Was John Banks licenced to give immigration advice to Kim “Dotcom” Shmitz?
A little gem amongst all the stuff written about Kim Shmitz (I just cant bring myself to use his ludicrous fake name), is an article about the Ex Mayor of Auckland, John Banks. Now, John Banks is currently an MP for the ACT party, famous for having a cup of tea with the PM, and being the Ex Mayor of Auckland.
While still the mayor, it seems that Mr MegaUpload paid for $500,000 worth of fireworks for the City of Auckland, and John Banks met him regarding this.
The interesting thing is a quote from Mr Banks:
“To the best of my knowledge I gave him some advice about applying for residency.
Which is illegal under the Immigration Advisers Licencing Act, unless you are exempt, or a licenced adviser.
As an MP, Mr Banks is currently exempt from needing to be licenced.
As the Mayor of Auckland, he was not.
Of course, the IAA cannot and will not do anything about it unless someone makes a formal complaint to them. Which really hacks me off.
On a similar point, New Zealand First and Labour are hassling the government on “who knew what” about how this guy got through immigration with a criminal past. Labour is conveniently forgetting that they were in charge when Michael Barrymore was let into New Zealand, and neither is asking questions about the medical issue and whether Immigration sent his medical tests to the Medical Assessors.
Which shows a marked lack of knowledge about the Immigration Process.
INZ incompetance or just plain old bribery?
This weekend the papers all over the world are full of the news that the bosses of MegaUpload have been arrested in New Zealand. MegaUpload is apparently a hub for filesharing pirated tv/movies. Which clearly is highly illegal and should be stomped on forthwith.
Kim “Dotcom” (what a bloody pretentious name), was arrested. He’s German, but has New Zealand Residency.
Now most of the news is about his nefarious dealing in the world of illegal Internet downloads, and his mega luxury lifestyle.
What I want to concentrate on is the Immigration side of this.
Because Kim “I need a silly name” Shmitz, was refused a residency visa on the grounds that he failed the good character test. Now the information in the news is a bit sketchy on this point, but quoting directly from the Dom Post At the weekend:
“his New Zealand residency initially failed the “good character” test, but was granted after he invested $10 million in government bonds”.
Any one else think heads should be rolling at INZ???? Winston Peters MP does and is asking pointed questions of the government. Which I think he needs to do. INZ hound people to breaking point over good character and health issues. Apart from the fact that this guy did have convictions for Internet Piracy and insider trading, he seems also to be way too overweight to have ever passed the BMI 35 or under test. Was he even refered to the Medical Assesors?
BMI <35? Hmmmm.
Amazing just what $10,000,000 can buy you in New Zealand if you know who to pay it to.
A quote from INZ says:
In a statement, the Immigration Service said that “Mr Dotcom made full disclosure of his previous convictions and they were taken into account in the granting of his residence. The Immigration Act allows for discretion to be exercised in certain cases. In this particular case, Immigration NZ weighed the character issue and any associated risk to New Zealand against potential benefits to New Zealand”.
I.e. we don’t actually care if your health is a cost to New Zealand and we don’t actually care if you are a criminal mastermind, as long as you give the NZ government $10,000,000 we will let you in, no problem. On the other hand, if you are a “normal” human being, with a career you have worked hard at, a family you love, and you happen to be a bit over weight – then “Bugger off because you are a danger to New Zealand and our wonderful country has to be protected from you and your filth ever costing us a cent.”
Now interestingly, in one article about this reported some questions put to John Key (Prime Minister), he is quoted as saying that INZ made this decision to accept his good character without reference to the Immigration Minister. Which means they were even slightly concerned. Which also means that they need to take full responsibility for their decision. Bet they won’t.
Another question is: does the New Zealand Government have to return the $10,000,000 in bribes investment funds as they are likely the result of “ill gotten gains”? Will those assests be frozen? Are they part of the MPAA FBI case?
Sometimes, even with my own personal animosity towards Immigration New Zealand taken into account, they manage to sicken me with their ability to make decisions based on how rich you are and ignore how you got the money.
Immigration Updates.
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Immigration Advisers, NZIS & Immigration issues
There’s actually been quite a lot happening on the immigration front here – I’e just been too lazy (and too depressed by it all) to blog about it. So Instead of writing an stream of rather sad and depressing posts – I decided to do it in one short sharp shock, and write an update instead.
1/ Immigration New Zealand being idiotic over relationship statuses.
It’s an annoyance that never seems to go away – but another couple are being harassed my INZ over the fact that INZ don’t believe their relationship is real. They have a baby together, and they are in fact married – but that is not enough for the bean counters and paper shufflers at INZ.
Despite him being married and with a child on the way, Immigration NZ visa services manager Jan Clark said proof of a shared home, finances, belongings and household chores were required to prove they were a genuine couple.
Marriage certificate and – dare I say it – an advanced pregnancy – isn’t enough???? A few years ago, I came across a poster on a forum who had to go through this farce despite being married for 40 years. Before joint bank accounts were common. At the end of the day lack of knowledge on the part of immigration staff does not constitute a lack of relationship on an immigrants part. So this isn’t a one-off situation.
Joint Bank Accounts and bills. It’s a necessity if you don’t want to have to deal with this kind of crap.
2/ More Kiwi’s employ slave immigrant labour.
