How many cat 6 applied in 2008

[Bluecatcollectables]

Well I'm sure this is a positive sign. Maybe somebody has looked at your application briefly. Who knows. If I were you I'd be happy. At least something is happening. Maybe not a lot, but something.

 

Good Luck again. I really hope we all get there in the end. We need to encourage each other throught this limbo period, which I would not wish on my worst enemy.

 

I have just said 'No' to a great holiday, where about 20 of my friends will be going, just because I'm trying to hold onto my money for our big Ozzie move. Things are far from perfect at the mo. But I am a strong believer in that if you want something badly enough, you are going to get it!!:laugh:

[Guest marul]

hi Gill,

i m 886 visa applied 28/02/08

age 27

occupation cook.

ielts 6.5

when i applied i took sponsor from my aunty. afetr 2 months i got full time job as chef . i was working as a cook while i was studing. this is my 5th year in australia and i m working 4 years in the kitchen. now working intercontinental hotel group in sydney. total points 135. that time i didnt realise that family sponsor is the poorest pathway of migration. as i need 100 points to pass i thaught this is the secure way. the college i studied that shut down after i finished my diploma. now everyone saying about the dodgy college applicants will be the next one to cap and kill. i am really worried about this thing caz thats not our fault who studied there. that college got licence from the government. i spend 20 grand for my course, when i started my courese i realised thats a dodgy college but it was alreadey too late. i already paid them 1 year course fee for the certificate 3. when i finished my certificate 3 i thaught i need to move in other college and i tried but the fees are higher than the college i studied. what happen all the colleges have their own package, they give discount on the basis of the package. if u want to move another college after finishing a certain tiime that college might not give u the same price as they declared on their package. for an example the college i went through they charge certificate 3 = 10 grand, certificate 4 = 5 grand

and for the diploma 5 grand. if u finish certificate 3 and go another college they might charge 14 grand for the certificate 4 and dipoma. so thats the story of my life. 2 years 20 grand , mate i dont hav anything left in my my home country. i spend all of them in here. as i am from the HR country that money including all other expenses i could do somthing else. now u can ask me why i came here and why i spent that money here , i could be fine in my home with that money. swear to god if i know this would be our end i wont come here. i was told by my aunty and agent that this was he path way to get pr. and i followed every single thing. 27 months i hav been waiting, my wife is in my country, all this things are making me crazy. i cant go back and cant go forward without pr ......... any ways thanks for reading my life story cheers.

[Guest Makvlad]

Hi!

 

I applied for 176 Family sponsored as a Life Scientist (nec.) with 8.0 IELTS test results overall in September, 2008. My only brother's family has already been living in Melbourne for 5 years and we planned to move there to reunite finally. Now we are stuck in cat6.

You all know how the recent changes can get on our nerves! I don't even want to think that we would probably not be able to live all together. The problem is that when five years ago my brother planned to move to some better place to live, the possibility of our parents' and my comming to the same country was a very important criteria for his choise. Yesterday we again talked about recent changes and cap&cease Bill. My brother was so upset and suggested that if due to the changes we finally won't be able to live all together he does not want to live in the country causing such isolation from his closest relatives. It is not democratic at least. Unfortunately (probably for Australia's economy, too), it is rather possible that one day his family (IT specialist and doctor) and ours (scientist) will live together in some other more friendly to immigrants country.

Nevertheless, I still am ready to continue my attemps to join Australia's community and my bro's family just if the Government let us do it.

[Guest Makvlad]

Gill,

just in case, what do you think about Scientists' chances? Mr.Evans gave examples about scientists' better chances to immigrate to Oz soon after... Or it is just his political speculations with no real outcome.

[Guest nitsy]

Hi All,

 

Me too same Cat-6 group. Applied as Insurance Broker which now is off the new SOL:-(

My timelines are as below.

 

Regards,

nitsy

[saunders clan]

We are 175 applicants category 6. We applied a lot later than most of you in June 2009. We have family in QLD and so could have used the 176 family sponsor route but this would not put us up the queue any further! I thought maybe both category 6 categories together might create a more prioritised category! Perhaps I should suggest this idea! We are hoping fibrous plasterer will be on the QLD list so we can apply for SS, if not who knows what the future holds for us. But we are not fretting too much. Just patiently waiting for July 1st.

 

GOOD LUCK TO ALL OF US WAITING IN THIS CATEGORY.

