>Immigration New Zealand (INZ) recently granted 32 visas to people who pledged to invest at least $10m locally over three years and another 76 visas to individuals pledging to invest at least $3m, according to the news website Stuff.
> With their visas in hand, investors may apply to compete for spots in New Zealand’s congested MIQ system. A stay in MIQ is a prerequisite for entry to the country, which has been largely closed to non-quarantined international travel since March 2020 to protect against Covid-19.
So… these people have pledged to invest huge sums of money into NZ and the end result is that they have to apply for the same MIQ spots as everyone else?
Seems the outrage should be directed at this MIQ system. The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.
>The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.
This scheme was once touted as a way to jump start the NZ tech sector but it doesn't appear to be having any impact. Those getting the visa might only be in the country a few weeks in a year and their investments are going into companies which haven't done anything innovative in decades. The most scathing part of all is that New Zealand's still a terrible place to build a startup.
While NZ’s lack of capital gains tax should make it enticing, the terrible overseas investment policies/taxes make it less appealing to multi-national companies and investors.
To those outside NZ: owning shares in non-NZ companies typically means a 5% yearly wealth tax if the shares don’t pay dividends (Ie most tech companies that are share price growth driven).
In NZ the normal way is Comparative Value which taxes the increase in market value when you sell.
Fair Dividend Rate isn't a wealth tax. It's a frankly bullshit option rich people can use when their investments do really well to cap the tax owed to 5% of the starting market value.
> ...and their investments are going into companies which haven't done anything innovative in decades.
Not all investment sparks innovation - and innovation takes years. I would not expect people investing their life savings to get into NZ to invest in high-risk tech startups, but the investments they make will help the NZ economy all the same.
Investment flow where risk-adjusted returns are highest - that's the nice thing about free markets - you don't have to plan where to put the money - it'll go where it's most demanded.
How will it help New Zealanders if they just invest in real estate? Seems like a good speculative bet for them, but mostly it just makes it more difficult for young people to get afoot in the property market....
Higher asset prices makes building property more profitable. It incentivizes more construction.
This is how the free market works, in general. When prices go up, it incentivizes asset creators create more. This is one of the down-sides of zoning limitations - they do not let the market provide more for the additional demand.
...and a simple Google search confirms that NZ has been experiencing a construction boom.
>...and a simple Google search confirms that NZ has been experiencing a construction boom.
The kind of houses which locals are priced out of due to low wage economy. Certainly good for wealthy immigrants and cashed up Kiwis returning from overseas though.
An agricultural economy where a third of exports go to China. Selling passports won't offset that when geopolitics intervenes. But using those investments to help build out a vibrant tech sector would go further. It may also bring back some of the tech workers the country's been losing.
I don't really see the path from "selling passports" to "vibrant tech sector". That's something politicians have been selling to you to explain their policies. New Zealand is hostile to anyone not having six figures in their bank account. A vibrant tech sector requires all kind of people, laws, infrastructure, etc... Running a business is messy and running a country which run businesses is also messy and require all kind of work/hustles.
Who needs that when you can sell passports/real estate/ocean views for lots of money and little work involved.
In New Zealand we try to have something called the Rule of Law. The same laws and regulations apply to everyone regardless of wealth or political connection.
The rule of law is the key innovation that allowed the industrial revolution to take place bringing the West to its present rich and free lifestyle.
Adherence to the rule of law is a major reason why NZ is regularly in the top 5 countries globally for lack of corruption, transparency, and ease of doing business.
Abandoning the rule of law leads eventually to autocracy. From this distance the US appears to be well down that road.
You are not describing Rule of Law. The rule of law is what you use to say that people are treated according to the law, not given special exceptions or punishments because of how much they are liked or hated. The opposite of the rule of law is generally the “rule of men” and is typified by the powerful having the discretion to punish enemies on a whim. Consider, for instance, someone who brings forth a charge of sexual assault against a minister, and is disappeared. The law, however, seems to be followed here.
What you are describing, in any event, is more about Equal Treatment Under the Law, in a moral sense (avoiding any excuse that could read like “anyone can invest $10 million so it’s technically open to everyone”).
But as others here say, the visa holders get in line for limited quarantine facilities like anyone else. It seems like the outrage is about these brand-new residents getting equal treatment with current residents, instead of the current residents getting priority. There is a reasonable case you should prioritize existing citizens over new residents, as they likely have greater reliance interests on their legal residence, but it’s not any rule-of-law or equal-treatment claim.
“Rule of law” in common usage definitely means that each person is subject to the same laws. This is the definition I have always heard people use, and it matches OED’s and the UN’s definition.
> It seems like the outrage is about these brand-new residents getting equal treatment with current residents, instead of the current residents getting priority.
This seems flawed to me. Do poor people get to queue up for MIQ? No, because they can’t qualify for the visa scheme because they aren’t rich enough. So it’s not really equal treatment for these new residents because they are already given an advantage because of their money. They qualify simply because they are rich.
Equal treatment would be letting all foreigners apply for the same visa scheme based on non-monetary merits such as occupation.
I'm very much for radically open borders — in economic terms, it's one of those twenty-trillion dollar bills lying around on the sidewalk that no one has picked up yet.
And okay, that's a reasonable point to make — in isolation. But in context, do you honestly suggest that the New Zealand outrage described here would be remedied by opening more visas to more people, and getting them into the quarantine?
> I'm very much for radically open borders — in economic terms, it's one of those twenty-trillion dollar bills lying around on the sidewalk that no one has picked up yet.
This will probably happen, maybe in our lifetimes but it’ll be at the expense of the nation state and blocs like the EU. Probably a good thing such that people can choose where they want to live but it’ll eventually revert back to borders again very quickly as the wealthy shore up resources in the best places and then leave everyone else to fend for themselves. We already saw this “wealth flight” during the pandemic when remote tech workers and executives fled cities and high taxes to create their own little versions of Galt’s Gulch all over the mountain west and no income tax states. When we get to open border policies under the auspices of fueling economic growth you’ll see this occur again. And when this occurs the shells of former nation states will no longer provide services like healthcare because there won’t be anybody to pay for it. The wealthy certainly won’t.
This kind of brings the question should this kind of visa scheme exist in the first place during Covid. From my very limited knowledge, these are just pledges, not actual investments. Given a) NZ tiny market, b) high corporate tax rate, and c) isolation as an Oceania island (shipping), would it make sense to invest in NZ right now? My bet is that they expect Covid to end in the next 1-2 years and all these rich people will leave. These new residents are simply taking advantage of this visa scheme and not actually long term residents. That’s just my 2 cents and I may be wrong.
