Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Mar 24th 2011, 2:00 pm
#106
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Some people on this forum are so sour about NZers being eligible for a subclass 444 visa and can live in Australia. It's because there's an agreement between the two countries - and Australia benefits by having a large number of workers in Australia who have (almost always) recognised qualifications, and the large amount of tax that these people pay and contribute to the economy. Not to mention Australians can also live permanently in NZ (they may or may not want to), and can also invest in NZ.
If the UK had such an agreement then British citizens may also enjoy similar benefits -> but no Australian can go live in the UK now just like that can they?
And people should realise that making NZers already living in Australia jump through the "same hoops" is not exactly possible. NZers in Australia are in a different situation and applying for visas designed for foreign nationals who have no existing right to live in Australia indefinitely isn't always a fair situation.
ENS - Employers have far fewer incentives to sponsor someone who they know can live indefinitely in Australia. It might even be part of the reason why the person was employed in the first place. So should the NZer quit their job and find another one? Many employers would refuse to sponsor a NZer - to them these employees already have a right to live permanently so applying for another visa is unnecessary.
Post-study - international students completing studies in Australia have preferential pathways to applying for PR. There are separate visa categories available only to international students who have held a student visa. These are NOT available to NZers who study in Australia under subclass 444 visas - and no NZer would apply for a student visa if they would otherwise be eligible for a subclass 444 visa (I'm not even sure DIAC would even grant it). And things like transitional arrangements when the points test changes or the skilled occupation list changes? Nah - NZ students won't be eligible for any of that.
And the fact that NZers are required to apply for "offshore" visas even though they may be on in Australia mean that processing times are often longer than if they had been allowed to apply for a similar onshore visa.
And counting NZers already living in Australia who apply for PR within the current migration intake doesn't achieve much for Australia's migration program. It adds paperwork and administration, and Australia does not end up with a new migrants who'll add to the economy (or whatever else the migration program is designed to achieve), since that NZer is already in Australia.
NZers who have moved to Australia long term on a subclass 444 visa know very well they can live permanently in Australia - it therefore puts them in situations which other groups might not find themselves in.
E.g. young children who migrate with their parents and live for long periods in Australia. They can continue living in Australia, but may not ever be eligible for PR. Temporary visa holders know from the outset they can only live in Australia for a limited period of time and need to change their visa type to live permanently in Australia. NZers on the other hand have been given information specifically from DIAC (and also in announcements from the 26th of Feb 2001) that they 1) do not need to apply for permanent residence and 2) are welcomed to live and work indefinitely in Australia.
NZers are also eligible for Medicare - those who've worked for many years in Australia would likely have contributed significantly through taxes and the Medicare levy/surcharge. Yet they need to go through medicals when applying for PR... one might say it's necessary to filter out migrants who place excessive strain on the public healthcare system. But for NZers who've made Australia their home and would like to get PR/citizenship to formalise that, is filtering them out because they have a few medical conditions going to achieve anything?
And NZers who may have thought of only workin in Australia for a short period of time, but then over time decide to stay permanently. Initially they may or may not have thought about applying for PR, but after a few years they might have passed the age limits and would no longer be eligible, even though several years back they would've qualified. The years already spent working in Australia might not necessarily be able to compensate for that under the current points system.
And the confusion between state and commonwealth services is really appalling. The initial 2001 changes were only in relation to social security, in particular unemployment etc benefits which were no longer compensated (in part or in full) by the NZ government after the revised social security agreement. But now, various state services have been withdrawn from NZers in a haphazard fashion - so what should NZers living permanently in Australia, paying the same income taxes, stamp duty, GST etc be entitled to?
I'm not sure what is a reasonable solution, and i'm not asking for the pre-2001 type system where anyone from NZ can have full access to services on arrival in Australia, but I certainly don't think the current situation is satisfactory, esp for long-residing NZ migrants who're making contributions to Australia (and will nonetheless remain in Australia permanently or on a long term basis).
If the UK had such an agreement then British citizens may also enjoy similar benefits -> but no Australian can go live in the UK now just like that can they?
And people should realise that making NZers already living in Australia jump through the "same hoops" is not exactly possible. NZers in Australia are in a different situation and applying for visas designed for foreign nationals who have no existing right to live in Australia indefinitely isn't always a fair situation.
ENS - Employers have far fewer incentives to sponsor someone who they know can live indefinitely in Australia. It might even be part of the reason why the person was employed in the first place. So should the NZer quit their job and find another one? Many employers would refuse to sponsor a NZer - to them these employees already have a right to live permanently so applying for another visa is unnecessary.
