Gill Palmer wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Gill - I'll look into it. Don't misunderstand my post - I do see
> > the separation of the issues and I don't intend to make the MRT hearing
> > an indictment of DIMA. Nevertheless, when allegations are raised (even
> > in secret) then they have to be answered - the cases have a number of
> > situations where allegations contained in documents covered by s375A
> > certificates, have been believed. Apart from that you'd think the five
> > years of marriage, a newborn child and seven affidavits saying that the
> > couple had been cohabiting for seven years, together with 3 temporary
> > resident visas issued by DIMA on the basis of the spousal relationship
> > over a period since the year 2000, tax returns and US residence granted
> > on a spousal basis would speak for itself. ;)
> > >cheers
>
> Hello again, Ketut
>
> I entirely agree that people cannot make unfounded allegations and
> expect to get away with them scot-free, especially when it puts people
> like you and your wife (I presume) under the financial and emotional
> stress that this whole thing has cost you and will still cost you until
> it is finally over.
>
I really think you are reading my post the wrong way. No-one is seeking
anything about or from the person who made the allegations - before the
MRT or anywhere else. The complaint with DIMA process is that the
primary decision-maker did not disclose the allegations and then their
manager covered up the fact that they didn't disclose them.
However if the MRT is in possession of allegations detrimental to an
applicants case, then those allegations have to be answered. If they
are not answered the MRT ( or even a Court) would be entitled to find
that the allegations were true. That is the problem for applicants if
they didn't know the content of the allegation and it had been
suppressed under 375A. That's not the case in this matter, the
applicant has the documents containing the allagations and can (and
must) rebut them. Its quite different to a situation where another
administrator has made an adverse decision, in that case the MRT would
just make up their own mind.
> What I am now wondering is this: I have read some of the MRT cases,
> and in several of them the issues have been so clear-cut that it has
> been possible to resolve the whole thing (in the applicant's favour) by
> written submissions with no need for a hearing. Plainly, if that would
> be possible in this case it would save time, money and angst. I don't
> know whether it would be possible, however, or whether you would prefer
> to have your Day In Court regardless of alternative possibilities.
>
The MRT has quite a backlog, and a standard set of priorities that they
can allocate to cases. Its hard to see how they could decide a case
without a hearing if there is an allegation that a relationship is not
bona fide. They'd have to make up their mind after hearing from the
people concerned wouldn't they?
> Also, what about compensation for you and your family in the event of a
> favourable ruling from the MRT? Again, I imagine that there must be
> machinery for redressing the wrong in a monetary fashion, coupled with
> a public apology, I would suggest. However, again I don't what would
> need to happen for that to be possible and/or worth pursuing.
>
Its not my family - and in any case there is no seeking of damages or
compensation. I'm just pissed off that DIMA get to cover up their own
incompetence - all too common.
> Do you know yet when the MRT is likely to convene to consider your
> case?
>
Around 12 months is the scheduled time-frame.
|