Visa Capping - Senate Inquiry

[Guest 1cessy1]

Hi everyone, we had exactly the same problem. We had to get a court order to bring my son with us which took a year. We applied for visa on my o/H occupation and then that visa was stopped until july1 09. We had had our medicals in the previous November. We were then told by our agent to apply for a ss and then the week after our agent ceased trading which was a complete pain too, fortunatley O/H decided to finish the ss off by himself in May o9 and we got our visas in September 09 and we left November 09. We too had told our friends and family causing huge upset. It was a very stressful time and i know exactly how you are all feeling as all in it took us 3 years to get here. Easy for me to say but try to stay positive and i wish you all luck and soon!!!

[virtual_bajwa]

Another trades union in favor of this bill...

Australian Council of Trades Union is supporting the bill by giving almost same reasons as given by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union of Australia. Hairdressers, Cooks and Accountants are under the hammer by this union also.

" manage so-called ‘pipeline’ issues and address the oversupply of visa applicants in certain occupations".

 

On the other hand ACTU is also concerned about the misuse of the this bill in future

"However, we are concerned about the potential for section 91 AA (1) to be misused in future to cap visa numbers, for example, on the basis of the nationality of the applicants. We ask that the Committee examine if this provision can be tightened up to ensure it can only be used for the purpose intended."

[yc1ten]

Interesting submission from a Law Lecturer (University of Tasmania). Have a look at No. 253.

[Purple Princess]

I don't know if it's me being blonde, but how do you get to number 253, I can only find up to number 220!!!:huh:

 

Steph

xxxx

[Guest elysium]

Try refreshing the page or restarting your browser.

[yc1ten]

I don't know if it's me being blonde, but how do you get to number 253, I can only find up to number 220!!!:huh:

 

Steph

xxxx

 

 

RichSalt,

 

It is now up to No.256...:cute:

[Graemsay]

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.

 

I very much agree with George here. I took a look at a few of the submissions and most of them seemed to be written in poor English and an emotive plea to remain in Australia, rather than a reasoned argument.

 

The sorts of points that a submission should be raising are the economic advantages, in particular bringing skills and education into the country (that haven't been funded by local taxpayers), and the fact that migrants are typical more entrepreneurial than non-migrants.

 

The softer points would be developing and maintaining ties with the migrants' home countries and perhaps multicultural influences on Australia.

 

I've not had a chance to read the CFMEU's yet, but I was surprised by their comments on IT. I was under the impression that there was a skills shortage in this sector, since some specialities are on the CSL.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Interesting submission from a Law Lecturer (University of Tasmania). Have a look at No. 253.

 

Far and away, that sums it up nicely.

 

Especially in describing how the existing cap and cease powers differ to those proposed - that existing Ministerial powers require applicants to be notified at time of application of the possibility of termination and it was evidently seen as a requirement in law that this be so. What is proposed does not recognise the giving of fair notice of that risk.

 

It indicates a clear pathway for legal action if the Bill is enacted as is.

 

The Minister say he has advice that he can proceed, but at the time he said that he did not appear confident.

 

I believe his ground is still very shaky. :nah:

 

It would not be politically acceptable for the Labour Government to be sued leading up to an election on the matter of immigration, as it would result in strong perception that they have clearly messed up the area of refugees and now the core economic product of skilled and family migration. This on top of many existing claims of lack of outcomes, broken promises and financial rosts and fiascos in areas like insulation provision and school building funding.

 

In fact, let the Minsiter have his legislation and be sued, it might help lead to a change of government. :Randy-git:

[rahulpatel1969]

Far and away, that sums it up nicely.

 

Especially in describing how the existing cap and cease powers differ to those proposed - that existing Ministerial powers require applicants to be notified at time of application of the possibility of termination and it was evidently seen as a requirement in law that this be so. What is proposed does not recognise the giving of fair notice of that risk.

 

It indicates a clear pathway for legal action if the Bill is enacted as is.

 

The Minister say he has advice that he can proceed, but at the time he said that he did not appear confident.

 

I believe his ground is still very shaky. :nah:

 

It would not be politically acceptable for the Labour Government to be sued leading up to an election on the matter of immigration, as it would result in strong perception that they have clearly messed up the area of refugees and now the core economic product of skilled and family migration. This on top of many existing claims of lack of outcomes, broken promises and financial rosts and fiascos in areas like insulation provision and school building funding.

