Reported over 9 months ago; awaiting a decision.
We are not talking about the wording of another country or what, in one’s opinion, should be used; it is entirely about the way the law is currently laid down here.
I totally disagree all is interpretable including CASA regs; the moment anyone starts interpreting law, regulations, SOPs, etc. we immediately have problems deciding the law and in particular standardisation, it just disappears.
(CASA to be wrong: the question answers itself)
Employers, certainly the more unscrupulous ones, do consider there are significant cost savings to be found using 457 visa employees particularly when they undertake a long term view. It is not difficult to provide an appearance of legitimacy and compliance with 457 visa regulations with the aim of circumvention.
457 visa employees are always under threat of withdrawal of sponsorship therefore need to toe the employer line.
SA new hires are desperate to find another country they can live in and will work for a wage considered acceptable enabling escape from SA. (plays into the hands of employers)
The 457 Visa system is specifically designed to allow an employer to source workers from overseas where it can be positively established and shown such workers are not available within Australia. Additionally it should be shown training programs are in place to train qualified Australians to fill any positions.
To participate and use this system it is incumbent upon an employer to meet with specified obligations ensuring no Australian citizen is disadvantaged or the working conditions/salary are not significantly less than would/should be available to an Australian citizen.
First and foremost we should be fully dedicated to protecting Australian employment.
Surprisingly there has been little comment from any directly affected?
Nor does there seem to be recognition by others who may well be affected if use of this i allowed to g unchecked?