Future of migration for existing applicants

[Guest recherche]

Hi All, we have had a phone today from our agent saying we will get a visa between now and May 2010. We are SS NON CSL, MEDS AND POLICE CHECKS DONE AND A TRADIE !!!! They had confirmation from OZ saying all who are SS and had all Meds and PCC done to be finalised this current yr !! Trying not to get to excitied until get visa in our hand. We were finalised on 15/9/09 if it helps anyone.

 

Tracy and Steve xxx

 

Hi Tracy,

 

Did you previously had a CO?

[Guest TwNx]

Hi All, we have had a phone today from our agent saying we will get a visa between now and May 2010. We are SS NON CSL, MEDS AND POLICE CHECKS DONE AND A TRADIE !!!! They had confirmation from OZ saying all who are SS and had all Meds and PCC done to be finalised this current yr !! Trying not to get to excitied until get visa in our hand. We were finalised on 15/9/09 if it helps anyone.

 

Tracy and Steve xxx

 

Wow! that's great news.... thanks for sharing the info :biggrin:

[Guest johnsonclan]

Hi, yes we had CO previously

 

Tracy

[Guest kaps7]

Hi, is it predicted 2010 is favorable for Non CSL SS 475 Of shore Applicant.

[merlino]

Hi, is it predicted 2010 is favorable for Non CSL SS 475 Of shore Applicant.

 

I don't see any basis for coming up with that prediction, what we are seeing is a pattern of 176 non-csl applicants getting visas. 475, 176 are Group 5's, how DIAC is finalising these applicants is anyone's guess at the moment

[Kazzarazza]

475, 176 are Group 5's, how DIAC is finalising these applicants is anyone's guess at the moment

 

Hi Merlino. Just wanted to clarify for you, that some 176 and 475 non-CSL are also Cat 6 - not just Cat 5's. These Cat 6 people are those sponsored by family and not a State.

Cheers, Kazza

[Guest LucyOlly]

Dear Glenn, Gill and All

 

I fully support the idea of 'Let's agree a way forward together with DIAC' and I believe everyone on this site also thinks like this, despite a few well understandable grumbles. Could I please start by showing you a letter my brother, an Australian citizen, wrote to Senator Evans immediately after I received posted confirmation of State Sponsorship on the 1st October, although the actual sponsorship is dated the 11th September. Senator Evans' soul destroying and ejection to limbo announcement was made in between.

 

Dear Minister, Senator Evans,

 

I hope this message finds you well.

 

May I put to you, a question which is of utmost significance to the lives of a large number of people currently involved in the process of migrating to Australia?

 

Would you consider the profoundly distressing impact of your recent retrospective changes to the priority processing of General Skilled Visa applicants?

 

I take as an example, my sister Lucy XXXXX and her son Oliver, who have been 'in the pipeline' for Australian Visas for a year now.

Lucy qualifies for a visa but previously had the processing of her visa application 'de-prioritised' by DIAC's Departmental decision to reprioritise various visa classes earlier this year.

As a result of that unexpected set-back, she applied for, and on 11th Sept was granted State Sponsorship from the WA Government.

 

Minister, please spare your thoughts for the mums and dads juggling the sale of homes, renting temporary accommodation, trying to place children at schools, and generally doing their best to bend themselves and their families around the arbitrary changes that descend on them from The Department.

 

Your most recent changes published 23rd Sept note that;

"The [new] Direction applies to applications in the pipeline that have not been finalised, and to applications lodged with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, on or after 23 September 2009.".

 

Now, if you need to change the rules again, to do so for new applications being submitted from 23rd Sept forward is fair.

 

But Minister, I sincerely urge you to realise that by retrospectively applying these new rules to those applicants already in the queue, who have already had the goal-posts moved on them once, you are playing havoc with the lives and hopes of the many real people who have the most significant decision of their lives vested in the visa processing system!

 

I wholeheartedly ask you to reconsider this recent decree and allow all those applicants already in the system who have been approved State Sponsorship prior to 23rd Sept, to have their Visas processed as a priority, and not to knock them back to 2012. To change the rules on paid-up, qualified visa applicants twice is absolutely unfair.

