FreeOZ论坛

标题: 非CSL申请人（二）：移民部长 Evans 态度强硬的电台采访（含全部中文翻译） [打印本页]

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 09:14
标题: 非CSL申请人（二）：移民部长 Evans 态度强硬的电台采访（含全部中文翻译）
孙子说，知己知彼，百战不殆。

大家的心思，移民部未必不知。移民部的心思，取决于移民部长的心思，毕竟，澳大利亚移民法，所有移民官员代部长行使职能。移民部长Chris Evans 这位出身在英国，受教育在西澳大学，本身就是移民的位高权重的澳大利亚执政党第三把手，对非CSL申请审理积压是什么态度呢？极其强硬。又自相矛盾。大家不妨听听。

其实，看从去年底到今年底这一年的普通技术移民变更历程，不难看出，关键技术清单（CSL, Critical Skills List）本身就是部长先生的发明，将原来的先申请先处理改为以提名职业在不在CSL上来区分审理。在CSL上的，就审理。有一个审理一个。不在CSL上，就不审理。管它是有一个、十个、百个、千个、万个、十万个、二十万个。用的名字当然好听很多，叫缓审理。缓到什么时候？不知道。只知道不早于2011年底或2012年，分在岸还是离岸。到底要等多久？不少当事人或当事人的父母问。回答：能让你们等就算好的。目前考虑的，有没有可能不让你们等，又不让你们拿到PR。

这不，这个强硬态度后不久，就有了目前实实在在已经造成了当事人恐慌的改革纲要文件[attach]93674[/attach]。又从另一侧面反映了这一广受反对的改革纲要文件，不过是移民部长对非CSL申请人的一贯强硬态度的延续，没什么可惊讶的。

事情也因此极不简单。极不轻易。极不容易。

英文的。不知道是不是希望翻成中文才好。有这样的要求，我们会安排。

恐慌的逼近和逼近的恐慌（六）
2009年11月13日澳移民部长伊文斯接受
ABC采访的录音、英文原文、中文翻译
2009年12月30日星期三
唐林律师行

2009年11月13日，澳大利亚联邦政府移民与公民部部长、执政党工党上议院领袖Chris Evans伊文斯就光受关注的普通技术移民审理积压的问题接受了澳大利亚广播公司（Australia Broadcasting Corporation, ABC）电台记者Peter Mares的采访。唐林律师行认为，这一第一手材料的访谈录有助于读者明白改革纲要文件出台的背景。也有助于更多人的认清真相。唐林律师行特别把它翻译出来。

一、录音。

二、英文原文。

Peter Mares: While public attention has been focused on asylum seekers arriving in boats in recent weeks, fundamental changes to Australia's skilled migration program have gone almost unnoticed.
The changes affect tens of thousands of people, many of whom are distressed and angry. Having shelled out thousands of dollars in costs and fees to apply to migrate to Australia, they've now been told that it will be years before applications are even looked at.
Affected applicants within Australia must wait until at least the end of 2011 before their cases are processed; migrants applying from overseas must wait until at leas the end of 2012.
As we reported two weeks ago on The National Interest, their cases are on indefinite hold because of new priority processing arrangements put in place by the Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans, who joins me now from Perth. Senator Evans, thanks for your time.
Chris Evans: My pleasure.
Peter Mares: How many people now have their cases on hold?
Chris Evans: Look I don't agree with most of the characterisation of the introduction Peter. They're not on hold, what people do is they apply for permanent migration to Australia, and they're assessed, and we determine based on the needs of Australia, and our priorities, who gains permanent migration. We operate a scheme in support of the national interest, so people may well be facing longer waits in some occupation, and of course others are getting quicker treatment if they're in the occupations which are necessary for the growth of our economy. So I don't actually agree with the characterisation you put in your introduction.
Peter Mares: Well your Department's put out some information when you made changes to priority processing on 23rd September this year, and in those changes it says to people they will have to wait if they're onshore applicants, and they're not on what's called the Critical Skills List, and they're not sponsored by an employer, they will wait until the end of 2011 before their application is processed at least. And applicants from offshore will wait until at least the end of 2012 before their applications are processed. Now if that's not being on hold, I don't know what is.
Chris Evans: Well they've always had to wait. We determine the size of the migration program. Quite frankly, if we decide it's going to be 10,000 people next year, they might be waiting for 20 or 30 years. The point is, we're trying to give them an indication, on the current policy settings, and current levels of migration, about when they're likely to have their application considered. But applying to migrate to Australia doesn't give you a right to migrate to Australia.
Peter Mares: Understood. But when people applied they had a fair understanding of the length of time it would take; they were told nine, perhaps twelve months was the amount of time. These are people who have amassed the 120 points on the Skilled Migration test for migration to Australia on the points level; they are qualified to migrate to Australia, they were given every indication that Australia wanted migrants, that it was welcoming migrants, they paid fees of $2,000 to $2,500 to apply to come to Australia. They've been asked to do health checks and police checks, so they've paid thousands of dollars in migration agent fees, thousands of dollars perhaps, or hundreds of dollars in getting medical certificates and getting their qualifications assessed, and you're saying to them they might wait 20 or 30 years now.
Chris Evans: What I'm saying to you Peter is that while I know you're sympathetic to their cause, it's not an accurate description of what occurs. The situation is, and has been for many years, we have more people apply for migration to Australia than places available, and the Australian government reserves the right to set the annual migration intake. Now what we've seen in the last year or two in particular, is a large increase in people seeking to migrate to Australia, out of countries that are often having economic downturns, and when we had our own downturning economy, we reduced the size of the migration program. So that's going to have an impact on waiting times. All we do is try and predict for people when they're likely to be processed. Now I accept that people pay fees etc. and I've actually asked my Department to have a look at whether we can't do something in terms of people who've paid fees and application fees and then seek to discontinue their application because I do think the current system doesn't do well in that area. But we're not going to take in more migrants to this country if we don't think they're going to have good economic outcomes, or they don't meet the national interest of Australia, and while there may be people in the queue and they may be impacted, I'm not going to make a decision that says We're driven by the number of people in the queue as to how many people we allow to migrate to Australia.
Peter Mares: Let me come back to my first question then, and re-phrase it: how many people are now in that queue?
Chris Evans: We think at the moment I think there's about 30,000 onshore and about 105,000 offshore, but of course we get applications every day so the -
Peter Mares: So the queue's getting longer.
Chris Evans: Yes, it may well be. Obviously the last figures I had was about 30,000 onshore and 105,000 offshore. But people make a decision about whether they choose to apply, and obviously they take their chances in a sense, that we might run a bigger migration program next year if the economy was on the up, and that might see people get through more quickly. Equally, if the recession was to bite more deeply, we might run a smaller program, and that would lengthen people's wait.
Peter Mares: People of course do take their chances, but they were given indications about how long it might take, and many people have already been in the system 18 months, and some were at the top of the queue, they had case officers assigned, they were asked for the final health checks, these are people offshore. In other words, they were a couple of weeks away from a visa on all normal indications. Now they're told they're back at the bottom of the queue. I mean you can understand - I mean do you make an apology to those people for what's happened?
Chris Evans: No, I don't apologise. I mean I accept that there are some cases where people feel aggrieved, and they've not fared well out of the changes, but you've got to have a cut-off date. If you make a change, you've got to make a change on a certain date, and what we did is, we said 'We want to better prioritise which skills come into the country. We can't to actually do it in the national interest. What we had is, under the previous system, we had hairdressers being processed in front of doctors and engineers, because of the date of their application, when we were crying out for medical professionals. And when I came to government, I just thought this is crazy, we're not prioritising the people we need, we've got a queue based on, if you like date of application rather than based on the needs of Australia. And we are trying to reconfigure the system to get a more rational system in place. The Critical Skills List is part of that, but there's a range of other changes being planned which will change some of the fundamentals of the system.
Peter Mares: I'm sure most people would agree that the situation wasn't in the national interest to have hairdressers processed ahead of doctors, but the reality is that the government continues to use permanent migration as a carrot to attract international students to our education system. That connection is still there, but that's part of the issue. And secondly, why didn't the government simply say 'We don't want any more hairdressers, we have enough, we're not accepting any more applications.' You are still taking applications for hairdressers and cooks and so on.
Chris Evans: That's right, Peter, but we've also made it clear that we're reviewing the MODL -
Peter Mares: This is the Migration Occupation on Demand List, which lists things like cooks and hairdressers on which you get points to pass the migration test to come to Australia.
Chris Evans: That's right. So what we've announced is that we're reviewing that methodology. There's some discussion governments out, people are responding to those, and government will make a decision in the next couple of months about how we might restructure that, and that will obviously have an impact, because again, I don't think the system has been serving us well. If you look at the numbers of people who've come in to the country under the Skilled Migration program in recent years, we had an over-representation of accountants, hairdressers and cooks. And I think that's just an irrational outcome driven by the education links, and I've made it very clear I think the link between education and migration has been far too strong, and that there ought to be more consideration of broader national interest.
Peter Mares: So do you agree with Kelvin Thompson, your backbench colleague who said on this program he thinks that link should be removed, in fact we shouldn't offer migration as a carrot to attract international students to Australia?
Chris Evans: Look I think we've got to get the balance better adjusted. What we've got to balance is that we want international students to come and study here, and we want to have some of them stay and become permanent residents, because we need their skills. What we don't want is a situation where people taking courses in Australia drives our migration program. And at the moment, Kelvin's right to point out that the balance is wrong, and I've been talking about this for some time, and we're looking to make adjustments. But I don't think his solution is the answer; I think getting the balance better is the solution.
Peter Mares: Coming back to an issue raised before, the fact that these people, the people in the queue, feel very aggrieved about the amount of money they've spent on these applications. You suggested you will offer a refund, you'll consider offering a refund to any migrant in this queue who says 'Well I'm pulling out because I can't wait five years, or however long it might be.'
Chris Evans: No, Peter I don't want to overstate it. What I was I've asked the Department to have a look at how the current system works, because I think it is the case that we keep accepting applications from people who may never qualify and I think we've got to be able to do better than that. And I've asked them to look at alternative systems, and that would help us deal with the fact that people are paying money when they may not be much chance of making it, if you like, and I've also sought to see if we can't have better systems so that people aren't paying that money upfront. But we're certainly not in the position at the moment to offer refunds, in fact the legislation prevents it.
Peter Mares: Right. Because there's another problem here, and that is that you could have people applying simply because they know the queue is so long, you could have foreign students graduating from Australia's universities who have no real strong skills that Australia needs, probably not much chance of migrating successfully, but who will apply in order to get a bridging visa that may keep them in Australia for three years or more with work rights.
Chris Evans: Well that may well be the case, and that's one of the problems that I'm highlighting. And at the moment I think you're trying to have it both ways, but -
Peter Mares: Well I'm pointing out that there are various indications of this. I mean you said -
Chris Evans: Yes, well that's why, Peter, we've got the review of the MODL because that will impact on the points people earn and will if you like, help make that adjustment that people who are able to get those extensions are people who have a reasonable chance of a permanent migration outcome.
Peter Mares: But while you're doing that, why not put up the 'Closed' sign, and say, you know, 'Back in a year. We won't accept any more applications until we work out who we actually want because we already have more than enough for the next several years'?
Chris Evans: Well you were just sort of criticising me for having changed the rules and cut people off -
Peter Mares: No, I'm not criticising you for using administrative process, that is delays in processing, rather than making a substantial decision in making -
Chris Evans: Well it's not delays in processing Peter, that's -
Peter Mares: It is.
Chris Evans: No, it's not a delay in processing, it's of prioritising: us determining who comes -
Peter Mares: So you're speeding it up by -
Chris Evans: No we're making a rational choice on behalf of Australia. We're saying we want a demand-driven system, not a supply-driven, not to accept people in the order in which they applied, whether they've got the skills we need or whether they've got good prospects of employment. But for us to try and target our schemes so that we bring in the people with the skills that we need, and your arguments is effectively to say I ought to prioritise hairdressers over doctors.
Peter Mares: No, no quite the opposite, Minister, my argument is this: you should say we are prioritising doctors and engineers and the people we need, and we're saying to others 'Don't bother applying; there is no place for you.'
Chris Evans: But that judgment is one based on the size of the migration program and their points results. And what I'm saying to you is in terms of the points results for each applicant, we're viewing the MODL, which will impact on some of those people, but we can't stop people applying, and I don't think saying 'The doors are closed' is the right answer. As I say, a lot of this depends on the size of the migration program, and at the moment we're still running a very large migration program, but not as large as we intended to last year. It's affected by the economy, and our applications are affected by the economies of other countries. People are more likely to apply if their own countries' economy's gone downhill, for instance, we've seen a lot of Irish applications in recent years as the Irish economy went bad. So I don't think we need to tell people not to apply, but we do need to try and give them an indication, which we have been, is that with certain skill sets they're unlikely to be processed in the short term.
Peter Mares: Minister, thank you very much for your time.
Chris Evans: My pleasure, Peter.
Peter Mares: Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans. To give us your thoughts on this issue, click the Have your Say button on our website or call the feedback line by dialling 1300 936 222.