My understanding of these schemes is that they are generally designed for rich people who accumulated wealth in countries where they might like to have a backup option if their government gets in a particularly seize-y mood. (e.g. China or Russia)
Aren’t most rich residents in NZ from the UK and US? That was my impression. The middle class are usually Chinese. But regardless, rich people in China and Russia don’t accumulate wealth simply by playing fair. Is NZ okay with this kind of wealth transfer to their country knowing this? (Well we all know the answer honestly)
> rich people in China and Russia don’t accumulate wealth simply by playing fair
When you say it like that, creating a contrast between "east and west" and dishonest/criminal behaviour, it sounds a bit racist. Perhaps you'd like to expand on that point?
True. I can only say as a Software Engineer, the tech industry in China is highly unfair from my personal experience. There are a lot of bullying tactics involve for startups that are not invested by Tencent and Alibaba. Startup founders themselves are not much better because they don't give equity to employees. Therefore, all the wealth accumulates to the founder and their investors, while the employees slave away under 996. I wouldn't say it is criminal behavior though. I specific choose the word unfair for this reason.
I also like to point out, I don't think the West is any better either. As for Russia, I don't know enough to judge them. That, I apologize.
> Aren’t most rich residents in NZ from the UK and US
I also want to clarify this point. NZ is not usually on the list for rich Chinese people. They go to Singapore. But it is for rich Americans like Larry Page, Peter Thiel, and a few Silicon Valley execs.
You're saying that since, based on your personal experience, China doesn't play fair, NZ shouldn't be ok with this kind of wealth transfer? What about Russia, is that also your personal experience?
Your point about playing fair seems a bit specific. Do you think american and european startups play fair? So in that case american and european tech-millionaires should be allowed to invest in NZ and get a visa?
> What about Russia, is that also your personal experience?
>> As for Russia, I don't know enough to judge them. That, I apologize.
> Do you think american and european startups play fair?
>> I also like to point out, I don't think the West is any better either.
> So in that case american and european tech-millionaires should be allowed to invest in NZ and get a visa?
>> I also want to clarify this point. NZ is not usually on the list for rich Chinese people. They go to Singapore. But it is for rich Americans like Larry Page, Peter Thiel, and a few Silicon Valley execs.
You clearly seemed triggered and have a bone to pick as you didn't read the entirety of my previous comment. It seems like you want to steer this thread into an argument between the East and West, which wasn't the point of my original argument and I have clarified that already. You might want to see a psychiatrist because there is definitely something more going on with you trying to project onto me. Today is Christmas, I wish you a Merry Xmas.
Absolutely no bone to pick! I'm from the camp that thinks that every millionaire didn't and doesn't play fair. Having said that, I don't have any issue with these investments visas, given the numbers that we usually see: a few hundred per year, at least in the countries I took a look at.
I do think your original and follow-up comments were just outright racist, though, which's a shame. Perhaps you could take a look at that perception you have, that "russian and chinese don't play fair", and justifying it with "they work too much" and "bullying tactics".
The wrapping of this last comment of yours is quite strange. Telling me to see a psychiatrist and then wishing me merry christmas haha I prefer direct rudeness and name-calling instead of whatever that is. Perhaps you could also take a look at that kind of behaviour and reconsider.
> I do think your original and follow-up comments were just outright racist
I simply pointed out that the system was unfair to regular Chinese people. Something that almost all of my Chinese friends also agree in the tech industry. Since you seem to know quite a lot about the system in China, how many years of experience do you have working in China? Clearly, you must know a lot more than me judging by your comment and brushing off 996 as simply "working too much".
If I had to guess, I think you are a New Zealander that has never worked a day in China before. You defend China maybe because your parents are from there, but you have no idea what it is actually like to work there as a regular citizen. You call anyone that talks badly about China's system as racist.
If you truly think I am racist, then I feel sorry for your delusion. I urge you to move back and work there for at least 5 years. Perhaps then, you will see how the rich take advantage of those below and you wouldn't brush off 996 as simply "working too much" and "bullying tactics" as nothing when your wage depends on it.
In fact, I have yet to meet one regular Chinese person that defends the rich like you do. Most of them are hated in China for creating a highly unfair society. Those that do are usually people like you: full of vigor, nationalistic pride, and 0 life experience. The irony for you is that even CCP agrees with me regarding the rich.
It's a shame to meet people like you online really. To outright call people you don't agree with as racist.. no manners whatsoever.
> Telling me to see a psychiatrist and then wishing me merry christmas haha I prefer direct rudeness and name-calling instead of whatever that is.
I think that just points to our upbringing right? Direct rudeness was never acceptable where I grew up. But I am certain being rude to people is nothing more than having breakfast for you. And to be proud of it...smh. For your own sake, you might want to learn some manners sooner rather than later. People won't take it kindly to being called racist in the real world.
One last note, I was being serious about seeing a psychiatrist. It was meant for your own good. Your comments show serious signs of projection and self righteousness.
Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half.
NZers should expect to be on the hook for at least a few class action lawsuits for damages. For example people who have watched loved ones die on a video call because they haven't been rightfully allowed back into their country.
It's going to cost in the long run but the dust hasn't settled yet. I'll be joining up for damages and a few months extra living costs placed on me before I could get a MIQ spot.
I don't think the NZ bill of rights is applied the same way as other countries.
> Section 4 specifically denies the Act any supremacy over other legislation. The section states that Courts looking at cases under the Act cannot implicitly repeal or revoke, or make invalid or ineffective, or decline to apply any provision of any statute made by parliament, whether before or after the Act was passed because it is inconsistent with any provision of this Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights Act in New Zealand is mostly irrelevant. It is an ordinary piece of legislation, and it places no restrictions whatsoever on what future legislation may or may not contain.
Their early lockdowns were unlawful, but they fixed that in a few days with new legislation. A court actually ruled they were initially unlawful, but said that was OK because the government had good intentions.
The way the legislation that gives the govt powers to enforce MIQ is written, is with respect to of the NZ bill of rights. That is, the legislation doesn't override the bill of rights but tries to work with it.
So given that it hasn't worked out as planned and they have directly violated freedom of movement etc, they have some pretty major issues.
This was how it was orignally written. I think they've tried to change it to install a CEO of MIQ which is the fall guy and absolves the govt now.