This it has to be said, affects mostly ethnic minority or pacific islander immigrants, who seem to be less confident and knowledgeable about their rights and the law. That is not to say that western immigrants don’t get similar treatment, but it tends to be of a lesser scale (paid considerably less, conned into taking 2 year work visa positions and forced to do a job that differs markedly from that applied for or you lose your visa- that sort of thing).
In this case – a Wellington “businesswoman” – whose identity is protected by name suppression laws, employed 2 Fijians, did not pay them the minimum wage, and did not pay them holiday pay. She also employed them illegally while they were here on visitors visas.
3/ Immigration Adviser holds on to a passport for over a year.
This is a bit of an odd one, as I can’t find the adviser listed at the IAA, even under past licence holders. So hopefully this guy, Piliki Talanoa, will be prosecuted under the Immigration Advisers Licencing Act. His client, a hairdresser by trade, gave him the passport last September in order to get a work visa renewal. The agent apparetly closed his office down last month, at which point the police managed to get the passport back.
Mr Talanoa says Mr Cohen changed his mind about which category visa he wanted to apply for and that caused the delay, a claim Mr Cohen strongly denies.
A hairdresser by trade, Mr Cohen says he’s pleased to have his passport back and hopes to have a new work permit approved by Immigration New Zealand. But the delays have cost him the chance to apply for residency, he says.
“I have to apply for a work permit from the beginning.”
His advice to other people seeking work permits is to deal directly with Immigration New Zealand.
Mr Talanoa wouldn’t discuss why he abandoned his former office in Otahuhu so suddenly.
But property manager Johan Ackerman says Mr Talanoa had already left the property when the owners showed up to evict him.
Hmmm, there’s a story there – including why he doesn’t appear to have ever held an Immigration Advisers licence. Of course the IAA has no authority to read this article and act on its contents unless someone makes a complaint. The police haven’t charged Mr Talanoa with anything. Question is: why not?
4/ A good news story – 102 year old bypasses the system.
I say good news – as it undoubtedly is for the lady who has been given a 3 year visitor visa instead of the normal 6 months, and for her daughter. It’s not so good though for the hundreds if not thousands of people who refused help or consideration from the Immigration Ministry. So on the one hand I am chuffed to bits about this one, on the other hand it annoys me considerably.
The details are that Louise Sydes UK rest home was being closed, and rather than be relocated, she wanted to move to be with her daughter in Auckland. They contacted the Immigration Minsiter’s office and appear to have just asked them to let her stay. Ive read 2 articles about this – neither of them mention anything about going via Immigration New Zealand, or applying for residency via the family stream, or indeed having to pass the stringent medical tests.
Speaking from New Zealand her daughter Sue Pearson said she was ‘excited’.
She said: ‘Usually family members are only allowed to come for six months but we wrote to the minister of immigration who granted us permission for her to come and live with us.
Given the desperate needs of some people I have come across to get a visa to live in New Zealand, and the crap they have to go through to get it – IF they get it (often they don’t)- I cant help but be a little angry about this. It does kinda make a mockery out of the pain of other families who are refused the right to live together.
5/ Another Indian family facing deportation.
Pooja Kapila, whose husband Satinder is in Waikeria Prison awaiting deportation, was so desperate to avoid what she says is the death sentence of being returned to the slums of the Punjab that she refused to sign the documents presented to her at their Te Puke home on October 21.
They have been living here in New Zealand for 10 years. They have three children, one of them is a New Zealand citizen by birth, having been born here just one year after they arrived. This was before the loophole allowing this to happen was closed. Now I’m probably going to come over as heartless and cold on this – but I really think in case like this we cannot keep holding INZ to blame. Often from reading these kinds of articles, I find I end up making a judgement (based on very little information) about whether I feel the families should be allowed to stay or not. I really cant work out why in other cases I feel compassion, but in this one I don’t. Perhaps it’s because the third child was born so soon after arriving, perhaps it’s because after 10 years of living in New Zealand Mrs Kapila needs an interpreter. Perhaps it’s because once again “celebrity” Immigration Adviser Tuariki Delamere is involved.
As is often the case with these articles – they are full of emotion, and short on facts. As is also often the case, the comments with the article are somewhat enlightening.
What on earth are Immigration New Zealand up to?
It has been a bit of an odd time lately with Immigration News, and it is a bit hard to fathom the thinking behind some of the decisions being made. Now that isn’t to say that INZ are necessarily making the wrong decisions – but some of them seem a little barmy to be honest. So here are some of the recent stories, make of them what you will!
1. Carers on work visas being sent home.
I blogged about this a while back, but essentially, immigrants on work visas in the Christchurch area are being sent packing to allow more work to be available for Kiwis out of jobs because of the earthquakes. Now on the face of it hat sounds good – Immigration policy is meant to plug holes, and temporary work visas are meant to be just that – temporary- so that immigration can be flexible and allow for Kiwi workers to take jobs first.
This is really only a problem if, as reported, Kiwis are not taking those jobs: unemployment in the area stays high, and there aren’t enough staff to act as carers for the elderly.
2. But Work Visas are being extended for immigrants so they can stay and work during the Rugby World Cup.
Ok, I’m not a rugby fan at the best of times, but I am heartily sick of the country being turned upside down so that we appear to be polished and sparkling for the influx of visitors – because the heavens forfend that we look like we are a low wage economy that cant afford first class facilities!
But when Immigration Policy is being stretched or outright ignored, and kiwis would actually like and be willing to take those jobs – which they now cant because immigrants have them – well – that kinda stinks. This is not the purpose of Immigration Policy.
I think it also speaks volumes that Immigration will stretch the policy for Rugby, but not for elderly people in need of carers. Just shameful.
3.Immigration released a statement about Martin Payne.
Now, in the 6 years I have been writing about immigration on forums or blogs, I have never actually seen immigration respond to criticism in the press with a statement like this. I can only put it down to the sheer amount of backlash from Kiwis furious that a hard worker gets kicked out while others they deem to be “the usual bludgers” get to stay. Either than or they do indeed release statements and I have never noticed them of course.
The statement can be found here, and is well worth a read. The interesting thing is that in reading it, and the quoted Residence Review Board case, I personally felt that INZ had a point in as much as the latest Medical Assessor actually listed 10 reasons why Mr Payne did not have an acceptable standard of health. Compare that my Dad’s case where all the assessor could come with is “get more tests” – it actually looks like this guy had some nouse about him.
That’s not to say the system is fair. I would contend that INZ new full well when granting Mr Payne his business visa that we would not likely pass the test when it came to converting from a LTBV to residence, and let him in anyway – cos its all about the money!
The offensive bit is the RRB’s contention that in sending the Paynes back to the UK:
[58] The Board accepts there would be emotional harm, and possibly also
financial loss, but there is no reason to believe they would be serious. The couple
can, as the representative says, sell both the business and their house. As the
appellant has built the business up, it should sell for more than its cost, though
whether they would recoup all capital invested, the Board cannot know. Even so,
they arrived with substantial capital and will return with reasonable and perhaps
even substantial capital.
what a load of crock! They came here when exchange rates were pretty ropey anyway, and the world wasn’t in financial turmoil. I would like to see the RRB members cope with being forced to sell up and shift round the world. The only thing in the Payne’s Favour is that the exchange rate going back to the UK works in their favour this time. As long as the reduction in property values here don’t offset that. Still – I think it takes a certain amount of heartlessness to make a comment like this. Of course the emotional harm is serious!
Besides – when will INZ and the NZ Government make some serious change to this ridiculous $25,000 limit on health care costs? They really need to get a grip!
4. Immigration has backtracked on the carers in Christchurch.
National MP Nicky Wagner organised a meeting between Immigration New Zealand staff, rest-home providers and caregivers in Christchurch last week.
INZ head Nigel Bickle said Christchurch staff used the meeting to ensure employers understood immigration requirements and made genuine attempts to find New Zealand citizens or residents to fill vacancies.
He said labour market advice after the quake showed there were about 600 vacancies at rest-homes. About half of them were caregivers, which meant new work visas could not be issued because there were New Zealanders available to do the jobs.
“The labour market situation has since changed, and from early May, Work and Income has advised that there are no longer New Zealanders available,” Bickle said.
You notice that there is no admission whatsoever that they may just have screwed up a tiny little bit?
5. Immigration backtracked on Martyn Payne’s Visa
However, in the decision released today, Mr Bickle said new information presented to them has shed light on the case, and Mr Payne has since been granted an eight-month visa to stay in the country and work. He will also get up-to-date health assessments from New Zealand specialists and from there will be able to apply for residence.
“There are still concerns about Mr Payne’s health but we’ve taken into account all the circumstances,” Mr Bickle says.
He says Mr Payne’s case has highlighted how difficult it can be to make decisions around cases that do not meet health requirements.
“The decision to grant Mr Payne a new visa today gives him time to get all the information required for a new residence application and return to running his service station in Northland,” he said.
So, he gets anther crack at the whip, and a chance to present more medical information. My only question is – what if the medical information shows the issue is still getting worse? (Which is INZ’s contention). This is still no guarantee of a residence visa – but I personally suspect that one will be granted – this is just INZ trying to save face.
I also think what this case highlights is not the difficulty of making decisions around health cases – I feel it highlights the utter uselessness of the health policy! $25,000 is nothing in medical terms these days. It’s also nothing compared to the benefit the migrant brings. It also shows that the Medical Waiver is usually a waste of time – I have so rarely read of cases where they were granted – and the reason given is usually the reason that residence was originally turned down. It is supposed to look at other factors.
So all in all – I can’t say INZ are doing very well right now. Odd that.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Invest $700,000 in a New Zealand business and get kicked out anyway.
Martyn Payne did exactly that, and it seems that no one can really understand what the hell Immigration New Zealand and the Minister office are thinking in deporting a family that invested that kind of money here and built a thriving business out of one that was run down and going nowhere. Martyn and his family looks to have done everything right – bring money, buy a business, turn it around, and employ Kiwis.
So what did he do wrong? Well, Martyn it seems had the bad luck to have a heart problem, which is cleared up and has been checked by specialists and Okayed.
A medical examination six years ago revealed Mr Payne had a heart issue. Immigration believes he might require healthcare in the future, and it’s not prepared to pay, so Mr Payne is being deported.
He had an operation in England and passed the test.
“The operation was a success – I got a letter from the specialist saying I was fully recovered,” Mr Payne said.
But four years later the Department of Immigration requested another medical
“They asked me to have another test. I had a fibrillation, which means the heart beat is irregular, which means I have to have a jump start.”
