CockerSpaniel

Since you're renting, you're not paying the service charges, only what you're using. Bills are definitely more expensive here than the UK once you factor that in. I wish I was only paying for usage

I also had my actual ceremony yesterday (not a virtual one). I had applied in June 2018 with the test in March this year. Seems to have taken forever, but not at the same time.

You may, it is Albany. Came out of the blue as I didn't know if any were doing ceremonies still in person.

After 2 + years of going through the citizenship process, I have my invite to the ceremony (not a virtual one) in July :)

Blimey, no need to be quite so patronising with that comment. It isn't needed and isn't constructive. Especially when the ABC have quoted... "Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced the visa changes today, effective immediately, at a strawberry farm in southern Queensland as part of a four-day tour of the state." https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-11-05/seasonal-worker-backpacker-visa-changes-announced-scott-morrison/10464972

Are there any time frames on when these are applicable from? There was nothing earlier today regarding the 6 to 12 month extension on the department website.

He mean to say cafe is making 6,00,000 per annum that number is not correct, is it 6,000,000 or 600,000? Quite a difference....

This is not 100% strictly true. In some cases where Australia has a reciprocal health agreement (i.e. the UK since this is a poms in Oz forum) then you can apply for an exemption on this requirement so you don't need to have private health. However you need to apply for this exemption based on the fact you're eligible for medicare. You also understand that medicare has different coverage compared to private health insurance. Therefore you're both correct, but in different ways. It is not necessarily a visa requirement. But it re-iterates the fact you should not rely on forums for your immigration advice as 100% kosher. My source for the information? www.privatehealth.gov.au

It's a true point to make too. Both are first world countries. Both have different pluses and minuses and both are essentially the same over time with the daily grind. Both have world class healthcare systems, and both have their own share of problems. Both have world class education. The point is not to make the choice on moving because you think the UK has problems that Australia can solve - just like you said.

When you apply for a UK passport it will ask if you're a citizen of another country. He will need to scan his Australian passport as part of the UK passport application as a dual citizen. Therefore they will already know the details hence it will have no impact. The next time he tries to get into the Uk it will be with a valid UK passport so why would he be delayed on a perceived overstay of a visa when he's a citizen?

This is true. Often the places which need new blood and knowledge in the area suffer from catch 22. There's not much for them to do as it is such a different lifestyle that they leave for the big population centers. The other issue is even things like sports, not everyone only wants to play AFL, cricket or hockey!

Surely Australia needs to entice more people to the regions and for them to stay there. I agree the big cities don't need more people and that's the problem. But to say seasonal work needs to be filled by backpackers? Whilst they can certainly pick up the slack and generally have a much better work ethic than the locals and there is usually some lights on upstairs, there is the issue of retention and imparting knowledge. And you need to get backpackers which aren't on the East Coast 'waaheeeyyy lets get smashed and be idiots for two years' boat. What Australia needs is competent people who have the ability to problem solve and who will live regionally. Who are educated and don't need spoon feeding and who aren't meth heads with the job sticking power of a wet flannel. Whilst there are some in the regions who are good, unfortunately there is a chronic shortage of decent labour.

This link has some good info, essentially it's most likely a grey area. It isn't specified precisely in the regulations but in the guidelines it says the following: Employment terminated If the employer provides information that the visa holder has permanently ceased to work for the employer, the delegate may issue a notice of proposed cancellation. For more information, refer to Proposing cancellation. Circumstances may arise where a visa holder is on leave without pay (LWOP) during the required two year employment period. Where an employer has approved LWOP, it is not generally regarded as a break in the continuity of service. Approved LWOP is also a standard condition in most awards. Therefore, any LWOP that has been approved by the employer is not to be regarded as a termination of employment. Previous periods of employment for the same employer whilst the holder of another class or subclass of visa (such as a UC-457 visa) does not count towards the required period of employment. However, they may be relevant in assessing genuine effort.

There is an excellent website called www.gov.uk On there it has details on how to renew a UK passport for wherever you are and on whatever situation.

Assuming that your UK passport is still in date, what is actually stopping you? If you get invited to a ceremony and you're booked out of the country you just inform the relevant people and you will then be put on the next available ceremony. There is no real joke in the process other than the long processing times.

On the flip side is it really sad? Just because you apply for a visa doesn't mean you should get it. Hence tougher vetting to stop fraudulent applications. On the flip side, I didn't go to university just to be given a certificate for going. I don't expect to be paid just for turning up to work. So why expect/demand a visa just because you applied? The only thing I wish they did was process them in a reasonable time frame so people know if their application is accepted or declined so they know what they can do with their lives. Especially since I'd waiver that the majority are genuine applications

Has anyone heard any news on the proposed changes actually happening to the citizenship laws on the 1st July? After the whole debacle last year with changing the eligibility criteria I've not heard anything for quite a while now from the government.

You might find this link interesting... First link is the answer to your question. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+form+80+Australia+visa

I must admit I heard that before regarding resources. I would hazard a guess that they're still relatively unlikely to pursue you if you'd made a decent effort with your nominated employer (i.e. over a year) and you stay living and working regionally. I would guess that the two year requirement is to stop people coming into Australia, leaving in a week and moving into the big cities where they don't really need a big population growth. Good luck to everyone waiting to hear though with their visa outcome.?

If the comment about the city was in part raised because of my post it wasn't directed at you at all. You didn't even mention it. In my mind I had the recent article regarding how many people on Pr were just moving to Melbourne and Sydney (I know this covers the whole PR program and not just the 187 visa). That bit I think I should have been clearer on. I hope your situation works out for you though, and you're right to listen to your MA. My point I was making is that the act can appear to interpreted in both ways. Hence which way are you meant to believe is the correct interpretation ?

Thank you for quoting exactly the same thing I quoted in relation to the act. What I was saying is that I can see how it can be interpreted in both ways. As with everyone I am aware the law is the law. In the same way I'm aware a beer is a beer. So let's not play semantics. Points of view can be different even in relation to the law. If it was black and white why is it that some are interpreting it differently from working two years since visa grant? But I do think you missed the point of my post.

On the whole subject of the two years and the 187 visa, here's some hypotheticals and I can see why some people do say it can include time works before the visa is granted. If you look at http://www9.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s137q.html You can see that the migration regulations state Employment terminates within 2 years (2) The Minister may cancel a regional sponsored employment visa held by a person if: (a) the Minister is satisfied that: (i) the person commenced the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination (whether or not within the period prescribed by the regulations); and (ii) the employment terminated within the period (the required employment period ) of 2 years starting on the day the person commenced that employment; and (b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that he or she has made a genuine effort to be engaged in that employment for the required employment period. The key part is that it says 'commenced that employment'. It is possible to have commenced employment in the nominated position prior to the visa being granted and on the terms of the contract stated in the nominating position. In the cancellation regulations it does not state that the time has to be since the visa was granted. Additionally in the visa grant letter it is also not specifically stated that the two years starts on the grant date. Infact the visa itself has zero conditions stated and it says that: you must commence employment within 6 months of the grant if already in Australia and to remain employed in the nominated position in the regional area for at least two (2) years. But I'll be clear. My view is that it's 2 years since granted. That's the spirit of the visa and in the land of the fair go it's plainly obvious you should try and reciprocate that and give living and working regionally a fair go too! Besides, why move to Australia just to live in a big city when there's far more to Australia than the city!