Nats’ Kim Dotcom law

45 comments on “Nats’ Kim Dotcom law ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Uturn 1

   5 March 2012 at 9:24 am

   This is completely in keeping with NZ culture though. People want to “get ahead” i.e. get rich, and you can’t get ahead when you’re a poor agricultural nation i.e. consisting of poor people with skills related to manual agricultural operations or those that are capable of being taught skills, but have no immediate skill. It comes down to the question of, What does NZ want to be as a Nation?

   At the top of the get ahead mindset are those who are ahead, for the period of their lifetime. Those still rising would argue we need poor people to become slaves so they can reach the upper heights – they don’t often use the word slaves, they call it high productivty, low wage – but this is clearly not some humanitarian angle designed to welcome poor immigrants to a better Life. Utilitarianism rears it’s ugly head again. The get ahead mindset is possesed by Left and Right here in NZ. Those on the Left who are aware, but lack the skills to answer the huge questions that giving up ambition returns, run for cover in the delusions of the middle classes. If life isn’t about making money and getting things, and if it’s really about people, then who are you and what are you to me? Holy shit, import an LCD TV, fast!

   What the general people fail to appreciate – though many have daily brushes with the truth, then ignore it – is that those selling the mindset openly or by masked ommission do not want anyone else to get ahead. Those further down the scale of self interest don’t even know they don’t want other people to rise; not yet, maybe never, no one is going to force them to think. Why would those at the top want more poor people to enslave? Poor is ugly, dirty and troublesome. They have plenty of local poor to choose from right now, enough to keep them comfortable and happy. Let the climbing middle classes look after them – high profits for no work on their part – until they die. And keep selling the myth that everyone can be CEO and live in Hawaii.

   No one who is paying attention to NZ culture should be outraged by this policy. In context it is completely correct, it’s a reflection of what we have become. Until people look for, discover and implement an alternative to getting ahead, this is part of the deal. For Labour to say this is bad is gross hypocrisy and cynical politics. They say it creates a divide? Well how are Labour’s policies any different? As one person put it: Political rhetoric in NZ is all extend and pretend. NZ has no party offering a vision and method of complete social change and a turn away from free market capitalism.
2. shorts 2

   5 March 2012 at 9:34 am

   I think the James Cameron Law would be more fitting… at least Mr Dotcom lives here whereas Mr Cameron may have said as such but the terms of his visa/residency (?) are very, um, liberal
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     5 March 2012 at 10:02 am

     Yip. 88 days over 3 years, with 0 days required in the first year. Very liberal. Barely ‘living here’ IMO.
3. Richard Christie 3

   5 March 2012 at 9:43 am

   Do others remember the time, a decade or more ago, when New Zealand media stirred up self righteous outrage here when a S Pacific Island nation “sold” passports to the well heeled.
   Occupancy of the moral high-ground can be so fleeting.
4. Colonial Viper 4

   5 March 2012 at 10:10 am

   Banana republic.
5. tsmithfield 5

   5 March 2012 at 10:10 am

   I totally agree with this change. We have enough of our own people unemployed. Why import more who have a high likelihood of ending up in the welfare system?
   • Colonial Viper 5.1

     5 March 2012 at 10:11 am

     Why import more full stop.

     Your use of the term “welfare system” is unwelcome.

     If someone is a NZ citizen then they deserve the same benefits of the NZ social security system as anyone else.
   • happynz 5.2

     5 March 2012 at 1:33 pm

     Nowhere on the New Zealand Immigration Services (NZIS) literature do they have any excerpt of the New Colossus poem by Emma Lazurus…

     “Give me your tired, your poor,
     Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
     The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
     Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
     I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

     Immigration for the vast majority of New Zealand bound migrants is about demonstrating that they have the skills, education and financial self-support to successfully pass the benchmarks set by NZIS. Your remark sounds suspiciously like one of those chestnuts often tossed out by the likes of Tea Party members in the States who live in constant dread of brown people speaking Spanish.
6. Mike - move2nz 6

   5 March 2012 at 10:21 am

   Immigration has changed significantly but very quietly since National came to power. Misinformation abounds and this is a perfect example:

   “The changes are aimed at reducing costs incurred through the benefit system and to attract and retain skilled and productive migrants, it says.”

