A Work and Holiday Arrangement was concluded alongside the China-Australia FTA (ChAFTA)which will allow 5,000 Chinese Work and Holiday Makers into Australia annually, according to the office of Trade Minister, Andrew Robb.

It is important to note that Australia and China have only signed an intention to enter a free-trade agreement. To be effective the agreement must pass the scrutiny of the Australia’s parliamentary system (and any further scrutiny by the Chinese government). So the final form of any ChAFTA could be very different from what is currently being touted. The intended outcomes are set out here: http://dfat.gov.au/fta/chafta/fact-sheets/key-outcomes.html

Labour, the Greens and the unions have launched attacks on the agreement with particular concerns over provisions that aim to allow Chinese companies to import labour into Australia.

According to The Australian, under the free-trade deal, Chinese workers would gain entry through a new mechanism called an ‘investment facilitation arrangement’ or IFAs.

The government said the IFAs would operate on a similar basis to enterprise ¬migration agreements yet do not require labour market testing.

Some of the 10,000 asylum seekers whose personal details including “a) full names; b) gender; c) citizenship; d) date of birth; e) period of immigration detention; f) location; g) boat arrival details; h) reasons why the individual was deemed to be unlawful” were accidentally published by the department of the immigration are now demanding that they be granted visas as the breach of privacy has exposed them to danger should they return home.

Privacy Commissioner Mr Timothy Pilgrim who is investigating the matter found that the Department of Immigration was in breach of important privacy principles under existing Australian legislation. He explained in his findings that he had received many complaints from individuals affected by the breach and said that it will be possible for him to award a financial remedy, provided that the affected individuals can establish that they have suffered loss of some kind. The Commissioner is continuing to investigate those complaints.

In the meantime, other asylum seekers are pursuing the matter through the courts claiming that they cannot return home due to the dangers they now face due to the privacy breach by the department of immigration.

Tasmanian Labor senator Lisa Singh, is currently seeking to revive laws, which were due to pass under the last government, that would enforce businesses and government to notify the public about data breaches, according to a report in The Australian.

“As people who were already in ¬vulnerable situations who could be ¬targeted, and have their families and friends targeted, by oppressive groups or governments, the leak of this -information over a period of eight and a half days on the department’s website and 16 days on the Internet Archive was especially worrying,” Senator Singh said. She said legislating mandatory disclosure requirements with penalties would have a much greater effect on creating a culture of protection and responsibility around personal data than otherwise would be the case.

“Currently there is no obligation on public and private sector organisations to notify people whose details they have leaked or accidentally made public on the net or elsewhere” said Senator Singh.

According to Patrick Gunning of King & Wood Mallesons, “The Commissioner found that the Department had contravened Information Privacy Principle 4(a) – the security principle – because the Department’s policies and practices failed to adequately address known security risks. The Department’s policies recognised the risk of inadvertent publication of personal information, but staff had not been made aware of why it was important to follow the policies, and how to do so.”

DIBP claims to have now reviewed its internal processes and put in place measures to prevent such a breach from occurring again while it awaits further decisions by the Courts and the Privacy Commissioner.

DIBPs priority processing arrangements generally categorise skilled migration applications into 5 groups giving regional employer sponsored visas the highest processing priority. While the top groups can have the visas processed within months, those in group 5 can wait well over 5 years without any indication of a time-frame as to when their applications may be processed.

It almost looks like after accepting valid applications and the visa charges, DIBP has just about simply forgotten about processing the applications categorised in group 5. Is DIBP hoping  that if they make these applicants wait long enough the applicants will simply give up and go away allowing DIBP to pocket the application fee for doing nothing?

Legislation allows the Minister several mechanisms to ensure visa grants are managed in line with the annual planning level. These mechanisms can either restrict or increase the level of visa grants. This excuse is often cited when the issue is queried. A recent response on the issue from DIBP stated outright, “The Department is unable to give specific timeframes for when individual applications will be finalised,…” [http://migrationalliance.com.au/immigration-daily-news/entry/2014-09-priority-group-5-applications-for-886-and-176-visas-dibp-update.html]

Upon receipt of a valid application, DIBP surely must have an obligation to process an application within a reasonable time-frame or inform the applicants of the likely time-frame. In the alternative, DIBP should at least allow applicants who wish to withdraw their applications to do so with a full refund. Perhaps this may help speed things up for those who choose to wait.

Some estimates (unverified) state that there are over 40,000 applicants in the priority 5 group, with some applicants still waiting after 5 years with no indication of when their applications will be processed.

Streamlined visa processing arrangements will be extended to eligible advanced diploma level students with 55 new SVP providers commencing from 23 November 2014. These institutions are considered ‘low- risk providers’ and the list has been specified in the the latest instrument Migration Regulations 1994 - Specification of Eligible Education Providers and Educational Business Partners - IMMI 14/075 found here: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2014L01511

Minister Morrison announced the intention to allow SVP to these new providers earlier this year saying that it, “will enable eligible education providers in the Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector and higher education sector to directly access SVP. This will make study in Australia even more attractive to overseas students, while at the same time ensuring that immigration risk is appropriately managed.

Education Minister Chris Pyne added that these changes will substantially benefit Australia's high-quality VET and higher education sectors, supporting the sustainable growth of Australia's international education industry while providing a vital boost to the economy.

'The number of international students seeking to study in Australia continues to rebound positively, with an increase of over 27 per cent in the number of visas granted to offshore applicants in the 2013-14 programme year,' Minister Pyne said.

'Extending SVP arrangements will help capitalise on these trends, reducing red tape and helping to attract further students from overseas.'

The Western Australian state government has made further amendments to its decision to charge a $4,000 public school fee for families on 457 visas, after community backlash resulted in multiple delays. Under the new provisions to the school fees, families on 457 visas who are earning $75,000 or less per year will not have to pay the $4,000 per annum fee for their children who are enrolled in a public school, according a report in the ABC.

The report states that the exemptions were revealed as the State Government announced its long-awaited hardship provisions for the more than 3,300 families affected by the new charges from next year. Under the hardship arrangements, families earning less than $75,000 a year will not have to pay.

More than 2,600 families are expected to pay the new fee, delivering about $10 million into the Government's coffers.Education Minister Peter Collier said, "There are around 3,305 families at this stage that will be captured by the school fees. Of that, around 750 will be exempt."

Families can also seek relief from the fees due to exceptional circumstances, such as illness or unemployment. They will be required to approach the Department of Training and Workforce Development to seek an exemption.

According to a parliamentary guide, states and territories may charge fees for the children of workers on subclass 457 visas to attend public schools. New South Wales (NSW) charges $4,500 for kindergarten, $4,500 for junior high schooling and $5,500 for senior high schooling of subclass 457 visa holders. The Australian Capital Territory charges $9,320, $12,500 and $13,900 respectively, although subclass 457 visa holders can apply for an education fee waiver if they are involved in a job that appears on the Skilled Occupation Lists. In 2013, Western Australia announced a $4,000 per year public school tuition fee for children of subclass 457 visa holders but reports suggest this has been revised down to $2,000 for each additional child from the same family, with implementation postponed until 2015. Subclass 457 visa holders in other states and the Northern Territory are exempt from international student fees, but may contribute minor administrative fees as do domestic students.