When it comes to long term residents it gets more complicated as well. It then matters where you are from and when you last arrived in NZ.
I arrived in 1970 and the visa in my family passport just said entry. Of course the photos in that passport are my parents as I was 10. At that stage coming from Britain meant I was treated as a citizen from day one right through to now. Had I arrived in 1973 though I would of had to come on an immigration visa but still would of been treated as a citizen.
Ironically the only incentive I have to become an actual citizen is if I want to travel overseas.
Now of course you have to arrive on a work visa or similar and then apply to be a citizen.
Is there a clear reference for the requirement of any visitor to hold travel insurance? I'm sure it's highly recommended, especially for people from countries without reciprocal agreements, but I've never heard of it before.
@bohwaz: " I've seen mates being refused ACC cover. "
Are you sure it was being refused because they were from overseas, and not some other technicality? I'm fairly certain that the deal with ACC is that you have an accident in New Zealand, ACC covers it. Common grounds for refusal, however, seem to be:
* You must be able to identify a specific accident. Simply saying your knee's gotten worse and worse doesn't cut it. This encourages people to make stuff up, but it seems to be the case nevertheless
* ACC doesn't cover pre-existing situations as far as I know. If you'd already damaged something overseas, then made it worse whilst in New Zealand, ACC mightn't cover it. (If you damaged it through an accident whilst in New Zealand, though, then ACC might cover it as part of the original claim?)
* ACC only covers treatment in New Zealand. If you want to return home for treatment, you're on your own. (This alone must be a good reason to have good travel insurance!)
"most people do pay for an expensive private insurance, even paying extra for "search and rescue insurance" when in fact it is free and those insurance companies are not giving any money to NZ SAR… "
I've seen this cited lots, but I don't think it's quite so simple as saying that people are insured for "any SAR costs" and therefore we should be charging them (but apparently only if they have insurance). Typical travel insurance policies are designed for cover in lots of different countries, and many policies are nearly identical because they all have the same underwriters. NZ doesn't get special treatment, but I bet an insurance company would argue that the specific situations of all those different countries average each other out. NZ might have free SAR whereas another country doesn't, but similarly that other country might be much cheaper for something else than New Zealand is. Make New Zealand too-expensive and the insurance companies start to zone it differently, pushing up premiums for visitors who want to come here.
Not that SAR costs for tourists are a biggie. I doubt the insurance companies would care much just for that, but for the same reason I'm not convinced it's worth the risk for the NZ government to break its ultra-simple no-charge-for-SAR policy, just to try and fleece a few more hundreds of thousands of dollars from tourists to cover those SAR costs each year. For one thing, if the government tried to discriminate between charging tourists who were insured but not tourists who weren't, insurance companies would have a field day in the courts... but if the government charges all tourists then it invalidates the whole point of the no-charge policy.
This post has been edited by the author on 9 June 2017 at 22:01.
insurance co's tayler the cover to the country of travel If there is ACC then accident cover is removed If a country covers all claimers you can bet the travel insurance covers very little. You can also bet any savings are not passed on to the buyer