Polynesian immigration and crime

March 14, 2010

Following the recent attack on a wheelchair-bound Canadian man in Sydney by two youths alleged to be of Polynesian background, Aussie conservative blogger Jessica points out the conspicuously high crime rates for Polynesians in Australia.

While this rising tide of Polynesian crime provides a good reason for restricting Polynesian immigration to Australia, Jessica points out that controlling Polynesian immigration is very difficult because of the high number of Polynesians granted citizenship in New Zealand. Since New Zealand and Australia have close economic and cultural ties, anyone who becomes a permanent citizen of New Zealand usually gets the right to live and work in Australia, and since Australia has higher wages and welfare rates, many immigrants use a kiwi passport as a means to get into Australia.

From a New Zealand perspective, high levels of Polynesian immigration have been a lose-lose situation. Not only has Polynesian immigration created a lot of problems in terms of crime, white flight, rising health costs, higher rents and job competition for low-skilled Maori, but it’s now also puttin the right of Kiwis to live and work in Australia in jeopardy.

Originally of course Polynesian immigration was touted as a way of helping with economic development in the Pacific Islands while providing cheap labour for domestic industry in Auckland and Wellington. Forty to fifty years later, however those ‘cheap labour industries’ have either moved overseas or substantially downsized, leaving large Polynesian ghettos with relatively high rates of unemployment, crime, and high levels of overcrowding with its associated health problems like respiratory diseases. Meanwhile most of the island nations that make up Polynesia are still mired in high levels of poverty and corruption. Like Northland and other parts of the country with high Maori populations, Polynesian areas in Auckland and Wellington are also skilled-labour sinks, where health workers and teachers from other parts of the country have to be bought in to the jobs the local can’t do and thus providing the pro-immigration lobby with a further argument for boosting skilled immigration from Asia.

The legacy of Polynesian immigration in New Zealand, has a lot of parallels with Pakistani immigration into the north of England, which occurred at about the same time. In both cases immigrations which bought in at the bequest of progressives and big business advocates to prop up sunset industries with little thought for long-term consequences.

1 Comment | Australia, Immigration, NZ economy, Polynesia, South Pacific, crime | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

The trans-Tasman wage gap

December 15, 2009

 The wage gap between Australia and New Zealand has been in the news again lately following the release of a government taskforce report on ideas for closing it. Most media commentators are arguing it’s unlikely to close any time soon. At present wages are estimated to be about 30 percent higher in Australia.

What none of the mainstream commentators have considered though, is that just because New Zealand’s wage rates won’t increase significantly, doesn’t mean Australia’s wage rates won’t slip back to New Zealand levels. Neoliberal commentators have argued that the gap between the two countries is mainly due to economic policies, but this seems unlikely when it is New Zealand that has been the most zealous in adopting neoliberal policies like greater labour market flexibility, lower taxes and free trade.

From what I can figure out, the main reasons why Australia has a higher average wage rate are Australia’s greater mineral wealth and higher productivity levels. However, with Australia’s continuing high immigration levels, this mineral wealth is going to have to be spread among an increasing number of immigrants who will be mostly employed in non-productive jobs in the health and service sectors. Similarly, since increases in productivity are mostly due to the introduction of labour saving technology, it seems likely that continuing high immigration may well act to suppress any significant rises in productivity.

If New Zealand is serious about closing the gap with Australia, then it needs to limit it’s own immigration intake to ensure it makes the most of its resource advantages in terms ot more fertile land and vastly superior water supplies.

Leave a Comment » | Living standards, NZ economy | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

New Zealand’s third world fisheries

August 8, 2009

Fisheries are one of the few productive sectors which most developed countries still run along nationalistic lines. Generally only financially desperate third-world governments open up their fisheries to foreign vessels. An exception to this is New Zealand, which as part of its apathetic attitude to fishing resources  and later neoliberal commitment to free trade, has allowed foreign vessels from around the world to fish in its territorial waters since the late 1970s.

