Guest Manj Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I went into a shop in Perth one day. A dreadful redneck of a bloke told me, "Yew speak the Queen's English. I car nunnerstan yew." I thought, "You ill-mannered little creep. There is no way that I am prepared to spend even one cent in your shop, considering your rudeness. As for English, there is nothing wrong with mine. It is a shame that the same cannot be said for your own." With that thought, I left his emporium. Cheers Gill LOL...Oooh...Gill you make me laugh.........love your words....... a bit of laugh during this very very mentally traumatised and depressed time really helps me!!! :laugh: _____________________________________ CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest umairghias Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 hi , Are we gonna know whether the bill pass or not on 11th August or senate is not submitting the report? before the election.. Is there any chance Evans will not be the minister anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 hi , Are we gonna know whether the bill pass or not on 11th August or senate is not submitting the report? before the election.. Is there any chance Evans will not be the minister anymore? An election has been called so no bills can be passed till after the election has been conducted,the report cannot be submiited till the new parliament. There is a chance that if the government was returned at the election then the new prime minister may choose another person as immigration minister,there is also a chance that the opposition could win the election and then there would be a new minister. But the bill at the moment is in limbo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheStig Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 hi , Are we gonna know whether the bill pass or not on 11th August or senate is not submitting the report? before the election.. Is there any chance Evans will not be the minister anymore? Nothing is gonna happen until after the election. Whether Chris will still be minister, well no one knows, 'cept for maybe for the octopus.... :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beersheer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Labor or Liberal....I dont think its going to make much difference... Libs to drop immigration by 100,000 - Yahoo!7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The prorogation of Parliament for the election has killed the Cap and Kill Bill, and therefore the Parliamentary enquiry has also ceased. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is writing to every person who made a submission, in the following terms: Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 [Provisions] I write to advise you that, due to the prorogation of the 42nd Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 19 July 2010, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has determined not to continue its inquiry into the above Bill. This decision is consistent with the approach to inquiries during elections adopted by other Senate committees. If the Bill is reintroduced in the new parliament, the Senate can again refer it to the Committee for inquiry. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Thanks George,that's good news for those who may be affected I think. Thanks very much for posting that. Cheers Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beersheer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 What does that mean? This cap n cease is finally over...... Plz tell me its correct and make my day.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 What does that mean? This cap n cease is finally over......Plz tell me its correct and make my day.... It's over,the current bill has been discontinued but the government may introduce a new bill,or reintroduce this one IF they win the election,but yes the current bill has gone. Also remember that the minister used section 39 of the act to cap and cease some applications already and as it stands there is probably nothing stopping him from doing that again if he wanted to,lets hope that he has other things on his mind for awhile! Cheers Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beersheer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 If the Labor wins election then chances are that Evans would again introduce this bill. But if Libs are elected then I think this bill would totally dissappear... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matjones Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 If the Labor wins election then chances are that Evans would again introduce this bill but if Libs are elected then I thing this bill would totally dissappear... Not necessarily, they would still have to deal with an out of control migration program, and the only real way to get rid of the backlog without increase the population is to cap & cease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sona Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Read this link Everything will be clear.http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/priority-processing-14-july-2010.pdf And for all those people in the queue,keep an eye on ICT Recent graduates who are going to apply after 1 july 2010, if any one of them get a visa.. thats it 6400 will also get it.. what about hairdresseres who already applied PR and got state sponsered fro S.australia...which category we r............if we lodge the application again do we need to give ielts again with 6 each.......????????????????:no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest beersheer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Or may be this Bill is reintroduced in the new parliament, the Senate wont refer it to the Committee for inquiry this time, for a easy way to get it passed straiht away.... Is that a possibility ot I'm using too much of my brain....