John Moore is a progressive activist. In a guest blog at liberation he confronts the issue of leftwing xenophobia:

John Moore argues that leftwing opposition to the Chinese bid for the Crafar farms highlights how progressives in this country continue to frame their politics within a conservative economic-nationalist framework. Despite the protestations of leftists opposing the Shanghai Pengxin bid, the fact is that their nationalist rhetoric has nothing to do with progressive politics and everything to do with crude foreigner bashing.

Moore provides some history:

For example during the early part of the twentieth century the Federation of Labour, through its paper the Maoriland Worker, railed against Chinese immigration. …

Many from New Zealand’s contemporary left would acknowledge this history of racism and bigotry, but would argue that progressives in this country have now embraced diversity and tolerance over bigotry and xenophobia. However, such leftists’ continued adversity to immigration and support for little New Zealand nationalism points to continuity with the left’s racist past.

Moore looks at the Crafar issue:

Labour’s careful construction of a new nationalist synthesis amounted to the formation of a post-conservative form of patriotism that most of the left could now feel comfortable with. Whereas the New Left of the 60s and 70s often rejected any form of nationalism, many contemporary leftists now feel comfortable with this new form of ‘Kiwi’ identity. However, the problem with the acceptance of this form of ‘progressive’ patriotism is that it inevitably allows for forms of bigotry, racism and xenophobia to be accepted as legitimate when they are framed within this ‘liberal’ nationalist framework. Therefore, the recent left-wing opposition to the Crafar farm sales can be seen as being a kneejerk reaction of a left that has been schooled in this new form of ‘liberal’ chauvinism. 

Moore concludes:

The question the left should be asking itself is: How is ownership by local capitalists in anyway preferable to foreign capitalist ownership? Does New Zealand’s corporate elite have some special genetic or cultural trait that makes them more socially responsible and caring owners and mangers of local resources?  …

Clearly our local capitalists act no differently than economic elites anywhere in the world. Therefore, attacking foreign bids within a nationalist framework acts purely to support local capitalist of the likes of Michael Fay, who will cynically exploit nationalist sentiments to secure and foster their own corporate interests. 

I am sure Sir Michael thanks Labour for their advocacy (again) on his behalf.

Tags: John Moore, xenophobia

Brian Gaynor writes:

The Government has to convince the public that these companies will remain majority Crown and New Zealand controlled. This should be easy to achieve because under the Takeovers Code, which wasn’t introduced until 2001, a shareholder must go from 19.99 per cent to 50.01 per cent in one step and this will be impossible to achieve if the Government has at least 50 per cent ownership.

So if I understand this correctly, even if NZers sell shares they buy to an overseas company (presumably for a higher price which means those Kiwi Mums and Dads have made a profit), no company could gain a 20% or greater stake.

Combine this with the liklihood that the NZ Super Fund will also buy significant stakes in the SOEs, and it will be harder for xenophobic opposition to be whipped up.

This won’t stop Labour trying though. Look at this blog post by Labour MP Damien O’Connor which demands the Government stop Asians from buying a private listed company – Wrightsons:

A recent announcement that Agria, an Asian company is applying to raise it’s stake in PGWrightsons from 19% to 51% is one more such move.

So Labour is now against Asians even being able to buy shares in a listed private company. At this rate, they will be able to merge with Winston First.

People must realize that the land is important but only part of our rural economy. The businesses that operate on and associated with it need also to be owned by us unless we are prepared to be servants to our future, not the owners of it.

The translation is that it is not enough that we keep our land out of Asian hands, but also our businesses.

I like how Damien talks about Wrightsons as if it is owned by the state. It is not. It is owned by private shareholders. And no one is forced to do business with it. If people don’t like its shareholders, they don’t have to deal with it.

Tags: Damien O'Connor, foreign investment, privaatisation, xenophobia

NZPA report:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters is back with all guns blazing today in a speech slamming immigration, foreign ownership and the Government.

