Kiwi.ozzie69

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

Buzzy--Bee

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

Amazulu

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.

commonwealth

+1

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

Kiwi.ozzie69

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.

slapphead_otool

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.

slapphead_otool

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.....

Kiwi.ozzie69

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).

commonwealth

well NZ should join the Australian Federation!

RedDragon2008

Why? is Australia breaking away?

Buzzy--Bee

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

NickyC

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?

The Bloke

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

commonwealth

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:

Buzzy--Bee

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

BB