Dodaj do ulubionych

Australia: pilnie potrzebni do pracy !

21.08.05, 02:27
Rzad Australii poszukuje Europejczykow do pracy, we wszystkich zawodach.
Spodziewam sie zacieklego ataku ze strony Polakow w Australii, bo przeciez oni wiedza lepiej od rządu, ze zadnych ludzi do pracy, a Polakow w szczegolnosci, nie potrzeba:
17/08/2005

Australia looks to Europe for skilled workers



There is a desperate need for skilled workers in just about every trade in Australia from doctors to carpenters.

Australia is planning its biggest global recruitment drive since the "£10 pom" campaign of the 1950s by trying to lure 20,000 skilled workers to the country with promises of shorter hours, a better climate and a lower cost of living.

The government says there are shortages in many key industries and that the problems have, in part, been caused by an ageing population and the fact that almost one million skilled workers have left the country to work overseas.

Europe is regarded as an important potential recruiting ground, and the immigration department is planning a comprehensive drive that will include advertisements and exhibitions playing up the advantages of moving down under. Australian immigration officials will talk up the country's laid-back culture in the exhibitions and Individual companies are providing extra incentives such as cars, laptops and more flexible working hours.

Exhibitions will take place in London, Amsterdam, and Berlin next month and in October. The government is considering a further recruitment drive next year in Los Angeles, Bangkok, Seoul and Manila. The UK and Ireland are obvious recruiting targets. More than 5,000 Britons moved to Western Australia in 2004.

Abul Rizvi, the acting deputy secretary of the immigration department, said the campaign echoed the post-war drive for skilled migrants. "If you think about what we did in the 1950s and the impact that had on Australia, well, we're doing it again," he said. That scheme saw more than one million Britons emigrate to Australia under various assisted migration schemes. Under the current programme, the government will offer migrants four-year employer or state-sponsored migration, with the option to stay on permanently.

The Australian army hopes to recruit up to 300 British soldiers to fill its dwindling ranks at next month's London exhibition, while the South Australian government is seeking medical professionals willing to work in rural hospitals. Salaries for trainee doctors in Australia start at £19,000 and rise to £49,000. Workers on large infrastructure projects, particularly engineers, are also highly sought after following years of under-investment which resulted in fewer apprentices being trained in Australia.

Kim Beazley, Australia's Labor opposition leader, has also called for the estimated 900,000 Australian expatriates working overseas to return home.

Vacancies by state

· The latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show a desperate need for skilled workers in just about every trade.

· Western Australia needs skilled recruits for the mining industry, including engineers, planners, building surveyors, IT personnel, environmental health officers, works supervisors and plant operators.

· Queensland and Victoria are states desperate for qualified building professionals, including carpenters, joiners and bricklayers.

· New South Wales has serious shortages in the manufacturing sector.
· South Australia has already recruited more than 100 ex-British police but has room for at least 100 more. The state's biggest challenge is luring doctors to rural hospitals.

Debbie O'Halloran


Edytor zaawansowany
  • 21.08.05, 03:46
    jak to w obozach pracy, zawsze brakuje rak do pracy
  • 21.08.05, 04:29
    dla kazdych pieciu doroslych immigrantow przypadnie jeden nowy boss, na ktorego
    awansuje sie aussich lub anglikow
  • 21.08.05, 06:04
    szczegolnie apeluje do Brutyjczykow! Wyglada na to ze pod
    plaszczykiem "skilled migrants" sprowadzaja bilaych anglosasow, bo przeholowali
    z innymi rasami
  • 21.08.05, 06:26
    Na tym polega idea obozow koncentracyjnych: straznikami sa nadludzie czyli
    anglosasi, a do roboty sa tzw. etnicy, czyli rowniez i Polacy!
    www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
    I ps.: czemu sie zaostrza w australii kryteria przyznawania zasilkow, skoro
    podobno brakuje rak do pracy, wiec ilosc osob zglaszajacych sie po owe zasilki
    powinna raczej malec, a nie rosnac, jak sie to dzieje w australii?
  • 21.08.05, 06:23
    A propos obozow:
    www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
    I faktem jest, ze rzad australijski chce zanizyc place realne, stad chce
    sprowadzic tanich pracownikow, glownie z Azji. Z Polski wyraznie zas nikogo nie
    chca, bo nie wysylaja "lowcow glow" do Warszawy, a glownie do Azji i Londynu...
    Ciekawe, ze w W. Brytanii chca Polakow, a w Australii zdecydowanie NIE!
  • 21.08.05, 06:17
    Albo do zamkniecia w obozie koncentracyjnym!
    www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
    SIX MONTHS IN A QUEENSLAND PRISON

