Stuck in Times of COVID-19: Representation of Migrants in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic

(1)

Stuck in times of COVID-19

Representation of Migrants in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic

Amber Bolland

International Migration and Ethnic Relations One year Master’s program

Master Thesis 15 credits Spring 2021: IM636L

Supervisor: Anders Hellström Wordcount: 16.480

(2)

Abstract

This thesis examines the representation of temporary migrants in the OCVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand. The aim of the study is to understand how the pandemic effected this early decision making by the New Zealand Parliament in correlation with migration, more specific, the temporary migrants who are stuck within New Zealands borders. These issues can be linked with shock mobility, more specific, with immobility within shock. The material is analysed with the WPR method. The study concludes that there is a changing discourse and a changing representation of the temporary migrants. Where at first the New Zealand citizens have to be protected, later on in the discourse the migrants need to be helped and it is

followed by financial gain that the temporary migrants bring with their labour and spending.

The findings create a contribution in the field of shock mobility, with a focus on the immobility within shock mobility.

Word count: 150

Keywords: COVID-19, Pandemic, WPR, Shock Mobility, Immobility

(3)

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank and acknowledge the great support of my supervisor, Anders Hellström. With his help I was able to take this thesis further than I imagined before

starting this project. I would also like to thank him for his patience and the valuable discussions which helped me greatly.

I would also like to thank my fellow IMER students and fellow students who I’ve met along the way. They have kept me sane in this process with their words of encouragements, be it

online or in real life. I cannot express my gratitude enough.

I am also grateful to all my family who have helped me during the process by giving their thoughts, keeping up my spirits and offering me a peace-of-mind that I was able to do this.

To everyone who has helped me, I offer them my gratitude.

(4)

1. Introduction

1.1.Motivation and Aim of the Thesis

The reason why I wrote the thesis is my very own story during the pandemic. In September 2019 I left home to go to New Zealand for one year on a Working Holiday Visa (WHV). In December 2019, there was the first detection of an unknown disease in Wuhan, China. It didn’t take too long for the world to realize that this disease was a highly infectious virus that would turn into a global threat. It was in this moment that the New Zealand government decided to close the borders to the rest of the world. On March 19^th 2020, the country was officially shut for all outsiders, except for citizens and permanent residents that wanted to return. As air traffic quickly died down, I, together with thousands of others, was stuck in New Zealand. I was effectively unable to return home as there were no flights going back home. In the time from the closure of the borders and after the initial four weeks of initial lockdown imposed by the government, life continued on the island nation normally as before the pandemic. I was very happy and feeling blessed to be able to live relatively regular lives during the pandemic while the rest of the world seemed to be hunkering-down and closing everything that was considered non-essential.

In the meantime, the parliament was deliberating on what to do with the immigrants that were now stuck in New Zealand, as many are on temporary work visas. The first debate on how to move forward with this issue was held on May 5^th 2020. It was also in this debate that a temporary bill was introduced for the parliament to read for the first time. It is with this bill that the Minister of Immigration, Lees-Galloway, hoped to at least temporarily solve the crisis at hand. With foreigners getting stuck in New Zealand, there was and is a (migration) crisis at hand. Being unable to leave, but without a legal visa and the ability to legally work can cause issues such as problems to feed themselves, housing, etc. It is here that a case had to be made to make changes within the visa process and within migration policies during this emergency.

About three weeks before the end of my visa, the government announced that people whose visa was going to expire after October 1^st 2020 would get a different visa. They were eligible for the Supplementary Seasonal Employment (SSE) visa. This would allow all temporary migrants to stay for an additional year and help solve the migration crises temporarily.

Unfortunately, my visa ended on September 27^th 2020. Luckily, I was able to return to Europe and did not have to stay in New Zealand illegally at any moment in time.

Having lived through this experience, it inspired me to have it as my goal and aim to further extrapolate this issue. The pandemic caused major issues in the world and immigration is one the points that at the start was overshadowed by the impending doom of COVID-19. The aim of this thesis is to get an understanding of the earlier stages of the problem within migration in New Zealand during the pandemic. The contribution of the project is towards the field of shock mobility within the field of International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER).

Shock mobility, but also immobility, is a very recent field within IMER. It is here that a contribution is to be made with this thesis. I will also analyze how these changes in visas and the representation of migrants in the debates and the bill have been communicated with the people concerning these changes. To be able to achieve this, the WPR (“What’s the Problem Represented to be?” approach) method by Bacchi will be used to analyze. The empirical material of this thesis is three debates, a bill that has come out of the debates, and the

(6)

communication that the New Zealand government has released towards the people concerning the bill and changes made.

1.2.Research Question(s)

The thesis will be a case-based study, as only the country of New Zealand will be researched and only a certain period within the pandemic. It seeks to explore the decision making, the representation of the problem and the underlying assumptions that the problem has caused. In order to more accurately answer the main research question, I’ve created additional sub- questions to better cover my points.I have therefore come up with the following main research question:

How have people staying on a short term visa been represented in the party-political

discussion in the New Zealand parliament during the debates surrounding policy changes in visa’s during Covid-19 in May-September 2020?

The following sub-questions have come up:

• How have the people on a short term visa been represented in the debates in the New Zealand parliament in May and June 2020?

• How have the people on a short-term visa been represented in the bill in the New Zealand parliament that was presented after the debates?

• How have the changes made possible by the bill been communicated towards the temporary migrants concerning these changes?

(7)

2. Background information

2.1 Temporary Work Visa Schemes

To work temporarily in New Zealand as a foreigner, one must fill in the visa application.

