Visa Capping - Senate Inquiry

[Guest Jane1991]

Because onshore applicants have blown the Australian education reputation into pieces. There is social unrest on the streets as native Australians are overwhelmed by the cultural changes taking place in SYD and MEL .

People are resenting the fact that foreigner students are taking up jobs as cashiers , waiters ( you know the uni type jobs ) which their kids could have done during recession.

Australia wants to train the domestic residents in less training intensive jobs to get them off the dole. Thats why the axe has to fall somewhere.

There is going to be very slow growth in some trades as per Skills Australia economic modelling and therefore there is a need to limit the immigration in those areas.

 

Another agenda is that skilling Australia requires massive investment in Universities and the government is cleverly directing the overseas funds from VET into higher education.

 

Election rhetoric ... timing of the student protests , racial attacks and allegations of overseas students being harassed by university officials including unwanted sexual advances.

[Taz2008]

Iv'e just listened to the interview.

 

Unfortunately. it was more a question and answer session re onshore students with one or 2 snippetts in reference to offshore. I thought it might have been more even.

 

All I could decipher really was that the problem with onshore is just that they are onshore whereas offshore aren't . Its easier to deal with offshore in a negative way.

 

Very dissapointed that the interview didn't really clarify things. Senator Evans said some good things but one thing he kept refering to was " Those people that would never get a visa" What does he mean by this and what sort of applicant would never get a visa. Once this is clarified we might no more. When we lodged our visa and then received SS we were advised basically that if we had lodged prior to the FEb 8th changes we would at least be processed and not be effected by these changes. He alluded to this date but then said you wouldnt be effected unless you are not capped and ceased. Somewhat a double negative.

 

This is all doing my nut in

 

Hi Shane

 

What I wonder is why have these older applications been left in the system for so long? And how come there are so many of them? We have seen since February how quickly the DIAC have been processing categories 1-4 and been advised that they are quite uptodate with these categories and they have also been slowly processing category 5. Now before the September 2009 changes they said that they were more or less uptodate with the processing there too and we saw how quickly they processed those who had secured SS, so for me I am struggling to see how there are so many applicants still in the system.

 

I wonder if the applicants he is talking about "killing off" are the ones who have low IELTS and the ones who went to these so called shoddy colleges to study. I get the feeling from what I have read on this forum and other forums that some people who wanted an easy route into Australia were told by shoddy agents that they could easily do this by becoming a student and study as a hairdresser or cook and basically buy a PR visa and to chose an easy quick course to allow this to happen.

 

We have all seen over the passed few months how they have been putting a stop to these colleges. And now I suppose they have to find a way of removing these applications from their system!

 

One thing I have not seen in the year and a half of our visa journey is not one person saying that they have had their visa refused! Has anyone heard of a visa being refused?

 

Now, is it not possible to refuse a visa if its not up to standard, I wonder? If you don't fit the visa criteria is that what they do, just leave you to rot in their system? Is that why there are so many visa applicants now just left sitting in the system?

 

Its a shame that the Minister can't be more open and honest to his intentions, but hey, he's an MP... what can I say, they are all the same!

 

I don't think we will ever be clear as to what this immigration process has in-store for any of us... I just hope that those of us who have a legitimate application will be dealt with fairly.

 

Cheers

 

Tasha

[Christopher McGrath]

Jane 1919: "There is social unrest on the streets as native Australians are overwhelmed by the cultural changes taking place in SYD and MEL .

People are resenting the fact that foreigner students are taking up jobs as cashiers , waiters ( you know the uni type jobs ) which their kids could have done during recession."

Jane, where did you get that from? There is no evidence this is the case as far as I can see living in Australia and reading Australian newspapers, watching the TV news.

This Minister, in making new law/policy, is doing so on advice from his Mandarins high up in DIAC, many have been in their job far too long in my view (Andrew Metcalf for one DIAC Secretary since 2005). Without being able to read the Minister's mind, and making allowances for the spin doctoring of his statements, I thing that the ability to cap certain occupations will be exercises as time progresses and they can see what occupations are being applied under. (Bad English but you know what i mean).

