ramot Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 Several of us had already posted questions on this thread that we would like to have answered. Didn't realise that someone was supposed to consolidate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The Minister didn't front - hardly surprising in view of the refugee boat sinking and associated loss of life - but Laurie Ferguson (the other minister in the portfolio, see Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives ) was there and took his envelope (containing a compilation from Jamie, a copy of the Peter Meares article from Inside Story, and a covering letter) which I can confirm he took home with him and therefore would be reading now. To be honest he didn't show must interest in the client group during our brief conversation, but this is in the context of the government's political support being damaged by the current refugee "crisis". Probably as a lobby we should think carefully about timing for the next step. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 You've made the effort George and that's all that could be expected. Good show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The Minister didn't front - hardly surprising in view of the refugee boat sinking and associated loss of life - but Laurie Ferguson (the other minister in the portfolio, see Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives ) was there and took his envelope (containing a compilation from Jamie, a copy of the Peter Meares article from Inside Story, and a covering letter) which I can confirm he took home with him and therefore would be reading now. To be honest he didn't show must interest in the client group during our brief conversation, but this is in the context of the government's political support being damaged by the current refugee "crisis". Probably as a lobby we should think carefully about timing for the next step. Cheers, George Lombard Thanks George. The Minister appeared moved by the boat people's persistent desire to work. Hopefully he and Ferguson will also be moved by the non-queue-jumpers human stories and outright unfairness that shines through so strongly in people's comments. Has anybody yet asked the Minister or DIAC why DIAC continued to process cases of "wrong" priority and incur costs on migrants behalfs when DIAC "knew" the Minister didn't want those candidates progressing any further? I think if the Government is moved by boat people's plight on tv, they will also be moved by coverage of a public demo in London, the natural heart of Australia's migration programme. Would that be embarrassing to them? I think so and I think it would certainly get the Oz public's and employers' attention that the easier to employ native English speakers are being shut out. Pity I'm not planning a visit to the UK until January otherwise my loud Hawaiian shirts would get worn to Australia House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Freaks Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 The Minister didn't front - hardly surprising in view of the refugee boat sinking and associated loss of life - but Laurie Ferguson (the other minister in the portfolio, see Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives ) was there and took his envelope (containing a compilation from Jamie, a copy of the Peter Meares article from Inside Story, and a covering letter) which I can confirm he took home with him and therefore would be reading now. To be honest he didn't show must interest in the client group during our brief conversation, but this is in the context of the government's political support being damaged by the current refugee "crisis". Probably as a lobby we should think carefully about timing for the next step. Cheers, George Lombard I have just read the article for Inside story written by Peter Mares, I was supprised to see he quoted my story.:smile: Now this article it's on is way to Mr Evans, should I pack? As surely my visa is now in the bag? Or maybe not, but it is nice to know that at least someone is reading my emails! Cheers Rob. A blockage in the skilled migration pipeline | Inside Story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Hi all Of the 729 messages in this thread (icluding various rants and off thread comments), I have today faxed 20 pages (about 3 comments per page) to the Minister, together with the NZ article on needing a broad skilled migration base, and this letter (follows). I think the next step is whatever letters you guys can write to whoever you can manage, and making your group visit to Australia House. I mention the visit in my letter to encourage the Minsiter that if he is going to do something, now is a good time rather than weeks hence. Now I have to rest my quill pen and get on with other work! Letter: 5 November 2009 Senator Chris Evans Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Fax: 02 6273 4144 Dear Minister In the public mind, current migration policies are failing to appear to both protect Australia’s borders and develop its economy. The Government score is 0-2 in terms of public support in these two areas. It need not be so. I support taking a tough line on people who think they can buy their way into Australia whilst at the same time maintaining a humane interest in settling genuine refugees, but the near shut down of skilled migration for 2-3 years is a major concern. Rightly or wrongly, the influx of sea borne asylum seekers is directly linked in the public’s mind to a softening of the treatment regime on boat people. Rightly or wrongly, regular and abrupt retrospective changes in skilled migration are seen as being forced on the market as a result of a lack of planning or earlier action by yourself and your predecessor. These changes in GSM have seriously disenfranchised the key market of UK born skilled migrants. For the first time in my ten years working with the migration industry (I am