Kiwiblog

The Herald looks at the Iraqi elections:

Iraq’s national elections were some distance removed from the type of poll associated with a smoothly functioning democracy. They were conducted amid an intimidating campaign of violence, and in the aftermath there have been accusations of fraud.

Even now, only partial results are available because of disorderly vote-counting. Yet the pluses of the election far outweigh the negatives, especially in indicating that Iraq may be ready to turn its back on years of sectarian strife.

The results announced so far show the Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, edging ahead. His State of Law coalition leads in seven of the country’s 18 provinces. …

If a coalition is cobbled together relatively quickly, it will clear the way for the smooth pull-out of more American troops by the end of August, and a final exit by the end of next year.

The new government will have its hands full preserving Iraq’s fragile security, continuing to resolve its sectarian tensions and repairing shattered public services.

But, at the very least, this election marks a promising start. Iraq has defied the many doomsayers by moving further along the road to democracy and reconciliation.

It is going to be fascinating to see what Iraq is like in 2020. Will it still have major sectarian violence and terrorism, or will it be a relatively well functioning democratic state?

The Press talks football:

The Wellington Phoenix football team has provided one of the sporting highlights of the past year. For the club to have made the A-League playoffs for the first time, and to have got within one match of the grand final, was an achievement all New Zealanders can be proud of. As Phoenix coach Ricki Herbert has noted, this has been a breakthrough season for the club. It also augurs well for the 2010-11 season.

Although the dream run ended on Saturday night, thanks partly to a handball goal by a Sydney player, the Phoenix’s successful season helped to heighten public interest in football, as shown by the crowds of up to 33,000 that the team attracted.

Maybe the Warriors would do better if they were Wellington based also

The Dominion Post talks league tables:

One thing is for sure in the wake of the publication of Health Ministry statistics comparing the performances of 80 primary health organisations.

Total Healthcare Otara, the PHO with the poorest record of immunising two-year-olds, will be taking immediate steps to improve its performance. Public ignominy is a powerful motivating tool.

So it should be. The release of the data highlights yet again the benefits of comparing the performance of organisations doing essentially the same job, whether they operate in the health sector, the education sector or any other area. Not only is the information useful to decision-makers and the public, it is also useful to the organisations themselves. As Helen Rodenburg, the chairwoman of a clinical quality board that oversees four PHOs in Wellington, told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report yesterday, before the publication of the data, PHOs did not know how their performance compared with those of similar organisations in other parts of the country.

The primary teachers’ union, the New Zealand Educational Institute, should take note.

This is exactly why the NZEI is so opposed.

Of course there are limitations associated with the way the data is collected. Of course it is important to compare like with like and, of course, it is important to consider the different environments in which schools operate. Just as a PHO in Wellington City could be expected to outperform a PHO in Porirua on many measures, so children at a decile 10 primary school in Khandallah could be expected to perform better in tests than children at a decile 1 school in Cannons Creek. The children in wealthier neighbourhoods are more likely to come from homes in which English is the first language, there is space for a dedicated homework area and the shelves are stacked with books.

But instead of flatly rejecting the introduction of national standards as the NZEI is doing, it should be devoting its energies to ensuring the tests measure something useful.

NZEI be constructive? Sure, and Satan has this nice little ski chalet for sale.

The ODT focuses on investor migrants:

The Government is rightly taking a hard-headed look at the domain – New Zealand is not so wealthy as to be able to offer refuge to thousands of migrants who bring little other than “diversity” to their new country, but neither should it push these policies so far that, in effect, the prize of New Zealand citizenship is being sold to the highest bidder.

There are, after all, many values – honesty, pride, diligence, community-mindedness, intelligence, aspiration, entrepreneurialism among them – besides an already accumulated wealth that will colour the future contribution of any migrant, including those in the new parent and temporary retirement categories, to his or her adopted country.

Dr Coleman and the National-led Government are evidently determined to implement immigration policies that pay.

The ambition is laudable, but wealth is relatively easy to measure, other desirable qualities less so.

The Herald talks government funding cuts:

Predictably enough, Labour has tried to make a mountain out of the Government’s announcement of funding cuts in the Education Ministry. According to its education spokesman, Trevor Mallard, these will harm education quality because there will be less research and less teacher and curriculum development.

In reality, he is talking about a molehill. The ministry has been asked to make just $25 million in savings by 2012-13. That is a surprisingly small amount, which is being sought in the right area, rather than at what used to be called the chalkface.

All government-funded organisations are being told to cut costs because of the tough economic climate. Cue cries of anguish and alarm.

The key to achieving the savings without fulfilling the grim forecasts of these critics lies in targeting areas that will not disrupt a sector’s core responsibilities. Commendably, this is what the Government is seeking to achieve in both education and health, two of the leading recipients of its spending.

Labour has never met a spending cut they didn’t oppose.

The Dominion Post swipes at NZUSA:

The University Students Association is to be applauded for its egalitarian instincts. They accord with the New Zealand ethos.

However, the association, long a training ground for Labour Party apparatchiks, would enhance its credibility if it spent less time bleating about the cost of university studies and more focusing on the quality of the education on offer.

It makes a habit of engaging its mouth before its brain. The most recent instance occurred on Tuesday when co-presidents David Do and Pene Delaney issued a statement condemning new Tertiary Education Minister Steven Joyce, the Government’s tyre-kicker-in-chief, for saying that from 2012 a percentage of the state funding provided to tertiary institutions will be linked to their academic performance and for adding that he’d also like to restrict student loans to students who pass their courses.

David Do is a former Chair of Princes St Labour.

Here is a newsflash for the association: the quality of the education available to its members, and students at other tertiary institutions, has gradually been eroded over the past couple of decades by underfunding and a bums-on seats-policy that rewards institutions according to the number of students enrolled rather than their performance.

The Government does not have a magic pool of money into which it can dip to make up the shortfall. It is effectively borrowing $200 million a week to maintain existing levels of public services, debt that will eventually have to be made good by the the association’s members and generations yet unborn.

If improvements are to be made to the system, the money has to come from within the existing tertiary education budget. Mr Joyce is doing exactly what the association should be imploring him to do – looking for poor-quality institutions and courses so that money can be redirected from them to institutions and courses that provide value for money.

He is proposing to do the same with students. Good on him. Every student who is not turning up to class, repeatedly failing or using a student allowance or loan to subsidise a lifestyle that has nothing to do with study is wasting money that could otherwise be used to provide a better education for students motivated to make the most of their opportunities.

The association should forget about trying to score political points and focus on advancing its members’ real interests. Students should ask themselves whether they would rather buy a clapped-out jalopy with a wound-back odometer for $25,000 or a modern, reliable warranted vehicle for $35,000.

Mr Joyce knows the answer to that question. It is to buy a quality vehicle that will stand the test of time. The same holds true for education. Forget cheap; think quality.

A wonderful editorial.

The Press talks immigration:

Graven on a tablet within the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York is the poem with the famous words “give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”. The latest immigration policy development in New Zealand is somewhat different to this. The new temporary retirement immigration category is more a case of New Zealand being given and welcoming elderly migrants, provided they have enough money to invest here.

Under this scheme foreigners aged at least 66 years can move to New Zealand on an initial two-year permit if they have good health and character, agree to invest $750,000 here, have an income of $60,000 and $500,000 worth of assets.

By international standards the financial criteria for coming here are not huge, which might encourage a reasonable uptake. But even if this did occur the amount which must be invested is also comparatively modest, which suggests that the scheme might not make the contribution to economic growth which the Government hopes would occur.

Rather than encouraging the wealthy elderly to come to our shores, the focus should be on promoting New Zealand as a migration destination for younger people with skills. This would help address this nation’s serious skills shortage and contribute more meaningfully to economic growth.

I don’t think it is an either-or. One can encourage both.

And the ODT focuses on regional rates:

A rare piece of good news emerged for beleaguered ratepayers this week: the Otago Regional Council draft annual plan shows no increase in the general rate. The ORC chairman points out it is a draft budget only, but nevertheless, how refreshing. Why can’t other councils do the same?

Indeed. Most businesses have had to contain costs, as have most households. Even the central Government is doing so. Local Government should follow.

The turnabout in New Zealanders leaving New Zealand has been remarkable.

The Herald has reported that “number of people arriving permanently or long term in this country exceeded the number of departures by 2500 in January, the highest net gain for a January month since 2004.”

Now I don’t tend to place too much emphasis on the overall PLT flow, as arrivals for non New Zealanders is a function of immigration policy.

A key stat for me is what is happening with New Zealand nationals as they have the right to come and go without immigration barriers.

In 2007 and 2008, the net departures exceeded 35,000 and was heading to 40,000. In just 15 months it has plummeted to under 15,000.

The global recession is probably part of the change, but what is pleasing is that not only are fewer Kiwis leaving, significantly more of them are returning home.

This graphs shows the net permanent and long-term departures (departures less arrivals) of NZ nationals (citizens).

In October 2009, kiwis returning home outnumbered kiwis leaving for overseas. The last time this happened in an October month was in 1992.

Charles Chauvel blogs at Red Alert a letter to Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson:

Invitation to Anthony Moses Davis (alias “Beenie Man”) to perform at Big Day Out 2010: Request to Decline Entry Visa

Anthony Moses Davis (born Kingston, Jamaica, August 22, 1973) is a reggae performer, notorious for his lyrics and other statements promoting the killing of gay and lesbian people.

The lyrics to one of his songs include: “I’m dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays”. In another, “Mi Nah Wallah”, he says he would like to cut the throats of all gay men.  In “Bad Man Chi Chi Man” he instructs listeners to kill gay deejays, and in “Han Up Deh”, he advocates hanging lesbians, with a long piece of rope.

