Changes to MODL - 8 Feb 2010

[McKlaut]

It's obvious isnt it.. and what do you wanna bet he is going to use the proposed legislation to cap and cease trade occupations like hairdressing or cookery in the near future.. why else would he pretend to protect them with feb 8 changes when its obvious he wants to 'break the link between international students and permanent residency' - for trade occupations anyway

 

Because he wants to win a prise "Man of Mystery". )

 

I don't understand what was the need to introduce all this mess with CSL if he could have abondaned MODL, introduced new SOL, and implemented other 08/02/2010 measures back in December 2008?

 

Why to make so many contradictory changes for the last year if everything is going to return back to pre Dec. 2008 times except of MODL existence and new SOL?

Is Aus migration a laboratory and we are the mouses?

[Guest Gollywobbler]

If you go this document http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-news.htmand read page 41/42 of Legal and constitutional affairs it sounds very positive for building trades such as BRICKLAYERS AND CARPENTERS.

 

YAY:jiggy:

 

 

Hi there

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

I'm taking a more cautious view than you do at this stage.

 

Hansard has revealed that although 65,000 is roughly the number of GSM visas given in the table below, DIAC does not mean "65,000 GSM visa grants to main applicants." They mean, "65,000 visa grants to ALL the holders of GSM visas." This number could include Partners. dependent children, an elderly, dependent Granny who lives with the family etc.

 

Migration Program Statistics - Statistics - Publications, Research & Statistics

 

According to Hansard, it will work out at about 40,000 Grants to main visa applicants with the other 25,000 Grants going to the dependants.

 

So we only have a very small number of GSM visas each year according to Hansard. (I can't remember whether the Minister said 40,000 or whether it was a DIAC Officer. If it was one of the Officers then I would think that Mr Kukov is probably the one who let the cat out of the bag. DIAC have always guarded the secret of whether the figures mean "Main applicants only" or whether it means, "Total number of grants of the XYZ visa type" very closely.) However we are entitled to believe Hansard because it is illegal for anybody to tell lies to or to mislead the members of Senate.

 

According to the Minister in his radio interview of 13th November 2009, there was a backlog of about 145,000 applications (not people - the Minister was specific about this) as at mid-November 2009.

 

Immigration Minister responds to backlog concerns - The National Interest - 13 November 2009

 

However the latest Hansard is full of references by the Minister, claiming that he was holding about 170,000 GSM visa applications by 1st July 2009, the start of DIAC's current Program Year. The Hansards (both versions) are below:

 

ParlInfo - Title Details

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/12748/toc_pdf/7374-4.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf

 

There is no way that DIAC finalised 25,000 GSM visa applications between 1st July 2009 and the date of the radio interview on 13th November 2009. Out of the 40,000 GSM visa grants to main applicants, DIAC had probably processed 5,000 to 10,000 by then only.

 

So where did the Minister suddenly find an extra 20,000 applications from by 9th Feb 2010? Are DIAC so bloody careless that they suddenly found 20,000 visa applications that were missing in mid-November? Or did the Minister know - by mid-November - that there were about 170,000 GSM applications to start with but the Minister had plans to get rid of all 20,000 or so applications from before 1st September 2007? Which he has now done. If the Law allows him to get away with it, on 8th Feb 2010 he announced that he plans to dump either 20,000 applicaions or 20,000 people but it is not clear which is which.

 

If he could arbitrarily dump 20,000 in Feb 2010, he is not above dumping even more applications/people should he become irritated about the time it is taking to clear up the backlog.

 

The reference to Bricklayers was a reference to Professor Bob Birrell, I think. As far as I can remember, Birrell was the one who said that Australia had allowed 5,000 Hairdressers to migrate in earlier years but only 800 Brickies. The Minister repeated this claim in an earlier SEC Hansard.

 

Everyone else snorted. What is the source - the authority - for the 5,000/800 claim? Are these DIAC's figures or are they a figment of Birrell's imagination? Nobody knows because nobody has ever said where those figures come from.

