Chapter 6 Skilled migration and disability

Chapter 6 Skilled migration and disability

Programs and statistics
Skilled migration and the health requirement
Skilled visas and waiver options
Permanent skilled visas
Temporary and provisional visas
Permanency for temporary and provisional visa holders
New initiatives to address skill shortages
Committee comment
Personal indemnification options
Committee comment



Australia’s migration programs have traditionally been seen as being labour-driven programs. Over the years, some of the nation’s largest infrastructure programs have relied on the skills of migrants who have subsequently called Australia home.


Australia’s modern migration program has been a model for skilled migration used in other nations—the United Kingdom, for example, has just introduced the points system used by Australia for the new category of skilled visas.1


Australia’s skilled migration stream accepts by far the largest number of migration entrants and is a major contributor to the Australian economy. In 2008-09 the skilled migration stream accounted for 67 per cent of the total national migration program.2


There are four main visa categories with a wide number of visas available, including independent skilled temporary or permanent visas, business visas and employer sponsored schemes. Some programs offer opportunities to apply for permanency after a temporary visa has been held. However, few of these visas have a waiver opportunity and applicants with a disability may be rejected under the Health Requirement, even if they meet the skills and attributes required for the visa class they are applying for.


This chapter examines some of the issues raised regarding skilled migrants with a disability, or with family members with a disability, who wish to enter Australia under the Skilled Migration Program.


Programs and statistics


The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) fact sheet on skilled migration notes that:

The Australian Government continues to emphasise skilled migration, while maintaining a commitment to family reunion migration. The migration to Australia of people with qualifications and relevant work experience helps to address specific skill shortages in Australia and enhances the size and skill level of the Australian labour force.3


DIAC further notes that the skilled migration stream aims to:


There are four main categories of skilled migration:


Skilled migration and the health requirement

Skilled visas and waiver options


Australia requires visa applicants to undergo a health assessment for most permanent visas and for temporary entry visas (subject to length of stay and the country of origin’s risk level for tuberculosis (TB) and other factors).7


With the exception of some provisional visas, the majority of GMS visa applications, both independent and sponsored, are assessed under PIC 4005 which provides no waiver option. All applicants for permanent visas including the main applicant, spouse and any dependents must be assessed against the Health Requirement.8


As discussed earlier, there is currently no scope within Schedule 4 of the Migration Regulations 1994 for an assessment to include consideration of the economic and social contribution of people with a disability and their families unless the visa has a waiver option.


Until recently two visa classes under the skilled stream offered waivers. These were the Temporary Skilled (Business–Long Stay) 457 visa and the Educational sub-class 418 visa. Both of these had a PIC 4006A classification, meaning that a waiver would be considered at the Minister’s discretion on the undertaking of an employer.9 The Educational visa (Subclass 418) was repealed on 14 September 2009.10


In October 2006, the Government introduced visa subclasses 846, 855, 856 and 857 which have a PIC 4007 waiver arrangement. These visas were introduced to address the experiences of those who have been living and working under renewable skilled 457 business class visas, but had been rejected when applying for permanent residency visas (under PIC 4005).11


The new visa program allows for visa holders who have lived in Australia in a Specific Regional area for two years and worked for one year on a temporary visa to apply for permanent residency. These visas are subject to State and Territory agreement.12


Skilled visa applicants therefore have a range of visa options, but few provide for a waiver consideration. Additionally, under the Health Requirement, skilled visa categories face a double but distinct assessment.


The Council of Australian Graduate Associations (CAPA) informed the Committee:

Applicants' qualifications, professional experience and skills are each assessed on a points-based system, while health and character requirements are assessed independently as part of the application process. Health assessment criteria require mandatory medical examinations, and these apply to both the main visa applicant and any family members relevant to the application.13


Under these arrangements skilled applicants who have all the requisite qualifications (and points) for a visa, and may even have a job offer in Australia, can be rejected on the Health Requirement if they or a member of their family have a disability.


