Changes for kiwis in australia
 

There seem to be a lot of stories in nz herald saying that the SCV might change...

Is there any planned legislation changes ?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/...ectid=10859414

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/...ectid=10859400

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/...ectid=10859120

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/...ectid=10859115

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/australia/...ectid=10859122

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

New Zealanders have a better deal than anyone else in that they can enter Australia without a visa and live and work here for ever.

If they want all the benefits of permanent residency then they are welcome to apply for it like every other country has to.

The only discrimination I can see is therefore in New Zealanders favour.

New Zealanders knew the rules and the deal when they moved here. I moved here under these conditions and applied for PR to remove these restrictions, as any New Zealand citizen or their spouses can.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

System is fine as it is, no need to change it. The fact that most of those articles are about access to welfare and the difficulty of kiwis getting it shows that this country is doing the right thing.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

+1

Kiwis who want these benefits should apply for PR just like anybody else.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Seems the Ozzie productivity commission disagrees... Tbh though I got here before 2001 and have oz citizenship....

http://transtasman-review.pc.gov.au/...lementaryd.pdf


Alternative pathways to citizenship
While freedom to live and work in each other’s country under the TTTA is a major component of an integrated trans-Tasman labour market, arrangements for permanent residency and/or citizenship in another country should not necessarily result in the entitlement to citizenship in that country. As Mares (2012) stated:
The terms of the [temporary visa] deal are clear: come to Australia to study, work, live for a period of time and while there may be the potential for permanent residency down the track, that is not an automatic right or expectation. (p. 19)
However, given that the TTTA allows citizens to live and work on an indefinite basis in the other country, questions of permanent residency and citizenship will often naturally arise. This is especially the case where permanent residency and
citizenship enable fuller participation in all the rights and obligations of citizens in that country. Mares (2012) outlined the tensions that arise in these circumstances:
The longer temporary residents stay in Australia, the more likely they are to build up a bundle of connections — emotional, psychological, cultural and financial — connections that bind them here, and which bring with them expectations of some kind of reciprocity on behalf of the Australian state. This is the contradiction inherent in temporary migration identified by Stephen Castles and Mark Miller [2003]: schemes are devised on the basis that the sojourn will be limited and that ‘the legal distinction between the status of citizen and of foreigner’ will provide a clear criterion for conferring them with different levels of political and social rights. However with the passage of time come ‘inexorable pressures for settlement and community formation’. This is not to say that every foreign citizen who comes to Australia for an extended stay should have the right to remain permanently. Nor am I suggesting that we should end all temporary migration. I am just flagging the tensions that arise when a government, in pursuit of the national interest, opens its borders to migrants without offering them the benefits of citizenship. (p. 21)
A number of submissions echoed these views (see above).
Current arrangements surrounding eligibility to vote also mean that a proportion of New Zealand citizens living in Australia is not eligible to vote in either country’s elections (box D.7; see also Hamer 2008b). In his examination of citizenship data, Hamer (2008b) concluded that Māori were arguably ‘the most disenfranchised “ethnic” immigrant group in Australia’ (p. 27).
Eligibility to vote can be remedied in a number of ways, for example by the New Zealand Government changing its voting rules and by Australian Government consideration of alternative pathways to citizenship.
Reflecting current EU debates in this area (see Bauböck et al.2012), McMillan (2012) argued that when political exclusion exists within single labour markets, special arrangements should be implemented to provide citizenship rights (primarily the right to vote) of those working and participating in such labour markets. While there are a number of options available, she favoured the option of opening an alternative pathway to citizenship for SCV holders in the trans-Tasman context.
The difficulties associated with non-Protected SCV holders gaining access to Australian permanent residency and, hence, citizenship were noted in submissions (see above).
The Commissions understand that both governments are aware of the situation and that the Australian Government is working towards a resolution (see, for example, Gillard 2012).
....
.....
.....
The Australian Government should address the issues faced by a small but growing number of non-Protected SCV holders living long term in Australia, including their access to certain welfare supports and voting rights. This requires policy changes by the Australian Government, including the development of a pathway to achieve permanent residency and/or citizenship.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

The changes to NZ access to Australian welfare came about after NZ altered its migration policy allowing easier access to NZ than Australia.

A number of migrants moved to New Zealand (included many who had been denied migration to Australia) and then as soon as they could moved to Australia.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

KERRI RITCHIE: New Zealanders can live and work in Australia very easily; most don't even have to apply for a visa.

It's long been suspected that many immigrants become citizens in New Zealand, so they can then move to Australia.

New Zealand's Revenue Minister Peter Dunne, who is also leader of the United Future political party, says in recent years the situation has become serious.

PETER DUNNE: My concern is that if the rate of departure of non-New Zealand born residents to Australia continues to accelerate the way that it has done, we will become just a transit lounge for people wanting to go to Australia.

KERRI RITCHIE: Around 20 per cent of the New Zealand citizens who moved to Australia in the past year were born outside New Zealand.

