Blog comments

• I am overjoyed that this decision has been overturned and this doctor can continue his much-needed practices for as long as possible...!! I am appalled that anyone could possibly think that just because his son has DS means he will be a burden upon society... There has never been enough evidence to prove that this syndrome will neccessarily effect their intellectual ability at all... You cannot say that he will definately be a cost to Australian taxpayers any more than any other 'normal' immigrant... There is just as much chance that your 'normal' children will end up costing taxpayers more so than a child with something that could be no more than a mild difference in characteristics... How can we still be so shallow-minded to place all of these people in some sort of generalised group when not all of them experience problems??? I am so tired of the ignorance of some people, just because somebody looks different to your idea of perfection doesn't mean they will definately grow up retarded, there is absolutely no proof of that...what kind of Arian society do we still live in??

  Amy Friday 26 June, 2009 - 3:21 PM

• Like Dr Moeller, we are blessed that our daughter is at the "100" end of the scale, or "High functioning". Anyone who has met her would, like us, have no doubt that she makes and will make a huge contribution to our community and will be a happy, funcitoning member of our society as she grows up.
  
  I think the most insulting thing is the concept of a childs "cost" to the Austrailan government. Are there any guarantees that one of my other "normal" and currently healthy children will not develope a condition requiring special treatment in the future? Absolutely not.
  
  Although one has to wonder at the madness of our beaureaucratic system rejecting a highly qualified Doctor who has committed himself to working in a rural area I think this goes beyond the issue of the father's occupation to the outdated concepts of disability enshrined in legislation.

  For children with a range of conditions including DS, autism, Cerabal Palsy ect, thier education, quality of life and work prospects are amazing compared to 15 years ago.

  Shame the government's outlook has not kept up with the progress.

  Pieta Manning Thursday 22 January, 2009 - 11:42 AM

• I migrated to Australia 7 years back and of that 5 years I have been a citizen. My mother (62 years only parent, dependent) was refused visa a couple of times initially. Finally her parent visa was processed but put in a queue. This will last another 7 years before she can come over.

  Apparently there is another way and that is if I pay $30,000/- for another class of parent visa, to offset the cost to the Australian community. Then she can come over in 8 months. The said fee is charged by DIAC even before she has cost the Australian community any money.Hmm!

  No undertaking form me to bear all her cost and medical expenses could convince DIAC bureaucrats otherwise. Although I can bear all her expenses from time to time as they occur but paying $30,000/- upfront is obsured as a fee for the parent visa.

  Someone really needs to tell this people that they are SHAMEFUL. And the Australian community should be aware what their bureaucrats are doing, by sending out a message to every one that old people are not welcome in Australia unless they are die of old age or they pay $30,000/- upfront. Family ties or parents relationship to their child is not considered. Shameless.

  WAITINGFORVISAFOREVER Thursday 22 January, 2009 - 11:41 AM

• I am glad that common sense has prevailed here. My niece from Uk was treated badly by Australian immigration. She now has a PHD from a very good university in the UK and has absolutely no desire to ever come back to Australia.
  Seems like you lot love terrorists and the like but not good hard working normal people

  john chaplin Sunday 7 December, 2008 - 9:41 AM

• hi all,
  please don't take this the wrong way as I am not a defender of DIAC, MRT nor the labour party.

  I am having to go through a similar situation so I can speak from experience.

  But this is the bottom line.

  1. From a legislative perspective neither DIAC nor MRT can approve the application because, technically, the applicant IS a cost to the Australian community. That is fact in the construct of the law ie. if you cost the Aus taxpayer you will not have a chance. DIAC have no choice but to deny residency.

  2. Once denied via DIAC and MRT the applicants can appeal directly to the Minister. The Minister has DISCRETION to approve or deny. The Minister has used discretion favourably in this case. I would argue that even without the public pressure the Minister would have approved this application (we need doctors!).

  But here is the other side of this process: There are many, many deserving applicants who are denied residencey when it gets to the Minister. Notably those who applied under Vanstone and Ruddock. Those two were a scourge. Many good people were let go including family members of mine.

  The discretion ruling is a problem. It has pluses and minuses. The present Minister Evans is trying to formalise the discretionary powers of the Minister.

  Cheers

  sl Thursday 27 November, 2008 - 10:02 AM

• PLEASE LET THIS MAN DR BERNARD MOELLER AND HIS
  FAMILY STAY IN AUSTRALIA
  INSTEAD OF LETTING A MAN WHO HAS KILLED HIS WIFE AND LETTING HIM DRIVE OUR TAXI'S
  AND PUTTING THE PUBLIC IN DANGER

  nat Wednesday 26 November, 2008 - 2:34 PM