Initially foreign vessels were allowed into New Zealand waters to fish for deep-sea species which local fishermen were unable or unwilling to fish for. However, after a collapse in numbers of deep-water species such as Orange Roughy in the 1980s, a quota system was introduced which meant foreign vessels were only permitted to fish for quota on behalf of New Zealand companies.

Unfortunately there are two standards when it comes to policing this quota system. New Zealand-run ships are carefully policed by on-board fisheries officers, but foreign vessels are often left totally unsupervised. The reason for this lapse monitoring of foreign vessels was revealed in a programme entitled the Great New Zealand Fishing Scandal  which aired on the Documentary Channel earlier this week.

Apparently, conditions on many of the foreign-owned vessels from countries such as Thailand, Myanmar and Russia are so bad that New Zealand Fisheries Officers refuse to stay on them for health and safety reasons. Subsequently, we have little idea if these boats are confirming to local regulations or not. And even when it is proven that they are breaching fisheries regulations, it is often easier for them to pay the relatively modest fines than abide by the rules.

Defenders of the current system, argue that New Zealand wouldn’t need to employ foreign vessels if New Zealand were willing to go and get the fish themselves, rather than rely on keener, harder-working foreigners to do the job for them. However, this doesn’ t really apply  when you are taking about a shrinking resource for which demand is increasing. Even if New Zealanders under-exploit the resource in the short-term, this isn’t really a serious problem as the resource will therefore last longer, and the total value of fish taken in dollar terms will be higher, as fish not caught today can be caught and sold for a higher price tomorrow. And in any case, that’s likely to be an academic problem, as there are now sufficient New Zealand boats around to catch the existing quota (which has recently been cut dramatically for many species) without needing to call on foreign vessels.

The end result of this rash experiment in laissez-faire fisheries management is that many New Zealand fisherman are unable to compete with foreign vessels and hundreds have left the country for jobs in better managed fisheries in Australia and North America. For a developed country with a small population of 4 million people, and thousands of kilometres of relatively unpolluted coastline, this is a situation of third-world incompetence.

Former Labour prime-minister David Lange once had the audacity to say New Zealand was run like a Polish shipyard. However, in the case of fisheries, he and his successors have turned it into the equivalent of a Nigerian shipyard.

Leave a Comment » | Fisheries, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Immigrants can’t find jobs, so increase immigration

May 24, 2009

The Press reports that a visiting international economist Philippe Legrain has told New Zealand that it shouldn’t cut immigration during the recession

At a Department of Internal Affairs-sponsored meeting in Christchurch, Mr Legrain spouted the usual Economist-style arguments about immigrants boosting creativity and being essential to economic growth, without providing any evidence of how such growth is supposed to boost the living standards of existing citizens.

Instead of trying to protect their jobs by calling for a slowdown in immigration, he said local workers should take it on the chin and direct the blame on “the bankers in the United States,” (I wonder if that includes those who lent too much money to recent minority immigrants).

He also said that New Zealand needed more Asian immigration so it could take advantage of the expanding markets in East Asia, while overlooking the fact that the country already has thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of well-educated Chinese, Japanese and Korean speakers, should our export companies require their services.

To illustrate his total disregard for the concerns of local workers, he even admitted that thousands of recent skilled immigrants are struggling to find work as it is:

“During the two weeks he has been in New Zealand, Legrain said he had heard a lot of stories that highly-skilled migrants were unable to get jobs in New Zealand either because their qualifications were not recognised here or companies wanted people with New Zealand experience.”

If recent immigrants are already being passed over by local employers, then maintaining high immigration levels during a recession will only make it even more difficult for them to find jobs.

What I think Mr Mr Legrain is really saying here is that because many immigrants are failing to find suitable employment, the country needs to bring in more immigrants to compensate for these lost “units of production,” so as to maintain a high rate of economic growth that enriches our elites and avoid any empty berths in Auckland’s yacht marinas.