It is reported that the organisers of the Big Day Out, a music festival, have invited Anthony Moses Davis to perform at their 2010 event.

Since 1994, gay and lesbian New Zealanders have had the protections affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.  These include the right to freedom from discrimination.  That right cannot be given practical effect if people who rejoice in advocating violence towards us, especially in a public way, are welcomed to this country.  As one of our parliamentary colleagues has recently observed in this context, music that denigrates gay men and lesbians in the most extreme way imaginable sends some very powerful signals both to young gay and lesbian people but also to their peers.  It is now well-document that many young lesbian and gay people suffer violence, harrassment, lowered self-esteem and the consequent health and social problems that stem from the denigration that many of them experience.  It cannot be conducive to social cohesiveness, good order and desirable public policy that these outcomes are facilitated.  Granting an entry visa to Anthony Moses Davis would constitute such facilitation.

It appears that Anthony Moses Davis is a Jamaican passport holder.  As such, he does not enjoy the right to visa-free entry to New Zealand.
I ask that you decline an entry visa on the grounds set out in para
Y3.1 viii of the Immigration Manual, which notes that “people will normally be refused entry to New Zealand if they…are a threat to security or public order in New Zealand”.  For the reasons set out above, Anthony Moses Davis constitutes such a threat.

Okay, where to start. My thoughts:

1. Beenie Man is a despicable piece of scum.
2. The organisers of Big Day Out should be pilloried for inviting him
3. Arguing that his attending Big Day Out is a “threat to security or public order” is a very big stretch – especially as Beenie Man no longer sings lyrics promoting killing homosexuals
4. The best response to hate speech is more speech, not less.
5. I think the situation is similar to that of David Irving. Don’t ban then from coming here, but protest against them when they are here.
6. Better responses would be for people to organise a boycott of Big Day Out for inviting him, or to arrange suitable protests at BDO – sell anti Beenie Man t-shirts and/or try and co-ordinate a sit down when he plays.
7. Beenie Man is again a despicable piece of scum

I think the Government is making a mistake by not conceding the law (passed by its predecessor) needs changing. The Herald reports:

The Immigration Advisers Authority has issued 18 warning letters to people it says are breaching the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act since it became law on May 4.

But a director of a defunct migrant workers support centre which received a warning says the authority is using the act to “attack migrant support services” rather than police dodgy immigration advisers. …

Mike Bell said he was forced to close the Skilled Migrant Resource Centre, a registered charity which operated as a drop-in support centre for skilled migrants, after being served a letter from the authority’s solicitor in July.

“I was told the reason I was sent the warning letter was because of my appearance on a TV3 news report where I apparently presented myself as an immigration adviser,” he said.

“Being served a notice like this, with up to seven years’ jail as a penalty, I took it very seriously.
“As a result, New Zealand’s only dedicated facility for skilled migrants was closed down.

Great.

Registrar Barry Smedts denied that the legislation was being used to target non-advisers, but would not say how many of the warning letters had been issued to unlicensed fee-charging advisers.

“The act is in place to protect migrants from poor advice from would-be experts. Forewarning letters have been sent to individuals whose activities appear to breach the act,” Mr Smedts said.

And this is the wrong focus. The focus should be to protect migrants from scamsters who offer a commercial service to assist people with gaining residency or work permits. By claiming their job is to protect against poor advice, suggest the Govt is guaranteeing all advice given will be “good”. I think most people can understand the difference between advice on a blogsite, or someone giving opinions on a TV interview, and a professional immigration advisor.

NZPA report:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is back with all guns blazing today in a speech slamming immigration, foreign ownership and the Government.

Saying NZ First would be fighting the 2011 election to save the country, Mr Peters returned with relish to his old themes of immigration and foreign investment.

The comments were made in speech notes for delivery to the Kawerau and Districts Grey Power meeting this afternoon.

New Zealand had suffered a “tsunami” of immigrants, he said, and large scale immigration could not be justified when 140,000 people were out of work. …

The burden of immigrants on welfare and pensions was bemoaned.

“These people are feasting on your pension pie … the pension pie you and other Kiwis paid for.”

I’ve just gone to Stats NZ and got their annual stats for people arriving in NZ on a residence permit. They are for June years:

• 2006 – 17,917
• 2007 – 17,156
• 2008 – 15,262
• 2009 – 14,275

If that is a tsunami, it is a rapidly shrinking one. How pathetic and desperate is he to resort to his tactics of 15 years ago.

I think Jonathan Coleman has made the wrong call here:

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman says there are no plans to review or change the Immigration Advisers Act, which makes it illegal for anyone who is an unlicensed immigration adviser to give any advice on immigration matters.

This means people who do not hold an immigration advisers licence can be prosecuted if they discuss, direct, assist, or even blog anything that can be constituted as immigration advice.

The intention of the Act was excellent – to deal to the shonky advisers who exploited migrants. But it seems to have massively over-reached.

