United Future

Dunne's on to it!
Forecasting for WINZ on "the working age population" is pretty scary when you get out to 2030, 2040 & 2050. As we in NZ have such a low birth rate, something that could be well addressed by a number of measures, the figures based on medium fertility, mortality rates and net migration of 5000 people p.a show the growth of working age people will grind to a halt!!

The growth factor reduces substantially from 1% in 2008, to 0.6% in 2030, 0.3% in 2040, 01% in 2050. That's scary stuff. The rate hits zero in 2058.Treasury forecasts predict that by 2050, about 26% of people in NZ will be over 65!

Our fertility rates have dropped below replacement levels for most of the past 3 decades. Since 1980, it has usually been below 2.1 births per woman - the level assumed for a population to replace itself without migration. The exceptions were last year @ 2.17 and 1990 @ 2.18. Between 1947 and 1973 the rate was above 3 births per woman peaking at 4.3 in the early 1960's. Those early baby-boomer's are soon to retire!

So without a fluid immigration policy and without creating an environment where people want to conceive & raise children we have some serious contemplating to do. Dunne as ever is looking out for the 'best interests of the nation' rather than postulating to gain political media attention by fancifying the usual immigration hot potato in any election year. Our low unemployment rates point toward some thing's else as well, so does our present 'housing' price, investment and availability. Without getting immigration right all that's going to change and not in the direction the punters would like it to! Unemployment will drop to zero, or less, there won't be enough people to do the work required just as presently in some more so retirement locations such as Nelson it's getting very difficult to find a tradesman; and there may well not be enough people to re-populate our existing housing numbers. Think on that one for a minute or two.

What is also scarey is that by the year 2050 Kiwis will be the minority people in their own country.
Our future generations will then be the servants

Does multi-cultural have to mean lack of identity as a nation? It appears quite PC to embrace the concept of many cultures/races but what about having values and identity of our own as a nation? This appears to be more of the view NZ First was putting forward. It is logical for certain cultures to not integrate and when that grouping is large enough they take over the existing way of life in the country. If one wanted to live in China or India then they could move there, not be forced to change their way of life as appears to now be happening in Auckland for example.

The current population policy appears to be used as a selfish tool to line the pockets of property developers only, not building a strong nation. When will the issue of building a sustainable economy be addressed?

Surely by achieving a strong economy which can bring home the over 800,000 NZ born people now living overseas we could counter some of the future problems which will be created from current immigration policies.

Peter Brown's attack on Asian immigration does NZ a disservice. His appeal to prejudice and bigotry muddies the water in a way that makes it hard to improve public understanding of the important role that immigration must play in developing a successful multicultural society.

When different ethnicities interact, the natural tendency is for people to replace the less desirable features of their own culture with the best of what other cultures have to offer. Thus immigration benefits immigrants and also the people of their adopted country by facilitating a two-way transfer of ideas, values and ways of doing things. Throughout history, the most successful and enduring civilisations have been those with a capacity to rejuvenate themselves in this way.

Nevertheless, problems that afflict other societies (e.g. religious bigotry, corruption, mistreatment of animals, disregard for the natural environment and organised crime) could take root here if NZ were to accept large numbers of immigrants who have the wrong sorts of values. Consider two ways in which this could happen.

First example.
Many countries from whom we attract immigrants have subcultures that are totally incompatible with the NZ way of life. I was once friendly with a young man from another commonwealth country. Many of his countrymen have immigrated to NZ and, as far as I can tell, have established a successful community here. My friend was intelligent, well educated and articulate. He once remarked to me that NZers had a very different mindset to the people of his hometown. He gave me a few examples to back up his assertion; one that stuck in my mind was the concept of honour. In that part of his home country, having a visitor stay in one's house was a matter of great moment. It was a mark of honour to be a hospitable host. People apparently took hospitality to the point where, if their guest had arrived in the town to murder someone then the host was honour bound to assist in the commission of that murder.

Second example.
The blind pursuit of economic goals such as the development of export markets could lead to second-best decisions with respect to multiculturalism. For example, the ancient culture that developed in China over 5,000 years ago has many excellent features that would greatly enrich our society. And yet, we would be wrong to assume that imigrants from the People's Republic of China (PRC) necessarily bring that culture with them.

In pre-communist China, an intricate network of relationships bound individuals to their families and clans. Under Mao Tse Tung, bonds of loyalty to the communist party undermined, and even replaced, those ties of kith and kindred. The advent of the one-child-per-family policy further diminished those links, and now, as a consequence, many people do not have any brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles, or cousins.

The relationship between people is not the only feature of Chinese culture that has been changed, perhaps irreversibly, by the communist authorities as they have gone about building their new society. Gone is the idea that human activities should be in harmony with the natural environment. The atheistic line pursed by the government has also eroded the moral and spiritual basis of Chinese society. The endemic corruption that seems to exist at all levels of government is but a symptom of this loss of values.

NZ can only benefit from having a vibrant Chinese community within its borders. However, we could be making a mistake in relying on the PRC to sustain that community. Some immigrants from that country are necessary in order to assist the development of trade and economic links; however, in terms of values, we might do better to look more at the likes of Taiwan and the Chinese communities in countries like Malaya. In those places, many of the best features of Chinese culture are relatively well preserved.

To conclude, the public needs to be well infomed about the role played by immigration in developing a successful multicultural society. Optimal decisions will only be made if all the nuances of, and side issues related to, that role are properly understood. That might not be possible while people like Peter Brown are sitting in Parliament.

You cannot feel the kiwi culture & Traditions in most of the cities in NZ !!