Of course immigration-based economic growth doesn’t increase per capita income unless it also lead to an increase productivity levels, and there’s little evidence that productivity levels have increased much since National’s neo-expansionist immigration drive began in 1990. This can be seen most starkly in the relationship between house prices and wages – since 1990 median house prices have almost tripled, while the average wage has only increased by about 40 percent.

Unfortunately while most people probably aren’t particularly impressed by Mr Legrain, John Key apparently is. Recently he announced that National won’t be aiming to cut immigration during the recession, and will be sticking with its expansionist target of 45,000 immigrants per year.

That may not sound a lot to overseas readers, but for a small country of 4.2 million, it represents a higher figure than most other developed countries, particularly for one which has little labour-intensive industry and derives most of its income from primary production and tourism.

1 Comment | Immigration, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Yet another retail complex for Mallchurch

April 8, 2009

I read in the Press yesterday that another large shopping complex is planned for Christchurch, with Applefields seeking permission for a development on Yaldhurst Road west of the city.

Christchurch already has an implausibly large number of shopping malls and retail mega stores, so it’s a mystery as to why property developers are so keen on building even more of them.

Either they’re still suffering from 1990s-style “new paradigm” delusions or they have some sympathetic friends in the immigration department.

I recall hearing not long ago that more New Zealanders are employed in retail work than in any other field.

No wonder we have low wages and poor productivity levels when such a large chunk of the population is trying to sell us stuff we haven’t got the money to buy.

Leave a Comment » | Christchurch, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Not so unique aspect of kiwi culture

March 19, 2009

One thing you frequently here about in NZ, is the phrase “number 8 wire” which refers to the historical tendency of isolated New Zealand farmers and inventors to be resourceful and make do with whatever materials are at hand.

In this week’s Press newspaper for example, a local product developer points out the commercial limitations of the “number 8 wire” approach, as illustrated by the business failure of the late John Britten, who was unable to develop a sustainable business from his highly innovative Britten motorbike design.

However, what’s rarely mentioned in such discussions is that this ‘number eight’ phenomena is arguably just as common in Britain, where the majority of New Zealanders originally came from, as it is here.

You don’t have to spend much time in the UK to here the likes of Prince Charles or the Dyson vacuum cleaner guy bemoaning the country’s failure to convert its backyard ingenuity into reliable mass-produced products.

While German and Japanese engineers methodically go about building a better Corolla or Golf, their British counterparts seem more intent of winning the next series of Junk Yard Wars.
Unable to compete in the mass market, the British trickle out bit and pieces of niche products from composite hand made sport cars, to boutique stereo speakers and authentically “distressed” reproduction furniture.

Lack of investment is more likely to account for British manufaturing underachievement than isolation, but the end result is the same as in NZ.

Nor is the situation much different in Australia, where manufacturers eke out a living producing a few locally-tailored products that can tempt consumers away from the tsunami of Asian, American and European imports.

This kind of ignorance of the trials and tribulations of other western countries seems to be a legacy of the Lange/Keating era of the mid 1980s, when it became fashionable to attack traditional cultural links with the West and make exaggerated claims about local uniqueness.

Leave a Comment » | Anglo culture, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

ACC blowout

March 14, 2009

One of the things I’ve always disliked about New Zealand is the unjust state-funded accident compensation system, which was apparently adopted in dubious circumstances in the 1970s.

Since the country already has a relatively generously funded health and welfare system, it’s puzzling why it actually needs a public provider of accident insurance like the Accident Compensation Corporation.

If somebody has an accident at work, they are already covered by the public health and welfare system, and shouldn’t really expect additional public help in the form of income compensation through a parallel ACC system.

Most workplaces are a lot safer than they used to be, and if workers in dangerous jobs do require insurance, then this could just as easily be provided by competing private insurers, rather than a government monopoly provider.