 

Respectfully yours

 

XXXXX

 

The answer to this was the standard email of how DIAC can change the rules as and when they feel like it. But this is not a reasonable outcome for those of us who have changed our lives dramatically to move to and be part of Australia's society and economy.

Many of us have sold houses when we were told the UK house prices were at the peak, to ensure we could invest as much as possible into Australia and to ensure that when the visa came we could move quickly. Rental accommodation is 'dead money' and to be forced to pay this for another three years is not only absurd but it is wasting investments that could immediately be poured into the Australian housing market both for the financial security of each individual migrant and the Australian economy as a whole. We are now losing money at a considerable rate as it is not invested in any housing market.

 

Many of us with children are abhorred at the idea of waiting another three years before settling them into a new school and education structure. I was hoping to be in Australia before my son started secondary school but this did not happen. In three years time he will have been prepared by the UK education structure to choose and formalise his GCSE options. Being forced to uproot children at such an important age is not just, especially when it is seven years past of planning a future for them in Australia.

 

Since Senator Evans announcement and the anguishing possibility of having to wait till 2012 I have considered purchasing a property again to secure funds and I have also been head hunted by a national company who have offered a fantastic appointment. Then we hear that category 5 is moving and I am thrown backwards again as I don't want anything to hold up our move. I would like some honesty as to where my current visa application stands so I can ensure that my son has a stable childhood and future whether it be here in the UK or where we want to be, in Australia.

 

So the three points that I consider should be met by DIAC are:

 

1) Now, if you need to change the rules again, to do so for new applications being submitted from 23rd Sept forward is fair.

 

2) But Minister, I sincerely urge you to realise that by retrospectively applying these new rules to those applicants already in the queue, who have already had the goal-posts moved on them once, you are playing havoc with the lives and hopes of the many real people who have the most significant decision of their lives vested in the visa processing system!

 

3) I wholeheartedly ask you to reconsider this recent decree and allow all those applicants already in the system who have been approved State Sponsorship prior to 23rd Sept, to have their Visas processed as a priority, and not to knock them back to 2012. To change the rules on paid-up, qualified visa applicants twice is absolutely unfair.

 

 

A possible fourth is the consideration of a refund of the £2000+ I have so far spent on my application, not including money wasted in the rental market. But I don't want a refund. I want the Visa that I was informed would take no longer than nine months to process from when I applied. I want what I worked, saved, sweat and bled for - a 176 visa for my son and I to live, work and be educated in a country that we dearly love!

 

L&O

[MouseBear]

I hope you hear something soon - it's a very sad and distressing time for so many of us. Just keep looking forward and try to stay positive

 

MouseBear

[Guest wanderer]

Lucy,

Re your comments

The answer to this was the standard email of how DIAC can change the rules as and when they feel like it. But this is not a reasonable outcome for those of us who have changed our lives dramatically to move to and be part of Australia's society and economy.

Many of us have sold houses when we were told the UK house prices were at the peak, to ensure we could invest as much as possible into Australia and to ensure that when the visa came we could move quickly. Rental accommodation is 'dead money' and to be forced to pay this for another three years is not only absurd but it is wasting investments that could immediately be poured into the Australian housing market both for the financial security of each individual migrant and the Australian economy as a whole. We are now losing money at a considerable rate as it is not invested in any housing market.

 

Many of us with children are abhorred at the idea of waiting another three years before settling them into a new school and education structure. I was hoping to be in Australia before my son started secondary school but this did not happen. In three years time he will have been prepared by the UK education structure to choose and formalise his GCSE options. Being forced to uproot children at such an important age is not just, especially when it is seven years past of planning a future for them in Australia.

 

Since Senator Evans announcement and the anguishing possibility of having to wait till 2012 I have considered purchasing a property again to secure funds and I have also been head hunted by a national company who have offered a fantastic appointment. Then we hear that category 5 is moving and I am thrown backwards again as I don't want anything to hold up our move. I would like some honesty as to where my current visa application stands so I can ensure that my son has a stable childhood and future whether it be here in the UK or where we want to be, in Australia.

 

So the three points that I consider should be met by DIAC are:

 

1) Now, if you need to change the rules again, to do so for new applications being submitted from 23rd Sept forward is fair.

