Having it both ways

The media are keen on the prospect of a common border between NZ and Australia. The focus is on passenger access and this makes sense if NZ wants to grab a larger share of the tourism dollars expanded by Australians. Enabling them to check-in and clear customs just the once will represent a real benefit and could shift business - particularly from the domestic market where suddenly a trip to Queenstown is both cheaper, quicker and now less fussy than a trip to Perth and Brisvegas.

If, as seems clear, this is the main objective it makes sense but what of the risks?

NZers enjoy a priviledged position in Australia. We've no need to become permanent residents to work and access most benefits. This means it's a pretty simple matter to up-sticks are relocate. As noted in an earlier post, Key has to balance his goals in tourism with the accountabilities he took on pre-election; the promise to reduce the loss of skilled labour trans-Tasman!

When's he going to do that and how?

An ambitious man in Australia

Key's honeymoon continues despite tough times in New Zealand but I wonder what happened to the fire from the election campaign? Remember John wandering around empty stadia lamenting that our biggest export was talent? What about the billboards that promised an end to all those teary farewells? That was all going to change wasn't it? John will claim time's moved on, that the global crisis has shifted the goal posts. But shouldn't that mean people are more, not less likely to return to NZ? Probably you can argue it either way.

The promise to stop Kiwis leaving was ridiculous, the crisis always overstated and the solutions hollow. National's policy, such as it was, focused principally on importing people not on stopping departures. So should Key now be held to account for the continued net flow of Permanent and Longterm Departures to Australia for instance? Yes, but that won't change anything much.

Oddly though, when interviewed this morning on Australia radio (not available online unfortunately), Key made no mention of his concern that New Zealand will soon be denuded of talent. He focused instead on the challenges in the Pacific, on the financial crisis and easing travel between the countries. All valid and reasonable. He, in fact, acquitted himself well, but I wonder what he'll say to the parents who're still taking their kids to the airport? Perhaps he's arranged for them to join him on his Hercules flight home to be literally parachuted into struggling communities en route to Wellington?

The false reality of an election is over. The practical challenge of delivering on the over-blown promise needs attention. What solutions does National have really? When the trans-Tasman super portability kicks in, there may well be some additional movement back to NZ but it won't be great as too many people have lost too much equity and must now rebuild before they can retire.

It's no surprise then that David Farrar has written just the one post about migration since the election (that compares with four in the month or two before it). I can't help but recall Bolger's sage advice against stirring up race-relations during the 1990 election; he's reported to have said "sure it might help us win the election, but what will we do when we show up on Monday to govern?"

Kinda, maybe, thinking about blogging again...

Deborah has started blogging the NZ General Election at Larvartus Prodeo which has made me rethink my blog-engagement.

This blog's been ignored since October last year when I joined the group behind kiwiblogblog (now deleted). Since we pulled pulled that pin, I've concentrated my efforts mainly at Public Address (which, IMO, remains the standard-setter in NZ) with some forays into kiwiblog and the Standard.

The impending NZ election is terribly distracting for me, it'll be the second I've missed having moved to Sydney just after the 2002 election. I respect the work of both Deborah and Idiot/Savant but perhaps there's a few things I might contribute to the debate here too...

Like starting with this largely irrelevant piece of faux-policy; National's immigration policy. Though it claims to be designed to "bring more kiwis" home, it contains almost no policies that appear likely or even intended to do so. In fact, the 'typo' in the title gives the game away - immigration is usually associated with the arrival of people into a country who are in fact citizens of another. And this policy may do that, but the mislabelling pretends it'll do something else: stop NZ citizens from leaving. It won't.

National's game-playing about migration is well established and analysed (including by the incredibly numerate Mr Pierson). Net Permanent and Long Term Departures (PLTs) are currently higher than they have been in a while and in an environment of skill and labour shortages, that's a problem. It's a problem because it may constrain the economy and could lead to wage-inflation. But it's often over-stated and the solutions are far from simple. David Farrar makes this very point in response to my question:

David, do you have a view about what element(s) of National’s immigration policy will impact on emigration? You’ll think I’m being very partisan, but I can’t see anything that is intended or likely to directly impact on PLT departures.

[DPF: An immigration policy tends to only affect immigration not emigration. You can’t stop people emigrating. The economic policy is more likely to impact on PLT departures and/or NZers returning.]

I tend to agree.

So first, can someone tell Lockwood his policy will not slow emigration and secondly can the National Party please tell us how they'll improve economic growth at a rate beyond what Labour's done these last 9 years?