Tue 11 Dec 2018 10:53AM

The UN Migration Pact - Should NZ sign to the principals in the document.

DG Daymond Goulder-Horobin Public Seen by 143

I have heard many sides to this particular debacle and am interested in forming an official position on this topic, this would allow me to go to certain parties and advocate for whatever position the membership favors.

Personally, I am not big on seeking approval on our policies from international entities in general. I would rather not have to worry about committing to something regardless of whether it is binding or non-binding and would rather set our own standards and codes for migration policy. However, this is something to consider.

I have read the original document which I will link to. A lot of it seems O.K on the whole. However, like a Terms & Conditions, we should agree with absolutely every single thing before signing. And even then we would want some room to breathe if we could.

I can't say that I have done a lot of research on the pact. However, some problems have been identified. In particular, our freedom to dissect and critically analyze migration policy seems to have come under fire to some extent, feel free to correct me on this but it is from what I have seen.

Will add more tommorrow.



Daymond Goulder-Horobin Sat 15 Dec 2018 12:04AM

I actually want some clarification as to what Non-legally binding means before signing as well.

Like would we still be pressured into making a policy change based on the agreement? We would not be legally accountable but would our standing in the UN be penalized another way or something. The wording of the Document is also quite absolute in some sentences.


Geoff Anderson Sat 15 Dec 2018 1:47AM

For Jo Booth; Yes I also enjoy the enrichment from other cultures, but that is not really what the 'UN migration compact' is about.
There’s a link to it (above) for a proper read, but it goes way further.
It redefines hate speech to include any dissenting voices against surplus immigration.
It takes away our countries right to say enough is enough.
Actually it is an anti sovereignty document.
New Zealand's greatest asset is our low population.
Our infrastructure is based upon our population. Recent times have already swollen the population by a chunk and has resulted in all sorts of stresses coming onto our communities.
This pack would open the flood gates and damage us.
This isn’t about bigotry or anything so shallow, don’t be fooled by the pretty words.
If you are looking for video summaries to see what its about may I suggest these 2 titles:
Janice Atkinson What's REALLY in the UN Migrant Compact Jack Buckby
& UN Migration Pact Europe & Ireland
Sorry I don’t have the ULRs but they can be found on you-tube


Daymond Goulder-Horobin Mon 17 Dec 2018 12:55AM

I will infer that this is not necessarily a debate on how we should handle our migration policy but rather whether we should let a pact influence how we conduct our own policy.

At a minimum, I believe New Zealand requires more time to assess and debate the decision to sign the pact as it has only recently come into the public domain at the level it is at. Thus it should be delayed until further considerations of the impacts and implications of signing it would have.

I feel the non-binding factor is someone immaterial. We should still sign with the assertion that we agree with everything in the documentation rather than rely on it not being legally binding should we change our minds later. If we don't agree on even one word then we do not sign. Otherwise, it would be in bad faith.