[Danpoll]

Tommorow we will have Don Brash leader of the National party (labour's big rival unveil their propsosals for immigration policy, and its not good.

Immigrants will be put on probation for four years and have to meet good-conduct requirements to gain residency if National leads the next government.

Leader Don Brash will unveil the party's immigration policy in Wanganui tomorrow but the Herald understands it includes giving new migrants only provisional residency.

Instead of immediately having the right to live here permanently, new immigrants would be on probation for a period believed to be four years.

It is understood those who broke the law would be swiftly returned to their home country.

National has also been expressing concern about how easy it is for immigrants to qualify for welfare benefits and it is understood the party's policy will toughen this up.

The policy will be based on the premise that immigration must be of benefit to this country.

This echoes the fundamental principle of New Zealand First's hardline immigration policy.

Immigration has traditionally been the domain of NZ First, but National believes it is an area where it can capitalise on what it terms Labour's "softness".

National will position itself as more moderate than NZ First but willing to be tougher than Labour.

Labour has been embarrassed by recent immigration scandals, including allowing a former minister in Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime to live here.

Dr Brash will promote National's policy as "managed immigration" as opposed to Labour's "free-for-all".

While immigration does not rank with health, education or tax as an election issue it is still contentious and has the power to polarise voters.

Immigration issues are regularly in the headlines, most recently over NZ First leader Winston Peters' claims that moderate Muslim groups are sheltering fundamentalists who may be plotting terror attacks on New Zealand soil.

In the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey 2.4 per cent of voters said immigration was the most important issue, the same percentage as for Treaty/Maori issues and higher than superannuation, student loans and environmental issues.

In tomorrow's speech it is understood that Dr Brash will also concentrate on stemming the brain drain.

He has previously spoken about National's concern that the loss of people overseas, and their replacement with immigrants, is changing the nature of society faster than people are comfortable with or want.

Under National's policy, immigrants would be more carefully selected, and the emphasis would be on attracting skilled workers.

The probation period would be used to make sure immigrants were not abusing the system and costing taxpayers money.

Last week, the party's immigration spokesman, Tony Ryall, told the Herald a number of employers had told him of hiring overseas workers who had taken off once they gained permanent residency.

"Some people are being granted permanent residence and then absconding from jobs, going on benefits and committing crime."

He said permanent residency gave migrants virtually all the advantages and rights of citizenship. "That privilege should be earned."

[Paul and Linda]

Looks like it's too late to stem (there's a pun in there) Brash's brain drain.

[Diny]

OK ..... I've just downed a bottle of bubbly to myself and may cringe with horror when I read this posting in the morning ....... but what exactly is wrong with the immigration ideas of Brash?

Maybe if the UK had adopted such ideas we wouldn't have all been in such a hurry to move. These 'rules' are only a concern for people who break them. Keep your nose clean - toe the line - meet all the immigration requirements and what do you have to worry about?

This is a great country - making sure it stays that way isn't a bad idea - keep the dross out - sounds like a darn good idea to me.

Diny

[foolsgold99]

Never thought I'd type this on the subject on politics.

<Deep breath> here goes.

I fully agree with Diny.



The national partys policy seems balanced and fair. I don't see anything to object to in at all. I see no problem in new imigrants having to prove theselves and aviod serious crime for 4 years. It not like your going to be deported for speeding. If they can't do it, then I don't think they should be in this great country of ours (feels good to say that)

National seems to be quite good with their policies, shame they lack leadership and personality. Don Brash isn't a trustworthy leader, and the team is weak.

Helen is a good leader, who the more I see of her the more I like. Shame about some of the nutty policies. dunno who I'd vote for tbh.

[Bubbles]

These 'rules' are only a concern for people who break them. Keep your nose clean - toe the line - meet all the immigration requirements and what do you have to worry about?

This is a great country - making sure it stays that way isn't a bad idea - keep the dross out - sounds like a darn good idea to me.


:clap :clap :clap

[Avalon]

Id have to say there are some things hes quite right about.

Why should we be allowed to stay if we break the law? (With the possible exception of speeding of course ;) )

And why shouldnt they insist that migrants be of benefit to NZ - the system is already geared to do that anyway. We have all had to prove we are worth giving a PR Visa to.

And the 4 year probation isnt even that new - LTBV applicants already have to plough 3 years of thier lives and money into NZ before they get PR - this just extends it to those of us who get PR in the first place. WTR people also have to wait before PR is granted.

On the downside - its one more thing making NZ look less than attractive to migrants. On top of the low wages and relatively high cost of living - NZ is looking less rosy by the day (imho only of course!)

More worrying to us is whether Don Brash would send troops to Iraq and cosy up to Bush and Bliar. Might not like Clarke very much but at least she didnt do that.

Bottom line - still dont know who to vote for :wah :wah :wah

Avalon

[GeorgeM]

I think that the big problem with Brash's idea on this one is that it will discourage many of the right sort of migrant whilst doing nothing to put off those we don't necessarily want.

Like many who visit this forum we spent a fortune getting here. We gave up well paid employment, sold our house, dislocated our kids' education, left behind friends and relations etc etc etc. We did all this because we thought that on balance our lives would be better on this side of the world, and we are very happy with the result. We qualify to apply for citizenship next week and will do so very soon. We have no plans to return to the UK for anything more than holidays.

But we would not have been prepared to sell up and leave everything behind without an absolute guarantee that (provided we didn't do anything seriously wrong) we could stay here forever. Committment has to work both ways.

If the Nats' proposals had been NZ's policy at the time we would probably have looked to Australia or Canada for our new homes. We could not have afforded the uncertainty of 4 years 'on a promise' at that point in our lives/careers.

We have brought to NZ 20 years experience in IT and 20 at the chalkface in secondary schools, have worked almost since the plane hit the tarmac and haven't dreamt of bludging off anyone. I've even provided enormous amounts of entertainment for my work colleagues by trying to give reasons for England's performances here in '04 and the Lions performances this year :laugh .