Permanent skilled visas


Applicants for Permanent skilled visas may apply for specific occupational visas identified on the SOL, skilled independent and sponsored independent, skilled designated area and skilled Australian sponsored, employer or state nominated visas, skilled regional sponsored, skilled overseas student and business schemes, both independent or sponsored. Except for the category of second stage skilled and business visas discussed later in this section, all of these visas are assessable under PIC 4005, which offers no waiver.14


The Committee was informed that the lack of a waiver option for the majority of permanent skilled visas means that applicants have limited opportunity to defray identified health costs, despite their capacity to do so.


The Royal College of Australasian Physicians stated:

The applicant's own means of support (including private health insurance coverage or support by family members or others) is not considered in the medical cost assessment made by the Medical Officer. Again, if the legitimate policy aim is the protection of scarce health resources, it is arguable that it cannot be a necessary and proportionate means of attaining that objective to screen out those who can fund their own treatment and therefore would not burden resources.15




HIV/Aids Legal Centre Inc. (HALC) and others maintained that the skill points assessment under the GMS provides all the confirmation needed of the economic advantage in accepting a particular applicant:

For applicants with a disability in the skilled migration stream, they would already have a sound assessment of their economic contribution to Australia by virtue of their satisfaction of the other criteria for the skilled visa they apply for. Having met the points test for a skilled stream visa, the economic benefit to Australia test is already met and in many instances in order to meet that points test, the main applicant would need to show a history of working in an area relevant to the application. This would demonstrate the expected economic benefit to Australia in granting the visa to such a person and his or her family.16

6.22 Numerous accounts were provided to the Committee by people who had applied for permanent skilled visas but were rejected on the basis of their own disability, or who had relatives who were rejected on this basis, or were rejected under ‘the one fails, all fail’ rule due to a family member’s impairment.


One example involved a Subclass 886 Skilled Sponsored (full fee) Visa application. Ms Simran Kaur was the primary applicant on behalf of herself and her husband in August 2009. Her application was refused on the basis of Ms Kaur’s blindness. In an attachment to the submission, Vision Australia supported Ms Kaur citing her exemplary personal record, qualifications and professional experience in community sector work with people with a disability, see Case Study 6.1, following.

Case Study 6.1

  Case Study 6.1

Commenting on the case Clothier, Anderson and Associates stated:

Ms Kaur has much to offer to the Australian community and is more than willing and able to work in such a community, for the benefit of Australians. However, she has not been given the chance, merely because the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth has concluded that she will be entitled to a pension that she has no intention of claiming, potentially at a cost to the community of over $21,000.00 over the next 5 years.17


Ms Stephanie Booker of Clothier, Anderson and Associates informed the Committee that the case has now been referred to Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), which is likely to be a lengthy and costly process for the applicant.18


As mentioned earlier, the situation of Mrs Maria Gillman and her sister Una Thysse provided another example of the enormous emotional, financial and time investment made by skilled people with a disability attempting to negotiate the process of rejection and appeal.19


Mrs Gillman was sponsoring her sister under a Permanent Skilled Australian Sponsored visa 138 (PIC 4005), however the visa application was rejected on the basis of her sisters’ disability, see Case Study 6.2.20


Ms Thysse, who was blinded in an accident at 21, currently volunteers in a mission in South Africa. She wrote to the Committee:

…I am a very active member of the staff where I am currently working, in a leadership position and making valuable contributions to the organization. I see no reason why I should be treated as a second-rate citizen of any country or deemed simply a mouth to feed while have intelligence, reason, hands to work with and a will to make a success of my life and see success in the lives of those I have contact with.21

Case Study 6.2

  Case Study 6.2

Ms Sharon Ford, the wife of an academic with a child with Down Syndrome, was rejected under the ‘one fails, all fail’ rule for a permanent employer sponsored visa, see Case Study 6.3.