Post-study - international students completing studies in Australia have preferential pathways to applying for PR. There are separate visa categories available only to international students who have held a student visa. These are NOT available to NZers who study in Australia under subclass 444 visas - and no NZer would apply for a student visa if they would otherwise be eligible for a subclass 444 visa (I'm not even sure DIAC would even grant it). And things like transitional arrangements when the points test changes or the skilled occupation list changes? Nah - NZ students won't be eligible for any of that.
And the fact that NZers are required to apply for "offshore" visas even though they may be on in Australia mean that processing times are often longer than if they had been allowed to apply for a similar onshore visa.
And counting NZers already living in Australia who apply for PR within the current migration intake doesn't achieve much for Australia's migration program. It adds paperwork and administration, and Australia does not end up with a new migrants who'll add to the economy (or whatever else the migration program is designed to achieve), since that NZer is already in Australia.
NZers who have moved to Australia long term on a subclass 444 visa know very well they can live permanently in Australia - it therefore puts them in situations which other groups might not find themselves in.
E.g. young children who migrate with their parents and live for long periods in Australia. They can continue living in Australia, but may not ever be eligible for PR. Temporary visa holders know from the outset they can only live in Australia for a limited period of time and need to change their visa type to live permanently in Australia. NZers on the other hand have been given information specifically from DIAC (and also in announcements from the 26th of Feb 2001) that they 1) do not need to apply for permanent residence and 2) are welcomed to live and work indefinitely in Australia.
NZers are also eligible for Medicare - those who've worked for many years in Australia would likely have contributed significantly through taxes and the Medicare levy/surcharge. Yet they need to go through medicals when applying for PR... one might say it's necessary to filter out migrants who place excessive strain on the public healthcare system. But for NZers who've made Australia their home and would like to get PR/citizenship to formalise that, is filtering them out because they have a few medical conditions going to achieve anything?
And NZers who may have thought of only workin in Australia for a short period of time, but then over time decide to stay permanently. Initially they may or may not have thought about applying for PR, but after a few years they might have passed the age limits and would no longer be eligible, even though several years back they would've qualified. The years already spent working in Australia might not necessarily be able to compensate for that under the current points system.
And the confusion between state and commonwealth services is really appalling. The initial 2001 changes were only in relation to social security, in particular unemployment etc benefits which were no longer compensated (in part or in full) by the NZ government after the revised social security agreement. But now, various state services have been withdrawn from NZers in a haphazard fashion - so what should NZers living permanently in Australia, paying the same income taxes, stamp duty, GST etc be entitled to?
I'm not sure what is a reasonable solution, and i'm not asking for the pre-2001 type system where anyone from NZ can have full access to services on arrival in Australia, but I certainly don't think the current situation is satisfactory, esp for long-residing NZ migrants who're making contributions to Australia (and will nonetheless remain in Australia permanently or on a long term basis).
Mar 24th 2011, 2:09 pm
#107
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Epsom
Posts: 1,705
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Problem is, we have seen lots of foot stamping threads of late, from Kiwi's, complaining how their human rights are being impinged upon by Australia, not handing everything they think they deserve, to them on a plate.... and we are the wrong sort of audience for that.
All the rest of us have jumped through a whole set of hoops to move to Aus, and yet Kiwi's just waltz in and then start complaining about how 'disadvantaged' they are.
It doesn't sit well.
All the rest of us have jumped through a whole set of hoops to move to Aus, and yet Kiwi's just waltz in and then start complaining about how 'disadvantaged' they are.
It doesn't sit well.
And foot-stamping from who exactly? All I've seen is a couple of threads and virtually no media coverage. And perfectly reasonable arguments from what I have seen, there are obvious flaws in the system.
Last edited by sr71; Mar 24th 2011 at 2:11 pm.
Mar 24th 2011, 2:11 pm
#108
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
It doesn't seem workable to me. If we are going to benefit from masses of Kiwi migrants we will have to deal with this situation in a better way. We cannot have a very significant sub-section of the community who are living here permanently treated as second class residents for ever.
Given it was an easy way in maybe there should be character and other tests to assess people after x number of years who have shown long term commitment to Australia.
I would like to still weed out the benefit cheats like the guy at my wife's work who each time flies back to new zealand with his heavily pregnant wife and has the baby to claim all the new zealand govt baby benefits and then comes back from his "holiday" and claims all the australian ones as well. Obviously cheats come in all nationalities but given the ease of entry in the first place we have to make sure we don't set up the system in a way that attracts those types. Either that, or as Ivan said we have to give incentives to our dole bludgers to move to NZ
Given it was an easy way in maybe there should be character and other tests to assess people after x number of years who have shown long term commitment to Australia.