 

Apparently if Skills Australia find that Oz is likely to have a shortage of Bricklyers in the future, Bricklayers are likely to be included in the new SOL. However the Minister says that he plans to amend the Migration Act in a way that will allow the Miinister to say:

 

"Out of the 40,000, I will accept 5,000 Nurses this year." Blah blah, down to, "And I will accept 100 Bricklayers." The DIAC information says tht once 100 Bricklayers have received visas, the Minister will use the "Cap & Kill" provisions with the remaining Bricklayers, just as he intends to do with the 20,000 who he says lodged GSM visa applications prior to 1st September 2007. Apparently anybody affected by the use of Cap & Kill will have their visa application charge paid to DIAC refunded but nothing else. There will be no refunds of Agents' fees, skills assessment fees, the cost of medicals etc because none of that either has been or will be money paid directly to DIAC.

 

The whole thing is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent, in my view. Who knows where it will end if the first bit gets off the ground?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest fat]

Hi there

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

I'm taking a more cautious view than you do at this stage.

 

Hansard has revealed that although 65,000 is roughly the number of GSM visas given in the table below, DIAC does not mean "65,000 GSM visa grants to main applicants." They mean, "65,000 visa grants to ALL the holders of GSM visas." This number could include Partners. dependent children, an elderly, dependent Granny who lives with the family etc.

 

Migration Program Statistics - Statistics - Publications, Research & Statistics

 

According to Hansard, it will work out at about 40,000 Grants to main visa applicants with the other 25,000 Grants going to the dependants.

 

So we only have a very small number of GSM visas each year according to Hansard. (I can't remember whether the Minister said 40,000 or whether it was a DIAC Officer. If it was one of the Officers then I would think that Mr Kukov is probably the one who let the cat out of the bag. DIAC have always guarded the secret of whether the figures mean "Main applicants only" or whether it means, "Total number of grants of the XYZ visa type" very closely.) However we are entitled to believe Hansard because it is illegal for anybody to tell lies to or to mislead the members of Senate.

 

According to the Minister in his radio interview of 13th November 2009, there was a backlog of about 145,000 applications (not people - the Minister was specific about this) as at mid-November 2009.

 

Immigration Minister responds to backlog concerns - The National Interest - 13 November 2009

 

However the latest Hansard is full of references by the Minister, claiming that he was holding about 170,000 GSM visa applications by 1st July 2009, the start of DIAC's current Program Year. The Hansards (both versions) are below:

 

ParlInfo - Title Details

 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/12748/toc_pdf/7374-4.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf

 

There is no way that DIAC finalised 25,000 GSM visa applications between 1st July 2009 and the date of the radio interview on 13th November 2009. Out of the 40,000 GSM visa grants to main applicants, DIAC had probably processed 5,000 to 10,000 by then only.

 

So where did the Minister suddenly find an extra 20,000 applications from by 9th Feb 2010? Are DIAC so bloody careless that they suddenly found 20,000 visa applications that were missing in mid-November? Or did the Minister know - by mid-November - that there were about 170,000 GSM applications to start with but the Minister had plans to get rid of all 20,000 or so applications from before 1st September 2007? Which he has now done. If the Law allows him to get away with it, on 8th Feb 2010 he announced that he plans to dump either 20,000 applicaions or 20,000 people but it is not clear which is which.

 

If he could arbitrarily dump 20,000 in Feb 2010, he is not above dumping even more applications/people should he become irritated about the time it is taking to clear up the backlog.

 

The reference to Bricklayers was a reference to Professor Bob Birrell, I think. As far as I can remember, Birrell was the one who said that Australia had allowed 5,000 Hairdressers to migrate in earlier years but only 800 Brickies. The Minister repeated this claim in an earlier SEC Hansard.

 

Everyone else snorted. What is the source - the authority - for the 5,000/800 claim? Are these DIAC's figures or are they a figment of Birrell's imagination? Nobody knows because nobody has ever said where those figures come from.

 

Apparently if Skills Australia find that Oz is likely to have a shortage of Bricklyers in the future, Bricklayers are likely to be included in the new SOL. However the Minister says that he plans to amend the Migration Act in a way that will allow the Miinister to say:

 

"Out of the 40,000, I will accept 5,000 Nurses this year." Blah blah, down to, "And I will accept 100 Bricklayers." The DIAC information says tht once 100 Bricklayers have received visas, the Minister will use the "Cap & Kill" provisions with the remaining Bricklayers, just as he intends to do with the 20,000 who he says lodged GSM visa applications prior to 1st September 2007. Apparently anybody affected by the use of Cap & Kill will have their visa application charge paid to DIAC refunded but nothing else. There will be no refunds of Agents' fees, skills assessment fees, the cost of medicals etc because none of that either has been or will be money paid directly to DIAC.

