The Government has announced changes to its immigration policies designed to reduce the number of migrants gaining New Zealand residency by about 5% over the next two years.
It has reduced the planning range for residency approvals over the next two years from the current 90,000-100,000, down to 85,000-90,000, which could reduce the number of migrants gaining residency by up to 7500 a year.
It is also increasing the number of points required for a migrant to gain residency under the Skilled Migrant Category to 160 points from the current 140 points, which should also reduce the total number of migrants gaining residence and improve the skill levels of those that do.
"Increasing the points required to gain residence from 140 to 160 will moderate the growth in applications in the Skilled Migrant Category (SMC) and enable us to lower the overall number of migrants gaining residence," Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said.
The move comes with migration gains running at record highs with a 69,119 population gain in the 12 months to August, putting pressure on the Auckland housing market and being linked to subdued wage growth.
"Raising the points will also prioritise access for higher skilled SMC migrants, ensuring we strike the right balance between attracting skilled workers that allow companies to grow and managing demand in a period of strong growth," Woodhouse said.
The Government is also temporarily halting granting residency to the parents of existing residents wanting to migrate to this country under the family category.
The number of places for residency under the family category will also be reduced from 5,500 a year to 2000 a year.
This may have a significant impact on the number of older migrants following their children and settling in this country.
"Changes to the Family category, including temporarily closing the Parent Category to new applications, will also reduce the total number of new migrants being granted residence," Woodhouse said.
'There will be queues of young migrants waiting for a long time to get Mum and Dad to NZ'
David Cooper, the Operations Manager for immigration consultants Malcolm Pacific Immigration, said lifting the skilled migrant pass mark to 160 points meant people without any university qualifications were going to struggle to meet the new standard, regardless of how much work experience they had.
And compulsory English language testing for people wanting to emigrate here from non-English speaking countries created another hurdle, he said.
Reducing the number of parents allowed to migrate here because their children had already obtained residency would also have a major impact.
"From the work we do, I predict there will be queues of young migrants waiting for a long time to get Mum and Dad to New Zealand," he said.
99 Comments
Oh right, 5,000 down from 100,000? I wonder who will be fooled, the only part that will be of any use is the stopping of the right to bring parents along as well, which, in the case of Chinese, could mean double the number of parents to actual immigrants as the one child policy means all parents will be left alone in China when their kids come here, giving them what amounts to automatic entry.
SMOKEY MIRRORS...30% more migrants could settle here!
If the numbers given in the article are correct, then how will it actually make any difference at all?
69119 odd immigrants ,when the target was 90k-100k immigrants,
So new target at 85k -90k, ..still would allow for more to come in than actually have come in, in fact up to30% more? How is it a reduction of any sort?
Is that how you read it Mr Greg Ninness?
the 100k figure was set to allow for 50k - 60k kiwis leaving NZ per year. For a very long time we had negative NET immigration even while the target has remained the same.
Also I believe the 100k target was set by Helen Clark a VERY long time ago ( circa 15 years ).
Finally. Even if it's small it's good.
Great to see the stopping of the elderly imports. There was something quite wrong there. Anecdotally I can say I have to drive extra slowly in some streets nearby because of the number of elderly chinese creeping across the road. (Before you ask, they are mainland chinese - not New Zealand born)
It's not clear to me what effect the 'skilled migrant' change will have on the hordes of indian students seeking jobs - any job, not skilled - to get their residency application chances up.
You can tell - A couple of chinese buddies we went through school together with were at our High School Diamond reunion - we were all there - they were NZ born and raised - could hardly tell their ethnicity at all - they werent stooped, they weren't frail, had grown up on a kiwi diet - they looked just like you and me - they lose the look eventually
Some actually wear their Chairman Mao suits where I live - that's a dead giveaway!
I actually have a bit of an issue with these folk and road safety. I see more and more Asian people walking on the road rather than the footpath. We in NZ have built perfectly good footpaths, often on both sides of the street, yet they walk down the street itself often with their back to the oncoming traffic. Also I often see them crossing the road in heavy traffic with very small children when there is a crossing point only a few metres away. Sometimes they cross with small children right on an intersection. If you go to China crossing the road can be a terrifying experience so I guess they are used to it.
