Changes to MODL - 8 Feb 2010

[Guest amitb]

What is your occupation ?

 

my occupation is C# in computers . its in CSL/ MODL ---:confused: application submitted in Sept since 2008..

[virtual_bajwa]

Dear Gill and POMs,

Hello!

 

 

 

I have written to all senators from Australia, Ombudsman and my concerned embassy in AUS. I am also seeking a tough Lawyer and contemplating action against DIAC. Here is the text I wrote to all Senators.....

 

 

 

This mail is in response regarding our migration application dated 27th August 2007 for a Skilled – Australian Citizen Sponsored (Subclass 138). I am an Education officer. The latest draconian legislative passed by the minister of Migration on 8th February 2010 has left us harassed and not worthy of a human being...

 

They have ceased our application after almost three (3) years of waiting without any reason of capping. He is willing to refund our application charge (VAC) after keeping us in a limbo for three years. First he amended the law on 23rd September 2009 and now he has completely disqualified our application. In this process he has used our money "People his Business" for the benefit of the ministry he heads and made fun of our lives and the amount of time, money, energy and ambitions we had.

 

After many changes and assurances he gave through his ministries web site (See attachments as proof)

Please find attachment “Medical” as proof of request for medical. Also find the attached herewith the “Acknowledgement of Receipt of Visa Application” letter in which it states clearly that the applicant can reduce the amount of time required to process the application by providing any outstanding requirements before the application is allotted to a case officer (See last couple of line on the scanned copy).

 

There is also an attachment with this acknowledgement which shows the progress / processing information regarding our paper based application Subclass 138. Also attached herewith (ASPC mail.doc ) is the mail received from his office on 9th February 2009 which states clearly that all applications prior to 1st September 2007 will be allotted to case officers by 20th March 2009. In the attachment of Medicals request the DIAC says that the applicant has 28 days to do his medicals and in DIAC scenario -- they took 30 months to decide that our applications are not accepted… This is totally inhuman. And what about the interest the DIAC and the ministry of Immigration earned on our application charge (VAC) of AUS $ 2060 since August 2007???

 

In the new legislation passed he says that no refunds will be there for the medicals, Assessment charge, English tests(IELTS) and Taking a MARA agent also costs a fortune. What about the interests on all the amount of VAC he had with him for the last three years. He takes 30 months to tell us that we cannot continue with your application because you are not worthy of our system. He must be joking. IS he? Or is “People his Business" his motto.

 

We filled our application under the rules of Migration prevalent at that time. My only other brother lives in Melbourne (VIC) and has been doing well and contributing to the economy since the last 8 years.

 

We believe that the Minister should take responsibility and demonstrate that his moral position is consistent, that it extends to cover the thousands of customers affected by his combined lack of action in managing the inflow of applications once the problem was brought to his attention. Setting limits and shaping migration program volumes was his job to do at the time they knew the inflow was changing. My family now suffers as a result of this lack of timely decision making. The late response and subsequent over-reaction to the rising inflow visas means we will now be ineligible to migrate. It is their job to help lift the unfair and discriminatory suspension of processing.

 

Therefore we request your good self to please consider the amount, energy and time spent in this process.

And if this is Law then we want compensation of the amount of mental harassment we have suffered because of this latest legislation. Please advise us how to proceed and also suggest us as to what legal action can be taken and this legislation challenged in the court of Law.

 

Best regards,

XXX

HI Babboo,

This is really painfull to hear that all the pre - September applicants have to face some tough song from Minister. This has been a long journey we went thru. So many bumby roads like 23 September 2009 changes and lot more before that. Even in my case I was told to submit the medical and PCC within 70 days which I did in just 30 days of time. Then on 03.09.09, I went thru a work verification on telephone. That was a very tough one hour verification, first with my employer and then with me. I was very happy after that verification that all went fine. But after 20 days they came up with 23 September 2009 changes.But I could not understand that they could give the decision during those 20 days, but rather they were waiting for the 8th Feb 2010 changes. 8 Feb. 2010 was one of black days for me and for my family.On the other hand, my brother who invested his 7 years in the economy of Australia by working day and night. Now even my brother is also very upset with this decision. He is going to be citizen of Australia next month and is going to have the voting right from next month.

