Australian Citizenship

[dumbledore]

We used to, prior to the unilateral changes made in 2001 and the introduction of the 2005 Higher Education Funding Act - but, sadly, no longer enjoy equality concerning the right to education.

Article 26(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
Article 13(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:
Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education
Do you think Australia is honouring its international obligations in this regard?

It is accessible, I guess, they're not saying NZ people CAN'T study here, it just...costs them a bit more. If you think about international students, they get charged a ridiculous amount. And that's in Aus AND NZ, so how is that fair if this isn't fair?

 

[dumbledore]

The 20% tuition fee discount applies only to Australian citizens. Imagine going into a shop and being charged 25% more on the sole ground that you are not an Australian. That's blatant discrimination.

Unfortunately, unlike state law, this kind of discrimination is not unlawful under Australian Federal law. This unequal treatment is, however, being challenged under international human rights law - but don't hold your breath for an outcome anytime soon.

What about things like clubs/societies? You get charged less if you're a member on the sole ground that you're a member, so would that be discrimination?

 

[Jackie]

What about things like clubs/societies? You get charged less if you're a member on the sole ground that you're a member, so would that be discrimination?

+ 1

 

[onli1]

What about things like clubs/societies? You get charged less if you're a member on the sole ground that you're a member, so would that be discrimination?

It's funny you say that because in NZ we've recently had a case where a Sikh man was refused entrance to the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club where a lunch was being held IN HIS HONOUR, because they decided to enforce the 'no head wear' policy (his turban apparently came under that broad policy) despite not enforcing this policy before. I think the last I heard about the case was that it went under mediation and many were outraged because a turban is a part of clothing identified with cultural identity, not simply just head wear. So yes clubs are allowed to impose their own rules as long as it doesn't violate human rights or law.

My main problem with this situation that kiwis are in, now that I know a bit more about this whole situation, is that New Zealand and Australia signed an agreement affording us certain rights but by no/very little notice we've been stripped of certain rights that were given to us initially under the agreement, none of which the NZ government has done. I concede there's more New Zealanders going to Australia than the other way around but using your argument of 'clubs', I am classed as a domestic student and furthermore have a Commonwealth-supported place (part of the 'club' if you will), yet because I am a New Zealand citizen I am not given the same HECS discount, among other things, based purely in this case on nationality, which is a violation of human rights.

 

[Jackie]

I am not given the same HECS discount, among other things, based purely in this case on nationality, which is a violation of human rights.

I think that there are certain benefits of citizenship to a particular country. I mean, I wish I could go over to England to study, but based on nationality, I'm not able to get the fees that they are entitled to. I'd be an international student. It's better for New Zealanders in Australia because they're considered as 'domestic' students and pay much less than international students, paying equal to Australian students. That's a good thing remember.

Remember, New Zealand is NOT a territory or state of Australia and many of you would agree. The HECs program is part of Australian government policy, for their Australian citizens, who are studying at university. It encourages Australian students to pursue university education. The Australian government acquires a DEBT from this. The university place is funded by the Australian government, which is funded by Australian taxpayers. It's not so fair if they're paying for New Zealanders to study in Australia (who may not stay to work in Australia afterwards) when that money could be better used to fund healthcare. Accept that the policy is not going to change any time soon.

It's a bit far to say that it's a violation of human rights. Would you seriously go to the UN or the International Court and argue this? There are more blatant violations of human rights, think Sudan, think Zimbabwe.

 

[onli1]

@Jackie, good point and perhaps I overstated things but nonetheless we have the right to voice our opinion on the matter and put our case against this discrimination. I agree in that this issue isn't nearly as extreme as the blatant violations of human rights seen across the globe and I am constantly disturbed at the lack of action being done on the ground in those areas. However that's not to say that the issue that 'drfaulkner' has brought forward is not worth lobbying for, and if people were simply to "Accept that the policy is not going to change any time soon." then something as significant as the reshuffling of the QLD internship positions that saw NZ citizens reversed back to the original priority group 1 wouldn't have happened. Policies like this are never truly cut and dry, even the shuffling of the QLD internship list is going to burden the taxpayer, but so is the interest free student loans that Australian citizens are eligible for in NZ, so there's something still to be said for this issue I believe.

 

[Jackie]

Yeah I understand what you're saying onli1. I just didn't want this argument to spiral out like the whole 'Why Umat why' thread.

 

[drfaulkner]

Well, shouldn't each country do what is best for its citizens. Not attacking any of you here, but the Australian government does fund the HECs-help program for its citizens, from taxpayers money.

You are on a very slippery slope with this argument Jackie. Essentially, you argue that you should be economically advantaged on the sole ground that you are a citizen.

For example, I have lived in Australia since the age of 6. I pay in excess of $40,000 in income tax alone each year. I have paid taxes in Australia for 25 years. However, I am no longer eligible for HECS or the discount should I wish to undertake a postgraduate course - whereas an Australian citizen by descent who has never even lived in Australia can do so.

Australia can choose who is allowed to come here, but once they come Australia is obligated under international law to treat all people equally - except for the rights to vote and hold public office, which can be reserved only for citizens.

Can you give me a good reason why I should not be eligible for HECS when a person who has never even set foot in Australia is eligible simply because he is a citizen by descent? I have also met countless Australians working overseas who have not paid a cent back on their HECS loans.

Also, if it were to be permissible to reserve government loans only for citizens, then there would be nothing to stop the Government from introducing HECS for Medicare, primary school education, or even legal aid. Where does it stop?

I would be very interested to hear your counter-argument.

 

[drfaulkner]

I think that there are certain benefits of citizenship to a particular country. I mean, I wish I could go over to England to study, but based on nationality, I'm not able to get the fees that they are entitled to.

Here are the benefits of citizenship - as stated by the International Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination:


3. Article 5 of the Convention incorporates the obligation of States parties to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Although some of these rights, such as the right to participate in elections, to vote and to stand for election, may be confined to citizens, human rights are, in principle, to be enjoyed by all persons. States parties are under an obligation to guarantee equality between citizens and non-citizens in the enjoyment of these rights to the extent recognized under international law;

 

[drfaulkner]

It's better for New Zealanders in Australia because they're considered as 'domestic' students and pay much less than international students, paying equal to Australian students. That's a good thing remember.

This statement is simply factually incorrect. Both New Zealanders and permanent visa holders must pay 25% higher tuition fees than Australian students. This inequality is precisely what onli1 is complaining of.

The fact that other counries commit even more serious human rights abuses is not an excuse for Australia to blatantly violate its own obligations.

 

[drfaulkner]

Remember, New Zealand is NOT a territory or state of Australia

Please allow me to aquaint you with section 6 of the Australian Constitution:

“The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a State”.

That is, New Zealand is "a State" under the Australian Constitution.

 

[Jackie]

Please allow me to aquaint you with section 6 of the Australian Constitution:

“The States” shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called “a State”.

That is, New Zealand is "a State" under the Australian Constitution.

The 1901 Australian Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join Australia as its seventh state, even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move.

I am sorry that I do not know the ins and outs of the Australian constitution. I know plenty of New Zealanders who would like New Zealand to remain independent of Australia.

 

[gustavofring]

Would just like to add

From Wikipedia - "In 1901 New Zealand did not ratify the Australian Constitution, and so rejected membership of the Australian Commonwealth. Hence, on 26 September 1907 the United Kingdom granted New Zealand (along with Newfoundland, which later became a part of Canada) "Dominion" status within the British empire.

Also,

The 1901 Australian Constitution included provisions to allow New Zealand to join Australia as its seventh state, even after the government of New Zealand had already decided against such a move.


I know that a majority of NZers would not be happy if they were regarded as a state of Australia (just look at some of the public polling from the past)

 

[drfaulkner]

I mean, I wish I could go over to England to study, but based on nationality, I'm not able to get the fees that they are entitled to.

Dear Jackie,

I am a British citizen by descent. If I went to study in England I would be subject to precisely the same 3 year waiting period as any other nationality of permanent resident before I am eligible for subsidised higher education.

This is because the EU has comprehensive, enforceable, human rights laws.

Australia does not.

Mana: please edit this post to remove the personal attack, or I will edit it for you, and give you a warning.

Mana: Very well.

 

[gustavofring]

post removed - Mana

Whilst I remain neutral in this issue, that is a bold statement to make about someone's charater from just reading a couple of posts in an online forum.

It's ok to disagree but please don't put them down just because their opinions differ to yours. Free speech is allowed and something that should be encouraged, especially for someone who seems very passionate about human equality. Attack the argument, not the person

 

[drfaulkner]

I am sorry that I do not know the ins and outs of the Australian constitution. I know plenty of New Zealanders who would like New Zealand to remain independent of Australia.

No need to apologise. In fact, I should be the one to do so. Sorry for picking on you. Nothing personal. I just wanted to make you really think about what you were saying.

Interesting about NZ and the OZ Constitution tho, you must admit.

 

[Jackie]

I actually can't be bothered continuing this argument because we're both staunch in our views. I'm going to agree to disagree. In your case, it does seem very unfair and I'm sorry about that.

There ARE problems with the HECS program in relation to New Zealanders, but it is funded by the Australian government in order to benefit their own citizens. Governments want to do what it is in their citizens best interests - providing healthcare, education, taxation systems - it differs from country to country in what they provide. Governments work from taxpayers money, the majority of whom are citizens. In effect, yes it does seem that you should be advantaged by being a citizen of a country. But the HECs policy, in effect to medicare etc, yes, it's not going to happen.

So, shall we please agree to disagree?

[And please, seriously, what is with the personal attack? I feel really sad and angry that you have said that I do not believe in human equality. I thought that this was a friendly argument, about a topic, not about me as a person. I am personally disgusted.]

 

[drfaulkner]

Whilst I remain neutral in this issue, that is a bold statement to make about someone's charater from just reading a couple of posts in an online forum.

It's ok to disagree but please don't put them down just because their opinions differ to yours.

I concur, but this was not a put down based solely on a difference of opinion. Jackie has been persistently arguing that she should be treated more favourably than another human being on the sole ground that she happens to be an Australian citizen.

She then introduces an entirely bogus claim that the English also discriminate in a similar manner in order to substantiate her argument that it is OK to treat Kiwis less favourably than Australians in otherwise the same circumstances.

As both a New Zealand and a British citizen I find the use of such a misrepresentation of the facts deeply offensive - so please get down off of your high horse.

 

[drfaulkner]

So, shall we please agree to disagree?

[And please, seriously, what is with the personal attack? I feel really sad and angry that you have said that I do not believe in human equality. I thought that this was a friendly argument, about a topic, not about me as a person. I am personally disgusted.]

This is not a personal attack. I have said that you do not believe in human equality because you have clearly been arguing for a difference in treatment based solely on nationality.

You can be as disgusted as you like, but, in resorting to a purely emotive argument, you have lost. You cannot logically justify your own position without resorting to emotion.

Perhaps you should consider studying a bit of law - it can be quite illuminating.

All the best... DRF

 

[Mana]

Might I just add a gentle reminder to be civil on here - no personal attacks please. Instead of claiming that someone does not know what they are talking about, you might claim that the argument is specious (and explain why), or point out the flaw in the argument otherwise. Attack the argument, not the person.