by Russel Norman
NZ First made a big song and dance about the sale of the Auckland airport. But what do they do in practice?
Well, during the Third Reading of the Overseas Investment Bill in 2005, Rod Donald moved 15 amendments to try to tighten up the rules but only two were supported by New Zealand First. All other amendments to limit the scope of foreign ownership were voted down by NZ First.
And Winston’s signature as Treasurer is on the documents that enabled the sale of the airport shares in the first place. Now I’m not exactly sure what role he played at the time but it certainly doesn’t look seem like he was protecting public assets. Sooooo, well it’s good that they make public statements, it would be even better if when given a chance they took action.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Fri, August 10th, 2007
Tags: environment
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Yes Winston is hardly a knight in shining armour on the foreign investment issue but he does whistle a good tune when he needs to! Pedantic point – one moves amendments during the committee stages of a Bill
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s been interesting to see the Greens battle with NZ First over who can be the most xenophobic! But I agree with the argument of this post – it’s true that the Greens are winning this contest, and NZ First’s opposition to those horrible foreign capitalists has become somewhat tempered in recent years. It now seems to be the Green Party that best represents the notion that there’s something inherently more progressive about NZ employers than foreign employers.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good post fwwog, i think we got assetts retention in the bag down here in ChCh, with that new Mayor bob thing, it actually hard to believe that any NZer would want to sell assets,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Bryce, you aren’t satisfied with the fact that overseas interest controls 41% of our sharemarket? What else is here that we can sell of to overseas interests, eh ? Whats the problem with overseas control of our economy? Um, the fact that so much of our money is repatriated overseas, combined with us being overtaxed is that, we require more money sent to us from overseas in the form of interest bearing loans to compensate and a good percentage of that will have to be sent back, duh! Not to mention a great deal of our infrastructure has become run into the ground.
If you’re ignorance of basic economics is representative of the “true” socialists in this country its no wonder that that the Latte/Chardonnay socialists in Liarbour and the pseudo-liberals in National have been able to run roughshod and unopposed over the interests of the working class since the .
I have some hope after reading this article on your blog though: “More hard Labour”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks SleepyTreehugger for your positive comments about my blog.
The thing I’m trying to point out is that the economic nationalism of the Greens and NZ First is a dead-end for progressive politics. There’s nothing very leftwing about their approach. The Greens *might* have something interesting or leftwing to say if they were focusing on the fact that Auckland Airport is partly privately-owned or that it is run as a business instead of for social need. There’s probably some good arguments to be made against the privatisation of the airports and in favour of their nationalisation. But the Greens aren’t interested in those arguments it seems. If anything, I suspect Green leaders would be rather hostile to such leftwing points of view.
Instead, the Greens jump on populist and irrational bandwagons about opposition to changes to Auckland Airport. And this indicates yet again how the Greens are moving to the right or perhaps ditching any attempts to operate according to principles. Instead they just want cheap headlines a la NZ First. Do Green Party leaders really just want to be a younger and whiter version of Winston Peters?
If the Green Party position on foreign ownership was to have any consistency the Green leaders would be equally condemning of NZ business investing in other countries. For example, they would be condemning the NZ company Infratil having shareholdings in the airports of Kent, Glasgow Prestwick, and in Lubeck (Germany). The Greens would be condemning the outflow of profits from England, Scotland and Germany to NZ. But of course you never hear anything about this – the reason why is that, like NZ First, the Greens are nationalists. They think there is some sort of inherently superior or more important thing about New Zealanders than people of other countries. This leads them to whip prejudices. And I guess it’s no surprise that such reactionary politics has particular political currency in this debate over the potential airport sale simply because the foreigners are ‘those nasty Arab terrorists’! That’s the subtext here that makes the strong Green stance on this issue particularly sad.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
We have been very clear that our concerns have been around monopoly pricing, control of strategic assets, adding to the current account deficit, and the capacity or otherwise of those trying to buy the asset – not xenophobia. The reality of living in a national economy means that we need to be concerned about national economic issues like the fact that whenever the economy produces profits they do not flow to NZ workers or owners but lots of it goes straight overseas, and then we have to borrow more money to cover our captial needs making it harder for us as a nation in the future because we have to service that debt.
Actually I think the strongest critique of our position has been the peak oil one which says that in the long run the airport will be a poorly performing asset as the price of air travel increases with rising oil prices and fewer people fly. Hence what we should do is take the money and invest in Auckland’s public transport while using the commerce commission to regulate the airport to prevent monopoly pricing. Now that’s an argument worth having not some straw man about left wing ideology!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“whenever the economy produces profits they do not flow to NZ workers or owners but lots of it goes straight overseas, and then we have to borrow more money to cover our captial needs”
Actually most of the money goes straight overseas anyway via purchases of consumer goods and overseas holidays and the like. I’d say this is particularly true of the incomes of the richer chunk of New Zealanders, though given NZ’s inablility to produce just about anything these days, the difference is probably less than it used to be.
The other day I was walking to work and noticed the bricks the Wellington City Council is using for pavement refurbishment around Cuba Street are made in Australia. Given the Sumerians managed to produce bricks and didn’t have to buy them off other people, I’d say this puts NZ’s development level at something around 4000 BC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The problem with Russel’s answer is that it isn’t particularly different to what Winston Peters would say. The Greens regard NZ First as racist, xenophobic, etc, even though Peters denies it, but what is so different about the Green’s economic nationalist approach. The Greens still use the same ‘dog whistle’ method of appealing to reactionary ideas about nationalism instead of challenging them. You can also see this in how the Greens even try to whip up panic about asian immigration. See for example:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2006/10/greens_climb_ab.html
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce, it’s unfortunate that we have to take your word for it – the Stuff story you link to is:
Sorry, this story is no longer available.
Perhaps you could find another reference that backs up your argument?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stuey – yes, unfortunately the story is no longer on the Stuff website. There’s probably a media release on the Green Party site about the dangers of Chinese workers coming here. But maybe I shouldn’t single out the Green Party for criticism – there’s been a long history in this country of a White NZ policy going back to the 19th century. And the Labour Party are traditionally just as bad, if not worse than the Greens.
But anyhow, the story last year came after a Chinese minister was visiting the country and proposed to allow increased number of Chinese workers in on temporary visas. He said that the exchange could benefit both countries. The Stuff article said, ‘but the Green Party says it would trigger a “race to the bottom” for New Zealand wages and conditions.’ Also: ‘Dr Norman said there would have to be a genuine shortage of New Zealand workers and the Government would have to prove it had made efforts to offer training to local workers to fill vacancies.’
Essentially it ends up being an argument for the continuation of the White New Zealand policy. Australia has a similar history of course – and we very clearly see the only going continuation of this today under Howard.
To defeat this sort of stuff we need to argue in favour of a borderless world for workers – no to all immigration controls.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce
I don’t see this as a policy of any colour or race… it is a policy relating to jobs and employment here in NZ. It is about ensuring all of OUR unskilled labour is getting skilled and paid and all our workers are flat-out before we add-in guest workers. Maybe there is room for that idea but this is about not growing “too big for our britches” and too fast. It is about maintaining standards of living for workers here… and guest worker policies have to be handled quite carefully to keep those standards up or raise them.
Not about race. Russell never mentioned it. Was not considering it. You are the one bringing that to the table.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My understanding is that Russel’s release was protesting a proposal to have Chinese workers working at Chinese wage rates and under Chinese labour conditions in New Zealand. If such a proposal were incorporated into an FTA between NZ and China there is little doubt that it would lower the wages and conditions offered to workers here. Is it now racist to try to protect the minimum wages people have fought so hard for, and to try to stop the Government from undermining the work unions do to try to protect our most vulnerable workers? Surely we need to hold on to our labour standards when negotiating with other Governments for trade deals, and this is clearly the point being made by the Greens.
Ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Protecting the minimum wage is a red herring here – or maybe just an excuse to be populist. Aren’t other immigrants to NZ being paid the minimum wage? Where was it seriously being considered that the minimum wage would be abolished or restricted? Instead the Green approach was just lining up the party yet again with the type of ‘little NZ’ nationalism and anti-immigration sentiment favoured by other conservatives like NZ First. While it’s possible this media release was a naive mistake from the Greens, the lack of clarity still added to the same ‘dog whistle’ method of whipping up fear about immigrants taking jobs. Maybe once Winston Peters eventually resigns, you could merge your party with NZ First!
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Not our minimum wage – the Chinese minimum wage – there’s a pretty big difference and it totally undermines your argument.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In case anyone’s interested, I found the link to the original release: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10045.html
The point is that in order to uphold our wages and labour standards (such as they are) all workers working in New Zealand (no matter where they come from) should be entitled to the NZ wages and conditions. This is what the proposal threatened to undermine by allowing lower wages and labour standards for Chinese workers – if you ask me, that’s racist.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Ruth, but you’re getting confused. The press release you are pointing too is from July, and the stance I criticised was the updated October one where the party said that immigration should be limited unless there is a labour shortage, and simply that immigration from China would threaten wages. In fact the newspaper headline to come out of the Green Party stance was: Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’
Why does the Green Party concentrate on keeping Chinese workers out? Why don’t you argue in favour of them being allowed in and subject to the usual employment laws? Oh, I guess that wouldn’t be so popular and get the cheap headlines, and so you might fail to steal votes from NZ First. Ruth, are you really comfortable with creating headlines such as: Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’?
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Right Bryce…
The misrepresentations of the mainstream media “headlines” can be reliably used to understand green positions? I am sure you’ve been to some event that has been reported and seen first hand the difference between what happened and what was reported. If you haven’t yet had that experience it is a real education in how much salt to bring to the table with your newspaper/fishwrapper.
All immigration should be limited unless there is a real shortage of labour. We are close to that and in some areas of skills, way past it. Does this mean we let in anyone who wants to come? No, it means we let in people who have the skills to help.
We don’t concentrate on the Chinese Bryce, we apply the policy pretty uniformly… again you are the one focusing on one group. We don’t. We do comment on specific deals that get proposed… have the Chinese been proposing more deals than the Sri Lankans and the Russians? I confess not to know this. It isn’t something I care about. It isn’t about the Chinese, it is about numbers, growth-rates, sustainability and social-justice. In other words, the things that motivate us. Nationalism is not on that list.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, ok, I guess you mean the release where Russel and Sue Bradford both argue against NZ getting into a race to the bottom on wages and conditions and Russel says that:
“the wages paid to the overseas workers must be the same as the wages paid to New Zealanders doing the same job.
“the conditions of the overseas workers must be the same as the conditions of New Zealand workers doing the same job.
“the overseas workers must be genuinely free to join a New Zealand union while they are here with no sanctions against them when they return home.”
Hang on, isn’t that exactly what you just said the Greens should be arguing for – that Chinese workers here should be subject to NZ employment law? Turns out that that’s what the Greens have consistently been promoting.
Frankly Bryce, I think if you really believe the Greens and NZF are competing for the same voters, you are the one who is confused. You should really do a little bit more research before throwing around accusations of racism.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ruth and BJ – your arguments are still based on your desire to put New Zealanders first. Do you not even have the intellectual honesty or understanding to admit that? (I don’t think someone like Jeanette Fitzsimons would have any problem admitting to that). Ruth still isn’t even willing to comment on whether she’s comfortable with Green headlines like Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’.
BJ: so you are arguing that the newspaper misrepresented the Green position? This might be the case, yet everything in the article that Russel Norman was quoted as saying backed up the scaremongering headline of Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’. Was he misquoted? Did the Greens release a statement to say they had been misrepresented. I don’t think so. I’d say the Greens would be happy to go along with a populist headline such as Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’. But I’m willing to be shown the counter-evidence if you can produce it BJ.
Also, it seems that the Greens *have* in fact in this case concentrated on trying to keep Chinese workers out. That is the whole reason we are having this debate – due to the Greens being reported as warning against the proposed Chinese immigration.
Ruth: You’ve still failed to show that the Greens have argued in favour of increased Chinese immigration in combination with adherence to labour laws. Instead the Greens have only focused on the rhetoric-type stuff about labour laws. One still gets the strong impression that the Greens are anti-immigration. This is why you appear to be competing for the same votes as NZ First. And, Ruth, do you really deny that both the Greens and NZ First are heavily characterised by *economic nationalism*? This is why you both end up spouting similar policies. For evidence of this – go back to the very top of this page and you’ll see Russel trying to prove that your party is indeed more economically nationalist than NZ First!
In terms of racism – this whole debate can probably just be tied up with an answer by BJ and Ruth to the simple question: Do you believe in keeping non-New Zealanders out of the country via immigration controls?
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Ruth and BJ – your arguments are still based on your desire to put New Zealanders first.”
and? is that a problem Bryce? If so why? We’re not the Chinese Green Party, we’re the NEW ZEALAND Green Party. We’re SUPPOSED to represent the interests of New Zealanders, from the environmentalist/social justice standpoint and we don’t pretend otherwise.
We’ve demonstrated time and time again our solidarity with the democratic aspirations of the Chinese and Tibetans in accord with our beliefs to an extent that no other party has, so I find your assertion that we’re “rascist” to be extremely ludicrous . If you expect more from us, then too bad for you.
“To defeat this sort of stuff we need to argue in favour of a borderless world for workers – no to all immigration controls.”
Third World lack of development and high birthrates is our problem, how?
You’re playing into the hands of the business elite whilst also betraying the people that you purport to represent. Is it mere coincidence that the chief proponents of Mexican immigration to the US are Big Business and the clueless, PC Chardonnay socialists of the “Left”? Seems to be a similar situation here, obviously.
Why would Big Business support immigration? Hmm let me think. It undermines the bargaining power of the worker, duh! Cheap labour allows them to keep more profits for themselves (do you actually think they’d pass down the savings to their customers unless they had too? lol) and it removes the necessity for them to invest in capital to improve the productivity of their workers. As for providing the same pay conditions for the immigrations. This would result in inflation if the increase in workers isn’t matched with an attendant increase in productivity, which is definately not guaranteed due to the law of diminishing returns.
BJ can attest to my awareness and anger over the engineered flaws within the international financial and economic systems and the injustices which it perpetuates, but theres precious little we as a party can do about that. We have very little influence in our own country let alone on the international scheme of things, aside from the bones that Labour tosses to us relating to “our” social engineering, I mean social justice policies.
“In terms of racism – this whole debate can probably just be tied up with an answer by BJ and Ruth to the simple question: Do you believe in keeping non-New Zealanders out of the country via immigration controls?”
“In terms of racism…”
Thats just an empty strawman. If you’re gonna keep on trying to erect it despite us addressing your concerns then none of us are gonna take you seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi Sleepy Treehugger again
I’m flattered to read that you currently take my arguments seriously – even if in the future you might not.
