We have tightened our Commenting Policy guidelines around the discussion of immigration issues

We have tightened our Commenting Policy guidelines around the discussion of immigration issues

We are adding to our Commenting Policy today.

This is election year and it will feature robust debate. We are all for that.

But there is one area that we don't wish to have on interest.co.nz pages, and that is migrant bashing.

While New Zealand's immigration policy is a valid area for debate, unfortunately some conversations on this website have degenerated quickly into quasi-xenophobic rants.

We will allow respectful discussion in this area, but we no longer will allow what we deem to be shallow anti-foreigner smears.

This country has been built on a long-term programme of welcoming migrants from multicultural backgrounds. Assimilation can take a generation or so, and so far, using tolerant long-term assessments this process has been hugely beneficial for the country. Short-term snap or racial judgments that new arrivals 'don't fit in' or 'won't mix with us' are no longer welcome. There are other places where those sort of sophomoric views can be expressed.

We will ban commenters who cross the line. The line is where we think it is. Context will be important.

Please be respectful and thoughtful when discussing immigration issues.

David Chaston
Publisher

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.

86 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

International students studying in NZ are our 5th largest export revenue earner,earning 2.6 billion.   NZ has a good reputation in this area of tolerance.   

After living for a long time is Singapore, I have found:
-        Most things cost more for foreigners.  From a drink at the local “dairy” to hospitals and healthcare.  It’s blatant. There is a pricing structure for almost everything based on whether you are a foreigner or not.
-        Buying property in Singapore is subject to huge taxes, and in a lot of cases is not possible for foreigners.
-        Certain races of people are barred from using some condo facilities, like pools.
-        Career progression is frowned upon for foreigners, over Singaporeans
-        It’s okay to list the race of persons you do not want to rent your apartment in an advert.
-        Police do not investigate crimes perpetrated on people of certain races
-        Etc etc etc
After coming from NZ, where we uphold the strictest levels of anti-racism, this has come as quite a shock.  It is clear to me that the rest of the world does not have such high standards!
I’m not saying we should be more racist, but discussion of policies that include restriction of property purchase to foreigners is in my opinion not racist OR xenophobic at all.
When will NZ’ers realise that we are one of the few countries left in the world without such policies?  When the NZ economy crashes because of retreating foreign investment? When the majority of NZ’es are renters in their own country?
By then, it will be too late.

That's when I buy their houses Notch, and that's the contribution they make, not only to me, but to the NZers who sold their houses to them and made exaggerated profits from them in doing so.

I have just had a long time friend staying with me here in Melbourne for a couple of weeks on the latest of his 5 year returns to renew his Australian passport and drivers licence and medicare.
 
He is an Indian national
He came to Australia 20 years ago, settled, and obtained Australian citizenship
 
Some years ago his parents died
He sold his apartment in Melbourne and returned back to India
It is unlikely he will return to reside in Australia permanently
 
He now lives in his deceased parents apartment in Mumbai
He can't register or transfer it into his own name
As an Australian citizen he is not allowed to own property in India
Even though he was born there and grew up there

I will most certainly continue to state my opposition to sales of land, houses and some strategic businesses to non-resident foreigners. I will also continue to express my opposition to the what looks like pretty lax immigration rules to me, as I believe we now live in an age where growth can longer be the basket we put all our prosperity eggs into
There's racism then there's burying your head in the sand.

New Zealand's real economy involves exporting primary produce to the rest of world does it not? How David does increasing our internal consumption of these products through constant population increase truly enrich our country?

The great appeal of the 'kiwi lifestyle' and our 'clean green image' *cough cough* is based around our low population by international standards. The fact that we can get into unspoilt nature with minimal effort or time compared to other countries. Look at the UK, China, India, is that would we aspire to become like one day? Why do you think people from the larger countries are flocking here to get a piece of this lifestyle!?

What I'd like to ask people like you is where does growth for growths sake ever end? I'd rather we aim for a stable population level at a similar level to what we have now so that we are not putting ever increasing pressures on infrastructure, environment or compromising our current standards of living. I don't give a damn where the immigrants are from, it's not about race. It's about preserving what makes this country so unique and allowing future generations to enjoy the same environment that we did.

Why can’t we be that one country in the world that aims not to fill itself to the brim with people, do we really need to go down the same track.

Yes David.  Stupid racist personalised abuse should be chopped.  But your new notice does seem to suggest you might also chop any  view on immigration you disagree with.
There are better moves.  Plrease chop PDK every time he tells somebody they don't know how to think.  

An Australian perspective

Chinese buyers don't want your house, they want the land ...
quote
Forget about off-the-plan apartments. What cashed-up overseas Chinese buyers really want is a house in Australia, and more precisely, the land on which the house sits.
For the right house in the right suburb, they are outbidding Australian buyers by $100,000 to $200,000 – and sometimes more – to secure the property. They are importing inflation to their country of choice.
 

Agree with you , DC , I can remember growing up in the 60's when it wasn't just the one TV station ( NZBC ) that was black & white .... our whole lives were gloomy shades of grey .... The 6 o'clock swill .... long queues at the P.O. .... needing to beg for a house mortgage .... watching the drippy " Carry On " flicks at the local cinema .... grey and khaki trousers only , nothing in blue ... the only pasta was soggy spaghetti out of a tin ....
 
... the only foreign food was some dodgy Chinese restuarants in one of the 4 big cities ....
 
We're living the global dream now in NZ , fully connected to the rest of the planet , enjoying cultural diversity , fresh perspectives , fostering business interconnections across the globe ...
 
... seriously don't wanna go back to Winston Peters  " fortress NZ " concept .... the mistake of those who wish to push back the clock to a " golden " bygone era  is their lack of memory  , because if anything it's more like it was now than it was then ...

[low quality comment deleted. Ed]

... so my whole argument is a " fairy tale " , and wrong , because you can cite one instance of immigrants exploiting others , or being exploited ?
 
And NZ born people don't behave in that way to one another ..... haaaaaaaaa !!!!

... I always thought that was strangely ironic , that no sooner had we changed from B&W to colour TV , and the most popular programme was on a Sunday night , the Black & White Minstrel Show ....

GBH progress and time gave us those improvements, not immigration.  Just because it's a sunny day and I had toast for breakfast doesn't mean it will be sunny when I have toast in the morning!
 
Arguments based on the benefits of immigration are overstated.

Interesting directive David Chaston
 
Your "mission statement" is "helping you make financial decisions"
 
A common belief is the house you purchase to live in will be the biggest investment you ever make. On one view, both the penetration of non-resident investors and migration into New Zealand is possibly the largest influence on the financial fabric of New Zealand society in so many respects. It is affecting land prices, house prices, leading to the cost of infrastructure, education, health, and impacting on lifestyle as we know it, and the now, new, emerging impact of pollution on our coastal beaches. It is potentially the most important topic you can and should discuss in this coming election year
 
Your policy runs the risk of being akin to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
 
Journalistically you should reflect the views of the financial "community"  in which you operate and exist in
 
This is a huge iceberg like topic with the visible part on the surface and the invisible part looming underneath - unseen - but it is there - should you ignore it?
 
Any "force" has a cause and effect. Newtons Law - For every action, there is always an equal and opposite reaction. ... Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs
 
It is quite evident that the inbound flood of off-shore-owned-money pouring into hard-assets is having a profound societal impact. It is starting to show up in a two-tier society. The tier that is coming into new zealand is very wealthy. The two-tiered division is being imported, supported and encouraged by government policies.
 
This debate is currently being conducted in a vacuum. What is government policy? Policy with regard to both cause and affect? It is all very well saying immigration is good. It has a less visible downside which has a societal affect. If you feel you need to control the debate you should lead from the front.
 
Start off with a series of interviews with the government boffins and ask the questions both the positive case, and the negative case, find out what the policies are, then, with a structure available, we can have the debate.
 
Your editorial track record has been to ignore it. On the two occasions you have ventured into print you have only presented the positive case in the face of increasingly evident downsides If the societal changes occurring in Auckland as a result of unfettered migration continue and you remain silent, and you enforce silence, then you are both complicit and culpable in the results.

Id like to know mandate the government has got to flood our country with immigrants.  Did they ever ask us, referendum?....

... how did you get here .... or your ancestors ... were none of your lineage immigrants to NZ ?

Sure GBH; but this debate is in 2014, and trying to plan for the next 50 years.
 
With the very rapid change in the movement of huge wealth form one country to another, and our own - in many cases - stretched infrastructure and natural resouses; it is time once again to be having this debate.
 