He disagreed with the findings, and went to a doctor who specialises in heart disease. Dr Brendon Wong said although Mr Payne has a dilated impaired heart muscle, he is coping well.
Mr Payne says he’s prepared to pay for follow-up tests, but there is no evidence he will need heart surgery in the future
But as we know personally – sometimes no matter what you can prove – INZ will not listen and will not accept that proof. And to be honest – who the hell cares if he has a heart problem and may at some point in the future cost NZ a bit of money in healthcare costs - he invested $700,000 sodding dollars in your cournty which you were perfectly happy to take. He’s built up a business that pays taxes, employs kiwis that pay taxes, has a family which works and pays taxes.
There is no sense in this decision. None. The concept of Fairness and Natural Justice just got crapped on here I feel.
Unfortunately Mr Payne had a Business Visa, not a residency Visa, and while he seems to have got through the medical process first time round, INZ just wouldn’t let him through the second time round. But I personally know of people who have got residency in New Zealand after having major heart issues – so it’s not the policy that forced this issue. It’s individuals who have decided that despite all Mr Payne and his family have given to NZ – and what the medical tests show - what he may cost them at some undetermined point in the future is vastly more improtant. It’s not clear from any of the articles whether he was applying for residency, or was looking to get a further business visa. Either way, INZ and Kate Wilkinson (Associate Immigration Minsiter) have ended up looking cruel, stupid and selfish.
I also think its about bloody time that INZ looked long and hard at the doctors it employs to do the mediacl assesments – because some of them are idiots. If all the evidence Mr Payne has provided says he’s fine, and the only people saying he isn’t are the INZ Medical Assesors – then INZ should be sacking those doctors, not deporting someone that has evidence that he is in good health.
I wish Martyn and his family the very best, and hope one day they find a way to beat this and stick 2 fingers up to INZ for the sheer absurdity of all this. I really feel for them – this is exactly what we went through with my Dad – prove, prove and prove again that hos health was acceptable and meet an arrogant and ignorant brick wall of INZ staffers.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Meeting with IAA – What is immigration advice?
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, Immigration Advisers, NZIS & Immigration issues
So to recap – my issue with the IALA is that the way it is written means that immigrants are the only section of the New Zealand public who are not allowed to give each other advice. Talking to Mr Smedts, the issue still revolves around whether the advice you give is “informal” or “Formal” and my own person piece of irritating claptrap “systematic” or “not Systematic”. Since nearly two years down the line, no one can actually tell me what those two things mean – we are still basically nowhere further on than when I first discovered that the IALA didn’t actually do what it was supposed to do.
As far as I am concerned, any advice I do happen to give to people is always informal and is in no way systematic and is therefore not covered by this law. I have never been an Immigration agent, am not an immigration agent and never want to be an immigration agent. I still find it quite offensive that this law essentially says that immigrants are too stupid to know that the advice they are given on forums or by people they meet on their journey is not being given by someone who works in the industry. (I would say who is not qualified to give the advise – but as yet no immigration agent is actually qualified – though that will change in the future).
Mr Smedts was surprised to hear from me that his staff have already told me, and his newsletter of November 2009 already states, that Blogs and Forum owners are deemed to be acting systematically (and therefore are giving what, under the law, is now called “immigration advice”), whereas people posting on forms are unlikely to be. I tried my best to explain that there is bugger all difference between advice no matter where it is written (blog, newspaper, forum, book) but I think we reached an impasse there to be honest.
Then we still have an issue that the IAA believes that an awful lot of harm and damage is being done to immigrants by this “informal advice” on blogs and forums. I would like to see one piece of immigration advice written on a blog mind you – because I would bet there isn’t any – other than what I have written that the IAA could deem to be advice if they chose to. (If you happen to be reading this and know of, or write a blog on such issues – do let me know!)
Yet, as part of the preparation for this meeting – I reviewed the three Bill Readings that the IALA went through.
And I still can’t see one speech by any politician from any party who even vaguely suggested that the harmful “advice” they were trying to prevent us from being harmed by was ever from another immigrant. The only people who ever mentioned it – in the submissions – were (you guessed it) Immgration Agents with a rather large vested interest in forcing immigrants to pay them money for advice they could have got for free before.
In fact the most classic illustration of what went so utterly wrong when the IALA was written is this, from the very first reading of the bill in parliament:
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) :
This bill, though, could be termed the “Tuariki Delamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs, so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires, but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked, and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it, I found that the New Zealand Herald was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category.”
So look – the IALA was set up to stop people like Mr Delamere causing harm and damage to immigrants (and the reputation of NZ), not other immigrants like me. So why:
Now to be clear – Tuariki Delamere was acquitted of all charges. Not because he didn’t recycle $1,000,000 dollars of his business partner’s money through 7 immigrants – but because technically it wasn’t illegal to do so at the time. It was however contrary to the whole sodding point of the immigration laws and beyond unethical and considered exactly the kind of thing that a new law was needed to prevent.
It was never considered necessary to write a law making it illegal for me to answer questions on how to immigrate to New Zealand.
Yet he has a licence and still makes a lot of money from immigrants to act as their agent, and I, according to Mr Smedts should not do anything more than cut and paste from the Ops Manual. If I do, I am customising the advice, and therefore am giving “immigration advice”.
