Why Australia Requires Most of Latin America to have visas for tourism? (wages, taxes)

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by maclock

Man, the City of London (i.e., the financial services sector), countless English companies (and foreign companies with British offices), the NHS, educational institutions, etc., all profit in a major way from high-skilled Irish talent. I'm not bemoaning it, mind. We're a rather long way from the days of Irish navvies and Irish brickies filling up slums and poorer areas in Britain.

Anyway, I don't follow. Kiwis can still work in Australia and it's to their great benefit.

Until they find out that after years of paying taxes, they don't have the same rights and access to benefits that Australians in New Zealand have.

It might benefit individual NZers, but it's not good for NZ.

Time to end it, I think - the spirt of Anzac is dead.

[Bakery Hill]

Originally Posted by Joe90

Until they find out that after years of paying taxes, they don't have the same rights and access to benefits that Australians in New Zealand have.

It might benefit individual NZers, but it's not good for NZ.

Time to end it, I think - the spirt of Anzac is dead.

NZ and Aus differ in a lot of ways, and sometimes those differences are pretty significant. NZ is far more of a classical left leaning social welfare society than is Australia. It's also evident in issues like retirement income, where NZ is still based primarily on government pensions, while Australia focusses on workers saving for their retirement via superannuation. So you're asking Australia to change its prevailing social model and perspectives to meet the expectations of non-citizens/non permanent residents from one country?

It's no different than Australia demanding that New Zealand change it's outlook and actions on issues like regional security or international policy, which are other areas where the two country differ quite significantly.

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by the troubadour

Meaning? Australia poaches NZ talent in droves. It gains the benefit from NZ graduates that in other circumstances, would be contributing to the NZ economy. one can see why it may well be an issue in New Zealand.

Meaning exactly what I wrote. No one even knows it's an issue in Australia. I'd hazard that a large section of the population don't even know Australians can live in NZ without a visa. In regards to your point, Australia has no problem filling its skilled migration program, which Kiwis are eligible to apply for.

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by Joe90

Until they find out that after years of paying taxes, they don't have the same rights and access to benefits that Australians in New Zealand have.

Maybe they should investigate that before they leave home. Who would move to another country without being aware of their rights?

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by Bakery Hill

NZ and Aus differ in a lot of ways, and sometimes those differences are pretty significant. NZ is far more of a classical left leaning social welfare society than is Australia. It's also evident in issues like retirement income, where NZ is still based primarily on government pensions, while Australia focusses on workers saving for their retirement via superannuation. So you're asking Australia to change its prevailing social model and perspectives to meet the expectations of non-citizens/non permanent residents from one country?

It's no different than Australia demanding that New Zealand change it's outlook and actions on issues like regional security or international policy, which are other areas where the two country differ quite significantly.

I think your making too much of all this classical left leaning stuff- it's irrelevant.

Australian has withdrawn a number of benefits and rights over the years, in response to some perception that New Zealanders are abusing the system.

NZ maintains the much greater rights and benefits to Australian citizens, that was initially agreed to under the TransTasman agreement.

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by BCC_1

Maybe they should investigate that before they leave home. Who would move to another country without being aware of their rights?

Nothing to do with awareness. It's about the erosion of reciprocal rights,

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by Joe90

Nothing to do with awareness. It's about the erosion of reciprocal rights,

It has everything to do with awareness. The average Australian derives no value from their rights in NZ, the average NZer does derive value from their rights in AU. Easy to see why the whole thing is so one sided. Take the right to live and work in NZ away from Australians will they care? Not really.

[Joe90]

Originally Posted by BCC_1

It has everything to do with awareness. The average Australian derives no value from their rights in NZ, the average NZer does derive value from their rights in AU. Easy to see why the whole thing is so one sided. Take the right to live and work in NZ away from Australians will they care? Not really.

That makes no sense, as that would imply that the average New Zealander lives and works in Australia.

It's not as one sided in the way you seem to think. NZers are less than double the percentage of Austarlia's population as vice versa, and have less rights and less access to benefits, while Australians have full access in NZ -it's one sided in Australia's favour.

[BCC_1]

Originally Posted by Joe90

That makes no sense, as that would imply that the average New Zealander lives and works in Australia.

No, it implies that the average NZer has lived or worked in Australia at some point. I could be wrong, but if 15% of the NZ population currently live in Australia it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to assume that about half the population have lived and/or worked in AU at some point.

Originally Posted by Joe90

It's not as one sided in the way you seem to think. NZers are less than double the percentage of Austarlia's population, as vice versa, and have little rights to benefits, while Australians have full access in NZ -it's one sided in Australia's favour.

I understand that your complaint is that it's not equal, but you're relying on rights that Australians don't exercise. It's a political issue in NZ because such a substantial portion of the population live, or have lived, in Australia. It's a non-event in Australia because so few Australians exercise that right. If it were to be taken away tomorrow which country would lose more? NZ gets access to a much larger job market with higher wages. Those are pretty good tangible benefits.

[Bakery Hill]

Originally Posted by Joe90

I think your making too much of all this classical left leaning stuff- it's irrelevant.

Australian has withdrawn a number of benefits and rights over the years, in response to some perception that New Zealanders are abusing the system.

NZ maintains the much greater rights and benefits to Australian citizens, that was initially agreed to under the TransTasman agreement.

How can it be irrelevant? It's the social context within which governments make decisions, and NZ is more of a left leaning social welfare state. Most Aussies wouldn't be phased or concerned in the least if NZ reduced entitlements to non-PR Aussies living in NZ. They'd probably be surprised to hear that they'd currently be entitled to welfare without first being granted PR status.

International relations between two countries defined principally by non PRs access to welfare is a pretty hollow relationship. Aren't issues like trade, investment, security and defence, or access to labour markets far more significant?