Saying NZ First would be fighting the 2011 election to save the country, Mr Peters returned with relish to his old themes of immigration and foreign investment.

The comments were made in speech notes for delivery to the Kawerau and Districts Grey Power meeting this afternoon.

New Zealand had suffered a “tsunami” of immigrants, he said, and large scale immigration could not be justified when 140,000 people were out of work. …

The burden of immigrants on welfare and pensions was bemoaned.

“These people are feasting on your pension pie … the pension pie you and other Kiwis paid for.”

I’ve just gone to Stats NZ and got their annual stats for people arriving in NZ on a residence permit. They are for June years:

• 2006 – 17,917
• 2007 – 17,156
• 2008 – 15,262
• 2009 – 14,275

If that is a tsunami, it is a rapidly shrinking one. How pathetic and desperate is he to resort to his tactics of 15 years ago.

Tags: immigration, Winston First, xenophobia

Rodney Hide pointed out in the House yesterday that Foreign Minister Winston Peters has been compared to Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Who did the comparing? Helen Clark in 2003.

Tags: Helen Clark, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Rodney Hide, Winston First, xenophobia

Two separate columnists in two separate papers have used the “Muldoonist” tag in relation to Dr Cullen’s overnight secret law change regarding overseas investment in private companies.

Brian Gaynor in the Herald writes:

Finance Minister Dr Michael Cullen’s decision to effectively stymie the partial takeover offer for Auckland International Airport (AIA) is an unwanted reminder of the meddling policies of former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon.

Dr Cullen’s edict was so appalling, and so inconsistent with his policies of the previous eight years, that one can only conclude it was strongly influenced by political considerations ahead of this year’s general election. …

Cullen’s decision was announced nearly a decade after the Crown sold its 51.6 per cent controlling interest in the airport and more than seven months after the first offer for AIA was revealed. As a result the offer has been a terrible waste of resources – the airport had already spent $5.8 million on the process by the end of December.

Meanwhile Garry Sheeran in the SST says:

The crudely political nature of the government’s late-night move to block the Canadian bid for 40% of Auckland International Airport is highlighted by a barely cold, two-year review of the Overseas Investment Act.

That review, enacted into law in August 2005, was supported by a government “committed to maintaining a liberal investment regime”.

The legislation’s sponsor, Finance Minister Michael Cullen, said at the time that New Zealand needed foreign capital to develop the economy.

No surprise, then, at the collective gasp which greeted the same minister’s announcement late on Monday that the same act would be amended to send the Canadians packing, once and for all.

Political commentator Chris Trotter said the use of an order-in-council to rewrite the law harked back to the 1980s. “It would have been just another day under Rob Muldoon,” he said, “but using the governor-general and most of the cabinet to rewrite the rules is not something we are used to any more.

Also the NZ Herald Editorial calls on Cullen to name the assets covered by this new law:

Dr Cullen suggests the infrastructure he has in mind comprises only a “narrow” group. The inclusion of Auckland airport means it could be narrower. But, hopefully, dams and ports are the other ingredients. Certainly, there is no need for the likes of Television New Zealand, which can, in an emergency, be easily replicated.

The other factor in this equation is xenophobia. That is the unspoken reason for the obstacles installed by many overseas jurisdictions. It should not be an issue here. Dr Cullen must list what the Government considers strategically important infrastructure. That should be the prelude to a reasoned debate. From that, it should not be difficult to reach bipartisan agreement on strategic assets, and the degree of protection they should be afforded.

Indeed Dr Cullen has resorted to Winston’s old trick of xenophobia. And it is quite unacceptable for people not to know which assets or companies the Government now deems strategic. Why would people spend money investing in a company when the Govt by overnight whim can declare it is strategic and off limits.

Tags: Auckland Airport, Brian Gaynor, foreign investment, Garry Sheeran, Michael Cullen, Muldoon, xenophobia