Future of migration for existing applicants

[Guest alansgirlfriend]

Hi all

Not been on line for a week or so and not heard anything from my agent. Have I missed something about trade workers ?

Don't think I could take any more bad news !

Seems all we've done is pay out money and in return, recieve bad news !

Lynn

[stevie ellis]

Hi all

Not been on line for a week or so and not heard anything from my agent. Have I missed something about trade workers ?

Don't think I could take any more bad news !

Seems all we've done is pay out money and in return, recieve bad news !

Lynn

Yep al second that

[Guest SimonB]

I hate to say it but it is all based on rumour and heresay..

[Guest Jamie Smith]

The numbers are not based on hearsay, and if you read the original post, we did say what was and was not speculation - that it IS 3500 visas and it IS the STNI non MODL kind, that it MIGHT exclude ASCO 4 and below, that it MIGHT be those who were most processed already.

[Guest Justin JIANG]

The numbers are not based on hearsay, and if you read the original post, we did say what was and was not speculation - that it IS 3500 visas and it IS the STNI non MODL kind, that it MIGHT exclude ASCO 4 and below, that it MIGHT be those who were most processed already.

 

well, nothing to comment. However, if the 3500 visas are only for NON-MODL kind and not include ASCO 4 and below, it would be another debacle on this issue. Personally think that DIAC would not exclude the tradies.

[Guest Bill_er_Bong]

Just to indicate what 3500 places might mean, these are the stats obtained from the ASPC at the MIA conference in early October:

 

State nominated with CSL, Unallocated 27, Allocated 720, Total 747

Family sponsored CSL, 1130, 279, 1409

All other CSL, 6335, 4289, 10624

All other State nominated, 3678, 0, 3678

MODL only, 12388, 0, 12388

Other, 15659, 0, 15659

Total, 39217, 5279, 44496

 

If we factor in the smaller numbers from the Brisbane Skilled Processing Centre and subtract the trades applicants, it seems most likely that every existing Category 5 applicant, and certainly those lodged prior to 23 September, will now be processed expeditiously. Assuming the rumour is confirmed, of course.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Hi George,

 

Thanks for this information here... I'm just wanting to verify that I've understood it correctly.

 

You quote:

 

"...All other State nominated, 3678, 0, 3678..."

 

... as in 3678 not allocated to a CO, Zero allocated to a CO, 3678 Total. Correct?

 

So am I right in believing that at that moment in October, there were 3678 Category 5 applicants? And the rumour is that 3500 of these will be processed?

 

Cheers

 

BB

[merlino]

"...All other State nominated, 3678, 0, 3678..."

 

... as in 3678 not allocated to a CO, Zero allocated to a CO, 3678 Total. Correct?

 

BB

 

 

Hi,

 

I think there should be some numbers in the CO allocated category, many of us have had COs allocated...

[Guest Bill_er_Bong]

Hi,

 

I think there should be some numbers in the CO allocated category, many of us have had COs allocated...

 

Hmmmm... yeah, I know what you mean. But post 23rd Sept, weren't the COs allocated to those applicants who then fell into Category 5 removed... ie no longer allocated?

[cartertucker]

Not been looking at these threads as much as I used to (which was far too much anyway!) Because we had some bad news about our wonderfull doggy......

 

:wideeyed:....But I have popped on tonite to have a read & get any updates & I must say that I am pleased to hear that there 'may' be some more positive news for us applicants in catergory 5....Especially those of us that were so very close

 

Wishing us all the very best of luck

[stevie ellis]

Not been looking at these threads as much as I used to (which was far too much anyway!) Because we had some bad news about our wonderfull doggy......

 

:wideeyed:....But I have popped on tonite to have a read & get any updates & I must say that I am pleased to hear that there 'may' be some more positive news for us applicants in catergory 5....Especially those of us that were so very close

 

Wishing us all the very best of luck

Hey missed your threads hope every thing OK with doggy?:hug: We to hope for good news cheers stevie

[merlino]

Hmmmm... yeah, I know what you mean. But post 23rd Sept, weren't the COs allocated to those applicants who then fell into Category 5 removed... ie no longer allocated?

 

Hi BB, I think the numbers quoted did not take into account de-allocation of COs. In another thread that he started, I recall Jamie making mention why 0 state-sponsored non-csl people were allocated COs in the matrix, but I just cannot remember exactly what the reason was. Taking that into consideration, I think we should use these numbers as a very rough indication of what's going on in the pipeline. You reckon?

[Guest Gollywobbler]

well, nothing to comment. However, if the 3500 visas are only for NON-MODL kind and not include ASCO 4 and below, it would be another debacle on this issue. Personally think that DIAC would not exclude the tradies.

 

Hi Justin

 

I agree with you 100%. I think there will be uproar if they try to exclude ASCO Group 4 tradies who already had COs and had done their meds etc on the instructions of their COs by the time the rug was suddenly pulled from under their feet on 23rd September.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[merlino]

I think before we speculate any further what might and might not happen with the 3500 or so spots, let's sit tight for official news from the horse's mouth. While that is happening, Gill and friends will be marching down to the Australian High Commission in London to hammer out key issues.

