New Zealand Herald: more political spin debasing a mercurial ANZAC relationship?

Lauda Finem posted a critique on a story the New Zealand Herald ran last Monday criticizing Australian domestic immigration policy Oz exodus: When the dream sours.

As is always the case with the New Zealand media they like to do their politicians bidding and are loath to point the finger at their own governments negligent and or corrupt actions. The issue of New Zealand’s loss of it’s citizenry en mass in the growing exodus to Australia has, it appears, more currency in New Zealand than it does here in Australia; this story has been a headliner in both of New Zealand’s major daily’s over the past twelve months.

We Australians and our media, it seems, have better things to do than run “broken record” type articles on a non issue such as this. As far as we are concerned we have our own domestic policies and frankly Australian politics and policy is for the Australian people not New Zealander’s or their sycophant press.

What does however raise our heckles here at Lauda Finem is the hypocrisy of New Zealand’s polity and its Media. New Zealander’s like to pride themselves on the county’s so-called independence and yet whenever as a country its economically in the shit those very same citizens have historically turned, in droves, to Australia for personal financial relief. That highly mobile section of New Zealand’s population far out-ways a relatively small proportion of Kiwis that have made a long term commitment to Australia by becoming Australian citizens, a fact that is noted on DIAC’s website:

The movement of New Zealand citizens to and from Australia depends mostly on the economic conditions of both countries. The number of New Zealand citizens in Australia increases in good economic times in Australia relative to New Zealand, and decreases when the economic conditions slow. At 30 June 2012, an estimated 647 863 New Zealand citizens were present in Australia. Source: Fact Sheet 17 – New Zealanders in Australia (DIAC)

Following our piece and the criticism’s of the New Zealand Heralds article and the lack of evidence to support their contentions the Herald decided, we believe belatedly, to turn the piece into a so-called three part series, the Herald is no stranger to misleading its readership (we’ve called them on their behaviour before now). This mornings addition of the paper concluded this belatedly thought up series by running an editorial on the same subject. One of the things that we had criticized the paper for was their failure to produce the names of their purported critics;

Australian critics of the policies warn that the nation is creating a permanent underclass of expatriate Kiwis, losing significant human and economic potential while storing up major social problems, including poverty and rising crime rates.Source:  Oz exodus: When the dream sours (NZ Herald)

Low and behold the following day their so-called “three part” series materialized (although it appears to us that its now morphed into more) and in what had obviously only now become the second installment they attempt to correct the lack of supporting evidence in the first piece.

In fact it’s as if the journalist, Greg Ansley (the co-writer of the first piece, Michael Dickison had disappeared) had lifted Lauda Finem’s critique and was now attempting to counter it.

The very first thing that Ansley attempted to speak to was the lack of named critics, and he did so by pulling out of the hat a bloke by the name of David Faulkner:

David Faulkner the ex-pat Kiwi who missed out, because he was allegedly “temporarily” overseas.

David Faulkner is a man on a crusade. Stripped of his own right to permanent residency and citizenship in Australia, he has become a tireless advocate for other New Zealanders caught by the 2001 changes to Australian social security rules. The rules removed access to most Australian welfare payments, benefits and supports, creating two classes of expat Kiwis – those resident in Australia before the changes who continued to have permanent residency, and a new class who can live, work and pay taxes indefinitely, but without the welfare net and loans to help pay for higher education. They also caught up New Zealanders who were overseas at the time and who, regardless of the time they had previously lived in Australia or their investment in homes, families and businesses, suddenly became “temporary” residents. Mr Faulkner was one of these. Source: Oz exodus: Victim of immigration review battling for rights of other migrants (NZ Herald)

We know that New Zealander’s or at least its governments and press have little regard for fair play but here in Australia we try to do things fairly and when our government doesn’t play by the rules there is an electoral backlash. The Heralds Mr Ansley in this the so-called second installment is again misleading his readers. Its true that Mr Faulkner is the unfortunate victim of the law changes and their timing but in allegedly pleading Mr Faulkner’s circumstances in that:

They also caught up New Zealanders who were overseas at the time and who, regardless of the time they had previously lived in Australia or their investment in homes, families and businesses, suddenly became “temporary” residents. Mr Faulkner was one of these. He had arrived in Australia at the age of 6, been educated at Australian schools, worked for Australian companies, and married an Australian wife. But he was temporarily seconded to his company’s European office at exactly the wrong time. Source: Oz exodus: Victim of immigration review battling for rights of other migrants (nzherald)

Now Ansley’s employment of the word “temporarily” is curious and at the same time again, we believe, designed to mislead his readers.

We have an in depth knowledge of what happened in Australia around the changes and how they affected Kiwis, both those that had been long-term Australian residents and those who had at the time been considering moving to Australia as we had over the years advised many individuals on immigration matters, Kiwi’s included.

The changes to the laws where exceptionally well publicized with an advertising campaign that ran for many months, there were also various campaigns yet again calling on Australian permanent residents to take up Australian citizenship.

Any New Zealander who was living in Australia at the time received ample explanation of what was about to occur and how they could secure their entitlement.

Now this is where Greg Ansley’s use of the word “temporarily” becomes very questionable when viewed in light of the transitional arrangements passed within the legislation.

Those changes did not affect New Zealand citizens, who at the time were permanently resident in Australia, even if they where “temporarily” overseas and therefore absent. That fact is explained on DIAC‘s website; New Zealander’s with permanent residency who:

• were in Australia on 26 February 2001 as SCV holders
• were outside Australia on 26 February 2001, but were in Australia as an SCV holder for a total of 12 months in the two years prior to that date, and subsequently returned to Australia
• have a certificate issued under the Social Security Act 1991 stating that they were residing in Australia on a particular date. These certificates are no longer issued.

Source: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm (DIAC)

The transitional provisions also allowed for a certificate of residency to be issued by Centrelink (DHS) so that if a New Zealand citizen normally a permanent resident of Australia was aware that they would be absent for a time greater than that of the transitional period they could always obtain one of these certificates in support of their status – for later use.

Whilst we are understanding of Mr Faulkner’s status and his subsequent case (in that he had been committed to Australia) it is still an exception to the rule and we suspect that Mr Faulkner himself is well aware of that fact:

And even though he arrived back in Australia before the legislation was passed, the law was retrospective and he had unknowingly been swept up in it. “I was not notified that I was affected and I had no idea that my rights had been stripped until I applied for citizenship in 2005,” he said. “I was aware to some extent of the changes, but they were advertised in the press as applying only to new arrivals.Source: Oz exodus: Victim of immigration review battling for rights of other migrants

Here at Lauda Finem we have a very different recollection to that of Mr Faulkner’s and what was, at the time, advertised in the media.

The adverts in fact prompted some of us to make further inquiries with DIMA – the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1996 – 2001) on behalf of those we had been advising, prompting some of them to bring forward their planned move to Australia.

Surely it had occurred to Mr Faulkner that every time he left Australia his visa was terminated, and then upon return his return, and rightly so, he was deemed a new arrival and issued with a fresh special category visa (SCV).

If it hadn’t he must have been one of the few, which of course, in our experience, he probably was. Mr Faulkner’s circumstance is an exceptional case and he should perhaps have been treated as an exception to the rule, of course he could always appeal to the minister.

Mr Faulkner’s case is  however nothing whatsoever to do with New Zealander’s who arrived after the changes and the NZ Herald, Greg Ansley’s, report.

Mr Ansley  has not dealt in fact, he has dealt in duplicity. Ansley has simply attempted to “muddy the waters“ in and around the issue and in doing so he has mislead his readers.

In fact Greg Ansley’s claim that Faulkner is somehow a campaigner who “has since led a long, hard and only occasionally successful campaign against rules he says discriminate against New Zealand and run counter to international treaties” is also misleading, we suspect that Greg Ansley simply did a Google search using a few key words and was presented with just a handful of results three of which note Mr Faulkner’s efforts, in advancing his own case and that of New Zealand’s interests, to date:

Kiwis not allowed path to Australian citizenship (Radio Australia, ABC) Disabled Teen’s Family Pursuits Lawsuit to Queensland Government (IBT) Submission DR72 – David Faulkner – Strengthening Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand Submission DR67 – David Faulkner – Strengthening Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand

There has also been a petition running for almost 12 months, promoted heavily in the media coverage around the Queensland disability case.

Despite the coverage and the Heralds purported claims of “great concern” the petition has only managed to attract, as of today, 3838 signatures  most of which are invalid as the signatories are not resident in Australia, in fact a cursory glance has the majority of addresses in countries other than Australia or New Zealand, we suspect that this fact may have been why Greg Ansley failed to use the petition in support his spurious arguments.

As we have already noted the New Zealand media are exceptionally one eyed and are often used to advance partisan political agenda’s, including the concealing of injustices.

They are also somewhat strangely reluctant to sheet home the blame to their own politicians, especially where trans-Tasman issues are concerned.

That fact is made glaringly obvious with Greg’s inclusion of  has-been politician and failed labour party leader Phil Goff’s exceptionally one eyed, self serving, two bobs worth;

New Zealand Labour Party foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff said he had been meeting Australian MPs over the past year to lobby the case of expat Kiwis – and would be pressing harder this year. “New Zealanders on average work harder and make more of a contribution than any other migrant group in Australia,” he said. And Australians moving to New Zealand could gain full residency. “I have no problem with Australians having rights here, but I expect that to be reciprocal.” But Mr Goff said he wanted to see a five-year period after which New Zealanders living in Australia could gain fuller rights. There were also small changes that would help, such as letting Kiwis access their Australian superannuation savings in emergencies. In 2001, as the Australian Government was looking to introduce the new rules, it had asked New Zealand to pay $1 billion a year to cover expat Kiwis’ social security benefits, Mr Goff said. “We said, ‘hang on a minute’.” Expat Kiwis were paying $2.5 billion in taxes to the Australian Government. “You can’t enjoy the work done by people brought up and trained in New Zealand and expect the New Zealand taxpayer to meet the costs. “Logically you win the argument but there’s no constituency who’s pressing for the change.” Because New Zealanders living in Australia were disenfranchised from voting, they had no political influence,” he said. “I think ultimately the system is unsustainable because it’s patently unfair.” “Give people a fair go – we’re not standing up for bludgers or people ripping off the system,” he said. Source: Oz exodus: Victories against discrimination (NZ Herald)

So Phil “hang on a minute” Goff, whilst in power, didn’t want to have to foot the bill for a social security payment to Australia for New Zealand citizens desperately needing assistance in a foreign country?

And then at the same time he and his government having subsequently and covertly (you know the Govt lead by comrade Clarke a woman who, after stuffing New Zealand, moved on to stuff a few United Nations aid programs and in the process grabbed herself the coveted title of United Nations fucktard of the year) didn’t want to bring their immigration policy into line with Australia’s so as to protect the geo-political region; instead preferring to pursue a desperate cash grab from cashed up desperate hongkongese

But now that Phil Goff’s in opposition he feels its somehow okay to very selectively criticize and interfere in Australian domestic policies?

As Phil Goff was, in a completely fucked up way, inclined to say‘hang on a minute’ mate what was that about the issue being one-sided.

Its always been a one sided relationship. New Zealand being the party that’s done all the taking. What New Zealander’s should be more concerned with is the fact that with this constant bullshit posturing by half wit dishonest kiwi politicians, such a John “brain fart“ Key and Phil “hang on a minute” Goff, and its media might net a result were we here in Australia decide to “roll up the welcome mat” and require that New Zealander’s apply for an appropriate visa, just as all other foreign nationals are required to.

As another bent Kiwi pollie, a man that we dislike intensely once said ;

However, Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said it was up to the Australian Government to make the rules for New Zealander’s living in Australia. “New Zealanders have the freest access of citizens of any country to live, work or study in Australia,” he said. “It is up to each country to determine its own immigration and social security requirements. New Zealanders emigrating to other countries give up some of the entitlements of living at home.” Source: Oz exodus: Victories against discrimination (NZ Herald)

Murray knows whats happening and he’s just a little worried, whilst not appearing to be. You see, contrary to popular kiwi mythology, New Zealand, the so called ANZAC tradition and NZ politicians have lately come to be viewed largely as an irrelevancy by Australians and Governments on both sides of the Australian Federal parliament; all be it a somewhat costly irrelevance to the Australian Tax payer.

In short New Zealand politicians are not trusted and are now more commonly viewed as recalcitrant political bludgers, blow-hards who arrive in Canberra once year with their hands out, the idiom “deep pockets but short arms” comes to mind, as Sir Keith Waller observed of successive New Zealand governments over the years:

The New Zealand Government has traditionally wanted to know all that Australia knows, although they have not always been equally frank in telling Canberra what they propose to do. Source: Australia in world affairs, 1971-75 / edited by W.J. Hudson

And its a tradition that’s very much alive and kicking. The New Zealand governments stance on immigration has always been driven by their politicians self interest, desperation, petulance and a major thorn in Australia’s side and as a result it was to some extent a factor in the policy change around New Zealander’s and the previously over generous entitlements. New Zealand has been an attractive destination for migrants for various reasons but increasingly the evidence is mounting that one factor in particular is responsible for its popularity, its proximity to Australia and a convenient way for migrants, who’ve been declined entry into Australia, to circumvent Australian immigration policy and law, by migrating first to New Zealand and then, as they say, slipping through the back door to their intended destination. This trend started in and around around the same time as the United Kingdom relinquished sovereignty over Hong Kong, but it had certainly not stopped there and its not now limited to Chinese or south east Asians. Its an issue that has concerned a few of us here at Lauda Finem for well over a decade:

Chinese Migrants in New Zealand Contemporary Chinese migration to New Zealand can be dated neatly and precisely to 1987, when New Zealand’s new immigration policy removed the special “traditional source countries” preference (i.e., preference for British citizens) and announced a universal criteria favoring “quality migrants” who qualify for entry based on personal factors like youth, education, skills, work experience, and financial capital. This policy change was prompted by a landmark realization, albeit belated, that immigration policy based on race and color had become, by the late 20th century, increasingly hard to justify. Ever since the implementation of the 1987 immigration policy, Chinese immigrants from various countries of origin have arrived in New Zealand in sizeable numbers. Initially, most of the attention was focused on arrivals from Hong Kong. Their sudden and dramatic exodus from the former British colony was largely triggered by the fear of an uncertain future related to the impending reversion of Hong Kong to Communist Chinese rule. They earned the label “reluctant exiles” because they were actually unwilling to leave prosperous Hong Kong, but needed to have a foreign passport in case the “one country, two systems” promise by China did not work out. To this cohort of Hong Kong migrants, the countries of destination were treated very much like emergency exits and temporary refuge. Source: Here, There, and Back Again: A New Zealand Case Study of Chinese Circulatory Transmigration

One of us here at Lauda Finem, whilst spending a year in India, came across a New Zealand “Citizen” and migration agent in Mumbai and later in Baroda and Ahmadabad, himself of Indian ethnicity he was selling migration to Australia with a “two year stopover” in New Zealand! Those that were queuing up to grab the $24’ooo deal consisted largely of Indian nationals who had coincidentally failed the Australian DIMA points system but had been sold on the fact that they were a “shoo- in” when it came to gaining entry to New Zealand – say no more, most seemed happy to be put out a little with the required two year Kiwi stop-over.

Interestingly its not just our own personal experience that testifies to this developing unscrupulous trade, there has also been a little academic research that, in so far as migrants of Chinese/SE Asian origin are concerned, supports the existence of this the growing trend. Then of course there is another category of New Zealand citizen who’s arrival in Australia since 1999 has contributed to the growing net outflow from New Zealand which last year peaked at (according to the New Zealand press) at a figure of between 51000 and 53000 depending on who you can trust.

The reality is however a little different. Just as the New Zealand government likes to claim that there are only around 550’000 New Zealander’s living in Australia the real figure is far greater than the New Zealand government is prepared to own up to.

As at 30 June 2012, an estimated 647 863 New Zealand citizens were present in Australia, and that figure does not include New Zealand citizens who have taken up Australian Citizenship, a statistic that we have requested from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. So what has been driving the New Zealand Herald’s bullshit campaign, do they have an agenda? Is it perhaps a political agenda?

Imagine an Australian city the size of  Coffs Harbour or Gladstone disappearing each year. Or Brentwood, California. Or Waterford, Ireland. Each has a population of around 50,000 — about the number of people who leave New Zealand, which has a total population of 4.4 million, every year to settle in Australia. New Zealanders are well used to waving off family as they depart for Australia — brothers, sisters, children, even their parents, these days. Still it came as a shock to many on Monday, May 21, when New Zealand’s government statistician announced the breaking of fresh records in the country’s exodus to Australia: outflows have reached their highest point ever, at 53,500 annually. That is about equal to the population of New Zealand’s 10th largest city, Rotorua. Some 700,000 New Zealanders now live overseas; about 550,000 are in Australia. Source: The Hollowing Out Of New Zealand (The Global Mail)

17/1/2013, Todays NZ Herald Digipoll

The figures reported in the New Zealand media are complete and utter crap. The out-flow of people and more importantly cash reserves that go with that migration are what has the current government and its labour party opposition are in a complete tale-spin-Peaking at what we’ll call first generation New Zealand citizens, migrants who had arrived in New Zealand with the genuine intention of residing permanently in New Zealand who then, as a result of changing circumstances, with time decided to relocate to Australia.

Now its those changing circumstances for first generation New Zealand citizens that we as Australians would like to take a closer look at in light of Kiwi politicians Like Phil “hang on a minute” Goff’s muck racking and bullshit spin doctored racist hyperbole.

Oz exodus: Job vacancies dwindle

Oz exodus: Kiwis struggling without a lifeline across the ditch

Oz exodus: When the dream sours

Oz exodus: Victories against discrimination

Oz exodus: Growing crime linked to poverty

Oz exodus: Flying Kiwis unfazed by lack of welfare across the Ditch

Oz exodus: Residency hard to get

Editorial: Australia’s welfare rules disadvantage both sides

Research (we’ve made it confusing for a reason):

Bedford, R.D. and E.S. Ho (1998). Immigration policy changes in 1998: A comment. New Zealand Population Review 24: 119-134.

Bedford, R.D. and E.S. Ho (2008). Asians in New Zealand: Implications of a Changing Demography. Wellington, NZ: Asia: New Zealand Foundation. Available Online.

Bedford, R.D., E.S. Ho, and J. Lidgard (2002). ‘International migration in New Zealand: Context, components and policy issues’, Journal of Population Research, Issue Special ed. (Sept. 2002): 39-65. Available Online.

Guo, Fei (2001). Return Migration from Overseas and Reversal of Brain Drain in China.Wollongong, Australia: Centre for Asia Pacific Social Transformation Studies. Ho, E.S. (2002). ‘Multi-local residence, transnational networks: Chinese “astronaut” families in New Zealand’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 11(1): 145-164. Huang, S., S. Brenda, and A. Yeoh (2005).

‘Transnational families and their children’s education: China’s “study mothers” in Singapore’, Global Networks, 5(4): 379-400. Available Online.

Hugo, Graeme (2005). ‘The new international migration in Asia’, Asian Population Studies, 1(1): 93-120. Available Online. . (2006).‘An Australian Diaspora?’, International Migration, 44(1): 105-133.Available Online. (2006).

‘Globalization and changes in Australian international migration’, Journal of Population Research, 23(2): 107-134.

 Available Online. Ip, Manying. (2003). Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press. (2006). ‘Returnees and transnationals: Evolving identities of Chinese (PRC) immigrants in New Zealand’, Journal of Population Studies, (33): 62-102. Available Online. (2009). The Dragon & The Taniwha: Maori & Chinese in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press. Iredale, R., F. Guo, and S. Rozaroa (2003). Return Migration in the Asia Pacific Region? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elger. Jones-Correa, M. (2002). ‘The study of transnationalism among the children of immigrants: Where we are and where we should be headed’, in P. Levitt and M.C. Waters (eds.), The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Kivisto, Peter (2002). Multiculturalism in a Global Society. 21st Century Sociology Series. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Levitt, Peggy (2001). ‘Transnational migration: Taking stock and future directions’, Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs, 1(3): 195-216. Available Online. (2002). ‘Variations in transnational belonging: Lessons from Brazil and the Dominican Republic’, in R. Hansen and P. Weil (eds.), Dual Nationality, Social Rights, and Federal Citizenship in the US and Europe: The Reinvention of Citizenship. New York: Berghahn Books. Ley, David (1995). ‘Between Europe and Asia: The case of the missing Sequoias’, Cultural Geographies, 2(2): 185-210. Available Online. Ley, D. and A. Kobayashi (2005). ‘Back to Hong Kong: Return migration or transnational sojourn?’, Global Networks, 5(2): 111-127. Available Online. Li, Peter S. (1994). ‘Unneighbourly houses or unwelcome Chinese: The social construction of race in the battle over “monster homes” in Vancouver’, International Journal of Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies, 1: 47-66. McKinnon, M. (1996). Immigrants and Citizens: New Zealanders and Asian Immigration in Historical Context. Wellington, NZ: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. New Zealand Department of Labour (2009). ‘Migration trends & outlook’, Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Department of Labour. Available Online. Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt (1999). ‘The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2): 217-237.Available Online. Rapson, Virginia (1998). ‘New Zealand’s migration policy: A revolving door?’, People and Place, 6(4): 52-62. Available Online. Salaff, Janet W., Siu-lun Wong, and Arent Greve (2010). Hong Kong Movers and Stayers: Narratives of Family Migration. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Schiller, Nina Glick, Linda Basch, and Blanc Cristina Szanton (1995). ‘From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing transnational migration’, Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1): 48.Available Online. Trlin, Andrew, Anne Henderson, and Regina Pernice (1997). ‘Asian immigration, public attitudes and immigration policy’, in E. Laquian, A. Laquian, and T. McGee (eds.), The Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism in Canada. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia. Waters, J.L. (2002). ‘Flexible families? “Astronaut” households and the experiences of lone mothers in Vancouver, British Columbia’, Social and Cultural Geography, 3(2): 118-134. Available Online. (2005). ‘Trans-national family strategies and education in the contemporary Chinese diaspora’, Global Networks, 5(4): 359-377. Available Online. Yin, Xia-Huang (2007). ‘Diverse and transnational: Chinese (PRC) immigrants in the United States’, Journal of Chinese Overseas, 3: 122-145. Available Online. Zweig, David (2006). ‘Competing for talent: China’s strategies to reverse the brain drain’, International Labour Review, 145: 65-89. Available Online.