Breaking News - 457 Visas Stopped

[ali]

My guess is the nomination from the new company will be treated under the new rules

[Starrynight]

On 4/20/2017 at 4:49 PM, Alan Collett said:

 

Reinforces the fact that all of this is politically driven from the top of Government, most probably at short notice.

I'd say that suggestions a and b are reasonable assumptions.

Onwards and upwards!

What about suggestion b for those who are now approaching 45 or 45 already? Will the grandfathering arrangement look after these people who came expecting to have enough time (aged 50) to apply for the TRT scheme?

 

[Starrynight]

On 4/23/2017 at 7:43 AM, Agz15 said:

It doesn't seem fair on employers though, if they want to keep you but can't. 

How can it be that there has never been a permanent route? Why is there a TRT scheme then? What about those people who came here on that understanding and the employers that are expecting the people they sponsor to want to stay permanently!

[Starrynight]

Just now, Starrynight said:

How can it be that there has never been a permanent route? Why is there a TRT scheme then? What about those people who came here on that understanding and the employers that are expecting the people they sponsor to want to stay permanently!

Sorry. This is meant to respond to Very Stormy.

[Starrynight]

On 4/19/2017 at 1:55 PM, drewbty said:

My TRT point is May 2018. The visa expires in July 2018. Do I have legitimate cause to worry this part might not be grandfathered?

This is my question too. Please let me know if you here anything drewbty. Thank you

[Starrynight]

On 4/19/2017 at 3:28 PM, imthedave said:

OK I've got my plan B and am a 'bit' more relaxed now.

Spoke to immigration directly (after a 2 hour call back) and also to my MA. Both recommended the same thing to apply now for renewing my 457 and simultaneously apply for the 186 through direct entry.

Worst case is that the 457 gets renewed and the 186 rejected, in which case I have banked a further 2 years, during which time both said a lot could still change.

Best case the 186 gets accepted. Whilst the immigration directly won't comment on the merits of any potential application, they did confirm that 2 separate applications can be submitted at the same time and if the 457 was renewed and 186 rejected, the rejection would not cancel the 457 but it's approval would supersede it.

Based on the fact I've already had my skill assessment approved for my original 457 application and the 186 is identical, the agent said there should be no issues.

Both said it comes down to whether I'm prepared to double up on the application fees with a risk one gets approved very shortly after the other, in which case I may question it's worth.

To me, its worth it so I'm now moving forward with that route.

 

Interestingly though, I asked Immigration about the need for the off shore renewal of the 457 if it came to it further down the line. He wasn't absolutely clear but suggested this wouldn't mean I would have to leave completely. Just be offshore to submit the next renewal application (like currently a 600 visitor visa can only be applied for offshore). If I wanted to submit that offshore approval say 2 months before any valid one expired, I'd leave, submit it and then return under the current live one and simply get a bridging visa to remain here whilst it's in progress. The suggestion originally was that any offshore renewal application would mean leaving and staying away whilst it's assessed. That's maybe not the case and it's only for the actual submission.

An application submission does not cancel out an existing live visa and a bridging visa is issued that comes into effect when the live one expires until the new one is either approved or rejected.

Bit happier now and clearer on my situation ;-)

 

Good luck. I feel your pain and know how you must be feeling. So will you get your application in before 1st July?

[Starrynight]

On 4/20/2017 at 1:21 AM, Phoenix16 said:

I would say, and its been the case for a while, that you would never sell up and move here 'lock stock and barrel' on a 457.  We actually arrived here on a 457, but with no previous inclination to ever emigrate to OZ, husband was headhunted for a fantastic project, it was just the next career move for him that would eventually lead to others, wherever in the world.  However, we fell in love with Australia and gained PR within 12 months, accelerated route on the 457 at that time (2010).  We were completely ignorant of 457 rules and very naive, just came for the adventure, we were extremely lucky (although largely due to husbands skills and talent).  We didn't sell the UK home, but everything happened in a whirlwind, I see now 457's seem to take quite a while to process whereas then, for us it took 3 days from applying to being granted.  I have always championed 457 visa holders, it was the best thing that happened to us but I have also seen how it has changed over the years since and I would never ever recommend anyone to enter into one lightly, especially with children and especially if you see it as a permanent route, it just simply isnt that anymore.  However, based on my own experiences I have great empathy for those currently on 457's, I wish you the best but for those in the UK, if you see this a permanent move then maybe the best thing to do is apply for the permanent visa and save yourself future stress and pain xxxx

Although I agree with you that people from UK shouldn't now come on a 457, I wouldn't have agreed a few weeks ago before the goalposts were changed. We came on that basis, that it would become permanent, as it was an expectation through the TRT scheme. The ability to apply for PR through the 186 visa TRT route applies to the current 457 visa doesn't it? I hope there is a grandfathering term attached to this. Does anyone know if this has been discussed, as it seems there has been no consideration about the impact of changes to the 186 visa on current 457 visa holders? 

