Visa Capping - Senate Inquiry

[Guest Kiraloo]

it's occurred to me that the suspension of GSM applications in May (which prevented my application going in from the agent to DIAC) may have actually been a considerate step by the authorities who, having decided that cap & kill provisions were to be put in place, wanted to limit the number of people who would be affected. The best option therefore was to put a suspension on the applications (infuriating though it was at the time).

 

That's an interesting point you raised there.

[ozwonderful]

Hi all,

 

I felt sick after reading this. Each time when new rules announce, I always feel that I will never get there. I am Accountant, non CSL due to IELTS.

 

I have already written to the Committees to show how I feel and will never know if anyone in the Parliament would understand how ppl like me feel. I had applied in good faith and had met the requirements upon submission. You said you need us, so we applied, and now you don't need us, you decided to cap and cease us. You can make us in the Que, but please don't cease us... This is so cruel.....:cry:

God please, please help us...

 

ozwonderful

[Guest Gollywobbler]

It makes no sense delaying onshore applications, we are already in the country and part of the population.

 

Hi User Name

 

I have spent some time this arvo reading the new Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech.

 

What I have read makes me shiver, frankly.

 

The Minister's speech reader (possibly Laurie Ferguson but I am not sure) admits that if the Minister gets his own way with the proposed new Bill, it will be open to him to Cap & Terminate the sc 103 and 804 non-contributory Parent and Aged Parent classes of visa as welll as applications for skilled visas. Trust me, the consequences of doing this to Parents are not limited solely to lost money and disappointment. The Minister would have the power to chuck Parents in their 70s and 80s out of Australia. There would be no way for the family to appeal against the monstrous injustice and the elderly applicants for Aged Parent visas could be frogmached onto flights leaving Australia in as little as 28 days after the Minister has given them the chop.

 

Nobody senior in DIAC's HQ in Canberra would treat an elderly person in such a callous fashion and nor would the Minister himself. However, the actual task of deciding what to do with a given visa applicant would be delegated down the line to somebody with comparitively little seniority or authority.

 

The delegate who makes the operational decision about what to do could easily be one of the dreadful little Jobsworths who abound in any sort of a bureaucracy. Jobsworths tend to get kicked out of firms and companies where there is no bureaucracy - their faces don't fit and their attitudes will not produce a healthy profit, nor will they do anything towards enhancing good relationships with the outside world.

 

Such appalling employees of DIAC, with the same appalling attitude that I have described above, have already contrived to kill an elderly Syrian lady called Mrs Agha in 2005:

 

GP blames death on visa dispute - Immigration - Features - In Depth

 

Apparently DIAC claimed later that their staff had not said that Mrs Agha would be kicked out of Australia. It seems to me that causing somebody to die is a pretty effective way of kicking that person out of Australia, whatever DIAC might claim.

 

There are about 5,500 applicants for Aged Parent visas, I think. All of them live in Australia, on Bridging Visas. When the Minister terminates subclasses 103 and 804 - which he is undoubtedly moving towards doing - how many of that 5,500 or so onshore applicants are likely to die as a direct result of the shock and the fear that they will be faced with?

 

The deceased will not be the Minister's own Parents. They won't be Jobsworth's Parents either. However they will be somebody else's beloved Parents and they will still be deceased.

 

My blood runs cold at the thought of what this Minister might do if he gets half a chance.

 

Turning to your own question, from the Minister's point of view there is every reason not to process many of the 30,000 or so applications that he has in hand for onshore, skilled GSM visas. That reason is because he has already decided to cap & terminate at fairnumber of the applications and to kick the applicants out of Australia without the applicants having any opportunity to seek redress and fair play. The only reason why there has been a delay hitherto is because the Minister wants to get the enabling legislation into place first. Thereafter, he will be able to expel any onshore visa applicants whom he does not want to keep. According to the Bill, this will include terminating their Bridging Visas and sending them packing out of Australia with their partners and their children in tow, to ensure that the whole family will be forced to get onto a plane out of the place.

 

I hope to God that the Senate throws this inquitous Bill out of Parliament and that the Aussie Electorate then throws Krudd and his Kronies out of Government in Australia.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Ozzieland]

Hi User Name

 

I have spent some time this arvo reading the new Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech.

 

What I have read makes me shiver, frankly.

