Changes to MODL - 8 Feb 2010

[McKlaut]

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

 

Yes. I think so too.

Due to the reasons mentioned by Carl family sponsored applicants will share their priority with unsposored ones.

[Guest auzzycrazzy]

Yes. I think so too.

Due to the reasons mentioned by Carl family sponsored applicants will share their priority with unsposored ones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

 

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.

__________________

Regards, Jamie Smith

Job Search www.hireamigrant.com, Business Plans www.statesponsorship.com.au

Google Map UK migration agents

 

 

After seeing the above post from Jamie, I had some hope, but you never can predict anything because it's australian migration

[McKlaut]

After seeing the above post from Jamie, I had some hope, but you never can predict anything because it's australian migration

 

Golden words! :wink:

 

I personally think that the minister is doing the right thing by decoupling education and migration because it is the route to no where.

 

However, the way he does it shakes the system not less than the problem itself. All these non-stopping retroactive changes, bloody cappings etc. He is like a business partner that you cannot trust. Every deal needs transparancy and clear, stable rules. Today, Aus migration doesn't have both.

[Guest Kangaroo]

Peter Mares analyses the latest changes to Australia’s migration program:

From queue to pool: skilled migration gets a makeover | Inside Story

[virtual_bajwa]

Peter Mares has come forward with an interesting piece in the online magazine Inside Story: From queue to pool: skilled migration gets a makeover | Inside Story'

 

Some interesting comments:

 

Stripped of the department’s convoluted language, Senator Evans’s most dramatic act has been to scrap the Migration Occupation in Demand List. Created in 1999, MODL was a list of occupations deemed to be in short supply in Australia by the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations. Aspiring migrants with qualifications and experience in the occupations on the list would score extra points in the migration points test, and this could swing the balance their way in determining whether or not they qualified for permanent residency.

The minister was convinced that the MODL had been compromised. He and his department saw it less as an evidence-based evaluation of skills shortages in the economy than as an expression of successful lobbying efforts by businesses to advance their own interests. Evidence for this view can be seen in the way the MODL has expanded over time, from fewer than thirty occupations in 2004 to more than a hundred in 2009.

 

Cheers,

 

 

George Lombard

 

Referring to the first paragraph in the "Inside story by Peter Mares", (Family and humanitarian migration are not affected by the changes.)

 

I want to know which family are they talking about.What is the definition of family according the DIAC ?

[Guest sagar]

THE CHANGES announced and implemented on Monday by the immigration minister, Chris Evans, constitute the most fundamental reform of Australia’s skilled migration program in more than two decades. Senator Evans has not only addressed an immediate and thorny issue – the problematic link between permanent migration and the marketing of Australian education – he has also signalled a major rethinking of the how Australia selects skilled migrants for permanent residency. (Family and humanitarian migration are not affected by the changes.) There will be a great deal of pain for some organisations and for many individuals as a result, and the full consequences will take many years to be felt. Some pressing problems remain – most notably the blow-out in processing times for non-priority visa applications already in the system – but the attempt to shift policy onto a new footing is driven by a strong and defensible rationale. Politically, the changes enable Senator Evans to portray the government as “taking back control of immigration” (though from whom he does not say), a useful message in an election year when “population” is emerging as an issue. But this is not poll-driven policy. The changes are the result of reviews, underway within the immigration department for months, which have prompted fresh thinking and provoked intense debate within the bureaucracy and within cabinet. The outcome represents a significant victory for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship over the much bigger and generally more powerful Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. When the policy was contested in Canberra corridors, the heavyweight departments of Treasury, Finance and Prime Minister and Cabinet all came down on Immigration’s side.

The changes confirm and entrench a shift from a “supply-driven” to a “demand-driven” migration program. In other words, rather than migrants volunteering themselves to be future residents of Australia, Senator Evans is building a system in which employers, including state and territory governments, select and sponsor the migrants that they think they will need. This is a significant refinement of the bias towards skilled migration that has characterised Australian policy since the late 1980s. It is probably the most far-reaching change since the Hawke government implemented major recommendations of the 1988 FitzGerald rep..........................

 

From queue to pool: skilled migration gets a makeover | Inside Story

 

 

What it means ( (Family and humanitarian migration are not affected by the changes.)

