Slashdot Mirror

That's one more than the Aussies then?
At July 2012, people born in New Zealand had an unemployment rate of 4.8 per cent, compared to 4.9 per cent for people born in Australia.

:)

What should you do? Leave the country and become an Australian citizen in protest!

You do know that you just can't waltz up to Oz and say "I want in" and expect to settle there?
 
  Visas, Immigration and Refugees

I thought Australian immigration requires anyone to be of at least 1 or 2 years (depending on few factors) as a permanent resident before they can apply to become a citizen, and becoming a PR in itself takes a while.

Not that much on certain types of visa... (of course the Australian govt. needs and takes money... did you really think the Aussie school was so good to attract hundred of thousands of Indian students before the onset of GFC and the restrictions on getting an Australian PR?)

I thought Australian immigration requires anyone to be of at least 1 or 2 years (depending on few factors) as a permanent resident before they can apply to become a citizen, and becoming a PR in itself takes a while.

Not that much on certain types of visa... (of course the Australian govt. needs and takes money... did you really think the Aussie school was so good to attract hundred of thousands of Indian students before the onset of GFC and the restrictions on getting an Australian PR?)

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

And it ends with a doozy: "Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others"

Wow. Wait until the trolls get ahold of _that_ hammer! They'll be the only ones left speaking.

>However the constitution does specifiy the right to democratic elections and the High Court has rulled that this means political speach can't be censored.

I'm glad the high court ruled "implied free speech" instead of no free speech at all!!! but that's a real stretch isn't it? That interpretation was very controversial. The Australian Civil Liberties Union: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/aclu/judges_have_failed.htm

The govenment tell us we need free speech for our democratic elections, then limit it only to "constructive free speech that won't harm someone". There's a lot of BS on that IMMI page like not censoring the press (a journo with a government document can be jailed even if they don't publish it) and Freedom of assembly: see 'Marching Permits'. Yes, you have free speech, but a limited version of it nothing like the US. Don't use it too hard or you mighty break it. ;-) http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

So you think you have free speech because a government web site says you do? Let's look at that a little deeper:
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write ... ",
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time ..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)

Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!

And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...

It continues:
" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "

At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?

And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)

So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...

James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/staffer-could-face-10-years-for-sharing-slippers-diary-20120706-21mna.html

The interesting thing that a lot of Australian Internet Users miss is that we (Australians) do not have a provision garanteeing or protecting free speech. All internet posts are pretty much covered under the libel and slander laws.

The interesting part is that this is a myth.

Speech is one of the five fundamental freedoms that every Australian is entitled to. The other four are Association, Assembly, Movement and Religion. Feel free to have a read.

What we don't have is a US style bill of rights, but just like the US's bill of rights Australia's five fundamental freedoms is only as good as the people who defend it (it's for this reason I believe Oz doesn't need a bill of rights).

Note that Australia is pretty hostile to immigration and it can be tough even for white people to get in.

Confirmed - if you don't find an employer to sponsor you, the wait period is forever-and-a-day.

Some other things: most livable cities + Melbourne still on top

However, don't forget most expensive cities for expats

If you have kids, no matter where you immigrate, good chances to be a nightmare for a period of 1-4 years - a no-no if your kids are past the primary school age.

Southern Europe may mean: Italy, Spain, Greece - Italian and Greek expats communities are pretty common, Spaniards not that much in English speaking countries.
Anyway, European countries have rather high population densities and good public transport coverage. US, Australia (and Canada??) are countries with huge suburban sprawls, owning a car is almost survival level (don't expect a shopping centre just as you exist your place and don't expect frequent buses in suburbs). Of course, if you are lucky (and find a good paid job) you may be able to afford to rent in central areas, but don't bet on it.

India - hmmmm... if you can think of a very busy market day (or a festival day) but forget about the fun, you'd have a pretty good idea on how the everyday streets in India look like (at least the case in major IT centres).
The car traffic is insane, a continuous rush hours except 4-5 hours during the night. Nobody seems to follow any other rule but "I want to go where I need" and nobody seems to care about incessant honking - I was under continuous stress my week in India, my brain interpreted the honking as "you are in immediate danger" (until I get adjusted to the idea they are using it just to signal their presence). Frequently, cars and motorcycles will even use footpaths to overtake. Malaria is a risk; one may (or may not) get adjusted with the food.
Power outages (of smaller scale than the recent major ones) are frequent - my experience: almost daily, of 3-15 minutes duration. If you have kids, I would strongly advice you against... otherwise, if you have a big adventurous spirit, why not?

