From common sense to PC nonsense

With Peter Dunne’s one-man United Future Party showing less than one percent support in current opinion polls, the so-called champion of common sense politics has ditched his pragmatic centrism for media-friendly PC waffle.

In a recent press release he’s proposed that New Zealand establish a “Multicultural Act” to give formal recognition to the country’s increasingly multicultural status. Exactly what would be achieved by such a vague sounding act is left unstated.

He also says New Zealand should establish more “family friendly” immigration laws and allow in more relatives of existing permanent residents.

Given that many of the elderly relatives of recent immigrants are unlikely to have pension plans provided by their host countries, especially those coming from third world countries, such a nice-sounding policy could prove very costly for New Zealand taxpayers.

Government opposes amnesty

Amnesties for illegal overstayers have a poor record of success in most countries where they have been tried (see here, here and here).

Now the New Zealand Department of Immigration admits that they’ve haven’t been very successful in New Zealand either.

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman told a government select committee last week the government is not considering another amnesty for overstayers as the previous amnesty in 2000 had proved to be a failure.

New Zealand currently has about 16,000 overstayers, with about a third coming from Samoa and Tonga.

Possible directions for New Zealand First

With New Zealand First now contemplating whether it can go on without Winston Peters, it's a good time to reconsider whether its political fortunes can be rectified.

The most glaring problem is the party's brand of populist Keynesian conservatism doesn't seem to have much appeal to younger voters or political activists, as highlighted by the near total absence of any pro-New Zealand First bloggers on the Internet.

Among the policy options and strategies that could be be considered include:

1. re-marketing the party as a European-styled, pro-federalist party
2. establishing a strong position on the Islam question
3. abandoning high-growth Keynesian economic policies and focusing on more moderate and sustainable growth with a greater environmental focus
4. highlighting the connection between low immigration and preservation of the environment.
5. taking a bold scientific-conservative approach in education
6. supporting a pro-Australia policy in areas like defence and economic cooperation

Linking federalism with conservative populism is proving a successful strategy in Continental country's like Italy, and in New Zealand's highly centralised political system, there is plenty of opportunity to take up federalist causes. A good example of such a cause, being the desire of many South Island West Coasters to be able to decide resource management issues for themselves.

Changing the party name to something like the National Democrats would also help in giving a fresher, more contemporary image, and contrast its populist stance with the increasingly undemocratic approach of Labour and National.

The Islam question may not be of major direct significance for New Zealand, but that's not to say New Zealanders don't hold strong views about it. New Zealand First should be taking the lead when it comes to articulating a coherent, conservative political position on assimilation of Muslim immigrants and dealing with the Islamic world.

Given that many of NZ First's policies have a decidely Australian feel, particularly in relation to economic matters, it makes sense for the party to cultivate closer trans-Tasman relations, an excellent starting point would to promote a new defence agreement with Australia in which New Zealand agrees to pull its weight in regards to air defence.

In the last election New Zealand First had a great opportunity to take Labour, National and the Greens to task over their support for the environment and immigration growth but not once did Peters make the point that population growth and conservation and incompatible.

Perhaps the main reason for this is that New Zealand First's attachment to unrealistically high economic growth rates means they've decided to keep quiet over environmental issues, and are thus missing out on taking a distinctive position on an issue of major importance to voters.

New Zealand First could seize the initiative in education policy by lowering university tertiary tuition fees and raising entrance requirements for university courses, while introducing IQ tesing in primary schools. This would allow us to offer a truly meritocratic education system and give us a competitive edge over English-speaking countries still bogged down by "no child left behind" egalitarianism.

Such a policy might even persuade a few Act voters to back the party.

Finally, another option is to abandon party politics all together, and establish public interest lobby groups in relevant policy areas like immigration and asset sales.

However, that would make New Zealand about the only western country with proportional representation that doesn't have a populist conservative/nationalist political party.

Lets play bash the populist

Following New Zealand First deputy leader Peter Brown's comments about the latest figures on Asian immigration, the Press has come out with the usual self-righteous cliches that the mainstream media likes to use to confirm its adherence to fashionable middle-class views.

What's particularly depressing about this is that the Press isn't a dogmatically liberal paper by New Zealand standards. Like CNN with Lou Dobbs, the Press at least manages to allow for some unfashionable views by publishing populist and traditionalist letters to the editor on a fairly regular basis. By contrast, I can tell you from personal experience that the type of material I publish in this blog wouldn't stand much of chance of getting into the Sunday Star Times or Dominion (the later being NZ's equivalent of the LA Times).

The Press's official editorial piece on the topic, entitled "Contribution, not colour, is the best judge of a migrant" (Saturday, April 5 not online) starts reasonably, but soon gets sanctimonious:

"Playing the race card has become something of an election year ritual for New Zealand First. So much so that the only uncertainties this year were when the card would be produced and which NZ first MP would deal it. These questions were answered this weak when the party's deputy leader, Peter Brown, cited a Statistics New Zealand forecast that Asians would outnumber Maori by 2006 because of short-sighted immigration policies. This was anathema to Brown, who argued that Asian migrants would not integrate into New Zealand society and that this would create division, friction and resentment. Not only are Brown's views plain wrong, but the majority of voters will not be duped by this cynical tactic on polling day."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't periodic immigration restrictionism had a pretty good track record of hastening rather than blocking integration ( as far as is practical when immigrants are from totally alien cultures). One reason why the grime predictions in Enoch Powell's famous "rivers of blood speech" didn't happen was because the UK government wisely decided to reduce immigration from Britain's former non-white colonies during the late 60s and early 1970s.

