Coffee: what does it say about you?
Some body language “experts” have written a book called The You Code, and in it have analysed the following coffee choices, which if nowt else, is worth a laugh on a Sunday:
THE ESPRESSO DRINKER – James and Moore describe the espresso as “the unfiltered cigarette of the coffee drinking world”. Espresso drinkers tend to be moody, hard-bitten and hard working. They are into leadership and fast goals. They don’t suffer fools but are hard living and prone to “night-time shenanigans, followed by a rather louche attempt at day time repair”. The espresso drinker can be an experienced, exciting and consummate lover but is not known for reliability or unswerving loyalty.
THE BLACK COFFEE DRINKER – This type is al about minimalism and takes a no-frills, direct approach to life.
The black coffee drinker can be quiet and moody but prone to brief bursts of extroversion. “A difficult but potentially rewarding friend, colleague or partner,” James and Moore conclude.
THE LATTE DRINKER – Typically metrosexuals or cuddly-toy collectors, latte drinkers are pleasers with an overwhelming compulsion to be liked. A latte drinking boss will use a baby voice to tell you off.
By taking a dark and dangerous drink and turning it into a comforting milky bedtime beverage, James and Moore say, latte drinkers reveal that while they may want to come across as hot shot contenders, they have an immature side.
THE CAPPUCCINO DRINKER – What’s not to like about the extroverted, optimistic cappuccino drinker? Like their drink, cappuccino drinkers are all froth and bubble, bored by detail and liking – but not obsessed with – material objects. “Freud would have a field day here,” write James and Moore. “Cappuccino froth gives the tongue the mother of all workouts and is all to do with the physicality of the experience rather than the basic consumption of the beverage.” The cappuccino drinker enjoys sex but is easily bored by an unimaginative partner.
THE INSTANT COFFEE DRINKER – These are cheerful, straight forward types, who like a laugh and live by the maxim “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. But instant coffee drinkers can be unadventurous in their careers and need to let others see the hidden depths in their personality. The no-nonsense instant coffee drinker is allergic to pretentious behaviour, say James and Moore, and they are likely to keep their socks on during sex.
THE DECAF SOY MILK DRINKER – A self-righteous eco-worrier and attention seeker with a tendency to be picky, fussy – and squeamish in the bedroom. What’s more, this faux choice implies a pretentious, high-maintenance type who wants what they can’t have and is disguising their true personality. “If caffeine gives palpitations and cow’s milk brings you out in spots there’s little hope for you in the cockroach society that is city dwelling”, James and Moore conclude.
THE FRAPPUCINO DRINKER – Flighty and shallow, the frappucino drinker will try anything once – especially if a celebrity has done it first. They fancy themselves trend setters but send out the message that they are someone who favours style over substance. The frappucino drinker’s relationships often last as long as their drink choice, according to James and Moore.
THE NON-COFFEE DRINKER – Unfortunately, the verdict isn’t good. Frightened of coffee equals frightened of life, say James and Moore. If the taste of coffee puts you off you really are a child, they say, and it’s time to join the world of grown ups. But there’s hope. “Twenty one days is all it will take to break your cycle of disgust and then you’ll be back in the real world.”
No mention however of the Flat White – which means they need to get out more, or they dont come from New Zealand. The Flat White is the epitome of New Zealand Coffee, particularly in Wellington. Without it – all business in the city would grind to a halt, the government would collapse, everyone would turn in to zombies, and starting eating each others brains in a desperate attempt to drain the last dregs of caffiene from the poor sod who got in their way.
And then, we would all have to go back to drinking TEA!
It doesn’t even bear thinking about!
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Immigration Advisers Licencing Act: Update 3 Responce from the opposition
At the same time I sent my second letter to the Immigration Minister, I also sent copies of everything to Lianne Dalziel, the Labour MP who first introduced the bill to licence Immigration agents. As she was helping the owners of the Move2NZ forum, and they dont appear to be concerned about anyone else, I thought she might need to know that other people were being affected by this law. Which was a good idea, as she seemed completely unaware that it was affected anyone else.
She had passed on my letters to Pete Hodgson, the opposition spokesmand for immigration who replied:
Hon Lianne Dalziel has passed your letter of November 26th to me for a response, and she and I have discussed the situation you find yourself in.
In short we are both of the view that a law change in not necessary. Rather we are both of the view that Hon Coleman’s reply to oyu of 20th october is far too restrictive and prescriptive, especially toward the end where he offers you the choice of displaying publicly available information, or acquiring a provisional license or of getting a licensed (or exempt) person to contribute.
We beg to differ. In our view the law does not precelude the publicaiton of generic comment, including adverse comment, or generic advice at all. That would, as you point out, be contrary to freedom of speech.
So our advice is to continue with your activities. You could if you wished add a routine disclaimer that your material does not represent immigration advice directed towards an individual.
In the event an official comes ‘knocking at your door’, please let me know and I will engage futher. Be aware however that a law change would inevitably take time, even if it were agreed to. I think what you are dealing with is a new law being bedded in by folk in immigration who are a little more conservative than they are legally entitled to be. I think it is that simple.
SO basically, as far as they are concerned the IAA are overstepping the mark, and abusing thier position: rather than policing Immigration agents, they are enabling them and victimising anyone who isnt a paid agent. As we have said before, this is hardly surprising given that every single member of the advisory board is an immigration agent.
I cant help but be a bit cynical about this though. It seems to me that rather than having the courage to admit openly that they made a mistake, and that the IAA are behaving in a way contrary to that expeceted – they are all going to sit back and wait till someone gets taken to court before they act. And if they think thats a grand idea – then they should be taking a moment to look at the bad publicicty government is getting becuase a Blogger is being forced into court for challenging Name Suppresion Laws.
I also cant help but think that if Labour were in Government, and National in opposition, then Pete Hodgson would be saying “Nothing wrong here!” :
And Jonathan Coleman as opposition leader would be decrying the behaviour of the IAA and be the one telling me to carry on with what I was doing in the first place: publising general advice based on my own experience.
Its kinda hard not to have a certain lack of respect for anyone involved in immigration here at this point.
So – the general concensus of anyone not in the pay of Immigration agents is that the IAA are behaving appallingly, and in a way which they have no right to do, and is against the legislation.
Oddly enough, thats legal advice given by people who are not qualified or licenced to give it.
Which says it all really!
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide: How to Live the Dream Without Breaking The Piggy Bank.
An interesting Immigration report – part 2
Filed under: Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
I blogged last week about the two immigration reports that were published side by side.
The first one was fascinating.
I’ve now read through the second one, Migration Trends & Outlook.
It was nowhere near as interesting as the first. Which is strange.
This second report is the one produced annually, is the major report that the first one uses as a basis, it has more content, more statistics & should be able to discuss trends better – and yet it does not. If anything the ‘trends’ part of the title is highly deceptive, as there is very little analysis or discussion of trends. Let alone any extrapolation of those trends in to the future. So the ‘outlook’ part of the report is also fibbing.
So we’re left with a report on Migration.
Which about fits, since it’s a mainly dry analysis of the statistical facts, with few conclusions drawn. And a lot of repetition. Apart from the odd self-congratulatory back slapping about what a good job INZ is doing. Which is repeated a few times just in case you didn’t get the message the first time round.
So what interesting information can we gleen from this report?
1. The Foreward tells us that 60% of the growth in the working age population from 2001-2006 has been from inward migration.
Which is then set against actual population growth in NZ. Natural population growth (births) is seen as the main driver, although that number is only an estimated figure put at 28,000-35,000 per year – compared with net migration of some 4,500 in recent years. Put a different way around, the spikes in NZ population growth are due to net inward migration, and most of those people (not unsurprisingly) are of working age.
2. The first major piece of spin we come across is in the section on how the impact of the global economic slowdown has been felt on migration to NZ.
In a very ‘we’re better than anyone else in the world‘ manner, it’s pointed out that every other country in the world has had to take action at a policy level to stop the flow of migrants into their country. But since INZ are so good at their job, and the NZ policies work so well, NZ hasn’t had to do that. It’s all labour market driven, and with more Kiwi’s competing for jobs, fewer migrants get those jobs.
Which is exaclty what happens in other countries, you don’t give temporary work visa’s to migrants to do jobs, since the locals are getting those jobs.
Then three pages later they actually say that NZ did make policy changes;
Taking some occupations off of the skills shortage list. Just like the UK, USA, Ireland & others.
They then forget to mention that they [INZ] have made it more difficult to renew temporary permits, just like other countries.
Although it could of course be argued that INZ refusing to renew a permit and people being forced to leave isn’t limiting the possibility to renew a permit, it’s just stopping it dead.
So beyond the spin, INZ is doing a job just as effective as any other country.
Which then leads us neatly into another interesting finding about the number of temporary vs permanent visa’s INZ has been issuing.
3. While some of the numbers vary in the report, and I’ve not quite got my head around why that is, the vast majority of people who were granted residency in the last couple of years previously held another type of temporary permit, such as Student or Work. What this means is that less people currently outside of NZ are being granted residency before they get here. On the latest numbers, look at figure 5.2, 81% of all successful residency applications are lodged within NZ.
Back when we applied you could only get residency with a job offer in hand, and then they relaxed the rules a little, so people got residency without job offers. While that still may be happening, INZ appear to be giving out more temporary visa’s to people, who are then told to come to NZ, try their luck and get a job..
Very Dangerous for the migrant in our opinion!
Because of course if you can’t find something, then tough, and you have to head back to your home country. INZ wrap this up in a nice little bow by saying they are allowing immigrants the ‘opportunity’ to labour market test their skills. i.e. your problem, your risk, that’ll be a temporary visa fee thanks, and another permanent visa fee if you are lucky enough to get a job.
And by the way, aren’t out policies great because they minimise effort required by Govt. to respond to changes.
4. There’s a lot more family members coming in from China. With China being the largest source of Parent/Sibling sponsorship & uncapped family (partners of Kiwi’s) applications. With the high number of Chinese students studying in NZ, I feel the only surprise is that it’s taken this long to notice that a lot of them were bringing their family over. After all, it’s a (relatively) quick and risk free method of migrating the family out of China. Study here for a few years, work part time, you’ve then got a degree & NZ work experience, get your permanent residency and sponsor the family in a few years time. Mum & Dad don’t need skills, or lots of money to invest in a business to get them over here, and the youngling has had a great experience leanring to live away from home in another culture.
All round good for them, and well done on making immigration policies work for them.
5. There’s finally another admission that the main interest with foreign students studying in NZ is the income NZ derives from them. Education, when classed as an export (same as tourism is classed as an export) is now one of NZ’s top five export industries. (Dairy is joint first with Tourism, with Meat & Mineral fuel exports being 3rd & 4th respectively).
Which would explain why anyone can give advice to a foreign student, you don’t have to be a licensed Immigration Adviser to do that - it’s ALWAYS about the money.
6. Figure 3.5 on p25 makes for some interesting study.
Arrivals (i.e. returns) of Kiwi’s to NZ has stayed approx the same, in a 10k band.
Arrivals of non-Kiwi’s has trippled in the same time.
Departures of Kiwi’s has fluctuated a lot, however remains consistently higher than arrivals(returns).
Departures of non-Kiwi’s has remained relatively flat, and it’s only in the last few years that the number has increased, to the point where it’s almost as much as Kiwi’s returning to NZ.
All four numbers taken together give you the view of net migration.
So if you step back from the hullabloo about the percentrage of migrants who don’t stay in NZ, and look at the raw numbers, there’s still a much greater number of Kiwi’s “buggering off” from NZ than non-Kiwi’s. More detail on the source countries for those migrants who are absent is included in Appendix D of the report, and makes for some interesting reading again.
7. By the numbers, China has the highest absent number of 14,868 (25%), while the UK is 2nd with 14,650 (only 16%). By the numbers, that accounts for a third of all the absent migrants. It would be interesting to see what would happen to the NZ economy, job market etc. if all those from the UK or China who were entitled to be here actually returned.
8. table 3.4 provides a year by year view of those absent from NZ. I’m sure I saw a nice chart of this somewhere, but can’t find it now, so we’ll stick with showing you the table.
This shows, the longer you’ve been in NZ, the higher the chance that you’ll leave next year. It is worth noting that those who have come here via a family category, are much more likely to be here in a few years time. Although the numbers don’t say whether the numbers of family sponsored people staying has a link to the original sponsors also staying, it would make sense. I just don’t have the linked numbers to prove it.
9. Figure 6.5 is also curious, more for the information about ‘other’ which is absent.
We look at the settlement regions of migrants to NZ. Auckland accounts for about 44%, with the rest of the country getting the remaining 56%. However, if you add up the numbers, you find that after the top five regions, there’s another 17% of migrants unaccounted for – which would make ‘other’ the 2nd largest settlement region for migrants in NZ. While we don’t have a clear citation for where this graphic comes from, you could probably find out through one of the Longtitudinal studies that StatsNZ carries out. I’ll have a dig around and see what I can find.
So there you go, a slightly less interesting report from Immigration. Chock full of numbers. If only INZ treated all their clients like this, it would be a much more friendly and personable dept. Oh, wait a minute, silly me, they do. We’re all just statistics.
Immigration Advisers Licencing Act: Update 2 Responce from the minister
This is what we got back from Dr Jonathan Coleman:
Dear Helen
Thank you for your letter of 26 November 2009 regarding the Immigration Advisers
Licensing Act 2007 ~the Act) and for setting out your concerns in such detail.
Firstly, I would like to reiterate that people (including both migrants and New
Zealanders) who provide immigration advice for free based on their personal experiences
in a way that is not systematic are not required to have an immigration adviser’s licence.
Indeed, the Act was designed to address the very concerns you have raised. If you do
not provide immigration advice systematically or for a fee, then you are not required to
have a licence, On this basis I do not share your concerns that this Act infringes on a
person’s right to free speech.
(note: In other words the IAA are lying through thier backsides in accordance with what Immigration Agents want by way of threatening people like me to stop giving out information for free).
Alternatively, if a person does wish to provide immigration advice systematically and
provides it on a not-for-profit basis, they may be eligible for not-for-profit status and a
waiver of the immigration adviser’s licence fee and levy. This would mean they could
obtain an immigration adviser’s licence for no cost other than the time taken to prepare
the application. You have noted that you have an outstanding reputation as an
immigration adviser, with 100 percent customer satisfaction. In this case, you are likely
to have good references for applying for an immigration adviser licence. The
Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority) is available to assist you with more
information on how you could use your experience to apply for a hcence.
(I have never said I was an immigration adviser – because Im not and I don’t want to be. I would personally rather boil my head in a vat of acid that join this industry of lying shysters. And the IAA will not assist – I cant even get a letter out of them saying I can apply for free which is the first step in the application process – ive asked three times!)
I do not agree that the Act only protects the interests of licensed immigration advisers.
The Act was developed to protect the recipients of immigration advice, regardless of
whether the advice came from an ‘agent’ or any other person. A person does not have to
be a traditional ‘immigration agent’ to apply for and receive an immigration adviser
licence. This approach was intentional, given the diverse range of people who assist
others with immigration matters and the serious consequences for migrants of unethical
or incompetent advice. it is also the approach taken in other countries such as Australia.
I also note that many professional immigration advisers Increasingly operate their
businesses online. An online forum does not in itself indicate that the advice being given
Is informal.
Actually, the IAA will not take applications from people who are not agents, or will not be working for an agent. Once again, the IAA are not doing what they are supposed to do, and they are using this law to force people to pay for advice from thier members. Also, the IAA says giving advice on forums is OK, the minister does not. When are these people going to sort out thier stories – it looks pathetic!
I acknowledge that with any new piece of legislation there may be unintended
consequences that call for its revIew. I do not intend to review the Act immediately, as
the legislation is still very new and it takes time for new legislation to be widely
understood. However, i am very aware of your concerns and will consider them when
weighing up the need for any future review of the Act.
I also acknowledge your concerns regarding the Authority, including your concerns that it
has not provided adequate guidance on the meaning of the word ‘systematic’. It is the
role of the Authority to administer the Act as it is. It is not, for example, in a position to
redefine the legislation. The Authority is also new and a small organisation with a large
number of statutory functions. The Authority has placed advice on its website regarding
the definition of immigration advice and its staff are available to talk to you if you wish to
seek further clarification,
Except they refuse to clarify – so that pointless, but at least he will bear all this in mind at some future date. Thats progress I guess, and a lot more than the IAA are prepared to do.
You have raised several concerns regarding licensed immigration advisers, There is now
a formal mechanism for addressing such concerns. Any person may complain to the
Authority about a licensed immigration adviser. If you are concerned about the conduct
of a licensed immigration adviser, please make a complaint in writing to the Authority.
So basically, if migrants dont make a formal complaint it aint happening and I dont care about it.
I am unable to comment on whether or not you are providing immigration advice or
whether or not you are exempt. If you do consider that you provide immigration advice
and you do not fall within any of the exemptions, I would encourage you to apply for an
immigration adviser licence. If you wish to speak to someone at the Authority about this
please contact Zeenat Afiz, Team Leader Licensing Assessment, on 09-925 8722 directly.
So, back to square one becuase no-one can be arsed to look at what I have written and say whether it breaks the law or not, and why.
Debate on this issue is healthy and I thank you for your letter.
Yours sincerely
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman
Minister of Immigration
At least this time they actually answered most of the points, rather than fobbing me off with standard propaganda, for which I am very grateful. I just dont get why they are completely unconcerend that the IAA is saying something completely different to them. Dr Coleman says I can give advice because it free, based on my personal experience, and I dont do it “systematically”. The IAA says I cant because I run a blog and therefore it is systematic. I think they need to sit down over a cup of coffee and get thier stories straight – I really do.
So based on this advice, as far as Im concered the IAA have compltely overstepped the mark in trying to shut bloggers up, and the minsiter confirms that I am not breaking the law by giving advice based on my personal experience. If the IAA disagrees – they need to take it up with him, becuase Im done pandering to the needs of a bunch of immigration agents who are still lying to migrants.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Immigration advisers licencing act: Update1
Ok, ok, I am well behind on posting anything about this. But I haven’t actually let the matter drop – it’s just that it’s too depressing. Its just that when you are dealing with politicians – things move slowly. Except when they are putting their expenses in, or they are doing something they want to so, rather than something they should do.
So, back in October, I wrote a second letter to the Immigration Minister Dr Coleman, after doing a whole load more research and reading through all the submissions made prior to the Act becoming law. Most of the submissions were from Immigration agents, who funnily enough were fully in support of an act that stops migrants getting free advice. (Except for the bit where it said they had to fund the entire running of the Immigration Advisors Authority through their fees, rather than using tax payers funds. They Objected to that bit
.)
So, in the end, Dr Coleman received 10 pages of opinion and facts that I had dredged out of the Bill Readings, Submissions, and various hidden corners of the Internet. So you don’t have to read the whole lot (because I’m assuming you have lives), I included the following summary:
Avalon’s Guide: Letter to Dr Coleman: Summary
1. The IALA does not protect immigrants. It makes immigrants criminals and protects only 300 licensed agents. Immigrants now have no choice but to go to these people and pay them money for what they used to be able to get free of charge.
2. Neither myself, nor immigrants like me are setting themselves up as Immigration agents, and we have never ripped people off.
3. The only submissions requesting or mentioning that “informal advice” be made illegal was from people who have a vested interest in preventing immigrants from getting free help from each other i.e. Immigration agents.
4. The IALA was not scrutinised for its effect on Clause 14 of the Bill of Rights. It is clearly removing the right to free speech, and that is unreasonable and unjust in a free and democratic society.
5. No one during the implementation of this bill ever considered the effect it would have on the people of New Zealand and their right to help and support each other.
6. National did not support this bill unconditionally and your MP’s spoke out during all three readings about their reservations. Although the removal of free speech was not highlighted as an issue, this is because the bill was never intended to have this effect.
7. Over 25% of clients of “Licensed” agents are still unhappy with the service they are getting. This is appalling. The survey quoted looked only at people who engaged an Agent, it did not look at free advice off forums or blogs or other immigrants in general.
8. The IAA are not interested in “educating” people. They are hiding behind legal speak, and refusing to clarify the situation for people who ask.
9. I do not write regularly about the immigration process. There is a huge difference between what I do and what immigration agents do. There needs to be a legal way for people like me to be able to pass on our experience and help people understand the information provided by INZ. The information from INZ is often confusing and unhelpful – and even their own staff don’t understand it half the time.
10. The IAA is discriminating and victimising bloggers and Forum owners by now saying that people can post on forums giving advice, while still maintaining it is illegal for people like me to do the same thing. It contravenes the IALA, and is an abuse of the law and of the power given to the IAA. I am being victimised for speaking out.
11. I was the first person to publish the INZ complaint process. Not one agent has ever done it – or even appeared to know it existed. They are the people who have been failing to help migrants make complaints about INZ – and yet they can continue charging huge sums for their “help” and I can’t even pass that on for free anymore. Because of my actions – the complaint process is now available on the INZ website.
12. The provisional licence is for people wanting to enter the industry as an agent. It is not suitable for people like me who simply want to write a blog, express our opinions and help people for free.
13. Migrants are still being ripped off by licensed agents who are double charging, getting the wrong visas, making guarantees of success and not declaring a conflict of interest. And that’s just one Licensed Agent on one application!
14. An immigration agent has made illegal overtures to supervise my work. He works for 3 licensed agents, one of which is on the Advisers reference group. He feels he is above the law because the IAA “knows him”.
15. The IALA means that immigrants are the only people in New Zealand forced to pay for “advice” which is free for everyone else.
16. The IALA makes no sense because it has been written about “advice” and “advisers”, not about agents. This is in complete contrast to Real Estate Agents who need to be licensed to sell real estate, while allowing New Zealanders to continue to talk and give advice about Real Estate.
17. The IALA was never intended to have this effect on free speech and the criminalising of New Zealanders. It is a mistake, and it must be rectified if we are to continue to live in a free society and be proud of that.
If anyone really wants to see the whole letter, then email me and I will send a copy: admin@avalonsguide.com
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
How to get your case against INZ heard.
Don’t bother going through all the rigmarole of an official complaint the way we did. You will get treated like crap and ignored anyway. Instead – try what Rhonda Aylward did, and confront the Prime Minister at the Waitangi Day celebrations with your ex-immigration-minister -“Licenced Advisor” who somehow managed to get a license despite running a scam of his own in the past involving $1,000,000,000, a Chinese “business partner” and 10 investor residency applications using the same $1,000,000,000.
Hmmmm.
So – the details we do know about what is going on (sourced from various newspaper articles, videos and a forum post on MovetoNZ by Rhonda herself. Unfortunately, the early newspaper articles are no longer available online):
§ 11.9.07 Press Release from the National Party
o Immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith says the system should show more common sense.
o Points out that Rhonda had a skilled job and was contributing
o Points out that the aged care sector was crying out for caregivers while government took the job off the skilled list.
o The Daily news had publicized Rhonda’s case when her job as a rest home caregiver was no longer accepted as suitable for PR
o Her File ended up with the then Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove
o He overturned a decision by NZIS and granted a 12 month work permit to work as a caregiver
o Willow was granted a 12 month student permit to allow her to go to school.
o The permits were fast racked and the fees waived.
o The NZIS decision would have meant that Rhonda had to leave her Kiwi son Cail behind because his Kiwi father would not let her take him out of the country.
o Rhonda believed that media coverage of the case forced the ministers hand
o Rhonda’s sister Roxanne Nolte was sponsoring her for residency.
o Roxanne had only been resident at this point for 2 ½ years so had another 6 months to go before able to legally sponsor Rhonda.
o In 2004 Rhonda successfully stopped Willow’s father forcing his daughter to be returned to South Africa. Willows father now lives in the UK.
· 14.9.07 Rhonda writes on MovetoNZ
o Rhonda and Willow given 12 month permits
· 8.6.09 Letter from minster says “” I have carefully considered your submissions and I am not prepared to intervene. The previous associate minister advised you to provide certain information to Immigration New Zealand by 24 February 2009, yet you have not done so. I do not believe that an extension is warranted.”
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ Rhonda says the extra info was the medical certificate.
o Medical was booked for 15th Feb
o 12th Feb. her mother in Invercargill has heart attack
o Rhonda uses the money saved for the medical to visit her mother
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ NZ Rhonda also says:
o NZIS have said she does not meet PR criteria because she split with her husband
o She has to leave on 23
o .10.09 with her SA daughter (7 years)and leave her NZ son (5yrs) behind
o Herself and Willow are the only members of her family who do not have NZ residency
o She would have to sign over custody of her children to her mother to allow Willow to stay
o She was granted a 12 month work permit with a view to getting PR, and has since has a 6 month permit which expires on 2.5.09
o Her grandmother, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt cousins and other family all have NZ residency.
o She was currently working as a cleaner at Taranaki hospital, after a work accident left her unable to work as a caregiver.
o NZIS gave her an open work permit for 6 months to allow for the change in occupation while she was applying for PR.
o On the 20th April she contacted her local MP Chester Burrows
o He passed her on to Viv Chapman who said it was highly unlikely she would get pr because:
§ The economic climate meant Kiwis should do the job
§ She couldn’t support herself as evidence by not being able to afford the medical
§ Her work/ financial situation had not improved
o She is in Paid employment and that just because she cannot pay a lump sum of hundreds of dollars this does not mean she cannot support her family.
o It is highly unlikely that she will get an extension past 2.5.09 (this was written on 16.6.09)
o Her sons father (A kiwi citizen) is still adamant that Cail must stay in New Zealand.
o She believes that NZIS have bought her silence for 18 months with the extensions.
· 22.10.09 Video Clip from Taranaki Daily News
o Fight for residency began in June 2007
o Visa was extended 3 months later (9/07) after minister intervened
o In February 2008 she was told she did not meet criteria for residency as she didn’t earn enough
o Appeal to the minister ended with a another reprieve till 23.10.09 which is when her work permit expired
o On 23.10.09 Rhonda had 42 days to leave or appeal – but she intended to do neither of those things.
o Rhonda says that she has now being diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder which her psychiatric doctor says is brought on by immigration constantly giving hope and then declines.
o Says that every time she is declined a different reason is given
§ She doesn’t earn enough money
§ Her sponsor (sister) doesn’t earn enough money
§ No proof that Willow can live with her
· Apparently she now has a letter of support from Willows father.
· 8.2.2010 Taranaki Daily News says
o Rhonda at Waitangi on Friday to confront PM
o Organized by licensed advisor (ex minister) Tuariki Delamere
o He is told that case with be looked at by PM
o By Sunday, Rhonda still waiting for confirmation of this.
o Rhonda has been fighting for residency since 2006
o Temporary work permit issued in October will run out on 10.2.10
o She then has 42 days to leave the country or become an overstayer.
o Rhonda says she is not leaving.
So, for me, there’s an awful lot about this case that does not make sense. In fairness, there’s actually a huge amount of information missing, and it would be highly unlikely to be reported unless it gets to the Residence Review Board, where you can get what amounts to a blow by blow account of the processing of an application.
So – here’s what we don’t get:
§ Why did Rhonda not ask for an extension to do the medicals?
§ Did she ask for an extension and it wasn’t granted?
o You simply cannot put in an application for residency without one, so at the moment she doesn’t actually appear to have applied for residency.
§ Why did her family not help out with the medical costs?
o If you are sponsoring someone you have to agree to support the applicant for 2 years.
o So why can’t the sponsor support her in this?
o And with so many family here, why are they not helping to fund the $300-$400 it costs to get a medical in New Zealand?
§ Why wasn’t an appeal made in October 09 when she was given 42 days to do so.
o Her refusal to do this makes no sense to me. I get that it is highly frustrating to have to go through these processes, but refusing point blank to work through the process does not really get much sympathy.
§ How can New Zealand force a mother to leave one of her children behind, and force a 5 year old kiwi child to live without his mother?
§ Have NIZ actually done as much as they can to help Rhonda, and has Rhonda done everything she can to help herself?
o I know exactly how hard it is to jump through the hoops, but you just have to do it.
o You cannot decide not to put in applications or medicals and then hope that someone takes pity on you.
o That is brutally unfair to the rest of us who also have to fight for years to get our families into the country.
§ Has this even gone to the residence review board?
o The RRB has the authority to overturn NZIS decisions f there are special circumstances.
o As far as I am aware, they can instruct INZ to take into account these circumstances (such as having a child that you would be forced to leave behind) if you do not meet the normal criteria.
§ What does the boy’s father think of all this?
o Does he support Rhonda in staying here?
o I can’t help but wonder why no one is focusing on the fact that if she left and took his son – he would lose all access to his son too and Cail would never see his father.
I’m mixed on this. On the one hand – I cannot see how any civilized country can force a mother to leave her child behind. In New Zealand child pornographers can have their identities hidden forever to “protect the child” and yet – this mother is not allowed to stay in New Zealand, even if she doesn’t fit the bill as a suitable migrant – to protect her child. There is something very wrong with that.
On the other hand, if the reports are correct (and I stress IF – because there’s a lot missing here), Rhonda doesn’t actually seem to have done that much to help her own situation, other than play on the fact that she would lose her son. I do not understand why applications and medicals are not getting done, and appeals are not being lodged through the RRB when you have the right to do so.
I can’t help but feel a little out of sorts with this – and I feel awful for feeling that way. But we too have had to fight our way through the nightmare processes, and we have had to do so by jumping through every hoop NZIS have forced us to jump. Every step of the way we have worked with the process, and I sometimes wonder if we would have been better off just going to the papers too and embarrassing the country into letting my family in, without all the expense of dozens of unnecessary medical tests (at UK Prices), repeat Applications fees, and being treated like garbage by the establishment.
It’s certainly something to think about.
I wish Rhonda and her children the best of luck. This is a horrid situation to be in, and I hope she manages to get it resolved, and I do hope she gets to stay with her Children, in New Zealand, so that Cail will be able to know his father as well.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
25,000 guests? – Of course, come right this way.
Martinborough had its twice annual Rotary fair last weekend, and for the first time in a while the Wairarapa delivered decent weather. So rather than donning galoshers and a storm coat, we headed out in shorts, t-shirt & a lather of sun block.
The first time we went was exciting and an early start – a two hour drive from Wellington to get there before many of the crowds, so that we could get a BBQ’d steak sandwich breakfast and not have to park in Featherston.
We have a slightly more relaxed approach to the fair these days. It’s still a special breakfast at home in the morning, but now only a 15 minute drive to our side of town. You can tell there’s something special happening in Martinborough, on account of seeing more than three other vehicles on the road as you drive there.
Still I get the impression the fair is unofficially starting earlier & earlier each year. I was over hearing someone in a café during the week say they intended to be there by 7:00am, and be all done before 8:30am so they could go home and have breakfast. If it gets any earlier, they’ll have to turn it into a Christmas fair. By 2pm some stall holders were packing up. While that’s not a surprise from the food stalls who have run out of stuff to cook or sell, it was a surprise for other stalls. You might have thought they had something more important to get to, like the rugby sevens back in Wellington.
The fair is less crowded of an afternoon. It’s hot, it’s dry, the pub beckons, as does the beach, the wineries, the ice cream stall or anywhere with air conditioning really. So it’s easier wandering around all the stalls in the afternoon. You can tell some of the stall holders are wilting a little though, as you politely cough and they wake up from an afternoon nap in the deckchairs. Which is perfectly fine, since by the time we get home, it’s either time for a nap ourselves, or a dive in the pool to cool off. All told it took about three hours to work our way round everything. I tend to walk around the event in circles (well, squares actually), since the whole town centre is symmetrical and I just can’t get my sense of direction stable. Circles is less confusing.
There’s normally something new to discover, so this years hot tips are;
‘home made’ fudge (looking identical & in identical packaging, so I don’t know whose home it came from!) is out. Only three stalls selling it this year instead of the 50 there seemed to be last year.
Hats are still in – of course. But then I’m of the ‘I have a hat and one head, how many more hats do I need?’ school of thought.
The BNZ bank has really good air conditioning – although they’re only open until lunch time for you to get cash out.
The (small) supermarket doesn’t jack up its prices because it’s fair weekend. Unlike many of the cafés who charge an extra 15% – 20%. Still, given that it was Waitangi day and Bank Holiday surcharges apply I don’t think they won quite so much this year.
We’ll be back next weekend, time to sample some new local wines in the village winery. We’ll park in the square, take all of ten minutes to visit every open shop, and just appreciate how nice it can be to wander round Martinborough on it’s usual tranquil day.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Only in New Zealand: The Prime Minister auctions a doodle.
To cut a long and very complex story short – the Flag of New Zealand is always a topic of argument and occasional news, because it contains a Union Jack and some people hate to be reminded of a colonial past. So John Key, our Prime Minister went on Breakfast TV this morning and doodled his preferred alternative. Its supposed to be a Silver Fern by the way: 
And it is now being auctioned on Trade Me to raise money for charity.
How cool is that?
Can you imagine Gordon Brown doing that?
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
The life and times of a Swimming Pool
Pools- lovely to look, but you have to clean them if you want to use them. Not that we have used ours this year yet – because the summer has been a very long way away.
This is how it starts off at the end of winter. The water is slightly green, murky and full of leaves (even with a pool cover you can’t quite stop all the leaves getting in).
So the first step is to dump some Chlorine in to get rid of the green murk.
But this still has crud in the bottom – so a bot of hoovering, filtering and backwashing is in order:
And then you end up with a clean sparkly pool all ready to play in:
With water the most stunning colour in the sunlight:
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Well I never: An interesting Immigration report
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Hubby's Views, Life in New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
So fair play, reading through the two reports from Dept. of Labour has actually been interesting. Well written, with conclusions and recommendations, not just dry statistical facts.
Something interesting from INZ/DoL for a change. Whatever next, Winston Peter’s as Immigration Minister? - Well stranger things have happened!
Seriously, the two reports;
International Migration Outlook & Migration Trends & Outlook sound similar – and to be honest there really isnt much difference (but hey – its waste some extra tax money writing 2 reports instead of one.)
Both are well written, and for a change have dozens of citations. So you can actually check where they are getting some of their facts from, and that they aren’t lying through their teeth. I was pleasantly surprised to find most of the cited reports are publicly available too. So you can read & draw your own conclusions.
Anyhow, interesting things/facts/observations from the IMO;
23% of NZ’s resident population as of June 2009 were not born here – and that number has been going up. Here’s a table showing where that 23% came from;
If you look at the ‘working age population’ that 23% turns into 25%.
This means that more migrants are staying in NZ longer, it’s now only 24 leavers for every 100 new migrants during the 2001-2006 period. Which, as we’ve mentioned earlier, is actually showing more loyalty to their new home than the 40%-ish of Kiwi’s who leave.
The employment numbers are a little worrying;
Unemployment rates for immigrants are about 3% above the national average. Perhaps not surprising with plenty of migrants coming in as Skilled Migrants or on Work To Residence without job offers.
New migrants are paid $10k-$15k less than their previously resident Kiwi colleagues.For performing comparable work
And it ‘only’ takes 15 years for that gap to close! 
15 years! OMG, you gotta be kidding? Come to NZ, take a huge pay cut, and if you’re lucky, you’ll earn the same as your colleague in a mere 15 years. humpfhh.
Still this may have something to do with another finding. That there was no evidence from another Dept. of Labour report that migrants were choosing to settle in an area which had higher than national average salaries, or lower than national average unemployment. i.e. new migrants weren’t actually picking the geographical area’s with fewer people having the in demand skills. hmm, perhaps we were just a little strange that way. We came to Wellington because the pay is better and its where the demand is – mostly because its where the government is. Most migrants still gravitate to Auckland, where the wages are lower and house prices are higher. Take note!
Wowing an potential employer at interview is going to do you a lot better than hoping that ‘averages’ will mean you get a better salary. Clearly some of this report points to studies showing that isn’t the case and you’ll get less than the average of your new Kiwi colleagues.
Time to brush up the interview skills.
Of course if you bring kids over with you when you migrate, then they don’t have to work to close that 15 year gap. The study showed that 18 year olds entering the work place faced no discrimination over salary whether they were Kiwi born & bred, or had arrived the day before their 18th birthday. So that’s reassuring.
There is also a (brief) section on the economic impacts of immigration. Only based on one study mind you. Basically, immigrants are good for the economy. In ‘productive’ terms;
- Migrants bring cash which they spend (really?! – you don’t say),
- Pay more in taxes to Govt. than they draw in benefits (shock horror, migrants aren’t here to sponge off the state!)
- Migrants reduce production costs (read as: are forced to accept lower wages)
- Improve the competitiveness of NZ goods & Services, which helps exports. (same as above really)
So I’m not so sure that this study really does justice to the ‘immigrant’ contribution to the NZ economy. I wonder if they actually asked migrants what their ‘contribution’ was?
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