 

2) But Minister, I sincerely urge you to realise that by retrospectively applying these new rules to those applicants already in the queue, who have already had the goal-posts moved on them once, you are playing havoc with the lives and hopes of the many real people who have the most significant decision of their lives vested in the visa processing system!

 

3) I wholeheartedly ask you to reconsider this recent decree and allow all those applicants already in the system who have been approved State Sponsorship prior to 23rd Sept, to have their Visas processed as a priority, and not to knock them back to 2012. To change the rules on paid-up, qualified visa applicants twice is absolutely unfair.

 

 

A possible fourth is the consideration of a refund of the £2000+ I have so far spent on my application, not including money wasted in the rental market. But I don't want a refund. I want the Visa that I was informed would take no longer than nine months to process from when I applied. I want what I worked, saved, sweat and bled for - a 176 visa for my son and I to live, work and be educated in a country that we dearly love!

 

L&O

There have been many comments similar to your own on various threads and that we have tough times in the UK [and Australia] tougher for some than others is undoubted but the emotion behind many comments often clouds some truths we all need to face and so taking some of your pertinent points.

 

Re your first couple of paras, people have usually put a lot of effort into immigration plans but how they plan personally is their matter to deal with.

There are many threads on PIO re people moving to Australia, not finding work or finding it not what they thought it would be or otherwise not to their liking and the Australian government has not said to any applicants, sell up your house, move by X date though a latest entry date in accord with medicals is usually stated.

Many people do what they call validation or recce trips and to save massive disappointment, that may be a good thing.

 

On the other hand, how/whether people attempt to make best use of real estate market prices or exchange rates is a matter they have to determine themselves and completely outside any control of the Australian government.

 

Certainly, ages of children is something that parents would want to consider and sure longer immigration approval periods can make that harder to contend with but lengthier processing times is not something new and even in the past more buoyant times, anybody contemplationg a period of less than 2-3 years for a PR application from first thoughts to arrival would have likely found it to be different.

 

Yes, DIAC has on their web site targets under Service standards but there is also in various places mention of tragets being exactly just that and not a guarantee for there are many factors that can influence processing, global and Australian economics being just two.

In more buoyant times all sorts of processes can tend to run a bit rampant, be it governement or private and the immigration system you could liken to always being something of a barrel with variable inflow and a somewhat controlled outflow to attempt some sort of stability downstream and so approved applications could expect to take so long depending on ammount of flow in and how many were manning the outlet taps.

 

There has been a situation of some unknown impact with respect to marketing to foreign students that studying in Australia will give you PR [though that is also not a guarantee] and then come less buoyant economic times and it was forseeable that the outlet taps would need to be throttled back.

Some call that Moving the Goal Posts but in reality the goal posts are still there and what has happened is that because too many goals are there to be kicked, the net or the bucket overflowing if you like, reducing throughput does mean that time in the barrel will be longer - not a new approach by any merans for we've had economic downturns previously and will likely again.

 

Again, what you do in the meantime is up to you.

If you sold property at a good time and then can buy back in with values down, perhaps that is something of a windfall.

As to renting, there're many financial advisors who could drum up some figures to show someone is better off, particularly if you are paying off a mortage.

 

But more importantly to your view of points for DIAC.

 

1. In tighter economic times a government will want to target particular skills and so any variation off skills selection criteria will apply to the whole bucket and sure, that'll increase lower priority wait times but that is as it has always been when throttling of flow occurs.

 

2. & 3.

There has already been a slight move to address the lower priority Category 5 applications as you know and that will continue dependant on monitoring the factors that determine appropriate numbers.

 

Part of the angst of many people having visas taking longer to process is that it has in the past been relatively normal to have a realtively straightforward processing and when times change, conditions change it will be hard to accept that desired outcomes will change too ................but they do, that being a fact of life.

 

You only need to look at how your own local government regulations change with time and it doesn't matter whether you have been living somewhere for yonks and would be happy to go on with old regulations, it's tough for you do not usually get given an option.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi LucyOlly and others

 

I doubt very much whether Wanderer would have desisted from complaint if he had been mucked around by the Australian Government when he was in the throes of the migration process in the way that all of you have been throughout 2009. I find his Holy Joe stance towards your predicaments completely unconvincing, frankly.

