Guest guest59177 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 it did happen because of that, but its the extra machine-gun mile the government has gone that has done the damage, not the measures they originally brought in to fix it up. there are many of us who are now non-people with very few civil liberties; many. the cheaters were (i presume and hope) in the minority. the measures to deal with them have affected a large majority. theres something careless in that...thats my issue. Well, if you want people to lend an ear to your arguments you can't just 'presume and hope'. Take a look at Chart 3 in this pdf: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/nom-sept11.pdf See how the NOM for students kept rising from 2005-2009? See how that overshadows ALL other sources of migration??? That's the level of abuse that was going on. The government isn't daft and won't take a heavy handed action if there isn't a serious problem. The government's stance is very clear. International students are hear to study. If they want to remain, there is are some clear options. BUT they simply shouldn't take it for granted that they will be given permanent residence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59177 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 i dont for a moment imagine that the system need to set up for the student's needs rather than australia's needs. that would be ridiculous. i intended to take that route to residency, and was simply prepared to do everything set down for me to do that honestly. i realised a moral obligation to spend a decent amount of time in the industry but with various other skills that frankly, i have in more abundance than cooking, at which im simply competent, i would have moved on eventually, but always as a productive resident. so you could say that i was going to take advantage of the generosity, technically. it is a fact, and i can comment on this as an insider in the industry, that WA at least is VERY short of competent cooks. it is a shortage, its simply the shortage that was being exploited at the time the most and the response has been to say there is no longer a shortage. originally measures were brought in that forced graduates to actually be in the industry for a year before being allowed to apply and that, actually, would have fixed the problem. the government is aware of this if my various employers complaints to the department have been noted. one (large) employer had approx 15% of its workforce on sponsorship for lack of australian applicants. young workforce? 45 is the cut off, reflecting both the significant amount of time left of a persons working life, and hopefully the maturity and sense of perspective age brings. youth equals strength and resilience but also, in my experience, self obsessiveness, recklessness and downright idiocy in some cases. but i never contested the cut off point, merely that i will be pushed over it. i dont agree particularly with points being lowered the older you get. have a decent cut off point but acknowledge that up to that point, everyone has something to contribute and the older ones, i would debate, have more, which offsets their decline in physical strength. in a nutshell, i would have to say that the current system is NOT catering australia's needs. theyve shot themselves in the foot a bit here; any employer/recruiter in this industry could tell you so. The system has been set up in consultation with the industry. A wide set of inputs were solicited before the current system was finalized. If your occupation isn't on the new SOL, then in the context of the larger economy the need for it isn't all that strong... Again, I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to argue against the rules created by the government. People will be more sympathetic to your case when they realize you were presented a constantly moving target chasing which has proven to be a zero sum gain for you.... WITHOUT any faults from your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramot Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Hi I too am in the same position as you, I applied in Dec 2008 and am on Bridging visa A. I have worked in my nominated occupation for 3 years but my employer has a policy not to sponsor as it is a government department, so I totatlly understand your frustrations.... Just hoping not too many of the 27000 category 5's are above me in the queue now ! Good luck Everything crossed for you to have an early christmas present. Would like to have a breakdown of how many onshore applicants for each year are waiting, and how many cat 5's they really intend to process, so we can realistically assess the chances of being successful, this year, next year or whenever, rather than having hopes raised and then dashed. Sorry not leaving the offshore applicants out, but I think it has been stated that onshore might be processed first. Good luck to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramot Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 The system has been set up in consultation with the industry. A wide set of inputs were solicited before the current system was finalized. If your occupation isn't on the new SOL, then in the context of the larger economy the need for it isn't all that strong... Again, I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to argue against the rules created by the government. People will be more sympathetic to your case when they realize you were presented a constantly moving target chasing which has proven to be a zero sum gain for you.... WITHOUT any faults from your side. I think you are slightly missing the point, pre 2007?, students were encouraged to come to Australia to study and then apply for PR, and many, including my family member who applied for the student visa in late 2005, qualified and applied for PR before all the changes, lodged a valid 885 application. 120 points, vetassess passed and job on the skills list at time of application, and at that time the visa, until all the changes, was only taking 6 months to process. Students who came later were probably aware that there had been some changes, but were still caught out by just how much changed while they were studying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59177 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 I think you are slightly missing the point, pre 2007?, students were encouraged to come to Australia to study and then apply for PR, and many, including my family member who applied for the student visa in late 2005, qualified and applied for PR before all the changes, lodged a valid 885 application. 120 points, vetassess passed and job on the skills list at time of application, and at that time the visa, until all the changes, was only taking 6 months to process. Students who came later were probably aware that there had been some changes, but were still caught out by just how much changed while they were studying. Nopes, not missing the point. I AM sympathising with those who found themselves chasing a moving target. And since I have a PR application lodged, if fate throws a twister my way I could find myself in YOUR shoes actually. All I am saying is that trying to portray the current government policies as wrong won't get you anywhere since it has all stabilized now after inputs from many different quarters. Your strong point is that you followed the procedure to the letter yet found yourself chasing a moving target and have gone through a lot of pain due to no mistakes on your part. Wish you best of luck!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittyB Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 Well, if you want people to lend an ear to your arguments you can't just 'presume and hope'. Take a look at Chart 3 in this pdf: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/nom-sept11.pdf See how the NOM for students kept rising from 2005-2009? See how that overshadows ALL other sources of migration??? That's the level of abuse that was going on. The government isn't daft and won't take a heavy handed action if there isn't a serious problem. The government's stance is very clear. International students are hear to study. If they want to remain, there is are some clear options. BUT they simply shouldn't take it for granted that they will be given permanent residence. i see the trend but theres no way of knowing the amount that came in and pulled a scam as opposed to those who did it the right way, and therefore presuming and hoping is the only avenue of thought open to me, in lieu of data. all it shows was the numbers of people entering on the student stream, which does not equal "abuse" because it was a perfectly legal and acceptable pathway to PR. scamming obviously isn't but how would you access accurate numbers on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest59177 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 i see the trend but theres no way of knowing the amount that came in and pulled a scam as opposed to those who did it the right way, and therefore presuming and hoping is the only avenue of thought open to me, in lieu of data. all it shows was the numbers of people entering on the student stream, which does not equal "abuse" because it was a perfectly legal and acceptable pathway to PR. scamming obviously isn't but how would you access accurate numbers on that? Actually the chart has been replicated in a few official DIAC documents. And in one of these official docs, in a paragraph discussing abuse of student visas, the chart was used to show how net migration through student visas overshadowed everything else. Their point of concern was this overshadowing. And then they went on to show how their changing policies lowered net migration on student visas and promoted net departures as well... showing that students are leaving now. And that summarizes the current aims and ambitions at DIAC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittyB Posted November 26, 2011 Author Share Posted November 26, 2011 The system has been set up in consultation with the industry. A wide set of inputs were solicited before the current system was finalized. If your occupation isn't on the new SOL, then in the context of the larger economy the need for it isn't all that strong... Again, I don't think you'll get anywhere trying to argue against the rules created by the government. People will be more sympathetic to your case when they realize you were presented a constantly moving target chasing which has proven to be a zero sum gain for you.... WITHOUT any faults from your side. All ive heard from various employers (and temp agencies supplying labour around WA) is that cooks are like hen's teeth. my last employer had trade mags scattered around the office and having read through some articles written by industry body bigwigs having the exact same whinge and specifically mentioning immigration policy as one of the biggest authors of their misery. that doesnt really tie in with the above. look we all are entitled to an opinion; mine is that the government have not been entirely even handed with people trying to dodge all the flying goalposts and that i whilst i understand their reasons i dont agree with their approach. that is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joebloggs Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 To be honest a few years ago when I was going through the migration process myself I was aware of the student to permanent route as an option, but when I thought Australia was offering PR to retain Australian educated students I thought these people studied subjects like Medicine, Nursing, Engineering and IT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittyB Posted November 27, 2011 Author Share Posted November 27, 2011 To be honest a few years ago when I was going through the migration process myself I was aware of the student to permanent route as an option, but when I thought Australia was offering PR to retain Australian educated students I thought these people studied subjects like Medicine, Nursing, Engineering and IT. nope, they study subjects to give them skills that match the previous lists of skills shortages; so cookery, hairdressing, accountancy, pre press graphics, that sort of thing. i think nursing and engineering etc was a skills shortage too but its more likely that candidates from places like the uk and the states and other english speaking countries would study at home for a degree...studying internationally for a degree is pretty expensive and other commonwealth countries have comparable education systems to australia. the problem arose when people would come and study the subject, and almost automatically be allowed to gain PR at the end based on simply having studied that subject. it was expected that they would go on into the industry. a lot did, PR making it easier, but a lot didnt and just went into whatever they felt like, and cheating their way into the documentation needed to get the PR in the first place. so the labour shortages in those industries werent actually being fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.