Probably the most unjust part of the ACC system though, is that it also extends to accidents outside of work, with employees expected to make contributions towards a public fund to cover everything from skiing accidents to allergic reactions to bee stings.

Not surprisingly, with little incentive for people to use their common sense in avoiding accidents, non-work related claims have soared, with accidents in the home the most rapidly rising area of claims.

Strangely, even though the system greatly benefits people who engage in injury-prone activities like skiing, contact sports and ambitious DIY projects, it most ardent supporters are left-liberals – exactly the kind of people who are least likely to be engaged in dangerous hands-on activities.

Recently things have come to a head with the incoming National government finding out there has been a massive surge in ACC costs over the last decade, with physiotherapists being among the main beneficaries.

Hopefully this will initiate a serious overhaul of the system, with a view to either scraping it completely, or at least restricting it to work-place accidents.

Leave a Comment » | Left liberalism, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

National praised for economic pragmatism

March 12, 2009

The Wall Street Journal has given low-key John Key the thumbs up for his handling of the economy in the recession, and from what I’ve seen so far I think their assessment is pretty reasonable.

National’s decision to trim non-essential spending and refrain from introducing an ambitious stimulus package makes sense in a recession which has largely been caused by over-liberal lending to consumers rather than speculation in the sharemarket (which in N.Z has been in the doldrums for decades).

As I mentioned in a previous post, ambitious Keynesian-style stimulus programmes only really work in industrialising economies where there are sunrise industries which can substantially benefit from increased government spending and where the government has surplus funds which it can afford to invest.

After nine years of growth in government bureaucracy it’s refreshing to see National introducing cut-backs in non-essential staff and considering changes to the notoriously bloated ACC system.

Similarly, it’s welcome to see restrictions on housing development being eased as these have been a significant factor in the lack of affordable housing for young couples wanting to start a family.

Reducing taxes for higher income earners, probably won’t do any harm either, for as Steve Sailer points out, it makes sense to tax them less when they are doing poorly, and if needs be, tax them more when they are doing well.

What does worry me though is whether National will resort to its 1990′s policy of using wealth-based immigration to artificially kick-start the economy rather than taking the more sustainable route of growing the economy through increased productivity and investment.

One of the reasons why National was out of office for so long was because the rising cost of housing, in large part due to National’s support for East Asian immigration, was discouraging family formation and therefore providing a high number of Labour-voting unmarried females.

At this stage though, National’s likely policy on immigration is difficult to predict.

National has said very little on immigration, since self-styled “conservative” Bill English criticised the banking sector (yes the banking sector) for suggesting a year or so ago that immigration was fueling inflation and perhaps should be reduced.

The Maori party’s immigration stance is even more difficult to determine. Prior to the election, it seemed to vacillate between a general limited immigration position, similar to New Zealand First’s, and a pro-Asian/ Polynesian policy aimed at encouraging the “browning” of New Zealand.

At no stage, as far as I know, has it clarified where it stands on immigration, and nor does it have to, given the media’s conspicuous lack of interest in taking it to task over its ambiguity on such an important issue.

Leave a Comment » | NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

New Zealanders better off, but at what cost?

May 24, 2008

With unemployment in low single digits for some time now, it’s not surprising living standards for most New Zealanders have been increasing. According to Infometrics economist Chris Worthington, most New Zealander’s real incomes have increased continuously since 1992, despite high interest rates and the recent surge in fuel and food prices.

What’s not mentioned in the article though, is what’s been sacrificed to achieve this income increase, and whether such ‘live for today’ economics is sustainable.

Take transport for example. During the country’s last boom period, in the 1950s and 60s, investment in transport was enormous- thousands of kilometres of roads were built, along with hundreds of bridges and tunnels. By comparison with the frenetic infrastructure development of the past, transport spending over the last 15 years has been pathetic. No major bridges have been expanded or replaced, attempts to solve Auckland’s traffic bottlenecks have been put in the two hard basket, and not a single stretch of two-lane highway has been converted into a proper motorway. The Otira Viaduct stands out as the only significant infrastructure development of any note in the last 20 years.

There’s also been no investment in a better route for the inter-island ferry, which still takes as long to connect the North and South Islands as it did 40 years ago.

We may have the unemployment level of a Scandinavian country, but we sure don’t have the transport infrastructure.

Between the Reserve Bank and the Labour government with its focus group-based scientific populism, the consumer has been crowned king and the producer relegated to a lowly serf. The high exchange rate has protected motorists from the impact of rising fuel prices, and kept the overgrown retail sector purring like a kitten, while manufacturers, sheep and cattle farmers, horticulturalists and the forestry and fishery sectors have all been wilting under the double whammy of crippling interest rates and the ever rising dollar.

Judging by the fact that it’s our biggest employer, the government seems to worship the retail sector, but doesn’t factor in the obvious point that most of it’s earnings come from money earned elsewhere in the economy.

Meanwhile, the spector of the complex Emissions Trading Bill casts yet more gloom over the horizon for manufacturing and farming.

Spending on research and development has improved slightly in the last few years, from a very low base, but the government still seems lukewarm about giving tax incentives to address the low level of r and d spending by the private sector, which is one of the lowest in the OECD. In line with this neglect of r and d, there has been little research into our conspicuously low productivity rates, which are also at the lower end of the OECD table.

Then of course there’s the country’s pitifully low defence spending. As possibly the only western nation with over a million people which doesn’t have a squadron of fighter planes, we are now totally dependent on the charity of our shunned former Anzac partners Australia and the US. But putting it bluntly, why should they come to the aid of a sanctimonious free loader like us? – certainly we have no means to come to and assist them.

Typically, those vote-winning essentials, health and education, have been reasonably-well catered for, but as far as long-term development goes, the country’s probably no better off than it was in the recessionary early nineties, and back then it didn’t have quite such a large population to plan for.

Leave a Comment » | Living standards, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

Foolish anti-producerism from Labour as per usual

May 18, 2008

Rio Tinto Alcan, the primary owners of Southland’s Tiwai Point aluminium smelter claim the Government’s emission trading scheme could mean the end of the smelter and the loss of 3500 jobs.

The company’s regional president, Xiaoling Liu, warns that such a move could force the operation overseas, threatening the jobs of 900 smelter workers and 2600 indirectly employed workers.

Perhaps the most galling thing about the government’s enthusiasm for imposing heavy financial and administrative costs on manufacturing, in the name of reducing harmful emissions, is that manufacturing is the only sector of the economy or society to significantly reduce its carbon emissions over the last couple of decades. The Tiwai smelter has reduced emissions by over 40 percent since 1990, and operates one of the most efficient aluminium smelters in the world using a clean and renewable energy source.

Furthermore, if the smelter were to close, Rio Tinto would merely move production to a poorer country with much weaker pollution regulations, resulting in a probable increase in global emissions, and the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of vital export revenue (in the last 15 years for example, China has opened 15 new aluminium smelters).

It’s very easy for urban liberals to impose heavy financial regulations on industry as so few of them are employed in this sector, and it deflects attention away from the real sources of rising emissions – things like population growth and their own profligate lifestyles. Since it highly unlikely wealthy urbanites are going to stop driving around in gas guzzling “soft roaders,” or give up buying power boats, emissions trading is going to have little positive impact.

There’s certainly no point in sabotaging the economy on the alter of lower emissions, particularly since New Zealand’s contribution to global carbon emissions is so pathetically small that there’s little point doing anything drastic until China, Russia and the US start taking the lead. And since even the most environmentally conscious European countries seem unable to meet their Kyoto obligations, that could be a long time coming.

2 Comments | Environmental issues, Manufacturing, NZ economy | Permalink
Posted by mikecourtman

« Previous Entries