Are they building enough new houses at a rate to accomodate new immigrants into Auckland? While this government has danced around housing stats this should be a simple one. If youre not building new houses as fast as people are coming in then people will be displaced. Those people are usually the poorest.
Scott Chris (6,215 comments) says:
July 6th, 2014 at 10:52 am
Comforting trend for me is the one that has Winston hovering below the 5% threshold.
Perhaps the way to sink him completely is to throw the Golden Oldies a bone or two and ostensibly tighten immigration policy.
both national bog sites have no posting for this announcement or should I say non announcement .
they stay away from immigration , housing and homeless. apart from WP the other parties are very slow to see the chinks
it makes it interesting as WP is kingmaker and there is no love lost between him and key BUT would not be surprised to see JK sell the prime minister position to gain a fourth term. then go off to retire as a four term prime minister
I am even more cynical now sheep shagger. I think nats have juiced the gdp figures with high immigrant numbers. When faced with the resulting outcry over the crazy numbers of immigrants, they reduce a little to quieten the noise. With election year in 2017, you watch, they'll be crowing all year about the great gdp growth record...I'm past the point of believing they care about the people of this country
Reporting Ranginui Walker's death, TVNZ chose to highlight his critique of New Zealand's immigration policy, showing a clip of Walker saying "Close the immigration door completely... I object to people from all those countries coming here... If that trend continues, we will ruin New Zealand. We will make it just like any other part of the world" - see: Ranginui Walker hits out at the volume of immigrants coming into NZ.
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/leading-maori-writer-academ…
Ranganui Walker got condemned by the left for those sentiments (cartoons etc). many New Zealanders would share those sentiments and in that sense (treaty and whatever aside) we are in the waka together. If the government gave a hoot we would have continuing referenda on the issue. I'm not sure new migrants should have a say. Apparently it is unusual to skew the polity with residents votes.
The last population conference *we* had was praised by the academics but poo-hooed in the media. To attend cost $750 per head.
Anecdotal evidence is just that (i have tried to find hard stats and couldnt) but upon visiting Greenlane Hospital Outpatients about 80% of the people waiting for surgical appointments were Chinese and Indian elderly. I understand that if I was a migrant I would want to have my parents join me in my new home but can our infrastructure, be it health or otherwise, handle it? Our hospitals are massively underfunded and our roads in Auckland are blocked. If the government wanted to have the rates of immigration it desires it should have built the infrastructure before hand. There has been no planning, just kneejerk reactions to everything
Central Planning at its finest
That is identical to the massive increase in taxes on cigarettes and tobacco products
No planning or consideration given to peoples responses
It was expected that consumption would go down,
but, instead
We get a huge increase in burglaries and ram-raids of petrol stations and hold-ups of milkbars and dairies
Young Chinese couple with 2 kids who were our neighbours imported one set of elderly parents.After a period to allow acclimatisation the young couple returned to China leaving the old couple to look after the little princes.
I presume that no one was paying NZ taxes but bolt holes had been successfully set up and after a while the old couple could gain full benefits from NZ.
Kiwi so dumb lah!
The government cares very much about 'citizens', Fritz. But what about the integrity of the cultural and social landscape for those with a deep history here? Not so much.
If reports from Chinese migrants themselves are anything to go by, you don't even need to like or feel any sense of connection to this country to take advantage of it. You see, academics love this superdiversity stuff. They get to imagine themselves as grand overseers using their giant brains to craft a utopian multicultural paradise that will be the envy of all other multicultural centers just like it; from all over the world. Most of us proles did not get the memo in time and have no idea that there is an entire class of academics, politicians, and business leaders committed to radically transforming society along their rationalist, scieintisitc visions of a fully streamlined & integrated world.
Parent category - something changes - after they get here
Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said "I have been concerned about the quality of some of parent category visa applications and the commitments that have been made by both the parents and their children about support, wherein after gaining residency they are not in a position to sustain themselves"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/immigration/news/article.cfm?c_id=231&objecti…
Too little too late for the housing crisis,
Too little too late for Aucklands gridlocked roads.
Too little too late for the countries health services.
Too little too late, but John Key will gloss it up and the media will lick it up and business as usual. The unwashed masses will breath a sigh of relief that all is well in Kiwiland.
