Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Sacha,
Important nonetheless to remind ourselves that about two thirds of the city’s population growth over the next couple of decades comes from Aucklanders having babies and internal migration. Former head government statistician Len Cook made that point eloquently at an Auckland Council-hosted event last year.
Quite, and as noted in earlier discussion here. But I don't think the current surge in net migration was was projected, and the difference with that is that it happens in the short term. The bigger, browner Auckland driven by natural increase is going to change society and politics in this town, but it will happen as people have their babies. But there's a housing crunch already and several years of high net migration would really put the squeeze on. If we go that way, we need to work out how to manage it.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Martin Connelly,
while in NZ at the moment its coming from the left (and which ever part of the spectrum Winston currently occupies).
Peters is certainly pretty much on his usual track.
And the line about immigrants making it difficult for Aucklanders is a joke. Auckland’s own policies on new housing has made life difficult for Aucklanders, but as often in the past, its easier to blame immigrants.
Which policies? The Unitary Plan as originally presented would have helped a lot, but it was gutted because Len Brown wouldn't stand up to Quax, Brewer and the other rich nimbies. Allowing unlimited sprawl is not a solution.
Various analysts are saying that we're entering a period of historically high, and possibly unprecedented, migration inflow that (bearing in mind internal migration) has significant implications for Auckland. We need to talk about how to address that.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
So, yeah, it might help to be mindful that there are plenty of people for whom a “a one-line suggestion buried in the monetary policy announcement” sounds a note a lot of us hereabouts just don’t hear, and IMO it’s just a wee bit privileged to say “well, it’s not as bad as Brash at the nadir of his immigrant-baiting populism nearly ten years ago”. That’s a patronizingly low bar to set, however unintentionally.
I'm getting annoyed with all the innuendo now. Please tell me how “There may be a case for varying inward migration and/or work permits,” in a monetary policy document relates to the explicit racism of dawn raids (when any brown-skinned person could be stopped in the street and forced to show ID) or the "yellow peril" era.
Then show me anything Cunliffe says about it that equates to those things. Be as specific as you like.
Then I'd be interested in your thoughts on how to manage the emerging infrastructure issues I discussed in the post above.
I think DPF is to some extent correct that net immigration targets might not offer enough leverage to be a really useful tool. That's a relevant criticism for sure, although you still have to find some way to address the capacity issues. But I don't thinking setting targets is racist. It's what immigration policy does.
And, no, I'm not saying "hey, it's not as bad as the National Party policy of 2005". I'm saying, repeatedly, that it's very cynical for someone like DPF to be howling about racism and xenophobia now when he calmly waved through that horrible Brash speech then.
I wrote at the end of the post:
It should be possible to discuss migration trends without appealing to the worst nature of parts of the electorate and without reflexively being accused of xenophobia the moment the topic is aired.
And I still hope that's true.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to nzlemming,
I’ve stopped actually listening to Moaning Report, now. I’m only keyed to the changing bulletins as a timekeeper. Both of them are crap interviewers.
Espiner's a much better interviewer than he was this morning. He was howling at Cunliffe that he was a hypocrite for helping a friend living overseas with a house purchase. Cunliffe correctly observed that "Labour has never had a policy of preventing New Zealand citizens from buying property in New Zealand."
I can only presume that they're under orders to show neither fear or favour, but there have been some frankly silly encounters.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Alex Coleman,
I have a better DPF memory-hole accident.
Brash’s speech launching the 2005 immigration policy:
There is resentment that too many immigrants, and especially those who arrive as refugees, go straight onto a benefit, and live for years at the expense of the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer.
There is resentment that, when we let in one refugee, we then let in his extended family group as well. Like the case of the refugee who brought in his father, mother, two dependent brothers, two dependent sisters, a dependent sister-in-law and her four dependent children!
There is resentment that some immigrants come into New Zealand for the primary purpose of gaining access to our free education system for their children, with no intention of settling in, or paying tax in, New Zealand for the long haul.
There is resentment that some immigrants flout the laws protecting our fisheries, and are involved in much more serious crimes of a kind that, to date, New Zealand has been largely free of – kidnapping and extortion for example.
There is resentment, at least among those wanting to buy their first home, at the impact of immigration on house prices.
There is fear of Islamist fundamentalism, exacerbated when a Maori convert to Islam expresses admiration for Osama bin Laden and a Muslim (Labour) Member of Parliament contends that the Koran is right to say that adulterers and homosexuals should be stoned to death.
It is these resentments and these fears that underlie the very real concern many people have about current immigration policy.
In defence of that long, loud passive-voiced racist dog-whistle, DPF wrote this:
Russell and others on the left have been using selective quotes to try and portray National’s immigration stance as close to NZ First. I suppose they have to say that.
I recommend people read Don’s full speech (credit to Russell who links to it). It is very pro-immigration, but anti some of the current policies. And yes you can be one and not the other. Those arguing that are often the same who argued Don was a racist for his Orewa speech.
The NZ Herald editorial has labelled National’s policy as rational and am improvement on Labour’s knee-jerk reactions and piecemeal change. It does not agree with every aspect but overall is positive.
I don’t think Brash’s horrible speech actually has any bearing either way on the merits or otherwise of what Labour is suggesting. That should be judged on its substance, or lack of it.
I just think it’s deeply cynical of DPF and others to be screaming about racism and xenophobia at any mention of immigrant policy when they endorsed that policy and that speech.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Moz,
I’d also like to see the refugee intake kept up and out of this discussion (yes, I’m the first to mention it). Especially it could and should be used as a stick to beat Australia with rather than becoming yet another symptom of our sycophancy.
Completely agreed on that.
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to martinb,
It’s an idea at this stage, the mechanics of it don’t seem to have been decided or worked out. Given their innovative monetary policy I don’t see why they can’t be- though it would be good for immigrants to get clear signals.
Like I said, it began as a one-line suggestion buried in the monetary policy announcement, so it’s going to take some time to turn into a policy, if it does.
It presumably wouldn’t require legislative change – governments fiddle with immigration targets without having to pass laws – but I think it’s a reasonable criticism that there are factors beyond your control in net migration flows, and they may overwhelm those you can control. When Labour set its 2004-2005 target it presumably didn’t expect that, for example, student visa numbers would drop quite sharply.
For that reason, I actually don’t think it makes sense for Cunliffe to conjure up a magic number now, no matter how much Guyon Espiner screams at him. It would be stupid to commit to a number now when you don’t know how things will look next year.
-
Feed: Meals for Me, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
I have tried to recalled what I lived on when I was studying in the US.
I have no idea what I ate when I was living in a squat in Elephant & Castle in my 20s. Presumably something, because I didn't starve to death.
-
Feed: Meals for Me, in reply to Andre Alessi,
For four pretty massive patties, I’ll use about 0.8-1 kg of beef/lamb/pork mixed with an egg, about two tablespoons of olive oil, a teaspoon of wholegrain mustard, chopped parsley, half a medium onion diced, and a touch of salt and black pepper mixed together by hand.
That's a staunch patty, bro!
-
Hard News: The Fine Line, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Well, fair point as far as it goes. How about we don’t set a low bar for anyone in 2014, because we still need a fact-based, careful public policy discussion conducted by adults who think very carefully before they speak on what can so easily turn into racist catnip.
I think it's relevant when Farrar is loudly and repeatedly accusing Labour of xenophobia and Act, which subsequently made Brash its leader, is calling it "racist".
Yes, as I sad to you on Twitter, I’m glad Cunliffe’s gaffe was the result of carelessness rather than naked bigot fluffing but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t expect better.
It wasn't a gaffe, it was a confusing answer. He was asked about a gross policy target and responded with the same answer he's been giving all along on the historically desirable level of annual net immigration. Radio NZ misreported it in its newsbrief and then corrected it.