   Actually since National came to power the number of skilled migrants being allowed in to the country has been cut by over a third. Hardest hit are vocational workers (builders, carpenters, mechanics etc.) with rule changes making it more difficult both for migrants and any employers who might need to hire them – for example employers now typically wait months to be told whether they can hire someone when processing in 2008 was often done on a ‘while you wait’ basis in as little as an hour.

   Yes you can mention the recession, but I am talking about people with skills acknowledged to be in shortage in this country.

   The vast majority of migrants in New Zealand (over 80%) are temporary workers who have no ability at all to claim benefits. Most other migrants are hard-working families with a high degree of employment because we only let in those who can get a job. Why would the government want to create a false impression of greedy foreigners taking your money?

   While immigration rules have been skewed to make it harder for skilled workers they have been relaxed for cashed up investors who for example now have to spend less time in this country (Cameron is a case in point) and can get through with a lower standard of English language.

   Hmmm

   This article also creates a false impression in many other areas, for example since National came to power while the number of skilled workers has been slashed the number of family members being allowed into the country has slightly increased (1.2%). Reducing this would then be a significant change which has not started yet.

   Could ‘greedy foreigners’ be being used as a smoke-screen for a different ideological change that does not provide an economic or cultural benefit to New Zealand?

   Cutting costs clearly is a priority despite the damage this might do to a multi-billion dollar income stream for New Zealand. For example family applications, while not being cut, are already moving at a snail’s pace – applications now routinely sit for 24 months gathering dust until they are picked up for processing (creating some difficult situations for many). If this system is likely to get any slower it will come to a complete stop.

   Cash is king, but what is ‘rich’ and what is ‘poor’?

   Parents of migrants who have $1.5 million already jump to the front of the queue (leaving many others waiting for years) and changes being suggested would simply favour rich parents with only one child.

   Of course ‘poor’ parents (those without $1.5 million) cost the country nothing as they still have to pass health tests, have pensions and support themselves. Even if something did go terribly wrong their sponsors would be liable to cover the cost meaning little risk for New Zealand.

   Ironically concentrating on investors over skilled workers has cost the country dearly.

   Last year the immigration department failed to fill it’s quota for skilled workers (because of policy settings rather than any lack of interest) for the first time at a direct cost calculated to be over $1.1 billion. The continuing (and accumulating) cost of this failure equates (according to government figures) to be $16+ million each year in lost productivity.

   That of course doesn’t even start to count towards damage to New Zealand businesses and jobs caused by delays, bureaucracy and skill shortages.

   Don’t blame the officials doing a difficult job in increasingly difficult circumstances, blame ‘policy’ that they have no choice but to apply.

   It is a shame that this article helps to paint migrants, who bring at least $1.9 billion into the country every year, as costing New Zealand money.

   These moves are likely to continue in making it difficult for skilled workers our businesses need to get in the country, or want to try as Australia and Canada are crying out for them, increasing their quotas while ours is reduced. This however does have the interesting effect of keeping job creation and wages low.

   Is this a positive step for New Zealand when simply leaving what was a functional system alone would have assured billions of dollars of additional income?
   • Foreign Waka 6.1

     5 March 2012 at 11:21 am

     Thank you for your contribution to this highly emotional loaded issue. A fully agree with your article. Mind you, Australia looks good for NZlaenders, now imagine how it looks for potential immigrants?
7. tsmithfield 7

   5 March 2012 at 10:23 am

   “Why import more full stop.”

   Not “full stop”. Question mark!! 🙂

   Answer:

   1. We need more capital here. Some wealthy potential immigrants have plenty of capital.
   2. We are short of some skills in this country. For instance, GP’s. So we can import those skills from overseas to fill the gap here.

   “Your use of the term “welfare system” is unwelcome.”

   Is that too un-PC for your precious sensibilities?

   “If someone is a NZ citizen then they deserve the same benefits of the NZ social security system as anyone else.”

   Only if we let them in in the first place.
   • Colonial Viper 7.1

     5 March 2012 at 10:29 am

     1) Its stupidity to try and import rich people with the idea that they will move large sums of capital here. Its the global market place – the real capital moves where its directed by the financial centres of the world.

