Divisive and unnecessary

It’s slightly ironic that NZ First is claiming a proposed bill to expel migrants and refugees who do not respect ‘‘New Zealand values’’ is ‘‘actually about tolerance and being intolerant of intolerance’’. It surely can’t have been lost on the members who voted for the introduction of MP Clayton Mitchell’s Respecting New Zealand Values Bill that NZ First has hardly been known for its tolerance, particularly on immigration, during its 25-year existence.

The premise conjures up the hoary old phrase, ‘‘If they want to come here they should be like us’’. Some may see that as unfair, so let’s look at the question the bill conjures. What are New Zealand values?

Properly answering that requires first dealing with another one, ‘‘Who has the right to decide what they are?’’, potentially prompting a long-running process just to convene an appropriate panel to decide on a relevant list.

Assuming such a list can be compiled to the satisfaction of all New Zealanders, who should it apply to? Only new migrants and refugees? If not, how many generations back should we go? Ultimately, shouldn’t we all be judged against this list?

Mitchell’s bill, yet to be submitted, isn’t approached from that perspective. It contains a suggested set of values, presumably the party’s, which would obviously be debated were the bill to go through the parliamentary process.

It’s tough to quibble with the first few – ‘‘sexual equality, all legal sexual preferences, religious rights’’. As Mitchell rightly says, intolerance based on religion, race, sexual preference and gender is not acceptable in New Zealand.

Then you get to the one requiring recognition that alcohol is a legal substance that cannot be campaigned against, and more questions arise. Is this a call to lay off New Zealand’s drinking culture, an indication that the hospitality industry has been consulted on the compiling of this list, or is it something else? Remember that our leading suffragist Kate Sheppard was born in England and co-founded this country’s Women’s Christian Temperance Movement, a movement that opposed alcohol at least in part because of the harm it caused families.

If this clause is a recognition of the possibility that those from a particular religious background – Islam – might oppose alcohol, it should be remembered there is a strong anti-alcohol lobby within the Christian church. And respecting religious rights would mean acknowledging the right of both those faiths, and others, to oppose it on the grounds of the harm its abuse still causes.

Read the list in reverse from that perspective and it’s not drawing too long a bow to see it as xenophobic, and even specifically Islamophobic. So again it must be pointed out, the first three values are not universally recognised in all Christian churches within New Zealand.

We already have laws that cover most of what is on that list, apart from the ridiculous fourth item. This proposed law is unnecessary and potentially divisive.

The Human Rights Commission’s suggestion that we should expend our energy on making migrants feel welcome and valued here is a far better proposal.

‘‘Who should such a list apply to? Only new migrants and refugees? If not, how many generations back should we go? Ultimately, shouldn’t we all be judged against this list?’’