Veri rich imigrants are god edicated and higli intelli-cent and learn Englisch quite quik.

OK according to the immigration website this is the deinfition of "acceptable investment"

"An acceptable investment means an investment that:

is capable of a commercial return under normal circumstances; and
is not for the personal use of the applicant(s); and
is invested in New Zealand in New Zealand currency; and
is invested in lawful enterprises or managed funds that comply with all relevant laws in force in New Zealand: and
has the potential to contribute to New Zealand's economy: and
is invested in either one or more of the following:
bonds issued by the New Zealand government or local authorities, or
bonds issued by New Zealand firms traded on the New Zealand Debt Securities Market (NZDX), or
bonds issued by New Zealand firms with at least a BBB- or equivalent rating from internationally recognised credit rating agencies (for example, Standard and Poor's); or
equity in New Zealand firms (public or private including managed funds); and
Note : For the purposes of this policy convertible notes are considered to be an equity investment.
is not (directly or indirectly) invested in residential property development or deposit taking financial institutions (e.g. banks or finance companies)."

SO THE INVESTMENT CAN"T BE PERSONAL REAL ESTATE PROPERTY
So actually maybe its quite a good proposal, the investment needs to go into productive endeavours

Lazy, lazy, lazy! Are we really the Anna Nicole Smith of the global economy using our fading good looks and easy morals to marry for money.

Seriously, is this the best answer (along with a cycleway for gods sake) this and the last couple of governments can come up with to improve our 3rd rate economy?

A tawdry quick 'fix' to massive structural problems...

George and Philly - the rules say this can't be about residential property
This policy will have no impact on pricing kiwis out of property, any property that these migrants happen to buy will be outside the scope of the required investment, and is likely to be higher end property that has no effect on average kiwis

Expat - I agree it is a band aid. However, I think its got its merits
Agreed though they are still dodging the big issues

I had a look at immigration to Canada once, and it was only $C 400 000 to buy your way in ; so if NZ is the "Anna Nicole Smith of the global economy", then Canada must be the Manchester Street girls !

Look what America did. They let in an unemployed dude from Kenya, and his son turned out to be Barack Obama.........oooooooh, makes yer skin crawl, we dodged a bullet there !!!!!!

Expat, the problem is not that educated and highly skill migrants are not coming. The problem is that they are forced to work in the supermarkets and petrol stations instead of contributing their skills in their area of expertise, because they lack the coveted kiwi experience.

As for business migrants, as long as they create jobs for kiwis, that's good.

James Sheridan: ".our green and pleasant land." Which is only that way because there are so few of us....per capita we are actually bad polluters.

So far successive Govns and especially this one are determined that ruining that image at the expense of "growth" is A OK, an average cut in emissions of 15% is not a green signal, 40% is serious and supports "our green and pleasant land" ideal.

Look at the US refiners interest in buying our NZ refinery, they are eyeing our safe (politically) country, negligable emission standards and proposed easy RMA as a way to beat the proposed US tough limits....so they will just dump the pollution here instead and ship finished product over the pacific, thats plain nuts.

regards

Expat : Sorry if I confused you there , but I'm in favour of immigration. But not as dictated to us by the U.N..Nor selling passports as Labour previously, and National now, mandate. Not even as the dysfunctional Dept. of Immigration do. How about, and you'll laugh at this, how about a commonsense based approach. Allow in younger folk, with English language ability, and some qualifiable education. And what say we pop in a little clause that stops them jumping the ditch, it's either NZ, or home you go, no trips across the yellow brick road of OZ.

A different perspective: Tourism is a major industry here and NZ spends a lot of money and effort trying to get people to come to NZ for a week or so to spend their money here. The current downturn in tourism is having a major impact on the economy.

We should be actively promoting NZ as a retirement destination for self-funded foreign retirees. They would be 365-day-a-year tourists pumping their overseas-earned savings/superannuation/dividends etc., into OUR economy. One well-heeled, self-funded retiree could be worth as many as 1,000 average tourists.

In addition to spending their savings and income here on day-to-day living expenses (paying GST), retirees would be liable for income tax, unlike tourists. And unlike a tourist, a typical retiree would buy a house ... a direct cash injection into the economy. The equation is not simply: one retiree equals fifty-two one-week tourists.

Currently a 60-year-old Brit with a net worth of $10 million, and a regular source of income, cannot retire here because he doesn't fit any of the current Visa categories. But any "Retirement Visa" scheme should not be limited to rich individuals.

The key is "self-funded". Obviously NZ doesn't want retirees who are going to be a burden on the health/social welfare system. A Retirement Visa could specifically exclude holders from access to the health/ social welfare.

And obviously, to be eligible for a Retirement Visa, applicants would have to prove sufficient assets/income to maintain themselves in NZ. Renewal would be dependent on their financial situation meeting set criteria.

But the bar should not be set too high, or they won't come! The objective should be to attract such people, not keep them out.