 

In fact, let the Minsiter have his legislation and be sued, it might help lead to a change of government. :Randy-git:

 

Jamie

 

I certainly agree with you on the last part. Let him have the legislation or let him use his old powers but I freverently hope that he does something. Then we sue them and take them to the courts. Let us have some fun and games not this status quo.

 

Regards

Rahul

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Far and away, that sums it up nicely.

 

Especially in describing how the existing cap and cease powers differ to those proposed - that existing Ministerial powers require applicants to be notified at time of application of the possibility of termination and it was evidently seen as a requirement in law that this be so. What is proposed does not recognise the giving of fair notice of that risk.

 

It indicates a clear pathway for legal action if the Bill is enacted as is.

 

The Minister say he has advice that he can proceed, but at the time he said that he did not appear confident.

 

I believe his ground is still very shaky. :nah:

 

It would not be politically acceptable for the Labour Government to be sued leading up to an election on the matter of immigration, as it would result in strong perception that they have clearly messed up the area of refugees and now the core economic product of skilled and family migration. This on top of many existing claims of lack of outcomes, broken promises and financial rosts and fiascos in areas like insulation provision and school building funding.

 

In fact, let the Minsiter have his legislation and be sued, it might help lead to a change of government. :Randy-git:

 

Hi Jamie

 

I completely agree with every word that Ms Hilkemeijer (the lady Law Lecturer from Tasmania) has written in submission 253. She is absolutely correct in her closing statement that, "Bad law is no remedy for failed policy."

 

It does seem to me that the Minister has been warned that Section 39 of the Migration Act does not work as he would like it to work and that if he tries to use it in the ways that he would like to do so, he will be sued in the courts and he will lose the litigation in those courts.

 

The Minister will not try to go against that sort of legal advice, however much spin doctoring he might do. Very early on after he became the Minister for Immi, he roasted DIAC for spending far too much money on trying to defend litigation against the Minister and demanded that they must cut those costs dramatically. It would not take much genius from Mr Metcalfe to remind the Minister that he would be breaching his own edict about costs if he tries to risk litigation that the lawyers say he would lose.

 

I suspect that the Minister has gone back to his own Trades Unions roots in urging the Trades Unions to be seen to support his new Bill. Such support as the CFMEU and the ACTU have offered him so far does not amount to genuine support from them for the new Bill in my view.

 

In its submission, the CFMEU have mauled the Minister for what they see as the present Government's policy failures on Immigration when most of what they are complaining about has nothing to do with the new Bill. Here and there they have repeated his own words in support of the new Bill without producing a single argument of their own that justifies them in believing that it should be supported - which is a pathetic attempt by the CFMEU imho.

 

Apparently the Committee Secretary was required to invite the ACTU to make a submission, so the ACTU say in the first sentence of their own submission, mumbered #224. That doesn't spell enthusiastic support from the ACTU, to me.

 

Both of the Unions have taken the opportunity to raise their own major bone of contention with the Government - which is that the Unions believe that the sc 457 visa should be scrapped. That contention might well form the basis for a separate debate but it has nothing to do with the proposed Visa Capping Bill 2010 that is the subject of scrutiny by the present Inquiry.

 

The ACTU, it seems to me, has done nothing except to warn the Committee about the risks that the ACTU believes are inherent in this new Bill.

 

I reckon that the Bill will be thrown out by the Senate and that the Minister will have to find some other way of solving the problems which he reckons the Krudd Government inherited from the Howard Government. A one-off Amnesty would solve all the problems with the GSM pipeline and the Krudd Government could blame the Howard Government for necessitating such an Amnesty. The Minister's other current proposals for GSM visas would ensure that such an Amnesty would never be needed twice. An Amnesty might be unpopular with the voters in the short term but they would soon forget about that and it would ensure that the Aussie principle of "the fair go" remains intact, undamaged and untarnished.

 

The present Bill is an exercise in trying to go to the village green via the moon, which is why it has attracted widespread condemnation and criticism, even from the two Unions who claim to support it.

