Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
1873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 685

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508039 8-Mar-2016 12:00
Send private message

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

 

 

 

A.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2528

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508064 8-Mar-2016 12:58
Send private message

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.





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


 
 
 
 


806 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 166


  Reply # 1508066 8-Mar-2016 13:01
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.


5294 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2146


  Reply # 1508132 8-Mar-2016 14:44
Send private message

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

 

 

 

 





Mike



12141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508263 8-Mar-2016 16:05
Send private message

It's made the UK papers so it will probably be in French ones too.





Mad Scientist
19323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2528

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508282 8-Mar-2016 16:36
Send private message

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.




Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


806 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 166


  Reply # 1508336 8-Mar-2016 17:37
Send private message

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.



Mad Scientist
19323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2528

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508343 8-Mar-2016 17:49
Send private message

Let's replace the word au pair with

Friend
Good friend
Random stranger coz i recently separated and didn't want to waste the ticket
Sister
Parents
Home stay student who normally pays lodge




Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.




12141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508353 8-Mar-2016 18:19
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.






806 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 166


  Reply # 1508356 8-Mar-2016 18:26
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.



I tried getting my wife's sister here for a free holiday for a few months. As she is from a 3rd world country and because she would have been our guest, I was going to pay for all of her costs here.

The thing is, we'd expect her to do her part around the house like a bit of the dishes, cooking, look after the kids when the wife and I went on a date. Nothing like a maid or a nanny, just lift her share of the weight around the house, like any adult staying long term would do. But no immigration didn't like that. So she never came. Meanwhile, my wife is missing her family...... Thankfully we did manage to get the wife's parents over for 10 weeks.

2545 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1238

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508465 8-Mar-2016 20:43
Send private message

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.

 

 


Mad Scientist
19323 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2528

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508507 8-Mar-2016 21:52
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.





Swype on iOS is detrimental to accurate typing. Apologies in advance.


1243 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 530


  Reply # 1508623 9-Mar-2016 08:43
Send private message

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...




12141 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3958

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1508699 9-Mar-2016 10:14
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.






13580 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6364

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1508708 9-Mar-2016 10:25
Send private message

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.