     2) Not un-PC. Destructive to meaning and context is what Right Wing ‘welfare’ languaging does. It does that by taking social welfare out of its context of the larger NZ social security system.

     3) “Only if we let them in in the first place.” Yep.
   • Bored 7.2

     5 March 2012 at 10:46 am

     TS, are you paid to spout the tired platitudes and shibboleths of “conventional wisdom” emanating from the neo lib establishment? If not you really need to do yourself a favour and send the bill.

     Just to illustrate how tired these lines are some questions. You say, We need more capital here. Some wealthy potential immigrants have plenty of capital.. How about asking why we don’t have capital? How about questioning why a wealthy foreigner would want to invest money here if the locals wont? How about asking why we need capital at all if all we are doing is off-shoring the profits to the capital provider?

     You say “We are short of some skills in this country. For instance, GP’s. So we can import those skills from overseas to fill the gap here.” True, but why? And why should we cure this with people from offshore rather than train locally? Too many questions around this statement as well.
8. Foreign Waka 8

   5 March 2012 at 10:51 am

   There is a preconceived idea that all immigrants are ending up receiving a benefit of one sort or another. Not many seem to be familiar how the system actually works for the majority of immigrants.
   Firstly, if you are outside the so called commonwealth then you HAVE TO HAVE money to settle because the stipulation is that NO ONE will support you. In fact, if you cannot show that you have savings, you point system just took a major dive. Fail.
   Secondly, an immigrant has to go through some rigmarole before they are allowed to settle especially if they do not have a lot of money. It is also so that the same have to prove that the speak the language, are of good health, have had no convictions (except parking tickets) and above all have a profession, job that no one else can fill. Any of these sections gets points deducted -fail.
   These are the norms for immigrants, especially outside the English speaking world.
   Then there are the Family members who enter on humanitarian grounds of family reunification, asylum seekers and economic refugees. The ones who can “buy” their way in comprise a very, very small percentage but these are treated very publicly and vocal.
   Looking at single groups of benefit recipients and relate these to the actual people affected, all seem to be deserving of some support.I personally would not feel right to deny someone shelter, food and the basics. But then again, some people seem to discover that they can only prosper if they suppress someone else and translate their powerless feeling onto a vulnerable person.
9. millsy 9

   5 March 2012 at 11:04 am

   Rich is the new white.
10. KJT 10

    5 March 2012 at 11:06 am

    Our immigration system is broken.
     
    Why do we need foreigners to bring in capital?
    We can lend it to ourselves through a State bank, encourage our own entrepreneurs, and cut out ticket clipping middlemen. 
     
    Bringing in skilled immigrants is self defeating. It allows employers to keep skilled wages low and avoid training New Zealanders, exacerbating the problem, skills shortages, it is supposed to fix. 
    The number of skilled immigrants is down as they realise that New Zealand employers do not want to pay for skills.
    The ones that do come head for Australia ASAP.
     
    Better to use it to be a good world citizen. Help refugees and the pacific islands in our back yard.
    • Foreign Waka 10.1

      5 March 2012 at 11:30 am

      Hi KJT, I do not agree with the assertion that skilled immigrants are not needed. NZ was build on that kind of capital. I see every day illiterate people in the workforce and in time this will lead to a even lower standard. We as adults have an obligation to make sure that the kids today have a fighting chance here and abroad. Skilled immigrants do not just bring the obvious but also different world views, new horizons, new ideas etc. Surely you don’t mean that NZ should isolate itself from the rest of the world?
      As for the ones leaving as quickly as possible, I wish them all the best. Obviously, they will not be missed.
      • KJT 10.1.1

        5 March 2012 at 11:41 am

        Some skilled immigrants will build our skill base and I appreciate the rise in standards of Chinese cooking in Auckland, for one.
         
        BUT. Immigration is used in New Zealand so employers can avoid paying skills what they are worth and avoid training New Zealanders.
        They do not have to help raise the standard of training of New Zealanders because they can always bleat to the immigration department for more workers.
         
        Why do you think we have the lowest margin for extra skills in the Western world.
         
        Necessary skills are underpaid while useless parasites like financiers and offshore wealthy remove too much money..
    • Mike - move2nz 10.2

      5 March 2012 at 11:48 am

      KJT – chasing capital coming in to the country would be good for growing New Zealand business. Strangely despite the need to move investment from property into business ideas government recently changed rules allowing foreign investors to put their money in to new building projects.

