mlsdq Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 IMO. DIAC don't offer refunds because they know they will still need us. That is for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Well I don’t agree with this, no matter whatever change happens I am sure ENS is going to be right on the top of the priority list. Apart from this ENS would also provide job security and lot of savings in teething cost (initial settling cost) Migrants ........ This website has got a list of possible expenses during the initial job hunt and a comparison on how an ENS could help in mitigating these expenses. But getting an ENS or RSMS seems a tough task …L It depends on how well you can sell yourself to an employer. Good staff are hard to come by, and a good employer would use the sponsorship to strenghten the terms of employment in both parties' favour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayBone Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 I haven’t read through this thread but having trawled through many similar threads previously I already get the jist of it….. The DIAC are there to protect the interests of Australia and Australian people and they owe us nothing We apply for visa to live there, don’t be fooled that they told you they wanted you, I for one didn’t get a knock on my front door or a letter signed by the Australian government begging me to re-locate, it was my decision alone. If the DIAC change the rules on GSM its because they have done their research and realized that it is flawed, ive said this before, what is the point in bringing in 20,000 construction workers if there aren’t any jobs, its not a good situation for the migrant or the state, same goes for all occupations. Another thing, the changes made earlier regarding recent ‘relative’ experience are very valid, would you employ a hairdresser who had worked in Asda for the last 20 years behind a checkout, or a nurse who had been a housewife for the past 10 years, and so on…..no employer would, therefore not satisfying the needs of the migrant or the needs of Australia. The DIAC have made very hurtful changes that have affected a lot of people, including myself, but they have done that to protect the very country that you/me are desperate to move too, I am sure that your opinions on these things will alter when you are on the other side looking for work and cant find it, hopefully this wont happen. Flip side, If the UK was letting in migrants from all over the world and the government did nothing to control it and ensure there were enough jobs to go around, protecting the economy, job market and tax payers from extra benefits claimants, and ensuring there were enough houses to prevent inflated prices etc etc you would not be happy, you may even consider moving to Australia because of it, I might be onto something here????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CrossforGood Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Hi, Minister. When your party won out? what did your boss say? louder? Louder! oh, Rud said:"big australia". What did you say? Louder again please! 145,000 immigration quate is on your schedule! What did you do when economic **** made by USA? Cut, Cut, Cut! AND hold, hold on. Now it is your gangster's time to show again and facing aging population, what did you say? cut retarded applicants before Sep 2007?! I would say: minister, do not sacrifice real people's life for your pathetic political votes!!! did anyone hear Aus is a developped country? No?! that's right. if it keeps going like this, i doubt it will floating towards NZ , or further, north pole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Nobody disputes the Minister's objectives JayBone. We largely agree with them. What is in dispute are the methods and lack of transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Nobody disputes the Minister's objectives JayBone. We largely agree with them. What is in dispute are the methods and lack of transparency. Especially retroactive changes and capping. Even the best targets might be spoiled with poor implementation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.