I haven’t got a lot of time to answer every point right at the moment, but I’ll try to point you to some things to back up my arguments. First, I’d recommend what some progressive writers say about immigration and racism. Gary Younge of the Guardian has written a good article on immigration entitled ‘The west persists in using race to decide who can cross its borders’. Younge is therefore part of a growing number of commentators who are questioning why there are restraints on labour travelling between countries when ‘Capital, we are told, must flow freely around the world to ensure international prosperity.’ He points out the hypocrisy of the west in demanding that the former eastern bloc give freedom of movement to its citizens and then putting a new wall up to replace the old barrier to stop them leaving. He sees the elite in the west forcing both poverty and lack of mobility on the poor world:
‘Facing hunger and destitution, the poor move in search of work. But when they seek to gain access to the wealthiest countries – the very ones which created the rules that keep them poor – the doors are closed. Politicians desperate to galvanise popular support at home argue not for correcting the global inequalities in wealth but instead for stiffer immigration laws to keep the poor out. Since most, but by no means all, of these impoverished people are not white, racism almost inevitably informs and infects these immigration laws and the debate that surrounds them.’
See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1995727,00.html
I’d also add that the point that, as capital can move freely to go where labour costs are cheapest why shouldn’t workers have the right to move where they can get better wages? It’s a freedom thousands of New Zealand workers have enjoyed when moving to Australia in search of a better life and it’s a right that needs to be extended to all. And there’s been the occasional Australian move here too… Are you guys in favour of restricting such privileges only to Australians?
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In his argument for why Greens are anti-immigration, Sleepy Treehunger also made the point that allowing more workers into NZ drives down wages and drives up inflation. I guess I’d reply to say that while financial investments can move around to wherever profit rates are highest, capitalism’s borders prevent workers from moving around to where wages are highest. National boundaries are therefore about controlling workers in order to depress wage levels.
Furthermore there’s plenty of evidence that immigrants don’t lower wages or cause a strain on the economy. The NZ Department of Labour have even produced research to show that migrants create as many jobs as they fill. Generally they have a very positive affect on economic growth.
There’s a few economists worth checking out on this issue. The liberal economist Philippe Legrain has been asking ‘why are so many people are against the free movement of labour’. He’s just published a new book arguing the case for open borders – Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them – in which he assembles strong evidence that immigration brings benefits to everyone. He says that immigration controls really just boil down to fear of change or to racism. The Guardian have just published a think piece of his on immigration to Britain entitled ‘Don’t believe this claptrap. Migrants are no threat to us’:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1990325,00.html
Another good book is called ‘Deportation Is Freedom!’ by Steve Cohen. He shows how immigration controls are always racist. You can purchase the book in NZ at: http://www.paperplusbooks.co.nz/default.aspx?x=search&stype=bookdetail &id=1675909
Nationalists continue to make the racist arguments about the need for immigration controls, and there are still myths about Asians stealing “our” jobs, or Asians “flooding” the country. If the Green Party was progressive it would be trying to combat such ideas and arguing in favour of Chinese workers not saying they will drive down wages etc.
However, there is another interesting link I read a while ago from a Green point of view opposing immigration, entitled ‘Is it ethical to oppose immigration’:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2995/
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’m flattered to read that you currently take my arguments seriously – even if in the future you might not.”
Of course I do, Bryce. I respect anyone who attempts to protect the interests of the working class, but IMHO some of the beliefs that you espouse undermine that stated goal. From reading your blog I’ve found you to be an intelligent commentator that I thought I’d have much in commen with, which has got me scratching my head in confusion at the comments that you have made on this blog.
Both my parents worked for NZRail (my Dad had 33 years service before being made redundant during the “restructuring” after its sale to Faye/Ritchwhite and Wisconson Rail in the 1990s), my grandfather was on the railways, and my uncle still works for the passenger service in Wellington. THATS why I stand for the interests of the working class.
“First, I’d recommend what some progressive writers say about immigration and racism. Gary Younge of the Guardian has written a good article on immigration entitled ‘The west persists in using race to decide who can cross its borders’.”
I’ll be the first to admit that we (the Greens) have some strange, if reluctant, bedfellows on this issue, but so does the opposite side. conserative nationalists/Greens on one side and Big Business/Liberal so-called “progressives” on the other. Not that I’d implicate you of being either of these, which is why I’m stumped. Theoretically if you actually represented worker’s you’d be on “our side”.
“The west persists in using race to decide who can cross its borders’”
Thats absolute BS. Some sectors of the population would prefer that to be so, no doubt, but as a whole thats rubbish. The British have allowed large numbers of “Asians” (Indians/Pakistanis), Caribbeans (Jamaicans etc) to immigrate, the Germans have large numbers of Turks and other “Muslim” peoples, Ireland has large numbers of East Europeans to reduce wage demands and thus inflation. Need I go on? People in Europe have genuine grievances as a) their living standards are being undermined, b) they find it hard to compete for jobs with immigrants who are only too willing to work for far less wages than the “natives” c) they are required to bear onerous taxation to pay for social services that are being put under strain d) there IS alot of social tensions due to the reasons above as well as from the Muslim population being stirred up by fundamentalist clerics spreading anti-Western propagand (perhaps not to the extent that hysterical neofascists and fundamentalist Christians are saying).
‘He sees the elite in the west forcing both poverty and lack of mobility on the poor world:”
So we address this by impoverishing us all equally? This is a commen contention by those who oppose socialism and I see that there is some merit in that.
“Politicians desperate to galvanise popular support at home argue not for correcting the global inequalities in wealth but instead for stiffer immigration laws to keep the poor out.”
Thats just a typical cynical, politically expedient, copout by politicians who pretend to represent the working class in order to get their votes, whilst pursuing policies that reward the already wealthy at the expense of those that they purport to represent. Sound feckin familiar eh? Like I said in my earlier post I’m enraged at the injustices perpetuated by the current financial and economic system, but I don’t think the solution is to impoverish ourselves in order to address the needs of others. We need to work in solidarity with similar movements worldwide (which we are already doing) in order to better the lives of EVERYONE rather than those who are lucky enough to be able to make it here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The Guardian have just published a think piece of his on immigration to Britain entitled ‘Don’t believe this claptrap. Migrants are no threat to us’:”
Perhaps you should read some of the comments to his article. Oh. BTW I’ve read his book “Open Society,” its basically BS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SleepyTreehugger – I’m sorry if my posts to this forum seem strange. A few comments come to mind in reply. I guess on many things I do see myself on the ’same side’ as the Greens (just as I also agree with some other parties on things), and of course I don’t bother to post to your forum on these. But when I do think there are important things wrong with things that the Green Party are advocating, I think it’s important to voice these. Obviously I see myself as to the left of the Greens (and maybe more libertarian), and so my critiques of the Greens are probably not what the party is used to, as you are probably normally fending off criticism from the right. Of course some people think that the left should never criticise each other. I think this is an odd idea. How are we supposed to learn from our mistakes if we never examine them? In addition I do not think the Greens is actually a party that actually stands for the interests of the working class or the poor. And if the party was ever a left-wing one, it seems less of one now. But these are all bigger questions that perhaps can be debated in the future or elsewhere.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce,
“I’m flattered to read that you currently take my arguments seriously”
– well I don’t, in any case.
You’ve started from a Greens position opposing the use of Chinese workers in NZ, by Chinese companies, under Chinese labour laws and wages (which you would be in favour of, I take it?); you wrongly claim that this constitutes a Greens position on immigration; you throw in your opinion that all immigration controls are inherently racist, to arrive at the conclusion that the Greens are a racist party. This would be offensive if it wasn’t so transparently silly. I thought you must have been a troll, but I see now that you’re just a well-meaning wooly thinker. You will have to sharpen up your act if you want to contribute something meaningful on this blog.