      It is a popular misconception that skilled migration pushes down wages and skills. If managed properly the opposite is true, the key is knowing where the skill gaps are and bringing in people who have something new rather than those with abilities which can be matched by local graduates. Often the difference is experience.

      The key to this is knowing where the skill gaps are, however sadly immigration now relies on Work and Income to provide this information meaning that the gap between what employers need and what they are being allowed to have is widening at an alarming rate, placing thousands of kiwi jobs at risk.

      Properly managed skilled migration creates jobs for New Zealanders, grows local businesses and brings training opportunities for NZ workers. Numbers of skilled workers are down simply because of policy changes – I have challenged Department of Labour reports and been offered no factual basis for assertions made about issues such as the Canterbury quakes reducing numbers.

      Of course the billions of dollars of income that goes directly into local businesses when skilled migrants invest in New Zealand through buying cars and furniture could be argued to be more useful for NZ business than larger single investments going into businesses whose profits will eventually head back off shore.

      Reducing skilled migration is most likely to keep wages down and slow job creation. It means businesses cannot expand to take advantage of opportunities for growth, endangering kiwi jobs.

      Unfortunately New Zealand is losing the international battle for skills – both for New Zealanders and overseas workers – to Australia and Canada and will continue to do so until the gap between what NZ employers need and what immigration is letting through is closed. 
      • KJT 10.2.1

        5 March 2012 at 12:59 pm

        What a load of shit.
         
        It is not a misconception that immigration allows wages to be pushed down and employers to avoid training locals.
         
        I see it every day in my own industry.
         
        We are losing the international battle for skills because we do not want to pay skilled workers what they are worth.
         
        New Zealand employers are the authors of their own mis-fortune, to the detriment of NZ youth looking for work and training.
         
        Immigrants expand GDP and things such as housing demand. Again the resulting rise in prices is also self defeating. Giving money to speculators and taking it from locals.
        • Foreign Waka 10.2.1.1

          5 March 2012 at 3:15 pm

          Hi KJT, laughing because of your use of words – this is not like you ?!
          re: skilled immigrants push wages down. For an immigrant to settle he/she has to show that a job/skill is available, otherwise they are not allowed into the country. I have seen this happen where people had jobs and a life for years and have been sent packing because the profession they work in does not match the degree (yes University!). The tears and sorrows that are inflicted with this is telling. And these people were literate and speakers of several languages.
          Any new immigrant isn’t versed in what the “going rate, higher end market wage” is and assume that they are being paid fairly. What you imply is that this is not the case and I don’t belief this can be put onto the immigrant as their fault. It is rather an indicator to what NZ has become over the years, employers included.
          What perhaps needs to be looked at is the mix of population and what fits within society. It used to be a strong component some 25 years ago.
          An economy needs demand to sustain itself and to feed this you need people with disposable income. So the question really has to be: how much disposable income is there. If you have part time and seasonal jobs as well as repatriation of moneys overseas (not just corporates) than you have a very dire situation. Stopping immigration will not change that. In fact I would say that the moneys coming in from immigrants are offsetting the deficit on the other side of the equation. The speculators as you call them are mostly NZlaenders, you do know that?
          In any case, to increase the income, productivity and wealth, NZ has to stop sending unprocessed commodities overseas. The manufacturing base needs to be reestablished. Countries such as Australia in the Pacific and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere have done just that.
          Training would of cause be another issue in itself. Industry apprenticeships have been largely discontinued and it is high time to make any form of professional training compulsory in the same way as primary and secondary school is. Thus a structured system has to be put in place. We owe this to the next generation.
      • Olwyn 10.2.2

        5 March 2012 at 1:20 pm

        Mike-move2nz: The problem which you don’t state, but which underlies everything you say is the tendency in NZ to see money as and end in itself.

        “…chasing capital coming in to the country would be good for growing New Zealand business. Strangely despite the need to move investment from property into business ideas government recently changed rules allowing foreign investors to put their money in to new building projects.”

        I think there was even some confidence in the early stages of the housing bubble that it would give people leverage and “be good for growing NZ business,” but what it resulted in was those with property using that leverage to buy more property.

