Get your Online Degree, Certification, or Qualifications with Best Migration Services’s Qualifications Australia Program.
Life Continuously Offers Pathways & Right Qualification Offers Better Future
Life is a continuous journey of seeking and choosing the pathway that best suits your life goals and values.
Gaining the right qualification help you meet your career goals in an ever changing and competitive global job market and see yourself in a rewarding career.
Australia offers a professional qualification that makes a difference. Australian qualification allows you to gain appropriate knowledge, understanding and skills with the relevant Australian standards. Furthermore, the Australian qualification enjoys an international recognition and reputation.
If you are new to Australia or a newly arrived skilled migrant in Australia, Qualification Australia can help you obtain the most suitable Australian qualification or get your overseas qualification or work experience
recognised to work in your area of expertise in Australia.
Partner Visas (also known as “Spouse Visas”) for Australian Filipina couples who are married or in genuine de facto (common law or “live in”) relationships. Also for same-sex partners in de facto relationships (or in same-sex marriages). Partner Visas are for the Filipina wives and partners of Australians who wish to live together in Australia on a permanent basis.
They require sponsorship of the Filipina visa applicant by an Australian Citizen, Permanent Resident, or Eligible New Zealand Citizen. Initially, a 2-year Subclass 309 Offshore Partner Visa (or Subclass 820 Onshore Partner Visa) is granted and allows the visa holder to come to Australia from Philippines (or to remain in Australia with an onshore visa application).
You must be committed to each other and to a shared life together. This is not a try-before-you-buy visa. You may be either married or in an existing genuine de facto relationship. If you are intending to marry, then you need to be legally free-to-marry (ie. never married, or already divorced). If you are in an existing de facto relationship, you may be still legally married as long as that relationship is well and truly over.
You may not apply for a partner visa so you can commence a de facto relationship. It must be existing, and you need to be able to prove this with solid evidence.
-
PARTNER VISA (SUBCLASS 820 AND 801)
Eligibility:
You must be married or in a de facto relationship with:
- an Australian citizen
- an Australian permanent resident
- an eligible New Zealand citizen
Your marriage must be valid under Australian law. This means you must have parental permission if you are 16 or 17 years of age. You must have been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months
Length of stay
- on the temporary 820 visa, you can stay until a decision is made on your permanent Partner visa (subclass 801)
- on the permanent 801 visa, you can stay permanently
-
PARTNER VISA (SUBCLASS 309 AND 100)
Eligibility:
You must be married or in a de facto relationship with:
- an Australian citizen
- an Australian permanent resident
- an eligible New Zealand citizen
Your marriage must be valid under Australian law. This means you must have parental permission if you are 16 or 17 years of age. You must have been in a de facto relationship for at least 12 months.
Length of stay
- on Subclass 309 Visa, you can stay until a decision is made about your permanent Partner Visa (Subclass 100)
- on Subclass 100 Visa, you can stay permanently
All Partner Visas, whether onshore or offshore:
- Provide access to applying for Medicare benefits
- Give full work rights, so the visa applicant may work in Australia
- Are multiple-entry, and allow free access in and out of Australia
- Allow the inclusion of dependent children as secondary applicants to the partner visa
Offshore application (ie. applied-for in the Philippines)
This is the option when the Filipina visa applicant is in the Philippines and remains there during the processing of the visa.
- It may be lodged before the wedding, as long as the wedding takes place within the processing time.
- It’s the visa-of-choice for Australian Filipina couples who wish to marry in the Philippines
- It’s also the visa-of-choice for the Australian sponsor and Filipina applicant who would prefer not to rush through the processing.
- It’s lower-pressure than an onshore application.
Onshore application (ie. applied-for in Australia)
An onshore partner visa application is lodged inside Australia when the Filipina visa applicant is also there inside Australia at the time of application.
- It must be lodged after the wedding takes place. It’s not possible to marry afterward.
- It must be lodged before the visa that the applicant currently holds (often a tourist visa) runs out, so there is invariably a strict deadline
- If it’s lodged (a) after the wedding and (b) before the current visa runs out, the applicant is automatically issued a bridging visa
- It’s the visa-of-choice for in-a-hurry Australian Filipina couples who wish to be together in Australia during the processing time
- It’s not the visa of choice of those who can’t spare the time and who are not well organized to meet a deadline
- And note that any dependent children to be included in an onshore application must also be onshore at the time of lodgement
After two years of a successful relationship, a Subclass 100 or Subclass 801 Permanent Partner Visa may be granted.