:arghh:

Kate

[Guest jumbojet]

Hi

 

We applied for 76 family sponsored visa on 19 Dec 2008...

Eventually changed and have received ACT state sponsorship on 24 May 2010..

Hoping...come 1 July....we will see some movement!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Blue Cat Collectibles

 

Like you, Virtual Bajwa is an offshore visa applicant. He has a Bachelors and a Masters degree in his own country (India) and degrees from Indian universities are not regarded as rubbish by teh international community, so his degrees are just fine.

 

Like you, VB has a sibling in Victoria - a brother. VB is a Public Relations Officer and has been for 10 or 11 years. I reckon that VB could pass any IELTS test going and score whatever marks the Government says it requires.

 

VB checked with his migration agent recently. He could have qualified for the new sc 176 visa until 7th May 2007 when the Minister suddenly slammed that door.

 

The only real difference between VB and you is that he is a bit younger than you and he happened to apply for a subclass 496 Family sponsored visa in August 2007, just before the sc 176 and sc 475 visas came into being.

 

VB and his application both face the chop. It seems that it would be unlawful for the Minister to try to scrap VB and his application under the existing rules for the sc 496 visa. The detailed provisions for the sc 496 visa do not give the Minister the power to cap & cease this particular sub-class.

 

However if the new Visa Capping Bill becomes Law then the Minister could say:

"All visa applicants who are family-sponsored and who have applied as Public Relations Officers, Education Officers or Marketing Specialists will get the chop." The powers granted by the new Bill will overcome the sloppy drafting in the sc 496 details, I assume (if the Minister's lawyers are right about this but presumably this is what they think.)

 

Therefore it is nonsense for your agent to write VB off and to try to say that your own situation is somehow "different" from his because it isn't. There is no substantive difference between your own case and that of Virtual Bajwa.

 

For this reason, I reckon that either your agent does not understand the facts and the relevant Law properly or that your agent is simply saying anythiing that will shut you up, whilst hoping for the best with your application. The egents acting for you and VB respectively could not possibly have known that you might both face the Visa Capping Bill 2010 but all the same, VB's agent wins today's moral battle because he has not tried to offer VB any BS instead of the real facts.

 

You have told me that you are 44 now. When is your 45th birthday, please?

 

! could have gone under the Last Remaining Relative Visa, as both our parents are deceased and she is my only close relative. But my partner has a brother and sister, who, incidentally, we never see (only at Funerals and Weddings, you know the sort of thing).

 

Unfortunately, you are not a Remaining Relative because your Partner's family count as "your" family - regardless of the quality of the relationship.

 

Which left a skilled visa with your sister as your sponsor. Back in 2008, the majority of Registered Migration Agents were content to settle for a Family sponsor if there was one available. They did not tend to consider State sponsorship if a family member was willing to fit the bill instead.

 

I don't know whether VIC has ever been willing to consider sponsoring Marketing Specialists, anyway. They might have been willing to consider it, given what you have said (below) but I do not know for sure:

Anyway, my agent suggested that I could swap to State Sponsorship, but this would mean paying again,

 

This statement is true if you have applied for a subclass 475 visa. It was never true if you have applied for a sc 176 visa, so which visa have you applied for, please?

 

The only State which still seems to be willing to consider sponsoring applicants for the sc 176 visa is the ACT (ie Canberra) but they do not seem to want any Marketing Specialists, unfortunately. That said, you are entitled to read all of the State websites and work the whole thing out for yourself, so the fast, reliable link to all of the State/Territory websites is below:

 

State and Territory Migration Sites - australia.gov.au

 

At the moment, it seems to me that both you and Virtual Bajwa really depend on whether VIC decide to include Public Relations Officer (in his case) or Marketing Specialist in your case in their new State Migration Plan. Personally I think it is unlikely that VIC will include either of these occupations in its SMP but since there is nothing much else that you can do, I reckon it is worth waiting and taking at look at the SMP for EVERY State once they are published. At the moment the target date is that all the States/Territories will publish their SMPs on 1st July 2010 but I suspect that we will just have to wait and see whether that actually happens.

 

If none of the States incclude Marketing Specialist in their SMPs then I think it is desirable for both you and VB to join the throng of people trying to get the new Visa Capping Bill thrown out. If the Bill becomes Law then it would be open to the Minister to say that he does not want any Family sponsored visa applicants who are nominating Marketing Specialist, for example, which would enable him to Cap & Cease your visa application. If the Bill is thrown out then his existing powers under S39 of the Migration Act would preclude the Minister from scrapping your own application unless he terminates ALL of the visa applications that remain in your particular visa subclass, which he simply wouldn't do.

 

Therefore I think that your agent is talking total rubbish in suggesting to you that you can ignore the new Visa Capping Bill because it might well become vitally important to you, whatever your agent might prefer you to believe (amd might prefer to believe him or herself.)

 

The Minister claims that Family sponsored skilled visa holders tend to have the poorest employment outcomes once they get to Australia. DIAC repeated this claim in a roadshow that they attended in Melbourne last week, which was also attended by the ever-beady Les Mighalls, who is a Registered Migration Agent in Melbourne:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/78424-thread-agents-only-re-new-gsm-changes-9.html

 

I assume that what the Minister means by this claim is that when Family sponsored applicants move to Oz, they tend to move to a place that is close to where their rellies in Oz live and simply do whatever jobs come up, regardless of the field that the new migrant actually knows something about in the first place.

 

You say that your sister lives in Mt Eliza. Having just found out where it is from Google Maps, it seems to me that it would be an easy enough commute into Melbourne. However, what sort of employers need Marketing Specialists in VIC? Whereabouts are these employers? Do you have experience which is relevant to what they might need? (Please note, I am NOT asking you to say which ones have current vacancies - that is irrelevant. The question is whether your particular experience might be useful to any of the employers, please?)

 

With the Minister being intent on his "reforms," this is no time to doze about simply hoping for the best. If a suitable employer can be found then it may well also be possible to educate that employer until he "hears" the Minister's "message" as well, which is that the Minister wants Aussie employers to sponsor skilled migrants for visas from now on.

 

See what you can discover, I suggest, because your plans of a new life in Oz might depend on it.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi again...

i have aquestion for GILL or anyone how can help me with it...

I had my drving licence suspended for 1 year because of drink driving about 1 year back and i had to mention that in my application forms.... Is that a matter of concern in respect to my P R application approval...

waiting for a reply....

 

Hi Perry

 

No - this won't upset your visa application so don't worry about it for the time being. Just don't do it again any time soon!!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[julie and gary]

Hi All

 

We are cat 6. applied for 175 visa Aug 2008, Was allocated a case officer in march 2009 and told to get our meds and police checks done. then 3 weeks later to be told we were beling put on hold due to the changes. Hopfully we will make it there one day although its not looking to promising with the capping and ceasing in the pipeline.

[Baby Pom]

Hi All

 

Here is my timeline for a 176 Family Sponsored Visa

 

Applied for TRA - April 2008

TRA Successful (ASCO 4314-11) - May 2008

Visa Application submitted & acknowledged - June 2008

Letter received from CO requesting further information including Meds & Police Checks - December 2008

Meds & Police checks submitted & received - February 2009

All Meds shown as being Met by March 2009

 

Heard nothing from CO or Agent regarding application since.

 

I have considered and discussed with agent about changing to SS but my occupation was only on WA list and relatives live in Melbourne. Also the company I work for in UK have main office in Melbourne so hoping to get a job there if and when we migrate.

 

While part of me thinks that we must be near the top of the list for CAT6 when they do start moving, I'm also concerned we might be on the list of 'slash & burn' visas due to the length of time we've been waiting.

 

These are certainly frustrating times for us CAT6 applicants :arghh:

[Jeffster]

I'm a Dec 2008 applicant as well. It's interesting to see that a few of us onshorers in Cat 6 have got jobs in our chosen professions (and are still at risk of the chop). Contrast this with an Indian friend of mine who graduated in accounting last year. He got his PR in a matter of weeks. The only job he has managed to find in the last 9 months is a part-time job in KFC, where he is still working.

 

I'm not sure what gets up my nose more - the waiting and uncertainty or the fact that this unholy mess created by the Govt. is causing me to hate my friends.

[virtual_bajwa]

Hi Blue Cat Collectibles

 

Like you, Virtual Bajwa is an offshore visa applicant. He has a Bachelors and a Masters degree in his own country (India) and degrees from Indian universities are not regarded as rubbish by teh international community, so his degrees are just fine.

 

Like you, VB has a sibling in Victoria - a brother. VB is a Public Relations Officer and has been for 10 or 11 years. I reckon that VB could pass any IELTS test going and score whatever marks the Government says it requires.

 

VB checked with his migration agent recently. He could have qualified for the new sc 176 visa until 7th May 2007 when the Minister suddenly slammed that door.

 

The only real difference between VB and you is that he is a bit younger than you and he happened to apply for a subclass 496 Family sponsored visa in August 2007, just before the sc 176 and sc 475 visas came into being.

 

VB and his application both face the chop. It seems that it would be unlawful for the Minister to try to scrap VB and his application under the existing rules for the sc 496 visa. The detailed provisions for the sc 496 visa do not give the Minister the power to cap & cease this particular sub-class.

 

However if the new Visa Capping Bill becomes Law then the Minister could say:

"All visa applicants who are family-sponsored and who have applied as Public Relations Officers, Education Officers or Marketing Specialists will get the chop." The powers granted by the new Bill will overcome the sloppy drafting in the sc 496 details, I assume (if the Minister's lawyers are right about this but presumably this is what they think.)

 

Therefore it is nonsense for your agent to write VB off and to try to say that your own situation is somehow "different" from his because it isn't. There is no substantive difference between your own case and that of Virtual Bajwa.

 

For this reason, I reckon that either your agent does not understand the facts and the relevant Law properly or that your agent is simply saying anythiing that will shut you up, whilst hoping for the best with your application. The egents acting for you and VB respectively could not possibly have known that you might both face the Visa Capping Bill 2010 but all the same, VB's agent wins today's moral battle because he has not tried to offer VB any BS instead of the real facts.

 

You have told me that you are 44 now. When is your 45th birthday, please?

 

 

Unfortunately, you are not a Remaining Relative because your Partner's family count as "your" family - regardless of the quality of the relationship.

 

Which left a skilled visa with your sister as your sponsor. Back in 2008, the majority of Registered Migration Agents were content to settle for a Family sponsor if there was one available. They did not tend to consider State sponsorship if a family member was willing to fit the bill instead.

 

I don't know whether VIC has ever been willing to consider sponsoring Marketing Specialists, anyway. They might have been willing to consider it, given what you have said (below) but I do not know for sure:

 

This statement is true if you have applied for a subclass 475 visa. It was never true if you have applied for a sc 176 visa, so which visa have you applied for, please?

 

The only State which still seems to be willing to consider sponsoring applicants for the sc 176 visa is the ACT (ie Canberra) but they do not seem to want any Marketing Specialists, unfortunately. That said, you are entitled to read all of the State websites and work the whole thing out for yourself, so the fast, reliable link to all of the State/Territory websites is below:

 

State and Territory Migration Sites - australia.gov.au

 

At the moment, it seems to me that both you and Virtual Bajwa really depend on whether VIC decide to include Public Relations Officer (in his case) or Marketing Specialist in your case in their new State Migration Plan. Personally I think it is unlikely that VIC will include either of these occupations in its SMP but since there is nothing much else that you can do, I reckon it is worth waiting and taking at look at the SMP for EVERY State once they are published. At the moment the target date is that all the States/Territories will publish their SMPs on 1st July 2010 but I suspect that we will just have to wait and see whether that actually happens.

 

If none of the States incclude Marketing Specialist in their SMPs then I think it is desirable for both you and VB to join the throng of people trying to get the new Visa Capping Bill thrown out. If the Bill becomes Law then it would be open to the Minister to say that he does not want any Family sponsored visa applicants who are nominating Marketing Specialist, for example, which would enable him to Cap & Cease your visa application. If the Bill is thrown out then his existing powers under S39 of the Migration Act would preclude the Minister from scrapping your own application unless he terminates ALL of the visa applications that remain in your particular visa subclass, which he simply wouldn't do.

 

Therefore I think that your agent is talking total rubbish in suggesting to you that you can ignore the new Visa Capping Bill because it might well become vitally important to you, whatever your agent might prefer you to believe (amd might prefer to believe him or herself.)

 

The Minister claims that Family sponsored skilled visa holders tend to have the poorest employment outcomes once they get to Australia. DIAC repeated this claim in a roadshow that they attended in Melbourne last week, which was also attended by the ever-beady Les Mighalls, who is a Registered Migration Agent in Melbourne:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/78424-thread-agents-only-re-new-gsm-changes-9.html

 

I assume that what the Minister means by this claim is that when Family sponsored applicants move to Oz, they tend to move to a place that is close to where their rellies in Oz live and simply do whatever jobs come up, regardless of the field that the new migrant actually knows something about in the first place.

 

You say that your sister lives in Mt Eliza. Having just found out where it is from Google Maps, it seems to me that it would be an easy enough commute into Melbourne. However, what sort of employers need Marketing Specialists in VIC? Whereabouts are these employers? Do you have experience which is relevant to what they might need? (Please note, I am NOT asking you to say which ones have current vacancies - that is irrelevant. The question is whether your particular experience might be useful to any of the employers, please?)

 

With the Minister being intent on his "reforms," this is no time to doze about simply hoping for the best. If a suitable employer can be found then it may well also be possible to educate that employer until he "hears" the Minister's "message" as well, which is that the Minister wants Aussie employers to sponsor skilled migrants for visas from now on.

 

See what you can discover, I suggest, because your plans of a new life in Oz might depend on it.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Thanks Gill for putting up the fight with me. It makes me happy that I am not alone in my fight.

Well guys I want to put an issue here. According to DIAC there are 147000 applications in the pipeline. And they are forcing Cap and Cease on Pre September applicants which are just 10 or 20 Percent of 147000. Why not Minister forcing the Cap and Cease on 2008, 2009 and 2010 applicants. I am not against the applicants from these years but this is what DIAC saying they want to get out of backlog issue. Then they can only come out of backlog by forcing cap and cease on 2007,2008,2009 and 2010 applicants collectively.

 

Well DIAC go ahead Force this bill on 2007, 2008,2008,2009 and 2010 applicants and face the music.

[Guest brads]

Hi

Are details as follows:-

 

175 visa - 1295-11 childcare co-ordinator (was on modl list)

Applied for visa in October 2008

Want to emigrate to NSW to be with family already living the dream.

 

My skill is not on the new sol listing so not sure what will happen to us, any advice would be hugely appreciated !!!.

 

Katrina, Brad, James, Michael, Olivia & Chloe

[Bluecatcollectables]

Hello again everyone! I have recently read a speech by Chris Evans in relation to the Cap and Cease and general changes afoot in the Migration Program. Whilst, like you Gill, I am not too trusting of some of the comments, I actually think it is a very good speech and totally agree with his viewpoint. However I feel very strongly that all these changes should be applicable for future applications only!! I feel sorry for VB, as all he has ever done is comply with the rules of engagement. What more can anyone do? Surely there must be a moral obligation, especially if a visa is only temporary. If you don't comply with the guidelines, then fair enough. Give them the big heave-hoo; but surely giving people a fair try is paramount here. For example, the minister could be saying something along the lines of: 'Ok, we know we made a bit of a mess of this and situations can change, but what we will do is give applicants a go. They can then put a clause in stipulating that if the applicant has not managed to find a job after 1 year, in the chosen profession, he has to leave Australia. At least this would enable people applying to show them what they are made of, because, lets face it, changing one's country is not a lightly decision to take, is it now?!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hello again everyone! I have recently read a speech by Chris Evans in relation to the Cap and Cease and general changes afoot in the Migration Program. Whilst, like you Gill, I am not too trusting of some of the comments, I actually think it is a very good speech and totally agree with his viewpoint. However I feel very strongly that all these changes should be applicable for future applications only!! I feel sorry for VB, as all he has ever done is comply with the rules of engagement. What more can anyone do? Surely there must be a moral obligation, especially if a visa is only temporary. If you don't comply with the guidelines, then fair enough. Give them the big heave-hoo; but surely giving people a fair try is paramount here. For example, the minister could be saying something along the lines of: 'Ok, we know we made a bit of a mess of this and situations can change, but what we will do is give applicants a go. They can then put a clause in stipulating that if the applicant has not managed to find a job after 1 year, in the chosen profession, he has to leave Australia. At least this would enable people applying to show them what they are made of, because, lets face it, changing one's country is not a lightly decision to take, is it now?!

 

Hi BCC

 

Personally I do not trust the Minister an inch. All pollies do their best to sound ultra reasonable when they are trying to defend an idea that they want to push through.

 

I think that the truth of the Visa Capping Bill is that the Minister has told DIAC's lawyers about the sorts of powers that he wants and they have told him that getting what he wants would involve changing the law.

 

In order to apply the existing S39 Cap & Cease powers to the pre-September 2007 applications, the Minister has to announce and apply the Caps to all of the relevant subclasses first. He has not done that and he knows he has not done it - he would have had to sign the Capping Instrument.

 

So I reckon that his claims to Peter Mares that he has already capped and ceased the pre-September 2007 applications are simply bare-faced lies. His own Department, only last week, confirmed that they have not begun any of the Capping & Ceasing as yet but threatened that they are about to start doing it.

 

Virtual Bajwa and I are getting bored with that claim. DIAC were about to start axing applications in the second week of March 2010 according to the two ladies from DIAC who attended the MIA/DIAC seminars back then.

 

Nothing happened.

 

It will be interesting to see whether anything actually happens this week. I suspect that it might turn out to be the second or third empty claim that DIAC's staff have made.

 

The majority of public servants are not lawyers. They would listen to Office Gossip but they would not necessarily understand that S39 does not contain the power to Cap & Cease without applying the Caps.

 

The same DIAC staff have made ludicrous claims about "collateral damage." That is a term that is only ever used when armed hostilities are afoot between Governments. I would throttle any member of my staff who used such a term in the totally unseemly context of visa applications. It might sound good to the staff concerned but it actually only proves how thick and how badly trained some of them are imho.

 

When one of the ladies trotted out her nonsense about "collateral damage," some of the RMAs present pointed out that this geezer called Collateral Damage has a fairly predictable habit of suing other people, in particular the Minister for Immi....

 

If he tries to cease any visa application without capping that class of visa first, the lawyers will haul him straight into Court, howling, "This attempt is unlawful because the Cap has not been applied."

 

The Minister doesn't actually want to Cap & Cease all of the pre-September 2007 applications anyway. He wants certain groups of applicants to be targeted and thrown out but not all of them by any means. Whereupon he ran into another raft of problems. Applications for skilled visas had to be made on paper prior to 1st September 2007. The on-line application system was not available before that.

 

DIAC have admitted that the only way they can sift through all of the relevant visa applications in order to work out which applicants/occupations to terminate is if they do it manually. Apparently their computer is not able to tell them how many Cooks applied for visas prior to 1st September 2007.

 

The Minister would like a situation in which DIAC process and grant visas to all the people that he wants to keep. He could then cap the remainder of the applications and terminate them. However there is clearly a problem with doing it or DIAC would have done it by now.

 

I suspect that his only real reason for wanting to get rid of "all" of the pre-September 2007 applications is precisely because the details about them are not on the computer. So little is actually known about them - short of doing a manual sift - that to start with DIAC took a wild guess and said that they thought about 20,000 people would probably be involved. That caused uproar and DIAC are now saying that they got it wrong and that their new guess is that only about 6,000 people would be involved.

 

I suspect that DIAC's lawyers are refusing to do anything. If anything happens that is unlawful, the Minister will definitely be sued. The lawyers know that and they also know that if the Minister becomes the Defendant in some high profile court cases, the Aussie public will complain about the costs and the Minister will complain to the lawyers who dragged him into the mess. If I were DIAC's Chief Solicitor, I would "hasten slowly" on this one - ie do nothing and hope that the bloke will get bored and shut up!

 

It is also common knowledge in Oz that Krudd insists that he and his Cabinet will make all of the important decisions by themselves. The civil service doesn't work like that. Ostensibly the Ministers make the Policies and civil servants simply carry them out. Behind closed doors, however, senior civil servants make the policies and persuade their various Ministers to adopt them.

 

Andrew Metcalfe, the boss of DIAC, usually looks pretty ill whenever he has to go and be seen to support his Minister through a public grilling by one or more of the other Senators. I suspect that he is as fed up with the Krudd Govt as many other Aussies are. I believe that Mr Metcalfe is a lawyer by background and he does not seem like a natural Labor supporter to me.

 

I also find it completely odd that even the most half-baked, junior lawyer could have imagined that a scrappy, wordless little document like the Visa Capping Bill 2010 would go through both Houses of Parliament without difficulty. The less that you say in the Bill. the greater the chances that the other pollies will question the whole thing - as they are now doing. As an obedient Chief Solicitor, I'd have been inclined to tell the draftsmen, "Pack it with rubbish. It doesn't matter how much rubbish. The 3-page first draft is the skeleton of what the Minister wants. Pad it out with about 600 pages of gibberish in order to hide the bits that the Minister wants to keep. Blind the other pollies with science and lets hope for the best."

 

However Mr Metcalfe might have said, "Nah. The whole Bill is misguided so let us keep it very short and sweet. Then everyone can have a bunfight over how appalling the ideas in it are. If they toss it out of Parliament, I can then say, 'Oh dear, Minister. What rotten bad luck, Minister. Still, your fellow pollies do not like your ideas, Minister, so I suggest that you need some more instructions from Krudd.' Keep the Bill short and simple so that it won't confuse anyone and my hunch is that it will be chucked out."

 

The lawyers will do what their boss tells them to do long before they will listen to whatever the Minister wants them to do. It could be that Mr Metcalfe wants the iniquitous new Bill to fail.

 

Think of Sir Humphrey Appleby, maybe?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest toria]

Hi

We are cat 6, 176 family sponsered offshore

skills assessment april 2009 hairdresser

visa app 29th June 2009

wa state sponser applied for 23/4/10.......... still waiting!

 

Toria

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi guys

 

The Minister can't use his appalling new Bill as a tool to scrap your applications because the Bill is not Law.

 

Therefore the only way he could do it would be to use S39, the text of which is below:

 

39 Criterion limiting number of visas

 

(1) In spite of section 14 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, a

prescribed criterion for visas of a class, other than protection visas,

may be the criterion that the grant of the visa would not cause the

number of visas of that class granted in a particular financial year

to exceed whatever number is fixed by the Minister, by legislative

instrument, as the maximum number of such visas that may be

granted in that year (however the criterion is expressed).

 

(2) For the purposes of this Act, when a criterion allowed by

subsection (1) prevents the grant in a financial year of any more

visas of a particular class, any outstanding applications for the

grant in that year of visas of that class are taken not to have been

made.

 

I can understand why he is moaning that s39 is too crude a tool. I would agree with the Minister's moan.

 

However, for whatever reason, Parliament decided that the words should be as they are.

 

According to me, sub-section (1) says that the Minister has to cap the relevant Class before he can terminate the remainder of the applications. I reckon that if he had applied one or more caps, one or more of the RMAs would have heard about it and would have told us about it on here.

 

According to me, sub-section (1) also says that there have to be a certain number of visa granted in the class of visa during a financial year before the Cap & Kill provisions can be applied to the rest.

 

Have there been any visa grants in the affected classes during 2009-2010? I have not heard of any being granted? You might like to ask your agents about this.

 

Also, would he wait until right at the end of a financial year before risking chaos, or would he do it early on in the new F/Y?

 

My suspicion is that s39 is actually incompatible with any of the Minister's recent priority pecking orders and it might well be that S39 cannot be used.

 

The new Visa Capping Bill 2010 seeks to repeal S39 altogether and to replace it with the provisions in the new Bill.

 

I have a feeling that the lawyers might be running scared. They might have decided to do nothing for the time being and just to wait and see whether the new Bill becomes Law. If it does then the new provisions could probably be used to cap & cease some of the pre-Sept 2007 classes of visa but I am not convinced whether that would work with sc 496.

 

I don't know whether Aussie law has a concept of "accrued rights." One of the few democratic principles left in the UK is that you simply never, ever create new Law that will have a retroactive effect, therefore I don't know whether the UK has such a thing as "accrued rights" either. English law is not relevant to Aussie law,though, and I've no idea what an Aussie Judge might think.

 

However the whole thing feels so wrong to me that I suspect that the Minister's ideas are the ideas that are wrong, rather than the legal principles being wrong if you see what I mean?

 

Your guess is as good as mine, so what do you guys think, please?

 

Jigish - if you happen to read this post, please could you ask your father what he thinks, as well?

 

The Migration Act can be found in Comlaw via the link for Commonly Viewed Legislation.

 

ComLaw Act Compilations - Migration Act 1958 (62)

 

AustLii contains all the commentaries, case law etc but I have not tried to search AustLii to find out about this.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest perry]

HI GILL.....

Thanks for ur reply.

Cheerz

[Jeffster]

I agree totally with Bluecats post about giving those who will be C&K'd a chance to stay here. The whole policy is so unfair to the thousands of applicants who did no wrong. The actual idea of having quotas by profession is good but to enforce it retroactively is just plain wrong. Giving those applicants affected an extended working holiday visa would be a lot fairer and at least give them a chance to stay here if they found a job and an employer willing to sponsor them. Worst case - they can't find a job in their profession but get to spend a year here doing some other job, earning a bit of cash and are able to plan to return home properly rather than a 28 day mad rush.

 

If you haven't done so already BlueCat put that idea in writing and send it to the Senate inquiry.

[Guest stillwaiting79]

hello all,

 

glad to have found 2008 Cat 6 applicants ... still got faith that they'll get to us some day soon

 

Here's my details;

What Visa: GSM PR 176 Family Sponsored

Online Application: 03 October 2008

Occupation: Project/Program Admininstrator

ACSO 3292-11

IELTS: 8

Currently in Melbourne (on s.visa bidding my time)

Applied to WA - declined in December 2009 as it's an off0-list occupation.

Re-Applied to Wa in Feb 2010 - waiting on answer which would probably be a NO anyway ....

[chimpster]

Hello all

 

I applied a 176 Family Sponsored Visa in January 2008 as a Branch Accountant. Should have never done so :arghh: !!!

[virtual_bajwa]

Hi guys

 

The Minister can't use his appalling new Bill as a tool to scrap your applications because the Bill is not Law.

 

Therefore the only way he could do it would be to use S39, the text of which is below:

 

 

 

I can understand why he is moaning that s39 is too crude a tool. I would agree with the Minister's moan.

 

However, for whatever reason, Parliament decided that the words should be as they are.

 

According to me, sub-section (1) says that the Minister has to cap the relevant Class before he can terminate the remainder of the applications. I reckon that if he had applied one or more caps, one or more of the RMAs would have heard about it and would have told us about it on here.

 

According to me, sub-section (1) also says that there have to be a certain number of visa granted in the class of visa during a financial year before the Cap & Kill provisions can be applied to the rest.

 

Have there been any visa grants in the affected classes during 2009-2010? I have not heard of any being granted? You might like to ask your agents about this.

 

Also, would he wait until right at the end of a financial year before risking chaos, or would he do it early on in the new F/Y?

 

My suspicion is that s39 is actually incompatible with any of the Minister's recent priority pecking orders and it might well be that S39 cannot be used.

 

The new Visa Capping Bill 2010 seeks to repeal S39 altogether and to replace it with the provisions in the new Bill.

 

I have a feeling that the lawyers might be running scared. They might have decided to do nothing for the time being and just to wait and see whether the new Bill becomes Law. If it does then the new provisions could probably be used to cap & cease some of the pre-Sept 2007 classes of visa but I am not convinced whether that would work with sc 496.

 

I don't know whether Aussie law has a concept of "accrued rights." One of the few democratic principles left in the UK is that you simply never, ever create new Law that will have a retroactive effect, therefore I don't know whether the UK has such a thing as "accrued rights" either. English law is not relevant to Aussie law,though, and I've no idea what an Aussie Judge might think.

 

However the whole thing feels so wrong to me that I suspect that the Minister's ideas are the ideas that are wrong, rather than the legal principles being wrong if you see what I mean?

 

Your guess is as good as mine, so what do you guys think, please?

 

Jigish - if you happen to read this post, please could you ask your father what he thinks, as well?

 

The Migration Act can be found in Comlaw via the link for Commonly Viewed Legislation.

 

ComLaw Act Compilations - Migration Act 1958 (62)

 

AustLii contains all the commentaries, case law etc but I have not tried to search AustLii to find out about this.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Thanks again Gill,

I do not know anything about the Legislation laws. But let us suppose, if I would have how would I approach the guys who know Australian law? I talked to my brother on this matter and he told me to shut up until anything happened.But I want to know can I appeal against this law? According to Minister I can not do this.

 

One thing which I had noted from this speech is that Minister was very soft in his speech. While in his first speech he was very aggressive and straight forward against the immigrants inflow in the country. Laws can not made on the bases of assumptions. Till now all about capping bill is just an assumption,no implementation. So guys wait and watch.

 

This thread is very important in relation to going against this bill as all these applications have strong holds in Australia .So they can appeal and fight for their application. If Minister is talking about cap and cease is the only alternative to reduce backlog then he has to apply this bill on 2008,2009 and 2010 applications. So be ready guys.

[vandm]

my OH i and i applied in nov 2008.

[murky]

Hi All,

 

I thought this was a 'How many Cat 6 in 2008' thread, not another Capping Bill one:frown: We don't want to be ambushed.

 

Murky