Aus News Agency "Slashing GSM Visas Next Year"

[Guest sanjeevtandon]

Dear All,

 

While going through local news paper, and gooing throgh some of the sites, they have mentioned that Aus external minister told the press that due to the current Global Scenario there will be less sanctioning. Any Views guys.

 

san

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hiya San

 

At the moment it is nothing more than politicians giving the Press soundbites.

 

The Minister for Immigration has said officially that he plans to look at the mid year economic indicators before he tries to make any decisions about visa quotas for the 2009/10 Program Year. The Australian Financial Year starts on 1st July each year, as you know.

 

Therefore I would imagine that the Minister will probably examine the mid year indicators in about January or February and start formulating next year's policy then.

 

Visa quotas for the coming Program Year are usually announced at about the same time as the Budget for the coming year is released. That usually happens in mid-May.

 

Tasmania and the Northern Territory State Migration people are both saying that they are waiting to see what the Minister decides before they try to decide what to do about their own migration policies at State level. I don't know what (if anything) the other States and Territories are saying about this.

 

There is a lot of political in-fighting over visa quotas. It is the usual, "The migrants are stealing our jobs" argument. The Opposition is seizing every opportunity to use it to bash the Rudd Government. The Government's various Ministers are all just making vague statements about, "We will do whatever is right at the time." The Press, predictably, are trying to stir the pot between the two sides in order to inflame public opinion and thus sell more copies of their newspapers. I am deeply sceptical of the deeply cynical Press, who are never on anybody's side except that of their own profits in my experience and observation.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Mongrel]

Hiya San

 

At the moment it is nothing more than politicians giving the Press soundbites.

 

The Minister for Immigration has said officially that he plans to look at the mid year economic indicators before he tries to make any decisions about visa quotas for the 2009/10 Program Year. The Australian Financial Year starts on 1st July each year, as you know.

 

Therefore I would imagine that the Minister will probably examine the mid year indicators in about January or February and start formulating next year's policy then.

 

Visa quotas for the coming Program Year are usually announced at about the same time as the Budget for the coming year is released. That usually happens in mid-May.

 

Tasmania and the Northern Territory State Migration people are both saying that they are waiting to see what the Minister decides before they try to decide what to do about their own migration policies at State level. I don't know what (if anything) the other States and Territories are saying about this.

 

There is a lot of political in-fighting over visa quotas. It is the usual, "The migrants are stealing our jobs" argument. The Opposition is seizing every opportunity to use it to bash the Rudd Government. The Government's various Ministers are all just making vague statements about, "We will do whatever is right at the time." The Press, predictably, are trying to stir the pot between the two sides in order to inflame public opinion and thus sell more copies of their newspapers. I am deeply sceptical of the deeply cynical Press, who are never on anybody's side except that of their own profits in my experience and observation.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

 

Hi

 

There was an article in The WEst Australian about the business leaders not wantin a reduction but more sponsored visa`s so the skills shortage can be redressed , another about the shortage of nurses St john of God (prvte ) hospital offering $2000 incentives tostaff to find nurses I hope Sir Charlies employ a similar tactic oh could start a recruitment drive on PIo

 

M

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi

 

There was an article in The WEst Australian about the business leaders not wantin a reduction but more sponsored visa`s so the skills shortage can be redressed , another about the shortage of nurses St john of God (prvte ) hospital offering $2000 incentives tostaff to find nurses I hope Sir Charlies employ a similar tactic oh could start a recruitment drive on PIo

 

M

 

Hi M

 

I keep an eye on two sections of the Go Matilda website. In the News Section, Alan Collett writes about any significant changes if and when they definitely happen:

 

Go Matilda - Your Gateway to Australia - News

 

I also read the "Migration In the News" section of the Go Matilda forum:

 

The Go Matilda Forums - Powered by eve community

 

I've heard, as you have, that business leaders do not want the presently uncapped 457 visa capped as to the number of 457 visas that can be granted each year. The Minister seems to think that if businesses tighten their belts there will be less demand for 457 visa from Aussie employers and that the 457 visa will find its own level in the supply/demand trade off. I think he must be right about that.

