The ability of migrants to access welfare payments is frequently an issue of concern in free movement areas. Differences between countries welfare systems and the levels of payment they provide can potentially cause problems of benefit tourism - a situation in which people migrate with the specific intention of exploiting another nations more generous welfare system. Throughout the 80s and 90s, New Zealanders were frequently accused of abusing Australias welfare system. There was never truth to the stereotypes about New Zealanders - the statistics concerning unemployment, workforce participation, and welfare access did not indicate Kiwis were bludgers. At the same time, there were undoubtedly a small number of New Zealanders who took advantage of liberal welfare access in Australia. Some may have come because they viewed Australias system as more generous. Others may simply have sought a change of scenery, receiving similar benefits on both sides of the Tasman. In any group of people, there will always be some who will seek to abuse the system - this is equally true of the rest of the Australian population. The 2001 changes were a massive over-reaction to this problem. The Howard Government used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not only did it permanently bar Kiwis from accessing welfare, but also took away their ability to become Australian citizens, just in case they sought to bypass the welfare restrictions through this means. The fact that these restrictions locked hard-working Kiwis into a permanent second-class status with no voting rights or social safety net seemed to be a matter of little concern to the Government. It is this paranoia about Kiwis abusing the welfare system that prevents progress on this issue to the present day. However, it does not have to be this way. There are perfectly reasonable policy options to weed out the small minority who would seek to abuse the system. The most obvious of these is the application of waiting periods for access to government services and payments. This is the approach Australia applies to all other permanent migrants - it generates little controversy and is considered satisfactory by both migrants and the general population. A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice raises another means to achieve this. It ruled that countries could deny welfare payments to an EU migrant if that migrant had moved with the intention of living off welfare payments, rather than from employment or personal savings. The Courts ruling drew upon rules specific to the EU, but the principle established could easily be replicated in Australia. What we need are reasonable solutions to legitimate problems, not the knee-jerk reactions and blanket bans that have characterised trans-Tasman migration for the last 13 years.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 04:59:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015