 

It is the will of the Australian people that the Australian Government should treat all comers to all of its Departments with fairness, transparency and accountability. The Australian Department of Immigration has failed to demonstrate adherence to those three central core principles.

 

DIAC have snaffled over $200 million AUD in visa application charges from those of you who submitted GSM visa applications prior to 23rd September 2009.

 

At the meeting in London, David Wilden was at pains to assure us that the visa application charge (currently $2,525 for a GSM visa) is the actual cost of processing the application from receipt to finalisation. He admitted that they have spent all the money received in spite of the fact that some 145,000 GSM applications remain unfinalised. As RonnieRocket0 said in another post on Poms in Oz a couple of days ago, DIAC have helped themselves to an interest free loan of at least $175 million AUD from private individuals who do not have a right to live in Australia. They have no plans to repay this loan and no machinery for doing so, and as for interest on the one sided loan. forget it.

 

One way to trade out of recession is by swndling the Citizens of other countries, which is exactly what DIAC have been doing throughout 2009. It could be seen as a scam on a grand scale, knowing that the Government can hide behind the principle of soverign immunity to protect itself from attack by those who have been swindled and scammed. Swindle the people already living in Australia with Citizenship or visas which confer Permanent Residency if you must but do NOT swindle the Citizens of other countries as well is my message to DIAC this morning.

 

DIAC have devised an excuse for the fact that the changes imposed since 1st Janiuary 2009 have operated retroactively. David Wilden told six of us in London that the Australian Government does not accept my contention that the changes have a retroactive effect. They are not retroactively operating changes in the Law because there have been no relevant alterations to the Migration Act 1958 in order to bring these 2009 changes about, so spake David Wilden. Weasel words from a Department which is acting like a weasel in my opinion. He and I agreed to differ on this point because he won't drop his stance and I won't drop mine.

 

Fairness: We are told that about 3,500 of the 145,000 or so unfinalised GSM visa applications are applications which fall within Priority Category 5 as described in the FAQ of 23rd September. Cat 5 contains applications for visas in subclasses 176, 475, 886 and 487. Some of the Cat 5 applications for sc 176 visas are now being processed because in some cases it is commercially expedient for DIAC to finalise them rather than accept justified and justifiable claims for refunds of money wasted by the applicants on obtaining medical reports and pccs on the instructions of DIAC staff members. David Wilden was told - and told us - that Cat 5 was to be approached in accordance with the date order of lodgement of the applications. That plan collapsed within hours of DW having been told that this would be the order of attack. DIAC then made a statement to the MIA which contradicts the advice provided to their colleague Mr Wilden.

 

The statement to the MIA reads:

 

DIAC has today provided the MIA with the following statement:

“The Department is processing applications according to Ministerial Direction No. 42 - Order of consideration - certain Skilled Migration visas. The Department anticipates that a small number of State sponsored non-CSL applications will be finalised this program year. Finalisations will focus on applications where health and character checks have been requested by the case officer.”

 

Received by the MIA on 1st December 2009.

 

DIAC are not doing what that statement says, either. It has been modified by reference to whether or not a CO had adjudged the case to have been "finalised" before 23rd September. DIAC have not defined the term "finalised" in this context. If an application was "finalised" prior to 23rd September, why wasn't the visa granted prior to 23rd September as well? I think the Australian National Audit Office should send a team to Adelaide to investigate the working practices of the GSM visa processing section of the ASPC. Large savings could be made by avoiding allowing COs to save up "finalised" applications without either granting or refusing the applications/visas concerned.

 

It has become obvious from the several replies to PLEs that the ASPC are operating some sort of sifting mechanism even with the sc 176 applications alone. They have not described this mechanism, or how it works, to a soul outside of DIAC. I'm inclined to suggest a Freedom of Information Act request, addressed to David Edwards of the ASPC, requiring a coherent and factually accurate description of the sieve and an explanation of exactly how it is being used.