Considering that the immigration program is long term planning, it seems silly to be putting in place such precise powers, migration is not looking at how many certain skilled people we need this week, or next month, it is, or should be, what Australia needs in the next 5 years or more. And remember that in many cases the skilled person also brings a spouse and children, all of which needs to be factored into the mix.

[Jeffster]

 

Senator Evans said some good things but one thing he kept refering to was " Those people that would never get a visa" What does he mean by this and what sort of applicant would never get a visa.

 

 

 

If there are people who "would never get a visa" in the system then why are they there? Why have they applied if they "would never get a visa"?

 

Is the Senator admitting they have invited applicants to apply knowing full well they "would never get a visa"?

 

If the people who are culled passed the points test there is a major court case looming here.

 

The Minister just admitted they have been lying and cheating thousands of people.

[virtual_bajwa]

What I wonder is why have these older applications been left in the system for so long?[/Quote]

Well I just listen to the 30 minutes discussion b/w an applicants, Minister Evens and an agent Webster. I had come to the conclusion that nothing new was there in these discussions. There should be some hard questions by Peter that why should not Minister put forward these changes when he came into power earlier. Look at my timeline. My job verification was done on 3.9.9 and on 23 September new changes were introduced. Why can not they took some decision on my application during these 20 days. Was that my fault. Why my application was in to the pipeline for 3 years? Was that my fault. It has been found from these discussions on nations news channels that these are interviews are fixed. Nothing new come out from the Minster.Hard to say this. I am very frustrated.

In one more discussion Minister said cap and cease will be introduced on offshore applicants on the bases of three factor...Time of application, Occupation and English score. I do not understand how will they categorize the pre-september application which were purely paper based applications. It is hard to manage these applications on the bases of these above mentioned factors.

HARD TO ACCEPT WHAT MINSTER HAS SAID IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

[Christopher McGrath]

Well I just listen to the 30 minutes discussion b/w an applicants, Minister Evens and an agent Webster. I had come to the conclusion that nothing new was there in these discussions. There should be some hard questions by Peter that why should not Minister put forward these changes when he came into power earlier. Look at my timeline. My job verification was done on 3.9.9 and on 23 September new changes were introduced. Why can not they took some decision on my application during these 20 days. Was that my fault. Why my application was in to the pipeline for 3 years? Was that my fault. It has been found from these discussions on nations news channels that these are interviews are fixed. Nothing new come out from the Minster.Hard to say this. I am very frustrated.

In one more discussion Minister said cap and cease will be introduced on offshore applicants on the bases of three factor...Time of application, Occupation and English score. I do not understand how will they categorize the pre-september application which were purely paper based applications. It is hard to manage these applications on the bases of these above mentioned factors.

HARD TO ACCEPT WHAT MINSTER HAS SAID IN THESE DISCUSSIONS.

 

I totally agree, none of us know or understand what is happening. But remember that the Minister is just to front man, he has no knowledge or understanding of the process, he is just a numbers man, and a politician. It is acceptable that any Government Minister has little understanding of his/her portfolio, either in Australia or in most overseas countries. They concentrate on government policy only, being mindful of what will please the public (the voters) , and get them re-elected later this year. The Minister of Immigration relies on his advisors and I have commented elsewhere on what I think about the.

[Addy]

Hi Shane

 

What I wonder is why have these older applications been left in the system for so long?

 

One thing I have not seen in the year and a half of our visa journey is not one person saying that they have had their visa refused! Has anyone heard of a visa being refused?

 

 

 

Cheers

 

Tasha

 

I have heard of a few low risk applicants who have been refused on health grounds and some high risk applicants who have been refused on the basis of final checks not tallying with their claimed occupation. However, very, very few in the grand scheme of things.

 

Are there still many Aug 07 paper based applicants left?? They seemed to be delayed for a very long time due to the Sept 07 visa changes.

[virtual_bajwa]

I totally agree, none of us know or understand what is happening. But remember that the Minister is just to front man, he has no knowledge or understanding of the process, he is just a numbers man, and a politician. It is acceptable that any Government Minister has little understanding of his/her portfolio, either in Australia or in most overseas countries. They concentrate on government policy only, being mindful of what will please the public (the voters) , and get them re-elected later this year. The Minister of Immigration relies on his advisors and I have commented elsewhere on what I think about the.