[Starrynight]

On 4/21/2017 at 2:31 PM, Gills1987 said:

Hi all,

Not posted on here in over a year, but been following this thread all this week.

Im currently on 457 with my family, this was granted July 2016. We love it here and were on course to apply for transition next July. 

I've been speaking with my company's migration lawyer today and have been advised that in order for us to secure PR we need to apply through the direct entry stream by March 2018. Reason being that the transition stream will not be open to us after March 2018, when the changes are brought in and obviously we will not have completed our 2 years by then.

so it's all hands on deck to get my vetassess completed and application in as soon as possible.

hope everyone finds a solution to their predicament!

cheers,

tom

Hi Tom,

We are in almost exactly the same situation as you. We came in July 16 and would be ready for transition next July. Shouldn't the grandfathering arrangement apply to us on this issue too? Especially as they have also changed the age limit on the 186 to 45 from 50 and my husband will be 45 in a few months!!! Really worried and very stressed as my whole family are here and some are Australian citizens. Plus we gave up our home, jobs and life to come here to be with my family.

Good luck with your skills assessment, although I still hope they see that this is unfair and affecting people currently on 457s.

[Starrynight]

On 4/23/2017 at 1:24 AM, VERYSTORMY said:

This is going to sound harsh. But it is true. 

If you come on a 457 visa, you come on a visa that it is what it says on the tin. A temporary visa. It has never had an automatic path to permanent residence and big changes to the system are not uncommon. As a result, people posting on the forum have always been advised to treat it as a temporary move and that at the end of the visa you leave. 

On an average year there are over 1000 changes to migration law. Most will have consequences for some. 

Yes it is a temp visa with the TRT scheme route to permanency as a possibility. This should not be changed for current 457 holders should it?

[AJ]

7 minutes ago, Starrynight said:

Yes it is a temp visa with the TRT scheme route to permanency as a possibility. This should not be changed for current 457 holders should it?

You have just said it yourself that it was only a possibility!  So unfortunately the risk some people have taken has not paid off.  It is sad when people now have no hope of staying but so many have just taken it that because its been so easy before they would automatically be able to apply for residency.  Unfortunately times change and along with it so do visa conditions.  Hopefully you can find a way :-)

Edited May 8, 2017 by AJ

[Starrynight]

10 minutes ago, AJ said:

You have just said it yourself that it was only a possibility!  So unfortunately the risk some people have taken has not paid off.  It is sad when people now have no hope of staying but so many have just taken it that because its been so easy before they would automatically be able to apply for residency.  Unfortunately times change and along with it so do visa conditions.  Hopefully you can find a way :-)

I used the term 'possibility' as I knew the replies would refer to this if I didn't. However, this is a pathway that was open to be pursued and I can't see how, if the govt are saying 'current 457 visa holders will not be affected', that this can happen.

I am also not saying that this should be an 'automatic' permanent way in as it is a temporary working visa. What I am saying is that if there was a route to apply available when we got the visa, then this route should still be made available to those people who were told this. If this route to apply has been taken away, then this has, in fact, affected current 457 visa holders and is contrary to what was announced by Malcolm Turnbull isn't it?

Edited May 8, 2017 by Starrynight

[Raul Senise]

The severing of the link between the temporary subclass 457 visa and the permanent subclass 186 visa will be devastating for Australian business.

Many will not uproot their life, family and career for a two or four year temporary stay in Australia, if there is no Permanent residency option at the end. 

This will severely limit Australian business ability to attract skilled people to fill key roles and thus stifle business growth, meaning less employment opportunities for Australians.

 

[MaggieMay24]

13 hours ago, Starrynight said:

I used the term 'possibility' as I knew the replies would refer to this if I didn't. However, this is a pathway that was open to be pursued and I can't see how, if the govt are saying 'current 457 visa holders will not be affected', that this can happen.

I am also not saying that this should be an 'automatic' permanent way in as it is a temporary working visa. What I am saying is that if there was a route to apply available when we got the visa, then this route should still be made available to those people who were told this. If this route to apply has been taken away, then this has, in fact, affected current 457 visa holders and is contrary to what was announced by Malcolm Turnbull isn't it?

I think the devil is in the details.  The change to the 457 program will not affect current 457 holders, i.e. your existing 457 will continue until it expires.  However the proposed changes to the 186/187 visas will have an affect for many current 457 holders who will not be in a position to apply for a PR visa before their 457 expires.

Even though a lot of 457 holders come on the assumption that they can apply for a PR visa, it's often not the case.  Employers go into administration, 457 holders are made redundant, employers find themselves unable or unwilling to sponsor the PR visa when the time comes, etc.  And the government can't cater to everyone's situation, so they change the rules and some people will be ok while others will not.  It's a risk with every temporary visa.