三、唐林律师行的中文翻译。请以英文原文为准。唐林律师行对不同翻译引起的歧义不负责任。

移民部长回应积压顾虑

Peter Mares: 当公众的注意力被最近发生的坐船来到澳大利亚，寻求避难的人们所吸引时，澳大利亚技术移民政策的剧变几乎并不被人们所关注。

这些变化影响了几百万人，他们中的一些人绝望、愤怒。他们花费了成千上万元澳币的成本、费用申请移民澳洲，现在竟被告知他们的申请将会在几年后才能被看到、审理。

在澳境内，受影响的申请人必须等着，至少要等到2011年年底，他们的案子才有可能被审理。境外的移民申请者至少要等到2012年年底。

正如我们于两周前在《国家利益》的报道中所述，他们的案子在被无限期的搁置，因为移民部出台了新的优先审理政策，今天，移民部长Chris Evans先生，应邀参加我们的节目现场。感谢您能从百忙之中抽空来参与我们的节目。

Chris Evans:荣幸之至。

Peter Mares: 目前有多少人的移民案子被搁置呢？

Chris Evans: Peter, 我不同意您介绍中的大部分的定性说明。那些案件并不是被搁置，申请人所做的事是他们永久移居到澳大利亚，他们需要被评估，我们需要基于澳大利亚的需要和优先性作出决定，谁能获得永居的资格。我们启动、运作一个计划是为维护国家的利益，因此，从事一些职业的人也许会面临更长时间的等待，当然，其他的一些人如果他们所从事的职业是我们经济发展必要的、急需的，那么他们的案件会得到更快的处理。所以，我实际上并不同意您的介绍中的一些措辞。

Peter Mares: 那么，在今年的9月23日，移民部所出台了一些在优先审理方面的政策变化，这些政策变化告诉人们，如果他们是在岸申请人，职业也不在所谓的紧缺职业列表上，且没有雇主做担保，他们将别无选择的等待，至少要等到2011年年底，他们的案件才可能被审理到。离岸申请人则至少需要等到2012年年底，他们的案件才可能被审理到。如果这不叫做搁置，我不知道这是什么。

Chris Evans: 他们一向是需要等待的。我们决定移民计划的规模。非常坦白的讲，如果我们决定明年将审理10,000人，那么他们很可能会等上20年或30年。重点是，我们正在努力给他们提供一些迹象，让他们了解在现行的政策下，目前的移民规模下，他们的案子在什么时候有可能会审理到。但是，向澳大利亚递交移民申请并不是赋予他们移民澳大利亚的权利。

Peter Mares: 理解。可当人们递交申请时，他们对审理时间已有了一定的了解。那时，他们被告知时间为9个月，也有可能12个月。他们已经通过了技术移民120分的分数测试水平；他们有资格移民澳大利亚。种种迹象告诉他们，澳大利亚需要移民者，他们是受欢迎的移民者，他们支付了澳币2,000元到2,500元去申请移民到澳大利亚。他们也被告知做了体检、无犯罪记录证明，他们因此花费了几千元的澳币支付给移民代理机构，为获得医院体检证明，为让他们的资格通过评估，花费了可能上百、上千元，现在你们告诉他们要等上20年或者30年。

Chris Evans: Peter, 我想告诉你的是，我知道您同情他们的遭遇，但你对现实情况的描述是不恰当的。实际的情况是，这么多年来，申请移民到澳大利亚的人已经超过了我们的限额，而且澳大利亚政府有权决定每年移民的纳入人数。尤其，在过去的一两年内，我们所看到的是，因自己所在的国家面临一些经济萧条而寻求移民澳大利亚的人数大大增加了。当我们也面临我们国家经济萧条时，我们减少了移民项目的规模。因此，这将在等待时间上产生一些影响。我们能为他们所做的是试图预测他们的移民案子什么时候有可能被审理到。我承认一些人们支付了一些费用等等，实际上，我也问过我们移民部看看对于那些支付过一些费用和申请费然后又终止自己申请的人们我们是否可以做些什么？因为我的确认为目前的体系在这方面运作的并不好。但如果我们认为这些移民者不能带来好的经济效益，或者他们不能满足澳大利亚国家利益的需求，我们将不准备吸纳更多的人来到这个国家。即使现在有些人也许在排队，也许会受到影响，我也不打算做出这样的决定说我们要受正在排队的人数的影响来决定我们允许多少人移民澳大利亚。

Peter Mares: 那么让我们回到第一个问题，我重新措辞：有多少人正在排队呢？

Chris Evans: 我们认为，现在，大约在岸申请人为30,000人和离岸申请人有105,000人。但是，当然，我们每天都在收到移民申请，所以，这个……..