Kiwi Immigration Watch, an immigration watchdog group headed by former United Future MP Bernie Ogilvy, says the act breaches the Bill of Rights and the basic human right to freedom of speech.

He wants the act to be scrapped or reviewed.

But Dr Coleman said the act had been passed with the support of all political parties in Parliament, and the question of whether it breached the right to freedom of speech was never raised.

“Part of the act’s passage was subject to expert scrutiny in terms of New Zealand’s human rights commitments,” he said.

“No inconsistency with those commitments was raised.”

That’s a process argument. I want to hear a common sense argument. Was it really the intention of Parliament that people offering their own experiences of immigration be banned from publishing those views on the Internet?

The Immigration Advisers Authority defines immigration advice as “using or purporting to use, knowledge of or experience in immigration to advise, direct, assist, or represent another person in regard to an immigration matter relating to New Zealand, whether directly or indirectly and whether or not for gain.”

The authority, which administers the act, has issued 18 warning letters since the law came into effect on May 4, and has warned one blogger, Helen Winterbottom, to stop posting immigration suggestions on her blog.

And this has a whiff of the EFA about it – a definition that is too widely reaching. The prohibition on giving advise, not for gain, seems to have little benefit and is what concerns me the most.

If I were to blog that prospective migrants to New Zealand should not joke on their interview forms about wanting to blow up Parliament on Guy Fawkes Day as in my experience that goes down badly, would that mean I breach the law?

At the least why doesn’t the Minister commission a review of the wording. Maybe ask the Human Rights Commission to consult with stakeholders on it, and see if a revised wording could still achieve the laudable aims of the Act, but lessen the impact on non-commercial personal advice.

The Herald reports:

A blogger who came to New Zealand from Britain has been warned to stop giving immigration advice on her blog – or face prosecution under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act.

The Immigration Advisers Authority says Helen Winterbottom was breaking the law by posting on avalonsguide.com, and has told her she must get a licence if she wants to continue.

Yes Immigration advisers are now licenses, but those enforcing the law should be able to recognise the difference between someone who is in business charging fees for immigration advice, and a blogger talking about their immigration experiences online.

And if no such discretion is possible under the law, it is a damn stupid law that should be repealed.

Sadly it may not be the only one. The new regulating of financial advisers may also capture far more widely than intended, according to Stephen Franks.

But the former pharmacist said she was only “speaking her mind” on her blog, which she started last November, and did not have any intention of becoming an immigration adviser.

Ms Winterbottom said she did not have the written warning, but had been told by the authority that one of her blog entries broke the law.

“I can’t believe that in New Zealand we have a law that makes it a criminal offence to offer advice to someone,” she said. “It really takes away our basic right to freedom of speech.

“My blog is an immigration support forum, so discussing the topic openly is what we do, just like support forums for people who have a specific illness.

That sort of blog should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Mr Smedts said the act was in place to protect migrants from poor advice.

“If someone is giving immigration advice, they must be licensed, unless exempt.

“Helen Winterbottom has suggested in her blog on July 6 that she is exempt, but she does not fit any category of exemption that we are aware of.”

Lawyers, diplomats and MPs are exempt from licensing.

“If bloggers wish to continue writing about immigration issues, they need to consider if they are giving immigration advice as defined by the act,”Mr Smedts said.

“If the answer is yes, are they licensed or exempt, and if not, I recommend they either apply for a licence or invite a licensed adviser or exempt person to contribute to their blogs.”

My suggestion is every blogger in New Zealand starts giving immigration advice on their blogs, and we all appear in court together.

The Act may be well intentioned, but the vast majority of people realise that free advice on a blog or a forum, is just that – free advice. It is not official advice. It is not paid advice. It is not expert advice. It is people sharing experiences. Now the site does have an e-book available for sale but it appears to be a general read about why people should move to NZ etc.

I hope Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman investigates this situation, and if a law change is needed, promotes one. The Government does not want a blogger in court charged with the crime of talking about immigration issues.

The Herald report:

A Labour Party official is being investigated over immigration irregularities, just weeks after he helped Labour MP Su’a William Sio facilitate a meeting with Pacific Islanders duped in a fake-visa scam.

Immigration New Zealand confirmed it was investigating Semisi Faka’osikimuli, the secretary of the Labour Party’s Tongan branch, but would not disclose details or comment further while the investigation is going on.

There comes a point at which you wonder if certain problems are due to individuals, or are institutional. We have the current trial of Taito Philip Field. We have the unresolved issue of why Bill Liu was granted citizenship by Shane Jones despite official advice of his criminal record in China and offences in Australia. We have the Choudary immigration scam. There was also the dropping of list candidate Steven Ching over allegations of bribery. And now this case. Important to note only Choudary has been convicted of crimes.

The Herald understands the investigation centres around fake skilled employment offers to help immigrants get New Zealand work permits and residencies, but it is not clear how much money or how many people were involved.