[Starrynight]

3 minutes ago, MaggieMay24 said:

I think the devil is in the details.  The change to the 457 program will not affect current 457 holders, i.e. your existing 457 will continue until it expires.  However the proposed changes to the 186/187 visas will have an affect for many current 457 holders who will not be in a position to apply for a PR visa before their 457 expires.

Even though a lot of 457 holders come on the assumption that they can apply for a PR visa, it's often not the case.  Employers go into administration, 457 holders are made redundant, employers find themselves unable or unwilling to sponsor the PR visa when the time comes, etc.  And the government can't cater to everyone's situation, so they change the rules and some people will be ok while others will not.  It's a risk with every temporary visa.

Obviously if companies go into administration that is a different matter and it would be upto the individual to then find alternative work or, as was accepted in the rules, return home. I totally agree with that. We will have to disagree on the other issue, as it 'has' affected 457 visa holders. The change has been made and I am waiting for the govt to realise that the changes shouldn't apply to us. I'm sure this must have been overlooked. They say there is a grandfathering arrangement and this should apply to this part too. 

[VERYSTORMY]

22 hours ago, Starrynight said:

Yes it is a temp visa with the TRT scheme route to permanency as a possibility. This should not be changed for current 457 holders should it?

The only ever way to apply for permanent residence from a 457 was to apply for a totally separate visa. The 186 and 187 are totally separate visas which carry with them some provisions for those applying from a 457 - though there is no requirement to have ever held a 457.

The rules on visas and the entire system change regularly and it is important that people arrive understanding they have the visa that has been granted and not in a hope that they may be able to apply for something later. Doing so is silly as even when there are not major changes, the lists change regularly and occupations disappear

[amibovered]

2 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

The only ever way to apply for permanent residence from a 457 was to apply for a totally separate visa. The 186 and 187 are totally separate visas which carry with them some provisions for those applying from a 457 - though there is no requirement to have ever held a 457.

The rules on visas and the entire system change regularly and it is important that people arrive understanding they have the visa that has been granted and not in a hope that they may be able to apply for something later. Doing so is silly as even when there are not major changes, the lists change regularly and occupations disappear

I imagine the changes in the budget will make the 186 and 187 visas less attractive to employers.

[Phoenix16]

17 hours ago, Raul Senise said:

The severing of the link between the temporary subclass 457 visa and the permanent subclass 186 visa will be devastating for Australian business.

Many will not uproot their life, family and career for a two or four year temporary stay in Australia, if there is no Permanent residency option at the end. 

This will severely limit Australian business ability to attract skilled people to fill key roles and thus stifle business growth, meaning less employment opportunities for Australians.

 

I think you are right.  In our case we came because husband was headhunted, 2 years would have worked for us, theoretically, as other opportunities would have opened up elsewhere, but nevertheless, we loved OZ, we contributed and were fortunate under the rules at the time to be allowed to stay, we are now citizens and fully committed to Australia, we don't see ourselves leaving and we talk about if we have to leave for hubbys job, we ourselves as aussies and this is our home that we will always return to.

 

[Phoenix16]

1 minute ago, Phoenix16 said:

I think you are right.  In our case we came because husband was headhunted, 2 years would have worked for us, theoretically, as other opportunities would have opened up elsewhere, but nevertheless, we loved OZ, we contributed and were fortunate under the rules at the time to be allowed to stay, we are now citizens and fully committed to Australia, we don't see ourselves leaving and we talk about if we have to leave for hubbys job, we ourselves as aussies and this is our home that we will always return to.

 

As I said, headhunted, we were niaive, with no idea, we were flown here business class with a limousine waiting for us on arrival, we had a relocation expert who took us for breakfast the next day then showed us all the houses with pools and beach views we desired (in fremantle - so pretty rare!) that no longer exists, those were different times and im painting a 'picture perfect' view because it was, then, BUT not anymore xxxxx

 

[Guest263228]

I'm remain a little surprised at the shock over recent 'changes'. Just what has changed? The minimum amount that an employer must pay remains at some 35% under Australian minimum wages. At $53,900 as I recall a minimum salary/wage is required to be paid, it is clear that the rorts will largely continue.

As for PR, well this visa was supposed to fill in shortages in labour requirements, as well as attracting out standing talent to Australia , not a cheap and easy way around normal immigration procedure.

Still from observations, not with standing the scrapping of a few categories, that should have been retired years ago, little appears to have really changed beyond perceptions dished out to the public. The way it was meant to be of course. 

[Skani]

13 minutes ago, Pura Vida said:

The minimum amount that an employer must pay remains at some 35% under Australian minimum wages. At $53,900 as I recall a minimum salary/wage is required to be paid, . 

The Australian minimum wage is just under $35,000 ($672.70 /week).   $53,900 is 54% above the minimum wage.

