Visa Capping - Senate Inquiry

[Jeffster]

Have a look at the submission number 208 from the UNION. They SUPPORT THE BILL!

 

They support to cap and kill by occupation particularly COOKS, HAIRDRESSERS, and IT. Also arguing that 100,000 jobs for Australian young people disappeared during the GFC.

 

Well.....they also want the govt to start thinking of capping INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

 

Where do you even start with this?

 

As it is only 1 of 208 submissions (so far) that support the Bill, you wouldn't normally be worried. But this is from a Union and as any Labour Government will bend over backwards for them it probably holds more weight than the other 207 opposing applications put together. I have already heard that it was Union pressure last year on Evans that resulted in Priority Processing.

 

So they support the Bill - well if it weren't acting retrocatively I would support most of it as well - no surprises there. What knocked my socks off was this (my highlights):

 

"The CFMEU believes that persons who apply for a skilled visa in particular occupations are generally entitled to have their application considered under the rules applying at the time of application.

However, broader public policy considerations sometimes justify departing from this general principle, for example if it would result in significant adverse impacts on Australian residents or if circumstances in Australia change."

 

General principle? Application of laws retroactively is a "general principle"?

OMFG! Can you imagine the uproar if the Howard Government had said WorkChoices was to work 3 years retroactively? Sheesh...

 

They also are making a pre-empitve attempt to slash tilers, brickies and carpenters claiming "Graduates of these courses will be competing with Australian apprentices and young tradespeople for limited opportunities."

They probably hadn't noticed but there are hardly ANY Aussie apprentices anymore, for varying reasons. Why are they worried? Well the answer: "There is high risk that the international graduates will also drive down wages in their desire to get the jobs needed to secure PR visas." Would that be drive down the exorbitant wages your members rip off the general Aussie public you claim to protect? Keep the supply low and the price high - basic economics. Aussies are fed up of having to wait 3 months to get their roof retiled and then pay $150 an hour for the privelege. Anyone on the street will tell you there are not enough tradies and NO competition at all, it's a virtual monopoly. Typical Union, trying to protect the racket their members have been running for the last God knows how long!

 

Then they start attacking the 457 visa and student visas and asking that they be capped as well and finish up with (false) accusations that some submissions used the "threat" of staying illegally to dissuade passing the Bill:

"laws and policy should not be made in response to threats, as a matter of principle"

 

 

 

Oh that is just hypocrisy of the highest order coming from a Union.

 

The entire submission is nothing more than a short-sighted, ill-conceived and ill-thought out attempt to appease it's members, protect their various rackets and marketplace distortions and cynically claim that they are doing it in Australia's best interests. There is absolutely zero concern or even reference to the emotional and financial hardships endured by applicants in the pipeline or the suffering that will ensue if the Bill is passed and C&K is enforced retroactively.

[Christopher McGrath]

From the Qld DIAC State Director, and head of global GSM, the 2007 cap and cease will happen soon.

 

Regards to all.

Chris

[George Lombard]

Jeffster, ignore (or dismiss) the CFMEU submission at your peril.

 

Worth noting that it (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=63b442a7-c336-4cfa-a6ce-b7871fbf9f6e ) clearly explains the driving forces behind the government position. To the extent that it was submitted with today's date, that is, it was rushed through by the Committee, might indicate how poorly presented and argued so many of the individual submissions are. Important too to note that it's not concerned with the individual rights of applicants so much as Australia's legitimate needs. I think that the economic analysis which supports most immigration thinking is flawed and self-serving, and unfortunately I'm yet to see a completely compelling economic model, but dedicated researchers could start here: John Quiggin

 

Will be interesting to see how many education institutions, or the MIA or MA, get into a direct stoush on this. The claim that 100,000 young Australians lost their jobs in the GFC is highly emotive, and although the obvious answer is that there are many more jobs created by the overseas student industry, it ends up being a complex econometric debate with no clear answer. Still, if people do want to contest the policy they will need to raise the quality of their submissions, and the CFMEU has given you a yardstick.

 

Finally, poorly researched and argued submissions will just give the government a free kick. For example, whoever lodged submission 12 saying that ceased applicants would become illegals, gave the CFMEU the opportunity to say the following:

 

"The threat to stay in Australia and to work as illegal immigrants should be explicitly and strongly

rejected by the Committee. Australian migration laws and policy should not be made in response to

threats, as a matter of principle."

 

Nice one. Not.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[rahulpatel1969]

From the Qld DIAC State Director, and head of global GSM, the 2007 cap and cease will happen soon.

 

Regards to all.

Chris

 

Soon meaning when. I have been hearing this from February.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Have a look at the submission number 208 from the UNION. They SUPPORT THE BILL!

