Interview by: Tanaya Das
Photo inset: Eddy Kang running to avoid ABC cameras after a CTTT hearing.

The Department of Fair Trading is now actively investigating Eddie Kang.

Re: Current issues with health systems

We want you to alert you to the fact that there have been some problems occurring in the electronic immigration health process since our last systems release on 22 August 2014 – these have been preventing some clients/agents being able to access eMedical Client via the ‘Organise your health examinations’ link in ImmiAcccount.

This was impacting clients who had lodged a GVP processed online visa application. However, this has now been resolved. A new issue has, however, been identified which is preventing some clients from accessing eMedical Client after lodging a My Health Declarations form. We will be scheduling a fix for this as soon as possible (hopefully mid next week). However, in the interim, please make sure that if completing an MHD form all address fields are populated when completing the form to avoid your case being impacted by this problem.

What will happen to sponsors training funds contributed under Training Benchmark A, should the DIBP approved training institutions close down?

Currently, most of the Training Benchmark A funds from employers seeking sponsorship under the sc457 program find their way to various TAFE institutes largely due DIBPs encouragement.

The legislative instrument however only provides broad directions as follows: “Recent expenditure, by the business, to the equivalent of at least 2% of the payroll of the business, in payments allocated to an industry training fund that operates in the same industry as the business.”

But DIBPS website, PAMs and FAQs generally encourage funds be directed to TAFEs, with PAMs specifically setting as follows:

“To meet the requirements of Training Benchmark A, the applicant can show evidence of having made a contribution to a recognised scholarship fund that is operated by an Australian university or TAFE college that supports education or training for Australian citizens or permanent residents in a course related to the business of the applicant.”

The Australian High Court’s verdict, has dealt “another death blow to the federal government’s plans to give asylum seekers temporary protection visas [and has] set significant new limits on Australia’s policy of mandatory detention,” reports The Guardian.

The decision will throw into doubt the legality of detention of thousands of people in Australia, potentially spelling the end for Australia’s mandatory detention regime as we know it, notes the report.

“In the unanimous decision handed down on Thursday, the court threw out the federal government’s strategy of granting temporary visas to asylum seekers through a legal loophole. Unable to get temporary protection visas through parliament, the federal government had been granting other temporary visas which blocked asylum seekers from applying for permanent visas, but Thursday’s case ruled against that practice.”

More importantly, and for the first time, the court clearly set out the constitutional limits on immigration detention. It was previously unclear for what purposes the government could detain non-citizens. The court has now clearly stated that the government can lawfully detain someone in only three circumstances:

• to consider whether to let someone apply for a visa;
• to consider an application for a visa;
• or to remove someone.

Detention is only lawful if these purposes are being “pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable”, the court held. The length of detention must be assessed by what is “necessary and incidental” to execute and fulfil those purposes. These limits on detention are constitutional. In other words, parliament cannot override them by introducing new legislation.

Despite work over four-months, 189 submissions and meeting with over 150 stakeholders around the country, The Australian reports that that the changes set out in the ­sc457 review were akin to “maintenance” rather than reform.

Employers have immediately come out complaining of Immigration Minister Scott Morrison’s rejection of the Reviews recommendation to remove Labour market testing: “It is disappointing employers remain subject to unnecessary ­labour-market testing measures,” said Steve Knott, the head of the Australian Mines and Metals Association. “The labour-market testing was never done in response to an actual economic or policy need — it was implemented by the former government pandering to crass class-war rhetoric.”

Employers have however welcomed the reviews other recommendation and the Ministers announcement that he will be looking closely into the Reviews recommendation to relax the English-language requirements for visa applicants.

The review in essence has given the current program a clean bill of health indicating that there was consensus on the programs fundamental tenets, namely:

• employers have a legitimate need to employ skilled overseas workers;
• that the main rationale for employing such workers is to fill gaps in the Australian workforce;
• that overseas workers should not displace Australians; that Australian workers should be trained;
• and that the employment rights and workplace entitlements of 457 visa holders should be the same as those of Australian workers

The review makes some 22 recommendations including the following: