By Bernard Hickey
The debate over whether and how to control migration has intensified as Labour and National accused each other on Wednesday of 'dog whistle' politics and raised the ugly issue of race.
Labour Finance Spokesman David Parker asked Finance Minister Bill English in Parliament about Treasury's stronger growth scenario in the Budget, which included net migration peaking at 41,500 in the December quarter and increasing the 90 day bill rate by a further 100 basis points.
"Given that immigration numbers are now tracking to over 40,000 net for the year, does he agree with his party’s paid pollster David Farrar that discussing the relationship between migration and housing is xenophobic?," Parker asked.
English rejected Parker's accusation, saying the Government did not believe slashing migration was the answer for the economy.
"We do not agree that there is a problem with the economy or that that problem is too many Chinese, too many Indians, too many Samoans, and too many vans clogging up the truck lane on the motorway," English said.
Parker then tabled this Treasury paper published in April on "Migration and Macroeconomic performance."
"Is it xenophobic or racist of Treasury to say that “immigration policy should be more closely tailored to the economy’s ability to respond to population increase?," Parker asked.
English responded that it was surprising Labour Leader David Cunliffe "believes that he can slash inflows of migration without any impact on the supply of skills to the economy or without getting a few questions at the next ethnic celebration day that he goes to where he says that he loves having them in New Zealand."
Parker then moved on to cite Reserve Bank research showing a link between migration and pressure on interest rates. The Reserve Bank published this briefing paper in December 2013 on "Migration and the Housing market."
"Is it xenophobic or racist of the Reserve Bank to link immigration to house prices when it says that a 1 percent increase in population causes an 8 percent increase in house prices over 3 years?," Parker asked.
"And is it not the truth that it is the Prime Minister who is dog whistling in an attempt to cover up his Government’s failure to control house prices at affordable levels for all New Zealanders, be they recent migrants or born here?"
English said he rejected Parker's assertions.
"The Labour Party has a dog whistle in its mouth and it cannot decide whether to blow it or not. And then when it talks to its front bench, it disagrees," English said.
Parker later said Prime Minister John Key was trying to "twist a legitimate debate on the effect of immigration on house prices and interest rates into a divisive argument about race."
“The only major party that has brought up race in the current immigration debate is National. Labour has been focussing on the economic effects of migration on housing and interest rates. It’s John Key who keeps raising Samoans, Indians and other races in an attempt to turn a debate that New Zealanders want into one that divides Kiwis.
Parker said Key was reacting because he knew the Government was on the back foot on housing.
“A better balance must be struck between the benefits migrants and work permit-holders can bring and the effects that immigration peaks are having on house prices," Parker said.
51 Comments
Proof? URL?
Green policy,
"Key principles
- Maintain a sustainable net immigration flow to limit effects on our environment, society and culture."
Suggests they accept there is.
indeed,
"We support people who want to come here and make a life in this country because they love our country, but our view is citizens and permanent residents should be able to buy land and homes in this country."
The country has a problem with foreign offshore buyers, but this was different to immigration numbers, she says.
While more people arriving into the country will increase house prices, the solution is to plan for it rather than "exclude people from New Zealand arbitrarily", Ms Turei says."
Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-wouldnt-be-in-NZ-under-Cunliffes-policy/tabid/1607/articleID/345978/Default.aspx#ixzz333FDyiVi Now I dont agree with her/Green's on that...it isnt a true Green policy.
regards
The accusation of xenophobia is a red herring and restricting the conversation to 'Housing' is too narrow a view.
What about the bigger picture. 1. We have enormous rates of immigration comparted to our base population. 2.. I can't see the benefits of that to our economy. What are they. (acknowledging it's more tenants for Kimy) 3. There are severe costs in building the infrastructure, and yes housing, with places like Auckland simply not able to afford to build what they need to.
If we have vastly reduced immigration, (lets says 55 of what it is now). there would be positives effect I believe on employment, local ownership, and yes house prices.
Auckland rates could be reduced for example, and the demands by them on the wealth producers to the south would reduce.