 

I completely agree with the lady law lecturer from Tasmania. Law that is rubbish will not mend a policy that has allegedly backfired and is therefore seen by the present Government as being a failure in the policy of an earlier Government.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[rahulpatel1969]

Hi Jamie

 

I completely agree with every word that Ms Hilkemeijer (the lady Law Lecturer from Tasmania) has written in submission 253. She is absolutely correct in her closing statement that, "Bad law is no remedy for failed policy."

 

It does seem to me that the Minister has been warned that Section 39 of the Migration Act does not work as he would like it to work and that if he tries to use it in the ways that he would like to do so, he will be sued in the courts and he will lose the litigation in those courts.

 

The Minister will not try to go against that sort of legal advice, however much spin doctoring he might do. Very early on after he became the Minister for Immi, he roasted DIAC for spending far too much money on trying to defend litigation against the Minister and demanded that they must cut those costs dramatically. It would not take much genius from Mr Metcalfe to remind the Minister that he would be breaching his own edict about costs if he tries to risk litigation that the lawyers say he would lose.

 

I suspect that the Minister has gone back to his own Trades Unions roots in urging the Trades Unions to be seen to support his new Bill. Such support as the CFMEU and the ACTU have offered him so far does not amount to genuine support from them for the new Bill in my view.

 

In its submission, the CFMEU have mauled the Minister for what they see as the present Government's policy failures on Immigration when most of what they are complaining about has nothing to do with the new Bill. Here and there they have repeated his own words in support of the new Bill without producing a single argument of their own that justifies them in believing that it should be supported - which is a pathetic attempt by the CFMEU imho.

 

Apparently the Committee Secretary was required to invite the ACTU to make a submission, so the ACTU say in the first sentence of their own submission, mumbered #224. That doesn't spell enthusiastic support from the ACTU, to me.

 

Both of the Unions have taken the opportunity to raise their own major bone of contention with the Government - which is that the Unions believe that the sc 457 visa should be scrapped. That contention might well form the basis for a separate debate but it has nothing to do with the proposed Visa Capping Bill 2010 that is the subject of scrutiny by the present Inquiry.

 

The ACTU, it seems to me, has done nothing except to warn the Committee about the risks that the ACTU believes are inherent in this new Bill.

 

I reckon that the Bill will be thrown out by the Senate and that the Minister will have to find some other way of solving the problems which he reckons the Krudd Government inherited from the Howard Government. A one-off Amnesty would solve all the problems with the GSM pipeline and the Krudd Government could blame the Howard Government for necessitating such an Amnesty. The Minister's other current proposals for GSM visas would ensure that such an Amnesty would never be needed twice. An Amnesty might be unpopular with the voters in the short term but they would soon forget about that and it would ensure that the Aussie principle of "the fair go" remains intact, undamaged and untarnished.

 

The present Bill is an exercise in trying to go to the village green via the moon, which is why it has attracted widespread condemnation and criticism, even from the two Unions who claim to support it.

 

I completely agree with the lady law lecturer from Tasmania. Law that is rubbish will not mend a policy that has allegedly backfired and is therefore seen by the present Government as being a failure in the policy of an earlier Government.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Gill

 

You really know how to put it the way it is. I really owe you a favor for getting me out of the black mood I was in. The way to go forward in an unfavorable sittuation where you yourself are not at fault is to fight.

 

Thanks again.

 

Regards

Rahul:hug:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I very much agree with George here. I took a look at a few of the submissions and most of them seemed to be written in poor English and an emotive plea to remain in Australia, rather than a reasoned argument.

 

The sorts of points that a submission should be raising are the economic advantages, in particular bringing skills and education into the country (that haven't been funded by local taxpayers), and the fact that migrants are typical more entrepreneurial than non-migrants.

 

The softer points would be developing and maintaining ties with the migrants' home countries and perhaps multicultural influences on Australia.

 

I've not had a chance to read the CFMEU's yet, but I was surprised by their comments on IT. I was under the impression that there was a skills shortage in this sector, since some specialities are on the CSL.

 

Hi Graemsay

 

I hear both you and George Lombard very clearly. However I think that both of you are ignoring the ethnic backgrounds of the contributors to the Inquiry and the sheer emotion (as well as the money) that all of them have pumped into their dreams of new lives for themselves in Australia..