Babboo, Like thousands other we are all in the same boat.But Australia is by no means a democratic state. You can not present your views openly they are only white dominated state.................

[Guest amitb]

HI Babboo,

This is really painfull to hear that all the pre - September applicants have to face some tough song from Minister. This has been a long journey we went thru. So many bumby roads like 23 September 2009 changes and lot more before that. Even in my case I was told to submit the medical and PCC within 70 days which I did in just 30 days of time. Then on 03.09.09, I went thru a work verification on telephone. That was a very tough one hour verification, first with my employer and then with me. I was very happy after that verification that all went fine. But after 20 days they came up with 23 September 2009 changes.But I could not understand that they could give the decision during those 20 days, but rather they were waiting for the 8th Feb 2010 changes. 8 Feb. 2010 was one of black days for me and for my family.On the other hand, my brother who invested his 7 years in the economy of Australia by working day and night. Now even my brother is also very upset with this decision. He is going to be citizen of Australia next month and is going to have the voting right from next month.

Babboo, Like thousands other we are all in the same boat.But Australia is by no means a democratic state. You can not present your views openly they are only white dominated state.................

 

i can't say i understand ur pain, however i hope things work out for you ( the 2007 applicants....)

Aust is a nice place to stay and the people are good... yes there are some rotten mangoes...( so what)

 

Hope is a wonderfull thing and i suggest u use it with a cool head.....this piece of legistlation will be revoked, because a) it's arbitary b) it's undemocratic ( bla bla u know the details)..c) its escapist

 

If each one of us complains and tries to change this ..... it will change.. thats the power of democracy.....write to the minister again and again... write to everyone...come on...thats the least we can do

[Guest shaman]

my occupation is C# in computers . its in CSL/ MODL ---:confused: application submitted in Sept since 2008..

 

Hay Mate, that terrible, I thought DIAC is agonizing only CAT 5 & 6, but it seems even Cat 2, is having the same problem.

 

I guess they told ", you are stuck with the external checks " :wink:

[Guest babboo]

Hi All

 

 

(4) Arbitrarily trying to scrub some 20,000 people off the New Aussie Agenda is right off the wall. It is NOT democratic to behave in that way and it MUST be stopped. The Minister MUST receive a short, sharp, thick ear for this via a legal challenge in the courts in Oz, which I understand is being organised as we speak.

 

Unless the Aussie Government is stopped in is tracks about this total DISGRACE, they will get the idea that it is OK to do it whenever they please. Cap & Kill will become a device to be used on every occasion, in the same spendthrift way that the Aussie Govt has chosen to try to use it this time.

 

Well Gill, Can you please introduce us (the 2007 applicants) with the people who are contemplating/ challenging action in the court of law against this inhuman treatment to prior 1st Sep. 2007 applicants so some of us might support them financially or with our case stories.

 

Thanks a lot...

[Guest amitb]

Hay Mate, that terrible, I thought DIAC is agonizing only CAT 5 & 6, but it seems even Cat 2, is having the same problem.

 

I guess they told ", you are stuck with the external checks " :wink:

 

Nope they didnt... ****** (4give me lord) say that my application needs to be reopened( DIAC jargon) .....:mad:i wish they go thru what i am going thru..:confused:

[virtual_bajwa]

i can't say i understand ur pain, however i hope things work out for you ( the 2007 applicants....)

Aust is a nice place to stay and the people are good... yes there are some rotten mangoes...( so what)

 

Hope is a wonderfull thing and i suggest u use it with a cool head.....this piece of legistlation will be revoked, because a) it's arbitary b) it's undemocratic ( bla bla u know the details)..c) its escapist

 

If each one of us complains and tries to change this ..... it will change.. thats the power of democracy.....write to the minister again and again... write to everyone...come on...thats the least we can do

 

Yes Amit,

I know there are some rotten mangoes. Then community from Australia should stand with immigrants and should oppose this anti-immigrant policy. Yes I can understand that there are some decisions which has to come. But there must be some thought out policy. It has been found that this decision is taken in just one or two days( specially decision against pre- September applicants. )Well Amit u just started ur journey so that is y ur saying that we should be calm. Well People like me were silent after DIAC gave us opportunity to apply.If this is a democracy, we must have the right to speak. Remember there is a law in India of Right to Information(RTI). Is there any kind of law there in Australia which could ask Australian authorities about this unlawful decision. Perhaps no, there is no such law there . So who said this is a Democracy. Yes I Love Australia. I luv Australia people . I luv Australia mountains. I luv Australia sea shores. I luv Australian land slides. That is why I chosen to immigrant to Australia with my family and contribute to the building of new immigrant friendly AUstralia, but I am afraid authorities in Australia are against this.