I would like to still weed out the benefit cheats like the guy at my wife's work who each time flies back to new zealand with his heavily pregnant wife and has the baby to claim all the new zealand govt baby benefits and then comes back from his "holiday" and claims all the australian ones as well. Obviously cheats come in all nationalities but given the ease of entry in the first place we have to make sure we don't set up the system in a way that attracts those types. Either that, or as Ivan said we have to give incentives to our dole bludgers to move to NZ
Mar 24th 2011, 2:14 pm
#109
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Epsom
Posts: 1,705
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
There may well have been problems in the past, although the real extent of them and the amount the NZ government had to pay Australia I don't know. But without a doubt the vast majority of Kiwis I have met in Aus are harder working than many of the locals. I have not met a cheat or bludger ever.
Mar 24th 2011, 2:19 pm
#110
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
There may well have been problems in the past, although the real extent of them and the amount the NZ government had to pay Australia I don't know. But without a doubt the vast majority of Kiwis I have met in Aus are harder working than many of the locals. I have not met a cheat or bludger ever.
Last edited by fish.01; Mar 24th 2011 at 2:26 pm.
Mar 24th 2011, 2:28 pm
#111
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 70
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
I'm sure reducing the benefits in 2001 has reduced your chance of meeting one now (I have met a couple) but I also reckon the problem would have been overstated as we all know how easy it would have been for politicians to sell this idea to shock jock listeners. But we obviously do not want to setup the system so that it attracts those types. Can't say I've noticed any particular kiwi work ethic - a lot in Brisbane tend to work in the trades and I don't come across them much - I do meet the odd office worker but they just seem like anyone else - some good, some bad. Though saying that statistically I think all migrants on average have to work harder to set themselves up in a new country.
Mar 24th 2011, 2:32 pm
#112
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,039
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Mar 24th 2011, 7:41 pm
#114
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Why not? Kiwis or Australians cannot just waltz into France, Spain or Italy, but British people can solely based on proximity to Europe. Yet Australians and NZ'ers are probably 2 of the closest nations in terms of shared history and culture. Seems perfectly reasonable that there would be favourable immigration conditions.
And foot-stamping from who exactly? All I've seen is a couple of threads and virtually no media coverage. And perfectly reasonable arguments from what I have seen, there are obvious flaws in the system.
And foot-stamping from who exactly? All I've seen is a couple of threads and virtually no media coverage. And perfectly reasonable arguments from what I have seen, there are obvious flaws in the system.
Mar 24th 2011, 7:47 pm
#115
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
I'm not "sour". Frankly I don't give a shit about the visa requirements of New Zealanders. All I comment on is that fact that you already have a privilege position.... but seem to be stood with your hand out constantly shouting "more" and "not fair". It's boring and tedious.
Mar 24th 2011, 8:24 pm
#116
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
I don't see any problem with NZs getting special treatment. It's not unlike the situation with the UK and ROI. I just think it's funny that some (but thankfully not all) whinge about a privileged situation.
And don't forget the tax breaks.
Mar 24th 2011, 8:25 pm
#117
Officially Bewildered
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
Posts: 5,523
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
ENS - Employers have far fewer incentives to sponsor someone who they know can live indefinitely in Australia. It might even be part of the reason why the person was employed in the first place. So should the NZer quit their job and find another one? Many employers would refuse to sponsor a NZer - to them these employees already have a right to live permanently so applying for another visa is unnecessary.
I'd go to the employer and telling them that I saw my long term future in Australia, working for them, but that wouldn't be possible if I was constantly concerned that I was being treated as a second class citizen due to the temporary nature of the SCV, etc etc.. if the employer says no then you know exactly what they think of you
(*Obviously, there will be employers who are unable to sponsor for ENS because they aren't set up that way, the job doesn't come under the ENS guidelines, the employer can't fulfill the ENS criteria or they can't be arsed)
Mar 24th 2011, 9:17 pm
#118
Inverted Firkin Inventor
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 757
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
having a large number of workers in Australia who have (almost always) recognised qualifications, and the large amount of tax that these people pay and contribute to the economy. Not to mention Australians can also live permanently in NZ (they may or may not want to), and can also invest in NZ.
If the UK had such an agreement then British citizens may also enjoy similar benefits -> but no Australian can go live in the UK now just like that can they?
If the UK had such an agreement then British citizens may also enjoy similar benefits -> but no Australian can go live in the UK now just like that can they?
A well thought out and rational response, with good points made.
And people should realise that making NZers already living in Australia jump through the "same hoops" is not exactly possible. NZers in Australia are in a different situation and applying for visas designed for foreign nationals who have no existing right to live in Australia indefinitely isn't always a fair situation.
