Breaking News - 457 Visas Stopped

[Guest263228]

10 minutes ago, imthedave said:

No. I am the only 457, sponsored by the company in the CEO position. My policy is to employ only Australians, which I do. That may be technically 'racist' but the conditions of the Company Sponsorship are to employ Australian citizens or Permanent Residents, provide investment into their training as a percentage of annual payroll etc

Also, it's our internal policies to ensure the local offices are supported by local people.

I'm personally a big supporter of developing young people so (through the company) I've invested in sponsoring local universities, taken on 2 young graduates (before they finished their studies) to develop into Engineers in our field, employed a number of other people who have all been on training courses here plus have all been sent back to Europe for company internal training.

We are a large but specialist technology company (Group) that open local subsidiaries around the world to support the market, develop local staff etc. The only non-Australian in the company is me.

I'm looking at the direct entry sponsorship now though. It seems that is still a possibility to get the Group to sponsor me for a 186 visa now rather than go via the transition scheme as I do meet the criteria.

 

My gut feeling suggests to me that you will get through the process. My comments were in part based on previous posts over the years and your unshakable support of the 457 system .....Back to the present and no quibbles with above post.

Of course my views on the matter remain water tight. The overall harm brought about from the late nineties by the government of the time concerning mass population growth through various means, including 457's that got way out of hand, not forgetting   changes to the housing market that has come at a heavy price to life quality ...and future prospects.

[EVELYN]

54 minutes ago, Curious said:

Thanks for your response!

I have contacted immigration and got a call back just now - they have confirmed your thoughts. She put me on hold and spoke to her manager and confirmed that the changes only refer to those wishing to enter via the direct entry scheme and not through transition to 186 - thank goodness for that, it was a sleepless night!

Would you mind me asking when is your two years TRT point, is it before Mar. 2018? As I recall, the FACT SHEET TWO did mention something about the changes after Mar. 2018 such as "permanent residence eligibility will be extended from two to three years." It really looks like that this could affect TRT steam applicants after Mar. 2018.....

[Curious]

5 minutes ago, EVELYN said:

Would you mind me asking when is your two years TRT point, is it before Mar. 2018? As I recall, the FACT SHEET TWO did mention something about the changes after Mar. 2018 such as "permanent residence eligibility will be extended from two to three years." It really looks like that this could affect TRT steam applicants after Mar. 2018.....

Yeah that's a good point... My two years is in July of this year so I fall within that timeframe. Anyone outside of that should probably call Immigration for further clarification

[theveed]

7 hours ago, OJT said:

I am in discussions with an employer right now and this news today has thrown the whole thing into disarray. I know he will not want to waste his time and money if I can only stay for 2 years (my job is now on the STSOL), however if I can't somehow apply for PR I'm not going to uproot the kids and give up a good job in the UK. I wonder if anyone has answers to these questions?:

1) Am I right in assuming that there is no PR stream option with the new 2 year visa, only the 4 year? 

2) Under the new scheme, how much does the now one and only on shore 457 renewal cost?

3) Assuming all goes well, and we decide we want to stay, can I apply for a 186 visa onshore whilst still working under the second 457?

My agent is also looking into these questions for me, but like most he is inundated at the moment so thought I'd ask you lovely people. I'm trying to stay positive and find other ways to make this work, but I'm not sure how Mr Turnbull thinks he'll get the "best and the brightest" of any industry if they can only stick around for a couple of years? I'm sure he thinks he knows what he's doing.

Thanks.

Currently on the same boat as well, and frankly, the MA is still scrambling to analyze what the short and long term options are with the 457 that has been in process for the past 6 mos for me and my family.

My occupation now falls under the short term 2-year list and I'm also in mid-upper management, looking to develop our MNC's business in AUS but also to settle in AUS for good. Tried going the 190 route before but it wasn't an option due to CSOL opening opportunities, and fortunate enough that the company is willing to transfer and relocate me to Oz.

Currently 41yo with a wife and son (13) as dependent and unsure whether it's still logical to move down-under.

With the new system, it'd seem like there's no possible options to get a PR since the occupation only falls under the 2+2 year term.

Sigh

 

[drewbty]

55 minutes ago, EVELYN said:

Would you mind me asking when is your two years TRT point, is it before Mar. 2018? As I recall, the FACT SHEET TWO did mention something about the changes after Mar. 2018 such as "permanent residence eligibility will be extended from two to three years." It really looks like that this could affect TRT steam applicants after Mar. 2018.....

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?

