Guest InquirySecretary Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Dear forum readers, I’m posting to let you know about an Australian parliamentary inquiry into the migration treatment of disability. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration will look at whether visa decision-makers should be able to take into account the social and economic contribution, as well as the anticipated health care costs, of potential migrants identified as having a ‘disease or condition’. I’ve seen there are quite a few postings on this site from people having problems being granted an Australian visa due to their own, or family member’s disability or health condition. If you’ve had issues with the health requirement and would like to tell your story, please think about making a submission to the inquiry. Submissions can be of any length or format. It doesn’t matter if you’re not Australian or not in Australia. Following the inquiry the Committee will make recommendations to the Government about potential changes. More information is available at www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/index.htm or contact me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Hello InquirySecretary Thank you very much indeed for posting on here. The migration treatment of disability is a matter of immense concern to several of our members. I have just sent an e-mail asking to be added to the mailing list for the Inquiry. I am sure that many others will also want to join the mailing list. The link for how to do that is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/index.htm Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Hi All It is time to resurrect this thread as a reminder to everyone who has a reason to be interested in the health requirement for migration to Oz. Submissions must be sent to the Inquiry Secretary by no later than Wednesday 28th October. It would be prudent to translate that to Monday 26th October, which is 4 weeks from today. So far two submissions have been received. Both of them cite the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is described here: Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Australia is one of 143 countries to have signed the Convention by May 2009. So far only 68 countries have ratified it and Australia is not one of them. The Convention is powerful stuff. The submissions which have been made so far were made by Professor Patricia Harris and by the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA.) The submissions are here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm Professor Harris argues powerfully on behalf of the case for permitting visa applicants with disabled children to migrate to Australia. NEDA's submission is more broadly based. Professor Harris' submission is compelling reading for any visa applicant or prospective visa applicant with a disabled child - and, alas, it is equally compelling reading for those whose visa applications have been refused recently whether because of a disabled child, a grandparent seeking to join his grandchildren out in Australia and many other people besides. The families who have had to endure this visa refusal nightmare know who they are. If anybody wants to make a submission to the Inquiry, please make a start on your drafting. If you get stuck on the technicalities, please shout. Someone will provide a steer. The Committee suggests that people might like to deal with one or more of 6 questions. Following the terms of reference, submissions might choose to respond to the following questions: · Is the current process for assessing a visa applicant against the health requirement fair and transparent? · What types of contributions and costs should be considered? · How do we measure these? · Are there additional factors that should be considered? · Do you have personal experience of this? · What principles should apply to the assessment of visa applications against the health requirement? Should there be exceptions? You do not have to provide a view on all of these points. The Committee welcomes your responses to any or all of these questions. I intend to make a submission because I do have personal experience of running the gauntlet with the health requirement, with my elderly, disabled mother's visa application in 2006. I am aware that several other PiO members are planning to make their own submissions as well. I hope that they will do so and I hope that this post will remind those who want to make submissions that it is time to get moving on doing your drafting! It will take longer than you think, I suspect. Please note that although the Committee needs to know who you are and how they can contact you, you have a right to ask them NOT to publish your address or other contact details. It would be acceptable to ask that no more than your first name should be published. Your privacy will be protected completely if that is what you request, rest assured. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogand Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Thanks for the post Gill. It is a great opportunity for those of us who have been effected by the process to get our voice heard, and i will definately be making a submission Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Hi All The Inquiry is about to slide into a swamp made of apathy. At this rate the Committee will have to report that since the public is not interested in whether persons with disabilities are able to migrate to Australia or not, there will be no challenge to DIAC's determination to keep the drawbridge pulled up. I have spent six hours today drafting my submission. I have e-mailed the draft to PiO members who I think are interested - mostly for unfortunate reasons of their own. I will finish my submission and I will lodge it whatever happens because this is an issue about which I have strong personal views. Will anybody else join me? We have 48 hours left in which to get our submissions ready and despatched by e-mail to Canberra. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogand Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Gill, I have already sent my submission through and really hope others join in on this. I have contacted a few other people/groups in Australia who I know are also preparing submissions, but i also hope as many people as possible make submissions as it would be a huge shame if this opportunity is not taken advantage of. Dermot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Hi All http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/media/media03.pdf It seems that a team of Human Rights Lawyers will be addressing the Inquiry during the wee small hours in the UK tonight. It is a live session which will be webcast apparently. Also the Committee has decided to continue to accept submissions, so if you feel that you would like to contribute to the debate, please feel able to do so. Hogand and I have now both made formal submissions to the Inquiry. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 Hi again, all For those who are interested but (like me) are too sleepy to stay up all night, I have unearthed the discussion paper produced by the ALHR in June 2009. Please see this link: Australian Lawyers for Human Rights ALHR It is a very powerful Paper. I am just reading it now - for the first time. I hope that others - particularly those with personal experience of a visa refusal because a member of the family is a person with a disability - will read it and take heart. There are good folks in Australia who do care about the ordeals which you have endured and they do intend to improve the situation for you and your loved ones if they possibly can. Having read the two published Submissions, plus the ALHR Paper, and also the Submissions produced by Hogand and myself, I do feel that a good cross-section of comments and thoughts is being put forward for the Inquiry to consider. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Hi again from me Something went wrong and the Committee did not hear from the ALHR in person as plannned. However they have published 30 of the submissions received so far instead. I have not had time to read all of them yet but many individuals and organisations are all hammering the same points as each other, which I hope will work as a force for real change. The list of submissions which have been published so far is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sunnyday Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Hi again from me Something went wrong and the Committee did not hear from the ALHR in person as plannned. However they have published 30 of the submissions received so far instead. I have not had time to read all of them yet but many individuals and organisations are all hammering the same points as each other, which I hope will work as a force for real change. The list of submissions which have been published so far is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm Cheers Gill Hi Gill I only came across this thread today and have just read your submission. I chose one completely at random and it just happened to be yours amazingly enough!!! I just have to say Gill that it is absolutely amazing and I was in tears towards the end (think it touched a few nerves), thankyou :hug: I can't read anymore of them tonight, will have to save for tomorrow :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Hi sunnyday Thank you very much indeed for your kind words. May I suggest that you read Dermot Hogan's contribution next, please? Dermot posts as hogand on here and if you do a search using his user name, you will see a lot of the effort that went into preparing for Jake's meds, how confident everyone felt at the time and how cruel the blow was when the MOC suddenly made a totally perverse decision. Something must be done. The deeply flawed current system cannot be allowed to lurch along in its present state. On a happier note, I note that a submission has been made on behalf of "Australian Rights for Human Lawyers" (sic.) Hehehehe. Most Human Lawyers would agree that we are desperately in need of some Rights, especially our Aussie brethren, evidently. :wink: Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sunnyday Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 I certainly will read Hogands next Gill. I completely agree the current system is absurd and unfair, I believe the the closing date is today for submission is that correct?? I would like to contribute as even though we do not know the outcome of our sons medical the hoops and cost we have to go through to find out are ludicrous in my opinion. It does put a strain on the family emotionally and financially and even though you decide to take the risk once that application is in, the emotional side of things is intensified greatly - there has to be a better system in place for families of kids with disabilities, to be allowed to go through the whole process and be denied at the final hurdle is psychologically cruel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 HI sunnyday The Committee has decided to accept submissions until further notice. I think they realise that this issue does not lend itself to rigid, formal handling because so many ordinary families have been, currently are or will in future be directly affected by the health requirement for migration. It does seem to me that the Committee's "softly, softly" approach is absolutely the right one to adopt. Do, please prepare and send a submission. You can ask for it not to be published if you wish or you can ask them to publish your submission but not to reveal your name. Thanks very much for being willing to become involved. The more that ordinary families speak out, the better. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Migration Help Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Gill thanks for coming to the Migration Help forum to let MH readers know that PiO has thrown its weight behind this issue. Gill's post can be found here for those interested - Call for public comment on Australia’s migration health rules This is a matter which is very close to me personally so it is wonderful to see so many submissions submitted over the last few days. I would also like to reiterate that the committee has not yet set a final date for submissions from the public so I would urge all who have had any experience with this issue, and who have not yet made a submission, to please consider putting in your two pennies worth. Kind regards Sheelagh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Thanks, Sheelagh I would add that submissions can be very short. I struggled to cover all 6 of the "simple form" questions and thought about not trying to. There are people far better qualified than I am to discuss issues such as what benefits and contributions diversity in abilities can provide to a given society. That is a vast question all by itself. Please join me in encouraging people to believe that as much or as little as they feel they want to say is enough, and less is often more with something like this. We don't all need to be authors. It is enough just to say what we think about specific aspects of the issue if that would be easier. Or just describe the facts as they happened in one's own family. A lot of the contributors have done that and it is very important that people who are or have been affected by the issue should feel able to speak out. Again, I sense that this particular Committee is not going to be too rigid about the extent to which responses stay within the strict terms of reference. I've now read through all of the submissions so far. I am heartened by the common themes which are emerging. Almost everyone has complained about the lack of transparency in the process, for example, and that is something DIAC can remedy if it makes a policy decision to do so. There is no reason why they can't be a lot less opaque about the process than they are. It is too easy for DIAC to hide behind the MOC, leaving the MOC to operate under a cloak of unaccountable, invisible secrecy. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Migration Help Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Dear all As Gill points out, do not be intimidated by the 'submission' process. The committee have opened this debate up to the public at large so they will not be expecting legally-articulated manuscripts from all. The 6 form questions are just there as a guide. Use them if you can. Disregard them if you can't. I often find just keeping to dot points helps when I put down my thoughts for public submissions like this. Brief, factual, to the point, and with this issue, emotive is good :smile:!. Dont get caught up in the angst of writing a structurally correct thesis. All that matters at the end of the day is what you have to say on the subject - your experiences and your thoughts/opinions. Cheers Sheelagh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hi Sheelagh I had a heart stopping e-mail two weekends ago, followed by a phone call from the PiO member concerned. The lass who rang me lives in Oz and has PR. When she migrated, the family accepted that it would not be possible for Mum & Dad to follow. The reason was because altough they only had one other child, a son, he was severely disabled and they were his carers. Unfortunately their son died recently, so the CPV is now available for the grieving parents. It is shocking - and it is completely wrong - that a Parent's ability to migrate should depend on the death of a disabled but nonetheless dearly beloved child. This MUST be changed, imho. Personally I think the Parents' CPV application should receive maximum priority on compelling and compassionate grounds because Parents and Daughter need to be together at this sad time. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogand Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Gill, It was good that all the new submissions, including mine and yours, have been published. I have read through all 30 of the submissions and they make very interesting reading and some extremely good arguements within them all. I was sitting up waiting for the webcast on the meeting with Human Rights Lawyers only to find an email confirming it had been postponed. What a shame, but it will be interesting when the meeting does happen. I have emailed the secretarit for the inquiry in relation to personal community statements at public hearings. the hearing on the 12th Nov in Sydney states that people will be allow to speak and tell their story in person to the committee for up to 5 minutes each if present. I know those of us who have been inpacted by it would LOVE to have such an opportunity, and many of those impacted will not be living in Australia for the very reasons the inquiry was set up (migration treatment of disability resulting in rejected visas). They have taken note of my points, that those of us abroad would have some very relevant points to make. They acknowledge this and advised it will be looked into as to whether we could make personal statements via tele/video conference at some point during the forthcoming public inquiries which run until feb/mar 2010. I will forward the email to you for reference. I hope others who have been impacted by this or who have an opinion or view continue to make submissions as this is such an excellent opportunity to influence the decision makers of migration policy. Dermot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 Hi Dermot Many thanks for your news. The Migration Review Tribunal accepts evidence provided by witnesses or applicants over the phone, so I would think it is possible for a Senate Committee to do the same. I think a 5 minute address by you would be an excellent idea. It is not fair to Jake to say this, so I apologise to him in advance: it is a deeply unattractive fact that Down Syndrome is the condition which attracts the most headlines in this debate because of the litigation in Robinson and also because of Dr Moeller. It is no help that everyone knows what DS is, whereas four year old Evan is easy to reject and then to forget simply because he has Fragile X. Hardly anyone knows what that is, even. Evan's case makes my blood boil. He is only four, for a start. He takes one or two tablets a day for his Fragile X but the cost of the drugs is negligible. Apparently Fragile X can sometimes mimic Austism but it does not do so with this particular child, possibly because the condition was spotted when Evan was only two years old and the medication began almost immediately. According to the MOC, the cost of providing for Evan's needs at school will be prohibitive and the MOC is confident that Evan will end up on lifelong Disability Support of some sort. He is only four. How can anybody claim to know what his adult life will be like? The experts who actually know Evan (and as you said, know what he can do not just what he can't yet do) are unanimous in their opinion that Evan will grow up to lead a perfectly normal, independent, tax-paying adult life. They applied for a subclass 175 visa so there is no right of review. It might be possible to go to Court and argue jurisdictional error but that doesn't result in the grant of a visa even if you win. The Forms 884 that I've seen all trot out a list of the documents that the MOC has supposedly received and studied carefully. (In one of the court cases the Judge said that if the MOC says he has seen Dr Bloggs' letter, the MOC must be taken to have read it, understood it and given due weight to what Dr Bloggs said. Ergo simply listing the documents haphazardly makes the MOC bullet proof on the Robinson argument.) If they did this properly, the MOC would be obliged to explain why he disagrees with Dr Bloggs. As it is, the stock statement is "special education therapy" and that is that. Visa refused with no further ado. It is soooooo MONSTROUSLY wrong. It could very easily have happened with my 85 year old Mum. The "shopping list" we received from the MOC tallied exactly with the description of the concerns about the over 70s in the very long submission by Mary Ann Gourlay. Mum's initial meds were done by Dr Goodall. He said she was in very good shape considering her age and the inoperable spinal fracture which has left Mum's legs semi-paralysed. That is why she needs a walking frame. A neurosurgeon did a load of scans and then explained exactly what had happened, why and what to do about it, so at least we understand the whole thing completely - which does make it very much easier to cope with the consequences of the original injury. The MOC wasn't satisfied with Dr Goodall's findings and wanted Mum to see a consultant geriatrician. The trouble was that Mum flew to Perth three weeks after seeing Dr Goodall. The Parents Visa Centre knew where she was because we wrote and told them once Mum reached Oz. They were fine about that and said to get a GP of Mum's choice to refer her to a consultant geriatrician. The GP found an old boy called Professor Cohen, who was 80 and semi retired. I spluttered, "The MOC asked for a geriatrician, not a blinking fellow geriatric," but the GP insisted that Prof Cohen was so illustrious (in endocrinology, before he retired from that and took to helping his fellow Pensioners instead) that nobody would dare to argue with him. Mum has no need of an endocrinologist - she doesn't have diabetes or whatever they treat. I was seriously worried but the GP was right. Professor Cohen was very switched on and he was not prepared to brook anybody bickering with his clinincal judgement. The whole tone of his report was, "You will obey me." He said Mum was fine and had no need for any medical or other attention from him. Had he been less firm, I suspect the outcome might well have been negative. It is all too unpredictable. When I phoned Dr Goodall in a panic, he said, "Mrs X doesn't need a geriatrician. This is a load of nonsense. If she needed a geriatrician I would have referred her to one considering that you told me she was only in the UK for a short while and your local GP doesn't really know her. I spent an hour with her. The local GP only has time for 10 minutes with her. I checked her over from head to foot to make sure that nothing sinister is lurking unseen. Stop worrying!" He was so good with Mum that he got a normal reading on her blood pressure the first time he did it, when I expected it to be through the roof because she was in such a pessimistic panic before I bundled her into the car! He calmed Mum right down and left her BP till the very end of the consultation, by which time Mum was eating out of his hand! He twinkled at her and she fell in love with him on the spot!! (I'm much less of a pushover than Mum!) Apparently Professor Cohen was first rate with Mum, too. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest InquirySecretary Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hello all As the inquiry secretary for the Migration Committee's inquiry I'd like to thank those of you who have made submissions so far, and can confirm that yes, the Committee will continue to accept submissions, at least into the New Year. I can also support the advice that submissions don't have to be long or formal, and as long as they are relevant to the inquiry subject matter, you can structure them however you like. Regards Anna jscm@aph.gov.au Also, while 'human lawyers' always need support, we are correcting our error on the web site - thank you for pointing that out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hi Anna, Thanks for moving out of parliamentary anonymity to encourage genuine submissions. Perhaps the nature of the input in this forum suggests that having a blog for an enquiry isn't such a bad idea, obviously the very formal submission system developed at a time when everything had to be scrupulously copied to all committee members and carefully recorded. A moderated blog might be a very convenient way for you to get the ideas of people like me who don't have the time for a formal submission. While I think of it, I noticed that a lot of the submissions drew on the experiences of Shahraz Kiane and I wondered whether you have reviewed the Ombudsman's report on that case as a part of your fact-finding. I am quite sure you would find the Kayani family (note different spelling) quite prepared to share their experiences with you. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Migration Help Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The House of Representatives has established a committee to review the health criteria for Australian visas, particularly in relation to obtaining permanent residence. For some weeks they have been asking for anyone with knowledge or interest in this matter to make a submission to the committee. The first public hearing on this matter is to take place in Sydney tomorrow (see below for more information). I would urge all who are able to attend this hearing. The committee is still taking in submissions from the public. If you have not already made one please consider doing so. If enough information and interest is shown in this area there seems to be a very good chance that the current 'one fail all fails' rule may be revised. Please get on board! If you or a family member had difficulties obtaining, or were refused a visa, because of the health requirement please make a submission to the committee. They are not difficult. To view submissions made to date please go to Migration/Disability Submissions ######################################### House of Representatives ######################################### Issued by: House of Representatives Liaison & Projects Office, Wednesday 11 November 2009 A fair go? Sydney public hearing on migration and disability “We never think of her blindness as a 'medical condition', it's just more a physical condition,” says an individual whose sister in South Africa has been refused an Australian visa. While she otherwise meets the requirements for skilled migration, her sister’s blindness means that, under current migration health rules, she has been assessed as potentially too costly to the Australian taxpayer and to Australian health and community services. But the woman says that her sister “is not ill in any way. She happens to be blind — and in many ways we always think of her blindness as affording her skills that other people don't have. “She has a much more highly developed sense of hearing, for instance. Her computer skills are way better than my computer skills because she has to learn every key stroke." “It's hard to explain that to someone like [my sister] — to say you know THAT is the reason why you cannot come to a country like Australia." These are among the stories included in the submission of the National Ethnic Disability Alliance (NEDA) to the inquiry into the migration treatment of disability. NEDA is among a range of witnesses who will appear at a public hearing tomorrow (Thursday 12 November) in Sydney, the first public hearing for the inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. Committee Chair, Michael