 

The Minister's speech reader (possibly Laurie Ferguson but I am not sure) admits that if the Minister gets his own way with the proposed new Bill, it will be open to him to Cap & Terminate the sc 103 and 804 non-contributory Parent and Aged Parent classes of visa as welll as applications for skilled visas. Trust me, the consequences of doing this to Parents are not limited solely to lost money and disappointment. The Minister would have the power to chuck Parents in their 70s and 80s out of Australia. There would be no way for the family to appeal against the monstrous injustice and the elderly applicants for Aged Parent visas could be frogmached onto flights leaving Australia in as little as 28 days after the Minister has given them the chop.

 

Nobody senior in DIAC's HQ in Canberra would treat an elderly person in such a callous fashion and nor would the Minister himself. However, the actual task of deciding what to do with a given visa applicant would be delegated down the line to somebody with comparitively little seniority or authority.

 

The delegate who makes the operational decision about what to do could easily be one of the dreadful little Jobsworths who abound in any sort of a bureaucracy. Jobsworths tend to get kicked out of firms and companies where there is no bureaucracy - their faces don't fit and their attitudes will not produce a healthy profit, nor will they do anything towards enhancing good relationships with the outside world.

 

Such appalling employees of DIAC, with the same appalling attitude that I have described above, have already contrived to kill an elderly Syrian lady called Mrs Agha in 2005:

 

GP blames death on visa dispute - Immigration - Features - In Depth

 

Apparently DIAC claimed later that their staff had not said that Mrs Agha would be kicked out of Australia. It seems to me that causing somebody to die is a pretty effective way of kicking that person out of Australia, whatever DIAC might claim.

 

There are about 5,500 applicants for Aged Parent visas, I think. All of them live in Australia, on Bridging Visas. When the Minister terminates subclasses 103 and 804 - which he is undoubtedly moving towards doing - how many of that 5,500 or so onshore applicants are likely to die as a direct result of the shock and the fear that they will be faced with?

 

The deceased will not be the Minister's own Parents. They won't be Jobsworth's Parents either. However they will be somebody else's beloved Parents and they will still be deceased.

 

My blood runs cold at the thought of what this Minister might do if he gets half a chance.

 

Turning to your own question, from the Minister's point of view there is every reason not to process many of the 30,000 or so applications that he has in hand for onshore, skilled GSM visas. That reason is because he has already decided to cap & terminate at fairnumber of the applications and to kick the applicants out of Australia without the applicants having any opportunity to seek redress and fair play. The only reason why there has been a delay hitherto is because the Minister wants to get the enabling legislation into place first. Thereafter, he will be able to expel any onshore visa applicants whom he does not want to keep. According to the Bill, this will include terminating their Bridging Visas and sending them packing out of Australia with their partners and their children in tow, to ensure that the whole family will be forced to get onto a plane out of the place.

 

I hope to God that the Senate throws this inquitous Bill out of Parliament and that the Aussie Electorate then throws Krudd and his Kronies out of Government in Australia.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill...

 

This is not good. How can anyone treat a senior person in such a manner, they are like parents to us all. No, no... this is not good. How can they even consider going down this route. I don't feel comfortable with this entire scenario at all.....

 

OMG there is nothing left to say but to pray that God intervenes in this situation.

[Guest babboo]

Hi Gill...

 

This is not good. How can anyone treat a senior person in such a manner, they are like parents to us all. No, no... this is not good. How can they even consider going down this route. I don't feel comfortable with this entire scenario at all.....

 

OMG there is nothing left to say but to pray that God intervenes in this situation.

 

Dear Friends,

If this is what the sinister minister trying to do with the elderly and the aged...:arghh: I thought that he was just trying to "Cap n Cease" Hair dressers, cooks and pre September 2007 applicants ... This is totally inhuman.. God help us --- I wish he never comes back to power in the next elections ....

[John Gilfillan]

Dear Friends,

If this is what the sinister minister trying to do with the elderly and the aged...:arghh: I thought that he was just trying to "Cap n Cease" Hair dressers, cooks and pre September 2007 applicants ... This is totally inhuman.. God help us --- I wish he never comes back to power in the next elections ....

 

Excuse me, but its inhuman to cap and cease anyone. No matter what trade you are you should not be capped and ceased. My O/H is a very experienced and qualified Cook and I have friends who are hairdressers, who are in the system at the moment. So in my opinion dont take the side of people just because of their age. We also feel WE are being treated inhuman and unfairly at the moment.

