Aussie non-entities

Australia Day. We’ve all seen the slogans – “Love it or leave”, “Fit in or f**k off”, “”P*ss off. We’re full”. We love it. We want to fit in. So why do the authorities make it so hard for us to become Aussies?

We arrived in SEQ from NZ 2005. Wouldn’t go back, no comparison. We consider ourselves “permanent residents”, but according to the Immigration Service we are simply NZers with SCV status – Special Category Visa. If we had been here prior to 2001 we would be able to be considered permanent residents, but no, we have to apply.

If we were refugees from, say, Somalia, we would have an easy road to citizenship.

If we were boat people from, say, Indonesia, we would have an easy road to citizenship.

If we were business people with capital from, say, China, we would have an easy road to citizenship.

But we’re simple ol’ Kiwis, willing to work, willing to accept the country as our home, but here only out of the goodness of the Aussie Immigration Service’s heart as SCV holders with restricted permanent resident entitlements. We can’t access education loans, we can’t go onto Defence sites, we can’t get some Social Security benefits.

Check it out. The Immigration website says: A “New Zealand citizen is required to first apply for and be granted a permanent residence visa before being eligible to apply for grant of Australian citizenship” if they were not “in Australia on 26 February 2001 as SCV holders”. (http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/travel-documents/new-zealand.htm#f)

There are 8 categories of citizenship. As over 50s without sponsors, and without skills that “cannot be filled from the Australian labour market”, hubby and I don’t seem to stand a chance. Never mind the fact that we have been constantly employed since moving here, pay taxes, contribute to the economy, have never asked for a cent from Centrelink or any other welfare organisation.

Each Australia Day I watch the TV interviews with new citizens who can hardly even speak English but who have become citizens by virtue of their status, and my resentment is growing. I’ve been through the Citizenship Wizard, the Visa Wizard, read Fact Sheet 17 – New Zealanders in Australia, read the Immigration form 1126i, and been round and round the website looking for information. Seems if I want to know more, I have to ring them.

I think I shall be on the phone tomorrow.

Band-Aid solutions

Not long after I moved us into our new home, while hubby was still in NZ, I was rudely awoken one night by the dreadful sound of metal scraping along the road.  As it happened, I had picked up a bug from somewhere and had a temperature  and fever that particular night, so was more than a little delirious and had no idea what this dreadful noise was.  Over the next few hours and into the next day, I pieced it together.

 Outside our house is a 90 degree corner, the intersection of two roads.   This corner is signposted 40 kmph, for very good reason.   It seems, that night, that someone had attempted to take the corner far too fast, rolled their car, and the noise I heard must have been the car skidding across the road on its’ roof.  I do remember, sometime after the nose stopped, waking to see flashing lights outside.  This must have been the tow truck.  Apart from the scraping metal sound, and some very annoying car door slamming (6 slams??), the rest of it happened within a very surreal silence – no sirens, no voices, no noise of ambulance, traffic police or anything else.   

If it wasn’t for the physical evidence the next day, I could be forgiven for thinking I had dreamed it in my feverish state.

On his walk the other morning, hubby stopped to chat to a neighbor and found out a bit more about the location we have moved into.  We knew this was a TMR project area, but weren’t sure how or when TMR would commence any projects that might affect us.  Seems there may be more than one on the books.  The corner which caused the speeding driver so much grief during my night of fever is to be cut back.

Now, we are on the outside of the angle.  This little feat of traffic engineering involves demolishing two perfectly good houses on the inside of the angle.  One is an immaculately kept property, obviously the pride and joy of the occupiers.  The other looks fairly shabby, but that is probably not a reflection on the occupiers but may simply be a case of ‘why bother if it’s going to be knocked down?’.   I understand.

To my simple mind it seems absolutely criminal to knock over two perfectly good houses simply to straighten a corner that was obviously not a problem when it was designed and built.  Nowadays, though, the trend is to identify “black spots”, “killer roads”, those parts of a road where there is a high incidence of accidents, and remedy “the road”. 

No question about remedying the driving behavior of the people who have the accidents.

If the person who had the accident outside my bedroom window had not been speeding, that accident would not have happened.  Fact.

I did some net surfing and happened across the Tasmanian “Design Standards for Urban Infrastructure, Road Design” which is, no doubt, similar to road design here in Queensland.  According to that document, “Physics of vehicular movement and the vehicle speed dictate selection of appropriate elements of horizontal alignment. These elements should also be aesthetically pleasing and result in cost effective solutions.” 

Okay, so it’s not intended for lay people such as me, but it still sounds like overly worded gobblydegook. If I drive around many of the new estates which have sprung up over South East Queensland, such as at Springfield Lakes, I must navigate roundabouts, speed traps and speed humps, all designed to reduce the speed of traffic flow through a built up urban area.