 

Of course they think that the new Bill is unfair to themselves. I completely agree with them. The Indian Government has also said publicly that it agrees with them as well. Australia was quick enough to grant their Student visas and to grab their money with both hands. That greedy money grabbing spawned hundreds if not thousands of jobs for existing Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents, particularly in Melbourne as I understand it.

 

There is no possible way that any *civilised *country can be seen to grab $15 bn AUD a year or so of income that belongs to ordinary, individual foreigners, not to foreign Governments, and then imagine that this supposedly *civilised* country can suddenly shift the goalposts on these foreign individuals after it has grabbed their money from them.

 

Personally I think that this miserable little attempt to double cross people via the proposed Visa Capping Bill 2010 demonstrates the extreme paucity of the moral code that Krudd and his cronies abide by. I do not believe that any right-thinking Australian person would try to double cross anybody, but that is exactly what the Government that came to power 3 short years ago is now trying to do to these foreign people.

 

Both Trades Unions have warned that the new proposals are not acceptable as they stand, not even to themselves. Those Unions are run by ordinary Aussies.

 

I reckon that this Bill will prove to be Senator Evans' political undoing. If Rudd doesn't kick him out to the back benches, the only honourable thing that he can do in my view is to resign if his Bill bites the dust.

 

I am very hopeful that the Aussie Senate will reject this new Bill and I am keeping fingers, toes and eyes crossed that it will be rejected.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Gill

 

You really know how to put it the way it is. I really owe you a favor for getting me out of the black mood I was in. The way to go forward in an unfavorable sittuation where you yourself are not at fault is to fight.

 

Thanks again.

 

Regards

Rahul:hug:

 

Hi Rahul

 

You are absolutely right. Furthermore, the Minister is trying to do his own fighting from the position of a rat in a corner. You and I are fighting from the top of the mountain called the Moral High Ground.

 

I am a huge believer in the power of the courts in a *civilised* country. The Judges tend to insist that the rule of law is sacrosanct and that it must prevail. I think that the English legal system contains some major flaws but by and large, this flawed legal system does manage to deliver justice. No society is perfect and the law is only the set of rules that the given society has chosen to adopt for itself and to live by, so I believe that one has to live with the flaws as well.

 

However with the present Bill, the Aussie Minister is trying to mend a non-existent "problem." His only real problem is that a micromanager called Krudd has decided to abandon Krudd's own stated belief in "a big Australia" because it has dawned on Krudd that many an Aussie voter does not believe that the habitable parts of Australia are particularly huge.

 

Somebody has written a book about Krudd according to the Inside Story e-mail that arrived yesterday. If the book is a best seller, I'll eat my hat. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on buying a book about a nobody called Krudd. I read the review of the book. According to the review, Krudd tries to micromanage everything that happens in Australia himself. Apparently he had a beastly childhood and believes that his own background makes him a suitable person to build a better Australia.

 

Hmmmmm! The risk that Australia takes with that notion is that Krudd's ideas might not be in Australia's best interests, whatever Krudd imagines about them. He drives the show, though, I gathered from the review. Unfortunately the show is a rickety, unreliable charabanc, not a Rolls-Royce.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Ozzieland]

Hi Graemsay

 

I hear both you and George Lombard very clearly. However I think that both of you are ignoring the ethnic backgrounds of the contributors to the Inquiry and the sheer emotion (as well as the money) that all of them have pumped into their dreams of new lives for themselves in Australia..

 

Of course they think that the new Bill is unfair to themselves. I completely agree with them. The Indian Government has also said publicly that it agrees with them as well. Australia was quick enough to grant their Student visas and to grab their money with both hands. That greedy money grabbing spawned hundreds if not thousands of jobs for existing Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents, particularly in Melbourne as I understand it.

 

There is no possible way that any *civilised *country can be seen to grab $15 bn AUD a year or so of income that belongs to ordinary, individual foreigners, not to foreign Governments, and then imagine that this supposedly *civilised* country can suddenly shift the goalposts on these foreign individuals after it has grabbed their mooney from them.

 

Personally I think that this miserable little attempt to double cross people via the proposed Visa Capping Bill 2010 demonstrates the extreme paucity of the moral code that Krudd and his cronies abide by. I do not believe that any right-thinking Australian person would try to double cross anybody, but that is exactly what the Government that came to power 3 short years ago is now trying to do to these foreign people.