 

Transparency: As with DIAC's operation of the Health requirement for migration, the nuts and bolts of the parameters which DIAC are using in connection with this sieve are shrouded in opaciy. There is absolutely no transparency involved.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm

 

89 submissions to that Inquiry have been published so far. 99% of them are highly critical of DIAC's continuing adherence to the principle of avoiding transparency at all costs. The same is going on with the Cat 5 section of the GSM program in my view.

 

Accountability: The voters of Australia cannot call DIAC to account when they have no reliable information about what DIAC are actually up to.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

PS - I wonder how many opaque, unaccountable and inscrutable Aussie public servants are enjoying the charms and freebies on offer in Gropenhagen this week? :wink:

[Guest kaps7]

Australian DIAC does not care about people and we poor people felt like got in trapped.

By applying 475 SS non csl visa.

CSL List is too short.

Due to this 23rd sep update Australian immi gov. proved that before applying this is situation,

What will be after visa grant.

I am totally confused about impression of Australian immi dept.

They dont even think fro old applicants. Case officer appointed on 21 jan 2009.

[McKlaut]

They dont even think fro old applicants. Case officer appointed on 21 jan 2009.

Yes. I've been already waiting for 17 months, and although my application is not the oldest one I can confirm "they don't care about us".

 

I think we should hire a good musician to write a song for us similar to the Jackson's one. Then we will make a video where we sing that song all togerther and then it should be shown on Aus TV for raising people's attention to this situation.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Yes. I've been already waiting for 17 months, and although my application is not the oldest one I can confirm "they don't care about us".

 

I think we should hire a good musician to write a song for us similar to the Jackson's one. Then we will make a video where we sing that song all togerther and then it should be shown on Aus TV for raising people's attention to this situation.

 

I suggest a banner as well:

 

"We can expect our visas 12 months before we can expect our pensions."

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest KatyNick]

Just a query ... a good friend of mine pointed this out .... the 176's that have been granted this month, do they have State Sponsorship from different states or are they all WA???. The Hollies were WA and Lady... (sorry forgot the user name - the one recently issued) was also from WA. Just thinking .....

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi KatyNick

 

The chap I mentioned on the sticky thread, who received his pre-grant letter today, is sponsored by WA but not all of the lucky ones are sponsored by SA.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[merlino]

Hi Merlino. Just wanted to clarify for you, that some 176 and 475 non-CSL are also Cat 6 - not just Cat 5's. These Cat 6 people are those sponsored by family and not a State.

Cheers, Kazza

 

Thanks Kazzarazza, I was referring to the 475, 176 Cat 5's So far, we're only seeing 176 from Cat5's being processed.

[Guest wanderer]

You're always so great on taking pot shots Gill no matter what the lack of substance.

And I'd stack the logic of years of engineering up against that of a solicito anytime and so no wonder you're missing some toes shot off with your aim.

 

No holy Joes stance here and just as you are on record with continual attempts to degrade DIAC and Senator Evans I'm on record as recognising that it is tough for some people not only in the UK but also for many in Australia but you seem to have an agenda of sorts, call it a vendetta if you wish and with that attitude nothing would convince anyone and so that is no concern.

 

There may be others about who may have a more open mind and why not declare whether your agenda also includes not giving them a chance to see some balance.

Fairness - ten into three don't go all that well so there have been announcements throughout the year in respect to the management of immigration.

 

That seems to be pretty transparent on their accountability.

DIAC have snaffled over $200 million AUD in visa application charges from those of you who submitted GSM visa applications prior to 23rd September 2009.

 

At the meeting in London, David Wilden was at pains to assure us that the visa application charge (currently $2,525 for a GSM visa) is the actual cost of processing the application from receipt to finalisation. He admitted that they have spent all the money received in spite of the fact that some 145,000 GSM applications remain unfinalised.

Have you studied much in the way of economics Gill, financing, government budgeting, revenue and expenditure and the like?

For if so you'd know that whilst governement departments do have budgets it is the Treasurey department and treasurey that is in charge of government revenue, budgetting to tun on deficit/surplus and how much is in the national piggy bank or how many empty ones are on the shelves with IOUs taped to them if you like.

It would seem that David also knows little about the topic to put out information like it has all been spent when in fact it goes into general revenue in the year it is received and likewise DIAC will have a budget for all years and visas still get processed no matter when the application was made and fees paid.

