The news over the weekend of the appointment of Chris Bowen MP as our new Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is a welcome end to almost a month of uncertainty.
Unfortunately, the news today of growing numbers of asylum seekers (see: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/13/3009931.htm) is a disappointing reminder that we're a long way from resolving this issue.
There is a continued focus on numbers of arrivals, without any real questions being asked about why it is taking so long to process the arrivals' claims. Remember, these people are being held in prison-like conditions for indefinite periods. Is this how we "respect human rights" in the twenty-first century?
I'm sure the Government will tell us that the number of arrivals outweighs the resources available, etc, but how can they justify placing all applications by Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers on hold indefinitely? It is pleasing to see Sri Lankan applications have resumed processing. How long do those from Afghanistan have to wait in prison before they get their turn?
The election showed us a great deal of fear-mongering, fact-distorting and media/politician driven frenzy over "illegal boat arrivals". They all but ignored the plight of those with legitimate claims to asylum, who have risked their lives to seek a new and brighter future on our shores. Is it too much to ask that we treat them with some dignity?
I sincerely hope, Mr Bowen, that you can talk some sense into your colleagues on Capital Hill. It's time for a fresh approach to this problem. After all, it's three years until the next election, so no need to worry about cheap policital point scoring at this stage!
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Skilled Migration Shame
There have been some dramatic changes to the skilled migration program announced this week. See The Australian: http://bit.ly/aVdt7J and ABC News: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2812638.htm
The government’s proposed changes to Australia’s skilled migration scheme highlight one of the greatest failings of the immigration system – albeit one that unfortunately receives far less press than the so-called “boat people” epidemic.
The 20,000 applicants referred to are all highly skilled individuals, whose applications meet all relevant criteria but who have not had their visas processed since 2007.
Refunding the application fees is not enough – applicants will have invested considerable time, money and expectations of life in Australia, which have now all gone to waste due to the system’s failures. Many applicants could have explored options for migrating to other countries, but chose not to do so, only now to have their loyalty to Australia rejected.
And let’s spare a thought for the Australian economy – now denied the potential benefits of countless highly skilled individuals who, in many cases, will take those skills to competing economies.
This is a shameful situation and demonstrates that ill-thought-through reactions cause damage to real people. It is essential that Australia’s migration system be overhauled and mechanisms put in place to avoid instant changes to the rules which are severely detrimental to the applicants and Australia’s economy.
The government’s proposed changes to Australia’s skilled migration scheme highlight one of the greatest failings of the immigration system – albeit one that unfortunately receives far less press than the so-called “boat people” epidemic.
The 20,000 applicants referred to are all highly skilled individuals, whose applications meet all relevant criteria but who have not had their visas processed since 2007.
Refunding the application fees is not enough – applicants will have invested considerable time, money and expectations of life in Australia, which have now all gone to waste due to the system’s failures. Many applicants could have explored options for migrating to other countries, but chose not to do so, only now to have their loyalty to Australia rejected.
And let’s spare a thought for the Australian economy – now denied the potential benefits of countless highly skilled individuals who, in many cases, will take those skills to competing economies.
This is a shameful situation and demonstrates that ill-thought-through reactions cause damage to real people. It is essential that Australia’s migration system be overhauled and mechanisms put in place to avoid instant changes to the rules which are severely detrimental to the applicants and Australia’s economy.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Refugees v Asylum Seekers
It's been a while since my last post... sorry about that.
I've been slowly digesting the current debate about boat people and asylum seekers. It's a tough one, that's for sure.
At the outset, I should let you know I don't subscribe to certain politicians' views that Labor has "gone soft" and that encourages people to come to Australia by boat. That's a little simplistic and fails to take into account worldwide patterns in refugees. This article, if a little complex, might be of interest to you: http://bit.ly/4ESmPo
On the other hand, I appreciate for political reasons that a complete open door policy is unlikely to be sustainable.
What concerns me, though, is this idea that we must lock up refugees until we find out whether or not they are refugees. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if they are on Christmas Island (what a let down it must be for children when they realise there is nothing remotely "Christmas" about that island!), on the mainland, or in Indonesia. It worries me that the government is being so secretive over its plans with Indonesia.
I can see the potential for a cooperative approach to detect boats of asylum seekers, take them safely to mainland, and process them as quickly as possible - but by involving Indonesia are we setting up a system that enables us to close our doors (after all, if these people haven't arrived in Australia, our obligations under the Refugee Convention don't necessarily apply to them).
