What did John Key actually not tell David Cameron… And is there an important reason why New Zealanders are being blatantly disadvantaged, when it comes to owning their own houses?
Isn’t it time we asked where exactly John Key’s loyalties lie, if it isn’t to New Zealanders? More than once our Prime Minister has been accused of either “telling porkies” (why the euphemism?) or of “being economical with the truth”. If so, shouldn’t this matter?
Remember Jason Eade? Remember when, wonderfully enough, our evasive Prime Minister told Parliament that his “black ops” senior adviser Jason Eade, had not worked for him “in his capacity as Prime Minister”.
With what was seen as decidedly bizarre logic, the difference was explained. Eade was merely giving communications advice “to the Prime Minister as leader of the National Party.” Hmm.
Although being Prime Minister must underpin all of his other roles (as, while he is Prime Minister, he remains in fact just that) – apparently the different hats he puts off and on come in very useful when Key decides he’s actually not acting as Prime Minister. Oh well. Good to have that sorted out. But it’s interesting to find on the web a list of evasions, if not contradictions of the truth of things by some keen eyed observers – quite a long one.
Some are more important than others, and two claims recently made by our Prime Minister as reported in the London Times need examining. The first, “that voters, who gave him an increased majority last year, had accepted that ‘immigration was a barometer of the health of the country…Although immigration is seen positively by New Zealanders they know we could stop it if we wanted to.’ ”
Increased majority-really? And “seen positively”? Which New Zealand is John Key is fantasising about? What imagined country does he have in mind? National’s share of the party vote alone, for example, fell in the last election from 48.06 to 47.04%
Is the PM really completely ignorant about the fact that most New Zealanders, contrary to what he is claiming, are very concerned about why our farmlands, our scenic assets, our homes, and our businesses – let alone our strategic assets – are being taken from us? Does he simply not know -implausible as this is? Or is he dodging an issue he wants to avoid – something he is very good at? This is not a question of xenophobia – but of New Zealanders themselves being dispossessed in their own country.
The argument by some farmers – (keen to personally profit) – that they should be allowed to sell their farms to whomever they please is short-sighted, and self-serving. Any property rights should also involve the recognition that we are the caretakers of the land for this generation only. More land cannot be invented, or conjured up. And if there is a land grab under way, as there undisputedly is, by those who can well and truly afford to outbid New Zealanders, it is perfectly logical to ask whether or not New Zealanders are becoming second-class citizens in their own country… and if there is a moral responsibility in being involved in this taking place – but turning a blind eye to what is actually happening?
The exodus from Communist China is increasing – as is what has been described as our commercial colonisation by stealth. What about its consequences?
What is at present virtually unrestricted immigration from this Communist country is not only deeply concerning New Zealanders: it is disadvantaging us in our own land. This simply can’t be disputed.
When we are at the stage that a real estate agent can worriedly report that every house on Auckland’s attractive North Shore is being sold to Chinese far more able to outbid New Zealanders looking for a home, or hoping to pass on the family farm, then we are in trouble… (See the 100 Days previous important entry.www.100days.co.nz)
As the highly experienced Hugh Pavletich, author of the respected Annual Demographia Affordability Survey states, “…there are not adequate controls on this flood of offshore buying.” By far the majority of New Zealanders would agree with him, but not for the first time, our PM apparently doesn’t intend to take any notice of the majority. Whatever else this is, it is certainly a corruption of the democratic process.
New Zealanders certainly do not, as John Key so very brashly and typically claims now see immigration as a largely positive thing. They see that they themselves, as families and individuals, have an ever-decreasing chance of affording their own homes, their own farms, their own businesses -given the level of sales to far wealthier Communist Chinese. And what is John Key going to do about it? Obviously nothing. It’s a problem our slippery leader apparently doesn’t want to know about.
