|
Hi Beckerboodles
Technically the Jonahs are right, in as much as Policy disapproves of people using tourist visas for the purposes of anything other than tourism. They are obviously not intended to be a way of permitting people to emigrate to Australia via the back door, as it were, by-passing all the proper procedures and checks.
But every lawyer has a dog called Loophole....
The only requirement for applying for an onshore visa is that the applicant must be physically in Australia, and s/he must be in possession of a visa that is not lumbered with Condition 8503, because Condition 8503 would prevent an onshore application for a de facto/Spouse visa from being a valid application. Condition 8503 cannot be imposed on a subclass 976 ETA, however, which is the visa you currently hold.
Nor do you travel to Australia with the intention of remaining indefinitely. You do exactly what your tourist visa permits. DH has to get back to Oz to start work, so you go with him the better to mop his fevered brow whilst doing a spot of sightseeing etc. You have every intention of returning to the UK at the end of 3 months. Back in the UK you intend to launch an application for a subclass 309/100 Spouse/de facto visa, and to make a simultaneous application for a 6-12 month stay in Australia on a subclass 676 long stay tourist visa. You intend to travel to Oz using that and then to nip to Bali, Auckland or wherever in order for the subclass 309 visa to be granted.
Once in Oz, you seek the help of an intelligent onshore migration agent, who studies your documents and clocks that you are not lumbered with Condition 8503. He asks whether you like the cost and hassle of long haul travel. You are astonished by this question and wonder why he has asked it? He explains that the situation is such that you could make an onshore application for the de facto visa, and couple it with an application for a Bridging Visa A (the submission of the onshore application is also an automatic application for the Bridging Visa.)
Armed with this new information, you undergo a change of heart & mind which is so dramatic that its like has not been seen since the Transformation of Saul on the Road to Damascus. DIAC know perfectly well that they cannot prove exactly when you formed a new intention which differs from your original plans, and you could not possibly have obtained the impression that this is even possible from reading the DIAC website because that does not exactly point the way to the loopholes in the legislation. The onshore migration agent put the new idea into your head,or the staff at the local DIAC office did so (which is even better because in practice their advice would be identical to that of the onshore migration agent.)
Meds can be done in Australia (and it is cheaper to get them done there.) UK Police checks can be applied for by airmail and sent to you by airmail. Do not take the kitchen sink in your luggage because even the doziest DIAC airport official would feel inspired to question you if you do that.
I often observe commentators straying into the realms of morality when offering "legal advice" about this scenario to someone like you. I am a lawyer. Nobody has ever given me any training in matters of morality. Moral issues are best left to the Men of the Clothes because morality is their territory, not mine. Doubtless their various textbooks contain plenty of instructions on the subject but legal textbooks steer firmly clear of such matters.
The Court's attitude is that Parliament writes the legislation and Parliament can change the legislation if it so wishes. However, if the words ain't in the legislation then the Court will not import them. Parliament is content that Condition 8503 cannot be imposed on 90-day ETAs it would seem. So be it. Parliament wrote Section 976 of the Migration Regulations so presumably Parliament is content with how the thing works.
Now I really must go and take Loophole for a walk, my dear.....
Best wishes
Gill
|