In New Zealand, the relatively high unemployment rate among East Asian immigrants is finally starting to sort itself out precisely because Labour's tougher English language requirements have lowered East Asian immigration in the last few years, thereby reducing tensions with established immigrants and giving employers time to absorb the labour influx.

You also have to wonder why the Press feels the need to take such a strident line against Brown if it believes his populist stance is unlikely to have much influence on voters anyway.

The Press also suggests Brown has no right to a view on Asian immigration because he is an immigrant, and that it is "richly ironic" that he should be questioning Asian immigration. I'm sorry but, I don't get the irony. Immigrants are entitled to have an opinion on immigration just like everyone else. Many people have come to New Zealand precisely because it's a lightly populated country which has traditionally been cautious about immigration. What's "richly ironic" is that the Press seems to advocating colour blindness on the one hand (people from all cultures should be able should be able to come) , and snobbish nativism on the other (only native whites and indigenous Maori's should get to debate immigration policy).

Then of course there's the further irony that it's a British immigrant who is being attacked for questioning non-western immigration, in what is arguably the most British country outside Britain.

While the writer of the article does make a point that NZ first has tended to exaggerate Asian crime levels, and should be precise when talking about immigrant groups, they drop another howler in talking about immigration and education by citing an Afghan refugee as a "prime recent example" of a high achieving Asian student. Now I've got nothing against giving credit where credit's due, East Asian students in western countries do have an excellent academic record, but Afghans? I'm sorry but this isn't a "prime example," of academic success, it's a very atypical one. According to the field of psychometrics, East Asians have an average IQ of 105, Afghans a likely average IQ of about 83.

If the Press can't recognise that Afghan and East Asian levels of academic achievement are wildly different, then you have to question whether the paper should be assessing the relative contributions of perspective migrant groups.

A tale of two rights

Say what you like about libertarians, but don't question their optimism.

At this year's annual conference, Act list MP Heather Roy has told delegates that they must achieve 8 percent in this year's national elections. Meanwhile the party is also considering bringing right liberal icon Roger Douglas back from the political sidelines.

Given the current state of the party in opinion polls, and the shift to the centre by the National Party under John Key, this seems a pretty tall order to say the least. Even in its 1990s hayday, Act only managed to gain about 6 percent support and it would no longer have any presence in parliament were it not for Rodney's Hide's Epsom seat.

The lack of realism among party faithful is highlighted by the fact that many of them would like to get rid of the populist Hide, even though he is the only member of the Party who has any significant level of public support.

Despite being consistently unpopular with mainstream voters, the party continues to attract a loyal following among the intelligentsia and the business sector. For a party which got under 2 percent of the popular vote in the last election, Act has no shortage of supporters in the NZ blogosphere and on campuses throughout the country.

Like the Libertarian Party in the US, Act has a strong following among educated males in their 20s and 30s, who are suckers for the rugged individualist rhetoric of libertarian ideology. Furthermore, the party seems to have plenty of campaign funding and a relatively strong media presence, with supporters like Business Rountable commentator Roger Kerr. If it can't get more than 2 percent support with all these factors in its favour, then you have to be pessimistic about its chances of getting 8 percent support this time round.

If Act is the try hard of New Zealand politics, then populist/conservative New Zealand First must be the promising underachiever who never fulfills its potential. Compared with it right liberal counterpart, New Zealand First has almost no support on the Internet, is usually ignored by the media (unless Winston Peters is making a controversial statement about crime or immigration) and appears to receives far less in the way of donations.

On college campasses there are few NZ First supporters, and the party doesn't even field candidates in many parts of the country.

However, despite these limitations, it consistently does better than Act in national elections, and on a good day is capable of winning 10 percent of the vote.

Thus the problems of the new right, are the opposite of those of the old right. The new right has a strong infrastructure and ideological base, but lacks popular support, while the old right has plenty of potential voters, but has almost zero support among the chattering classes and lacks a strong party infrastructure.

Hide's hypocrisy

Considering that the Act Party is supposed to be the libertarian party of the "rugged individual," I am mystified as to why its leader Rodney Hide has stooped to PC nanny statery in calling for the resignation of Trevor Mallard, following Mallard's minor fracas with National politician Tau Henare.

Mallard has apologised for his actions, the apology has been accepted, and no physical damage has been done.

To my mind, to call for someone’s resignation over such a trivial incident is petty party point scoring of the lowest kind, and yet another example of how the liberal right can't be trusted in the fight against political correctness.

I try not to get personal on posts, but I have to admit this guy is really beginning to annoy me.

Diffusing New Zealand’s looming race bomb.

In a feature article in last month’s Press (“steady as she goes,” September 15, D3, not online) Helen Clarke is quoted as saying National have “policies which dare not speak their name.”

Clarke does not elaborate on what sort of policies she is referring to, but her cryptic comment suggests these “policies” include National’s approach to race issues.

In 2004 National leader Don Brash tried to start a serious debate on current race relations between Maori and European New Zealanders when he argued in his Orewa speech that it was unsustainable for European and Asian New Zealanders to continue to subsidise a growing Maori population.

However, following National’s loss in the 2005 election, and the replacement of Brash with the Cameronesque PR man John Key, race was quickly swept back under the carpet.

Although Brash deserves some recognition for mentioning a difficult and important issue, the right liberal policies he prescribes are probably a maladaptive solution to the problem.

The main issue with race in New Zealand is arguably not poor race relations or race-based policies, as Brash claims, but a pervasive inability to acknowledge demographic imbalances.As the current ethic strife countries such as Lebanon, Israel, South Africa and France illustrate, different rates of demographic growth between races and cultures often lead to serious conflict.