And you keywest contribute no argument, but do name calling above then add some scarcasm. But you are forgiven if you add in some actual point. Try it.
And you can do well. I particularly appreciated your actual experience of German rental realities in recent days.
Never before have we faced having as many houses sell to foreigners as we do now, it is mainly Chinese and perhaps to a lesser extent, especially in lower value areas, Indian. That is now foreigners becoming our landlords. Sorry, bud, but if it is Chinese and Indians principally doing it, it should come as no surprise that people who would otherwise buy those houses are getting antsy. Own it! If we were becoming tenants in our land and it was Russians buying up the land, and it was being pointed out, would you get as defensive about it. Doubt it.
Read many of your lame comments, banging on and on about Chinese ownership (gave up on that argument about owning property and getting permanent residency have you?). Not sure you have thought from this perspective: when Kiwis move overseas for their OE, they add to the rental demand in those places and undoubtedly "compete" with the locals for rentals. Some eventually settle down in these countries and buy up places. What makes them different from immigrants today to NZ? Weaker purchasing power? Then perhaps you should re-examine why Kiwis have weaker purchasing power globally and seek to improve that.
Globalisation is a fact of life today. Get over it. Think of how you can generate economic growth (i.e. expanding the economic pie) by building more houses, increasing productivity and creating more jobs for everyone.
lots of arguments there
First who says we don't complain I have heard plenty of complaints about them over the years.
second is both those come from similar type countries , language, beliefs, and seem to assimilate a lot easier rather than keep to their own circle of peoples
third I like many don't care where people come from and am more than happy to have a greater Mix and Variety of new immigrants BUT not at the number of 100 K per year as the target, This needs to be cut to a level we can cope with and that is the argument on immigration what is that number that we are happy with
last they are mostly from three countries, and if you check the stats you will see which are the top three and that is not diversity, more like a culture overtake in the parts of mostly Auckland where they seem to settle in great clumps
Last what are the economic benefits of this mass immigration, we have GDP per person falling, not rising, we have infrastructure needing mass injections of capital to cope with the numbers, we are starting to see productivity fall due overload on our transport networks.
Re KW comment - Having worked 30 years overseas I then come to this website and read these informed realistic comments and realise that they are the same comments seen in Wales in the 80's rallying against the English buying up coastal farmlets for infrequent visits, issues in Fiji which in the end led to a coup thru u to BREXIT recently.
Lets face it we are being invaded with the full compliance of our government. When the Sth China Sea blows up we are going to look a bit stupid but then as the Asians say, "Kiwi so dumb lah!
Keywest - disingenuous.
Take a step back - most of us are not calling for anything near a 'ban' on immigration. Rather, a system that better balances the costs and benefits for NZ. What is xenophobic about that, about seeking an immigration policy that is optimal for NZ rather than optimal for the lucky ones who immigrate here and often rort our system? I've literally met more than 50 Indian immigrants over the last 5 years who have admitted that coming to NZ was a stepping stone to Aus. So it's blatantly using this country, not to mention all these elderly family members who have contributed nothing to this country then lean on us.
Why should I / we apologise for wanting better balance in our immigration policy settings?
If you think I /we are xenophobic, perhaps you should check out some of the policy settings of countries like China and India....
Fewer and fewer kiwis are tolerating your kind of PC, guilt ridden limp wristed liberal nonsense about the country not being able to have an adult conversation about whether we have our immigration policy right.
We have a guy saying that Asian people are bad drivers and walk on the road. Just so happens the only people that have injured me in car accidents are caucasian 3rd generation Aucklander's whose heritage is from Great Britain. The only Indians I know are hardworking full time immigrants who run successful businesses or were excelling at high school. The fact I got offered a Green Card to live in the USA, does it mean that's alright as I am 4th generation caucasian immigrant Kiwi (who is under 40) with English and Irish heritage or would it have mattered if I was from Bangalore or heaven forbid Beijing and was 67 years old...? You see my point.
I was just expressing some concern for their safety. To me walking on the road rather than the footpath is a dangerous thing to do (especially considering the poor driving skills of many "3rd generation Aucklanders". Is it really racist to write about this phenomenon?
