child with learning difficulties

[crosbyx4]

myself, husband and two boys aged 8 & 9 are considering migrating to Queensland, I am a nurse so hoping to go the skilled visa route however my eldest son has some learning difficulties and currently recieves support in main stream school with an educational statement in leu, it has been suggested that this may affect our application, just wondering if anyone has any advice or had a simular situation, thanks.

[gareth and lisa]

myself, husband and two boys aged 8 & 9 are considering migrating to Queensland, I am a nurse so hoping to go the skilled visa route however my eldest son has some learning difficulties and currently recieves support in main stream school with an educational statement in leu, it has been suggested that this may affect our application, just wondering if anyone has any advice or had a simular situation, thanks.

 

Hi crosbyx4, sorry cant offer much advice only to say that were in the same boat. Our youngers has mild Autism, he is doing well in a mainstream school but does have a teaching assistant to keep him on task. my agent is happy for us to progress with the application although nothing can be gteed. there are lots of people who have children with special needs so hopefully somebody can give you more of an answer.

Lisa

[crosbyx4]

Hi crosbyx4, sorry cant offer much advice only to say that were in the same boat. Our youngers has mild Autism, he is doing well in a mainstream school but does have a teaching assistant to keep him on task. my agent is happy for us to progress with the application although nothing can be gteed. there are lots of people who have children with special needs so hopefully somebody can give you more of an answer.

Lisa

we were not planning on using an agent but now having second thoughts have you found them useful?

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Crosbyx4

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

Your son's condition could well make a difference, unfortunately.

 

What you really need to do is to get yourself fully genned up about the whole issue surrounding the meds.

 

At the moment, the situation is that if the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth considers that it is likely that it would cost the Aussie Government $21,000 AUD or more to cater for your child's special needs during his first 5 years as a Permanent Resident of Australia, the MOC is required to say that he "does not meet" the Health Requirement for permanent migration to Oz. Then the "one fails, all fail" rule kicks in, meaning that the visa applications are rejected for both parents and the two children.

 

In considering the potential costs of your child's particular needs, the MOC will also ask for an expert opinion about what is likely when the child becomes an adult. If the MOC believes that somebody living in Oz, who is exactly the same age and has the same degree and severity of the condition, is likely to be unable to work and to support himself independently as an adult, then Australia might well end up having to pay Disability Support Pension or another Benefit in order to help the "hypothetical person" to make ends meet financially.

 

In 2009 there was a case (the father is a PiO member) where the MOC wanted to know what sort of adulthood would be in store for a child who was only 4 years old at the time. The father had instructed a firm of Registered Migration Agents in Australia (Perth) who claimed to be experts in cases when the meds are likely to prove to be a problem. The firm in question does make this claim openly, on their website.

 

The truth turned out to be that they did not have a clue. Initially they opined that the child would not have a problem with the meds. When the child did have a problem, they turned out to be utterly hopeless. They gave their client the father absolutely zero support or assistance and merely confined themselves to acting as a post box between the father and the Case Officer, who in turn was sending things to the MOC. The visa was refused and the last time I heard, the father was considering making a formal complaint to the OMARA about the fact that these agents make claims on their website that they simply cannot substantiate when push comes to shove. The father wasted some £6,000 GBP on the experiment and the agents collected at least £2,000 of that.

 

So instructing an agent will NOT necessarily help you to sort anything out. Also, unless you make it your own business to understand the meds issue absolutely thoroughly yourself, you would have no way of knowing whether the agent is simply offering you BS and wild guesses, dressed up as "professional advice."

 

Back in 2008. a visa applicant called Dr Moeller was also refused a Permanent Residency visa for Australia on account of the fact that his son Lukas is pretty severely affected by Down Syndrome. Dr Moeller and his family had been living in Australia for at least 4 years at the time, on a temporary sc 457 visa, sponsored by one of the public health authorities in VIC. Dr Moeller is an expert at looking after acutely ill patients or something. Whatever his actual medical specialty, the gist was that Dr Moeller was looking after a hospital in Horsham, in rural VIC. Because he could do whatever was necessary, local patients could stay close to home at the hospital in Horsham. Without him, the patients would have had to be sent miles away to some other hospital that has the necessary facilities.

 

When Dr Moeller applied for PR in Australia for himself and his family, he applied for an Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) visa, sponsored by the health authority. They were the same people who had sponsored him for the temporary sc 457 visa and young Lukas must have been about 8, I would think, when the family first moved to Oz. According to Dr Moeller, no obstacles had been raised about Lukas' condition at the time of the temporary visa so, understandably, Dr Moeller was particularly shocked to learn that there was a problem with Lukas' meds at the time of the application for PR in Oz.

 

The relevant Health criterion is Public Interest Criterion 4005. This says that if someone has a "disease or condition" that is likely to result in "significant cost" to Australia's healthcare or "community services" then the visa must be refused, in effect.

 

"Disease or condition" includes a disability such as Down Syndrome. There is no separate category for "disability."

 

"Significant cost" is deemed to be $21,000 or more during the person's first 5 years as a Permanent Resident of Australia. This figure was agreed in the late 1990s and it has never been reviewed or revisited since, so it is now hopelessly out of date but at the moment, it is still the threshold figure that applies.

 

"Community services" means special assistance at school, Benefits at any stage and so forth.

 

Dr Moeller's PR visa was refused. The fact that he and his wife had appointed legal guardians to look after Lukas if anything happened to them was irrelevant. So was the fact that Dr Moeller had also established a large Trust fund to pay for Lukas' care in the event that anything happened to his father. The fact that Dr Moeller was a doctor was equally irrelevant. PIC 4005 is a very blunt cosh, which nobody should doubt.

 

Dr Moeller was able to apply to the Migration Review Tribunal because the type of PR visa that he had applied for permits this. In the MRT, he could have asked for the Review Medical of the Commonwealth to re-do Lukas' meds appraisal from scratch and new medical evidence could have been provided to and considered by the RMOC. However, Dr Moeller could see that this exercise would not have made any difference to the outcome in the MRT because Lukas is pretty disabled by Down Syndrome and PIC 4005 is therefore not met.

 

With no Opinion from the RMOC, the MRT had no choice but to say that DIAC were right to refuse the application for a PR visa. However, applying to the MRT was only a necessary procedural step in the first place. If the visa applicant appeals to the MRT but the MRT is compelled to uphold DIAC's decision then Section 351 of the Migration Act 1958 kicks in. S351 enables the visa applicant to appeal direct to the Minister for Immi for Ministerial Intervention. The Minister is permitted, by S351, to substitute his own decision for the MRT's decision if the Minister, in his sole discretion, considers that it would be "in the public interest" for him to grant the visas in any case.

 

By then the media had got hold of the story and it was headline news in Australia, and in Germany (where Dr Moeller is from.) There was a bit about it in the UK as well. Dr Moeller, understandably, was very distressed about the whole thing, plus the endless legal charade was costing him a fortune in legal fees which very few people would have been able to afford.

 

The media explained to the Aussie Public that the whole thing would depend on whether or not the Minister considered that it would be "in the public interest" for him to grant Dr Moeller and his family PR in Australia. The Aussie public roared at the Minister that he had bluddy well consider it to be "in the public interest," or else......

 

DIAC produced Peter Vardos, one of their top public servants. Ha flapped about a bit and tried to explain to the public that nobody was trying to be nasty to Dr Moeller. It was simply that the Law requires what it requires.....

 

The public roared at Mr Vardos and told him that if the Law is that bluddy hopeless then the Law had better be changed.

 

The MRT upheld DIAC's decision to refuse the visa. Dr Moeller's lawyers had already warned the Ministerial Intervention team that they would be appealing to the Minister as soon as the MRT's visa refusal was given formally. The MRT refused the visas and the MI Appeal papers were faxed to the Minister's office next morning. By lunchtime, the Minister had granted the visas and a lady from the MI team rang Dr Moeller to confirm it.

 

Which must have been the fastest Ministerial Intervention in history but the Minister had Public Opinion and a disgusted media spurring him on, which is not usually the case!!

 

However it did not all have a happy outcome. Although he had obtained PR in Australia and had scored a massive moral victory, Dr Moeller has left Australia since then. He and his family have moved to the USA and the American Immigration people accepted Lukas with no bother at all, so the Moellers now have PR in the USA as well as in Australia.

 

In the meantime, the Human Rights people had piped up and had pointed out to the Minister that in their opinion, Australia's immigration treatment of young Lukas Moeller puts Australia in breach of its international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (known as the CRPD.)

 

The Minister referred the whole debate to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which has been holding a Public Inquiry into the wider issues about PIC 4005 since September 2009.

 

Joint Standing Committee on Migration: Index

 

Loads of people have sent submissions to the Public Inquiry:

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm

 

Running down the list of people who have made submissions:

 

I am in touch with a visa applicant whose daughter suffers from a similar condition to Cynthia Muir's sister and the visa applicant who has contacted me is also in touch with Cynthia Muir, has met Ms Muir and so on. (Submission #3)

 

Dermot Hogan is a Poms in Oz member. He was refused a sc 457 visa during the second half of 2009 because his son also has Down Syndrome, though not nearly as severely as young Lukas Moeller. (Submission #14.)

 

My submission is #19 and in it, I have quoted the section from Hansard in 2009 which proves beyond doubt that $21,000 is the threshold figure and it is years out of date, as even DIAC (belatedly and hastily) now admit.

 

The Freehills Submission (#56) is interesting because they acted for Mrs Robinson in the landmark legal case of Robinson v MIMIA in 2005. The case made legal history and I believe that the MOC is finally having a vague stab at following the principles laid down in Robinson, albeit belatedly. Mrs Robinson is a British midwife and her son also has Down Syndrome, though young Master Robinson only has it very mildly. Mrs Robinson had to go to the Migration Review Tribunal, the Court and two Ministerial Appeals until her visas were finally granted in 2009, by the Minister, a few days before Dr Moeller's visas were granted. Mrs Robinson said that the process of obtaining PR in Australia had taken herself and her family 6 years. Freehills are a huge firm of solicitors in Oz. Normally they only deal with commercial work and their fees are astronomical but they have a Pro Bono Litigation team, who acted for Mrs Robinson at no cost for the legal work involved. A midwife could never have afforded Freehills' fees otherwise.

 

I will come back to the DIAC submission at #66.

 

The Royal College of Australasian Physicians have attacked the present Government's legal stances about the Health criteria for migration (submission #80.)

 

The Law Institute of Victoria are very authoritative and the Committee Chairman has been listening to them. They demand change. (Submission #88)

 

Dr Downes' submission is interesting as well (#103.) She and her husband both deal with A&E medicine at one of the hospitals in Sydney. One of their children is autistic so theirs was another case of the visas being refused regardless of the parents' occupations or their wealth. Her husband, Dr Michael Downes, as always eschewed publicity but I agree with his wife, as it happens. The Minister granted their PR visas in the end.

 

You should read the Hansard transcripts from 24th Feb 2010 and 17th March 2010 as well, please. Dr Paul Douglas is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer. He provided evidence to the Committee on the dates above and the information is all recorded, verbatim, in the Hansards.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/hearings.htm

 

Dr Douglas explains exactly how the MOC doctors reach a decision about somebody's meds, so you should definitely read what he says.

 

I've mauled Dr Douglas recently, via the Aussie High Commission in London, on behalf of a PiO member whose visa was refused recently because his non-migrating daughter has learning difficulties. I know another British family who were refused last year because their six year old son has learning difficulties.

 

I am half-satisfied with the responses from Dr Douglas. He sets great store by the results of IQ type tests when someone has learning difficulties. Apparently all of the different tests come with a score which is known to be the range that a "normal" person would have. Depending on how far below the "normal score" the prospective visa applicant is, Dr Douglas' team provide their own gradings, as he has described in Hansard.

 

Dr Douglas was horrified when he saw the evidence about how useless the Panel Doctor in the UK was about the daughter, recently. He remarked that if he had known about the Panel Doctor's performance at the time, he would have sacked the Panel Doctor from the UK Panel, but the doctor has recently been culled from the Panel in any case.

 

Again, that was a case of Registered Migration Agents (but not the ones in Perth) who had opined that there would not be a problem with the daughter's meds. When they were wrong and there was a problem, once again, the so-called and self-styled medical case expert migration agents turned out not to have a meaningful clue about what to do, so they faffed about aimlessly and hoped for the best, which had no impact at all on the negative outcome. Dr Douglas was convincing about why his team had found that the daughter "does not meet" the medical criteria for migration to Oz.

 

DIAC's own submission at #66 is very verbose and is therefore difficult to follow but what they have said is good in places. They set out PiC 4005 verbatim in one of the appendices, which is handy. They also explain that as far as they are concerned, medical screening for migration to Oz only happens for one reason and the reason is to save Australia some money. At least they have not tried to hide the truth, for once.

 

The DIAC submission also reveals that their approach to the medical criteria would be envied by the Beverley Hillbillies, frankly. DIAC bragged that the MOC had managed to save Australia $70 million in 2007-2008. However questioning in one of the Hearings revealed that one of the MOC doctors had come up with the figure of $70 million AUD. Since when has an MOC doctor - trained to know about medicine - been a Health Economist or an Actuary as well, one asks?

 

The DIAC submission and Dr Douglas have revealed that at the moment, some external contractors called Adhealth have been commissioned to produce 19 new Guidance Notes for the MOC. One is the General Principles Guidance Note. The other 18 relate to specific groups of conditions (eg cancer in one, opthalmology in another, HIV+. disability, mental health conditions and so on.) So far, 3 of these Guidance Notes have been finalised (not bad, considering that the exercise of producing the ruddy things began in 2007, almost exactly 3 years ago.)

 

Dr Douglas insists that the remaining specific Guidance Notes plus the General Principles Guidance note will all be finalised in July 2010. Whereupon, they will be "published." That is to say, they will be hidden on Legendcom.

 

I am working on the Aussie High Commission in London about this at the moment and the Law Institute of Victoria is climbing on backs about it as well. Hiding something on Legendcom is NOT publication of the thing. The Guidance Notes should be on the Panel Doctors Gateway, which is on the DIAC website. Until that is done, I intend that the relevant visa applicant and I should pester the Aussie High Commission in London until they produce the relevant Notes, which they can produce at the click of a mouse since the Aussie Government owns Legendcom and every DIAC officer has access to it, free of charge.

 

I'm too tired to do any more tonight and you have a huge amount of homework to do via this post alone, hon.

 

I'll do some more for you tomorrow.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[wrussell]

myself, husband and two boys aged 8 & 9 are considering migrating to Queensland, I am a nurse so hoping to go the skilled visa route however my eldest son has some learning difficulties and currently recieves support in main stream school with an educational statement in leu, it has been suggested that this may affect our application, just wondering if anyone has any advice or had a simular situation, thanks.

 

You are probably in trouble, but if you want some (free professional) advice about options send an email to visa@pinoyau.com

[crosbyx4]

thank you so much, being new to this forum we were expecting to be able to read about other peoples experiences as a way of helping us with our application but this help has way exceded these expectations so thank you so much for your time; this has definatly given us some very useful links and information to help us start to understand the problems we could encounter. . . .I agree that understanding the system yourself rather than relying on an agent is sensable and could well save us a lot of money (although I am not disputing that the expertise of some agents may be useful). Although I have looked over the information I have not yet had time to read it thouroghly but am i right in asuming that it does not necessarly matter what the childs 'dissability' is it is based upon the possible cost of this child to australian gov. My sons diagnosis is development co ordination delay, which is general development delay with elements of dyspraxia. He has recieved all the medical intervention he is likely to ever need such as speech and language, physio, occupational thearapy etc and his 'problem' is now deemed educational.... He fell behind his peers educationaly in most aspects of the curriculam but he now recieves one to one from a teaching assistant for 12 hrs a week through a statement in leu which will be evaluated every six months until he deemed to have 'caught up', he is fully expected to stay in main stream education with no problems, however this is presently at a cost to the local authority so therefor this could be the aspect that hinders our aplication. I will now go away and look in more detail at the information you have provided us with and look forward to hearing from you in the future . .. any help is gratefully recieved

 

cheers

 

louisa and Mike

[gareth and lisa]

We are lucky in the fact that Ethan has had a huge input over the years by SALT, ta's autism outreach, etc and now is quite a normal acting boy but he has a title (asd) and we have to live with that. We are hoping that the Australian government can see that he has aspirations like anybody else (he wants to be a surgeon and why not!!). But proving it may be difficult, we are prepared for the fight, our agent from Go Matilda has never said it would be easy but her input has been invaluable already and i wouldt go it alone personally. Good luck with what you decided to do.

Lisa

p.s hubby had arthritis in both hips, he has had one operated on and the other is for the future, so i suppose thats another battle, lol

[Guest spongebob]

Reading this thread has made me rather nervous and put me in bit of a panic. Plus very confused again.

 

My 11 year old wears hearing aids due to recently being diagnosed to be hearing impaired. She has full speach and language skills, is on the school gifted list and has no extra help at school. Her hearing aids would be covered by medical insurance so no cost to health service. However, would this mean she can't get in???? We were told no problem at the Expo in London. Did they fib???

 

My 9 year old wears glasses for long sightedness, squint, astigmatism or whatever. Does this mean the same for her?

 

Surely most people have something?

 

When my friend went for her medical. She was honest about a severe medical problem she had with her neck which could have left her paralised if it was knocked or jerked. She had already had an op on it and would prob need more. She was accepted into Oz and has permenent residency (been there 4 years now) and has since had 2 ops on her neck. Due to this I thought we were ok.

 

VERY Confused again.

 

HELP :cool:

[crosbyx4]

good luck I hope everything goes well, I am not writing off using an agent completly I just want to get as much understanding regarding the process as possible and hope by doing so will save us some money in the proces??? i have had some really good reports about agents I suppose as with everything in life there is good and bad and the key is to try and find the good. feeling really down in the mouth following finding out that my sons 'dissability' could hinder our chances to move to oz especially as the whole reason behind the move is for the lifestyle and opportunities that would be available to the children..... I will have to get some of your determination and prepare myself for the fight to hopefully prove that just because my child is not 'normal' does not mean that he will become a drain on society and like you say they have aspirations too !! dont wish to be rude but I notice that your husband is over 45 as is my husband (51) just wondered if this has been considered a problem...... hope this doesnt offend, just want to prepare ourselves for any problems as we now know its not going to be the walk in the park we initially thought !

thank you

Louisa

[gareth and lisa]

good luck I hope everything goes well, I am not writing off using an agent completly I just want to get as much understanding regarding the process as possible and hope by doing so will save us some money in the proces??? i have had some really good reports about agents I suppose as with everything in life there is good and bad and the key is to try and find the good. feeling really down in the mouth following finding out that my sons 'dissability' could hinder our chances to move to oz especially as the whole reason behind the move is for the lifestyle and opportunities that would be available to the children..... I will have to get some of your determination and prepare myself for the fight to hopefully prove that just because my child is not 'normal' does not mean that he will become a drain on society and like you say they have aspirations too !! dont wish to be rude but I notice that your husband is over 45 as is my husband (51) just wondered if this has been considered a problem...... hope this doesnt offend, just want to prepare ourselves for any problems as we now know its not going to be the walk in the park we initially thought !

thank you

Louisa

 

Hiya, as far as im aware its the main visa applicant's age that has to be below 45 and as its me were ok. All the boys will be additions to my visa... Its very annoying and upsetting to find people who dont know your child will be judging them in just a cost efficient way as if they are nothing. I can understand why Australia are strict (i wish we were in the country) but they do seem a bit hard on people with learning difficulties.

Lisa

[gareth and lisa]

 

My 9 year old wears glasses for long sightedness, squint, astigmatism or whatever. Does this mean the same for her?

HELP :cool:

 

OMG, if this is the case then im stuffed too as im as blind as a bat!!!! only my 14yr old will get in, lol

Lisa

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hiya, as far as im aware its the main visa applicant's age that has to be below 45 and as its me were ok. All the boys will be additions to my visa... Its very annoying and upsetting to find people who dont know your child will be judging them in just a cost efficient way as if they are nothing. I can understand why Australia are strict (i wish we were in the country) but they do seem a bit hard on people with learning difficulties.

Lisa

 

Hi Lisa

 

You are absolutely right. Only the main applicant for a skilled GSM visa needs to be under 45.

 

I cannot count the number of PiO members whose child has had a problem with the meds for migration. The majority have had their visa applications refused but a few have succeeded in convincing the MOC to understand and to 'see' the whole child "in the round," as it were, and not as a few pieces of paper with a disability that might result in "a cost" to Australia. Every single one of the parents has expressed anger to me that their beloved child is being treated as nothing more than a potentially significant cost. That is not a picture of the whole child but is only one tiny, very narrow aspect of what this child is capable of doing.

 

My late husband was registered blind and these days my mother is largely confined to a wheelchair. Disability is not about what somebody can't do. It is about what they can do and the trick is to facilitate what they can do instead of moaning negatively about what they can't do. My mother has worked out a million ways to get round her lack of being able to walk. Jim had a million ways to get round his own lack of sight.

 

Any doctor actually does understand that the human mind is very inventive and will find ways around the problem. Australian Law is so old fashioned snd so wooden that it does not recognise this. So the MOC is stuck between what he knows is possible because he is a doctor and what the Law tells him to do because he works for DIAC.

 

The solution is to alter the Law because the Law is only a reflection of what a given society thinks anyway (I speak as a qualified solicitor.) The Law itself is not the Holy Grail. The Holy Grail is what the society in question wants from the Law. So the Law needs to be updated regularly because society's needs and wants will and do change over a period of time.

 

Reading the Senate Inquiry website, it looks to me as if the Inquiry Committee has completed its Report and has sent it to the Australian Government. If the Joint Standing Committee on Migration recommends change then change is likely to happen. I am 99% sure that the Committee will have recommended fundamental and radical changes to the Law concerning the Health requirement for migration. I've read all the submissions. 99.9% of them demand radical change and their reasons for demanding change are very compelling.

 

I think that common sense and sanity will prevail in the end but I think there is still a potential problem in the short term.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

I've been burbling about the Senate Inquiry and it is likely that nobody except me has taken me seriously.

 

The Inquiry Committee have just sent an e-mail. It says:

 

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 1:55 AM

Subject: Report on the migration treatment of disability to be released tonight

 

 

#########################################

 

House of Representatives - Email alert service

#########################################

 

 

Issued by: House of Representatives Liaison & Projects Office, Monday 21 June 2010

 

 

Report on the migration treatment of disability to be released tonight

 

 

The Joint Standing Committee on Migration will table its report into the migration treatment of disability in the House of Representatives at approximately 9:15pm tonight (Monday 21 June 2010).

 

The Committee’s inquiry was referred in August 2009 by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Senator Chris Evans. The terms of reference called for a review of the approach under the migration Health Requirement to assessing visa applicants with a disability.

 

The Committee’s inquiry received over 100 submissions, many recounting the circumstances of people rejected under the Migration Health Requirement, because of disability. While these accounts are exceptional among the many thousands of successful visa applications processed annually, the Committee concluded that current arrangements are prejudicial to people with a disability relative to other applicants.

 

The Committee Chair Michael Danby MP said: “Prospective migrants with disabilities and their families are currently excluded by the Migration Health Requirement as costs to our society. Applicants for permanent residency are particularly disadvantaged as there is little scope to consider the social and economic benefits of their inclusion”.

 

The Committee’s report, to be tabled tonight, recommends fundamental change to the Migration Health Requirement and its administration.

 

“The Committee believes its recommendations will not only address problems experienced by people with a disability and their families, but will also provide for a fairer and more efficient migration process for all visa applicants,” Mr Danby said.

 

 

Embargoed copies of report will be available to members of the parliamentary press gallery in Canberra from Suite R1 106 at 12 noon Monday 21 June 2010.

 

 

The report is available following tabling at Joint Standing Committee on Migration: Reports and other activities An electronic html version for screen readers will be available on the website from Monday 28 June.

 

 

 

For media comment, please contact the Committee Chair, Michael Danby MP, on (02) 6277 4520.

 

For background information, please visit the inquiry website at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/index.htm or contact the Committee Secretariat on (02) 6277 4560 or jscm@aph.gov.au.

 

 

Issued by:

 

Andrew Dawson, media manager, Liaison & Projects Office, House of Representatives

 

Tel: (02) 6277 2063 wk, 0401 143 724 mob.

 

I couldn't be happier. The hard work by everybody has paid off. Michael Danby said ages ago that he was persuaded that all of us who have been complaining about the current Health requirement are right. He also said that if his Committee recommend change then the Government gives effect to the change.

 

The Minister for Immi has never been a problem with the Health requirement. He realised that change was needed and asked the JSCM to look into it, so it was all his own idea om the first place.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[wrussell]

You are probably in trouble, but if you want some (free professional) advice about options send an email to visa@pinoyau.com

 

email sent