roaringmouse

Difference being those children are Australian citizens and could easily return any time they want. Children of 457s are in Australia for up to 4 years due to a parent filling a temporary position, and therefore cannot easily return to Australia any time. Once their parents contract is up, they're gone. Sits fine with my idea of fairness. If both parents are in the UK as temporary residents, and therefore the child is too, then I have no problem in fees being charged to go towards the education system. That's not accurate - Article 28 only states that all children should receive Primary education that should be free, and that secondary should be accessible (it does not mention free for secondary education).

I think money should go towards the relevant education department for 457 holders (and probably most other temp visas) but it perhaps should be in the fees charged by DIAC - and mostly payable by the sponsoring company as part of the cost of bringing in workers on a temporary basis.

The argument about paying the same taxes and therefore should receive same services is flawed, as the rights & responsibilities are not the same.

jackieh23

I don't have a problem with new 457s being required to pay.

I do have a problem with those who are already here being required to pay...

It really peeves me that Government bodies can change the rules and make them retrospective...

renth

They're not really making it retrospective though, otherwise people on 457 visas would have to pay for the years their kids had already done, that's retrospective. This is just a broke government being dicks.

Just like the Schoolkids bonus being axed, I know no-one on Expats apart from me gets it because you are all on massive salaries but I'm going to be $2400 a year worse off whoever wins the election and I very much doubt they are going to bring back the Education Tax refund which it replaced.

paddyo

OK, fair point, but the same argument stands for Primary then and Australia, NSW/ACT and now WA are not following Article 28.

Beoz

So really, if this has (in some states) been put in place or is going to be put in place then the employer, who is in need of a skill, and sponsoring a person with a needed skill, should be covering the cost of this.

For anyone who is being sort for a position on a 457 then this surely must be an addition to the package. I'm well aware that it probably is not, but at the very least the governments should include a law stating that the sponsor is responsible for the payment of school fees.

The whole idea of this is that a local company needs someone, the scour the globe for that person, they find that person, then bend over backward to make sure that person can come and work for them in Australia? That's how it works right?

the troubadour

The fact being that the clause insisting Australian companies seek out local talent has not been prescribed to for a number of years. As such not only are 457s potentially taking Aussie jobs tax payers have been subsidising their kids to go to school as well. Rather poor deal in anyone's book.

The cost of a primary school place being $13,000 a year in WA and upper school around $19,000 is a substantial bill to the tax payers to pick up.

Of course temps can contribute. As there are a number on low wages working in meat works and the like, perhaps it could income related?
Although just why companies are allowed to bring in 457s to work at low skilled positions, when there are plenty already onshore that could fill the tasks, is at best highly debatable.

paddyo

OK....so we all are sitting on differing sides of the fence here. But, forget what opinion you have of the 457 for a moment and get back to the OP and their comments.
Changing the status and financial obligations of current temp residents with no consultation is surely not fair in anybody's book??? Will the company stump up for it, possibly and more likely with just one child. But, take a family of 4 kids as an extreme, would the company do so then??? Unlikely I say and it would take a good deal of negotiation and pleading to try and get them to do so.
My irritation with this is the lack of consultation or phasing in..thats where this is really hurting people. If you know beforehand what the deal is then you plan and work out the costs and negotiate with your company, if its mid way into your Visa then it causes angst. For those who keep saying "well if your company want and need you that bad then they will have to pay' (just like they did for the LAFHA right??? ) then have some empathy for those who do NOT have understanding companies, who do NOT have a fall back position to use as a bargaining tool and who do NOT have 'spare cash' lying around to give to a State government who then misuses those funds......like NSW and ACT do!
I remember being a 457, I remember being a new migrant and taking the tax laws and rules and school system at face value, I remember planning every aspect of my financial and personal life to see if we could make it work out here. Its a pity that some of you do not see it that way. If you are British then support your fellow expats...that's what we do, not knock them...don't go totally feral!

Beoz

Is there a phasing in period for this one in WA?

scrubbedexpat098

I'm in now and got a certificate and a tree to prove it, screw the 457 holders ...comin over here nicking our jobs, make the bastards pay

the troubadour

457s have little too do with being British as they are recruited from all parts.
I would go along with a 12 month period exemption for those already onshore, prior to implementation of fees.

That would as such give time to both sides to adjust to changes as well as if there is a requirement for those to stay on.

The number of students whose parents are here in WA at the moment would fill up several schools just them alone. Of course they should contribute towards that.

It will be tough on those from The Philippines and China working in meat processing or building sites without doubt.
Why do a number of nursing staff come out on these visa's from UK? They could just as well come out on regular visas.

For one year these people could be charged according to earnings, but after that everybody pays the full amount.

For those against the free loading, hang in there long enough and your conservative government will I expect deliver and the whole issue will remain farcical with business again going back to being able to put foreign workers before locals anyway.

scrubbedexpat098

This whole idea of being educated here then flitting off there and having to pay it back is flawed to say the least, where would it end? Should I pay back all that the UK government gave my mum in child benefit cos I'm over here now and no longer a British taxpayer?

I paid my taxes whilst on a 457 and was lucky enough that my employer paid the school fees for my 2 kids, I think it's a piss take to charge $4500 per child (2008 in NSW) on top of my taxes. I feel for anyone being caught up in this and in my view shame on any expats who think this is totally fair.

teza

No different then Oz treat citizens. There was no "phasing out" period when baby bonus was initially approved. If you were pregnant. (I think it was announced in April) and gave birth before or on 30/06, no money. 01/07 or after, $3000 per child. Just the way Oz government works, always, decisions done effective immidiately....

paddyo

Doesn't make it right though does it Teza......or are you on the 'well if they stuffed me up then why shouldn't every one else get stuffed up too' bus??

benlast

School fees for visa kids 'breaches UN treaty'
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...hes-un-treaty/

nowthat

WA Department of Education will very soon start terminating both teachers' and EAs' contracts.
The system is already overloaded (look at e.g. Burrendah PS and the effect of the influx of '457 students') and with the upcoming 'reductions' will become even less effective and of definitely lesser quality (teaching).
Still, WA govt decides to 'rethink' the 4k policy - even though these monies could possibly alleviate the burden the DoE is apparently (how about traveling Troy and his pocket expenses) unable to carry.
Welcome to the Barnett world