No doubt details will emerge in time.

Mr Sio said he had known Mr Faka’osikimuli for two years and had worked with him in various capacities – most recently at a meeting with Pacific Islander victims of a fake residency stamps and visa scam on July 4, where Mr Faka’osikimuli chaired the Tongan group.

“He’s an active member of the Labour Party, and like many members of the local Pacific community, Semisi comes regularly to my electorate office in Mangere,” Mr Sio said.

The question is whether the alleged scam was being run out of Sio’s office, and whether that office was used for meetings. Regardless of the criminal allegations, commercial money making ventures should not be using MPs offices.

Han Jian, a former client of Mr Faka’osikimuli – whom he knows as James Semisi – said he decided to lodge a report to the police and Immigration, after receiving a letter from Immigration accusing him of fraud and submitting fake employment job offer documents, and for falsely claiming he had an offer of skilled employment from a company, TVP Computers.

“I was shocked, because I didn’t go for any interviews and didn’t even know I had any job offer, and I definitely did not submit anything to Immigration,” said Mr Han in Mandarin.

“After paying James about $14,000, all he said was to trust him and that is what I did. I thought with his involvement in the Labour Party, he will have good connections with Immigration.”

And this is what I mean about is there institutional issues. Regardless of the criminal issues against Field, it is very clear that his mate the Associate Minister was massively more likely to allow someone to gain residency here if Field acted on behalf of the migrant. There seem to be strong incentives that if Labour is in Government, you deal with people connected with Labour to gain residency or for Bill Liu citizenship.

Regardless of the change of Government, I would like to see much more transparency around MPs involvement in immigration issues. Maybe a quarterly report of the number of applications sponsored by MPs, and their sucess rates. If we had this years ago, it would have been obvious that Ministers were whitelighting almost all applications sponsored by Field.

According to Immigration documents, the application papers were submitted by Rosie Brown, JP, a community worker who works part-time out of Mr Sio’s electorate office.

Again, this may not be about individuals, but institutions.

Green MP Keith Locke wants New Zealand to take in the “detainees” from Guantamamo Bay.

Poneke notes:

While the inmates there are undoubtedly being held in flagrant breach of international law, it is quite obvious that most of those inmates are also ruthless terrorists. They need to be put on trial in somewhere like the Hague, not brought to New Zealand to learn to fly planes. It was honourable of New Zealand to welcome the Tampa refugees to our country in 2001. They were refugees from the Taleban and Al Qaeda. The Guantanamo Bay inmates are the Taleban and Al Qaeda.

Indeed. As TVNZ reported:

Top US general John Altenburg says 30 Guantanamo inmates who were released have since been involved in terrorist acts or have been recaptured on the battlefield.

This reminds me of just after the 9/11 attacks, when the Greens marched just days later to demand the US not respond, and they merely negotiate with the Taliban.

It’s to keep foreigners out. Yes, seriously.

“New Zealand First is announcing today that immigration numbers will be cut to ensure Kiwis do not have to compete with immigrants for jobs as our economy goes into decline,” Mr Peters said.

So will Labour First adopt this as coalition policy?

A reader helpfully left a message on my cellphone telling me to read the story on Page A8 of the Herald carefully, about someone voting Labour because they have allowed him to be on welfare for five years.

I thought he had it wrong, but sure enough we go to this article on how some immigrants are voting and get:

Indian immigrant B. Mohan said his support for Labour stemmed from the party’s “number-one welfare policies” which had helped him to “survive five years of unemployment”.

“The National Party and its millionaire leader, John Key, will never be able to understand the poor, and we cannot trust the rich politicians who listen to consultants rather than their hearts,” said Mr Mohan, who has been without a job since moving to New Zealand in 2003.

I skim read the article early this morning and missed the significance of this. He has been without a job for five years, since he moved here in 2003. What an indictment on our welfare system.

With the lowest unemployment in the world almost, Mr Mohan has not managed to find any work at all in 250 weeks. How preposterous. And no wonder he is supporting Labour – he knows he won’t have five years on the dole under National.

The latest monthly migration stats confirm the trend of the last five years. Graphed above are the annual migration figures for:

1. Permanent and Long-Term Departures from NZ
2. Permanent and Long-Term Departures from NZ of NZ Citizens
3. Net Permanent and Long-Term Departures from NZ of NZ Citizen (departures less those returninh home)

I have not included a graph for Net Permanent and Long-Term Departures from NZ as inwards migration iof non citizens is determined by Government policy and can be adjusted to any level desired as first world countries always have massive immigration supply available.

Overall PLT departures have reached 81,788 – a record high since the current data series began in 1985. This is equal to 1,569 departures a week or 224 a day.

If one excludes non citizens, then PLT departures are at 59,132 which is 1,134 a week or 162 a day.

Now if one takes into account the number of NZ citizens returning home, then the net PLT departures of citizens is 35,859. Five years ago it was only 10,000.

