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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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=0x000a4c8f
http://www.teara.govt.nz/NewZealanders/NewZealandPeoples/ImmigrationRegulation/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, 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)

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)

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)

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)

Or the equivalent in Cantonese!

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)