Most of the people moving on, after immigrating to New Zealand, were from South Africa and India, followed by England.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2310204.htm

Thats why the law was changed.....

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

From same report
http://transtasman-review.pc.gov.au/...lementaryd.pdf


Box D.3 Background to the 2001 social security law changes
Following a media spotlight in the late 1990s on the 17 000 to 20 500 New Zealanders on unemployment benefits in Australia — the so-called ‘Bondi Bludgers’ — and concerns about ‘back door’ migration, the Australian Government took steps to limit access to social security payments for New Zealand citizens.
While the TTTA withstood pressure for its termination, these pressures resulted in the Australian Government announcing on 26 February 2001 the removal of access by New Zealand citizens to three social security payments — Newstart Allowance, Youth Allowance and Sickness Allowance — and associated migration law changes, linked to the concept of permanent residency.
In addition, various agreements between the two governments were negotiated in order to fund a growing fiscal burden on Australia. As the New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark stated:
Australia estimates that it pays more than NZ$1.1 billion in social security to New Zealand citizens living in Australia. There is a vast difference between that and the NZ$170 million which we currently reimburse Australia for. We do not intend to go further down that road. Our spending priorities must be to attend to the needs of New Zealanders who continue to live here in New Zealand. For that reason the new social security agreement between us will cover only cost sharing for superannuation and payments for people with severe disabilities. This will represent savings over the next 3 years of around NZ$100 million to the New Zealand taxpayer. The New Zealand government is pleased with the outcome and we do believe it is a win-win for both countries.
New Zealanders who migrate to other countries accept that they play by the rules the host country sets. It is up to Australia to set the rules for eligibility for social security for New Zealanders who choose to live there. While the status quo applies to all New Zealanders who have been living in Australia up until today, Australia is announcing new rules applying for new arrivals as of today. The New Zealand government is pleased to be able to reach this new arrangement and put behind us a matter which has become a serious and unnecessary irritant in our relationship with Australia. (Howard and Clark 2001, p. 2)
While the New Zealand Government was seeking to maintain the sovereignty over their migration program and reduce the outward movement of people to Australia, it also had no desire to compensate Australia for social security payments to New Zealanders that had left its shores. Accordingly, Prime Minister Clark stated:
We have negotiated the new agreement which is fair, which is sustainable, and sends a clear message to Kiwis that when you go overseas you can’t expect [the] nanny state to accompany you where-ever you go from New Zealand. You live by the host country’s rules. (Howard and Clark 2001, p. 5)
Whether the precise changes to the Australian Government rules surrounding access to social security and permanent residency were agreed by the New Zealand Government is a moot point (Faulkner subs. DR67 and DR72).

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

well NZ should join the Australian Federation!

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Why? is Australia breaking away?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

It already could very easily as it was listed when the colony of New South Wales became the country of Australia and its various states and territories.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Yes - I understand that New Zealand was asked if they wanted to join the Commonwealth of Australia. If I recall my kid's history lessons correctly, they didn't respond by the required deadline so federation proceeded without them. Provision was made in the Australian constitution for them to join any time

Mind you, the NZ constitution could well have a similar provision for Australia to join NZ as the West Island? :sneaky:

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Might have to start brushing up on my cuzzy bro, fush 'n' chups, sex (instead of six) - sweeettttt!!!!

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

well when i was in NZ the tv commercial said: "Love your dick, keep dicking!"

i was excited until i realised the 'dick' being referred to was:

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/fil..._deck_0717.jpg

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

....and that is a particularly big dick!

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Is the Australia and New Zealand situation the closest two countries can get without being one Country ? Anywhere else in the world similar ? The UAE and the West Indies springs to mind ?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

UK and Ireland with the Common Travel Area?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Wales England?
Scotland England?
Isle of Man England?:sneaky:

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

these are not independent countries

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

schengen common area in europe.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

The Schengen really just refers to the visa free travel area.

I would say the entire European Union is probably the closest countries can get without being one country. I mean you can work and live in any member state, an awful lot of legal actions are common across the countries (e.g. you go bankrupt in the UK you are bankrupt across Europe, in fact people engage in bankruptcy tourism to the UK because it is less onerous than going bankrupt in other EU states). EU laws control what you can and can't do in the UK in many aspects.

Aside from economic initiative and the freedom of travel, Aus and NZ are very independent countries.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

You see that attitude has always confused me a bit, especially from British immigrants who have unfettered access to Europe, because it is not clearly a case of NZ'ers getting preferential treatment over other countries. NZ & Aus have many things in common, similar geographic location, history, culture and so it makes sense to set this sort of relationship up. Additionally I think you will find that the NZ'ers impact on the Australian economy is positive, as studies have shown. The restrictions on NZ'ers has also been recognised as being pretty dodgy/racist from various global organisations.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

The IOM has a separate government, legal system and tax system and is definitely not part of the UK. It isn't even in the EU. Check the wording on your passport.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Sorry were you assuming I thought IOM was part of England?