[Guest babboo]

Babboo, Like thousands other we are all in the same boat.But Australia is by no means a democratic state. You can not present your views openly they are only white dominated state.................

 

Well VB, I do not fully agree with you here that its only white dominated state... The problem is with Mr. Chris Evans and his coterie of advisers.

[virtual_bajwa]

Well VB, I do not fully agree with you here that its only white dominated state... The problem is with Mr. Chris Evans and his coterie of advisers.

 

Well babboo. This is just my frustration. My brother told me that there are wonderful people here. But u can not talk about anything inhuman here in public against the immigrants. So hope u can understand what I am trying to say.

[Guest babboo]

i can't say i understand ur pain, however i hope things work out for you ( the 2007 applicants....)

Aust is a nice place to stay and the people are good... yes there are some rotten mangoes...( so what)

 

Hope is a wonderfull thing and i suggest u use it with a cool head.....this piece of legistlation will be revoked, because a) it's arbitary b) it's undemocratic ( bla bla u know the details)..c) its escapist

 

If each one of us complains and tries to change this ..... it will change.. thats the power of democracy.....write to the minister again and again... write to everyone...come on...thats the least we can do

 

Hi, Amitb, I agree with you... Just being here on the forum will not help us. We should write and raise our voice to all concerned. Yes. Hope is a wonderful thing... so B+

[Guest amitb]

Hi, Amitb, I agree with you... Just being here on the forum will not help us. We should write and raise our voice to all concerned. Yes. Hope is a wonderful thing... so B+

 

Ofbeat :

reminds me of the movie "The Swashank redemption" . here this guy needs funds to build a library in prison and start writting a letter every week( i think we can write one every day)... eventually he gets what he wants...Why ( just to shut him up and stop him from writing anymore).... the same applies here guys !!!! Dont lose hope... Go forward and send emails/ mails !!!! flood that damn office with letters:biggrin:

 

the volume should be so high that it should reach the newspapers ang grab everyones attention!!!!!

[markntracey]

I think - not sure but I think - that the problem lies in the fact that I've always used Tiscali as my ISP. Tiscali themselves were never a big problem. Italian-owned, generally chaotic but generally fine as well.

 

 

 

 

Great! i too use tiscali and have emailed David Wilden, Lets see if i get a reply. I won't hold my breath.

[Guest babboo]

Just struck me :embarrassed:--- that the Minister has capped and ceased only Offshore applicants and not onshore prior 1st september 2007... Why so? We all offshore applicants applied with same set of rules and regulations. What's so crazy about us???:wacko:

[Guest Susan Wareham McGrath]

Hi All

 

...I'm planning a BIG WHINGE to David Wilden over the coming weekend...Is there anything else that applicants for visas want me to add to my e-mail, please?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill

 

Here are a few points I've got lined up for my own personal "big whinge" (although I guess I'll have to follow the PC route and call it "Representations to the Minister about the Policy Changes of 8 February", when I finally have time to draft a professional document). It's a bit wordy and rough and ready at the moment, but if it's of use in any way, you're very welcome to use it.

 

 

1. All primary applicants for GSM applications lodged before 1 September 2007 will have their VACs refunded. Will those refunds take into account the change in purchasing power of the funds they invested in their VACs since the applications were lodged? If that purchasing power has dropped, steps should be taken to reimburse people at today's value. If that purchasing power has risen, it will still not compensate people for the additional expenses they have incurred - in many cases in response to a request from DIAC.

2. DIAC claims that Skills Australia, the new body that will determine the MODL is "independent". But Skills Australia has been set up by and is funded by Government; and its members are paid by Government. So how can it be "independent' of Government? As evidence of Skills Australia's lack of independence, the Skills Australia Act, 2008, specifies that members must be appointed by the Minister (that is, the Min for Employment, Education and Workplace Relations) and that the Minister has the power to give written directions to Skills Australia about the performance of its functions. While these instructions must be of a general nature only and the Min can't give instructions about the content of any advice given by Skills Australia, there's huge scope there for the Min to give direction (naturally, of a general nature only) about Skills Australia's strategic focus and operations. In addition, the Minister can terminate the appointment of any member as long as he/she is satisfied that their performance has been unsatisfactory for a significant period. I'm not able to find a definition of "unsatisfactory" in the legislation, which means the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act come into force, giving the term its everday meaning - which gives a lot of scope for a Minister to remove a member on purely subjective grounds.

3. In its fact sheet entitled "Changes to the General Skilled Migration Program", DIAC advises as follows: On 8 February 2010, the minister announced he would set a maximum number of offshore GSM visa applications made before 1 September 2007 that could be granted. Once this number is reached, any applications awaiting a decision will not be considered and the application returned to the applicant or their authorised recipient. These applications will be taken not to have been made. But in his media release dated 8 Feb, the Min says "All offshore General Skilled Migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007 will have their applications withdrawn". Some clarity would be helpful.

4. DIAC's media release of 8 Feb advises that individual State and Territory Migration Plans will be developed, so States and Territories can prioritise skilled migrants of their own choosing. In that case, why do State Migration Plans need Ministerial approval? What will be the criteria for Ministerial approval? What will happen if a State or Territory wishes to include on its Plan an occupation that the Min's advisers and Skills Australia do not believe is appropriate?

5. Finally, the 8 Feb media releases refers to a new Ministerial power to set the maximum number of visas that may be granted to applicants in any one occupation, to ensure that the Skilled Migration Program is not dominated by a handful of occupations. The Labor Party has a long history of being dominated by strong lobbyists from the business and union sectors, so what checks and balances will be written into the legislation to ensure the integrity of the process?

Best regards

Susan

[Christopher McGrath]

The cancelling of the 20,000 or so 2007 applications and return the fees to applicants is nothing short of scandalous. I wonder if it’s illegal? All these applicants applied according to the criteria at that time, they have lived since planning their lives both at home and eventually in Australia, fully and rightfully expecting eventually to be granted a visa. But now the insult “don’t worry, you will get your money back” is insulting and completely ignores the human cost in stress and huge disappointment. This is totally against natural justice. The "reason” given was that the criteria then was too easy. Maybe, but that’s irrelevant, DIAC set the standards. Additionally how many of those applicants could be assessed at a much higher score than the "easy" criteria? Just because the criteria was easier then does not mean that many were perhaps way over that standard in any case!

“PEOPLE OUR BUSINESS” what a cruel joke that is and in fact a hoax.

Migration Agents represent applicants. The MIA represents registered migration agents who are members. This is what the MIA said last week in relation to the 2007 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"

That’s an incredible statement, believing that the certainty of being cut adrift is better that the uncertainty of staying in the system and waiting for a visa. I doubt that that is a statement many agents would agree with, unless they are on the MIA board. The MIA Board has long suffered under the fear of upsetting the various Ministers, as all MIA Board members are registered agents. The MIA should have strongly rejected this cancellation of the 2007 applications on behalf of its members many of whom represent visa applicants affected by this catastrophic decision.

I just applied to re-join the MIA, I wonder if I will be accepted, as I am a long term critic, and obviously a current one. If you want to read some interesting stuff that relates to all of the above, and also how inept the MIA really is business-wise, have a look at the Hansard record of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of last Tuesday.

[cartertucker]

Thankyou to Gill & others....:notworthy:

 

Now this is a question i'd love to know the answer to....Along with, when is this list going to be out (WA have told me 1st July....Is this correct information).....:eek:

 

 

DIAC's media release of 8 Feb advises that individual State and Territory Migration Plans will be developed, so States and Territories can prioritise skilled migrants of their own choosing. In that case, why do State Migration Plans need Ministerial approval? What will be the criteria for Ministerial approval? What will happen if a State or Territory wishes to include on its Plan an occupation that the Min's advisers and Skills Australia do not believe is appropriate?

[Guest shaman]

Hi Gill

 

 

 

1.  