 

The whole thing is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent, in my view. Who knows where it will end if the first bit gets off the ground?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

Excellent Post

 

Thank You

[Guest June Pixie]

"Senator HANSON-YOUNG —What was the reasoning behind making the announcement yesterday? Why choose 8 February? Why is that significant?

Senator Chris Evans —It is not really significant, Senator, other than getting all the ducks in a row, basically. It was about us getting all the ducks in a row. There was no great external driver of the date. It was about being in a position to implement the decisions we had and to be ready to go. So it was just getting the internal ducks in a row, effectively."

 

I particularly liked this bit! Bit of a fun fair feel to the proceedings?

[McKlaut]

So where did the Minister suddenly find an extra 20,000 applications from by 9th Feb 2010? Are DIAC so bloody careless that they suddenly found 20,000 visa applications that were missing in mid-November? Or did the Minister know - by mid-November - that there were about 170,000 GSM applications to start with but the Minister had plans to get rid of all 20,000 or so applications from before 1st September 2007? Which he has now done. If the Law allows him to get away with it, on 8th Feb 2010 he announced that he plans to dump either 20,000 applicaions or 20,000 people but it is not clear which is which.

 

Gill,

 

According to the minster statement 20000 capped and each application costs about 1500 to 2000AUD and it will amount to 14 mln AUD = about 8300 applications (plus minus several hundreds).

 

 

Apparently if Skills Australia find that Oz is likely to have a shortage of Bricklyers in the future, Bricklayers are likely to be included in the new SOL. However the Minister says that he plans to amend the Migration Act in a way that will allow the Miinister to say:

 

"Out of the 40,000, I will accept 5,000 Nurses this year." Blah blah, down to, "And I will accept 100 Bricklayers." The DIAC information says tht once 100 Bricklayers have received visas, the Minister will use the "Cap & Kill" provisions with the remaining Bricklayers, just as he intends to do with the 20,000 who he says lodged GSM visa applications prior to 1st September 2007. Apparently anybody affected by the use of Cap & Kill will have their visa application charge paid to DIAC refunded but nothing else. There will be no refunds of Agents' fees, skills assessment fees, the cost of medicals etc because none of that either has been or will be money paid directly to DIAC.

 

The whole thing is an EXTREMELY dangerous precedent, in my view. Who knows where it will end if the first bit gets off the ground?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Than it would be called as "bloody Australian migration" and the minister will be "Migration killer".

 

I personally would not bother with all this and change my plans for other countries with more respectful attitude towards migrants.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

"Senator HANSON-YOUNG —What was the reasoning behind making the announcement yesterday? Why choose 8 February? Why is that significant?

Senator Chris Evans —It is not really significant, Senator, other than getting all the ducks in a row, basically. It was about us getting all the ducks in a row. There was no great external driver of the date. It was about being in a position to implement the decisions we had and to be ready to go. So it was just getting the internal ducks in a row, effectively."

 

I particularly liked this bit! Bit of a fun fair feel to the proceedings?

 

Hi June

 

I read what Senator Sarah Hanson-Young had to say and I wish I had stayed up to watch her in action. I thought she was excellent.

 

There was one bit where the Minister burbled that according to the Green Party... Senator Hanson-Young told him incredulously, "You mean that you listen to the Greens, Minister???!!!!"

 

It transpires that she is a Green:

 

Sarah Hanson-Young - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Jamie Smith]

"Senator HANSON-YOUNG —What was the reasoning behind making the announcement yesterday? Why choose 8 February? Why is that significant?

Senator Chris Evans —It is not really significant, Senator, other than getting all the ducks in a row, basically. It was about us getting all the ducks in a row. There was no great external driver of the date. It was about being in a position to implement the decisions we had and to be ready to go. So it was just getting the internal ducks in a row, effectively."

 

I particularly liked this bit! Bit of a fun fair feel to the proceedings?