So in annual terms, what cities are equal to our population loss:

1. The net PLT loss of citizens annually is equal to losing Gisborne every year
2. The gross PLT loss of citizens annually is equal to losing Nelson every year
3. The gross PLT loss of residents annually is equal to losing Palmerston North every year

And what has been the total population loss of the last five years:

1. The net PLT loss of citizens over the last five years is equal to losing Dunedin
2. The gross PLT loss of citizens over the last five years is equal to losing Hamilton & Palmerston North.
3. The gross PLT loss of residents over the last five years is equal to almost losing Christchurch.

Inwards migration of new New Zealanders (which is a great thing) helps keep the overall population stable, but that does not mean there isn’t a serious problem with the numbers leaving.

National yesterday released its immigration policy. Sadly Peter Brown will not be deported back to the UK, but there are still some good aspects to it.

• Introduce a temporary work visa for up to six months for any legal visitor to New Zealand who obtains a guaranteed seasonal job offer.
• Introduce a Silver Fern Visa to enable people with recognised tertiary qualifications to be in New Zealand for a short period of time to seek permanent employment in highly-skilled areas which are of high value to the New Zealand economy.
• Enable Silver Fern Visa holders to – for a short specified time period – undertake temporary work while seeking highly-paid permanent employment.
• Establish a Retirement Visa for high net-worth people wishing to live in New Zealand at no cost to the taxpayer.
• Ensure Retirement Visa holders indemnify New Zealand from any health, welfare, or superannuation costs.

All looks pretty sensible to me, with extra flexibility in the system.

I’m actually supportive of most aspects of the Government’s Immigration Bill. The current system is explited by lawyers so that simple cases takes the best part of a decade to resolve.

However there are some worrying aspects, ably covered by Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn and Gordon Campbell at Scoop.

In a welcome move, the Immigration Bill does enshrine various UN conventions – including the Convention Against Torture – in our domestic law. However, in my earlier post, I outlined how the Immigration Bill violates key provisions of that same UN Convention Against Torture – by, for instance requiring ( see clause 122b ) an asylum seeker to prove they would face a worse risk of torture if returned home, than would be usual in their country.

The test should not (and is not under the UN convention) a worse risk of torture than other citizens, but whether there is any significant risk at all.

Ironically it means the more despotic a regime is, the more easily one could deport people back there as if they torture and maim everyone with impunity then you are at no worse risk.

I am sure that this clause will be changed, but you do have to worry about how it got in there in the first place.

The Herald reports on an interesting presentation to an immigration conference:

Speaking on “the economic impact of immigration”, he said recent studies had found that overseas-born migrants contributed $8.1 billion to the economy in 2006, while using $4.81 billion in benefits and services. In comparison, New Zealand-born citizens contributed $24.76 billion and used $21.92 billion in benefits and services.

If correct, this is how it should be. Immigration policy is about selecting people who will be a boost to the NZ economy, not a cost to it.

It is a pity the report cited is not named, as I would be keen to read a copy of it.

There has been a lot of debate about a Massey University study by Greg Clydesdale into Pacific Island achievement and immigration. The Dom Post reports on the study.

The Herald also reports on the backlash from “political correctness bullies”. It has been condemned by Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, despite admitting he had not read it. The same goes for Labour MP Su’a WIlliam Sio who calls the paper disturbing despite also not having read the study.

Now I haven’t read the report myself (but have asked for a copy so I can comment later in more detail), but will make the assertion that there is nothing new about the fact that in areas of education, employment and crime etc Pacific Islanders do not perform as well as the rest of the population. This is not generally disputed.

But what is vital is that one does not just see the hundreds of thousands of Pacific Islanders in NZ just as part of a group. The majority of Pacific Islanders make a positive contribution to New Zealand.

Now how does this tie into immigration policy? Should there be some discrimination against Pacific Islanders because on average they do not achieve as well as other NZers? Absolutely not. I am a strong supporter of a colour blind and country blind immigration policy. We should have objective criteria which intending migrants should meet, and I don’t care if they come from China, the UK or Tonga.

But here is the problem, or the challenge. We actually have specific quotas for immigrants from the Pacific. Now there are public policy reasons for this which I will touch on later, but the fact these quotas exist is why the issue of under-achievement as a group is legitimate to look at.

If we had a truly colour blind and country blind immigration policy where individuals are all treated the same, then the nationality of the applicant should be irrelevant. Every applicant should be treated as an individual, not as a member of a “group”.

But as I said, we do have some specific quotas for Pacific Islanders where applications are decided by random ballot. As far as I can tell they are a Samoan quota of 1,100 a year, a Kiribati quota of 75, Tuvalu 75, Fiji 250  and Tonga 250 for a total of 1,750.

There may be family members on top of that as permanent and long-term arrivals in the last year from Samoa was 1,482 and 773 for Tonga. But that may be family reunifications or other factors.

