"If suitable Australian workers were ready to fill the available jobs, they would be employed to do so, particularly where it costs $20,000 extra to bring someone on a 457 visa," lobby group Master Builders Australia has reportedly told the independent panel reviewing the 457 temporary-visa scheme. Joining the agriculture industry bodies, the MBA has made calls for the introduction of a new short-term visa with lower language and salary thresholds particularly for short-term projects, saying labour supply cannot be guaranteed nationwide.

Farm Weekly has reported that the National Farmers' Federation is interested in using the short-term visas to hire foreign dairy operators, artificial inseminators and livestock handlers. Commercial builders want to hire semi-skilled workers with basic English and without having to advertise locally to prove vacancies cannot be filled by Australian workers.

The proposals were made to an ¬independent panel reviewing the 457 temporary-visa scheme.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) remain opposed to this and wants the tighter rules introduce by the Labour government maintained. ACTU secretary Dave Oliver said, “At a time when unemployment is at the highest levels in 10 years and youth unemployment is catastrophically high, and there have been a series of major job losses across the country, we must do all we can to provide opportunities to local workers,"

However, Master Builders say that the industry needed to be able to fill skills gaps where Australians were not available, lacked the skills or were unwilling to work – such as on remote projects.

...

The Australian Government is aware of a loophole which allows some New Zealanders to obtain a permanent resident visa in Australia, but that the Government does not publicise this pathway, which for many New Zealanders who are caught in the dilema of being left out of many welfare privileges could be a ‘lifeline’.

Some reports estimate that there are about 185,000 New Zealanders currently living in Australia who have been affected by the 2001 restrictions which cut-off New Zelanders  access to an easy permanent residency pathway to Australian and an array of welfare benefits including those for travel concessions, unemployment, sole parent, youth, sickness and even housing. Earlier this year many of these New Zelanders marched across Australian cites demanding a better deal for the taxes they pay.

But another important date is 1 September 1994. Prior to that date New Zealand citizens who entered Australia were considered permanent residents. Accordingly, under the Resident Return Visa  (RRV) rules they may be eligible for permanent residency now, provided of course they meet additional RRV criteria.

The New Zealand Herald reports that Welington academic Peter Hamer has taken this to a parliamentary committee in New Zealand reporting that New Zealanders who have lived in Australia prior to September 1, 1994, have the right to a permanent visa. 

"That has been quite a breakthrough," Paul Hamer told the New Zealand Herald. The September date was when all non-citizens were required to hold a visa and the "special category visa" was given freely to New Zealanders on arrival giving them the rights of permanent residents. The rules have changed since then and, since February 27, 2001, New Zealanders had to gain a permanent visa to access services they previously got automatically, such as social security and student loans. One of the key reasons for the change was to filter out the influx of New Zealanders moving to Australia solely for the purpose of taking advantage of the welfare benefits.

...

The following has been received by the MRT-RRT:

I invite you to attend an Open Day at the Migration Review Tribunal as part of National Law Week 2014. National Law Week is an annual event designed to promote public understanding of the law and its role in society as well as raise awareness in the community about how to access legal services and advice. The theme for Law Week is “law and justice in your community”. 

The Migration Review Tribunal reviews a wide range of Department of Immigration and Citizenship decisions, including those relating to partner, family, business, skilled and student visas.  As part of National Law Week, the Migration Review Tribunal will hold information sessions in our offices in Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney.  

Although DIBP succeeded in its appeal to the Federal Court despite the fact that DIBP used inconsistent means of communications to the detriment of the applicant, the court has expressed concerns over a visa refusal for a trivial oversight.

According to the case, on the records, DIBP had the applicant’s old address, current address and email contact details. DIBP was generally corresponding with the applicant by email except when it came to the refusal decision which it sent to the applicant's old address. DIBP was even aware that the applicant did not receive DIBPs decision letter as it was returned undelivered. The applicant only found out about the decision months later and by then too late for an MRT review.

In the applicant's appeal to the Federal Circuit Court, the court found in favour of the applicant stating,“the applicant did not receive notification of the refusal of her visa application until she had asked for it some months after it had originally been sent, even though the Department had corresponded with her by email and was aware that the refusal letter had been returned undelivered. It knew that she had not received notification and knew how to contact her but did not.”

However, DIBP appealed to the the Federal Court and succeeded. Justice Robert Buchanan said he had to apply the law and find for the government, not for student Jung Eun Kim, but he suggested the “clerical shortcoming” affecting her visa could have been fixed without the need for litigation.

“This case has some unsettling features...It is hard to understand why any clerical shortcoming could not be addressed and corrected without the need for legal proceedings... If, in fact, (Ms Kim) satisfied all the requirements for a student visa, save for inadvertently failing to provide the physical evidence of the overseas student health cover which she had obtained from Medibank at a premium of $1073.06, it is difficult to see why some appropriate administrative procedure could not have been found to overcome any administrative or technical difficulty which stood in her way.” ” Justice Buchanan said in his decision last week.

...

MA has made several attempts in the recent past to alert its members about pdtraining’s offer of paying referral commissions to RMAs through a debit card option.  

The concerns of MA was also brought to the attention of pdtraining.  

A tax and legal advice from Sydney Accredited Specialist tax lawyer, David Garde of Brown Wright Stein, was also made available to MA members to keep them informed and to restrain them from using pdtraining’s GST DEFEASANCE SCHEME.  Following our proactive approach, even MIA had withdrawn its endorsement of pdtraining’s offer and stopped endorsing pdtraining as their sponsor.  This was evident from MIA’s ‘Member Benefits and Discounts Newsletter ’.  Though MIA did not publicly admit the error, MIA has stopped promoting this deal which was deemed dangerous for its members and other RMAs working in the industry.