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
1703 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 612

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
18436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2336

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.


763 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  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.


4338 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1724


  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



11252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3579

Trusted
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
18436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2336

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.

763 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  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
18436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2336

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



11252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3579

Trusted
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.






763 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154


  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.

2342 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1133


  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
18436 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2336

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.


1235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 523


  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...




11252 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3579

Trusted
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.






12423 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5827

Trusted

  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.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


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:





News »

N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07


All or Nothing: New Zealand All Blacks arrives on Amazon Prime Video
Posted 2-Jun-2018 16:21


Innovation Grant, High Tech Awards and new USA office for Kiwi tech company SwipedOn
Posted 1-Jun-2018 20:54


Commerce Commission warns Apple for misleading consumers about their rights
Posted 30-May-2018 13:15


IBM leads Call for Code to use cloud, data, AI, blockchain for natural disaster relief
Posted 25-May-2018 14:12


New FUJIFILM X-T100 aims to do better job than smartphones
Posted 24-May-2018 20:17


Stuff takes 100% ownership of Stuff Fibre
Posted 24-May-2018 19:41



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.