I agree with you, however, that it is not the primary vocation of the Greens to stand for the working class or the poor. I bitterly regret the demise of the Alliance, with which the Greens were natural allies, but better represented those interests. But as we’re currently the only party to the left of Labour, we have to take on that burden as best we can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair – thanks for the kind words.
I think I’ve shown that the Greens choose to concentrate their firepower on the dangers of immigration and how it will, in their words, ‘lead to a race to the bottom’. Instead or arguing in favour of Chinese worker immigration to NZ together with the maintenance of employment law, your leaders have chosen to pander to prejudice and just point out why we shouldn’t allow it. That’s what leads to Green headlines such as ‘Chinese labour “threatens wages” ‘. The party has to take responsibility for the publicity that it generates. It’s a bit sad to blame the media for your gross lack of clarity – regardless of whether the fudge was intended or not. (Btw, Alistair I fail to see where I stated the ‘conclusion that the Greens are racist party’. My argument was about immigration controls. I actually think that the Green Party is no more racist than, say, Labour or NZ First).
I’m interested that you see the idea of having any pro-worker policies as a ‘burden’. It’s also been interesting to see that you guys are happy with a national chauvinist position of putting New Zealanders First. Again maybe time for a merger… A lot of your policies seem pretty similar, and I don’t think that there should be any dispute that the Greens get votes from across the political spectrum and from all different social constituencies. In the 2002 election, for example, the Greens are thought to have gained a large number of ex-National voters. The then campaign manager, Cate Faehrmann, even pointed out that ‘the Greens, like New Zealand First, have gained tremendously from the National Party’s collapse’.
Anyhow, this blog thread has probably gone as far as it can, and we probably need to agree to disagree on the Green’s economic nationalism and pro-immigration controls. For what it’s worth, I’ve got a series of blog posts planned that show why the Green Party is more of a problem than a solution for those of us serious about human liberation. And for the benefit of Alistair, I’ll try not to be too wooly and will indeed sharpen my axe! Check these out in the future at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/green_party/index.html
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce
“I’m sorry if my posts to this forum seem strange.”
I’m the last one to hold someones opinions against them as I know how it feels to have a diverging opinion to those around me. As you said, we do have a lot in commen, probably far more than we have differences of opinion, BUT I can categoricaly state I am NOT a rascist, nor particularly nationalist. I stand up for the interests of the NZ working class, because they are MY interests. I AM working class through and through. And proud of it. That is why I’m so passionate about the subject.
“Obviously I see myself as to the left of the Greens (and maybe more libertarian), and so my critiques of the Greens are probably not what the party is used to, as you are probably normally fending off criticism from the right.”
he he. And we get accused of being far too left-wing, lol. I can also categorically state that MY opinions are not altered by an attempt to pander to anyone elses sympathies. I honestly couldn’t give two hoots what anyone else from ANY political persuasions thinks of me or my opinions. Merely water off a duck’s back.
“Of course some people think that the left should never criticise each other. I think this is an odd idea. How are we supposed to learn from our mistakes if we never examine them?”
I also find it rediculous that your views shouldn’t be put to scrutiny and tested as they rapidly become entrenched and develops into dogma. I’d welcome your contribution to this blog as long, but please do not continue to make unsubstantiated accusations that we’re rascist, knowingly or not.
I may even frequent your blog more now if I may. Cheers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Green position has consistently been that an FTA with China including Chinese workers on Chinese wages and conditions working in NZ would be bad for wages and conditions here and that therefore our government should not go down that path. Bryce has failed to ever acknowledge that he originally completely misrepresented this position. That kind of intellectual dishonesty smacks of an entrenched dislike and prejudice towards the Greens which makes me question his integrity.
Any analysis which puts NZF and the Greens in the same political boat is disappointingly shallow and misses the elephant in the room, which is sustainability. If we don’t acknowledge that sustainability is at the heart of what differentiates the Greens from other left wing political groupings, then we’ve really missed the point entirely. How we divide up resources is incredibly important, but unless we protect those resources from serious damage and depletion then all the equal distribution in the world won’t help make the infertile land where a rain forest once stood bear fruit. It won’t stop climate change induced flooding creating millions of refugees. Accepting we live on a finite planet that cannot cope with limitless pollution and resource plunder is at the heart of what the Greens stand for, it’s why our social justice and our environmental goals are interdependent.
In terms of where the Greens stand on migration, people might want to check out the Greens’ Human Rights policy which talks about promoting ethnic diversity, providing language skills support for new migrants, increasing aid, increasing our refugee quota etc: http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other8823.html
Out of interest, is it also racist to object to wealthy non-citizen non-residents buying up property in New Zealand so that those of us living here (whether born here, working here or refugee here) struggle to buy houses and rents go up?
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>struggle to buy houses and rents go up
It implies land is short.
It isn’t.
It’s artificially scarce.
We have lots of land, lots of energy resources, and very few people.
Just need to stop being so precious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Whether or not land is short is pretty much irrelevant – oil is short, and we are short of atmosphere to safely pollute with carbon. Urban sprawl makes very little sense in a carbon constrained community. My view is that we need to go medium density along public transport routes – that way we can get more housing without spreading further and further out. That said, if those who live here have to compete to buy property with those who don’t live here then it is likely to make housing less affordable.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I dunno… maybe not short out in the boonies but a patch that is buildable in Wellington or Tawa or even as far out as Porirua probably already has a pile of sticks on it and a price tag that starts at 300K. Too much vertical, not enough horizontal.
Building on a steep slope means a bigger building budget for stabilization, and even that may not be enough when the next quake happens.
That’s just an ugly truth about Wellington. It isn’t real flat and it is real vulnerable.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ruth – I can’t believe you’ve come back for more! And you still refuse to say whether you are comfortable with Green headlines such as: Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’!!
Until you answer that then I think you’ll find you it’s *you* that lack any credibility.
And please point to where in the article I’ve critiqued that the Green Party actually says any of the things you are claiming. Your whole orientation to this argument is also similar to the way Winston Peters deals with such criticism! For you to point to a different press release six months earlier is rather laughable. Face it: the Greens in this case have been caught out pandering to prejudice or at least allowing themselves to be painted that way. So why would I concede that I’ve misrepresented you when you can’t show any evidence that I haven’t?
I don’t have any problem seeing that the Green Party has distinct policies from the other parties, especially relating to the environment (although the differences are fast fading – even you must admit that – especially with the Greens taking up a market-oriented policy towards climate change). But my point was that on economic nationalism you and NZ First are the closest two parties around. Do you really deny that? That’s what this whole post has been about, but you seemed to have missed it completely. It makes it look as if you are simply a Green party hack! Open your eyes, Ruth.
And let me ask you (or any other Green Party representatives), if the immigration controls that you favour are not racist, why are you in favour of total freedom on Australians to come to NZ to work, but you want to have major restrictions on any worker from Samoa, from Fiji, from East Timor etc.? Let me know if I’ve wrong on this, but I can’t see anything in your rather conservative immigration policy to suggest that you want anything different. Btw, I’m actually serious about this, question: do you really want to discriminate against workers from pacific islands but let in as many Australians as possible? How do you justify this?
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Australian question?
But that works BOTH ways… we get to go there, and a lot more of us do that than having them show up here.
May be a mistake though, cause if the Chinese ever slack off their demand the economy of our neighbours to the west is going to head south pretty quick-smart… and maybe they’ll come in here and muck up our economy too. That’s not “Green”, just my personal observation.
Nor have I noticed that there was anything like a major restriction on anyone from anywhere who meets the requirements for the Skilled-Migrant category and speaks tolerably intelligible English.
Since I came in under that program I know that the “points” total you get isn’t predicated on where on earth you are from, what colour you ostensibly are, or whether you are left handed.
Perhaps you are discussing unskilled labour?
That is a seriously different issue.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m curious, BJChip. Why choose to come here of all places? Off-topic, i know…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce,
IMHO the basis for your claim that the Greens are racist is the way it has been presented by the news media. The actual comments quoted in those reports clearly refer to the specific situation of chinese immigrants working under China laws instead of the New Zealand laws that apply to all other workers in New Zealand. This practice seems to have been allowed in Australia and in Jamaica’s International Zone. Other bloggers may be able to clarify whether I’ve got that info correct.
Ruth – “Out of interest, is it also racist to object to wealthy non-citizen non-residents buying up property in New Zealand so that those of us living here (whether born here, working here or refugee here) struggle to buy houses and rents go up?”
It would be rascist if the claim is wholly untrue. It is “playing the race card” if your argument diverts attention from “the real problem.” IMHO the real problem is that there is a fundamental flaw in the “land” valuation system. In the 19th century rateable land values were calculated on the rent that could be earned from the land. Now they are calculated on what the last mug punter was prepared to pay, and often not in the immediate vicinity either. Obviously local authorities are happy to have their rateable land values increased in this way. Banks, which are mostly foreign, are more than happy with this system as, on paper, higher land values reduce their risk exposure on existing mortgages. Legally, a mortgagee is essentially a tenant of the bank until the mortgage is paid off. Ergo most of New Zealand is already owned by foreigners irrespective of the nationality of the mortgagee.
Property speculators and “mom and pop” investors are also happy with this system as long as they are already in the game and not waiting to join. In reality it is a pyramid scheme entirely dependant on limitless credit.
Simple solution? Have a Government Valuation based on rental value and market valuation based on mug values. This satisfies the free market condition of “perfect” information. Of course, during the transition period banks would have to be prohibited from foreclosing on mortgages to prevent them from profiting from an overadjustment in property prices triggered by panicky investors trying to get out while they can.
Where is the logic in Auckland suburban property prices being increased because a Canadian singer bought a bit of land in Central Otago?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OT to PEL –
The typical Green looks to the future in century sized bites… I exceed even that ridiculous standard…. and feel I owe it to my kids and their kids to give them the best shot I can give them at having a reasonably safe childhood. Raising kids in LA when every Saturday in the summer I could sit on my BACK porch and hear the odd gunfire in the distance. Not in a bad neighborhood either, just not upscale enough to be far enough away from the bad ones. Kids getting shot outside of schools every couple of weeks.
NZ has the most available renewable resources per capita of any country I can think of except possibly Oz, and Oz won’t take older migrants, or wouldn’t when I was asking, no matter what their skill set and education. I’d have gone there… I lived and worked in Adelaide for years. Liked it a lot.
Then too, I am by nature a “Green” though not as far left as some here, I am basically a New York Liberal and didn’t see much future in the way the major parties are misleading the USA. Voting Dem because that’s the only thing to do in a FPP two party system, but holding my nose. Here I actually have (at least until the next election) some representation of my viewpoint. I knew they weren’t going to find WMDs before the invasion of Iraq. I expected them to “lose track” of Osama bin Forgotten, and I anticipated this housing led crash that is happening and expect further that the US $ will lose position as the worlds reserve currency with further economic repercussions. The empire is crumbling at the edges and rotting from within and as big and great as it still is, it is not really a democracy anymore. Has to do with the “mainstream media” and the actual percentage of people who even bother to show up to vote.
The point however is that I did it for my kids sake. I would’ve done better personally staying in LA and working at the lab ’til retirement. I was well liked and positioned there, had a decent salary and better job security than many. It was the best job I ever had or will have. My kids however, would be growing up into a recession with peak-oil on the other end of it, with changing climate with the real potential that the country won’t actually be able to feed everyone in a couple of decades even though there seems to be plenty now… and seemingly more guns than people.
All empires do eventually decline. Some crash. I don’t have a view that the US will necessarily crash (though it could) but I do not like the look of this century, and I want my kids to have the best shot they can have. Better here than in a democratically elected state that is lurching towards collapse and/or fascism. I don’t think it (the USA) will get that far… but even that is possible and in “the long emergency” it only gets more likely.
The level of ignorance on the streets of the USA is stunning. Frightening to me… for the Jefferson quotation is far too relevant. “A people that wishes to be ignorant and free, wishes for what has never been and never will be” – I may have mistaken a few words doing that from memory, but both he and Franklin warned of the effects of an ignorant electorate.
Which is exactly what exists in the US, and the flip side of the Jefferson quotation is the Hitler observation “Education is the ruin of my young men”.
Glass half-empty… no…
My view is that at the bottom of the glass there is a miniscule black hole and no matter how fast you pour water in, it will disappear.
Murphy was an optimist… but when I am surprised it is usually a good thing.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce: “I think I’ve shown that the Greens choose to concentrate their firepower on the dangers of immigration”.
No I don’t think you have. I think you have taken your preconceived theory about what the Greens believe and attempted to make the evidence fit the theory. You have restated your theory many times but never actually directly referred to what a Green spokesperson has actually said, except for a couple of lines that you claim that a journalist wrote that Russel said and which you then took out of context.
I’m not debating your bizarre theory until you actually reference, including a URL, a quote from a Green spokesperson. There is no way I am debating statements where we have to trust that you are quoting them correctly or where you take newspaper editorial to be a representation of Green Party policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn – two things:
1) I don’t think I ever said the Green Party was racist in the way it dealt with the Chinese worker issue. I said that in line with their economic nationalism, the Greens even try to whip up panic about asian immigration.
You say that, ‘The actual comments quoted in those reports clearly refer to the specific situation of chinese immigrants working under China laws instead of the New Zealand laws that apply to all other workers in New Zealand’, but this is not the case at all. Nowhere in the news report does the Green Party clarify such a thing. And if you look at press releases from this time or look on Frogblog somehow I doubt you’d find that the Green Party sought to refute they way they were reported. I’d be interested to know if you find anything. But I imagine that the Greens were quite happy to go along with the cheap populist headline of Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’.
2) My point of racism is that immigration controls are racist. And we haven’t seen anything from the Green Party representatives on this blog to disagree or put up a decent argument that they’re not. Although one participant has suggested it’s not racist because A) middle class people from poor countries can come here, and B) there’s nothing wrong on determining immigration criteria on the basis that someone ’speaks tolerably intelligible English’. It’s hard to believe that you guys don’t think such a criteria would produce an immigration flow strongly slanted towards rich white people. Yet it seems the Green Party accepts this way of deciding who comes here. Or am I wrong?
BJ mentions that the discriminatory Green policy of allowing free immigration from Australia is OK because it allows NZers to go there too. But that’s not really the point. As far as I understand it, Tongan and Samoan laws allow NZers to go and work there too – it’s NZ that doesn’t return the favour. And no Green on this blog has come up with a good defence of this yet. Not even Ruth!
And please don’t get me started on BJ’s idea that we need to fear that the Chinese are going to stuff up the world economy and NZ will be flooded by Australian immigrants who will stuff up own economy!
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Very interesting. Thanks BJ.
Whenever I visit the US, I’m often pleasantly surprised that things aren’t as bad as I tend to imagine from the outside. However, I haven’t lived in the US, and tend to move in circles of like-minded people whilst there.
NYC is perhaps the most outward looking, would you say? More European in outlook than, say, the west coast?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gee Stuey, you are rather paranoid! I can assure you didn’t take anything out of context or make up this story! It really isn’t a ‘bizzare theory’ – it’s just Green populism. And you strangely say, ‘You have restated your theory many times but never actually directly referred to what a Green spokesperson has actually said’, when I have indeed done this. Here the Green spokesperson stuff is again: The Stuff article said, ‘but the Green Party says it would trigger a “race to the bottom? for New Zealand wages and conditions.’ Also: ‘Dr Norman said there would have to be a genuine shortage of New Zealand workers and the Government would have to prove it had made efforts to offer training to local workers to fill vacancies.’ I’m sure you can track down the original article from the Green Party offices if you want to read it with your own very eyes!
You guys sure are suckers for punishment. Personally I think this thread of Frogblog became a bit overdone sometime again, and I continue to offer to ‘agree to disagree’ on this, but I’m also happy to continue if you want more. For a start, Stuey, I think you need to address some of the questions I posed. A defense of your discriminatory immigration policy would be a good start. And, Stuey, do you also regard any pro-worker policies as a ‘burden’ for the Green Party? Do you have any problems with putting the interests of New Zealanders ahead of other people in the world? And are you comfortable with Green headlines such as Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’? Ruth can’t answer this question, so I’d be interested to see whether Stuey can rise to the ocassion.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce, At least the Greens are consistent in their opposition to unfettered movement of economic units across national boundaries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn – I take your point. Although I guess I’m wondering if the Greens are ‘more consistently anti-immigration’ than they are in their opposition to the freedom of capital to move around. The party doesn’t really campaign so strongly in favour of Fortress NZ anymore, apart from the odd outburst of populism if an Arab wants to invest in an NZ airport! You don’t really hear the Greens arguing strongly for import controls, for example. It might be in their manifesto somewhere, but generally they don’t campaign on these things.
So the end result is that capital is free to move around unfettered through the world, but people aren’t. The Greens appear to be happy to live with this imbalance. But it seems pretty unfair to me, which is why I think those that are *serious* about creating an egalitarian future need to argue against restricting the free movement of people, not fear-mongering about Chinese workers.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bryce says: “For you to point to a different press release six months earlier is rather laughable.?
Well, laugh you may but I think you’ll find you’ve made a mistake, and that the Green Party statements I quoted
(“the wages paid to the overseas workers must be the same as the wages paid to New Zealanders doing the same job.
“the conditions of the overseas workers must be the same as the conditions of New Zealand workers doing the same job.
“the overseas workers must be genuinely free to join a New Zealand union while they are here with no sanctions against them when they return home.?)
came from Russel Norman’s October release, not the July one. Yes, that being the October release which presumably was temporally associated with the media story you can’t provide but claim was bad and racist. So, when you say that “Nowhere in the news report does the Green Party clarify such a thing.? I guess you’re mistakenly confusing the media reports of what the Greens said with what was in the actual release. Surely you realise that Green MPs and spokespeople don’t actually get to write the newspaper articles that end up in the paper, don’t you?
But anyway, that’s really beside the point, given it’s pretty clear that you’re not actually interested in engaging with the challenges posed by FTAs involving labour entering NZ at lower wages and conditions than we have here, and how that might impact negatively on the most vulnerable workers in New Zealand (wherever they originally came from).
If the only question you want answered is whether or not I like the headlines mainstream media generate on stories that quote the Greens, I’d have to say that sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. I don’t agree with every media release the Greens put out either, but at least I can distinguish between mediated and unmediated communications. And, like Stuey, I’m not keen to comment on your interpretation of a media interpretation of a Green release. What I can tell you is that the original release from Russel is okay with me. Perhaps the reason you’re failing to engage with the argument around FTAs is that you actually agree with the Greens and don’t want to admit that you were wrong to jump to conclusions and scream ‘racist’.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So Ruth, once again you’ve sidestepped the question! I guess this means that you are actually quite uncomfortable with such headlines, but don’t want to admit it.
And you fail to realise that there’s actually a connection between the press release you guys put out and the headlines that they create. You really are being rather naive. If you put out a press release or talk to a journalist and focus on the ‘danger’ of Chinese immigration you should expect such populist and reactionary headlines. Blaming the media isn’t going to get you far. And if you think that Russel was misquoted or reported out of context, please show me where this was corrected by the Greens. My guess is that the Greens would be quite happy to be misquoted in way that panders to prejudice. If not, show me the evidence that anyone lifted a finger to correct this. Hmmm? I thought not.
Furthermore, you say that *I’ve* made a mistake in terms of the press release. How disingenuous is that?! It was *you* that quoted a press release that was six months earlier to the issue! Now you’re pretending that didn’t happen. Do you have no shame?
And, again, I don’t believe I ’screamed racist’ at all. I said that immigration controls are racist. You are being rather sensationalist (as well as disingenuous) with that. But, Ruth, you still haven’t given your defense of the Green Party being in favour of immigration rules that discriminate against workers from countries like Samoa, Fiji, Tonga. Why is that? Why does the Green Party favour immigration controls that ultimately lead to A White Rich NZ policy. I’m still waiting…
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Goodness you have a lot of time to devote to this issue. I’m left wondering whether you think that when an FTA being negotiated by the NZ Govt threatens to undermine wages and conditions in NZ the Greens should stay silent – if that’s your position I just don’t agree with you. I can’t see how allowing China to have workers on Chinese wages in New Zealand will help push up wage rates in China, and I do think such a policy poses a threat to wages here. I’m not sure if, or why, you disagree with this, which is the basic premise of the original press release (the July one http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10045.html and the October one from which I’ve previously quoted http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/PR10201.html)
It’s hard for me to comment on your concerns around Samoa and Fiji and Tonga because I’m not sure that your assumptions are accurate – I stand to be corrected and welcome your research on this issue. I am aware that the Greens’ Human Rights policy specifically states that the Green Party will:
“Support freer movement of people between Samoa and New Zealand in consultation with Samoa, in recognition of the special relationship with Samoan people reflected in the Treaty of Friendship.” http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other8823.html
I can’t find an immigration policy that undermines this ethos, and I’m not sure which document you’re referring to. Could you please provide a link to the immigration policy which raised your concerns?
I also can’t really comment on whether or not the Greens should have sought to have corrected a misinterpretation of a press release in an article I still haven’t seen. Given your failure to ever produce this article and given that neither of us know (or will likely ever know) what correspondence, if any, was entered into between the journalist and the Green Party spokesperson this seems like a bit of an intellectual dead end.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ruth – just briefly (as I *do* actually have a huge amount of work on at the moment), I will track down the original article for you and post to this thread. Hopefully that should silence your moaning about this!
But in the meantime you’ve still sidestepped all of the rest of the questions I’ve asked you. Answers please!
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At least I’ve explained that I can’t answer questions about articles and policies I haven’t seen, and that neither you nor I can ever know what exchanges took place between spokesperson and journalist, and provided links to Russel’s actual press releases which I have stated that I am okay with. You’ve totally ignored my questions. But I guess you’re too busy with your work.
ruth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“You guys sure are suckers for punishment”
Congrats Bryce, you’ve outed yourself as a troll (my original guess).
You advocate that the Greens ought to defend the interests of the working class, and claim that they do so badly. You also seem to be advocating that the Greens should have an “open door” immigration policy.
Now, personally I can sometimes believe two contradictory things before breakfast, but coffee usually helps with that. Increasing the labour supply, all else being equal, drives down wages. Good for the working class, eh?
As for the rest : what Ruth said!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Alistair said “Increasing the labour supply, all else being equal, drives down wages.”
This country has a long history of importing it’s labour supply. Generally this has not driven down wages because all else has not remained equal, even when these immigrant workers came from China to work on the Otago goldfields.
The proposal from the Chinese government would have had immigrant workers from China working under China’s laws. That was a repulsive idea and was rightly rejected by the Greens.
It would be hugely beneficial to New Zealand workers if we increased the population to 10 million, provided that the small amount of infrastructure upgrades are funded from loans as was commonplace in late 19th/early 20th centuries and that all the extra population is accomodated within existing residential zones. Most New Zealand houses suffer from chronic Leaky Heat Syndrome so it wouldn’t hurt to replace them with something infinitely superior, such as endless rows of Coronation Streets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ee up there’s nowt wrong wee a bit of Eastenders, Upstairs/Downstairs, Allo Allo or Last of the Summer Wine to give folk as wot they want luv. And, if you’re really desperate, maybe a bit of Seinfeld.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Or the equivalent in Cantonese!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey Bryce. It’s a bit confusing to follow your mass of posts but I’ll try. (You complain that this thread has got a bit overdone, but surely you are the one that is responsible for most of it).
So AFAIK your questions are:
A defense of your discriminatory immigration policy would be a good start.
er, sorry, what discriminatory immigration policy is that? perhaps you can point me to it?
http://www.greens.org.nz/docs/policies
http://www.greens.org.nz/election2005/policies.asp
do you also regard any pro-worker policies as a ‘burden’ for the Green Party?
no, not in principle, but do you have any specific policies in mind?
Do you have any problems with putting the interests of New Zealanders ahead of other people in the world?
It depends on the specific case, like all things in life there is a balance to be struck. Do you have any specific issues in mind?
And are you comfortable with Green headlines such as Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’?
Several times it has been pointed out to you that this is not a “Green headline”. This is a Green headline:
“Chinese workers in New Zealand at Chinese wage rates as part of the free trade deal?” [1]
I am frequently extremely unhappy with the headlines that our beloved newspaper editors give to stories that involve the Greens, but there is not really anything that we can do about it unfortunately.
Oh and finally can you lay off the insults denigrating others please?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn
“Generally this has not driven down wages because all else has not remained equal, even when these immigrant workers came from China to work on the Otago goldfields.”
Thats cos a) the global economy was far less volatile (guaranteed demand for our products from Britain) What are we gonna do with all those people in the case of another economic recession like in the 90s? We had 14% interest rates, high unemployment. We’re only just recovering now. b) the there was no such thing as equal pay for equal work (minimum wages).
“It would be hugely beneficial to New Zealand workers if we increased the population to 10 million.”
Why? If the last 20 years is any indication people with money haven’t shown much evidence of making PRODUCTIVE investments. Imagine the house prices when theres an extra 6 million people here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn said: It would be hugely beneficial to New Zealand workers if we increased the population to 10 million
Short-term, it might be. But all the studies I have seen would indicate that 10 million is not ecologically sustainable – betwen 5 and 6 million is probably the maximum sustainable capacity of New Zealand’s ecology. We already have vast tracts of land being moved into inappropriate agricultural use. This would only be exacerbated by significant and rapid population increase, and a population of 10 million would likely see us like China with coal fired power stations sprouting up all over the place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah, and more of those ugly power pylons to blot the vista everywhere you look.
Like we need those like a whole in the head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepy,
It was Alistair’s use of the phrase “all else being equal” that was at the heart of my comments. In fact all else rarely remains equal. In Alistair’s original comment “Increasing the labour supply, all else being equal, drives down wages”, all else includes the size of the economy. Obviously if we end up with more people competing for the same amount of money wages must go down. In reality immigration increases economic activity so it all depends on whether immigration or the economy increases the most. That is unpredictable, as is the effect on income distribution. I don’t have any disagreement with the points in your response. But just one question: Which 90s recession are you referring to? 1890s or 1990s? I’m not being a smart-alec here, I just find it helpful and interesting to look at similar problems in different eras to see what is different and what is the same.
Hence the reference to Chinese gold miners.
http://tpo.tepapa.govt.nz/ViewTopicExhibitDetail.asp?TopicFileID=0×000 a4c8f
http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/ImmigrationRe gulation/1/en
I partially agree with your response to my suggestion of 10 mil pop. I would say that the lack of evidence of making PRODUCTIVE investments goes back 60 years rather than just 20. And that the root cause is confusing home ownership with house ownership, a mistake Japan and Singapore have never made.
The main benefit of a larger population is that fixed costs and infrastructure costs per km are shared by more people. In the last half century the population has doubled and the amount of traffic on our roads has quadrupled but in real dollars road maintenance has increased by less than 30%. And less than 2% of roads experience congestion. Those 2% are generally a consequence of not having enough passengers per km to give PT profitable load factors.
Toad,
10 million was plucked from the air as a conversation starter. Coronation St is far more important. When I was a kid I was aware of an air of smug superiority that we didn’t have to live crammed together in these bleak rows of terraced houses. Now it is obvious that they are inherently superior to our quarter acre paradise. They can’t use fences and cars to avoid their neighbours. Like it or loathe it that creates “community”. Human density also creates energy density and cost density or cost effectiveness. Think district heating and public transport.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah Kev, I knew that you wouldn’t have made the comment merely for the sake of being contrary.
“Obviously if we end up with more people competing for the same amount of money wages must go down.”
The problem isn’t the competition for the same money, but for the same jobs. I mean you can’t guarantee an increase in immigration will result in an increase in productive enterprise. Bryce linked to an article above, which argued the benefits of immigration and one of the respondants said noted that wages of some sectors of the workforce have been eroded as employers would rather hire immigrants who are willing to accept lower wages and worse working conditions (longer hours, work harder) as its preferable to the alternative in their homelands. i.e employers would rather their workforce be more “productive” rather than hire more people. They want extra immigration as it undermines the bargaining position of the working population.
“In the last half century the population has doubled and the amount of traffic on our roads has quadrupled but in real dollars road maintenance has increased by less than 30%.”
Has that money gone on new roads as the cities have expanded?
“Which 90s recession are you referring to? 1890s or 1990s? I’m not being a smart-alec here, I just find it helpful and interesting to look at similar problems in different eras to see what is different and what is the same.”
The 1990s. I read about the period in books by Tim Hazledine, Brian Easton, Bob Jones, and Ollie Newland, because I was barely into my teens I was in my mid-teens at the time so interest rates and unemployment levels weren’t exactly toppermost of my priorities.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepy,
It’s difficult to say what the extra money has been spent on.
In 1961 we had 11336km of State Highways (69% sealed), 7999km of municipal roads (78%) and 70600km of county roads (16%).
In 2006 we had 10895 (99.5%), 17040 (97.6%) and 65353 (50.7) respectively. A total increase of approx. 4,500km with a similar distance reclassified from rural to urban.
The proportion of sealed roads being resealed each year has not changed since 1961, however with a 50% increase in the amount sealed that does mean 50% more resealing. Balancing that the proportion of bridges being renewed each year has fallen by 90% on local roads and 99% on State Highways. The overall result is that maintenance spending has actually gone up by quite a bit less than 30%
Compare average annual spending (in million 2006 dollars) for 1960-64 with 2000-04 and 2007/08 allocations you can see that costs have got out of control under this government, although that may be due to China and India and the revitalised asian tiger economies competing for bitumen, etc.
Maintenance $480, $589 +18%, $825 +40%
Construction $280, $370 +25%, $840 +127%
“Has that money gone on new roads as the cities have expanded?”
No, since the extra maintenance money is less than the extra revenue from heavy vehicle fees, the simple answer is that it is probably just the immediate cost of shifting freight from rail to road.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’ve finally found the full newspaper report on the Greens opposition to Chinese immigration. See below. I’m sorry about the delay in posting this. I’ve been out of town for most of the time since I last posted. But I’ve now got more time to spend dealing to the Green Party’s anti-immigration policies on this thread.
You’ll see from the full article below that the Greens were indeed expressing their usual xenophobia. Whether this was intentional or not, I’m still open minded about. But there should be no doubt that the Greens ended up pandering to prejudice on this one. If the party felt that it’s message had been misinterpreted by the media or that the Green headline of ‘Chinese Labour threatens wages’ wasn’t representative of the Greens, it could easily have put out a statement or even just a post on this forum to say so. It chose not to.
——-
Chinese labour ‘threatens wages’
By SUE ALLEN
Business leaders would welcome skilled Chinese workers for temporary stays, but the Green Party says it would trigger a “race to the bottom” for New Zealand wages and conditions.
Part of a free trade deal, the suggestion was raised this week during an official visit by China’s Commerce Minister Bo Xilai.
Though it was not yet part of formal trade talks, Trade Minister Phil Goff said he saw potential in the idea.
“(China) is entitled to make the request, but this does not indicate the request will be met,” he said.
Business New Zealand chief executive Phil O’Reilly said the concept had merit as long as the Government set reasonable criteria.
Adequate English language levels, targeting areas of labour shortage, relevant qualifications and appropriate time stays were factors, he said.
Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) chief executive Alasdair Thompson said he saw nothing wrong in principle in filling job vacancies with skilled workers from other countries.
He said Chinese building companies routinely undertook big infrastructure projects abroad.
National Party immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith said the issue was worthy of exploration.
But Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said a push to admit Chinese workers as part of a free trade deal had the potential to erode wages and working conditions.
Dr Norman said there would have to be a genuine shortage of New Zealand workers and the Government would have to prove it had made efforts to offer training to local workers to fill vacancies.
Wages and conditions must also be the same for domestic and overseas workers, he said.
Mr Goff said New Zealand’s minimum wage and labour, health and safety laws were not negotiable.
“The New Zealand Government is not in the business of contemplating anything which would prove a threat to the wages and conditions of New Zealand workers.”
Council of Trade Unions president Ross Wilson said the Chinese proposal was just that and, as such, of no real concern.
However, the priority was to improve the skills of New Zealand workers and to encourage businesses to invest in training staff.
Mr Bo said the use of Chinese labour could benefit both countries.
The next round of trade talks between New Zealand and China will take place on Monday in Wellington.
Mr Goff said it was hoped that a trade agreement could be reached before the target date of April 2008.
STUFF — THE DOMINION POST — THE DOMINION POST — 5 OCT 2006
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having a quick look back over this thread, I’m amazed at the Stuey’s request that I ‘lay off denigrating others’. Quite incredible. On this thread I’ve been called ‘intellectually dishonest’, ‘dogmatic’, lacking ‘integrity’, ‘playing into the hands of the business elite’, a ‘latte socialist’ etc. Yet Stuey wants to point the finger at me. I guess this is Green version of fairness in action. Let’s hope that Stuey never gets into a position of power over anyone…
Likewise, Alistair calls me a troll simply because I criticise conservative Green policies and your attempts to justify them. Trolls actually function on these forum under alias and without any reference to their identity. Yet I’m probably the only one in this debate that is fully identifiable! I think we all know why Ruth doesn’t ever identify herself, but what about Stuey, Alistair, and SleepyTreeHugger?
Alistair has said that I ‘advocate that the Greens ought to defend the interests of the working class’ – yet I’ve also never said this. The Greens are predominantly a party after middle class votes with a middle class political programme. If anything, I’m interested in clarifying the fact that the Greens *don’t* ultimately defend the interests of the working class, but are actually rather anti-working class. Even on this thread you guys have said that to have pro-worker policies would be a ‘burden’ for the party.
The Greens have failed to see that there is a connection between the media releases that you put out and the headlines and articles that result from this. The article that I’ve pointed to panders to prejudice. You have to take some responsibility for the politics you produce. Your defence of this is the standard Winston Peters type line (after he said he wanted to cut immigration to the bone): ‘It’s the media’s fault – they misinterpreted me, I’m not anti-asian immigration’. So you blame readers of the media for any confusion or lack of clarity about Green prejudice (or not). Ruth seems to implicitly have an elite view that voters shouldn’t read the media but only Green Party press releases when she says: ‘you’re mistakenly confusing the media reports of what the Greens said with what was in the actual release’. This is crazy – so voters therefore have to double check with the original Green media releases whenever they read an article about the Greens!
Ruth has asked where in the Green Party immigration policy does it state that the Greens want immigration controls? I assume this is an attempt to show that the Greens aren’t really in favour of immigration controls and therefore Ruth and you guys don’t need to justify their racist effect.
The fact is that parliamentary political party manifestos and policy documents are an expression of what a party would do differently to the currently government and laws. So in this case it’s the Greens’ opportunity to say what they don’t agree with about the status quo. And in my reading of the policies I haven’t seen where the Greens argue for getting rid of the current immigration controls. Therefore the onus is on the Greens to justify why you want to continue with the current unfair immigration controls.
The bitter irony about all this debate is that it’s actually Green Party members who are immigrants that are espousing all this anti-immigrant nonsense! People like Russel and BJ Chip have been the beneficiaries of NZ’s unfair and racist immigration controls, and they now seek to maintain these controls and justify them. BJ Chip even says that these tight immigration controls aren’t racist – it’s only those that don’t have good English or are not highly-skilled that aren’t allowed in! I’m pretty surprised that you guys can’t see how this leads to a fairly one-sided flow of immigrants. Does the Green Party really think that citizens from African or other developing countries really have a level playing field in terms of getting into NZ?
In this thread the Greens have also argued:
* Having any pro-worker policies would be a burden for the Greens
* Immigration drives down wages (despite all the evidence to the contrary, and the fact this has been the argument for the reactionary White NZ policy since two centuries ago)
* Some of you are worried about the Chinese stuffing up the world economy, leading to mass immigration to NZ stuffing up the economy.
* Greens on this list have even argued against Chinese immigrant workers being provided with the same pay conditions as New Zealanders because ‘This would result in inflation’. Incredible!
* Greens have argued that the immigration problem is ‘Third World lack of development and high birthrates’ and that this should not be New Zealand’s concern.
Do any of you actually disagree with any of this nonsense?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry Bryce, but this is not negotiable. The country has room for X people. It has a right to decide, as ALL nations have a right to decide, who it admits.
It is entitled to allow those best suited to contribute to its development, and that is a sovereign right of the nation.
The discussion you are having with us is apparently aimed at throwing open the borders to whoever the hell wants to come in whatever numbers wish to come and devil take the consequences.
That serves Aotearoa New Zealand no better than it serves any country anywhere in this period of an overpopulated planet and it will not be accepted by me under any conditions. In this I speak not for the green party of which I am a member but for myself.
The immigration policy as applied is colour and country of origin blind. That is all it can or should be. You call it racist because it does not alter standards to suit your preferred model of open-slather?
Aside from the fact that it is untrue and illogical, it is insulting.
I can understand why you are unwelcome here, as you have passed several boundaries now and even my patience with you is at an end.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)