, and in visiting friends and relatives (VFR), up from 8,438 to 42,802. Much of that growth is migration-related. For example, business travel by New Zealand residents to Taiwan (many of them likely to be immigrants) grew from 607 in 1987/8 to 3211 in 1996/7, and VFR traffic from 27 to 7678 in the same period15.
People flows both into and out of New Zealand are an inseparable part of our engagement with the wider world. It is increasingly impossible to keep people from moving around internationally - including New Zealanders.
Ours is not a unique phenomenon. We are gaining in turn from the removal of restrictions on the movement of people in other countries. Visitor flows from Korea, for example, exploded when Korea liberalised restrictions on overseas travel by its citizens in 1989. We are likely to see a similar - and much greater - expansion of outward travel from China over the next decade.
As Governments make it easier to move off-shore to work, study or travel - such as through visa-free arrangements and working-holiday schemes - the distinction between long and short-term movements, and with it the definition of migration, is increasingly hard to sustain. The New Zealander who goes to work in Hong Kong or London, to go on "OE" for a year or two in Europe and Asia, or just to lie on a beach in Australia: is he or she migrating?
We face a similar blurring of distinctions with, for example, the relatively large numbers of Japanese coming into New Zealand. Over 4,000 Japanese arrived in New Zealand in 1996/7 saying they intended to stay for a year or longer - a larger number than from Korea, Hong Kong or Taiwan. Yet comparatively few Japanese seem to settle in New Zealand permanently. The majority of those apparent "immigrants" are likely to be here on long-term study or working holidays.
Similarly, many of the large numbers of people, particularly from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, who have gained residence in New Zealand in recent years are highly mobile. These migrants are often highly qualified, relatively well-off, and have a number of options for migration destinations. Many are likely to commit to New Zealand for the long-term.
But for others, like many young New Zealanders abroad, the decision as to whether or not they remain in their new country, return to their homeland or move to a third destination lies in their own hands, and will depend on factors such as the relative attractiveness of the local economy, the extent to which they can establish careers here, and on the extent to which they feel welcome in New Zealand society. Recent figures showing a sharp rise in numbers of Koreans and Taiwanese leaving New Zealand long-term are not particularly reassuring in this regard.
BUILDING THE ECONOMY
- What we are seeing then is the development of an open and highly competitive international labour market for certain kinds of skills. Reflecting structural changes in the global economy, these skills tend to be knowledge-based, oriented towards delivery of services rather than goods, and dependent on rapid communication. In fields such as finance, telecommunications, consulting and computing, the actual location of employment is increasingly irrelevant.
To the extent that rapid communication is overcoming the "tyranny of distance" that has disadvantaged traditional industry, this revolution is a major plus for New Zealand. But in other ways New Zealand is not especially well-placed in this new international market for labour. Our smallness - both in terms of economic scale and lack of large cities - is a major drawback. We attract a tiny proportion of total migrants. New Zealand is first-choice of migrants in only a few cases: generally we rank fourth behind the United States, Canada and Australia.16
There is little doubt that migration contributes directly to growth in the economy. The extent to which that benefit may be off-set by distributional, fiscal and other costs I leave to others to discuss. What I want to emphasise is the critical role played by movements of people, and the attendant knowledge transfer, in facilitating and creating international economic activity. People flows have played a major part in the enormous expansion of New Zealand's international ties in recent years, which in turn are key to lifting long-term productivity and levels of sustainable growth. These ties are particularly useful to us in dealing with what has been the most economically dynamic part of the world - Asia. Let's look at some examples.17
- Footnote(s)
- 1
- Dominion, 3 June 1953, p.11. I am indebted to Malcolm McKinnon for this reference.
- 2
- M.McKinnon, Immigrants and Citizens, 1996, pp.37-8.
- 3
- Sean Brawley, 'No "White Policy" in New Zealand; Fact and Fiction in New Zealand's Immigration Record, 1946-1978', New Zealand Journal of History 27(1), April 1993.
- 4
- McKinnon, pp.42-3.
- 5
- Until recently this was, of course, true of the Government's attitude towards the Maori as well as towards non-British immigrants
- 6
- Even in the years of extensive immigration from the Pacific (1960s and 1970s) and Asia (1990s) the total "white" migration gain has exceeded the "non-white" gains, I.Pool and R.Bedford, Macro Social Change in New Zealand, Historical and International Contexts, Population Studies Centre, September 1997, p.17.
- 7
- Statistics Department, These figures count those only who identify themselves as of Asian ethnicity, and are likely to understate significantly the number of New Zealanders of Asian origin by excluding those who choose for whatever reason not to identify themselves in this way.
- 8
- 1996 Census of Population and Dwellings, Statistics Dept.
- 9
- Latest Canadian figures (1991 census), give 5.1% of Canadians of North, South or Southeast Asian ethnicity - data from Statistics Canada. Australia does not have figures for ethnicity, but 1996 Census figures report 4.78% of Australian residents were born in Asia - compared with 3.26% for New Zealand.
- 10
- 1996 Census, Statistics Department.
- 11
- Wolfgang Kasper, Populate or Languish? Rethinking New Zealand's Immigration Policy, 1990.p.xii.
- 12
- In the 1920s Japan protested that citizens of some World War I allies of Britain were treated more favourably on arrival in New Zealand than Japanese. McKinnon, p.32.
- 13
- Information from a survey of New Zealand Embassies and High Commissions in Asia, 1997.
- 14
- Data from Statistics Department
- 15
- Statistics Department. Outward visit data understates the number of visits to particular destinations since it captures only the country where the longest period of time is spent.
...Previous || HOME || Contents || Next...