[Newintown17]

19 hours ago, Samson said:

Who is affected? Current 457 visa applicants and holders, prospective applicants, businesses sponsoring skilled migrants and industry. Existing 457 visas will continue to remain in effect. 457 visa applicants that had lodged their application on or before 18 April 2017, and whose application had not yet been decided, with an occupation that has been removed from the STSOL, may be eligible for a refund of their visa application fee. Nominating businesses for these applications may also be eligible for a refund of related fees.

 

 

My 457 visa application was submitted 3 weeks ago under a profession that is now one of the 16 professions restricted to Skilled-Regional(Provisional) (subclass 489) (if the applicant is not nominated by a State or Territory government agency). I feel as though the 'immi' website has possibly listed conflicting information on this topic, or at least made it pretty confusing as I have also stumbled across the following statement (under removed occupations)...

List of eligible skilled occupations

Only certain occupations are approved for use under Australia’s permanent and temporary skilled visa programmes. These occupations are listed in a legislative instrument that contains two schedules or ‘occupation lists’ that apply to different visa programmes.  

On 19 April 2017, the:

• Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) replaced the previous ‘Skilled Occupation List’ (SOL) and is available in Schedule 1 of the relevant legislative instrument
• Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL) replaced the previous ‘Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List’ (CSOL) and is available in Schedule 2 of the relevant legislative instrument.

The information below explains which lists are relevant for particular visa programmes. Information is also provided about occupations that were removed from the list of eligible skilled occupations on 19 April 2017.

Note: different eligible occupation arrangements are in place for the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa (subclass 187).

 Expand all

Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL)

Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL)

Removed occupations

On 19 April 2017, 200 occupations were removed entirely from the STSOL.

See:List of the removed occupations

A further 16 occupations on the MLTSSL were restricted to only apply to the following visa programmes:

• Skilled – Independent (subclass 189)
• Temporary Graduate (subclass 485)
• Skilled-Regional(Provisional) (subclass 489), if the applicant is not nominated by a State or Territory government agency

See: Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL)

These changes will only apply to new applications lodged on, or after, 19 April 2017 for:

• Employer Nominated Scheme (subclass 186) – Direct Entry Stream
• Skilled Nominated visa (subclass 190)
• Skilled Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 489)  - if nominated by a State or Territory Government
• Training visa (subclass 407)

However, for the subclass 457 programme for any of these removed occupations on, or after, 19 April 2017:

• no visa applications can be granted
• no nomination applications can be approved.

 

What do the rest of you make of it... are all 457 visa applications submitted before the 19th April unaffected by the changes we have been discussing, or not?

you can access the info at http://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-and-assessing-authorities/skilled-occupations-lists

TIA

[adman]

hello, 

wonder if anybody has any information from a similar situation as me ?

I've been in Australia on for 3.5 years and my 457 visa runs out in October 2017........

I have changed companies while here, so i would be eligible for the PR transition scheme (2 years at same company) in april 2018.

 

seems like i have unique circumstances, as i shovel be allowed under the 'grandfathering of rules' on my current 457, but it runs out ???

anybody know what will happen....im struggling to get hold of an immigration lawyer through my company to help...but wonder if quickly putting in a 457 application today will help ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[VERYSTORMY]

1 hour ago, Curious said:

Yeah that's a good point... My two years is in July of this year so I fall within that timeframe. Anyone outside of that should probably call Immigration for further clarification

You should never call immigration for advice. I know that sounds odd, but when you call immigration you go through to a call centre whose staff are not migration experts. As a result we see many people in dire circumstances after following incorrect advice from the department. There is no recourse for this as the department makes it clear you should seek advice from a registered migration agent. 

[Rossmoyne]

16 hours ago, Samson said:

Thanks appreciate your kind words. 

If any MA is reading this and you have any experience with visa's that are not the norm, for example as per my case regarding a new born child, BVE and ministerial intervention, please feel free to send me a PM. I just have given up looking for and calling into local Perth based MA's that have no idea!!!! 

As it appears you are in Western Australia, are you a member of our sister site, www.perthpoms.com?    If not you might wish to join as there is a Perth based MARA Agent who posts on the PerthPoms forum regularly and she was addressing the whole 457 issue this morning and she might be able to advise you.

[imthedave]

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 ;-)

 

[EVELYN]

1 hour ago, 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?

That's my biggest concern... Mine is Nov. 2018. The new visa system should be fully effected by then, not sure how far they willing to go with this grandfathering thing. Currently it seems the department hasn't say anything specific regarding to our situation. IMMI lawyer suggested I should wait... but I might call DIBP tomorrow to find out more.

[drewbty]

53 minutes ago, EVELYN said:

That's my biggest concern... Mine is Nov. 2018. The new visa system should be fully effected by then, not sure how far they willing to go with this grandfathering thing. Currently it seems the department hasn't say anything specific regarding to our situation. IMMI lawyer suggested I should wait... but I might call DIBP tomorrow to find out more.

I wouldn't bother Evelyn! You'll queue for hours and what they may tell you isn't binding. I've been researching and agree that our situation hasn't been addressed yet, so fingers crossed! 

[fensaddler]

Hi all, my position and advice so far.  I already have my 186 PR application submitted since October last year, but my occupation has now been deleted entirely from CSOL (we struggle to recruit in this industry, and train a lot of junior staff who quickly get snapped up elsewhere, but nobody says there's logic in any of this).  I'm advised by my MA that I am OK.  My big concern is now for a very talented British colleague, who is just approaching completing her second year here, and was planning on PR, but again, same occupation, now deleted.  Our MA does not know yet whether her implied PR rights from 457 are grandfathered or not.  She was literally weeks away from passing the two year point and getting her 186 lodged.  I can't underline how much of a loss she would be to this company, our industry, and to the country.  None of that will cut any ice with a government hell bent on populism, but as soon as anyone knows anything, please post...

[Graemsay]

I think that @imthedave has the right plan, as the Department of Immigration has been known to make sudden changes, and there's a chance that waiting will put you on the wrong side of one of these.

The Australian and New Zealand governments are keen to bring down immigration, and it looks like the permanent visas will be the next target. Changes to the citizenship programme have also been mentioned, though I haven't heard any details.

A lot of media commentary has mentioned that the number of arrivals is running at about twice its long term average. I suspect that we'll see a halving of the intake in the short to medium term, which will make things more difficult for would be immigrants.

[Alan Collett]

13 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

Hi all, my position and advice so far.  I already have my 186 PR application submitted since October last year, but my occupation has now been deleted entirely from CSOL (we struggle to recruit in this industry, and train a lot of junior staff who quickly get snapped up elsewhere, but nobody says there's logic in any of this).  I'm advised by my MA that I am OK.  My big concern is now for a very talented British colleague, who is just approaching completing her second year here, and was planning on PR, but again, same occupation, now deleted.  Our MA does not know yet whether her implied PR rights from 457 are grandfathered or not.  She was literally weeks away from passing the two year point and getting her 186 lodged.  I can't underline how much of a loss she would be to this company, our industry, and to the country.  None of that will cut any ice with a government hell bent on populism, but as soon as anyone knows anything, please post...

I agree.

The situation you are describing is a microcosm of what will be happening across the country, and doesn't augur well for the future of the economy as a whole - but 1st world countries are moving in a different direction now ...

How is Singapore looking as a destination for you?!

Best regards.

[fensaddler]

14 minutes ago, Graemsay said:

I think that @imthedave has the right plan, as the Department of Immigration has been known to make sudden changes, and there's a chance that waiting will put you on the wrong side of one of these.

The Australian and New Zealand governments are keen to bring down immigration, and it looks like the permanent visas will be the next target. Changes to the citizenship programme have also been mentioned, though I haven't heard any details.

A lot of media commentary has mentioned that the number of arrivals is running at about twice its long term average. I suspect that we'll see a halving of the intake in the short to medium term, which will make things more difficult for would be immigrants.

Certainly good advice to get yourself as permanent as you can as soon as you can.  I'm fine with Aus making policy decisions about migration levels intake policies etc - this is all entirely reasonable, but what really irks me is that once again this is poorly thought through, badly communicated, populist and significantly retrospective.  If you're going to introduce policy change, think it through, plan for the consequences to those impacted, and communicate clearly.  Particularly, don't move the goalposts on people who've made life changing decisions on the basis of your former policy - honour your moral undertakings as a country.

The other thing which really troubles me is the xenophobic glee with which this has been greeted.  Ironically, Australia is one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world, but you wouldn't know it given public attitudes to migration.  And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of settled migrants, and the descendants of migrants, being so gleefully determined to drag up the ladder behind them - not based on any real understanding of the economic or social implications, but essentially out of prejudice (and sometimes flat out racism).  You could stop migration tomorrow, and not only would Australia find it had a whole host of new problems (where's the doctor, dude?), but its existing problems that some attribute to migration - housing prices and speculation, unemployment and underemployment, transport congestion - would not go away, because the root causes aren't all about migration. It's just a convenient scapegoat that prevents pollies on both sides from having the gumption to actually tackle, and acknowledge, the real problems and their root causes.   And a country which closes its doors closes its mind too...  Sorry rant over...