 

Both Trades Unions have warned that the new proposals are not acceptable as they stand, not even to themselves. Those Unions are run by ordinary Aussies.

 

I reckon that this Bill will prove to be Senator Evans' political undoing. If Rudd doesn't kick him out to the back benches, the only honourable thing that he can do in my view is to resign if his Bill bites the dust.

 

I am very hopeful that the Aussie Senate will reject this new Bill and I am keeping finders, toes and eyes crossed that it will be rejected.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

And I will add here... this Government did nothing during their 4 years and used the so called 'failed policy' to their benefit. At the end of their tenure in office, they awake to cause destruction to the lives of many. This is absolutely not acceptable.

[Guest vanaxel]

Just had a read of the submissions and it seems that that in a lame attempt, Evans is trying to rally up some form of support from the Unions for his ludicrious Bill to be passed in. Someone pointed out a good point in the submissions to the Senate that most of them are based on emotional factors and not fundamental arguments of the implacations if this Bills gets passed in. But who can blame them? These are humans who has gone through ups and down (more downs for some people) to get this far and find that all the pain and hardships are in vain. That's human nature to be emotional.

 

Put it this way, in a Judicial system, for example the punishment for theft is 6-9 months imprisonment and 4 years down the road a new government and decides that the new punishment is raised to 3-4years imprisonment. Does that mean all the prisoners currently in jail serving 6-9 months of their term get it automatically increased to 3-4years imprisonment, including those who are in the last month of their jail term? Try applying rules restrospectively and see what it does to a country.

 

Evans has reportly said in a radio interview with Peter Mares that this rule will 'very rarely' be used and not used to discriminate against nationalities, age etc. But this is someone who banned refugee applications from Sri lanka and Afgan forr 3-6 months. End of the day, he is a politician and all his words has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

I am very skeptical of the timing of this Cap and Cease Bill. Why now when there is a massive backlog of applicants in the pipeline (147,000 and counting..). Instead of making up all these new, ludicrous rules out of thin air, why dosen't he work towards sorting out the bottleneck and then implement whatever rules he seems benefical for this country? After all, at the end of the day, he was the one who create all this mess by implementing priority processing and not considering it repercussions (though he might still go on that the mess was actually created by the Howard Govt). Extremely poor short-sightness from someone clearly not fit to make decisions on behalf of this beautiful country.

 

This 'Cap and Cease' tool is a extremly powerful tool for any one man to hold, let alone an incompetent one. All current and future implications should carefully be analysed and trashed out in the senate before moving futher, and also to have the ability to apply it restrospectively is an absolute no-no.

 

Someone in a forum has said this before, can't recall whom.. "What's worse than a bogan.. An immigrant hating immigrant."

[Guest Gollywobbler]

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

 

Hi reddragon

 

I am pretty sure that my submission has not been published as yet. I sent it to the Committee Secretary as a Word document because I don't have Adobe Writer on my pc at home and I don't know how to work it anyway, even in the office where I draft something in Word and then get someone else to convert it into a pdf file for me. The Committee turn everything into pdf format before they publish it, which compresses the material but my guess is that my submission would still be around 1500kb.

 

I didn't ask the Committee not to publish my name and I certainly didn't ask them to treat my submission as being confidential, so I don't think they have published it yet. I sent it with a "read" receipt and duly obtained a receipt. Then I sent the e-mails and the submission to George Lombard as well, and he very kindly sent a copy of the submission to the Committee to make doubly sure that they have received it.

 

George's own e-mail to the Inquiry Secretary (copied to me) makes it clear that George and I were not trying to break the Committee's rules or anything via my sending my submission to him. He might not even have read it. The problem was solely that it is impossible to upload a submission on-line if you cannot name an Australian State and provide an Australian postcode - which I can't provide because I live in the UK, not in Australia. He and I were merely trying to do our best to ensure that e-mails have not let anyone down.

 

They have not published George Lombard's own submission, or the one that George says Mark Webster sent. Both of those were sent in plenty of time before the Committee extended the deadline. On Day One, the MIA said that they planned to send their own submission as well. It is possible that the Migration Alliance - the other association for Registered Migration Agents - have also sent a submission.

 

Additionally, a lady called Jennie Lang from the UNSW gave an interview to the Aussie press on 4th June 2010, complaining about the new Bill. She would know that complaining to the newspapers is not the same thing as sending a submission to the Inquiry Committee, so I assume that she has done both.

 

All in all, I think that the Committee has received loads of submissions and it has to read through each one and approve it before the Committee authorises publication.

 

The submissions now seem to have closed (or will definitely do so at 00:00 AEST, which is only about an hour away now.) The Committee has until 11th August to consider all the submissions and to write and deliver its own Report to the Senate. I imagine that they will publish all the remaining submissions in dribs and drabs over the next few weeks.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[ranjith47]

Gill, I believe you could have used one of our Address and postcode to send your submission on your behalf.!! We just had to send the message through to get it considered by the Senates.! Well, if we still have time, pls do that.! I will very much be happy to provide you with my Name , Postcode and Address in Australia for this cause, but I have already done a Submission and it has been accepted and is on display... But one of us can do it and I believe there is no legal conduct broken here.... Atleast, It wouldnt go even close to what Sinister Evans is trying to do.

[yc1ten]

FYI,

 

GoPetition

 

Migration changes and visa capping

[User Name]

Agree with some of you guys about the quality of submissions. Some people just put any crap up for the sake of making their voices heard. A classic example of submission number 17.

 

The whole thing is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Submissions like that is enough to make the staunchest critic of the bill to fall in love with it. Telling stories of employer abuse, high fees and sufferings wont change the mind of the senate,. A well reasoned, convincing and error-free argument will.

 

Lot of them will never get IELTS 7 the way they are going, let alone worry about the damn bill.

[ranjith47]

Agree with some of you guys about the quality of submissions. Some people just put any crap up for the sake of making their voices heard. A classic example of submission number 17.

 

The whole thing is riddled with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors. Submissions like that is enough to make the staunchest critic of the bill to fall in love with it. Telling stories of employer abuse, high fees and sufferings wont change the mind of the senate,. A well reasoned, convincing and error-free argument will.

 

Lot of them will never get IELTS 7 the way they are going, let alone worry about the damn bill.

 

See now this is a Problem. A few people who are doing hairdressing and Cookery courses from a developing nation and obviously coming from a non-english speaking background do have such language problems.! They were never required to have much 'Good English skills' for their courses when they applied for it, and things were different back then.! Now, Australia is moving towards selective intake of migrants who atleast have their English Skills right to be employable.! But those jobs such as Cookery and Hairdressing dont need much of English to get the job done in their careers.!

[Guest perry]

Just had a read of the submissions and it seems that that in a lame attempt, Evans is trying to rally up some form of support from the Unions for his ludicrious Bill to be passed in. Someone pointed out a good point in the submissions to the Senate that most of them are based on emotional factors and not fundamental arguments of the implacations if this Bills gets passed in. But who can blame them? These are humans who has gone through ups and down (more downs for some people) to get this far and find that all the pain and hardships are in vain. That's human nature to be emotional.

 

Put it this way, in a Judicial system, for example the punishment for theft is 6-9 months imprisonment and 4 years down the road a new government and decides that the new punishment is raised to 3-4years imprisonment. Does that mean all the prisoners currently in jail serving 6-9 months of their term get it automatically increased to 3-4years imprisonment, including those who are in the last month of their jail term? Try applying rules restrospectively and see what it does to a country.

 

Evans has reportly said in a radio interview with Peter Mares that this rule will 'very rarely' be used and not used to discriminate against nationalities, age etc. But this is someone who banned refugee applications from Sri lanka and Afgan forr 3-6 months. End of the day, he is a politician and all his words has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

I am very skeptical of the timing of this Cap and Cease Bill. Why now when there is a massive backlog of applicants in the pipeline (147,000 and counting..). Instead of pulling out all these new, ludacrious rules out of thin air why dosen't he work towards sorting out the bottleneck and then implement whatever rules he seems benefical for this country? After all, at the end of the day, he was the one who create all this mess by implementing priority processing and not considering it repercussions (though he might still go on that the mess was actually created by the Howard Govt). Extremely poor short-sightness from someone clearly not fit to make decisions on behalf of this beautiful country.