 

 

John:arghh:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Dear Friends,

If this is what the sinister minister trying to do with the elderly...:arghh: Then God help me --- I do not want to come here ....

 

Hi Babboo

 

The Minister (of course) would argue that he has no intention of treating any elderly visa applicant badly.

 

However:

 

1. If the drafting stays as it is then the Minister would have the power to be brutal towards elderly visa applicants;

 

2. The man who promoted the second reading of the Capping Bill specifically said that the aim is to provide the Government with a tool that would enable it to "manage" the whole of Australia's migration program for the future - he admits that if the Minister gets the proposed power then he could use them for all and any types of visa and subclasses of visa;

 

3. The Budget for 2010=2011 said that something like 5,000 visas would be cut from the Family Stream of visas. (It was about 5,000 though the actual number could be a bit more.) The Budget was careful not to say exactly which Family Stream visas might face the axe.

 

4. Minister Evans himself increased the non-contributory Parent and Aged Parent visa totals from 1,000 a year to 2,000 a year during his first financial year in office. Doubling the numbers halved the expected waiting times, which had become unacceptably lengthy. I think there are something like 15,000 Parents who are patiently waiting for the offshore Parent 103 visa and at least another 5,500 Aged Parent visa applicants are sitting in Australia on Bridging Visas at the moment.

 

5. Somebody recently asked the Parents Visa Centre in Perth about the likely waiting times for the non-contributory Parent and Aged Parent visas. They were told as follows:

The 2010-11 Parent Migration program will consist of:

 

• 1000 places for Parent category visas; and

• 7500 places for Contributory Parent category visas

 

Of these it is expected that in the Parent category, approximately 700 places will be allocated to Parent (Subcalss 103) visas and 300 places will be allocated to Aged Parent (Subclass 804) visas. In the Contributory Parent category, it is expected that approximately 7000 places will be allocated to Contributory Parent (Subclass 173 or Subclass 143) visas and 500 places will be allocated to Contributory Aged Parent (Subclass 884 or Subclass 864) visa.

 

As you may see the places for Contributory Parent category visas remain at 7500 as the current program year, whereas non-contributory Parent category visa places reduced by 50%. Based on the current queue level for 103 (offshore non-contributory) visa, it is estimated that the waiting period of a new 103 visa application would be 22 years (15500/700) if allocated places remain at 1000 in future.

 

 

Is the Minister seriously going to tell a new, skilled migrant that s/he must wait for around 25 years before the migrant's Parents can join the migrant in Australia if the family is unable to come up with around $100,000 AUD so that Mum & Dad can move to Oz within 4 years or so?

 

The new Bill would certainly give him the power to kill off the embarrassingly long wait for a Parent or Aged Parent visa. My fear is that he might use that power and have the coincidental effect of killing off some of the Parents as well as killing off their visa applications.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[jools123]

hi gill thanks for the info i have sent my points to the link provided, i just hope it gets looked at as they dont seem to care about the people behind the visa.......

 

and i second what john says its inhuman to treat anybody in this way , it wasent long ago that hairdressers were on the critical skils list whose occupation will be next nobody is safe if this bill comes into play.....

jools x

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Excuse me, but its inhuman to cap and cease anyone. No matter what trade you are you should not be capped and ceased. My O/H is a very experienced and qualified Cook and I have friends who are hairdressers, who are in the system at the moment. So in my opinion dont take the side of people just because of their age. We also feel WE are being treated inhuman and unfairly at the moment.

 

 

John:arghh:

 

Hi John

 

I have no intention of ignoring younger, skilled prospective migrants, fear not.

 

It is simply that when I read the relevant documents this afternoon, I realised that this Minister intends to garner far more power than giving himself the power to control applications for GSM visas only. Until today, I thought that the sole purpose of the proposals was to control the GSM program but nothing else. Apparently that is its immediate and (for today) its primary purpose but all manner of horrors are potentially possible in other areas of the migration program as well, I now realise.

 

Poms in Oz cares about the skilled migrant's Parents just as much as it cares about the skilled migrant, so I am shocked by the extent of the power that the Minister for Immi is trying to help himself to and at the moment there are no proposals whatsoever for any curbs, or any checks and balances, on his own or a future Minister's use of the proposed powers.