 

.... in 2014 NZ is heading towards 5 % unemployment ... or to flip that the other way , 95 % employment ...
 
We're in the sweet spot with a reasonable balance sheet ( until the communism-by-stealth brigade buy their way into power with baby-bonuses and other low grade welfare hand-outs ) ....
 
.... the only true blight on our horizon is the incredible overpricing of our property ... and that is a fault of our own making .... we did it to ourselves ....

And yet you want to continue with record high net immigration.
Why?
 

Yes, by allowing what we allow, which non-resident foreigners being able to buy up land

Non-resident foreigners able to access cheap capital compared to the local market and create distortions is expressly not a problem with immigration (the whole non-resident part is a clue), but it is often mixed up in immigration discussions. If we were as picky about capital (it can only come in if it has a productive purpose) we would be a very, very different nation. but the price around such capital controls is something I suspect people complaining about the more restricted flow of people would not support.

It is not a matter of that, it is just an ecconomic reality.
We can neither house or employ our present population adequately what ever their race or back ground.  Most of our ecconomic wealth is based in agriculture to which imigrants add little and only place an extra burden on our ecconomy for very little bennifit.
It's not even a racist or zenophobic issue.  We have very significant inflows of migrants and property investment non asian countries.  The argument applies equally to them.  In terms of foreign land purchases I believe that any tightening would affect British, USA and other European residents far more than Asians as they are the largest purchasors of land and property.
The racist zenophobic argument as per Davids edict, appears to be commonly raised to shut down discussion and allow the continuation of a policy for which government has no mandate.  It is a false argument as it affects immigrants and property purchasers form all corners of the world.
In the longer term we, as per the rest of the world are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the whole world has too many people.  For the sake of the enviroment we are going to have to adjust our ecconomies to zero or negative population growth.  Some countries are already doing this, and in some cases very successfully.  e.g. Germany, Russia, Japan, ... There is quite a list

The racist zenophobic argument as per Davids edict, appears to be commonly raised to shut down discussion and allow the continuation of a policy for which government has no mandate. 
Thats my feeling as well...   When talking about other issues one does not hear the cry of "labourphobic".... " Nationalphobic"....   "Globalwarmingphobic".... "keynesianphobic" ..etc    .... and these issue can get the egos flexing and the blood flowing....with some abusive comments.
I think you are being way overly senstive here...  I've followed this site for 4 yrs...and have come across nothing that was truely racist...
Looking at the ads on this site....   maybe the BNZ is giving you some feedback on just how politically incorrect immigration discussions are..???
Is it a valid comment to state....   "we would have been better off allowing White Zimbabweans' , who were almost refugees, to immigrate to NZ with nothing ...or were we better off to allow wealthy Chinese to immigrate here"....???/
Straight away I'm labled a "racist"....   but with a little inquiry... maybe  what I mean is should immigration be about "trickle up"... ( where people put their heart and soul into a country).. or should it be "trickle down".. (where rich people  live off the fat of the land).
No different to the debate of foreign direct investment... which is, mostly,   only the purchase of our assets by foreigners... rather than the creation of "new " assets that create jobs..

I agree, proponents of immigration use claims of racism to shutdown debate on what is actually an important economic issue.
 
We all know that mass immigration would be very bad for an economy as the host country would fail to be able to provide resources and hence all sorts of problems would occur such as inflation and lack of facilities, so of course this is why virtually all countries restrict immigration.
 
Yet in NZ we see those same problems occurring and simply close our eyes.  
 
The benefits of migration are when highly skilled, competent and hardworking people arrive, however this does not mean we must accept great hordes or masses of them.
 
Anyone who has calculated what current immigration rates will do to our population and considers where the balance of power will lie within our lifetimes will be deeply concerned by the errors of the past 20 years.

Yep
GBH and Chaston do a good rendition of the British television sitcom "Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width"
More, more, more, just keep them coming, she'll be right in the end, that'll fix it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Mind_the_Quality,_Feel_the_Width

.... back it up , fella , I never said " pro-immigration-at-any-cost " , OK .....  getcha facts right before you slag off at moi !!!
 
No one wants the open borders approach that the EU has foisted upon its charter members ....
 
.... but as it happens , the Gummster clan had a foodie day in the city , pigged out on Chinese for lunch , a French bakery for breads and savouries , and a Danish bakery for coffee and beesting cake ....
 
Viva la immigrants !!!!!!