 

 

 

Please tell the meaning.....

 

 

Thanks

SAGAR

[Guest sagar]

What will happen to 475 SS non CSL...Cat 5 applicants...

Can anybody tell....

So Worried....?

 

 

Thanks

SAGAR

[Guest bilaln30]

MIA Press release about 8 Feb, Legislation

MIGRATION PROGRAM STILL UNCERTAIN

The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) congratulates the Minister on a long-overdue overhaul of the migration system, but says yet-to-be-announced policy will have major implications for current and prospective visa applicants.

“We sympathise with the 20,000 people who have had their applications cancelled as they are sure to be disappointed. They do, however, have some measure of certainty, which is something that current international students and those already in the migration pipeline and affected by priority processing don’t have” said CEO Maurene Horder.

The MIA sees improvements coming from this new migration process and welcomes a closer matching of skills and employment outcomes. However, the MIA waits with interest to see the new Skilled Occupation List (SOL), due for release in April, and the points test review.

“As long as these details are unknown, current and potential applicants are in the dark about Australia’s migration requirements. Applicants still only have vague government information to use when making lifechanging decisions.”

A range of unregistered agents on and offshore as well as education institutions took advantage of the clear pathway that government had legislated for people who satisfied Australian study requirements.

“It’s disappointing that the Minister is trying to use migration agents as a scapegoat when problems with the migration system were actually caused by governments and not by migration agents.” said Ms Horder.

The MIA agrees that skilled migration is vital for Australia’s future prosperity and urges it to make the immigration process as clear and fair as possible for those wishing to live, work and study in Australia.

Available for Interview:

Maurene Horder, Chief Executive Officer

[Guest bilaln30]

What will happen to 475 SS non CSL...Cat 5 applicants...

Can anybody tell....

So Worried....?

 

 

Thanks

SAGAR

 

What all I can hope and say that Sagar Nothing will change for Cat 5. We are all in the same boat so dont worry u are not alone.

 

Cheers and be happy

Bilal

[Guest sagar]

What all I can hope and say that Sagar Nothing will change for Cat 5. We are all in the same boat so dont worry u are not alone.

 

Cheers and be happy

Bilal

 

Thanks dear for support..

 

But Don't u think that All cat 5 Non CSL SS 3500 applicants can be given visa before April 2010 i.e. prior to announcement of SOL etc...

So that this can give relief to the applicants which Minister has given in Nov-Dec 2009.

 

More over when the states will give their list to DIAC they must add the sponsor categories in the list which they sponsored the applicants in last 2-3 years...

 

Moreover what is the fault of State Sponsored applicants....

I exactly remember that in May 2009 the minister gave new directions and then he gave 2nd priority to State sponsored applicants

3rd to CSL

 

but in Sep 09 He created a different line...

by giving

2nd priority State sponsored with CSL

and 5th priority to State Sponsored NON CSL

 

This is not good..

What is the fault of 475 Cat 5 Non CSL applicants...

 

Minister must give order to CO's to finalise the all 3500 cases within next 2 months where Med's and Pcc are finalized ( though meds and Pcc are uploaded or demand) before April.....

As there is no fault of waiting applicants ...and which are state sponsored...

 

I hope Gill :hug:and all other Forum members will raise this issue...

Isn't is dear Gill...?

 

Hoping immediate Visa for ME and all

 

O GOD ...Help us soon.......:laugh:

 

Thanks

SAGAR...........

[Guest VickyMel]

MIA Press release about 8 Feb, Legislation

MIGRATION PROGRAM STILL UNCERTAIN

“We sympathise with the 20,000 people who have had their applications cancelled as they are sure to be disappointed. They do, however, have some measure of certainty, which is something that current international students and those already in the migration pipeline and affected by priority processing don’t have” said CEO Maurene Horder.

 

I think it is a pity that the government have not offered anyone who applied say over 2 years previously the opportunity to cancel their Visas and get a refund.

Rather than having to wait 3 years to be kicked out (if they are going to bring in a rolling cut off time).