The vetting process should be sufficiently rigorous to ensure that most undesirables don't even get here in the first place. Rules can then ensure that they don't sponge on the state - currently it is supposed to be 2 years before you can claim benefit and this can be increased if it is a problem.

Under the new rules migration will seem most attractive to those who have nothing to lose, and these aren't necessarily the best options for NZ.

I'm a bit disappointed in Don for putting forward this policy which I believe will have very few positive effects and a whole host of negative ones. It's very much the sort of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' solution to a practically non-existant problem that is normally associated with the other side.

It may be popular with a certain sector of NZ society to engage in migrant bashing, but the real problem with bludgers is a home grown one.

I'll be voting for him because apart from this I think his party's policies are streets ahead of Lady Helen's but I won't be able to justify this one to anybody.

[Paul and Linda]

Personally, I know that I have already proven myself in this country and have a perfect police record, and may I add driving licence. :mrgreen:

My skills are of benefit to the country and I have 3 good applications in progress for jobs. :nice1

I don't know who Don Brash thinks the NZIS is letting into the country, but perhaps it would be wiser to look to the NZIS rather than to us.

Probationary Residence is a stigma, it is something that would possibly put off employers and also immigrants....yes the good ones.

This is politics nothing else. :no

People coming to NZ and living off the state with that sole intention....well wouldn't that be obvious from their previous employment history? :uhoh DUH!

There is pride involved here, love your country yes, cut off your nose to spite your face no!

Helen Clarke knows that immigrants are needed to fuel this country and the NZIS in my experience are doing a very efficient job of letting in the right people. :nice1

[Danpoll]

What I dislike about it is 4 years before PR then what 5 years before citenzenship Thats a nine year sentance. NZ is losing people by the bucket load with over 9000 imigrants comming in last year and lost 30,000 kiwis to australia alone. Figures released today show a 0.2% drop in the population which stands at 4.98.200.00 If Brash isn't careful people will end up saying fine we will go to Canada or Oz. By all means have a selective immigration policy and ensure that workers come here to work lets just leave time scales alone then evreyone will be happy.

It could be worse though Winstone Peters could get in.

[Avalon]

As usual with most of the changes (ive seen) to the immigration policy here - Im pretty sure they havent thought this through at all.

The probation will put people off (as has been said - exactly the people that NZ needs), but it probably wont stop others coming in. We did hear (no idea if its true or not) that people were getting LTBVs then "going bust" as soon as they got residency. So a 4 year wait wont necessarily stop that happening.

I still aggree with the "principle" of wanting to discourage - but I dont think this is the way to do it. Its going to discourage the wrong people.

Avalon

[Carol]

Brash


bah

I'd rather vote Green.


In fact I might just do that.

[Debbie]

I 'm not yet living in NZ :wah so I don't feel I know enough about the parties or persons involved to comment on the election but Brash's immigration reforms, from what I understand of them, would make me have a serious rethink about NZ. (Might just start a poll to see if others feel the same).
I would be very reluctant to go through dismanteling my family life for a probationary residency.
I think it would put employers off me if they thought I could be asked to leave at any time.
Would I have to do my 4 yr probation and then 3 yrs as a full resident before being able to sponsor my parents?
One of the many things that put us of Oz was that we would have to go the regional visa route, do 2 yrs in your selected area then ask to be give residency. There was no guarentee that that they would take you after the 2 yrs. A lot can change in politics, immigration rules and the economy in 2 yrs or 4 yrs. May be I'm a belt and braces kinda girl but when my family are involved I want it as safe as possible.
For me, one of the best things about the whole emmigration process is that I feel that NZ (via NZIS) has always sent out the message that if you have the skills to make it work and are of the right character they welcome you. They want you to come and make NZ your home. A 4 yr lease doesn't send the same message.
Make better checks on applicants, get a higher grade of applicant to start with and then having to get them out.
If GB can teach NZ anything, it's that getting rid of undesirables is not easy.
Rant over.
Debbie

[jo b]

I haven't read all the posts but I am split with 2 camps here.

yes initially I would say yup what's wrong with brashes policy.
If we aren't towing the line or paying our taxes throw us out UK could learn from that.....BUT, if we aren't contributing NZ needs to look at the underlying cause. Is there anything that could be done to help people in employment rather than putting them on the dole. Are there too many racist employers that many qualified people are in low paid jobs, not utilising thier skills.

For me citizenship and residency don't worry me that's just paper making sure my kids are 100% happy and secure is what I focus on.If it took 10 years to get citizenship, so what, as long as you had residency, but then I do sometimes look at things very black and white.

This is a very difficult one and I also think that the politians are also looking at the issue in black and white too, this makes peoples choose sides with no areas in between.



Jo

[DrPhred]

OK ..... I've just downed a bottle of bubbly to myself and may cringe with horror when I read this posting in the morning ....... but what exactly is wrong with the immigration ideas of Brash?


Well, the big problem is that you are in limbo for 4 years. You don't know for sure what they will consider a serious problem in the future. Let's say you are here 2 years and the government decides you did something wrong. You don't think you did. Can they deport you without a trial? They can here in the USA. We have deported people for giving money to charities that the govenment thinks gave money to terrorist organizations. They didn't have to prove anything.

Immigration is such a big step that you don't want someone changing the rules on you once you made your commitment. Sure, if you rob a bank, no one wants you araound, but in this world there are so many shades of gray that one person considers good and others consider bad.

[Mildred]

Instead of immediately having the right to live here permanently, new immigrants would be on probation for a period believed to be four years.

It is understood those who broke the law would be swiftly returned to their home country

What a shame we didn't have the same policy

[Diny]

Well here I am ... the morning after the night before. Just read the post that I wrote last night and I still stand by it.

Jo's right ........ it is abit of a black or white situation leaving little space for grey areas, but I can't help thinking that the UK should have adopted this policy a long time ago.

