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

[Guest Glenn Pereira]

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

 

Should members stick to the "thread" ?

 

Based on the the information I have received, DIAC is working out strategies to fix the scams both on-shore and off-shore of Bogus documents. They are also working out strategies how to prevent "large scale" scaming of application with bogus employment documents.

 

Investigating bogus documents takes time and cost substantial amount of money.

 

I understand that the Job Ready test for on-shore GSM is in the final stages and will be implemented from 1st Jan 2010.

 

I anticipate new on-shore and off-shore policies will be announced end of the year or early next year.

 

I suggest that applicants will have to wait for this new announcement.

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

[Guest Gollywobbler]

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

 

Should members stick to the "thread" ?

 

Based on the the information I have received, DIAC is working out strategies to fix the scams both on-shore and off-shore of Bogus documents. They are also working out strategies how to prevent "large scale" scaming of application with bogus employment documents.

 

Investigating bogus documents takes time and cost substantial amount of money.

 

I understand that the Job Ready test for on-shore GSM is in the final stages and will be implemented from 1st Jan 2010.

 

I anticipate new on-shore and off-shore policies will be announced end of the year or early next year.

 

I suggest that applicants will have to wait for this new announcement.

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

 

 

Hi Glenn

 

Should members stick to the "thread" ?

 

YES, YES and YES!!! I'm so sorry that you have had to wade through reams of stuff which went way off topic but to some extent it is inevitable on an amateur forum. Also it is reasonable to let the affected applicants tell us about their own particular situations and the problems which they and their families face because of the lengthy delays.

 

One issue that is of great concern to me is the families that have children who are coming up for 18. Soon after 23rd September several RMAs asked DIAC whether or not any special dispensations would be given so as to get PR for the children who will have turned 18 before their parents' applications can be processed?

 

DIAC said woodenly that there are no plans to alter the existing legislative provisions about this and whether or not these young adults will still be considered to be dependent on their parents will be determined at the time of decision.

 

An Indian parent would be likely to have better luck with this problem than a British parent, frankly! Britush teenagers are 18 going on 40, most of them. They are sure that they have had the mind of a 30 year old since they turned 15.

 

One can enrol them in full time College courses. Convincing them to keep studying is more difficult! Also they fall in love and it is definitely True Love which will Last A Lifetime, so the youngsters lose interest in Project Australia instead.

 

Added to which the divorce rate in the UK is currently 53% and it has been over 50% for several years. This means that a lot of the couples wating for visas have his 'n' hers families. The children involved often have non-migrating half-sibllings or step-siblings, or a non-migrating parent, which means that several of the youngsters affected by the delays will not become eligible for the Remaining Relative visa.

 

The upshot will be that several British families will end up abandoning Project Australia by the time DIAC are ready to start the final processing of their visa applications. Some of them will have spent thousands of GBP on Project Australia but the Project will prove to have been a futile waste of money.

 

Nobody doubts that the Minister & Mr Metcalfe have problems of their own to sort out but I don't think either of them have stopped to worry about the effects which their constant chopping & changing has had and will have on the lives of their clients - the visa applicants.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Glenn Pereira]

"Nobody doubts that the Minister & Mr Metcalfe have problems of their own to sort out but I don't think either of them have stopped to worry about the effects which their constant chopping & changing has had and will have on the lives of their clients - the visa applicants."

 

I believe the 23 rd Sept 09 decision by the Minister was to give DIAC an opportunity to clean up the mess.

 

I sat on a "TRA 900 hours committee" in Canberra in 2007 and the Government (Howard) & the MIA (MARA) was made aware about the scams on bogus employment documents.

 

The government changed end 2007 and the committee was abandoned.

 

I think on 17 th Dec 08 when the Government made the announcement of the CSL they were aware about the magnitude of the problem. However because of the GFC, in my opinion they continued to issue visas to international student to fill the Private providers.

 

Record number of Private Providers were registered in 2007 (second half ) & 2008. Both DEEWR registered these private providers in record numbers under CRICOS and DIAC issued record number of student visas in 2008 mostly to non-genuine students.

 

The Federal Government is now waiting for the ESOS ammendment bill to pass the Senate to "shut" down these same VET Private Providers they rgeistered in record numbers in 2007 and 2008.

 

It is unfortunate that the genuine off-shore applicants have to bear the "brunt" of the mess. I call it in legal term "contributory negligence".

