Hi All
Before we all get carried away with the "moral" issues in this case, it would be brainy to consider the legal issues first.
0807398 [2008] MRTA 1051 (25 November 2008)
Click on the link to the Tribunal decision in Dr Moeller's case, please.
Dr Moeller's employers - of their own free will - chose to nominate Dr Moeller for an onshore ENS sc 856 visa:
Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 121/856)
The employers agreed to a visa which would give Dr Moeller unconditional
PR in Australia
regardless of whether or not the employment contract would stick to the wall in the end.
There are various rules about where the employer is actually based. I am not expert enough to know the exact details but the gist is:
If an employer is genuinely based in "Regional Oz" then the employer can offer sponsorship for an RSMS 857 visa.
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 119/857)
However as I understand it, an employer in the deep Outback who happens to be able to satisfy the employer criteria for both visas is able to choose an ENS 856 visa instead of the more restrictive RSMS 857 visa. The ENS 856 is less onerous for the employer than the RSMS 857.
The choice of visa
could not have happened without the employer's consent.
So what is the employer whingeing about now? This employer is big enough, old enough and ugly enough to have expert lawyers at its elbow 24/7.
"A jury consists of 12 good men and true,
engaged for the purpose of deciding which of the parties has the better lawyer." [Elborne Mitchell, Solicitors, London EC3.]
EB's statement brings a smile to every lawyer's face because they are absolutely right. It is the way of the world.
There are no legal rights or wrongs here. A visa which the Australian Government invented - and therefore presumably approves of - was sought with the active encouragement of the employer. This visa cannot come into being without the employer's support.
Do the employers now wish to claim that they are inept, incompetent, idiotic clowns who are too dim to hire an Immigration Law specialist should they need one? Why did they fail to arm themselves with competent legal advice? If they reckon that they tried to do so but they now think they were wrongly advised, their remedy lies in suing their chosen advisor. It does
NOT lie in whingeing to the media about Dr Moeller.
The employer's choice of advisor is not a question for Dr Moeller. He did not choose his ex-employer's lawyers for them.
"Moral standards" do not belong to the Law. Lawyers are not trained, qualified or competent to discuss them. Morality is the province of the many religions. The Law does not, cannot and should not step over this boundary.
Dr Moeller has not breached Australian Law in any way.
Ergo, what is the real issue here, please?
Cheers
Gill
