Russian milk, Kiwi cows
Yesterday New Zealand First’s Doug Woolerton took an opportunity to ask the Minister of Finance about Russian company Nutritek being allowed to create New Zealand’s first totally foreign-owned dairy producer and whether the Overseas Investment Act should have stepped in to do something about this takeover. Foreign investment generally and the Overseas Investment Act in particular are some of the few areas you find New Zealand First and the Greens arguing a broadly similar line, although for different political and philosophical reasons. So once Cullen had answered with his usual blather about technology, business skills, increased exports added market competition and greater efficiency, Sue Bradford asked a follow up question:
Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree that this decision will mean that New Zealand taxpayers give Russian-owned Nutritek some $12 million over the next 5 years to cover the Kyoto Protocol cost of its greenhouse emissions; and would it not be better to keep our dairy industry in New Zealand hands, and to have the industry pay its own way instead of receiving taxpayers’ subsidies?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The owners of this business will be subject to exactly the same laws as any other owner of any primary sector business within New Zealand.
Hmm, that’s good to know given the way the government is currently bending over backwards for so many primary sector business lobbies to accommodate their desire to pass on the cost of their climate pollution to taxpayers.
But I thought the most telling exchange was in response to this later patsy from Jim Anderton:
Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Minister have any information about the assets that Fonterra, as a representative of the New Zealand dairy industry, is purchasing in other countries, and what would our reaction be if Fonterra were stopped from purchasing those assets?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Fonterra has acquired assets in China, in Chile, in other South American countries, I believe, and in Australia. Indeed, it is engaged in a major expansion of its international organisation. It is very hard for us to say to foreign-owned companies that they cannot buy any part of the New Zealand dairy industry, when the largest single player and trader in dairy products in the world is busy trying to buy up milk supply in other countries.
So, in return for Fonterra taking its model of industrial dairy, river pollution and carbon emission to the world we give up our right have our own locally owned businesses. But that’s the unfettered free market at work, and I guess the end result for us consumers should be cheaper milk… oh, wait a minute…
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Hang on a minute there Frog: We’ve hardly “give[n] up our right have our own locally owned businesses”. We can have locally owned businesses all we want. Just not this one.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
i doubt it.
give some credit where it’s due.
& stop jumping on the “playing the race card” bandwagon every time nz1st says something about immigration.
an anti immigration policy would be consistent with a green concern for population issues & would if anything enhance the green party’s credibility on those issues
May 29th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I thought NZ First was always just railing against asian immigration and the ‘reliance’ on immigrants to fill our employment needs, not what you’re advocating andrew (immigration in general because it places a strain on resources).
May 29th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I am sick of working my butt off, to hand over my hard earned money to feather bed some multinational company or bank.
They get our stuff, play fast & loose with it, bugger it, then give us back the bits to fix.
All this global market competition shyte was going to give us cheaper goods & services—-Yeah right!
We are in a spiral of usury gone mad.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
i’m glad you put reliance in quotation marks as nz1st probably would, but no i’m sure they’re against all immigration.
put it this way, have the green politicians ever said anything like “we think nz1st are racists but nevertheless we support halting immigration to limit destructive population growth - as a green issue”?
no, instead they’ve added to the political enviromnent which makes it difficult to oppose immigration by taking every opportunity to link an anti-immigration stance to the ugliness of racism.
this is just avoiding tough issues to score the easy points, along with all the rest of the political herd.
one might say, immigration remains a sacred cow, wo we politely move along to the next question…
May 30th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
They might be against all immigration, but I *think* that they’re right-ish economically and so would be at least slightly keen to be employer-friendly and make it easier to fill job vacancies…migration of qualified immigrants being one method of doing so. So long as they learn the national anthem or promise to be less Asian or…whatever.
And yes I think you’re quite right about how quick people are to yell ‘racist’ during an immigration dialogue…
You’d stop refugee immigration though?
May 30th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
andrew,
Most immigrants tend to come from at least the middle classes in their home countries so its hardly likely that they’d be any more environmentally destructive by coming here. If anything it may be good for the global environment as immigrants tend to have birthrates that are admittadly higher than the “indigenous” population, is lower than their cousins back home.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060630/d060630b.htm
May 30th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“We do not find evidence of a fertility-disruption effect after immigration. The analysis indicates that second-generation immigrants are more adapted to the lower fertility levels of West Germans than their mothers’ generation
http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol17/29/ is.”
May 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
i hardly think nz1st are going to suddenly switch to supporting immigration after all this time.
no, but refugees are a small proportion of overall immigrants. we could actually do a lot more for refugees while curtailing overall immigration.
not good for our environment or economy though sleepytreehugger.
as for birth rates, i’ve read elsewhere (but don’t have it to hand right now) that migrants (to & from any country) normally increase their birth rate after migration - something to do with feeling themselves to have arrived in a land of better opportunity.
so they’re saying the children of immigrants do not breed as much as their parents did? well that’s only to be expected if the hypothesis is that immigrants breed more than natives.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Watch the tourist industry: while numbers are dropping Chinese groups are increasing and they are being driven (mainly) by Chinese immigrant drivers. In addition there is a layer of cheats who hire transit vans etc and say “these are my family members” when stopped by LTSA. They have a clan culture which encompasses shops an other businesses.
……………………….
Green party immigration policy comes under Tiriti: “Tangata Whenua to be consulted as part of our Treaty obligations”…. .
…………………………………
Immigration has been shown to increase GDP but not per capita GDP and what about the long term effect?. I imagine a green future where there is a relatively low ratio of families to arable soils.
………………………………..
The Greens are socialists and so care about (amorphous) masses (with them up top waiving). Whatever the Greens are famous for it isn’t characterizing and protecting the much vaunted (and disposable) Kiwi way of life.
…………………………
NZ First Populist: when other groups have their own agenda that isn’t necessarily such a bad thing.