Let me clear on one point: What many are commenting on above is just your stock standard casual racism. I don't see too many complaints about the Belgian blue eyed blonde women being lambasted for gaining her residency via a student visa (who probably did it to get into Australia) If you say I am disingenuous then please speak about the topic of immigration and not casual racism of Asian's walking on a street.
I agree with your criticism Keywest. The minority that inject racism into the migration debate belittle the importance of the discussion.
I live in an area where over 50% of the population are immigrants and 90% of the immigrants are an asset to the community and environment. I enjoy personal friendships with many of these people and have benefited financially from their wealth.
I do however also see the flipside of this population growth and what it has done to land prices. During my lifetime wages have doubled in my trade. The cost of land however has gone up x 10.
As a young man I was able to work hard and buy a block of land or a house in Auckland. Now a young person on NZ wages has no show of buying into the NZ dream.
My generation, myself included have made a fortune selling land to foreigners. Successive governments have encouraged and taxed this wealth of 'investment' of foreign capital. But is it good for NZ? Do the negatives outweigh the positives?
As a father I am sad that my kids and their generation don't have the opportunities I had, I do not think it is fair that on NZ wages, they have to compete on the world market to buy a house or buy land in NZ.
Not only do I think it unfair, I believe we are creating a class structure of poverty and wealth and setting NZ up for social unrest.
I agree with your criticism Keywest. The minority that inject racism into the migration debate belittle the importance of the discussion.
I live in an area where over 50% of the population are immigrants and 90% of the immigrants are an asset to the community and environment. I enjoy personal friendships with many of these people and have benefited financially from their wealth.
I do however also see the flipside of this population growth and what it has done to land prices. During my lifetime wages have doubled in my trade. The cost of land however has gone up x 10.
As a young man I was able to work hard and buy a block of land or a house in Auckland. Now a young person on NZ wages has no show of buying into the NZ dream.
My generation, myself included have made a fortune selling land to foreigners. Successive governments have encouraged and taxed this wealth of 'investment' of foreign capital. But is it good for NZ? Do the negatives outweigh the positives?
As a father I am sad that my kids and their generation don't have the opportunities I had, I do not think it is fair that on NZ wages, they have to compete on the world market to buy a house or buy land in NZ.
Not only do I think it unfair, I believe we are creating a class structure of poverty and wealth and setting NZ up for social unrest.
What we need is highly skilled migrants to improve NZs GDP per capita ideally people in the technology sector and other sectors which are in low supply and require skilled migrants. It doesn't matter where they come from as long as they have the skills...
Increasing the skill level required will likely reduce the total number that will come here so would reduce the strain on infrastructure until NZ can catch up with the infrastructure needed.
What we don't need is low skilled (which just keeps wages down and there are plenty of kiwis that can do these jobs) and people that are about to retire and will live off the state for the next 30 or 40 years.
Keywests point about racism is arguably the whole point the immigration program got under way (followed by the ingrown toe nail of the property construction and banking sectors). in 1956 (and probably quite a bit later) NZ was an ethnic nation 95% of mainly UK heritage . This would not do ! The changes were "long awaited" by academics ("To the puzzlement of many and the delight of some," Spoonley). The fact is New Zealanders are no more or less racist than anyone else: ethnocentrism is moderated by oxytocin and is an evolutionary adaptation.
People travel overseas and bring back wives and Japanese came here to serve top dollar japanese tourist industry and some of them stayed on, married kiwis etc. But the left-wing agenda was to flood NZ with foreign people: to make the Kiwi originals a majority/minority. The UK was a Grandparent country for most Kiwis and it was a rational choice to foster migrations that were mutually acceptable. If a foreign culture came with a dowry (territorial swap - like Phuket), I'm sure Kiwis would consider a people swap, but the reality is the world is post massive population growth.
These parasites should be put on trial. Is it right to act with a hidden agenda?:
New Zealand’s population is undergoing a profound transformation in
terms of its ethnic and cultural composition. This transformation is being
driven by two key processes. The first of these is differential ageing of the
major components of the resident population with the dominant “white”
population experiencing structural ageing more rapidly than the Maori and
Pacific Island components (Pool 1999). The second is international
migration which is seeing a replacement in numerical terms of tens of
thousands of New Zealanders who are moving overseas by immigrants from
countries in Asia, Europe and Africa especially. This process of population
replacement is occurring at a time when natural increase amongst all
components of the New Zealand resident population is falling. International
migration is thus playing an increasingly important role in changing the
ethnic and cultural composition of the population, but to understand this
role it is necessary to examine both the immigration of new residents as well
as the emigration of New Zealanders. Both dimensions are essential for
appreciating the globalisation of international migration in New Zealand.