Over the last hundred years, the Maori population has been growing at a faster rate than the European population, yet has been consuming a disproportionate percentage of taxes.

Despite, efforts to address historical grievances over land confiscations and the marginalisation of Maori culture, Maori still lag behind in terms of income, health outcomes, unemployment rates and education levels, as well having higher imprisonment rates. Added to this is the fact that the country’s growing Polynesian population also consumes a disproportionate share of health and welfare spending.

The response of both Labour and National over the past 17 years has been to increase immigration of educated workers from Europe, India and East Asia to expand the overburdened tax base.

Unfortunately, increased immigration has been a double-sword. Higher housing costs have meant fewer Maori and Polynesians have been able to afford to homes, thus increasing their dependency of welfare, and more European New Zealanders have left overseas, in part, because wage rates have failed to keep up with the increased cost of housing and education.

While Australia, Canada, and the United States also have problems with economically under-performing indigenous populations, their indigenous peoples form a much smaller percentage of their populations, so they are less of an economic burden.

With an aging white population increasingly dependent on the state for health and pension spending, there is likely to be increasing pressure on the government to reduce spending on low-income families at a time when Maori politicians are making increasing demands on the government to increase such spending and reduce immigration.

This situation puts the limited immigration supporting New Zealand First Party in a difficult position. Although rising commodity prices are making immigration restrictionism more economically justifiable, the country’s multi-cultural divisions appear to be acting as a significant break on productivity.

Money that previously went into long-term infrastructure development and research and development programmes is now going into such things as increased spending on law and order to manage an increasingly diverse population which is unable to manage itself.

At the global level, the majority of countries with high productivity rates, such as Korea and Japan, tend to be either culturally homogenous or, like the United States, are large enough to compete on economies on scale - New Zealand can’t compete under either criteria.

In the long run, the only solution out of this bind may be political union with Australia. In a combined Australian/New Zealand state, the Maori population would be less of a demographic threat to a European population of over 20 million, while New Zealand would not need to worry so much about skilled workers moving across the Tasman. Similarly, there would be less of an economic argument in favour of increasing immigration in order to expand the tax base.

Sadly though, it’s unlikely there is going to be any serious debate about this issue until the baby boomer generation starts retiring in about 5 years - by which time the government will be in a more fiscally desperate situation.

More Green hypocrisy

Sue Bradford’s anti-smacking legislation is a classic example of late liberal interventionism, and is just the sort of state interference which traditional conservatives are opposed to.

There has been no public campaign calling for a ban on smacking or any serious social crisis that would justify such a top down initiative.

The problem the anti-smacking bill is designed to solve, is apparently only occurring among one section of one ethnic group- in this case low-income Maori.

However, the liberal left deems that all ethnic groups must now be told how to discipline their children instead of leaving Maori to deal with their own issues.

The introduction of unpopular liberal reforms from above is a relatively new phenomenon.

Prior to the late 1960s, progressive reforms were either introduced for serious pragmatic reasons, such as to deal with an economic crisis like the Great Depression, or because of sustained popular activism from below.

The introduction of religious toleration was in large part a response to the carnage caused by the 30 Years War, while universal suffrage in Britain was won through the persistent campaigns of the Chartists in the early 19th Century.

What makes Bradford’s meddling in the private lives of the country’s citizens particularly galling is that she is a member of a party that claims to be dedicated to conservation. Unfortunately, this doesn’t include conservation of mainstream social norms.

Its high time the Greens made up their mind whether they wish to focus on conserving the environment or indulging in anti-conservative social engineering. Given that not all environmentalists are left-liberals, it is highly disingenuous of the Green party to be claiming to do the former while also trying to do the later.

The Maori party on white immigration

Last week Maori party MP Turiana Turia called for a limit on white immigration to New Zealand, saying it was undermining the Maori party’s chances of gaining another seat in parliament (“Maori party calls for migrant cutback, ” Dominion Post, Monday February 26, 2007).

Despite the racist nature of Turia’s comments, the national media seems to have downplayed them. Mainstream conservative bloggers have been quick to point out that if Don Brash had made similar remarks regarding say, Polynesian immigration, the mainstream media would have been all over him like a pack of wolves, given the grilling he received over his Orewa speech in 2004.

The only reason I managed to catch the story was because an overseas blogger asked me why I wasn’t commenting on it (hat tip Crush141).

In analysing comments like this, it good to start with Lenin’s old question “who, whom?” will benefit from the proposed change. Turia makes the assumption that the majority of Maori will be better off if they become a larger proportion of the population. She also concludes that Maori will benefit from Asian and Polynesian immigration as opposed to European immigration.

However, where is the evidence for any of these claims?

Indigenous Canadians have one of the best deals on the planet precisely because they are a small minority, which the majority can compensate without impoverishing themselves in the process.

As Maori become a larger proportion of the population, they are likely to receive less government assistance per person, and an aging white population will quickly grow tired of seeing a larger proportion of their taxes being used to compensate Maori.

Right-liberal commentator Alan Duff has pointed out that the gap between East Asian and Maori cultural viewpoints is even greater than that between European and Maori New Zealanders. For example, East Asians have small, tightly knit families and a penchant for academic study, while Maori have large, loosely structured families and do relatively poorly academically. Maori vote centre left Labour while East Asians vote centre right National. Perhaps most tellingly, East Asians are far more likely to marry Whites than Polynesians – none of this bodes well for Turia’s “ochre alliance”.

Polynesians are culturally more similar to Maori, but does that mean Maori will benefit from increased Soth Pacific immigration? Currently, New Zealand has an aging population, low unemployment and an increasing demand for both skilled and unskilled labour. This situation is good news for the majority of Maori.

However, increased Pacific island immigration would increase competition for jobs and housing and drive down wages in the unskilled and semi-skilled occupations where most Maori are employed.

Given the negative impact uncontrolled immigration from Mexico and Central America is having on work prospects for US Blacks, I can’t see how Maori would benefit from increased immigration from countries like Tonga and the Solomon Islands.

The Maori party has been labelled elitist by centre right urban Maori John Tamihere and I can see why – a “browning” of New Zealand’s population will help Maori elites in the public sector leverage more resources from central government - while doing little for the majority of Maori who would benefit more from a tight labour market and relatively harmonious race relations.

Given that New Zealand is already losing too many skilled workers overseas, a surge in unskilled non-white immigration could trigger a South African style exodus that would plunge the country into second world status.

Ad Hominem Ad Nauseam

In The Death of the West Patrick Buchanan points out the political differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are inconsequential yet the level of bitterness in mainstream American politics has never been greater.

In New Zealand there is also little difference in the policies of the two main parties, National and Labour. However, over the last few years there has been a marked rise in personal attacks directed against rival politicians.

Among neoconservative bloggers, and among Young Nats on student campuses, there is an intense dislike of Labour leader Helen Clarke, who is often compared to Joseph Stalin in drag. This is despite the fact that Labour’s policies aren’t that much different to Nationals.

Political correctness is one possible reason why politics has got so personal and abusive. Many people are afraid to say what they really think and so prefer to vent their frustrations through personal attacks rather than by explaining why they are opposed to particular policies.

Another factor is the rise of the liberal-right. Libertarians have an intense dislike of state interference in the economy and will latch onto any differences in tax policies between parties no matter how small. As I have mentioned before, libertarianism is a socially acceptable (and often petty) form of political incorrectness since it only really focuses on economic issues and surrenders the cultural sphere to left liberals.

In New Zealand this can be seen in the “ACT guy, Green girl” trend, where an economically conservative/socially moderate male has a socially liberal/economically left wing partner who is oblivious to the male partner’s economically right wing tendencies.

Buchanan believes that the main differences in US politics are in the cultural realm, but for tactical reasons voters continue to support the mainstream parties:

“A hundred times in the campaign of 2000, a voter would come up to me and say that he or she believed in me, and agreed with me but could not vote for me”.

In NZ there is now a pronounced split in the rural/urban vote with the provinces overwhelmingly pro-National. Rural outrage with Labour’s socially liberal manifesto could be seen in the attempts by the Exclusive Brethren to influence the outcome of the 2005 election - a course of action, which attracted considerable unwelcome attention for the normally secretive sect.

No doubt party strategists believe personal attacks are a good strategy. Labour’s campaign to discredit Don Brash certainly achieved its objective. However, it has done little to reduce support for National, which has arguably benefited from Labour’s attacks on its leader, since personal attacks take the focus away from policy shortcomings.

A factor that needs more investigation is the connection between cultural Marxism and personality politics. Since, post-modern theory claims there is no way to assess things with a reasonable degree of objectively it makes sense to judge the message according to the values and behaviour of the messenger, rather than assess the message itself.

Or to put this in political terms- it makes sense to try and discredit your opponents rather than their policies.

New Zealand's Rudderless Economy

Helen Clarke’s nu-Labour government now appears to be bereft of ideas on economic development.

The government is siting on a substantial surplus but has no strategic plan about how to spend it. It is also making no attempt to help the struggling farming sector, which is suffering from the high dollar.

As Colin James points out, the government has talked of increasing research and development spending but has done little in practice. In the last budget, just $25 million in new funding was allocated for scientific and industrial research while $2.2 billion was directed into social spending. Similarly, Michael Cullen’s incentives for increasing national savings are half-hearted at best.

To help exporters the government also needs to do something about the country’s persistently high interest rates, which are the main factor behind the overvalued New Zealand dollar.

However, after three and half decades of middle class welfare it is now very difficult to help the productive sector without causing serious inflation. If the country had fewer middle class welfare recipients, then perhaps it wouldn’t have such an inherently inflationary economy.

The first big mistake was made by Robert Muldoon, when he irresponsibly promised to raise pensions in the mid 1970s. He also refused to reform the country’s overly generous superannuation system when it became increasingly unaffordable in the early 1980s. This has effectively tied producerism to the elderly welfare lobby. Subsequently, we now have a situation where the “producerist” New Zealand First party depends for its support on generous welfare promises to elderly superannuants and affluent pensioners.

The centre-right National party is more fiscally responsible in terms of welfare spending, but is still hesitant to introduce Australian style means testing for pensions and benefits. Furthermore, in terms of economic development, National is just as bad as Labour. It is disinterested in increasing spending on research and development and is even more apathetic about introducing savings incentives.

About the only glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel is Don Brash’s recent exit from politics. This means that a workable National- New Zealand First coalition becomes a more likely possibility.

However, for such an alliance to work, New Zealand First would have to accept means testing for welfare benefits while National would have to take serious steps to boost savings and investment. This seems unlikely unless the economy takes a serious nosedive or the business sector finally loses patience with the status quo and initiates a campaign to join Australia.

Such a campaign might be enough to shake the three main political parties out of their present complacency

The New Health Fixation

In the 1990s, Tony Blair introduced the catchphrase “education, education, education”. Having overdosed on banal managerial writers like Anthony Giddens and Charles Handy, Blair simplistically believed education was the answer to solving problems like economic inequality and low productivity.