 

Thanks Christopher,

But point here is If Minster is doing the vote bank politics then he does not have any right to stay on this seat. But he has the team of people who knows what is happening. Look at the protest held at the Sydney road. This is against the SOL. I think more will come in future as Minister implement this Cap and Cease law. Directly or indirectly offshore applicants are also connected to Australian public. There are some people in Australia which are against this Cap and Cease law on offshore Pre-September applicants. And I think you are also one of them Christopher. And many people are also connected to you who does not support this law. So why not you raise the voice against this law. This is the time matey. I had also talked to my agent in Melbourne.He also said that we are planning to raise a peaceful protest here.

 

SYDNEY buck up guys...

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Int-students-protest-Australia-s-new-skilled-occupation-list/628953/

[ranjith47]

Because onshore applicants have blown the Australian education reputation into pieces. There is social unrest on the streets as native Australians are overwhelmed by the cultural changes taking place in SYD and MEL .

.

 

Yes jane, you're right abt this fact. But , It is the Australian Education which has blown its own reputation and caused a lot of hardships and confusion to ppl. If they never accepted such an overwhelming number of students into colleges which are also termed as 'visa factories' and if they had regulated the flow of students and put some kind of watchdog on such systems, they would have not had such uncontrollable student number growth. Instead, They focused on Money, and never thought abt the implications which we are all affected by right now. So you really cant put ALL the blame on the students ye know.!

[ranjith47]

If there are people who "would never get a visa" in the system then why are they there? Why have they applied if they "would never get a visa"?

 

Is the Senator admitting they have invited applicants to apply knowing full well they "would never get a visa"?

 

If the people who are culled passed the points test there is a major court case looming here.

 

The Minister just admitted they have been lying and cheating thousands of people.

 

Wow.. This post is COMPLETE with all the right questions Senator Evans should reply to and everyone should know.This is the Ultimate Post , So much factual questions in there. 5 stars for this.

and by the way, if you ask this question, or any other apt question to Senator Evans, he will always have an unclear answer which will wile away in all directions and come back to the beginning , where no one would have understood what he was talking about !.

 

Cheers 2 u neways.

[Christopher McGrath]

Minister Evans being interviewed along with a good migration agent and a UK hairdresser(!), starting at 6pm or 6.14 Australia time

 

ABC Radio National

The National Interest

 

Guests

 

Julie Beaumont

Hairdresser who trained in Australia as an international student

Senator Chris Evans

Immigration Minister

Mark Webster

Registered Migration Agent and the President of the Migration Institute of Australia for NSW and the ACT

 

 

Jamie

 

What is a "good" migration agent, or ar you sucking up yet again!

 

Cheers

[Guest keenuz]

let say that chris evans ceased and capped all the onshore applicants on the basis of occupation ( cookery and hairdressing ) and 28 dayz notice has been sent to them . then what will happen to those 1000s of students on TR/BV from same occupation . minister announced on 8th feb that the students who have finished thier studies and applied for TR/BV what will happen to those students coz they simply cannot apply for 885/886 GSM VISA. so it means their TR/BV will be ceased automatically and then students applied for PR/TR everyone shud get 28 dayz notice alltogether.

IT MEANS 1000S STUDENTS GOING BACK ALTOGETHER

[Guest keenuz]

Mistake

i mean minister already announced students finished their studies before 8th feb can apply for gsm till 31st dec 2012.. Then what ??

[Christopher McGrath]

let say that chris evans ceased and capped all the onshore applicants on the basis of occupation ( cookery and hairdressing ) and 28 dayz notice has been sent to them . then what will happen to those 1000s of students on TR/BV from same occupation . minister announced on 8th feb that the students who have finished thier studies and applied for TR/BV what will happen to those students coz they simply cannot apply for 885/886 GSM VISA. so it means their TR/BV will be ceased automatically and then students applied for PR/TR everyone shud get 28 dayz notice alltogether.

IT MEANS 1000S STUDENTS GOING BACK ALTOGETHER

 

If an offshore application is ceased and capped, the 28 will not come into effect. The 28 days only relates to onshore applications and is a reference to the applicant's bridging visa being valid for 28 days after notification. For overseas applications, when it happens, it will be immediate.