The "Retirement Market" is competitive and many countries offer schemes to attract self-funded retirees. Malaysia for example: http://www.12retireinmalaysia.com/

NZ should not have to go as far as Malaysia to attract the "right" kind of person but the scheme would have to be realistic and attractive nevertheless.

A critical part of residency and citizenship is loyalty to NZ....perple of good character, and willing to be part of our social structure. That means being able to communicate and integrate themselves into NZ sociaty...
Failing to do this will (and has) created social issues in the past....these areas should be tightened up not relaxed.
It seems we could well be opening our country up to those who may also have 'underground' associations over seas.
I see we could very well end up selling NZ as a 'save haven' to many who have no loyalty to NZ.

Steptoe: Good point, but the same could be said of any tourist who comes here for a couple of months. To be safe, let's not let anyone in! Heaven forbid, we don't want any subversives or people with "underground associations" turning up masquerading as backpackers. And no reds-under-the-bed, please.

Seriously, such issues are of course real but easily addressed. Applicants for long-term Retirement Visas could be required to provide a Police Report (like migrants) and their visa could be cancelled and they could be deported if they break the law here , like any "tourist"... but unlike our home-grown and migrant crims and subversives who we can't kick out.

Look, it remains that a 60-year-old Brit with a net worth of $10 million, and a regular source of income ... and an unblemished character ... cannot retire here because he doesn't fit any of the current Visa categories. That's nuts. And bad business.

Broaden, flatten, unify tax rates to mid-20's, by including effective asset taxation and there'd be less concern about the right kind of immigrant investors:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/08/have-your-say-w...

Broaden, flatten yada, yada to mid-20's yada, yada - and there'd be less concerns about X&Y having to leave, existing businesses heading off-shore, etc, etc., so less need for rich immigrant (??) investors.....

And, Matt in Auck, I don't care what the rules say "about residential property" - once they sus out how smart we are about policing our existing asset taxation rules, guess where the investment $ will get pointed? Just like now.

Broaden, flatten yada.........Les, I'm having a cerebral moment here, a scene from "Star Wars".......you piloting a space-hummer, and a group of cute little big eared Yadas directly infront of your bull-bar........Broaden, flatten......hoooo hah !!!!!!

Rusty,

"Look, it remains that a 60-year-old Brit with a net worth of $10 million, and a regular source of income "¦ and an unblemished character "¦ cannot retire here because he doesn't fit any of the current Visa categories. That's nuts. And bad business."

Wrong Rusty - I agree with Les. Unless you are adding to productive capacity with the money, all you are doing is buying existing assets and in the process pushing prices up. This will be great for the seller of the asset (farmer subdividing lifestyle blocks, baby boomers etc) bad for those kiwis who now or at some time in the future would have wanted to buy those assets. Given property has already had its time in the sun AND is fearsomely expensive, time we had a breather I think.

Malcolm, whether by luck or design house price inflation is dastardly and brilliant. It's the only form of inflation that the public would not complain against. Who in their right mind would shout down a policy that appears to grow their own net worth? Who, seeing the profits that seem to being made would not want to jump on the bandwagon as quickly as possible?

The problem is it all comes attached with the perpetual sucking debt, draining industry and innovation of needed capital. Garet Garret called them pyramids back in the early 1930's.

Malcolm

Steven - in regards to your comment about NZ taking a 40% cut in greenhouse emissions

With all due respect this would be an economic calamity for NZ.

Until scientists discover a way of genetically reducing the quantity of methane produced from farming animals NZ would merely be throwing away a profitable export industry. It would be better if we removed the agricultural emissions from the emissions target and looked at other areas where alternatives exist.

We should also bare in mind that NZ is no longer a rich developed country, in my opinion the other 22 wealthier OECD countries should lead the way. Let's be content with following behind for a change.

Cow fart is a joke, we are all on the same sphere, so if they animals where not grown here they would be else where...Also Im sure if a count was taken of the great herds of Africa, Nth America, Asia, Europe pre industrial revolution, the numbers would be far greater
It would be more logical to tax parents who feed their children junk food causing greater flatulence.
Much is made of global change, for and against.
It is simple..
Once the earth was like mars, high temps, and an atmosphere high in Carbon...then cells started, died, used up the carbon,. The air got higher concentrations of O2 and evolved to plants animals, all dieing , getting buryed , trapping the Carbon way below the surface.
The industrial revolution comes along, the carbon gets dug up, burnt back into the atmosphere at rates way beyond any natural phenomena. It just a matter of when or if the point of no return is reached, and If the world decides if it wants to survive or die with a handful of green backs

Was reading the other day about a report that NZ has under estimated the number of trees planted over the last 20 yrs (satellite imaging)
Go All the DoC volunteers, the people who plant out our motorway sides, farmers planting out erosion prone gullys and steam sides...I dont see this as greenie either, Damn it is so cool driving in the Camaro or Bradford from one side of Auckland in the to the other almost as if one is out in the country...