 

We're not going to sit in silence!

[tcillc]

I can understand the frustration of applicants who are left in limbo with no update from DIAC since Sept 23 changes. Senator Chris Evans et al. seems to be looking at just one side of the coin, i.e. downturn in Australian economy. MIA has recently submitted its comments on the recent changes to GSM that shows other side of the coin. I'm not sure if the submission by MIA has been discussed on this forum but the highlights are:

 

The current priority processing regime creates numerous serious problems:

 

1. Employability on Bridging Visas

2. Interruption and damage to careers.

3. Damage to Australia’s social fabric

4. Damage to Australia’s reputation

5. Australia’s skills shortages not being met - loss of quality applicants

6. Lives and plans damaged

7. Splitting Families

8. Clear advice about Australia’s GSM program is impossible

9. Distortion of Education and Migration Program

10. Unacceptable and unfair additional costs

11. Overseas Travel problems

12. Lodgement of Frivolous Applications

13. Loss of “Safety Net” for 457 holders

14. Risk of Further Retrospective Changes

 

Link to submission http://mia.org.au/media/File/091113_GSM_Submission_to_Minister__final.pdf

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi tcillc

 

Thanks for your post today.

 

I understand that the MIA has requested a meeting with the Minister for Immi. Hopefully either he will agree to meet some MIA reps himself or he will at least arrange for somebody very senior in DIAC - eg Peter Vardos - to attend such a meeting.

 

On the other side of the planet, a chap called David Wilden, based in London, has very kindly agreed to act as a liaison officer between applicants for GSM visas who are based in Europe, DIAC and the Australian Government. Mr Wilden is DIAC's Top Man in Europe, I gather.

 

A group of us are meeting with Mr Wilden tomorrow, all being well:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/73109-protest-visit-australia-house-update-11.html

 

When I spoke with Mr Wilden at length on the phone last week, I told him about the old flannel standard reply that Peter Speldewinde's staff are pushing out to any visa applicant who tries to contact Mr S. That is not good enough from DIAC when they have plunged the lives of at least 140,000 visa applicants into complete turmoil and uncertainty and say that they expect this uncertainty to last for at least 3 to 4 years. It is nowhere near good enough.

 

In the same way as Mr Wilden has volunteered to look after Europe-based applicants caught up in this mess, Mr W must have opposite numbers of himself in India, the PRC and elsewhere in Asia, I would think. Properly senior Officers, with authority to make decisions and whose opinions/comments and requests carry high level clout.

 

It is up to DIAC to follow Mr Wilden's example and to instruct all their Top People in the rest of the world to look after GSM applicants based outside Europe. It is also up to DIAC to appoint at least one Top Person in Australia to deal with the hassles which the 23 Sept changes have caused and will continue to cause for ex-Students who are now stuck in Australia on Bridging Visas for far longer than they or DIAC ever intended need be the case.

 

Communication has never been DIAC's strong suit. They prefer to treat visa applicants like mushrooms. That won't do. Not in this situation, when they have shifted the goalposts retro-actively on over 100,000 visa applicants. One of the most important things they need to put into place - promptly - is proper liaison arrangements, which duty is not discharged by a load of their most junior staff manning the phones in a call centre, bluntly.

 

I told Mr Wilden that I do not feel confident about trying to look after the onshore GSM applicants because I don't know anything about the practical hassles of trying to find work when one is on a Bridging Visa (and there are several different Bridging Visas, which might have differing work rights etc.) I told him that a senior Officer in Oz ought to be dealing with this range of issues, direct with the applicants affected by them. Mr Wilden agreed, so my next move tomorrow will be to press him for a name.

 

Fingers crossed.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest cat5]

No news yet?! Hmm.... still waiting for MIA's confirmation or perhaps DIAC's announcement. Guess we'll have to wait for another day and day and another one!

 

Cheers

[George Lombard]

A quick update is that nothing came out today except an indication that an official position will be given to th MIA when the policy wonks have thought through. Sadly there isn't a convenient policy.wonks@immi.gov.au address but hopefully the famous five, secret seven or 1001 knights will sort that out with Mr Wilden today....

 

Cheers

 

George Lombard

[Guest Mach]

Following on from what Gerge posted, here’s what I’ve found out this morning:

 

The “news” about the number of visas being granted and that the trades and 475s would be cut is speculation from our end. Until we hear anything to the contrary from DIAC, I wouldn’t fan the flames of doom.

 

However, the good news is a position is being formulated for the Cat 5s. But they are still fixing details and a great deal can still go pear shaped. Seeing as it all has to figure in with 2009/2010’s reduced intake, it seems that a cautious approach is advisable. Above all when meeting David today, we would do well to stick to established facts rather than trying to corner him with hearsay.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Following on from what Gerge posted, here’s what I’ve found out this morning:

 

The “news” about the number of visas being granted and that the trades and 475s would be cut is speculation from our end.

 

Yep, that's what was first said when the news broke. We said what was DIAC comment and what was being speculated on on our part.