Peter Mares: 所以，这个队伍正在越排越长。

Chris Evans: 是的，也许正是这样。显然，我所知道的最近的数字就是大约在岸申请人为30,000人和离岸申请人有105,000人。是否选择申请是由人们自己决定的，显然他们在某种程度上正试图碰一下运气。如果明年经济好转，我们也有可能明年扩大移民计划的规模，人们也可能会更快的获得批准。同样的，如果经济更加恶化、萧条，我们或许将规模缩的更小，那将延长人们的等待。

Peter Mares:人们确实是在碰运气，但是他们也确实被告知他们需要等待多久，许多人已经在这个系统中等了18个月，而且一些之前已经在队伍的前面了，他们的案子也已经分到签证官了，他们应要求也做了最后的健康检查：这些人是一些离岸的申请人。换句话说，所有正常迹象显示他们离拿到永居签证只有几周的时间了，但现在他们被告知他们又排在了队伍的最后。我的意思是说您能理解——我是说您会向那些人对所发生的事情道歉吗？

Chris Evans:不，我不会道歉。我是说我承认有些案件的申请人会感到很委屈，在机会上他们的确遭到了不平等的待遇。但是，你必须有个时间点。如果你要做改变，你就必须确定在某一日做出改变。而我们所做的，就像我们所说的那样“我们想把技术移民的优先顺序排得更好”。我们实际上是从国家利益来考虑。在以前的体系中，我们曾遇到过这种情况：当我们急需医疗人员时，根据递交申请的时间的先后，发型师排在医生、工程师的前面而被审理了。但是在我就任时，我就觉得这简直太疯狂了，我们优先审理的人并不是我们所急需的人才，排队是基于递交申请的时间而不是基于澳大利亚的需要。我们正在试图改变这种体制，并以更为理性的体制取而代之。紧缺职业表就是基于这种考虑，但是仍然有许多其他的改变正在计划中，这些都将改变这个体制中的一些基础原则。

Peter Mares:我确定，大部分的人们都同意，优先审理发型师而不是医生的这种情况并不是基于国家利益考虑，但现实是，政府继续利用永久移居澳洲作为诱饵来吸引更多的国际留学生加入我们的教育体系。这种关联仍然存在，但这也是这个问题的一部分。第二，为什么政府不直接说，“我们不需要更多的发型师，我们现有的已经足够，我们不再接受任何更多的申请。”而您们仍然在接受发型师、厨师等等申请人的申请。

Chris Evans: 是的，Peter, 但是我们也已明确表示过，我们将重新审视MODL。

Peter Mares:这是移民职业需求表，它罗列了一些像厨师、发型师的职业，通过这些职业，可以获得分数以通过移民分数评估来到澳大利亚。

Chris Evans:是的。因此，我们已经声明我们正在重新审视那套方法。政府部门已经进行了一些讨论，人们也已经对此作出一些回应。同时，政府将在几个月内作出决定，我们怎样重新安排，那显然也将会带来一定的影响。因为，我不认为现在的这个体系在很好的为我们服务。如果你看一下近几年内通过技术移民来到这个国家的移民者的人数，你会发现会计、发型师和厨师的人数很多。我认为那仅是教育联系的驱动下获得的一个非理性的结果。我已经非常明确表示过，我认为这种教育与移民之间的联系太强了，我们应该更多的考虑到更为广泛的国家利益。

Peter Mares: 您的同僚Kelvin Thompson曾表示，他认为这种联系应该消除掉，事实上，我们不应该将之作为诱饵来吸引国际留学生到澳大利亚学习，您同意他的观点吗？

Chris Evans: 我认为我们应该更好地平衡二者的关系。我们想要调整的是我们希望国际留学生来这学习，我们希望他们中的一些人留下来成为永久居民，因为我们需要他们的技术。我们并不希望这样一种情形出现：就是用在澳留学驾驭移民项目的发展。Kelvin指出目前的这种平衡是错误的，他是正确的，我也曾经谈论过这方面，我们也一直希望做一些调整。但是，我认为他的方法并不是这个问题的答案，我的观点是改善、调整其中的关系才是解决之道。

Peter Mares:那让我们回到之前提到的一个问题，现在的情况是，这些人们，这些正在排队的人们对他们在申请上的花费非常气愤。您曾建议您们将退费，对正在排队的申请人因为等不起5年或者更长的时间而想要退出的，您们会考虑将为他们退费。

Chris Evans:不，Peter, 我不想夸大此事。我曾呼吁移民部审视目前的体制运转情况，因为我认为我们是一直在不停地接受递交的申请，可能一些人的资格并不具备，我们应该能够做的比现在更好。我建议他们审视一些替代性的体制，这些替代性的体制可能有助于我们解决目前这些人交了钱但没有多大机会申请成功的现状。我也曾寻求一种方式，看看如果我们不能建立更好的体制的话，人们就可以先不用预付费用。但是目前的状况是我们不能退费，事实上法律也是不允许的。

Peter Mares:的确如此。因为这还存在另外一个问题，那就是，尽管这些毕业于澳大利亚大学的外国留学生并没有澳大利亚需要的很强的技术能力，甚至知道自己根本不可能移民成功，但他们也会递交申请，因为他们知道排队的人很多，他们可以通过过桥签证，使他们获得在澳大利亚三年或者更长的工作时间。
Chris Evans:也许存在这种情况，这也是我所强调的问题之一。目前，我认为你们希望两全其美，但是-----

Peter Mares: 我要指出的是这个现象是有不同的表现方式的，我是说您提到-----

Chris Evans: 是的，Peter，这就是我们为什么要重新审视MODL的原因，它会影响到人们能得到的分数，它还可能有助于我们做出这样的调整：让那些有机会获批的人才可以通过申请获得延长在澳居住、工作的时间。

Peter Mares: 但是当您们在这样做的时候，为什么不挂出“关门”的标志。举个例子说“一年后再来。在此期间我们不再接受任何的申请，直至我们找出什么样的人才是我们真正想要的，因为我们收到的申请足够以后几年的审理了”？

Chris Evans:您有点指责我改变政策、阻碍了一些人——

Peter Mares:不是的，我不是在指责您是运用行政手段使程序上搁置，而不是作出实质性的决定在——

Chris Evans: Peter, 这不是程序上的搁置，而是——

Peter Mares: 这就是程序上的搁置。

Chris Evans:不是，这不是程序上的搁置，是一种优先处理，我们来决定谁先——

Peter Mares: 所以，您加速审理是通过——

Chris Evans: 不，我们正在代表澳大利亚作出一个理性的选择。我们一直倡导需求驱动体制，而不是供应驱动体制，不是按照递交申请的顺序接受申请者，而不管他们所具备的技术是不是我们所需要的或者他们是否有个好的雇佣前景。但是我们是要试图锁定我们的目标，引进一些具备我们所需要的技术的人才，而您的观点正有效的说明我们应该优先审理发型师而不是医生。

Peter Mares:不，不，恰恰相反。部长大人，我的观点是这样的：您应该说我们正在优先审理医生、工程师和其他我们需要的人才，而告诉其他人们“不要来申请打扰我们了，我们已经没有位儿给你们来了。”

Chris Evans:但是裁决的做出是基于移民计划的规模和他们的分数结果。我想说的是，就每位申请人的分数结果而言，我们正在审视MODL，这将会影响到一些人，但是我们不能阻止人们申请，我也不赞同说“关门”的说法。正如我所说的，很多因素取决于移民计划的规模，目前，我们仍然拥有一个非常大的移民计划，但不是大到像去年一样的规模。这是受到了经济因素的影响，我们的申请也受到了其他国家经济的影响。如果人们所在国家的经济萧条了，那么这些人们就更希望申请。譬如说，当爱尔兰经济衰退时，我们收到了许多爱尔兰人的移民申请。因此，我不认为我们需要告诉人们不要申请了，但是我们需要试图给他们一些提示，正如我们所做的那样，告诉他们具备某些技术的申请人的案子可能不会在短时间内审理到。

Peter Mares:部长大人，非常感谢您的时间。

Chris Evans: Peter, 我非常荣幸。

Peter Mares:本期节目的嘉宾是移民部长Chris Evans先生。如果您关于本期话题有任何想法，请登录我们的网站，点击“我要留言”，或者拨打热线电话1300 936 222.

[ 本帖最后由唐林律师于 1-1-2010 16:14 编辑 ]

作者: yayi911 时间: 28-12-2009 12:43
希望多看到这样的文章。

作者: sparkzhu 时间: 28-12-2009 12:44
...............
他也是身不由己

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 12:59
身不由己的移民部长？也不是一点道理没有。

2楼的鼓励谢谢了。

其实，非CSL申请人（一）里面几乎所有的文章都是。

作者: Norman.Kong 时间: 28-12-2009 13:45
唐律师也过来这里了。

这个趋势就和加拿大的一样只要紧缺的。加拿大的也推掉之前申请的。
澳洲现在想科技兴国，所以只要CSL. 而且以后的CSL也会越来越难。
工程师之类的继续吃香。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 13:54
是啊我没来这里被人说成 out 了。

有加拿大的具体情况吗？这个参照倒是有点意思。谢谢Norman.Kong。

作者: Norman.Kong 时间: 28-12-2009 14:12
你的PDF也在几个星期前被发表过了。版本清晰一点。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 16:06
是我在其他地方先发过

作者: 森林之王 时间: 28-12-2009 16:09
标题: 回复 #6 唐林律师的帖子
您来的，是您是助手啊？还是员工啊？

作者: senrus 时间: 28-12-2009 16:22
难道是枪手嘛- -~

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 17:06
这世界有几个唐林我不知道

但在悉尼叫唐林又是律师可能就我。

不是员工，不是枪手。是我自己。

这事情很大。我呢，被人给逼到这里来的。

我也想了解第一手的情况。

不知道大家欢迎不欢迎我来。

欢迎大家多提意见。

作者: wanggaga 时间: 28-12-2009 17:09
绝对欢迎唐林律师！！！！

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 17:25
谢谢12楼。

上BBS我是新手。很新。估计那手和刚出身的Baby差不多。所以呢，还请多多关照。

关于普通技术移民今年九月低以来所发生的几乎所有事，我都列在：

非CSL申请人（一）：漫长的等待！！！多余的恐慌？！？

里面了。

结果您在这里奖励我。

这个贴是那个贴的二十分之一的内容不到。那个贴可能看起来有点累。

作者: jessi 时间: 28-12-2009 17:53
标题: 回复 #13 唐林律师的帖子
好吧看你这么新以后我们就罩住你吧！

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 17:59
假如这罩是一种关照，我就赶紧拜法师了。

别是这罩是压制或压抑。

说错呢，倒是很欢迎批评。没说全了，也特别接受补充。说对了呢，大家别吭声。Deal？

[ 本帖最后由唐林律师于 28-12-2009 19:01 编辑 ]

作者: wanggaga 时间: 28-12-2009 18:15
标题: 回复 #13 唐林律师的帖子
哈哈，唐律师还真的是很有意思，我本来准备给你的所有帖子都加分分的。哈哈，但是，每天只能加50分。哈哈，今天的不够了。

新人没关系，建议您开个咨询贴，大家有什么疑问都可以来咨询您啊！！！

作者: immigrants 时间: 28-12-2009 18:21
唐林律師你好, 你可不可以透露一下, DIAC 明年在英語要求 (不論 175/176, 475 或個別職業要求), 及合格分數線上, 有甚麼更改的計劃? 謝謝!

作者: jessi 时间: 28-12-2009 18:29

原帖由 唐林律师 于 28-12-2009 18:59 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

假如这罩是一种关照，我就赶紧拜法师了。

别是这罩是压制或压抑。

说错呢，倒是很欢迎批评。没说全了，也特别接受补充。说对了呢，大家别吭声。Deal？

done! 欢迎爆多多料！

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 18:29
首先回复wanggaga。

原来每天能奖50出去。你也太慷慨了。其他人相形就看出来了。

咨询帖开了，也就您建议之前半小时。

叫唐林律师行在此回答大家共同关心的问题。

看的人多。问的人没有。

我这就再去看看来问题没有。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 18:39
再来回答17楼。

这明年，看这回移民部长的劲头，非有变动不可。

具体呢，您得静下心来，花至少一天时间，看非CSL申请人（一）。看懂多少明白多少。全看懂了，就全明白。没看懂多少，就不明白多少。你是希望我把那则贴在这里抄一遍？我怕别人不爽。

要不您费点劲，自己过去瞅瞅？

作者: alphabeta 时间: 28-12-2009 18:46

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 28-12-2009 20:46
标题: 移民部长接受ABC电台采访全文
Peter Mares: While public attention has been focused on asylum seekers arriving in boats in recent weeks, fundamental changes to Australia's skilled migration program have gone almost unnoticed.

The changes affect tens of thousands of people, many of whom are distressed and angry. Having shelled out thousands of dollars in costs and fees to apply to migrate to Australia, they've now been told that it will be years before applications are even looked at.

Affected applicants within Australia must wait until at least the end of 2011 before their cases are processed; migrants applying from overseas must wait until at leas the end of 2012.

As we reported two weeks ago on The National Interest, their cases are on indefinite hold because of new priority processing arrangements put in place by the Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans, who joins me now from Perth. Senator Evans, thanks for your time.

Chris Evans: My pleasure.

Peter Mares: How many people now have their cases on hold?

Chris Evans: Look I don't agree with most of the characterisation of the introduction Peter. They're not on hold, what people do is they apply for permanent migration to Australia, and they're assessed, and we determine based on the needs of Australia, and our priorities, who gains permanent migration. We operate a scheme in support of the national interest, so people may well be facing longer waits in some occupation, and of course others are getting quicker treatment if they're in the occupations which are necessary for the growth of our economy. So I don't actually agree with the characterisation you put in your introduction.

Peter Mares: Well your Department's put out some information when you made changes to priority processing on 23rd September this year, and in those changes it says to people they will have to wait if they're onshore applicants, and they're not on what's called the Critical Skills List, and they're not sponsored by an employer, they will wait until the end of 2011 before their application is processed at least. And applicants from offshore will wait until at least the end of 2012 before their applications are processed. Now if that's not being on hold, I don't know what is.

Chris Evans: Well they've always had to wait. We determine the size of the migration program. Quite frankly, if we decide it's going to be 10,000 people next year, they might be waiting for 20 or 30 years. The point is, we're trying to give them an indication, on the current policy settings, and current levels of migration, about when they're likely to have their application considered. But applying to migrate to Australia doesn't give you a right to migrate to Australia.

Peter Mares: Understood. But when people applied they had a fair understanding of the length of time it would take; they were told nine, perhaps twelve months was the amount of time. These are people who have amassed the 120 points on the Skilled Migration test for migration to Australia on the points level; they are qualified to migrate to Australia, they were given every indication that Australia wanted migrants, that it was welcoming migrants, they paid fees of $2,000 to $2,500 to apply to come to Australia. They've been asked to do health checks and police checks, so they've paid thousands of dollars in migration agent fees, thousands of dollars perhaps, or hundreds of dollars in getting medical certificates and getting their qualifications assessed, and you're saying to them they might wait 20 or 30 years now.

Chris Evans: What I'm saying to you Peter is that while I know you're sympathetic to their cause, it's not an accurate description of what occurs. The situation is, and has been for many years, we have more people apply for migration to Australia than places available, and the Australian government reserves the right to set the annual migration intake. Now what we've seen in the last year or two in particular, is a large increase in people seeking to migrate to Australia, out of countries that are often having economic downturns, and when we had our own downturning economy, we reduced the size of the migration program. So that's going to have an impact on waiting times. All we do is try and predict for people when they're likely to be processed. Now I accept that people pay fees etc. and I've actually asked my Department to have a look at whether we can't do something in terms of people who've paid fees and application fees and then seek to discontinue their application because I do think the current system doesn't do well in that area. But we're not going to take in more migrants to this country if we don't think they're going to have good economic outcomes, or they don't meet the national interest of Australia, and while there may be people in the queue and they may be impacted, I'm not going to make a decision that says We're driven by the number of people in the queue as to how many people we allow to migrate to Australia.

Peter Mares: Let me come back to my first question then, and re-phrase it: how many people are now in that queue?

Chris Evans: We think at the moment I think there's about 30,000 onshore and about 105,000 offshore, but of course we get applications every day so the -

Peter Mares: So the queue's getting longer.

Chris Evans: Yes, it may well be. Obviously the last figures I had was about 30,000 onshore and 105,000 offshore. But people make a decision about whether they choose to apply, and obviously they take their chances in a sense, that we might run a bigger migration program next year if the economy was on the up, and that might see people get through more quickly. Equally, if the recession was to bite more deeply, we might run a smaller program, and that would lengthen people's wait.

