Opinion: Erica Stanford seems perplexed (even amused, at times) by suggestions she may have typecasted Indians as spammers desperate for a job and visa to come to New Zealand. She doesn’t see any problem with what she said. That’s the problem.
On May 6, the immigration minister was responding to an oral question in Parliament when she made a reference to unsolicited emails she often receives, and – seemingly to illustrate that point – pointed to those that come from India. She described such mails as “akin to spam” (but not really “spam”, as she has eagerly pointed out since then).
Let’s be realistic. Nobody is suggesting Erica doesn’t like Indians. If anybody does, that’s really a bit too much. It’s nothing personal. And that’s the point the immigration minister seems to have missed while trying to unravel the discomfort her comment has stirred up.
The real question is whether her remark gives away any implicit bias she may be harbouring. She may well not have any implicit bias. But that’s hardly the point. Her comment leaves room for doubt. Surely, it's not just people from India who write such mails to her. Why did she think of Indians off the top of her head? Does she have an implicit bias? Who knows.
The fact she is the immigration minister means making any conjectures on that really problematic. There’s a whole immigration apparatus that presumably hears what she says, and what she says can reinforce any bias that those in the system may have. It trickles down fast. Some immigration advisers who have dealt with Indian applicants would secretly tell you the systemic bias can actually be quite explicit.
It can be hard to acknowledge implicit bias. The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes it as ‘a bias or prejudice that is present but not consciously held or recognised”. People don’t even know they may be harbouring an implicit bias. It’s easy to see why they are dismissive of it when confronted with that suggestion. It can be quite distressing.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. There’s no evidence the immigration minister is suffering from any such prejudice. What she seems to be lacking though is the appreciation for public sentiment, especially for a politician of her stature.
Willie Jackson summed up Erica’s predicament during a discussion on Herald NOW on Friday morning, where the immigration minister laughed off a question on whether she had hurt sentiments – saying she had not. The Labour MP reminded her no matter what she believed to be true, people did seem upset.
Erica has been asked if she would apologise to the Indian community for stereotyping them. She says that wasn’t the intent of what she said. She seems to have only dug herself a deeper hole by trying to blame “some very untidy political games [that] have been played by the Opposition”.
Luckily for her, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon came to her rescue two days back (rather late, it can be argued). He told journalists the immigration minister could have “worded it better”. There. Simple. A frank admission of what happened, and what could have been done.
The Indian community doesn’t need an apology from Erica. Nor are they naive to fall for “untidy political games”. The immigration minister would do well to make sure her actions speak for themselves.
ISSUE