The fixation on education of course hasn’t really worked and the West’s attention deficit democracies have moved onto other political fixations. Today the new focus for centrist progressives is health spending. With the baby-boomer generation soon eligible for pensions, the health conscious elderly represent the prize demographic for political strategists.

New Zealand’s Labour government discovered this recently when they put public money forward for an ambitious sports stadium in Auckland. In opinion polls across the country there was strong opposition from voters who preferred to see the money spent on reducing hospital waiting lists rather than sports.

The new emphasis on health presents problems for the National party, which has traditionally been seen as the fiscally conservative party.

Socially conservative voters who usually vote for National may now end up voting for Labour if it continues with its relatively generous funding of the health sector.

National could respond by increasing health spending and reducing investment in areas like tertiary education. However, that could encourage more graduates to leave the country and undermine the nation’s tax base. National also has to face the prospect of a growing Maori, Polynesian and South-Asian population, which overwhelmingly backs Labour.

The big loser in the new funding priorities is likely to be long-term investment, which can be seen in the lack of government investment in savings incentives and research and development funding. With an aging population, and a neo-liberal economic orthodoxy still in ascendency, the main political parties are likely to continue with a short-term approach to economic problems.

The Labour’s government myopic focus on social spending is highlighted by commentator Colin James:

“Helen Clark’s government is fond of strategies. But is it strategic?Look at its new-spending in the 2006 Budget: of the $2.2 billion new operating in the 2006 new operating spending, mostly on health, education and “working families”, $25 million goes to research, science and technology. Fixing up old people certainly gives them higher quality of life. But it says nothing about how today’s young are to have the higher incomes to pay for the care of the old in the future”.

Although National’s Bill English has tentatively talked about mending the relationship between National and the scientific community, the arrival of the "Cameronesque" John Key, who appears to be more concerned with public image than development, does not bode well for those concerned with the country’s long-term economic prospects.

Martim Hames on Winston Peters

I’ve just been reading Martin Hames 1995 book on Winston Peters, Winston First. Although the book is written from a neoconservative perspective in which Hames, rightly or wrongly, dismisses Peters as an irresponsible populist, the book does show the noticeable pro-immigration bias in New Zealand’s media.

Hames argues that from 1984-1990 Winston Peters had a very cosy relationship with the country’s media. Almost all Peter’s numerous corruption allegations were taken seriously by the media even though a number clearly lacked substance. By 1990 Peters was riding high in the opinion polls and looked to be a serious contender for the National Party leadership.

However, after 1993 Peters’ relationship with the press took a nose-dive when he began to criticise immigration policy. National’s radical decision to open up immigration to wealthy East Asians in the early 1990s initially failed to attract much media attention. However, once Peters began making outspoken comments about Asian immigration the media turned the subject into a liberal morality play in which he was cast as an evil “right-wing populist” and “anti-immigrant”.

The use of the term “anti-immigrant” is a clear example of media bias since a more accurate and neutral term for someone wanting to reduce immigration would be a limited immigration supporter. You can only call someone an “anti-immigrant” if they advocate widespread repatriation of immigrants or discriminatory policies against immigrants that have already been allowed in the country.

The national media’s penchant for emotive terms on immigration issues is highlighted by conservative journalist Ian Wishart, who mentions an example of an immigration opinion poll (see here) by a leading New Zealand newspaper that deliberately led interviewees with loaded terms - ignoring one of the key rules in conducting opinion polls – that questions are phrased in neutral terms.

Today Peters can hardly manage to conduct a one-minute interview without losing his temper at the media. Although his skills and patience with the media appear to be waning as he ages, it is likely that at least some of his contempt for the media is due to the mauling he has received over immigration.

After his Orewa speech earlier this year, National leader Don Brash attracted unwarranted media criticism for stating, not unreasonably, that perspective immigrants adhere to “enlightenment values”. On Television One, 'nice but dim' Susan Wood, looked at Brash like he was some sort of war criminal as she demanded that he explain himself for his insolent remark.

As the Australian media tentatively begins to talk about immigration in a less biased manner it will be interesting to see if the New Zealand media will follow their lead.

New Zealand Politics since 1984

Prior to 1984, New Zealand Governments followed post war Keynesian economic policies, favoured by both main political parties, and progressive social policies initiated by the centre-left Labour Party.

However, by the early 1980s, excessive subsidisation of the declining farming sector, and over-investment in ambitious infrastructure projects, had created major structural problems than could no longer be contained by conventional Keynesian policies.

With the centre-right National Party dominated by the imposing personality of Keynesian interventionist Robert Muldoon, economic libertarians decided to infiltrate the centre –left Labour Party and quietly began to steer it in a neo-liberal direction.

In the 1984 election, the new look Labour Party was aided by a one-off protest party, The New Zealand Party, created by Bob Jones, a highly successful property speculator. Jones captured many votes from disgruntled National Party supporters than were unwilling to vote for the socially liberal Labour Party. With National out, Jones then promptly retired from politics - his mission accomplished.

Once in power, Labour’s economic libertarians then set about moving economic policy to the right, while its centre-left leader David Lange, began implementing a programme of left-liberal social and foreign policy initiatives, such as banning US worships from visiting New Zealand ports and legalising homosexuality.

The combined bombardment from neo-economic restructuring and liberal social reform disorientated working class white voters who turned on the traditional ‘party of the working class’ in 1990, and elected a reformed National Party that had adapted to the new neo-liberal orthodoxy.