Just this week David Chaston raised the spectre of Press Releases (particularly political press releases) being published without being backed up with facts and supporting data
Here we have Bernard Hickey doing a "Parrot"
English challenges Cunliffe - "you cant slow migration without any impact on the supply of skills to the economy"
Last week we examined the Immigration Dept's data release for 2013 showing the largest intake of skilled migrants were "hot food takeaway managers" and "Two Dollar Shop Retail Managers". Not one single dairy farmer.
Migration is an emotive issue and I believe the underlying , and unspoken attitude of most Kiwis to migration is that we have had enough , and its all out of control .
I personally think we need to take a breather and relook at what our strategy is on this issue
Labour is being a bit opportunistic in appealing to Middle New Zealands anti -migration attitude right now, but its someting we need to talk about and debate
I personally think we should just slow down the rate of migration while we get on top of the housing and infrstructure backlog
Given that info, a policy maker will presumably dispassionately prescribe more incentives to NZers to have a family, rather than allow yet more old people into NZ through immigration, especially those "skilled" 2-dollar shop owners and takeaway joint managers.
So let's see some policy towards incentivising young people to have children. It starts with housing policy, given that this is the biggest barrier to being able to afford to have children.
Does immigration help housing affordability, or make it worse? If the latter, then more immigration arguably will lead to even fewer young people to contribute to the tax base in the next 30 to 40 years.
I'am sure there is a bunch of very young NZers who are now eagerly breeding, which is just encouraged by the government policy.
The question is that wheter the policy is encouraging quality breeding or not, maybe not.
House, like any tradable goods, whose price is driven by supply and demand. Because of RMA, land supply in AKL is limited by a invisible circle, which drives up prices. Release a bit of more land, price will drop.
Govt policy is not encouraging young working people to have children. There is very little of this breeding going on. The barrier is housing costs, plain and simple. Young people keep working in order to save for a deposit, and then they need to keep working to pay the mortgage. No time for children.
More land supply is one factor in the housing issue, however the topic here is immigration. There are many factors that will affect housing affordability. The question at hand is whether more immigration helps housing affordability or makes it worse. I think it makes it worse. What do you think?
You'll have to school me up a little. What is the difference between kiwis and residents? Is this citizenship vs residency? Presumably residents are people that have already immigrated? In which case this category should be in the first list along with others we cannot control.
Students are presumably temporary? So they do not contribute to further housing demand so long as the number of students rolled over year on year is static.
Visitors are tourists? Therefore stay in hotels etc.
That leaves the work category of 31k. This is a significant number and based on your figures without this category we pretty much break even. This is the size of a small city. Presumably these are the skilled migrants? This is the category that we can look at. Is more of this type of immigration helping housing affordability in NZ or worsening it. What is your view?
Try this
For the 2013 year NET migration was 40,000
Of which only 8,000 were skilled migrants
while 20,000 came in under family re-union visas
Fifty percent, 50%, that's half, are family re-union migrants
Returning kiwis don't comprise any of the 20,000 family re-union visas
In its 2014 budget the Australian Government is now charging family re-union visa applicants $62,500 per individual applicant or $125,000 per two parents
That's the component to fix and that's the way to fix it.
Well lets see the list of categories allowed in in the last 12months.
DC posted somewhere on there being some I cant fathom eg
"bar managers" to start with.
"buying of residency" another....
I see no sign either is productive or is needed.
Now highly skilled ppl where we have a shortage, yes OK.
regards
As oppose to no or low quality breeding.
'Quality breeding' may exhibit following features if not all:
1. Parents that engaged in the task of having and raising a kid or kids may have a stable, and hopefully long-lasting relationship before and after.
2. Parents, at least during the time of pregnancy, can restrain themselves from excessive use of drug, smoke and alcohol.
3. After birth, parents should take care of the new born whole-heartily.
4. As he/she grows up, parents should provide them with a healthy lifestyle/eating habit etc.
5. Parent should be held equally accountable for their children's education.
Just some really basic stuff that a traditional Christian will tell you.
Don't you agree?
Not with all of it, no, especially the Christian bit.
I have found that being religious does not necessarily make a person 'better' or good, nor does being agnostic or atheist make a person automatically "worse" or bad.