There are multiple requirements to which one must adhere. Some of the requirements are age, education, and physical health. Once the application is filled out for the visa that you want to enter on, the application goes to a single immigration officer that will go through the

application and decide whether the applicant has met all the requirements and whether they will be allowed to enter the country. Also considered is whether you are a genuine applicant, verifying the documents/information one has provided to be correct and confirming the relationship you have with your partner and/or family members. All the relevant information has to be in the original document and an official English translation. In order to get your application processed promptly, it is important to already provide the English translations with the initial application. If more information is required, the immigration officer might ask the applicant to send in further documentation, pictures, show evidence of onward travel, request a medical examination, and maybe conduct an interview. The decision typically may take up to two months (prior to COVID-19) and the applicant will be informed by e-mail whether or not their visa has been granted.

2.2 New Zealand Politics

The current, 53rd, Session of parliament hosts five political parties, in the House of Representatives. These parties are the Green Party of New Zealand (Green Party), the Act New Zealand (ACT Party), the New Zealand Labour Party (Labour Party), the New Zealand National Party (National Party) and the Te Paati Māori (Māori Party).

The Green Party currently holds 10 seats in the parliament. The Green Party first entered parliament in 1995. They have signed co-operation Agreement on the first of November 2020 with the New Zealand Labour Party. The Green Party accepts the Treaty of Waitingi as the constitutional document. The Waitangi Treaty is the treaty signed between Māori chiefs and the representatives of the British Crown on the sixth of February 1840. The Treaty of

Waitangi is widely seen as the constitutional document of New Zealand, however, even to the current day, there are those that oppose the Treaty. On their website it states the following:

“The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand….”. ¹ The Act Party also has 10 seats in the parliament. The Act Party first entered the New Zealand parliament in 1996. The principle upon which the Act Part is build is as follows: “The principal object of the Party is to promote an open and benevolent society in which individual New Zealanders are free to achieve their full potential.”² The Labour Party has 65 members in the parliament. The first time the Labour Party entered the parliament was in 1919.³ The current Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is part of the Labour Party. The Labour Party has a signed co-operation Agreement on the first of November 2020. The Labour Party

1Green Pa rty Aotea roa New Zea la nd, 2020.

2 ACT Pa rty New Zea la nd, 2020.

3 La bour Pa rty New Zea la nd, 2020.

(8)

is considered centre-left.⁴ The National Party has 33 members in parliament. The first time the party entered the parliament was in 1936.⁵ The National Party is currently in the opposition and is considered centre-right.⁶ The Te Paati Māori has two members in the New Zealand parliament. The Te Paati Māori is a centre-left party. The Te Paati Māori is for all Kiwi’s in New Zealand and is committed to the principles from the Treaty of Waitangi, known in Te Reo Māori as Te Tiriti o Waitangi.⁷ The abbreviation to describe New Zealand citizens being used is Kiwi’s. The Te Paati Māori first entered the parliament in 2004.

2.3 COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 virus truly showed its full effect in 2020, but the earliest cluster that was registered was on 31 December 2019 by Wuhan officials. ⁸ As the virus started to spread further, it came to an outbreak in the city of Wuhan. The Chinese government closed off the city and air traffic from there was halted. Other countries were also advised to stop air travel.⁹ On March 19^th 2020, after having a very few of cases of COVID-19, the New Zealand government made the decision to completely seal the borders to everyone, except returning citizens and permanent residents. Any people in these two specific groups returning after the border was closed were required to quarantine for 14 days in special appointed quarantine locations.¹⁰

After closing the border, the government announced a nationwide-lockdown. The government also introduced a level system, with Level 0 being open borders and free travel, Level 1 being closed borders, no social distancing and free travel within New Zealand. Level 2 meaning closed borders, limited number of get-togethers of people and free travel within New Zealand.

Level 3 meaning social distancing, businesses are open, but with limited numbers of people and mainly drive-throughs for restaurants and no free travel within New Zealand. Level 4 is a complete lockdown with social distancing, working from home and all non-essential

businesses closed down and no free travel in New Zealand.¹¹ For the first three weeks of the lockdown, the country was in Level 4. This was extended by two more weeks, then after 5 weeks, the country slowly eased into Level 3 for two weeks, and then into Level 2. After another two weeks the country was in Level 1 with life as before the pandemic.

4 La bour Pa rty New Zea la nd, 2020.

5 New Zea la nd Na tiona l Pa rty, 2020.

6 New Zea la nd Na tiona l Pa rty, 2020.

7 Te Pa a ti Māori, 2020.

8 WHO, 2020.

9 WHO, 2020.

10 New Zea la nd Government, 2021.

(9)

3. Previous research

3.1 Shock mobility

Before the analysis of immobility and especially immobility reaction, we first have to explore the concept of shock mobility. Shock mobilities are described as sudden movements when shocks happens.¹² This can be a war, sudden climate change, and in the case of this research, the COVID-19 pandemic. Shock mobility is a form of unplanned migration and can embody both various degrees of a reactive form of migration during a crisis and as forced migration.¹³ In a short article Bioa Xiang says the following: “Forced migration often starts with shock mobility, but shock mobility does not always lead to protracted forced migration.”¹⁴

Xiang cites an example about how the lockdown in Wuhan was announced, and yet still an estimated 300.000 citizens of Wuhan managed to get on a flight to escape the city before the lockdown would take place within eight of the announcement.¹⁵ Therefore there are two shocks here. The first one is the outbreak of COVID-19 and the second is the subsequent lockdown, causing people to move quickly. This however also caused a form of immobility where the other citizens were confined within the city. These citizens also criticized the government for not immediately imposing the lockdown and therefore preventing the

roughly-300.000 fleeing citizens to quickly move elsewhere.¹⁶ The same can be said when the epicenter of COVID-19 moved from China to Italy. When the disease started to take-hold of the city of Milan, a lockdown was announced. At this moment thousands of Italians in Milan started to move more south, trying to both escape the disease and the lockdown. The local authorities claimed this as a madness and urged people to return to the city as to not spread the virus any further then it was already spreading.¹⁷ There are countless examples from all over the globe about people suddenly migrating after this shock in order to either go home, escape the lockdowns, or to stay exactly where they are. Two of these can be found in New Zealand as well. When the closing of the border was announced, approximately 268.000 foreign nationals left the country in order to quickly go home before they lost their chance to do so.¹⁸ Conversely, there were around 350.000 temporary workers and 57.000 people on visitor visas still in New Zealand who either could not return home, or stayed where they were out of shock.¹⁹