Hmmmm

 

DIAC and this particular Minister always do something for a reason even when they get it wrong.

 

My guess is that they were running out of CAT 5 and had to make a decision about moving to the larger Cat 6, but didn't want to be seen to be letting in those "less wanted" just before the up shift changes were to take effect.

 

Plus, some of the changes introduced have the effect of stopping applications for some visa categories, and the Minister is trying to reduce the inflow.

 

I guess those were his ducks, but he would never talk publicly in that way. It would actually be a good thing if he did. Would make him seem less of political slippery eel in how he goes about his business.

[Guest June Pixie]

Yes Gill, I thought what she had to imput what very interesting, in particular:

 

"Senator HANSON-YOUNG —Is not necessarily the students who come to Australia on a student visa, study the course based on a list that Australia suggested was a skill of demand and then apply to stay here and work, because that skill is apparently in demand. They are not rorting the system.

Senator Chris Evans —No.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG —It is just bad policy.

Senator Chris Evans —There are two points. Firstly, I do not think you should make a decision to study based on a list of migration occupations. You should make a decision to study based on your interest, your capacities and the trade or occupation in which you want to work. Secondly, the major problem we are confronting is that people were completing courses and applying for permanent residency but never actually working in that skill. So it has not mattered how many accountants we have brought in—and we have brought in 40,000 in the last five years—we still have a shortage of accountants. One would have thought that, if we had brought in 40,000—we totally skewed the program towards accountants—we would have solved our employment problem with accountants—but no. We brought in people who did not have the English language skills or who were not seen by employers as being suitable to be employed as accountants. It is the same with the cooking. We have brought in thousands of cooks but none of them work as cooks".

 

And, in fairness to Senator Evans -- He has a valid point too!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hmmmm

 

DIAC and this particular Minister always do something for a reason even when they get it wrong.

 

My guess is that they were running out of CAT 5 and had to make a decision about moving to the larger Cat 6, but didn't want to be seen to be letting in those "less wanted" just before the up shift changes were to take effect.

 

Plus, some of the changes introduced have the effect of stopping applications for some visa categories, and the Minister is trying to reduce the inflow.

 

I guess those were his ducks, but he would never talk publicly in that way. It would actually be a good thing if he did. Would make him seem less of political slippery eel in how he goes about his business.

 

Hi Jamie

 

I agree with you. The Minister's excuse for getting rid of 20,000 applicants is that if they have been waiting for 2.5 years+ ,then it is better to put them out of their misery quickly.

 

Yeah, and the other one has bells on. Why have they been kept waiting for so long?

 

Nearly all of them are from HR countries and according to the Minister, even the new system in force since 1st Sept 2007 has not been stringent enough. The pre-September 2007 was even less stringent according to the Minister.

 

These are the only reasons why the 20,000 have been sent to the back of every queue devised by Minister Evans. It is his way of undoing previous Parliamentary decisions which he now says he never did like.

 

Weasel. He didn't care at the time. He only cares now because dealing with the huge backlog is irksome to him.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest ehunt]

From reading this I just wondered if someone could clarify what the changes mean to someone in our position. We applied for a 175 in october last year, CO was assigned in January 2010, had medicals as requested 08.02.10, which I am told were fine. We are just waiting for the police check certificates to come back. Then they will be attached. Will the new changes affect our application? Thanks

[virtual_bajwa]

Following GSM applications are exempt from Direction 45

· applications that have been remitted by the Migration Review Tribunal

for reconsideration;

· applications where it is readily apparent that the criteria for grant

of the visa would not be satisfied;

· applications by members of the family unit of a person who holds a

temporary or provisional GSM visa (subsequent entrant applications).

· visa applications for a Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa where the applicant holds a Skilled – Independent Regional

(Provisional) Subclass 495 visa, Skilled – Designated Area-sponsored

(Provisional) Subclass 496 visa, Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa or Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 475 visa at the time they

apply. [/Quote]

 

The following GSM visa subclasses are exempt from the priority processing

provisions specified in Direction 45:

· Skilled – Recognised Graduate Subclass 476

· Skilled – Graduate Subclass 485

· Skilled – Designated Area – Sponsored (Residence) Subclass 883

· Skilled – Regional Subclass 887. [/Quote]

 

Well, guys all the applications related to the 496 are exempted from the priority processing and Cap and Kill policy ,then Why can not they exempt the application of (Provisional) Subclass 496 visa, Skilled – Designated Area-sponsored. This all policy is out of my mind. By the way, there are very few applicants left in this category before September 2007.