[Guest Mach]

Yep, that's what was first said when the news broke. We said what was DIAC comment and what was being speculated on on our part.

 

That's right Jamie, thanks.

 

Loads has been speculated upon since, so I reckon the poor people on here needed reassuring that, as yet, DIAC has not come out and said anything about cutting any professions from an eventual solution.

 

All things considered, I see it as a massive plus that DIAC is looking at ways to shoehorn some Cat 5s into this year. I look forward to their policy statement to the MIA in due course.

[Guest mikeskinner1272]

Hi All

 

It is obvious that DIAC have lost the compass. They read Poms in Oz and they report to the Minister (whose own staff also read Poms in Oz.)

 

All of them, from the Minister downwards, are in zero doubt that the Ministerial Direction issued on 23rd September 2009 has gone down like a lead brick.

 

The clear demand from the majority of applicants is, "Give us what you promised us in the first place - as long ago as 17th December 2008 - or give us our money back and let us have done with this Australian nonsense once and for all."

 

DIAC do not have any machinery in place to enable them to provide refunds. They have thus proven that they are nothing like as well organised as the Canadian Government.

 

DIAC have no practical solutions to offer to the problem. They are simply clutching at straws, imagining that a few U-turns on policy and a bit of fiddling about with the edges might somehow produce a Miracle Cure. It won't. Miracles happen in parables. They do not happen in real life.

 

However lynching the architects of this mess will not sort it out either. The Australian Government does not have any viable ideas of its own for how to solve the problem.

 

Instead of beating up the culprits, the better way is to suggest concrete, viable solutions that the culprits can say "Yes" to.

 

The purpose of Glenn's new thread is to ask all the existing applicants to tell the Minister:

1. What you want him to do next; and

2. To couch that in concrete proposals which he can agree to.

 

Let us abandon the grumbling and start helping to solve the problem instead, with some constructive ideas of our own, please.

 

At the end of the day, the members of the public decide whether to move to Australia or not. All that Australia actually does is to issue the visa - the travel permit - to enable somebody to enter Australia and to start work once s/he gets there. They cannot force a visa holder to move to Australia. They abandoned that notion 150 years ago.

 

What solutions could you live with, please?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Hi Gill

 

After reading a few of these post an really understand the anger of the immigration system. State sponsorship for sure at this present time is well and truely dead in the water. I have recently been out to Oz for 5 weeks as a holiday come recci looking what to do next. I was amazed by the amount of work in Australia...NO RECESSION......I'm applying as a general plumber, my immigration company based in the UK advised me to go down the (RSMS) route. Regional Sponsor Migration Scheme.....basically try and find an employer to sponsor you. There are a few places you can't go to, like the main cities, but there is a page on the OZ immigration web site which tells you where in all states you can work. If you want the info, give me your e-mail add.

 

Eligible postcodes for the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme.

 

During my stay in NSW I sent out my cv with a cover letter and my qualifications, out of the 15 e-mails I sent I got 12 replies, with 9 of them offering to sponsor me, I was gob smacked. I spoke to the (RCB) Regional Certifying Body which deal with the RSMS to confirm that this company could sponsor me, they said 'yes' if all goes well the paper work will take 4/6 weeks ! ! ! ! ! ! Not months, WEEKS.....As I have already paid out all costs now, the only fee to the company sponsoring me was £180.00 to which I will pay.

If it doesn't go well for me, I'm going to get a 1/4 year work visa, im 37 and thought I'd be to old, but 'NO'......that is another avenue you can go down

 

Yes it did make a huge difference being out in OZ, but if you have the time and money, its well worth spending and going for a 2/3 week holiday. If all goes well I will be out in Oz by April 2010.....Not April 2013......Any questions please drop me a line...

 

Cheers.

 

Mike

[Guest Justin JIANG]

Hey All,

 

I just find that if the information is correct as referred to the new thread created on 1 Dec 2009----named SCREWTH-THAT WAS QUICK, a non-CSL, SS applicant has been granted a PR visa. However, we could see that his/her visa is not granted based on the date of lodgement while it's determined by the factor that he/she had been requested to provide the MEDS AND Penal Clearance. This is contradictory to what Dear Mr. Wilden (biggest boss in Europe for DIAC) has confirmed to the famous 5s attending the meeting in Australian House on 30 Nov 2009.

[mr luvpants]

We have a saying in the uk that goes something like this: Dont P#ss on someones parade!

 

JOHN

[McKlaut]

Hey All,

 

I just find that if the information is correct as referred to the new thread created on 1 Dec 2009----named SCREWTH-THAT WAS QUICK, a non-CSL, SS applicant has been granted a PR visa. However, we could see that his/her visa is not granted based on the date of lodgement while it's determined by the factor that he/she had been requested to provide the MEDS AND Penal Clearance. This is contradictory to what Dear Mr. Wilden (biggest boss in Europe for DIAC) has confirmed to the famous 5s attending the meeting in Australian House on 30 Nov 2009.

You're right.

There are some other orders of processing but not on the date of lodgement.

[Guest johnsonclan]

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