Because the field of research surrounding Shock Mobility is so new, there are still many questions that need answering, especially now that there is a pandemicadding so much new data to be unpacked. The questions that have not yet have been answered mainly encompass the fact that these sudden migrations and movements during these shocks, especially a pandemic, undermine the governments measurements of trying to control the spread of the virus. The movements can both inflict harm upon others yet they may also save lives. This

12 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 1.

13 Xia ng, 2020. Pa ge 1.

14 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 1.

15 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 1/2.

16 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

17 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

(10)

can then, in turn, also be a reason to conveniently blame the spread of the virus upon these sudden movements. This then causes in effect further restrictions on movements now and even in the future.²⁰ Although these questions have not yet been answered, shock mobility does show how flexible people are in moments of crisis and how flexible their movements are. Xiang writes the following statement on this:

“Shock mobilities are testimonies not only to how people experience turmoil, but also to their transformative potential. We may therefore see contours of shocks that are

transformative, hold back changes or push society in a direction that often is fixed by some at the cost of others.”²¹

Shock mobilities can be seen as a link between different movements. It is a moment in time where both immobility and mobility become entangled with one another. This constitutes so- called ‘mobility assemblages’.²² To understand this better, an example is needed. The

temporary foreign workers and visitors in New Zealand are of a migratory-nature. They move around from place to place, either to visit certain sites for vacation or to move to a new location for a job. Especially with the temporary working migrants, it should be understood that if they stop moving they might lose out on a job and therefore their livelihood. This is therefore in correlation with shock mobility. When the border closing and the lockdown where announced, thousands of people with a foreign nationality left the country.²³ The temporary working migrants had to leave in order to make sure they would be able to make money. Others at that point might have already had a stationary job for the upcoming months decided to stay where they were. These two are therefore intertwined with one another.

3.2 Immobility

From this point on we will move on to the immobility within shock mobility. It is the immobility of the foreigners that decided to stay in New Zealand and therefore getting stranded, which is the focus of this research. The field of migration is seen as a field that focuses on the mobility of people. Yet to understand this mobility, immobility has to be researched as well. Migration theories often neglect immobility, the resistance of people to move, or the restrictions that people might face when trying to move. ²⁴ While people’s movements around the glove are thoroughly investigated, many scholars forget to ask why others do not move. Immobility in itself has different categories. It can be defined as annual, generational, throughout the life course, internal, international, or residential. Schewel states:

“I define immobility as spatial continuity in an individual’s center of gravity over a period of time. Immobility is never absolute, as indeed all people move in their everyday lives

— to school, to work, to the market. Thus, just as migration must be distinguished from everyday forms of movement, most often by a change in residence for a certain length of time,

20 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

21 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

22 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 3.

23 Fa a foi, 2020,

24 Schewel, 2019, pa ge 1.

(11)

immobility may be distinguished by continuity in one’s center of gravity, or place of residence, relative to spatial and temporal frames.”²⁵

Schewel describes that by studying people who stay in-place, a spatial continuity is very difficult from a methodological perspective.²⁶ He also describes how within the research field of migration there is a ‘mobility bias’. Schewel defines the ‘mobility bias’ as “an

overconcentration of theoretical and empirical attention on the determinants and

consequences of mobility and, by extension, the concomitant neglect of immobility”.²⁷ The meaning of this is that within theoretical frameworks for migration, immobility is left out, which in turn causes a misinterpreted picture of migration in the first place.

Immobility is, in turn, also seen as a ‘migration disrupter’. A recent article by McAuliffe for IOM describes this immobility during the COVID-19 pandemic as the ultimate disruption in the migration cycle.²⁸ McAuliffe describes that recent pandemics before the COVID-19 pandemic contributed towards an amount of measurements imposed by governments to restrict mobility and therefore causing immobility.²⁹ Migration is no longer a priority and immobility is seen as the key solution to prevent the spread of the virus. It is highlighted in the article that this pandemic might be another excuse for governments to further restrict migration in the future.³⁰

When shock mobility and immobility come together, it makes for an interesting combination.

Xiang describes this as the ‘immobility reaction’.³¹ Whereas shock may cause sudden

migration movement, the shock can also cause immobility. This might even be more dramatic than the sudden migration during a shock. In his research, Xiang describes that the two biggest communities that remain immobile are the urban middle class who stay at home due to health risks and the rural communities who have no access to health care systems. The former has the means to stay where they are and the second does lacks the means to move in the first place.³²

26 Schewel, 2019. Pa ge 2.

28 McAuliffe, 2020, pa ge 7.

29 McAuliffe, 2020, pa ge 8.

30 McAuliffe, 2020. Pa ge 8.

31 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 4.

32 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 4.

(12)

4. Research Design

4.1 Trade-Offs, Validity and Reliability

For this thesis, the choice was made to do a case-based research design. Studies that are case- based are often referring to a “classic design”. This means that the study will focus on one or more cases on a more in-depth level.³³ In my thesis, the case is the process from the first initial debate of the New Zealand Parliament to the bill that (has been made because) of these debates. Due to the case-based design, there is more room for in-depth analysis without omitting important information.³⁴ I made the decision to approach this analysis of the material through a form of discourse analysis, meaning the way of analyzing will be more focused on the social context in which the debates, the bill, and the communication was formed. To be more specific, I have focused on specifically WPR by Bacchi. The WPR method will be discussed in the methodology section of this thesis.