The Globalisation of International Migration
in New Zealand: Contribution to a Debate
“If people had any idea about the scale of these changes,” she confided to me early in her first term as MP for Pencarrow,” they’d be horrified. It’s been decided that New Zealand’s future lies in Asia. That’s got massive implications – but most people haven’t a clue. No one asked them and certainly no one’s telling them.”
http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2015/07/chinese-whispers.html
What a great non-racist argument. NOT. I suppose prior to 1956 ("in 1956 (and probably quite a bit later) NZ was an ethnic nation 95% of mainly UK heritage ."), NZ was also part of the UK? The Maoris would sure love to hear more from the white kiwis about racism and immigration.
The Treaty of Waitangi and immigration
In 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi acknowledged that British subjects were already in New Zealand. Implicit in Māori agreement to the treaty was that more immigrants would come from the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. Some Māori have argued that their ancestors agreed to allow immigration only from the countries named in the preamble to the treaty, and that regulation of immigration from other places is a matter that should be discussed with them as a treaty partner.
I'm not sure if I agree with more immigration being implicitly agreed with by Maori when they signed the Treaty..
.
Ceding of sovereignty was also taken as implicitly agreed, but we found out that that wasn't.
.
Maori wanted a British official in NZ to deal with and oversee the unruly, drunken, raping whalers and other merchants who were residing in NZ at the time.
Not sure if the agreement was a haere mai, haere mai
The treaty established a single sovereignty, under the British Crown. Maori signed up to it and it has been a very good deal for them. There is no separate sovereignty. As a nation we together determine the immigration rules we like, deciding through the processes we have - annoying as they are, democratic processes are a great thing.
I think you don't know the Treaty very well. Maori were happy for the Crown to rule its subjects in Aotearoa, but stipulated they would still rule their own, and their own lands.
There definitely is separate sovereignty. The Tribunal has even ruled as such.
And if you study the history as to what happened to Maori in the first 20 years after the Treaty was signed, you will find that it was not a very good deal for them, in fact: it was a pretty disastrous deal.
.
The fact that (by nature) people prefer people like themselves is used by elites as an excuse to invalidate those preferences, whatever the merits of the argument.
Australia tightened up on Kiwis when we were seen as a back door for the rest of the world. The U.K was affected by labour's policies (at the same time as ours) to "rub the right's noses in diversity". I like diversity but in small doses and on our terms, which is the whole point: multicultural society must have no dominant group while itself being essentially hegemonic (with Nurse Ratchett types - Katherine Ryan in control).
The measures taken will have no measurable effect on the housing market.
That is the message from Minister Woodhouse so it must be right,eh?
So we know that over 30% of Auckland property sales were made to overseas students.
Now what will happen now that family and parent approvals are to be reduced from 5500 to 2000 and parents within that number to zero.
Who provides the cash for those student purchases now that they know there is little or no hope of joining their kids/siblings
Furthermore, because the authors acknowledge their intellectual heritage only insufficiently, chapter 3 seems to be marked by a curious contradiction. In a chapter entitled 'The Cultural Politics of Post Colonialism: Being Pakeha', it is rather surprising to read that "[w]ith regard to Aotearoa/New Zealand, the interest in post-colonialism is largely a product of the evolving politics of Maori" (97). The contradiction is apparent, rather than real, but could have easily been avoided if implicit correlations had been spelled out. Though this indebtedness remains unacknowledged, chapter 3 emerges out of a larger discussion around constructions of subjectivity.
Review of
Recalling Aotearoa. Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand.
Edited by Augie Fleras and Paul Spoonley.
Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1999.
....
So an “intellectual heritage” in promoting “bi nationalism” and all the flakey ill defined stuff (jelly), with the aim of?:
While divisions and conflict between majority host populations and newly arriving migrant groups has plagued Britain and some European nations, as well as Canada and Australia, Professor Spoonley says New Zealand is better prepared. Since the 1970s, New Zealanders – and our institutions – have sought to recognise Māori protocols, values, culture, perspectives and language as inherent to our national identity.