As RonnieRocket0 said in another post on Poms in Oz a couple of days ago, DIAC have helped themselves to an interest free loan of at least $175 million AUD from private individuals who do not have a right to live in Australia. They have no plans to repay this loan and no machinery for doing so, and as for interest on the one sided loan. forget it.

 

I suppose Rocket would want something like fee free visa applications with staff busily processing them and then fee sought at the end!

And what then re the costs for all those who get rejected for indomplete information, applying but not meeting eligibility requirements or merely changing their minds.

 

Do you think the hundreds of thousands each year in that category would then pay up on getting an invoice?

And so who do you think has to pay in that type of system Gill?

Tell you who - there'd be a levy on all successful applicants and so instead of $2525 you might have a fee nearer $5725!

Is that fair?

I think there would be many about who would rather the current system which is much like how most all level systems operate around the planet.

I'm so pleased we have less people like you and Rocket in charge of government services.

One way to trade out of recession is by swndling the Citizens of other countries, which is exactly what DIAC have been doing throughout 2009. It could be seen as a scam on a grand scale, knowing that the Government can hide behind the principle of soverign immunity to protect itself from attack by those who have been swindled and scammed. Swindle the people already living in Australia with Citizenship or visas which confer Permanent Residency if you must but do NOT swindle the Citizens of other countries as well is my message to DIAC this morning.

Gill, please do not be so naive to think this is a system that has been dreamt up just for this year and the GFC for think about it and review for yourself how it may make you seem.

DIAC have devised an excuse for the fact that the changes imposed since 1st Janiuary 2009 have operated retroactively. David Wilden told six of us in London that the Australian Government does not accept my contention that the changes have a retroactive effect. They are not retroactively operating changes in the Law because there have been no relevant alterations to the Migration Act 1958 in order to bring these 2009 changes about, so spake David Wilden. Weasel words from a Department which is acting like a weasel in my opinion. He and I agreed to differ on this point because he won't drop his stance and I won't drop mine.

 

I can understand you agreeing to disagree Gill, but at least you were allowed to contribute unlike another thread where you had a message about contributions and your intent each morning - I'll get your quote for you if you like.

But I've given my description of the barrel and outflow, adjustments to the flow etc.

Why do you not ask some of the PIOs how it has been for obtaining work, the ones who have returned or are planning to and then ask yourself what would be served with flood gates open in a time of rising unemployment.

Fairness: We are told that about 3,500 of the 145,000 or so unfinalised GSM visa applications are applications which fall within Priority Category 5 as described in the FAQ of 23rd September. Cat 5 contains applications for visas in subclasses 176, 475, 886 and 487. Some of the Cat 5 applications for sc 176 visas are now being processed because in some cases it is commercially expedient for DIAC to finalise them rather than accept justified and justifiable claims for refunds of money wasted by the applicants on obtaining medical reports and pccs on the instructions of DIAC staff members. David Wilden was told - and told us - that Cat 5 was to be approached in accordance with the date order of lodgement of the applications. That plan collapsed within hours of DW having been told that this would be the order of attack. DIAC then made a statement to the MIA which contradicts the advice provided to their colleague Mr Wilden.

 

And

Received by the MIA on 1st December 2009.

 

DIAC are not doing what that statement says, either. It has been modified by reference to whether or not a CO had adjudged the case to have been "finalised" before 23rd September. DIAC have not defined the term "finalised" in this context. If an application was "finalised" prior to 23rd September, why wasn't the visa granted prior to 23rd September as well? I think the Australian National Audit Office should send a team to Adelaide to investigate the working practices of the GSM visa processing section of the ASPC. Large savings could be made by avoiding allowing COs to save up "finalised" applications without either granting or refusing the applications/visas concerned.

 

Personally, I'd reckon it's a bit dopey to be wanting to castigate anyone over who said what to who when in actual fact all they are doing is proceeding with the priorities as set out in the 23/9 direction.

There are higher priority applications being handled and as spare time is available some of the lower priority ones will receive attention.

As to the mechanics of how it is done, be it they had been all but finalised and not moved on for final approval or were near finalisation, as previously they had worked on applications generally in order of receipt with variances for how complete applications were or not [and you have made specific comment on that aspect yourself], yes, it is certainly somewhat dopey to attempt splitting hairs on the approach.

It has become obvious from the several replies to PLEs that the ASPC are operating some sort of sifting mechanism even with the sc 176 applications alone. They have not described this mechanism, or how it works, to a soul outside of DIAC. I'm inclined to suggest a Freedom of Information Act request, addressed to David Edwards of the ASPC, requiring a coherent and factually accurate description of the sieve and an explanation of exactly how it is being used.

Gill, well you go for it if you really think it is the way forward.

Do you want an accounting for every minute of each team members time as well.

Think about what you have written elsewhere on the variation in standards of applications received and of course if you have things like medicals getting closer to expiry on some applications but an application is more ready [think more boxes ticked off if you like], there'll be some sifting/shuffling etc. but do not use any variance you see on PIO as a guide for what % of GSM applications for Australia do you think might ever be given light of day on PIO.

Transparency: As with DIAC's operation of the Health requirement for migration, the nuts and bolts of the parameters which DIAC are using in connection with this sieve are shrouded in opaciy. There is absolutely no transparency involved.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...ility/subs.htm

 

89 submissions to that Inquiry have been published so far. 99% of them are highly critical of DIAC's continuing adherence to the principle of avoiding transparency at all costs. The same is going on with the Cat 5 section of the GSM program in my view.

Have you ever womdered Gill, just how many submissions are ever made to any sort of an enquiry to say Oh what a great job you're doing!

Of course you'll always have submissions from people hoping for something better.

But as a person with legal experience I'd expect you'd know the old rule of you make a law for the masses and not for the exceptions - I suppose that's why you have solicitors.

As for DIAC and transparency, I'd agree that it would be ideal if medical considerations to be taken into account could occur up front so people would know if they would not meet requirements or not, but do you think it is not appropiate to have medical practitioners making decisions that DIAC abide by - the medical practitioners ought to have the expertise to do the decision making and how much more transparent do you want.

PS - I wonder how many opaque, unaccountable and inscrutable Aussie public servants are enjoying the charms and freebies on offer in Gropenhagen this week?

There's allegedly 90, more than double the UK contingent and about 88 or 89 too many as far as I'm concerned.

 

Chew some fat on it!

 

Cheers,

 

W.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIAC has today provided the MIA with the following statement:

“The Department is processing applications according to Ministerial Direction No. 42 - Order of consideration - certain Skilled Migration visas. The Department anticipates that a small number of State sponsored non-CSL applications will be finalised this program year. Finalisations will focus on applications where health and character checks have been requested by the case officer.”

 

 

[Guest kaps7]

All I wanna say is that "DIAC Don't Care About Us"

 

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

Beat me, hate me

You can never break me

Will me, thrill me

You can never kill me

Jew me, sue me

Everybody do me

Kick me, kike me

Don't you black or white me

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

Many Applicant has sold their home,

I have a wife and two children who love me

I am the victim of DIAC 23rd Sep rule, now

I'm tired of bein' the victim of update,

You're rapin' me of my pride

Oh, for God's sake

I look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy...

Set me free

 

Skin head, dead head

Everybody gone bad

trepidation, speculation

Everybody allegation

In the suite, on the news

Everybody dog food

black man,

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

Tell me what is the fault of dreaming

Am I invisible because Case Officer ignore me?

Your proclamation promised me visa processing, now

I'm tired of bein' the victim of unfavour update

They're delaying me in a mass with saying at end of 2012

I can't believe this visa processing is to late, I came

You know I do really hate to say it

The government don't wanna see

But if GOD was livin'

He wouldn't let this be, no, no

 

Skin head, dead head

Everybody gone bad

Situation, speculation

Everybody litigation

Beat me, bash me

You can never trash me

Hit me, kick me

You can never get me

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

Some things in life they just don't wanna see

But if GOD was livin'

He wouldn't let this be

 

Skin head, dead head

Everybody gone bad

Situation, segregation

Everybody allegation

In the suite, on the news

Everybody dog food

Kick me, strike me

Don't you wrong or right me

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

All I wanna say is that

DIAC don't really care about us

 

 

Thanks To Michael Jackson --- What a perfect song made for us...