        “Of course the billions of dollars of income that goes directly into local businesses when skilled migrants invest in New Zealand through buying cars and furniture could be argued to be more useful for NZ business than larger single investments going into businesses whose profits will eventually head back off shore.”

        There are two parts to this claim: as to migrants helping the NZ economy by buying cars,, furniture etc. Once they have bought their cars and furniture, then what? More immigrants to keep the car, furniture, etc, businesses going?

        As to businesses that send their profits off shore, surely what we actually need are productive businesses that are able to keep their profits here.

        We seem to have a real difficulty in translating ways of getting money into ways of generating the sort of wealth needed to sustain and engage a society. This makes a big difference to the role skilled migration plays in our economy; whether it adds to a valuable skill base or adds to the number competing for a small number of work opportunities and overpriced housing.
11. tc 11

    5 March 2012 at 11:41 am

    CT will be loving the dog whistling talkback fuelled rant and diversion so focus elswhere people.

    What are the dark lords about to sneak past whilst the MSM are recording rants and passing it off as balanced commentary….this policy is widely known and been going on as part of their first urgency package from memory I think the standard article was tagged ‘democracy has a price, the nat’s have set it’ or similar
12. Pete 12

    5 March 2012 at 12:26 pm

    I see, so you prefer people who will be a drain on the welfare system? As long as people can contribute to this country, and they do not have a criminal record, I can see no problem with them having more cash available to look after themselves. That has got to be good for the country. If this becomes just one of the criteria, so be it.
    • framu 12.1

      5 March 2012 at 12:58 pm

      “I see, so you prefer people who will be a drain on the welfare system”

      i see that you dont have a clue about immigration policy as it currently stands – i will give you a hint, unless your a refugee you must meet quite strict criteria about skills, family make up and ability to support yourself.

      shit pete – its even outlined in Foreign Waka’s comment above at 10:51
13. Pete 13

    5 March 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Actually, I have more than a clue. The labour departments own stats show the ‘median annual income of all migrants was $36,000 and only 1 in 4 earned more than $50k. 9% received some form of benefit assistance. So my original comment stands. If the median wage is $36k how is this contributing to the country? This is well below the level that would make some one eligible for Working for families. And 9% of new immigrants on a benefit is just too high. The resources to support low income immigrants is considerable. And of course new immigrants are eligible for a full benefit after two years. There is little information, however, to suggest what the take up rate might be in this category. I am not saying ‘turn them away’, because that would not be ‘right’, but I am saying this ‘rich mates’ rhetoric is just that – rhetoric. What is the harm in allowing some ‘wealthier’ people in if they meet all the tests? That would have to be good wouldn’t it? Why on earth would we favour one group over another?
    Then of course there is the fact that migrants from the Pacific and Asia tend to send considerable sums out of the country.
    • framu 13.1

      5 March 2012 at 3:15 pm

      use the reply button pete

      also – do these stats separate out refugees or lump them in with all migrants? including them would explain the benefit %.

      do the income figures reflect what they earnt overseas or once settled here? (which tells you more about our economy than our immigration policy)

      As you havent supplied a link i cant quickly check such aspects.

      “What is the harm in allowing some ‘wealthier’ people in if they meet all the tests?”

      the point im trying to make – and why im accusing you of not having a clue, is that currently what your describing is what the situation is. If you meet the test you get let in – the wealthy who dont get let in – dont meet the test (just like the rest who dont meet the test).

      it would seem this suggested policy would allow those with money to either jump the queue and/or not meet the test via a different set of criteria (which by the way already exists anyway).

      as you say ” Why on earth would we favour one group over another?”
      • Pete 13.1.1

        5 March 2012 at 6:43 pm

        I got this from the Dept of Labour’s website. The link is cut and pasted below. I would not think refugees would account for 9% of migrants (the number who receive assistance). I am not sure if refugees are included in the stats or not. I seem to recall that we take around 700 refugees annually, but I think that number might have dropped. I don’t have time to research this any further.
        Also, what we have now includes a reasonable number of compassionate cases where family members are allow to enter (not sure of the %).
        The income figures are for NZ income post immigration.
        What I was reacting to was the tired old ‘rich mates’ stuff. It does not help discussion, and like a lot of NZ’ers I am tired of the angry stuff that is vented on left and right blogs. It is polarizing and past it’s use by date. I am not necessarily accusing you of this.