ENS - Employers have far fewer incentives to sponsor someone who they know can live indefinitely in Australia. It might even be part of the reason why the person was employed in the first place. So should the NZer quit their job and find another one? Many employers would refuse to sponsor a NZer - to them these employees already have a right to live permanently so applying for another visa is unnecessary.
We have found this to be an issue, employers just don't get it, after all they see no difference between you and their Oz employees.
Post-study - international students completing studies in Australia have preferential pathways to applying for PR. There are separate visa categories available only to international students who have held a student visa. These are NOT available to NZers who study in Australia under subclass 444 visas - and no NZer would apply for a student visa if they would otherwise be eligible for a subclass 444 visa (I'm not even sure DIAC would even grant it). And things like transitional arrangements when the points test changes or the skilled occupation list changes? Nah - NZ students won't be eligible for any of that.
NZers who have moved to Australia long term on a subclass 444 visa know very well they can live permanently in Australia - it therefore puts them in situations which other groups might not find themselves in.
E.g. young children who migrate with their parents and live for long periods in Australia. They can continue living in Australia, but may not ever be eligible for PR. Temporary visa holders know from the outset they can only live in Australia for a limited period of time and need to change their visa type to live permanently in Australia. NZers on the other hand have been given information specifically from DIAC (and also in announcements from the 26th of Feb 2001) that they 1) do not need to apply for permanent residence and 2) are welcomed to live and work indefinitely in Australia
I do worry for my children, what if something were to happen to my husband and I, this is home for them, they would only need a little support to see them into adulthood, but I doubt they are 'entitled'.
NZers are also eligible for Medicare - those who've worked for many years in Australia would likely have contributed significantly through taxes and the Medicare levy/surcharge. Yet they need to go through medicals when applying for PR... one might say it's necessary to filter out migrants who place excessive strain on the public healthcare system. But for NZers who've made Australia their home and would like to get PR/citizenship to formalise that, is filtering them out because they have a few medical conditions going to achieve anything?
This is one which confuses me the most I think. You see we have already cost medicare quite a bit, with our hospital stay, the fact that they had to bring a top adult surgeon into the childrens hospital to operate on my daughter at very short notice, and some of the genetic tests they did on her had to be sent to France. Yet as it is such a rare condition in a child I suspect this is gonna come up as a major red flag in a medical. Terms such as barn door and horses spring to mind.
And NZers who may have thought of only workin in Australia for a short period of time, but then over time decide to stay permanently. Initially they may or may not have thought about applying for PR, but after a few years they might have passed the age limits and would no longer be eligible, even though several years back they would've qualified. The years already spent working in Australia might not necessarily be able to compensate for that under the current points system.
And the confusion between state and commonwealth services is really appalling. The initial 2001 changes were only in relation to social security, in particular unemployment etc benefits which were no longer compensated (in part or in full) by the NZ government after the revised social security agreement. But now, various state services have been withdrawn from NZers in a haphazard fashion - so what should NZers living permanently in Australia, paying the same income taxes, stamp duty, GST etc be entitled to?
I'm not sure what is a reasonable solution, and i'm not asking for the pre-2001 type system where anyone from NZ can have full access to services on arrival in Australia, but I certainly don't think the current situation is satisfactory, esp for long-residing NZ migrants who're making contributions to Australia (and will nonetheless remain in Australia permanently or on a long term basis).
I don't know what the solution is either. Maybe remove the age in the points and the medical ........seeing as they are mute points anyway being entitled to medicare and oldage pension, just tailor a visa for NZ'ers based on employment status and character.
Mar 24th 2011, 9:24 pm
#119
Officially Bewildered
Joined: Nov 2006
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW
Posts: 5,523
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Half the time I find the problem is the offical peeps don't know. I had one with school the other day as a friend stated that while on a 457 it affected her son gaining his QCE points. I checked out the website which was a vague as vague could be, so decided not to ask the question if being NZ'er would cause a problem cause if the website dosen't know then the teachers sure won't, what a pandoras box that would be!
Quite a few of their friends were Kiwis - they all obtained their QCE too (although I have no idea if they were there just on a SCV or if they were PR)
Mar 24th 2011, 9:34 pm
#120
Inverted Firkin Inventor
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 757
Re: Kiwi's discrimination complaint upheld by Aussie tribunal
Being on a 457 should have no effect on getting a QCE - we were still on a 457 when the two eldest boys did their QCE and it wasn't relevant in the slightest.
Quite a few of their friends were Kiwis - they all obtained their QCE too (although I have no idea if they were there just on a SCV or if they were PR)
Quite a few of their friends were Kiwis - they all obtained their QCE too (although I have no idea if they were there just on a SCV or if they were PR)
I just don't ask the question anymore, the school sees us as permanent residents, I did declare our NZ status on enrolement even though there was no 'box' for that.