Case Study 6.3

  Case Study 6.3

Ms Ford reported the upheaval caused in her family’s life over the eighteen months it took to resolve the case through the MRT:

Whilst awaiting the outcome, my partner and I were obliged to put our lives on hold and to live in separate countries. His position in the UK had come to an end, while he had accepted a position at the University of Western Australia which he was unable to take up. We were "fortunate" that he was able to take up a temporary position in Sweden, while I remained in the UK at my job and with our two preschool aged children. When this no longer proved viable we moved as a family to Brazil, where my partner also took up a temporary post. Meantime a research project bound by funding deadlines was standing idle at UWA because the principal researcher was unable to secure a visa. One can only wonder about the "significance" of the cost to Australia that this entailed.22


Ms Kione Johnson commented in relation to the ‘one fails, all fail’ rule, that:

The application of this policy in such circumstances, without allowing for consideration of the family unit's personal resources, may produce results which come to undermine the purpose of skilled migration.23


Temporary and provisional visas


Temporary visas comprise a range of skilled visas, provisional business class visas, temporary education sector visas for students, academics, as well as regional and employer schemes, both sponsored and unsponsored.24


These visas may be offered over a range of time from one day to four-years and are renewable. Some, such as the Skilled–Regional Sponsored (Provisional) Visa (Subclass 475), have options for permanency after a qualifying period of living and working in a community.25


As noted above, the bulk of temporary visa options are currently designated under PIC 4005. Until recently, only two Temporary Skilled visa categories offered a waiver on the basis employer sponsorship (PIC 4006A). These were the Temporary Skilled (Business—Long Stay) Visa 457 and the Educational visa (Subclass 418), for educational workers, which have a PIC 4006 waiver.


The Committee notes that the Subclass 418 visa was repealed on 14 September 2009, and that a number of other temporary visas have also been temporarily suspended, including the Regional Sponsored (Provisional) Visa (Subclass 475) mentioned above.26


The situation of Dr Siyat Hillow Abdi, see Case Study 6.4, alerted the community to the impact of the Health Requirement on highly skilled people with disability. Dr Abdi, who has been blind since birth, was denied a permanent skilled visa after completing his Doctorate in Disability Studies at Flinders University in South Australia. Blind Citizens Australia advised:

Dr Abdi was the first teacher who is blind to be registered as a teacher by the South Australia Teachers Registration board yet under the application of the Health Requirement of the Act Dr Abdi does not qualify for Australian residency. Clearly people like Dr Abdi have the potential to add to the social, cultural, educational and economic value of the vibrant and diverse fabric that is Australia.27

Case Study 6.4
  Case Study 6.4

Permanency for temporary and provisional visa holders


After a qualifying period, and subject to certain conditions, temporary visa holders may apply for a permanent visa. For people with a disability, the only alternative can be to apply for an Employer Nominated Scheme (ENS) visa, which will allow a waiver on the undertaking of the sponsor to pay any health costs.


Dr Paul Douglas of DIAC described the operation of the employer sponsored waiver under the 457 visa, and options for renewal or permanency:

For the 457, where they have nominated a period of time they are coming for, be it one year, two years, or up to four years, it is looked at in regard to whether the employer is happy to support that and what the other circumstances are around it. So that may be waived on that opinion. If they apply onshore for an additional visa or a new visa then under the employer nominated schemes and the employee sponsored schemes, if it is more than $100,000, it has to go to the states and territories and they will provide some opinion as to whether they are happy to support it in that regard, as explained by Mr Kennedy at the last meeting. If it is less than $100,000, it goes to the visa delegate, who will look at the compelling compassionate circumstances.28


Evidence before the Committee indicated that a majority of temporary visa holders, at the end of the contractual period, either seek to renew the visa or make an application for permanent residency. DIAC advised, for example, that a total of 39 170 permanent residency or provisional visas were granted to people who last held a Temporary Skilled (Business — Long Stay) Visa 457.29 CAPA also noted that two thirds of all international students intend to stay in Australia; of these students around 95 per cent plan to gain permanent residency before or immediately after graduation.30


However, as DIAC’s Mr Torkington confirmed problems can arise when a provisional visa expires and application for permanent visa is made:

…sometimes the person meets the health requirement for a short stay but for a longer period they do not meet the health requirement. If there is no waiver available for that type of visa, there is nothing the department can do about that.31


New initiatives to address skill shortages


The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, has recently announced the release of the new Skilled Occupation List (SOL) following suspension of the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) in 2008 and temporary application of the Critical Skills List (CSL).32


The new SOL Fact Sheet provides that the new skills list will reduce the number of occupations from 400 to 181, with a focus on higher skill employment:

The new list is focused on targeting specialised occupations that require a long lead time of formal education and training. It includes managerial, professional, associate-professional and trade occupations. The list of occupations will be reviewed annually but it is expected that it will be relatively stable over time.33


Additionally, the new program will focus on employer sponsored jobs, moving away from the emphasis on skilled independent visa under the previous arrangement. It was further announced:

The Minister will be recommending that the Governor-General in Council make amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 to give effect to the framework in which this new list would be applied. The new SOL is proposed to commence on 1 July 2010.34


The Committee heard that, at present, the system is turning away nurses and health professionals in critical areas need.


The Queensland Nurses Union (QNU) advised that, in that State, there is a critical shortage of nurses across public and private hospitals and aged care facilities (conservative estimates put this at around 1 400 nurses).35 Yet despite this, the application for a 457 visa from two nurses with skills in critical shortage were rejected due to a child’s disability, see Case Study 6.5.

Case Study 6.5

  Case Study 6.5

Commenting further on the case at hearings, QNU’s Ms Beth Mohle noted that, as a result of current requirements, Australia not only lost two skilled professionals in shortage (with the renal nurse being in the severe skill shortage category), but also damaged its competitiveness in the global skills market.36 The QNU submission records:

Our members international recruitment agency informed us that a number of registered nurses have withdrawn their applications as a result of learning about the adverse impact that immigration laws have had on families of their peers and the possibility that an assessment of a secondary applicant may result in their family members not meeting the heath requirement.37


QNU noted that the benefits to Queensland Health of filling these skilled nursing positions would have far outweighed the costs of mild intellectual impairment.38 To remedy the issue, QNU recommended that a specific appeal process for people with a disability, standardised assessment and more transparency under Ministerial discretion should be adopted.39


Other witnesses commented on the negative impact of Australia’s Health Requirement on our competitiveness for skilled people.


Wavelength International is a medical recruitment business which assists a large volume of medical doctors of all grades and allied health professionals into jobs in public and private medical institutions in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Canada. Wavelength described the obstacles placed before a senior nurse who wished to come to Australia. Despite having a willing sponsor for the 457 temporary visa, the disincentives were too great for the nurse and her husband, an academic, to risk the change.40 (See Case Study 6.6.)


The circumstances of Dr Fiona Downes and her husband, both Specialist Emergency Physicians, demonstrates the potential risk taken on  temporary migration, when a dependent child is later diagnosed with a disability.  Case study  6.7 describes how the family of six was almost driven offshore after eight years because of their son’s autism.


Mr Andrew Bartlett, appearing on behalf of Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, maintained that creating the right ethos or ‘vibe’ is important if Australia is to have success in attracting doctors and health professionals:

… it is a simple fact that with regard to the developed world longer term, in certain areas of skills there will be a lot of competition globally. I do not think that is going to change. Like a lot of areas, it serves us well—whether it is on a purely economic competitive basis or on some of those looser general terms of being seen to be more engaging, welcoming and encouraging of diversity—to have more recognition of the wider contributions people make. It gives us extra advantages over countries that do not do that.41

Case Study 6.6

  Case Study 6.6

Case Study 6.7

  Case Study 6.7

Dr Susan Harris Rimmer of the Australian Human Rights Lawyers stated:

There are academics who will not come to Australia, and why would they when their child will be put through this process? They do not want them to have to go through the intrusive medical checks. Why would they when they can go to Canada or the US and not go through that process? The skilled migration category now globally is highly competitive. We cannot assume that we will attract these high-powered executives if we keep the current system that we have. That is only going to affect that tiny elite part, but, in terms of return to the national economy, that might be very significant.42

The Government has now introduced a suite of skilled visa categories to provide greater flexibility following problems identified in the Moeller case. Visa subclasses 846, 855, 856 and 857, under the Employer Nominated stream, offer permanent skilled visas with a health waiver provision under PIC 4007.43


DIAC described the evolution of the new visas:

In late 2008, a high profile case involving a doctor in a regional area, brought to light the need to pursue a skilled health waiver option with State and Territory participation. Following this case the Minister wrote to State and Territory leaders seeking their agreement to participate.