However, this will all be sorted out when the lawsuit goes ahead next year from the Grounded Kiwis (mentioned in the article) and hopefully a win for justice here. Given every legal challenge so far has been lost by the govt or backed out of at the last minute, there's a fairly good chance if someone or a group persues it to the final ruling, there will be a case set for a class action follow up.
New Zealand’s unicameral parliament, has supremacy over all other parts of government [1] and cannot be overruled or contradicted by any prior parliament’s legislation … the bill of right’s drafting reflects this. As a consequence of New Zealand’s somewhat atypical political history (as a former British colony without a federation treaty or other founding constitutional document), it’s not really possible to entrench any legislation so it can’t be overruled by a normal majority of a subsequent parliament.
As AmericanChopper said, it's mostly irrelevant in the legal sense.
The most important part of stromtium_90's reply is the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the idea that no legislature can do something that a future legislature cannot undo. Every legislature, including the US Congress, follows this principle ... with the exception of the constitution/founding treaty/etc., which is the only thing that is superior to that legislature's power. New Zealand does not have such a document. Neither does the UK. So, theoretically, both countries' parliaments can do anything as long as the action complies with any treaties signed with other nations ... and, of course, the parliaments can always use whatever exit option the treaties provide, if necessary.
> Honestly, the entire MIQ program is a gross violation of the bill of rights and several international treaties. So I don't think the rule of law goes very far in NZ as they seem to just handwave it away and most people in NZ couldn't care less because of the fear they have from living reasonably isolated for the past year and a half.
But, but the Cato Institute says it's the freest country in the world. And the Heritage foundation places it in the list of the most economically free. No way those ratings are bollocks.
P.S.: Interestingly, the latter puts Kazakhstan (where the president and his people shamelessly extort 40-60% share of every major business and enterprise) in the "mostly free" section. Makes one wonder about how those ratings are composed.
And the description of Kyrgyzstan shows its authors don't understand what they are writing at all:
> Former Prime Minister and ruling Social-Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan member Sooronbai Jeenbekov defeated former President Almazbek Atambayev in 2017 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.
It's equivalent to:
> Former Vice President and ruling US Democratic Party member Joe Biden defeated former President Barack Obama in 2020 elections that were the most competitive in the country’s history.
Unless I didn't understand the situation, these "wealthy" visas are the law.
Rule of law doesn't mean the law can't make a difference between the rich and the poor, in fact, it is very common in tax law (the rich pay more taxes), but not only.
Rule of law just means "no corruption", essentially. That the laws are the only criteria for judging people, it is not a discussion about the fairness of the law itself. It there is a "no parking" sign, then under the rule of law, no one will be allowed to park, including Bob, who will be fined/towed like everyone else. But if the sign says "no parking, except for Bob", then Bob will be allowed to park even if people find it unfair.
Usually, high rule of law countries are also democracies, so laws are made by elected officials, or even directly by people, and fairness is an important part of the lawmaking process. Indeed, people are usually reticent to apply laws they feel unfair, but technically, rule of law can apply even in the most unfair, despotic systems.
Um, folks get a visa and wait in line for MIQ. That's both the law and just like everyone else with a visa.
Are you supporting mob rule? If so, you might wish to move to another country where "outrage" can lead to people getting killed right on the street in front of you.
Seriously, if you see "outraged" in a headline, be careful.
NZ isn't currently issuing visas outside of a few categories of "special worker in shortage". (In order to citizens and residents a better chance at getting a quarantine spot.) So this introduces a new special exception for the very wealthy.
In the biggest economic slump since the Great Depression maybe it makes sense to consider rich people who invest lots of money into the economy a "specialized worker" since they might play an important role helping recovery.
And that's fair enough but if there are limited spots they should go to existing NZ citizens/residents, and those with the greatest m=need should be prioritised.
Why does every discussion about some random country have to involve the US? It is getting really boring seeing the same mid-brow flawed arguments rehashed everywhere from Reddit's worldnews to HN.
Btw, NZ can afford to maintain a top spot on all these lists because it is a gated country with population less than that of NYC.
NZ's borders have always been closed for the world's poor. Now it is closed for non-elites and the just plain rich are revolting against it.
It’s is the same rule? Once you have a visa, you apply for MIQ. These visa applicants getting into line like everyone else.
If you’re talking about the visa itself, these rich folks are getting approved through an immigration pathway approved by parliament. Nobody is taking any shortcuts here.
Does NZ not benefit from this system? I mean, it seems like a good deal to me - attracting large amounts of local investment in return for something fairly small.
Something makes me doubt you could point out any society in history where the rich and well-connected are treated like everyone else. Not to say I think this is necessarily a good thing (or necessarily a bad thing, either) but them's the rules of the world.
The visa programs should be halted until all citizens can equally compete. There is no fair competition here. The quarantined are being pissed on while wealthy players continue to live freely. Do you not understand that? Rules for thee but nit for me applies here.
I think your are misunderstanding. The visa programme does not allow you to skip the queue for MIQ. It just gives you a higher chance at a visa if you are rich. It's not going to affect NZ citizens trying to return home, because they find need visas.
I don't fully know everything about the MIQ program but it seems like citizens can compete for spaces on an equal basis and this adds the visa applicants to the pool. So while it reduces their chances of being picked from 1 out of x to 1 out of (x + y) it seems like it's still fair?
If the MIQ program is similar to some citizenship programs where you get points for things and this is giving them as many or more points than just having citizenship does, I would agree it's unfair.
In regards to corruption and political connections I can recommend taking a look at senate stock watcher [1] which sometimes make it obvious what senator was responsible for which bill, specifically.
I might be missing something but I'm not sure what that has to do with New Zealand. From a quick glance, there didn't seem to be any information related to the country mentioned.
> Adherence to the rule of law is a major reason why NZ is regularly in the top 5 countries globally for lack of corruption
This corruptions indices are pretty much always “corruption perception” indices, as in, New Zealanders consider their country to be less corrupt than other countries, not that it actually is less corrupt than other countries.
Your tone is getting backlash, not your point. It's fair to say that citizens should not be put ahead of noncitizens trying to get back into the country during a crisis.
Let's say a time comes when every NZ'er who wants to get back to the country can do so immediately. Do you think it would be wrong for NZ to prioritize immigrants who can bring material wealth to the economy in general (not to politicians specifically)?
It's the monetary equivalent of importing intelligent students to top-tier graduate programs.
> Seems the outrage should be directed at this MIQ system. The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.
You are absolutely correct on both counts. If we didn’t have MIQ, this would be a non-issue to most kiwis.
