It's a simple story: Grey Power represents old racist white people and any curb on immigration is racism from those who don't accept multiculturalism and diversity as the present and future of New Zealand. So far so easy.
NZ Herald: Racism claim splits Grey Power.
'Shand: (Grey Power)''seems to have become a group of embittered old white people''
When weren't they a group of embittered old white people? That's why so many of them voted NZ First and Conservative over the years, that's why they join advocacy groups, to register protest. They are complaining the secure, predictable NZ they knew is eroding to forces of globalisation and a materialistic and wanton younger generation they cannot control, and they want to do something about it. So I expect they would object to immigration policy and in particularly the plans for Auckland.
Just because the senior citizens lobby usually speaks through a pointy white pillowcase on their head and listens through a hearing aid receiving ZB talkhate radio, doesn't mean they can't challenge the mass migration policy of the NZ government in a forum, and it shouldn't mean they are instantly, automatically labelled racist for having done so. Shand is an Auckland Labour local body politician (I believe), so he has other interests in this than GP . Is he just defending Len Brown's and the Council's policies as a partisan? Let's focus on the plan.
Having read the entire bloody thing, The Auckland Plan, all 380 pages plus separately but no less eloborately produced, Addendum, one thing stood out amid all the recycled generalisations and patronisingly intoned corporate wank-speak - by what wasn't there. Every part and component of the plan (consisting of targets, projections, benchmarks etc.) refer to 15, 20, 30 and 50 year points. At the least 15, at most 50 years or more for each item... except ethnicity.
The ethniciy projections for Aucland, unlike evry other item (including population totals!) only goes to 2021. A mere 9 years in a planning document the Mayor says is for 30 years. The question is: if they are meticulously detailing and aware of ethnicity in the plan (as they are) then why is that the only issue NOT taken to 30 years, and actually less than 10? Why do you think that would be?
They can confidently project for everything to do with the city - almost all based on populaion, but no ethnicity? They predict that Asian population category to be 27% and European/other (blurred in the publication as the only typo in the entire document I've seen) at 53% in 2021. AND THEN... Nothing. Because the white people will be in a minority after that, obviously And the 'Asians' are heading for the majority of Auckland's population, obviously. This is social and political dynamite and that is why the Auckland Council don't want to mention the obvious.
The officials and politicians would have us believe that the current (points'based 1987) mass immigration (30,000+pa) policy is somehow neutral as regards national origin and numbers. It isn't really, not in practice. It is the primary tool in the economy of colonisation: a settler mentality of buying cheap land, waiting for the immigrants to pile in, and then selling it off, repeat until rich. That was the situation just before 1840, which led to the creation of NZ, and has been so ever since. It is the mechanism whereby the political guarantee of the settlers land holding (and thus their wealth and lifestyle) is effected: so long as the settlers can keep the natives in a numerical minority (eg. Israel) they will retain the land and will claim their form of democracy legitimises this state of affairs.
What the proponents of the current system should recognise is that they are not just advocating for a white minority in Auckland in ten years, or a 20-30% Chinese component of Auckland in about 30-50 years (and maybe an eventual majority as what happened in Singapore), but they are depriving Maori of ever being a majority in their own land. That is the other projection they are obscuring in their select data. The Maori population goes up from 11 to 12% in the next 9 years, according to them, but that small growth in proportion will be reversed at the rates of immigration they use. As more people enter the country with the parallel policy of encouraging immigrants to live ives within their own communities and ease of reference back to their home nations then the chances of inter-marriage and cross-cultural encounters are being effectively discouraged. The oft-heard remark, like a brag, one hears from Maori, such as Ranginui Walker, about the brown people being a majority soon is irrelevant to Maori - they are confined to minority status with the added burden of now having to justify everything to the same white people in charge that they aren't just another (and smaller) minolrity.
Having a full discussion about immigration, race and culture (and land claims) without epithets and slogans however is almost impossible in this climate. The interests of the property-obsessed middle classes and the establishment combine with the reflexivity against racism of the lefty iiberal to create a void of public discourse. The matters are usually siloed off into the safety of specialist subject matter like real estate or economics or the Treaty rather than as a whole and Maori and their view not featuring at all in most regards. The hurdle most Pakeha find in thier mental path - and it explains their ambivalency - is the limited degree of national conciousness (compared with Maor). The Pakeha are aware of their position as the beneficiaries of the supression of Maori and that they are immigrants or the product of them, so it seems churlish and selfish and inconsistent to ever stop the sort of large scale immigration we've had since 1840. They are justifying continued colonisation based on former colonisatilon:
It is right to wonder what the population make up will be in 30, 50, 100 years - not just 9 years and wonder what might change as a result and what should stay the same. It might not be polite to mention in the leafy, white, static, Devonport, Herne Bay and the Eastern suburbs where they reap the unearned capital appreciation delivered by mass migration without having the whole face, vibe and composition of their own communities changed radically in the last 10-15 years like many working class neighbourhoods have, but it should be mentioned. Sacrificing so easily the hneritage of poorer areas whilst officialdom gets pedantic over each rung of an internal ballastrade in a nice suburb is the consequence of the policy as administered, It does all appear to be about money in the final analysis, we don't actually NEED so many extra people each year for any non-money, non-economic reason do we? There is no identified necessity on social grounds to import the tens of thousands of people NZ does year in, year out. I don't think the case for desirability was even attempted by those who have criticized this Grey Power outburst.
It wouldn't be New Zealand without massive immigration, and it won't be Aotearoa until it is stopped.