Speaker: Identification strategy: Now it’s personal
184 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
nzlemming, in reply to
I’m fairly sure that’s not our spellchecker. I think it’ll be your American-made web browser.
Well, bother. You may be right. I’m using Firefox and I’ve told it to use NZ English first, then English, then US English if it really has to. Still getting the correction, though.
[edit] Aha! Not only do you have to set your language/locale preferences, you have to separately add the dictionary.
-
From across the Tassie, "Have the property wars become racism’s new frontier?" Even a reference to Edward Said.
-
How much has changed since 2005?
Asian Vote - Keith Ng (via the Listener)
-
One way to prove the Labour data/conclusions wrong is to publish accurate date to rubbish said claims.
Or, you cannot prove a proposition to be wrong unless you produce contrary accurate data. -
Tze Ming Mok, in reply to
Historical footnote: In 2005, 47% of the 'Asian' people polled by National in a private study were going for Labour, 40% for National. No sub-group breakdown available as far as I know.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Everyone loved Auntie...until they didn't.
-
Sacha, in reply to
and New Zealanders built Firefox and Chrome.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
If we want to figure out the impact of foreign PRC buyers – or more to the point, foreign anyone buyers – on the housing market without the straight up government data, you should probably just do a large-scale sample survey on house buying with a lot of ethnic minority oversampling.
There is another way, though it would rely on another real estate data leak, and that is to apply the same methodology Rob Salmond used to data from some NZ city that doesn't have a property bubble but which has sufficient resident ethnically Chinese New Zealanders to provide numbers. If you looked at the proportion of names by apparent ethnicity there, it might give some indication of cultural propensity/accessibility to property-buying.
There would be a segment of the market left out, in that most migrants settle in Auckland, but an additional allowance could be made based on census-based estimates of the proportion of migrants of different national origins who settle in Auckland.
You'd take the 39% of Auckland buyers with "PRC-sounding names", and subtract the proportion of comparison city(s) buyers with "PRC-sounding names", and then subtract an estimated number of new migrants of PRC-origin likely to have bought property, and the percentage left after that would be a better indication of the participation of PRC-based buyers in the Auckland market than is the 30% left after "39%-9% Chinese population".But it would require more leaked data.
Of course, the best measure would be, y'know, a foreign buyers register. I'm overseas at the mo. and missed the start of this furore, but wouldn't a bit of patience with the IRD scheme also answer the question, without having to indulge in inciting racial hatred?
-
WH,
It’s unfortunate that the lack of accurate statistics around the structure of home ownership in New Zealand has moved the focus of this particular discussion from residency and citizenship to race and ethnicity. The underlying issue, it seems to me, is that our housing supply has come to be seen as a source of easy profits by investors and that this is undermining our quality of life.
While I acknowledge the risks in the approach taken in Labour’s analysis, the danger to New Zealand’s social and economic wellbeing that is our housing market has been ignored by our political elite for almost 15 years. This doesn’t strike me as a Keith Ng/Deborah Coddington sort of a moment and I think you’ve done Phil Twyford and the Labour Party a disservice.
As a New Zealander living in the UK, you’re probably already aware that London has problems around housing affordability and foreign ownership of residential property that many Aucklanders would recognise. This is from today’s Guardian:
"[Property expert Henry Pryor added]: “Can we tackle this absurd practice of selling scarce new homes in London or Cambridge to investors in China? First we need to agree that we should – perhaps through some sort of residency test as they have in Singapore, but even if we do so it’s worth remembering that 36% of people living in London were born outside the UK, according to the 2011 census.”
Two final points:-
* First, the topics of globalisation and the rise of China as an economic power/net investor have dominated political discourse for the last two decades. It’s the kind of thing people are going to have views about.
* Second, New Zealand needs to re-appraise what its housing is really for. In my opinion, the New Zealand housing stock should advance the goal of housing New Zealand residents for the lowest proportion of their salaries and wages compatible with the health of the sector. Unrestrained residential property investment does not tend to advance that goal.
-
WH,
In other words, Tze Ming, the rent is too damn high.
-
Tze Ming Mok, in reply to
It’s the kind of thing people are going to have views about.
Yes, and in terms of my own personal interests in my ethnic community’s self-respect and safety, there will be two kinds of views.
a) non-racist ones.
b) racist ones.I do Phil Twyford and the Labour Party a disservice? I actually now believe that, as Keith pointed out earlier on Twitter, this is not some gaffe, this is what they wanted. They are happy to make this about race, to get votes from racists. Maybe it’ll work.
Think about how much would it have cost them to *not* make this about race. Not anything. And how much did it cost *you* for them to have, as they did, make it about race? Again, not anything. How much did it cost me? My family? Those 126,000 Chinese Aucklanders? A lot. Like I said, this is personal, and it looks more and more like it was a calculated public sacrifice. I understand that there are those on the Left who wish this would just go away and me and Keith and all those other people would just take a deep breathe and focus on the important issues. I understand that. But maybe you should go and tell someone else that. Go tell someone who isn’t Chinese. It’s not really the right moment.
-
jh, in reply to
I just wrote and cancelled my regular donation to the party with the message that it can restart when we have three clear months without race-baiting or hippy punching.
Funny because I've been thinking of joining. I'd like to support a party that is realistic about the effects of foreign investment and immigration on New Zealanders. I think we should have a choice between globalists and nationalist. Globalists claim immigration benefits everyone [Peter Sutherland] but this isn't borne out but personal experience or the Savings Working Group, the Australian Productivity Commission (ours wears a muzzle), or Treasury, or Paul Krugman so I feel justified in maintaining that view.
Up until 1975 people from the U.K and Ireland had free entry to NZ. Up until 1965 Australians piled into NZ. I think we should choose migrants for their (genuine) skills but also when it comes to easy come and go it should be on a territorial basis where (for the common people) it is a fair swap. So if there is a nice country in Africa we go there and they come here. The problem is that the world isn't like that, most countries are overpopulated and poor with a rich minority so we end up getting the worst of both worlds.
Yes people come here from the UK, however Labour (UK) ramped up immigration "to rub the rights noses in diversity" Britain is changing beyond recognition.
In NZ (1986)policy changes were made on the basis that while it was something New Zealanders may not have wanted the "infusion of new elements" was deemed to have been "of immense value to the country". The goal however, was not to add condiments it was based on the (outdated) Standard Social Science Model which gave us anti-racist ideology (to break the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon population). What's more muffled voices (the Savings Working Group - "a great bunch of thinkers") say the policy choice of increased immigration has done us no good.
While we are to welcome truckloads of migrants and enjoy minority status in China 91% are of one ethnicity. Also "More than 94 per cent of Chinese permanent residents and more than half of those with NZ citizenship told University of Auckland researchers that they felt a greater sense of belonging and identified more with their country of origin than New Zealand."
Maori were not consulted over immigration policyThis glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the
procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on
the people below. The report was a fait accompli, and the Minister’s
restricted discourse with Maori leaders after the fact, gave an illusion
of democratic consultation. The select committee hearings on the Bill
were also a charade. Of the 75 submissions made to the committee, 73
opposed the Bill. The two submissions in favour were made by
immigration consultants, the people who earned substantial fees from
processing immigration papers for clients wanting to get into New
Zealand.Please Labour give us a clear choice. Somebody bat for New Zealanders.
-
JacksonP, in reply to
Go tell someone who isn’t Chinese. It’s not really the right moment.
Hear, hear.
I don’t feel inclined to add much to this except my support for Tze Ming, Keith, and others who are exposing this for what it is. It feels like a giant step backwards.
Aren’t we better than this?
-
jh,
It doesn’t help that local Chinese are the link, the apologists and beneficiaries of real estate purchases from PRC.
It would help is they differentiated themselves – I suspect ethnic nepotism (psychological tests show people prefer people like themselves). My friends wife is Singaporian Chinese and she is “as mad as hell” about mainland Chinese buying real estate there.
Tourism is important to New Zealand yet if you look who is driving the buses it is Kiwi driver Japanese guide; Chinese driver, Chinese guide. A very visible manifestation of the benefits of immigration. -
jh, in reply to
Aren’t we better than this?
yes but the world is spotty.