not an agent), a very many UK migrants are known to be planning to take time off work and travel to picket Australia House in London. They would have not only my support but also that of the public and the media, as a protest line about skilled UK migrants not being able to migrate to Australia for 2-3 years is indeed quite newsworthy. Those protests will generate a second and equally significant shift of public support against current Government migration policies. The public argument is against: Applicants being required to supply medical and other information at DIAC’s request and applicant cost, only to find out that the visa grant would be some 2-3 years despite all documents and information being provided and all criteria being met. Retrospective changes, affecting applicants who have acted in good faith and followed DIAC instructions and timelines. Taking $2525 in fees with no visible work being undertaken for 2-3 years. Criteria not being fixed at time of application, especially those with children who will turn 18 while waiting for DIAC to do what was agreed at the time of lodgement. A failure by DIAC to communicate: the numbers of applications on hand at time of lodgement, and the time needed to process cases on hand, so that a judgement can be made about the likely time needed before a case officer can be allocated to the file. that application volumes were getting to unacceptable levels and would force delays in processing or policy change (as we have seen) The applicants have acted in good faith and have not paid anyone to smuggle them in to the country. They deserve the same or better consideration than the non-genuine “refugees” are receiving. At present, immigration policy is seen as being weak on boat people and unfair on skilled migrants. I will not comment on how best to handle boat people, but I strongly urge you to recover your political balance by allowing a change of approach with the disenfranchised skilled migrants: finalising the several decision-ready cases that are only awaiting visa grant; finalising the cases where DIAC wrongly continued to ask for additional information from applicants contrary to your much earlier instructions about priority processing, before suspending the process; offering a refund to those who recently lodged an application where no significant work has since been undertaken by DIAC on those files either setting conditions for grant of a visa as time of application, or offering a refund to any applicant who will not meet visa criteria at a later date through ageing of family members or other reasons beyond their control. This would be a clearing of the decks and it would allow your department to focus on resolving other sections of responsibility. It would avoid also minimise: enquiries being made of the Immigration Ombudsman about whether DIAC can process cases against your instruction and force costs, emotional stress and time wasting on the applicant; onshore cases going to the MRT where family ageing means the family no longer meet PR requirements; FOI applications swamping DIAC to generate information for the two actions listed above. Minister, despite oversupply of skilled migrants and mismatched skills lists with which to assess them, a desirable level of immigration inflow in the future relies heavily on the market having confidence in receiving a fair decision in a timely manner. Applicants spend a year or more putting things together. Migration agents market and filter candidates for many months before they become clients, and they provide assurance in the process. DIAC do not communicate timelines for starting to process a file that should then be handled within a standard service period, and this should also be changed. People only want to be kept informed and given a fair go. I note your comment in the recent Senate Estimates committee hearings about the numbers of surviving Sri Lankans from the exploded ship that maintained their desire to still work in Australia, despite their ordeal. Despite my admiration for their tenacity and desire to improve their lives at great personal risk (good settler skills!), it is manifestly unfair that they were rewarded with permanent visas for their efforts. It is also manifestly unfair that applicants who patiently wait their turn and pay their costs without jumping the queue or manipulating the refugee settlement system are relieved by DIAC of a few thousand dollars, deprived of critical communication at time of lodgement and then anonymously dumped into a holding pattern - without compensation for the fact that through no fault of their own they might no longer meet visa requirements when their application is eventually decided. If a migration agent or lawyer demanded a few thousand dollars in fees up front, and refused to start work for nine months, and then insisted that the client wait for a few more few years without guarantee of a result, and then refused to offer compensation for a failure to meet future policy requirements, and also failed to return fees for clients who then wanted to withdraw, I would expect that OMARA and the AAT would be all over them, and your Department would capitalise on the newsworthiness of the scandal. This issue of deferred skilled migration is a monumental service delivery failure by DIAC, and is a result of no or wrong policy decisions at an earlier time in your office. It is critical for future economic growth that the immigration market retains some faith in the process. Please restore that faith by restoring conditions for selected skilled migrants that have lost time, money and eligibility for an Australian visa through no fault of their own. Kind regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Excellent work Jamie,well done,I'm sure those unfortunate people who have been severely affected by the September changes very much appreciate all the effort you have put in to championing their cause,as do I. Congratulations and well done again. Cheers N'OZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Hear, hear, Jamie. Very, very, VERY well said and well done, that man. :hug::notworthy: Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Freaks Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 I can only echo the sentiment of the two previous posts, Thank you....