National new neo-liberal economic programme, was opposed by a number of National MPs, the most prominent being Winston Peters and Michael Laws, who seized on the opportunity presented by the introduction of MMP (mixed member proportional representation) to form a breakaway party, New Zealand First.

New Zealand First were rightly concerned that State assets were being sold off too cheaply, and that Labour and National had gone too far in terms of removing support for manufacturing and farming - by 1990 New Zealand had one of the lowest levels of state support for research and development in the developed world.

From 1993-1996 New Zealand First developed a policy platform based on increased R and D spending, export incentives, compulsory savings and an end to state asset sales.

Meanwhile, National had responded to record unemployment and early 1990s economic stagnation, by starting a radical new wealth-based immigration initiative designed to attract wealthy East Asian Immigrants. The policy was modelled on similar immigration measures introduced in Canada.

New Zealand First, with its focus on productivity based growth, subsequently became the main advocate for limited immigration and drew criticism from the mainstream press for being xenophobic and populist.

In the 1996 election New Zealand First held the balance of power and decided to form a Government with National. However, although the two parties had similar social policies their differences on economic policy proved to great to reconcile, and the coalition collapsed 12 months out from the 1999 election.

In 1999, Labour came back into power with a Blairite economic programme based around increased education spending, investment in areas like arts, culture and tourism, and a relatively expansive immigration policy with a greater focus on British and Sub-Continental immigrants.

Labour's shift to the centre has now put New Zealand politics more closely in line with other English-speaking countries like Canada and the United Kingdom. New Zealand First survives as a vehicle for the public to intermittently voice their opposition to expansive immigration initiatives.

Brash, Peters and Assimilation

Don Brash’s new 'anti-Maori' stance is setting up a showdown with New Zealand First over how to deal with the increasing problems posed by multiculturalism.

Brash calls for the abolition of all racial preferences for Maori including television and radio quotas and Maori political seats. Peter’s has responded by saying that such policies are tantamount to racial nihilism and will trigger unnecessary conflict.

I suspect that Brash thinks that if Maori continue to have special preferences then other minorities will start to campaign for special privileges and the country will descend into a full-blown ethnic spoils system.

National’s new, harder line on assimilation may be a good idea for screening prospective immigrants but is a questionable policy for dealing with Maori.

As indigenous people, the Maori did not have a choice about whether or not to accept western values. White westerners came in numbers and they had to adapt to a largely western way of life. In contrast, prospective immigrants are free to stay at home if they don’t agree with New Zealand’s predominantly western culture.

If all special accommodations for Maori are cut they will be even more detached from their native culture – arguably, this could well make social problems such as crime and educational underachievement even worse. Furthermore, even if Brash is right, Maori are too large a group to be totally assimilated into White culture so there will always be a large number of dissenters who will seek to undermine such an approach.

While New Zealander First has a slightly softer line on Maori assimilation, it has a harder line on immigration. New Zealand First is the only party with an explicit commitment to limited immigration, so it doesn’t need to ‘make an example’ of Maori to maintain social cohesion. Conversely, National has a more expansive immigration policy and is therefore compelled to pursue an aggressive policy towards assimilating Maori.

While it is good to see Brash talking candidly about Maori problems like domestic violence and obesity, he fails to consider the possibility that expansive immigration policies may have contributed to some of these problems.

Even though Maori unemployment has gone down, wages have not kept pace with the rising cost of living. Property prices have soared in the major cities and in the competition for housing, relatively wealthy East Asian immigrants have out bid Maori families who are increasingly unable to get a toehold on the property ladder. Like it or not, this trend is only going to add to the Maori grievance culture.

There has also been a hollowing out of Maori communities as many hard working Maori have left the country to seek higher wages in Australia. Restless young men in these communities now have few role models to look to for help and guidance.

Where there is clear evidence that affirmative action policies are failing then there may be a good case for removing them or replacing them with something better. If there aren’t enough Maori applicants to fill university quotas then perhaps the government would be better off providing polytech scholarships instead.

In general, it appears New Zealand First aims to help Maori by maintaining support for Maori culture and moderating inequality. At the same time it is aware that continuing transfers of resources from Whites to Maori is creating a strong White backlash.

Brash’s policy of attacking Maori culture appears to be undermining support for New Zealand First, but come election time it may drive moderate voters into the hands of Labour. This could create an even stronger Labour government that is free from any restraining influence from New Zealand First.

Technology and the New Zealand Economy

Looking back over the last 150 years of New Zealand development it's that noticeable that the country has prospered as new forms of technology have become available.

The Vogel boom of the 1870s was possible because of advances in railways, shipping, and communications. In the 1890s refrigeration provided the cornerstone of the prosperous Liberal Era (1891-1911). Top dressing, Land Rovers, and the Green Revolution allowed New Zealand to become one of the world’s most affluent countries in the 1950s and 1960s. During the 1990s, cheap air travel and advances in irrigation and uses for dairy products led to significant growth in tourism and dairy farming.

During these periods the country had a wide of governments with a wide range of economic policies. The Vogel government was classically liberal; the Liberal government - progressive populist; the government’s of the 1950s and 1960s - Keynesian, while the National government of the 1990s was neo-liberal.

Hence, there is little evidence that economic success is dependent on a particular set of policies, suitable for all situations, as lobby groups such as the Business Roundtable suggest.

British writer John Gray argues that technology, rather than ideology, is the cornerstone of economic success. Given that technological advances have always preceded economic growth in New Zealand’s history, I am inclined to agree with him.