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 To be honest Beersheer it's pointless to speculate about what MAY happen,let's get the election over with and then wait to see what happens,the bill may never see light of day again or they may introduce a new bill or they may amend this one,or the opposition may win and they may introduce their own version,let's wait and see. Cheers Nigel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manj Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 If the Labor wins election then chances are that Evans would again introduce this bill.But if Libs are elected then I think this bill would totally dissappear... Yep!!! Let's hope that the bunch of labour clowns looses this election, so that means Evans does'nt get to draw out his whip and do his whip cracking in his 'kangaroo' court!! :biglaugh: _____________________________________________________ CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matjones Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yep!!! Let's hope that the bunch of labour clowns looses this election, so that means Evans does'nt get to draw out his whip and do his whip cracking in his 'kangaroo' court!! See my post below, the opposition is no more 'migrant friendly' than the current government. http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/91234-coalition-may-direct-where-migrants-settle.html#post816618 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Evans may be a clown but the risk with the coalition winning would be that we may end up with a ventriloquist dummy for an immi minister with Tony Abbott pulling the strings. I don't think anyone really wants that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manj Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 See my post below, the opposition is no more 'migrant friendly' than the current government. http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/91234-coalition-may-direct-where-migrants-settle.html#post816618 When it comes to Australia - It has to be either Labour or Liberals..I think the Liberals would handle this better than the Labour which is anyway run by the unions!!! The migartion programme should be managed properly...and the way Labour is doing it is terrible! :frown: _______________________________________ CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The Senate enquiry has offically stopped because of the election. Not paused, Stopped. Senate office said if the bill is reintroduced by the next Government then the Senate can again refer it to the committee. In this election there is no guarantee the Coalition will again control Senate, so if Labour win Government AND Senate then the bill will go through without murmur. If Liberals win Govt but not Senate it actually might resurface in a different light, due to Liberals focus on Net Migration (it's double the number that would generate 30m plus population that the politicians are shy about. Net migration includes Ausses returning from overseas, long term students, kiwis and regular migrants, also 457 workers. Was an interesting debate on ABC Lateline last night between Opposition Immigration spokesman and Labout population Minister (I think the opposition won it), see http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/ and transcript at http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2961791.htm But with NOM at nearly double the target, I would speculate that future policy changes to knock 120,000 off NOM will be: a) student numbers crash will take maybe 50,000 out of the system, leaving 70,000 to be clipped from elsewhere b) there will be visas in restricted numbers for Kiwis who don't have jobs to come to or on the SOL, so the usual 30,000 per annum might fall to 10,000, leaving 50,000 to be clipped c) skilled independent to fall by 20,000 as a result of more tightening on occupations lists, leaving 30,000 to be clipped d) the quick validation visit system that allows people to delay arriving permanently by a year or two might disappear and along with it visas granted and validated but not back here in say 3 months. This would allow government to better track and control inflow e) reduction in other visa numbers f) more emphasis on politically saleable migration, eg 457 with jobs on SOL, perhaps a regional ENS or much more emphasis on RSMS, resurrection of regional 457s, tax breaks and housing subsidies for new regional residents incl Australians who move plus tax hike and housing penalty for migrants going to urban areas g) capping on urban or uncontrolled location for migration but not capping regional migration visas etc I repeat this is just my speculation but I also suggest viewers of this forum start thinking like the above, and GET IN QUICK. Both political parties are wanting to reach the lower NOM unless they support more than 30 million population (a hard sell so not likley to happen yet until there is clearer modelling and justification for it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The prorogation of Parliament for the election has killed the Cap and Kill Bill, and therefore the Parliamentary enquiry has also ceased. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee is writing to every person who made a submission, in the following terms: Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 [Provisions] I write to advise you that, due to the prorogation of the 42nd Parliament and the dissolution of the House of Representatives on 19 July 2010, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee has determined not to continue its inquiry into the above Bill. This decision is consistent with the approach to inquiries during elections adopted by other Senate committees. If the Bill is reintroduced in the new parliament, the Senate can again refer it to the Committee for inquiry. Cheers, George Lombard Hi George Many thanks for this information. I recall that you said, early on, that if a General Election were called then all the pollies would head back to their constituencies and would not be interested in pursuing this Inquiry. Hopefully Senator Evans has realised that trying to slide a very scrappy, badly thought-our Bill under the Senate's radar will not work. He must have realised that even the CFMEU were very lukewarm about the Bill and used their own Submission as an excuse to attack him about employer sponsored migration more than anything else. I think that if the Bill ever comes back, it wlll not do so in its recent, draconian and totally unreasonable form. Any Minister for Immi would have a major fight on his hands with the proposals described in the Bill. Plenty of pollies on all sides of the Aussie Parliament have the wisdom and the maturity to realise that if you grab somebody's money, you create a moral bargain with that person and it is no use trying to split hairs about legalities because public opinion is driven by a sense of what is right and wrong morally. The public tends not to listen to convoluted attempts to split legal hairs. I think that if Labor are re-elected, they will realise that any attempt to re-introduce the idea of Cap & Kill must only affect people who apply for visas after the legislation has been passed and any new legislation would need to be so hedged about with safeguards and protections for different groups of visa applicants that it would probably be easier just to stick with the existing Section 39 and be done with it. I haven't found the Hansard debates etc from the time when introducing S39 was considered. I do have the impression that the Aussie Parliament insisted on fair dinkum, though. S39 makes it clear that if it is used then the Aussies take the rough with the smooth. That fact acts as a deterrent to keep a headstrong Minister for Immi under control. The new Bill purported to create too much of a one way street in Australia's favour alone. I also saw a comment by one of the lawyers about S39. The author wasn't specific but my impression is that the Aussie Parliament decided at the time that its use would not be subtle enough for it to work with skilled visas. The suggestion was that if the Minister for Immi wanted to tamper with skilled immigration then he would have to go and discuss his detailed proposals with Parliament. Which seems a very reasonable, common-sense, Australian type of approach, to me. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Morning Gill Is S39 a bit more skilled migrant friendly then i.e Hairdressers and Cooks etc that had been more worried about cap and cease can they breathe a little easier now. I dont mind being in for the long haul provided a Visa is waiting at the end of it Thanks Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Not necessarily, they would still have to deal with an out of control migration program, and the only real way to get rid of the backlog without increase the population is to cap & cease. Hi Matt I disagree with your proposition. Cap & Kill is a "kwik-fix" solution to a problem that was created by an Aussie Government. Sovereignty includes an obligation to live by your errors, not to airbrush the errors out via kwik-fix solutions instead, in my view. Australia has now decided that it made a mistake. Fine. It can take steps to prevent similar errors in the future. However where Australia has already made mistakes, it will just have to live with the consequences of those errors in my opinion. We are not talking about large enough numbers for them to have any serious impact on population issues in the long term - both sides are exaggerating the numbers grossly in order to whip up public emotion and thereby public support. Let the Australian Government learn some hard lessons instead of the Aussie Government trying to hide from its past errors by victimising innocent people instead. The people obeyed the rules for their visas - including the students of the so-called dodgy colleges. The Government sets the rules for the board game. If the rules are not strict enough then the Government puts up with the consequences, I reckon. Doing that teaches greater caution in the future. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manj Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Evans may be a clown but the risk with the coalition winning would be that we may end up with a ventriloquist dummy for an immi minister with Tony Abbott pulling the strings.I don't think anyone really wants that! looks like u r right.Abbot wants migration cut by 120k............ Really ...we have no hope now!!! :no: ______________________________________________ CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Morning Gill Is S39 a bit more skilled migrant friendly then i.e Hairdressers and Cooks etc that had been more worried about cap and cease can they breathe a little easier now. I dont mind being in for the long haul provided a Visa is waiting at the end of it Thanks Shane Hi Shane You have applied for a visa in Class VE, which includes the sc 175 and the sc 176. S39 says that the Minister can cap & cease all the remainder of the applications for, say, sc 176 visas if he wants to. However if he does that, he will be getting rid of applicants whom he wants to keep as well as applicants whom he wants to get rid of. It is an "all or nothing" provision. Which fact makes the use of S39 self-limiting because Australia would not thank any Government for getting rid of skilled visa applicants that Australia wishes to encourage. I think the Government will have to compromise. It will have to live with Government errors. Labor say that they did not make the errors. Too bad. Why didn't they do enough to stand up to the Coalition Government at the time? Labor were the Opposition at the time, after all. Labor will just have to absorb the numbers of visa applicants whether they like it or not, I reckon. They can always introduce methods similar to the NZ and Canadian methods for future visa applicants if they so wish. In the short term, though, if I were Labor and I won the Election with an increased majority then in my view that would give me a mandate to grant an Amnesty to all existing applicants for skilled visas, including the group who applied before 1st September 2007, relying as they did on assurances from DIAC - given on behalf of the Government - that their applications would be honoured and that they would be processed reasonably promptly. Evans is only whngeing about 146,000 or so GSM applicants. That is not a huge number. The DIAC submission talks of 77,000 anyway - which is half as large as the number that Evans is wittering about. An Amnesty is the other way of wiping this slate clean and Australia has used it before. My sister was in Oz on a Working Holiday visa in 1980. She says that Australia suddenly decided to grant an Amnesty and to offer PR to anybody who happened to be in Oz at the time. She made enquiries, discovered that it included her, so she grabbed PR, she told me recently. I suspect that in 1980 they were worried about too many visa overstayers hanging about in Australia, so they decided to wipe the slate clean, live with the consequences of their own lack of adequate border control and improve their border control for the future. That is a civilised way for a Government to proceed, in my view. It has been done before so it could be done again..... Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Evans may be a clown but the risk with the coalition winning would be that we may end up with a ventriloquist dummy for an immi minister with Tony Abbott pulling the strings.I don't think anyone really wants that! Hi Nigel I'd risk it. I think Abbott pulling the strings is less of a risk than letting the Trades Unions pull the strings, myself. The Liberal-Coalition group have always been capitalist as I understand it. I gather that Howard was also beady with the piggy-bank and left a large surplus lying about for a rainy day. If so, that sort of "kitchen sink economics" appeals to most women - I don't know about men. I think women like the security of knowing that we have put something by in case we should ever need it. I gather that Rudd spent all the money - mainly on hare brained ideas that turned into bungles - and that he also borrowed heavily in order to perpetuate the bungles. Sooner or later, Australia will have to put that profligacy right. Rudd's idea was to grab the profits from the mines via tax. Gillard seems to have realised that that was not a solution and that it would cause Labor to lose the next Election. However neither side seems to have discussed how they propose to reduce the budget deficit? Immigration is a better red herring, no doubt, but Australia really doesn't have a major Immigration problem. Immigration is just a a convenient scapegoat on which to blame unemployment, I suspect. If I were an Aussie Voter, I'd be nailing my local Parliamentary candidates to the floor and asking them what their various Parties proposes to do by way of reducing the budget deficit? Anyone whingeing to me about carbon emissions would be shown to the door. That is another red herring in my view and it is a disgraceful gravy train for all the people who prat about in that field. In the UK, a man who was trained as a Railway Engineer is in charge of climate change, apparently. Loads of huge Grants from the EU gravy train and from various worthy Foundations in the States have disappeared into companies controlled by the railway engineer, apparently. We know that the Earth tilts on its axis. It goes through a tilt of about 33 degrees, apparently. I don't know how long the cycle takes - I think it is at least 100 years. However it is known that this tilting does affect the world's climate. So why are we worrying about very dubious 'research' claiming that all the glaciers in the Himalayas are about to melt instead of figuring out where the Earth is on its axis and what effect that is likely to have? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.