Having a case-based design, there are of course trade-offs that have to be made. With every decision in a thesis, there are sacrifices in order to have an optimal form of research that works best for your research topic and what you aim to accomplish.³⁵ On the basis of my analysis, the case cannot be generalized or compared to other cases. This is a fair deal as I get a more in-depth research. Consequently, this allows me to give a better in-depth research into the topic and strengthens the internal validity. This is a fair trade-off between external and internal validity. External validity is the ability to apply the conclusions outside of the field of study.³⁶ This means that the study might can be generalized across countries, times and situations. In this case, as there is only one country researched, and it is case-based, the thesis cannot be generalized. Internal validity is defined as the conclusions that are drawn inside the research itself.³⁷ What this means is that the evidence supports the conclusion within the particular study. However, regarding the material, there are three debates, the bill and the communication from the government towards temporary visa holders. This gives a good timeline and insight into whether the representation of this specific group of people changes in the time from the first debate to the final communication toward the migrants on short-term work visas.

On the question of reliability, the materials can all be found on the New Zealand government websites and are all public domain. In a sense, the research can be repeated as such. It cannot be promised that the results will be the same, as discourse analyses are dependent on the interpretation of the researcher. Therefore, my results might not be the same as another researcher who might want to analyze the material in the future. In order to strengthen my research reliability, I will read through the debates, the bill, and the communication multiple times, in order to not overlook or omit any information that might be vital towards my research. The key virtue is transparency. I will describe how I got to certain conclusions and be transparent about how the conclusions are made within this thesis. I will also not work

33 Perri 6 a nd Bella my 2012, p. 103-104.

(13)

from my own notes, but purely from the original material, as to not take any statements made out of context.

4.2 Contribution

At the time of this thesis this is a new field of research. Since the start of the pandemic, a lot of areas of normal life have been completely reshaped. One of these area’s is immigration.

For this subject, I would like to focus on immigration within an emergency settings. A contribution towards analysis of how migration decisions are made and how foreigners are represented in times of emergencies where they need the most help and showing this in my thesis. More specifically, this thesis will contribute towards the field of shock mobility, or immobility within the field of IMER.³⁸ As shock mobility is a fairly new field of research, there is a lot that can be added here. Especially when it comes to a major shock event, such as COVID-19.³⁹ As information is harder to find and a lot of the world has come to a full stop, it is very important to document the migration process in the pandemic.

Another contribution that is made, is the contribution towards the subject of immobility and the immobility reaction.⁴⁰ Immobility is a neglected research part of the research field.⁴¹ Often there is only a focus on the topic of movement, but it is immobility that needs more research. This is the so-called ‘mobility bias’.⁴² Therefore there needs to be more research that includes why people stay versus why they migrate.

4.3 Data and Delimitations

The empirical material of this thesis is three debates, a bill that has come out of the debates and the communication that the New Zealand government has published for the people concerning the bill and changes made. This entire process from the first debate, to the communication, takes place over a period of approximately five months between May and September 2020. The material includes the transcription of the three debates. It also includes the bill that was passed into law after these three debates. The communication I will research are the announcements that the New Zealand government places on its announcement

website, called the beehive.govt.nz. It is on this website that the government of New Zealand places all the important information towards its citizens and foreigners.

I would like to highlight that there will be no research into newspaper articles, opinions of New Zealanders, or anything outside the government website. These outlets are not included as they do not align with the overall aim of this thesis. The aim is to analyze the

representation of immigrants by the New Zealand parliament and how this representation has influenced decision making and communication with this very-specific group of people during the pandemic. This, however, also means that any experiences by immigrants in New Zealand will not be researched or included in this thesis. Furthermore, I will not include any decision making of any larger international bodies outside of New Zealand, to keep focus on

38 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 1.

39 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 1.

(14)

just the representation of immigrants during the pandemic in New Zealand specifically, therefore this is also a delimitation.

(15)

5 Methodology

5.1 Discourse Analysis as a Theory and a Method

Discourse Analysis (DA) is a form of text analysis that focusses on the language used within the text, itself. DA suggests that language, and the use of it, is not a form of neutral

communication, but rather used an instrument for certain purposes. As it is stated by Boréus, Bergström and Ekström DA is: “The view that language represents a given reality is

rejected”.⁴³ This does not mean however that DA is denying the very existence of “non- linguistic spheres”, but rather that its focus is on the perspective of the world given through language.⁴⁴ This all creates different perspectives and different interpretations of certain problems. In this case it will be the debate, the bill, and the communication of the New Zealand government.

Not only does DA focus the language of the presented text, but also on the question of power.

This can be who has the right to speak on certain matters and who does not.⁴⁵ In this case, for example, the New Zealand parliament speaks on behalf of the migrants and Kiwi population, but neither of those groups are actually present to speak for themselves. The same is said for the communication after the bill is enacted. The New Zealand government publishes

announcements on what will happen next for the migrants, therefore they speak and the migrants listen. As said by Fairclough, this is called “power in discourse”.⁴⁶ The other way of looking at this is to focus more on the “power behind discourse”. This offers more of a focus on the comprehensive discourse that can radically reshape the societal reality.⁴⁷ To give an example of this within this thesis, this means is that there might be new power relations rising after the introduction of the bill for migrants in New Zealand, yet the migrants themselves might not be aware of this.

