ColonialCousin

Why? They aren't breaking the law. Just using it to their advantage.

If DIAC was that worried about State Sponsored PR's not residing in the sponsoring state for the requisite period, they'd make it a legal obligation and not just an implied, moral one. Clearly the numbers don't demand as much, and it is up to the applicants to decide what works best for them. If the state is willing to sponsor them without any legal obligation to stay put for 2 years, then why must the applicants assume that such an obligation exists?

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Perhaps because if it gets constantly abused then that route to Australia may get slammed shut in the faces of those trying to stick with the moral side of it?
Once visa 'scams' become common knowledge to the Australian public politicians jump up and down about them very quickly. We have seen the student route and the 'junk skills' route closed in recent years. If, for example, SA sponsors thousands of people, who all end up in Vic or NSW, eventually something will be done to put a stop to it.

ROMFT_WO2RN

Make it a legal responsibility and also, for final validation, proof of transfer of funds into an Australian bank account. i.e. the amount you're supposed to show on application.

Could also make it temporary until the 2 years have been completed.

Should just about do it IMO.

JoRobertson

hmm - some interesting thoughts!!
Killerhales - we need £21k to get ss in queensland - it's not numbers i just plucked out of thin air - that's the info we got from the state.
i have heard some people HAVE borrowed the money, printed a statement, then paid the money back!!
nightmare when you ain't got it to hand tho...!!

Pollyana

I'm sure the day will come when the loophole will be closed. It seems its being abused more now then ever before because people are realising through threads like this that they can just get the visa then live wherever they like. I feel sorry for the people who genuinely want to live in a certain State, but get rejected because all the places are full. They have totally good intentions, yet lose out to the people who use this loophole, and they often lose out on a visa completely, not just on the State Sponsorship.

As Creature said, we've seen the student route tidied up, and lots of skills removed, there was also the scandal involving the $100,000 investment which led to that route being removed. SS has to be in DIAC's sights somewhere.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Agreed... and I think they should do all of that. State sponsorship is there to plug gaps in skills in the State sponsoring you.... not a backdoor route into your favoured bit of Australia.

PamE

I find it bizarre that folks are getting so wound up about people getting SS and then moving interstate (or going straight interstate). Live and let live I say. Plus there is so much more in the world to get fired up about e.g. if we want to stay on the immigration theme what about the inhumane conditions in detention centres?? Far more worthy of time & rant imo. As previous posters have said, the govt allows people to live where they want. Who in their right mind is going to say "oh well I really really want to go and live in Qld but the only way I can get there is via Vic, which is allowed but that would be IMORAL so I'll stay here in rainy old UK instead and throw away my dreams...."

bcworld

If your dreams were that important you wouldn't object to spending 2 years living in another state on your way to realising them.

Any comment on the fact that this path may be slammed shut if it is continually abused? If it was the only way of realising your dreams before, then what for others in the future?

PamE

Personally we were prepared to live anywhere and fulfill any obligations in order to come and live here (although we did almost have second thoughts when we saw some of our opinions out in the back of beyond ) But my point is, is it anyone else's business what other people choose to do with their visas?! Realistically I don't think anyone is going to not move interstate for better job ops or whatever just because perhaps (and it is a big perhaps) the flexibility of the visa type may not continue by law at some point in the future. It wouldn't stop me. What would stop me is the chance of not getting PR because of turning my back on the sponsoring state. But certainly not other people banging on about morals and future changes in the law that may / may not affect people after I am done. I am a firm believer that it's every man for himself in the GSM game.

Any comment on why people who are already here feel so strongly about this that they want to harangue others over it? Chill pills!!

bcworld

Perhaps the fact that the OP asked a question about the residence requirements for this visa should help you understand why it's being discussed!

As for why people are being 'harangued' - surely that point has already been made - because one day this visa pathway could be closed for applicants who are prepared to stick to its obligations (moral or legal). As you say though, you don't care about that because you're already here.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Well actually yes, it is. It's DIAC's.
I and others aren't "ranting", just pointing out that if people think that SS is being abused, then they will get onto the polliticians and it will get closed in its current format.

paulry

For as long as the commitment remains optional people will continue to abuse the migration category.

iamthecreaturefromuranus

Of course they will, abuses always seem, to eventually, get slammed shut though.
Perhaps it isn't being abused as much as we think it is, perhaps DIAC don't care, or perhaps it's simply that the politicians haven't latched onto this one yet?

mrsgreenstar76

A very typical "sod you Jack, I'm alright" attitude. :curse: As others have pointed out, people making selfish decisions to take someone else's SS place when they have no intention of living in that state, is wrong. Currently, it is a loophole, but I sincerely hope that they make it a legal requirement, and that people have to take the consequences if they decide to shirk their obligation.

We applied in January 2009, 475 family sponsored, so it will be quite a while for us. We recently discovered that my husbands' profession is on one of the SMPs. However, it is not a state that we wish to live in, so we have no intention of applying for state sponsorship. It may make our application quicker, but I couldn't, in good conscience, take that sponsored place from someone who really wanted to live there. They deserve that place - people who go with the intention of breaking their obligation immediately, don't.

So, you may say 'chill pill', but try and think about those that are going to suffer when DIAC clamp down because of abusers of the system. That is why people get ratty.

PamE

OP did not ask about people's opinions on the morality or otherwise of not living in the SS state, they asked if there were any penalities.


@ Mrsgreenstar - as for "abusing" the system, what a crock, no one is doing anything illegal. If the govt really didn't want people to move interstate, they would apply that restriction. As for people "suffering" as a result of visa rules changing for whatever reason, get a grip. "Suffering" is being locked in an inhumane immi detention centre for months on end with no end in sight, or having just endured torture and all manner if nightmares prior to arriving here, it is not being sat in a DIAC queue in a nice European country wanting to get away from the bad weather.

Once again I pop back in to BE...and remember why I don't do it very often