The Maori party on white immigration

Last week Maori party MP Turiana Turia called for a limit on white immigration to New Zealand, saying it was undermining the Maori party’s chances of gaining another seat in parliament (“Maori party calls for migrant cutback, ” Dominion Post, Monday February 26, 2007).

Despite the racist nature of Turia’s comments, the national media seems to have downplayed them. Mainstream conservative bloggers have been quick to point out that if Don Brash had made similar remarks regarding say, Polynesian immigration, the mainstream media would have been all over him like a pack of wolves, given the grilling he received over his Orewa speech in 2004.

The only reason I managed to catch the story was because an overseas blogger asked me why I wasn’t commenting on it (hat tip Crush141).

In analysing comments like this, it good to start with Lenin’s old question “who, whom?” will benefit from the proposed change. Turia makes the assumption that the majority of Maori will be better off if they become a larger proportion of the population. She also concludes that Maori will benefit from Asian and Polynesian immigration as opposed to European immigration.

However, where is the evidence for any of these claims?

Indigenous Canadians have one of the best deals on the planet precisely because they are a small minority, which the majority can compensate without impoverishing themselves in the process.

As Maori become a larger proportion of the population, they are likely to receive less government assistance per person, and an aging white population will quickly grow tired of seeing a larger proportion of their taxes being used to compensate Maori.

Right-liberal commentator Alan Duff has pointed out that the gap between East Asian and Maori cultural viewpoints is even greater than that between European and Maori New Zealanders. For example, East Asians have small, tightly knit families and a penchant for academic study, while Maori have large, loosely structured families and do relatively poorly academically. Maori vote centre left Labour while East Asians vote centre right National. Perhaps most tellingly, East Asians are far more likely to marry Whites than Polynesians – none of this bodes well for Turia’s “ochre alliance”.

Polynesians are culturally more similar to Maori, but does that mean Maori will benefit from increased Soth Pacific immigration? Currently, New Zealand has an aging population, low unemployment and an increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour. This situation is good news for the majority of Maori.

However, increased Pacific island immigration would increase competition for jobs and housing and drive down wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations where most Maori are employed.

Given the negative impact uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and Central America is having on work prospects for US Blacks, I can’t see how Maori would benefit from increased immigration from countries like Tonga and the Solomon Islands.

The Maori party has been labelled elitist by centre right urban Maori John Tamihere and I can see why – a “browning” of New Zealand’s population will help Maori elites in the public sector leverage more resources from central government - while doing little for the majority of Maori who would benefit more from a tight labour market and relatively harmonious race relations.

Given that New Zealand is already losing too many skilled workers overseas, a surge in unskilled non-white immigration could trigger a South African style exodus that would plunge the country into second world status.