Temporary Entry Permit

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31001, 5 March 1966, Page 14

Temporary Entry Permit

Sir, —Mr Shand’s reply to Mr Chan is surely most ungracious. Mr Chan’s parents are Australian citizens. He himself was educated, and has been working in Australia. Australia is clearly the only country to which he can be expected to return. Does Mr Shand seriously suggest: (1) That to allow Australian (and presumably American and British) citizens to take up posts at New Zealand universities is to give aid to those countries. (2) That these citizens should therefore be

compelled to return to their countries of origin after a strictly limited period? If these principles were applied, my own department would be left with one assistant lecturer. It is disturbing that Mr Shand should be so ready to castigate as “abuse” any criticism of his policy. New Zealand universities employ a high proportion of overseas staff; they are surely not expected to maintain an attitude of uncritical admiration for government policy.— Yours, etc., R. N. KENNAWAY. University of Canterbury, March 4, 1966.

Sir, —It is apparent that we in New Zealand can no longer point a superior finger toward examples of racial discrimination in other countries. There have been many hints of this during the past years: Mr Shand’s armchairpsychology reasoning for refusing to allow the adoption of a Thai baby, the “misunderstanding” about Miss Winifred Atwells passport, etc. Now, we read that “after being appointed a teaching fellow at the University of Otago a young man was able to get only a six-month temporary entrance permit for no other reason, apparently, than that his skin is yellow. We cannot with any human dignity boycott segregated football matches in one breath and hire a man on terms of second class citizenship in the next.—Yours, etc., GLENDA WARD. March 3, 1966.

Sir, —In common with some other Western countries, New Zealand seems to be suffering from schizophrenia in Government policy. On the one hand, “good neighbour,” come closer to our Asian brothers (especially in developing potential markets), help “undeveloped” countries, etc.; on the other hand, our unfair immigration policy, where race appears to be the deciding factor. Our hypocrisy smells to a lot of New Zealanders as well as to those Asians who protest, thus, as Mr Shand implies, biting the benevolent hand that pats them gingerly on the head. I am sure Mr Chan will contribute more to New Zealand than vice versa. His objection to six-monthly permits is perfectly reasonable. Mr Shand, apart from his patronising and hectoring attitude, did not state any valid reason why Mr Chan was not given a longer permit—three years for instance. —Yours, etc., ORDINARY CITIZEN. Blenheim, March 4, 1966. Sir,—A report in this morning’s “Press” states that a Hong Kong university lecturer could obtain only a temporary entry permit (renewable) to work in New Zealand. If this is so, why did the Labour Department tell “The Press” recently that there were no immigration restrictions within the British Commonwealth. —Yours, etc., “CANTERBURY.” March 2, 1966.