Are New Zealanders now more equal? Successive Australian Governments have continued to purport that the unilateral 2001 changes implement the legitimate aim of equality before the law. That is, New Zealand nationals were previously advantaged over other non-nationals in that, prior to 2001, New Zealand nationals was not required to produce a permanent visa in order to receive a social security benefit. This ‘equality argument’ was described by Senator Amanda Vanstone, the 2001 Minister for Family and Community Services, during parliamentary debate on the 2001 changes: “I think it is important not to erode the principle that social security payments should be available to residents only. Like other migrants, New Zealand residents who have permanent residency can get access to special benefit. There are only two types of temporary visa holders who are currently exempt from the residence requirement, and they are the humanitarian category and the spouse interdependency category. Under these new arrangements, holders of special category visas will be treated like any other temporary resident under the social security law. New Zealand citizens who want to be covered by Australias social security system have the option of applying for a permanent visa. New Zealand citizens are the only people who can hold special category visas. Any move to exempt a group of people from the residence rules by nationality may be seen by other groups of temporary visa holders as discriminatory. So there are those problems.” Perhaps the most succinct response to Vanstone’s ‘reasoning’ is to be found in a recent Facebook post on former Senator Bartlett’s page by Neil Cotter from the Queensland Greens: “I suppose if the ALP and Liberals can pretend the whole country doesnt exist for asylum seekers then pretending some people who reside here permanently arent permanent residents would be a doddle for them. Some of these measures seem truly bizarre like not letting them be recruited into the defence forces (not exactly the ANZAC spirit) or serve on juries (because the rest of us are notoriously so desperate to serve in that capacity). Boundless plains to share... not so much. This argument of equality between New Zealand nationals and an already deprived minority of temporary residents relies upon three obvious flaws: 1. It assumes that only non-nationals with the right to remain indefinitely are entitled to recognition as residents for the purpose of social security. 2. It ignores the fact that, due to the bilateral Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, possession of a permanent visa is not a legitimate test of the right to remain indefinitely for New Zealand nationals. 3. The comparison is only made between New Zealand nationals and temporarily-resident non-nationals. In particular, the comparison between New Zealand nationals and Australian nationals is conveniently omitted. - This is an extract from David Faulkners The Unequal Treatment of New Zealanders in Australia.
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 02:14:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015