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Don't thank me, just buy me something small and park it in the driveway with the Porsche keyring in the ignition. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Excellent job Jamie! :biggrin: Just have one thought. I don't know whether there is something here but in the country where I live people who want to attract public opinion to an issue sometimes make so called "open letters". It means a letter, describing the problem, is being posted to a government recipient and at the same time to media sources. Then this letter becomes a public letter, of course, if media think it worth to public it. When it's a public letter the government can't ignore it and have to answer it publicly too. I'm not sure how many newspapers in Aus will be interested in reading Jamie's letter but I think at least ABC Radio and Peter Mares will be. So, I think we should try to make it a public letter and send to various media and in first instance to National Interest, ABC Radio National. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kangaroo Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Just checked "Have your say" page of ABC National Interest and found that there have been never before so many comments made about any program that we and other listeners have submitted for the last one dedicated to migration issues. Looks like Peter Mares can make a fortune of it and we should help him. Amazing. Come on boys and girls and we'll move this stone. :chatterbox: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz2008 Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Just checked "Have your say" page of ABC National Interest and found that there have been never before so many comments made about any program that we and other listeners have submitted for the last one dedicated to migration issues. Looks like Peter Mares can make a fortune of it and we should help him. Amazing. Come on boys and girls and we'll move this stone. :chatterbox: Does anyone know yet if Peter Mares managed to get the Minister to appear on his show? They did say it would be for Fridays show didn't they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 Does anyone know yet if Peter Mares managed to get the Minister to appear on his show? They did say it would be for Fridays show didn't they? I've meailed Peter to find out. Will post his reply here. Methinks the Minister will not show in public just yet, but he should if he is so confident of being right. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Minister not game enough this week, maybe next. The National Interest This from Peter Mares the ABC journalist. anyone with the harder of the hardluck stories can still contact him. Regards Jamie Thanks – unfortunately the Minister is unavailable this week and has declined my interview request. I have renewed it for next week (13/11). I’ve had a stack of emails and guest book posts myself in response to the story and have published them (with permission) here: The National Interest - Have Your Say A shorter version of my Inside Story article will appear in Saturday’s Canberra Times. I will continue to follow the issue. Regards Peter Peter Mares Presenter The National Interest ABC Radio National The National Interest email: mares.peter@abc.net.au ph: (03) 9626 1626 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Also, Peter says that the 1500 plus messages are related to ALL stories for that programme, not juts immigration: No > that's not right - the 1500 refers to the entire back log of comments on the program including other stories - but we have had a lot of responses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Contact details: Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Email your Prime Minister | Prime Minister of Australia Wayne Swan, Treasurer, if you want your money back! ministerial@treasury.gov.au&subject=Treasurer Correspondence Please enter name and postal address to receive a reply. Return correspondence will be sent via post. and Treasury Ministers Assistant Treasurer Nick Sherry, make sure they both get the same info to discuss over coffee... Treasury Ministers and ministerial@treasury.gov.au&subject=Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law Correspondence Please enter name and postal address to receive a reply. Return correspondence will be sent via post. Minister of Immigration Chris Evans, please be polite! minister@immi.gov.au Attorney General Robert McClelland, if you want to argue legal issues attorney@ag.gov.au and Email the Attorney Minister for Employment Jason Clare if you have an employer frustrated with the procedures and delays. Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services, Laurie Ferguson, the guy George Lombard met earlier this week. Expand on your PIO comments, make your stories relevant and personal. Laurie.Ferguson@immi.gov.au Minister for Small Business, the Service Economy and Consumer Affairs Dr Craig Emerson (pitch yourselves as consumers of Govt services wanting redress for service failure by DIAC) Parliament of Australia: House of Representatives Senator Mark Arbib, Minister for Employment Participation Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, NSW The Senator who was the least informed about skilled migration in the recent Senate Committee Hearings, and needs your help :-) In the hearings she guessed wrongly that most scam artist agents were recent registered agents. I suggest you pitch her on the basis that the Government has relieved people of millions of dollars with no assurance that they will continue to meet the endlessly shifting visa criteria in the future, and this is a worse scam than any agent can perpetrate and it's on a much larger scale. senator.fierravanti-wells@aph.gov.au Senator Barnaby Joyce, Queensland, leader of the smaller opposition National Party that has its roots in country areas, he's a stirrer and an expert at generating media coverage for his issues senator.joyce@aph.gov.au Other Senators attending the recent hearing with DIAC, who should be updated on how Australia is discouraging a key source of skilled workers for the future. I have noted their State of representation, select teh ones for where you wanted to live: Chris Back, WA, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Guy Barnett, Tas, senator.barnett@aph.gov.au Katryna Bilyk, Tas, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Mark Bishop, WA, senator.bishop@aph.gov.au George Brandis, Qld, senator.brandis@aph.gov.au Richard Colbeck, Tas, senator.colbeck@aph.gov.au David Feeney, VIC, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Steve Fielding, a political party of one called Family First, Vic, senator.fielding@aph.gov.au Mary Jo Fisher, SA, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Sarah Hanson-Young, SA, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Barnaby Joyce, Qld, details given above Gavin Marshall, Vic, senator.marshall@aph.gov.au Jan McLucas, North Qld, senator.mclucas@aph.gov.au Stephen Parry, Tas, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Russell Trood , Qld, Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators: Nick Xenophon, SA, independent, senator.xenophon@aph.gov.au Their other contact details and names of other Senators are here: Parliament of Australia:Senate:Senators:Senators' Parliament House and State/Territory addresses, phone and fax numbers The Senators on the committee who didnt attend the last hearing are : Senators Abetz, Adams, Bernardi, Birmingham, Boswell, Boyce, Bob Brown, Carol Brown, Bushby, Cameron, Cash, Jacinta Collins, Coonan, Cormann, Eggleston, Farrell, Ferguson, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Forshaw, Furner, Heffernan, Humphries, Hurley, Hutchins, Johnston, Kroger, Ludlam, Lundy, Ian Macdonald, McEwen, McGauran, Mason, Milne, Minchin, Moore, Nash, O’Brien, Payne, Polley, Pratt, Ronaldson, Ryan, Scullion, Siewert, Sterle, Troeth, Williams, Wortley. I shouldn't list the individual email addresses online for Senior DIAC officials but it's usually firstname.lastname@immi.gov.au. These people might like to hear from you: Mr Andrew Metcalfe, CEO of DIAC (think of the damaging the industry and UK markets) Mr Bob Correll PSM, Deputy Secretary (think of the damaging the industry and UK markets) Mr Peter Hughes PSM, Deputy Secretary (think of the damaging the industry and UK markets) Ms Felicity Hand, Deputy Secretary (think of the damaging the industry and UK markets) Ms Marilyn Prothero First Assistant Secretary, Financial Strategy and Services Division (money back please!) :cry: Ms Robyn Bicket, Chief Lawyer, Governance and Legal Division, (natural justice, failure to deliver a service as advised by DIAC staff) Mr Sandi Logan, National Communications Manager (why didn't you say the numbers were getting so high when we lodged?) Mr Peter Vardos PSM, First Assistant Secretary, Migration and Visa Policy Division (not so fast!) Mr Kruno Kukoc, Principal Advisor, Migration Strategies Branch (dont forget to talk to the market when coming up with new whizzbang ideas) Mr Peter Speldewinde, Assistant Secretary, Labour Market Branch, (he has access to the data) Mr Robert Illingworth, Assistant Secretary, Policy Framework, Evaluation and Analysis Branch (obviously the evaluation or resulting strategy was flawed) Ms Fiona Lynch-Magor, Assistant Secretary, Services Management Branch (don't get me started, service? what service?) :biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 We were p-i-s-s-e-d of again. OMG!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 In case of somebody haven't seen this Response from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship - The National Interest - 6 November 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz2008 Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 In case of somebody haven't seen this Response from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship - The National Interest - 6 November 2009 Thanks McKault, No I had not seen this... I have to say that this bit made me laugh; The CSL is underpinned by the labour market research undertaken by the states and territories and reflects the differing regional economies that have emerged across the country. The demand for skills in the north-west of WA is vastly different to the skills needed in Hobart, Melbourne or regional NSW. Surely, if this were the case then the State Sponsored applicants on the States Occupation List should be part of the priority processing!!! God give me strength! Tasha:cute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Thanks McKault, No I had not seen this... I have to say that this bit made me laugh; The CSL is underpinned by the labour market research undertaken by the states and territories and reflects the differing regional economies that have emerged across the country. The demand for skills in the north-west of WA is vastly different to the skills needed in Hobart, Melbourne or regional NSW. Surely, if this were the case then the State Sponsored applicants on the States Occupation List should be part of the priority processing!!! God give me strength! Tasha:cute: Have your say on the National Interest page. I've already submitted mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest floater Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 I agree, To ensure immigration is responsive to the current economic climate and the needs of the Australian