__________________

[Graemsay]

This is a reply for the likes of Ehunt, who are wondering whether visas are being processed.

 

I was granted a 175 visa on Tuesday, immediately after the announcements. I've got exactly 120 points, and am in priority category 4 (unsponsored CSL), so I didn't lose the extra 15 MODL points, which was a relief.

 

DIAC are still handing out visas, and if you've got one lodged then Monday's changes won't affect you. So stop panicking. :wink:

[Guest bilaln30]

From reading this I just wondered if someone could clarify what the changes mean to someone in our position. We applied for a 175 in october last year, CO was assigned in January 2010, had medicals as requested 08.02.10, which I am told were fine. We are just waiting for the police check certificates to come back. Then they will be attached. Will the new changes affect our application? Thanks

 

 

I dont think that you have been affected. Just go ahead and get ur PCC uploaded.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

From reading this I just wondered if someone could clarify what the changes mean to someone in our position. We applied for a 175 in october last year, CO was assigned in January 2010, had medicals as requested 08.02.10, which I am told were fine. We are just waiting for the police check certificates to come back. Then they will be attached. Will the new changes affect our application? Thanks

 

 

Hi ehunt

 

Your occupation is on the CSL so your application will proceed perfectly normally and you should get a visa grant reasonably soon.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest jains005]

this is an automated reply got from ASPC

 

"The following GSM applications are exempt from Direction 45

 

· applications that have been remitted by the Migration Review Tribunal

for reconsideration;

· applications where it is readily apparent that the criteria for grant

of the visa would not be satisfied;

· applications by members of the family unit of a person who holds a

temporary or provisional GSM visa (subsequent entrant applications).

· visa applications for a Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa where the applicant holds a Skilled – Independent Regional

(Provisional) Subclass 495 visa, Skilled – Designated Area-sponsored

(Provisional) Subclass 496 visa, Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa or Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 475 visa at the time they

apply."

any idea what direction 45 is?

[matjones]

There was one bit where the Minister burbled that according to the Green Party... Senator Hanson-Young told him incredulously, "You mean that you listen to the Greens, Minister???!!!!"

 

She really is quite a firecracker... i was quite surprised to see such a young,vibrant lady up there, dressed rather casually... something that would never be found in the US political system. Can't believe she is only 29.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

this is an automated reply got from ASPC

 

"The following GSM applications are exempt from Direction 45

 

· applications that have been remitted by the Migration Review Tribunal

for reconsideration;

· applications where it is readily apparent that the criteria for grant

of the visa would not be satisfied;

· applications by members of the family unit of a person who holds a

temporary or provisional GSM visa (subsequent entrant applications).

· visa applications for a Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa where the applicant holds a Skilled – Independent Regional

(Provisional) Subclass 495 visa, Skilled – Designated Area-sponsored

(Provisional) Subclass 496 visa, Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 487

visa or Skilled – Regional Sponsored Subclass 475 visa at the time they

apply."

 

any idea what direction 45 is?

 

 

 

Hi Jains

 

Direction 45 is the Minister's newest plan for processing priority, unveiled on 8th February 2010.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest jains005]

thanks Gill, it's written "Direction No. 45 - Order of consideration - certain skilled migration

visas". and 475 is one among the exempted visa subclasses from it. any major difference compared to other subclass such as 176?

 

Jains

[Guest Gollywobbler]

thanks Gill, it's written "Direction No. 45 - Order of consideration - certain skilled migration

visas". and 475 is one among the exempted visa subclasses from it. any major difference compared to other subclass such as 176?

 

Jains

 

 

Hi Jains

 

The main applicant for a subclass 475 visa is NOT exempt from Ministerial Direction 45.