To date all States and Territories, except New South Wales have now been designated as participating jurisdictions under the new arrangements. Visa applicants from States and Territories that have not yet signed up have been offered the opportunity to have their visa decision delayed until such time as the State or Territory has made a decision regarding their participation.

Some participating states have now signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the agreed implementation and operational arrangements with the Department. Under the MOU arrangements, in cases where the potential health care and community service costs are estimated to be $100 000 or more, or prejudice to access is 'substantial' or 'extensive', the relevant jurisdiction will be consulted for their view on whether they support a waiver being exercised. The States and Territories will have an advisory role not a determinative role.44


However, as DIAC submission states:

…these provisions required State and Territory agreement in order to operate - and until 2009, such agreement had not been acquired, consequently no waivers were available.45


The Migration Institute of Australia was positive about the new visas:

The recent 4007 health waiver for certain skilled visa applicants that live in or intend to live in a participating state or territory has certainly been a positive advent and welcomed by many.46


However, issues were raised about the cost of the proposal and its administration. The Australian National University School of Law Migration Program noted:

…the question of cost will inevitably arise with this proposal. Any legislation which relates to health walks a tight-rope, balancing the needs of the Commonwealth and the States. While the Commonwealth is in charge of migration and can implement the policies it requires, any changes to the health requirement have implications for the State-run public healthcare systems and social services.47


DIAC’s Mr Torkington further advised:

Obviously, I cannot speak for the state governments; but, if you expand it to more visa subclasses, it would have a greater impact on state health systems. You would have to go back to them and get their views again. Certainly, most of them were quite enthusiastic about signing up for skilled classes because they can see the benefits for the state.48


Mr Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Member for Isaacs, reported on a constituent with HIV who failed the Health Test for a PIC 4005 assessed permanent visa. Mr Dreyfus supported the new expanded employer sponsored visa classes but had concerns that state governments would not support the measure:

Although there is now a provision for waiver of the health criterion for onshore applicants for subclass 856 (ENS) and 857 (RSMS) visas, this is dependant upon the state in which the applicant lives certifying that it will accept the costs associated with the health condition, and remains unavailable for applicants applying for these visas outside of Australia. Such a waiver, if made available for all permanent subclasses, could have been appropriately utilised in JPl's case, given JPl's ability to significantly contribute to the Australian community by being an employed, tax-paying resident who is working for a regional employer and passing JPl's skills to local workers.49


The Committee notes that the New South Wales (NSW) Government is the sole remaining government not to have committed to the rollout of the new 4007 visas.50 In its submission, the NSW Government notes that it supports the measure but as the State with the largest influx of migrants, it would expect a heavier financial impact. The submission provided an itemised costing for expanded waivers in terms of education, migrant English, health and other costs.51


Committee comment


The Committee is pleased to note the new visa categories which provide options to balance health costs with skilled work contributions. The Committee also considers that a more comprehensive program for expansion of the waiver option is required to include a broader range of skilled visa categories, especially for skill shortages and rural and regional development schemes.


The Committee is of the view that this would not only support the acceptance of more able and skilled people with a disability it would also advertise Australia as a progressive community likely to attract the most valued applicants needed to fill skill shortages.


The Committee recognises that the expansion of these schemes may put extra pressure on State health and community care budgets.


In this regard, the Committee urges the Federal Government to recognise these challenges and facilitate State and Territory support for these schemes as part of the Government’s national health reform and National Disability Strategy agendas.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with State and Territory Governments to expand the waiver option to the Health Requirement for skilled migration visa classes to a broader range of skilled visa categories, targeting areas of skill shortages and rural and regional development schemes.

Personal indemnification options


Many submitters saw that in addition to recognition of the social and economic contributions of migrants in assessment criteria for waivers, there should be some contractual opportunity to offsets cost, at least for those in the skilled stream who have the capacity to make such commitments.