It would serve the purpooses if the Australia and government in reducing the number of applications and needlessly processing applications where the applicant can no longer migrate. But more importantly it would put a little more faith and goodwill in the process, many peoples lives and circumstances have completely changed in a period of 2 years. They probably applied in good faith at the time with a reasonable expectation of a processing timeline shorter than this.

If they are no longer in the Australian target group of applicants and can't jump through the new hoops then they should be able to request a refund from DIAC. Any costs incurred by DIAC at that time (and I suspect they would be minimal if the application is sitting on a computer somewhere and has not had human attention) will surely be well covered by the interest gained by DIAC on the application fees of these people.

 

VickyMel

[virtual_bajwa]

I think it is a pity that the government have not offered anyone who applied say over 2 years previously the opportunity to cancel their Visas and get a refund.

Rather than having to wait 3 years to be kicked out (if they are going to bring in a rolling cut off time).

It would serve the purpooses if the Australia and government in reducing the number of applications and needlessly processing applications where the applicant can no longer migrate. But more importantly it would put a little more faith and goodwill in the process, many peoples lives and circumstances have completely changed in a period of 2 years. They probably applied in good faith at the time with a reasonable expectation of a processing timeline shorter than this.

If they are no longer in the Australian target group of applicants and can't jump through the new hoops then they should be able to request a refund from DIAC. Any costs incurred by DIAC at that time (and I suspect they would be minimal if the application is sitting on a computer somewhere and has not had human attention) will surely be well covered by the interest gained by DIAC on the application fees of these people.

 

VickyMel

Yes Vicky ,

Very good point made by you specially this one

he application is sitting on a computer somewhere and has not had human attention) will surely be well covered by the interest gained by DIAC on the application fees of these people. [/Quote].

No body in this forum picked up this point that what would be the interest amount on 18 Million?There is a big question mark. But who will raise this question parliament. Till date nobody from opposition bothered to raise this suffering of 20,000 people who do not have any fault of their.

[McKlaut]

Minister must give order to CO's to finalise the all 3500 cases within next 2 months where Med's and Pcc are finalized ( though meds and Pcc are uploaded or demand) before April.....

As there is no fault of waiting applicants ...and which are state sponsored...

 

I hope Gill :hug:and all other Forum members will raise this issue...

Isn't is dear Gill...?

 

Hoping immediate Visa for ME and all

 

O GOD ...Help us soon.......:laugh:

 

Thanks

SAGAR...........

 

I wish he does. But I don't think cat/5 applicants are his main daily worry. In fact, 23/09/2009 changes showed it might be his least one.

 

Moreover, to do this he must also give the order to other agencies like ASIO to speed their checks like he did in relation to certain refugees.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi McKlaut

 

Moreover, to do this he must also give the order to other agencies like ASIO to speed their checks like he did in relation to certain refugees.

 

I completely agree.

As far as I can gather, Australia has had a deliberate (and secret) policy of excluding applicants from HR countries ever since Krudd got into power in late 2007.

I think that Krudd's Secret Agenda is a return to the White Australia policy without saying so, and that by "white" they mean "British" if the truth is told about this.

British applicants for Aussie visas do not get mucked and f***ed about by the Aussies, frankly. Kazzarazza on here is the only person that I know of whose daughter has been caught up in the recent Aussie attempts at Social Engineering, got up by the unqualified-for-the-job Aussie Minister for Immi.

I know of two cases where the ASPC is simply NOT telling the same story as the offshore people whom the ASPC have blamed - in writing. The applicants contacted the people whom the ASPC claim are the culprits. One of the "culprits" responded to the ASPC nearly a year ago. The other "culprit" has never been contacted by the ASPC.

So who is lying? Somebody clearly IS lying, after all?

I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the visa processing clerks have been given a series of people to process and in what order, and that they have been told what excuses to use with "the rest." "The rest" are nearly all applicants from HR countries.

A few are from LR countries, who were never intended to feel the pain in the first place. However, chuck a few of them in as well and it makes it easier to disguise what is really going on....

 

I strongly suspect.....

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

[McKlaut]

Hi McKlaut

 

I completely agree.

As far as I can gather, Australia has had a deliberate (and secret) policy of excluding applicants from HR countries ever since Krudd got into power in late 2007.