2. DIAC's media release of 8 Feb advises that individual State and Territory Migration Plans will be developed, so States and Territories can prioritise skilled migrants of their own choosing. In that case, why do State Migration Plans need Ministerial approval? What will be the criteria for Ministerial approval? What will happen if a State or Territory wishes to include on its Plan an occupation that the Min's advisers and Skills Australia do not believe is appropriate?

 

Best regards

Susan

 

This is a very good question ?

Why does he want to interfere in the internal affairs of States,

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Babboo and Virtual Bajwa

 

If I were in your shoes, I would consult a solicitor called Nigel Dobbie, in Sydney:

 

Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd

 

Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd

 

PlaintiffS157 was a Student in Oz. I think his real name was Mr Uzzin. I don't know the details but the rough gist is that either 3,000 International Studemts in Oz or more than 3,000 (I can't remember the exact number) suddenly had their Student Visas cancelled by DIAC and the Students were thrown out of Oz.

 

I don't know why the Sudent Visas were cancelled but Nigel worked out that the procedure that DIAC had used was incorrect in law. So he sued the then Minister for Immi, on the instructions of Plaintiff S157 and Nigel won the case in Court in Oz. The Aussie Govt had to pay millions of AUD in damages to the Students involved because most of them were in the middle of their courses when they were arbitrarily kicked out of Oz.

 

I've read Boddrudaza briefly and quickly - and didn't understand a word of it! Hence I haven't bothered to find and read the Student case because I probably wouldn't understand that either!

 

Nigel says that Bodruddaza confirms that there is no hurry to get these Immi Law cases into the Courts in Australia, in spite of what the rules for the various Courts say. Getting rid of the 28 day time limit certainly makes everyone's life very much easier.

 

So if I were in your shoes, I'd contact Nigel. I would ask him to have a good look at the relevant law. Can the Minister for Immi use the cap and kill provisions merely in order to reduce a backlog and to get rid of an earlier Minister for Immi's decisions just because he doesn't like them?

 

I agree with Chris McGrath. I think the Minister is in breach of natural justice for even thinking of such an idea. However anybody affected by it should ask an Accredited Specialist in Aussie Immi Law - which Nigel is.

 

There are about 45 Accredited Specialists in Aussie Immi Law, I believe, and I think they are all in Australia. I know hardly any of their names and Nigel is the only one I am in contact with. I am sure that all of them will be approached over this, either by Registered Migration Agents acting on behalf of visa applicants, or by the visa applicants themselves, or by the family sponsors of visa applicants.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

The cancelling of the 20,000 or so 2007 applications and return the fees to applicants is nothing short of scandalous. I wonder if it’s illegal? All these applicants applied according to the criteria at that time, they have lived since planning their lives both at home and eventually in Australia, fully and rightfully expecting eventually to be granted a visa. But now the insult “don’t worry, you will get your money back” is insulting and completely ignores the human cost in stress and huge disappointment. This is totally against natural justice. The "reason” given was that the criteria then was too easy. Maybe, but that’s irrelevant, DIAC set the standards. Additionally how many of those applicants could be assessed at a much higher score than the "easy" criteria? Just because the criteria was easier then does not mean that many were perhaps way over that standard in any case!

 

“PEOPLE OUR BUSINESS” what a cruel joke that is and in fact a hoax.

 

Migration Agents represent applicants. The MIA represents registered migration agents who are members. This is what the MIA said last week in relation to the 2007 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"

 

That’s an incredible statement, believing that the certainty of being cut adrift is better that the uncertainty of staying in the system and waiting for a visa. I doubt that that is a statement many agents would agree with, unless they are on the MIA board. The MIA Board has long suffered under the fear of upsetting the various Ministers, as all MIA Board members are registered agents. The MIA should have strongly rejected this cancellation of the 2007 applications on behalf of its members many of whom represent visa applicants affected by this catastrophic decision.

 

I just applied to re-join the MIA, I wonder if I will be accepted, as I am a long term critic, and obviously a current one. If you want to read some interesting stuff that relates to all of the above, and also how inept the MIA really is business-wise, have a look at the Hansard record of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of last Tuesday.

 

 

Hi Chris

 

A legal question for you, please! Can the Minister set a capping figure retrospectively?

