|
|
非常断章取义。
Peter Mares: Well your Department's put out some information when you made changes to priority processing on 23rd September this year, and in those changes it says to people they will have to wait if they're onshore applicants, and they're not on what's called the Critical Skills List, and they're not sponsored by an employer, they will wait until the end of 2011 before their application is processed at least. And applicants from offshore will wait until at least the end of 2012 before their applications are processed. Now if that's not being on hold, I don't know what is.
Chris Evans: Well they've always had to wait. We determine the size of the migration program. Quite frankly, if we decide it's going to be 10,000 people next year, they might be waiting for 20 or 30 years. The point is, we're trying to give them an indication, on the current policy settings, and current levels of migration, about when they're likely to have their application considered. But applying to migrate to Australia doesn't give you a right to migrate to Australia.
Chris的意思说：申请人总是要等的(少则一天，多则几年。要等多久？取决于移民项目的规模。)我们决定移民项目的规模。坦白说，如果我们决定明年只有1万个配额，那恐怕就要等20或30年了。关键在于，我们试图给他们一个预期，根据目前的政策，目前的移民项目水平（指规模），他们的申请大约在什么时候可能被考虑（审理）。但是，申请移民澳大利亚本身不意味着你有权移民澳大利亚。
显然20或30年只是个极端的比方而已。可以反感Evans，但请不要断章取义。
Peter Mares: People of course do take their chances, but they were given indications about how long it might take, and many people have already been in the system 18 months, and some were at the top of the queue, they had case officers assigned, they were asked for the final health checks, these are people offshore. In other words, they were a couple of weeks away from a visa on all normal indications. Now they're told they're back at the bottom of the queue. I mean you can understand - I mean do you make an apology to those people for what's happened?
Chris Evans: No, I don't apologise. I mean I accept that there are some cases where people feel aggrieved, and they've not fared well out of the changes, but you've got to have a cut-off date. If you make a change, you've got to make a change on a certain date, and what we did is, we said 'We want to better prioritise which skills come into the country. We can't to actually do it in the national interest. What we had is, under the previous system, we had hairdressers being processed in front of doctors and engineers, because of the date of their application, when we were crying out for medical professionals. And when I came to government, I just thought this is crazy, we're not prioritising the people we need, we've got a queue based on, if you like date of application rather than based on the needs of Australia. And we are trying to reconfigure the system to get a more rational system in place. The Critical Skills List is part of that, but there's a range of other changes being planned which will change some of the fundamentals of the system.
Chris说，他不道歉，因为他觉得任何政策变更都要有cut-off日期。不管他说的话有没有道理，已不再重要。因为他后来自己改变了看法，曾经到了最后阶段的州担保在此之后出现了一批被批准的情况，正是对这个问题的回应。
但是优先级的确是Chris个人的发明，事实上移民法也赋予了他调整优先级的权力，他认为，应该从澳洲需求出发。尽管对很多申请人是很残酷的改变，但站在澳洲国家利益的立场，是有一定道理的。
Chris Evans: What I'm saying to you Peter is that while I know you're sympathetic to their cause, it's not an accurate description of what occurs. The situation is, and has been for many years, we have more people apply for migration to Australia than places available, and the Australian government reserves the right to set the annual migration intake. Now what we've seen in the last year or two in particular, is a large increase in people seeking to migrate to Australia, out of countries that are often having economic downturns, and when we had our own downturning economy, we reduced the size of the migration program. So that's going to have an impact on waiting times. All we do is try and predict for people when they're likely to be processed. Now I accept that people pay fees etc. and I've actually asked my Department to have a look at whether we can't do something in terms of people who've paid fees and application fees and then seek to discontinue their application because I do think the current system doesn't do well in that area. But we're not going to take in more migrants to this country if we don't think they're going to have good economic outcomes, or they don't meet the national interest of Australia, and while there may be people in the queue and they may be impacted, I'm not going to make a decision that says We're driven by the number of people in the queue as to how many people we allow to migrate to Australia.
...
从粗体字这段看，Chris的意思是他已经让移民部的人着手研究如果申请人想要放弃申请能否退费的问题，因为他觉得目前的系统在这方面不是很合理。
主持人Peter因此有了如下的提问。
Peter Mares: Coming back to an issue raised before, the fact that these people, the people in the queue, feel very aggrieved about the amount of money they've spent on these applications. You suggested you will offer a refund, you'll consider offering a refund to any migrant in this queue who says 'Well I'm pulling out because I can't wait five years, or however long it might be.'
主持人觉得Chris是用一种婉转的方式表达退费在未来是可能的。对此，主持人再次向Chris确认这一点。
Chris Evans: No, Peter I don't want to overstate it. What I was I've asked the Department to have a look at how the current system works, because I think it is the case that we keep accepting applications from people who may never qualify and I think we've got to be able to do better than that. And I've asked them to look at alternative systems, and that would help us deal with the fact that people are paying money when they may not be much chance of making it, if you like, and I've also sought to see if we can't have better systems so that people aren't paying that money upfront. But we're certainly not in the position at the moment to offer refunds, in fact the legislation prevents it.
Chris表示，他不想说过头（不想给出无法保证的承诺）。他甚至让部门的人研究，是不是可以不要在申请时付费，而是等到要批准了再付？但是，目前无法退费，因为事实上法律不允许。
已经一个多月前的内容了，坛子里也发过几个帖子了，又拿出来炒作，不知何意。
想要推翻也好，改变状况也好，是要抓住他们的真正痛脚（目前还没有，但如果‘清除’的话，或许就有了，或许就可以集体诉讼了——当然，是境内），而不是靠曲解。断章取义对此毫无益处。
[ 本帖最后由 TtiGeR 于 30-12-2009 17:24 编辑 ] |
评分
-
查看全部评分
|
发表于 29-12-2009 23:11:52
收藏
赞
踩
楼主