But here today, with nowhere near the same numbers leaving, and a lot of expats returning - especially from Aussie - it is time to reduce significantly the numbers arriving from elsewhere.
I think we'll survive without another restaurant full of family members in Dominion Rd.
 

... the mistake being made by the opponents of immigration is their insistence that we have " unfettered immigration " ... in Mr iconoclast's own words ...
 
We do not have " unfettered immigration " ..... we are not in danger of being swamped ....
 
... I personally know of several Filippino guys , and 2 families , who were sent home when their work visas ran out , or when their employment was terminated .... and they were folks with managerial and engineering skills ... skills we're in need of ....
 
We do have a Department of Immigration , in case that fact has been lost in the debate , and they go about their business in a robust no nonsense manner ( from my personal experience ) ..

Maybe a differentiation needs to be made between the words "investment" and "ownership" then put one of those words on not allowed list, how about that?

Your pink slip is showing David Chaston
 
This is a true story. I know. I was working at the Auckland Star
The General Manager was Bill Hickey, the Managing Director and editor-in-chief was Geoffery Upton
 
One day the paper was running an article that was contrary to the personal views of Geoff Upton who was a tall man, an impressive 6ft 6". The press run had started for the day, and Upton went down to the press room and clambered down the gallery decks and commanded the press operator to "stop the presses". The chief press operator, a large corpulent maori who was 6ft tall himself, turned to Upton and told him to "piss off - I only stop the presses for a pink-slip"
 
Upton rose up to his full imposing height and yelled "I am the pink-slip"

Fair enough. interest.co.nz is a privately owned publishing venture too. Commenting is special here because it is not pre-moderated. But we have always retained the right to remove any comment for any reason.
 
Maybe my views are showing in this latest policy tweak, but that is the deal. There are plenty of other places where what I think are offensive comments are allowed. Those who wish to rant are always free to go to those places to do that - or try their luck on pre-moderated sites.
 
No-one has any 'rights' to spoil or graffiti interest.co.nz. We are just trying to set some basic standards so that intelligent debate happens that doesn't degenerate. Things can degenerate quickly on the internet. There are examples of that in this thread.

The point is - it is the absence of quality information that leads to ill-informed comment which in turn degenerates into slanging matches - which in turn leads to offensive coment - you can control that far better by providing better leading information - as stated above, you could lead by filling the void with interviews of those who control the components - and asking the questions - instead of sitting back and watching the continous passing parade of repetitive commentary on housing which is a symptom and not a cause

the government is pro immigration (John Key said so on BBC Hard Talk). Labour likewise and the Greens ("anti immigration feeling has no place in the Green Party says Mr Locke").
The government do not seem inclined to collect the sort of information which could shoot itself in the foot. What's more they have a free hand because of the political concensus on immigration.

You are getting very close to the points we are discouraged from talking about.

huh? "locke" I mean really?
Try looking at the the modern policy now some of the real nut jobs have left.
"Aotearoa/New Zealand is an attractive migration destination for many more people than our nation has the ability and willingness to absorb."
"Pay heed to the effects of immigration on our environmental, social and cultural ecology by maintaining a sustainable net immigration flow."
https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/immigration
So if that flow is zero, its well zero.
In theory anyway.
regards
 

Is a broad opposition to further immigration offensive if no groups are singled out? Are people allowed to express their concerns to unfettered immigration, or is any opposition to the status quo deemed offensive? 

We need to limit immigration David,  What immigration happens needs to be carerfully thought through.  Please don't eliminate that comment.
If I am racist - please delete my comment.
If I am abusive.   Maybe I have been at times. Feel free also to delete.
I would like you to delete such things much more often.  Including most of PDKs nasty arrogant and personalised reponses to those who agree with him.  But who don't agree enough.
You are an immigrant David and sometimes, actually often this country is not the pleasant welcoming place it thinks it is.  I hope your personal experience has been good.  If not then please accept my regret fot that.
 
 

Actually, I think my great grandparents were born in NZ. (And I am 65+ now.) Could be a generation out on that perhaps on one side. However, the point is in my case our families have been here a long time too. I was an immigrant (for a decade or so) in another country - and the city and neighborhoods I lived in were <20% WASP. It was (and is) a vibrant place. Taught me we don't benefit from mono-culturalism.
 