At this stage, the jury is still out, but let me ask a favour of all my readers: don't believe all the propaganda that is fed through our media: "asylum seeker" is not a French word for "terrorist", Australia is not the centre of the universe, and like it or not, we do have a duty to help the less fortunate around the world... now, if only our government would take a decisive and leading role in this debate...
I've been slowly digesting the current debate about boat people and asylum seekers. It's a tough one, that's for sure.
At the outset, I should let you know I don't subscribe to certain politicians' views that Labor has "gone soft" and that encourages people to come to Australia by boat. That's a little simplistic and fails to take into account worldwide patterns in refugees. This article, if a little complex, might be of interest to you: http://bit.ly/4ESmPo
On the other hand, I appreciate for political reasons that a complete open door policy is unlikely to be sustainable.
What concerns me, though, is this idea that we must lock up refugees until we find out whether or not they are refugees. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if they are on Christmas Island (what a let down it must be for children when they realise there is nothing remotely "Christmas" about that island!), on the mainland, or in Indonesia. It worries me that the government is being so secretive over its plans with Indonesia.
I can see the potential for a cooperative approach to detect boats of asylum seekers, take them safely to mainland, and process them as quickly as possible - but by involving Indonesia are we setting up a system that enables us to close our doors (after all, if these people haven't arrived in Australia, our obligations under the Refugee Convention don't necessarily apply to them).
At this stage, the jury is still out, but let me ask a favour of all my readers: don't believe all the propaganda that is fed through our media: "asylum seeker" is not a French word for "terrorist", Australia is not the centre of the universe, and like it or not, we do have a duty to help the less fortunate around the world... now, if only our government would take a decisive and leading role in this debate...
Monday, August 24, 2009
The Return of the Resident
Resident Return Visas ("RRV") are not the sexiest topic in the migration world, but worth a quick look.
For those who don't know, this visa is for permanent residents overseas who are close to the expiry of their five-year return facility and thus, need another five years (or in some cases three months) to return to Australia.
There are two RRVs - the 157 (three month validity) and the 155 (5 year validity). The criteria vary but are, for obvious reasons, more strenuous on the 155.
Essentially, where a client is overseas and has not spent a required period in Australia they need to establish that they have substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia.
In a recent application, I have seen a very strict approach to what are considered "substantial" ties and whether or not they are of "benefit to Australia". The DIAC Policy document for this visa supports this view, saying the purposes of the visas are, “to facilitate the re-entry to Australia of non-citizen permanent residents and ensure that only those people who have a genuine commitment to residing in Australia, or are contributing to Australia’s well-being, retain the right to return to Australia and remain permanently.”
Where an applicant offshore is unsuccessful, their review rights are severely limited (they generally need relatives in Australia to be able to apply for review).
For this reason, it is vital to pay very close attention to the criteria and associated policy documentation. Don't assume that an RRV is a "given" because, depending on the case officer, you may be quite unpleasantly surprised!
For those who don't know, this visa is for permanent residents overseas who are close to the expiry of their five-year return facility and thus, need another five years (or in some cases three months) to return to Australia.
There are two RRVs - the 157 (three month validity) and the 155 (5 year validity). The criteria vary but are, for obvious reasons, more strenuous on the 155.
Essentially, where a client is overseas and has not spent a required period in Australia they need to establish that they have substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia.
In a recent application, I have seen a very strict approach to what are considered "substantial" ties and whether or not they are of "benefit to Australia". The DIAC Policy document for this visa supports this view, saying the purposes of the visas are, “to facilitate the re-entry to Australia of non-citizen permanent residents and ensure that only those people who have a genuine commitment to residing in Australia, or are contributing to Australia’s well-being, retain the right to return to Australia and remain permanently.”
Where an applicant offshore is unsuccessful, their review rights are severely limited (they generally need relatives in Australia to be able to apply for review).
For this reason, it is vital to pay very close attention to the criteria and associated policy documentation. Don't assume that an RRV is a "given" because, depending on the case officer, you may be quite unpleasantly surprised!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Whither the 457?
In a recent press release (http://bit.ly/46Mt0Q) Minister Evans announced a "big drop in temporary overseas workers".
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks as though he is happy about that fact. This leads me to ask a very obvious question: why?
I'm concerned that there's a general feeling that 457 visas (the visa for temporary overseas workers) are a bad thing. I'm not sure if this is unionism ("foreigners shouldn't be taking our jobs") or a reaction to terrorism ("close our borders to the jihadists") or what... but I'm almost certain it is not economism (is that a word?).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - our country needs migrants. Our economy is built on the backbone of migrants, and it will only continue to prosper if we keep supplementing it with overseas skilled (and unskilled) workers.
Every day I see clients (Australian businesses who, contrary to the popular belief, do employ Australians as well) who want to supplement their workforce, build their business and otherwise prosper, through the introduction of foreign workers. These workers have a number of useful benefits: they bring foreign skills (sometimes very different to Aussie skills), they plug gaps in a workplace, they bring a multicultural dimension to the workplace, and with the minimum salary level climbing, they are also pushing up the average wage.
So why is our government heralding this news that 457 visas grants have gone down? Is it because they are bowing to uninformed public pressure? Trying to be seen to be making a difference? I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't get my approval!
And now I've just finished reading the explanatory memorandum of the September 14 changes to the 457 visa (http://bit.ly/14gukH). Wow, let's make it even harder!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to open the borders and shut down control, but I don't think Australia can afford to make it too difficult for people to come and work here. The world is increasingly competitive for skilled labour so why scare people off with overly complex and unnecessarily harsh regulations - effectively we're simply doing Canada, the UK and others a big favour by sending skilled workers their way.
So what should we do? Well I think we need to strip back the 457 and focus on addressing the needs of employers and the ability of applicants to fill those needs. Keep it simple...
What do you think?
I'm not 100% sure, but it looks as though he is happy about that fact. This leads me to ask a very obvious question: why?
I'm concerned that there's a general feeling that 457 visas (the visa for temporary overseas workers) are a bad thing. I'm not sure if this is unionism ("foreigners shouldn't be taking our jobs") or a reaction to terrorism ("close our borders to the jihadists") or what... but I'm almost certain it is not economism (is that a word?).
I've said it before and I'll say it again - our country needs migrants. Our economy is built on the backbone of migrants, and it will only continue to prosper if we keep supplementing it with overseas skilled (and unskilled) workers.
Every day I see clients (Australian businesses who, contrary to the popular belief, do employ Australians as well) who want to supplement their workforce, build their business and otherwise prosper, through the introduction of foreign workers. These workers have a number of useful benefits: they bring foreign skills (sometimes very different to Aussie skills), they plug gaps in a workplace, they bring a multicultural dimension to the workplace, and with the minimum salary level climbing, they are also pushing up the average wage.
So why is our government heralding this news that 457 visas grants have gone down? Is it because they are bowing to uninformed public pressure? Trying to be seen to be making a difference? I'm not sure, but it certainly doesn't get my approval!
And now I've just finished reading the explanatory memorandum of the September 14 changes to the 457 visa (http://bit.ly/14gukH). Wow, let's make it even harder!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to open the borders and shut down control, but I don't think Australia can afford to make it too difficult for people to come and work here. The world is increasingly competitive for skilled labour so why scare people off with overly complex and unnecessarily harsh regulations - effectively we're simply doing Canada, the UK and others a big favour by sending skilled workers their way.
So what should we do? Well I think we need to strip back the 457 and focus on addressing the needs of employers and the ability of applicants to fill those needs. Keep it simple...
What do you think?
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
DIAC Prosecutes Unregistered Agent
I was pleased to read this news on DIAC's website:
http://www.newsroom.immi.gov.au/media_releases/741
I have serious concerns about DIAC's reluctance to pursue unregistered agents. This case, sadly, seems to be the exception to the rule.
It is illegal to operate as an unregistered agent in Australia. All lawfully operating migration agents are registered through the Migration Agents Registration Authority and anyone using an agent should make sure they see their agent's Migration Agents Registration Number.
Migration agents are bound by a code of conduct and by other legislative and professional duties, the effect of which is to preserve the interests of the client (though I accept the odd unscrupulous dealer does get through).
Unfortunately, from the small number of actual cases against unregistered agents, I have perceived a reluctance by DIAC to actually prosecute those who are breaking the law. The result is that these criminals get lumped together with registered migration agents when the media and politicians start talking about "agents" generally. Clearly, this is not good for business!
I hope you'll join me in calling for more vigilance by DIAC and a more aggressive approach towards unregistered agents.
http://www.newsroom.immi.gov.au/media_releases/741
I have serious concerns about DIAC's reluctance to pursue unregistered agents. This case, sadly, seems to be the exception to the rule.
It is illegal to operate as an unregistered agent in Australia. All lawfully operating migration agents are registered through the Migration Agents Registration Authority and anyone using an agent should make sure they see their agent's Migration Agents Registration Number.
Migration agents are bound by a code of conduct and by other legislative and professional duties, the effect of which is to preserve the interests of the client (though I accept the odd unscrupulous dealer does get through).
Unfortunately, from the small number of actual cases against unregistered agents, I have perceived a reluctance by DIAC to actually prosecute those who are breaking the law. The result is that these criminals get lumped together with registered migration agents when the media and politicians start talking about "agents" generally. Clearly, this is not good for business!
I hope you'll join me in calling for more vigilance by DIAC and a more aggressive approach towards unregistered agents.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Migrants = Terrorists??
I have to admit I was incredibly disturbed to read this article today:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/07/2649618.htm
There is no better fuel for the racism fire than for a Federal MP (let alone a Government one) to claim that more migration increases our risk of terrorism.
Why do I say that? Well, let's examine the proposition - at first glance it makes a bit of sense: the more people who enter our country, the greater the risk that one of them will be a terrorist. Unfortunately, I fear that this is where most people will stop.
But I'd ask Mr Thompson whether, when all of the factors are weighed up, that sensational statement should be the basis of government policy. Let's think for a second about the crucial benefit that migrants bring to Australia. Our economy would stall if we shut the doors to skilled migrants. Our culture would fail if we closed our hearts to those from overseas who's vibrant backgrounds bring colour, life and excitement to society. Our international relations would suffer if we suddenly refused to meet our obligations under the Refugees Convention.
On its face, a migration policy that simply opens the floodgates without vetting has potential for disaster. But we don't have that kind of system in Australia. Migrants are vetted for character, health and their commitment to Australian values.
Perhaps this can be strengthened - it certainly has been in the last twelve months - and I am completely behind close scrutiny of potential migrants. We obviously don't want terrorists and other criminals in our country.
But the two are not synonymous: more migrants does not have to equal more terrorists, so long as ASIO, DIAC and DFAT continue their current programme of close scrutiny.
Most importantly, I am concerned that sweeping statements such as Mr Thompson's will scare the public at large and, without a properly informed debate, has the potential to create a political backlash the kind that Pauline Hanson could only have dreamed of.
I strongly urge Mr Rudd to distance the Government from Mr Thompson's statements... before some serious damage is done!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/07/2649618.htm
There is no better fuel for the racism fire than for a Federal MP (let alone a Government one) to claim that more migration increases our risk of terrorism.
Why do I say that? Well, let's examine the proposition - at first glance it makes a bit of sense: the more people who enter our country, the greater the risk that one of them will be a terrorist. Unfortunately, I fear that this is where most people will stop.
But I'd ask Mr Thompson whether, when all of the factors are weighed up, that sensational statement should be the basis of government policy. Let's think for a second about the crucial benefit that migrants bring to Australia. Our economy would stall if we shut the doors to skilled migrants. Our culture would fail if we closed our hearts to those from overseas who's vibrant backgrounds bring colour, life and excitement to society. Our international relations would suffer if we suddenly refused to meet our obligations under the Refugees Convention.
On its face, a migration policy that simply opens the floodgates without vetting has potential for disaster. But we don't have that kind of system in Australia. Migrants are vetted for character, health and their commitment to Australian values.
Perhaps this can be strengthened - it certainly has been in the last twelve months - and I am completely behind close scrutiny of potential migrants. We obviously don't want terrorists and other criminals in our country.
But the two are not synonymous: more migrants does not have to equal more terrorists, so long as ASIO, DIAC and DFAT continue their current programme of close scrutiny.
Most importantly, I am concerned that sweeping statements such as Mr Thompson's will scare the public at large and, without a properly informed debate, has the potential to create a political backlash the kind that Pauline Hanson could only have dreamed of.
I strongly urge Mr Rudd to distance the Government from Mr Thompson's statements... before some serious damage is done!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
