Extract: "...to qualify for the special humanitarian program visa (PDF 367KB), you have to have an Australian “proposer”, and you are more likely to succeed if you are a “split family”. "

See:

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/how-propose.htm

- - - start extract- - - -

Proposing a Refugee visa applicant

A proposer is not required for a person to be considered for the grant of a Refugee visa. However, a proposer may support a Refugee visa application. This allows a more accurate assessment to be made of the applicant’s settlement prospects in Australia.

- - - end extract- - - -

Now read the application form [681.pdf]: Refugee and special humanitarian proposal :

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/681.pdf

- - - - extract start - - - -

‘Information and orientation assistance’ means assisting
the entrant to access:
• Income support through Centrelink;
• Permanent housing;
• Medicare;
• Health services (eg. doctor, dentist and pharmacy);
• Employment services (eg. Job Network);
• Education and training services (eg. Adult Migrant
English Program, children’s schooling);
• Translating and interpreting services;
• Banking services;
• Childcare services; and
• Transport.
- - - - extract end - - - -

- - - - extract start - - - -
If you are eligible to propose, you will also need form 842
Application for an Offshore Humanitarian visa to be
completed by the visa applicant and submitted together with
this form.

- - - - extract end - - - -

Note forms for applicant and proposer need be submitted together.

Need more information on sponsor commitments - liabilities.

Is the issue money ?

Encourage people in community to match with and select applicants they are prepared to support.

IMHO exists a problem - government and organizational, within the filtering process which deters individuals from offering support.


Is purpose to reduce number arriving through private sponsor process ?

.

Good Westralis.. at least we have cleared that up.

You seem to have a CAT D9 chip on your shoulder about the church.. maybe you had a 'bad church experience' which has left you embittered?

THE GENUINE REFUGEE.
For Australia, would be a person fleeing persecution in Irian Jaya, though their first port of call would need to be PNG rather than Australia.
It could also be Chinese Christians fleeing Muslim persecution in Indonesia. (though Singapore might be closer)

THE FAKE REFUGEE. is one who has come from any other country 'through' Indonesia,Malaysia,PNG just to get to Australia.

It's only political intrigue which prevents the fake from the genuine from being so described and our authorities taking appropriate and swift action.

I, as one will see from my posts, have NO INTEREST IN HUMANITARIAN VISAS WHILE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY LIVE IN 3RD WORLD CONDITIONS.

See, I spelt it out, quite clearly, let there be NO MISTAKE.

Until we are in a position where the citizens of our Country are ALL ABLE TO SAY THEY HAVE A CHANCE, I don't see that we are in a position to spend money on other Country's citizens. Regardless of their problems, we have our own citizens problems to deal with first.

Quite frankly, I propose a Moratorium on ALL REFUGEE IMMIGRATION until we can say we have successfully fixed ALL of the issues that exist here NOW.

Think that is hard? I don't, charity starts at home. Any illegal immigrant that makes it here should have equality with our ATSI communities, and be forced to live in the same. Perhaps that will focus world attention on the ACTUAL problem (in fact, I'm sure it will, the Refugee advocates couldn't help but draw the worlds attention to the deplorable living conditions in existence where their clients were being held).

Actually, that might be a plan... It would certainly ensure that wannabee refugees thought hard and long about setting sail from Indonesia. They'd be exchanging the dubious lifestyle they are in for a worse one, that might well stop illegal immigration, full stop.

On the plus side, the many millions spent on housing the refugees, on ensuring their needs are met, etc. would also benefit the remote communities where they are housed.

Let me make this plain, I do not see why anyone who is in this Country illegally should experience a life any better than that of the meanest of our communities. After all, why should non-citizens receive better than the least of our citizens? I cannot see a single, logical or worthwhile argument why they should, I'd be interested to see if anyone could even raise one.

Do you think it valid to discriminate between asylum seekers based upon where they are processed?
A) No.

Do you think it ethical to give legal advantage to people who engage with criminals and undertake very dangerous voyages in unseaworthy vessels?
A) No….However you take a very simplistic attitude towards the matter. I put it to you that should you be in fear of your life as well as that of your family would you not leave no stone unturned in the effort to remove yourself and family from those dire consequences? Would you not risk and sacrifice the very last of your family’s liquid assets for the tiny space on a rickety old junk for the short hop to Xmas Island, Ashmore Reef or better still the shores of Western Australia.

Do you think that a policy which discouraged people from engaging with criminals and undertaking dangerous voyages would be a better policy?
A) Absolutely! And this is exactly what the Australian Gov’t and NGO’s are doing by despatching Officers to the camps to accelerate the paperwork process. This is no easy task and comes with its own risks to life one of whom was a mate of mine that was killed in an aircraft crash. Not all of him was located, the Aussie diplomatic bags full of refugee family files that he had processed in the camps, strewn all over a field. You think this is something new that you have discovered well it is not new, that was over twenty years ago that my mate died. These processes have been going for twenty plus years before him, stretching to well before and after WW1, WW2 when Australia took hundreds of thousands of refugees from Europe. The problem is well known, acknowledged and addressed at best possible practise levels but there will always be some whom in dire fear and in a mad panic destroy their papers and hop on a junk in a last ditch effort for freedom and peaceful existence. Israel likes to proclaim that “We are a light unto the nations” but sometimes I wonder!

Shorter Boaz:

THE GENUINE REFUGEE.
Anybody who fits the definition of the UN Convention and is not a Muslim.

THE FAKE REFUGEE.
Anybody who fits the definition of the UN Convention and is a Muslim.

Other than that, same old, same old from the haters. We could easily take double or triple our current intake of refugees and still reduce net immigration by axing the so-called 'skilled' migration program.

The comparison with the appalling health and social conditions of many Aboriginal Australians is a red herring that has nothing whatsoever to do with our humanitarian obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees. The only thing they have in common is that Aborigines and refugees are used as political footballs by unscrupulous politicians to attract votes from the lowest common denominator of the electorate.

I'd like to respond to Fernando, who pointed out that there are 15.2 million refugees world-wide according to the UNHCR and yet only 80,000 resettlement places available. I'm also responding to Shadow Minister who had a similar concern.
The important missing figure is 780,000 - that's the number of people whom the UNHCR has declared in need of resettlement. You see, not all refugees need resettlement - most don't, according to the UNHCR.
The 80,000 figure is pathetically small - most are taken in by the USA. The nine countries that have planned resettlement programs could easily double their annual intake, just for starters. Other countries that are well-off and signatories to the UN Convention could also establish resettlement programs.
Ultimately, though, like it or not, the question of 'open borders' will have to be confronted head on.