Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think the statement that immigration policy is inherently racist is quite simply wrong. Race needn't even be a factor - I've certainly not suggested race/ethnicity/religon as a factor so what's racist about a volume limit and/or a skills limit? Nothing.
And the argument about qualifications is, I submit, just a red herring, particularly if you take note of the qualifications -- or more accurately the lack thereof -- of many of NZ's wealthiest and most creative people.
You can't select for those qualities -- and you certainly couldn't predicate the selection based on qualifications.
I think this is a red herring Peter. Qualifications are a significant predictor of income and labour market participation. They might not be exact but to argue otherwise simply because you can name dozen or more millionaires who don't have qualifications is absurd.
My disagreement with Ben's suggestion was not that migrants are a drain on the domestic population, rather that having no policy would make planning incredibly difficult - how would you plan for building new schools if you didn't know the ages of migrants? On what basis would you fund gynaecological services if you didn't know the gender of migrants? If you undertook no assessment of skills, how could you hope to solve skill shortages (though they're often overstated, there are real skill shortages in NZ)?
-
Heather's point is an excellent one - the same is occuring in Sydney - in one recent example Irish trackwork riders have been imported because they'll work for the shitty wages that Australian's won't - in effect migration is being used to artificially lower wages.
-
Ben, I can think of numerous examples of where a very relaxed attitude to immigration and a lack of planning has created all sorts of community difficulties, not just lack of adequate services.
I'm planning a trip to Montpelier later this year where there is a major problem with ethnic slums, unemployment and violence (there are examples in Sydney also as you may well be aware; the riots in Maroubra were essential a reaction against migration). Sure France is always going to be more popular than NZ, but the point is that without some sort of planning you risk recreating the problems the migrant group is hoping to avoid (or the dawn raids I referred to earlier).
The point about skilled migrants displacing local skills is in fact not generally an issue, not in Australia anyway (despite some ridiculous statements from electrical unions). In a planned scheme, the eligibility of migrants is linked to demand for skill (that is to offset domestic skill shortages).
We probably won't get any closer to a consensus on this - not becuase we have a different attitude to migrants per se, but because I suspect we have different views the roles of government.
-
I'd favour losing most of the system of language tests, shortage job lists and so on and have a simple system: new immigrants get a work permit when they find a skilled job
.
On the one hand, I think the language tests might be a little over the top but there's a direct cost to employers if you don't have them - either in terms of training or in terms of ACC premiums - there's a strong correlation between workplace accidents and lack of English.
With the approach you suggest, what do you do to the poor migrant that can't find work - track them down and turf them out? It seems a little around the wrong way to me - the current system uses qualifications as a proxy for employability and mostly works (no pun intended) - why change it?
-
Ben, what country has an entirely open border and what benefits are achieved in that country(ies) that are unrealised in Australia or NZ?
I don't want to harp on and on but I think it would be unwise to have no limit on numbers and to not preference skilled over unskilled migrants (while also accepting a reasonable level of refugees). At the very least our migration policy should attempt to replace skills and labour lost when NZ residents head overseas.
-
Ben, I reckon your experience is consistent with a managed approach to migration - one that ensure that those entering into the country are likely to get jobs. This is a bit different to saying let everyone in and hope they don't end up in ghettos (I lived in Mangere in the '70s and '80s and remember what happend to Polynesian "over-stayers" when the economy cooled).
Skilled migrants into Australia generally have more skills than the domestic population and most now find work, if not in their preferred area. But this scheme, and the NZ one, is managed around targets and flows which allows for planning around schools, housing, health services etc.
Growing the domestic population will have benefits, but it'll also create challenges that need to be thought through - think about the housing bubble in Akl for instance or waiting lists at hospitals - in the end though, the success of the NZ economy is not about growing the domestic demand, it's about developing products that have global appeal - this of course may well be an argument for encouraging more migrants on the basis that they'll assist opening new markets?
-
Ben, there's bugger all demand for unskilled labour even in construction/transport.
In Australia, the forecast demand for labour over the next twenty years is predominantly for people with qualifications around trade-level and above (the forecast growth in jobs in Australia are jobs that require a vocational qualification). NZ's not really much different last time I looked.
I also think it's more than a little unreasonable to allow a person into NZ on the basis that they'll do work the domestic population won't.
-
Lyndon, personally I think a balanced approach includes some migration to meet labour market requirements and some to meet humanitarian ones. Skilled migration avoids the some of the costs of developing your own workforce so maybe those savings should be applied to providing assistance to refugees?
-
Opps typos aplenty...
My point though was regional/ state service providers plan for changing demand in services - schools, hospitals, sewage etc (any capital development) based on demographic information. Simply saying, we don't mind who/where/when, come one and all is way to risky.
-
Unmanaged growth in any region will create stresses on services and infrastructure and inevitably led to resentment from the locals - NZ could certainly deal with having more people but that's not an argument for opening the borders.