Permanent Partner Visa (two years after applying for the temporary partner visa)
You actually “applied” for the permanent partner visa when you applied for the temporary partner visa, ie it was an 820/801 application onshore or a 309/100 application offshore. So you don’t apply again. But you do need to provide them with further documents and relationship evidence at this later stage to prove that your genuine relationship did exist and still exists. More information can be found here in this article about permanent partner visas.
Australian Offshore Partner Visas Pros and Cons
Pros
- Applicable to de facto couples
- Applicable to same-sex couples
- No follow-up temporary partner visa application needed
- May apply before the actual wedding takes place
- Full work rights
- Multiple entry visa
- May apply for Medicare after application lodged
- May include dependent children
- No time-limit in which to apply in the first place (except must marry in a reasonable timeframe), ie. it’s a lower-pressure option than an onshore partner visa
Cons
- Must be outside Australia to apply and for the visa to be granted
- Not eligible for bridging visas
- Must remain offshore during processing (unless visiting on a tourist visa)
- Wedding must take place before a visa will be granted
- High cost
- Requires a lot of evidence of relationship and other documentation
- Will lead to a five-year ban from re-applying if the visa is granted and the relationship ends
- Of no value to uncommitted couples
[insert page=’footer’ display=’content’]
MIGRATE TO AUSTRALIA FROM THE PHILIPPINES
Skilled migration visas provide one of the best opportunities for skilled workers to live and work in Australia permanently.
Australia is defined as the “Land of opportunity”. Australia offers excellent weather with cities that are clean, unpolluted, safe, peaceful, multicultural, and beautiful. It is a great place to raise a family since Australia boasts excellent schools and universities, coupled with great outdoor lifestyle and strong sports culture. Political stability that encourages freedom of speech makes it one of the safest multicultural countries to live in. Gorgeous beaches, fresh air, clear skies, unpolluted, and unique wildlife make Australia a great place to migrate. Why migrate to Australia? Well, because Australia is “as good as it gets”!
Where in the world can you finish work and head off to the beach everyday or have a cup of hot chocolate on your balcony as you stare into vast spaces of eucalyptus trees and chance upon a koala?
Under the Best Migration Services Australian General Skilled Migration (GSM) program, skilled migrants can use their qualifications, work experience and english language ability towards a points-based system to meet the Australian immigration services requirements for an Australian permanent residency visa.
Visa Types
SKILLED INDEPENDENT VISA (SUBCLASS 189) (POINTS-TESTED) STREAM
SKILLED NOMINATED VISA (SUBCLASS 190)
SKILLED REGIONAL (PROVISIONAL) VISA (SUBCLASS 489)
At Best Migration Services…
We understand Australia
We understand Australian Immigration Law
We understand You.
Government coffers are bulging with money as passport revenues rise to new heights.
Over VT 1.3 billion in passport-related revenues were received in January alone, according to the government’s latest financial report.
The number of passports sold each month more than doubled from September to October last year, and have remained at nearly that level ever since. Based on official revenue figures and current passport prices, the Daily Post estimates that over 1,800 passports were issued to people via Vanuatu’s various citizenship by investment programmes in 2018.
Much of that has happened in the second half of the year. Revenues equivalent to about 1,300 sales were reported in the six months between July 2018 and the end of January this year.
On average, five new citizens were added every day last year. In the six months between July and January, that number rises to seven. October 2018 saw the great level of activity, with an average of nine new passports awarded every day, or twelve every working day.
Revenues are generally not broken down into detailed figures in the Department of Finance and Treasury’s monthly financial reports. But the January 2018 report includes the following paragraph:
“Vanuatu Development Support Program (VDSP) and Vanuatu Contribution Program (VCP), together collected VT 1,098.4 million in January. This is 254.1 per cent more than the forecast figure of VT 241.9 million, and makes up 24.4 per cent of the annual budget target of VT 4,504.6 million and is 31.8 per cent more than VT 833.1 million collected during the same period last year”.
DoFT has generally issued very conservative revenue projections from passport programmes, apparently as a means of curtailing expectations and keeping complacency to a minimum.
Nonetheless, recent figures are exceeding these estimates by a larger margin than ever before.