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi again Glenn

 

Do you know anything about Robyn Bicket, DIAC's Head of Legal or whatever her proper job-title is? She is their chief in-house lawyer. I assume that she is a solicitor.

 

She appeared before the Senate Estimates Committee at past 10pm the other night. It was late, to be fair to her, but I was not at all impressed by her performance.

 

The issue was about 3 Torres Straits Islanders who died on a vessel owned and operated by DIAC. I think the tragady happenend about 4 years ago.

 

Senator Trood, a Liberal, was treated to a performance from Andrew Metcalfe. He had recently attended the memorial service for the 3 Islanders and 2 DIAC staff that were killed, so he said. Senator Trood said, "Yes, but what is happening about compensating the families of the victims?"

 

Metcalfe explained that DIAC's employee insurance had paid out to the staff members' families pretty quickly.

 

Senator Trood was not satisfied. He persisted, wanting to know about compensation for the families of the other 3 victims. His information is that the families of the deceased Islanders have not received a cent in compensation. Why not?

 

Metcalfe hid behind Robyn Bicket. There were "legal issues" according to him. Ms Bicket was (predictably) a walking textbook about thse "legal issues." She is waiting to hear from the Attorney General about the Statute of Limitations and getting that waived. She said that liability couldn't be apportioned until they have worked out who is to blame etc etc. She also made various excuses about ComCover's involvement.

 

The Minister heard the warning in Senator Trood's tone and line of questioning so he jumped into the fray. According to the Minister he is a man who sees to it that moral justice is done, regardless of where strict legal justice might lie. He more or less ordered Miss Bicket to get her head out of the clouds of academic law, get her feet on the ground and find a way to pay compensation to the victims' families quickly.

 

Watching on telly, I cheered. Good for Senator Trood for forcing the issue, in my view. Top marks to him. Left to her own devices, Robyn Bicket wouldn't notice if it takes 20 years to sort the legal niceties out before anything is done for the families of the Islander victims.

 

I suspect that Miss Bicket has done the same thing with the GSM visa crisis. I reckon that she has told the Minister that he has the powers to insist on his 23rd September Direction but she has not bothered to advise him about the likely consequences for the new group of non-priority Cat 5s. It probably also didn't occur to her to advise the Minister that the States will be after his gonads for the way they were promoted and then dumped on the sidelines of the selection process.

 

In short, a solicitor who is good at reciting the textbook but absolutely unaware of commercial and political reality, I strongly suspect. The British civil service is full of similar solicitors. They are utterly useless when the contents of the textbook need to be balanced against the hard facts and the real life considerations for the parties concerned. They think that if they recite the textbook, their task is complete.

 

So I am now curious about Miss Bicket...... The Minister needs to be persuaded that the strict law is not the only consuderation on his plate, I suspect.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Glenn Pereira]

Hi Gill,

 

I am sure a number of lawyers maybe looking at the validity of the directions under sec 499.

 

We managed to convince DIAC that sec 499 Directions made by the previous government for student visa cancellation was inconsistent with the Act. They did concede.

 

I think members of POMSINOZ should create a fighting fund for an opinion on from 1 or 2 Senior Counsel.

 

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

[Guest jason RM0107604]

 

Jason Gill was referring to my case a few pages back where I was requested by my agent to have meds done without DIAC requesting them. I do not fully understand of your reply, do you feel they should be responsible - would you have requested this from a client? Just interested in your thoughts. The conclusion I've come to was that I had made the error and am responsible, which I kinda knew anyway but still sucks.

 

 

 

yes i read your prior post - was just curious as to the wording of Gills response and talk of cases against agents.

 

in the past it has been a quite common practice for medicals to be done before any request. where you have a rough indication of the processing timeframe, the argument is that if you do your medicals earlier, then you can save 2 to 4 months of further processing time. if a case is decision ready when the case officer picks up the file for processing, then clients would be happier with the outcome, rather than waiting another few months. sometimes its takes a few months to go through the process of medicals, sending medicals, medicals being reviewed by daic doctors and the diac officer getting back around to looking at the case again.

 

in hindsight, you did your medicals too early, but that is the risk you took, or more particularly the risk your agent took for you on your behalf.

