Winston Peters dirty on immigration

Winston Peters was interviewed by Katie Bradford on Q+A yesterday and was asked about immigration.

His responses will generally be agreed with by many people, but he plays to fears and prejudices without providing any substance to his insinuations.

If you found yourself agreeing with Peters then try analysing what he actually said and then consider the lack of substance.

Unless Peters can substantiate his claims – and he usually doesn’t – I call that very dirty politics.

Katie Bradford: On immigration then, we’ve seen Bill English talk about record migration, is it going to hit its peak? What needs to happen? What, if you were in government, would you do?

Winston Peters:  We’d bring people here that we need, not people who need us.

That’s the aim already, and the points system is designed to achieve this – “classify migrants on their skills, personal qualities, and potential contribution to New Zealand economy and society” – except for refugees, and they are carefully vetted as well. Already.

See Tools and information for meeting criteria

Katie Bradford: But how do you define that? Who are you talking about?

Winston Peters:  Treasury put a paper out just the other day, six months late, where they warned the government that a lot of this immigration policy is of low-skilled, low-qualified people and that it’s not working and that there were some serious dangers.

He doesn’t specify what the ‘serious dangers’ are. And we have a shortage of low-skilled, low-qualified people in some areas and occupations anyway. Dairy, horticulture and viticulture are very reliant on relatively low-qualified immigrants.

Katie Bradford: So who do you think should be allowed in the country and who shouldn’t?

Winston Peters:  Sorry, who’s been saying that for a long time, Katie? Why don’t you tell the country that someone has been saying for a long time that this is going to be a great cost? Because it does cost, and the infrastructural burden in Auckland now is massive and homelessness is really a despairing disgrace.

Only vague comments and no specifics about the cost.

The Government has made it clear that the infrastructure burden in Auckland should be covered by property developers.

There are financial benefits from immigration – that’s why National, Labour – and Peters – want immigration and population growth to continue.

Katie Bradford: Okay then, so how many people should we let in a year? Do you have a number in mind?

Winston Peters:  Yeah, something like, I would think if you’re talking about seriously qualified to fill those science and other gaps that we have and that we always have had for a hundred years, that may be somewhere between 7000 and 15,000 people. And you would also have this priority – if you go to the provinces, you’ll get far higher points. Because we’ve got all these skills gaps in the provinces which are not being filled because people are teeming into Auckland. The population of New Plymouth is coming to Auckland now every year.

But it isn’t this simple due to the unrestricted flow of New Zealanders out of and into the country. For example 48,815 immigrants arrived in 2004-2005 but 10,000 more people left so we had a population decrease.

When the Australian economy and job market boomed many New Zealanders moved over the ditch, but in recent years this flow has reversed. Immigration New Zealand cannot control the flow of New Zealanders, and cannot vet them on their qualifications or character. When jobs become scarce in Australia less qualified Kiwis are more likely to return.

Katie Bradford: Just lastly, just on that issue of who should come into this country, do you have in your mind who we should let in and who we shouldn’t?

Winston Peters:  Yes, I do into this context. It is not race based. They could come from anywhere in the world, as they have, and some have been brilliant people who have come into this country as both refugees and immigrants. But here’s what we want. We want them to salute our flag, respect our laws, honour our institutions and, above all, don’t bring absolutely anti-women attitudes with them, treating women like cattle, like fourth-class citizens. And I’d hope the women in this country wake up to what’s going on, because when you have that being imported into our country with no respect for our views, then I think it’s not good for us long term.

I have never saluted our flag, my guess is that most New Zealanders don’t salute our flag – nearly a half of us wanted a different flag. This is a stupid requirement.

“Respect our laws, honour our institutions and, above all, don’t bring absolutely anti-women attitudes with them” is cynically playing to populism and prejudice.

Peters gives no specifics about whether this addresses actual substantive issues with immigration, he is playing on fears and prejudices by implication.

Unless Peters can substantiate this sort of insinuation then I will call it dirty politics.

Katie Bradford: That sounds like you are targeting certain religions anyway. I mean, what are you saying there?

Winston Peters:  With the greatest respect, I have been to a lot of Muslim countries. I’ve been to Turkey. You couldn’t have the same view about how the Turkish think, whereas other countries, there are some serious reasons why we wouldn’t take those people. And the number-one one is their attitude towards women as just property, as cattle. Now, if we want that sort of society, then I think we’d be mad.

It’s clear that Peters is targeting Muslims without saying it directly. Again he provides no substance about whether immigrants with unlawful or anti-woman attitudes are coming to New Zealand. I haven’t seen any evidence any of this is a particular problem with immigrants in New Zealand.

Katie Bradford: So how do you choose that? How do you decide that? You can’t discriminate on the basis of someone’s views.

Winston Peters:  You interview each one.

Is that necessary? Is it practical? Would it be any more effective?

Just imagine interviewing Peters for a visa application – he would avoid giving straight answers.

Katie Bradford: Every single one of those 15,000 people should be interviewed?

Winston Peters:  Well, it’ll be so much easier with a smaller number, won’t it?

Except that the ‘smaller number’ is bunkum, and I presume Peters knows that. He’s not dumb, he’s cunning.

If we go back to 50,000 people a a year leaving New Zealand then to meet his net target of 15,000 that would require something like 65,000 interviews.

Katie Bradford: But the cost of that! Who’s going to sit down and do that?

Winston Peters:  Well, there’s a massive cost if you don’t. That’s the point. There’s a huge cost now. In every area of infrastructure in this Budget, there was a greater demand to which they are providing insufficient money. I didn’t say that; other economists have said that.

He just said it. Without any substance or references to which economists have said what.

Katie Bradford: Okay, and just lastly, do you think our refugee quota should be increased? We’re going to see the government make a decision on that soon.

Winston Peters:  New Zealand First has made that very clear. First of all, we want to know who’s coming. We’re not just going to take anybody; we need to check them out person by person. But the first thing you must do, and that’s the precondition, you’ve got to cut mass immigration of one, 20,000 a year or net 70,000 at the moment. You can’t do both.

Peters is not clear at all, except about his playing to prejudices and avoiding answering simple questions.

He didn’t answer a straight question about refugees – and refugees are causing the most concern at the moment due to where they are coming from, helped by  vague insinuations and warnings from people like Peters.

We don’t just take anybody. Refugees are carefully vetted, first by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and then selected by New Zealand.

2. Selection eligibility

The criteria for selecting UNHCR Quota refugees are similar across the countries under consideration. They typically include:

  • legal eligibility
  • family reunification and/or family connection factors
  • health or medical factors (individuals with communicable diseases or mental illnesses may be excluded)
  • good character (lack of criminal convictions and no security risk)
  • an ability to integrate.

New Zealand also favours families over single people because it is easier to find accommodation for them.

http://www.mbie.govt.nz/publications-research/research/migration/resettlement.pdf

Incoming refugees then have to stay at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre for 6 weeks before settling in New Zealand, with the assistance of Red Cross.

Peters appears to be playing to fears and prejudices by making vague insinuations.

It ignores what is really happening and ignores how complex immigration is.

It impacts on attitudes to immigrants and it stokes intolerance and anger.

It is dirty politics, and Peters is accomplished at it. And he largely gets away with it.

Interview: http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/winston-peters-dismisses-labour-green-alliance-video-6475302

Leave a comment

40 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th June 2016

    Imagine having to work with this guy. You couldn’t find him a job far enough away.

    Reply
    • What about Shane Jones and Peters swapping positions? Peters has an affinity with fishing.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  6th June 2016

        What does porno boy know about racing though? That portfolio might come up again. :/

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  6th June 2016

          Poor SJ; that was ? years ago and I bet that many people who loudly condemned him have watched dirty films themselves. It’s time to let it drop.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  6th June 2016

            Have to defer to your greater knowledge here Kitty.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  6th June 2016

              I was unimpressed that he did it, but I didn’t go on and on about it as the press did night after night. If people want to look at that sort of thing, I suppose that it’s their business and not mine-with the proviso that it be consenting adults. the fact that I am repelled by the idea is my business. Other people aren’t. that’s theirs. But anyone who watches kiddieporn is a filthy animal-worse than an animal, it’s an insult to animals to call them that.

              I once saw a documentary about child porn and will never, ever forget a bit of a film that we saw. It was a plain, freckled little girl of about 10, and she just lay there as some man’s hands undressed her. She was wearing ordinary little girls’ clothes, not fashionable ones. She let herself be undressed as if she was a doll, and then (oh, dear God) she put her arm over her eyes as….well, all we saw was someone’s shadow looming over her and the film was cut by the documentary makers. I will be seeing that poor little child lying there with her arm over her eyes, waiting for THAT to happen and for it to be over. How anyone could (a) make it (b) do that to her (c) give themselves a thrill by watching what obviously followed is beyond me. It was years ago, but the memory still makes me cry.