One cause for concern is that the record revenues will lead to reliance on passport income. This would be a problem, because the majority of passport sales originate from mainland China. The acquisition of dual citizenship by Chinese is a legal grey area. Article 3 of China’s Nationality Law does not recognise dual nationality with any other country. There are however no laws penalising people who obtain citizenship outside of China.
While travel from China has increased in recent years, it is still quite low. In 2017, just over 3,600 people travelled from China to Vanuatu. The numbers in 2018 were similar.
The appeal of Vanuatu citizenship seems to be more for the visa-free access it provides to European Union countries.
Citizenship by investment has been the subject of controversy from the beginning. Many Ni Vanuatu express reservations—and outright opposition—concerning the idea of selling citizenship. Others have questioned the processes governing the sale of passports.
One long-standing court case questions the means by which the current passport schemes were created. Vanuatu is nearly unique in this regard. Most nations have only one approved means of acquiring citizenship by investment, but this country has several.
Concerns have been raised on numerous occasions about the sustainability of these cash inflows. While the government has shown considerable restraint in its handling of the funds, a few worrying signs are emerging that attitudes may be changing. Overall spending has risen considerably every year since the programmes began, and both the 2018 and 2019 budgets have reached record highs.
In 2018, a record VT 24.6 billion was set out in the budget. But nearly VT 6 billion more than that was ultimately allocated in a pair of supplementary appropriations. Supplementary spending is not subject to the same rigorous vetting that normal budget appropriations undergo.
It is understood that several big ticket projects are now under consideration. One is a VT 4.4. billion Pentecost road project providing 42 km of tar-sealed roadway running from Melsisi to Pangi. A May 2018 cost-benefit analysis prepared by the Ministry of Finance states that Vanuatu’s external debt levels are reaching unacceptably high levels. The analysis concludes that the “source of funding needs to be funded domestically given high external loan borrowing repayment after 2020.”
The Daily Post understands that the government of Vanuatu well over VT 6 billion in cash reserves. Its operating surplus in 2018 was in excess of VT 8 billion.
We’ve Been Expecting You
It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the whole world has been waiting for Vanuatu to take steps towards a unification of the various programs and pricing structures available for citizenship by investment in the Pacific island state. It’s a topic that, for too long, has been the subject of speculation, confusion, and doubt in the global investment migration industry – not to mention amongst the clients that have an interest in Vanuatu’s CIP.
In the past few days the simmering pan of discord and malcontent has looked as if it might finally boil over as an increasingly frustrated community of investment migration practitioners challenges the government in Vanuatu to come forward, to seize the narrative, and to demonstrate that local and global rumblings of discontent over the programs’ management and distribution have been heeded to, and acted upon.
It is, therefore, a much-welcomed development that – after some nine months of deliberations and drafting – the government gazetted a new pair of Regulation Orders on the 24th of April this year, both under the existing Citizenship Act (CAP112).
The Two Regulation Orders are as designated as follows:
- Citizenship (Development Support Program) Regulations Order No 33 of 2019
- Citizenship (Contribution Program) (Amendment) Order No 34 of 2019
These appear to be an earnest attempt to bring parity and clarity to Vanuatu citizenship by investment and, although doubtless there are still gaps to be filled, unresolved ambiguities and competing nomenclature, we are at last seeing a degree of convergence. The new Regulation Orders will dispel some of the fog surrounding the program, which has rendered it so difficult for the CIP-world to market it in a coherent, reliable fashion (except, it would seem, in Mainland China).
Why All The Fuss?
The Government in Vanuatu has – quite rightly – repeatedly referred to the fact that the Program is doing very nicely – pointing to the exponential growth of the Program in China – the impressive figures for which were recently revealed here by IMI Daily
But the citizenship by investment industry is at a critical juncture where so many components of the business are interdependent that it is imperative there be a shift towards uniform global standards and a degree of commonality in how CIPs are structured, managed, and distributed. For this reason alone, the new Regulation Orders are welcome, although there will be those who remain dissatisfied with what they’ll inevitably see as a “sticking plaster” solution to a much deeper malaise.
The Small Print
Given the noticeable growth in interest in the Vanuatu CIP, the two new Regulation Orders will be the subject of wide and close study around the world.
Whilst the following is somewhat “dense” text to anyone not planning to involve themselves in promoting the Vanuatu DSP, for those who are seeking to participate in this undeniably attractive program, the commentary could be useful (if dry) reference material.
Here, therefore, delivered with an impartial eye, is an attempt to bring into focus the most significant changes contained in the Regulation Orders, assembled by agents who have accumulated multiple-case experience and are intimately familiar with the process.
DSP v VCP
- Perhaps the most important aspect of the pair of Orders is the apparent aim to “harmonize” the applicant qualifying criteria, processing and pricing. It would take a deeper analysis and comparison with previous Orders to assess whether that aim is now fully achieved, but the intent is clearly there.
- The geographic focus reserved for the VCP versus DSP is not clearly addressed but, as territorial policing is all but impossible, perhaps this is no longer a factor in a price- and process-harmonized program.
- Assuming, therefore, that parity has been achieved, as there remains only one exclusive distributor of the VCP, we can disregard this program for the purposes of analysis and focus entirely on the DSP, assessing the amendments only to this option.
DSP Key Regulatory Revisions – a User’s Guide
Designated Agents (Clause 3)
Clarity on who can become a “Designated Agent”.
Selling Prices (Clause 4)
Perhaps the most important aspect of the DSP v VCP “harmonization” relates to pricing. New Minimum Retail Prices for both the DSP and VCP worldwide are stipulated. Vanuatu has a uniquely “layered” system for the distribution of its program, which accounts for the difference between the so-called “Government Prescribed Fees” and the “Minimum Selling Price”.
Upholding of Minimum Retail Prices (Clause 5)
Any agent found to be discounting the retail price or attempting to offer the Program at less than the minimum retail price may be reported to the Citizenship Commission and will have their license (and therefore any agent co-agreement) revoked.
Procedures for Applications (Clause 6)
A new outline of the Application Procedure is provided. The process remains much the same, but the outline offers some more specific timing guidelines than previously available.
Fee Payment Schedule (Clause 6(2) – 6(7))
In a rather unexpected move, regulations now mandate that an applicant may pay their Government “Prescribed” Fee in one of two ways. The following is only the author’s interpretation of the related regulations and may require further clarification:
- 25% of the prescribed fee prior to submission of the full (FIU cleared) application to the Citizenship Commission – with 75% payable after Citizenship Confirmation and, before issuance of the Citizenship Certificate.
- 100% of the prescribed fee upon submission of documents (as is currently done) to the Citizenship Commission for consideration.
The “show-stopper” here is the assertion that should the Commission refuse the application upon consideration by the Citizenship Commission Committee, then the 25% “down payment” made is non-refundable. This will certainly require more clarification.
Further, an additional paragraph (Clause 6(5)) states that the Commission must not consider the application of a person who has not paid as per Clause 6(2). As this renders the alternative payment method (Clause 6(3)) “non-admissible”, it can only be a mistake and will hopefully be rectified shortly by stating both the subclause (2) and (3) apply.
Applicants from Restricted Countries (Clause 6(8))
In a welcome modification to the current blanket exclusion of applicants bearing certain Nationality, a new Regulation is created which specifies that the application is admissible if the applicant has resided outside the restricted country for five years and in addition can provide evidence of permanent residency in a non-restricted country.
Non-circumvention (Clause 6(10))
A small, but important clause has been inserted to ensure that “ownership” of an applicant remains with the same agent throughout the process – unless the application has not been progressed in a satisfactory time frame.
Approval In Principle (Clause 6(11))
“Approval in Principle” is mentioned here – without it being clear at what stage this is granted. Once the Citizenship Committee meets and considers an application, the general understanding is that and approval granted here is final. We must assume this means “Subject to the remaining 75% of the prescribed fee being paid” where this route is chosen. However, in the case where the applicant has paid 100%, surely the approval is final. This requires further clarification.
Prescribed Fees (Clause 7)
This Clause is notable for the fact that the prescribed fees remain the same. Some ambiguity exists as the family categories mention only dependent children under 18 years of age – when in fact experience shows that combinations of children and resident dependents are permissible.
When referenced with the definitions under Clause 1, a clarification has been made regarding ages of dependent applicants as follows:
- Resident Dependent – Natural or adopted son/daughter 18-25yrs fulfilling the other stipulated criteria.
- Resident Dependent – Mother or Father of applicant or spouse who is over 50yrs fulfilling the other stipulated criteria.
Addition of Family Members “post” the granting of Citizenship under VERP/DSP (Clause 8)
This clause attempts to address the previously unclear Government policy for the adding of family members after the Principal Applicant has received Citizenship. The clause covers both the Honorary Citizenship DSP and the now-defunct VERP.
It should have addressed the specific case of a Principal Applicant who subsequently marries. However, this is in fact not directly addressed. “Spouse” is mentioned – without specifying if it means “existing spouse” (prior to Citizenship), or “future spouse” – a subsequent marriage after Citizenship obtained.
This Clause could be problematic as a potential “back-door” entry route to the Program for additional family members and should be the subject of further consideration and, as a necessary modification. As it refers specifically to the Honorary Citizenship DSP and the VERP, it might be argued that it does not apply to the Program in its re-designed form as per the new Regulation Order.
Pleasingly, the Clause specifically mentions that children born to applicants “post” the granting of Citizenship can be added at a nominal cost.
Citizenship Certificate Delivery (Clause 9)
Delivery of the Citizenship Certificate is delegated to the Designated Agent or his nominated representative. However, this does not address the cumbersome and unworkable passport delivery system which, as the popularity of the Citizenship Program grows will become unsustainable and impossible to manage given the huge geographical spread of applicants.
It is simply unworkable to expect hundreds of applicants to “crisscross” the globe to collect passports – not least because of the massive carbon footprint this generates – a subject that is close to the core interests of Vanuatu.
Likely the passport distribution aspect of the Program will be addressed elsewhere as the oversight of this is the remit of a different stake-holder.
The Final Word
There remains scope for considerable expansion of the Regulations and, therefore any omissions or perceived short-comings therein will be the subject of much further discussion. Two clear-cut areas that should have been addressed are the lack of clear directive regarding the removal of the “Honorary” Citizenship category, and the lack of reference to the admissibility of so-called “PEPs”.
Overall, the Regulation Orders do assist in clarifying, rationalizing and standardizing the Vanuatu DSP/VCP and will assist in growing the confidence of practitioners to represent the Program globally.
This feels like the next step in the evolution of the Vanuatu CIP, but external observers will likely keep pushing for a far more comprehensive “world-class” set of standards to conform with the most rigorously administered CIP structures.
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — New Zealand is offering permanent residency to all of those who were at two mosques in Christchurch last month when a terrorist killed 50 people, as well as to the victims’ and survivors’ immediate relatives, the country’s immigration minister said on Tuesday.
The move, which the New Zealand immigration agency estimated would cover about 190 people, followed public pleas from survivors and family members of the victims for certainty about their immigration status. Many of them have temporary work or study visas.
The immigration minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, said the severity of the assaults, and the anguish of the survivors, had required a “significant” response from the government.
“These people were victims of a deliberate attack that was designed to inflict maximum level of physical harm, and maximum level of mental trauma as well,” he said.
The government did not publicly announce the offer for permanent resident visas. Instead, an information page was quietly added to the immigration agency’s website.
Mr. Lees-Galloway said the government was seeking to avoid the appearance of striving for “political mileage” from the decision. But the muted rollout could also help dampen any backlash against the move.
The government made the decision to offer the visas at a cabinet meeting on April 15. The minister said it took an additional week for the immigration agency to make the necessary preparations.
Mr. Lees-Galloway said the government had created a new visa category for those present at the mosques during the March 15 shootings, which left 50 people injured in addition to the 50 killed. Those applying for the permanent resident visas will essentially have their applications rubber-stamped.
Police records will be checked to ensure that the applicant has a legitimate claim. Emergency workers, and those who were on tourist visas or staying in New Zealand for a very short time, will not be eligible. A number of those in the mosques were already permanent residents of New Zealand and do not need immigration help.
Mr. Lees-Galloway said that immigration officials would contact those who qualified for the new visas. Survivors of the attacks said Tuesday evening that they had not yet heard from the authorities and that word had spread through friends or on social media.
One of the survivors, Tofazzal Alam, 26, said that he had struggled to eat and sleep after the attack on the Linwood mosque, and that uncertainty over his visa had compounded the stress.
His permit to stay in the country is tied to his job as a door-to-door salesman — work that Mr. Alam, though he was not injured in the attack, said he was no longer able to do.
“I am a people person; I love to meet with different people,” said Mr. Alam, who has lived in New Zealand for five years and is married. “But now I feel afraid of strangers. I can only talk to people or meet people whom I know.”
Mr. Alam said permanent residence would allow him more freedom to seek an office job where he could encounter mostly the same people every day. He said he did not want to move back to his home country, Bangladesh.
“We have got so much love and respect for this country,” he said. “We have many things to give back.”
One of those shot in the attacks, Azmat Hussein, said the change was “very good news.”