 

The agent should perhaps have explained this strategy to you before you did your medicals - as you should be the one making these decisions. I have no doubt that if your agent explained the above to you, you would have done your medicals when the agent requested and taken that risk (as all clients do) and no doubt in hindsight it would have been a waste of your time and money as the estimated processing timeframe has no changed dramatically.

 

i wouldnt loose sleep over it.

[Guest WJK]

yes i read your prior post - was just curious as to the wording of Gills response and talk of cases against agents.

 

in the past it has been a quite common practice for medicals to be done before any request. where you have a rough indication of the processing timeframe, the argument is that if you do your medicals earlier, then you can save 2 to 4 months of further processing time. if a case is decision ready when the case officer picks up the file for processing, then clients would be happier with the outcome, rather than waiting another few months. sometimes its takes a few months to go through the process of medicals, sending medicals, medicals being reviewed by daic doctors and the diac officer getting back around to looking at the case again.

 

in hindsight, you did your medicals too early, but that is the risk you took, or more particularly the risk your agent took for you on your behalf.

 

The agent should perhaps have explained this strategy to you before you did your medicals - as you should be the one making these decisions. I have no doubt that if your agent explained the above to you, you would have done your medicals when the agent requested and taken that risk (as all clients do) and no doubt in hindsight it would have been a waste of your time and money as the estimated processing timeframe has no changed dramatically.

 

i wouldnt loose sleep over it.

 

My Agent advised us to follow the safe route wait until asked by Case Officer my OH was watching timelines for wa State Sponsorship coming back visa lodgement and allocation of case officer and visa grant he wanted to do Medicals two months earlier than ultimately requested by case officer early August we knew the risks and down side less time to validate we followed the safe Route as we thought !

medicals finalized September before changes now waiting if we had done as my OH wanted would have front loaded pc and medicals June/July looking at past visa grants looks like visa would have been granted before changes:arghh:

 

 

WJK

[Guest jason RM0107604]

Hi Jason

 

I am merely advising the poster to read the contract for services. It is 99% likely to contain a provision protecting the agent from any liability in the event that a future change in Aussie Immi law alters the advice that the agent would have offered the client on a date in the past.

 

If the contract protects the agent - which it almost certainly will - then that is the end of the matter.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

i understand what you are saying -

 

Generally, there are only two ways generally civil liability can arise. - first is if the contract expressly makes the agent liable for the time take to process. ie "the agent promises the visa will be determined within 12 months" no agent is crasy enough to write something like that in a costs agreement. An estimate is not a promise.

 

the second is negligence - a person is not negligent simply because they get the wrong answer. negligence has to do with failures in the procedure in ariving at a conclusion.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

i understand what you are saying -

 

Generally, there are only two ways generally civil liability can arise. - first is if the contract expressly makes the agent liable for the time take to process. ie "the agent promises the visa will be determined within 12 months" no agent is crasy enough to write something like that in a costs agreement. An estimate is not a promise.

 

the second is negligence - a person is not negligent simply because they get the wrong answer. negligence has to do with failures in the procedure in ariving at a conclusion.

 

Hi Jason

 

I qualified as a solicitor whilst you were still at school, hon! I'm now 53.

 

You are describing Aussie law and English law is the same.

 

However the OP hasn't said which country's law governs the contract for services with the agent. German or American law might well find negligence because in those two countries the burden of proof is reversed. The agent would have to show why it was that ignoring explicit advice on the DIAC website was justifiable and justified.

 

Hence I asked the OP about the jurisdiction clause as well as suggesting reading the contract.

 

You and I are in no position to advise the OP about his position because we haven't seen either the contract or the correspondence.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Hi GUYS

this is the responce i got to day from a e-mail i sent to cris evans

 

Dear mr ................

thank you for your e-mail of 3 october 2009 to the minister for immigration and citizanship senator Cris Evans , concerning the recent changes to the minister's priority processing arrangements. The minister has asked me to reply on his behalf.

 

As you know, the minister set in place new priority processing arrangements for certain skilled migration visa's on 23 september 2009. These arrangements are designed to better address the neeeds of industry by targeting skills in critical need across a number of sectors and are one of themeasures used to enure that immigtation is responsive to the current economic climate and the needs of the Australian economy.

 

The priorty processing direction applies to applications in the pipline that have not been finalised and also to applications lodged with the department of immigration and citizenship on or after 23 september 2009. Previously, priority was given to all applicants who were nominated by state/territory government, irrespective of their nominated occupation. The new direction refines the previous direction, in that it gives priority to aplicants whose nominated ossupation is on the critical skills list{CSL} for state and territory sponsored applicants.

