What would you say to the Minister of Immigration? Really.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

No, really. If you were in the same room as the Minister, what would you say to him?

 

I'm going to be at the MIA annual conference this weekend, and on Friday morning the Minister for Immigration (his delegate actually, Parliamentary Undersecretary) has a half hour presentation that will probably be followed by questions. The usual system is written questions to be selected and asked, and I have in the past managed to get some on the table.

 

If anyone cares to draft a well presented and polite but direct speaking question representing people affected by all the changes introduced this year, I'll try to get it asked and let you know the results.

 

There's a chance the P.U. will dodge the answer (as in "I can't speak for the Minister") but I have a way of addressing that :jimlad:.

 

There are also some round table sessions with DIAC representatives in the afternoon, CEO of the MARA, Victoria Government sponsors, tradesrecognition.com.

 

Same goes for those sessions, any useful questions might be able to get put on the table and replies will be copied here. If you don't want your comments shown in the forum, feel free to PM me or email me jamie AT hireamigrant DOT com.

[freebo]

No, really. If you were in the same room as the Minister, what would you say to him?

 

I'm going to be at the MIA annual conference this weekend, and on Friday morning the Minister for Immigration (his delegate actually, Parliamentary Undersecretary) has a half hour presentation that will probably be followed by questions. The usual system is written questions to be selected and asked, and I have in the past managed to get some on the table.

 

If anyone cares to draft a well presented and polite but direct speaking question representing people affected by all the changes introduced this year, I'll try to get it asked and let you know the results.

 

There's a chance the P.U. will dodge the answer (as in "I can't speak for the Minister") but I have a way of addressing that :jimlad:.

 

There are also some round table sessions with DIAC representatives in the afternoon, CEO of the MARA, Victoria Government sponsors, tradesrecognition.com.

 

Same goes for those sessions, any useful questions might be able to get put on the table and replies will be copied here. If you don't want your comments shown in the forum, feel free to PM me or email me jamie AT hireamigrant DOT com.

 

Quite simply I'd ask him to consider a policy where the conditions and processing priority of an application are fixed at the point at which the processing fee is received, this alone would remove much of the doubt and uncertainty most applicants face, and would also seem to be a fair and equitable way of conducting business.

[Guest flipflop]

As a pom.....you pile of ****

As an Aussie.....good on ya mate.

[basil]

I would second freebos question.

 

I would also be asking, given the massive change in expected visa timescales why the offer of

a) extending validity of medicals and ploice checks where requested by CO

and

b) offer of visa fee refunds for applicants who's file has not been viewed (and hence no DIAC time spent on) and who wish to withdraw

 

has not been offered from the outset as the bare minimum 'fair' treatment of applicants.

[Guest TheHollies]

for him to honour the visas which are in the final stages (all documents met), in a realistic timescale, 6 months max? they should provide the service in which they have recieved many thousands of $, stop 'stealing' potential migrants hard earned money!!

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Good oh, keep 'em coming. :notworthy:

[Mylady]

I would ask him

 

`Which poor soul died and named you god`

[Guest biohacker]

I would say that they should inprove their information systems to provide better information about timelines and statistics, and keep the priorities from the moment you lodge your application. I wonder if lodging an application can be seen as some type of contract where the two parts must keep their word. Changing the rules seem as misleading behavior for me.

 

Tks

[Guest wanderer]

I would ask him:

 

Do you know of any way you could get people on various forums to appreciate better that there would be not much point in visas being processed quicker just so the country can fill up with more unemployed.

[Guest TheHollies]

I would ask him

 

`Which poor soul died and named you god`

 

 

:notworthy::biglaugh:

[basil]

Do you know of any way you could get people on various forums to appreciate better that there would be not much point in visas being processed quicker just so the country can fill up with more unemployed.

 

I could afford to be unemployed if it happens and would rather spend the next 3 years being unemployed in Aus (whilst still buying a home and spending our $au to help the aussie economy) than spend it waiting here in the UK.

So given the choice, I'd rather still be granted my visa.

 

I don't think these changes have been put in place specifically to spare the applicants any unemplyment heartache have they?!

[SHANO7]

I think it would be only fair to include people who have applied for State Sponsorship after receiving TRA etc as it is not only Visa applications already lodged affected by the announcement of the 23rd September. Anybody that was in the system i.e Those that have parted with hard earned cash should be included in the " lets honour these applicants brackets"

 

Personally I would like to ask him to reflect on his decision and consider peoples dreams. Everybody wanting to move to OZ does so for a reason . To work hard and to fulfil a dream, move their children to the other side of the world so they can become australian and in the future their children and so on. Not like our government that seem very lenient when it comes to migrants. I can understand why they need to look at things every so often but stop moving the goalposts please.

[Guest wanderer]

basil,

I could afford to be unemployed if it happens and would rather spend the next 3 years being unemployed in Aus (whilst still buying a home and spending our $au to help the aussie economy) than spend it waiting here in the UK.

So given the choice, I'd rather still be granted my visa.

 

I don't think these changes have been put in place specifically to spare the applicants any unemplyment heartache have they?!

 

You personally may be in a position to stay unemployed for a period of time, whatever that may be but it does not mean all applicants have the same finances.

 

And with a system like immigration you need regulations that apply to all I imagine you would appreciate.

 

And whether or not applicants would suffer unemployment heartache, ameliorating unemployment is one factor in the basis of the priority processing system; the GFC has already seen unemployment rise and my personal prediction is that we have not seen the peak.

 

That may also answer your question too SHAN07

[basil]

appreciate better that there would be not much point in visas being processed quicker just so the country can fill up with more unemployed.

 

Oh I know I hear you I do. I was just trying to point out that appreciating it doesn't mean liking it, nor choosing it if we had the option.I have little sympathy for people who make overseas moves with poor research and inadequate financing and then look to blame the government - recession or not.

 

Hence me saying further down this thread that my Q's would be around how to make the best of a bad job, namely offering refund to certain applicants choosing to withdraw and honouring meds and PCC's where requested. They may have only extended the time frame, but it is so significant to their pre september 2009 processing timeline and such sums of money involved, that i do feel some applicant goodwill is in order.

[cartertucker]

You personally may be in a position to stay unemployed for a period of time, whatever that may be but it does not mean all applicants have the same finances.

 

And with a system like immigration you need regulations that applied to all I imagine you would appreciate.

 

And whether or not applicants would suffer heartache, that is the basis of the priority processing system, the GFC has already seen unemployment rise and my personal prediction is that we have not seen the peak.

 

That may also answer your question too SHAN07

 

If that is the case/problem...Then why not allow those through that have 'X' ammount of funds to take?....:unsure:

 

By the way....To the OP:

 

I would like to say to him to really give thought to those that have their applications with C/O should really be finalised...It makes no sense to spend time on an application & then drop it....Wasted man power

 

Oh & i'd also say, please, please, please with a cherry on top, consider those that are submitted, this is our Familys future (My eldest is 17 in Dec)

[Guest sassygal]

"Your Fired!" should just about cover it! hahaha....I am dreaming I know

[Guest wanderer]

Carter,

If that is the case/problem...Then why not allow those through that have 'X' ammount of funds to take?....

 

Perhaps you overlooked

And with a system like immigration you need regulations that applied to all I imagine you would appreciate.

 

No government can effectively have a pick and choose approach with regulations for it would only lead to claims of discrimination etc.

 

I've said elsewhere that where peoples applications have not started to be processed, the option of withdrawal with refund should have been given and that is a poor showing of a government I did not vote for.

 

and as for

I would like to say to him to really give thought to those that have their applications with C/O should really be finalised...It makes no sense to spend time on an application & then drop it....Wasted man power

 

Well it's not really for whatever level of assessment has occurred can be recorded and then when its time comes again, it's move on from that point.

I do see though that there could be more than a few applicants who may have decided on a new direction in life.

But the old saying is in tough times it can be rough going.

 

Hope you do not have to wait for two long and it works out for the lad.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Jamie

 

Thanks very much for starting this thread. It is an excellent idea.

 

My question for the Minister is this:

 

On 17th December 2008 the Minister made a public announcement explaining his reasons for altering the basis of visa processing priority.

 

On 16th March 2009 the Minister made a further public announcement explaining why he had decided to slash the number of occupations on the CSL.

 

On 23rd September 2009 the Minister suddenly introduced a new and different Direction which makes a mockery of the efforts which the State Governments, visa applicants and their migration agents have all made to secure State Sponsorship for non-CSL applicants in accordance with the Minister's own wishes as stated bty him, publiicly and frequently, throughout the first 9 months of 2009 and in December 2008.

 

On 23rd September 2009, however, the Minister became very coy, suddenly. He has not offered any explanation for the disruption he has caused to people's lives. He has not apologised to them for wasting their time on efforts to secure State Sponsorship despite the fact that he now confirms that he has no intention of offering these people visas within a realistic time frame. He has no intention of refunding wasted visa application fees. He has no intention of offering any sort of re-imbursement of the money that he has caused people to throw down the drain on obtaining medicals and police checks on the instructions of the Minister's own staff.

 

When his latest changes have such a seriously detrimental effect on so many, why has the Minister become coy about addressing both the let-down visa applicants and the Australian people in whose name he has let these applicants down so completely? What is the reason for his sudden coyness, please?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest sh7t man no way]

No, really. If you were in the same room as the Minister, what would you say to him?

 

I'm going to be at the MIA annual conference this weekend, and on Friday morning the Minister for Immigration (his delegate actually, Parliamentary Undersecretary) has a half hour presentation that will probably be followed by questions. The usual system is written questions to be selected and asked, and I have in the past managed to get some on the table.

 

If anyone cares to draft a well presented and polite but direct speaking question representing people affected by all the changes introduced this year, I'll try to get it asked and let you know the results.

 

There's a chance the P.U. will dodge the answer (as in "I can't speak for the Minister") but I have a way of addressing that :jimlad:.

 

There are also some round table sessions with DIAC representatives in the afternoon, CEO of the MARA, Victoria Government sponsors, tradesrecognition.com.

 

Same goes for those sessions, any useful questions might be able to get put on the table and replies will be copied here. If you don't want your comments shown in the forum, feel free to PM me or email me jamie AT hireamigrant DOT com.

ask him 3 questions 1 the date 2 the time 3 what year it is--if he does not get 2 out of 3 right--he is sacked. it looks as though they will be looking for a new immi minister then. but good luck and i hope you get something out of it.the undersecretary basically is employed only to put stamps on envelopes.but be positive and well done for getting any type of meeting with an aus official.

[mandymark]

Perhaps you overlooked

 

No government can effectively have a pick and choose approach with regulations for it would only lead to claims of discrimination etc.

 

 

 

The State governments are already doing this. I'm most familiar with Qld, but people are having to prove that they have 'x' amount of money in order to be able to support themselves. They are very strict on this also - it must be 'cash in the bank', not equity on their property etc.

 

Once people have jumped through the various hoops in order to gain State sponsorship, I find it hard to understand why DIAC now refuse to grant visas to those applicants. Surely DIAC should listen to the needs of their State governments who continue to publish their 'occupations in demand' lists.

 

Mandy

[Guest Wannabeoz]

Exactly, I had to prove I had money in the bank to gain my state sponsorship, and states publish their lists because they have shortages in those areas, hence people's skills are in demand.

 

My question would be how can you justify making the cut off point for those who have already applied for visas? It costs a considerable amount of money to apply, and you apply based on the assumption certain timeframes will be met. No one knows what they will be doing in three years, and no one can put their life on hold for that long either. But then do you throw $2,500 down the drain? Not to mention all the other expenses in gaining state sponsorship. Why not at least offer a refund if people's lives mean that in three years' time they are not in a position to emigrate?

[Taz2008]

What a fantastic idea/thread... I hope you have some success with it!

 

A little background info...

 

Like many others, we have been subjected and affected by two lots of changes since we applied last year (March 2009 & Sept 2009). We took the decision to have an agent assist us and when we finally made the decision of applying for a visa it was with the understanding that the application would be seen within 12-18 months (this was explained by our agent and also the DIAC website), but could probably be sooner with the CSL. We were unhappy with the March changes which took us off the CSL so opted to pay more money to following the State Sponsor route, showing our commitment to Australia. The states say that my husband’s trade is in demand. And now being at the final stages of the visa application, after receiving SS, we are told once again the changes are going to effect our application and now not being looked at until 2012.

 

We were prepared to invest into Australia in good faith, for example... hire an agent, completed the AQFIII qualification, TRA, State Sponsor and finally DIAC payment which to date has cost us over £6000. And now, after a year into the program, Immigration can change he rules again and say they are now not going to look at the applications for MODL with SS until 2012 as we now fall from Priority No2 to Priority No5. If I knew then what I know now I would never have put my family through these stresses, especially my children who need to feel secure of their future and not told one thing to then be told another and cause confusion.

 

So the questions I would raise are;

 

 

Why do you ignore the states who clearly understand what occupations they require within their areas and provide lists on their websites of occupations they need and are happy to sponsor. How can they be expected to wait 3 years before these occupations are filled?

 

It would make sense that when an application is lodged it is dealt with under the terms at time of lodgement. These applications should be honoured and applications received after the new regulations follow the new guidelines. If Immigration are not able to honour applications which have not been processed should be given the option of a refund. It does not look good for immigration when they take peoples money and then changing the goal posts to such an unrealistic timeline and profiting from this.

 

And finally, people lives have been in limbo whilst going through the visa process, and many will be affected by the latest regulation changes. There will be many people who will decided that the move to Australia is no longer an option for them, perhaps due to children who are too old or other issues, but I bet none of them pull out of the application process, they will let it run to see what happens, and why not as they have paid for it after all. However, in 2012 or when the DIAC are able to deal with these applications, there could be a lot of time wasted for the CO’s through people who are no longer able or interested to continue with the process.

 

Thanks for reading.:daydreaming:

[Guest Jamie Smith]

There are 2-3 really good posts here. I will try my best to get them tabled. A couple of laughs too esp the one about "you're fired" :biglaugh:

 

Wanderer, you're dreaming.

 

Do you know of any way you could get people on various forums to appreciate better that there would be not much point in visas being processed quicker just so the country can fill up with more unemployed.

 

Many people are moving to areas of chronic shortage such as regional areas, for better employment prospects. Stats show that skilled migrants with good English take only a month or two longer than a skilled Australian to find work. Where's the problem?

 

Furthermore, family members often fill jobs that are not and never will be on skills lists because of modest salaries or Govt fear of sponsoring "menial" positions (witness removing lower ASCO codes from 457), and would be working in cafes, admin etc.

 

These jobs make the world function but they don't carry any glamour. I'm not advocating visas being targeted at these jobs - yet! - but they do need to be filled and a good way to do that is with skilled migration of "the other half". The spouse can work in these jobs until the main applicant finds work in the skilled area.

[Guest valeries]

How about using the word 'ETHICS'? The decisions taken by the minister in the last 12 months are unethical.

 

Yes, we have been warned that the application fee did not guarantee anything, but once we're asked for medicals, police checks and new passport we're clearly on the finishing line, we start taking measures for the move like selling the house, furniture, cancelling kids school and activities, booking the new school in Oz etc... it doesn't happen overnight. Final stage applicants cannot be put at the bottom of the pile without serious consequences.

 

(btw, I have been asked to pay the application fee a second time because of a change of nominated occupation in the 176 compared to the 175, just 5 weeks before the new rules... how ethical is this?)

[Guest timkerbell2009]

I would ask him what is the sense in closing files for those (like us) who were just weeks away from a decision and having someone trawl through the paperwork all over again 3 years later.

 

Can he not at least grant visa's for those people who have just spent hard earned cash on meds etc...we are in a recession here too!

 

Can he not grant the visa where a child in the family is to turn 18 before the visa is likely to be granted.

 

What about keeping his rules but giving a reasonable cut off date?

 

If you buy goods from a shop, you have ex amount of days to take the items back...so in fairness wouldn't it be right to either refund the medical & police check money if they were taken just before the announcement, OR to process those visa's in good faith.

 

And you could ask him very sweetly...to get his head out of his arse...actually you better not say that. But just think, if you had said that a good few years ago to a government official in England, you would have probably been exiled... to Australia! Oh the irony!