Long term life in Australia has to be EARNED. If you're willing to run at the first sign of trouble you don't care about Australia, not legitimately, and the boom times are NOT over.

There are about 600,000 New Zealand citizens residing in Australia.  In 2001 the former Howard Government modified immigration policy which saw New Zealand citizens who went over after January 26 2001 (Australia Day) no longer entitled to welfare and being required to go through the normal immigration process to gain citizenship.  New Zealand citizens can still work in Australia indefinitely on the Special Category Visa (444) only intended for NZ citizens. 

Because Kiwis cannot qualify for welfare without going through the normal permanent residency and citizenship process there has been a great deal of whinging from Kiwis. 

At the crux of it, the Howard Government took away welfare entitlements because too many Kiwis were going over to Australia and sitting on welfare.  They became what is known as the "Bondi Bludger" and the Australian Government had to say "NO! No more!", so they did.

That hasn't stopped the steady stream of Kiwis moving to Australia, averaging around 30,000 - 40,000 at its height a couple of years ago.  Apparently the Australian economy is doing badly so Kiwis who moved here to work in the mines are struggling.  Several issues are left out of the articles primarily published by the New Zealand media sites like the NZ Herald and Stuff.co.nz.

For one thing, what the mainstream media isn't telling you (because it's basically a publicity campaign by IT firm Xero and an attempt by the Government to get people back) is that these people who are struggling with work are the types of people who didn't finish school, they didn't go to university or tech/TAFE and then when they lose a job, the only one for which they are actually qualified, they struggle to get another one.  They're the types of people who are "at the bottom of the pecking order" for want of a better phrase.  This means that in a recession they're the first people who will be made redundant.  They're the people who Australia doesn't really want because they don't add value to the economy and can't contribute long term.

For those who read the Australian media, you'd know that the NSW economy is booming.  That's according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald earlier this week.  In a nutshell, NSW is actually carrying the Australian economy, and it's not all doom and gloom.  We have a booming property market (which I won't go into in this particular blog) and people, as you'd know, are still trying to get to Australia from the Middle East despite our tougher immigration policies.

I want to expand on the issue of welfare today however.

I returned to Sydney on Christmas Eve and I'm not going to lie.  Things have been absolutely tough at some points.  I've had three jobs for the last few months plus unpaid work experience.  Some weeks clocking up 50 hours a week.  I've had casual jobs and not had any security.  I've not known when I'm working week to week and although it changes this week when I move into a full time permanent job again it's been mighty tough.

But this is what I want to highlight.  Those who truly are committed to Australia will make it work, they won't whinge about not qualifying for welfare, and why should Kiwis qualify for welfare?  If you're going to run at the first sign of trouble as so many Kiwis are then why should the Australian taxpayer, myself included, help you out.  I understand everyone goes through tough times, but those who truly want to, those who have transferable skills and those who truly desire will make it work.  They won't let anything hold them back.  Those with the goods will have no trouble finding a job, even if they may need to take casual jobs to get by.

If people had access to welfare it would be easy to think, "I'm not going to do that job", or "that job is beneath me", and that's exactly the type of mentality the Australian Government is trying to stop with this policy.

Some Kiwis say that they're second class citizens, but here's the thing folks, you're not an Australian citizen at all, so in all honesty the Australian Government actually doesn't owe you a thing and you're privileged to live in the greatest nation on earth.  It's time Kiwis actually realised that.  The Australian Government could easily close the border completely and require Kiwi citizens to go through the border like everyone else. 

Broaching the issue of welfare constantly doesn't really help Kiwis' cause.  I'll tell you what would help Kiwis' cause for looser immigration - being committed 100% to Australia, being willing to die for this country, being so patriotic to this country you don't even consider yourself a New Zealander anymore, and basically being Australian in every way other than legally. 

Australian citizenship isn't a right.  It's something you have to work for and prove yourself worthy of obtaining and simple fact is, many Kiwis are not worthy.  If you still support the All Blacks then you're not loyal to Australia.  If you run at the first sign of trouble then you're just in it for the good times.

My concern, and the purpose of this blog is that once again the ISSUE OF VOTING is IGNORED by the NZ media.  Some of us don't care about welfare, some of us just want our basic democratic right.  I'm happy to pay the $3200 to obtain citizenship but I have to work a couple more years in media and IT before I can actually do so, and I'm willing to wait that long for official permanent residency and then the required two years further for citizenship. 