 

The direction impacts on the processing times for some visa applicants, but does not change the requirements for the grant of a general skilled migration visa. It is estimated that applicants whose nominated occupation is on the csl will have their applications finalised within 12 months from the date of lodgement, For those applicants whose nominated occupation is not on the csl, visa processing times are expected to be much longer.

 

As the economic situation changes, the government will review its measures to ensure that the objectives of the skilled migration program are achieved ,for further information on how the current processing priorites will effect your application,see the departments web site www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/whats-new.htm

as proceseing priorities are sudject to change,we recommennd that you check this web site as regularly for up dates.

Information on uor current processing prioitiesand timeframes can be obtainedby sending a blank e-mail to the Adelaide or Brisbane processing centres;

as.processing@immi.gov.au or gsmb.information@immi.gov.au

 

i trust this information is helpful

Thank you for bringing this matter to attention

yours sincerely

 

then its signed

 

Peter Speldewinde

assistant secretary

labour market branch

 

So have A good laugh [OR NOT]

regards

pom64

 

That was serve and return of serve. Let the volley continue!

 

I would reply with:

"Dear Peter

 

Thank you for the standard reply. I realise you are in a difficult position but I think you will agree yours is certainly less depressing and frustrating than my own and that of several thousand other people afftected by this change.

 

On what date did the Minister first instruct DIAC to in any way restrict the processing of non-CSL applications? I beleive it was either in December 2008 or January 2009?

 

When did DIAC respond to that first request and immediately curtail processing of all non-CSL applications?

 

Did DIAC continue processing non-CSL applications contrary to the Minister's earlier instructions?

 

When exaclty did the Minister communicate his displeasure to DIAC about DIAC not following his earlier instructions to curtail non-CSL applications?

 

When exactly did the Minister advise DIAC that he would issue the new Ministerial instructions that we have now?

 

How many non-CSL cases were continued in processing by DAIC after the Minister's first instructions early in the year that this should cease?

 

How much in VAC income did DIAC receive in new non-CSL cases lodged after the Minister's first instruction to DIAC up until his most recent directive to curtail non-CSL application processing? An alternative question is how many non-CSL applications did DIAC from just after the Minister's first instruction to DIAC earlier this year up until his most recent directive to curtail non-CSL application processing?

 

Why, when DIAC had been earlier instructed to curtail non-CSL applications, was this not advised publicly on the DIAC website or on the online lodgement system at the time I applied for my visa on ..../...../......?

 

Please don't divert this discussion using semantics on my layman's use of terminology used for Ministerial discretion, directions, advice, directives etc, I think you know what I am referring to in my questions.

 

Kind regards

 

"

[Guest JUDITH]

I received the similar email as well. But I again wrote a new one.

"The new direction refines the previous direction, in that it gives priority to aplicants whose nominated ossupation is on the critical skills list{CSL} for state and territory sponsored applicants." This is not correct because the CSL without sponsor comes to the front of SS non CSL. We know that non sponsored CSL appliant are the major group. Therefore the 2 directions are different and could not be phased as " refine"

[Guest Gollywobbler]

That was serve and return of serve. Let the volley continue!

 

Hi Jamie

 

Mmmmmm. Spin Doctor Speldewinde had the guts to say that CSL applicants will get their visas within a reasonable time scale but he did not have the guts to concede that making people wait 3-5 years instead - when that is NOT what DIAC led them to expect at the outset - cannot be called "reasonable" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Weasel words from DIAC.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[dasalcedo]

It is more unfair if we talk about the time when MODL where supposed to be treated as a priority. I'm an August 2007 applicant in MODL and I saw lots of people not being in MODL getting their visas much before me, and now that they have created the CSL they decide not only to say but to apply the rule!!!

 

Daniel

[Guest hwantazia]

To Jamie Smith

 

I'd like to ask for your advice for my case.

I'm SS, non-CSL applicant. (subclass 475).

 

I submit my medical and pcc befor 23.sep.2009.

I got pre-grant letter 1.oct.2009.

Then I receved stop processing letter 6.oct.2009.

After that just waiting.....

 

What is my option? Shall I send a request letter to CO?

I want hear your advice.