 

The only exempted applications are the ones where the sc 475 visa has already been granted - to the main applicant in the family on his/her own. Once the sc 475 visa is granted, the family decide to add the main visa holder's spouse/partner and any children to the sc 475 visa. They will not be joining the main labour workforce in Oz (so far as DIAC are concerned) so there is no need to control the time when they might head for Australia.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[matjones]

Hi June

 

There was one bit where the Minister burbled that according to the Green Party... Senator Hanson-Young told him incredulously, "You mean that you listen to the Greens, Minister???!!!!"

 

 

Here's the actual exchange...

 

Senator Chris Evans—Senator, I will get the officer to take you through it, but the point I was making is that, first of all, we have about 400,000 students in country already and the numbers in the voc ed sector were growing exponentially. If you look at the net overseas migration figures, and there has been some debate about the population issue recently, you see that the largest driver of those increases, net overseas migration numbers, are in fact student arrivals—because they stay for more than one year, they are counted in the net overseas migration. So the whole debate is in party being driven by the large numbers of student arrivals. I used the word ‘flooded’ because you have to put it in relation to our annual programs. We have the potential of having four, five or six years worth of students with an expectation and a right, if you like, to become permanent migrants to this country—that is, five or six times the annual program. If you followed that to the logical conclusion, you could have a situation where, for the next five or six years, all we take as permanent migrants are overseas students, most of whom have qualifications in cooking and hairdressing. That would not be a legitmate migration outcome. So something had to be done.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG—That is not necessarily correct, though, is it? We do have a set intake under that criteria.

Senator Chris Evans—Yes.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG—So just because an extra 40,000 people apply, it does not mean that that 40,000 people are given entry.

Senator Chris Evans—No, but because they have been accepted, they remain in country waiting for a visa. Even worse, they—

Senator HANSON-YOUNG—So they are overstayers then.

Senator Chris Evans—No, they are not overstayers—that is the point—they are legally here. They may not get through the program but they are actually in country. They are legal but their situation is unresolved. They have work rights and they are here. It is an unhappy circumstance for them and not a desirable outcome.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG—I take your point. I do not necessarily disagree that things had to be changed. the Greens called for a review of the list some 12 months ago.

Senator Chris Evans—Well, I listened and acted.

CHAIR—You always listen to the Greens do you, Minister?

Senator HANSON-YOUNG—I wish you would listen a bit more.

CHAIR—We will make a note of that.

 

[Guest ehunt]

Thats good, think I just needed the reassurance. All comments gratefully received!

[Guest andy crawley]

hopefully evans will be back to being tea boy!!!!

 

Andy

[Guest bilaln30]

any idea what direction 45 is?

 

The first three lines of the same email tells u what is Direction 45. The directions of minister on 8 Feb are Direction 45.

[Guest auzzycrazzy]

I think from July 2010 the systerm will work the next way:

 

1. ENS

2. State sponsored

3. Independent applicants included in new SOL.

 

That's all. Simple and clear.

 

The minister has always wanted to limit unsponsored applicants, so it's logical to put them at the end of the queue. It's also illogical to put SS applicants back after unsponsored. However, states will have to approve their lists with the minister.

 

New SOL will be very short so it means cat. 3 will be short too.

 

The question is what is going to happen with existing cat.5 SS applicants and todays independent 175? How will they be treated. It is possible that those who are not included in approved States lists and without SS will temporary make a queue number 4 and 5 untill they vanish.

 

I also have a big question: are there among 20000 unlucky once those who have state sponsoship on hands? I want to know is the minister so brave that he igores states decision to take an applicant or did he cap only unsponsored people. It will set a patern for the future.

What about family sponsored? what's going to happened to them they are also sponsored applicants

 

i don't see much speculations about this category

[Carlos fandango]

What about family sponsored? what's going to happened to them they are also sponsored applicants

 

i don't see much speculations about this category

 

I think McKlaut's suggestions make sense, trying to look at it from Australia's perspective. Seems to me they want people who are not only fully trained and qualified in their field but also to either have a job to move to, employer sponsored, or be in demand by the state they intend to move to, state sponsored.

Using this thinking I would guess the government see family sponsored as no better than an independant 175 visa, where by although you still need to have a skill, your not bound to have a job waiting or be under a state's occupation list.

Don't mean to pee on any ones bonfire, its just my thoughts, like I said before, the DIAC are a law unto themselves and will probably do just what they want.

 

Cheers

 

Carl