 

 

I've read quite a bit of commentary claiming that the Minister is said to believe that he would prefer to see more ENS 121 and RSMS 119 visas being granted because in both cases the employer has a definite need for the migrant worker concerned and the migrant has a definite job to go to on arrival in Oz. People who purport to be reporting "the Minister's Views" (ie their own views?) claim that the Minister is minded to cut the GSM intake because that is the pool of migrants who can:

 

• Go out to Oz with no job to go to; and

• Sell ice cream when they get out to Oz, even if their nominated occupation is on the MODL

I briefly skimmed through a lecture that somebody important has delivered to Engineers Australia recently. He was bemoaning a shortage of Engineers out in Oz. According to him, the official stats are that [for argument's sake] 10,000 people a year nominate one of the Engineer disciplines as their occupation for visa purposes - I can't remember the figure. However only something like 35% of them do engineering jobs once they get to Oz and the other 65% allegedly don't.

 

This man said that when he tackled DIAC about it they said, "What problem? Our figures show that X number of Engineers migrated to Australia last year. What are they doing now? We don't know. Our job ends when they validate their visas. Does the DEEWR know what they are actually doing by way of work? Not our remit to know that bit." He said he felt he was bashing his head against a brick wall!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Mongrel]

Hi M

 

I keep an eye on two sections of the Go Matilda website. In the News Section, Alan Collett writes about any significant changes if and when they definitely happen:

 

Go Matilda - Your Gateway to Australia - News

 

I also read the "Migration In the News" section of the Go Matilda forum:

 

The Go Matilda Forums - Powered by eve community

 

I've heard, as you have, that business leaders do not want the presently uncapped 457 visa capped as to the number of 457 visas that can be granted each year. The Minister seems to think that if businesses tighten their belts there will be less demand for 457 visa from Aussie employers and that the 457 visa will find its own level in the supply/demand trade off. I think he must be right about that.

 

 

 

I've read quite a bit of commentary claiming that the Minister is said to believe that he would prefer to see more ENS 121 and RSMS 119 visas being granted because in both cases the employer has a definite need for the migrant worker concerned and the migrant has a definite job to go to on arrival in Oz. People who purport to be reporting "the Minister's Views" (ie their own views?) claim that the Minister is minded to cut the GSM intake because that is the pool of migrants who can:

 

• Go out to Oz with no job to go to; and

• Sell ice cream when they get out to Oz, even if their nominated occupation is on the MODL

I briefly skimmed through a lecture that somebody important has delivered to Engineers Australia recently. He was bemoaning a shortage of Engineers out in Oz. According to him, the official stats are that [for argument's sake] 10,000 people a year nominate one of the Engineer disciplines as their occupation for visa purposes - I can't remember the figure. However only something like 35% of them do engineering jobs once they get to Oz and the other 65% allegedly don't.

 

This man said that when he tackled DIAC about it they said, "What problem? Our figures show that X number of Engineers migrated to Australia last year. What are they doing now? We don't know. Our job ends when they validate their visas. Does the DEEWR know what they are actually doing by way of work? Not our remit to know that bit." He said he felt he was bashing his head against a brick wall!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

I think this point is one that a lot who post on here who are not on the modl but have occupations that are called for,or put in anther way needed and they intend to take up the post, personally in my view, ther will be an amalgamation of the skilled visa and the sponsored visa. Where the applicant would not need the sponsor but would ave to undertake the occupationof the visa he was granted. One question a pioer was asking, we are going to diac Perth to submit the "upgrade from 457 to pr I shall ask them on behalf on them but would like you educated view. On a457 you have the reciprocal medicare but according to diac the sponsor is responsible for your medaical ins pre Nov 2005 they were responsible for the lot I believe. In OH `s contract it stipulates you must get private health ins but diac say sponsor is liable. The other poster is a nurse as well and has the same info. Are the employers bluffing ther way out of the situation or are you in danger of breaking your contract if you dont provide your own pri med ins there fore risking your visa