 

Another thing I object to is that the Minister is not constrained to say in the Budget that he will accept 1,000 Accountants, say, in the coming year. If he had to make the declaration up front then it would not be difficult to insist that DIAC must produce a monthly breakdown of the applications received.

 

Far from the idea being anything like as straightforward and as non-discriiminatory as that, the Minister could actually wait until January, and then have a look through the applications received until then etc. He could then determine how many applications he wants to keep - and which ones - before setting the cap and dumping the remainder. He might as well tell Parliament that what he is really after are the powers of a dictator.

 

If I were the Aussie Parliament, I would not allow this Bill to make its way into Law and that would be that. I very much hope that the Aussie Parliamentarians will take a similarly firm line with Krudd and his Krony the Minister for Immi.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest stillwaiting79]

have writen a strong-firm worded submission and also sent corro to;

 

1. ABC National Interest program - The National Interest - Contact Us

2. Senator Chris Evans minister@immi.gov.au

3. Prime Minister: (Email your Prime Minister | Prime Minister of Australia)

4. The Hon Julia Gillard dpm@dpm.gov.au

5. The Hon Tony Abbott Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

6. Shadow Minister of Immigration: Rhonda Whitehead Rhonda.Whitehead@aph.gov.au

 

Nothing to lose!

 

Am sick in the pit of stomach thinking of my fate should this dreaded Bill get through!

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Despite DIAC's best efforts to withold information, some things creep out:

 

This is talking about suspension of asylum seekers, but it might apply to the thinking about GSM too:

 

quote:

Mr Metcalfe—I was just going to add that we discussed this with Senator Hanson-Young. There is, in our view, very strong legal advice that we are not under an obligation to immediately process an application.

Ultimately we do have an obligation to process an application. The minister has made it clear that ultimately applications would be considered but there is no compulsion on it happening on day one, on day 10, on day 60 or on day 90. That is the legal underpinning of the policy approach that the government has taken.

Here is Minister Evans trying to hide from the fact that his proposed capping and ceasing will apply to any and all visas:

 

quote:

Senator BARNETT—Minister, by the end of this financial year you say that we expect migration to have fallen between 230,000 and 250,000. You have indicated that the figure would fall about 20 per cent by 30 June based on recent visa applications and grants. The visa-capping bill came in yesterday. I have not read it in full and you know it better than anyone. I will have a look at it and I am sure it will be considered carefully by the Senate committee. As a preliminary measure, I am asking whether it provides a full discretion to the minister with respect to capping visas generally, not just skilled visas. Will you get a discretion across all visas?

Senator Chris Evans—It is broader. Obviously we will go through this in detail. It is designed effectively to allow us to manage the program and not have the program distorted. The particular circumstance we are addressing at the moment is that we do not have 30,000 cooks out of a skilled program of 100,000. We think the other measures will fix that problem, but we think it is a useful device for a minister to have if they think the program is being distorted. It has broader applicability, and you will get a briefing.

Senator BARNETT—I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. But it gives you discretion with respect to all visas, not just the skilled visas.

Senator Chris Evans—It give us the power to make a regulation to cap. I think that is the best way to describe it.

Senator BARNETT—They seem extraordinarily broad powers at first instance. I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. It is not just skilled visas but across the board.

Senator Chris Evans—Unfortunately I do not have the right officers here to help. I must admit I have not focused on it the last week or two.

 

[Guest babboo]

Excuse me, but its inhuman to cap and cease anyone. No matter what trade you are you should not be capped and ceased. My O/H is a very experienced and qualified Cook and I have friends who are hairdressers, who are in the system at the moment. So in my opinion dont take the side of people just because of their age. We also feel WE are being treated inhuman and unfairly at the moment.

 

 

John:arghh:

And I am a Pre September 2007 applicant......

No sides taken... Just shocked by his approach to manage his ciaos ...

Cheers

[Guest Alucard]

I want to mail them but what exactly do we say? I mean do we just say how this is gonna affect us?

[Sambo76]

We have been members of other British support sites and have only recently started using

Pomsinoz. We have to say that the support on this site is fantastic and it's reassuring to hear that people are willing to fight these proposed changes and not take them lying down. We arrived on the student visa and have applied for a family sponsored visa 886 in Jan 09 so have been patiently waiting on a bridging visa since then. Whilst it has been tough on a bridging visa to secure good jobs and we have had to pay whenever we have left the country we though we could put up with a long wait as long as we were here in Australia whilst the visa was being processed. The idea that all our hard work and the money we have used to come over here for a better life might be for nothing if the Government get this new bill passed leaves us sick to the stomach. We have sent a message to the Senate and can only hope that it will be enough as this is our home now and we would be devastated to have to pack up and leave our friends and family. It is so good to hear that people on this site are giving it all they have to flight these unfair new proposals. Thanks again everyone for the support on Pomsinoz :-)

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Despite DIAC's best efforts to withold information, some things creep out:

 

This is talking about suspension of asylum seekers, but it might apply to the thinking about GSM too:

 

quote:

Mr Metcalfe—I was just going to add that we discussed this with Senator Hanson-Young. There is, in our view, very strong legal advice that we are not under an obligation to immediately process an application.

Ultimately we do have an obligation to process an application. The minister has made it clear that ultimately applications would be considered but there is no compulsion on it happening on day one, on day 10, on day 60 or on day 90. That is the legal underpinning of the policy approach that the government has taken.

Here is Minister Evans trying to hide from the fact that his proposed capping and ceasing will apply to any and all visas:

 

quote:

Senator BARNETT—Minister, by the end of this financial year you say that we expect migration to have fallen between 230,000 and 250,000. You have indicated that the figure would fall about 20 per cent by 30 June based on recent visa applications and grants. The visa-capping bill came in yesterday. I have not read it in full and you know it better than anyone. I will have a look at it and I am sure it will be considered carefully by the Senate committee. As a preliminary measure, I am asking whether it provides a full discretion to the minister with respect to capping visas generally, not just skilled visas. Will you get a discretion across all visas?

Senator Chris Evans—It is broader. Obviously we will go through this in detail. It is designed effectively to allow us to manage the program and not have the program distorted. The particular circumstance we are addressing at the moment is that we do not have 30,000 cooks out of a skilled program of 100,000. We think the other measures will fix that problem, but we think it is a useful device for a minister to have if they think the program is being distorted. It has broader applicability, and you will get a briefing.

Senator BARNETT—I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. But it gives you discretion with respect to all visas, not just the skilled visas.

Senator Chris Evans—It give us the power to make a regulation to cap. I think that is the best way to describe it.

Senator BARNETT—They seem extraordinarily broad powers at first instance. I am sure we will get to the bottom of it. It is not just skilled visas but across the board.

Senator Chris Evans—Unfortunately I do not have the right officers here to help. I must admit I have not focused on it the last week or two.

 

 

Hi Jamie

 

Thanks very much for the extracts above. I've been shocked by the way the Minister has flailed about saying (of GSM applicants) "....they will not get a visa...."

 

He already has his "model" in mind about who will get visas and who won't, evidently. Files are not sitting around at the ASPC simply because nobody has had enough time to get to them. The applications are already being dealt with in the order that the Minister wants and where he does not want a given applicant and that person's application, the file might as well be sent to fester in storage until the Minister gets the legal power to terminate him.

 

It is straight down to survival of the fittest and it is already happening. Which is frightening. He has already decided that some of the applicants simply won't get skilled visas, ever.

 

George Lombard has often said that during an Election year in Australia, the sitting Government tends to get whatever it says it wants. If that historical principle holds good on this occasion, the Aussie Minister for Immi will get far more - and much broader - powers than any of his counterparts elsewhere except for the ones working for dictators in banana republics.

 

The Bill contains no checks & balances. I've read it and it is woefully sparse both on detail and on attempts to curb and control the sitting Minister for Immi. It bangs on for some of its extremely short length about the idea that if the Minister terminates an onshore visa application, this will operate as an automatic termination of the associated Bridging Visa 28 days afterwards. You would not put that provision in unless you intend to be able to kick applicants for onshore visas out of Australia - including skilled applicants who have studied in Australia and applicants for Aged Parent visas alike.

 

The second reading speech spells out that if an application is terminated via a Ministerial Instrument, there is no ability to complain to the MRT. The guy who explained the workings in the second reading (Laurie Ferguson?) was suspiciously silent about whether the Bill would work so as to fetter the Court as well as kicking the MRT into touch. I don't know enough Aussie Law to know whether it would fetter the Court as well. If it does fetter the Court then is that a breach of the Aussie Constitution because it was last time a Government tried it, albeit by less subtle means on the first occasion? I can see that in one sense the Bill might have the incidental effect of fettering the Court because there are hardly any words in it for a Court to interpret and the Court will not invent and import any missing words and phrases. It can chuck them out but it cannot bring them in.

 

Thank God for Senator Guy Barnett, who is not frightened of the Minister for Immi, not bothered about a General Election, and is a Liberal Party member in any case, I think (I seem to have read that he is definitely not ALP.) Senator Hanson-Young does not approve of the Minister for Immi either, I suspect. However I don't know what sort of coalition would have to come together in order to defeat Krudd on this Bill. Even if they could put an Opposition cross-party coalition together, would it be big enough to defeat Krudd? I don't know the details so I don't know the answer.

 

I hope that the Senate Inquiry will "get to the bottom of it," as Senator Barnett has said, and that the Inquiry Committee will expose and air the potential iniquities and inhumanities that are definitely possible if such wide powers get into the wrong hands either now or at any time in the future.

 

If the Minister wants to control the immediate problem of the GSM backlog then he should be looking for very narrow, temporary powers which achieve nothing else imho.

 

It might be that he is flying a kite with this Bill, to find out how far the Aussie Parliament will really let him go before clipping his wings. If they can consider this particular Capping Bill - the current main aim of which is said to be to control the GSM applications backlog only - so quickly then they can consider a future bill concerning Capping & Terminating RSMS visas separately, for example, equally fast it seems to me.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

And I am a Pre September 2007 applicant......

No sides taken... Just shocked by his approach to manage his ciaos ...

Cheers

 

Hi Babboo

 

I agree. I am equally shocked by the Minister's desires - which seem to be far too wide for sanity according to me.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I want to mail them but what exactly do we say? I mean do we just say how this is gonna affect us?

 

Hi Alucard

 

Please just write a simple letter, addressed to the Inquiry Committee, explaining how you and your family have been affected so far and what you believe the effects on you would be if the present Bill goes ahead without substantial amendment and curtailment at the very least.

 

There is no need for formality. The Committee merely wants to know what you, personally, think and how the proposals might affect you. They are not bothered about anything other than that you should tell them about your experiences to date and what your future experiences might be.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Alan Collett]

Hi Gill.

 

I absolutely hear what you say about fairness and equity.

 

However, and I offer this as an alternative view in an effort to flesh out some of the opposing arguments, why should the Minister accept into Australia those whose occupations are seemingly no longer required?

 

I am one of the first to question the ability of Governments generally to see the bigger picture, but I submit it is difficult to argue against the need to administer the country to the benefit of Australians rather than those who would wish to migrate irrespective of apparently changed circumstances.

 

As such, perhaps the correlation between skilled migration and improved wealth/living standards for the generality of Australians over recent years ought to be the war cry? Make the appeal over the heads of the pollies to the Australian people, maybe ...?

 

Best regards.

[Guest Wannabeoz]

Hi there

 

It sounds to me as if you are having a bad day today, hun. Feeling emotionally drained and exhausted by the on-going battle is completely understandable and nobody would blame a visa applicant or prospective applicant for feeling fed up in the same way as you do.

 

However tomorrow is another day and you have till midnight AEST on Friday 4th June to describe your feelings of despair to the Senate's Inquiry Committee. Your feelings are 100% legitimate and you are 100% entitled to describe them to the Committee - which you can do in complete confidence and non-publication of your description if you so wish.

 

For my own part and that of many others on this thread, I am not prepared to give in to Senator Evans without a determined fight. If he wants a war of attrition, I'll show him what one of those is.

 

Peter Mares, the journo, is also an extremely sensible man. Last time everybody complained to him about the changes that were suddenly announced on 23rd September 2009, Mr Mares said that no other programme on the National Interest series has ever provoked so many e-mails and so much concern before. He might well find that the Minister's Slash & Burn Bill might well surpass the earlier record......

 

Keep your chin up, hun. I'm not prepared to have that thug of a Minister tickling my tummy whilst I simply roll over meekly and let him do it. Sod that idea for a game of soldiers. I'll fight him and so will dozens of others.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

PS: TTNT = This Tummy is Not for Tickling. I quite like that slogan!