Versus IOM to England interaction/travel?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

I can see it from there point of view they had to get a PR visa to come here, not saying I agree, just I see why they have there opinion, Most proper Australians and and a large number of Kiwis are not even aware of 2001 the rules......

Have a read of the comments here for example

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/fai...itizens-in-oz/

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

You cannot compare the relationship between the Isle of Man (a Crown Dependency) and the United Kingdom to that between two sovereign nations. A closer comparison of the IOM/U.K. relationship would be that between Puerto Rico and the United States.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Even if New Zealanders had the right to apply for Australian citizenship, looks like most of them wouldn't make the grade -

================================================== ===

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austral...tizenship-test

Thousands of New Zealanders might cross the ditch each year, but citizenship test results show we know far less about Australia than our European counterparts.

People applying for Australian citizenship must pass a test to show they know enough about the country.

Applicants with Swedish citizenship recorded the highest scores during 2011-12, with an average score of 98.1 per cent, according to adelaidenow.com.au which obtained the figures from Australia's Department of Immigration.

Netherlands followed on 97.6 per cent, Finland on 97.5 per cent, France on 97.4 per cent and Switzerland on 97.4.

While Britons scored an average of 95.6 per cent, New Zealanders scored a mere 72.6 per cent, far behind most European countries and Mexico, Argentinian and Colombian citizens.

To pass the test applicants must score above 75 per cent. Practice questions include 'What do we remember on Anzac day', 'what colours are on the Australian Aboriginal flag' and 'what is a referendum'.

Adelaide University Associate Professor in history and politics Paul Sendziuk told adelaidenow.com.au that he wasn't surprised wealthy countries where English was spoken seemed to score well, but said it seemed Brits and Kiwis were too laid back in their approach to the test.

New Zealand was among the countries with the least knowledge, scoring below Macedonia and Ethiopia and on par with Vietnam.

"It is interesting that applicants from the UK, and particularly New Zealand, perform less well than those from similarly developed and wealthy countries," Sendziuk said.

"It is possible that they do not study enough because they feel that they can rely on their background knowledge of Australia, which is a fair-enough assessment given the level of cultural exchange that already exists between Australia and these places.

"It is also possible that they take the test a bit lightly - knowing that they are likely to achieve a pass mark even without much study."

However, Sendziuk said many Australians would also struggle with the test.

"The students in one of my classes took the citizenship test, and very few achieved a score over 90. But I don't think this makes them bad Australians,'' he said.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Well I think the laws are completely wrong on this one, but never any excuse for not knowing the rules. If people are moving themselves, and more importantly their family members like 18yo kids then you'd think they would do a bit more research.

But as it stands pretty unfair on many people I think. Maybe a ban on just unemployment/disability benefits for 5 years, or something linked to the amount of tax paid (1 years work gives you a fortnight unemployment entitlement etc).

But when you have the situation where it is almost impossible for some to get PR because of lack of a degree etc, and they have worked here for 10 years in a high paying job, then I think there needs to be some provision for genuine cases. Also the stuff in Queensland re the natural disaster payouts - just pathetic that they refuse to assist NZ'ers despite them being taxpayers and hard worker, decent members of the community.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

buzzy bee did you not move over under the trans Tasman agreement ?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Kiwis got the disaster payments in the end....

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

jaj,

PNG had this sort of relationship with Ozzie before 1975... Or am I way off ?

Kiwi Ozzie

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Yes but then I applied for PR as if I had never been here.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

All that's needed is every Kiwi in Australia promising to vote labour if only they could.

The government will make them PRs before the election i'm sure!

Comon Kiwis, get the message out there

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

PRs are not allowed to vote in Australia.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

What makes you assume every Kiwi wants PR?

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

not 100 percent correct british subjects who enrolled before 1986 can vote, in fact I know a kiwi who was out of country whiles rules changed so is a non protected SCV but is still enrolled to vote.... Strange but true.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

A lot do.... But a lot do not as well..........

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Indeed. One friend of mine here on the SCV definitely does not, as he would have to start paying tax on his overseas investments.

BB

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

Travel and movement between the IOM and UK are obviously unrestricted. But if you move from the UK to the IOM and become resident you notice some big differences. Income tax at a maximum of 20%, you have to make a Manx will, no inheritance tax and then there are a few legal anomalies, eg http://jurist.org/hotline/2012/12/pa...osexuality.php

My parents used to live on the island and I dealt with both their estates when they died, so I have dealt with both systems.

Re: Changes for kiwis in australia
 

It would appear that this story might have some truth to it see Dom post today...

Thousands of New Zealanders living "temporarily" in Australia could win residency - but only after spending nearly a decade in the country.

Internal Australian immigration documents reveal a proposed "pathway" that would allow New Zealanders living in Australia to gain permanent residency after "eight years or more".

The proposal has been presented to the Cabinet in Australia, although its status is unclear

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austral...iwis-residency