I think the qualities you're referring to are pretty much common sense, and humanist principles.
None of these can be enforced by the government, however.
One of the main problems, is that in today's economic model, humans are not exactly valued on a humanitarian basis. They are seen. and counted as 'resources'. They are exploited where possible, and are only prevented from being exploited by labour laws, health and safety regulations, etc.
I think the vast majority of people want to lok after their children, and see them healthy and safe, and do well in life.
The sad fact is that not everybody is born with the same oportunities, the same level of intelligence to bootstrap themselves out of a disadvantaged situation. Not everybody is born into a loving and caring family (whatever its makeup), and not everybody is aware of how to not perpetuate harmful and/or antisocial behavioral patterns in relationships (romantic and parental).
There are lots of ways whereby the government can help families when babies are born, but all existing policies sadly make it very clear that caring for children is not valued - that humans are not valued.
What the right of centre call "taking responsitbility", seems to be code for a culture of selfishness.
What the right of centre call "the welfare state", the left actually sees as "taking responsibility". Taking responsibility, as a society, for those that are disadvantaged, or weak, or exploited. That is the true responsibility of a society - to look after your habitat, animals, and humans.
If natural resources are carefully managed and for the good of all, the rest will more or less sort itself out. Even the economy.
And last, but not least: education, education, education.
Yes, my partner and I are in that boat too. Both DINK's in our 30's, who unfortunately missed the 2009 boat. House price appreciation since then has vastly exceeded our ability to save despite 160K+ combined salary. I wonder how many are in the same position as us? Oh well, I guess there are plenty of 16 Year olds in south Auckland leaving school to collect the DPB to make up for our lack of reproduction.
Ah the growth for ever mantra. He'll be wrong because he's only looking at one aspect and only consdiering that as a BAU case, which the future wont be.
Any student of energy and its impacts on our economy should be telling you that simply we need less ppl as our economy is going to be smaller. A lot smaller and simpler needing a lot less ppl, rinse and repeat world wide.
regards
Looking at the 2014 migration data:
Departure: -66k
Kiwi returning: 27k
Aussie coming: 7k
Other migrants: 63k
Net: 32k
Of, the 'Other migrants':
Residents: 13k
Student: 17k
Vistor: 5k
Work: 31k
What can Labour chop?
Residents? Student? Vistor? Work? Kiwi coming back? Aussie coming here?
Or ask more Kiwi to leave?
Firstly the 31k workers will eventually depart if we let them know they have little hope of staying permanently
Secondly the students should have to return home for a year at least, and apply through an employer request. Residents should be the only ones with rights to stay and re-enter.
Both of the above should come underr any revised points system.
That is how.
Snapshot numbers are totally irrelevant. In the medium term there is plenty of flexibilty but they cannot be turned on and off on a daily or monthly basis.
BUT let us be quite certain. Thiose numbers are a lot more flexible than new house construction and infrastructure development.
They dont have to return home (nor should they IMHO) after completing their degree as far as I know. In fact they get 1 year? (or two?) visa that allows them to look for and secure work in the field they got their degree in (so they cant flip big macs). Now personally if we have someone bright enough to get a NZ BA, MA or Phd Im pretty happy for them to seek and get work, provided there is a vacancy rate unfilled by NZers.
regards
The one year window is to secure the career-level job in alignment with their qualification.
Then they get a further 2 year extension if they get a permanent job at the right level & technically matched to their NZ qual.
During the 2 year extension, they can then apply for permanent residency.
They also need support from an employer.
Only a percentage can be successful through this entire process.
Face up to it. The net immigration figures give nothing useful.
Start with outgoing people and incomming people.
Without any other figures , I can postulate for those LEAVING
1. They are often single (not owning property)
2. Families looking to better themselves (not owning and frustrated with inability to own)
3. Immigrants (using NZ as a transit to Australia often holding on to their property as rentals)
Of the INCOMING they are
1. Non residents (cashed up and able to buy a home)
2. Non residents (cashed up and able to buy multiple properties)
3. Returning citizens (cashed up )
4. Returning residents (cashed up)
So where does that leave the group (like Bill English & co) who think we are all stupid enough to be fobbed off with their propaganda?