    Travel was once Cornelia Rau's career. Until her first serious crack-up in 1998,
    she was a fine Qantas air hostess. Then travel became part of her pathology: a
    schizophrenic woman of immense energy, on the run from her family, from mental
    hospitals and from Australia. She caught planes, she hitched, she took terrible
    risks on wild jaunts through Thailand, South America and Europe. She turned up
    dishevelled on the doorstep of family friends abroad; she was rescued by
    Australian officials in far-flung cities; more than once her parents hauled her
    home.

    On March 17 last year, she slipped away from the psychiatric wing of Manly
    Hospital and stripped her account of $2000. She was off again. But within days
    something happened that would shape this story from beginning to end: she lost
    her new passport issued at the German consulate in Woollahra a few weeks
    earlier. To replace it would risk alerting her family and see her forced back to
    hospital. Somewhere on the road to far north Queensland she stole another. It
    was Norwegian and useless to her. By late March, Rau was trapped.
    AdvertisementAdvertisement

    What happened next has a definite if warped logic to it: a woman turned up at
    Cape York in the middle of the rainy season calling herself Anna Brotmeyer or
    Anna Schmidt. She said she was a German backpacker who had overstayed her time
    in Australia. Driven eight hours down the rutted road to Cairns, she announced
    first to the police and then to the honorary German consul that she wanted a new
    passport and wanted to go home.

    The 10-month saga of this woman's mistreatment at the hands of the Immigration
    Department is so rich in appalling detail it is easy to lose sight of the simple
    strategy that lay behind it all: to leave Anna behind bars, her health failing,
    until she revealed the details needed to issue those fresh papers. This approach
    was not invented for Anna. We're talking standard practice here: the
    recalcitrant remain locked up until they co-operate, forever if necessary.

    Everything depended on the Germans. This is not just the story of how the
    Immigration Department failed a very ill Australian resident, Cornelia Rau. It's
    also the story of a clash of bureaucratic cultures: between the scrupulous
    Germans and their insistence on hard evidence, and the sloppy Australians who
    never found a shred of evidence to support the only plan they ever thought up to
    solve this mess: to deport to Germany the woman known as Anna. Cornelia was
    German, of course. Anna was not. Anna was a mad woman's delusion. Australian
    officials believed in her to the end.

    And if the result was cruel, what does that matter? Isn't having an Immigration
    Department that's known to be nasty, dilatory and inflexible as much part of the
    deterrence system as putting the navy into the Indian Ocean and building
    detention prisons in the desert? Isn't this how Australia sends a message to
    refugees and would-be illegal immigrants across the world: don't try it on?

    ANNA was flown down from Cairns by Queensland Police Air Wing on April 5 last
    year and taken to the Brisbane Women's prison. In his report published last
    week, the former commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mick Palmer,
    wrote: "She was not a prisoner, had done nothing wrong, and was put there simply
    for administrative convenience." Prisoners report that was Anna's mantra through
    the months ahead: "I have done nothing wrong."

    The Immigration Department did not move swiftly. It was a couple of days before
    Ben Stoneley, the compliance officer responsible for liaising with detainees in
    prison, went out to Wacol to visit Anna. She gave him the same messy, incomplete
    biography she had given the police and Iris Indorato, the honorary German consul
    in Cairns: she was German, had grown up on a farm near Dresden but the hippie
    lifestyle she led as a child left her unsure of her parents' names or her own
    date of birth. She thought she might be 25. She claimed her lost passport was in
    the name Schmidt.