 

They support to cap and kill by occupation particularly COOKS, HAIRDRESSERS, and IT. Also arguing that 100,000 jobs for Australian young people disappeared during the GFC.

 

Well.....they also want the govt to start thinking of capping INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

 

Hi yc1ten

 

I am not in the least surprised that the CFMEU have spoken out in support of the Bill.

 

As I understand it, the Trades Unions are very powerful in Australia and very rampant. (It became similar with the Unions in the UK during the mid 1970s. However then Mrs Thatcher became Prime Minister and she handbagged the Unions very severely. She told them that she was running the country, not the Trades Unions, and the Unions subsided completely. I suppose she introduced legislation that clobbered their legal powers but I do not know the details.)

 

The Unions in Australia have never had a handbagging from the likes of Mrs Thatcher, so I gather that they are powerful and militant in Oz and that a huge amount of Union money pays to keep Kevin Rudd's Australian Labor Party going. In return for lots of their money, they demand lots of political power, obviously.

 

Minister Chris Evans was practically brought up by the Trades Unions in Oz. Please see his Wiki blog, below:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Evans_(Australian_politician)

 

It is not surprising that the CFMEU have collared him and have ordered him to do their bidding. His professional background means that he is going to say "Yes, Sir" to the Unions, particularly to the CFMEU which I think (not sure) is the largest of the Unions in Oz. One of the Unions that employed Evans later merged with the CFMEU, I gather.

 

Reading the CFMEU Submission, personally I am 'hearing' the following 'messages' from them:

 

1. The CFMEU had the original idea of capping and terminating visa applicants according to their occupations. Evans is neither brave enough or brainy enough to think that one up on his own and DIAC are so determined to distance themselves from the quarrel surrounding occupations that they have washed their own hands of the entire occupations debate. DIAC's stance is that their job is to deal with skilled visa applications (amongst other visa applications) but that it is up to other people to tell DIAC what the relevant skills ought to be.

 

2. The CFMEU do not seem to be at all happy with the idea of including any building trades occupations on the new SOL. They remark sarcastically that doing so was Skills Australia's idea and that the CFMEU are still waiting for Skills Australia to publish their justification for this inclusion.

 

3. Interestingly, the CFMEU stress that they do not[/I] support the Minister's push towards employer-driven and employer-sponsored skilled migration. I'll bet they don't. The CFMEU probably has its own members complaining like billy-oh because the individual employers do not have the resources, the money, the desire or the ability to get involved with overseas recruitment expos and so forth in order to choose the workers that they specifically want. The beauty of the GSM program is that it delivers a worker to Australia and the worker has unrestricted work-rights once he arrives. It has not cost the Aussie employer a penny to get this worker to the right place, and the employers can pick and choose amongst the workers who choose to apply to them and can start work next Monday.

 

This one looks like a serious clash of ideological beliefs between the CFMEU and the Minister for Immi to me.

 

4. As far as I can see, the CFMEU is determined to help the Minister to kill off the International Education industry and the $15 billion AUD or so a year that it had become worth to Australia in foreign income. It is not the Minister for Immigration's job to interfere with one of the major platforms for running the economy of Australia - and the economy of the State of VIC in particular - but still.....

 

5. The Unions are determined that the wages earned by their members should rise as high as possible, regardless of the fact that excessive wage-bargains merely cause severe inflation in any economy. The workers do not actually benefit from the higher wages because the costs of buying the weekly groceries also increase exponentially, in line with an exponential increase in wages but Unions in the UK and in Oz seem to be blind to this glaringly obvious fact, which fact has been proven over and over again elsewhere in the world. The CFMEU are apparently worried stiff that on-shore Student graduates will allegedly flout the laws and the policies set by the Goverrnment in order that the Student gradates can drive wages down when the Union wants those wages to go up:

There is high risk that the international graduates will also drive down wages in their desire to get the jobs needed to secure PR visas.

The CFMEU is suspiciously silent about the fact that it takes two to tango. How will these graduate Student work for less than the going rates of pay unless Aussie employers are happy to participate in the crooked - and illegal - proposition?

 

6. Wow! The CFMEU have stated that in general, they do not support legislation that works retroactively. However, they claim:

However, broader public policy considerations sometimes justify departing from this general principle, for example if it would result in significant adverse impacts on Australian residents or if circumstances in Australia change.

If these "broader policy principles" support the idea of Australia adopting the principle of introducing legislation that works retroactively then the CFMEU also support the idea of clobbering Australia's foreign trading partners via retroactively operating legislation as well. Hmmm. I wonder how the foreign trading partners might feel about that idea? If I were them, I would triple the price payable to me for getting involved with providing anything that Australia wants, in order to reflect the increased risk to me. Or I would simply abandon dealing with Australia altogether and leave the Aussies to starve.

 

For instance, it is convenient for a Chinese steel-making concern to get its iron ore from West Australia because of the geographical proximity. However WA is not the only place in the world that can supply iron-ore so if I were the Chinese steel-making concern, I would be looking for new suppliers in new countries, the Governments of which have zero intention of ever being as shifty and two-faced as the Aussies have suddenly decided that they want to be from now on. I am convinced that Krudd is headed for scoring a major Own Goal for Australia with this beastly little Visa Capping Bill, because of the wider implications of accepting the principle of legislation that works retroactively.

 

7. The submission reveals another major idealogical clash between the CFMEU and the Government that the CFMEU helps to finance. This time, the CFMEU wants caps on the size of the sx 457 visa program but apparently the Government has told the CFMEU that the Government has no power to cap the size of the sc 457 Program and that it has no intention of seeking the power to cap it. The CFMEU is highy critical of the Krudd Government, it seems to me.....

 

8. The CFMEU also disapproves of the very feeble and ineffective claims that the Aussie Government is making in the vague hope that the Government might be able to stop Australia's International Education industry from collapsing. I've got news for the CFMEU and for the Government: there will not be any need to cap the numbers of Student visas granted because the number of Student visas applied for will collapse in any case. Australia will end up running around trying to convince would-be International Students to head for Australia in the future but the fact is that those would be Students have suddenly become mightily interested in heading for Canada instead and the Canadian Government is doing everything possible to encourage them to do so. Australia is going to be left in the financial wilderness as far as International Education is concerned, for sure.

 

Whether or not Australia can persuade enough young Aussies to become Cooks & Hairdressers remains to be seen. The youngsters might decide to stick with their own Plan A instead. As I understand it, Plan A involves claiming the dole and avoiding running into debt for the sake of inconvenient attendance in classes because surfing from Australia's beaches is not only much more fun, it is also free.....

 

My own feeling is that the Minister has ordered the CFMEU to be seen to come out in support of his new Bill. However all that the CFMEU has done is to mimic a parrot by reciting the Government's own buzz-phrases in support of the Bill. For the rest, the CFMEU's Submission seems to me to consist of criticizing the Krudd Government's approach to skilled migration from top to bottom.

 

The average rattlesnake can do better than that in support of the rattlesnake's buddy, methinks.....

 

Of the really strong voices whose opinions have been published so far, I think there are only two players - Carina Ford and the CFMEU. Personally I put the score between them at Carina Ford = 10 and the CFMEU = 0.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest fat]

Gill

 

Do you really think parliament will not back this bill. I doubt it. Immigrants are one of the most unpopular groups in Australia today. By the time the public realise what Evans has achieved, he will have engineered the collapse of the education industry. But I do think Evans will get his bill passed.

 

Let us see.

 

Rahul

 

 

The coalition won't oppose..the government proposed it.. the greens may have a few issues but they will give in .. the bill will pass.. of that there is no doubt

[rahulpatel1969]

from news.outlookindia.com | India to Take up Migration Policy Changes With Aus

 

India to Take up Migration Policy Changes With Aus

Saurabh Chaturvedi/Sydney | Jun 10, 2010

PRINTSHARE [/url]

 

COMMENTS

 

 

a { font-family:Arial; font-size:14px; color:#af0e25; text-decoration:none; } India plans to lodge a protest with Australia against the proposed changes in its migration policy that are likely to impact as many as 80,000 existing Indians students in the country, an official said today.

 

"Till recently, the racial attacks on Indians was a problem but the bigger problem that is seen emerging is the new migration rules coming into effect from July 1. This will impact a large number of international students, majority of which are from India and China," said a senior official from the Indian consulate in Sydney.

 

The official said the Union Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs Vayalar Ravi will be in Sydney on June 12 and meet his counterparts here on the matter.

 

"The issue of change in migration rules and its impact on Indian students figures top on his agenda," he said, adding that Union Power Minister Sushilkumar Shinde who is visiting Sydney tomorrow is also likely to take up this cause with the relevant authorities, the official said.

 

"We are not opposing the migration rule change and the government is well within its right to do so. This law should not be made applicable with retrospective effect as proposed by the Australian government," the official said.

 

Shinde is on a five-day visit to Australia to discuss energy co-operation. Congress MP Manish Tewari is also in Sydney and is expected to meet All International Students Association in Australia President Navjot Singh on the matter.

 

"Indian government has not done enough. We are losing hope. We will meet Manish Tewari tomorrow and Minister Ravi on Tuesday and brief them on this matter as also on attacks on Indian students. We feel cheated by Australian authorities over the immigration issue," Singh said.

 

According to the High Commission officials, the Indian government is extremely concerned about its students in Australia. The students feel that they have been misled and after having been charged large amounts of money for education in Australia, they may be asked to leave the country for "no fault of theirs".

 

There are over 5 lakh foreign students in Australia, bulk of which come from India and China. There are around 95,000 Indian students and the fate of as many as 80,000 may get affected if the policy changes proposed by the Kevin Rudd government come into force next month.

 

Increased protests and rallies are being staged by various international student bodies since the proposed changes to Australia's existing migration policy were announced in February this year.

 

Under the new migration rules, the Rudd government has trimmed the skilled occupation list (SOL) for getting permanent resident status in Australia from the earlier 450 to 150. The SOL now does not comprise popular courses like hair dressing and cookery among others, which were popular among Indians.

 

"International students used to apply for such courses for easily getting permanent resident status in Australia. With the changes proposed, it will be extremely difficult for Indian students among others to apply for permanent resident status," the official added.

 

Among other things, if the new rule comes in place, every minister would get right to put a cap to entry of foreign students under his area of activity if he feels so, officials added.

[rahulpatel1969]

Read also

 

India for 'prospective' implementation of Australian migration policy - dnaindia.com

[Guest Gollywobbler]

From the Qld DIAC State Director, and head of global GSM, the 2007 cap and cease will happen soon.

 

Regards to all.

Chris

 

Hi Chris

 

According to DIAC's flunkeys, Cap & Cease has been about to start "next week" ever since 4th March 2010. Come "next week," nothing has actually happened.

 

DIAC's newest attempt at "next week" happened at the DIAC Seminar in Sydney on 31st May 2010. Cap & Cease was due to start happening in the week beginning 8th June 2010 according to the DIAC flunkeys who attended the Seminar.

 

The week commencing 8th June 2010 came and went. As before, nothing happened.

 

S39 cannot be used unless the relevant visa classes and subclasses are formally Capped via a legislative Instrument first. There is no sign of any Instrument.

 

Also, S39 does not grant the Minister any power to offer refunds but the Minister has always insisted that he intends to offer refunds. So how is he going to offer these refunds without breaching the law that he claims to uphold?

 

Given that none of the State Directors of DIAC are in charge of controlling the "Go" button with the Cap & Cease idea, personally I wouldn't set any store by what any of them say. If DIAC's Acting Chief Solicitor, one Ms Jackie Davis, were to say that she intends to hit the "Go" button that she controls next Monday morning, I would take her seriously but she has not said anything as yet.

 

As far as the State Directors are concerned, have you ever heard the expression "Crying wolf?" If you keep on crying wolf, people stop believing a word of it when no wolves have cooperated with your claims by heaving into view.

 

It is pretty obvious that the Minister does not want to use his existing powers under S39. He wants the new powers proposed in his new Bill before he can do what he wants and Ms Davis would allow him to try.

 

If the proposed new Bill is chucked out by the Senate, though, Krudd might follow it by chucking Evans out to the back benches in a sudden re-shuffle, I suspect. The CFMEU are openly critical of practically everything that Evans is trying to do, it appears from the CFMEU's Submission. If I were Krudd, I would consider the CFMEU's money to be a more valuable prop than any more daft, unworkable, unpopular-with-the-CFMEU proposals by Evans, so I would be inclined to sacrifice Evans on the altar of the utter mess that he has made hitherto.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest vanaxel]

If I were Krudd, I would consider the CFMEU's money to be a more valuable prop than any more daft, unworkable, unpopular-with-the-CFMEU proposals by Evans, so I would be inclined to sacrifice Evans on the altar of the utter mess that he has made hitherto.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Couldn't agree with more especially with your last sentence.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Chris McG, rumours are not helpful!

 

Gill, I don't quite see the Government bowing to the CFMEU, they stood up to the unions when first elected to create an increase in the programme and some other things.

 

The union submission argues two things that will not fly and also shows one point of political ignorance:

 

a) it's ok to set aside natural justice for people living in Australia as long as wages go up. That's attitude is how DIAC managed to deport some Australian citizens a while ago.

 

b) the union think State Governments and central governments know more about which occupations are in need than employers do. And here's me thinking it was the employers that specified the occupations they wanted to hire, not the union/Government... The Soviets proved that central planning doesn't work.

 

c) many Indian families have mortgaged their future to have one family member study in Australia, and to cease the application without full and fair compensation is just unfair and perhaps illegal. If 80,000 (union figures) students get capped and go home to now almost penniless familes the political fallout in India will be huge. More so than the negative publicity of the student bashings. I know we don't drive our migration programmes by overseas economics, but at very least a full refund of all documented costs should be offered, except college tuition fees.

 

The union submission is also light in quantification.

 

They said 100,000 young people's jobs were lost (no it was finance sector and manufacturing).

 

And they conveninetly misunderstand the numbers by saying that the NOM increase was mainly from new migrants and did not allow for students on year long courses being treated as permanent migrants, when many are not.

 

I think the Minister and Senators know that a) and b) are ridiculous desires carried over from the 70s, but it is the politicians' ability to understimate the backlash from within India that I am more concerned about.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

I think that the economic analysis which supports most immigration thinking is flawed and self-serving, and unfortunately I'm yet to see a completely compelling economic model, but dedicated researchers could start here: John Quiggin

 

Here it is George:

 

When you or I retire, we create new problems:

 

a) we need someone to do the job we just finished doing (yes you ARE replaceable!)

b) we need someone else to look after us as we slowly disintegrate into old age (might be me more than you)

c) and we need to pay the person to look after us.

 

Add to the mix that:

 

a) there are now more leaving the workforce than entering it,

b) houses are $500,000+ to buy and family income is tied up in the huge mortgage so most families can't afford to have three or four kids

c) a lot of Australians chose to live overseas as jobs become more mobile

 

and we have a clear need to import skills and also less skilled but still working hands and bodies.

 

The unions would be happy if only three people were left to do all the work as long as they were well paid on wages artificially forced up by Government created shortage of imported workers and skills. That is a road to economic ruin.

 

The argument is not so much pro-immigration as it is anti-"no immigration"

[rahulpatel1969]

Chris McG, rumours are not helpful!

 

Gill, I don't quite see the Government bowing to the CFMEU, they stood up to the unions when first elected to create an increase in the programme and some other things.

 

The union submission argues two things that will not fly and also shows one point of political ignorance:

 

a) it's ok to set aside natural justice for people living in Australia as long as wages go up. That's attitude is how DIAC managed to deport some Australian citizens a while ago.

 

b) the union think State Governments and central governments know more about which occupations are in need than employers do. And here's me thinking it was the employers that specified the occupations they wanted to hire, not the union/Government... The Soviets proved that central planning doesn't work.

 

c) many Indian families have mortgaged their future to have one family member study in Australia, and to cease the application without full and fair compensation is just unfair and perhaps illegal. If 80,000 (union figures) students get capped and go home to now almost penniless familes the political fallout in India will be huge. More so than the negative publicity of the student bashings. I know we don't drive our migration programmes by overseas economics, but at very least a full refund of all documented costs should be offered, except college tuition fees.

 

The union submission is also light in quantification.

 

They said 100,000 young people's jobs were lost (no it was finance sector and manufacturing).

 

And they conveninetly misunderstand the numbers by saying that the NOM increase was mainly from new migrants and did not allow for students on year long courses being treated as permanent migrants, when many are not.

 

I think the Minister and Senators know that a) and b) are ridiculous desires carried over from the 70s, but it is the politicians' ability to understimate the backlash from within India that I am more concerned about.

 

Jamie

 

Why only India. This affects students even from other countries like China. So the backlash would be from many countries.

 

Also what about so many of those affected having family sponsors in Australia and those whose jobs are going to be affected in the Australian education industry. Elections are not far are they and Rudd is not very popular.

 

As i pointed out this is already making headlines. Mr. Evans is out to bury Australian education.

 

 

Regards

 

Rahul

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Jamie

 

Why only India. This affects students even from other countries like China. So the backlash would be from many countries.

 

Also what about so many of those affected having family sponsors in Australia and those whose jobs are going to be affected in the Australian education industry. Elections are not far are they and Rudd is not very popular.

 

As i pointed out this is already making headlines. Mr. Evans is out to bury Australian education.

 

 

Regards

 

Rahul

Hi Rahul

 

Because it is most Indians not Chinese that took on debt to fund the education, Chinese students are more likely to come from a wealthier background. Ok, add in Nepalese and Vietnamese etc. But those countries didn't have doctors accused of terrorism or students allegedly being bashed because of ethnicity. India has a higher level of disaffection with Australia, for more reasons.

 

Mr Evans is out to get at least something finished in this term so the Labour Party can try and get reeelected, most of Labour's other political goals have been "capped and ceased" :biglaugh: and the promises broken.

[rahulpatel1969]

Jamie

Mr Evans will certainly be able to "cap and cease" Australian education. Rudd seems to be trying the same with the miners. Seems labor are certain trying their best to finish of Australian exports.

 

Regards

Rahul

[yc1ten]

Where do you even start with this?

 

As it is only 1 of 208 submissions (so far) that support the Bill, you wouldn't normally be worried. But this is from a Union and as any Labour Government will bend over backwards for them it probably holds more weight than the other 207 opposing applications put together. I have already heard that it was Union pressure last year on Evans that resulted in Priority Processing.

 

So they support the Bill - well if it weren't acting retrocatively I would support most of it as well - no surprises there. What knocked my socks off was this (my highlights):

 

"The CFMEU believes that persons who apply for a skilled visa in particular occupations are generally entitled to have their application considered under the rules applying at the time of application.

However, broader public policy considerations sometimes justify departing from this general principle, for example if it would result in significant adverse impacts on Australian residents or if circumstances in Australia change."

 

General principle? Application of laws retroactively is a "general principle"?

OMFG! Can you imagine the uproar if the Howard Government had said WorkChoices was to work 3 years retroactively? Sheesh...

 

They also are making a pre-empitve attempt to slash tilers, brickies and carpenters claiming "Graduates of these courses will be competing with Australian apprentices and young tradespeople for limited opportunities."

They probably hadn't noticed but there are hardly ANY Aussie apprentices anymore, for varying reasons. Why are they worried? Well the answer: "There is high risk that the international graduates will also drive down wages in their desire to get the jobs needed to secure PR visas." Would that be drive down the exorbitant wages your members rip off the general Aussie public you claim to protect? Keep the supply low and the price high - basic economics. Aussies are fed up of having to wait 3 months to get their roof retiled and then pay $150 an hour for the privelege. Anyone on the street will tell you there are not enough tradies and NO competition at all, it's a virtual monopoly. Typical Union, trying to protect the racket their members have been running for the last God knows how long!

 

Then they start attacking the 457 visa and student visas and asking that they be capped as well and finish up with (false) accusations that some submissions used the "threat" of staying illegally to dissuade passing the Bill:

 

"laws and policy should not be made in response to threats, as a matter of principle"

 

 

 

Oh that is just hypocrisy of the highest order coming from a Union.

 

The entire submission is nothing more than a short-sighted, ill-conceived and ill-thought out attempt to appease it's members, protect their various rackets and marketplace distortions and cynically claim that they are doing it in Australia's best interests. There is absolutely zero concern or even reference to the emotional and financial hardships endured by applicants in the pipeline or the suffering that will ensue if the Bill is passed and C&K is enforced retroactively.

 

Most likely, this is what the UNION would like to happen....:biglaugh:

 

Pensioner rip-off - Today Tonight

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Jeffster, ignore (or dismiss) the CFMEU submission at your peril.

 

Worth noting that it (https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=63b442a7-c336-4cfa-a6ce-b7871fbf9f6e ) clearly explains the driving forces behind the government position. To the extent that it was submitted with today's date, that is, it was rushed through by the Committee, might indicate how poorly presented and argued so many of the individual submissions are. Important too to note that it's not concerned with the individual rights of applicants so much as Australia's legitimate needs. I think that the economic analysis which supports most immigration thinking is flawed and self-serving, and unfortunately I'm yet to see a completely compelling economic model, but dedicated researchers could start here: John Quiggin

 

Will be interesting to see how many education institutions, or the MIA or MA, get into a direct stoush on this. The claim that 100,000 young Australians lost their jobs in the GFC is highly emotive, and although the obvious answer is that there are many more jobs created by the overseas student industry, it ends up being a complex econometric debate with no clear answer. Still, if people do want to contest the policy they will need to raise the quality of their submissions, and the CFMEU has given you a yardstick.

 

Finally, poorly researched and argued submissions will just give the government a free kick. For example, whoever lodged submission 12 saying that ceased applicants would become illegals, gave the CFMEU the opportunity to say the following:

 

"The threat to stay in Australia and to work as illegal immigrants should be explicitly and strongly

rejected by the Committee. Australian migration laws and policy should not be made in response to

threats, as a matter of principle."

 

Nice one. Not.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Hi George

 

I do hear what you say, loud and clear. However I think that there are opposing arguments to much of what you say, as well. Here goes:

 

When I read the CFMEU Submission I noted that it is dated 17th June 2010. However, Word has a feature that enables you to set the date when you write the document but the date will update itself automatically until the time when you either print the document or convert it to a PDF file. So I'm wondering whether the CFMEU actually only wrote the document today?

 

That said, I do agree that the CFMEU submission probably has been rushed through the Committee and such was the haste to publish it that the Committee Secretariat has not even printed the first page of the document, stamped it and then scanned it prior to publication? Normally the Secretariat stamps the submission and gives it a number before they publish it, so I am wondering why this has not happened with the CFMEU submission?

 

Obviously the team of officials working for a beleaguered Minister for Immi would put maximum pressure onto a Committee Secretariat to get them to publish a submission from one of the Minister's known cronies - the CFMEU - without a moment's delay. It is well known in Oz that the CFMEU is one of the Government's best buddies, which fact will not be lost on the members of the Inquiry Committee, methinks......

 

George Lombard and Mark Webster are obviously not considered to be the Minister's cronies, though, because both of you sent your submissions prior to 4th June and there has been no sign of them on the Committee's website, as yet! I assume that neither you or Mr Webster would have sent confidential submissions?

 

Will be interesting to see how many education institutions, or the MIA or MA, get into a direct stoush on this.

Why would they get into a stoush, please? Writing what one thinks is not rocket science and the instructions for submitting the fruits of one's labours are simple to follow.

 

The claim that 100,000 young Australians lost their jobs in the GFC is highly emotive,

Mmmmmm? I thought the claim was highly dramatic, definitely, but I'm not convinced that it was emotive. It was as unsubstantiated as it was dramatic, indeed. Additionally, I note that the CFMEU did not bother to tell us how many migrant workers lost their own jobs during the GFC. Why didn't the CFMEU tell us about that bit?

 

Is the statement that loads of Aussie youngsters allegedly lost their jobs to be taken to mean/imply that the Aussie youngsters were not and are not as good at the jobs as the migrant workers who did not lose their jobs? If so, is the CFMEU arguing that Australia should put up with a crummily poor-quality workforce merely in order to ensure that Aussies do not lose their jobs? If that is what the CFMEU are saying, why do they want to encourage an uncompetitive, third-rate workforce of Aussies alone in Australia?

 

Still, if people do want to contest the policy they will need to raise the quality of their submissions, and the CFMEU has given you a yardstick.

I disagree. The CFMEU did nothing to argue in support of the Government's ideas with the Bill. They merely parroted what the Government had already said. That is just parrot repetition. It is not an argument. In the bits that the CFMEU did argue, they were highly critical of the present Government's policies, it seems to me, leading me to think, "Jeez. With 'friends' like the CFMEU, who on earth needs enemies, I wonder?"

 

The CFMEU submission was signed off by a man whose name clearly implies that English is his first language. Where the other people who have sent submissions have allowed their own names to be published, it is obvious that English is not those people's first language. Which means that these other people can speak at least two languages, which is more than I can say for myself and possibly also more than the CFMEU man can say for himself as well?

 

Also, if one says that the arguments against the proposals are poorly argued and are in crummy English, the majority of the people who sent the other submissions are people who have been studying in Australia's International Education system. According to the Minister for Immi, Australia is capable of providing one of the finest educations in existence. According to me, the Minister's claim is complete rubbish anyway but it is particular rubbish if the recipients of this "finest education" - garnered by the recipients at very considerable expense - are not able to manage more than they have managed in their submissions, surely?

 

Similarly, some of the people who have sent submissions have names that imply "China." Where you might well get thrown into jail if you dare to raise your own voice against that of the Government, I imagine? If so then the people concerned may not have had much practice at disagreeing with a Government before, so all power to their elbows for giving the idea a fair go, in my view. The Minister insists on these stupid "Australian Values" statements from intending migrants, apparently. One of these "Australian Values" is standing up and arguing against the Government if you think that the Government is trying to act in a manner that is unfair and that contradicts the much-vaunted Aussie idea of "the fair go." So top marks to the Government's dissenters for giving it the fair go, I suggest. The Minister should be very proud of all of them for disagreeing with him. It shows how well-integrated they have become into the Aussie way of life, it seems to me.

 

Some of the others have names that imply "India." I've never met an Indian who is frightened to argue against a Government but in India they would do their arguing in Indian, not in English, so again, I would call this group's efforts a very fair go as well.

 

Even the CFMEU have stated that they do not agree with the principle of legislation that works retroactively. They only support the idea of retroactive legislation once their cronies the Government have twisted the CFMEU's arms up behind their back, I suspect.

 

If anything, my own impression is that the CFMEU's submission has done more to harm the prospects of this Bill than it has done to assist them.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

PS: You quoted the CFMEU as saying:

"The threat to stay in Australia and to work as illegal immigrants should be explicitly and strongly

rejected by the Committee. Australian migration laws and policy should not be made in response to

threats, as a matter of principle."

 

Your own view was, "Nice one. Not." You are trying to tell the visa applicants not to make threats which you regard as ill-conceived.

 

I can quite understand why you have said that. However it seems to me that the CFMEU are screeching their sox off with fear that the threat might become a reality. I'd suggest that the CFMEU tries a bit of joined-up thinking for a change, instead of screeching. If the Visa Capping Bill is rejected, the idea of people remaining in Australia unlawfully will not become a reality, it seems to me.

 

I don't think that succumbing to hysteria just because somebody has uttered a threat has ever prevented a bush fire from starting, has it? If I were te CFMEU, I wouldn't have fussed about the point, myself.

[Guest gmac]

Nothing ceases to amaze me although I fully endorse Visa capping as a notion worthy of remaining in the fight to oppose till the death. ( or until it becomes legislation which ever is sooner! )

 

If the Aussie Union representing construction has submitted opposition, then the unions who represent the chefs and hairdressers should also make a case. ( sorry chefs and hairdressers for my ignorance, I'm new to Aussie rules! )

 

DIAC I am informed are using quantifiable information to base their number quoatas direction on then so surely the Unions would be equally well versed as Skills Australia on providing a catalyst for things to happen.

 

If the Trade Unions are representing say 75% of visa applicants known as the "tradies" collectively, then the other 25% remain very much a silent minority.

 

My understanding is that the Trade Unions adopt their power from the "block vote" that is representing the views of the many as opposed to the individual. The difference is at the other end of the spectrum there are organisations who would represent the interests of a minority of GSM visa applications. ( I am yet to find another fellow applicant on PIO with the same occupation as myself )

 

I can just imagine someone at DIAC looking at visa applications and saying that it precisely is excellent criteria for removal from the SOL. That is if not many people fit into that catagory then they are unlikely to kick up such a fuss.

 

My feeling is that as there is an election looming us visa applicants are being used as a political football ( if not totally perfectly round in shape ) by Kruud and his cronies.

 

As a final point my brother lives in Australia and he informs me that the majority of taxi drivers are immigrants. Nice thought that if we can't get work we can be come good ol cabbies.

 

Cheers

 

Gary

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Jamie

 

Thanks very much for your contributions today. I comment as follows:

 

Gill, I don't quite see the Government bowing to the CFMEU, they stood up to the unions when first elected to create an increase in the programme and some other things.

I didn't say that the Government has not stood up to the CFMEU. The CFMEU themselves are whingeing because the Government has not kow-towed to their wishes. Equally, though, the CFMEU are venting their own spleen big-style in their Submission to the Committee. 50% of what the CFMEU has said is irrelevant to the narrow issue of the Visa Capping Bill and the other 50% - supposedly supporting the Bill - is actually only a monotonous, parrot-like repetition of what the Government has already said.

 

The 'message' that I 'hear' is that the Government ordered the CFMEU to be seen to support the Visa Capping Bill. The CFMEU remarked that it would have been a damned sight brainier of Evans if he had used his Ministerial powers back in 2008, in order to prevent the crisis from developing, than to want to control it belatedly and retrospectively in 2011, after the crisis has already spiralled out of control.

 

I don't think that the CFMEU actually supports the Government policies that have spawned the existence of the new Bill. I think that the CFMEU are trying to make the best of a bad job on the Government's behalf, but not to the extent of suppressing the CFMEU's view that Evans has got the Immigration strategies wrong from beginning to end during his tenure of the Office of Minister for Immi.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Jamie

Mr Evans will certainly be able to "cap and cease" Australian education. Rudd seems to be trying the same with the miners. Seems labor are certain trying their best to finish of Australian exports.

 

Regards

Rahul

 

Hi Rahul

 

Hehehehehe! I heard that Krudd Capped & Ceased the Homes Insulation project as well. Perhaps Evans is feeling a bit left out and wants a Cap & Cease toy of his own, do you think? :wink:

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[yc1ten]

Hi Rahul

 

Hehehehehe! I heard that Krudd Capped & Ceased the Homes Insulation project as well. Perhaps Evans is feeling a bit left out and wants a Cap & Cease toy of his own, do you think? :wink:

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Gill,

 

Comrade Rudd "Capped & Queued" the ETS.

 

I think Evans should consider this rather than capped and ceased..........:biglaugh:

[Guest reddragon81]

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

 

we have reached more than 200 submissions

 

 

what's the last day that submissions are allowed?

[Guest proud2beaussie]

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

 

we have reached more than 200 submissions

 

 

what's the last day that submissions are allowed?

I believe it is today,the 18th.

[Guest reddragon81]

does anyone know what number Gill's submission is? I am sure it's a very good one and would like to read it

[Guest reddragon81]

guys what is going to happen between the 1st of July and the 11th of August (when the bill will be approved or rejected)?

 

What is the situation at the moment? Are they still processing visa or is it everything paused?

 

I think that the government has told the states not to finalize their SMP because he wants to have the bill passed first, and then work with the SMPs. Do you agree?

 

But expecially, what is going to happen between the 1st of July and the 11th of August?