That's where the real issue lies in my book, not having a democratic right to vote.  The NSW election is being held in March and I can't vote in it - I use public transport on a daily, constant basis, I pay taxes to the NSW Government and yet I can't vote.  I can't even join a political party.  If you read on the websites of all the main parties you'll see you have to be a citizen to join, and THAT is not fair, not having a democratic voice is not fair.  The Federal Election is being held in 2016 and because of timing I'll miss that too.  Although I support the Coalition Government I'd like the right to vote in my place of residence, the place I call home.  This is a MAJOR fundamental issue that is being ignored.  Voting is at the heart of our nation's values, and without that right are we (Australia) any better than other countries?

Surely after a five year period Kiwis should at least be able to vote.  I've been here on and off since 2008, and it would be nice to vote.  In the meantime though, I'll travel back to Australia once every three years to keep the right to vote in NZ (as their policy affects me still) until I am an Australian citizen.

When it comes to the financial security many Kiwis are complaining about, it's really simple, just make sure you're careful with money and save save save, that message absolutely needs to be drummed home because it's not really right that Kiwis earn $100,000k + in the mines then when the times get tough they say they have no savings and are going back to NZ to access welfare.  That's exactly the mentality the Australian Government doesn't want.

The lazy Kiwis have ruined it for the hard working ones who will do whatever it takes to make a success of their life in Australia.  Despite the reports, the boom times are NOT over in Australia.  We're just seeing market correction with other industries expanding such as IT.  IT is expanding in Australia too.

If you aren't loyal to Australia, why should Australia be loyal to you?

Why media monitoring is essential and who the primary users are - defence of Immigration Minister Scott Morrison.

Life has been tough for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison all year with various protests being held criticising his stance on asylum seekers.  That flak has moved to another level today, with the Sydney Morning Herald reporting that Shadow Immigration Minister Richard Marles has criticised his media monitoring spend ($120,000) in the last 12 months.

For those not familiar with the field, media monitoring is where the Government pays a company, iSentia, to track mentions of their name or portfolio obligations.  This means that even that article will go back to Morrison's media communications team because he was mentioned, and he'll need to decide whether or not to respond to the allegations of wasteful spending.

What the Sydney Morning Herald didn't tell you is that EVERY government monitors media.  Prior to the Coalition gaining power last September, Labor also used media monitoring firms iSentia and AAP (before they sold the department to iSentia for an undisclosed sum).  It is not just governments who monitor the media for mentions.  Not for profit organisations and businesses such as Dominos do too.  It allows them to quash a media story and set the record straight.  The reality is that with hundreds of media organisations and news outlets businesses and government departments just do not have the time or resources to monitor and track the news so they hire specialised companies, like iSentia to do the monitoring for them.

In this day and age when so much of political information is shared and gleaned in the news rather than first hand experience at meetings and the like, politicians utilise the media to get their message across.  How can you possibly respond to something if you don't know what's going on?  And it is Governments' jobs to know what the public think, media allows them to observe and respond to the public mood and therefore better deliver to their constituents.

The Sydney Morning Herald simply did not report the full story that all governments, businesses and not for profit organisations track mentions and have been doing so for decades, so to blame the Coalition and suggest they're the only ones who do is inaccurate and fuels ignorance.

Is it time to re-think euthanasia legislation in the wake of Phillip Hughes death?

A few weeks ago 29 year old American brain cancer sufferer Brittany Maynard made headlines around the globe after fighting for euthanasia to be an option for those who were terminally ill.  Maynard's prognosis was not good so she had moved to Oregon where they have a Death With Dignity law.  This means that instead of letting the cancer take her naturally she would take a lethal dose of some medication which would terminate her life before she became more incapacitated.

During her campaign the question of whether or not Australia and New Zealand should introduce similar legislation has been called into question.  Maynard died on the first of November.

On Tuesday this week South Australian cricket player Phillip Hughes was struck in the neck with a bouncer bowled by NSW player Sean Abbott.  For those who don't know, a bouncer is a cricket ball that travels at around 135kms and is intended to intimidate the batsman.  Unfortunately on Tuesday at the SCG the ball struck Hughes' neck causing what would prove to be fatal injuries and he succumbed yesterday afternoon after a stream of visitors and well wishers.

The injury he suffered, vertebral artery dissection caused subarachnoid haemorrhage.  This means that the neck injury caused bleeding into the brain.  This is ultimately what killed Hughes.