]Gill

 

[/color]

 

Gill,

 

I hope you're not right. As far as I can see people on russian forums get thier visas as usual. Of course, it's not the whole picture but should be taken into account.

 

On the other hand, I know another applicant from my own country whose case has been stuck in ASIO since August 2009 like mine. Interesting situation. We'll see who of us will be finalised by ASIO first.

 

The other fellow applicant was set for job verification which took Aus Moscow embassy about 6 month to be completed. Simple phone call - 6 month.

 

I should also say that an average score for different checks (especially job verifiacatin) has risen the recent years according to people who write on russian forums.

 

Thus, there is big possibility that applicants from HR countries are being considered with more scrutiny than before. Hope with no prejudice at least.

 

And one more point.

The mess with Aus migration was made by Aus government (not migrants) and resulted in influx of onshore applicants. BUT the minister decided to cut OFFSHORE ones. What is their guilt here? They didn't even cross the border?

[taylor20ro]

I think it is a pity that the government have not offered anyone who applied say over 2 years previously the opportunity to cancel their Visas and get a refund.

Rather than having to wait 3 years to be kicked out (if they are going to bring in a rolling cut off time).

It would serve the purpooses if the Australia and government in reducing the number of applications and needlessly processing applications where the applicant can no longer migrate. But more importantly it would put a little more faith and goodwill in the process, many peoples lives and circumstances have completely changed in a period of 2 years. They probably applied in good faith at the time with a reasonable expectation of a processing timeline shorter than this.

If they are no longer in the Australian target group of applicants and can't jump through the new hoops then they should be able to request a refund from DIAC. Any costs incurred by DIAC at that time (and I suspect they would be minimal if the application is sitting on a computer somewhere and has not had human attention) will surely be well covered by the interest gained by DIAC on the application fees of these people.

 

VickyMel

 

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Guest amitb]

Hi McKlaut

 

I completely agree.

 

As far as I can gather, Australia has had a deliberate (and secret) policy of excluding applicants from HR countries ever since Krudd got into power in late 2007.

 

I think that Krudd's Secret Agenda is a return to the White Australia policy without saying so, and that by "white" they mean "British" if the truth is told about this.

 

British applicants for Aussie visas do not get mucked and f***ed about by the Aussies, frankly. Kazzarazza on here is the only person that I know of whose daughter has been caught up in the recent Aussie attempts at Social Engineering, got up by the unqualified-for-the-job Aussie Minister for Immi.

 

I know of two cases where the ASPC is simply NOT telling the same story as the offshore people whom the ASPC have blamed - in writing. The applicants contacted the people whom the ASPC claim are the culprits. One of the "culprits" responded to the ASPC nearly a year ago. The other "culprit" has never been contacted by the ASPC.

 

So who is lying? Somebody clearly IS lying, after all?

 

I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the visa processing clerks have been given a series of people to process and in what order, and that they have been told what excuses to use with "the rest." "The rest" are nearly all applicants from HR countries.

 

A few are from LR countries, who were never intended to feel the pain in the first place. However, chuck a few of them in as well and it makes it easier to disguise what is really going on....

 

I strongly suspect.....

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

I agree that there is a secret policy given to CO's. In my case (and many many of my friends) 175 applied on Sept/ Aug 2008 from India-- CSL/MODL and CO assigned since march 09 there is apsolutely no reason for a delay. the CO's tells us that ur applications are in Queue!!! this is realy not fair... i see so many similiar cases on his forum who have aplied in 2009 an have recieved their visa... This is Sooooooooooooooooooooo unfair all our live have turned upsidedown bcoz of this delay.....

[McKlaut]

I agree that there is a secret policy given to CO's. In my case (and many many of my friends) 175 applied on Sept/ Aug 2008 from India-- CSL/MODL and CO assigned since march 09 there is apsolutely no reason for a delay. the CO's tell ur that we are in Queue!!! this is realy not fair...

 

If you think that it's a CO's matter not to finalise your case then you can make a complaint with the Ombudsman. He will inverstigate the situation and find the reason of delay.

[Guest amitb]

If you think that it's a CO's matter not to finalise your case than you can make a complaint with the Ombudsman. He will inverstigate the situation and find the reason of delay.