 

I mean, with Parents and Contributory Parents, the Minister says, "The total quota for the coming year will be x Parents and y Contributory Parents." That seems perfectly fair and just to me because everyone knows where they stand before they even apply for their visas.

 

To shift the goalposts so as to chop people out after 3 years strikes me as monstrous and totally unjust when a previous Minister set the criteria for the sc 138, sc 496 visas etc. The present Minister might be of the opinion that the previous Minister was too lenient but the previous Govt chose the criteria for the pre-Sept 2007 visas. The applicants didn't set them and the applicants have complied with them. The visa applications have been accepted as valid applications by DIAC.

 

So if the applicants meet all the criteria, it seems to me that S65 of the Migration Act requires that these people's visas must be granted? Sure, S39 says what it says but S65 cannot be ignored altogether, surely? Which is what the Minister seems to have decided to do.

 

I agree with you that the MIA's reaction is feeble. However I think that the MIA are shocked to the bones by the development - as is everyone else. In the MIA's shoes, I might say something tame at this stage until the MIA's Accredited Specialist lawyer members have had a look at the law, so see what will be possible here. The MIA won't want to get people's hopes up if it wouldn't work in the end, I suspect.

 

Also, what are the Migration Alliance saying? That is stuffed with specialist lawyers.

 

I've just had a look at the Migration Alliance website and they are not saying anything at all about this monstrosity publicly, it seems. At least the MIA has had the decency to say something to the public quickly, it seems to me.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Gill

 

Here are a few points I've got lined up for my own personal "big whinge" (although I guess I'll have to follow the PC route and call it "Representations to the Minister about the Policy Changes of 8 February", when I finally have time to draft a professional document). It's a bit wordy and rough and ready at the moment, but if it's of use in any way, you're very welcome to use it.

 

 

1. All primary applicants for GSM applications lodged before 1 September 2007 will have their VACs refunded. Will those refunds take into account the change in purchasing power of the funds they invested in their VACs since the applications were lodged? If that purchasing power has dropped, steps should be taken to reimburse people at today's value. If that purchasing power has risen, it will still not compensate people for the additional expenses they have incurred - in many cases in response to a request from DIAC.

2. DIAC claims that Skills Australia, the new body that will determine the MODL is "independent". But Skills Australia has been set up by and is funded by Government; and its members are paid by Government. So how can it be "independent' of Government? As evidence of Skills Australia's lack of independence, the Skills Australia Act, 2008, specifies that members must be appointed by the Minister (that is, the Min for Employment, Education and Workplace Relations) and that the Minister has the power to give written directions to Skills Australia about the performance of its functions. While these instructions must be of a general nature only and the Min can't give instructions about the content of any advice given by Skills Australia, there's huge scope there for the Min to give direction (naturally, of a general nature only) about Skills Australia's strategic focus and operations. In addition, the Minister can terminate the appointment of any member as long as he/she is satisfied that their performance has been unsatisfactory for a significant period. I'm not able to find a definition of "unsatisfactory" in the legislation, which means the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act come into force, giving the term its everday meaning - which gives a lot of scope for a Minister to remove a member on purely subjective grounds.

3. In its fact sheet entitled "Changes to the General Skilled Migration Program", DIAC advises as follows: On 8 February 2010, the minister announced he would set a maximum number of offshore GSM visa applications made before 1 September 2007 that could be granted. Once this number is reached, any applications awaiting a decision will not be considered and the application returned to the applicant or their authorised recipient. These applications will be taken not to have been made. But in his media release dated 8 Feb, the Min says "All offshore General Skilled Migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007 will have their applications withdrawn". Some clarity would be helpful.

4. DIAC's media release of 8 Feb advises that individual State and Territory Migration Plans will be developed, so States and Territories can prioritise skilled migrants of their own choosing. In that case, why do State Migration Plans need Ministerial approval? What will be the criteria for Ministerial approval? What will happen if a State or Territory wishes to include on its Plan an occupation that the Min's advisers and Skills Australia do not believe is appropriate?

