The forgotten political issue of the week is the Labour Party's bold and highly controversial new policy of banning non-residents from buying houses in New Zealand. This major policy announcement was quickly overshadowed by more sensational stories about state surveillance of the media, the Government's GCSB reforms, and claims of
terrorists in New Zealand. But the housing announcement by David Shearer is, nonetheless, incredibly polarising and has the potential to impact on debate right up until the next election.
A big part of the debate has been over whether Labour's policy is 'racist' or 'xenophobic'. Unfortunately for Labour, one of the first headlines published online was, David Shearer tells Pakistani taxi driver that he can't buy home. Of course, it was pure satire - by Ben Uffindell on his increasingly influential website, The Civilian. Despite being fictional, this story cleverly summed up what many were thinking.
But is Labour's policy really 'racist' or 'xenophobic'? A number of housing experts, commentators and journalists have certainly seen it as such. Patrick Gower has framed it that way in his TV3 item: Labour housing restrictions a last-ditch effort? suggesting that the policy feeds off and feeds into racist prejudices, which are explicitly seen in opinion polls.
A number of economists have also been troubled by the reactionary nature of Labour's policy. For example Shamubeel Eaqub has labeled the policy a 'populist knee-jerk reaction' saying 'It's very easy to try and point the finger at 'other people'... It reeks of xenophobia' - see James Weir's House policy 'reeks of xenophobia'. Similarly, David Hargreaves has pointed out that Labour's proposal to exempt Australians from the ban is particularly problematic: 'Any exemptions we did allow from the ban would obviously leave us open to accusations of racism or racial favouritism' - see: The housing market seems set to be a big election issue.
He also says that perceptions of racism could ultimately harm New Zealand's economy: 'Don't let us kid ourselves that we could apply a policy that might be seen as anti-Chinese without there being ramifications. Meat stuck on a wharf in China? Sound familiar? Perhaps some previously unidentified problem may manifest itself with our milk powder? The obstacles that could be placed in the way of our burgeoning trade relationship with China are innumerable'.
Unsurprisingly, John Key and other politicians of the right have condemned Labour in strong terms - see Peter Wilson and Laura McQuillan's Labour's new policy 'dog-whistle claptrap'. But perhaps more interestingly, the policy has had a major serve on the Labour-leaning blogsite, The Standard, where it is criticised as being as xenophobic as the opposition to the Chinese purchase of the Crafar farms last year - see: Speculation.
The writer makes the point that many on the left wish to discriminate in favour of 'good ol' NZ property speculators'. And, of course, the domestic property investors include a fair number of New Zealand MPs - a point well made by Cameron Slater in his post, Labour's policy to attack evil property speculators like these ones.
There have also been numerous commentators defending the policy as perfectly innocent. For example, Colin Espiner has given the policy his strong endorsement, and describes its political character instead as 'nationalistic, New Zealand-first' - see: Labour housing plan is clever politics. Espiner also says, 'I don't agree that Labour is being xenophobic with this policy, though I accept it will appeal to rednecks. Protecting a country's housing stock from foreign investors looking for a quick buck isn't racist - it's common sense'.
Damian Christie also provides a strong defence of Labour's policy in Johnny Foreigner & the Auckland Property Market. He makes the very logical point that the housing ban can also be seen as xenophobic 'in the same sense that all our border controls, immigration policy are xenophobic. Being a New Zealand resident or citizen gives you benefits in New Zealand over people who aren't. That's pretty much standard practice in every country in the world. And until we have a completely borderless world society, I'm okay with that'.
Many pro-Labour voices have taken exception to accusations of racism and xenophobia - see for example, Scott Yorke's More helpful tools and Martyn Bradbury's 'Chan-ban'.
My own opinion is that the policy cannot be viewed in isolation from the political climate it's being used in - and that's a climate in which there is obvious xenophobia and racism about immigrants and foreign investors. The policy is very much in tune with efforts by the Greens and NZ First to stoke up resentment about certain 'foreigners' taking over the country - see for example Newswire's Chinese get cheap loans, Peters says.
So when the policy was first announced on Sunday's Q+A programme, my immediate reaction on the show was: 'This will put Labour up in the polls, but it's kind of desperate, and it will be seen as that because it's essentially playing the race card. Let's face it, the elephant in the room is Asian buyers, and so it's xenophobic. In some ways, it could be seen in a minor way like Don Brash's Orewa moment.
He'll get the boost, but he'll have to get used to being accused of being racist, the Greens and NZ First are when they push these policies. And Labour really are pushing the xenophobic policies on land sales, on foreign investment, and we're seeing race being a big part of what this debate is. It's dog whistle politics' - watch TVNZ's The Q+A Panel on Labour's Housing Policy.
A major reason why the policy can be seen as reactionary is that it appears to be designed simply for populist electoral gain rather than actually solving a problem. This gives it the appearance of scapegoating 'outsiders' (of various ethnicities). For arguments about the policy being 'populist' you can read Gordon Campbell's new column, Labour turns to housing again, which raises whether Labour is 'pandering to anti-Asian sentiments', and suggests that 'With his leadership once more on the ropes, Shearer has again reached for housing policy as a lifeline'.
Campbell says 'the darker aspect of the policy announcement is that many voters might not make any distinction between overseas buyers - who would be outlawed - and immigrants, who would presumably still be able to bid and buy'. John Armstrong also thinks the policy will be a winner, and describes it as a highly pragmatic, albeit flawed, policy - see: Shearer sets agenda with foreign sales ban.
So would the foreigner housing ban actually work? Brian Rudman says 'no' - see his very good column, Foreigner ban won't build one new home. (Rudman is also critical of the Government's recent housing policies - see: Bullying won't bring cheap homes).
But even bigger questions have been raised by Stephen Franks, who says that the policy could be in breach of New Zealand's trade agreements because it unjustifiably discriminates between different countries - see: House buying ban blocked by China FTA?.
David Farrar also looks at some of the available statistics on housing purchases, and on that basis suggests the policy is simply 'a snake oil solution' - noting especially that many of the sellers of houses are also overseas-based - see: How many foreign buyers are there?. But for a bigger clue as to why Labour might be resorting to such policies, see Farrar's blogpost about the most recent opinion poll, which put Labour on 29% and National up to 51% - see: Latest poll.
Finally on the topic, there's been a huge amount of debate on Twitter about Labour's new policy - to read some of this, see my blogpost, Top tweets about Labour's housing 'foreigner ban'.