Mr. Hussein, a welder who migrated with his family from Fiji on a work visa in 2016, had made an unsuccessful application for permanent residence shortly before the attacks. He had fallen just short on an English language test and was relieved that he would no longer need to meet the standard.
Sign up for the Australia Letter Newsletter
Conversation starters about Australia and insight on the global stories that matter most, sent weekly by Damien Cave, our Australia bureau chief. Plus: heaps of local recommendations.
Tuariki Delamere, a former immigration minister who is advising some of those affected by the attacks, praised the decision but said he expected some criticism.
“It wouldn’t surprise me to see a backlash from people against the minister’s decision based on what happened in Sri Lanka,” he said, referring to the deadly terrorist attacks there on Easter Sunday, which a Sri Lankan official said was in retaliation for the Christchurch massacre. “But from New Zealand’s point of view, for our situation, the government made the only sensible and morally right decision.”
Those considered by the immigration agency to be eligible “family” of those at the mosques include parents, dependent children, partners, or parents of partners who were in New Zealand on the day of the attacks. For those under 25, siblings and grandparents living in New Zealand can also receive the visas.
The usual fees of $140 will be waived, and applications, which will be accepted starting on Wednesday, will be prioritized over those for other residency permits.
[insert page=’footer’ display=’content’]
ANZAC Day
Anzac Day (/ˈænzæk/) is a national day of remembrance in Australia and New Zealand that broadly commemorates all Australians and New Zealanders “who served and died in all wars, conflicts, and peacekeeping operations” and “the contribution and suffering of all those who have served”. Observed on 25 April each year, Anzac Day was originally devised to honour the members of the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) who served in the Gallipoli Campaign, their first engagement in the Great War (1914–1918).
[insert page=’footer’ display=’content’]
Happy Earth Day 2019
Not to be confused with the electricity switch off called Earth Hour, celebrated in March.
Earth Day is an annual event celebrated on April 22. Worldwide, various events are held to demonstrate support for environmental protection. First celebrated in 1970, Earth Day now includes events in more than 193 countries, which are now coordinated globally by the Earth Day Network.
On Earth Day 2016, the landmark Paris Agreement was signed by the United States, China, and some 120 other countries. This signing satisfied a key requirement for the entry into force of the historic draft climate protection treaty adopted by consensus of the 195 nations present at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.
In 1969 at a UNESCO Conference in San Francisco, peace activist John McConnell proposed a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace, to first be celebrated on March 21, 1970, the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. This day of nature’s equipoise was later sanctioned in a proclamation written by McConnell and signed by Secretary General U Thant at the United Nations. A month later a separate Earth Day was founded by United States Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in first held on April 22, 1970. Nelson was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom award in recognition of his work. While this April 22 Earth Day was focused on the United States, an organisation launched by Denis Hayes, who was the original national coordinator in 1970, took it international in 1990 and organised events in 141 nations.
Numerous communities celebrate Earth Week, an entire week of activities focused on the environmental issues that the world faces. In 2017, the March for Science occurred on Earth Day (April 22, 2017) and was followed by the People’s Climate Mobilization (April 29, 2017).
SOURCE
[insert page=’footer’ display=’content’]
It is evident that approximately about 80 percent of migrants settle in Sydney or Melbourne. The remainder choose the rest of the eastern coast region. Far and few travel outside metropolitan regions. Meanwhile, many regional towns continue to experience population decline and struggle to maintain the viability of basic services. For example, a town of Pilbara has experienced consistent decline it it’s population.
Migration policy should take into account local population density and needs and encourage migrants to settle in regional Australia.
The National Farmers Federation is seeking that government makes further incentives for migrants to travel to regional Australia to ensure that population growth is evenly spread. For example, some incentive ideas include:
establish visa incentives that encourage regional settlement;
consider mechanisms to bring young people to the regions, including an ‘Agricultural Gap Year’
regional study incentives
The report states that rural Australians are having to travel further each year to access basic services, as funding for health, education and other community services is consolidated in larger centres. This can compound the effects of isolation, and worsen health outcomes (including mental health). The Report seeks a commitment that an incoming government will:
allocate significant funding for initiatives that improve physical health and
reduce isolation and tackle mental health in rural communities
Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme has been driving force in incentivising migrants to relocate to regional areas, however the reality is that many choose to move to metropolitan areas once the visa is granted.