        http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/research/lisnz/lisnz-main_09.asp
        • Pete 13.1.1.1

          5 March 2012 at 6:52 pm

          Refugee numbers peeked at 631 in 01-02 and declined steadily to 72 in 08-09. These numbers from Stats NZ.
          • Mike - move2nz 13.1.1.1.1

            5 March 2012 at 7:46 pm

            According to immigration department statistics the following numbers of refugee applications were approved under the Refugee Quota:

            2005/06: 791
            2006/07: 748
            2007/08: 795
            2008/09: 757
            2009/10: 639
            2010/11: 705

            Source

            Until this year the residency quota was 45,000 – 50,000 people with around 60% coming through the skilled/business stream, 31% through the family streams and 9% through humanitarian (which includes refugees).

            The immigration department failed to meet this quota last year by around 10% and this has now been changed to a three year quota of 135,000 – 150,000. The family quotas are now being partially removed and the department is on target to miss the skilled/business quota by approximately 22% for the year to June 2012.

            Government reports discussing the shortfall fail to mention that from January 2010 numbers of skilled migrants selected for processing were cut by 30%, instead pinning the shortfall on the Canterbury quakes and international recession. This of course does not explain why percentages of those selected and then declined have doubled over the past five years and only a third of applications that qualify available are picked up for processing.

            That shortfall is now having some interesting effects as the immigration department gains 66% of its funding from fees and levies meaning that the previous Minister appears to have shot his department in the foot (leading to a $28.11 million deficit according to the incoming Minister’s briefing – the first since 1999 when this system was introduced). 
            • Pete 13.1.1.1.1.1

              5 March 2012 at 9:05 pm

              I got my numbers direct from the Stats NZ website. My recollection was that the numbers were around 700 pa, but when I checked Stats NZ showed approved applications as 72 for there 08-09 year. I have no explanation for the discrepancy.
        • framu 13.1.1.2

          6 March 2012 at 7:11 am

          ” I am not necessarily accusing you of this.”

          thats cool pete – the internet is no place for holding a grudge and it kinda pointless getting angry at each other on a blog

          ———————————-

          “What I was reacting to was the tired old ‘rich mates’ stuff. It does not help discussion”

          but to be fair, you did open with

          “I see, so you prefer people who will be a drain on the welfare system”

          which mis-represents the arguments being made, and is exactly the same behaviour who say you are against.

          ———————————-

          anyway – none of which negates that we do have a very exacting entry requirement that is evenly applied to most if not all at the present time. We also currently have wealthy immigrants who jump the queue or side step certain criteria due to their wealth.

          What is being proposed is a two lane system where by default who get treated better if you have more $$.

          Considering that you need to pass a rigourous test anyway to get in, Do you think that is fair?
          • Pete 13.1.1.2.1

            6 March 2012 at 10:04 am

            Agreed. Cheers.
14. Kevin 14

    5 March 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Wealthy people don’t emigrate to New Zealand to seek out and or to establish business opportunities. They emigrate here for the lifestyle , the scenery and in the case of Mr Dotcom, as a safe place to raise your children.
    Mr Dotcom did spend a considerable part of his wealth here, purchasing motor vehicles, property, and services, therefore his contribution to New Zealand’s economy was positive.This is the desired outcome of attracting wealthy people to New Zealand and should be encouraged because collectively wealthy people create a critical mass of idea’s and capital that our economy lacks.
15. Spratwax 15

    5 March 2012 at 1:31 pm

    History repeats. Think ‘National’s immigration policy of the ’90’s’. Housing bubble and burst (after they get their passports they bugger off). We don’t need opportunists seeking a passport safe haven, we need people who want to genuinely contribute to NZ society

    Short-sighted, destructive, and a drain on NZ society. Fresh ideas on immigration from this mob? You must be joking!
16. Olwyn 16

    5 March 2012 at 1:55 pm

    This is a bit to the side of the thread I know, (although it does involve an immigrant) but to those who live in Auckland: Ahmed Zaoui now runs a kebab shop on K Rd, in the food hall in front of the Lim Chhour supermarket. I have not yet eaten one his kebabs, but I have been told that they are excellent.
    • Drongo 16.1

      5 March 2012 at 8:54 pm

      Odgers will call him a terrorist because she’ll say he hasn’t proved he’s not.
17. Bob R 17

    5 March 2012 at 2:35 pm

    “reduce the number of unskilled migrants who find it difficult to get jobs and are more likely to get benefit payments”.

