The Pilbara region covering an area of half a million square kilometres is a large, dry, thinly populated region in the north of Western Australia. It is known for its Aboriginal peoples, its ancient landscapes, the red earth, its vast mineral deposits, in particular iron ore and as a global biodiversity hotspot for subterranean fauna. The region’s population is estimated to be about 50,000 people.

It is no wonder that the Pilbara Regional Council is complaining of a severe worker shortage and has formally applied to the Department of Immigration to allow small businesses in the North West to employ foreign workers on 457 visas. It is hoped a regional migration agreement will help fill a shortfall of jobs in the community sector.

Council chief executive Tony Friday told the ABC that during the height of the mining boom, small businesses in the Pilbara were struggling to secure local staff.

"It represents a really good option for small business when we find ourselves in the middle of a boom cycle and are unable to staff important community positions," he said.

"The perfect time to do it would have been in time for the last boom, before small businesses were screaming because they couldn't get hold of staff and positions were going unfilled.

I lodged  parent visa (by the way my in-law's) subclass 103 on Friday 30.06.2014 by fax. 

It is my understanding that The Electronic Transaction Act over rides schedule 1 however acting assistant director of Perth Parents Processing Centre I spoke to today,  claims that  their view is different as the fax number for lodgement of 103 visa is not publicly advertised.

Is it right?  

It is high time the DIBP started to enforce the use of Form 956A, especially in relation to randomized checking of VEVO and randomized online applications such as partner visas by third parties who are not RMAs.  This article explores the reasons why.

Online partner visa applications

Firstly, a relevant issue that needs to be addressed is with the online partner forms.

If a person submits an offshore partner application using the DIBP online system then the DIBP online system currently doesn't allow the draft to be prepared stating that it couldn't confirm the location of the applicant.

After contacting the eVisa support team a very clever Registered Migration Agent discovered that the visa applicant for the offshore partner visa was actually visiting their spouse in Australia.  This is why the online partner visa system wouldn't allow the offshore application to be prepared.  E-services don't ask for the 956 form the agent and provide information about the visa applicant.  Our agents have never been asked for a form 956 by e-services support.

There are two issues here:

Vulnerable people with genuine claims will soon be precluded from raising them in a fresh visa application, simply because a previous application which they did not understand and which may have been made by someone else without their permission was refused. There are several amendments proposed in the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 but the amendments to section 48 remains the most contentious.

Section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth( (the Act) in general prohibits an individual whose onshore application for a visa has been refused or cancelled from making a further onshore application, with limited exceptions applying to the application ban.

Submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee opposed the amendments for various reasons including the following (as summarised in the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest 4 June 2014):

• the changes increase the potential for instances of injustice to arise as some vulnerable people will be denied the opportunity to present their claims for asylum in their own right
• the changes will prohibit re-consideration of issues that have been considered in a previous application even though such an application may not have appropriately taken into account the views and capacity of a minor or other vulnerable person
• the changes will adversely affect particularly vulnerable groups of asylum seekers due to factors entirely beyond their control
• the changes could result in unintended consequences such as refoulement
• the changes are not proportionate to the administrative burden on the Department
• the changes raise doubts about Australia’s compliance with international law such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• the retrospective nature of the changes is not fair for applicants
• the changes are premature and misconceived and
• the Minister’s personal and non-compellable powers under section 48B of the Act to exclude the operation of the provision on public interest grounds is a grossly inadequate safeguard against refoulement for particularly vulnerable people subject to the prohibition in section 48A of the Act.

The Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS) provided some scenarios to illustrate the gross unfairness of the proposed legislation which its states unfairly "extends the s48 bar on subsequent applications to individuals who have been refused a protection visa even where they did not know about or understand the nature of the original visa application made on their behalf because of a mental impairment or because they were a minor."

 “A 17 year old young man lives independently of his parents in a relationship not approved of by his parents. He is included on a non-meritorious protection visa application by his parents without his knowledge. This application is refused. He only learns of this visa application history when he makes his own visa application in the future, which is deemed invalid.

“A 16 year old girl remains in conflict with her father due to family violence and remains living in a refuge with her mother. She is included in a non-meritorious visa application without her knowledge by her father which is refused. When her mother includes her on a subsequent meritorious visa application as her dependent, she is informed that the application by the daughter is invalid due to the father’s previous application.”

Migration Alliance members will be interested to note a complaint that was sent in to the Global Feedback Unit Manager, this morning by Migration Alliance:

People are nervous and worried that it is coming towards the 1 July and they are unable to lodge the clients applications successfully.

Please could you let MA know if this is going to be resolved shortly?