The experiences of Japan and Sweden provide further evidence in favour of Gray’s argument. For over 30 years economic libertarians have been predicting the economic decline of overtaxed Sweden yet it is still one of the West’s strongest economies. Sweden invests heavily in scientific research and does remarkably well in hi-tech industry for a country with just nine million people. Similarly, Japan, a bastion of old school protectionism and limited immigration, thrashes the English-speaking world in large-scale manufacturing.

At present New Zealand has one of the lowest rates of productivity growth in the developed world. This suggests that we are going through a serious technological trough. However, what research is the Maxim Institute or the Business Roundtable doing into new technology that could turn things around – nothing.

Economic libertarians in New Zealand seem to be fixated on the economic mirage that is immigration based economic growth. They seem to think that large numbers of immigrants ‘carefully screened’ for western values will suddenly come to our rescue. Ayn Rand once said that as an economic libertarian she considered herself to be a romantic realist.

Economic libertarians are certainly romantics but I fail to see in what sense they are realists.

National and Immigration

I was amused to read in the Southland Times (September 8, 2006 p3) National Party M.P Eric Roy complaining that New Zealand’s Immigration system is skewed in favour of people with high academic qualifications.

In the early 1990s National talked up the wonders of the ‘knowledge economy’. Ruth Richardson claimed East Asian immigration would lead to a new wave of prosperity. At the same time the National Government dismantled the 1983 Apprenticeship Training Act and discouraged young New Zealanders from taking up practical trades.

Today the country is suffering from a shortage of trades people in the provinces and a surplus of unemployed East Asians in the cities. It is pretty ironic a ‘pragmatic farmer’s party’ like National is responsible for this state of affairs.

Surprisingly, the Labour Party has done the most to address the trade shortage. It has reintroduced traditional apprenticeships and the shortage of tradesmen is now easing in the main centres.

It has also introduced stricter English language requirements, which have helped to slow East Asian immigration somewhat. Maybe it’s just me, but I think there is something curiously embarrassing about people with physics degrees running junks shops- and its hardly healthy for the economy.

Slowing East Asian immigration is also good for existing East Asian residents. In the last few years many East Asians have stated finding jobs in the medical field and higher end jobs in the service industry. Furthermore, their driving has improved!

While I agree that immigration is skewed in favour of academic qualifications, rather than practical skills, I don’t think major skills shortages can be solved through immigration. New immigrants always seem to gravitate to the big cities – especially if they are from different cultures.

Most other developed countries are also suffering from labour shortages so in many instances we are simply ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ – a policy which doesn’t really benefit anyone in the long run.

Employers in general are going to have to get used to living with a moderate labour shortage and provincial employers are going to have to pay city wages to attract city workers. National should also stop droning on about free markets and conduct a serious inquiry into the country's poor productivity levels.

Peters' New Role

Peters’ New Role Winston Peter’s foreign affairs appointment in the new Government has been ridiculed by many political commentators in the mainstream media. Most pundits seem to believe that the nation’s international image will be severely tarnished by Peter’s politically incorrect antics and nationalist/populist reputation. However, few commentators seem to be asking the question- what’s in it for Peters and New Zealand First and what message should New Zealand really be sending to Asia?

In the Bolger government of 1996, Peter’s assumed the finance position but his nationalist position on key issues such as privatisation soon proved unacceptable to the National Party hierarchy. In retrospect, Peter’s has admitted that he underestimated the degree of difficulty in working closely with other parties in the new MMP environment. The present confidence and supply arrangement with Labour allows New Zealand First to have some influence over Labour’s initiatives in social policy, while Peter’s has the opportunity to peddle his influence on the international scene. This means that Clark is willing to put the brake on Labour’s social policy initiatives in exchange for continuing control over general economic policy where there is less disagreement with New Zealand First. Although New Zealand First has little direct involvement in policy-making it is in a strong position to act as a watchdog over Labour and keep the press informed about issues it deems to be of national interest. In immigration policy for example, New Zealand First is now in a stronger position to spot instances of procedural incompetence and excessive leniency by Labour politicians and government civil servants.

As treasurer in the 1996 National-NZ First government Peter’s was too distracted by tensions with the National party hierarchy to have much influence over any particular area of policy. In the present government he has a more focused role and a more realistic chance of influencing policy-makers and international opinion. The present arrangement with Labour also appears to be benefiting Ron Mark, arguably N.Z First’s second most influential politician. In the area of law and order Mark is already having a significant impact- notice the debate he has stimulated over raising the drinking age and in the governments new commitment to increase police numbers.

However, it is arguably Peter’s impact on international opinion that is the most important aspect of New Zealand First’s present arrangement with Labour. In the Asia- Pacific region Peter’s has a poor image because his support for limited immigration is conflated by the media into a general anti-Asian stance. This is somewhat ironic because most countries in East Asia also support limited immigration. Japan for example, has a highly restrictive immigration policy. Peter’s is no doubt trying to persuade Asian governments, and the Asian media, that New Zealand First supports increased trade with Asia and continuing opportunities for Asian students to study in New Zealand. Its also needs pointing out New Zealand First’s economic policy is more in tune with the economic policies of many East Asian countries, such as Malaysia and Korea. Since the Asian crash in 1997, many Asian countries have been sceptical of neo-liberal reforms and would like to see more countries in the region promoting ‘developmental’ economic policies. New Zealand’s poor R and D spending and low savings rate are hardly likely to strike a cord with East Asian economic policy-makers.

