Do the health criteria of Australia’s Migration Regulations strike the right balance? 

Should Public Interest Criteria 4005 and 4007 really be written in terms that the assessment of whether an applicant “passes” the health criteria really be made on the basis that it would be likely that the provision of health care or community services would be likely to be significant regardless of whether the services would be used or not? 

Does that drafting really make any sense at all? If an applicant’s family has sufficient financial resources that health care for a child with a medical condition would not impose a significant burden on health care or community services, then how could it be “likely” that the provision of health care or community services would result in significant cost to the Australian community?

Difficulty obtaining Professional Indemnity Insurance for OMARA Registration because you live overseas?  You are not alone. 

Below is an extract from an email which perfectly sums up the issue:

"I am NZ full license immigration adviser (IAA no 00000000).  I wish to take full license with MARA as well under the TTMR scheme.  

Readers may have noted that in several articles that I have posted on the MA blog regarding visa cancellation cases, I have invited opinions as to whether Australia's legislation is "too harsh" in its approach to longstanding permanent residents.  

My assessment of the comments on this issue is that the the weight of opinion is to the effect that visa holders should expect to be removed if they commit criminal offences causing them to fail the character test, and that they shouldn't cry about it.

In light of these comments I thought it would be interesting to check the New Zealand Immigration Act and see how it compares with our own.

Suppose you have a case involving an application for a partner visa. 

There is a 20 year age gap between the applicant and the sponsor.  The evidence is that the applicant and the sponsor do not share a bank account, the sponsor does not contribute to shared household costs, and the sponsor instead spends large sums of her money on alcohol and cigarettes. 

Although the applicant and the sponsor are lawfully married,  the relationship ended after the partner visa application had been lodged, and before it was determined by the Department.  There is a claim of family violence by the applicant. However, the Department’s officer declines to consider the family violence claims on the basis that the evidence does not establish that the applicant was in a genuine and continuing relationship with the sponsor at the time of the application. 

Is the visa cancellation regime under the Migration Act too harsh? 

Does it effectively impose “double punishment” on offenders by making them subject to removal from Australia in addition to whatever sentence of imprisonment they receive? 

Should someone who has committed an offence spend a longer time in immigration detention – where they have lost their liberty as effectively as if they were in prison serving a custodial sentence – for a longer period of time than they have been incarcerated for the original offence?