I wish this country was more welcoming. We would all benefit, even though there would be bumps along the way. Shying away from having bumps is the wrong approach. This is a long term issue and should only be judged long-term.

It is pretty much all to do with numbers and the import of less though are some aspects of other cultures I would frankly rather not see. Let me start with female circumcism and work down from there, in other words we have EVERY right to say what we will not tolerate.
As for numbers, we just don't need a whole lot more, and we just don't need a whole lot more infrastructure just so we can have a whole lot more
Long live open spaces

... but we are not getting " a whole lot more " .... the numbers coming in are not great , quite small in fact , as a total of our population ...
 
And where did the " female circumcism " bit come from ..... know anyone personally who indulges in that abhorrent practise ? .... I sure as heck don't ....
 
I'm quickly getting the impression that many irrelevant issues and much misinformation is being posted as reasons to keep NZ predominantly WASP ....

We don't know it is isn't either to be perfectly frank with you. It was a start point. We have the right to state what we will and won't accept. I say we have accepted some things that many do not like, of course I cannot say what they are now, as I will be censored

I wish this country was more welcoming. We would all benefit, even though there would be bumps along the way. Shying away from having bumps is the wrong approach. This is a long term issue and should only be judged long-term.
....
how about we look at urban form. I have seen garden after garden subdivided. For who's benefit?
on the benefits of diversity to society:
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/world/americas/05iht-diversity.1.6986248.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

If you are going to judge it long term, then take heed of  events with a long term impact and paradigm changes.
Consider our food production, its highly mechanised and uses artificial fertilizers, reduce the influence of these on the output per acre and that is huge.
Maybe someone knowing more of this in detail can come up with a % reduction in out per acre when these are factored in.
I suspect it might be greater than 50%.
regards
 
 

[low quality comment deleted. Ed]

Thank you, David.

This country has been built on a long-term programme of welcoming migrants [from multicultural backgrounds? ].
.................
But we reach diminishing returns? We are developed?
Our main industries don't benefit from economies of scale?

The construction industry has grown by 10,000 firms since 2002, [and] now employed 7 per cent of the New Zealand workforce - around 170,000 people - and generated annual revenues of $30 billion. Faces challenges  - low productivity, the aftermath of the leaky building fiasco, and the vulnerability of the industry to boom and bust cycles
 
Assimilation can take a generation or so, and so far, using tolerant long-term assessments this process has been hugely beneficial for the country.
There is no consensus that immigration is good for New Zealanders. Multiculturalism is a left-wing (social engineering policy) on which the tide is turning. Population increase benefits some people but not others; percapita GDP and the effect on the lived environment are what matter.
 
 

so far, using tolerant long-term assessments this process has been hugely beneficial for the country.
You can't compare our developmental stages as when aerial topdressing was developed bringing the hill country into productivity. From the 1990's:

“The big adverse gap in productivity between New Zealand and other countries opened up from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The policy choice that increased immigration – given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration. This adjustment would have involved a lower real interest rate (and cost of capital) and a lower real exchange rate, meaning a more favourable environment for raising the low level of productive capital per worker and labour productivity. The low level of capital per worker is a striking symptom of New Zealand’s economic challenge.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/pdfs/swg-report-jan11.pdf
 
 
 

There is an enormous difference between discrimination as outlined in the NZ Bill of Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and commenting on a persons ethnicity.
Maybe posters on interest should identify ethnicity by longitude and latitude ;-)

would you explain that?

Maybe comments on immigration would be more moderate if journalists could be more balanced.  By a country mile journalists portray immigration as positve whereas people may suffer cognitive dissonance. The truth is that many economists don't believe high immigration levels are good for NZ but bank economists are the most prominent comentators. In academia you have people like Professor Spoonley whose starting point  is the problemisation of immigration (immigration isn't a problem until it is made one). His theories seem to suggest that opposition to immigration is about maintaining white power. The evidence is that all humans are racist in so far they have an initial preference for people of their own ethnicity having evolved in societies which were homogenous. This applies to Chinese or any group.
 

If we had land based taxation so the person in the prime site pays more than the person in a gully; when property developers and banks stop benefiting from land inflation
. Then (as Warren Buffet says) we will see whose (moral position) is swimming in the nude.

It's called Rates (and is taxed to local government).  They are land, and often capital, adjusted.