It is good enough? NZ Herald columnist Anne Gibson details a big marketing drive which is going to compound the problem of our becoming tenants in our own country. With 10,000 copies being printed of a new guide to buying in New Zealand, real estate moguls are now expecting a huge upswing. A New Zealand China Trade Association page in a bi-annual magazine has a prominent explanation of how to immigrate to New Zealand – as well as a page showing John Key meeting Chinese Premier President Xi Jinping in November.
But how long a spoon does it take to sup with such a ruthless individual whose record of imprisoning dissenters in his own country, and suppressing legitimate media opposition, is so much at odds with respect for individual human beings – and for the truth of things?
Why are no controls being put in place to safeguard the interests of our own people? For example, in Australia, “foreign non-residents or short-term visa holders can invest in Australian real estate only if the investment adds to the housing stock… Non-resident foreign investors cannot buy established dwellings or as homes.’’
Why is our OIO being so constrained by the government that it is unable to implement much-needed restrictions on New Zealanders gradually being priced out of own houses and farmlands? Is Key’s personal affinity with Chinese executives – coupled with his highly personalised campaign to get rid of the flag which honours New Zealand’s link with the majority of our forebears from Great Britain – (who established equal rights for all, Maori and non-Maori} – underpinning his actions?
Whatever… Key is apparently determined to have his own way, having already pledged millions on promoting what he personally wants – to get rid of our flag. As he is answerable to the country for this waste of taxpayers’ money, given our cash-strapped economy, we can be sure that many millions more will be spent on promotion and advertising this as a virtually done deal, to not-so-subtly pressure the country to get what he wants. Moreover, what is the explanation for his planning two referenda?
The first is apparently for New Zealanders to decide which of the supposedly new flags they would vote for. The next referendum is for them to vote for either this new flag – or our own flag.
Some maintain that this is not only unnecessarily costly but devious, that if there is to be a referendum which the country at large has not requested, our own flag should feature alongside any replacement suggestions – in one only referendum.
They have a good case. Why has Key initiated a much more costly, time-consuming process?
It’s not hard to work out why. So this first referendum should be effectively boycotted – the most telling message of all to John Key and his National Party of yes-men (and women) that it is not up to them to attempt to rule from the top – but rather – that an end needs to be put to this present practice: they should be listening to New Zealanders themselves.
Above all, because its consequences are so important for this country, the immigration phenomenon needs to be open for very public debate – instead of John Key claiming he has a mandate for everything he wants… Moreover his assertion to David Cameron that voters gave him an increased majority last year is challengeable. Most media commentators recognise that the return of the National Party was by no means an overwhelming mandate to govern: it was the result of the fracturing and disarray among opposition parties.
Our PM Key would do well to remember, as has been pointed out, “When those who aren’t enrolled or didn’t vote are factored in, National received the support of 33% of the voting public – compared to 36% who voted for other parties.” In other words, only a minority voted to reinstall Key’s government. Most New Zealanders did not want National back.”
This inaccurate presentation of voting participation at the recent election should be corrected. National certainly does not have the mandate for unilateral action that John Key likes to continually claim – not that he emphasised this to David Cameron, as reported, for example, with regard to asset sales…or immigration…or other important issues where he has blithely ignored the wishes of the majority.
How much is this wilful Prime Minister costing us? And we should make no mistake”: we are facing a very big problem in the rapidly growing exodus from Communist China…
Why do mainstream media so rarely follow through issues of enormous importance to most New Zealanders? – Why do they constantly let us down – as long as John Key keeps up the smiling, being “relaxed” about things that with very good reason worry the country?
In other words, who is there to protect the interests of this and the future generation of New Zealanders, when John Key apparently wants to have his own way, and when most media analysts are lamentably failing in their duty to squarely confront what is happening?
Shouldn’t John Key stop claiming he has a mandate for – apparently almost anything he wants? Or should we all stop fretting about the fact that while we are doing nothing about it, New Zealanders are in the process of losing New Zealand?