 

Thank you.

[vandm]

Dizz

 

I think your contributions to this thread have simply descended to the level of your being rude to everyone else.

 

Many of the claims you are now coming out with are total nonsense. MANY people were caught out by the sudden closure of TRA Pathway D in September 2007, for example, which means that they have already been trying to get to Oz for more than two years, whether you understand their difficulties or not.

 

We have heard enough from you on this subject to last us a year. Please pipe down and leave this thread for and to the benefit of the people who are actually suffering the ill effects of the sudden new Ministerial Direction of 23rd September 2009.

 

You are one of the lucky ones who is not affected by this debacle. Be grateful for that and be quiet, please.

 

Gill

 

 

i have been following this convo between dizz and everybody else. its soo easy when you are safe on the other side of the fence. it reminds me of the n number of ideas people in india have after a cricket match has got over in which india loses. people end up saying the captain should have done like thisand not done this and that . in hindsight everything becomes easier. the point of the matter is that when we applied we were told it would be a 800 metres run and when the race started they changed the course of the race and said its going to be a marathon now. its not about selling a house and all that farce, its about how after applying, your life comes to a pause. every long term decision gets postponed to a later date.your life, your thinking, invariably starts revolving around this application subconsciously. its so easy to sit on the other side of the fence and berate people on what to do and what not to do. preaching is much easier than practice.

 

it would be more humane if dizz soothes people's hearts rather than fraying people's tempers.

 

it looks like he is senator evans incognito.

[vandm]

Hi Glenn

 

 

YES, YES and YES!!! I'm so sorry that you have had to wade through reams of stuff which went way off topic but to some extent it is inevitable on an amateur forum. Also it is reasonable to let the affected applicants tell us about their own particular situations and the problems which they and their families face because of the lengthy delays.

 

One issue that is of great concern to me is the families that have children who are coming up for 18. Soon after 23rd September several RMAs asked DIAC whether or not any special dispensations would be given so as to get PR for the children who will have turned 18 before their parents' applications can be processed?

 

DIAC said woodenly that there are no plans to alter the existing legislative provisions about this and whether or not these young adults will still be considered to be dependent on their parents will be determined at the time of decision.

 

An Indian parent would be likely to have better luck with this problem than a British parent, frankly! Britush teenagers are 18 going on 40, most of them. They are sure that they have had the mind of a 30 year old since they turned 15.

 

One can enrol them in full time College courses. Convincing them to keep studying is more difficult! Also they fall in love and it is definitely True Love which will Last A Lifetime, so the youngsters lose interest in Project Australia instead.

 

Added to which the divorce rate in the UK is currently 53% and it has been over 50% for several years. This means that a lot of the couples wating for visas have his 'n' hers families. The children involved often have non-migrating half-sibllings or step-siblings, or a non-migrating parent, which means that several of the youngsters affected by the delays will not become eligible for the Remaining Relative visa.

 

The upshot will be that several British families will end up abandoning Project Australia by the time DIAC are ready to start the final processing of their visa applications. Some of them will have spent thousands of GBP on Project Australia but the Project will prove to have been a futile waste of money.

 

Nobody doubts that the Minister & Mr Metcalfe have problems of their own to sort out but I don't think either of them have stopped to worry about the effects which their constant chopping & changing has had and will have on the lives of their clients - the visa applicants.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

VERY VERY VERY WELL SAID GILL. i am impressed by your presentation and line of thought. its awesome. keep growing.:hug:

[Alan Collett]

Jason

 

The way I read what Gill posted Jason is she is saying the opposite to what you have asked, ie.

Where changes are made that are detrimental to a client, the agent is not responsible and that's logical for you could hardly expect them to be liable for something not under their control.

 

You can sleep easy!

 

But on that note,

 

I'd reckon many in the government are fully aware that there will be many people disadvantaged by regulation changes and some severely so.

That can happen with all sorts of laws/legislation Jason, the constant changes to workplace, superannuation and taxation legislation being prime examples, local government ones another pain at times, none of it desirable for those adversely affected but it's the system to some extent.

For immigration you do not have the minister solely making a decision though he is the one that signs off on it - and he is only human and I'd expect that he would be considering continually what is happening, not in case by case detail and he's hardly going to come out and say that this is troubling him but he'll have belief in the approach taken whilst knowing that there'll be a lot of unhappy people, some with lives dramatically affected.

 

Having waded through the various exchanges I don't think too many people have made the observation that unlike changes to taxation, superannuation, etc the Immigration Minister's Direction has retrospective effect.

 

The general principle with tax law changes is that they only have prospective effect - the Minister's change of 23/09 is clearly at odds with this, and therein lies a major difference.

 

Best regards.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Hi Alan,

While wading through the hansard of the senate committee,most of which is pretty useless,I found what I think is an interesting snippet which may help to explain the reason behind the decision to include already lodged applications in the priority processing directive.

The committee was discussing the changes to minimum salary levels for holders of 457 visas and in discussing the impact of the changes on existing visa holders the minister said.

Quote:

Senator Chris Evans—I think you will find the new requirements were applied, Senator Back. One of the

issues in Immigration is that, if you do not do that, you find there is a huge spike in applications the day before.

the closing date for the changes.

.

Do you think this may be behind the decision or am I drawing rather a long bow to make a connection between MSL for 457 holders and GSM applications?

Cheers

N'OZ

[Guest Jamie Smith]

To Jamie Smith

 

I'd like to ask for your advice for my case.

I'm SS, non-CSL applicant. (subclass 475).

 

I submit my medical and pcc befor 23.sep.2009.

I got pre-grant letter 1.oct.2009.

Then I receved stop processing letter 6.oct.2009.

After that just waiting.....

 

What is my option? Shall I send a request letter to CO?

I want hear your advice.

 

Thank you.

 

Sorry Hwantazia as I am based in Australia and I am not a registered agent I cannot give migration advice. :no:

[Alan Collett]

Hello N'Oz.

 

I recall vividly various flagged in advance changes such as the increase in 410 Retirement visa financial requirements, the withdrawal of the old skilled program, etc - all generated a lot of activity, and a spike in the lodgment of applications prior to the changes.

 

This is a very different scenario though to implementing a change affecting applications already lodged - so no, I don't think the comment you have highlighted from Hansard is relevant, unless the Minister is very confused about the consequences of his actions ... which I very much doubt, as he comes across (to me at least) as someone who is well aware of what he is doing.

 

Best regards.

[Guest proud2beaussie]

Thanks very much for your comments Alan.

[Guest jason RM0107604]

jamie - you should become an agent. you are clearly more knowledgable than many agents and very dedicated to the issues at hand.

 

i think everyone on this owes you a fair degree of appreciation for the work you have put into this issue - particularly when i understand your major business activities do not relate to skilled applicants.

[merlino]

Having waded through the various exchanges I don't think too many people have made the observation that unlike changes to taxation, superannuation, etc the Immigration Minister's Direction has retrospective effect.

 

The general principle with tax law changes is that they only have prospective effect - the Minister's change of 23/09 is clearly at odds with this, and therein lies a major difference.

 

Best regards.

 

 

Hi Alan,

 

Help me make sense of this please, this retrospective effect you've mentioned, we can't do anything about this?

[Alan Collett]

I think that is the point of this thread, is it not ...?

 

Best regards.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Having waded through the various exchanges I don't think too many people have made the observation that unlike changes to taxation, superannuation, etc the Immigration Minister's Direction has retrospective effect.

 

The general principle with tax law changes is that they only have prospective effect - the Minister's change of 23/09 is clearly at odds with this, and therein lies a major difference.

 

Best regards.

 

Hi Alan

 

In the reply which was worrying Jason, I wanted the client to work out for himself why it is that he would not have a viable claim against his agent (at least, teh 99% probability is that he wouldn't.)

 

With regard to your own comment above, you are absolutely right. It is a dearly-held principle of both English and Aussie Law that the Government takes any hits caused by the timing of a significant change, not the man in the street going about his lawful business takes the hit instead.

 

The Aussie Minister for Immi does have incredibly wide powers - apparently vested in him alone and exercisable at his sole discretion.

 

However he is presiding over a temporary downturn in an economy which is fundamentally robust, healthy and not in any real danger of sliding into a recession. The Minister for Immi is treating this temporary glitch as if it were a full scale civil emergency.

 

He is overreacting, jumping from pillar to post and flailing around with his sword like a crusader defending Jerusalem. Jerusalem, however, is not under any real threat. That and the retroactive effect of his latest Direction are the joint causes of the heartache, I reckon.

 

Cheers

 

Gill