The government is in the process of addressing the issue by introducing two new regional provisional visas. The aim of the provisional visas is to encourage migrants to live in regional areas and only become eligible for permanent residence upon completion of the required residence requirement.
Both visas are due to commence in November this year. The RSMS Scheme is due to be abolished alongside the 489 visas.
Further information can be found here
SOURCE
[insert page=’footer’ display=’content’]
From April 17, visitors to Australia failing to declare prohibited items might have their visas shortened or canceled.
Australia’s strict bio-security laws prohibit certain foreign foods, plant materials, and animal products from entering the country, due to the threat of introducing serious pests and diseases into Australia, devastating our valuable agriculture and tourism industries, as well as our unique environment.
From April 17, 2019, new rules come into effect allowing airport authorities to shorten or cancel visitor visas if a visitor fails to declare prohibited items upon entry to the country.
So before you send across a list of goodies for your family and friends to bring to Australia, or travel back to Australia from your home country and on a temporary visa, take a look at what you can and cannot bring into Australia.
‘Innocent mistake’ that sparked airport bomb scare
The 65-year-old Indian grandmother says she wasn’t aware her mistake could cause panic.
WHAT CAN I BRING/NOT BRING TO AUSTRALIA?
Food
Food items brought into Australia must be declared on Incoming Passenger Cards when arriving by plane. Biosecurity officers may need to inspect some of the food you’re bringing with you.
While you are allowed to bring coffee, biscuits, bread, cake, chocolate, maple syrup, and oil, one needs to declare if they have brought tea, spices, pickles, rice, nuts, dairy products with them.
Take a look at the full list here.
Medicines
Medicines for personal use are allowed. However, one must carry a letter or copy of the prescription (written in English) from the doctor to certify that the medicine has been prescribed to treat a medical condition and ensure the quantity of the medicine does not exceed three months supply.
“You should leave your medicine in its original packaging and declare it to the Australian Border Force when you arrive,” the Australian Border Force (ABF) advises.
For more details, click here.
Visiting Australia? Be mindful of what’s on your phone and laptop
Australian Customs Officials can check your electronic devices for porn and anyone found in possession of illegal material can face up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $525,000.
Plants, flowers, and seeds
Live plants are not permitted.
“Most live plants must not be imported to Australia unless the importer has a valid import permit from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources,” the ABF advises.
For seeds, one must declare it if they are carrying seeds.
For more details, click here.
Seasonal or festive items
Many migrants bring special items related to Indian festivals like Diwali, Rakhi and Lohri to Australia. The ABF strongly advises one “declare anything you are bringing or sending so that it can be inspected by our staff at the border.”
The ABF advises not to bring fresh fruits, flowers, dried fruit, nuts and Indian sweets like burfi, ras malai, rasgulla and pedas. For more details on these sorts of items, click here.
Besides these specific categories, there are many more items on the list that are prohibited or must be declared when being brought to Australia.
Take a look at the entire list here.
WHAT IF YOU ARE CARRYING A PROHIBITED ITEM?
When traveling to Australia you will be provided with an Incoming Passenger Card by the crew of your aircraft or cruise vessel.
“This is a legal document. You must mark YES on your card to declare if you are carrying certain food, plant material or animal items. You can take these declared goods with you to the clearance point where they will be assessed by a Department of Agriculture and Water Resources biosecurity officer and may be inspected. Alternatively, you can voluntarily dispose of food, plant material or animal items in bins located in the terminal,” the Department of Agriculture advises.
WHAT IF YOU FAIL TO DECLARE?
A biosecurity officer may inspect your baggage, even if you do not declare any goods. They may use X-ray or a detector dog. You must declare or dispose of any goods with a biosecurity risk before the inspection. If you do not or you make a false declaration on the Incoming Passenger Card, you:
- may be caught
- may be subject to civil penalties
- may be prosecuted, fined more than A$420,000 and imprisoned for up to 10 years and a get criminal record.
You will not be penalised under the Biosecurity Act 2015 if you declare all goods, even if they are not allowed into Australia.
From April 17, 2019, new rules state that if a visitor fails to declare anything that cannot be imported, the officers at immigration clearance points may shorten or cancel their visa.
ABF says the people found guilty of not following these rules may be prevented from returning to Australia for three years.
“Persons whose visas are canceled under these circumstances may be turned around and returned and will be prevented from being granted a visa to return to Australia for three years except under compelling or compassionate circumstances,” ABF spokesperson told SBS Hindi.