Now as I said above there are some public policy reasons for having special PI quotas – certainly in the case of Samoa. In 1982 the Privy Council ruled all Samoans are entitled to NZ citizenship. The Government passed the Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 to over-turn that ruling and restrict citizenship to those already lawfully in NZ. As “compensation” for doing so a Samoan quota was agreed to as part of a Treaty of Friendship. We are morally bound to keep our word under that Treaty.

The other Pacific quotas can be justified on public policy grounds also – as the “big brother” to the South Pacific, it is argued we should help out our small neighbours, and we do with most aid going there, and also the special immigration quotas.

The issue is though, that because these special country quotas exist, it is legitimate to debate the impact of immigration from those countries. I do not believe it is particularly valid to question the impact of immigration from China (for example) because no-one from China gets in purely because they are Chinese. They get in because they have met the same objective test as everyone else in the world wanting to come here. Well that, or they were mates with Taito Philip Field.

Now as I said there are valid public policy reasons to have special quotas for Samoa (beyond doubt – that is an obligation) and other Pacific countries. This Wikipedia article lists the large number of Samoan NZers who are “notable” for their contribution, and NZ should in my opinion do its bit to help our Pacific neighbours.

But the existence of those special quotas means it is legitimate to look at issues such as under-achievement in employment, education and crime for migrants from those countries. A sensible debate can be held on whether the quotas are set at the right level. Even in the case of Samoa the quota of 1,100 is a maximum and applicants still need to meet other criteria like having a job offer. The Government relaxed those criteria in 2004 as not enough applicants were being accepted. It is in no way racist or wrong to debate whether or not that was a good idea, and whether the level of quotas is too high, too low or about right.

Last weeks Stats NZ released their latest monthly migration statistics, and the permanent and long-term departures for the last 12 months were up 11.9% from a year ago.

This issue is only getting bigger with the Fairfax page one stories on their poll results showing 10% of Kiwis are considering moving to Australia within the next 12 months.

The Standard is trying to do a King Canute and convince everyone there is not a problem, and you are all wrong. I think this is a classic example of why the Government has failed so badly in the last couple of years – it ignores the issues concerning average NZers and even worse lectures them on why they are wrong. Anyone who doesn’t live in a cocoon would know that the gap with Australia is a major concern, and that more and more families are getting divided up as people leave. Just talk to anyone not in politics as a day job, and they will bring it up as an issue.

But you do have to congratulate The Standard for the audacity of putting on the same graph axis the proportion of people staying and leaving, so they both look like flat lines.

They also keep pointing to net permanent and long-term migration, to claim there is no problem at all, but in doing so they confuse two semi-separate issues.

The level of inwards migration is effectively set by the Government. Yes there are factors such as NZers returning home (and that has also been dropping) but the Govt can and does adjust the requirements for migration with the points system, language requirements etc etc.

If the Govt wanted to, it could have 150,000 or even 200,000 migrants a year coming here. As a non third world country there is almost no limit to how many people would move here if they could.

So while the net migration figure is of some importance (if one does not have positive net migration then the population probably shrinks) the outwards migration figure is much more important.

As an example there is a big difference between say losing 40,000 people a year, and having 44,000 people migrate here and between losing say 200,000 people a year and having 204,000 people a year move here. There are also economic costs to losing people who have embedded in the local economy as opposed to having new workers from overseas. That is not an argument against immigration – I am a fan of it, but that simply replacing someone in NZ, with someone else is not the same as retaining them in the first place. A bit like an employer would rather keep staff longer than have say 30% staff turnover annually.

So while net PLT migration is a useful indicator for some things, it is one which can change dramatically by govt policy as there is near infinite demand from people to live here. And even if policy does not change, it is better to retain people than replace them.

So what has actually been happening with all the different stats. Let’s look at them one by one. First external migration:

Departures from NZ declined in the early 1990s and stayed fairly flat until 1995. From 1995 until 2001 there was a steady increase. September 11 reversed that trend as NZ looked so safe and secure, and for two years it dropped away. But from July 2003 it started increasing again and has just about reached an all time high for a 12 month period – the record is 79,328 in the 12 months to May 2001.

Now adjusting for population growth shows a slightly better picture, but the trend of the last few years is still marked.

Next let us look at PLT departures and arrivals for New Zealand citizens. As I mentioned above arrivials of non citizens is simply a function of how liberal or conservative your immigration policy is. But with NZ citizens it is appropriate to look at how many return home. So below are the numbers of NZ “nationals” who leave or arrive permanently or long-term.

The net PLT migration for NZ nationals has gone from 10,000 in 2003 to over 30,000 in recent months. As one can see the number of NZers leaving is increasing, while the number of NZers returning home has in fact been falling – has dropped 5,000 in the last few years. And considering the massive number of NZers now living overseas, you would expect the number returning to be growing.

Finally we look at migration with Australia, as that is where so much of the focus is. The level of people coming from Australia to NZ has dropped a bit since 2003, and increased from 1999 to 2003.