The root of it is MIQ has prevented kiwis from traveling to/from NZ for the last 2 years. This has created massive strain on separated families and extended families. It has created stress on those in NZ who cannot leave because the govt won’t let them return without a MIQ slot.
Globally, the pandemic has moved on from elimination to coexistence. Vaccines, good hygiene, being sensible.
NZ’s continued use of MIQ/draconian restrictions on freedom of movement is counter to what needs to happen (return to business as usual).
At this current point in time, with over 90% of eligible people vaccinated, the trade off between lives saved by MIQ vs returning to normality does not, IMO and a lot of other kiwis, justify the continuation of MIQ.
> NZ’s continued use of MIQ/draconian restrictions on freedom of movement is counter to what needs to happen (return to business as usual).
The picture should be clearer now? The business of NZ is selling to foreign investors. They are closing to contain the coronavirus because what matters are these foreign $$.
The visa scheme just leads to disenfranchisement of New Zealanders as they are slowly priced out of everything. Farm land is quickly being bought by foreigners in both Australia and NZ, which is having negative impacts on both of those countries. The countries are essentially being sold out from under their citizens.
Investor visas are just a distraction. The fundamental problem is that there's any restriction whatsoever on New Zealand's citizens entering their own country. The MIQ system should be abolished, and anyone who helped create it, or who has had enough power in the country to abolish it but chose to let it continue, should be put in prison for human rights violations (specifically, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 says "Everyone has the right to [...] return to his country").
If we abolished MIQ then Aotearoa NZ would be riddled with COVID, many thousands or tens of thousands would have died, many many more living with chronic conditions and the economy and society crippled.
As it happens less than 50 have died, each one a tragedy, while I’ve just had a lovely Christmas with 3 generations, as many others are around the motu.
Sure we had to video call relatives in other countries, but their lockdown conditions today were far far worse than what we have here.
Our society has decided that nobody should die from COVID. That’s still the right answer.
>”Our society has decided that nobody should die from COVID. That’s still the right answer.”
This sentiment should terrify you. COVID is serious, but my god, there are so much more dangerous and lethal things out there. You’ve basically just given your government a virtual blank check to do as it pleases so long as the threat is sufficiently scary.
>”many many more living with chronic conditions and the economy and society crippled.”
You’re saying this would happen with widespread Covid, but this same outcome can happen with excessive containment. So many mom and pop small business have closed in my town since the pandemic began. And I live in America, where we aren’t nearly as restrictive.
Hasn't NZ's draconian border restrictions been precisely what has allowed them to avoid the need to impose the types of burdensome local restrictions that threaten these small businesses?
We had less local restrictions than most other countries until delta hit 4 months ago - since then we've had a 3-month lockdown in our largest city and huge impact to small businesses, and we still have citizens locked out of the country. Deaths are comparatively low though.
> This sentiment should terrify you. COVID is serious, but my god, there are so much more dangerous and lethal things out there. You’ve basically just given your government a virtual blank check to do as it pleases so long as the threat is sufficiently scary.
This is not even slightly true, if you were familiar with the local legislation and political climate you would know that; but you're not.
Lance, honestly this is a pathetic reply. New Zealand is already riddled with Covid incase you havent noticed. Cases detected in the community outnumber those at the border 27x for the last week. Given this fact, why does MIQ still exist?
Preventing new variants? Sure at the surface that might hold some credence, but that implies future responses will be to lock down again and impose massive economic costs and second/third order negative externalities on the population again... There will be more variants gauranteed, so what is being gauranteed here is perpetual restrictions, fragility and life in a hermit kingdom.
On your point around Xmas with three generations, congratulations, but without rapid lateral flow at home testing (which is still unavailable in New Zealand - wowee!), you might have unknowingly just had a super spreading event. The slowness of NZ policy to adapt to technological innovations is a real blight.
By the way New Zealands society decided no such thing; intellectual honesty goes a long way when presenting an arguement. Did we have a referendum to determine no one should die from covid? Its quite a perposterous thing to say.
Reality is MIQ was a knee jerk reaction by the MoH in March '20, faced with the stark realisation healthcare and its supporting beuracratic system was not up for the job. It still isnt and has no path to getting there. That is the real tragedy.
Big thinking and strategy is sorely needed in New Zealand. It's a shame all we get is confusion and people like yourself who think they know something trying to lead the narrative.
I was once a proud Kiwi, now I look on from afar and am saddened at the squandered potential of the place, underacheivment and lack of awareness are rife.
Doesn't that just mean that NZ outsourced taking care of the expat NZ nationals that have Covid - and the cost of part of the Covid epidemic - to other countries though?
Not allowing your own citizen to return home is something that should be unthinkable really.
> Our society has decided that nobody should die from COVID. That’s still the right answer.
This is hilarious. Why hasn’t your society decided that nobody should die from obesity? Obesity kills far more people every year than COVID ever will, and would be a far easier problem to solve through legislation.
Why does NZ grant visas to obese people? Why are obese people allowed to go to restaurants or work? If the government made it difficult to be fat, far less people would die.
They don’t. You go thru serious health check when getting work visa and then another check when applying for residency. If you are fat with serious health issues you won’t pass.
Being overweight myself I can attest of health issues even that can cause. High blood pressure > some protein in blood that might indicate kidney damage which in turn meant months of health checks.
Same with a friend who had some lung abnormalities since birth - very stringent checks.
Obese is anyone with a BMI over 30, 42% of Americans are obese. It isn’t the same thing as being morbidly obese. I doubt New Zealand automatically screens out anyone with a BMI over 30. Consider that Australia itself has an obesity rate of 30% (about the same as NZ), but then Australians don’t need visas to work in Nz.
Do you think MIQ will stop community spread in New Zealand forever? If not, then all of those bad things will happen anyway, but by not abolishing MIQ, all of the bad things it causes will happen too. And if everyone were locked in an isolated room from birth, nobody would ever die of any contagious disease, but clearly that's not the right answer.
why do people always extrapolate everything to extremes? No one is forbidden from going to new zealand. You just have to queue. And ffs MIQ has SLOWED the spread. for instance no omicron in nz so there is time to study/research and raises vaccination levels to WHEN it gets in there will be less damage.
why do things have to be never/forever? Why can't people think in terms of better/worse/later?
Who said abolish it? How about actually designing a system with enough slots so citizens can freely return? Other countries have done this, and controlled Covid, so why can Australia or NZ do it?
Australia eliminated travel restrictions for citizens and hotel quarantine for incoming travellers a while ago. At worst you’ll do 3 days home quarantine.
That’s not sensational though so it’s not reported on.
Also COVID case numbers have exploded since then so I can kind of understand NZ being hesitant to do the same.
Yup. Even authoritarian Singapore didn’t restrict its citizens from returning. It imposed rules on testing and quarantine, but they were free to jump on the next flight home.
Incredible seeing democracies like Australia and NZ tell their own citizens “no, you cant come home”.
>Incredible seeing democracies like Australia and NZ tell their own citizens “no, you cant come home”.
To be fair, it's not their first dance with authoritarian measures. Both countries also employ widespread censorship for movies and video games among other things. Perhaps it shouldn't be that unexpected that they would cross the line on this too.
Cross the line? As a kiwi who got stuck in Peru for over 6 months due to the border closure and lack of flights, and had to go through MIQ when I was finally able to return, I'm extremely grateful for the MIQ system. Do I think it could have been handled better? Yes, especially recently as the answer to a lack of MIQ spaces shouldn't have been to make a lottery system it should have been to make more spaces; but overall I feel that NZ's response has been one of the few sane responses in the world and despite what I personally had to go through I'm very proud of that.
Perhaps because over the course of the pandemic only 50 people have died in NZ from Covid. Going through MIQ and the systems built around it has enabled seeding events to be limited to only several incursions supporting elimination and then suppression strategies.
It’s interesting, NZ is a very egalitarian society and it has been one of the strengths through the pandemic to date. People were/are willing to adhere to strict lockdowns (proper ones) or quarantine at the border because it was for the greater good of the entire society rather than ‘what was best’ for a handful of individuals.
there would be lots of covid all over new zealand and therefore his everyday normal life would be worse than it might be now with minimal covid spread?
In New Zealand to publish a game or a movie you must have it go through the office of film and literature classification. If it is not classified then it is banned by default.
One example of a relatively recent ban of something popular is the anime High School DxD. Ikki Tousen was also banned. They seem to ban a lot of Japanese made stuff.
Postal 2 is a game that was explicitly refused classification. This doesn't just mean that selling the game is illegal - afaik possessing the game is also illegal.
But ultimately what's banned isn't as important, because they're operating with a whitelist. Everything's banned by default until they get classified. If every country operated a system like that then it's likely most games and movies either wouldn't get published in NZ or would be published on a delay.
Nevertheless, the classifications should be voluntary and not legally binding IMO. They're absurdly capricious and incoherent as is, and stifling to free expression and the economy.
e.g. illegal to give 1998's Shogun Total War strategy game to a 17 year old but can give Battlefield Bad Company to a five year old.
Postal 2 and manhunt are two fairly popular video games that were legally censored. Banned modern movies I am less familiar with, but there were many banned historically where the decision still stands today.
This one always get a chuckle out of me. Australia is the most facist Western power. It barely has a free media because some rich dude bought it all. They wanted an egregious law forcibly drafting their citizens into being spies if they worked for tech companies. They extensively spy on the internet. They censor video games. The list goes on and on.
The right to return to NZ does not automatically trump all other considerations.
Without MIQ we couldn't have executed our elimination strategy. Probably thousands of people would have died of COVID, or we would have had stronger and longer lockdowns --- probably both --- all highly detrimental to the well-being of people living in NZ.
So why should the right of return take priority over all that?
There is quite literally nothing to suggest that having a higher intake would have created a single additional death or resulted in stronger or longer lockdowns.
New Zealand's own incompetence in not being able to come up with purpose-built facilities to handle overseas arrivals can't be written off with hypotheticals. It has been two years, no more excuses.
I don't understand your point here. Are you claiming that we could have dispensed with MIQ altogether and kept COVID out some other way? Or are you claiming that we could have constructed enough MIQ infrastructure to let people come and go as they pleased at all times?
NZ could have added more capacity to MIQ. It could have started working on adding more healthcare resources (it’s been 2 years already, how many new intubators have we added? How many nurses and doctors have we recruited overseas? Or have we just locked the gate and put our hands in our ears?)
NZ has had more than enough time to prepare for COVID in a post elimination world. Why does MIQ still exist?
Why did NZ provide MIQ slots for non essential sports journeys like the Olympics and All Blacks tours. Do you think any Olympian or All Black could look the son or daughter of a dead parent in the eye and say that it was right for their space in MIQ to take precedence over the chance for a loved one to say goodbye for one last time?
We would never have been able to construct enough MIQ infrastructure to let people come and go as they pleased, which is what would be necessary to satisfy the "right to return is absolute and cannot be constrained under any circumstances" people on this thread.
> How many nurses and doctors have we recruited overseas?
I don't have the exact numbers, but many hundreds at least.
> Why does MIQ still exist?
Right now it exists to keep Omicron out while we get through Christmas, see how well we can cope with Delta using the traffic light system, get boosters into the arms of people who were vaccinated more than 4 months ago, and learn how bad Omicron is.
If the news about Omicron stays good and there are no other surprises I don't expect MIQ for NZers to exist past the end of Feb, or at all past the end of April.
> Do you think any Olympian or All Black could look the son or daughter of a dead parent in the eye and say that it was right for their space in MIQ to take precedence over the chance for a loved one to say goodbye for one last time?
There is an exemption system that gives priority for such emergency cases so it's not obvious to me how many such injudicious situations have occurred. When they have occurred, I'm more bothered by the MIQ-users who were just entering NZ for a nice holiday, or returning from a holiday. I consider it a major defect of our MIQ system that we never tried to block those low-priority users ... but I understand it would have been hard, since a lot of people have been claiming such trips are essential for their mental health.
Also I have a lack of empathy for people rushing back to NZ for forseeable end-of-life visits. In my view, if you care about your parents a lot, you live where they are so you can be with them for more than just the last minute.
> Also I have a lack of empathy for people rushing back to NZ for forseeable end-of-life visits. In my view, if you care about your parents a lot, you live where they are so you can be with them for more than just the last minute.
Ok I can’t take you seriously anymore. You are saying no one should ever move more than a short drive away, ever. Yeah right.
As a New Zealander, I am super supportive of easier pathways for wealthy people to bring themselves, their expertise, their connections, and their money here.
Furthermore, my anecdotal observation is that articles in The Guardian about New Zealand reflect not reality, but rather the talking points of a very small subset of the hard Left of our political class. I know that this is The Guardian’s line in general, but it somehow feels more egregious when applied to a situation I’m more personally familiar with.
As a New Zealander, I am super supportive of easier pathways for wealthy people to bring themselves, their expertise, their connections, and their money here.
