Market Evidence

"No worker on a 457 visa is paid a salary higher than the going rate for Australians doing the same job."

The above statement is proved by Immigration department (federal govt.) reports.

It is not true.

Plenty of 457 visa holders are paid above the going rate.

Government reports are lies?  Hmmm.... well.....Yes and No  (in the best traditions of "Yes Minister").

Mine Host knows the government reports are falsified.  The government knows the reports are falsified.

How is this done?

As part of the application process sponsoring employers must provide "Evidence" of the going rate the vacant job.

However, you are not allowed to submit any evidence that shows a pay rate below a figure set by the immigration dept.

You couldn't make this up!

Visa Breach (part 3)

Wong Gomez Singh is an employer sponsored overseas worker at the Wayside Tavern.

Wong Gomez Singh has been issed their visa on the condition that:

• They remain in the employ of the Wayside Tavern for two years,
• Do not perform a type of job other than that for which they are employed, and
• All work they perform is to be in a specified geographic area (say "Nth Qld).

Six months into the job Wong Gomez Singh gives notice:  "I won't be here Monday."

You are obliged to report it to the dept if the sponsored employee leave the job, for any reason whatsoever.

So Mine Host contacts the Immigration Dept to report that Wong Gomez Singh has quit their job.

The immigration officer taking the call stifles a yawn and tersely reminds Mine Host that in this and any future cases Mine Host is legally required to report the matter.  ("Thankyou" would have sufficed.)

Mine Host phones the Immigration Dept again with details of Wong Gomez Singh's new job, seething that the new employer has not had to meet any of the pre-conditions, or gone to any cost.

The immigration officer stifles a yawn and makes note of the "additional information".

A few months later, Mine Host phone the department again, to find out why Wong Gomez Singh has not had their visa cancelled?

This is when things start to happen!

The very first thing to happen is the Immigration Officer tersely informs Mine Host that they aren't just going to cancel a visa, not without fully investigating to see if there has in fact been a breach.
(Payroll records would do it, from both my place and the new empoyer)

Mine Host is informed (pretty roughly) that this sort of thing is "playing with people's residency".
Er... no... they don't get residency until they fulfil all conditions of their visa.  (So says the brochure, so says the immigration dept's website.)

So Mine Host places a phone call to the "Visa Cancellation Team", and it feels like things are under way at last.  Oh boy, are they interested in this.  No, there is no record in the dept of Wong Gomez Singh ever being investigated or anything.  Yes, there will now be an investigation.

This Visa Cancellation Team really likes to hear from the sponsoring employer, and will take testimony of the employer into consideration when making a decision, blah blah blah....

Mine Host never again hears from either the Visa Cancellation Team, or anybody else in the department.

In the subsequent months Wong Gomez Singh starts working in a totally different field to that prescribed on the visa, then with a move to the metropolis of Melbourne Wong Gomez Singh breaches the final condition of their visa, which is no matter what, to remain in a "regional" area for the full two years.

Wong Gomez Singh is subsquently granted permenant residency, citizenship to automatically follow.
Wong Gomez Singh has not adhered to even one condition of their visa.

This has happened to Mine Host three times.  To the neighboring employer, four times.

You may think that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship does nothing to enforce, or even investigate, breaches of visa conditions by visa holders.

You may be right.

You may think that it is a regular event for an employer sponsored worker to breach every condition of their visa, yet be granted Australian citizenship.

You may well be right.

Visa Breach (part 2)

If a visa sponsor breaches a visa condition, the dept responds with a pile driver.  Even if the breach is so technical that only those with the mentality of an over-the-top traffic cop would consider it to be even that (technical breach).

Visa holders, on the other hand, breach the conditions of their visa all the time.

How does the dept. respond?

The dept. won't even look into the matter.

The only way anything will happen is if the sponsoring employer makes lots of waves with the dept.
The dept. then will make a (fake) promise to look into the matter.

That will be the last anyone will hear of the matter.

There are a plethora of employer-sponsored visa subclasses.  Typical conditions are:

• To remain in employment with the sponsoring employer.
• To work only at a specified location or geographical area.
• To not go into business or otherwise self-employ.

A breach of any of these conditions is sufficient for the visa to be cancelled.

Mine Host knows of countless such breaches being reported to the dept.
Mine Host knows not one of those breaches resulted in a visa cancellation.

This the double standard the dept. applies to visas.
This is the degree of incompetence of the federal government.
This is the disdain with which the dept. treats Australians, and the blind eye the dept. turns to lawbreakers.

Coming up, some real life examples of visa breaches, and the (lack of) response by the dept.

Visa Breach (part 1)

As raised in comments of the previous post, there is a serious & chronic problem with employer-sponsored visa holders intentionally breaching the conditions of their visa, and the Immigration Dept refusing the police the matter.

A plethora of different employer-sponsored visa subclasses exist.  Some of them have very different conditions imposed on both the employer and the visa holder.

Sponsoring employers are held very tightly to their obligations.  Many employers are stripped of their licence to sponsor for the slightest mere technical breach of their conditions.

Example:  The sponsor is (say) Herb McDonald, of "Wattle Flats" station via Black Stumpville.  Herb applies to sponsor skilled farm workers, and is issued a licence to employ overseas staff under subclass 457, for farming work, on "Wattle Flats" station.

It subsequently comes to the attention of the Immigration Dept that Herb McDonald and his 457 visa holders went through the fence into neighboring "Shady Plains" to recover some sheep that had strayed.

The licence to employ very clearly states that any 457 visa holders employed by Herb McDonald can only do work on "Wattle Flats" station.  Thus the Immigration Dept writes to Herb McDonald informing him that:  As on a certain date he had used his 457 visa holders not on "Wattle Flats", but on "Shady Plains" there has been a clear breach of his conditions as an employer, and his licence to employ sponsored workers is hereby cancelled.


**********

Employers actually have lost their licence to employ for this very thing, and sometimes for much less.

Okay! We have now established just how seriously the Immigration Dept views employer obligations, and just how strictly these obligations are enforced. 

Stand by to see how seriously the dept views it when visa conditions are breached by an ... actual visa holder....