Keep your nose clean and abide by the laws of the land and what do you have to worry about?

As for employers not wanting to invest in a person who may be booted out at any minute ...... well looking at it from the other side of the coin - maybe those employers will be thinking that the immigrant applicant will be giving 110% because literally EVERYTHING hangs on their success. I know if I was an employer I'd be thinking along those lines.

Anyway ..... only in my 4th week of being here so I'm going to take a rain check on talking politics ........... too heavy for me right now.

Diny

[Simon & Emily]

What I dislike about it is 4 years before PR then what 5 years before citenzenship ... If Brash isn't careful people will end up saying fine we will go to Canada or Oz.

You may well have hit the nail on the head here Dan - how many people moving to NZ actually want to go to NZ for the country itself, or how many people just want to 'go somewhere' and NZ is currently the quickest/cheapest place to get to?

Whilst I agree that things are never black and white, I have to agree with Diny - if you abide by the rules and keep your nose clean what are people worrying about? OK, giving money to charities which the government disagree with. What sort of charities are we talking here? Help the Aged? OXFAM? The RSPCC? Or something that is a known supporter of terrorists like the IRA? (Which I believe has a lot of 'Irish~American' supporters in the US?) What sort of funds? £1.00 on the street corner? £5.00DD each month? Or more substantial donations that, lets face it, nobody does unless they are hookey?

Here in the UK, the PM has unveiled proposed plans to charge known terrorists and those that support it with treason (does this still carry the dealth penalty?) and people are still complaining about the possible restictions on 'personal liberty' that this would result in. Get real. Each country has to do whatever it takes to secure it's boarders and keep its citizens secure. If this means keeping incoming people on good behaviour for 4 years (ie no murder, rape, drugs, fraud) then so be it.

If you do the crime, then expect to pay the time. Or be asked to leave the country they you have wanted to move to. Life is not a free ticket to do whatever you want - each action you make has a consequence.

Emily

[Simon & Emily]

Why do all my posts go on twice?

[Avalon]

Keep your nose clean and abide by the laws of the land and what do you have to worry about?

As for employers not wanting to invest in a person who may be booted out at any minute ...... well looking at it from the other side of the coin - maybe those employers will be thinking that the immigrant applicant will be giving 110% because literally EVERYTHING hangs on their success. I know if I was an employer I'd be thinking along those lines.



I can see some problems with this - firstly - the "what do ayou have to worry about" strikes me as too much like Bliars "If you have nothing to hide - you have nothing to fear" while he demolishes my personal freedom and insists on ID papers.

I abided by the law in the uk (except the speed limit!) but that did not stop my freedoms being removed in the name of security.

The other thing is - Im not sure if the employers WILL take this well at all. There were huge problems getting employers to take us seriously becaus eof the last policy change (GSC to SMC).

(OK, looks like i might be changing my position on this :wah )

Still not sure about Brash - but hes definately a possible for me.

Avalon

[dave k]

From what I can gather after reading the news yesterday, the main thrust of this new Nat policy is aimed at refugees, asylum seekers etc (ok..it's aimed at darkies and oriental-types) rather than us Euros.
It's a covertly racist move and panders to the growing backlash against non-white immigrants. They pull out the usual stats showing Mr. such-and-such Unpronounceable name & his family came over to NZ to bludge off the state & now plans to bring his 10 kids over too.
What they don't go into too much detail about is the fact that many of these undesirables are fleeing murderous regimes and/or outright poverty and haven't neccesarily made some lifestyle choice like most of us have.
They would probably love to have jobs & be working rather than spongeing, but face prejudice there too - possibly because of language barriers, but more likely because they're "different".
Whilst I agree that some measures have to be in place to curb the sheer numbers of people wanting to live in free, democratic "Western" nations, this National policy seems wide of the mark.
And, as George M said earlier, it also seems to be a convenient way of side-stepping the rather more urgent "home-grown" welfare dependancy problem.
As for the deportation issue for immigrants who break the law - what's so new about that? That's exactly what happens already.

[Danpoll]

The ilustrious Dr Don Brash laid out his plans today.

Tougher approach pledge on migrants



• National’s policy ‘disciplined’



Wellington: Immigrants would not be able to claim a benefit for four years and there would be a four-year probation period before getting permanent residency under a National Party government, leader Don Brash said yesterday.
Dr Brash outlined what he described as National’s “disciplined” approach to immigration in a speech in Wanganui.
He said its bedrock was that “immigrants must be likely to provide a net benefit to existing New Zealanders”.
Its policy included:
¿ Greater recognition of proven work experience in areas of skill shortage.
¿ A four-year qualification period of provisional residence for all new migrants. Permanent residence would depend on immigrants satisfying “good conduct” requirements during this probationary period. Immigrants who broke the criminal law would be sent home.
¿ The benefit stand-down period would be extended from two years to four years.
¿ The New Zealand Immigration Service and the Citizenship Office would be merged into a Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
¿ Family sponsors would have to prove they could provide the necessary support during the four-year benefit stand-down period.
¿ The number of refugees would be set at 750 a year. The refugee family quota would be scrapped. Only immediate family members of refugees would be included in the 750 quota.
¿ Migrants would have reduced access to appeals.
¿ Legislation would be passed to make it clear appeal authorities
may make personal cost orders against those who filed claims without merit.
¿ Business migrants will be required to create at least two permanent full-time jobs for non-family members.
¿ Investor migrants must invest in New Zealand for a minimum four-year period.
Dr Brash said New Zealand needed an inflow of immigrants.
But he said Labour’s current policy had failed and there was resentment towards immigrants, especially against those “who arrive as refugees, go straight on to a benefit and live for years at the expense of the hard-working New Zealand taxpayer”.
Immigration Minister Paul Swain yesterday told reporters that under present law, people could be deported from New Zealand if they committed crimes as a permanent resident, and said he authorised about 40 deportation orders a year.
National’s immigration spokesman, Tony Ryall, questioned the figure, referring to answers to written questions that said eight people had their residence permits revoked in 2004-05 and five were deported in 2003-04.

