INZ had some serious problems over lockdown from what I have heard, and it's very easy to forget that these are people's lives that are being bounced around from desk to desk, not just a light rail line that never gets built or an OIA request that just keeps getting extended indefinitely. 

My problem is with that reporting - it's presenting a story comprised only of statements made by people who are not getting what they want, including an immigration consultant who wants to be paid.

Even if INZ was contacted and "decline to answer" for whatever reason, they omitted that step.  Privacy is a valid reason to decline to release information to the media.

OIA requests would be futile unless the complainants made them themselves and waived any privacy concerns they may have and made the documents public.

There's an opposition in parliament - what are they doing?  If nothing, then maybe things aren't quite how the news article presents it.

The article doesn't even clearly state or confirm if entry is denied because limited MIQ spaces, or if immigration won't grant entry for other reasons, which could be criteria common to every country.

But go ahead and assume the worst, it seems to be a common thing.

Handle9: This has been extensively reported and the opposition has also raised this many times. New Zealanders couldn't care less.

No it hasn't.  Google news search for Craig Hurn shows one article in Newhub ( and one in The Guardian) three weeks ago. 

Limiting arrivals seems to have bipartisan support ATM, the opposition would of course prefer if priorities were different, if the new article was an example of an extraordinary case, they should be all over it - but they don't appear to be.

Newsroom has about 2% of the audience reach of Stuff/Herald, Newshub doesn't even get a mention in Neilsen ratings.

"New Zealanders couldn't care less" is your personal opinion based on what?

Fred99:

 

My problem is with that reporting - it's presenting a story comprised only of statements made by people who are not getting what they want, including an immigration consultant who wants to be paid.

 

Even if INZ was contacted and "decline to answer" for whatever reason, they omitted that step.  Privacy is a valid reason to decline to release information to the media.

 

OIA requests would be futile unless the complainants made them themselves and waived any privacy concerns they may have and made the documents public.

 

There's an opposition in parliament - what are they doing?  If nothing, then maybe things aren't quite how the news article presents it.

 

The article doesn't even clearly state or confirm if entry is denied because limited MIQ spaces, or if immigration won't grant entry for other reasons, which could be criteria common to every country.

 

But go ahead and assume the worst, it seems to be a common thing.

 

 

 

You're making a bold assumption that the immigration consultant is making a fuss just because of money. I know from other people working in related situations that they would rather the right thing be done by their clients whether or not they get paid. In some cases they make no money from taking on these causes.

The opposition have raised this issue in parliament. Just go and do a search for what Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop have said in parliament.

It's my understanding INZ often don't give a reason for denying a visa. INZ don't base their decision on MIQ spaces. The visa is granted based on purely immigration criteria then the visa holder gets in line for an MIQ spot.

I'm not assuming anything. I know this is happening and for no explainable reason.

Technofreak:

 

You're making a bold assumption that the immigration consultant is making a fuss just because of money.

 

I never said "just because of money".

I mentioned the incentive of money for an immigration consultant as one reason why the article was unbalanced.  It's only telling one side of a story.

 

The opposition have raised this issue in parliament. Just go and do a search for what Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop have said in parliament.

 

There's no mention of Mr Hurn or Mr Gregory in hansard, so I assume you mean they opposed extension of a bill restricting immigration numbers as a response to a global pandemic.

"Three leaders ago, they were certain we could open the borders to Australia when there were 350 people per day being infected by COVID. Two leaders ago, they were certain we could open to Australia when active cases were around 7,000".

Fred99:

 

Technofreak:

 

You're making a bold assumption that the immigration consultant is making a fuss just because of money.

 

 

I never said "just because of money".

 

I mentioned the incentive of money for an immigration consultant as one reason why the article was unbalanced.  It's only telling one side of a story.

 

What is the other side of the story?

I suspect I know what the other side of the story is. The government is using Covid as a smoke screen for their extremely restrictive immigration policy. The government don't want to admit how restrictive their new immigration policy is. These poor people have been caught in the middle of this change and the government is proving to be very inflexible. Just my opinion mind you but I don't think I'm far wrong.

I'd be keen to know what you think the other side of the story is.

Fred99:

 

There's no mention of Mr Hurn or Mr Gregory in hansard, so I assume you mean they opposed extension of a bill restricting immigration numbers as a response to a global pandemic.

 

"Three leaders ago, they were certain we could open the borders to Australia when there were 350 people per day being infected by COVID. Two leaders ago, they were certain we could open to Australia when active cases were around 7,000".

 

There's no mention of these names in Hansard because these people were not being talked about specifically.

Take a look here 25 March 2021

or here 6 April 2021

or here 13 May 2021

and here for families already in New Zealand 11 May 2021

Technofreak:

 

The government is using Covid as a smoke screen for their extremely restrictive immigration policy.

 

What???

Covid is absolutely the reason for the restrictive immigration policy and will be for the next two years.  There's no "smokescreen" or top secret conspiracy stuff going on.

Fred99:

 

Technofreak:

 

The government is using Covid as a smoke screen for their extremely restrictive immigration policy.

 

 

What???

 

Covid is absolutely the reason for the restrictive immigration policy and will be for the next two years.  There's no "smokescreen" or top secret conspiracy stuff going on.

 

I think you're getting MIQ restrictions and immigration criteria mixed up.

Fred99:

 

There's an opposition in parliament - what are they doing?  If nothing, then maybe things aren't quite how the news article presents it.

 

I'd shudder to think that having a functional opposition in Parliament is a pre-requisite being able to critique our civil service, especially given the state of our opposition.

As pointed out, Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop have been repeatedly highlighting this in the media.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2021/06/government-lets-just-15-family-members-of-highly-skilled-migrants-enter-new-zealand-despite-exemption-to-reunite-them.html

But it's good to know you can't have a news story that quotes affected parties without it somehow being 'unbalanced'.

GV27:

 

As pointed out, Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop have been repeatedly highlighting this in the media.

 

No they haven't - or if they have, then the media have not been picking up and reporting it.

That's one of the only two articles that I mention here. (plus one in the Guardia).

Those media outlets have very low readership in NZ.

Technofreak:

 

I think you're getting MIQ restrictions and immigration criteria mixed up.

 

No I'm not.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/BILL_109777/immigration-covid-19-response-amendment-bill

Fred99:

 

GV27:

 

As pointed out, Erica Stanford and Chris Bishop have been repeatedly highlighting this in the media.

 

 

No they haven't - or if they have, then the media have not been picking up and reporting it.

 

That's one of the only two articles that I mention here. (plus one in the Guardia).

 

Those media outlets have very low readership in NZ.

 

How about these two recent articles.

New Zealand Herald 18 May 2021

Stuff 18 April 2021

They weren't hard to find. There will be others no doubt. Keep digging.