New Zealand’s bicultural framework, founded on the Treaty of Waitangi, provides a precedent for cultures and languages other than English to be formally accorded rights, recognition and respect, he says.
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/about-massey/news/article.cfm?mnarticle_…
Wow, that's interesting. I've seen what this "bi-cultural" framework can look like in education. It's bureaucratic and time consuming and places a premium on the opinions of a select few Maori. To even suggest that we can apply this approach to "multiculturalism" as a whole is perverse and complete folly. We have no 'partnership' with other cultures like the Chinese. Besides which, where is the reciprocity? Are foreign nations going to explicitly make room for Maori and "Pakeha" at all local levels of government? (no of course not, that's insane)
From the Massey link above:
According to Statistics New Zealand’s latest census from 2013, there are 213 ethnic groups represented in New Zealand. Significant changes were the size of the non-majority populations, with 23 per cent of Auckland now Asian.
In light of these developments, the need for government, schools, health providers, sporting agencies and other key organisations to engage with new migrants from diverse backgrounds is critical, Professor Spoonley says.
I can see it now, all 213 groups will need their own representatives in government. All will demand quotas and representation in all areas of life. So many will blame their lack of success on "casual racism"" and demand affirmative action.
It's interesting that they had their discussion in Berlin. A few days ago I walked past Humboldt University just down the road from the site of Hitler's bunker and my walking guide told me that Marx and Engels studied there. I thought to myself, so many ''original ideas'' bubbled up from the depths here, Marxism, National Socialism, Psychoanalysis, ditching capital letters, maybe now Super Diversity? Let's give that a go.
Good article: Migrants' parents cost NZ 'tens of millions'
http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/migrants-parents-cost-nz-tens-of…
Parents of people who have moved to New Zealand are being stopped from migrating here because they're a multi-million dollar burden on taxpayers.
Every year about 5500 parents of migrants come to New Zealand. About half who enter under the parent category are Chinese and around 20 percent Indian.
After years of denying there was a problem, the government is now finally admitting something was wrong.
Well they really need to consider reducing "astronaut families" as well, since they're well known for not paying income tax in their host country and taking advantage of benefits.
Yeah, Immigrant parents who come from competitive countries must be incredulous at what shmucks we are, they must think they have won lotto when they come here and get free health care and a benefit or superannuation. The kids have often shot through back to whereever and we look after their oldies. The hospitals even have to provide translators. What a rort. Send them home, not our problem.
It is all smoke cover - They will not curb immigration. They need immigrants to come with money from Asia to buy the houses, so someone can buy rental house no 25 and rent it out to another migrant that will have no chance to buy the house in NZ - unless he will be super skilled/smart with $250.000 job to start.
for the same reason they will not ban the foreign buyers and will allow investors to buy more and more...so banks / insurance and councils could benefit more.
They have all the statistics and probably they know that it will not make a dent. So, the target is to get the 'machine' moving create that 'demand' for housing to avoid the collapse.
The global situation is scary - there is potential large military conflict hanging in the air (US-Russia in Syria) - the things can go wrong...really wrong. The moment it happens - the economy will slow down and NZ as a small country will feel it very quickly. and with the mortgages of current levels a slowdown will mean that people may struggle to to pay of the mortgages. Yes NZ economy is stable, Yes it is desirable destination but in current global climate and the moment the climate will change everything will change.
NZ defence minister rebuked for South China Sea stance
Countries 'not involved' should not interfere, says chairwoman of of high-profile security forum in Beijing
http://www.atimes.com/article/nz-defense-minister-rebuked-south-china-s…
Wonder if kiwis are fooled by this cynical move ?
Auckland can't even build necessary housing yet John Key
has continued to allow tens of thousands of new migrants
in followed by their decrepit elderly family members
When I was living there the NS hospital emergency
ward was filled with voices from everywhere except
NZ. Yet the health system has never been improved
Satisfactorily to cope or the roads or the schools
Immigration at these high levels per capita to improve
GDP is a scam by a govt short on ideas to create
a dynamic economy.
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.