DIG85

What moral obligation are you talking about? There is only the legal obligation that, at the time you apply, you intend to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years from the date of arrival. Intentions can - and often do - change. It's not a question of morality. It is almost impossible for the authorities to prove that you never intended to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years unless you are foolish enough to tell them or post on forums under your real name.

Technically the government could retrospectively increase the top rate of tax for the 2018-19 tax year and require everyone to re-lodge their tax return for that year and pay any additional tax due as a result. The chances of it doing so are to all intents and purposes nil. A visa is granted with a number of conditions. Staying two years is in the grantor state is not one of them. The reason for that is simple: the DHA recognise that people’s or firms’ circumstances can change within that timeframe. I cannot imagine any circumstances where the conditions for grant of a visa change retrospectively. Perhaps you can, and that’s fine, you can put your life on hold and stay doing something you don’t want to if you’re that terrified of the potential ramifications. Personally I think there’s more likelihood of being struck down by a car than doing something which is legal now having any impact on your future visa/citizenships. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Just like someone terrified of covid can lock themselves indoors for the rest of their lives if they want to.

Godwin’s law alive and well. I was referring specifically to citizenship laws.

Has it not occurred to you that the conditions in labs are in no way similar to the types of conditions in pubs, cinemas etc? the idea that you can draw conclusions from lab experiments (sometimes done on mice) and claim they have any relevance to people walking about in public places is absurd. If there was any link between face mask usage and transmissions at a societal level, we would be aware of it now. If there is one, perhaps you can produce a link to studies demonstrating it. The fact is you won’t be able to, because there are none.

Pricks and murderers, the lot of them, I tell you...

Yes, really. I can't comment on the 1st link since I got a warning when clicking it; the second study is restricted to a sample of 45 and does not look at transmissions at a societal level; nor does the third study which even says that only surgical masks and "more advanced masks" are effective at reducing transmissions; the 4th study was published in Feb 2021 so is out of date as it does not cover the Omicron variant which is now widespread and far more transmissible - in addition this study was conducted in laboratories so it's irrelevant to transmissions at societal level; and the last 2 studies i got warnings for too. In summary, none of the links which I could open prove that masks have any impact on transmissions at societal level. I'm not interested in any studies conducted in labs, hospitals and other highly-controlled environments, nor any studies prior to Omicron since these prove nothing about what is happening today, nor what happens at a societal level. We know that when England dropped mask mandates in July 2021, it actually had fewer infections per capita, and continued to have fewer infections per capita, than Scotland, which continued with mask mandates for another 6 months. There is no significant body of evidence that masks have any impact on the transmission of Covid at a societal level.

This is hyperbolic nonsense. It is now clear that disposable face masks have very little impact on transmissions at a societal level. Weighed against the negligible effect on transmissions, is the fact they have a dreadful environmental impact; the hard of hearing struggle to understand people whose lips they can't see; one cannot see facial expressions which are a critical part of social interaction; they are uncomfortable; and they fog up one's glasses. The idea that we should all wear face masks for the rest of our lives in crowded places - theatre, cinema, meetings, classrooms, restaurants, pubs, cafes, the footy - is absurd. If someone is that scared of catching COVID in public, they should wear an FFP2 mask or a plastic visor. I am currently in London for Xmas and hardly anybody is wearing a mask, even on the Tube - even elderly folk on the Tube aren't. I went to the Opera House last weekend and I can't recall seeing anyone wearing a mask there, either in the auditorium or at the bars. Calling 95% of the population pricks just makes you look childish. It's time for you to move on, Marisa. Almost everybody else has. Even the Chinese communists are moving on....slowly.

In-house legal teams, HR teams etc. exist for one reason only: to protect the company. The advice to stay in NSW is not for Ausvisitor's benefit but for his employer's, notwithstanding the fact that his line manager appears to want him to move states. The company's legal counsel obviously believes, rightly or wrongly, that employees moving states may prejudice the company's ability to sponsor employees in the future. I have worked in several large firms and it is always the case that these in-house teams are ultra-conservative and brook no risk, often despite the commercial wishes of the client-facing teams. As for the subject of the thread, I find the notion that anyone has a moral obligation to a state to be preposterous. Of all the parties one could possibly have a moral obligation to, the state would be the very last. There is absolutely no morality when it comes to the law, especially immigration law, and anyone who doubts that should see how far one gets when trying to argue morality to a tax inspector or policeman. As has been pointed out, the conditions of grant do not stipulate that the grantee must remain in the state for 2 years. The only possible way a state could cancel a visa is if it could demonstrate there was never any intention to remain in the state, which is almost impossible for them to prove. NSW may flat out refuse to acknowledge a request to be released from the 2 years, but there's bugger all they can do about it if you do leave - not least because the issue and cancellation of visas is a federal responsibility, not a state one. Could the rules change by the time one is ready to apply for citizenship, and possibly be backdated? Technically they could, but I find the chances that they would penalise an act that was lawful at the time to be miniscule. I can't recall any instance where a government has done that.

I think that was the case in pretty much all developed countries (either that or the government would indemnify the vaccine manufacturer). If neither of those were in place then no one would risk manufacturing it.

Isn't the obvious question here: if you find Nelson NZ boring, small town, isolated etc., what makes you think you Mandurah/Bunbury will be any different?

Absolute nonsense.

Yes, phone Collet & Co. Surely you can obtain bank statements showing that your business-related income and expenditure ceased around 2014. Ask HMRC the basis for their belief that you traded after 2014. I think it is unlikely HMRC would take your pension, and they would need proof that you have undeclared income. They can't just take money out of your account willy-nilly.

If you genuinely ceased your sole trader business (and had no other untaxed sources of UK income) then you have nothing to worry about. The ATO has no power to enforce UK tax law so that seems like an empty threat. HMRC can take money from your bank account but they need to be able to show that you owe them money. Is this definitely a letter from HMRC and not a fraudster? Probably worth giving them a call and explaining your situation.

I’d be interested to know what statute or regulation the immigration officer quoted at your friend. There isn’t even any legal requirement for a British citizen to have a British passport (25% of the population don’t), so I’ve no idea how any requirement to enter the UK on a British passport can be enforced.

Which kind of makes sense, because it is never illegal for an Australian citizen to enter Australia.