Kiwi pathway to Australian citizenship safe in upcoming election
Despite some reservations at the time, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the four-year pathway to get citizenship. The Coalition has told news outlet
AAP
that they have no plans to change it.
That's great news for many Kiwis like Eric Huang who moved to Sydney in 2023 to study law. He's wanting to make Australia his home, but prior to the change would have found it harder to get citizenship.
Huang, who is studying law and working part time, says Australia offers better work and income opportunities.
Although, he says the cost of living is biting in Australia, pointing out that when he came to Sydney, for example, bananas were $2 per kilo cheaper.
He's following the election closely as he wants to live here long term and believes the Coalition offers the best policies.
However, other Kiwis spoken to by RNZ worry about the Coalition winning.
Carol Smail, who moved to Australia in 1980 from Invercargill and has dual citizenship, says she fears Opposition leader Peter Dutton could back track on the promise not to scrap the citizenship pathway for Kiwis.
Smail says she is fearful because Dutton has promised to cut immigration by 100,000 people as a way of taking pressure off housing.
She says that won't be easy to do and the Coalition may be forced to look at Kiwis who haven't got citizenship as a way of making up the numbers.
Australian media
AAP
has reported that the Coalition has said it won't cut the citizenship pathway for New Zealanders.
Smail votes in both countries and said one of the things that worries her is growing inequality and the prospects for indigenous Australians. She says the diminishing of First Nations people in Australia is quite shocking.
Climate change is also something Smail feels isn't being taken seriously by the major parties in Australia.
Both Smail and Huang, however, say while Australian has its problems, they are optimistic about Australia's future and believe it will continue to be a big draw card for Kiwis.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
2 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Te reo Maori is ‘normal'; stop treating it like it is not
Not ''abnormal'' language. PHOTO: ODT FILES If you can say the word "car", you can say the word "karakia". If you can say the word "for" you can say the word "koro". Unless of course if you are the minister of education, in which case, the complexity of using the same vowel sound for the same letters in both English and Māori words is too great a language hurdle. This is the official reason for the elimination of common reo Māori being removed from the Ready to Read Phonics Plus series of books. This decision by the minister has caused widespread condemnation and was recently described as "white supremacy". Some people will struggle with this term being used to describe the actions of the minister and ministry. White supremacy invokes the common image of skin-headed Nazis, hateful violence and destruction. So, is the minister's decision an act of white supremacy? White supremacy is a term that is not just used to describe individuals. It is an ideology that arises from the settler-colonisation of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu and from a desperate grip on monolingualism seen almost nowhere else in the world. It is a term used to describe how racism is built into the systems that govern us. When racism is built into our systems of governance in Aotearoa New Zealand, we see it when the language, culture and people of Māori and other non-Pākehā ethnicities are treated like an aberration or not "normal". The treatment of non-Pākehā culture and language as "not normal" is evident in many ways. We saw an example recently when the minister for justice described the haka in Parliament as lacking "civility". But it is most prominent in the different ways te reo Māori is being eliminated from public view. The argument government uses is English is "normal" and te reo Māori is not "normal". It is untrue, and when this false argument drives government policy, that policy can be rightly described as white supremacy. The Māori Language Act 1987 made te reo Māori an official language of New Zealand, the first time any language was legislated as an official language. Legislation confirming New Zealand sign language as such followed in 2006. The effect of these two Acts is to give all New Zealanders the right to use te reo Māori and New Zealand sign language in legal proceedings and it places obligations on public services to make provision for their use. The use of te reo Māori is therefore protected by law. This was a great start. The kohanga reo movement, kura kaupapa Māori and the oversubscription of adult te reo Māori classes across the country all pile on evidence of the fact New Zealanders are increasingly using and wanting to use te reo Māori in their everyday language. It would be quite reasonable to think then te reo Māori is normal. And it is. Most likely, whether you "speak" te reo or not, you also use Māori words like kiwi, kai, waka and mana. You may often say "ka pai" when your kids do something well, "ka kite", or the peculiarly New Zealand slang of "ka keets" when you drop your kids or your "moko" at their "kura". You might baulk at the use of the word "Pākehā", but you still say it and know what it means. You almost certainly say, or know what kia ora means, especially when someone overseas says it to you when they discover you are a New Zealander. You may sign your colleagues' leaving cards with aroha and know what it means when it is written in yours. You might even say taihoa when someone needs to slow down and "holy hika" is making a lovely comeback when something seems surprising or undesired. These are the words our children see, hear and say everyday in some form in the reading, listening and speaking of "English". For the Ministry of Education to now classify these words as "abnormal" in New Zealand English can only be an act of racism built into our system of governance, and therefore rightly described as white supremacy. I admit to being particularly offended at the elimination of the word "koro" from the Ready to Read books. That word means our grandfather, our beloved elder and when it is used by us and by our mokopuna it refers to the utter love and affection we hold for those older men in our lives. To eliminate this word in the readers is to eliminate the depth of that relationship from the language of our moko who are learning to read. If the ministry continues with its plans, the precious relationship that mokopuna Māori have with their koro will disappear in their books. The only elder men who will matter will be Pākehā grandfathers. That is white supremacy. ■ Metiria Stanton Turei is a senior law lecturer at the University of Otago and a former Green Party MP and co-leader.
Otago Daily Times
10 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Bill banning protest outside homes passes first hurdle
By Giles Dexter of RNZ Legislation to make protesting outside someone's home an offence has passed its first reading at Parliament. The bill would apply to demonstrations directed at a specific person outside their private residence, considering factors including how 'unreasonable' the protest is. Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori opposed the bill, expressing concerns it could override the right to freedom of protest, and there were existing tools police could use. Standing in for Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, James Meager said the bill would be a welcome relief to many MPs, officials and other individuals who had been targeted. He said the bill was a balance of rights and freedoms. "The protection of New Zealanders' privacy is fundamentally important in our society, as is the ability to protest. The government upholds both of these values." Meager said the public's right to protest was protected by the Bill of Rights Act, but demonstrations outside homes could impede on someone's right to privacy. "Unreasonable, disruptive intrusions into people's private spaces are simply unacceptable." The government believed existing legislation did not clearly reflect the importance of privacy in the context of demonstrations, meaning police had difficulty in applying offences like disorderly behaviour. The offence would only apply if the protest was targeted at a specific person outside their private residence, meaning marches that passed by someone's house would not be covered. Time of day, duration, the demonstrators' actions, noise levels and distance to the premises would also be factors in determining the offence. Despite Labour leader Chris Hipkins earlier expressing his concerns that protest had become personalised, his party did not support the bill. Labour's justice spokesman Duncan Webb said the bill "chips away" at free speech rights, and New Zealand could not call itself a liberal democracy while passing legislation that prohibited demonstration. "The point of political action is to disrupt. It is not to be nice, it's not to be convenient. Protest is disruptive, that's what a protest is." Webb acknowledged other MPs have experienced people acting inappropriately outside their residences, but the legislation was targeted to suppress political action. "If that's your problem, the easy fix is actually to fix the offence of disorderly behaviour, and make it clear that disorder that flows into a private premise can in fact still amount to that offence." The Green Party also opposed the bill. MP Celia Wade-Brown said threats to people's safety or their families' safety were unacceptable, but the new offence had a disproportionate punishment. "Three months in prison, $2000 fine, this is not a parking ticket." Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi said if police felt they could not apply existing legislation to remove someone behaving unreasonably outside another's home, then police should "check their practice." Speaking in support of the bill, ACT's Todd Stephenson accepted there were two competing rights in the legislation, but the Select Committee phase would be a chance for a discussion about how the balance could be struck. "It's worthwhile at least going through the Select Committee process and uncovering what powers the police do or don't have currently, but they're saying they don't have sufficient powers." Casey Costello from New Zealand First said it was a "sad, sad indictment on our democracy" that the legislation was even needed. "We know we have politically motivated groups who will purposely release private residential addresses of elected officials, of businesspeople, in order to invoke an intimidatory approach to dealing with decisions." She disagreed it was a limitation on protesting, but a protection for people's privacy. "It is absolutely reasonable to say that we will ensure that voices can be heard, but my children, my mother, my family will not have to bear the price of the decisions or the public position that I hold," she said. The Justice Committee will now consider the bill and report back within four months.
Scoop
12 hours ago
- Scoop
Labour Commits To Bringing Back Gang Patches
Labour has finally announced its first law and order policy with Peeni Henare confirming they would repeal the gang patch ban, National's Justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith says. 'In a Tamaki Makaurau byelection debate last night, Peeni Henare confirmed Labour will return to the bad old days of gangs taking over towns and frightening New Zealanders. 'This is shocking, but hardly surprising from a party so soft on crime. Labour has once again shown how out of touch they are with everyday Kiwis. 'On numerous occasions, Chris Hipkins has committed to keeping National's gang patch ban. He needs to be clear with New Zealanders – does he have any policies of his own, or is his plan dictated to him by Te Pāti Maori and the Greens? 'Banning gang patches has been an integral part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working. There are 28,000 fewer victims of violent crime than when we came into Government. Allowing gangs to once again behave as if they're above the law, puts all that at risk.' Using Scoop for work? Scoop is free for personal use, but you'll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features. Join Pro Individual Find out more