China? Do you speak mandarin (for the mainland China)? What about Cantonese (for Honk Kong)? If neither, maybe it's not such a good idea

I think it is actually 50: http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/175/

When there is freedom, there are people who abuse the freedom to harm others. The purpose of law is to draw the line.

For example, I enjoy my freedom of bringing a knife to lunch break in the park. As it happens muggers also bring their knives. To prevent crime, police can seize weapons from criminals. Dictature happens not because of this limitation, but when the police does not make any more the difference between a peaceful citizen slicing bread and a criminal being violent.

Same goes for all kinds of freedoms protected by law and constitutions: you're free until you misuse and start to harm other people. This definition has been consistently used from the French revolution (Declaration des Droits, 1789, art. 4), John Stuart Mill (On Liberty, 1859) to modern Libertarians in the US ( http://www.libertarianism.com/content/definitions-of-libertarianism/lib_101 ) and even, you guess it, the Australian government ( http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm )

You are free to express your opinions

Actually no. There is no such thing as "free speech" in Australia.

This is pure bollocks.

http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

you need to do some reading.

Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write what we think privately or publicly, about the government, or about any topic. We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.

What you're not allowed to do, is write false information, for example saying "OzPeter is a pedophile" without proof would be illegal if it were not an example.

It's great that we Australians don't take ourselves to seriously, because when they do (like the parent has) they are normally full of shit.

While it hasn't got anything to do with tax, Australia's immigration policies are based on such a concept.

There's a list of 'needed' careers, or careers in demand that gets updated from time to time by the relevant government agencies (relying on figures from the Bureau of Statistics and Department of Employment and Workplace Relations). If you have qualifications in a needed field, you'll find the immigration requirements significantly relaxed compared to others. Here's the current list of 'desired' occupations: http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule1.pdf

Point is, it'd quite possible to apply a similar thing to a tax system and provided it's run by a good government employing proper transparency and anti-corruption safeguards (which in any civilised country should already be in place), it shouldn't pose a problem.

Everything you need to know about migrating to NZ is here.

After you've done that you'll want to take the next logical step.

Everything you need to know about immigrating to Australia is here.

You seem to have a very wrong (albeit common) view of how the constitution works. The amendments don't grant us rights; they merely amend the body of the constitution. For that matter the constitution doesn't grant us rights either. We, as human beings, simply have the rights. Rather, the constitution creates a federal government to handle matters that are better handled by it than by the states.

Constitutions and Bills of rights do not grant us what rights we have, they determine what rights can be taken away and how.

This is one of the reasons I believe Australia will be no better off having a codified "bill of rights" as we are still dependent on the government de jour to enforce that bill. Meaning if a government is going to ignore our un-explicitly granted rights (currently our five fundamental freedoms), they will ignore our explicitly granted rights just as easily.

Addendum: For those in America - Australia doesn't have a "Bill of Rights". We work on the principle you have a right to everything, unless prohibited by law. There's no explicit listing of rights that you guys have

There actually is,

Look at the five fundamental freedoms. These are implied freedoms, so isn't an explicit document like the US bill of rights but as we've seen in the last few years that's only as good as the government who enforces it.

I find it funny that immigrants have to learn about the Australian constitution and the freedoms pertained within but born citizens rarely do, yet we spend 1 term per year (6-8 hours per week for 10 weeks, for our non Australian friends) in out social studies classes (History, Geography) learning about Aboriginal history (not that I have anything against the Aborigines but everything really can be learned in 1 term, perhaps 2 leaving more time for other local and international history studies in the three mandatory years of high school).

but you seem to think that putting some nice sounding principles into a constitution guarantees citizens rights. We have a saying in Germany: "Paper is patient." This means that you can write whatever you like down on paper but it doesn't necessarily mean anything! Communist East Germany had a beautiful constitution granting its citizens all kinds of rights which they didn't actually have in practice! Also it seems to me that what your constitution means changes with the composition of your Supreme Court judges. Furthermore it is extremely easy to ignore or misinterpret constitutions and countries ideals as witnessed by the many US citizens that firmly believe that the US started out and was intended to be a Christian state.

This is my issue with relying on a document for rights and why Australia does not need a Bill of Rights. Such a bill is entirely dependent on the government at the time to enforce it. If that government sees fit to ignore parts or all of the bill then it can do so. As we've seen recently in the United States, there was little protest against the unconstitutional warrantless wiretapping, imprisoning on Guantanamo Bay and of course the on going TSA goose-stepping in every US airport (Dear Americans, you don't know how easy and simple air travel is until you spend time outside your own nation). Australia has maintained it's implied freedoms (the five fundamental freedoms) better then the US has maintained it's explicit freedoms in the last decade all without a bill of rights.

Thought this may amuse some people:

The Australian Immigration Department website suggests using IE6 OR LOWER when browsing their site!

http://www.immi.gov.au/e_visa/

Australia is equally difficult to get into, I'll grant you that. But the difference is, Australia has a nice government website that you plug a few details in and it tells you exactly what visas you can try to apply for and a step by step approach to do it, including PDFs of all the forms you'll need etc: http://www.immi.gov.au/

On the other hand, trying to navigate the US government's immigration website(s) is a nightmare. There's no simple, step by step guide to what to do. It's just a mess of random forms and information about various visas which may or may not apply to your situation.

PS. This might have changed, but I'm going on the investigation I did a couple of years ago when I looked into moving from Australia to the US myself in order to marry my US girlfriend. It seemed to complicated, so in the end, she actually immigrated to Australia and we now live here.

Far from it, from what I've seen in the news at least Australia has unfortunately largely been down the same path as the US since 9/11.

It's a shame because for many of us Brits it's the dream place to visit and migrate to. Beautiful weather and scenery, lovely people with a shared history. Even their national heroes are better, we have neanderthalic retards like David Beckham and they had the awesomeness that was Steve Irwin. Unfortunately though until it's political parties sort their game out I wont even visit let alone consider moving.

No doubt their government will continue to whine and moan about shortages of people specialised in various professions though and sit wondering why people aren't filling them, one of them being IT professionals. Have a look here to see how desperate they are for IT pros:

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/skilled-occupations/occupations-in-demand.htm

Maybe if their government was planing a forward thinking nation technologically and that was hence attractive to IT professionals they'd actually be able to fill some of these shortages. Unfortunately they seem to have taken a leaf from the US and British book where it's all about over the top government control.

you're right, sorry, thats what i get for posting in work it was http://www.immi.gov.au/ that i'd contacted, i'd quickly looked up the URL and it 'seemed' right

the http://www.immigration.com.au/ wit

That doesn't sound like it is a government site: it should have .gov.au in it. For example: http://www.immi.gov.au/

The whole point of my post was to compare permanent residents to non -permanent residents in regards to their chances of getting employed.

OK, now having that in mind - please re-read my original post and then comment.

As if there is any point talking to strangers...

Australia is more racist than Japan. Generally speaking. No offense to non-racist Australians, I recognize there are a heck of a lot of you. But I'm just saying... wow. Lots and lots who are on the opposite side of that table.

Just look at the history of Australia's immigration policy and notice how it swing back the close-minded direction again in the mid 90's.

Immigration is a POSITIVE economic force.

statistics available at http://www.immi.gov.au/statistics/

The land of wonder, the land down under.

This lawyer with very limited experience makes a statement that there are patent issues with the linux kernel, and doesn't back it up. You'd think he'd know that such a statement, w/o backing, might be actionable, if only because he's slandering everyone on the kernel development team. He's also contributing to the general level of FUD. If this statement were made by someone who wasn't posing as a "friend" of open source, we'd be all over his ass like a pair of cheap underwear on a $5 hooker.

Instead of pulling factoids out of thin air, let him SHOW that there's a single proven patent infringement in the kernel. He can't, any more than anyone else has been able to - that makes me question his honesty, his intelligence, and his motives.

