Did they cancel their holiday when their "good friend" was deported or just carried on enjoying them selves.

A.

frankv:

 

surfisup1000:

 

MikeB4:

 

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

 

 

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

 

 

 

You assume that they haven't.

 

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

 

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

 

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

 

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

joker97:

frankv:

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

You assume that they haven't.

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

Seems a bit draconian.  That said if they had applied for a short term working permit they probably would have got one.

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

frankv:

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

You assume that they haven't.

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

Work, paid or unpaid, is against the visitor visa conditions.

joker97:

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

frankv:

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

You assume that they haven't.

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

Work, paid or unpaid, is against the visitor visa conditions.

Depends on how you define work.

Washing dishes, walking up a hill, drawing, thinking, counting, walking a pet, pressing a button on the lift are all work in certain culture.

Maybe should rephrase. She will not be babysitting, she will be skiing.

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

 

frankv:

 

 

 

surfisup1000:

 

 

 

MikeB4:

 

 

 

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

 

 

 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You assume that they haven't.

 

 

 

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

 

 

 

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

 

 

 

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

 

 

 

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

 

 

 

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

 

Work, paid or unpaid, is against the visitor visa conditions.

Depends on how you define work.

Washing dishes, walking up a hill, drawing, thinking, counting, walking a pet, pressing a button on the lift are all work in certain culture.

Maybe should rephrase. She will not be babysitting, she will be skiing.

You've highlighted the crux of the issue. What is work, according to Immigration NZ?

From Immigration's operational manual section W2.2.1b Definition of 'employment'
'Gain or reward' includes any payment or benefit that can be valued in terms of money, such as board and lodging, goods (eg, food or clothing) and services (eg, transport).
Reference is here http://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/44065.htm

According to the above, a free trip to NZ including food and lodging would be deemed gain or reward. Therefore, the slightest assistance (especially if it were part of her normal work duties) from the aupair towards her employer would be enough to push things out of the grey and into the definition of employment.

Perhaps if the au pair didn't travel nor stay with the family it would have been viewed differently.

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

Geektastic:

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

Kiwifruta:

joker97:

frankv:

 

surfisup1000:

 

MikeB4:

 

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

 

 

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law. 

 

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes.  If they don't, then who will?  

 

 

 

 

You assume that they haven't.

 

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

 

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

 

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

 

 

 

 

Or they should just say no I'm not paying the au pair. She's here on holiday with us. Whether she baby sits or not is none of your business because I'm not paying her a cent.

 

Would that pass? If it does then everyone coming to holiday in NZ should be made aware of this and respond likewise.

 

Hmm I wonder, yes this is my business laptop. No I'm not being paid while on holiday. I'm not doing any work while on holiday, just using the laptop to book accommodation and find attractions and store photos.

Work, paid or unpaid, is against the visitor visa conditions.

Depends on how you define work.

Washing dishes, walking up a hill, drawing, thinking, counting, walking a pet, pressing a button on the lift are all work in certain culture.

Maybe should rephrase. She will not be babysitting, she will be skiing.

You've highlighted the crux of the issue. What is work, according to Immigration NZ?

From Immigration's operational manual section W2.2.1b Definition of 'employment'
'Gain or reward' includes any payment or benefit that can be valued in terms of money, such as board and lodging, goods (eg, food or clothing) and services (eg, transport).
Reference is here http://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/44065.htm

According to the above, a free trip to NZ including food and lodging would be deemed gain or reward. Therefore, the slightest assistance (especially if it were part of her normal work duties) from the aupair towards her employer would be enough to push things out of the grey and into the definition of employment.

Perhaps if the au pair didn't travel nor stay with the family it would have been viewed differently.

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

Geektastic:

 

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

 

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

 

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

 

I agree that it's farcical.

But I don't get that it is INZ's fault. They applied the law as it stands. 

Why did she not get a working visa? I'd suggest that she, and her employers, really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

How would an Australian coming over for a holiday know to apply for a work visa? I wouldn't have known!

But then I don't have an au pair.

joker97: How would an Australian coming over for a holiday know to apply for a work visa? I wouldn't have known!

 

But then I don't have an au pair. 

An Australian wouldn't need to apply for a work visa. An Australian citizen or (in most cases) permanent resident is entitled to enter, stay, study or work in New Zealand. Of course, this rule doesn't apply to French au pairs...

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

 

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

 

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

 

 

 

 

I agree that it's farcical.

 

But I don't get that it is INZ's fault. They applied the law as it stands. 

 

Why did she not get a working visa? I'd suggest that she, and her employers, really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

 

 

 

I'm sure that if she was coming here to work, she would have done so.

However, I really do not think that what was reported meets any reasonable definition of work in that scenario.

I'm quite sure INZ has more discretion than they exercised in this particular case.

Geektastic:

 

frankv:

 

Geektastic:

 

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

 

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

 

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

 

 

 

 

I agree that it's farcical.

 

But I don't get that it is INZ's fault. They applied the law as it stands. 

 

Why did she not get a working visa? I'd suggest that she, and her employers, really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure that if she was coming here to work, she would have done so.

 

However, I really do not think that what was reported meets any reasonable definition of work in that scenario.

 

I'm quite sure INZ has more discretion than they exercised in this particular case.

 

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.