 

this is easier said than done... i am in india.. its a nightmare to follow up on such issues... more over i dont want to further jeopardize my application and stay in their bad books....

 

The point im making is that there is an unexplained/ intentional delay for applicants from a HR country ( after accounting for procedural delays) . And why so ? Because i have experienced it ( my papers are in order.. and all checks completed, gave a second copy of PCC as the preious expired ( PCC requested by CO in nov and submitted in early dec 09). the site says 15 months for my case. But Blo*dy hell it's 18+ months now

[sean and maureen]

I'm sorry for everyone that has been affected.

 

But seriously, just because you put an application in and paid the money, does not mean that you have an automatic right to come to Australia. All this talk about being so FURIOUS and going to SUE the Department, oh and the Secret Agenda is absolutely bol......k.'s.

 

Can nobody realise, that this is all being done to protect Australia and its citizens. We are supposedly still in a recession; we do have unemployment, why bring in migrants who could increase not decrease the unemployment...

 

We really do not want people who apply for a visa in a trade which is on the demand list, who then arrive here, and don't do their trade, what is the point. Skilled migration counts for nothing if migrants end up unemployed or in an unskilled job.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

If you think that it's a CO's matter not to finalise your case then you can make a complaint with the Ombudsman. He will inverstigate the situation and find the reason of delay.

 

Hi McKlaut

 

My experience (with gettng e-mails etc from visa applicants because I am not a visa applicant myself) does not tie in what what you say.

 

As far as I can gather, Visa Applicant (VA) complains to the Ombudsman. His office contacts the ASPC and he definitely does discover more than VA discovers by himself, for sure.

 

The Ombudsman then tells VA as follows: "According to the ASPC, your application has been referred to the Aussie Embassy in [whichever country.]"

 

Receiving that, the intelligent VA contacts the relevant Aussie Embassy. Who examine their own records. Their records reveal one of two things:

 

1. The ASPC has never contacted them in the first place, in spite of the ASPC's records claiming otherwise;

 

OR

 

2. The Embassy did receive a request about Bloggs but they replied to it ages ago and have not received any more enquiries about Bloggs ever since. The ASPC deny all knowledge of the receipt.

 

So is the ASPC's computer or Dfat's computer or the main DIAC computer hopeless? If so, why?

 

If the computers are not hopeless, then the ASPC's filing must be hopeless, it seems to me?

 

I've worked for the British Govt in the UK, as a Civil Servant (CS). Each CS is told, "Your e-mails are restricted to 500MB. We have to do this because it is very expensive to buy extra memory for a commercial system. If the incoming e-mail is that important, print it and file it. If it is not important then get rid of it before the lights start flashing to tell you that you are close to your 500MB."

 

The printing and filing does NOTHING towards saving any rain-forests, obviously. Plus EVERYTHING gets printed and filed, no matter how pointless or useless the content, because:

 

A. There could be a Freedom of Information Act request later;

 

AND

 

B. Ya never know! I've got to clear my in-box in order to stay within the limits set by IT. So I'll print almost every bluddy word because a Filing Twit will then file it all for me.

 

Presumably the Filing Twit likes filing? Only those who are completely without a brain cell can't figure out that stacks of filing is a waste of a rain-forest, is extremely boring to do anyway, gets NOWHERE NEAR the notion of saving any rain-forests either BUT - the IT boys insist that their computer won't change and therefore the rest of the paper-wasting rubbish must be done.

 

"Paperless Society?" My friggin' rear end! The Civil Service wastes more paper than anyone else can imagine, I assure you.

 

Paper is an organic matierial. No printer has ever been designed to worlk with less than the best.

 

The printers are fast, commercial, large printers. They stand on th floor, not on a desk. They work at Full Chat all day. They require the best-quality (ie brand new) paper because no-one will risk the printers packing up.

 

Rubbish paper might naff the printer up. So the printer people would claim, "No use complaining to us, chum. We said the best paper. You chose to use recycled paper of inferior quality in a bid to save money?????? Sure, we can probably mend the printer but to have us turn up at all will cost £x, Then there will be the cost of the parts plus the cost of the engneers' time to sort it all out."

 

In practice, you don't risk it. You just print everything on best-quality paper instead. And give it to the poorly-paid Filing Twit. Who might do it one day.