It's not like the kernel source has been hidden away.

What next - team up with Merkey in another FUD campaign? I mean, I've heard the old expression "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer", but this is fucking retarded.

BTW: Did you read the rules? Be controversial, be funny, but above all MAKE PEOPLE THINK instead of having them post the same knee-jerk responses. You're welcome to join in, but remember, it requires more than a superficial analysis of the situation. Cynicism is a definite requirement.

Actually, that's not true. The are not illegals.

They are illegal immigrants.

Under Australia's migration law all foreign nationals wishing to travel to Australia must obtain authorisation to enter Australia in the form of a valid Australia visa. People who arrive in Australia without such authorisation are unlawful arrivals (or "illegal entrants"), and Australia's law requires that they be detained.

Whether they are also refugees is something that is determined during detainment.

Now, refugee is a word that can be used outside of a strictly legal context

The UN definition of refugee is very clear.

And "huge number" are not refugees? Who says?

The public record.

For example, at 20 June 2002, at the offshore processing centres at Nauru and Manus, 1,446 people have received decisions on their asylum claims, comprising 494 approvals and 952 refusals. For other nationality groups, few or no unauthorised arrivals are found to be refugees.

Look, I can tell you're emotional about this issue. You've already implied that I'm a "John Laws loving halfwit" and you're making similar accusations against other people. I advise you calm down because your "foaming at the mouth" behaviour does more harm than good. Demonising me doesn't strengthen your argument; it just makes you sound like an ignorant idealist

Actually, that's not true. The are not illegals.

They are illegal immigrants.

Under Australia's migration law all foreign nationals wishing to travel to Australia must obtain authorisation to enter Australia in the form of a valid Australia visa. People who arrive in Australia without such authorisation are unlawful arrivals (or "illegal entrants"), and Australia's law requires that they be detained.

Whether they are also refugees is something that is determined during detainment.

Now, refugee is a word that can be used outside of a strictly legal context

The UN definition of refugee is very clear.

And "huge number" are not refugees? Who says?

The public record.

For example, at 20 June 2002, at the offshore processing centres at Nauru and Manus, 1,446 people have received decisions on their asylum claims, comprising 494 approvals and 952 refusals. For other nationality groups, few or no unauthorised arrivals are found to be refugees.

Look, I can tell you're emotional about this issue. You've already implied that I'm a "John Laws loving halfwit" and you're making similar accusations against other people. I advise you calm down because your "foaming at the mouth" behaviour does more harm than good. Demonising me doesn't strengthen your argument; it just makes you sound like an ignorant idealist

Actually, that's not true. The are not illegals.

They are illegal immigrants.

Under Australia's migration law all foreign nationals wishing to travel to Australia must obtain authorisation to enter Australia in the form of a valid Australia visa. People who arrive in Australia without such authorisation are unlawful arrivals (or "illegal entrants"), and Australia's law requires that they be detained.

Whether they are also refugees is something that is determined during detainment.

Now, refugee is a word that can be used outside of a strictly legal context

The UN definition of refugee is very clear.

And "huge number" are not refugees? Who says?

The public record.

For example, at 20 June 2002, at the offshore processing centres at Nauru and Manus, 1,446 people have received decisions on their asylum claims, comprising 494 approvals and 952 refusals. For other nationality groups, few or no unauthorised arrivals are found to be refugees.

Look, I can tell you're emotional about this issue. You've already implied that I'm a "John Laws loving halfwit" and you're making similar accusations against other people. I advise you calm down because your "foaming at the mouth" behaviour does more harm than good. Demonising me doesn't strengthen your argument; it just makes you sound like an ignorant idealist

It's funny how you say this to him when it is very obvious that you are the uneducated bleeding heart spouting the same bullshit propaganda as told by Greenpeace/Democratic Socialist Party. You obviously don't understand the issue and have a very one-sided view of the facts, evident in your wonderfully well researched argument that "not all Australians are parochial, inbred, racist rednecks like you." Then you go on to invoke Godwin's law in your next paragraph! Here's a clue fucko, the minute you finish your arts degree and start paying tax, then you can actually look at some of these issues without counting on the liberal press to tell you how to think.

we would be rounding up all the British backpackers that are currently also "illegals" at Bondi and putting them in camps out in the desert. But we're not.

Actually dipshit, we are. The difference is though, they don't mind going home. Illegal immigrants from war torn countries and such are (of course) VERY reluctant to be returned home, so Australia is obliged to accomodate these people until their identities can be confirmed. If they fullfil the criteria to be given refugee status, they are treated as such and are put straight into community housing and financial support all paid for by our taxes. And, as the statistics show, it's not quite as cut and dried as you make out. Concentration Camps? Ypu are truly retarded. I've been out there myself, as I work in a related government field, and I can tell you, it is NO concentration camp. They are far better serviced than either our jails or juvenile detention centres, and have almost all the same luxuries as any austrailian household. (ie hot & cold water, beds, meals, entertainment, access to telephones and mail, etc) Maybe you should keep it quiet until you get the education you keep whining about.

False. Here's the Australian statistics for calendar year 2000 and the US Fiscal year 2001 data Note in particular that the US accepted 349,776 legal immigrants from Asia that year, to Australia's 63,515 total legal immigrants from all countries in 2000 (only about half of whom were from asia).

Replying to myself to make clear something.

I'm not saying that Australia is full, and can't support above a certain number of people - I don't know that limit. I just intend to point out that Australia is not North America. You can not compare population:landsize ratios and say, "Oooh, they could support another 250 million people because North America and Europe did."

Australia is a multicultural society where 23.6% of the population was directly born overseas. Australia has obviously benefitted greatly from immigration. It is a bit strange for some to claim that Australians don't like immigration.

I think the issue for Australians surrounding the Tampa issue was not that people want zero immigration (which would lead to negative net migration!) but rather that these "boat people" are not seen to be completely honest. They are from Middle Eastern nations and have paid for their way through multiple countries where Australia has embassies such as Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. The Middle East is a long way from Australia! This is seen by the public to indicate that these people are not truely political refugees but rather are just interested in jumping the queue while escaping the poor situations in their countries. And I don't know that they realize when they begin the trip that they'll be stuffed onto a tiny fishing vessel by people-smugglers and sent across an ocean.

http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/02key.htm

Fact: "The Australian resident population was 19.2 million at 30 June 2000, an increase of 190 000 people (or 1.01 per cent) since 30 June 1999."

Fact: (from earlier version of same page)
"At 30 June 1998, 23.3 per cent of the estimated resident population were born overseas: 6.2 per cent of the population was born in the UK, 12.9 per cent was born in Europe and the former USSR, 5.3 per cent was born in Asia, 2.3 per cent was born in Oceania, 1.2 per cent was born in the Middle East and North Africa, and less than 2 per cent in other regions."

Fact: (from current version)
"At 30 June 2000, 23.6 per cent of the estimated resident population were born overseas: 6.1 per cent of the population were born in the UK, 12.5 per cent were born in Europe and the former USSR, 5.6 per cent were born in Asia, 2.5 per cent were born in Oceania, 1.2 per cent were born in the Middle East and North Africa, and less than 2 per cent in other regions."

I was almost 100% sure that the detention centres were government run.

I used to live in Wellington, New Zealand. And that's a nice city - but small, only 400K.

At the start of last year, I moved across the Tasman, to Melbourne. Melbourne is just a really nice place to live - great culture, night life, and the job scene seems to be going strongly.

I've found it pretty easy to settle in here, and meet people. There is always something to do. As for jobs.. try these sites:

IT Jobs site by Fairfax
Seek
Monster


As for other sites of interest, check out:
Immigration site
Autralian Taxation Office
Domain a great place to search for share accomodation
The Age newspaper

Umm.. I don't have links for what's on around the city, but some great stuff happens, apart from the good club scene - there's the formula 1 grand prix, if you like noisy loud things that go fast, moonlight cinema is a good thing in summer - outdoor movies. It's just really kind of relaxing and nice.

Melbourne is just really livable and has a good public transport system Victrip

Hope this helps.. and don't forget, I'm a kiwi saying this about Melbourne :)