To point out something else here in terms of studying the question of power in DA theory, is that, as said by Foucault, is that power is not always negative.⁴⁸ He particularly states that power is a way of productive means, as it also produces and promotes categories, suggestions and understanding. can also be that one focuses more on the effects that the discourse has had or will have on how certain groups can be advantaged or disadvantaged with the help of power.⁴⁹ Usually discourses have specific implications on the basis of certain conceptions and presumptions. This means that as a theory, DA intertwines and combines both language and the question of power.⁵⁰

Another point within DA is that there is an interest towards the generational aspect and the change of social identities.⁵¹ What this means is that forms of identities, such as feeling like a foreigner in New Zealand, is unstable and does not necessarily exist. These identities are ever changing and are also constructed, therefore changeable. Therefore, DA usually proceeds on

43 Boréus a nd Bergström, 2017, pa ge 210.

46 Fa irclough, 2015, pa ge 27.

47 Fa irclough, 2015, pa ge 27.

(16)

the basis of “us” and “them” and is more focused on the creation of the “we” aspect.⁵² DA also does not focus on the agents and any underlying motivation for any type of action of the agents in play.

All of the above means that Discourse Analysis is very much interdisciplinary. As stated in the Boréus and Bergström book, “Discourse Analysis is marked by methodological and theoretical heterogeneity and discourse analytical work is being produced within a range of disciplines”.⁵³ This has created a risk for unsystematic analysis, but has also created a very fruitful dynamic.

5.2 WPR

The method that will be used to analyse these texts is WPR (“What’s the Problem Represented to be?” approach) by Bacchi. This particular form of analysis uses six main guiding questions to analyze how certain policies came to be. In this case, it will be used to analyze the debates, bill and communication. The six guiding questions that Bacchi has established are as follows:

1. What’s the problem (….) represented to be in the debate and bill?

The first question of the WPR approach refers to the explicit problem the debate or bill is intending to solve: who/what/when/where is the problem that needs to change.⁵⁴ 2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

This question of WPR refers to the ontological and epistemological background to the problem represented in the debate or bill. It regards the production of the knowledge and the knowledge itself assumed to be objective/truth which the policy relies on.⁵⁵ 3. How did the representation of the ‘problem’ came about?

The third question is to be used to appreciate the context and have created presuppositions/assumptions about the said problem, like the cultural/political environment that has allowed for the debate or bill to be brought forward and “that allow a particular problem representation to take shape and to assume dominance”.⁵⁶ 4. What is left unproblematic in this representation? Where are the silences? Can the

problem be thought about differently?

This particular question relates to what has not been said in the debate or bill

document, in order to understand who is not deemed as “responsible” for the problem and why this might be. It is intended to question the power dynamics that uphold certain societal structures. Additionally, it is also a way to understand the limitations of the policy.⁵⁷

54 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 4.

55 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 5.

56 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 11.

57 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 13.

(17)

5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

This question refers to the effects the debate and bill has on lived realities, what this means, shapes and at times perpetuates certain values of different societal groups and how this differs among them.⁵⁸

6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?⁵⁹

The last question refers to the justification of the debate and bill to the targeted group, how the issues of the debate and bill is problematized and deemed legitimate for the whole of society.⁶⁰

It is with these questions that the research question can be answered. With the first question, the goal that is set by Bacchi, is to identify the starting point of the analysis. The goal is to open up the questioning with something that appears to be obvious and natural.⁶¹ In this research, the most obvious problem, before the analysis, is that COVID-19 has caused people to stay where they are if they were unable to return back home. The first question relates to all research questions, as it is needed to point out the obvious problem that has caused the

introduction of a new bill. The second question has several goals, with the main one being to identify the meaning that is in place for the problem to make sense. This is done by finding the assumptions/presumptions.⁶² Bacchi notes here that this is done within the policy and not within the heads of speakers, policymaker and ministers.⁶³ This question will help to identify which assumptions/presumptions are being made about the temporary migrants and visitors in New Zealand while the borders are closed. This mainly relates to the first smaller research question, which seeks to find the representation of the migrants within the New Zealand parliament. Representation also means to find which assumptions are being made about the migrants. The third question relates to finding how the representation of the problem has come to be.⁶⁴ The goal is to examine the multiple possible alternative developments. As Bacchi states: “The intent is to disrupt any assumption that was is reflects what has to be.”⁶⁵ This relates to the multiple facets that make up the first two smaller research question. In order to fully analyze the representation, one must also research any other possible alternative events within the analysis. The fourth question examines how problematizations of selected issues provide a strong intervention to “think otherwise”.⁶⁶ In the case of this thesis, it tries to analyze how to think differently about the migrants and the issues that have come up with the borders closing. The fifth question is to provide the analysis of any effects that the policy, or in this thesis, the policy and debates, may produce. The effects are to be thought about as political implications, not necessarily any outcome that can be measured.⁶⁷ This helps the

58 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 15/16.

59 Ba cchi, 2017.

60 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 18/20.

61 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 20.

62 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 20.

63 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 21.

64 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 22.

65 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 22.

66 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 23.

67 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 23.

(18)

thesis with answering the last research question. Within the communication, the effects of the bill that has passed, can be analyzed. The final question of the WPR method, question six is point out the existence of the “truth” and to destabilize this ”truth”.⁶⁸ To relate this back to the research questions that are posed in the thesis, question six is to help analyze any decision that is made and how these are being legitimized as being the best decision for the country as a whole. It therefore covers not only the migrant side, but also the Kiwi side.

