sbr108,
Makes one wonder how the two governments could come to such an agreement. Problem here is that if you obey the law and don't make a fuss you are not listened to. I knew we could come and go practically whenever we liked but was not aware you could not get permanent residence, or that you were not eligible for many benefits.

We hand out heaps of benefits to all other comers. Some with vastly different, and incompatable, cultures to that of most Kiwis. NZ culture is the closest to ours and have little trouble adjusting, except for the odd ones like Jewely, who give our child fostercare bureaucrats a hard time, but we put up with that, being tolerant.

Is there not a high profile Kiwi radio/journalist/footballer, who will take up your case, here. I see Lawsie is back, perhaps he is looking for an issue he can get his teeth into.

Sorry I can't offer any suggestions that you have not thought of.

Friday, 25 March 2011
A tribunal has upheld a race discrimination complaint against a legal definition used to deny disaster recovery payments and social security to thousands of New Zealanders living in Australia. The decision against ACE Insurance Ltd opens the way for more anti-discrimination action against companies and state governments across Australia, successful applicant David Faulkner claims.

His race discrimination allegation against the company was over rules limiting its American Express Repayment Protection (AERP) policy to "Australian residents".

That excluded New Zealanders defined as "non-protected" visa holders under the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (New Zealand Citizens) Bill 2001, because they arrived in Australia after February 26, 2001, or who were on long-term trips overseas on that date.

The same social security law has been used to deny disaster recovery payments to thousands of Kiwis caught up in the Queensland floods and Cyclone Yasi and to stop social security for sick and disabled New Zealanders.

David Faulkner’s personal situation is unique: he moved to Australia in 1970, when he was six years old, but has a non-protected Visa because he was stationed overseas on a long-term work placement on February 26, 2001.

After repeated complaints to the company over its refusal to cover him, he lodged a suit with the Equal Opportunities wing of the New South Wales tribunal in September 2009.

"The Tribunal concluded that Australian citizens, in the same circumstances, or circumstances not materially different, would not have been refused cover under the AERP Policy by ACE.
The tribunal decision could set a precedent which could be used against Australian state governments in future cases, said Mr Faulkner.

New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully recently said he was "concerned" at New Zealanders being denied social security payments in Australia.

There was no similar non-protected visa status for Australian immigrants in New Zealand, he said.

"No doubt this is a matter we will discuss with our Australian colleagues in due course."

Before I pass comment, I want to clarify that I understand what we're talking about here. I came to Australia as a New Zealand citizen (having taken advantage of NZ's open door policies) in 1988, so my situation is different. We were granted permanent residence on the grounds that we had recently become kiwi citizens and my dad had permanent, secure employment.

We have since changed this policy, creating a special category for kiwis. Why? I sort of remember some kind of diplomatic stoush between our two nations, because Australia was concerned that many people were using NZ as a back door to get into our nation and (not surprising given our government's current focus) taking advantage of our welfare system. We tried bossing our neighbours around, asking them to change their policy; unsurprisingly, when faced by a bully and having their autonomy threatened, NZ didn't buckle. You can imagine the discontent in that country if its leaders were seen to be bowing to the demands of Australia. Is this a response to that?

Like I said, I want to get my facts straight before offering an opinion on the matter. Any help would be appreciated.

by Otokonoko: Yes, essentially you have your facts correct. There was some (false) accusations floating around in thelate 90's that kiwis were dole bludgers taking advantage of Australia. the reality was and still is, most kiwis who move to Australia are very productive members of society.

No one would oppose the idea that Australia has the right and responsibility to protect itself from immigrants that used NZ as a stepping stone with no sincere intention of ever living in NZ.

The current situation unfortunately is unfair on those kiwis who have proven to be contributing members of Australian society through their work and by living here for many years. The immigration policy ignores the special relationship, the ANZAC relationship, that make NZ and Aus so close. No other group of immigrats in the world can assimilate into Australia easier than New Zealanders.

New Zealand has an open door policy for Australians without the same restrictions. This post is aiming to generate enough interest that the Australian gov't will bring a fair policy into practice. The government has admitted there is a problem/anomaly that needs correcting but to date no one in government has pursued the issue.

Quite right every bit of that last post.
I never found any evidence to say Kiwis did not work.
Even married couples side by side in construction and much in demand.
It is wrong.
But I was not joking, some times ,always its the squeaking wheel that gets the grease.
And silence is seen as it can wait.
Just as I, having looked after many hundreds of Kiwis as a union official did not know many will not.
We must let them know.
Any way we can,unionists should ask union lawyers to take this on.