Don

Rob: this comment doesn't really make too much sense. The Trans-Tasman treaty is a negotiated agreement between NZ and Aus which amongst other things defines the right (or should that be privilege?) of NZ citizens and Aus citizens + PR holders to live and work in each others'countries.

Would you argue (say) that a naturalised UK citizen should be denied the right to work in the EU the same as other UK citizens? Of course not. NZ is a country of migrants, some there longer than others of course, but all migrants. Any 'new' NZ citizen should enjoy the same rights a born & bred Kiwi.

ptlabs

Don,

Some countries reserve some privileges (a.k.a. rights) for citizens born in those countries - this is somewhat similar to what we call birthright.

These privileges are few and far between, but some countries cannot legally strip citizens by birth of their citizenship, while citizens by grant/registration may be deprived of their citizenship under certain circumstances, for example.

So, while a new citizen and a born citizen should enjoy most rights equally, certain things are indeed reserved for born citizens.

Peter

Don

Good point, Peter - but can you think of any similar 'inequalities'? I can't. (US President must be born an American I believe - that's the only one that springs to mind. And they'll waive that for Arnie!)

JWW

All the DIA systems are computerised, the rules engines will need to be changed prior to an anouncement so they are ready to go.
How about:

if (russ)
nzCitizenship == true;

I think you'll be ok for a little while yet.

JWW

The main problem Don is that this right has been abused over the years by people doing exactly what you intend to do. They grab their NZ citizenship and hail a cab to the airport.

I don't want to be critical but you're making a decision to move to OZ without even having lived in NZ...what's that about?

It basically annoys the hell out of Aussie who see it as back door migration and is slowly leading to the complete removal of the current rights.

This has also directly led to Aussie putting pressure on the Kiwi government to have higher quality immigration and new, very restrictive rules in order to maintain even the right to work there.

This is not compatable with NZ's needs long term so a parting of the ways is inevitable. Maybe a relationship similar to the USA and Canada.

The quicker the right of new citizens to move to and live in OZ is removed, the better. This will lead to NZ standing on its own two feet and the only migrants will be those who genuinely want to live in NZ..and there are plenty of those.

Kiwipaul

I think I must stick my hand up for this, mind you I did stay in NZ 7 years before moving to Oz.
Just applied for my Ozzie citizenship and go for the interview next week. Decided as I was here (March 2000) before rules changed getting an Ozzie passport was the sensible thing to do before I go back to NZ, just in case they change the rules yet again.

So GUILTY as charged

Wilf

This is exactly what Nz deserves and a taste of its own medicine.

Kiwis use the UK as a cashpoint and doss off place on their famous "OEs", where places like my old home of London is good enough for earning money to get deposits for houses or pay off student loans but "Oh no, I would never stay there and bring my kids up there, it is too horrid" say the pathetic kiwis. They are bloody hypocrites. Your prime ministress Helen Clark was recently poncing her way round Europe arranging better visa rights for kiwis in Europe but NZ is an extremely small minded place that hates to employ foreigners and would never choose a foreigner (however well qualified) if there is a local (even if less well qualified) person to be found. NZ (and to a much lesser extent Oz) is a hypocritical place that sponges off other places (e.g., exporting their graduates because they have no careers for them - often to Oz) and then hates to be asked for a favour or two back.

I applaud Don for doing wat he wants to do and Paul for what he has done. It is exactly what NZ deserves even if that is not why they do/did it.

ptlabs

Don,

My knowledge of NZ citizenship laws are limited, and my memory is getting worse everyday

What I do know is that an Australian citizen by birth is in a slightly easier/better position to pass his/her birthright (i.e. citizenship) to his/her baby/ies. OTOH, an Australian citizen by descent, for example, has to meet Australian residency requirements before being able to pass on Australian citizenship (by descent) to children.

AFAIK, most privileges/restrictions dealing with citizens by birth compared to other citizens (i.e. descent/grant etc) have to do with politics and citizenship itself, understandably.

If Australia wanted to put a stop to the "back door" of new NZ citizens entering Australia, you would think that DIMIA could insist on a residency of, say, 10 years in NZ for a NZ citizen by grant.

The NZ "back door", IMHO, is as much a reality as it is a myth, IMHO. Sure there are people going down this route, but that's what makes the world go round, I guess.

And, if people haven't already realized, it's much more difficult to qualify for NZ PR than it is for Australian PR. For instance, I never did qualify for NZ PR (even when the passmark was 24), while I never had a problem qualifying (and indeed I got through) for Australian PR.

My 2 cents.

Peter

ptlabs

1. I'm not sure what you meant in your 1st paragraph, but no one can legally (otherwise by descent) get a NZ passport without staying in NZ, and therefore there is no "backdoor" to Oz via NZ without NZ residency.

2. A lot of things annoy Australians.

3. If you do not already know, NZ now has a higher standard of English proficiency requirements than Australia for its skilled migratns. NZ's skilled migration system is also less welcoming than Australia's at the moment, IMO. Whether it's NZ's own doing or a decision made under duress (due to pressue from Australia), is for anyone to speculate. But I won't be so quick to attribute every change in NZ to Australia's arm twisting. That would be naive.

Peter

Kiwipaul

When I looked into it 10 years ago, I didn't have a snowball in hells chance of getting Australian PR but was eligable for NZ PR when pass mark was 28 (I seem to remember), so I took the NZ route.

So it depends on the individual situation (age was the killer for me for Australia) and how their attributes match up with the current requirements of each country.

ptlabs

Paul,

It was very wise of you to take up Australian citizenship. Rules for inter NZ-Australian migration may change, and I would suspect people who are negatively affected by any changes in the future will not be a happy bunch.

There is no obvious downside to holding an Australian passport for a New Zealander, as both countries have no issues with dual/multiple citizenships.

Peter

ptlabs

Yes it does depend on one's individual situation.

I didn't have enough points because I didn't have enough experience. When I gave a cursory glance to the NZ skilled migration system some years back, I noticed that NZ awarded points for every 2 years of work experience - meaning the older you were, the better off you were. OTOH, Australia seems to penalize older applicants. So there you have it.

Peter

JWW

My first paragraph was highlighting the fact that Don was stating his intention to move to OZ after he had his NZ passport (after 3 years residency), without actually having begun his residency period. I'm sorry if you can't see the irony in that.

Yes arm twisting by OZ could be considered naive, but so would thinking that old Leanne vists her immigration minister counterpart approx 2 weeks before every immigration announcement because they like each others company.

ptlabs

JWW,

To each his/her own, I guess. Present rules allow for NZ citizens to enter and remain in Australia indefintely on a temporary visa (now that's ironic!).

It certainly isn't illegal to consider this benefit when applying for NZ residency. Whether it's right or wrong for a person to have ultimate goals in Australia while applying for NZ residency is subjective, I guess.

Migrants to NZ and Australia, and certainly to Canada, the USA and elsewhere, should never be expected, or compelled to remain in their adopted countries indefintely. Some migrants will eventually move again, that's why they're migrants.

Peter

JWW

I agree with what you say and migrant drift is always going to occur, there is no Berlin wall in NZ. It is probably worth taking into account that OZ has it both ways now, a willing work force that has to go home if they become unemployed. Also, Australian companies still actively recruit in NZ.

Maybe its not a problem.