Many elements of the Asian media have a chip on their shoulder in regard to the immigration policies of Australia and New Zealand. This is especially true of the media in Malaysia and Singapore. The Singapore Times for example, often argues that Australia can take in many more immigrants and that it is still influenced by its previous ‘Whites Only’ Policy. Current immigration patterns to Australia and New Zealand do not show any clear bias against East Asian immigrants so the ‘Whites Only’ claim is largely unfounded.

Rarely mentioned in the Asian media are the environmental implications of large-scale immigration to Australia and New Zealand. Australia is an extremely arid country, which is struggling to balance the water needs of its farming and residential users. Australia’s thin soils and low topography make it especially vulnerable to problems like erosion, water pollution and excessive salt accumulation. New Zealand’s economy is heavily dependent on farming and tourism and these industries could also be undermined by a substantial population increase. In contrast to Australia, New Zealand is a mountainous country with a shortage of flat arable land and much of this is disappearing under urban development.

Politicians like Peters need to emphasis to Asian leaders that Australia and New Zealand are resource rich but environmentally vulnerable countries that need Asian markets for their products. From an Asian perspective, large scale Asian immigration into Australasia could compromise the region's ability to supply primary products to resource poor Asian markets and provide viable business opportunities for the East Asian Diaspora.

Creativity and Competition in N.Z

New Zealand’s brain drain of scientist, engineers and technicians is strongly related to the Government’s lack of investment in research and development and its excessive reliance on free trade policies. According to the National Party the main reason for New Zealand ‘brain drain’ to Australia and Britain is higher wages. However, for many scientists and engineers the primary problem is not high wages but lack of job opportunities. Since 1984 New Zealand has slashed its spending on research and development while Australia has steadily increased its spending in this area. For example, Australia allows tax writes offs for R and D and has a protected motor industry that employs a significant number of engineers. It is not so much high wages that is attracting New Zealand graduates but a wider range of interesting jobs that don’t exist back home.

New Zealand has one of the most open economies in the world. Subsequently, N.Z companies cannot afford to devote as much spending to research and development as its overseas competitors who receive more government assistance. This has been reflected in the limited growth of productive new companies and products in N.Z over the last two decades. In contrast the number of managerial professionals employed in areas like accounting is very large compared with many other developed countries. The New Zealand economy is over focused on efficiency at the expense of long-term growth.

In the 1930s the Austrian economist Joseph Shumpeter pointed out that if there is too much domestic and international competition in an economy, there will be little growth because companies cannot afford the luxury of investing in R and D. Subsequently, the government needs to step in to provide protection for emerging industries and assist with research and development. This provides a partially sheltered breeding ground for developing new products and services. In Europe and America the heavily protected arms industry has been the nucleus for many new products such as radar, G.P.S. the Internet and the silicon chip – none of these products could have been developed without government assistance.

In Arts and Culture the Labour government has already acknowledged that domestic producers need some protection from overseas competitors. For example, it has introduced quotas for New Zealand music on radio and this has proved to be relatively successful. It has also set up a new agency, Creative New Zealand, for promoting the Arts. However, it has been much slower at helping emerging industries in farming and manufacturing, with Jim Anderton practically a one- man show in the unfashionable field of economic development.

Admittedly in some areas wage rates are the primary factor for the exodus of New Zealand graduates. Doctors, dentist and nurses have incurred large student debts and can pay off their debts much more quickly overseas. However, Labour has started to address this problem by introducing an interest right-off for students that stay in the country- this kind of national interest thinking is well overdue. Another reason why workers are emigrating is the increasing gap between wages and house prices. If the Government did more to address this problem by slowing immigration and introducing a capital gains tax, then there would less incentive for young people to leave the country. High land prices benefit aging landowners at the expense of young productive workers and the national economy.

If New Zealand continues to put free market ideology over pragmatic development it will continue to lose highly skilled workers overseas.

Conservative Populism in the U.S and N.Z

Over the last 30 years many working and lower-middle class Amercians that previously supported the Democrat Party have now switched allegiance to the Republicans. According to Thomas Frank in Whats the Matter with America these 'populist' voters are largely oblivious to economic issues and vote with the Republicans on social issues like abortion to spite the nation's liberal elites. In so doing they have allowed economic policy to shift further to the right. According to Frank, the primary reason for this change in voting behaviour has been a misguided policy by the Democrats to appeal to white-collar liberals over traditional blue-collar voters.

Since 1984 the New Zealand Labour Party has shifted to the right on economic policy whilst trying to appeal to white-collar liberals through its 'Nuclear Free' policy as well various social reforms in areas like gay rights. During this time voter turnout has declined as increasing numbers of voters have become disillusioned with the two main parties. However, it is only in the last few years that a conservative populist backlash along U.S lines had started to occur. The emergence of Destiny Church and the urban/rural split in the 2005 election are a direct reaction to the social policy initatives of Labour's second term. Perhaps even more significantly, the new urban/rural devide looks very similar to the coastal/hinterland divide in the U.S.

At the start of 2005 Labour was in a strong position with little support for National's economic proposals. However, Labour stuck its neck out with some controversial policy initatives such a proposal to legalise prostitution. Come election time and Labour received a sound thrashing in the provinces, including some previously safe seats like Palmerston North. Although Labour recovered to win the election by a narrow margin it duly took notice of the conservative backlash by turning to the centre parties, New Zealand First and United Future, at the expense of the more fancied centre-left Greens.

Since New Zealand has followed so many U.S fashions in recent years, from credit cards to personalised number plates and cheerleaders, it seems likely it will develop some backlash fashions from the U.S as well. Hopefully the Labour Party, unlike the U.S Democrats, will start to pay some attention to working and lower-middle class voters who are suspicious of progressive social policies.