[Ozzieland]

If there are people who "would never get a visa" in the system then why are they there? Why have they applied if they "would never get a visa"?

 

Is the Senator admitting they have invited applicants to apply knowing full well they "would never get a visa"?

 

If the people who are culled passed the points test there is a major court case looming here.

 

The Minister just admitted they have been lying and cheating thousands of people.

 

I 100% agree with what you have written. These are questions ringing in my mind as well. That is why he can't give a refusal because a refusal means a reason and a reason could mean an MRT case which could put them in BIG trouble !!! Chris Evans is a shrewd man and what he is trying to show us is that he is doing us a favour... what he is actually doing is playing himself safe and continuing to do what he actually wants to do... He knows that if he issues a refusal to a hairdresser or cook or a student or any other person, it is totally against the rules of the book and there is absolutely no case for him in the MRT... so, he brings in a Bill to aide and abet his crookedness and so that he can go around his crooked ways without anyone questioning him. Oh... believe me, this guy is not helping Australia in any manner. In my opinion, he is only bringing in more 'bad words' by the affected people against the very land that they love.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

 

Hi All

 

I think that a number of very valid points have emerged from this thread. In no particular order, here goes:

 

The Interview by Peter Mares

VERY WELL DONE to Julie Beaumont, who I believe is a member of Poms in Oz.

 

VERY WELL DONE to Peter Mares as well for airing the matter in public, for writing a very thoughtful article for Inside Story as well as doing the interviews and who got the Minister for Immi to be interviewed about his new Bill.

 

VERY WELL DONE to Mark Webster of the MIA, too. Most people know that he is not the type to succumb to the "hysteria" alleged by the Minister and Mr Webster seems to agree that there are about 147,000 GSM visa applications in the pipline at present, about 1/4 of which are believed to have been made by people who have studied in Oz. That is about 36,750 applications according to Excel.

 

My own queries are as follows:

 

1. According to the Minister, DIAC have already capped and ceased the applications of those who applied for GSM visas propr to 1st September 2007. According to DIAC as recently as last week, they have done no such thing. DIAC alleged that the Cap & Cease was about to start happening but they said that in March 2010 as well and it does not seem to have happened as yet. So who is telling the truth about this? The Minister or his Department?

 

2. According to the Minister "none" of the people who applied before 1st September 2007 "

were

ever going to get visas for Oz." Why not? As I understand it, S65 of the Migration At 1958 says that if people have lodged valid visa applications then the Minister is required to process those applications. The legal requirement to process the applications does away with any need to offer refunds of the DIAC fees, so what is the Minister talking about?

 

The only person who has decided that these applicants will "never get visas" is the Minister himself. He has simply made a solo and extremely subjective value judgement about this all by himself as far as I can see.

 

I assume that the Minister wants people to believe that he has already been capping and ceasing applications without a word of a fuss from the visa applicants or from their family members in Oz, who have sponsored their visa applications?

 

I think that the truth is that if DIAC dare to start capping and ceasing the pre-September 2007 applications there will be an almighty and very public fuss from the relatives of the visa applicants, many of whom are Australian Citizens.

 

It is common knowledge that the Accredited Specialists in Immi Law in Oz are dying to pounce on the Minister via the courts if they get half a chance. For the moment the lawyers are saying that they want to wait to see what DIAC say in the proposed "cap & cease" letters. I assume that if DIAC get the Law wrong, the lawyers will pounce on the Minister via the courts.

 

3. According to the Minister's Press Release of 8th Feb 2010 the Minister only intends to use his existing powers under S39 of the Migration Act 1958 in order to cap & kill those who applied for

offshore

visas prior to 1st September 2007.

 

Migration reforms to deliver Australia's skills needs

 

I assume that all the applications for the

onshore

pre-September 2007 visas had all been processed and finalised by Feb 2010?