    Not sure what the objection to this would be in principle. Welfare systems can’t be sustained if you continually add recipients from home and overseas.
18. Darien Fenton 18

    5 March 2012 at 2:45 pm

    This policy change affects migrants who are already in New Zealand, either as residents or citizens. An adult child or sibling of a resident or citizen can apply for residency, but there are very strict controls on this. They have to have a job to come to; the NZ parent or sibling has to sponsor them for five years, they have to meet health and good character tests and there is an 18 – 24 month waiting list. We limit the numbers allowed in on this.

    This will be abolished. It was decided by cabinet last May, yet we are only now hearing about it, because of a secret paper Labour got hold of. The paper indicates that as soon as the announcement is made, the category will be closed.

    The second part of the change affects the parent category, where migrants who are here already as residents or citizens can sponsor a parent to live in New Zealand. They have to sponsor them for five years, they have to meet the health and character requirements, there is a waiting list of 18 – 24 months, and the places are limited.

    So neither of these changes are about poor migrants coming in and getting on a benefit. That’s a definite dog whistle and shame on some of the right wing blogs for going down that path.

    The two issues for me are that this was kept secret from the public despite the Briefing to the Incoming Minister : this is a mini BIM that spells out the real agenda and reveals the Cabinet decided this last year. They forgot to tell us about this before the election. The second issue is that we keep designing immigration policy around wealthy people ; the government has already brought in the Investor Plus category with ten wealthy applicants, including Kim Dotcom. Last year, they brought in the Parent Retirement category, where people with investment funds of $1m and half a mil to live on get preference to retire in New Zealand.

    This latest addition shows a tendency for this government to believe that residency is for sale in New Zealand.

    I accept coming to New Zealand is a privilege; but I can’t accept that money should be the only criteria.
19. Pete 19

    5 March 2012 at 2:59 pm

    ‘I accept coming to New Zealand is a privilege; but I can’t accept that money should be the only criteria.’
    Where does it say money is the only criteria? Darien, you say shame on the right wing blogs for going down the path of poor migrants coming in and getting benefits. Well, if they do say this they shouldn’t, but nor should you say that money is the only criteria. You know this to be untrue.

    [lprent: Another unobservant idiot who thinks they’re on KB, and doesn’t use the Reply button. Before the inevitable number of replies seperate one from the other; this slow of mind bozo is referring to this comment by Darien.

    Oh I see he has been doing it all down this thread – auto-moderation. ]
    • Pete 19.1

      5 March 2012 at 5:39 pm

      Iprent. Is there a valid reason you are so abusive, or is it just because you don’t like my opinion? Forgetting to hit the reply button, doesn’t qualify for this sort of rant. Perhaps you might like to comment on what I said.
      • McFlock 19.1.1

        5 March 2012 at 5:58 pm

        [gets popcorn]
      • IcI 19.1.2

        5 March 2012 at 11:46 pm

        I hope lprent does not reply. This is more about your behaviour, than the content of your message.

        If memory doesn’t fail me, he is the SysAdmin for this site. He gets to decide what is acceptable use. In my books, hitting the reply button is good social etiquette. Besides, it keeps content and the structure of this site together.
        • Pete 19.1.2.1

          6 March 2012 at 9:29 am

          I don’t disagree with what you say, about the reply button, but their was nothing wrong with my behaviour. I didn’t abuse anyone. I just didn’t see the reply button end of story. Bringing this to my attention would have been sufficient. No need for anything else.
20. Cactus Kate 20

    5 March 2012 at 8:05 pm

    http://www.ird.govt.nz/yoursituation-nonres/move-nz/temp-tax-empt-foreign-inc.html

    Wait until you realize Kim also got a four year tax exemption….as will JC.
    Oops.
    (popcorn moment)

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS