TAXES & BENEFITS

New Zealanders, Australia's 'Underclass'

By Robert Burton-Bradley  -  NewMatilda.com

The flag of Australia

Documents released under Freedom of Information reveal the Federal Government has been concerned since 2008 about New Zealanders isolated from support, education and pathways to citizenship, reports Robert Burton-Bradley

The flag of New Zealand

Documents released (pdf) under Freedom of Information reveal the Federal Government is worried about a growing "underclass" of New Zealanders living and working in Australia with limited rights and without access to basic government services.

The FOI release from the Departments of Community Services, Immigration and Foreign Affairs show that as far back as 2008 there was increasing concern for the estimated 566,000 New Zealand citizens now living in Australia, drawn here by a "40 per cent wage gap". At least 240,000 fall into the post 2001 non-protected visa category.

New Zealanders can live and work in Australia indefinitely as Special Category Visa holders, but following changes to the migration program those who arrived after 2001 fall into the "non-protected category" with no access to basic social services such as unemployment benefits, parenting payments, sickness allowance or HECS-funded study. They will not be covered by the National Disability Insurance Scheme when it begins.

In early 2009, with the GFC beginning to hurt, the situation was making itself clear to staff at the Department of Community Services. In March of that year a section manager working for the department's international policy section wrote: "We have recently seen an increase in correspondence around non protected SCV holders and their inability to access working age payments. I suspect this issue will only intensify with the downturn in the economy . . . . 

See the full story at:  newmatilda.com

Peter’s Piece

If Australians want the production and taxes of New Zealanders then they should be prepared to give them the protection that they have been taxed for. In this case the taxation really is nothing less than theft and extortion.

I have always found most Australians very reasonable people, but I would say to those who object to sharing their country with other taxpayers, they should exercise their own option and go somewhere else to live.

For more than 200 years Australia and New Zealand

have been like one nation. Has the time come to

make it one nation?

Read about the first years of Australia

in this hard-to-put-down book

Download a free sample of Nathaniel's Bloodline now from:

Smashwords.com

BRITAIN FIRST

Britain First fanatics distort
the truth to win support

From the Britain First website:
Man who put up sign banning non-Asians
from his property let off by judge

A man who put up a sign outside of his home threatening any non-Asians who called there, or who talked to the residents, with violence has been let off by a judge.

Jim Dowson, left, and three of his Britain First henchmen

Vaseem Gova, of Parkhurst Road, Sutton, was handed an absolute discharge after appearing at Croydon Magistrates charged with a public order offence – because of “exceptional circumstances” namely that he faced losing his tenancy if convicted.

According to the Sutton Guardian, the sign read: “An Asian family occupy this property. If you are not Asian or a member of my family you MUST seek permission from the estate management before attempting to talk to anyone from this household.

“Failure to adhere to this heartfelt advice will render your life a misery and threats of serious assault and carjacking will reign upon you so fast that you will wonder why this street is not called Parkhurst Prison.”

Wonder if a sympathetic judge would have let off someone who put up a “no Asians allowed or you’ll be seriously assaulted” sign outside of their home.

You know the answer, their feet wouldn’t touch the ground and not one judge would give a damn about their tenancy.

Funny how it seems that the law is more lenient and sympathetic towards certain groups of people than others.

Peter’s Piece

Before readers get their blood pressure up over this article they should consider what really happened in that court, and what Britain First is really about.

It is true that a person was charged in the Croydon Magistrates Court with a racist offence and he was found guilty and ordered to pay £325 costs. This outcome was not the same as that claimed by Britain First. However, the defendant was discharged without conviction so that his tenancy would not be lost. That’s not an unusual outcome and it is to be hoped that he, and others like him, will think twice before repeating the offence.

Now let’s look at Britain First.

Britain First was registered as a political pressure group in 2011 after its leader Jim Dowson split acrimoniously from the racist British National Party where he was the chief fund-raiser.
Dowson is a clever fanatic who makes money, and political capital, from the prejudices of people who are easily influenced. His hobby horses are racism, immigration, abortion and Christian morality. The ‘Hope Not Hate’ organization has described Dowson, 48, as ‘the cash cow of the far right.’

However, while Dowson is skilled at producing inflaming reports of the court appearances of others, he has also made his own appearances. Last month he appeared in court, with the leaders of several other extremist groups, wearing a boiler-suit with ‘Political Prisoner’ on the back.

He is in cahoots with such trouble-makers as the Progressive Unionist Party, the Ulster Volunteer Force, and the Ulster Defence Association.

His stated objective is ‘to save this country and our people from the EU, politically correct, multicultural insanity that is now engulfing us.’

Rape is another issue that Dowson and Britain First like to sound off about with one claim that of 130 rape charges in a particular part of Britain, 116 were British and 14 were foreign nationals. Surely a figure like that must confirm that foreign nationals are under-represented in the crime statistics.

But a complaint from a British National candidate, Shelley Rose, in 2010 that she was groped by Dowson, coincided with his departure from the party.

Dowson and Britain First are skilled at whipping up bandwagon hysteria, but more cautious minds will see the likenesses with the early days of Hitler’s Nazi Party.

NEW ZEALAND REPUBLIC

The case for a
New Zealand republic

The case for a New Zealand republic sets out the main arguments for why New Zealand should become a republic. They fall into three categories:

Parliament Buildings, Wellington

Independence — New Zealand should have a New Zealander as the head of state;

Nationhood — the constitution and head of state of New Zealand should reflect New Zealand's national identity, culture and heritage;

Democracy — New Zealand should have a democratic and accountable head of state.

Independence

New Zealand will not be fully independent until we have a New Zealander as head of state. New Zealand likes to think of itself as an independent country. However, it cannot objectively be argued New Zealand's current head of state represents this.

A republic means a New Zealander as head of state

"Is New Zealand to continue to have an appointed Governor-General... or should we move to an elected president? This will not happen because of any lack of affection or love for our Queen in London, but because the tide of history is moving in one direction." - former Prime Minster Jim Bolger.

Our current head of state is not a New Zealander and does not represent New Zealand. When the Queen travels overseas, she does so in order to represent Great Britain.

The Queen works to strengthen British economic and political ties, and does whatever the British Government asks of her. In fact, whenever "our" head of state visits New Zealand, the Queen has to ask for permission from the British Government to leave Britain.

If the Queen wanted to be a citizen of New Zealand, she would not meet the legal requirements to become a citizen. The Citizenship Act 1977 requires an applicant for New Zealand citizenship to have been resident in New Zealand for five years before citizenship is granted. The Queen has spent a total of no more than six months in New Zealand.

The Governor-General is not a proper head of state. While the Governor-General may increasingly act in ways that befit a head of state, the reality is that New Zealand is still not regarded as being fully independent of Great Britain. Appointing the Queen's representative in New Zealand is inadequate. A New Zealand head of state will make it clear that New Zealand is an independent country. It will signal New Zealand's independence and maturity to the world.

Deciding the rules for ourselves

In recent years, the British Parliament has attempted to amend the succession law. The problem is the Statute of Westminster 1931, the law which granted legislative independence to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The Statute requires "consultation" on changes to the succession before any changes to the succession law. While this provision is not binding, it is still an important constitutional convention. The most recent attempt in 2008 failed for this reason: the British Government did not want to have to consult with all the parliaments of the Commonwealth realms. New Zealand's Parliament could change the law of succession unilaterally, but that would go against the convention established by the Statute of Westminster. Change can only be enacted if the governments of all the 15 Commonwealth realms are consulted, probably by Britain. In a republic, the rules governing New Zealand's head of state will be made solely by the New Zealand Parliament. They will change as New Zealanders decide they need to, not because of events in Great Britain.

Nationhood

"The case for an independent republic of New Zealand is summed up in one word — nationhood. It is a statement to the world and ourselves that New Zealand is a mature nation, that we possess a constitutional framework that best suits New Zealanders." — Michael Laws, Mayor of Wanganui.

New Zealand is a unique, dynamic and diverse country. New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, national symbols and head of state should reflect this.

A republic affirms New Zealand's sense of nationhood

"We exhibit symptoms of retarded nationhood: a widespread insecurity about what others think, a search for applause and endorsement by visitors; and, conversely, a begrudging willingness to extend applause here at home." — Simon Upton former minister and National MP.

Becoming a republic and electing New Zealand's head of state will foster a deeper and more sophisticated sense of nationhood. It will clarify to New Zealanders, and to the world, what New Zealand stands for.

How New Zealanders understand their place in the world is crucial to New Zealand's success in an increasingly globalized world. New Zealand excels in sport, in its human rights record, in business and in the arts. New Zealand's constitution lags behind these achievements. Our current constitutional arrangement causes confusion overseas as to whether New Zealand is linked to Britain, or whether it is part of Australia. We send conflicting messages about who we are and what we stand for.

The debate and discussion around becoming a republic affirms the values that are important to New Zealanders. It will promote discussion about New Zealand's history and future. It will clarify the values we all see as important. Becoming a republic will be a celebration of New Zealand's unique culture and heritage. It will demonstrate New Zealand's confidence and independence and it will symbolize a shared sense of nationhood.

Democracy

A republic will make New Zealand more democratic.

A republic will ensure we have a head of state that is democratically elected and accountable to voters. As a result the head of state will be a more effective constitutional safeguard. This will decrease the risk of political instability.

Electing the head of state is a basic democratic right. Republicanism is based on the principle that government authority is reliant on the consent of citizens. The Monarchy is based on the principle that hereditary privilege alone should decide the head of state. It represents a belief that government authority is embodied in a single individual (the Monarch). In a republic the head of state would be elected — either directly by voters, or indirectly by parliament.

Replacing the Governor-General

At present, the Prime Minister chooses the Governor-General and advises the Monarch of their choice. They usually choose someone who will not challenge them, and someone who has something to do with their own party.

In the past, this has meant a number of openly political appointments. National Prime Minister Jack Marshall gave his friend Sir Denis Blundell the job in 1972.

In 1977, Robert Muldoon appointed former Prime Minister Sir Keith Holyoake to the job. This was primarily because the next best candidate, Sir Edmund Hillary, had signed a petition in 1975 supporting Labour Prime Minister Bill Rowling. Sir Michael Hardie Boys was a known constitutional conservative with National Party leanings.

In 1985, Labour Prime Minister David Lange appointed the Reverend Sir Paul Reeves. Sir Paul was known for his activism for the anti-apartheid and anti-nuclear movements. Dame Catherine Tizard was appointed to the office in 1990 by the outgoing Labour Government. She was the former wife of Labour Deputy Prime Minister Bob Tizard.

While individually there have been good appointments made, there have also been a number of openly political appointments. Many of those, particularly the appointment of Sir Keith Holyoake, were very controversial. Creating a transparent democratic process will ensure that the replacement of the Governor-General will not be as controversial.

A republic means an effective constitutional safeguard

A republic will create a head of state in New Zealand that could act in times of constitutional crises. The Monarch and the Governor-General do not have the political power to do this. The Governor-General is unable to resolve constitutional crises because the Prime Minister holds the power to dismiss and replace the Governor-General at any time. The Monarch will never get involved in New Zealand politics, because they are "non-political". Having a head of state able to act effectively in times of crises will be a better restraint on the power of the executive — the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The Monarch is an absentee and ineffectual head of state. The position is unaccountable to New Zealanders. In a republic, the head of state will be chosen by New Zealanders. They will work on behalf of all New Zealanders regardless of their political beliefs.

More from the website: http://www.republic.org.nz/case

Peter’s Piece

The New Zealand Republic debate does not need to be centered on whether or not New Zealanders should support the Queen and her successors.

As a republic the country could still support the monarchy as head of the Commonwealth and there can be no disputing that the Queen has been an exceptionally good leader of the Commonwealth. But it is no longer appropriate for her, or her successors, to be the New Zealand Head of State also.

Some New Zealanders fail to appreciate that most members of the Commonwealth are republics, and several are even kingdoms, and that does not affect their Commonwealth membership. A suggestion that becoming a republic would oblige New Zealand to leave the Commonwealth is pure scaremongering.

The debate should be about full independence, democracy and effective government with a New Zealand based democratically elected, executive head of state.

I believe New Zealand’s time has come.