economy, in December 2008 the government announced a more targeted approach to Australia's skilled migration program. And when we get state sponsorship as advised, they pull the rug from under you again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Taz2008, The CSL is underpinned by the labour market research undertaken by the states and territories and reflects the differing regional economies that have emerged across the country. The demand for skills in the north-west of WA is vastly different to the skills needed in Hobart, Melbourne or regional NSW. Surely, if this were the case then the State Sponsored applicants on the States Occupation List should be part of the priority processing!!! It sure doesn't make me laugh Taz when people laugh at misunderstanding the processes involved. Some states may have been reviewing their own nomination lists but it has usually been that to get state nomination, an applicant needs an occupation on SOL [a very general approach], and they may add that a person has a job offer. As I say, some may have fine tuned from there but if not it's more that the states are just a little lazy you could say in using DIACS base list but I do not blame them for why have something different when DEEWR/DIAC will whilst taking into account states consultation, still produce a list for Australia as a whole to meet the requirements of Australia as a whole. I'd expect that may be so for many countries with different states/provinces/regions etc. As it is if you have an identified top priority occupation, having a state nomination puts you higher in priority than not having a state nomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz2008 Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 Taz2008, It sure doesn't make me laugh Taz when people laugh at misunderstanding the processes involved. Some states may have been reviewing their own nomination lists but it has usually been that to get state nomination, an applicant needs an occupation on SOL [a very general approach], and they may add that a person has a job offer. As I say, some may have dine tuned from there but if not it's more that the states are just a little lazy you could say in using DIACS base list but I do not blame them for why have something different when DEEWR/DIAC will whilst taking into account states consultation, still produce a list for Australia as a whole to meet the requirements of Australia as a whole. I'd expect that may be so for many countries with different states/provinces/regions etc. As it is if you have an identified top priority occupation, having a state nomination puts you higher in priority than not having a state nomination. Excuse me Wanderer!!!... I have kept my mouth shut up until now with all your dribble on these posts, I had actually got to the stage where I just skip your posts as they are too long and too boring! But now as you have just got personal with me and my post I will no longer keep my mouth shut! Who do you think you are??? Firstly, I would like to say I am glad it did not make you laugh my comments, because they weren’t meant too. It was a “figure of speech” and I can assure you I am not laughing either! Why is it that others can understand my comments, but YOU have to pick at it and start dictating the issue??? Also, I would like to bring to your attention, after you said “the states are just a little lazy you could say in using DIACS base list but I do not blame them for why have something different”... You pretend to know everything about everything regarding this situation, well perhaps you should get your facts right. The States were not being lazy using the DIAC’s base list, as some of them had in fact revised their lists way before the September changes had even occurred, showing which trades they felt were critical within their states. Not that this is even relevant to the comments I made. What I was trying to say, as you obviously have misunderstood me so badly, was that the DIAC have commented in their press release to Peter Mares radio show that “The CSL is underpinned by the labour market research undertaken by the states and territories and reflects the differing regional economies that have emerged across the country. The demand for skills in the north-west of WA is vastly different to the skills needed in Hobart, Melbourne or regional NSW.” Now if the states and territories are the ones who are highlighting what skills are in demand and in what region, then why are their lists so different to the DIAC’s list even after they have been amended? And therefore, what the DIAC have stated in their press release would suggest to me is not actually correct. And to perhaps enable them to be correct they should allow the State Sponsored applicants on the States Occupation List be part of the priority processing!!! Now, I am sure you have plenty more to say to me after you have read the above, but to be quite honest, I am not interested in your debate! I know that this is an open forum and of course people’s opinions may differ, however, I do feel that you like to preach over every comment made on this thread and others too. This would not be so bad if we actually new something about you? Most of us on this forum have been honest in who we are with previous posts or our signatures, however, nobody knows who you are? Are you qualified in these subjects you preach about? When are you going to reveal what you do? Apart from someone who sits on this forum trying to challenge everyone who dare write a negative comment at such a negative time! Whether you mean to or not Wanderer, you can be very rude and insulting. And, I for one do not like it and am very angered that you have made me feel this way. This forum is a fantastic forum with many great people on it who give out great advice and support. It’s just a shame you have to come along and lower the tone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.