 

Thanks Gill for the supportive words! You're right, we can't go down without a fight! I owe it to myself and all the other applicants to at least try, so I'll be making my submission!

[User Name]

He is going to push hard to get this billt through. The whole point of defering the processing of non-CSL applicants its to trim the queue at a later date (when it becomes a law).

 

If he doesnt, then he is simply creating a bigger mess for himself. By not processing those application, the backlog is simply getting bigger.

 

The axe I reckon will fall (and heavily may I add) on cooks and hairdressers. The guy mentioned hairdressers more often than he mentioned his own name. Honestly if I were a onshore hairdresser PR applicant, I'd think twice before lodging an application. You may get your refund later if things turn out for worse but the side costs (agent, medical, IELTS) are far greater.

[natmark]

I have emailed my submission to the Senate Commission (it wouldn't let me upload it online for some reason?). I have also sent a copy of my submission to The National Interest.

 

Here's hoping that they will listen to us!!

[cartertucker]

Oh my gosh guys....I can only imagine how you must all be feeling with this news...:frown:

 

I am really sorry that you are all having to face yet more stress & uncertainty....:confused:

 

I really do wish you all the very best of luck....:yes:

[Guest Aussie2B]

Hi all,

 

I received a response from Peter Mares saying that he will try to take a closer look at the planned new bill. GREAT to hear of course, but I suggest that those who haven't contacted him yet to please do so, as I'm sure he'll be interested in hearing your stories in case he does write an(other) article on this stressful matter..

 

You can contact him by clicking this link:

The National Interest - Contact Us

 

Thanks!

[Guest babboo]

Hi Gill.

 

I absolutely hear what you say about fairness and equity.

 

However, and I offer this as an alternative view in an effort to flesh out some of the opposing arguments, why should the Minister accept into Australia those whose occupations are seemingly no longer required?

 

I am one of the first to question the ability of Governments generally to see the bigger picture, but I submit it is difficult to argue against the need to administer the country to the benefit of Australians rather than those who would wish to migrate irrespective of apparently changed circumstances.

 

As such, perhaps the correlation between skilled migration and improved wealth/living standards for the generality of Australians over recent years ought to be the war cry? Make the appeal over the heads of the pollies to the Australian people, maybe ...?

 

Best regards.

 

Dear Mr. Collett,

 

Been waiting for almost three years now ... How will the minister decide ?

I am an Education Officer with IELTS cleared and submitted --- now at this juncture 5 years of experience in the education officers job. The new SOL has a certain similar profile as an Education Officer tasks as was required before... This is my job and this is what I am handling now and am doing since the last 5 years... Would you cap n cease me just because I am a pre September 2007 applicant ??? Without giving me an opportunity and assessing my application ??? How many of us are genuine and worthy applicants? Who will decide and how will they decide ??? Can they at least give us a fair trail... if they think that the requirements were easier then... may be they were for some ... but what about us..... THREE YEARS .... NO result ... Sorry I am totally :wideeyed:

Cheers mate

[SHANO7]

Hi Gill.

 

I absolutely hear what you say about fairness and equity.

 

However, and I offer this as an alternative view in an effort to flesh out some of the opposing arguments, why should the Minister accept into Australia those whose occupations are seemingly no longer required?

 

I am one of the first to question the ability of Governments generally to see the bigger picture, but I submit it is difficult to argue against the need to administer the country to the benefit of Australians rather than those who would wish to migrate irrespective of apparently changed circumstances.

 

As such, perhaps the correlation between skilled migration and improved wealth/living standards for the generality of Australians over recent years ought to be the war cry? Make the appeal over the heads of the pollies to the Australian people, maybe ...?

 

Best regards.

 

Hi Alan

 

I for one respect the fact that you cant just walk into Australia so in a way I agree with you. What is fundamentaly wrong however is when people that lodged their current visas under Skilled visas their respective jobs were in demand and that is why they were lodged in th e first place. There must be a difference between lodged and unlodged. Those lodged, irrespective of on SOL or in demand now or not should be treated as being in demand and the visa process carried through to fruiton. The choice should be down to the applicant to withdraw if they so wish. And for those unlodged unfortunatelt is just was a question of timing.

 

regards

Shane