5. Finally, the 8 Feb media releases refers to a new Ministerial power to set the maximum number of visas that may be granted to applicants in any one occupation, to ensure that the Skilled Migration Program is not dominated by a handful of occupations. The Labor Party has a long history of being dominated by strong lobbyists from the business and union sectors, so what checks and balances will be written into the legislation to ensure the integrity of the process?

Best regards

Susan

 

Hi Susan

 

Many thanks for the above. I plan to add a rider to No 5 above. Let us say that the Minister decides that he will only accept 300 brickies a year. How is the 305th brickie who applies during that year going to know that his is the 305th application and thererore he is likely to be rejected under the Minister's new plans?

 

Does the Minister have plans to make DIAC publish the running totals of applications in different occupations every day?

 

Or has the Minister failed to think about any of the details of his many and various latest plans? The whole thing looks totally gimcrack and chaotic to me.

 

Do you know whether the stalwarts from Skills Australia will use the new ANZSCO fir their new SOL? What makes the worthies who have been chosen for Skills Australia competent to decide what skills should be on the new SOL anyway? Are their activities going to be transparent so that everyone can see what source material they will be relying on?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[George Lombard]

Since this thread is moving into areas of policy, focused on the 20,000, I've had a thought that the very best form of advocacy which could be done for them would be to work for the Department to offer them "fee-free" second applications. Many will fail the English requirements, and many will have skills assessments which are now expired, but it should assist most.

 

Would also be nice if some recruiters or employee agents (such as Jamie) could donate some time to assisting the 20,000 find job offers for possible ENS applications - these applications will be fee-free until the cap and kill determination actually takes effect, which will probably be 30 June, the end of the program year.

 

As for the prospects of mass litigation, I am sure that a number of lawyers are looking at this but until there is actually a cap and kill instrument (ie the Minister needs to publish a determination specifying the numbers of visas in each subclass to be granted in the relevant program year) the only possibility is a mandamus action forcing them to proceed to a decision if a matter is decision-ready.

 

The lawyers with most experience of a successful "class action" would be David Bitel from Parish Patience (it's true that Nigel had the idea for him) and Adrian Joel but to run one of these things you need both a good idea (I am sure there would be four or five barristers looking at this now on spec) and superior administrative skills, particularly if there are thousands of people caught up in the action. One for you to consider, Chris.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[McKlaut]

Just struck me :embarrassed:--- that the Minister has capped and ceased only Offshore applicants and not onshore prior 1st september 2007... Why so? We all offshore applicants applied with same set of rules and regulations. What's so crazy about us???:wacko:

This is exactly what came into my mind first when I heard the news.

Offshore applicants have no relations whatever to this mess with student influx problems. BUT it's so easy to cap them that the minister decided to kill their lives first of all.

 

Bloody policy it's so disgusting. Sometimes it seems that politicians have no souls in their bodies.

[McKlaut]

Hi Chris

 

A legal question for you, please! Can the Minister set a capping figure retrospectively?

 

Gill

 

I wonder. Can somebody cut his salary and change employment contract retrospectively so that he feel less comfortable in this life?

 

Gill,

 

As for your questions regarding mr. Wilden, could you ask him whether there is some way to speed security checks with the governments that always try to prohibit their sitizens to move abroad and make it as difficult as they can?

 

I think it's not an applicant's guilt that he or she was born in such country. And it could a nice approach for Aus migration agencies to take into account some specific here.

 

It's abnormal situation when you have to wait for security checks to be completed 6-8-10 month. Especially when such checks were initiated 14 month after the application had been lodged. I think it might be considered as conscious delay in processing of applications. I also hope DIAC will revise such policy.

[Guest alixir]

Okay, so this is my situation now....175 visa hopes killed due to certain immigration ministers changing the laws...this now leads me to a 176 visa and as far as I've got my gf in australia to check out, this is still something I can go for, despite the need to have 25k in my bank and now do a bloody IELTS test, which, as far as I read on the SA site, that they state only accountants need to do the test, but then on the same page they then go to say that everybody needs to do the test...site is here

 

Sponsorship requirements for Offshore 475 or 176

 

Now, on this page, as far as IELTS and I are concerned:

 

"*IELTS International English Language Testing System

 

IELTS exemption

You will not be required to show evidence of your English language ability if you hold a passport from, and are a citizen of, one of the following countries:

• United Kingdom

• Canada

• United States of America

• Republic of Ireland

 

** The IELTS exemption does not apply to those applicants who apply for sponsorship and who nominate as an Accountant (2211-11). A valid IELTS Test Report Form is required"

 

LOL....glad I'm not an accountant...sorry accountants!

 

You then draw yourself over to the current SOL for SA, and in that SOL they list my occupation 2231-79 Network/Internet/Firewall Security as needing a IELTS band score of 6.0, but surely they just said that I was exempt?!?!? wierd shizit?!??!

 

But then you scroll down the page where they say (and I'm presuming this is just for 475 types but was proved wrong by a phone call):

 

"Concessional English

 

This provision is available to Provisional 475 applicants and cannot be used in conjunction with any other waiver. Applicants must provide the following:

 

IELTS* Test Report Form showing you have an overall band score of at least six (6.0), with at least 5.0 in Listening and Reading, and at least 4.5 in Writing and Speaking."

 

Now, on scrolling down even further you find:

 

"*IELTS International English Language Testing System

 

** You will be required to show evidence of your English language ability even if you hold a passport from, and are a citizen of, one of the following countries:

• United Kingdom

• Canada

• New Zealand

• United States of America

• Republic of Ireland"

 

What the fark is that all about?!?! This page seems to be a huge contradiction in itself. One one hand, it states that if you have a UK passport you don't need to site an IELTS test unless you're an accountant or applying for a 475 Visa, on the other hand, the page is saying that if you are a UK passport holder, you need to sit the test? Maybe I need to become their webmaster and at least proofread the site content so it makes sense?

 

Now, my gf who is from Adelaide and has been back in SA since August (waiting tentatively for me to get some form of Visa) phoned SA Immigration and they relayed the same contradicting information to her that I do need to sit IELTS. Now, I'm setting myself a deadline of applying for a 176 visa by the end of March before any April changes take place, those kind of changes that have screwed me over on the 175 visa front and lack of points. My ACS has been going through the pipelines (when they can be bothered to look at it) since the 9th of December and the earliest it can get back to me is the 24th of Feb (10 weeks), although I have to assume it will get to me by the 17th of March, depending on whether it gets lost in the post or not! Incidentally, there is no way of contacting the ACS to find out whether you've passed or not, you have to wait for the letter to be posted to you and that's it, although I have an idea to see if I can get it posted to my girlfriends' address in Adelaide, which could be an idea I guess?!?!? Anyhoo (and I won't use that word in my IELTS), if you haven't booked an IELTS in the UK before, it's an absolute ****....you cannot book over the phone, you cannot pay over the phone. If you work, tough titties, you'll have to take the morning off to go to the testing centre in person to register and pay or you have to do the registration and payment by post, by which time, they cannot guarantee you'll get the testing date you want. So take all that into careful consideration! So, tomorrow morning, I'm cycling up to the test centre to post my application for testing so I can get a 20th of Feb date, by the way, if you want practice materials, give me a shout....You have to be aware that there are certain credit cards they will not take, and this varies at every IELTS testing centre. Once you have completed the e IELTS test, it takes another two weeks for the results to be posted. I used to run a VUE testing centre for a university, and the IELTS booking system is positively archaic and they need to change this, it really doesn't cost that much money to employ a decent database programmer for testing dates and a paypal system, lets face it, who doesn't have a paypal account these days....anyhoo, I'm through my 15th hour of going through bar chart IELTS examples, reading examples, listening examples, blah blah blah and it's almost Valentines Day, so happy VD everybody (har har har), I'm off to phone the other side of the world and open my lovely pressie that was delivered yesterday from her...as Ren from Ren and Stimpy used to say "Shut up you stoooopid eeeediot!!!", so in that case I will......bon boyage, bon renoir, bon bons (lemon ones, yum).....

 

Good evening ladels and mentalmen......

:biggrin:

[Guest grooovy]

Offshore applicants have no relations whatever to this mess with student influx problems. BUT it's so easy to cap them that the minister decided to kill their lives first of all.

 

My pure guess would be that offshore applicants unlikely to organise protests that could catch media's attention and involve the police etc., while onshore applicants surely can. So, probably some sort of security concerns and politics might talk here, especially considering an election year.