The reason why I chose WPR is because it is part of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) which involves much focus on the content and linguistic construction of the text to be analyzed.⁶⁹ Therefore it is better suited to answer the research questions and to be able to analyze the empirical material on a deeper level. It is important to be consistent. WPR by Bacchi however is focused on “to identify, within a text, institutionally supported and culturally influenced interpretive and conceptual schemas (discourses) that produce

particular understandings of issues and events”.⁷⁰ The focus is not on the construction of the sentences and the many linguistic-aspects of the debate and bill, but rather how/where/what of the ‘problem’ and the cultural aspects that might influence the decision making in the process of adapting the migrations policies.⁷¹ WPR is a part of CDA, but is focusing on the problem that is being presented and analyzing this in-depth. Additionally, WPR also implies that the

‘problem’ is part of a greater discourse and can frame certain knowledge.⁷² WPR also gives a clear division in the guiding questions, making it easier to divide and analyze the text as opposed to everything being on thrown into one pile.⁷³ It makes the analysis easier and is also easier for the reader to properly understand which routes have been taken to come to a clear conclusion at the end of the analysis.

68 Ba cchi, 2018, pa ge 24.

70 Ba cchi, 2005, pa ge 199.

71 Ba cchi, 2017.

72 Ba cchi, 2005.

73 Ba cchi, 2017.

(19)

6. Empirical Analysis

6.1 Debate May 5^th 2020

1. What’s the problem (….) represented to be in the debate?

The Minister of Immigration, Iain Lees-Galloway (Labour Party), in New Zealand is the first one to speak in the debate. He first starts off with talking about the economy and the effect this has had on the international economy.⁷⁴ He also points out the effect on the economy of New Zealand itself.⁷⁵ After this statement he moves on to point out the problem the pandemic has imposed on the regular method of immigration.⁷⁶ He manages to capture the actual problem in a couple of sentences. As he himself says:

“Since the start of the epidemic, New Zealand has closed the borders to all but a few visa holders. Other countries' travel restrictions and the consequential decline in flights from 700

per week a year ago to 25 per week now have meant that it is also difficult for travellers to leave New Zealand. Visa holders in badly affected sectors may lose employment and, as a result, no longer meet the conditions of their visas; others may be trapped outside of New Zealand and unable to meet visa time frames for travel to New Zealand through no fault of

their own. Immigration New Zealand has had to suspend most of its offshore processing activities and has limited onshore capacity while the level 3 restrictions remain in place.”⁷⁷

As stated in the above quote from the debate, the flights have dwindled from 700 to just 25 a week. A larger change within the process of immigration is therefore needed to deal with the situation properly. The provisions for emergencies have extended expired short-term-visa’s with an additional three months. This entails that the parliament has until the 26th of September 2020 to come up with solutions to handle the problem.

The other side of the problem presented here is the Kiwi-first mindset that is brought forward by representatives Smith (National Party) and Woodhouse (National Party). The Labour Party and National Party have clear standpoints that are opposite of each other and are therefore at odds. As they understand that there are people currently in need of help, they also maintain that Kiwi’s should in all circumstances come first.⁷⁸ This means that all jobs that can be filled with Kiwi workers, should be filled with Kiwi workers under all circumstances.⁷⁹ This adds an additional layer to this already difficult problem. As stated by Woodhouse himself: “and it worries me that we are going to pit overseas workers and New Zealanders in a contest”⁸⁰

2. What presuppositions or assumptions underlie this representation of the ‘problem’?

The underlying assumption of the representation of the problem is that temporary migrants have almost no options to return to their home countries or have the desire to wait out the

74 Lees-Galloway, 2020.

77 Lees-Ga llowa y, 2020.

78 Smith, 2020.

79 Smith, 2020

80 Woodhouse, 2020.

(20)

pandemic within the borders of New Zealand. This can be linked to shock mobility, more specific, immobility reaction.⁸¹ As Xiang has explained in his article on shock mobility, a sudden shock can cause different migratory reactions. In the case of the temporary migrants staying in New Zealand, it caused immobility: they either chose to stay or had no other option than staying. Lees-Galloway (Labour Party) makes the statement that people on a work visa might no longer qualify for the visa as they have lost their job during the pandemic.⁸² He states that although they might be made redundant for the moment, that does not mean that they should lose the people on a work visa.⁸³This point of view clarifies that there are assumptions that people want to stay in New Zealand and also the assumption that the people on work visas are necessary. Losing the foreign workforce currently residing in New

Zealand’s borders, even if they are redundant now, is not an option.⁸⁴ The other side of this double-edged sword, as stated by Woodhouse (National Party) and Smith (National Party), is that these migrants might take away jobs from Kiwi’s.

The last presumption that is being made in this entry, is that with the work from home policy being implemented, the visa process is more difficult and slower. With visa holders wanting to stay, every one of these visa holders needs to send in their supporting documents for reviewing. With the migration officers working from home, it is projected this process will take longer. In this longer period of time, the visa holder cannot work and might therefore be in danger of either losing their job/housing.⁸⁵ Lees-Galloway (Labour Party) states that there needs to be a solution for this problem as well in the bill.⁸⁶

3. How did the representation of the ‘problem’ came about?

The representation of the problem came to be when the borders of New Zealand closed on the 19th of March 2020. This was the moment that the air traffic died down and most countries closed their own borders as well. It is the following statement by representative Woodhouse (National Party) that manages to capture the essence of the situation and how it came to be:

“What it must be like to be in a foreign country—even one that you've chosen to go to as a working holidaymaker or an international student or an essential skills worker—and to find

oneself in the middle of a global pandemic where everything shuts down and the income supply is in the short run immediately curtailed.”⁸⁷

The statement makes it clear that the feelings and ordeals that the visa holders are going through are important, and not just the financial gains and losses. However, when it comes to the second part of the problem, the Kiwi-first mindset, the story is different. Speakers in the debate mention that migrants should not just be given a work visa because they cannot leave.

This action might take away jobs from Kiwi’s. The visa should be given out in that specific sector as to not take away jobs from any Kiwi’s searching for work as mentioned by

representative Woodhouse (National Party).⁸⁸

81 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

87 Woodhouse, 2020.

88 Woodhouse, 2020.

(21)

4. What is left unproblematic in this representation? Where are the silences? Can the problem be thought about differently?

Shortly mentioned within the debate, is a financial gain to the country if the certain temporary visa’s get extended, such as student visa and visitor visa. Both of these do not let the holder of the visa work, therefore their contribution is only a financial one, without taking away

potential jobs from Kiwi’s.⁸⁹This is left as unproblematic, but if either of these groups lack finances, they might have to resort to other options, such as trying to change visa or working under the table.

What is left unproblematic in the debate is the term of time. As it stands, the borders of New Zealand will not open soon, therefore the flight traffic will not rise. This means that foreigners will still be stuck in New Zealand. This situation could go on forever, yet this is not

mentioned in the debate, by either side. With sides, it is meant as the side of the Labour Party and on the other side the National Party. Both want is best for Kiwi’s and New Zealand, yet the way they aim to reach this goal differs. The Labour Party seems to believe that the temporary migrants in the country is the best way to ensure financial security for the country as a whole. The National Party has an opposing view. The National Party seems to be of the opinion that temporary migrants can stay, they should however in no circumstances take away any jobs or opportunities from Kiwi’s. It is here that one can see the reactions that are caused by shock mobility, in this case immobility reaction. As temporary migrants decided to stay in New Zealand, one of the consequences is now that there have to be solutions for the problems this causes within the Immigration department in New Zealand. Immobility is often

overlooked within the field of migration, but with the pandemic, this is a field that needs more research, as without immobility, there would be no concept of migration.⁹⁰ Permanent

residency is not an option, as the number of migrants stuck in New Zealand is 350,000 at the moment.⁹¹It might be this point that this discussion of the problem also has to be brought up.

5. What effects are produced by this representation of the ‘problem’?

The effects of the problem are that foreigners in New Zealand are either out of a job and in need of a lot of additional help and on the other hand are people on temporary visa that are only spending money in New Zealand. The other effect of the problem is that if certain groups of visa holders are eligible and granted an extension or a new visa, this could possibly take away jobs from Kiwi’s.⁹² Yet, as mentioned by the speakers in the debate, if these people on short term visa’s suddenly leave, there will be no people left to fill the job openings once the horticulture seasons start back up. Then there would only be Kiwi’s left to fill these jobs by default, yet there are not enough Kiwi’s to fill all jobs.

6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

89 Jones, 2020.

92 Smith, 2020.

(22)

Speaker Smith (National Party) sees the bill as a leap of faith. A leap of faith in the sense that people will and can go back to work to support the New Zealand economy. He addresses that there are already people on work visas, in for example the wine industry, that are already being supported by the civil defence during these times.⁹³ Other than that, it is also stated that there is no prevention for the Minister of Immigration to use the powers given to him outside of any direct health response.⁹⁴

Representative Woodhouse (National Party) often expresses that it is Kiwi’s that have to come first⁹⁵, whereas Lees-Galloway (Labour Party) is defending his decision with trying to provide help for the migrants.⁹⁶ These two different positions can be understood by the

different political parties both are in. The National party points out that Kiwi’s needs to be put first in every aspect. The Labour party, although they agree with this statement, seeks another solution in order to help the temporary migrants and also keep the financial gains for New Zealand. This divide within the parliament and the parties points towards the fact that both sides produce different representations of the situation and also question the other side that is being presented to them.

6.2 Debate/In Committee May 13^th 2020 (Morning)

The problem that is being presented here is not necessarily a problem of migrants versus Kiwi’s. In this debate, the technicalities of the actual bill are discussed. The problem, as it is being presented, is that the Minister of Immigration will be granted too much power and would be able to change an entire visa class and would not have to give any explanation towards the parliament on why this decision was made. Speaker Woodhouse (National Party) claims that this can have a negative impact on an entire class of people.⁹⁷ Which exact

“people” he means here is not clear. During the debate on May 5^th 2020 he was in favour of the Kiwi population being put first in all migration decisions during the pandemic. He states then that a backstop has to be put in, as to not risk this happening.

Even though Woodhouse does believe that the Minister of Immigration will only use the powers given to him for good reasons, it is still a great concern to him.⁹⁸ It is literally written in the bill that "These are powers that will be used for good.". From this, the presumption can be made that he sees the combination as a risk that can harm people. In theoretical terms, this implies that there is a power shift within the Immigration department. What this means, is that there “power behind discourse”, reshaping the power within the Immigration department and therefore reshaping societal reality.99

93 Smith, 2020.

94 Smith, 2020.

95 Woodhouse, 2020.

97 Woodhouse, 2020.

98 Woodhouse, 2020.

99 Fairclough, 2015, page 27.

(23)

The assumption that is being made in this debate, is that even though the Minister of

Immigration means to do only good and no harm, it could have the opposite effect. With the Minister having all of the power to make certain decisions in certain areas without having to give any explanation towards the parliament, it makes for a power imbalance. As mentioned in the above section, this power imbalance can cause a reshaping in the societal reality, even if no other people are aware of it.¹⁰⁰ It means that he might be able to unintentionally harm classes of people without having to give any form of explanation as to why he came to this decision and why it is the best for the people.

The representation of the problem came about after reading the first draft of the bill. Before reading the first draft of the bill, the representatives were already worried that the Minister of Immigration might be given to much power.¹⁰¹ In the debate on May 5^th it was pointed out that this is not correct and should be adjusted in the bill according to Woodhouse (National Party).¹⁰² Even if the Minster has only good intentions as stated by Woodhouse (National Party), this does not mean that every decision he makes is also the best decision for everyone, as the bill stated in the draft that there was no discussion needed before making a decision on immigration.¹⁰³ Therefore, the representation of the problem already came slightly before this debate in the previous debate. It was, however, more leaning heavily on all the other

‘problems’ that the bill introduced and not yet on the technical issues that came with the introduction of the bill.

What is left unproblematic in this debate is that all the other problems that were discussed in the previous debate are no longer discussed here. It is all about the technicalities, but not about the Kiwi versus migrants debate. The silence on this topic, especially since Woodhouse was very firm about it always having to be Kiwi-first in the previous debate, does not speak about these issues at all.

The effects that are introduced is that there seems to be a slight distrust in the Minister of Immigration according to speaker Woodhouse (National Party).¹⁰⁴ Woodhouse (National Party) says that he believes that there are only good intentions, but without having to give justice as to why certain decisions were made, it can be dangerous.¹⁰⁵ Another effect that is introduced, is that a backstop will be introduced in the bill to prevent this from happening in the first place. This is introduced as a solution for the problem. It therefore seems that any

100 Fairclough, 2015, page 27.

101 Woodhouse, 2020

102 Woodhouse, 2020.

(24)

previous effects that might have been happening, such as too much power, being able to harm classes of people etc. have disappeared.

6. How/where has this representation of the ‘problem’ been produced, disseminated and defended? How could it be questioned, disrupted and replaced?

The representation of the problem seems to have been produced in the bill itself. As speaker Woodhouse mentions, it is written in the bill that they will only use the power for good. This is an already problematic way of wording to grant more power towards the Minister of Immigration. At no point is this defended by the Minister and the adjustment is made in the bill to put in a backstop. This seems to solve the problem of distrust at this point in time.

6.3 Debate May 13^th 2020 (Afternoon)

As opposed to the previous debate on May 5^th 2020, this debate is more about the small changes that need to be made in the bill before it can be put into action. It is also brought up here by Smith (National Party) that the migrants on these short term visa need all the help they can get. As speaker Smith (National Party) says: “people are sitting in Marlborough unable to work and unable, in some cases, to support themselves.”¹⁰⁶.This statementmakes it clear that, even though the bill will pass and go into action, the actual problem is not

completely resolved. It is brought up during the debate that migrants can switch employers for the same job, but cannot switch jobs for the same employer as their visa’s prohibit them from taking any other job than for what they were let into the country for in the first place.¹⁰⁷ It is here that it is stated that the Minister of Immigration has the power to change this according to the bill. Smith (National Party) does encourage the minister to really take advantage of this and make changes as to support these people as they cannot support themselves right now.¹⁰⁸ It is also addressed during this debate that even though the season for the picking of fruit has ended, there is already a shortage on people who can prune the vineyards and other fruit orchards.¹⁰⁹ It seems that the debate of Kiwi-first thinking has disappeared since May 5^th, as there are new numbers of how many people are needed to keep the viticulture and horticulture going without too much economic loss.

Since the debate on May 5^th, the assumptions that the migrants will take jobs away from Kiwi’s has seemed to have disappeared altogether. In this debate it seems to be as there is the assumption that there should be done more for the migrants to help them in this situation rather than Kiwi-first thinking. There is, however, the assumption brought up by speaker Hipkins (Labour Party) that the migrants might not be as health-conscious as the native population which can lead to the problem of spreading COVID-19 more.¹¹⁰ He states that at

106 Smith, 2020.

107 Smith, 2020.

108 Smith, 2020.

109 Smith, 2020.

110 Hipkins, 2020.

(25)

the start, right before closing down the borders, migrants and tourist who arrived last minute were asked to self-quarantine for 14 consecutive days as to prevent the spread of the virus. He says that many migrants spoke about not being willing to comply with these rules and were, and are, therefore a danger to Kiwi’s, as they are less fearful of having and spreading the virus.¹¹¹

The representation of the problem that the migrants need more help now as opposed to the debate on May 5^th, is that there is a clearer view of the number of people that is needed to even keep the viticulture and horticulture alive during the end of autumn and the entirety of winter. The representation now is that they need help and maybe more changes need to be made to be able to keep the foreign workforce to work the jobs where there are visible shortages.¹¹²

What is left unproblematic in this representation is when the borders re-open, whether or not short term visa holders be still permitted to stay. It is also not discussed what will happen after the changes to visa’s have been made if, for example, the borders will stay closed for longer than anyone could have expected. These two are now grey areas, without any solution in the long run yet.

The problem can also be thought about in the long term. If the pandemic keeps going, and the numbers don’t start to drop, meaning that the borders of New Zealand stay closed, what will happen next? The more visa extensions one can get, the greater the chance of being able to start the process of getting a permanent residency. This would also mean that the government might end up with a lot of applications for permanent residency of people they would

normally not let have stayed for such a long period of time. In times outside of COVID-19, only people that possess a skill on a list of certain skills can get a permanent resident visa, usually people with a higher education. If this situation does not change, one might wonder what the next step of the government might be. It is therefore not just a short term, one year kind of problem. It is also a long term problem, depending on what will be happening with the borders. Within shock mobility, this is one of the question that still needs answering. There is no way of knowing whether migration after a shock, such as a pandemic, will go back to what it was before.¹¹³

The effects that have been produced by the new representation of the problem ,is that the bill will now pass and can go into effect. Before this change, there was much discussion about how this would affect the Kiwi population first and foremost. Now that this first

representation has changed, the effect will be that many migrants on short term visa’s will be able to stay in the country if the bill goes into effect before their visa runs out. This means that the New Zealand government can keep a foreign workforce in the country for the greater time

111 Hipkins, 2020.

112 Smith, 2020.

113 Xia ng, 2020, pa ge 2.

Stuck in Times of COVID-19: Representation of Migrants in New Zealand during the COVID-19 pandemic