我刚给Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee写了封信，关于cap和三无

c2j

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the potential fair-trading issues in Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010. Based on my understanding, the amendment to Migration Act 1958 enables Minister of Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) to cap visa grants and terminate visa applications based on the class or classes of applicant applying for the visa. I am a GSM visa applicant who successfully lodged my visa application on 17/07/2008 with all the required documents carefully prepared to meet the visa requirements and $2,105 of application fee. At the time of the lodge, I was informed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) that the processing duration of the application would be about 15 months.

From an applicant’s perspective of view, I thought it was a fair contract made between DIAC (or say Australian government) and me and most importantly, I have done everything required in the contract. However, now Australian government intend to change the contract entitling the Minister to terminate my application by changing its law without negotiating with the other party of the contract. As the other party of the contract, I feel seriously offended by this potential unfairness made by the amendment. Also, it is unbelievable that, in such a highly commercialised country, how the government could willingly do whatever they want to the contracts they made to overseas bodies by simply emphasising protecting citizens’ interest. How about the commercial fame they lose? Did the government ever quantify the loss and compare it with the “interest” they intend to protect?

Please think about it and fairly treat the applicants who lodged their visa applications before the government changed their mind. It was not our fault and we shouldn’t take the responsibility of the consequence.

Finally, I reserve all rights to complain about this amendment to any authorities or make a lawsuit against the government.

这封信发给了Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee和Cris Evans，最终什么结果其实不是很care,就是咽不下这口气。

[ 本帖最后由 c2j 于 1-6-2010 01:37 编辑 ]

viac

我个人建议楼主公开出来,不是什么坏事.
隐藏起来恰恰起了反作用,至少可以公开个格式,现在形势需要我们的声音,希望大家重视.
我正在组织语言,也请大家也把自己的情况写进去,他们要亮底牌了.
The reporting date is 15 June 2010.

ZT:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/com ... sa_capping/info.htm

如果是第一次 提交质询 需要创建账号， 然后可以选匿名提交，根据参议院隐私法，质询人信息不会被披露。
大家表达自己的看法吧.

c2j

Took ur advice

leslie1207

LZ提到contract关系应该是不成立的，澳洲的移民政策应该看作一个invitation of offer，提交申请是一个offer的过程，准签之后才能视作签订contract，所以LZ的论点在法理上是站不住脚的~

viac

原帖由 leslie1207 于 1-6-2010 02:34 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

LZ提到contract关系应该是不成立的，澳洲的移民政策应该看作一个invitation of offer，提交申请是一个offer的过程，准签之后才能视作签订contract，所以LZ的论点在法理上是站不住脚的~

朋友你说的对,但是LZ的意思不是挑字眼,对于将要enact的Bill来说,移民局那边肯定已经设计的天衣无缝,有人说要起诉只能起诉法条本身的constitutionally invalid,belong to equity category.
现在我们做的是向有关方面传递一些声音,包括移民部长一万死,虽然他老人家亲自看的可能性几乎是0.
Senator Chris Evans
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Telephone: 02 6277 7860
Fax: 02 6273 4144
Email: minister@immi.gov.au

viac

So that would be practical for us to suggest Parliament,it happened that they are seeking written submissions.

c2j

原帖由 leslie1207 于 1-6-2010 02:34 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

LZ提到contract关系应该是不成立的，澳洲的移民政策应该看作一个invitation of offer，提交申请是一个offer的过程，准签之后才能视作签订contract，所以LZ的论点在法理上是站不住脚的~

我对application的理解就是一个de facto contract。diac要我做这个做那个，还收了钱，然后我如果想withdraw还不退钱，那这个我不能理解为一个invitation to offer。我对invitation to offer的理解应该是类似于去银行排队拿排队票，我可以随意拿也可以放弃拿到的票，或者我在超市看到商品然后拿到checkout的过程。这个跟现在的这个visa application差太多。如果真要让visa application变成一个invitation to offer，那它应该是在申请前只要我去占个号，并且不收钱，那等它要处理了再让我做这个做那个。

aroma

KK1860KK

真的很气愤！

lwb1123

支持LZ
BTW，很标准的G类complain书信格式啊

c2j

今天收到一个回执：

Inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your submission to the above inquiry and to advise that the committee has released it as a public document. You are now free to circulate your submission to other parties should you wish to do so. We will also be providing your submission to anyone on request and it will be published on the committee's website as submission number 47.

Please note that, except in the case of organisations, addresses and personal phone numbers will be deleted before the submission is posted on the website or provided to any other party. If you have any concerns about the publication of your submission, please contact the committee secretariat urgently on (02) 6277 3560.

Please also note that your submission is protected by parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege refers to the special rights and immunities attached to the Parliament which are necessary for the discharge of parliamentary functions. This means that you cannot be prosecuted or disadvantaged because of anything you have provided in evidence, or because you gave such evidence. Please advise the secretariat if you believe that anyone has disadvantaged you in any way as a result of the submission you have made.

从回执上看我的complaint可能会被publish，也好，大家摊开来谈。

mql3461

你如果找到有人故意延缓你进度的证据的话，可以投诉的。

mql3461

哦，更确切的说是起诉。

leslie1207

原帖由 c2j 于 1-6-2010 08:57 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

我对application的理解就是一个de facto contract。diac要我做这个做那个，还收了钱，然后我如果想withdraw还不退钱，那这个我不能理解为一个invitation to offer。我对invitation to offer的理解应该是类似于去 ...

这个说法就牵强了，每个人都可以对一个事物有不同的理解，但是问题是以谁的理解为准，显然移民申请并不是以申请人的理解为准的，你可以这样理解，移民局可以告诉你不予采信并用另外的理解，从法理上来讲，任何一个类别的visa申请，移民局都事先申明没有Guarantee的approval的，所以你所谓的de facto contract事实上也没有成立的条件~

yy0185

总体感觉，就是澳洲政府流氓，不按游戏规则出牌，搞得仿佛是君子与小人，又好比是秀才遇上兵，有理说不清

c2j

原帖由 leslie1207 于 2-6-2010 01:32 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

这个说法就牵强了，每个人都可以对一个事物有不同的理解，但是问题是以谁的理解为准，显然移民申请并不是以申请人的理解为准的，你可以这样理解，移民局可以告诉你不予采信并用另外的理解，从法理上来讲，任何 ...

这个事情要跳出移民局思维从平等的角度来看。很显然，作为事件的另一方，我被要求提供的信息是准确的，我被要求给移民局2k申请费，我被要求放弃我的申请费如果我withdraw我的申请。另一方面，移民局似乎不受任何约束。这是一个很明显的unfairness。如果真需要上法庭(可能性不大，没精力），我想我和移民局具有同等地位来解释这个application。移民局的确是没说一定approve我的申请，我也很乐意见到他们reject我的申请并且提供充足的理由，但是什么都不做然后terminate我的申请我是无法接受的。

leslie1207

原帖由 c2j 于 2-6-2010 08:55 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

这个事情要跳出移民局思维从平等的角度来看。很显然，作为事件的另一方，我被要求提供的信息是准确的，我被要求给移民局2k申请费，我被要求放弃我的申请费如果我withdraw我的申请。另一方面，移民局似乎不受任何 ...

无法接受并不代表移民局需要负责，S39明确了移民部长有这个cap权利~

c2j

原帖由 leslie1207 于 2-6-2010 10:55 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

无法接受并不代表移民局需要负责，S39明确了移民部长有这个cap权利~

这个amendment还只是讨论稿，我提出了我的意见。法律要体现公平原则，只谈政府的权利那是天朝。

viac

看来leslie1207对法律比较熟悉,请leslie1207 来指点一下该如何向官方表达对Cap政策的不满,因为这关系到所有未下签的申请者.
请不要告诉大家无计可施,只能等死.

viac

原帖由 leslie1207 于 2-6-2010 10:55 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

无法接受并不代表移民局需要负责，S39明确了移民部长有这个cap权利~

此Cap非彼Cap.不要混淆视听.
S39的Cap有局限性,只能有激活条件的使用power.
Bill中的Cap放大了部长的权利,随时可以无理由Cap任何职业任何人,我们管不着这Cap对国家有什么好处,但是我们知道权利的无限扩张是很可怕的于人于己不利,于法于理不容!

leslie1207

原帖由 c2j 于 2-6-2010 13:06 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

这个amendment还只是讨论稿，我提出了我的意见。法律要体现公平原则，只谈政府的权利那是天朝。

S39不是这次的bill好伐？两回事情啊~

c2j

原帖由 leslie1207 于 2-6-2010 23:27 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

S39不是这次的bill好伐？两回事情啊~

那你想表达的意思是？

leslie1207

原帖由 c2j 于 3-6-2010 00:38 发表

                               
登录/注册后可看大图

那你想表达的意思是？

上次cap掉offshore是动用S39，所以你说什么还在提案阶段根本属于无稽之谈，两回事情~

viac

贴出我的,不太正规,也没客气,爱咋咋地了,不care结果也要把事弄清楚.
To whom it may concern,

I oppose Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010.

Firstly, as all known, a sustained, rapid and sound development of the economy is base on the associated effort of all people form every field. You never know which occupation of a applicant who will be “Cap” is NEVER NEED in the future of Australia which is on the up-and-up.

Secondly, today the problem is a slow speed of GSM visa processing which was caused by the bugs of the GSM program, could not keep up with the need of Human Resources Market , so the way to solve the problem is to give more paths for applicants to adapt the need of Human Resources Market but not by raising standards of GSM applications hourly and blindly. And “Cap” can do nothing with the problem.  

Finally, as the Bill mention, the large numbers of the caseloads of Cooks and Hairdressers was caused by the absolute priority of CSL, a reasonless direction of the minister of IMMI. So giving the minister more power will not avoid any reasonless direction which would affect the economical development and the international image of Australia.

Every applicant lodged their valid application with passion and dream, so they would like to put their heart and soul into participating in the development of Australia no matter Cooks they are or Engineers they are. So, I oppose the Bill, same as all applicants who yearn towards a better future of a beautiful Australia.

Yours faithfully

viac

呼吁大家发出自己的声音,齐心抵制这个恶心的Bill.
请不要以为与你无关,如果它生效,是针对所有人的,包括你登陆后申请父母或者担保兄弟姐妹!

Skylover

不论站在什么角度去谈这个问题，我坚决支持LZ的勇气！ 我们需要更多的声音！一定要站出来，这是我们的权利。

viac

顶上去,希望大家别再沉默了,这个法案是影响所有人的.

viac

==========================================================
转"BrickBrother "朋友的话:
早在1个多月前，我就听到关于CAPPING VISA的一些传闻，那个时候我一直在关注这个事情，后来经过了解，这个事情的起因是下议院的一个议员提出来的，因为下议院是有很多各行各业代表所组成的，在议案递交到上议院之前，必须在下议院投票通过。最让我想不到的是，经过1个月左右的讨论，最终下议院投票通过了这个议案！！！之后名正言顺的递交到了上议院。我想大家知道，澳洲这个国家法律程序是这样的，一个法案要最终写入宪法，首先要由下议院的议员提出，在议会上公开演讲，之后经过整个下议院的投票表决，如果超过半数，就算通过，法案正式递交上议院。这个时候，上议院接受法案，开始下一个步骤，就是全民公布，做民意调查，这时候你就会看到在PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA, SENATE网站上作为一个BILL，有一个开始日期，一个结束报告日期，在这期间听取大众各方意见，并以此作为决策因素。也就是说，当你看到我发的那个网址的时候，下议院已经通过，这个是最可怕的！！！上议院已经开始进行民意调查，民意调查之后就是上议院辩论时间，上议院最终投票表决，如果超过半数，议题正式写入宪法，并宣布生效时间。

我觉得大家看完这个帖子应该知道是怎么回事了，希望大家多多转帖并让更多人知道事情的来龙去脉。
============================================================

请大家看附件中的发言稿吧,然后说出你的观点,貌似今天是最后的机会,请大家行动起来,请不要以为事不关己,这个法案对于今后所有申请人都是灾难性的.

议会的地址:
SENATE WEBSITE:
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/com ... a_capping/index.htm
---请formatc手下留情,这个是官方的链接,现在的情况很不好,我们在争取最后的机会.

[ 本帖最后由 viac 于 4-6-2010 17:42 编辑 ]

wolf

这么说是要改革1958条款咯？ 更大风暴即将登陆

cattykarl

澳洲政府看这样要彻底的不认账了，所有的等待的三无，9月前的，年龄因为等待过的，等等等等，

全部砍掉，

我只想问当初收钱许诺的时候为什么不告诉可以回溯，这么做不说是政府，就是商业上来看合法吗？