Danby, said that the Committee was looking forward to commencing public hearings for the inquiry. NEDA has argued that the current arrangements are discriminatory, create social discord and hardship for many individuals and families, and do not accurately reflect the social and economic contributions that migrants and refugees might make to Australia. The Committee will also be hearing from Professor Ron McCallum AO, who holds the distinguished position of Rapporteur to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and Graeme Innes AM, the Australian Disability Discrimination Commissioner. “This is a vexed area of migration policy and the Committee will be examining whether our current rules really are in Australia’s interest as a forward-looking, inclusive and productive society”, Mr Danby said. Details of Meeting: 9.30 am – 4.00 pm, Thursday 12 November 2009, Corinthian Room, Sydney Masonic Centre, 66 Goulbourn St, Sydney Members of the public and media are welcome to attend. There will also be an opportunity for members of the public to make a comment to the Committee or tell their story. Please see the full program for the day at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe.../Program03.pdf. For media comment, please contact the Committee Chair, Michael Danby MP, on (02) 6277 4520, or the Deputy Chair, Hon Danna Vale MP, on (02) 6277 4866. For information about the hearing or the inquiry, visit the inquiry website at Migration and Disabilityor contact the Committee Secretariat on (02) 6277 4560 or jscm@aph.gov.au. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 Hi Anna, Sheelagh & George Thanks for your posts during the night in the UK. This Inquiry is about a subject which is dear to my heart. I understand that more submissions will be published tomorrow - 12th November 2009 - once the Committee has had a chance to read through them. The Program for tomorrow's hearing is here: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/hearings/Program03.pdf I note that the MIA will be making a submission - presumably in person - which I think is all to the good. The present health requirement arrangements make it impossible for an RMA to offer a client reliable advice about which way the MOC is likely to jump. The lack of transparency in the way that the MOC is permitted to act leaves RMAs as much in the dark as it leaves everyone else. This should not be. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The interesting issue about this inquiry is why it is happening. The Minister some months ago gave a visa to a Doctor applying for an ENS in Australia. The Doctor's son failed the medical as he had Downs Syndrome. The same day the Migration Review Tribunal upheld the DIAC decision, as it had to, the Minister granted the visa. He later said this case was the reason he established the inquiry as he is NOW aware of the unfairness of the health criteria. He has no power to do anything under the Act and Regs unless an application has gone through the review process. I am very interested in this as I have a medical refusal case with the MRT, and will probably end up on the Minister's desk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 The interesting issue about this inquiry is why it is happening. The Minister some months ago gave a visa to a Doctor applying for an ENS in Australia. The Doctor's son failed the medical as he had Downs Syndrome. The same day the Migration Review Tribunal upheld the DIAC decision, as it had to, the Minister granted the visa. He later said this case was the reason he established the inquiry as he is NOW aware of the unfairness of the health criteria. He has no power to do anything under the Act and Regs unless an application has gone through the review process. I am very interested in this as I have a medical refusal case with the MRT, and will probably end up on the Minister's desk. Hi Chris The Dr Moeller case may have been the immediate catalyst for the Minister's media release but a much bigger problem is that Australia has recently ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("CRPD.") CRPD requires that Persons with Disabilities must be afforded the same freedom to move between jurisdictions as everyone else. It requires all the States which adopt the Convention to get on and ensure this freedom of movement. Reading the submissions by all the lawyers who have responded to the Inquiry, it appears that initially Australia tried to exempt Aussie migration legislation from the ambit and operation of the Convention. To a man, the lawyers insist that this stance places Australia in breach of international law. I believe that the Comvention is the brainchild of the United Nations. They expect better than attempted cherry picking from Australia and other world leading countries. I suspect that the Convention will force Australia to bite the bullet where persons with disablities are concerned. It is not clear about persons with diseases (eg cancer) or persons with conditions that could - but not necessarily will - develop into diseases (eg HIV+.) I suspect that the whole thing goes way beyond Dr Moeller, though, and I think alteration of the migration legislation will be the inevitable result sooner or later - though I suspect that DIAC will drag their heels for as long as possible before conceding the need for change and making it happen. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.