 

This 'Cap and Cease' tool is a extremly powerful tool for any one man to hold, let alone an incompetent one. All current and future implications should carefully be analysed and trashed out in the senate before moving futher, and also to have the ability to apply it restrospectively is an absolute no-no.

 

Someone in a forum has said this before, can't recall whom.. "What's worse than a bogan.. An immigrant hating immigrant."

Totally agree with each and every word......

[Guest Gollywobbler]

See now this is a Problem. A few people who are doing hairdressing and Cookery courses from a developing nation and obviously coming from a non-english speaking background do have such language problems.! They were never required to have much 'Good English skills' for their courses when they applied for it, and things were different back then.! Now, Australia is moving towards selective intake of migrants who atleast have their English Skills right to be employable.! But those jobs such as Cookery and Hairdressing dont need much of English to get the job done in their careers.!

 

Hi Ranjith

 

Your analysis is absolutely correct. The Minister is suddenly burbling that the GFC allegedly caused the standards of English in Australia to increase. His claim does not stack up, for one thing. For another, dragging a whole sentence out of my Aussie brother in law would be a definite start. He is monosyllabic as far as I can make out and I have known him for the last 30 years!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[User Name]

See now this is a Problem. A few people who are doing hairdressing and Cookery courses from a developing nation and obviously coming from a non-english speaking background do have such language problems.! They were never required to have much 'Good English skills' for their courses when they applied for it, and things were different back then.! Now, Australia is moving towards selective intake of migrants who atleast have their English Skills right to be employable.! But those jobs such as Cookery and Hairdressing dont need much of English to get the job done in their careers.!

 

Hi ranjith,

I was referring to the submissions that were put up as if it was a text message to senate. I am guessing it was typed with a word processor which would have underlined the typos in red. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that names start with caps.

 

Submissions like the those aren't going to help those facing the axe with this bill. The whole idea of the submissions is to highlight the cons of those bill and submissions like 17 does the exact opposite.

 

Just take a look at submission 17 you'll what I am getting at.

 

And I don't agree that jobs like hairdressing don't require much English. No one would want to go to a hairdresser who has trouble understanding how you want your hair done. But I agree it's not their fault as government set the English requirements at bare minimum.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

 

Submissions like the those aren't going to help those facing the axe with this bill. The whole idea of the submissions is to highlight the cons of those bill and submissions like 17 does the exact opposite.

 

And I don't agree that jobs like hairdressing don't require much English. No one would want to go to a hairdresser who has trouble understanding how you want your hair done. But I agree it's not their fault as government set the English requirements at bare minimum.

 

Hi all. Don't forget that there are entire suburbs predominant with certain ethnic groups where you wouldn't need fluent English. For example Springvale in Melbourne is largely Vietnamese with foreign language signage and if you spoke English you wouldn't be able to buy in some shops as the staff don't speak it well if at all. There are a full range of shops including hairdressers and cafes staffed with non-English speakers. But that doesn't really hamper their business as long as there are enough of the same dynamic, and it doesn't worry me, it's a vibrant and different place to go for new food and a different experience from time to time.

 

Australia is 25% foreign born people, that's what makes it interesting to live here with the Jewish cake shops, Lebanese bakeries, Vietnamese noodles and Chinese yum cha to alternate with the boring meat and three vege traditional foods.

 

If you only want a meat and three vege lifestyle, you'll miss your home country too much.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

And don't forget that some of Australia's most successful businessmen and entertainers were foreign born non-English speakers like

 

 

• the Lowy family (Czechs, Westfield Malls),
  
• Pratt family (Polish, packaging empire),
  
• Graeme Hart (Kiwi, retail and food ingredients),
  
• Charlie Teo (Singaporean? IT),
  
• Victor Chang (China, cardiac surgeon),
  
• Olivia Newton-John (UK, entertainment),
  
• Sir Fred Hollows, (Kiwi, medicine),
  
• Sir Arvi Parbo (Estonian, aluminium, mining)
  
• Sir Peter Abeles (Hungarian, transport),
  
• Victor Smorgon (Ukrainian, steel and plastics),
  
• Carla Zampatti (Italy, fashion),
  
• Akmal Saleh (Egyptian, comedian),
  
• Sidney Myers (Russian, retail)