[Guest263228]

15 minutes ago, Skani said:

The Australian minimum wage is just under $35,000 ($672.70 /week).   $53,900 is 54% above the minimum wage.

CORRECTION. $35,000 under Average wages.

[Raul Senise]

10 hours ago, Pura Vida said:

I'm remain a little surprised at the shock over recent 'changes'. Just what has changed? The minimum amount that an employer must pay remains at some 35% under Australian minimum wages. At $53,900 as I recall a minimum salary/wage is required to be paid, it is clear that the rorts will largely continue.

This is simply not correct or true.

The $53,900 that you quote is the TISMIT not the salary that must be paid to oversseas sponsored workers. If the Market Rate for an Australian performing the same role is $80,000 (as an example), then the sponsored worker must be paid the same or more.

10 hours ago, Pura Vida said:

As for PR, well this visa was supposed to fill in shortages in labour requirements, as well as attracting out standing talent to Australia , not a cheap and easy way around normal immigration procedure.

Not sure what you mean by this comment. PR stands for Permanent Residency and includes skilled, nominated, family, refugee, protection, etc.

10 hours ago, Pura Vida said:

Still from observations, not with standing the scrapping of a few categories, that should have been retired years ago, little appears to have really changed beyond perceptions dished out to the public. The way it was meant to be of course. 

This comment shows your lack of understanding of the issue.

The changes and proposed changes are massive and have been hugely disruptive to Australian business.

So much so that many industries are now threatened. Many businesses are already feeling the fallout from the changes and potentially facing closure, which will affect Australian jobs.

Unfortunately most people form an opinion on this very complex issue based on one sided and often incorrect media reports, without having any real understanding of the subject.

The rotting of the 457 program is minimal compared to the vast majority who use it correctly and what it was intended for. This fact is supported by the Immigration Department's own figures.

Unfortunately most people's opinions on the subject are based on minimal anecdotal evidence rather than facts.

 

 

[Vic154]

Totally agree Raul. They targeted the wrong visa, they targeted 457s because it's more widely known so will get more votes because of it. Most abused visas and where majority of immigrants get PR are from are Student visas and defacto visas. They're the ones that need tightening up, not 457s. Student visas they won't because they bring in great revenue for the unis. Hope they do something about defactos because they are easy to get around and I know two people who got this visa without being in a genuine relationship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest263228]

4 hours ago, Raul Senise said:

This is simply not correct or true.

The $53,900 that you quote is the TISMIT not the salary that must be paid to oversseas sponsored workers. If the Market Rate for an Australian performing the same role is $80,000 (as an example), then the sponsored worker must be paid the same or more.

Not sure what you mean by this comment. PR stands for Permanent Residency and includes skilled, nominated, family, refugee, protection, etc.

This comment shows your lack of understanding of the issue.

The changes and proposed changes are massive and have been hugely disruptive to Australian business.

So much so that many industries are now threatened. Many businesses are already feeling the fallout from the changes and potentially facing closure, which will affect Australian jobs.

Unfortunately most people form an opinion on this very complex issue based on one sided and often incorrect media reports, without having any real understanding of the subject.

The rotting of the 457 program is minimal compared to the vast majority who use it correctly and what it was intended for. This fact is supported by the Immigration Department's own figures.

Unfortunately most people's opinions on the subject are based on minimal anecdotal evidence rather than facts.

 

 

I never declared that $53,900 must be paid to imported workers, I perhaps did not state it clearly, but that amount is the minimum salary that can be legally paid on 457. Now as we are (allegedly) speaking in regards about skilled workers, taking into account the average wage earnings (when last consulted) was $82,789, one could perhaps assume the amount for a skilled imported worker would at least be set above National Average,(which of course includes unskilled workers) This is simply not the case. Unless you can provide different statistics of course.

I realise business is up in arms about the changes and various other rent seekers, but a read of the recent Senate Report , A National Disgrace The Exploration Of Temporary Work Holders, makes interesting bed time reading.

It identified major flaws in Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List. Which it found as being ad hoc and ineffective.

Senate Committee also claimed 457 visa system was not responsive to either higher levels of unemployment or labour changes in specific skilled locations.

Taking the evidence further. Joanna Howe, Senior Lecturer in Law at Uni of Adelaide, identified major flaws in 457 visa program, which has meant foreign workers are being used in areas whee there are no labour shortages. She described the system as 'shambolic'.

Modest reforms at best reducing the use of temporally skilled visa's by as little as 9% I am informed. Hardly pulling the rug or deserving the condemnation by business received to date.

 

[acc0101]

The most unfair part for the policy changed in 457

is the immi apply those new rule to all pending applications even they lodged before 18th April. 

Those applicants follow the old rule to apply 457, but come up as a result which they are not applying for..... 

Not make sense.