[Annierobrigado]

i think mr brash forgot that the majority of migrants to nz, based on the points system and the selection process (especially of the english proficiency test) are supposed to be educated, employable, english-speaking and of good moral character (what are the police checks for). he reacted to the discovery that the son of bin laden was living in nz, and i think the man was not welcome. so why penalize the legitimate migrants when they are just concerned with a very few undesirables?

anyway, i have no intention of breaking the law, here in my home country or else where. but i wish we could be given benefits also as we deserve, if we have brought to nz only benefits and values.

annie

[veronica]

new zealand gets migrants from other places apart from the 'european' areas. one of the places that a lot come from is the pacific islands and they don't have the same work ethic as perhaps we do. there is a family from Tonga who have recently arrived here that comes drifting round our ski shop, they obviously live locally and they are about at all times of day and don't appear to have any work, (unless its night work). It would seem that this is the type of migrant Brash is trying to discourage. While I don't like all the proposals that are listed I can see the sense of others.

But don't forget that this is what is being proposed, just think of all the things that potential PMs. have proposed before elections and how many of them actually come to fruition, and of those that do just how long it takes!!

As the beer advert says "Yeah right"

[Simon & Emily]

I can see some problems with this - firstly - the "what do ayou have to worry about" strikes me as too much like Bliars "If you have nothing to hide - you have nothing to fear" while he demolishes my personal freedom and insists on ID papers.

I abided by the law in the uk (except the speed limit!) but that did not stop my freedoms being removed in the name of security.

Avalon

Without wishing to start any sort of argument, can I ask why you see ID cards as so bad? What is wrong with asking everybody to have secure identification? (OK, so I know that this will also be overrun by fraud and corruption, but so is everything else). Can I also ask what you mean by your freedoms being removed in the name of secuity? Surely your rights to go about your life as normal have been / are being taken away by a minority who are hell-bent on attacking Britain?

Emily

[StevieD]

Politicians! What they say and what they do are so often miles apart. Baby kissers, photo opportunists, sound bite here and there - no wonder the people don't trust them.
Unlike the UK, NZ seems to have a grasp on immigration matters. We have been inundated with stories in this country about the muslim cleric who has just disappeared over to the middle east after rumours that treason laws are about to be reintroduced. Seems he doesn't fancy becoming a martyr on the end of a rope and hates this country. Strange that he seems fit to put his hand out and accept benefits payments for him, his wife and 6 kids, plus a £31000 people carrier in the process - all on the state. Never worked but preaches hatred! There is too much of this human rights stuff in the UK. About time we kicked them out, and take no messing from any of the "immigrants". So while I do not agree or disagree, if you keep your nose clean and to the grindstone, there should be nothing to worry about, should there??

[Avalon]

Without wishing to start any sort of argument, can I ask why you see ID cards as so bad? What is wrong with asking everybody to have secure identification? (OK, so I know that this will also be overrun by fraud and corruption, but so is everything else). Can I also ask what you mean by your freedoms being removed in the name of secuity? Surely your rights to go about your life as normal have been / are being taken away by a minority who are hell-bent on attacking Britain?

Emily

No problem - and no argument from me! You are quite welcome to ask, and to not agree with me :P

I feel that ID cards are firstly a huge waste of time (and wads of OUR money). Last months attacks to my thinking kinda prove the point - from what ive understood with the limited news coverage here - all the attackers would have legitametly held ID cards. How would that have prevented anything?

I also worry about the "papers please" state that this may entail. People are already being "stop and searched" , and I would be sincerely worried about any legislation that increases the likelyhood of this. Ok, so Im not likely to be stopped (except for speeding of course), but thats not the point. I just do not want to live in a society that says thats legally ok- just because I should carry papers.

At the moment - I don not have to prove who I am just to walk down the street. ID cards come in - and all of a sudden - I have to PROVE im entitled to be in britain - at all times. And i can be fined or jailed for not doing so.

When it comes to freedoms and security -I feel its getting to the point in britain where you will be asked for 3 forms of ID if you want to sneeze in public :wah While the cynic in me realises this is just so we will beg to have ID cards because we will only have to show 1 form of ID - I still object on principle. You cant even see a solicitor for legal advise without 3 forms of ID now.

The lack of access to the Houses of Parliament is to my mind a very visual indication of this. Concrete bollards - masses of police (no wonder they cant attend burglaries), and moves to prevent protests outside. Anything to protect the Government from the people. (because its not terrorists that this is going to stop - its us)

Everyone is treated as suspect.

The fact that we would not be free to move around the country without carrying ID on us is a loss of freedom. Maybe an intangible freedom - but a very precious one none the less. I know my history is a bit poor - but didnt we fight a war not all that long ago to prevent having to do this?

I feel that the "terrorists" have already won. They have managed to fundamentaly change our way of life in britain - it wont stop them - they wont even care. It does however affect our lives - because the government is changing the law of the land in answer to them. Bliars ongoing attitude that "real people" would aggree with him just sickens me. Until our democracy finally dies - I am entitle to think hes an idiot (and hes entitled to think im one - but not to dismiss my voice as not being a "real" one!)

To me - it comes down to "You have nothing to fear but fear itself". Britain has been put under a climate of fear - in the same way as the states has. Fear the terrorist - fear the unknown. We have to go to war. We are at war with terrorists. Anything we do in the "war on terror" is acceptable. Even if we have to carry papers to prove we can live in our own country. Even if people can be held without trial for weeks on "suspision" on terrorism. i truly think the only way to really beat it is to REFUSE to change our way of life.

Our freedoms are not being taken away by the terrorists. They are being taken away by our own elected leaders. People who should protect those freedoms - not destroy them.

I hope that makes some sense :oops: Im feeling a tad under the weather this morning! It feels a bit rambling to me - but hopefully you can see where Im coming from.


Avalonxxx

[jo b]

I can see where you are coming from Avalon.

I suspect though the reason that we are not free is the fact that the terrorists are here. It is the fact that they were allowed to be here in the first place because of the liberal left wing loony ideas of some politians and now we are at the stage were the same said politians are saying we need id cards to protects us from the nutters walling around our said free country.

This government softened border controls a number of years ago, especially people leaving the country (e.g no-one knew the nuter cleric had left), and now wants to watch where people go within the country, through i.d. cards. It makes me wonder whether there has been a big hidden agenda for a big brother style government, by letting in terrorist make us feel unsafe and then give us all id cards to make us feels safe again :no

So Brash's idea's think them through a bit more and there maybe some mileage in them. I certainly don't want my taxes funding muslim clerics and their numerus wives and families and £31k cars, and houses, for them to raise there sons into little Ayattolas (sp). This really makes me spew. And if any and I mean any liberal left wing loony has any defence for this then I would like to hear it.........RANT OVER.

Jo

[Avalon]

Jo,

The thing is there have always been terrorists in britain. I spent most of my life in Hereford - with about 1 bomb scare or attack yearly (several in my last year at 6th form). However we did not have leaders that chose to make it an excuse for destroying our way of life.

I realise there is a big difference between the IRA and the current terrorists. If nothing else in teh scale of the attacks and the lack of warnings. But it was still terrorism - they were still on British Soil - they were still trying to kill us and terrorise us.

No ID cards.
No stop and search.

I really dont think these laws are beacuse of the current terrorist "threat". Thats the excuse being used to give polititions more power.

Big Brother has nothing on bliars government.

Avalon

[T-and-L-PDX]

new zealand gets migrants from other places apart from the 'european' areas. one of the places that a lot come from is the pacific islands and they don't have the same work ethic as perhaps we do.

What? Are you really suggesting Tongans, as a whole people, being not "from 'european' areas", have a problematic work ethic? If you are basing this assertion on data, perhaps you could share it? Or are you generalizing about an entire people based on the single instance you cite? Or is it merely prejudice, just something you happen to know? And did it occur to you Maori, like Tongans, are part of the Polynesian diaspora that managed to inhabit the Pacific through perserverance, cleverness, and hard work? Are you saying Maori also have a bad work ethic? Or just the entire peoples of Tonga, Samoa, Hawaii, Fiji, etc.?

I suspected what sort of person Brash was appealing to with this immigration pitch and it looks as if I am correct.

[GeorgeM]

I think that there is no doubt that different cultures have different takes on the idea of a work ethic.

The Anglo-Saxon one is fairly self centred and self seeking - someone generally works hard for the benefit of himself and his family (and before I'm savaged by the PC crowd - the male gender in this post should (unless otherwise specified) be taken to include the female also).

In other cultures extended family and tribe can be more important. I think, for example, whole villages in Fiji work together on tourism schemes. Maori are forever stressing the importance of whanau in a way that emphasises how different their culture is from pakeha in this area.

Is it not likely, therefore, that someone from one culture can perceive that someone in another culture has less of a work ethic, when in reality they just have a different one. No stats necessary to back up the statement, possibly just more careful working required. In the same way as maori might say that family wasn't important to the English and lots of us would feel insulted - our conventions and needs in this area are different, but not necessarily inferior.

The trouble is that NZ is a predominently Anglo-Saxon society with corresponding values, and those who have differing attitudes towards the work ethic ARE generally held to hold inferior attitudes.

[Avalon]

What? Are you really suggesting Tongans, as a whole people, being not "from 'european' areas", have a problematic work ethic? If you are basing this assertion on data, perhaps you could share it? Or are you generalizing about an entire people based on the single instance you cite? Or is it merely prejudice, just something you happen to know? And did it occur to you Maori, like Tongans, are part of the Polynesian diaspora that managed to inhabit the Pacific through perserverance, cleverness, and hard work? Are you saying Maori also have a bad work ethic? Or just the entire peoples of Tonga, Samoa, Hawaii, Fiji, etc.?

I suspected what sort of person Brash was appealing to with this immigration pitch and it looks as if I am correct.

Thats really quite harsh. You have made a generalisation about "the sort of person" Brash is pitching at based on one post - while at the same time accusing veronica of making a generalisation about "islanders".

Ummm, is that fair?

I have certainly heard the same opinion from many sources -I cant persoanlly comment on it because I have no experience of it myself, but I think it is fair to say that the general perception seems to be there is less of a work ethic amongst Islanders.

I do aggree with George - that all cultures seem to have different opinions on what is important. Even in the same culture we can have vastly different opinions of what is right.

Having actually watched the "leaders debate" last night - Id say Brash was (mostly) making sense to me. I still have my doubts, and I still dont know who Im going to vote for. :wah

Avalon

[Carol]

We have a rental.
yay.


Our tenants - Cook Islanders - have never once missed a payment of rent in 4 years.
Their rent comes straight from their PAY!!!
yes they do work!!!


THeir children (hideously under suspicion by the VERY right wing neighbour whom I was extremely glad to move away from) are polite, quiet and absolute mo del children.
They would leave some of the pakeha kids (I teach) for d ead when it comes to manners.

The father - is a pastor. Not an "uncommon" occupation apparantly.

Hmmm.....who would I rather have as tenants?



No-one actually!



The cleaner at my school - a rough diamond if ever I met one.

An islander of "typical" appearance.
One of the kindest ladies I have ever met.




My business partner for the application I have put together recently.
A very good friend of his is the Maori representitive for IT in Te Papa.
He has offered me every resource I could possibly need.
He is an awesome man.


Yes there are bad un's......I've met them too.

Just like every race I guess............from my experiences in the UK

I had no criminal record at all in the UK.
Why should I be under suspicion for FOUR years upon arriving in a country that I have sunk my life savings into?

At best it is insulting.
At worst racist.


