The Final Straw? Matters first came to a head as a result of the 2011 Queensland floods. The unequal treatment meted out by the FCSLA Act became visible on a grand scale when New Zealanders who were victims of the flooding were initially denied federal disaster relief, as one must be an ‘Australian resident’ under the Social Security Act in order to qualify for such assistance. New Zealand media ran a number of stories in which flood victims complained of racism – e.g.: NZ pair upset at flood cash racism ...when they applied to Government support agency Centrelink for an Australian Government Disaster Relief Payment, they were turned down because they are not Australian. His Australian next door neighbours were granted the payment. I was disgusted, he says. I have never heard anything so racist in all my life to be told Yes you went through the same disaster as us, yes you live over here, but we are not going to help you because of where you were born. Weve got a couple of kids that were born in this country. I thought the Government would at least consider them. After pressure mounted from New Zealand, the Australian Government eventually offered an ex gratia emergency relief payment to New Zealanders who had been initially turned away. However, this once-off payment was little comfort to those who had lost their source of income through no fault of their own and, without any entitlement to the unemployment benefit, had become entirely reliant upon charity for survival. Mere weeks later, Cyclone Yasi devastated northern Queensland. The ex gratia emergency relief payment only extended to the victims of flooding and did not cover other natural disasters such as cyclones. Complaints of discrimination again started to surface in the New Zealand media. The Australian government swiftly extended the ex gratia emergency relief payment to also include victims of Yasi. In a classic Catch 22 situation, New Zealand citizens who became victims of these natural disasters were also denied emergency access to their own private superannuation contributions because, in order to do so, one must be in receipt of an eligible Centrelink income support payment for at least 26 weeks – an impossible condition to meet for most New Zealand nationals affected by the 2001 changes. To add insult to injury, unlike temporary residents, New Zealand citizens are not generally entitled to withdraw their superannuation contributions upon leaving the country. Incredulously, in September 2011 a letter from the Office of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs stated, inter alia: “The 2001 changes more closely aligned the treatment of New Zealanders on a Special Category Visa with other non-permanent residents.” In February 2011 the unequal treatment of New Zealanders relative to the majority of the Australian population was again highlighted by the Christchurch earthquake. Australian nationals residing in the devastated city were automatically eligible for the same emergency and unemployment relief as that afforded to New Zealand nationals. Questions were asked as to why New Zealand should afford equal treatment to resident Australians when it was being denied to their own citizens residing in Australia. One simple answer to this question is that discrimination based upon nationality is expressly prohibited under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993, however; the Australian courts have consistently decided that, whilst the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) prohibits discrimination based upon country of birth, it does not prohibit discrimination based upon nationality. - This is an extract from David Faulkners The Unequal Treatment of New Zealanders in Australia.
Posted on: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 07:00:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015