 

You cannot howl, "TODAY!!!!" Screams from the Boss might cause Workplace Related Stress for the Filing Twit. If that happens, it is Medical....

 

Etc, etc!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[McKlaut]

I'm sorry for everyone that has been affected.

 

But seriously, just because you put an application in and paid the money, does not mean that you have an automatic right to come to Australia. All this talk about being so FURIOUS and going to SUE the Department, oh and the Secret Agenda is absolutely bol......k.'s.

 

Can nobody realise, that this is all being done to protect Australia and its citizens. We are supposedly still in a recession; we do have unemployment, why bring in migrants who could increase not decrease the unemployment...

 

We really do not want people who apply for a visa in a trade which is on the demand list, who then arrive here, and don't do their trade, what is the point. Skilled migration counts for nothing if migrants end up unemployed or in an unskilled job.

 

Nobody ever said, except the minister himself, that after submitting a visa application migrants demad visa straight ahead or have a right to come to Aus. This is a "bol...k's" that is said by the minister only.

 

What do you know about recent years' retrospective changes uplied upon migrants? I guess a little.

 

We are not "boo... shi..t" slaves and Ausy are not those who buy us.

 

We made a fair deal with Aus migration department based on certain rules. Now those rules are no longer exist being abandoned by the department solely.

 

I'd like to see how you would feel in our shoes. The fact that we are not Aus citizens doesn't mean we don't have the right for fair treatment.

 

Once again: migrants are not slaves with not rights.

[Guest ozzyozzer]

Nobody ever said, except the minister himself, that after submitting a visa application migrants demad visa straight ahead or have a right to come to Aus. This is a "bol...k's" that is said by the minister only.

 

What do you know about recent years' retrospective changes uplied upon migrants? I guess a little.

 

We are not "boo... shi..t" slaves and Ausy are not those who buy us.

 

We made a fair deal with Aus migration department based on certain rules. Now those rules are no longer exist being abandoned by the department solely.

 

I'd like to see how you would feel in our shoes. The fact that we are not Aus citizens doesn't mean we don't have the right for fair treatment.

 

Once again: migrants are not slaves with not rights.

 

 

Good lord man.......stop throwing a blubber already.....take a deep breath and GROW UP YOU CRY BABY!!:arghh:

[sean and maureen]

Nobody ever said, except the minister himself, that after submitting a visa application migrants demad visa straight ahead or have a right to come to Aus. This is a "bol...k's" that is said by the minister only.

 

What do you know about recent years' retrospective changes uplied upon migrants? I guess a little.

 

We are not "boo... shi..t" slaves and Ausy are not those who buy us.

 

We made a fair deal with Aus migration department based on certain rules. Now those rules are no longer exist being abandoned by the department solely.

 

I'd like to see how you would feel in our shoes. The fact that we are not Aus citizens doesn't mean we don't have the right for fair treatment.

 

Once again: migrants are not slaves with not rights.

 

Eh, urgh, eh?

[cartertucker]

I'm sorry for everyone that has been affected.

 

But seriously, just because you put an application in and paid the money, does not mean that you have an automatic right to come to Australia. All this talk about being so FURIOUS and going to SUE the Department, oh and the Secret Agenda is absolutely bol......k.'s.

 

Can nobody realise, that this is all being done to protect Australia and its citizens. We are supposedly still in a recession; we do have unemployment, why bring in migrants who could increase not decrease the unemployment...

 

We really do not want people who apply for a visa in a trade which is on the demand list, who then arrive here, and don't do their trade, what is the point. Skilled migration counts for nothing if migrants end up unemployed or in an unskilled job.

 

I have, many a time said that I think its right that Australia are picky about who they let in, in fact back in 2008, when they were changing 'pathway E' (to stop unqualified tradesmen) I said the same thing, even though we were caught up in the whole thing

 

However what I dont agree with, is how its affecting all applications that are in the queue & have been for some time

 

Another point to note, is that, we do have State Sponsership, as Western Australia do need us....It said so on their list that we applied to many months ago....:idea:....We also have an employer very interested in hiring my Husband, however, as the ENS isnt that well known over there, they havent taken it up....:frown: