BaL:
I suggest you need to fully need to state/clarify your position?
Reading through your posts you indicate you are an Australian citizen however your posts tend to indicate due to personal experience (satisfactory & unsatisfactory) you have an axe to grind with the Immigration and Border Protection Department and Australian Immigration Laws?
*Yes Australian citizen and yes issues with DIBP like being told to leave a 10 year old kid behind to get a visa.
Therefore, you would rather see the breaking down of Australian Immigration Laws and not have Australian Citizens protected?
I do not agree with some of DIBP laws or am I against protecting our citizens. I am simply saying
* 457 visa holders CAN NOT be paid less than an Australian doing the same job/company - people that don't get this will never understand anything.
* Current laws and policy are what must be followed - not wishes or intentions of how law was meant to work in practice.
* It is about impossible to have a law that everybody in everyway intended, someone always gets it worse than others.
I would love to show you PAM3 (Procedures Advice Manual 3) but it is a very secret document/book it contains policy on Immigration law for use by DIBP staff and it is a one size fits all. State library in NSW and Vic have a copy as do 4 universities according to a website, all obsolete I assume.
PAM3 the parts I have seen give statements on what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. It was amended some months back in 457 training section to exclude commissions paid by training companies for referrals, Rumour had it was as much as 40% commission.
"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. The scholarship fund should support education or training for Australian citizens or permanent residents in a course related to the business of the applicant, with no percentage of the contributions being allocated to commissions."
from a mate in the know:-
Thebusiness is required to show that the training that has been, and continues tobe, provided to employees who are Australian citizens and Australian permanentresidents is related to the purpose of the business.
13/030 - specification of training benchmarks and training requirements (regs2.59(d), 2.68(e), 2.87B(2), 2.87B(3) and 5.19(4)(h)(i)(B)(I))
Training can take all sort of forms. There is a lot of info on it in therelevant parts of the PAMs. Both the nominated position and the training wouldbe relevant to the business, but training expenditure could also includetraining of staff in supporting/ admin roles etc. , general health and safetyand many other things.
The law is fine but it is policy that needs changing to include wording similar to that of Fiji I posted before. I seem to remember special equipment assumedly with persons to operate them were flown in for the rescue at Beaconsfield will still need an out clause for some things.
Policy is a thing easier for members of government can easier lobby for change than put it on the floor of parliament.
Last edited by Band a Lot; 26th Sep 2016 at 05:24.