 

The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) instantly made a fuss. They argued that many of the people who applied for GSM visas prior to 1st September 2007 are still in Australia and their partners and dependent children are in Australia as well. The applicants and their partners have assimilated and integrated into the multi-cultural society which Australia claims to be, and their children have settled well into Australian schools. (Personally I would have added that where those children have settled into the schools run by the Aussie State Governments, the chances are that they are receiving as poor a standard of education as the local children are receiving, only the visa applicant parents of the children who are in Oz are paying 5 times as much for the often lousy level of 'eddikashun' that their children are enjoying.)

 

DIAC then agreed that no attempt would be made to axe applications where the applicants are living in Oz. Many of those people have applied for

offshore

visas, however, as is their right. Because DIAC are apparently unable to tell from their computer records which of the applicants are in Oz and which ones are not, DIAC said that the applicants who are in Oz should please contact DIAC urgently, either via DIAC's HQ in Canberra or via the ASPC.

 

George Lombard very kindly confirmed this in his post #30 on the thread below:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/78424-thread-agents-only-re-new-gsm-changes-3.html

 

George does not make careless mistakes. What he says is always 100% accurate and can be trusted 100%.

 

So where, exactly, has the "cap & cease" axe actually been falling - as claimed by the Minister in his most recent interview with Peter Mares? I feel sure that if this axe had actually been wielded by now, surely somebody would have reported it on one of the many Internet forums by now as well? Please could the people who can speak Indian, Chinese or Filipino (and any other languages that might be relevant) ask about this on the forums that are in those languages and try to find out whether or not any of the capping & ceasing has actually happened?

 

4. In ever such a reasonable tone, the Minister then claimed that there is a lot of "hysteria" about the new Bill (which he had hoped to slide under the radars without anybody really noticing it, I suspect.) What "hysteria?" I have not seen any signs of any "hysteria."

 

If he were less firkin secretive about what he is really up to and why, people would not be as angry and as confused as they are, so any signs of "hysteria" that the bloke claims to have seen can be blamed fairly and squarely on himself alone anyway, it seems to me.

 

5. Peter Mares pointed out that Taffy Evans (himself an immigrant from the UK) might not still be the Minister for Immi by the end of 2010. Whilst Taffy Evans might not used the powers in the new Visa Capping Bill thoughtlessly and recklessly, there would be nothing to stop the next Minister for Immi from doing so. Evans agreed.

 

Why is Evans so thoughtless that he (the supposed Visa Guru for the time being) does not wish to protect anybody?

 

My blood runs cold.

 

Gill

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Jamie

 

What is a "good" migration agent, or ar you sucking up yet again!

 

Cheers

 

 

Hi Chris

 

I often disagree with Jamie Smith very violently (as he and most observers know only too well!)

 

However I do agree with Jamie that Mark Webster is a "good" RMA in the same way as I believe that you, Susan Wareham McGrath and many, many others all are as well.

 

Mark Webster is excellent for the interviews with Peter Mares because the Minister cannot accuse Mr Webster of "hysteria," for one thing. The Minister can (and if he reads my own comment on the Peter Mares interview, he will! - LOL! ) accuse me of "hysteria" but that cannot be argued about Mark Webster, I reckon.

 

Who would have drafted the 3 pages of gibberish that passes for the new Visa Capping Bill? Do DIAC's lawyers do their own drafting or does someone else do it, do you know? It such sparse rubbish - containing no safeguards whatsoever - that the average kangaroo could have drafted it whilst shading under a tree imho.

 

In the UK it takes forever to get a new Bill onto the statute book. The relevant Govt Separtment's own lawyers and civil servants have a bash at the first draft. It then goes to the Cabinet Office lawyers to see if they can find fault with it. After then it then gets sent to a firm of external solicitors who know about Parliamentary Drafting - there being no kangaroos in the wild in the UK - to see whether they can find any problems with the proposed draft, I gather.

 

I've never done any Parliamentary Drafting but I am told that in the UK, you cannot simply sling it together in 10 minutes flat and then hope for the best with it, though.

 

I'm not convinced. I haven't read the 'Elf & Safety rubbish but some of it seems like pretty good rubbish to me!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

Several people have asked abut this but I believe that the ECHR has no power to act in this situation.

 

It used to be possible for Appeals from the Aussie Courts to come to the Privy Council in the UK but I believe that this was abolished in 1971. It is not possible for a British Citizen to complain to the ECHR until all possible appeals in the UK have been exhausted.

 

The courts in the UK no longer have any jurisdiction to decide anything to do with matters of Aussie Law.

 

I beieve that Australia is not a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, from which the powers of the ECHR arise. Considering that Oz is about as far away from Europe as it is possible to be, geographically, I can't see any reason for the Aussies to have been involved with the European Convention?

 

I understand that there is an entirely separate Aussie Human Rights Act but I do not know whether somebody who does not have Aussie Citizenship or Permanent Residency can take advantage of it?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi again

 

Peter Mares and Mark Webster touched on the possibility that applications for Partner visas could be axed if the new Visa Capping Bill goes ahead.

 

Whilst I agree that it is theoretically possible, I don't think it is likely.

 

I want to speak up on behalf of non-contributory Parent visa applicants, please. Applicants for Contributory Parent visas are safe. They are cash cows and nobody is likely to kill a cash cow.

 

I have had an e-mail this morning from the Parents Visa Centre, confirming that the quotas of non-contributory Parent 103 and Aged Parent 804 visas have been halved for 2010-2011.

 

Minister Evans increased those quotas from 1,000 in total to 2,000 in total during his first nyear in Office in 2007-2008. He doubled the quotas to 2,000 for 2008-2009 and he held that in place for 2009-2010.

 

The total will be halved again for 2010-2011. 700 are to be earmarked for the applicants for the offshore Parent sc 103 visa. Some 15,500 Parents are waiting for those and, if the quota remains at 700 a year, those Parents are now looking at a wait of some 22 years.

 

I believe that applicants for the onshore Aged Parent 804 visas are in an even worse potential predicament. The quota for them has been reduced from 600 visas ayear to just 300 a year. I think there are about 5,500 applications in the pipeline for the subclass 804 visas.

 

If a couple, one of the applicnts has to be 65 or near enugh before thery can even apply for this visa. The Visa Capping Bill enables the Minister for Immi to scrap their visa applications, terminate their Bridging Visas at the same time and kick them out of Oz, potentially after giving them no more than 28 days notice.

 

Many of these Parents are in their 70s and 80s. The only life that they have left is the one that they have with their child or children in Oz. Nonetheless, they could still be kicked out of Oz with no rights of review or appeal.

 

No doubt Minister Evans would claim that he has “no intention” of ever treating elderly people so badly. He is nevertheless frightening them into an early grave. Why? If he has “no intention” of treating them badly, why have these elderly Parents not been ring-fenced in his preposterous new Visa Capping Bill, so as to reassure them – and me – that the Aussie Government would never stoop to such abominable conduct? If he thinks that my own reaction is one of “hysteria” then he will just have to live with it until he convinces me that the Government would never stoop so low.

 

These Parents and Aged Parents have not been ring fenced. I hope that the other Senators will protect these very vulnerable groups.

 

If I were the Aussie Parliament, I would not waste my own time on re-drafting this Bill. I would simply chuck it out in its entirety and tell Minister Evans to re-write the thing fully and properly if he expects me to consider the revised version of this iniquitous new Bill. :mad:

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I think it's quite clear that medical and IT professions will be exempted, and the chopping will be done on trade occupations.

 

What say, guys??

 

Hi Jigish

 

No - I don't think so.

 

For example, Graphic Designers, Public Relations Officers and Education Officers are not on the new SOL, either. Nor are Office Managers, Project & Program Administrators or Youth Workers.

 

It won't be possible to get DIAC to spill the beans about exactly who might be affected. DIAC's lips will be zipped for the sake of the Minister's fear that relative-sponsors in Oz might prove to be able to defeat the Australian Labor Party (Krudd's and the Minister for Immi's Krowd) at the next General Election, I suspect.

 

I reckon that the only possible solution is to hit this new Bill so hard that the Parliament of Australia decide to chuck the bluddy thing out.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Jamie

 

What is a "good" migration agent, or ar you sucking up yet again!

 

Cheers

 

You're being offensive Chris.

 

FWIW Mark wouldn't know me from a bar of soap, we don't do business together. But I have heard more about him than he does of me, plus he is the NSW State President. What's your role in the MIA, other than a defector to MA who came back to the MIA again????

 

Now, shall we holster our water pistols and stick to the topic of the thread please? :SLEEP:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

According to what I gathered is that from now on there will be no refusals only capped and ceased. What he smartly did not mention is the reason for refusal and obviously a person who has not been refused will never know why he was capped and ceased and therefore not be able to fight his case !!! I DONT MIND A REFUSAL BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY WHY WHY and if this bill is passed, NO ONE CAN QUESTION WHAT HE DOES WITH AN IMMIGRANT'S APPLICATION !!! This is a very shrewd move to get what he wants. He is obviously trying to make it sound as if this bill will only be able to assist them do our jobs better but there is more than what meets the eye.

 

One question that keeps coming back to my mind is why do this now and not before when you were in office for so many years, at the near end of your tenure when you are not sure of your return to office, why do you want to pass such a bill at this time......

 

Hi Ozzieland

 

At their early roadshows in March 2010, some wimmin from DIAC claimed that only "dodgy" visa applicants would be capped and killed.

 

"Dodgy" means, "Attended a visa factory in Oz, bought bogus bits of paper in Oz"etc.

 

All fine and dandy but unless DIAC can PROVE that the relevant applications are bogus, DIAC/their Minister would stand to take one heck of a bath in the Migration Review Tribunal or in the Courts, plainly.

 

However if you can &kill the applications that you suspect might be dodgy and you block any possibiliyi of compaming to the MRT, then the mernkeys employed by DIAC can more or less do as they please, I suspect.

 

Inspector Clouseau was right. Some creatures are monkeys. Others are mernkeys.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest reddragon81]

is that it? only 91 submissions?

 

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee: Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 [Provisions]: Submissions Received

[virtual_bajwa]

is that it? only 91 submissions?

 

Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committees: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee: Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 [Provisions]: Submissions Received

 

Thanks reddragon,

There are only 91 submissions on this senate committee. Well, I am very sad to tell u that most of the guys who are waiting for last so many years ,do not believe this Senate Committee. Well, If Minister wants to go ahead with the bill be will find some way out for implementing this law. So this senate Committee is of no use. This Committee is a puppet in the hands of Minister as he is in majority in the parliament. What is happening in the Australian parliament behind the door, no body knows about that. So personally I do not believe much from this Committee. I had gone thru so much hard time during this waiting period I do not believe anyone.

[Ozzieland]

Hi Ozzieland

 

At their early roadshows in March 2010, some wimmin from DIAC claimed that only "dodgy" visa applicants would be capped and killed.

 

"Dodgy" means, "Attended a visa factory in Oz, bought bogus bits of paper in Oz"etc.

 

All fine and dandy but unless DIAC can PROVE that the relevant applications are bogus, DIAC/their Minister would stand to take one heck of a bath in the Migration Review Tribunal or in the Courts, plainly.

 

However if you can &kill the applications that you suspect might be dodgy and you block any possibiliyi of compaming to the MRT, then the mernkeys employed by DIAC can more or less do as they please, I suspect.

 

Inspector Clouseau was right. Some creatures are monkeys. Others are mernkeys.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill,

 

Well, my opinion is that, if it is DIAC's intention to only cap and cease applicants of those who attended dodgy colleges, the Bill should clearly state this. Why should you make something so general if you have such clear intentions ?? If there are any amendments to be made in the future, they can always be made BUT and there is a BIG BUT... if you are acting against the 'so called dodgy applicants' why hasn't the Government as yet, acted against these dodgy colleges ? My sister was a victim of one of these. She had joined a college recommended by an Education agent and after a month of joining realized that she had been cheated. She complained to DIAC and they made her give a written statement, but for reasons best know to DIAC, no known action was ever taken against this college and the college is still in existence. She left the college after one term (she needed time to decide what she should do next and she had already anyway paid the term fees) and did not join another for the fear of being cheated again and also putting herself into a worst financial situation. She obtained her PR with her Bachelor's Degree she obtained in India and her work experience from a Multinational.

 

I think there is more than just 'dodgy applicants'. He wants the leeway of attacking any application that he believes that 'Australia can do without' and act accordingly without any repurcussions of his guilty actions. This is just my opinion and any other suggestions are welcome.