 

mally

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I think this point is one that a lot who post on here who are not on the modl but have occupations that are called for,or put in anther way needed and they intend to take up the post, personally in my view, ther will be an amalgamation of the skilled visa and the sponsored visa. Where the applicant would not need the sponsor but would ave to undertake the occupationof the visa he was granted. One question a pioer was asking, we are going to diac Perth to submit the "upgrade from 457 to pr I shall ask them on behalf on them but would like you educated view. On a457 you have the reciprocal medicare but according to diac the sponsor is responsible for your medaical ins pre Nov 2005 they were responsible for the lot I believe. In OH `s contract it stipulates you must get private health ins but diac say sponsor is liable. The other poster is a nurse as well and has the same info. Are the employers bluffing ther way out of the situation or are you in danger of breaking your contract if you dont provide your own pri med ins there fore risking your visa

 

mally

 

Hi Mally

 

Yes - I've got the same query in an as-yet-unanswered PM from a nurse. She says that the contract of employment states that they must maintain private medical insurance and also it states that they must maintain a sufficient level of funds to enable them to get back to the UK by themselves.

 

I think these two questions are posed very baldly by the people who raise them.

 

My inclination is to ask:

 

1. Have you asked the hospital's HR Department to explain why those provisions are there?

 

2. What does the provision about private medical insurance actually say? Does it say that you must buy a private policy of your own choice (in which case it would be open to you to buy minimal cover?) Or does it require you to join and contribute to the hospital's block private medical insurance policy covering all of the staff (because I suspect that the latter provision is more likely?)

 

3. Are they doing this: pay you a bit extra up front and then you use that extra money to contribute to the block policy? It might be tax efficient for you to be seen to do that rather than the hospital making the contributions on your behalf?

 

4. Have you asked HR why the clause about repatriation costs is in there?

 

5. Have you asked a migration agent who is familiar with the hospital's standard contract of employment to advise you about all this?

 

6. What sort of incentive package is the hospital offering in order to get you to agree to go out to Oz on a 457 visa? If "none" then why do you propose to use a 457 visa instead of applying for a GSM visa that will give you PR from Day One and waiting for it to be granted?

 

I have to say, though, that I would have thought the first step is to ask the hospital's HR Department to explain why the provisions are in the contract. And I have never heard of a contract that cannot be improved by negotiation and judicious use of a red pen. At this stage the thing is only a draft contract, after all.

 

I do suspect that it is not possible to answer the bald, isolated questions accurately. I think that an accurate answer can probably only be given after a good look at the whole thing and a discussion with the relevant HR Manager. I think that fearful suspicion is driving the questions, after reading posts about tradies being laid off etc.

 

If I were to try to answer the two questions in isolation from the rest of the necessary information, my comments would be:

 

A. Very few countries have reciprocal health care agreements with Oz:

 

Visitors to Australia - Medicare Australia

 

If I were the solicitor who drafted the contract on behalf of the hospital, I would tell them to leave that provision alone every time until they have seen the applicant's passport. At that point it would be safe for them to use my carefully-worded alternative provision instead, but not unless and until. Doing it this way around ensures that the junior HR person does not make a mistake.

 

B. With regard to repatriation, if I decide to sail my yacht round the world (perish the thought because I am not into the idea of deep ocean stuff with a small yacht) there would be no shortage of crew wanting to come with. However, if we put into a port and a crew member says s/he has had enough and wants to go home, I am liable for that person's airfare if s/he has not got the money for it him or herself. The host country can force me to pay the airfare.

 

I don't know whether General Federal Law contains a similar provision in relation to foreign nationals who arrive in Oz other than by sea on a privately owned yacht, but it might.

 

Even if it doesn't, the employer does not have a duty to repatriate under the 457 visa unless the employer causes the repatriation. The nurse might choose to walk out on the hospital. If so, it is a good idea to remind her that she will be responsible for the costs of getting her family out of Australia if that is what she decides to do of her own free will.

 

There is not necessarily any sinister motive involved and I wouldn't normally suspect a hospital of harbouring sinister motives.

 

However, somebody who is familiar with hospital contracts would make a much better fist of advising our members about them than I could.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill