Complaint to Ombudsman

[Guest Manj]

LOL...Goodone Jeffster.!!

[Guest TheStig]

Oh if anyone wants a laugh read this:

 

It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it

 

John Ross

September 13, 2010

Campus Review

 

 

The year-long independent project by ORIMA Research quizzed nearly 7500 visa and citizenship applicants, migration agents, sponsors and other people with immigration status issues.

It doesn't really say which visa sub-class? If it was for student visas, then maybe fair enough. But if that was referring to GSM visa, it dosen't sound right to me.

 

It found that around nine in 10 DIAC clients were satisfied with its services.

 

Yeah CSL applicants (exclusive). This method is widely used in communists state governments and their agencies to spread their propaganda. If that report refers to GSM applicants, then it would false/misleading information.

[Jeffster]

It doesn't really say which visa sub-class? If it was for student visas, then maybe fair enough. But if that was referring to GSM visa, it dosen't sound right to me.

 

Yeah CSL applicants (exclusive). This method is widely used in communists state governments and their agencies to spread their propaganda. If that report refers to GSM applicants, then it would false/misleading information.

 

Absolutely, it is clearly a pathetic propaganda attempt. Firstly, they say "visa and citizenship applicants" were questioned. Applying for citizenship is an entirely different ball game.

 

Secondly, they don't release the report just the selected (ie. good) parts - how dodgy can you get?

 

Then they let one major thing slip: "Of those, 95 per cent said they’d use the online application system again – presumably figuring it was worth another try." Which means they probably just asked tourist visa applicants! A PR or student applicant is NOT going to need to use the online system again are they?!

 

Now I've applied for tourist visas a few times to come here and a student visa and it has been a pretty good experience but they clearly set out to skew this survey from the start by not asking PR / GSM applicants. Easy way to tell - has anyone on this forum been contacted by DIAC to participate in a survey in the past year? Anyone?

 

....Anyone?

 

...Anyone?

 

 

Sadly, the new Minister and DIAC hacks will refer to this worthless survey in stupid press releases and challenges to their incompetence and the poor quality of investigative journalism over here will not pick up on this blatant propaganda exercise.

[User Name]

Wonder what's next in DIACs survey. Asylum seekers happy with their detention centers?

[Jules37]

I'm a bit lost there Jules. Isn't it voluntary to front-load meds & PC (except for certain visas where it is compulsory?) I think DIAC would just come back and say it is the applicants choice as to whether they fron load or not.

 

Sorry if I have not made this clear. What I was trying to say was that DIAC state that you should not front load medicals and that you should wait until you are allocated a case officer. When they brought in all the changes last September they told applicants that they would have a 2-3 year wait if they were state sponsored. Some people decided to still front load their medicals and take the risk which is fair enough. Later on due to a lot of stink that had been caused and following the meeting that Gill had with the rest of the famous 5 at Australia house they started to process some of the SS aplications, however, they did this in a totally unfair way. Instead of giving those that had been waiting the longest a case officer and asking them to get their medicals done they chose to cherry pick the ones that had already had their medicals done without any case officer being allocated. How is this fair or right? They clearly state that you should not front load and then go and reward those that have ignored their advice by giving them their visa? Fair play to those who did get their visa but I think it is really unfair on those who have done everything by the book and are still waiting to be allocated a case officer. It seems to me that they do not have any procedures in place for allocating a case officer and just go for the easy applications to make their figures for allocating visas look good.

Jules

[Jeffster]

OK, this is the first "template" letter. It applies to 880/881 and (maybe) 885/886 people who want to move to ENS. DIAC have been ignoring their own regulations, time to hold them to account. Here's the link to the Regulation: MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.08CB Certain applicants taken to have applied also for Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) visas

 

Feel free to add, change any parts in your individual letters but stick to the ONE issue, do not add a whole bunch of other things or it will just get chucked back in your face.

 

Also make sure you carry the steps out exactly;

 

1. Insert your details where the XXXX are

2. Email to DIAC Global Feedback Unit (feedback@immi.gov.au)

3. Wait for response (max 10 days)

4. Forward to Ombudsman (ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au) requesting they investigate as this is an administrative deficiency (be sure to use those words)

5. Await their response

 

The more people that do this the better - anyone on other sites feel free to post this letter there for others benefit. You also do NOT have to be the applicant to complain so you can have friends, family & pets complain on your behalf as well (to both places.)

 

I will be doing other letter templates in the coming weeks and of course sending my own copy of this one.

 

Good luck!

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To: DIAC Global Feedback Unit

Regarding: Adherence to MIGRATION REGULATION 2.08CB

TRN: XXXXXXXX

Dear Sir / Madam,

I applied for a XXXX visa in XXXX

I have since gained full-time employment at a company that is willing and able to sponsor a working visa under the ENS scheme. My employer fully complies with all rules and regulations required to sponsor an ENS visa.

Under MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.08CB I understand I am taken to have applied also for an Employer Nomination (Residence) visa. This regulation stipulates that anyone that has applied for a Skilled - Independent Overseas Student (Residence) (Class DD) visa (Subclass 880) [which was collapsed into Skilled - Independent (subclass 885) on 1 September 2007] is taken to have also applied for Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) visa. It also stipulates that those that have applied for Australian‑sponsored Overseas Student (Residence) (Class DE) visa (Subclass 881) [which was collapsed into Skilled - Sponsored (subclass 886) on 1 September 2007] are also taken to have also applied for Employer Nomination (Residence) (Class BW) visa.

In the latest release from your Department you stipulate that if I were to change my visa to ENS I would have to make a new application and pay a new fee:

“It is not possible to change a nominated occupation or to change to an employer sponsored or state nominated visa category, unless a new application is lodged. A new application would require the payment of a new Visa Application Charge.”

(http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/priority-processing-14-july-2010.pdf)

I am asking for a coherent and thorough explanation of why the above statement from your Department conflicts with the legal Regulation stipulated in 2.08CB and to why this regulation is not being administered.

If you fail to provide a satisfactory explanation I will take this matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman who is authorised to investigate administrative deficiencies within Government Departments and also reserve the right to refer this matter to State and Federal Members of Parliament and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

Yours,

XXXX

[Jeffster]

I forgot to say I found this very useful document:

 

http://www.ombudsman.gov.au/docs/fact-sheets/FactSheet-AdminDeficiency_online.pdf

 

It basically lists all the issues the Ombudsman has to deal with.

 

I think there are a lot of areas there that cover us such as;

* "Misconstruing or misapplying legislation"; the Reg 2.08CB complaint above is a good example

* "Breaching the terms of a contract"; if we can consider our application a contract ?

* "A person was treated inconsistently and less favourably than others, without explanation or justification"; current issue surrounding ICT /nec

 

* "A change in agency rules was applied retrospectively to deny a person a benefit"; Cap & Kill, if it rears it's head again!

 

* "Complex legislation has an unexpected or unexplained operation that disadvantages a person or class of persons"; long waits on BV's, school fees, house sales, PC & Meds expiring etc.

 

* "Legislation has a disadvantageous impact on one class of persons as against another, without apparent justification"; priority processing!

 

* "An agency cannot process applications"; well that's an easy one!

 

If the number of complaints to the Ombudsman are sufficiently high enough then he has to launch an investigation. The latest figures / reports are here: Commonwealth Ombudsman Annual Report 2008-09 | Chapter 6 Looking at the agencies

[virtual_bajwa]

 

* "Legislation has a disadvantageous impact on one class of persons as against another, without apparent justification"; priority processing!

Yes this is what we are stressing for last 3 years that priority processing is mismanaged, but who cares? Even Ombudsman is also ignored.

[Guest yyyy]

I am having a SS from ACT for Subclass 176 Visa under the offlist Occupation Technical Sales Representatives (2222-13) I was not in a position to lodge my application bec of Temproray Suspension.

 

I want to know what is going to be the Out Come Of my SS,bec i came to Know that ACT is going to include SDL occupation on SMP and not offlist occupations.

 

What will ACT do with Sponsored Applicants.

 

Pls do reply.

 

Regds.

 

Amit:biggrin:

[Jeffster]

I am having a SS from ACT for Subclass 176 Visa under the offlist Occupation Technical Sales Representatives (2222-13) I was not in a position to lodge my application bec of Temproray Suspension.

 

I want to know what is going to be the Out Come Of my SS,bec i came to Know that ACT is going to include SDL occupation on SMP and not offlist occupations.

 

What will ACT do with Sponsored Applicants.

 

Pls do reply.

 

Regds.

 

Amit:biggrin:

 

A good place to start would be posting in the right thread and using full words rather than made-up contractions like "bec"...

[ramot]

Jeffster, first thank you for all your hard work. Sorry of this is a stupid question. If you are on a bridging visa while waiting for the 885 visa to come through one day! working full time, obviously the employer, must want and be able to sponsor you. Do you have to fulfil the 3 year(?) working for that company requirement before they can apply to sponsor you? or if I am reading your post correctly, this time scale shouldn't apply for ex students? Sorry if this question is confusing.

[Guest pippa1]

Hi Ramot

 

I think they recently changed this rule for some ex students in certain occupations that if within 6 months of completing their course they found an employer an exemption could be applied (not sure where I read that - just know it didn't help me as usual!!).

 

You can apply for ENS and try and claim exemption for work experience...not sure how easy that would be though.

 

Its hopeless really isn't it??

Sigh x

[User Name]

I think new application + DRC is much quicker than ENS.

[ramot]

Only if your occupation is on schedule 3 can you use the DRC sadly.

[Jeffster]

Jeffster, first thank you for all your hard work. Sorry of this is a stupid question. If you are on a bridging visa while waiting for the 885 visa to come through one day! working full time, obviously the employer, must want and be able to sponsor you. Do you have to fulfil the 3 year(?) working for that company requirement before they can apply to sponsor you? or if I am reading your post correctly, this time scale shouldn't apply for ex students? Sorry if this question is confusing.

 

 

I didn't even know this was a requirement, are you getting confused with some other requirement? For ENS any eligible company can sponsor an eligible person at any time (prior to starting work or after), there are several people at my company who are ENS and haven't worked here for more than a year.

[ramot]

Sorry, I might be confused, I thought if you were onshore, you had to work for a company for a certain length of time, before they could sponsor you. Quite frankly with so many changes, I really don't know what is what anymore!?

[Guest pippa1]

You have to have 3 years post qualification work experience and a skills assessment for ENS but you can request a waiver on work exp requirement. I'm not sure how lenient they would be on this though. There is some provision now for some new graduates (within 6months of completing study) in some occupations (maybe groups 1 & 2)...just can't remember where i read it as I've read sooooo much!!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Sorry, I might be confused, I thought if you were onshore, you had to work for a company for a certain length of time, before they could sponsor you. Quite frankly with so many changes, I really don't know what is what anymore!?

 

 

Hi Ramot

 

You are not confused (though I might well be!!)

 

I gather that the gist is that for ENS and RSMS visas the visa applicant is expected to be able to prove at least 3 years' work experience in the relevant occupation.

 

There are exceptions whereby - if the employer has shown that he has really made a bit of effort but has failed to find a local "Aussie" to do the work, and he has failed to find anyone else with enough experience either - the employer will be allowed to hire someone with less than 3 years' experience and will be able to sponsor the person for an ENS/RSMS visa.

 

I gather that what happened was that tons of migration agents started using these notions of exemption in order to be able to get ENS or RSMS visas for graduate Students. When the DIAC staff said, "But this Cook only graduated recently...." they were told, "That is as maybe but the occupation is on the MOCL - so it must be in high demand - and the employer can show/has shown that he has been unable to find anybody else to fill the vacancy." Apparently the visas - particularly RSMS visas - were then granted.

 

Chris Evans -determined to follow Rudd's example by trying to micro manage immigration himself - decided that this was no good. He felt that the exemption argument was being rorted by the people working to help graduate Students. Also, rumours reached Evans' ear that unscrupulous Aussie employers and middle-men were taking anything up to $100,000 a time off some of the graduate Students in order to get ENS or RSMS visas for them.

 

He also ordered DIAC to undertake a review of the ENS and RSMS visas with a view to tightening up the criteria for each of them, to try to prevent any possible scams with those visas. I understand that DIAC have completed the review but presumably their internal Report to the Minister will simply sit in the Ministerial in-tray indefinitely because Bpwen insists that his own priority is asylum seekers.

 

I suspect that the Ministerial Focus is trained on the asylum seekers because the public perceptions about the Boat People are the biggest single Immigration issue in the minds of the public. Evans is said to believe that what was perceived to be the Government's unwillingness/inability to deal with the Boat People to the satisfaction of the voters is one of the main reasons why the ALP did so badly in the recent Election. I think the voting public responded to a firm statement from Tony Abbott that he would "turn the boats back" in a much more positive way than they responded to a faint bleat from Joolya that she intended to continue to try to chat up the Government of East Timor despite the fact that they had already rejected her overtures about that.

 

The GSM programme does not worry the Aussie voters particularly. They don't seemto have any real knowledge about the issues involved with it.

 

For example, early in 2009 I was chatting to my sister who has lived in Perth for 30 years. She & her hubby had a new house built in 1999/2000. The decade since co-incided with their boys going through the "grubby toddler" period and leaving grubby paw-marks on the paint on the walls, plus my mother had been crashing her wheelchair into corners, doorways etc and chipping the paint. By 2007, Elaine felt that the house was looking shabby and that it needed re-decorating, inside and out.

 

Elaine then spent 2 years trying to find a Painter & Decorator to sort the house out for her, with no success. She found that the local contractor companies with good reputations for doing a good job did not want to know. They wanted to deal with large, lucrative contracts such as decorating an office block or a hospital and they were not interested in working on a solo private house. Mostly they wouldn't even quote for the job and the ones who did quote offered to do the work at commercial prices and only when some of their men could spare the time.

 

Elaine also got leaflets through the letter box from Joe Bloggs, Painter & Decorator Extraordinaire, but she did not know him from Adam so she couldn't judge whether his efforts would be worth the money, so she ignored all the leaflets of this type.

 

Knowing nothing about Elaine's unsuccessful struggle to get her house re-decorated reliably and for a reasonable price, I told Elaine about Jackal, who is British and a PiO member. He happens to be a Painter & Decorator and he was headed for Perth at the time, as soon as his WA-sponsored subclass 176 visa was granted, which he and I hoped would be granted by the middle of 2009.

 

Discussing my own efforts to help to get Jackal's visa granted, my sister asked idly what his occupation is so I told her. Instantly she said, "I'm looking for him! Since he is a friend of yours, I want him to come and do my house for me! I am quite happy to wait until Jackal gets here but please ask him to contact me so that he and I can arrange for him to come and sort out my house!"

 

I then went on bended knee to Jackal, hoping that he might say that he would be willing to decorate an ordinary house and stressing that my sister felt that the place was in a decorative mess. Jackal was wonderful. He said that he could sort the mess out - that is his job, after all - and that a good P&D is never bothered by what he finds because he knows how to sort it out etc. He contacted Elaine and went to see her soon after his arrival in Perth. She and Mum both adored him, as do I, so Jackal redecorated Elaine's house. Then Elaine's Aussie M-i-L saw what an excellent job he had done so she wanted her own house done next, then several friends of my sister and her M-i-L decided that they should also grab Jackal whilst they could and so forth.

 

It turned out that there are quite a large pool of locals like my sister, who want these jobs done, have been looking for somebody to do them for ages but have not been able to find anybody who they feel able to trust, at a price that they think is both reasonable and affordable, plus word-of-mouth recommendation will put the new migrant miles ahead of ahead of anybody who might put a leaflet through the letter box, especially once Jackal had done Elaine's house and other people were told that they were welcome to go and look at the house.

 

I then told David Wilden - DIAC's Head Man in London - about this and asked him why on earth Evans was being so awkward when my sister is by no means the only Aussie who has been trying to find somebody who can do whatever the Aussie's house needs and our own experience was that at least one brand new GSM visa migrant turned out to be more than willing to do this type of work? He remarked that he has heard that it is equally impossible to get a domestic dunny fixed quickly in Perth. He then said that the problem is different in, say, Melbourne and Sydney where perfectly capable Aussie Painters & Decorators are said to be out of work and on the dole. According to DW, the Minister was busy trying to solve all the different problems in all the different States at the same time.

 

With the skilled tradies like Jackal, I suspect that the Minister's ideas about a "solution" involving ENS and RSMS visas leaves quite a few material words unsaid. Evans is a Trade Union hack himself - he merely doesn't have any trade skills of his own so he pushed a pen for some of the Trades Unions instead. The sort of deal that word of mouth friendship and contacts produced about the houses that Jackal dealt with probably wouldn't please the Association of Painters & Decorators in Perth. If a P&D in Perth works hard and is both very good at the job and has a lot of personal charm and popularity as well, the Association would probably prefer him to work for one of their own members and to join their own ranks, so that they can control how much Jackal charges the customer and they can get a rake off for one of their own members out of the amount, by insisting that Jackal works for the Association's member instead of getting to Oz, becoming self-employed and competing with the locals for work. I reckon that Evans carefully omitted to mention that his own loyalty is to the Unions, not to the individual Aussie householder who simply wants the work done for a reasonable and affordable price.

 

The Unions had a hot line to Evans whereas he wouldn't even condescend to speak to somebody like my sister, who has nothing against GSM visas because the holders of some of them are able to do something for her.

 

I reckon that exactly the same thing is almost certainly true for an Aussie company which wants somebody for its IT department. They don't want to get involved with the hassle and cost of getting the prospective employee a visa and the employer may not be eligible to sponsor the migrant for an ENS visa, would not be able to afford to pay way above the local rates for the minimum salary of $47,220 or however much it has now gone up to (and I think it is higher for IT people anyway) plus they are not prepared to pay that sort of money because it is more than the work is worth, and the local staff would instantly demand pay-parity and so forth.

 

One of the problems with people like Evans & Joolya is that they both grew up hearing the British "Trade Union Mantra" from their own fathers, who were what the British people in the 1960s called "Working Class." Evans and Joolya were both very young children when they migrated. By settling in Oz, their own fathers missed out on discovering all the changes in Trade Unionism that have happened in the UK during the last 50 years and so have both of their children. Joolya's hero is said to be Nye Bevan (who was also Welsh, I believe.) Good god! Bevan set up the National Health Service in 1948 but 50 years later the current British Government would dismantle the NHS if they could.

 

I get the impression that the ALP people want to run with the idea of a type of Trade Unionism that has been dead & buried in the UK ever since Mrs Thatcher handbagged it in 1980 or so. The old fashioned type of Trade Unionism simply doesn't work adequately in the modern, "global village," I reckon.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest chrispmq]

Hi Jeffster.

 

Great stuff..... We have been trying to jump through the many hoops that have been put in front of us, and then have them moved just as we were about to manage to jump through it, just like a playground Bully would do!!!!!

We have sold everything in our home country to move here study and apply for permanent residency, only to have the rug pulled from under us halfway through our course... The situation is ridiculous.

Hope we can get somebody to listen.

[Jeffster]

Hi Ramot

 

You are not confused (though I might well be!!)

 

I gather that the gist is that for ENS and RSMS visas the visa applicant is expected to be able to prove at least 3 years' work experience in the relevant occupation...

l

 

I think I need to check with my agent again as he seemed to think I am fine to go for ENS.

 

Gill - I have long suspected what you wrote about at length, I know of many who have experienced similar stories. It is very difficult to get a tradie to do anything either in time or at a reasonable price. There is an absolute monopoly / racket / con that has existed for years and is getting worse. Part of it has to do with changes to the education system (that also occurred in the UK) and part to do with GSM. Certainly here in Adelaide plumbers, electricians, tilers etc. are very hard to come by and you will be paying a 3 figure sum per hour just for labour! I know a few tradies myself, most of them earn so much money they can afford to take half the year off, they live in very nice houses, have boats, nice cars etc. These are not the exception but more the rule. These trades have been on MODL/SOL for years yet clearly the numbers are insufficient, who comes up with these demand figures? It just doesn't smell right...

 

I have long suspected Labor of having a hand in keeping the supply of tradies down in order to keep wages high and Unions happy, now there's a food chain; Union members fund Union bosses who fund Labor to ensure their interests are looked after. It's an artificial economy with artificially high prices - every week there are stories abound of people being charged hundreds of dollars to fix a leaking tap, I once paid $110 for someone to replace the starter in my oven, it took him 5 minutes. Doctors, teachers, nurses could never command that much!

 

From things my electrician friend tells me, things are also run like a members only club where contacts and cash will get you the "easy" positions (lots of cash for not so much work) and that apprentices are treated like crap until they graduate. Sounds more like the Mafia to me.

 

I wish some whistleblower would come out with some hard evidence of Government complicity because I think the public are fed up of having to pay a days salary for someone to come and spend 20 minutes fixing a tap. More so, if the public could see the number of tradies sitting at home in the UK waiting years for their PR they would get even angrier.

 

Next time I have some problem at home I will buy a DIY book - far cheaper and faster!

[Jeffster]

Finally, a response from DIAC GFU to the complaint. It is as expected, a waste of time even reading it. It answers nothing, it tells us nothing we don't already know and is largely a cut and paste job:

"I am writing in response to your letter of the 18 August 2010 to the

Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the processing of skilled migration

applications.

The skilled migration program is designed to meet the needs of the

Australian labour market and strengthen the whole economy. As such

requirements for skilled migration have always changed to reflect the

prevailing economic conditions of the time. The most recent changes to the

program are designed to make skilled migration more responsive and better

placed to meet Australia’s future skills needs.

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship appreciates that changes to

the skilled migration program have an impact on applicants; however

adjustments still need to be made to the program to provide maximum benefit

to Australia. In response to the reforms announced on 8 February 2010,

there has been extensive engagement to inform both clients and

stakeholders. Stakeholders were informed of the changes as they were

introduced and information sessions have been held across Australia for

migration agents, students, education providers, and community groups.

Information about the GSM program has been updated on the Department’s

website at: What's New? Recent Changes in General Skilled Migration

I note the suggestions you have made in relation to the refunding and

transfer of the Visa Application Charge (VAC) and the comparison made with

migration programs in two other countries. It is important to note that

the refund of the VAC is governed by Migration Regulations. The

legislation only allows the refund of the VAC in certain limited

circumstances. These requirements remain the same as when you applied for

skilled migration. Where an applicant makes the decision to withdraw their

application, the VAC is generally not refundable.

Your letter also noted concerns about processing times. In an environment

where there are many more applicants for skilled migration than there are

places in the program, it is inevitable that processing times for some

applicants will be lengthy. A new Direction in processing priority for

skilled migration was introduced in July 2010. The Direction outlines the

order in which applications are processed, with priority going to those who

will bring the most benefit to Australia. The entire package of reforms

announced on 8 February 2010, including the processing priority direction,

will help in addressing issues around processing times and uncertainty for

applicants.

I hope this information is helpful.

Regards,

Karin Maier

Independent Skilled Migration Policy Mailbox

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

people our business

*** PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL AS EMAILS TO THIS MAILBOX WILL NOT

BE RESPONDED TO ***"

 

There are a few things that really get my goat here:

 

"These requirements [for VAC refund] remain the same as when you applied for skilled migration"

 

Yes but the processing times, priorities, requirements etc. have been CHANGED - LOTS OF TIMES!!!! So why hasn't this policy changed?

 

"In an environment where there are many more applicants for skilled migration than there are places in the program, it is inevitable that processing times for some applicants will be lengthy."

 

It wasn't "inevitable" when we applied was it?

 

"The entire package of reforms announced on 8 February 2010, including the processing priority direction, will help in addressing issues around processing times and uncertainty for applicants."

 

No it hasn't! Many of us are even MORE uncertain now than we were then!!! I don't even know what priority group I am in let alone when I expect to be processed so how the hell does that make address issues of uncertainty???

GRRRRRRRR :arghh: !!!!!

I'm a bit too angry at the moment to think straight.

[Kokki]

Finally, a response from DIAC GFU to the complaint. It is as expected, a waste of time even reading it. It answers nothing, it tells us nothing we don't already know and is largely a cut and paste job:

 

 

"I am writing in response to your letter of the 18 August 2010 to the

Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the processing of skilled migration

applications.

 

The skilled migration program is designed to meet the needs of the

Australian labour market and strengthen the whole economy. As such

requirements for skilled migration have always changed to reflect the

prevailing economic conditions of the time. The most recent changes to the

program are designed to make skilled migration more responsive and better

placed to meet Australia’s future skills needs.

 

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship appreciates that changes to

the skilled migration program have an impact on applicants; however

adjustments still need to be made to the program to provide maximum benefit

to Australia. In response to the reforms announced on 8 February 2010,

there has been extensive engagement to inform both clients and

stakeholders. Stakeholders were informed of the changes as they were

introduced and information sessions have been held across Australia for

migration agents, students, education providers, and community groups.

Information about the GSM program has been updated on the Department’s

website at: What's New? Recent Changes in General Skilled Migration

 

I note the suggestions you have made in relation to the refunding and

transfer of the Visa Application Charge (VAC) and the comparison made with

migration programs in two other countries. It is important to note that

the refund of the VAC is governed by Migration Regulations. The

legislation only allows the refund of the VAC in certain limited

circumstances. These requirements remain the same as when you applied for

skilled migration. Where an applicant makes the decision to withdraw their

application, the VAC is generally not refundable.

 

Your letter also noted concerns about processing times. In an environment

where there are many more applicants for skilled migration than there are

places in the program, it is inevitable that processing times for some

applicants will be lengthy. A new Direction in processing priority for

skilled migration was introduced in July 2010. The Direction outlines the

order in which applications are processed, with priority going to those who

will bring the most benefit to Australia. The entire package of reforms

announced on 8 February 2010, including the processing priority direction,

will help in addressing issues around processing times and uncertainty for

applicants.

 

I hope this information is helpful.

 

Regards,

 

Karin Maier

 

Independent Skilled Migration Policy Mailbox

Department of Immigration and Citizenship

 

people our business

 

 

*** PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL AS EMAILS TO THIS MAILBOX WILL NOT

BE RESPONDED TO ***"

 

 

 

 

There are a few things that really get my goat here:

 

 

"These requirements [for VAC refund] remain the same as when you applied for skilled migration"

 

 

Yes but the processing times, priorities, requirements etc. have been CHANGED - LOTS OF TIMES!!!! So why hasn't this policy changed?

 

 

"In an environment where there are many more applicants for skilled migration than there are places in the program, it is inevitable that processing times for some applicants will be lengthy."

 

 

It wasn't "inevitable" when we applied was it?

 

 

"The entire package of reforms announced on 8 February 2010, including the processing priority direction, will help in addressing issues around processing times and uncertainty for applicants."

 

 

No it hasn't! Many of us are even MORE uncertain now than we were then!!! I don't even know what priority group I am in let alone when I expect to be processed so how the hell does that make address issues of uncertainty???

 

GRRRRRRRR :arghh: !!!!!

 

I'm a bit too angry at the moment to think straight.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jeffster,

 

Take it easy and thanks for the post. I have already complaint and received a response that is far less satisfying to the one you got. Let's keep our hopes up and try to take a deep breath.

The comments you put at the bottom of your post based on the response from the ombudsman were spot on. May I suggest that you re-email them back with those comments as it would be interesting to see what there response to that may be. You never know what could be the straw that break the camel's back. If you need any further help from others, (I think I speak on behalf of a lot of us) just say so.

 

All the best

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Jeffster

 

I agree with you. The reply you have received is just the usual anodyne rubbish that the rest of us are fed up with hearing the whole time.

 

However, a Government Department is never going to admit that there was a prize cock-up and that it was caused by successive Governments.

 

Civil service jargon is such that, "Making an incompetent mess of sorting out a mess by making an even bigger mess than you inherited," translates into "Reforming the programme."

 

They've been practising the jargon since before you and I were born, hon.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest elysium]

Hi Ahmad, have you heard anything at all from the Ombudsman since your last post?

[Jeffster]

I made a complaint to the Ombudsman. And today, an investigator e-mailed me asking for more details. I hope this means that they have decided to go further with my case.

 

I am an offshore 475 applicant. In August 2009, my CO requested PCC, and I uploaded what he asked within a week. Then, 23-09-2009 changes came into effect.

 

Today, I am in category 4 with expired PCC. In my complaint, I requested immediate visa processing and extension of PCC validity. Because, it was DIAC fault that made my PCC expire.

 

Do I have a case here? or Do you think they will ask me to be patient as usual?

 

Ahmad

 

Yes you definitely have a case. I have been writing another letter that includes this complaint, I will post it here for others to copy when finished.

 

You need to highlight that these are administrative deficiencies by DIAC and that their policy changes have caused unreasonable, unfair and harsh consequences on you. The Ombudsman must investigate these issues. PCC validity is a big issue - DIAC have caused people to be paying twice for something which is not their fault - this is one of the unintended consequences of legal change that the Ombudsman has to look at and advise DIAC to make amendments.