Had he survived the tragic blow, he most likely would have suffered side effects the rest of his life.

In the first two weeks the chances of a re bleed are extremely high according to literature on the condition. 

Long term epilepsy can be triggered by siezures caused by the brain's increased fragile state.  Other side effects include long term increased fatigue, an inability to work, changing moods and slower cognitive abilities.

There have only been 100 reported cases in the world so there isn't much research to go on, but based on the cases the long term effects would be devastating.

Given the severity of Hughes' tragic blow to his head, which did cause him to stop breathing, and be kept alive by machines for 48 hours, one has to wonder.  Although tragic and devastating a man with such potential, just on the way back up to playing for Australia, did he get lucky?  Nobody wants to die, but being as ambitious as he was, had he survived, how severe would the brain damage have been?  Would he have been able to keep playing at a competitive professional level?  Was it better that he was effectively killed instantly?

Nobody wants anyone to die, and nobody wants to suffer in pain, was Hughes luckily spared long term pain and side effects?

No doubt we'll never know because he didn't get the chance to recover, and he will forever be remembered as 63 Not Out, and that little kid from Macksville who always wore a cheeky grin on his face and didn't stop fighting.

Is it time to re-think euthanasia legislation?  When you switch off life support isn't that actually a form of euthanasia?

Phillip Hughes has passed away at the age of 25

Cricket Australia and the wider Australian community are mourning the loss of batsman Phillip Hughes who never regained consciousness after being struck by a bouncer on Tuesday at the SCG.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has expressed his sorrow at the news.

Twitter is abuzz with tweets of condolences, sorrow and devastation for Cricket Australia and Sean Abbott who bowled that ball.

30/11/1988 - 27/11/2014.

RIP Phillip Hughes and thoughts with your family, friends and colleagues.

Phillip Hughes - Fighting for his life - more serious than first thought according to Alan Jones.

Since South Australia batsman Phillip Hughes was struck on the head by a bouncer bowled by NSW bowler Sean Abbott there has been a vigil by Hughes' side.  He is reportedly in an induced coma and fighting for his life.

2GB shock jock Alan Jones has visited Hughes in Sydney's St Vincents Hospital and reportedly left traumatised.  Jones broke it down saying that Hughes suffered a major arterial bleed on the brain and that a machine is keeping him alive right now.

Hopefully 25 year old Hughes pulls through and returns to cricket, but if he doesn't then everyone must understand the bouncer striking the side of his head was nobody's fault.  It was a freak accident in sport.  All sport comes with its risks as Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon who suffered a spinal injury in a tackle playing league earlier this year would know. 

The mainstream media including the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph have both asked why the ambulance took so long to arrive and pointed to the helmet manufacturer.  This is wrong.  They aren't to blame.  Nobody could have predicted the bouncer would hit Hughes and cause a serious life threatening injury.

Of course, nobody wants to think Hughes will die, but if he does the question needs to be asked, what will happen to Abbott?  Will there be an inquiry into Cricket Australia?  And how will Abbott cope?  The Sydney Morning Herald reports today that Abbott is distraught and receiving counselling.

This is pretty much the worst type of injury you can get and it is a very tough time for all players, many of whom are visiting Hughes in hospital.

Hopefully the support will help Hughes in his recovery, much like the support for Newcastle Knights player Alex McKinnon is doing with his.

Commercial and public media both have their place. Cutting the ABC is a bad bad bad move

Okay, the Government has announced they're cutting 10% of the ABC workforce.  Of course as you can imagine, Twitter is bursting with comments that it's the best thing ever, that the ABC is a waste of time and other mindless comments.  The other side of the fence is that the cuts shouldn't happen and that Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull are idiots who don't know the first thing about running the country.

So where do I sit on the matter?  Given I'm writing a blog and given I studied journalism and media and politics I think it's pretty obvious what my position is.

I'm opposed.

So why am I opposed to the ABC cuts?  It's simple really.  I am sick to death of centralisation of the media.  For the purposes of this blog I'm going to compare the Australian media with the New Zealand media.

In New Zealand there are two major organisations - Mediaworks which controls TV3, TV4 and Radioworks.  Then there is TVNZ which has close ties to NZME (APN and TRN).  Radio New Zealand is the only truly public broadcaster and it is often out of date in its broadcasts.  It's trying to move into the digital era but because of budget freezes and increased costs it just can't deliver quality content.

Then there are the private media organisations.  Now I don't like to repeat myself in blogs but you may recall a while ago I wrote about how Mediaworks was planning a Paul Henry Show for breakfast time which would syndicate on both TV3 and RadioLive.  This means the axing of the Hilary Barry and Marcus Lush now.  Ratings aside, do you have any idea what this will do for discourse?  It will mean fewer views are represented, that fewer journalists will have positions.  You may think who cares?  Why do we need multiple journalists at the same event or reporting the same story.  The reason is that no two people will have the same outlook on something and no two people will ask the same questions. 

Then you have to look at what cutting the workforce and shows like Four Corners will do.  Four Corners is a program which reports in depth stories.  So what happens if we don't have coverage in depth?  Well the bottom line is, it means we have less information.  Take a show like Australian Story where Australians are celebrated.  What are we supposed to do if we can't learn about locals who've made an impact?  And what about Nightline?  What about people who work long hours and can't get to a TV until late at night and don't want to use their data streaming shows online?

In a nutshell what it means is a less informed society.  How can citizens make informed decisions if we don't know what's going on?  The fact of the matter is, journalism is being undervalued, and given Prime Minister Tony Abbott's career history as a journalist I'm actually shocked he doesn't care about the field.

Closing the Adelaide production studio is a bad move because if you aren't on the ground you can't get the story.  Some would say citizen journalism plays an important role, and to a degree, but journalists are specifically trained.  So what flow on effects will there be?  Well no doubt with fewer media positions that will see funding to journalism courses cut.

So the bottom line is, in and of itself the ABC cuts will have a devastating effect on the media landscape and related fields.  It will mean a less informed society and more tabloid journalism.  It will mean greater bias and that's not a good thing.  The good thing about the ABC is they offer alternative views to the commercial media, and isn't that beneficial to the public? 

It would be a very sad day if the Australian media and news quality went the way of the NZ media, low quality, unprofessional and sloppy.  With more media cuts that's all I can see happening.

Jacqui and Pauline teaming up is an awful mistake

Tasmanian Palmer United Party Senator Jacqui Lambie has been creating quite the stir in the media and within her own party ranks recently.  That came to a head today with PUP leader Clive Palmer demoting her from the deputy leadership and blocking her access to PUP meetings.

Lambie has however found friends in unexpected, or not so unexpected places.  Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has announced she will return to politics for the 10th time contesting a seat in Queensland.  She has said she is certainly willing to talk to Lambie.  This is no shock given the two share similar views on immigration and a white Australia policy.  Both are opposed to halal being sold when only 5% of the population is Muslim, but that breaks down to 500,000 people or the size of Wollongong and Newcastle put together.

For those of you who don't remember, Hanson was jailed for electoral fraud in 2003 however she was released from prison after eleven weeks.  During her time imprisoned Hanson denied she was guilty of electoral fraud to the tune of $498,637.

In 2011 she ran as an independent in the New South Wales state election.  She was unsuccessful.

Since then she has kept out of the limelight.  That is until now.  Jacqui Lambie appears to have motivated her to return to politics, so what is the likelihood they will be successful if they team up?  Well, given the Australian voting public doesn't tend to like minor parties, least of all women in power it's very unlikely the party will make it to parliament.  This is partially because of the voter system too of FPP.  If Australia had MMP then more than likely the party would get back to parliament.

Of course, as you can imagine the two are copping a lot of flak for their views and being renegades.  That aside, both are receiving an undue amount of flak with the likes of former Pauline Pantsdown singer Simon Hunt saying he doesn't want Hanson's cause to be given anymore airtime.  Others have questioned their intelligence and referred to them in other derogatory terms.

Putting opinion aside, will the duo work together?  My objective analytical answer is no.  It's not that they don't have a message some of the Australian public wants to hear, it's that they are both simply way too strong to work together.  They're both what you would call alpha females and both would want to be in charge.  They'd lock horns and neither would want to come second to the other.

Then there is the fact that Australia doesn't like opinionated female politicians exception being Foreign Minister Julie Bishop but outside of official meetings, Bishop doesn't actually say a lot so there's nothing to say about her.  When an Australian female politician does speak out on various issues, the Australian public and media commentators absolutely hate it and don't give the a fair go.

Should Hanson and Lambie be given airtime to speak their views?  Yes, that's what our democracy is about.  Do you have to like it?  No.  Should you respect it?  Yes.