Topic 1: New Zealand’s Quality of Life for New Migrants An independent, immigration consultancy firm, NZ Migrants. has requested a report to better understand what new migrants are satisfied with in their current lives in New Zealand. Elizabeth Grove, Director of NZ Migrants, is also interested in whether there are any major differences in satisfaction between different ethnic, gender, or age groups. The company will use the findings from your report and other reports to send a larger document to NZ’s Minister of Immigration; therefore, your report should include feasible recommendations that may be implemented by the govemment for improving new migrant’s quality of life in the short- and long-term. Topic 2: Goods and services tax (GST) The New Zealand government is always challenged with the task of allocating appropriate levels of funding towards public services (e.g., hospitals, schools) or industries (agriculture, tourism). Increasing taxes is one source of funding for the government and attention has recently looked at potential changes to the goods and services tax (GST). Instead of altering the rate, which is currently set at 15./., some members of parliament are voicing their opinions in favour of implementing additional or reduced taxes on specific goods (e.g., a sug& tax, a soft drink tax, fruits and vegetables as GST-free). A New Zealand based group, Economic Think Tank, requests an investigation into the effectiveness of implementing these types of taxes. Choose one product or service for the focus of your report. Is it an additional tax or a reduced tax? Have other countries introduced similar GST programmes? Provide recommendations for the implementation of this tax surplus or reduction.
Krasner has pointed to moves by the United Nations to intervene in cases of humanitarianism, which incidentally not only emboldens the power of collective states to exercise force in the sphere of international relations, but also serves to limit the powers of states which fall foul of certain international laws. As President Roosevelt put it as far back as 1904: ‘Chronic wrongdoing or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may … ultimately requite intervention by some civilized nations’ (Krasner 1999, 181). While alarming, PMCs should therefore not be considered as complete replacements of the state. Compared to standing armies, which PMCs could not realistically or wholly replace, PMCs would only be entrusted on occasions where there is a demand for its services. They would be delegated select tasks which the state apparatus feels would be better performed when outsourced. Importantly, these firms merely temporarily receive a limited mandate to use violence which would otherwise revert back to the state once contract ends. Such an arrangement, however, can be a potential danger to security, and this is where the fault lines of debate lie. As the last sentences imply, private firms come to the business of war not to serve the national interest but the financial interest. Despite the example of certain companies working only for the US Army, and thus for the national interest, there is nothing that would stop them from serving other states if they thought they could maximize their own profit. To that extent, it is almost exclusively the market that drives them. Such a difference worries some observers because, if PMCs were to choose to work for a rival country, for instance China, they would take knowledge and expertise that had previously resided with the United States for example. Since it is the market that guides them, it is far from out of the question that this will not happen. If not now then it could occur in the future. The question for some is not if – but when.>GET ANSWER