So what’s to stop TMR installing a speed hump and speed trap on the offending corner outside our place?  Surely that would be a much more “cost effective” solution rather than knocking down two perfectly good houses simply to cater for hoons who will only go faster if the road is straighter.

That, to my simple mind, is elementary.  Maybe it’s just too elementary for the roading engineers at TMR.   

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

Paying the premium

My last post was on medicalising everyday life.  This is an issue which keeps coming back to haunt me, and might do forever more because of the medical problems of ageing in our “medically advanced” society.

I spent a couple of hours this morning surfing the net for information about senior’s benefits, organisations, rights etc in Aus, and there is a comprehensive range of sites available offering everything from discounted travel and insurance to online courses to feed the brain.  Seniors certainly aren’t forgotten.  But then I looked into our health insurance and I figure that, as older Aussies, we are being discriminated against. 

I know that insurance is a game of averages, and the “pool” comes from statistically averaged information – age, employment, weight and all the usual cross checks.  However, it doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination take my personal circumstances into account when assessing my premium.  I am not the same as any other 55 year old woman, regardless of how similar we are in height, weight etc.  Yes, I smoke – minimally – but I also exercise daily, both mind and body, I have never been in hospital except for childbirth, my age-related medical issues are all self-managed. 

Last year we took out medical insurance, but we have to question the wisdom of that decision.  In the year 2000 the Australian government, in their wisdom, came up with the Lifetime Health Cover loading.  For us, this means a loading on our premiums this year of 44%.  We could choose not to have medical insurance – as so many others do – and bear the 1% surcharge which would be considerably less than what we pay in premiums, but we realize our cover would not be sufficient as we get older.

So we are caught in a conundrum.  The loading and the surcharge are not explained to people planning on moving here.  Maybe you just need to know what to ask.  I did a Google search for info that NZers moving to Aus might be able to access.  One of the best sites I found was http://movetoaustralia.net/, an info site set up by a couple who moved here and wanted to make the move easier for others.  Even that didn’t have much at all on the LHC loading, possibly because the authors aren’t old so didn’t think of it.  Quite probably if you have medical insurance in NZ before you came here, you would continue it here.   We didn’t.

These days, with the cost of everything skyrocketing and waiting lists getting longer by the day, especially for non-essential surgery, you just can’t afford not to have medical insurance.  My advice – don’t leave it as late as we did, you will certainly regret it when those huge loadings hit your pocket. The Department of Health and Ageing website has comprehensive information – check it out, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-phi-fact27.htm

Medicalising everyday life

I am caught in a conflict.

In my role as a Return to Work Coordinator I know that a person with a degenerative, age-related pre-existing condition can report an aggravation of that injury, allegedly work-related, and be covered “to the extent of the aggravation” by Work Cover, for which the employer is obviously paying premiums.  No-one can tell me how you can separate the condition from the aggravation for treatment purposes, but I am open to suggestions.

As I age (even though I am by no means “old”) I am noticing more aches and pains of my own.  I have a pre-existing degenerative condition in my lower spine, made worse by the presence of mild scoliosis.  I have macular degeneration in my right eye.  I have osteo-arthritis in both thumbs.  None of that stops me from working, walking, body combat, swimming, and whatever else I chose to do.  I am aware of my aches and pains, and I hope that, should I “aggravate” one of them at work, it would not require Work Cover intervention.

Today hubby and I signed up as Dementia Champions - http://campaign.fightdementia.org.au/.  This is a cause very close to my heart as I am very aware of my forgetfulness as I get older.  I forget words, I forget names, I forget where I put things.  My hope is that this is merely normal ageing, and not early stages of early-onset Alzheimer’s or dementia.   

I have always had a bright, enquiring and logical mind.   Many years ago I sat and passed the Mensa entry requirements.   I read copiously, I have studied off and on throughout my adult years, I enjoy crosswords and Sudoku.   I can’t imagine not being able to imagine, not being able to focus or think or recall or understand.  It really scares me.

So, the conflict I face is whether I turn a blind eye to the trend to medicalise everyday life through “work-related aggravation of a pre-existing condition”.  100 years ago the average age expectancy for women was 51 years.  In the decade of my birth that had risen to 72 years, and female children now can expect to live for at least 79 years.  For men, the comparable figures are 48, 66 and 78.  In other words, 100 years ago many of the age-related degenerative conditions we now commonly see simply didn’t exist.   Add to the age-related conditions those disorders resulting from night clubs and boom boxes (deafness), texting (RSI) and many others allied with the technological society in which we live, and the situation reaches critical mass.  You’re going to get something as you get older, we just can’t predict what yet.