              Sorry to go on-it’s something that I become really wound up about and I have little sympathy for these people in prison.

            • Gezza

               /  6th June 2016

              Neither do I Kitty, they can do it because for whatever reason they’re utterly sick in the head Kitty. But I don’t think the Jonester was watching kiddy porn.

  2. Blazer

     /  6th June 2016

    What about just offering Key a position as Minister of Golf ,.

    Reply
  3. No it is NOT Dirty Politics – it is populism. He is out front with his tactics, its not hidden and carried out in secret. Adults can clearly see his game and rebut it.

    Is it ugly at times? YES it is. But it is not secret pictures taken of a rival “on the job” with his mistress given to the papers, its not a smear campaign against a rival, its not hacking, its not quiet stand over tactics in a backroom or down an alleyway

    Its wild, generalised claims based on a kernel of truth and playing to peoples fears. It is the definition of Populism and Winnie has specialised in it for decades.

    Calling it Dirty Politics is playing the Dirty Politics game yourself Pete, by trying to associate Winnie with the nasty, secret squirrel activities outed pre the 2014 campaign.

    Disclosure: I am no Winston fan. He doesn’t back up his claims with verifiable facts enough for me.

    Reply
    • Looks dirty to me. Playing prejudice and populism without regard for the negative effect on people (immigrants, especially recent refugees).

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  6th June 2016

        Good post PG – one of your best insights into ‘say nothing’ Winston – however you are wrong in one crucial element………Peters is practising ‘politics’ here, not ‘dirty politics’.

        Reply
      • dirty with a little d maybe… but it is a mile away form what Dirty Politics has been defined to mean in the last few years Pete…..

        But politics is dirty with a little d full stop anyway…

        Winston is a demagogue populist in the classic model but to say Dirty Politics is a misdirection in my view.

        We will have to agree to disagree..

        Reply
        • I don’t buy the attempted definition of some for dirty politics – effectively ‘what they do and I’ll attack and discredit anyone who suggests we do it’.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  6th June 2016

            It is small d dirty to me-lower case indeed. As an immigrants’ child, I am unimpressed by this grubby campaign to make immigrants feel unwelcome.

            When Henry VIII was king, there were race riots-yes, even in those days, human nature doesn’t change-and Sir Thomas More addressed them with a great speech, part of which said that if the rioters went abroad they would be unimpressed to be greeted with weapons and abuse from the people in those countries.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  6th June 2016

              Imagine how deaf people might feel to read your recent comments Kitty?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  6th June 2016

              If I was deaf, I would see no point in sign language at a meeting where nobody needed it and where it was only used to make the meeting holders able to congratulate themselves on their generosity.It would be like having everything translated into Urdu, Arabic or Mandarin when there was nobody there who could speak these except the translator.

              Why use sign language without finding out if it’s needed or not ? If it isn’t, and the odds are overwhelming that it won’t be, don’t have it. If it is, do. If it’s used when not only does nobody in the room need it, there’s nobody in the room who’s deaf, it seems a waste of time except that it makes the Greens feel smug and good about themselves. Look at us, we are translating everything into sign language even though there’s no deaf person here to read it.

  4. Corky

     /  6th June 2016

    ”That’s the aim already, and the points system is designed to achieve this – “classify migrants on their skills, personal qualities, and potential contribution to New Zealand economy and society” – except for refugees, and they are carefully vetted as well. Already”

    The points system is stuffed. That’s why we literally have Brain Surgeons driving Taxis. Obviously for various reasons they aren’t wanted. Where do all the immigrants doing menial jobs come from? They must get here via a flawed immigration policy.

    “He doesn’t specify what the ‘serious dangers’ are. And we have a shortage of low-skilled, low-qualified people in some areas and occupations anyway. Dairy, horticulture and viticulture are very reliant on relatively low-qualified immigrants.”

    Thanks to our welfare system and liberal attitudes we have NZers who would rather be on the dole than work.-151,000 people are classed as unemployed.

    The dangers- Low skill general means poor education levels. That equates to following antiquated cultural norms eg non integration, violence and unwestern ways.

    ‘There are financial benefits from immigration – that’s why National, Labour – and Peters – want immigration and population growth to continue.”

    True, but the cultural cost to New Zealand is unacceptable. And when you start losing your National identity you start to lose everything- just ask Europe. And that was before the refugee flood. You will know that scenario is unfolding in Aotearoa when Maori demand something is done about immigration.

    “Respect our laws, honour our institutions and, above all, don’t bring absolutely anti-women attitudes with them” is cynically playing to populism and prejudice”

    Article from Whaleoil.

    ” Speaking to Radio New Zealand, Wellington’s Kilbirnie mosque’s Secretary of the International Muslim Association of New Zealand, Tahir Nawaz, says supporting the fight in Iraq would be a bad idea.

    “We are a very good community here, we are very co-operative,” Mr Nawaz said.

    “Once New Zealand troops are sent there, our public attitude could change. At the end of the day there would be people living here whose roots are in the countries where New Zealand would send the troops.”

    Seems to me, Pete, these Muslims will play good Muslims only as long as we don’t offend them. Peters is too soft. Muslims should be banned from this country. Full Stop. And, if legal immigrants have this attitude, what attitude do refugees secretly harbour?

    I agree Peters is being too vague. But I support his sentiments. He needs to man up like Trump and massive support will follow. You are right about immigration issues being more complex than portrayed. So lets be like China and Japan and simplify matters..

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  6th June 2016

      it’s the kids as well, Corky – the next generation. That’s where the dangers come from in Western countries now. If things aren’t going right for them in life & they get disaffected & start reading about their moral & religio-cultural superiority via that ratbag muddle of a book that tells them they are, & looking up Al Qaeda & ISIS videos & polemics on the net – that’s where the risks are. That plus any ratbag imams or scholars who get here & gain any traction among the faithful.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  6th June 2016

        Its a messy situation Gezza. I honestly wish I could be like Pete and not see an issue. Ironically I don’t see Peters as a solution either. Yeah, I forgot about the kids- blank slates waiting to be filled in.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  6th June 2016

          Well, looking at the ticks Corky we’re not popular yet but if a few more people could steel themselves to spend hours and hours over a few weeks crawling through that shambles of a book they might see things differently. I expect SBW’s only still about halfway through and anyway he might be a brilliant rugby player but I’d rate his intellectual abilities as somewhere below Rachel Hunter’s.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  6th June 2016

            I notice SBW Williams has a mini Allah bow for the rugby field. Don’t know if the good book allows that.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  6th June 2016

              You can never do that sort of thing too often. Muslims are commanded to perform prayers five times a day – more than that is scoring even more points with Allah.

              These prayers (salat) are obligatory on every Muslim who has reached the age of puberty, with the exception being those who are mentally ill, too physically ill for it to be possible, menstruating, or experiencing postnatal bleeding. I don’t know how often Allah helps him out but tbh he might be shining a light on him a bit – he does pretty well at his job.

            • Gezza

               /  6th June 2016

              * correction, it’s not salat it’s salah.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  6th June 2016

              I wonder how many brain surgeons really are driving taxis. There was a man in Wellington who made this claim, but was unable to back it up with anything like his degree certificates. He said that he left in such a hurry that he had to leave them, but surely anyone would take a minute to grab these. Why would a brain surgeon stay in a place where their skills were not wanted ? Wouldn’t you find this out before you came to another country ? I am rather sceptical of taxi driving brain surgeons, especially when I see how many immigrant doctors there are. Why do they find work so easily but not the brain surgeons ?

            • Gezza

               /  6th June 2016

              I think the brain surgeon claim is bollocks too Kitty. There was a time a decade or more ago, just before – or around when – they first introduced the points system, I think, when immigrants with all kinds of qualifications were approved to come here and, on arrival, discovered their qualifications weren’t recognised by the NZ authorities. Some with medical degrees were prominent among them.

              Now it’s more likely to perhaps be the odd refugee in that situation I imagine, and the problem they might have is not being able to carry documents when leaving their countries or they’d be stopped & the subsequent difficulty they might have getting new documents later from the relevant authorities in their home countries.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th June 2016

              Not exactly a new problem. One of the language professors at my uni was a White Russian engineer whose qualifications were not recognised by the time he escaped refugee camps into NZ and of course were never going to be validated by the communists. So he was forced to change professions.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  6th June 2016

              The supposed famous brain surgeon taxi driver was many years ago-he’d been saying it for decades. I seem to remember. It’s brain surgeons with whom I have a problem-it’s such a cliche-not people like the engineer,which is a credible story.

            • Corky

               /  7th June 2016

              Re the taxi driver come brain surgeon. Heard the guy on talk-back. He claimed a closed shop by New Zealand proffesionals against those with overseas qualification. He named the Hospital but was cut off as he was about to name names ( similar cases confirmed by a 60 minutes investigation)

              The nurse who took my bloods at hospital is a top notch gyno with Russian quallifications. She hasn’t renewed those in New Zealand because the process is just too onerous. How do I know this? My sister is a hospital adminstrator. Sis also told me once doctors found out about her sutuation she all of a sudden ” couldn’t do anything right”

              Sorry Kitty. I have an idea. Why don’t you go down to the taxi stand and ask. You might learn something.

            • Gezza

               /  7th June 2016

              Kitty’s got to do a survey of the number of people living under motorway bridges first Corky.

          • Corky

             /  7th June 2016

            I’ll settle for her local area.

            Reply
  5. Gezza

     /  6th June 2016

    I have never saluted our flag, my guess is that most New Zealanders don’t salute our flag – nearly a half of us wanted a different flag. This is a stupid requirement.

    I’ve saluted it a few times in cadets. I think he was being metaphorical here. I wouldn’t have saluted the rejected one. I’d have used that as a tea towel or maybe a tablecloth.

    It’s clear that Peters is targeting Muslims without saying it directly.

    Well, he’s always been good at that. It used to be another group he did that with. He’s just shifting focus temporarily here I think.

    It’s his banging on about separatism that gets up my nose, tbh.

    He gave silly Katie a lesson about how she might be able to be bossy with the wimp and James and get away with it but up against a pro who studied under Muldoon she wasn’t in the driver’s seat & needs to send in a bloke.

    Reply
    • spanish_tudor

       /  6th June 2016

      Agreed, ‘saluting the flag’ is merely a metaphor for accepting our institutions, laws, and way of life – if you’re nor prepared to do that, then don’t come.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  6th June 2016

        We’re not America, we don’t have flags plastered everywhere (see how patriotic we are !!!) and salute them every five minuteds or stand with a hand on our chest as if we had indigestion.

        Reply
  6. Cambo

     /  6th June 2016

    Pete
    You need to read Whaleoil lately and examine all the glowing posts on Winston Peters.
    I could be a cynic but it’s becoming a bit obvious that Winston has indeed employed Whaleoil now in some way to push his political lines.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  6th June 2016

      WO has run out of friends and has to resort to chatting up Winston in the bar? Who’d ‘ve thought? A bit optimistic if he thinks Winnie will pay the bill though.

      Reply
      • Cambo

         /  6th June 2016

        Dirty Politics showed politicians always pay the Whale, one way or another.

        Reply
    • PDB

       /  6th June 2016

      No chance that Winston is using Slater – zero. Slater is just jumping on the Winston bandwagon to stir up shit against Labour/Greens.

      Reply
  7. I think it would be much more productive if our Corrections system were to spend more time between the guilty finding in the Court, to the sentencing session. In between the Guilty person should be required to meet with the victims and listen to what they have gone through, without being allowed to comment or apologise. Then he/she should be interviewed by a panel consisting of a qualified Psychiatrist, three lay people of the same ethnicity, and be required to state what he/she, the offender, needs to do to make amends to the victims and what should be the criteria he/she needs to meet before his/her release back into the community. Having completed the procedure, the panel investigating the background of the guilty party should discuss with the sentencing judge the nature of the sentence, and the Corrections plan for the convicted person. If they decide that the person convicted is unlikely to be able to be rehabilitated, then the individual should be sentenced to permanent detention if he/she is a danger to the Community. If assessed as not a danger, but unable to be rehabilitated, then an appropriate period of detention should be given. and the guilty person, on completing their sentence, should be defined as a recidivist and on completion of their imprisonment sentence, should be required to wear an electronic identifier at all times outside their normal residence, and be required to report monthly to a Probation Officer who should be tasked to continually identify opportunities for rehabilitation. I have listened carefully to what has been said by those in the Corrections system and in the rehabilitation sector, and am clear that the incorrigible need to be separated from those who can be corrected while in prison they should be offered an opportunity to be rehabilitated so that those who can contribute get a second chance. Victims should also have access to rehabilitation, paid for by those who victimised them by appropriate compensation and access to medical care at no cost to the individual. Physical or mental trauma should automatically be compensated for by ACC.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  6th June 2016

      Why should it be paid for by the rest of us and not the criminal who did it ?

      It’s easy to say that this, that and the other ‘should be done’, but if there were such simple solutions, they’d have been found and implemented long ago.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s