-
WH,
National has often minimised the importance of foreign ownership and quite deliberately delayed the collection of the information needed to gauge the numbers of homes being sold to overseas buyers. In the absence of official figures, property industry spokespeople were quick to characterise Labour’s provision of an admittedly inexact metric (which indicated that foreign purchases were much greater than the 10% figure sometimes given) as a form of race-baiting. This struck me as tendentious and self-serving.
I mentioned the ubiquity of discussion about the rise of China because its capacity and willingness to invest in New Zealand is already significant and is only likely to increase. I’m sure you agree that New Zealanders need to be able to discuss this issue, and I’m happy to do this in ways that take account of the sensitivites and difficulties this raises for New Zealand’s much valued ethnically Chinese population (many of whom, of course, have been here for generations).
As you’ve essentially alleged that Labour’s motives in raising this issue are cynical and perhaps even racist, I can’t accept that this conversation should take place elsewhere or with someone of another ethnic group. Although this is a privately-run forum, your contribution forms part of (and indeed influences) an important national conversation.
As I said previously, I’m mindful of the risks this conversation raises and remember what New Zealand can be like. I’m also aware that our collective and reciprocal sensitivities around ethnicity can disrupt and distort discussion that might otherwise be worthwhile.
In any event, I will respect your request and leave this there - do feel free to respond to/rebut what I've said if you think it appropriate to do so. I trust things are going well with you in London.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Tourism is important to New Zealand yet if you look who is driving the buses it is Kiwi driver Japanese guide; Chinese driver, Chinese guide. A very visible manifestation of the benefits of immigration.
I don't really get your point and I'm not sure of its relevance.
-
Tze Ming Mok, in reply to
Feel free to have this discussion here, I'd just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don't have a choice about).
-
WH,
Feel free to have this discussion here, I’d just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don’t have a choice about)
I’ve probably already said more than was needed and agree that you don’t owe Labour any special duties. In short, though, I think Phil Twyford’s efforts around housing are important to New Zealand’s wellbeing and make sense without the ugly secondary meanings being imputed to them.
I'm not completely at ease discussing identity but would like to believe that we're collectively working towards a more inclusive future. WH out.
-
Danielle, in reply to
It would help i[f] they differentiated themselves
You don't mean that the way it sounds, right?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
It would help i[f] they differentiated themselves
You don’t mean that the way it sounds, right?
Ugh. I should have gone with my gut a long time ago and excluded jh's single-issue immigration-trolling.
It is done now.
-
Tze Ming Mok, in reply to
You don’t mean that the way it sounds, right?
Like a yellow star or something for the PRCs, that'd work; and silver ferns for 'local' Chinese; but when the line is blurred, make them do tests to make sure they *can't* speak Mandarin. Then put the locals into a special camp for their own safety.
Seriously, this is my teenage nightmare.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Seriously, this is my teenage nightmare.
I’m really sorry you had to read that. Took my eye off the ball a bit there. jh is not welcome here.
-
Focusing on ethnicity is always going to lead to calls of racism. Unfortunately if politicians are going to address the housing issue they need to identify the causes. Ex Reserve Bank economist Mike Reddell has pointed out the Auckland housing crisis is the direct result of policy decisions. The liberalisation of immigration from the mid 80's and restrictions on housing supply. The immigration minister could reduce inward migration and take the heat out of the market. Labour should have focused on this as it's a far bigger factor but it would likely have prompted similar complaints. The bottom line should be economic sovereignty and acting in the best interests of NZ citizens regardless of ethnicity.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
There are many local speculators who are just as guilty if not more so, but the House of Lords in Britain have nothing on NZ’s self-appointed Lords of Houses, including anti-RMA types like Denise Krum who’ll use the RMA when it suits them. So Chinese financiers are a much easier target.
What I do agree with is that fiscal nativism is a symptom of the gains of fiscal globalisation not ‘trickling down’ as promised by its loudest cheerleaders. Amy Chua’s “World on Fire” chronicles the more extreme examples overseas.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.