Peter Mares: People of course do take their chances, but they were given indications about how long it might take, and many people have already been in the system 18 months, and some were at the top of the queue, they had case officers assigned, they were asked for the final health checks, these are people offshore. In other words, they were a couple of weeks away from a visa on all normal indications. Now they're told they're back at the bottom of the queue. I mean you can understand - I mean do you make an apology to those people for what's happened?

Chris Evans: No, I don't apologise. I mean I accept that there are some cases where people feel aggrieved, and they've not fared well out of the changes, but you've got to have a cut-off date. If you make a change, you've got to make a change on a certain date, and what we did is, we said 'We want to better prioritise which skills come into the country. We can't to actually do it in the national interest. What we had is, under the previous system, we had hairdressers being processed in front of doctors and engineers, because of the date of their application, when we were crying out for medical professionals. And when I came to government, I just thought this is crazy, we're not prioritising the people we need, we've got a queue based on, if you like date of application rather than based on the needs of Australia. And we are trying to reconfigure the system to get a more rational system in place. The Critical Skills List is part of that, but there's a range of other changes being planned which will change some of the fundamentals of the system.

Peter Mares: I'm sure most people would agree that the situation wasn't in the national interest to have hairdressers processed ahead of doctors, but the reality is that the government continues to use permanent migration as a carrot to attract international students to our education system. That connection is still there, but that's part of the issue. And secondly, why didn't the government simply say 'We don't want any more hairdressers, we have enough, we're not accepting any more applications.' You are still taking applications for hairdressers and cooks and so on.

Chris Evans: That's right, Peter, but we've also made it clear that we're reviewing the MODL -

Peter Mares: This is the Migration Occupation on Demand List, which lists things like cooks and hairdressers on which you get points to pass the migration test to come to Australia.

Chris Evans: That's right. So what we've announced is that we're reviewing that methodology. There's some discussion governments out, people are responding to those, and government will make a decision in the next couple of months about how we might restructure that, and that will obviously have an impact, because again, I don't think the system has been serving us well. If you look at the numbers of people who've come in to the country under the Skilled Migration program in recent years, we had an over-representation of accountants, hairdressers and cooks. And I think that's just an irrational outcome driven by the education links, and I've made it very clear I think the link between education and migration has been far too strong, and that there ought to be more consideration of broader national interest.

Peter Mares: So do you agree with Kelvin Thompson, your backbench colleague who said on this program he thinks that link should be removed, in fact we shouldn't offer migration as a carrot to attract international students to Australia?

Chris Evans: Look I think we've got to get the balance better adjusted. What we've got to balance is that we want international students to come and study here, and we want to have some of them stay and become permanent residents, because we need their skills. What we don't want is a situation where people taking courses in Australia drives our migration program. And at the moment, Kelvin's right to point out that the balance is wrong, and I've been talking about this for some time, and we're looking to make adjustments. But I don't think his solution is the answer; I think getting the balance better is the solution.

Peter Mares: Coming back to an issue raised before, the fact that these people, the people in the queue, feel very aggrieved about the amount of money they've spent on these applications. You suggested you will offer a refund, you'll consider offering a refund to any migrant in this queue who says 'Well I'm pulling out because I can't wait five years, or however long it might be.'

Chris Evans: No, Peter I don't want to overstate it. What I was I've asked the Department to have a look at how the current system works, because I think it is the case that we keep accepting applications from people who may never qualify and I think we've got to be able to do better than that. And I've asked them to look at alternative systems, and that would help us deal with the fact that people are paying money when they may not be much chance of making it, if you like, and I've also sought to see if we can't have better systems so that people aren't paying that money upfront. But we're certainly not in the position at the moment to offer refunds, in fact the legislation prevents it.

Peter Mares: Right. Because there's another problem here, and that is that you could have people applying simply because they know the queue is so long, you could have foreign students graduating from Australia's universities who have no real strong skills that Australia needs, probably not much chance of migrating successfully, but who will apply in order to get a bridging visa that may keep them in Australia for three years or more with work rights.

Chris Evans: Well that may well be the case, and that's one of the problems that I'm highlighting. And at the moment I think you're trying to have it both ways, but -

Peter Mares: Well I'm pointing out that there are various indications of this. I mean you said -

Chris Evans: Yes, well that's why, Peter, we've got the review of the MODL because that will impact on the points people earn and will if you like, help make that adjustment that people who are able to get those extensions are people who have a reasonable chance of a permanent migration outcome.

Peter Mares: But while you're doing that, why not put up the 'Closed' sign, and say, you know, 'Back in a year. We won't accept any more applications until we work out who we actually want because we already have more than enough for the next several years'?

Chris Evans: Well you were just sort of criticising me for having changed the rules and cut people off -

Peter Mares: No, I'm not criticising you for using administrative process, that is delays in processing, rather than making a substantial decision in making -

Chris Evans: Well it's not delays in processing Peter, that's -

Peter Mares: It is.

Chris Evans: No, it's not a delay in processing, it's of prioritising: us determining who comes -

Peter Mares: So you're speeding it up by -

Chris Evans: No we're making a rational choice on behalf of Australia. We're saying we want a demand-driven system, not a supply-driven, not to accept people in the order in which they applied, whether they've got the skills we need or whether they've got good prospects of employment. But for us to try and target our schemes so that we bring in the people with the skills that we need, and your arguments is effectively to say I ought to prioritise hairdressers over doctors.

Peter Mares: No, no quite the opposite, Minister, my argument is this: you should say we are prioritising doctors and engineers and the people we need, and we're saying to others 'Don't bother applying; there is no place for you.'

Chris Evans: But that judgment is one based on the size of the migration program and their points results. And what I'm saying to you is in terms of the points results for each applicant, we're viewing the MODL, which will impact on some of those people, but we can't stop people applying, and I don't think saying 'The doors are closed' is the right answer. As I say, a lot of this depends on the size of the migration program, and at the moment we're still running a very large migration program, but not as large as we intended to last year. It's affected by the economy, and our applications are affected by the economies of other countries. People are more likely to apply if their own countries' economy's gone downhill, for instance, we've seen a lot of Irish applications in recent years as the Irish economy went bad. So I don't think we need to tell people not to apply, but we do need to try and give them an indication, which we have been, is that with certain skill sets they're unlikely to be processed in the short term.

Peter Mares: Minister, thank you very much for your time.

Chris Evans: My pleasure, Peter.

Peter Mares: Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans. To give us your thoughts on this issue, click the Have your Say button on our website or call the feedback line by dialling 1300 936 222.

如果谁都不把这访谈文翻成英文，那只有唐林律师行来了。不过要给我们时间。我们觉得这个访谈很重要。离恐慌文出台时间五个礼拜之前。

作者: epoxboy 时间: 28-12-2009 20:56
强烈欢迎唐律师！

作者: 伟哥男 时间: 28-12-2009 21:54
欢迎唐林律师。

作者: 鹰扬天下 时间: 28-12-2009 22:18
伟哥男：你在起哄吧，你又没打算考4个7，除了等你还能把移民部长给撤了

作者: zzwzzw 时间: 28-12-2009 22:40
请问唐林律师。。。我觉得移民局这种认人唯csl的政策是不是已经将州政府的担保权利架空了，事实上符合csl的已经审理的很快没有必要去搭州担保这趟车，同时真正能拿到雇主担保的人数并不很多，那么移民局之前定下的本财年担保类移民配额占总额2/3的计划未必容易实现啊。。。从而，我们州担保的非csl看到了一点点的曙光。。。。。。。。。。。。。。您觉得我的推测是否有可能呢？

作者: wolf 时间: 29-12-2009 01:46

原帖由 唐林律师 于 28-12-2009 21:46 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

Peter Mares: While public attention has been focused on asylum seekers arriving in boats in recent weeks, fundamental changes to Australia's skilled migration program have gone almost unnoticed.

Th ...

首先谢谢唐林律师提供的宝贵信息！

再来看移民部长的狂言：
Quite frankly, if we decide it's going to be 10,000 people next year, they might be waiting for 20 or 30 years.

让申请人等20年到30年，他可真会TMD扯蛋。

作者: 薄荷蓝 时间: 29-12-2009 11:29
唐林律师，如果真的澳洲采取这样的政策，清除前面的人，那亲属担保的非CSL基本也算是等待无望了吧？记得以前亲属担保类的都是单独的审理配额。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 29-12-2009 11:44

原帖由 zzwzzw 于 28-12-2009 23:40 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

请问唐林律师。。。我觉得移民局这种认人唯csl的政策是不是已经将州政府的担保权利架空了，事实上符合csl的已经审理的很快没有必要去搭州担保这趟车，同时真正能拿到雇主担保的人数并不很多，那么移民局之前定下的本 ...

把有州担保又在CSL上的和又州担保但不在CSL作出区分，并把前者放在后者之上，不会事出无因。

是不是架空，看怎么定义了。

但主流媒体主要区分CSL和非CSL申请。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 29-12-2009 11:47

原帖由 wolf 于 29-12-2009 02:46 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

首先谢谢唐林律师提供的宝贵信息！

再来看移民部长的狂言：
Quite frankly, if we decide it's going to be 10,000 people next year, they might be waiting for 20 or 30 years.

让申请人等20年到30年 ...

狂言这词用得多好！

可惜我还是觉得人不少，睡着的人不少，或者已经醒来但依旧在做梦。总之，符合中国人的老话，事不关己高高挂起。

但是，真的事不关己吗？

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 29-12-2009 11:49

原帖由 薄荷蓝 于 29-12-2009 12:29 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

唐林律师，如果真的澳洲采取这样的政策，清除前面的人，那亲属担保的非CSL基本也算是等待无望了吧？记得以前亲属担保类的都是单独的审理配额。

要把关注点放到非CSL上，目前这些人中，作为规则，并没有差等。有没有例外我就不够知晓了。

问的问题，是我是不是在CSL上。在，算您运气。

不在，就值得抖擞一下机灵了。

作者: 薄荷蓝 时间: 29-12-2009 13:15
标题: 回复 #31 唐林律师的帖子
呵呵，非CSL，等着新政吧～～～

作者: mgdhy 时间: 29-12-2009 13:45

作者: gracengcheo 时间: 29-12-2009 14:05
I got the approval end of November and just paid the processing fees AUS$2525 on 2 Dec 2009. I applied under 175, Childcare Coordinator, in MODL but not in CSL. Do you think, it's possible for me to get the visa granted by 2011? If they review the MODL and remove Childcare Coordinator from the list, will they still grant me the visa as my case was approved in 2009?

作者: 熊猫阿三 时间: 29-12-2009 14:38

原帖由 gracengcheo 于 29-12-2009 15:05 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

I got the approval end of November and just paid the processing fees AUS$2525 on 2 Dec 2009. I applied under 175, Childcare Coordinator, in MODL but not in CSL. Do you think, it's possible for me to g ...

你一会说12月才递交，一会说已经approved.啥意思啊。MODL会不会变谁知道呢，你的case 2011年能不能结又有谁能保证？静观其变，过好目前的生活吧。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 29-12-2009 14:56

原帖由 熊猫阿三 于 29-12-2009 15:38 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

你一会说12月才递交，一会说已经approved.啥意思啊。MODL会不会变谁知道呢，你的case 2011年能不能结又有谁能保证？静观其变，过好目前的生活吧。

前面的Approrval可能说的是评估。

静观其变实在是坐以待毙的代名词。就像感情是好处的代名词，宁缺毋滥是待价而沽的代名词。

竟然在人为刀俎我为鱼肉的当口，继续静观其变！

是不是煮熟了才能觉出痛来？

作者: gracengcheo 时间: 29-12-2009 17:30
还是唐林律师了解我。我刚才一口气把移民部长接受ABC电台采访全文看完。一面看，一面冒冷汗。我过后马上看了他们两次的MODL REVIEW，觉得我的CASE, 只有用时间跟他等了。我也写信问了我的鬼佬中介，他说，他们也在黑暗当中，只有等到正式宣布才知道答案。但是对于那些已经批准了的CASE，过来澳洲只是迟和早点事儿而已。我觉得比较冤枉的是那些父母幸苦，生吃简用，把孩子送来这里学理发，厨艺，钱花了，希望也完了。现在，只能任人鱼肉了。希望明年换移民部长吧！

作者: viac 时间: 29-12-2009 18:42

原帖由 唐林律师 于 29-12-2009 15:56 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

前面的Approrval可能说的是评估。

静观其变实在是坐以待毙的代名词。就像感情是好处的代名词，宁缺毋滥是待价而沽的代名词。

竟然在人为刀俎我为鱼肉的当口，继续静观其变！

是不是煮熟了才能觉出痛来？ ...

您的意思是我们广大难友还有操作的余地？那需要我们怎么做才能退钱呢？
不知道我这样理解对不对谢谢律师。

请莫怪我爱财，光申请费就是我一年的工资了，跟如此现实的移民局应该现实点。

[ 本帖最后由 viac 于 29-12-2009 19:46 编辑 ]

作者: hsuehhan 时间: 29-12-2009 23:31
提示: 作者被禁止或删除, 无法发言 唐林律师你好：

我有幸听过你的讲座。看到你光临FREEOZ非常高兴。

我的问题是，到底会不会影响到已经提交了1-2年的申请人呢？

作者: sdbya 时间: 29-12-2009 23:41
标题: 大家应该团结集合起来，想办法如何让这个移民部长尽快下台！
这个移民部长不光坑害无数家庭，而且把澳政府的信誉和形象也都给丢尽了！

作者: jackieboy 时间: 30-12-2009 00:32
如果这个令人发指的新政在明年得以实施,那咱就号召全国乃至在澳大利亚的新政受害者们,统一时间同时到中国的使领馆和澳洲的移民局去进行强烈的抗议和示威!咱要让澳大利亚移民局的这帮混蛋知道中国人民也不是傻瓜,中国人民也不是那麽好惹的!上帝保佑澳洲移民局和那个不是人揍的伊文思吧!!!希望他们不要做一个千古罪人,将来载入史册!

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 09:25

原帖由 薄荷蓝 于 29-12-2009 12:29 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

唐林律师，如果真的澳洲采取这样的政策，清除前面的人，那亲属担保的非CSL基本也算是等待无望了吧？记得以前亲属担保类的都是单独的审理配额。

现在看，凡是不在CSL上的，都不能高枕无忧，都需要团结一致。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 09:26
[静观其变实在是坐以待毙的代名词。就像感情是好处的代名词，宁缺毋滥是待价而沽的代名词。

竟然在人为刀俎我为鱼肉的当口，继续静观其变！

是不是煮熟了才能觉出痛来？

等是我们不知道要发生什么的态度。]原帖由 薄荷蓝 于 29-12-2009 14:15 发表

呵呵，非CSL，等着新政吧～～～ [/quote]

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 09:28

原帖由 hsuehhan 于 30-12-2009 00:31 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

唐林律师你好：

我有幸听过你的讲座。看到你光临FREEOZ非常高兴。

我的问题是，到底会不会影响到已经提交了1-2年的申请人呢？

磨刀霍霍，喵的就是审理被积压的这一批。

醒醒！

Wake up!!!

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 10:45

原帖由 viac 于 29-12-2009 19:42 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

您的意思是我们广大难友还有操作的余地？那需要我们怎么做才能退钱呢？
不知道我这样理解对不对谢谢律师。

请莫怪我爱财，光申请费就是我一年的工资了，跟如此现实的移民局应该现实点。

您的应该现实点就是退费？那还不如当时不申请。岂不少很多事。

申请，要的就是成功，要的就是PR。谁不给我们PR,我们和谁干到底。

这是唐林律师行主张的选择。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 10:47

原帖由 gracengcheo 于 29-12-2009 18:30 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

还是唐林律师了解我。我刚才一口气把移民部长接受ABC电台采访全文看完。一面看，一面冒冷汗。我过后马上看了他们两次的MODL REVIEW，觉得我的CASE, 只有用时间跟他等了。我也写信问了我的鬼佬中介，他说，他们也在黑 ...

我们要PR，我们不回家。
对追溯力法律说不。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 10:50

原帖由 sdbya 于 30-12-2009 00:41 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

这个移民部长不光坑害无数家庭，而且把澳政府的信誉和形象也都给丢尽了！

这些话说早了。

这个移民部长是生在乱世，头绪多，不容易。换一个人，未必比他更好。他的着眼点是普通技术移民政策的理性化。

正应为如此，我们是有机会阻隔具有追溯力的法律出来的。以理性来对待理性。

[ 本帖最后由唐林律师于 30-12-2009 11:51 编辑 ]

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 11:13

原帖由 唐林律师 于 29-12-2009 15:56 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

前面的Approrval可能说的是评估。

静观其变实在是坐以待毙的代名词。就像感情是好处的代名词，宁缺毋滥是待价而沽的代名词。

竟然在人为刀俎我为鱼肉的当口，继续静观其变！

是不是煮熟了才能觉出痛来？ ...

我想，我们的选择主要是两项。一是通过自己努力，争取继续等待的机会，时间可能长一些，但满足条件的不会被拒。也就是出新政没问题，但不能有回溯力。二是所谓静观其变，相机而行。老子的无为而治。大多数留学生的选择。这年头的世故老道可见一斑。让人不寒而栗。什么是静观其变？静观其变就是坐以待毙。我知道我自己想吃的，但我不说。别人给我什么饭吃我就吃什么。真吃的时候可能才咕哝一句“难以下咽”。这也就罢了。问题是明明知道要上的，至少是可能上的，一定是自己最不喜欢吃的，还是静观其变。怪不得我们会有一个成语叫“任人宰割”。那种人为刀俎我为鱼肉时的马上要成为别人下酒菜时的从容不迫、镇定自若、不关痛痒、麻木不仁，让人叹为观止！不争，所以天下人不能与我争。又是老子。到了西方，不能有所变更吗？

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 16:40
标题: 唐林律师行的中文翻译
2009年11月13日，澳大利亚联邦政府移民与公民部部长、执政党工党上议院领袖Chris Evans伊文斯就光受关注的普通技术移民审理积压的问题接受了澳大利亚广播公司（Australia Broadcasting Corporation, ABC）电台记者Peter Mares的采访。唐林律师行认为，这一第一手材料的访谈录有助于读者明白改革纲要文件出台的背景。也有助于更多人的认清真相。唐林律师行特别把它翻译出来。

唐林律师行的中文翻译。请以英文原文为准。唐林律师行对不同翻译引起的歧义不负责任。

移民部长回应积压顾虑

Peter Mares: 当公众的注意力被最近发生的坐船来到澳大利亚，寻求避难的人们所吸引时，澳大利亚技术移民政策的剧变几乎并不被人们所关注。

这些变化影响了几百万人，他们中的一些人绝望、愤怒。他们花费了成千上万元澳币的成本、费用申请移民澳洲，现在竟被告知他们的申请将会在几年后才能被看到、审理。

在澳境内，受影响的申请人必须等着，至少要等到2011年年底，他们的案子才有可能被审理。境外的移民申请者至少要等到2012年年底。

正如我们于两周前在《国家利益》的报道中所述，他们的案子在被无限期的搁置，因为移民部出台了新的优先审理政策，今天，移民部长Chris Evans先生，应邀参加我们的节目现场。感谢您能从百忙之中抽空来参与我们的节目。

Chris Evans:荣幸之至。

Peter Mares: 目前有多少人的移民案子被搁置呢？

Chris Evans: Peter, 我不同意您介绍中的大部分的定性说明。那些案件并不是被搁置，申请人所做的事是他们永久移居到澳大利亚，他们需要被评估，我们需要基于澳大利亚的需要和优先性作出决定，谁能获得永居的资格。我们启动、运作一个计划是为维护国家的利益，因此，从事一些职业的人也许会面临更长时间的等待，当然，其他的一些人如果他们所从事的职业是我们经济发展必要的、急需的，那么他们的案件会得到更快的处理。所以，我实际上并不同意您的介绍中的一些措辞。

Peter Mares: 那么，在今年的9月23日，移民部所出台了一些在优先审理方面的政策变化，这些政策变化告诉人们，如果他们是在岸申请人，职业也不在所谓的紧缺职业列表上，且没有雇主做担保，他们将别无选择的等待，至少要等到2011年年底，他们的案件才可能被审理到。离岸申请人则至少需要等到2012年年底，他们的案件才可能被审理到。如果这不叫做搁置，我不知道这是什么。

Chris Evans: 他们一向是需要等待的。我们决定移民计划的规模。非常坦白的讲，如果我们决定明年将审理10,000人，那么他们很可能会等上20年或30年。重点是，我们正在努力给他们提供一些迹象，让他们了解在现行的政策下，目前的移民规模下，他们的案子在什么时候有可能会审理到。但是，向澳大利亚递交移民申请并不是赋予他们移民澳大利亚的权利。

Peter Mares: 理解。可当人们递交申请时，他们对审理时间已有了一定的了解。那时，他们被告知时间为9个月，也有可能12个月。他们已经通过了技术移民120分的分数测试水平；他们有资格移民澳大利亚。种种迹象告诉他们，澳大利亚需要移民者，他们是受欢迎的移民者，他们支付了澳币2,000元到2,500元去申请移民到澳大利亚。他们也被告知做了体检、无犯罪记录证明，他们因此花费了几千元的澳币支付给移民代理机构，为获得医院体检证明，为让他们的资格通过评估，花费了可能上百、上千元，现在你们告诉他们要等上20年或者30年。

Chris Evans: Peter, 我想告诉你的是，我知道您同情他们的遭遇，但你对现实情况的描述是不恰当的。实际的情况是，这么多年来，申请移民到澳大利亚的人已经超过了我们的限额，而且澳大利亚政府有权决定每年移民的纳入人数。尤其，在过去的一两年内，我们所看到的是，因自己所在的国家面临一些经济萧条而寻求移民澳大利亚的人数大大增加了。当我们也面临我们国家经济萧条时，我们减少了移民项目的规模。因此，这将在等待时间上产生一些影响。我们能为他们所做的是试图预测他们的移民案子什么时候有可能被审理到。我承认一些人们支付了一些费用等等，实际上，我也问过我们移民部看看对于那些支付过一些费用和申请费然后又终止自己申请的人们我们是否可以做些什么？因为我的确认为目前的体系在这方面运作的并不好。但如果我们认为这些移民者不能带来好的经济效益，或者他们不能满足澳大利亚国家利益的需求，我们将不准备吸纳更多的人来到这个国家。即使现在有些人也许在排队，也许会受到影响，我也不打算做出这样的决定说我们要受正在排队的人数的影响来决定我们允许多少人移民澳大利亚。

Peter Mares: 那么让我们回到第一个问题，我重新措辞：有多少人正在排队呢？

Chris Evans: 我们认为，现在，大约在岸申请人为30,000人和离岸申请人有105,000人。但是，当然，我们每天都在收到移民申请，所以，这个……..

Peter Mares: 所以，这个队伍正在越排越长。

Chris Evans: 是的，也许正是这样。显然，我所知道的最近的数字就是大约在岸申请人为30,000人和离岸申请人有105,000人。是否选择申请是由人们自己决定的，显然他们在某种程度上正试图碰一下运气。如果明年经济好转，我们也有可能明年扩大移民计划的规模，人们也可能会更快的获得批准。同样的，如果经济更加恶化、萧条，我们或许将规模缩的更小，那将延长人们的等待。

Peter Mares:人们确实是在碰运气，但是他们也确实被告知他们需要等待多久，许多人已经在这个系统中等了18个月，而且一些之前已经在队伍的前面了，他们的案子也已经分到签证官了，他们应要求也做了最后的健康检查：这些人是一些离岸的申请人。换句话说，所有正常迹象显示他们离拿到永居签证只有几周的时间了，但现在他们被告知他们又排在了队伍的最后。我的意思是说您能理解——我是说您会向那些人对所发生的事情道歉吗？

Chris Evans:不，我不会道歉。我是说我承认有些案件的申请人会感到很委屈，在机会上他们的确遭到了不平等的待遇。但是，你必须有个时间点。如果你要做改变，你就必须确定在某一日做出改变。而我们所做的，就像我们所说的那样“我们想把技术移民的优先顺序排得更好”。我们实际上是从国家利益来考虑。在以前的体系中，我们曾遇到过这种情况：当我们急需医疗人员时，根据递交申请的时间的先后，发型师排在医生、工程师的前面而被审理了。但是在我就任时，我就觉得这简直太疯狂了，我们优先审理的人并不是我们所急需的人才，排队是基于递交申请的时间而不是基于澳大利亚的需要。我们正在试图改变这种体制，并以更为理性的体制取而代之。紧缺职业表就是基于这种考虑，但是仍然有许多其他的改变正在计划中，这些都将改变这个体制中的一些基础原则。

Peter Mares:我确定，大部分的人们都同意，优先审理发型师而不是医生的这种情况并不是基于国家利益考虑，但现实是，政府继续利用永久移居澳洲作为诱饵来吸引更多的国际留学生加入我们的教育体系。这种关联仍然存在，但这也是这个问题的一部分。第二，为什么政府不直接说，“我们不需要更多的发型师，我们现有的已经足够，我们不再接受任何更多的申请。”而您们仍然在接受发型师、厨师等等申请人的申请。

Chris Evans: 是的，Peter, 但是我们也已明确表示过，我们将重新审视MODL。

Peter Mares:这是移民职业需求表，它罗列了一些像厨师、发型师的职业，通过这些职业，可以获得分数以通过移民分数评估来到澳大利亚。

Chris Evans:是的。因此，我们已经声明我们正在重新审视那套方法。政府部门已经进行了一些讨论，人们也已经对此作出一些回应。同时，政府将在几个月内作出决定，我们怎样重新安排，那显然也将会带来一定的影响。因为，我不认为现在的这个体系在很好的为我们服务。如果你看一下近几年内通过技术移民来到这个国家的移民者的人数，你会发现会计、发型师和厨师的人数很多。我认为那仅是教育联系的驱动下获得的一个非理性的结果。我已经非常明确表示过，我认为这种教育与移民之间的联系太强了，我们应该更多的考虑到更为广泛的国家利益。

Peter Mares: 您的同僚Kelvin Thompson曾表示，他认为这种联系应该消除掉，事实上，我们不应该将之作为诱饵来吸引国际留学生到澳大利亚学习，您同意他的观点吗？

Chris Evans: 我认为我们应该更好地平衡二者的关系。我们想要调整的是我们希望国际留学生来这学习，我们希望他们中的一些人留下来成为永久居民，因为我们需要他们的技术。我们并不希望这样一种情形出现：就是用在澳留学驾驭移民项目的发展。Kelvin指出目前的这种平衡是错误的，他是正确的，我也曾经谈论过这方面，我们也一直希望做一些调整。但是，我认为他的方法并不是这个问题的答案，我的观点是改善、调整其中的关系才是解决之道。

Peter Mares:那让我们回到之前提到的一个问题，现在的情况是，这些人们，这些正在排队的人们对他们在申请上的花费非常气愤。您曾建议您们将退费，对正在排队的申请人因为等不起5年或者更长的时间而想要退出的，您们会考虑将为他们退费。

Chris Evans:不，Peter, 我不想夸大此事。我曾呼吁移民部审视目前的体制运转情况，因为我认为我们是一直在不停地接受递交的申请，可能一些人的资格并不具备，我们应该能够做的比现在更好。我建议他们审视一些替代性的体制，这些替代性的体制可能有助于我们解决目前这些人交了钱但没有多大机会申请成功的现状。我也曾寻求一种方式，看看如果我们不能建立更好的体制的话，人们就可以先不用预付费用。但是目前的状况是我们不能退费，事实上法律也是不允许的。

Peter Mares:的确如此。因为这还存在另外一个问题，那就是，尽管这些毕业于澳大利亚大学的外国留学生并没有澳大利亚需要的很强的技术能力，甚至知道自己根本不可能移民成功，但他们也会递交申请，因为他们知道排队的人很多，他们可以通过过桥签证，使他们获得在澳大利亚三年或者更长的工作时间。
Chris Evans:也许存在这种情况，这也是我所强调的问题之一。目前，我认为你们希望两全其美，但是-----

Peter Mares: 我要指出的是这个现象是有不同的表现方式的，我是说您提到-----

Chris Evans: 是的，Peter，这就是我们为什么要重新审视MODL的原因，它会影响到人们能得到的分数，它还可能有助于我们做出这样的调整：让那些有机会获批的人才可以通过申请获得延长在澳居住、工作的时间。

Peter Mares: 但是当您们在这样做的时候，为什么不挂出“关门”的标志。举个例子说“一年后再来。在此期间我们不再接受任何的申请，直至我们找出什么样的人才是我们真正想要的，因为我们收到的申请足够以后几年的审理了”？

Chris Evans:您有点指责我改变政策、阻碍了一些人——

Peter Mares:不是的，我不是在指责您是运用行政手段使程序上搁置，而不是作出实质性的决定在——

Chris Evans: Peter, 这不是程序上的搁置，而是——

Peter Mares: 这就是程序上的搁置。

Chris Evans:不是，这不是程序上的搁置，是一种优先处理，我们来决定谁先——

Peter Mares: 所以，您加速审理是通过——

Chris Evans: 不，我们正在代表澳大利亚作出一个理性的选择。我们一直倡导需求驱动体制，而不是供应驱动体制，不是按照递交申请的顺序接受申请者，而不管他们所具备的技术是不是我们所需要的或者他们是否有个好的雇佣前景。但是我们是要试图锁定我们的目标，引进一些具备我们所需要的技术的人才，而您的观点正有效的说明我们应该优先审理发型师而不是医生。

Peter Mares:不，不，恰恰相反。部长大人，我的观点是这样的：您应该说我们正在优先审理医生、工程师和其他我们需要的人才，而告诉其他人们“不要来申请打扰我们了，我们已经没有位儿给你们来了。”

Chris Evans:但是裁决的做出是基于移民计划的规模和他们的分数结果。我想说的是，就每位申请人的分数结果而言，我们正在审视MODL，这将会影响到一些人，但是我们不能阻止人们申请，我也不赞同说“关门”的说法。正如我所说的，很多因素取决于移民计划的规模，目前，我们仍然拥有一个非常大的移民计划，但不是大到像去年一样的规模。这是受到了经济因素的影响，我们的申请也受到了其他国家经济的影响。如果人们所在国家的经济萧条了，那么这些人们就更希望申请。譬如说，当爱尔兰经济衰退时，我们收到了许多爱尔兰人的移民申请。因此，我不认为我们需要告诉人们不要申请了，但是我们需要试图给他们一些提示，正如我们所做的那样，告诉他们具备某些技术的申请人的案子可能不会在短时间内审理到。

Peter Mares:部长大人，非常感谢您的时间。

Chris Evans: Peter, 我非常荣幸。

Peter Mares:本期节目的嘉宾是移民部长Chris Evans先生。如果您关于本期话题有任何想法，请登录我们的网站，点击“我要留言”，或者拨打热线电话1300 936 222.

[ 本帖最后由唐林律师于 1-1-2010 16:15 编辑 ]

作者: w8802 时间: 30-12-2009 18:04

原帖由 唐林律师 于 30-12-2009 12:13 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

我想，我们的选择主要是两项。一是通过自己努力，争取继续等待的机会，时间可能长一些，但满足条件的不会被拒。也就是出新政没问题，但不能有回溯力。二是所谓静观其变，相机而行。老子的无为而治。大多数留学生 ...

很早以前就听说过唐林律师和唐林律师行的大名了！初看到具“唐林律师”名字的开帖者，还以为是枪手或员工权作替身而已，没想到竟是唐律师本人！你的现身，的确为FreeOZ增色不少了，欢迎欢迎！
注意到唐律师的建议：……也就是出新政没问题，但不能有回溯力。……。在目前来说，这不能不认为是一个能保住全体已递申请筒子们权益的好办法！但澳洲立法不是原来就“法不溯往”的吗？为什么又要让其“不能有回溯力”呢？具体又应该如何去操作呢？
关于我自己的问题，已发短消息请教了，一并在此致谢！

作者: w8802 时间: 30-12-2009 18:17
标题: 与本主题无关的提问
这个问题与本帖子主题无关，原准备使用短消息请教唐律师，无奈多次操作均不成功，只好占用这宝贵的版面了，请筒子们见谅。
请问唐林律师一个关于父母移民的问题：今年7月1号起，移民局新政将过去近乎普遍的“一个缴费，一个配偶”的父母移民申请的方式中的已成功准签的单个缴费父母移民对配偶的担保期限制为五年。请问这条政策是否具回溯力？谢谢！

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 21:47

原帖由 jackieboy 于 30-12-2009 01:32 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

如果这个令人发指的新政在明年得以实施,那咱就号召全国乃至在澳大利亚的新政受害者们,统一时间同时到中国的使领馆和澳洲的移民局去进行强烈的抗议和示威!咱要让澳大利亚移民局的这帮混蛋知道中国人民也不是傻瓜,中国 ...

现在呢

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 21:48

原帖由 sdbya 于 30-12-2009 00:41 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

这个移民部长不光坑害无数家庭，而且把澳政府的信誉和形象也都给丢尽了！

也不是没有道理。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 21:55

原帖由 w8802 于 30-12-2009 19:04 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

很早以前就听说过唐林律师和唐林律师行的大名了！初看到具“唐林律师”名字的开帖者，还以为是枪手或员工权作替身而已，没想到竟是唐律师本人！你的现身，的确为FreeOZ增色不少了，欢迎欢迎！
注意到唐律师的建议 ...

法可以有回溯力。

争取不让它成为法是关键。

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 30-12-2009 21:58

原帖由 w8802 于 30-12-2009 19:17 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

这个问题与本帖子主题无关，原准备使用短消息请教唐律师，无奈多次操作均不成功，只好占用这宝贵的版面了，请筒子们见谅。
请问唐林律师一个关于父母移民的问题：今年7月1号起，移民局新政将过去近乎普遍的“一个缴 ...

这里不合适。

方便发邮件？

不好意思办公室正放假呢可能要一段时间

[ 本帖最后由唐林律师于 1-1-2010 13:04 编辑 ]

作者: 唐林律师 时间: 31-12-2009 15:50
收到谢谢

作者: w8802 时间: 1-1-2010 18:09

原帖由 唐林律师 于 31-12-2009 16:50 发表

 登录/注册后可看大图

收到谢谢

不急的，待节后见你的佳音吧。该说谢谢的是我呀。

欢迎光临 FreeOZ论坛 (https://hioz.im/ibbs/)