We are all familiar with the old saying that: “We are haunted by the ghosts of our past”. 

This well-worn phrase has been shown to have considerable truth and force recently. There has been story after story in the news media about high profile people being caught up in allegations of sexual abuse involving decades-old incidents. One need look no further than the stories that have been reported about allegations relating to former British Prime Minister Ted Heath and to the television performers Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby. And of course the Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has unearthed accounts of incidents that occurred many years ago. 

These types of stories are not only pervasive in the news media. In fact, just at the end of last week, on 7 August 2015, a decision was handed down by the Federal Court of Australia that demonstrates, very powerfully, that there really is no escape from the ghosts of one’s past where sexual offences are concerned, and that events that may have seemed to have been buried and forgotten can come back to haunt a person with an absolute vengeance! 

The peak body of the restaurant and catering industry says it has struck a special deal with the government to make it easier to bring in overseas workers through the 457 skilled migration visa program.

The sector is currently experiencing a shortfall of 56,000 workers with Chefs, cooks and restaurant managers among the most difficult vacancies to fill, according to statement released by Restaurant & Catering Australia (R&CA). The R&CA is the industry’s peak body that representing some 35,000 restaurants and catering businesses across Australia.

The statement says that employment growth in the cafe, restaurant and takeaway food services sector will require an additional 43,700 jobs by November 2018. The rate of employment growth in this sector is expected to be higher than any other sector in the Australian economy, growing at around 8.5 per cent.

To deal with the ‘chronic labour shortage’ the labour agreement will lower the temporary skilled migration income threshold (TSMIT) by 10 per cent for restaurants that meet specific criteria.

At the end of July 2015 I wrote an article titled 'Refuse, refuse, refuse:  457 nominations and visas refused'.

The DIBP kindly responded to my tweets on the above article, stating that DIBP approval rates sat at over 90%. 

Mistakenly, I should have cited the 'most-popularly-refused' occupation, and asked for the approval/refusal-rate for that particular occupation.  That 'popularly refused' occupation is none other than Customer Service Manager.  

It is not difficult to imagine that there are many cases where a person has remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after the expiration of a previous substantive visa (for example, a student visa), has developed a relationship (and perhaps started a family) and then wants to get a partner visa to be able to stay lawfully in Australia.  Of course, people who are in relationships will wish to avoid the period of separation that is associated with waiting for an “offshore” partner visa application to be assessed and determined – especially when the “processing times” for such applications can be very long (commonly exceeding a year). (I would suggest that all RMAs and their clients would agree that these processing times are unjustifiable, and that there is no reason on earth why an offshore partner visa application should take so long to be determined, but that is a matter for another day!). 

Given the desirability of applying for the partner visa while onshore rather than from offshore, it is natural to consider – and it can be anticipated that clients will ask: “Realistically, what are the prospects of successfully getting over the “hurdle” of Schedule 3? What kinds of “compelling reasons” could persuade the Department or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to “waive” the Schedule 3 criteria?

In a case that as examined last week, 1409924 (Migration) (2015) AATA 3088 (15 July 2015), we saw an example of a situation where the AAT determined not to grant a waiver from Schedule 3. In that case, the applicant and his sponsor had a child together who had a health condition that required special care. But because the child was born after the time that the application was lodged, and the AAT determined that the Schedule 3 criteria must be met at the time of the application (and thus not at the time of merits review before the AAT), it did not see fit to allow a waiver.

Private colleges will find it easier to benefit from Australia's booming international student business, under the new student visa system which is set to be introduced mid-2016, notes a report in The AFR. Details of the new system were broadly set out in the Coalition government’s report: Future directions for streamlined visa processing.

Under the proposed new student visa system, foreign students will have to deal with a simpler student visa regulatory environment which will see a reduction of the number of student visa subclasses from eight to just two subclasses.

Rod Camm, CEO of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET), told the Australian Financial Review that Australia’s student visa system is currently so complex that colleges attending education fairs end up spending half their time explaining the visa system instead of talking about the quality of education, noting, “Australia is open for business and visa complexities make it so hard.”

One the key concerns of many is the two tiered risk assessment framework. Under the new system applications are expected to be assessed on a single immigration risk framework: the Simplified Student Visa Framework (SSVF).  It will replace both the Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) arrangements and Assessment Level (AL) Framework.

The SSVF will essentially rank education providers and countries each year ‘based on the immigration risk outcomes of their international students over the previous 12 month period’. Apparently it is expected to give education providers ‘a strong incentive to recruit genuine students’ and slowly squeeze out the high-risk education providers.