Brash wont even get a sniff of my vote!

[Avalon]

At best it is insulting.
At worst racist.


Yeah - definately thinking that way now about it.

It didnt get a mention in the debate last night - not even Winston Peters really got into immigration. I was interested to see what they really had to say.

And if they do separate out "different ethnicities" for different treatment - then yes - its going to be race based immigration. But then to be fair - we already have that in NZ. Its already biased under a labour government to give Europeans/ Americans an edge.

But hey - the country is already full of race based policy. Brash was one of the leaders last night vowing to get rid of that (I guess for internal policy only huh?)

[Carol]

Brash was one of the leaders last night vowing to get rid of that (I guess for internal policy only huh?)


He actually made me laugh out loud at that point!!!


I thought Helen came over really well - cant say I agree with all their policies but her stance was strong.
Even Winston came over better than Brash!
:eek :eek :eek

[Avalon]

Helen was definatly one of the most polished speakers - but she appears to be very good at that anyway. Really dislike some of thier policies though. Shame because she would defiantly not get NZ involved in the War and thats something I really feel strongly about.

I was also quite immpressed by the guy from United Future (i think) - but he didnt seem to actually say anything about the policies - and as yet I know next to nothing about them.

All in all, Im utterly confused :eek

[veronica]

Funnily enough I am not at all colour predjudiced but I really dont like bludgers of any type, and while I agree that they come in all shapes and colours NZ does seem to have a lopsided unemployment colour chart.

It could well be a culture thing this work ethic business. But if it is, and the people coming from WHATEVER country are not settling into the NZ culture because of this why make it easy for them to come here or anywhere else where they are going to be a drain on the economy of that country. Rightly or wrongly its a fact that the NZ culture is predominantly European in its nature.

I am curious T and L (real names and habitat unknown so I apologise for the initials) as to whether you live in NZ yet or are still waiting to get here.

[GeorgeM]

There is an inbalance in the colour of those on benefit, but that is just a side effect of other realities.

The level of education of whites (both NZ born and incomers) is higher on average than non-whites, and also the level of earnings.

For this reason benefit is far less attractive to many whites than to many people of colour.

If I were to be on benefit for whatever reason then my lifestyle would have to change dramatically in a manner I would not like - a real disincentive for me for actually choose to be on benefit and to do everything I can to keep earning at the level I do. (And before I get flamed I'm not suggesting that everyone on benefit has chosen to be there).

On the other hand if my standard of living were much lower I just might be more tempted by the opportunity to get almost the same in my hand each week for doing nothing than for working.

As a youngster I was very idealistic about people wanting to work for its own sake and strongly believed that given the choice of getting $x per week for doing nothing or the same amount for doing a job useful to society most people would choose the dignity of work. Now I'm old, grey and cynical I think that the opposite it true for many if not most people. If not why do so many upstanding, educated, middle class, white people choose early retirement when it's offered to them?

To deal with this problem we perhaps need to look at why, in a situation where unemployment is almost nil, there are still people who have been on benefit for years and years. There will always be the need to offer assistance to people in transitional times - between jobs and so on - but I think most people would feel that, given the number of unskilled jobs on offer at the moment, the long term unemployed have made a lifestyle choice, and one that is only possible because the generosity of tax payers is too great.

[Carol]

The level of education of whites (both NZ born and incomers) is higher on average than non-whites, and also the level of earnings.

.

hmmmmm...........

Why then are schools in decile 1 areas (low income) funded at a MUCh higher rate per child than decile 10?

Surely the "level of education" is considerably higher.


I know one thing - the schools in the local decile 1 areas aren't doing sausage sizzles to raise money for basics like we are...........

:?

[dave k]

As a youngster I was very idealistic about people wanting to work for its own sake and strongly believed that given the choice of getting $x per week for doing nothing or the same amount for doing a job useful to society most people would choose the dignity of work. Now I'm old, grey and cynical I think that the opposite it true for many if not most people. If not why do so many upstanding, educated, middle class, white people choose early retirement when it's offered to them?

I think the key phrase here, George, is "useful to society".
How many jobs these days truly are?
If the choice is being a wage-slave in a meaningless job and getting peanuts for the privilege OR accepting welfare and using your free time to do something really productive & creative, I'm pretty sure I know what I would choose.
The workplace has changed across the globe in the last 50 years, and many of those early retirees you mention know that they are no longer valued in their jobs the same way the previous generation were, and are simply expendable tools in the system. So they're jumping before they're pushed.


To deal with this problem we perhaps need to look at why, in a situation where unemployment is almost nil, there are still people who have been on benefit for years and years. There will always be the need to offer assistance to people in transitional times - between jobs and so on - but I think most people would feel that, given the number of unskilled jobs on offer at the moment, the long term unemployed have made a lifestyle choice, and one that is only possible because the generosity of tax payers is too great.

Again, assuming that you don't subscribe to the Puritan view of work being somehow morally redemptive and inherently beneficial, why would you drag yourself out of bed on a cold winter morning to get paid $10 an hour doing some unspeakable drudgery if there was another choice?

I propose we pay the top salaries to people that do all the crap jobs like drain maintenance, waste collection, digging roads etc. etc. and all the company executives and middle management-types get minimum wage.
Let's see how that would affect work ethics..

:mrgreen:

[GeorgeM]

hmmmmm...........

Why then are schools in decile 1 areas (low income) funded at a MUCh higher rate per child than decile 10?

Surely the "level of education" is considerably higher.


By 'level of education' I meant 'level of educational attainment'.

[GeorgeM]

I think the key phrase here, George, is "useful to society".
How many jobs these days truly are?
If the choice is being a wage-slave in a meaningless job and getting peanuts for the privilege OR accepting welfare and using your free time to do something really productive & creative, I'm pretty sure I know what I would choose.
The workplace has changed across the globe in the last 50 years, and many of those early retirees you mention know that they are no longer valued in their jobs the same way the previous generation were, and are simply expendable tools in the system. So they're jumping before they're pushed.



