Originally Posted by madankumars (Post 9730154)

"by definition a pilot is expected to work overseas". :rofl:

just because the plane is in the air it doesnt mean "oveaseas". only if you cross the australian airspace you are technically overseas. If you are flying/piloting a domestic route (like sydney/melbourne) you are still in australia mate.

sorry I am not here to argue with you and apologies for the tone, but people need to know that this law is discrimantory.

Originally Posted by sonlymewalter (Post 9730057)

No one has a right to citizenship and there's lots of rules put in place for a majority that unfortunately a minority sometimes lose out on. That's life and happens in may of societies rules.

As for paying Aussie Tax - if you have a house here and you or your family have a choice to use the Aussie infastructure at any time then I guess effectiely you should pay for the privelege. Either way you should pay tax in one country or another anyway, one thing is certain and that is paying Tax wherever you are in the world.

As for earning money abroad whilst effectively having roots in Aus. That's your choice. If you choose to work abroad for more money go for it. But don't whinge that this isn't fair when the rules clearly state what the rules are.

Life's a bitch sometimes but that's life.....sorry to be harsh but that's how it goes sometimes mate.

Originally Posted by verystormy (Post 9730274)

I dont mind paying tax because i am resident in Australia. But the goverment wants its cake and eat it. It wants to claim i am resident for tax, but not resident for citizenship. That isnt fair. If they dont want me resident for one then it shouldnt be for the other.

So, we will make a decision over Christmas of if to stay in Oz. The alternative being to move back to the UK where i would not pay tax if i am fifo from there. Hence why a lot of brit geo's have headed back recently.

As for your comments for the IT guy i completely disagree. A lot of proffessionals HAVE to travel a lot as part of their job. Many years ago i worked for an IT company and my boss did more miles than a pilot - return by concorde twice a week to NY from London. A pilot does not have to be international. They can work on domestic routes only.

Originally Posted by madankumars (Post 9730839)

Dorothy's right - you're only complaining because it affects you

:-) mate... this is discriminatory against everyone who is not a pilot or a ship crew or resources worker or a sports person.

many other professions need to travel due to work reasons.

govenment legislation is not made by computers. it is made by people and people sometimes make mistakes.... to err is human. and when that happens it needs to be pointed out.

Originally Posted by madankumars (Post 9730839)

Dorothy's right - you're only complaining because it affects you

:-) mate... this is discriminatory against everyone who is not a pilot or a ship crew or resources worker or a sports person.

many other professions need to travel due to work reasons.

govenment legislation is not made by computers. it is made by people and people sometimes make mistakes.... to err is human. and when that happens it needs to be pointed out.

Originally Posted by Red_V_Roger (Post 9731116)

I work for a company that exports a fair amount outside Oz, that means I have to travel outside Oz to get the work that supports the jobs of the people here in our factory.

I just put in for citizenship yesterday and am under the 90 day rule, but a couple more trips could have seen me over.

It wouldn't be fair that helping employ Australians and keep the balance of trade through exports excluded me from applying for Citizenship.

Originally Posted by mrsgreenstar76 (Post 9731277)

Those are the rules though. Surely you knew them when you got your visa/took the job. Why should people that are willing to do jobs that are within the rules of residency have to follow them but others not?

Originally Posted by verystormy (Post 9731297)

Because the rules are stupid, manifestly unfair, putting my legal head on, open to legal challenge and potentialy damaging for the country. How many more arguments would you like

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts (Post 9731323)

Well having read the arguments made, I would be prepared to say that the rules are a little unfair. But they really do not seem manifestly unfair to me, because with a couple of exceptions we all have to clock up our time in Australia to progress to citizenship.

If they make exceptions for people who travel overseas with work where would it end, why shouldn't there be exceptions for people who travel overseas for extended periods to tend sick relatives for example. And then how would it be vetted, what kind of system would have to be implemented to ensure that the time overseas was "allowable"?

At least it is simple and easily validated at the moment.

Originally Posted by verystormy (Post 9731297)

Because the rules are stupid, manifestly unfair, putting my legal head on, open to legal challenge and potentialy damaging for the country. How many more arguments would you like

Originally Posted by verystormy (Post 9731329)

In the same way that they do now for those who they allow to travel overseas. They manage to police it for some catergories so why not others. The vetting system is simple. Are you demostratably resident in Australia? Do you pay Australian taxes? Is you main home in Australia. The UK manages it fine.

Originally Posted by mrsgreenstar76 (Post 9731350)

It always amazes me. People that move overseas & yet expect it to work the same as the UK. Also, the UK tax system is hardly fine at the moment, but that's a completely different subject.

Originally Posted by verystormy (Post 9731375)

I dont expect it to work the same as the UK. Just giving an example. I could as easily have also pointed out that Peru manages it and that is a developing nation. The point was that you had tried to say it was not a system that could be managed. I simply gave an example of one place that it is. There are a number of countries that do so.