The Committee is aware that the Australian system currently provides an Assurance of Support (AoS) scheme for contributory aged parents and employment sponsored visas. However, there is no option for other individuals applying under other visa categories to provide any undertaking to cover heath costs under current system.


Fact Sheet 34 on the AoS provides that:

An AoS is a legal commitment by a person (not necessarily the sponsor) to repay to the Australian Government certain welfare payments paid to migrants during their respective AoS period.
It is also a commitment to provide financial support to the person applying to migrate (the assuree), so that the assuree will not have to rely on social welfare payments.52


DIAC’s Mr Matt Kennedy explained that the AoS system works by the lodging of a bond. Any access that is made by the application to social services or benefits is deducted from that bond. The AoS can also apply to partner visas but the system has limited jurisdiction and is at the discretion of the visa decision maker.53


DIAC raised concerns about any expansion of the personal assurances program noting that the measure only addresses the cost aspect not ‘prejudice to access ‘ concerns:

The other thing that is very clear about insurance is that people continually miss the prejudice to access issues, in that the health requirement also covers those things that are in short supply in Australia and that we do not have enough of to provide.54


DIAC also noted that the system could throw up anomalies in this regard:

Even if they demonstrate the ability to take out extensive health cover, what happens if that individual then falls on hard times and can no longer afford the $2,000, $3,000 or $4,000 a year that they need for comprehensive health cover. Do you say, ‘You promised that you would maintain that’?55


The HIV/AIDS Legal Centre (HALC) did not support a bond arrangement, regarding this as prejudicial to less affluent visa applicants. As an alternative it proposed a ‘buy in’ provision to offset the health assessment. HALC suggested:

For disabled applicants in the work stream a 2 or 5 year continued work capacity might be applied. A requirement for holding and using health insurance (this would require a limitation on Medicare access to those applicants). Alternatively an increased impost via taxation might be applied as a cost of entry provision. An incremented taxation impost spanning over 5-10 years would significantly defray the estimated lifetime costs the migrant is considered to bring, without unnecessarily burdening the migrant family. Such a scheme would have some popular appeal.56


Mr Iain Brady, Principal Solicitor with HALC added:
…we were thinking in terms of an additional 1.5 per cent or some additional impost on Medicare as a buy-in.57


The Committee notes that Canada and United States provide options for personal indemnification against health costs:


Committee Comment


The Committee considers there is merit in providing opportunities family members of applicants to indemnify costs across the visa streams. While there are concerns that such a proposal might be inequitable for some streams, it would appear also to be inequitable to exclude the option for offsets for those wanting to engage in such a scheme.


The Committee recommends that a bond, ‘buy in’ or credit management plan as applied in Canada be considered as an additional option for visa applicants. The Department may determine whether the mechanism should be offered as capped or a quota system for people with a disability. The Committee notes that quotas have been used effectively in New Zealand and some other countries to facilitate targeted migration of people in this cohort.60

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate the introduction of a voluntary bond or other scheme for visa applicants to indemnify against, or manage health care or community services costs assessed under the Health Requirement of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Committee recommends that any introduction of such a bond or other scheme should not prejudice those applicants that are unable to provide a surety.


1 Dr Susan Harris Rimmer, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Committee Hansard, 18 November 2010, p. 9. Back

The Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet 24Over View of Skilled Migration, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back

3 The Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet 24-Over View of Skilled Migration, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back
4 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2008-09, 1.1.1 Output Economic Migration, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back
5 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2008-09, 1.1.1 Output Economic Migration , accessed May 2010 at <>. Back
6 As discussed later, these priorities are under review. See DIAC, General Skilled Migration (GSM) Points Test Review, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back
7 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Fact Sheet 22– The Heath Requirement, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back

Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Health Assessments Required for Visa Applicants, accessed May 2010 at <>. Back


Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2008-09, 1.1.1 Output Economic Migration , accessed May 2010 at <>.

Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Health Requirement for Temporary Entry into Australia, Form 1163i, accessed May 2010 at <> ; and see New South Wales Government,  Submission 96, p. 6. Back

10 The Educational Visa (Subclass 418) accessed May 2010 at <>. Back
11 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, pp. 12–13. Back
12 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, pp. 12–13. Back
13 Council of Australian Graduate Associations, Submission 101, p. 4. Back
14 See Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, Attachment C. Back
15 The Royal College of Australasian Physicians, Submission 80, p. 11. Back
16 HIV/Aids Legal Centre Inc., Submission 69, p. 13. Back
17 Clothier, Anderson and Associates, Submission 98.1, p. 2. Back
18 Ms Stephanie Booker, Clothier, Anderson and Associates, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 February 2010, pp. 29–30. Back
19 Mrs Maria Gillman, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 18 February 2010, p. 29. Back
20 Name Withheld, Submission 29, p. 1. Back
21 Ms Una Thysse, Submission 93, p. 1. Back
22 Ms Sharon Ford, Submission 74, p. 8. Back
23 Ms Kione Johnson, Submission 62, pp. [44–45]. Back
24 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, Attachment C. Back
25 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Skilled – Regional Sponsored (Provisional) Visa (Subclass 475), accessed at May 2010 at <> Back
26 The Educational visa (Subclass 418) accessed May 2010 at <
/skilled-workers/ev/> Back
27 Blind Citizens Australia, Submission 44, pp. 6-7. Back
28 Dr Paul Douglas, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 17 March 2010, pp. 2–3. Back
29 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Annual Report 2008-09, 1.1.1 Output Economic Migration , accessed May 2010 at <> Back
30 The Council of Australian Graduate Associations, Submission 101, p.  6. Back
31 Mr Nicholas Torkington, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 17 March 2010, p. 3. Back
32 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, The New Skilled Occupation List (SOL), accessed May 2010 at <> Back
33 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, The New Skilled Occupation List (SOL), accessed May 2010 at <> Back
34 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, The New Skilled Occupation List (SOL), accessed May 2010 at <> Back
35 Queensland Nurses Union, Submission 5, p. 2. Back
36 Ms Beth Mohle, Queensland Nurses Union, Committee Hansard, Brisbane, 28 January 2010, p. 41. Back
37 Queensland Nurses Union, Submission 5, p. [4]. Back
38 Queensland Nurses Union, Submission 5, pp. [2–3]. Back
39 Queensland Nurses Union, Submission 5, pp. [2–3]. Back
40 Wavelength International, Submission 102, p. 2. Back
41 Mr Andrew Bartlett, Ethnic Communities Council of Queensland, Committee Hansard, 28 January 2010, p. 5. Back
42 Dr Susan Harris Rimmer, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 18 November 2009, pp. 11–12. Back
43 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, p. 12. Back
44 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, pp. 12–13 Back
45 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Submission 66, p. 12. Back
46 The Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 34, p. [6]. Back
47 Migration Law Program, Australian National University College of Law, Submission 59, p. 9. Back
48 Mr Nicholas Torkington, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 17 March 2010, p. 8. Back
49 Mr Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Member for Isaacs, Submission 109, p. 2. Back
50 Mr Nicholas Torkington, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 17 March 2010, p. 8. Back
51 NSW (New South Wales) Government, Submission 96, p. 8–11. Back
52 Fact Sheet 34— Assurance of Support, accessed May 2010 at <> Back
53 Mr Matt Kennedy, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 24 February 2010, p. 17. Back
54 Dr Paul Douglas, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 24 February 2010, p. 17. Back
55 Mr Peter Vardos, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 24 February 2010, p. 16. Back
56 HIV/AIDS Legal Centre Inc., Submission 69, p. 18. Back
57 Mr Iain Brady, HIV/AIDS Legal Centre Inc., Committee Hansard, Sydney, 12 November 2010, p. 53. Back
58 Advocacy, Disability, Ethnicity, Community (ADEC), Submission 23, pp. 11–13. Back
59  High Commission of Canada, Submission 86, p. [2]. Back
60 See Dr Susan Harris Rimmer, Committee Hansard, Canberra 18 November 2010, p. 12. Back

Print Chapter 6(PDF 216KB) < - Report Home < - Chapter 5 : Chapter 7 - >