My in-laws both took early retirement from jobs in teaching, as did many others. Most people would consider this profession to still be one that is useful to society.

Again, assuming that you don't subscribe to the Puritan view of work being somehow morally redemptive and inherently beneficial, why would you drag yourself out of bed on a cold winter morning to get paid $10 an hour doing some unspeakable drudgery if there was another choice?


The only reason that there is a choice (i.e. do nothing for a fairly decent something (at least compared to the alternative in previous centuries or many other places today)) is because the vast majority of people are prepared to get up in the morning and go to work in dull jobs to pay for the option for those who don't want to.

I propose we pay the top salaries to people that do all the crap jobs like drain maintenance, waste collection, digging roads etc. etc. and all the company executives and middle management-types get minimum wage.
Let's see how that would affect work ethics..

:mrgreen:

What a wonderful theory. I wonder why it has never worked anywhere. Perhaps it's a matter of supply and demand - many people could do the lower paid jobs, fewer the higher paid ones. All determined by the market, which for all its inadequacies is still the best method for determining the price of things - remember what happened in all the communist experiements in the 20th century (and what is happening in North Korea today).

[veronica]

we are having drains dug at the moment, its costing us about $1500 to just have the drains laid and connected (about 7 metres worth) and Pete is doing the digging himself.
Pete was in upper management in the UK. He used to work for every penny he earned, Most days working from 8 til 7, and going in at the weekend too. he had a tremendous responsibility and was paid well for it. while I think everyone should be paid a fair wage for a fair days work I think people shouldn't generalise about 'fat cats'. believe it or not some of them earn every penny they get. I wouldn't have wanted the pressure that Pete was under a lot of the time.

[Avalon]

I propose we pay the top salaries to people that do all the crap jobs like drain maintenance, waste collection, digging roads etc. etc. and all the company executives and middle management-types get minimum wage.
Let's see how that would affect work ethics..

:mrgreen:

Well no one would bother going to university and working thier butts off to became doctors, nurses, teachers, vets, dentists, lawyers, pharmacists, optometrists for a start.

But hey - you would have clean streets

[dave k]

My in-laws both took early retirement from jobs in teaching, as did many others. Most people would consider this profession to still be one that is useful to society.
You said you always used to believe that, given the choice of being paid $x per week to do a job useful to society or receive the same amount for doing nothing, most would opt to work. I was suggesting that most jobs that pay as little as a welfare handout would not fall into the "useful to society" category, and it would be hard to find the motivation to do them when an alternative means of gaining the same subsistence-level income existed.
No-one is disputing that teachers play a vital role in society but when so many, as you suggest, take early retirement packages when given the option, one must question why that would be. I think it's because they are undervalued and largely underpaid for the work they do and, as in so many other sectors of the workplace, they may be getting out before they are "downsized".


The only reason that there is a choice (i.e. do nothing for a fairly decent something (at least compared to the alternative in previous centuries or many other places today)) is because the vast majority of people are prepared to get up in the morning and go to work in dull jobs to pay for the option for those who don't want to.{/QUOTE]
I'm not suggesting that being on welfare as a lifestyle choice is a desirable option, just that I can see how many people down at the lower end of the economic scale would choose it over the dubious merits of a soul-destroying and meaningless job. Especially when that job provides no significant financial benefit when measured against welfare.


[QUOTE]
What a wonderful theory. I wonder why it has never worked anywhere. Perhaps it's a matter of supply and demand - many people could do the lower paid jobs, fewer the higher paid ones. All determined by the market, which for all its inadequacies is still the best method for determining the price of things - remember what happened in all the communist experiements in the 20th century (and what is happening in North Korea today).
In case it wasn't clear, my proposal wasn't entirely serious (maybe I should use more smileys or something).
I just thought it would be an interesting test of the work ethic - if all that propels this ethic today is greed and ever- increasing personal financial gain, it would be revealing to see how many people would still choose to be in their Very Important Jobs if they could earn more $$ sweeping the street.

In all seriousness though, the nature of work HAS changed dramatically over the last half century or so. We often must get a job to survive - in which we follow the instructions of a manager who probably doesn't have much more control over his job than we have over ours. Since we don't get to decide what we are doing, chances are that we will feel alienated from our work, disinterested in the quality of our labour, and we may even feel that the projects we are working upon are unimportant.
In a purely capitalist economy, the jobs that are available will be determined by which products are in the most demand; and often the products that are in demand (military technology, fast food, the latest t.v) are not products that really make people happy. It's easy to feel like all your labour is wasted when the products you work so hard to sell/make just to survive seem to do nothing for the people you sell them to.
In short, "work" as we know it tends to make us unhappy because we do so much of it, because it is so repetitive, because we often don't get to choose what we do, and because what we are doing is often not in the best interest of our fellow human beings.
I think we need a new blueprint. Any ideas?

[GeorgeM]

In short, "work" as we know it tends to make us unhappy because we do so much of it, because it is so repetitive, because we often don't get to choose what we do, and because what we are doing is often not in the best interest of our fellow human beings.
I think we need a new blueprint. Any ideas?
I'd agree with that, but can't think of anything that would change it.

The problem, if anything, is getting worse very rapidly as more and more of the world embraces this system as a measure of 'success' and 'development'. There can be few if any places of any size where on the one hand the 'modern' model doesn't hold true and at the same time people aren't living on the breadline in a subsistance environment.

Even in a small environment it would be very difficult to persuade people to move in a different direction - even here there would be too many existing entrenched interests preventing it as well as too many uncertainties for it to appeal to more than a small proportion. So in a world of 6 billion I would say it is impossible. Hence we get a very imperfect situation but the best we can manage. Lets say that we get 15% of the way there, which is pretty poor, but nothing else can deliver more than a couple of percent.

The rot set in really just as soon as the workers had more to lose than their chains....

[dave k]

Sorry...double post. Dunno how to delete the first one!

[Avalon]

In case it wasn't clear, my proposal wasn't entirely serious (maybe I should use more smileys or something).
I just thought it would be an interesting test of the work ethic - if all that propels this ethic today is greed and ever- increasing personal financial gain, it would be revealing to see how many people would still choose to be in their Very Important Jobs if they could earn more $$ sweeping the street.

In all seriousness though, the nature of work HAS changed dramatically over the last half century or so. We often must get a job to survive - in which we follow the instructions of a manager who probably doesn't have much more control over his job than we have over ours. Since we don't get to decide what we are doing, chances are that we will feel alienated from our work, disinterested in the quality of our labour, and we may even feel that the projects we are working upon are unimportant.
In a purely capitalist economy, the jobs that are available will be determined by which products are in the most demand; and often the products that are in demand (military technology, fast food, the latest t.v) are not products that really make people happy. It's easy to feel like all your labour is wasted when the products you work so hard to sell/make just to survive seem to do nothing for the people you sell them to.
In short, "work" as we know it tends to make us unhappy because we do so much of it, because it is so repetitive, because we often don't get to choose what we do, and because what we are doing is often not in the best interest of our fellow human beings.
I think we need a new blueprint. Any ideas?

I chose to be a pharmacist because it paid well! I then had to work exceedingly hard to make that happen, but the motivation was that at the end of the studying - I could walk into a well paid job, with little or no competition for places.

By the time I finished last year - I had actually rettrained in aromatherapy in order to get out - meaning I would earn much less money - but I wouldnt be so ill from the demands of the job. For persoanl reasons - I had to go back into pharmacy for the money - to pay a mortgage.

We have a personal blueprint. It involves learning how our money works, and being in charge of it rather than at its mercy. We have personal choices about what we will accept in our work lives. So at the moment - I do not work at all. I have not registered here as a pharmacist at all.

My husband learned a very improtant lesson from his company in the UK about how they value him. In some ways - he was very highly regarded, and had a fantastic reputation . He was up for an award which should have netted him thousands. This was for a project that essentially he put 2 months work into in less than a month. At the end of it - he was really ill. What he got was $50. So he put in an overtime claim - kerrrr-ching £2000 better off! After that - overtime claims became normal. They kept paying!

He loves his job, but has realised that he wont do it for nothing. Hence he is leaving his current job (Telecom can afford to give its shareholder $2Bn over the next 2 years - but not its staff!) for something better paid.

Which gives us that bit extra to learn to make work for us. We are aiming to have to work less, for the same amount of money, and let the money do the work.

Umm, not sure if that really answers the question - I think ive got a bit lost :0

[dave k]

Well, I chose to be a musician because it made me happy. There is little financial reward for what I do, so I supplement my income by working part-time in a couple of other jobs (one doing sound editing for tv programmes, the other doing ball-bustingly hard labour for a building contractor)

I think this is becoming more and more commonplace these days - since the old model of a 9-5 permanent job for life has started to get a bit ragged round the edges, people are increasingly opting to do various different kinds of work to make ends meet. It's just a pity that the infrastructure surrounding the old model hasn't kept pace with the way the world is changing - try getting a mortgage or a bank loan if you don't conform to expectations.

I applaud your decisions Avalon, to aim to do less work and more living! And, in truth, I think that's a main motivating factor for many of us who've moved to NZ.

[Avalon]

I applaud your decisions Avalon, to aim to do less work and more living! And, in truth, I think that's a main motivating factor for many of us who've moved to NZ.

Thank you!

One problem ive come accross is that other people do find it hard to accept that Im choosing not to work. You have no idea how many times Ive been asked "when" im going to look for a job!

Glad to see we arent the only ones.

[Moorf]

If I had a dollar for every time someone asked me that same question I'd never HAVE to work :D

I'm not working, through choice, and I find it bloomin' hard - self-esteem wise. I know it shouldn't bother me but it does. I went from a fairly high-powered job to self-employed when we were in the UK - that seemed easy enough. But I was still self employed in a relatively high paid sense (consultancy)...

I've now made a bigger step and am basically doing part time work wherever I can find it but that's more to get me out of the house than anything else!! I am no longer at the surf shop - they don't need me anymore :no (it's been sooo quiet I'm not surprised)....

Since arriving in NZ nearly a year ago, I have had the time to do whatever I want. That would have been a dream come true once.. but I'm having problems focussing... I have so much to do yet so little... :confused: does that make sense? I'm doing a journalism course, a creative writing course, in the middle of "writing" 2 books, re-instating a website.... but it's like I need to EARN... that's the crazy thing - I can't relax and "do" stuff if I am not being financially rewarded!!! It's taken me a while to realise this... I'd like to get the place that DaveK is at - being happy with being a musician - I'd like to be happy doing something I love (like writing) but as I said, I can't "allow" myself to make it my life if I'm not being paid well for it... sad huh ...

Woz is a great support though, and I'll get through it - I'm sure it takes more than one whirlwind year in NZ for the materialisic Moorf to settle ... :D

[dave k]

I know what you mean. It's so hard-wired into us at an early age (along with the whole guilt/moral side of the coin) that a happy & productive life means spending most of it in endless toil. Often unrewarding, and usually for somebody else.
Some of us get lucky and get paid for doing what they love, but that's a pretty rare situation.
The guy I work for doing the building stuff is a good example of the work ethic gone nuts: he does a full 6 day week, sometimes starting at 6 and not finishing till 8 or 9..so basically, all he does is work & sleep. I've yet to see him eat.
And then on Sundays he goes to work on his section, clearing gorse & sinking post-holes & so on. And if he doesn't do anything and maybe cuts himself some slack and has a few hours off, he becomes wracked with guilt and feels terrible.
I think some people just use work as a way of not having to deal with their own lives, thoughts, emotions, etc. because they're so busy all the time...and society rewards them for their weird compulsions.