The big mover has been people going from NZ to Australia. It has almost doubled in the last four years, and net migration has more than tripled.

Now you can say, like Labour and allies do, is there a problem? Hey we are only losing 20 people per thousand residents per year? Well look at the implications over a generation of say 30 years. Over one generation 60% of the population will have left NZ. And it looks like only one in three nationals would return. Now that is a massive degree of economic and social dislocation.

Is it all the fault of the Government of the day? No, of course not. But should the Government be exhibiting a determined focus to implement policies that will lift NZ’s overall national income, that will make people want to stay or at least return to NZ? Hell, yes. And have the current Government’s policies been working? Hell, no.

For those who want to check the data. The population figures are from Stats NZ de facto population series until 1999 and estimated resident population from 1999 onwards. The migration figures are from Stats NZ also – series S2FEAUZ, S1GEAUZ, S2EETZ, S2EETA and S1EETA.

The Herald reports on another case of a fugitive from authorities being hidden by Taito Philip Field when he was a Minister and a Labour MP.

Ms Phothisarn arrived in New Zealand on a visitor’s permit in May 1996, and had been living in Auckland illegally since August of that year.

She narrowly avoided capture during an Immigration Service raid on her Skipton Rd, Mangere, home in September 2002, but was caught when officers raided again in November.

By December, she had been issued a removal order and was shifting from house to house with her infant son to avoid the authorities.

It was at a meeting with Field in late December that the then-Labour MP offered her and her son, and new husband Sompong Srikaew, accommodation in a house in Prangley Ave, Mangere.

Now while MPs should be helping people with immigration problems, this absolutely does not extend to hiding and housing people who have been served a deportation order.

Did none of Field’s colleagues know he was doing this? Can Helen Clark confirm that none of her other MPs and Ministers were or are doing this? And did the Ministers of Immigration who fell over themselves to grant so many dispensations to people Field advocated for, know that Field was hiding people from their own Department?

Regardless of whether or not Field committed any crimes, the issue of Field’s political activities is something Clark can be questioned on. When Helen Clark defended Field as just helping his constituents, did she know of the fact he was hiding illegal immigrants? Is she happy for her Ministers of the Crown not to uphold the law, but to undermine it?

Labour agreed to increase the size of the Police by 1,000 officers as part of its deal with NZ First in 2005.

It has been obvious for some time they would not meet that target.

So they have come up with a solution – to import Asian police officers from Singapore.

Absolutely priceless!

Who gets to tell Peter Brown?

People have been expecting NZ First to start bashing Asian immigrants for months, to try and lift their poll ratings like it did in 1996. Peter Brown’s outburst yesterday was not him just thinking aloud, but part of a planned strategy. It had to fall to him, as Winston being Foreign Minister can’t do it directly.  He is now refusing to comment on his own Deputy Leader’s comments.

The EMA Northern have condemned (hat tip: The Hive) NZ First and Brown:

Comments by New Zealand First MP Peter Brown are racial stereotyping of the worst sort, says Alasdair Thompson, chief executive of the Employers & Manufacturers Association (Northern).

“It was post war migrants like Mr Brown who brought here the bigotry of the British class system and a rabid form of unionism,” Mr Thompson said.

“Mr Brown should stop being hypocritical.

And the Auckland Chamber of Commerce weighs in:

“Asian New Zealanders, and those overseas, should see this for what it is: a pathetic piece of political posturing by a minority party.

Hon Chris Carter:

 ”I think he’s absolutely being racist,” Carter said. “He shouldn’t be condemning people because of their race or culture.”

Hon Clayton Cosgrove:

 Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove told NZPA Mr Brown’s comments were ironic, given that he was a “native born British chap”.

He hoped Mr Brown did not “take his own advice” and return to the UK.

We wait to hear what the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Leader of New Zealand First has to say on the issue.

On a slightly related note, it reminds me of a further Cactus Kate story from Tuesday night. As we were heading along Blair Street, we ran into Keith Ng. Cactus looks at Keith somewhat warily when I mention he blogs for Public Address. I then mention he won a Press Council complaint against Deborah Coddington over her Asian crime story, and Cactus literally leaps forward and embraces Keith in full bear hug, finally releasing him after thanking him for his work.  It was very very funny.

Newstalk ZB reports:

New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown has attacked immigration policies due to the estimated increase in the Asian population. …
The Asian population here is set to rise to 790,000 by 2026.

Mr Brown says he is particularly concerned that Asians will outnumber Maori.

He says “it is a bit rich when the original inhabitants get shoved further down the pile because successive governments keep throwing open the doors to this country.”

At this point I should point out Mr Brown is an immigrant.

If he is worried about the original inhabitants getting outnumbered and shoved further down the pile, then he could do his bit to help and return to the UK.

Or is he saying it is a bad thing only when the yellow immigrants are outnumbering Maori, and the white immigrants are okay?