As the average age of the population rises and medical advances allow us to live longer, it will be interesting the watch how the politicians manage such things as Work Cover to ensure that the burden of treatment for medicalised every day events are not borne unfairly by the employer.

I think, right now, they’re all too scared to tackle the problem.  And make no mistake, it is a problem, and only likely to get a lot worse.

Toothless legislation... crazy stupid

Hubby and I are recovering from a bad episode with a bad property owner due in no small part to some recently enacted bad laws.  Here's the story...

Late 2010 the Queensland Government enacted tougher pool fencing laws.  In effect, a property owner could no longer lease out a property with a "non-shared pool" without a Form 23, pool compliance certificate.  To my simple mind that means it is illegal - against the law, taboo, verboten - to do so.  Ergo, one cannot enter into a contract which will break the law.  Like I said, my mind is simple.

In January 2011 Cyclone Yasi hit Queensland with its full force, and in the hectic clean-up period the government, in its' wisdom, decided to allow pool owners until 8 July to comply with the new laws.  An interim Form 36 was produced, which was for owners/agents to use to advise a new tenant that the pool did not comply with the law.  However, this form could not be used after 8 July, at which time the law was effective - you could not [legally] let a property with a non-shared pool without a Form 23.

With me so far?  Not too difficult to follow?

So, in September (which, by my calendar, is actually after July) hubby and I, blissfully unaware of this state of affairs, sign a lease for a property with a non-compliant pool fence.  We know this because the agent gives us a Form 36 to tell us, and advises us that the fencing is "in the process" of being repaired but is okay in the interim.  What we don't know (until later, have patience!) is that the Form 36 is no longer valid and the agent should not have leased the property at all.

Fast forward 3 months - no need here to go into all the problems we had in the interim period - and they were legion!  Anyway, we arrive home from somewhere to find - completely without our knowledge - temporary pool fencing erected around the pool, in some places blocking access to the garden behind the pool and in others blocking our walkway around the pool itself so we are unable to safely leaf skim all the way around.  Brilliant!  By way of explanation we find a form in the mail box from the local council advising that a pool inspection has been undertaken, the temporary fencing is noted, the existing fencing is in a very sad state and the owner has 3 months to remedy the situation.  Erm... excuse me, 3 months?  Does that mean we have to live with the temporary fence intrusion for 3 months? 

I pull out the Form 36 we were given, and it is at this time that I find out it was not valid when it was issued to us.  I contact the inspector who did the inspection, to find out that their inspection was initiated by an anonymous tip that the pool was non-compliant.  I also find out that the council was unaware that the property was tenanted, they thought it was still owner-occupied since all their mail is still sent there and has never been returned. 

We believe that the contract is invalid because:

• under the new pool fencing laws it is illegal to lease out a property with a non-shared pool without a current Form 23 compliance certificate
• you can't enter into a contract that will break the law

Under the circumstances, when faced with the dilemma of us getting public and legal, the agent and owner agree that we can break the lease and leave without penalty, but don't agree that the contract is invalid.  Nor does the RTA.

We have now relocated, at a huge cost to us both emotionally and financially.  We have yet to decide whether or not to pursue compensation.  We believe we certainly have that right - the situation was not of our making but we were the ones who suffered as a consequence.

I was advised by the council that there is a pool register check publicly available online.  This is a tool which prospective tenants should be advised about.  As a matter of interest, I looked up properties with pools for rent in the vicinity, and checked them against the pool register.  I was appalled to find that not only were 50% non-compliant, some weren't even registered!   The stats for total compliance are pitiful.

Property managers can't simply say they "didn't know" and get away with it.  It is your professional duty of care to know about laws that relate to properties you manage.  Your tenant has a right to rely on your professionalism.

Owners can't just ignore the law and expect no punishment.  As it stands at the moment, this section of the law has absolutely no teeth because an owner can lease out a non-compliant property and the only penalty is that, on inspection, he will be given 3 months to comply.  Big deal!  Where are the fines for breaching the law?  Where is the compensation for tenants who are disadvantaged for that 3 months?  Perhaps if landlords had to provide alternative accommodation for their tenants during the period of construction, they might think twice about pushing the boundaries in the first place?

The law is there for a reason - to stop children from drowning in pools with non-compliant fencing.  As it stands, this law has absolutely no teeth because it can be over-ridden by the Residential Tenancy Act and council goodwill - and even if the council fines the owner, non of that goes to the tenant for their upheaval and frustration.  Will it take a child drowning in a non-compliant non-shared pool on a property leased illegally, before someone understands the problem?

Stop the bullshit, people. Enforce this law.  Monitor pool owners. Penalise owners and agents who flout the law.  Hit these guys where it hurts, in the pocket, and they will comply quick smart.

Research to-let ads for compliance.  That's not hard.  Hey, contract me and I'll do it for you!