An example I asked about.
Say I am asked by someone who has had a Kidney Transplant if they can emigrate here? My Answer would be (if it was legal) that you will basically have a bloody hard job getting in, because transplants are an Apendix 10 condition and that means you do not have an acceptable standard of health. You would have to apply for and be granted a Medical Waiver. I would then copy and paste the relevent bits of the ops manual with links as to where to find them.
Mr Smedts would prefer that all I do is the copy and paste bit. Saying you are going to have a really hard time of it is customising the advice, no matter how true it is. I have no idea why- it makes no sense to me, and to be honest I don’t think it ever will. And by the way – this didnt stop a fully licenced agent from NOT telling a client of his this information and costing the an awful lot of money in INZ fees, and the RRB & INZ [RRB case 15350 if the link doesn't work] taking a very dim view of the crap “advice” the licenced agent gave his client.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Glad my family is through this nightmare already.
Wealthy parents jump the queue
Ally Wang wants to work fulltime but says she can’t do so until her parents Zhi and Ying Xu are given residency and can help look after her son Kevin and daughter Cathy. New immigration schemes aimed at wealthy retirees have attracted 27 applicants who are prepared to invest a total of nearly $26 million. The parent retirement policy, launched last year, has drawn 22 applications from nine countries, with the highest numbers coming from China and the United Kingdom. Each applicant has to have a settled child here and invest at least $1 million over four years to gain permanent residency. They need to have good health but will not need to have health insurance, and as permanent residents they will be entitled to the normal health and welfare assistance. However, the scheme has been criticised as being unfair, as applicants jump the queue of the regular parent immigration schemes.
I beleive I said that a while back.
MP Raymond Huo, Labour’s Chinese community affairs spokesman, said the scheme gave New Zealand a bad look overseas. “It is one thing for a country to be selling off its assets, but this policy shows the world that even our immigration visas can be bought,” he said. Mr Huo said letting rich parents jump the queue over legitimate applicants who are less wealthy would just create resentment within migrant communities.
I could not agree more. While I understand the need to bring foreign money into the country up to a point – the miniute you make immigration more about money than skills and settlement facorts you change the entire ethos of the system. Its not about how good you are for the country – its about how much money you will pay to get in.
Immigrant single-mother Ally Wang says she desperately needs her parents here to help her look after her children so she can find fulltime employment. The 36-year-old, who works part-time in a GP clinic as an administrator, feels it’s “extremely unfair” for the Government to overlook her needs “just because mum and dad do not have $1 million to spare”.
Ms Wang, who has a 12-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter, has been waiting since 2009 for Immigration to give the nod for her father, Zhi Wang, 67 and mother Ying Xu, 61, from Guangzhou, to come and live with her. Instead, what she received last week was a request from the department to “update her income details” because it said her current income wasn’t enough to support her parents.
“The the only way I can earn more money is to find fulltime employment, and I can only work fulltime if my parents are here to help me take care for my children,” Ms Wang said.
Now – this is a bit odd to be honest. You have to have the required income BEFORE you can sponsor your parents. Not “if you let my parents in I will be able to work more and thus afford to sponsor them because they will provide childcare”.
When you sponsor family – you have to prove an income of just under $30,000 a year – which is not a whole lot. But that’s the deal we all have to work with. Unless your parents have a stack of cash they can bribe NZ with of course.
The main issue here is that 22 parents did not have to wait till thier children proved thier worth to New Zealand, and are willing to pay $1,000,000 each to jump the queue ahead of the rest of the people who are sat there waiting for INZ to do its job. I personally think this is shameful. NZ has said quite clearly it can be bought, and that the wealth of our parents is vastly more important than the skills we bring. I guess that why our MP John Hayes asked if my dad was “a man of means”. Thats all he cared about when we needed his help. He must be so proud of this new system.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Access to healthcare in New Zealand
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
The UK Telegraph has just run a really useful guide to healthcare in New Zealand. Im afraid being a UK paper it really does relate the situation best for people emigrating from the UK, but that aside, it’s a very well written article and covers all the most important bits you need to know.
New Zealand’s healthy image is reflected in its remote countryside. But access to its health care system is tightly controlled for new expats, and it performs only marginally better than the UK
This relatively efficient performance is partly due to a mix of public and private health care. There is strong uptake of private health insurance (as in Australia), partially triggered by long waits for state hospital treatment.
The main issue here is that in New Zealand the policy for many serious illnesses seems to rely on waiting long enough to treat you that you die and it’s no longer their problem to deal with. Recently one of the District Health Boards stipulated 14 types of cancer that they would not even send patients to an oncologist for. This is where the chance for survival is slim, and if affected you would be sent back to your GP for “management” rather than be treated.
Also New Zealand justifiably operates a severely restrictive immigration policy. Like most developed nations, it does not want its care system even more overloaded. Waits for surgery can exceed a year.
Public hospitals are of good standard and well spread across the country. They treat citizens, or permanent residents, free of charge, and are managed at district level.
Not all treatments at hospitals are free. You may have to pay for some investigations depending on what it is for and who has referred you. Also, in some areas access to a hospital may not be available 24/7 in the more remote areas, so be aware of that.
This has not stopped waits for treatments, encouraging a big market in private medical insurance. Southern Cross Health Insurance, a non-profit-scheme, is the biggest operator. It claims half the market, which covers almost a quarter of all New Zealanders. Southern Cross also has its own hospital chain.
Private health insurance is expensive, and you should definaltly shop around and get some expert advice on what is best for you. Particularly look at what insurance covers in the way of cancer treatments. Many policy do mot cover it – because the public service does – but then you are back to waiting so ling they don’t need to treat you at all.
ARE YOU AN ACCIDENT VICTIM?
New Zealand has taken a novel approach to financing part of its public health system.
Any treatment deemed to result from an accident is not centrally financed, but funded by a tax on employers, employees and sources such as car registration. Treatment is open to all people legally in New Zealand, including tourists. One advantage is that it limits the spread of the compensation culture. It is not easy to bring an action for injury under New Zealand law. However, the system is often abused. “Once people know the ropes, they call everything an accident,” says one administrator with first-hand knowledge. “You have a neck problem and say you got it when you tripped, so you’re covered.”
Yep – its easy to get ACC cover for almost anything – which then makes it difficult for the more extreme cases to get cover at all. Like a lot of “benefits” a huge amount of money is wasted by bad management and policy. But the bottom line – even as a tourist – accidents are covered. Bottom line is that you also pay for it in ACC levies – especially on Car Tax – almost all of which is made up of the ACC Levy.
FAMILY DOCTORING
Patients pay to see a GP, and also for medication. But these payments are subsidised, especially for people with community health services cards or high-user health cards. Emergency services are primarily provided by the charity St John New Zealand, supported with a mix of private donations and public funds.
Expect to pay $30 – $60 to see a GP. Sounds expensive but generally it means you get to see a doctor, rather than the waiting room being full of people with spare time on their hands going because its free. People tend to make sure they NEED a doctor. You also get a decent consultation (usually half an hour with our GP), and the doctor actually talks to you rather than having a prescription half written by the time you sit down.
Note (thanks Sophie): Under 5′s get free GP visits depending on the surgery – so it’s well worth asking around. In some areas you will get charged for out-of-hours visits to a GP for them though.
TIGHT ENTRY CONTROL
Those seeking permanent residence in New Zealand must be in good health before they are accepted into the system. Simply buying medical insurance (although it is widely taken up there) is not enough. The reason given by the authorities is that they would not be able to prevent someone newly arrived with a pre-existing medical condition from using the public system, even if they had good private cover. Immigration New Zealand states that it “is not able to limit any New Zealand resident’s access to the health system, and therefore if you do not meet health policy, we are unable to accept offers to pay for private health insurance”.
I actually agree with that in priciple they just need to get rid of the imcompeteant twats making these decisions – cos it looks like the have some “corpses with certificates” determining who meets these criteria.
HOW DO NEW EXPATS JOIN THE HEALTH SYSTEM?
The short answer is that they don’t join at all, unless they have a work permit in excess of two years. Any less, and new arrivals are told to get private health insurance. Official advice is: “Government funding of health and disability services means that eligible people may receive free inpatient and outpatient public hospital services, subsidies on prescription items and a range of support services for people with disabilities in the community. “If you are not eligible for publicly funded health and disability services, you can still get the services, but you will have to pay for them, and should get health insurance.”
UK-NZ RECIPROCAL HEALTH COVER
Just as a New Zealander in Britain is entitled to free NHS treatment in an emergency, so the same applies to Britons in New Zealand. However, the health ministry stresses that this provision is likely to be insufficient. It says that those ineligible for full state care, and those relying on UK-NZ reciprocal arrangements, should buy private insurance “because the reciprocal agreements only cover immediate and necessary treatments”. It adds: “Visits to a general practitioner, non-urgent or discretionary services, rehabilitation, and repatriation are not funded within the reciprocal agreement.”
I really hate this. Kiwis visiting Britain get free GP visits and would get free prescriptions if they came under the same policy as a brit, as well as free hospital treatments. Going the other way – we have the same entitlement as a kiwi to pay for our healthcare. This is not what I personally call reciprocal!
HEALTH TEST
As well as the two-year work permit requirement, the authorities assess applicants to determine whether they are likely to be a burden on the public system. As ever, the test basically boils down to money. Are you likely to cost the system more than NZ$25,000 over four years? That’s under £3,000 sterling a year.
See post on Acceptable standard of health.
The immigration service employs medical assessors to resolve borderline cases. They weigh up any health condition or combination of factors, whether chronic or acute.
(or not if you happen to get the idiot who looked at my Dad’s case who didn’t know his arse from his elbow and end-stage kidney failure from normal ageing kidneys – a bit worrying.)
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR QUALIFYING EXPATS
People who meet the eligibility criteria decide for themselves how much coverage they personally want, above and beyond publicly funded services. A 55-year-old man could buy a comprehensive plan with reduced out-patient cover from Aviva for £2,144 a year (budget £1,501). Bupa International’s comprehensive cover is £2,938 (budget £1,704) for the same man. Axa PPP would charge £1,967 (budget £1,709).
Be very careful buying an insurance package from your home country for use in NZ. Most policies have exclusions based on the length of time you are outside they country. You must check your policy wording before relying on it.
Ive quoted most of teh article, but I really think it’s worth a full read-through.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Visas vs Permits and all that malarkey.
In November 2010, the Immigration Act 2009 became law.
The new Act modernises New Zealand’s immigration laws. However, it does not make major changes to the criteria under which people apply to travel to and stay in New Zealand.
So basically, it’s designed to make it easier to understand and follow. What could possibly go wrong??? As I’m not allowed to use my own words to explain the difference, most of this is copied from the link above (with a few notes – because we all know I just cant keep my mouth entirely shut!)
Terminology changes
The new Act uses the single term ‘visa’ for authority to travel to and stay in New Zealand. The terms ‘permit’ and ‘exemption’ are no longer used.
Immigration ‘policy’ is now known as immigration ‘instructions’. This more clearly distinguishes the difference between high-level government policy and the criteria for determining immigration applications (‘instructions’).
I think this is a bit pointless to be honest. Government policy is what determines the criteria for immigration approval – as anyone who has been fobbed off by INZ officials will be able to attest to.
The terms ‘residence permits’, ‘residence visas’ and ‘returning resident’s visas are replaced by ‘resident visas’ and ‘permanent resident visas’ – but there is no change to existing categories or criteria for people wishing to settle in New Zealand.
Ah – thankfully – no more RRV’s and IRRV’s – just a visa and a permanent visa.
For more information see the New terminology and concepts factsheet.
A new sponsorship system
Sponsors of people coming to New Zealand are responsible for all aspects of maintenance, accommodation and repatriation (or deportation) of the sponsored person. More specific criteria for sponsors are also introduced.
For temporary entry visas, this broader obligation is in place for the whole time the sponsored person is in New Zealand. For resident visas, this obligation is in place for a specific period.
Another change allows organisations (companies, charitable trusts and societies) and government agencies to sponsor individuals in some circumstances. These new categories of sponsors are eligible to support visitor visas and also work-to-residence and residence-from-work visas under the ‘talent’ category (arts, culture and sports).
For more information see the Sponsorship factsheet.
So basically they have tidied this up and tightened it a bit to try and make sure sponsors honour their obligations more. Fair enough I reckon (speaking as a sponsor of my parents and brother). It’s not really a new system though.
Returning residents’ visas
Successful residence applicants are generally granted a ‘resident visa’ with two years of ‘travel conditions’. This allows: travel to New Zealand (if the holder is offshore); indefinite stay in New Zealand; and multiple re-entry to New Zealand within the validity of the resident visa travel conditions. The term ‘returning resident’s visa’ (RRV) is no longer used, however, current RRV holders do not need to do anything other than follow the conditions of their current visa or permit.
‘Permanent resident visas’ replace indefinite RRVs and allow the holder indefinite right to enter New Zealand.
The requirements to progress from a ‘resident visa’ to a ‘permanent resident visa’ are similar to the current requirements to progress from a ‘non-indefinite RRV’ to an ‘indefinite RRV’.
People who hold ‘residence visas’, ‘residence permits’ and ‘non-indefinite RRVs’ on 29 November 2010 are automatically deemed to hold ‘resident visas’ with the appropriate travel conditions.
People who hold ‘indefinite RRVs’ on 29 November 2010 are automatically deemed to hold ‘permanent resident visas’ with indefinite rights to enter New Zealand.
Um – haven’t they already covered this above? However – in the residence factsheet, it now specifies that certain people will be able to get the Permanent Residency Visa straight away, rather than having to meet the usual criteria:
However, new policy settings enable a small number of residence applicants to progress directly to a permanent resident visa. These are:
foreign national partners of New Zealand citizens (and the partner’s dependent children) where:
- the New Zealand citizen has been living overseas for at least five years, or has been in New Zealand for three months or less after living overseas for at least five years, and
- the partnership has been ongoing for at least five years.
- people who were granted a temporary work visa under the Talent (Accredited Employers) Work category who have a job with a salary of at least NZ$90,000 gross per annum at the time they apply for residence under the corresponding Residence from Work category, and
refugees and protected people.
Only people who apply for residence on or after 29 November 2010 are considered for the grant of a permanent resident visa as a result of their first residence application.
For more information see the Residence factsheet.
Streamlining appeals
The 2009 Act maintains existing appeal rights and sets up one independent body to hear appeals – the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT), which is administered by the Ministry of Justice. The IPT replaces the current Removal Review Authority, Residence Review Board, Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Deportation Review Tribunal.
Where there is more than one ground for appeal, for example, on facts and humanitarian grounds, both grounds must be lodged together.
Now, this is very important. The Residence Review Board is an absolute mine of information for people who get into difficulties with INZ. It’s absolutely fascinating to read, though a bit boring from time time, and its important to know that the system is changing. The IPT can be found here, and the first decision is already published on the website. I assume (dangerous I Know), that as more appeals are heard you will be able to search the files in the same way you can at the RRB. The RRB website is still active and you can still look up cases.
A new classified information system with special safeguards
Classified information relating to security or criminal conduct can now be used in decision making, if agreed by the Minister of Immigration. Special safeguards balance the right of the Government to use all available information in deciding who may travel to, enter and stay in New Zealand, and the rights of foreign nationals.
So basically it gives INZ more power to snoop around if they think you may have a dodgy past. I’m actually supportive of that, because while I personally detest giving government agencies more power to snoop on people, I do feel that asking a country to allow you to live there is a bit different. With the proviso obviously that if the answer comes back clean, then INZ actually accept that and don’t ask the same sodding question 1000 times hoping to get a different answer.
Streamlining the deportation process
The deportation process has been simplified to better balance efficiency with fairness. The terms ‘removal’ and ‘revocation’ are no longer used, and instead, the single term ‘deportation’ is used.
People who are deported are prohibited from re-entering New Zealand for two years, five years or permanently, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
There’s an interesting little tidbit in the factsheet on this:
Who is liable for deportation?
In summary, deportation liability is triggered by:
Staying in New Zealand on a visa granted in error
So basically, if INZ screw up and give you a Visa by mistake – you can be deported (with the ongoing issue of then having to state on any further applications to any country that yes, you have been deported). I would hope that the person giving out the visa by mistake would also get sacked – but there is no mention of that oddly enough.
For more information see the Deportation factsheet.
Compliance, detention and monitoring
The 2009 Act establishes a flexible approach to monitoring and detaining foreign nationals who are considered to be a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or the security and safety of New Zealand. This includes arrest and detention by police for up to 96 hours and detention under a court-issued ‘warrant of commitment’ for up to 28 days.
The new Act provides immigration officers with powers that could previously only be carried out by Police or Customs officers on behalf of Immigration, for example, to enter and search planes or ships.
Where the powers are new for immigration officers, they are brought into force only when Cabinet is satisfied that the appropriate training and operating instructions have been developed, and that appropriate safeguards are in place.
This does not instill me with confidence. After all, INZ staff are supposed to be trained to do the jobs they have now, and yet often don’t seem to have a clue what they are doing way too often. Given them more powers actually does scare me. Again, I hope the consequences for staff when they screw up are a damn site more harsh than is currently the case.
For more information see the Powers of immigration officers factsheet.
Biometrics and information sharing
The 2009 Act enables specific biometric information to be collected, stored and used – for example, photographs, fingerprints and iris scans – to verify a foreign national’s identity.
The Act also allows foreign nationals’ (not New Zealand citizens’) personal information, including biometric information, to be shared with some other agencies nationally and internationally to address immigration and identity fraud; and manage the safety and security of New Zealand. In addition, foreign national’s personal information can be shared with other New Zealand agencies to check eligibility for publicly-funded services (such as health services).
The relevant provisions will only come into force once Cabinet is satisfied that robust procedures and processes are in place and that there is appropriate protection for individuals, consistent with the Privacy Act 1993.
Big Brother is watching – even in cozy New Zealand, and no amount of garbage about “robust procedures and processes” is going to change that. The spreading of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is still the best way to control people, and NZ have wised up to that. Despite all that – if you lose your mobile phone – Vodafone can’t find it for you by tracking the signal of where it was last used -but I bet they could tell Immgration where you were hiding!
Employer obligations
The 2009 Act narrows the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence for employing a foreign national not entitled to work in New Zealand. Employers therefore need to check an individual’s work entitlement more carefully than previously.
To help speed up the employment process, the Department of Labour has set up an online system – called VisaView – to allow employers to check a job applicant’s entitlement to work and any conditions. The system is designed to be quick and easy to use, and to protect individual privacy.
However – we can’t access VisaView to check our own details and make sure they are correct. Figures!
Education
The 2009 Act increases penalties against education providers who fail to comply with their immigration obligations. However, providers of compulsory education will not be prosecuted for enrolling a child who is unlawfully in New Zealand.
Interim visas
The 2009 Act introduces a new ‘interim visa’. These may be granted if a foreign national who holds a current temporary visa has applied for a further temporary visa. This maintains the individual’s lawful status in New Zealand while his or her application is being considered. This provision is due to come into effect on 7 February 2011.
This is a REAL bonus. No longer will you be an Illegal Overstayer becuase INZ dithers around with your application. Yay!
For more information see the Interim visas factsheet.
NOTE: Comments in Blue are my opinion only, and are not to be deemed as Immgration Advise in any way.
I am not a licenced Immgration adviser, and do not give immigration advise.
I am a New Zealand citizen voicing my opinion on Immigration Matters. 
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Seems the ombudsman gives a crap about some immigrants.
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
While they may have done absolutely sod-all about how INZ treated our case, and basically let INZ walk all over them, they have just beaten INZ up over their treatment of a load of Pacific Islanders who were also let down. These were people who were “advised” by the now defunct “Pacific Division” set up my Mary Anne Thompson, and disbanded after issues of corruption were highlighted by the Attorney General.
13 people – who have been in New Zealand illegally -have now been granted residence subject to police and medical checks.
Now, it’s all very well doing this – its the right thing: INZ let people down and behaved appallingly. The division was badly run, and applicants were badly advised.
The Ombudsman ruled that the information the families were given during the 2005 meetings was confusing and misleading.
Um – but so are hundreds of other people applying to immigrate to New Zealand. INZ still continue to give misleading information , still treat some applicants like crap, and they still get away with it (as do licensed advisors). While I am glad the Ombudsman has at least done something for these people, I fail to see why they can’t be bothered to do it for the other applicants like us, who have suffered mistreatment at the hands of INZ. This is at the end of the day grossly unfair, and still does nothing to force INZ to ensure that the information they give to all applicants is correct, and hold them to account when it isn’t.
Especially when many of us, when faced with INZ misinformation – still do not overstay illegally.
Somedays I do get really fed up with staying on the right side of the law, and really can’t always see the bloody point.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