Do you support denying re-entry to people who are already citizens as a means of doing that?
> Do you support denying re-entry to people who are already citizens as a means of doing that?
Which implies the people entering on these visas are taking places away from someone else but they’re not, they’re entering the same lottery system as everyone else. Unless you’re suggesting that only citizens should be allowed to enter the country?
This isn’t what’s happening. Everyone trying to enter the country has to go through the MIQ system, regardless of whether they’re a citizen, have one of these visas, or any other type of visa.
> Furthermore, my anecdotal observation is that articles in The Guardian about New Zealand reflect not reality, but rather the talking points of a very small subset of the hard Left of our political class.
their UK coverage is similar also
they were previously reputable (if slightly biased), but post 2016 reputability seemed to cease to be a priority
Fwiw, you're basically describing the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect without naming it. You're an expert on NZ, so it feels egregious, but you're not an expert on the next pages' topic, so the misleading information doesn't stick out or bother you as much.
I think the cat was out of the bag when kimdotcom was indicted. New Zealand is bought and paid for by the cloistered elite seemingly against any real argument by the locals.
You could make an argument the work here/look see initiative that imported skilled labor was somehow a counter indication of a plutocracy but I think its largely just salt in the wound for the average NZ resident as it ran defense for anyone who pointed a finger at silicon valley for buying their island oasis. They could have spent that money on stem education locally but outright chose not to.
Counterpoint: Larry Page entered NZ in early 2021 and was placed in a middling MIQ hotel. His people tried to get him moved to one of the best hotels but were unable to do so. Page is the world's fifth richest person. I think this counts against "New Zealand is bought and paid for by the cloistered elite".
They severely restricted the freedom to return home from all citizens but since they also made billionaire stay in a middle of the road hotel this is what sticks?
MIQ was an essential component of the elimination strategy. Elimination was a fundamentally egalitarian strategy; it disproptionately benefited the less-well-off, who inevitably suffer more when the virus is allowed to spread, and it was disproportionately costly to the wealthy and privileged, who had their jet-set lifestyles curtailed. International travellers are mostly not the underprivileged of society.
Was this at the time he was allowed to enter NZ despite Total ban on entry?
>NZ charter 4200 kilometer medevac flight while country is on total lock down, and the emergency is so urgent whole thing takes >24 hours before the flight even takes off.
“The day after the application was received, a New Zealand air ambulance staffed by a New Zealand ICU nurse-escort medevaced the child and an adult family member from Fiji to New Zealand,”
What’s the point of spending more on STEM education when the absurdly low salaries for tech and IT positions already have them going begging for workers?
IMHO this is largely a political storm in a teacup. There has been limited space in quarantine (MIQ) for returning residents over the past year, though this month there is space going free. A vocal group of people stuck overseas by this bottleneck have made a lot of noise about this (and fair enough too). And it's been amplified by the current government's political opposition, as I mentioned above it's not actually a real issue right now (omicron might change this).
The small number of people being granted these residency visas won't get priority in MIQ they'll have to queue with everyone else. What we are seeing here is a small resumption of our normal immigration regime, we're also resuming taking in refugees
Wouldn't it be simpler if you could just pay for N additional spots to be opened by your financing? If MIQ spots are limited due to finances and you can solve that problem that seems like a win-win. If there's an indirectness where the finances go somewhere else and the MIQ pie gets smaller for citizens at the same time, that's obviously going to cause outrage. This seems like one of those rare situations where more direct graft would be better.
In practice MIQ capacity has been limited by the number of suitable hotels available, and the difficulty of staffing them. These resources are not very elastic.
Taiwan operates an effective home quarantine system (and 850 deaths for a 23m population). Why couldn’t NZ? There would be a lot more capacity that way.
I can't answer that in full because I don't know all the details, but one issues is that Taiwan captures phone location data in a way that has no precedent here.
I’m fairly sure anyone who wanted to abscond wouldn’t take their cellphone with them if that was the case. And yet the cases and deaths in Taiwan remain very very low for its population.
In almost all countries you can buy citizenship if you're rich. You don't even need to know the language. Immigration and all these gimmicks are for peasants only.
Although controversal, there's no clear way to resolve utilitarian way of seeing this: an investment is required, and sometimes the investment can be good for society by improving a country economy.
For sure, the condition is paying taxes, and that is usually a partially satisfied only, as there're almost always a way to avoid tax. (Otherwise what's the reason for a rich one to invest into country at all?)
"Bounced out"? No citizens are being forced to leave the country.
These new visa holders just make it a little bit harder for citizens and residents to enter the country, that's all. Over 200,000 people have gone through MIQ during the pandemic --- that's a lot for a population of 5M. People who wanted to come back since the start of the pandemic have been able to come back.
I think the parent is treating citizenship == permanentish visa in his comment. The article is also about a Investor visa, not citizenship.
I’ve checked 2 (UK and Switzerland) and both offer some form of Investor visa, so it’s really no different to the New Zealand situation (other than general restrictions on entering the country).
Permanent residency of some kind and citizenship right after. All the biggest Western European countries. Trust me when you have money, everyone's a whore.
Yup certain. It is surprising that all the countries which complain about illegal immigration open their legs wide when you have the money. Looking at US, UK in particular.
So what happens if you're a NZer who can not get a MIQ slot (which may have been more plentiful when you left), but your Visa in your current location is expiring?
As far as I’m concerned. They don’t care. Wife and I were leaving singapore and got emergency visa for her as we would be stranded in singapore with no where to live and MIQ didn’t care at all. Unless we were able to get a letter or proof we can’t stay in singapore we were not provided any assistance while MIQ was in lock down.
Luckily Taiwan border opened up at the last minute and we were able to travel there instead.
Basically the whole quarantine and MIQ is a massive cluster fuck mess. And you can’t even call anyone. You can only contact them via email.
You have to plead with the country you're in. Or apply for one of the emergency slots the week you have to leave (pretty difficult at the moment given the flight schedules).
Or yano, deportation / imprisonment...
There's not many good solutions in this case and it is very difficult to match a reservation spot with an airline ticket out.
You can come to Australia, as another option. I think the borders are open for NZers who can get a 444 visa (but don't take my word for it, double check with the government before booking a ticket).
isn't this what you'd want? deported back to your country? It's not like you could be denied entry at the airport, and deported back to the foreign country...
Deportation usually comes with long lasting restrictions on travel to the country you are getting kicked from. Hopefully, USCIS/ICE will use their brains in situations like this.
With deportation you're probably going to spend a few days in prision until they can sort you a flight out.
Then as other commenters have mentioned, it's going to have some long lasting consequences.
It will make a lot of the countries in the world require you to get a visa before entering (or even transiting), as in apply for a visa, spend 3-4 months dealing with embassies and spending a decent amount of money while you explain what happened and potentially be denied anyway.
Even the most expensive MIQ places are incredibly cheap to the average millionaire, NZ$5520 for 14 days for a single adult, which gets cheaper per person when sharing [1]. There are also huge outstanding bills (over NZ$13M) from people that have been through MIQ and haven't paid [2]. Some of the hotels in the MIQ list could be a lot better than others [3]. The solution is to make these investor visa categories pay a lot more - something like 10x - to fund the others who can't pay, but give them priority to the best rooms.
Isn’t the real solution to disband MIQ? 90% eligible double vaccinated (95% eligible single dose).
How long should MIQ exist for?
Who should be responsible for paying MIQ dues?
I disagree that the traveler should be responsible anymore due to the high vaccination levels. The NZ govt, if it wishes to continue denying kiwis freedom of movement to return home to NZ (or travel to other countries they are citizens of) should shoulder the burden. Or a tax on the eligible-but-unvaccinated… after all, the traveler is having to quarantine to “protect” others, not themselves.
If they had put in these proposed charges from the start, it would protect the NZ government from the criticism they're facing.
Ending MIQ is inevitable but it's a one-way decision. Once the virus takes hold there's no going back, even if you take quarantine and isolation to China levels. Nobody likes a lockdown. My opinion is that the right time is when the globally dominant variant is a fast-spreading one with a proven hospitalisation rate post-wave that is lower than what NZ could cope with, given the vaccination rate. Omicron could be a candidate but its wave is still spreading, so it's too early to tell.
As for MIQ dues, the government and therefore the people bear its cost. NZ$13 million isn't a trivial sum, but it isn't huge either, so while any scheme to reduce the burden would be welcome, a plan with a huge potential cost such as ending MIQ is a bit too much risk, especially with Omicron data coming soon on the horizon.
New Zealander here. My wife and I just made it through the MIQ system in time to see our families for Christmas (and introduce our son to his grandparents for the first time). A few interesting things:
- we had to enter the MIQ lottery five times before ‘winning’ a spot. The lottery system is the same used by some shoe drops and ticket reservations, and there is no weighting given to citizens that have enrolled in previous lotteries.
- when you make it through the lottery and select a date, it has to match the date you arrive in NZ exactly. If flights only go to NZ on certain dates, and those dates are all taken, then you’re out of luck. Many people make it through the lottery only to find that there are no dates left that work.
- you are not told what MIQ hotel room or city you will be in until you arrive in NZ. At that point you may be flown across the country (adding and extra 5+ hours to the end of an international trip), and placed in who-knows-what hotel. You are charged a set fee for the hotel.
- at every stage of your stay at MIQ, the people running the show have the ability to prolong your stay if they believe there is any COVID risk. The morning we were packing our bags to leave, the hotel called to say we needed to stay in our room while they waited on an urgent COVID test for a suspected positive case. Had the result actually been positive, most of the hotel (everyone from our flight) would have needed to stay additional days.
- ‘famous’ people go through MIQ too. We met someone on the flight that plays the lead role in a popular TV series. Like everyone else, they were flown across the country and placed in a hotel room.
- the hotel food is usually not great. We were fortunate enough to be in an Uber Eats delivery area, so we ordered out a few times.
In regards to the linked article: the real problem, at least to me, is that New Zealand citizens with an urgent need to come home (visa, sick relative, funeral, etc) are not always able to do so.
MIQ is an interesting experience, and at least at the start of COVID it made it possible for NZ preserve a pre-pandemic way of life. Now that we’re years into COVID and vaccines are readily available, it’s extremely frustrating for New Zealanders with family or loved ones overseas. Public opinion is steadily shifting towards ‘open up the country’, and the government has announced some tentative dates for doing this (although they were recently shifted back due to omicron).
> Now that we’re years into COVID and vaccines are readily available, it’s extremely frustrating for New Zealanders with family or loved ones overseas. Public opinion is steadily shifting towards ‘open up the country’, and the government has announced some tentative dates for doing this (although they were recently shifted back due to omicron).
As someone who was in a Covid-free region of Australia all throughout the pandemic, I’ve seen first-hand what happens when borders are reopened. Local businesses are far less harmed from closed borders than they are from people avoiding clustering in indoor areas — either out of an abundance of caution for their health, or to avoid becoming a “close contact” of a Covid-19 case and then being forced into quarantine. Once borders reopen, associated mask mandates give everyone needless anxiety, while the hospital system beginning to buckle becomes a constant source of fear.
Closed borders allowed Australia and New Zealand to perform better economically than more permissive countries, and allowed their residents to live life like it was still 2019.
Permissive countries like America merely pretended to allow life to go on like it was 2019, while their conservative media exported tone deaf rationalizations for permissiveness to AU & NZ residents who were on average far better off than they were. The American media’s attempts at guilting antipodeans for closing themselves off to the world were laughed off as completely bizarre — most people were all too happy to allow the rest of the world to think they were doing it tough living their happy, blissful, Covid-free lives behind impenetrable borders.
AU & NZ would probably have at least another year of normal life left to live if their governments had directed international arrivals to quarantine in dedicated facilities in remote locations rather than in retrofitted hotels smack dab in the center of major urban areas.
The UK was doing well throughout all of Summer and we've only now had a bit of an Omicron scare due to people not wanting to self isolate over Christmas.
Most people aren't that bothered about corona, they respond to legal threats and marketing.
I don't think everyone would follow the rules, but I don't see that as a limitation to allowing people in.
Frankly, being allowed back in your country is probably along the lines of 'human right' and there probably is not any condition in which the government could not allow it.
There's plenty of ways to allow for isolation.
NZ Climate is actually temperate, they could even have individual military tents with cots and plastic outhouses, while not exactly luxury, it could accommodate almost anyone, and most people esp. those under 35 wouldn't have a problem.
They could even do a rapid build of low quality structures i.e. mini-huts, pre-fab style, put them in locations outside the city.
Though a bit authoritarian, even ankle bracelets could be used in some case maybe for home quarantine.
Commandeering motels and hotels and putting the Health Authorities right on premise.
In Taiwan, when you arrive they don't want you on the public transit so they rent you a car.
They arrive to your home 10 minutes after you do with masks and explain the deal. They check up on you every day sometimes in person, sometimes by phone.
I suggest that most people will 'get the idea' when a government rep. is directly communicating to them, checking up, answering questions, letting them know the 'real boundaries' aka 'you can't go out for coffee', 'you can't have your family over etc.'
There shouldn't be much of a wait for that kind of thing.
> they could even have individual military tents with cots and plastic outhouses, while not exactly luxury, it could accommodate almost anyone, and most people esp. those under 35 wouldn't have a problem.
> They could even do a rapid build of low quality structures i.e. mini-huts, pre-fab style, put them in locations outside the city.
> Though a bit authoritarian, even ankle bracelets could be used in some case maybe for home quarantine.
Though this might be in theory better (after all being allowed in at all is better than be stranded outside), this seems far worse of a PR nightmare. The headlines and accompanying pictures would be atrocious.
Yes it would. And it's at least partly why they don't do it, which is sad, because our population is past the point wherein we will accept a bit of adversity as something acceptable.
Standard meaning that if it made it into a licensed institution that also does KYC/AML then its good enough for us!
Basically the concept is that its up to the customer to get money magically graced and cleared by their host government, and if there is not currently a problem its not anyone’s problem.
Think about it: what is legal?
China says that people with their currency cant move more than an equivalent of $50k/year out. If someone only earns Yuan on mainland China but has enough liquid money elsewhere to invest in this program, is it your problem to care about China’s currency controls to suggest this money violated that?
Well the same standard applies even if you were imagining terrorist financing and cartels.
Not necessarily but sure read whatever you want from that, the point of my post was actually that all AML/KYC is a waste of public sector and private sector resources.
I’m not a New Zealander and I don't care about the local politics. Its still entertaining to me that any random government could say someone’s money is clean and its magically clean from that point on.
The solution is simple... Shut down the unnecessary MIQ system. Everyone has had the opportunity to get vaccinated and risks for those is now back to as low as it was prior to the pandemic.
The 90% can't live isolated forever because of the 0.2% who can't have vaccines for medical reasons. (The remainder is made up of those who've made anti-vaxx part of their identity).
Put that money and resources into protecting the vulnerable, not into isolating New Zealand and severely impacting the economy in a vain attempt to keep a virus, which will be with us together, out.
Human lives aren't infinitely valuable. As an example, there were 318 road deaths in New Zealand in 2020, which could all have been avoided by lowering the speed limit to 10kmh.
This isn't a solution that would ever be considered seriously, because it's evident that the financial and flow-on social harm caused by such a rule would greatly outweigh the current death toll.
It's becoming increasingly evident that 'protecting those who can't be vaccinated by stifling New Zealand in draconian restrictions' is the same.
Kids are back at schools and daycares with no air filtration mandates, no parent bubble separation, no parent vaccine segregation…
Ultimate metric for abolishing MIQ is ICU pressure. And that was about to happen anyway just few days away, until Omicron (rightfully so, although given slip up with delta I’d say close the border completely).
It's funny because most countries have cautioned people not to leave right now and people just go anyways. No one is shedding tears when you are stuck because you couldn't wait for your budget vacation.
It's not always vacation. Many people have close family abroad that they want you see. Sometimes with medical issues so they may not get another chance.
I wouldn't travel if vacation was the only reason. Especially if I were living in NZ which is one of the most beautiful places on earth IMO
It's also kinda unfair to expect people to have seen Omikron coming :) with the distance to Europe most people from here in NZ only visit family once a year and often go for months. Suddenly returning would have been difficult and costly.
I'm surprised the fairly left-wing current NZ government is prioritising investors like this though.
> It's also kinda unfair to expect people to have seen Omikron coming
Perhaps, it's unfair that the government is obligating severe COVID restrictions on travel for citizens (and non-citizens, alike) in a country with 80+% vaccination rates for a disease that's essentially endemic at this point. NZ seems to be just pushing the problem down the line at this point. There will never be a time where they can just open without any cases so why are they still so incredibly restrictive?
FWIW: I am not a NZer, I don't plan to visit NZ any time soon, and I'll admit I'm relatively unversed on the political situation in NZ.
Just to add to your FWIW: covid is also not endemic.
These regulations sound too restrictive but the attitude towards covid also seems kind of advanced of where we actually are, which is a disease that is mutating due to people traveling and artificial vaccine scarcity
A few weeks ago everyone was expecting them to replace MIQ with home self-isolation in Feb-April thanks to the vaccine uptake. Now Omicron has thrown that all up in the air.
In countries like Canada a lot of people signed up for government benefits and went back to their origin country to stretch their free money and then got stuck when the money stopped and the government stopped letting people back in.
The people you hear whining are not the people leaving for medical reasons. It's almost a sport watching people on the news complain about their ruined vacations.
The last allocation of MIQ slots had 800+ rooms that were not taken. Anyone who urgently needed to return had the ability to secure a room in December.
When Omicron appeared and it hadn’t been detected within the community in NZ it was obvious the NZ government would make changes to delay its introduction by moving to tighten MIQ settings and delaying any removal of quarantine restrictions.
All of the January and February rooms were taken. There were some rooms left for the remaining two weeks in December (likely too shot notice for many people) and March (the quarantine system was meant to mostly end by then).
I'm not a NZ citizen, nor resident nor I have interest in getting there except maybe as a tourist someday. Anyway if I would apply for entry to NZ or any other country I'd expect that all citizens jump the line in front of me, then everyone paying millions, then everybody else.
And that would be true today as NZ is not currently allowing anyone without citizenship or a residency visa in at all (with some minor exemption for touring sports teams and the performing arts)
When it comes to MIQ allocation they aren’t put ahead of anyone - everyone who has the ability to enter NZ has the same chance and ability to obtain MIQ slots.
I should have chosen my words better. The point is, given that there is limited capacity for MIQ slots -- some citizens will inevitably be bounced by pay-for-visa holders who are also in line.
Amazing isn't it. We found out who exactly essential workers were (food service, transport, medical, teachers) and also how the rules imposed on all of us were remarkably selective based on wealth. I guess we knew it, but to have it demonstrated in such stark terms has been breathtaking.
> With their visas in hand, investors may apply to compete for spots in New Zealand’s congested MIQ system. A stay in MIQ is a prerequisite for entry to the country, which has been largely closed to non-quarantined international travel since March 2020 to protect against Covid-19.
So… these people have pledged to invest huge sums of money into NZ and the end result is that they have to apply for the same MIQ spots as everyone else?
Seems the outrage should be directed at this MIQ system. The visa scheme seems to be an enormous benefit to NZ.