    Immigration already knew Anna's story was fundamentally flawed. Stoneley had
    confirmed that none of the various permutations of names Anna had given -
    Schmidt, Schmitz, Brotmeyer - turned up on the department's database of
    movements in and out of Australia. Palmer wrote: "Australia has one of the most
    effective Movements databases in the world." If a name doesn't appear there,
    then the name is false or that person has never travelled in and out of the country.

    Palmer says this should have alerted Immigration Department staff "at an early
    stage that there was something strange about this situation and that more
    thorough assessment was called for". Instead, Anna was left to come to her senses.

    Stoneley waited three weeks before visiting her again. After that inconclusive
    meeting, he did not visit her at Wacol for another five months. This was, Palmer
    noted, a breach of Departmental Instruction 244 that requires case officers "to
    undertake monthly personal visits with detainees".

    Debbie Kilroy from the prison reform group, Sisters Inside, met Anna and began
    to lobby Stoneley on her behalf. Anna had come to Kilroy in great distress. "I'm
    not supposed to be here. I don't know what's going on. I haven't done anything
    wrong." According to Kilroy, Stoneley explained that Anna would be held "until
    she gives better information on her identity". He told Kilroy they needed
    "honest" information.

    After a month, Immigration sent Anna an application form for German papers. The
    Germans had already dismissed the shabby biography Anna presented up in Cairns.
    Now Anna made a pathetic attempt to comply with the republic's bureaucratic
    demands. She could not even fill in her own date of birth. The German consulate
    in Sydney advised Immigration not to bother lodging the application as it was so
    obviously incomplete.

    That was in mid-May. From time to time, the immigration office in Brisbane
    talked about this case but essentially Anna was just left out at Wacol, parked
    in a women's prison. Palmer is scathing about the failure to get her out of
    there, to review her case, to think afresh. But the department plodded down the
    only course it ever chose to pursue: prove the woman German and deport her.

    In mid-June, the Australian embassy in Berlin was asked to lend a hand.
    Diplomatic efforts to identify Anna would drag on into August. In these months
    of absolute inaction, Anna's behaviour deteriorated dramatically.

    Prisons everywhere face the problem of distinguishing bad behaviour from mental
    collapse. Anna's behaviour had been odd from the beginning. The first doctor to
    examine her at Wacol put this down to her being "a stranger in a strange land".
    By May, Anna had been two months without medication for schizophrenia and was
    showing distressing signs of what prison records called "unusual behaviour and
    poor hygiene". She paced; she stared; she hoarded food; her moods swung about;
    she wouldn't wash.

    Was she to be treated or disciplined? A psychologist from the Prison Mental
    Health Service saw no evidence of mental illness and when Anna's behaviour
    deteriorated further in June, she began to be disciplined by being placed for
    days at a time in "separate confinement". She was extremely distressed.

    Finally on August 10 a psychiatrist, Dr Dominique Hannah, was called in and
    after only a few moments with Anna realised something was badly amiss. She
    reported: "The behaviour of Ms Brotmeyer had been becoming increasingly bizarre
    and her presentation was consistent with a psychotic disorder." She recommended
    Anna be taken to hos
  • 21.08.05, 06:19
    C.d.
    Finally on August 10 a psychiatrist, Dr Dominique Hannah, was called in and
    after only a few moments with Anna realised something was badly amiss. She
    reported: "The behaviour of Ms Brotmeyer had been becoming increasingly bizarre
    and her presentation was consistent with a psychotic disorder." She recommended
    Anna be taken to hospital for assessment.

    Ten days later Anna found herself - once again - at Brisbane's Princess
    Alexandra Hospital. As Cornelia Rau she had been treated there for about a month
    in 2002. No one recognised her now. But the grim irony was that somewhere in the
    hospital were already the records needed to identify this woman's profound
    mental problems.

    Anna brought few records from prison to assist the clinicians, but she did bring
    two prison guards who had to remain in line of sight at all times - despite
    clinical staff being advised: "Ms Brotmeyer was not at risk to herself or
    others." Palmer believed the presence of those guards "hampered" Anna's
    assessment. The department's top priority, it seems, was not her health but
    making sure she didn't do a runner.

    Prison medical staff were aghast when Anna returned on August 26 with her papers
    stamped: "Does not fulfil any diagnostic criteria for mental illness." Anna was
    soon back in confinement, again for failing to wash. Dr Hannah, due to visit her
    at this time, was turned away by the prison "for operational reasons". Palmer
    was very critical of this: "Only in the most extreme circumstances should
    essential medical treatment be deferred."

    Immigration's hopes of deporting Anna at any moment were now beginning to fade.
    From the moment of her arrival in prison in April - with her papers marked "For
    deportation tomorrow" - everyone seemed to assume she was going at any day. Even
    in August, the staff at Princess Alexandra were under the impression she would
    be "repatriated to Germany on discharge from the unit".

    Palmer birched the Immigration Department for not correcting this
    misapprehension which he believed contributed to the failure of proper care for
    Anna.

    The truth was that after holding this woman in prison for nearly six months,
    Immigration frankly didn't have a clue who she was or a hope in hell of
    deporting her. Shortly after emerging from hospital, Anna rang the German
    consulate in Brisbane and on September 17, Ursula Sterf and Detlef Sulzer
    visited her at Wacol. Nothing came of it. In Palmer's words: "She repeats her
    story but provides insufficient details to allow for the issuing of a German
    passport."

    What now? Palmer is amazed that the officers dealing with Anna's case hadn't by
    this time begun to consider the possibility that she may be Australian. Anna
    sounded Australian and knew an awful lot about the country for a backpacker. But
    all the way to end, the Department of Immigration never focused on the
    possibility that the woman they had on their hands was anything but a German
    backpacker who had outstayed her visa.

    Palmer accuses the department of rigid thinking and "an entrenched culture fixed
    on process and apparently oblivious to the outcomes being achieved". He points
    to poor sleuthing, poor records, poor case management and overwork. He was
    particularly scathing that the department was oblivious to the plight of an
    innocent woman housed for so long in a prison.

    Palmer wrote: "The fact that a person's liberty had been taken seemed to be
    accepted simply as a 'matter of fact' and a result of the person's own doing and
    circumstances brought about by their actions." Under the department's own rules,
    prison is only ever to be "a last resort" for immigration detainees, and only
    used until alternative arrangements can be made. Anna had been in the Brisbane
    Women's prison for six months. "Had proper processes been adhered to," Palmer
    wrote, "she might not have been there for more than a week."

    This is a country where public servants can, on their own authority, send people
    to prison for long periods. No magistrates, no judges. As Palmer pointed out,
    these are "exceptional, even extraordinary powers" and he found it a matter of
    great concern that immigration officers were expected to exercise them "without
    adequate training, without proper management and oversight, with poor
    information systems, and with no genuine checks and balances".

    Palmer does not address a deeper scandal: that the department has been at
    loggerheads with the courts for years over a fundamental question. What test
    must officers apply when holding people in detention for any length of time?

    Is it enough to "reasonably suspect" the person is unlawfully in Australia, or
    must officers be much, much more certain?

    Immigration believes reasonable suspicion is enough. Giving evidence to a Senate
    estimates committee earlier this year, the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone
    and her then department head, Bill Farmer, argued for maximum leeway in the
    hands of their officers. Vanstone told the senators that immigration detention
    is "lawful up until the time you discovered that your suspicion was incorrect".

    But that is not what the courts say. In 2003, a full federal court of three
    judges headed by the Chief Justice of the court, Michael Black, unanimously
    declared that suspicion is not enough. The department must know someone is
    unlawfully in Australia to hold them for any length of time. But the Immigration
    Department continues to work on a day-to-day basis in defiance of that ruling.

    In Anna's case, officers may have had reasonable grounds to suspect she was
    unlawfully in Australia in the very early days of the saga - though even that is
    open to question - but they certainly never established she actually was
    unlawfully in this country. It was only ever suspicion.

    Palmer does not get involved in this stand-off between the department and the
    courts, but he hints very strongly that as the weeks went by, and absolutely
    nothing was discovered to sustain the department's suspicions, that Anna should
    have been released.

    One of Palmer's principal findings is this: "Officers should not only have
    continued inquiries aimed at identifying Anna; they should also have continued
    to question whether they were still able to demonstrate that the suspicion on
    which the detention was originally based persisted and that it was still
    reasonably held."

    They did not. Instead, it was decided to transfer Anna to Baxter detention
    centre in South Australia - not an imminent deportee now, but a long stayer.

    Anna was once again in the punishment cells when her case officer, Stoneley,
    arrived on September 30. It was their first face-to-face meeting since May.
    Documents provided to the Palmer inquiry by the Queensland Government record
    that Anna was "teary and feeling sad because she had been in the detention unit
    for so long". She refused to sign the notice of intended transfer Stoneley
    handed her.

    A few days later, Anna was restrained by prison officers and 10 milligrams of
    the sedative diazepam was administered to her intramuscularly. Next day, another
    10 milligrams was administered orally and she was placed in restraints. Taken to
    Brisbane Airport, she was flown on commercial flights first to Adelaide and then
    Whyalla where a van was waiting to take her out to the camp.
  • 21.08.05, 07:24
    W obozach koncentracyjnych dla nieanglosasow!
    www.smh.com.au/news/national/cornelia-rau-the-verdict/2005/07/17/1121538868891.html?oneclick=true
    "This is a country where public servants can, on their own authority, send
    people to prison for long periods. No magistrates, no judges. As Palmer pointed
    out, these are "exceptional, even extraordinary powers" and he found it a matter
    of great concern that immigration officers were expected to exercise them
    "without adequate training, without proper management and oversight, with poor
    information systems, and with no genuine checks and balances".

    Palmer does not address a deeper scandal: that the department has been at
    loggerheads with the courts for years over a fundamental question. What test
    must officers apply when holding people in detention for any length of time?

    Is it enough to "reasonably suspect" the person is unlawfully in Australia, or
    must officers be much, much more certain?

    Immigration believes reasonable suspicion is enough. Giving evidence to a Senate
    estimates committee earlier this year, the Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone
    and her then department head, Bill Farmer, argued for maximum leeway in the
    hands of their officers. Vanstone told the senators that immigration detention
    is "lawful up until the time you discovered that your suspicion was incorrect".

    But that is not what the courts say. In 2003, a full federal court of three
    judges headed by the Chief Justice of the court, Michael Black, unanimously
    declared that suspicion is not enough. The department must know someone is
    unlawfully in Australia to hold them for any length of time. But the Immigration
    Department continues to work on a day-to-day basis in defiance of that ruling."
  • 21.08.05, 11:36
    Czy raczej chce zaoszczedzic na ksztalceniu fachowcow? Mnie np. przyjeto w roku
    1984 bo potrzebowali wtedy informatykow. Od roku mniej wiecej 1990 jest w
    Australii nadmiar informatykow, i spore bezrobocie wsrod nich, a wielu
    informatykow po specjalistycznych studiach pracuje jako np. kasjerzy w
    supermarketach, gdzie jedyny ich kontakt z informatyka to obsluga
    skomputeryzowanej kasy, ktorej mozna nauczyc w 1 dzien absolwenta podstawowki...
    :( Podobnie bedzie np. z budowlancami czy gornikami: minie krotkotrwaly boom w
    budownictwie czy gornictwie, i owi imigranci powieksza szeregi bezrobotnych...
    :( A ze lekarze australijscy nie chca pracowac na tzw. outback, czyli zadupiu,
    to pozwalaja tam pracowac niskokwalifikowanym imigrantom po studiach
    medycznych... Ale to jest praca w ciezkich warunkach i bez przyszlosci!

Popularne wątki

Nie pamiętasz hasła lub ?

Zapamiętaj mnie

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się

Nakarm Pajacyka
Agora S.A. - wydawca portalu Gazeta.pl nie ponosi odpowiedzialności za treść wypowiedzi zamieszczanych przez użytkowników Forum. Osoby zamieszczające wypowiedzi naruszające prawo lub prawem chronione dobra osób trzecich mogą ponieść z tego tytułu odpowiedzialność karną lub cywilną. Regulamin.