Apparently the Fuhrer is furious about Operation Fortitude. 

#OperationFortitude:  TRENDING WORLDWIDE

A person who holds permanent residency status in Australia, but then returns to their home country and remains there for a long period of time may encounter significant difficulty in getting a Resident Return visa to regain their permanent residency status. 

The eligibility criteria for a Resident Return visa (Subclass 155) that are specified in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations  specify not only that the applicant must have “substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which are of benefit to Australia” (clause 155(212)(3A)(a), but also, if the person has been absent for a continuous period of 5 years or more since the date of grant of the applicant’s most recent permanent visa”, must demonstrate that there were “compelling reasons” for the absence (clause 155.212(3A)(b). 

So what reasons for being absent from Australia for a period of more than 5 years can be considered sufficiently “compelling” to support the grant of a Resident Return visa.  This question was considered by the Federal Court of Australia in the leading case of Paduano v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2005) FCA 211 and was recently re-visited by Judge Neville of the Federal Circuit Court in Cirillo v Minister for Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 2137 (14 August 2015). 

Thousands of student visa holders have been exploited by the 7-Eleven chain of stores across Australia, according to a joint investigation by ABC Four-Corners and BusinessDay.  A 7-Eleven ‘insider’ on the report alleged that if franchisees were forced to pay the correct wages, at least 140 of the 620 stores would be unsustainable.

The revelations had one of 7-Eleven's most savage critics, former ACCC head Allan Fels posting on a blog that the only way 7-Eleven franchisees could make money was by ripping off their workers. Some reports allege that many workers were paid $10 an hour before tax – well below the award rate of $24 per hour. The reports also allege that the company's own figures suggest up to two-thirds of its stores are underpaying their workers.

Professor Fels has subsequently removed that post and has been appointed to head an inquiry funded by 7-Eleven to investigate the alleged rampant wage fraud and cover-up by the head office.

With both the Labor Party and the Greens calling for a pardon of student-visa workers caught in the scandal, the Abbott government has now announced that it is considering amnesty for these workers.

According to the ABC/BusinessDay report – which revealed the widespread exploitation of 7-Eleven staff – the majority of the company’s staff are foreign students who are only allowed to work for up to 20 hours per week. But most of them work for over twice that amount of time for less than half the award rate. This puts them at risk of deportation for a breach of their visa conditions.

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) – the union that covers the industry – has been accused of failing to protect 7-Eleven employees. The SDA has now reportedly set up a hotline and website to help 7-Eleven workers make claims against the company.

7-Eleven has agreed to buy out any franchisees who want to sell their stores since the exposé on the retailer’s exploitation was publicised.

It is reported that 7-Eleven generated earnings before interest and tax of $143 million in 2015, helping boost the wealth of co-owner and chairman Russ Withers and his sister Bev Barlow to $1.5 billion.

Below is information sent by reader Maggie Taaffe last Friday.

Hi Peter

Please see my email to the AAT below and the response.
Cheers

Earlier this year a Federal Circuit Court judge set aside a decision of the MRT affirming a decision by the Department to refuse a student visa.

The judge held that a student visa applicant wishing to (ultimately) settle in Australia did not fail to meet the requirement that overseas students must have an intention to “genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.”

Below is an extract from his judgement

38 The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by assuming that the applicant’s wishing to settle in Australia in the long term, if given the opportunity, implied that the applicant did not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal thus failed to consider whether the applicant intended to return to her home country at the end of the period for which the Subclass 573 visa she applied for would be valid.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2015/1971.html