What is the net effect rather than the net numbers?
At the moment we may have returning citizens but many still do not have enough cash to settle other than away from Auckland or bunk down with family.
BB3
Your point number 2 is correct.
Families looking to better themselves (not owning and frustrated with inability to own)
Local disaffected kiwi families are leaving because they are being "pushed out" by incoming high-rollers who out-muscle them financially in their own backyard
I'm embarrassed for the government. Resorting to claims of racism when faced with robust economic data proving the effect of immigration on housing affordability.
I'm more embarrassed for New Zealand's mainstream media however, at the moment they're obsessed with parrotting National's responses and trying to hide Labour's recent hits - objective reporting is important for a vibrant democracy. Trying to find unbiased and complete coverage on any political topic outside of a few websites is almost impossible now.
Thanks Interest.co.nz - one of the last bastions of decent journalism and informed debate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10860492/Are-we-all-…
I think the issue is that elites/ ordinary people live in different worlds.
That Telegraph article is an eye opener for what may happen in NZ and what is already happening in Auckland especially in some suburbs.
At some point the pressures build up to a position where the politicians take notice. It may not be as far away as they fondly believe they can ignore.
That will only happen when enough people vote for and give a mandate to that radical racist Winston Peters, the Nigel Farage of New Zealand politics.
Remember Nigel Farage has been the laughing stock of British Politics for 10 years
Suddenly, everyone wakes up in 2014, realising what Nigel has been warning them about for 10 years, was true after all.
Give Winston enough seats so he has the balance of power rather than needing to form a coalition, and you will some changes for the better.
Laugh at him if you will. I dont
Brilliant article and having lived there can vouch for the very form of prejudice that exists towards non-Brits. I don't consider many Britons racist, you'll find more in NZ; however, they have become minorities in their own society and feel agrieved.
i remember one Briton saying "we used to call ourselves 'Great Britain' but now the 'Great' has become a distant memory."
i think it was my hairdresser.
I too lived there in the sixties and have visited regularly for the last 20 years. The changes in the last seven years have been dramatic and I personally fear that we are heading the same way.
Those mainly academics and business advocates of increasing unfettered immigration know not what they may be reaping or more likely greed for short term gain allows their less than well thought out advocacy.
Read the treasury report refferd to; 80% net of population growth over the last 20 years is due to non NZ citizens (when NZr's leaving are subtracted). It hasn't improved incomes (except property developers/ investors and associates) and has put us further in debt while drawing away funds that might otherwise lead to investment in productive capital.
Currently my Year 13 (7th form students) are learning about Time Series graphs, including long term trends, seasonal and residual trends. The data researched show figures of Net Migration from 2000 until 2012. One students researched into the 'spike' that occurred in 2003 and informed me and the class that approximately 53,000 "additional" migrants were granted an opportunity to live/work in that year.
Low and behold, what did the housing market do around the same time.
I don't recall many facts from the time as I was abroad; however, it is clear that allowing too many immigrants - in a short period puts pressure on infrastructure - particularly housing.
It appears very clear that immigration needs to be controlled - sensibly.
I'll put this situation to you (whoever is reading this far). if my partners' parents from Europe (neither speak a word of English and would probably struggle to find employment) were granted residency through the family residency - who would object?
i'm sure the process would be painstakingly slow and expensive. However, not impossible.
I personally have a problem with this process, as the wealthier "relatives" appear to be given preferential treatment.
Immigration is part of who we are as a nation; however, you only have to look at the UK to see how a flood of low skilled immigrants cause societal headaches. Surely, we cannot make the same mistake here.
It's just not house prices that are hurting people it's the cost of rent that is rising as well. All housing booms end up with a crash it's just that many folks get hurt when this happens.
So why let this happen? here is my take on the situation;
National: want migrant votes
Labour: they are being a jandal over this
NZ First: Winston has mentioned race a few times, now he bears the fallout.
Greens: Dont really know what to do because Labour is being a Jandal over the issue.
The end result? It will effect a lot of people when it all goes sour.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.