I think interest.co.nz's tightening of policy on immigration debates shows that it knows it's the anti-immigration-types that can't be trusted to not drag the debate into a 'racist gutter' so to speak.
And I am not surprised at these policy changes either. The views some people air on this website are only expressed when they are hiding behind their anonomous website name.
Whenever a comment is deleted, it's always and everytime written by one of the anti-immigrant mob, the type of person who demonstrates their own insecurity about aspects of their own life. 
Immigrants, with appropriate skills as defined by the rules, can only add to the dynamism, variety and economic well-being of the country.

And the numbers, of which we assert we don't especially need more. There is not enough to go round for the number we HAVE without continuing to rely of "growth". A new way is now needed, not just here but the rest of the world as well. 

... perhaps you can flesh out your argument a little more , and explain what you mean by : " There is not enough to go round for the number we HAVE ... "
 
Enough of what ?

Jobs, homes in areas where the work is, infrastructure where the work is

GBH I think I have gleaned that you live in an area not affected by too much immigration, I suggest you go do some time in those, then get back to us

... " not affected by too much immigration " .... Again , I am nonplussed by your gross exagerrations and generalisations ... Where are these areas of which you speak , being " affected by too much immigration " ....
 
I work with some Fillipino guys , Indians , a Chinese person , Pole , Zimbabwean , WSamoan , and Nigerian ... the other WASP , the boss , is Canadian .. ... we have alot of laughs and sharing , and we get our jobs done ...
 
... got two offers of work last Wednesday , whilst I was at work ! .... not seeing shortages .... and unlike Mr PDK or Mr steven , I'm not a self proclaimed genius engineer or physicist .... ordinary gadgie working at the shop floor , moi ...

I think interest.co.nz's tightening of policy on immigration debates shows that it knows it's the anti-immigration-types that can't be trusted to not drag the debate into a 'racist gutter' so to speak.
.......
Down in the gutter you will find the Savings working Group, the Australian Productivity Commision, Paul Krugman, the british House of Lords, various economists (no time for links )
on the other hand (in favour) you'll find property investors, Harcourts Shanghai, the construction industry, immigration lawyers, the left (Labour/ Green), banks.
One of the problems is (as where) Asians keep putting their hands up at auction. But who are these? They are Kiwis (we are told). But they didn't all come in the gold rushes and aren't we assured that immigrants don't buy houses (it's returning Kiwis). That last point was a corner stone assumption of the NZ Productivity Commision.

JH immigrant boosterism for economic reasons has long history of support from segments of the 'establishment' dating back to provincial times.
 
I think the problem is the economic growth immigration generates in absolute not per capita terms replaces other more genuine options.

Mr Chaston, the people that comment here are not stupid. If they were, they would comenting on stuff.co.nz or something. Read the thread and get a feeling for what folks feel like. It's pretty obvious.

.... " the people that comment here are not stupid " .... speak for yourself , Mr moa man .... don't go not thinking that I may be as stupid as or not compared to some who blog at the stuff or failing that , here ...... that's pretty obvious ..

Just pointing out the general theme of those which have commented on this, seems to be overall in favour of keeping the debate going, with a bias to limiting further immigration. You gonna argue that, Mr Bear.? Cause you can't.

... my only argument is that we don't actually have much immigration .... as Mr Zz posted somewhere , the year to year figures on our net migration flows show only modest gains .... some years we actually lose people ....
 
On the whole , we're quite underpopulated , compared to other countrys of a similar land area ... ...UK , Japan , Italy , Philippines .... there's no risk of us reaching their population density anytime in the next 200 years or more ....

Define much
 
The tyranny of numbers and averages and "net" counts
 
New Zealand's census usually resident population count was 4,242,048 in 2013, up from 4,027,947 in 2006
 
Total NZ increase all regions 214,000 net
35,680 per year net
 
Auckland population increase 113,000 net
18,900 per year net
 
Auckland region only - migrant arrivals - not born in nz
All ethnicities
Actual 2013 census of overseas-born resident population count
Length of residence in NZ for the following periods since arrival
0 years 23,533 (under 1 year)
1 years 22,521
2 years 19,794
3 years 20,079
4 years 24,924
 
Data for years 5 thru 9 is aggregated so not included here

.... so the Kiwi population grew by 5.3 % over those 7 years .... an annual compounded increase of 0.725 % ..... .725 % !!!!
 
At that rate , NZ's total population will double once every century .... shagging heck .... where's your fear of that ....
 
.... by 2106 New Zealand will have 8 million citizens , half as many folk as live in London city today ....
 
What is your problem with that ?

Zz states so authoratively the "net" annual migration intake number is a measly 10,000 (yet for the past 6 months he has been trumpeting it as 90,000) and now you conveniently use his 10,000 as your authority. Why did you remain silent on his 90,000 rantings?
 
Earlier you state that new zealand (the whole countryside) is only 0.7% occupied yet you overlook the fact that the bulk of inbound migration lands and stays in Auckland, while not offering any comment on how to get them away from auckland where there is a problem. What is the area of unoccupied land in auckland?
 
If you look at the figures above and relate them to the actual population of auckand you will see the absolute increase is less than the migration intake .. there is a substitution effect happening .. how many years will it take at that (exponential) rate to supplant the locals?

David I don't know if you missed it last year but I posted on the effect that non-resident buyers of property have on the money supply. While immigration is an economic issue that does need to be discussed in greater depth, the allowance of unrestrained foreign buying could be a crisis in the making.
 
The money supply is increased when mortgages are created. RBNZ stats show that about 74% of our money supply consists of this sort of debt with a furthe 8% personal borrowing. That doesn't leave much for business.
 
When a non-resident buyer pays cash for a property they retire a mortage. This action as the effect of contracting the money supply and making borrowing more difficult for productive enterprise. Since the economy relies on an expanding money supply then contracting it will definitely cause a recession at some point, and the artificially inflated house prices will collapse.
 
What I haven't yet looked at is how the shortfall from this contraction is made up, is it possible that these non-resident buyers are causing greater borrowing by the government?

"This country has been built on a long-term programme of welcoming migrants [from multicultural backgrounds"
 
I don't believe that is the case at all David, the history of this country is about property speculation and finance surrounding that. Ask Iain Parker about all that, he has the evidence. The treaty was primarily about the crown securing the right to issue title over land so that money could then be loaned against it. Nothing has changed and there is a need for finance to keep increasing the number and value of titles.

“When truth is replaced by silence,the silence is a lie.” 
― Yevgeny Yevtushenko

“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” 
― Salman Rushdie

“Did you ever hear anyone say, 'That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me'?” 
― Joseph Henry Jackson

“All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news.” 
― George Orwell

[low quality comment deleted. Ed]

Interesting. 
Could you point out exactly where the 'low quality' was?  Is it now forbidden to say that immigrant residents/citizens legitimate right to property ownership should not be conflated with foreign non-resident/non citizen ownership?  Or was it pointing out the hypocrisy of only policing the so-called bashing of one class of people while allowing it elsewhere?
You're doing wonders for your credibility as a legitimate non-biased news site. Not.
I don't think I've ever seen genuine immigrant bashing here.  What I see is legitmate questioning of the wisdom of opening up a market this tiny to everybody on earth.  Conflating the two can only be two things - wilful obtuseness or outright dishonesty.

You are reaching pretty hard there AndrewJ with those quotes. That's kind of the problem the internet allows - making grand claims that hardly relate to the issue at hand, except perhaps in some pointy-headed way.
 
The issue is migrant bashing, under cover of some boomer angst over taking some perceived restriction of common 'rights' to resources. It's an unwillingness to share. In my view it is highly selfish. It has nothing to do with what other countries do, nor even how we regulate non-resident behaviour here.
 
It is certainly nothing to do with censorship. Anyone can set up their own blog or news service. It does take work though which might put some people off. Or there is a huge choice about where to comment, even in New Zealand.
 
Just no immigrant bashing - no matter how couched - on interest.co.nz.
 
Actually, the tone of this thread is pretty good. Which proves immigration policy discussions can be held successfully here.

David, one of the countries whose citizens are buying a lot of the property in Auckland and taking house ownership out of the reach of the middle and lower class New Zealanders are themselves from a heterogenius society.

 
  Globalization is starting to get interesting, soon the disadvantaged will be knocking on the gates.
The government is borrowing 27 million a day to prop up a broken system. To satisfy the masses who would otherwise be very much worse off.

 
  Where do the disadvantaged go?

 
Who is going to be their voice? It sure as hell isn't going to be the Labour party.

 
Maybe its not immigrant bashing as much as a feeling of disenfranchisement. ( rendering a person's vote less effective, or ineffective )

 
I sometimes comment on the Whale oil blog where I find many of the comments disturbing and obnoxious. Yet I still post there, its a place I try to add a voice of sanity to occasionally. I appeciate that Interest.co have a much higher standard.
 
Immigration should be discussed and should be a political issue, if its not then the very thing that makes us Kiwis is under threat.  I look at some of the past migration of peoples in Europe and I don't see a lot of success.
 
I have some idea from past dealings of the amount of money certain immigrant societies in AKL, give to the top two political parties, its no small sum.

 

 
The Hedgehog and the Fox 

 
http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Fox_Hedgehog.html

Interesting comment David that you think the tone of this thread is pretty good.  Looked back through and I agree.
it's been well thrashed out and I have confidence that any opposition I might express against immigration will be seen.  And racist slurs and abusive rants will be eliminated.
And maybe some of us will shape up in this respect.  And others of course won't.  Overall a good move interest.co.nz

Interesting you bring resources into this David, tell me that this article isn't an immigration issue. There is a better image in a follow up hard copy article.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/rodney-times/9587664/Cockle-c...

I actually don't think it is much of an immigration issue- I have been seeing occasional articles about "locals blame foreigners for stripping beaches" for decades. And if the shellfish population  through all that has been relative stable, as surveyed, then it maybe more a matter of local perception.
Just checking this feeling against a web search, I find this article from 2002 of  local in court over taking to many shellfish complaining that fisheries officers were picking on locals when it was foreigners that were the problem.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3008282
 

The follow up image in a letter to the editor pictures a hundred or so people gathering shellfish although care is taken to call them "visitors" doing the plundering. I can remember late 80's or early 90's where Narrow Neck and Cheltenham were stripped bare of anything edible, I am not sure they have made any meaningful recovery from that. For the first time this summer my quiet little corner has been found and I have seen the same behaviour, big groups of visitors stripping the rocks clean of anything living, including seawood. In that instance locals intervened by tipping their buckets out and telling them in no uncertain terms their behaviour is unacceptable.
 
Tragedy of the commons at work. While we have developed a culture here, through legislation or otherwise, of protecting our resources. The new immigrant doesn't come in with that some culture, its more of a lets take it cos it is free mentality.
 
This is what Iconoclast referes to above in this thread, the adverse side of immigration.
 
Now I am not saying other groups in the population are immune from acting similarly, afterall try and get a Paua off the rocks in anywhere by the deep south. It is more about the rate of assimilation that can be coped with and the rate at which the environment can cope with addes pressure. If it can in fact cope at all.

Immigration ?
Make it so Number One.

NZ First's power balance

Give Winston his head and immigration could get sorted.
Or is that just wishful thinking.
More seriously it is not immigration but ' the rate of arrivals and their concentration in Auckland'  We may see them as predominantly Asian ( not just China) but the non- Asians all add to the volume and housing pressures. 
I do not have to be racist or xenophobic to see that.

I am assuming your last sentence implies that more immigrants are needed to deal with servicing the needs of the aging population that we are creating. 
What is really needed is to devise the policies that assume we will have to cope with zero or negative growth in population and in all other aspects of living in a balanced society.
Inward immigration certainly in not an answer to that problem.

No, not a necessity, more like a luxury.  Look at it in the longer term, just how long can we keep growing for?
At some point we will be full or like many countries over-full, what then?
Oh and what makes you think the migrants will be as keener to wipe OPA's butts? than the present NZ un-employed?
regards

Competing with new rich immigrants is the problem in New Zealand for all existing average residents, here already.
Kiwis cannot out bid anyone who comes in with more money than the average Kiwi can borrow or have already.
That is simple economics.
That some people will welcome this to make money any way they can, will simply be obvious to everyone here.
That some greedy people do not care about average people is obvious. 
That Auckland is the main centre for this rich pickings is obvious to a blind man.
That we cannot say the obvious, is obviously censorship, wherever we originated from.
I am an immgrant. I came here to get away from this type of put down, no freedom of expression. 
If being racist is being observant, then I am racist.
Censorship on the internet or the written word, or even the phone lines is an obvious trait of those who do not welcome the truth, no matter how carefully we word ourselves.
Some countries control their people, their economies this way.
Is it racist to point this out.
Is this the thin end of the wedge.
Whatever next, will we import? to control the money supply.