moneypenny20

Just out of noseyness, does anyone know exactly why an apparently very well qualified doctor would come on a 457 in the first place? Surely they would attempt to get PR from the outset? Unless, of course, he knew he could get his son in on a 457 medical whereas he wouldn't on a PR. Perhaps (no idea, just wondering) he did know about the differences in the medicals, went for the one that would get him in and then try and buck the system once here.

Not saying that's what's happened, but it's not outside the realms of possibility. Everyone who's outraged appears to believe he's whiter than white. He may not be.

Cheetah7

Whilst I feel sorry for the family, where do you draw the line? Do you completely eliminate the medical criteria for families of doctors/dentists and those perceived to have a desirable profession and allow anyone in regardless of their health on the grounds that it is discrimination to refuse/reject someone because they are chronially/terminally sick or disabled?

A very difficult area and I am glad I dont have to make those decisions.

yanH

We came on a 457 in spite of the fact that we would have qualified for PR. The reason being that I was offered a job out of the blue and this was the visa offered by the employer. It involved much less hassle for us and somebody else paid for everything

Its interesting that the Doctor has far more sympathy on comments made by Australians made on websites such as SMH and News.com.au than by a bunch of expats on here.

comet555

I don't see a lack a sympathy here.... there seems to be lots of it.

However, what I do see on here is a dose of realism and knowledge about the system and how it applies to EVERYONE regardless of their occupation.

yanH

I don't see sympathy when suggestions have been made that the Doctor is trying to work the system.

comet555

Posters have said that he "could" be working the system. You can have sympathy for his situation, and be skeptical at the same time.

How do you know what the doctors intentions were? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Either way, the way it's played out is his best shot at getting PR with all the media attention.

yanH

I don't know what his intentions were however I don't always assume the worst of people.

comet555

Thankfully the immigration department doesn't just take people's word for it and assume the best in people.

Otherwise this country would have an awful lot of illegal workers, people marrying for visas, etc.

moneypenny20

No one else has assumed the worst either. I simply posed the question as to why would someone come on a 457 when it's not the easiest thing to get PR on the back of. You replied. Just because someone questions something, doesn't make them 'assume the worst', it generally means they want an answer.

TillyG

You may find that that's because a lot of Australians probably aren't aware of the visa process and the different types of visa available and all the hoops that need to be jumped through. A bit like how *I* have absolutely no idea about immigration and visas for the UK, as I was born there so it's not something I have ever thought about.

ABCDiamond

Initially my sympathies were with him, but when I heard him say "It is wrong for people to be brought to work here on temporary visas and then kick them out later (when their visa expires)" It did make me think again.

I have friends who would like to have stayed here, but their Visas expired, and they had to leave. Now, if they had had a disabled child, could they have cried foul instead of following the rules?

Can everyone who comes in on a Temporary visa just be allowed to stay, as PR ?

If the government deem him a suitable person for PR they will decide that in the next step of his application process. If they don't, well, then will be the time for some to complain that it was unfair.
Until then, it hasn't happened.

Sandra

I will put my hand up to working the system - I knew I could not get my daughter in from an off shore PR application - no right of appeal.

We came on a 457 and then went for PR - from here I had the opportunity to appeal the decision (long story and very personal to my case not normal - so cannot help others I am afraid)

Our daughter is partially deaf and although in full time main stream school school it was initially deemed she would have a prohibitive cost on the country. We argued the costs and very very luckily got the all clear. We are now Australian Citizens.

I am pretty sure someone of the docotors intelligence was well aware and is trying even means at his disposal to help his family situation. So what. But I do agree he should be subjected to the same rules as all of.

Cheers

Flutterby

Employers (in the UK anyway) can "discriminate" on the grounds of disability as far as if taking on a disabled employee would result in adjustments having to be made to the building or the role which were considered unreasonable.

In my eyes this is only what the Australian government is doing with regards to its health requirements. If they consider it reasonable to admit someone with a disability/illness, because the cost implications are outweighed by their potential contribution and benefit to Australia,then they will. If the cost balance goes the other way or is too extreme then they won't.

Claire W

Sandra....you obviously DID fill the criteria though or they still would have refused you even after appeal.....so rather than working the system I would say you went the only route possible because some people would only see a partially hearing child as a burden or costly when obviously they are NOT necessarily. I think the problem probably is that they don't have the resources or the time to assess each case properly....it is cheaper and easier and quicker to refuse and hope they go away ?!!
You shouldn't feel like you sneaked in you have as much right as anyone else to get your visa.
Also the disability act means that you cannot refuse a job because of a disability......I can't see anyone going in for a job that they aren't capable of and buildings are now meant to incorporate fittings etc. accessable to disabled people.
Why would anyone refuse a disabled person anyhow if they can do the job perfectly well ?
Claire

Flutterby

Claire

The DDA does not say that, it says that you have to make any reasonable adjustments to the job or the building in order to accommodate a disabled employee who matches your recruitment criteria.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/employers/dda/adjustments.asp

If an organisation does not do what is reasonable then the employer risks legal action but it is not illegal to refuse employment if you can show it is unreasonable to expect such adjustments to be made to accommodate someone with a disability. Examples such as access to buildings etc are in some cases reasonable and in others unreasonable.

For example, I work for a small charity in a leased building and our offices are on the first floor. There is a ramp outside which allows access to the building and a disabled toilet on the ground floor, the business occupying the ground floor could easily accommodate someone who needs to use a wheelchair. We could not, so to employ someone with this kind of disability we would need to make adjustments to the building. If we felt it was too costly and would be potentially too disruptive to the organisation and have little long term benefit to our employees then we would be able to refuse to employ that person. Of course they could argue their case and a tribunal would decide whether our decision making process was reasonable or not.

My point is that the word "discriminate" has lots of connotations which link it to unfair practice. All the Australian government is doing by having healthcare restrictions as part of its immigration process is allowing a decision to be made on certain criteria which does not mean it is unfairly discriminating.