[fensaddler]

7 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

I agree.

The situation you are describing is a microcosm of what will be happening across the country, and doesn't augur well for the future of the economy as a whole - but 1st world countries are moving in a different direction now ...

How is Singapore looking as a destination for you?!

Best regards.

Hi Alan,

If it does block my PR at this stage, I'm washed up.  I'm 50, I've no house and no job back in the UK, and we've lived here five and a half years.  Daughter has done her entire secondary education here and speaks fluent Strine.  My colleague won't go back to the UK, she's younger and will find somewhere else.  But that's Australia's loss.

[Alan Collett]

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/woodhouse-unveils-kiwis-first-immigration-policy-new-work-visa-rules-b-202034

Maybe NZ then ...?

Best regards.

[Graemsay]

@fensaddler the changes to visas are typically made with no notice to prevent people from making a last minute application to avoid tightened rules.

I think that immigration has benefited Australia in many ways. But successive governments haven't been willing to match infrastructure spending to the numbers of arrivals, which has exacerbated the problems.

The anti-immigration rhetoric has been growing over the last couple of years, and as I said in my last post, I suspect that numbers are going to fall, and Australia is going to become fussier. I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing for the country as a whole, importing workers for low-skilled jobs, or to force wages down doesn't benefit the locals. But for individuals like yourself it could be a disaster.

@Alan Collett the Kiwis are engaged in similar Aussie Kiwi first reforms.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/19/new-zealand-restricts-skilled-worker-visas-in-kiwis-first-approach-to-immigration

[Beffers]

Someone mentioned on here about a migration agent on Perth Poms, sister site, so am posting her morning announcement text here for information/clarification. The last two lines in bold she seems to think are extremely pertinent. 

 

Quote: "well I got back last night and was greeted by these new announcements! I am trying to digest the information and it is very unusual for DIBP to announce changes with immediate effect with no transitional period! Very clever to stop a barrage of last minute applications ! Here are a few things that I understand to be true as of today, but must emphasise that things are likely to change over the coming days and months and would not suggest that anyone takes this information I am sharing as upto date and I recommened that they check the legislation with their migration agent or DIBP before applying as people have tendencies to look at forums and not check the upto date law!
So, I will try and update as things unfold but the most important things that I have establised are
* The 457 has not stopped yet, it will be called the Temporary Skilled Shortage visa as of March 2018.  
*The CSOL for 457 has been abolished and replaced by the MLTSSL (Medium and Long Term Strategic Skills List) and STSOL (Short Term Skilled Occupation List)
* Occupations on the MLTSSL are eligible for a 4 year visa and STSOL a 2 year visa
* It appears that STSOL occupations are only eligible for 1 renewal and no pathway to permanent residency, therefore a maximum validity of 4 years with no pathway top permanency (currently worded rather ambiguously so waiting for the Migration Regulations to be amended accordingly!)
* The MLTSSL is still going to be a pathway for PR but it looks as if you will need to be holder of 457 for 3 years not 2
* Many occupations now come with stringent caveats, so check before lodging visa is one of these apply
* 2 years work experience will be required for visas granted after March 2018, so this will have a huge impact on international students and graduates.

Very importantly as the law has changed immediately, anyone who has lodged a 457 awaiting decision will be processed according to the new criteria, so if you do not meet this, the Department will consider refunding fees if withdrawing.

If you are eligible for a 186/187 via temporary pathway, do not wait, APPLY ASAP!!!"
 

[Guest263228]

51 minutes ago, fensaddler said:

Certainly good advice to get yourself as permanent as you can as soon as you can.  I'm fine with Aus making policy decisions about migration levels intake policies etc - this is all entirely reasonable, but what really irks me is that once again this is poorly thought through, badly communicated, populist and significantly retrospective.  If you're going to introduce policy change, think it through, plan for the consequences to those impacted, and communicate clearly.  Particularly, don't move the goalposts on people who've made life changing decisions on the basis of your former policy - honour your moral undertakings as a country.

The other thing which really troubles me is the xenophobic glee with which this has been greeted.  Ironically, Australia is one of the most successful multicultural countries in the world, but you wouldn't know it given public attitudes to migration.  And don't get me started on the hypocrisy of settled migrants, and the descendants of migrants, being so gleefully determined to drag up the ladder behind them - not based on any real understanding of the economic or social implications, but essentially out of prejudice (and sometimes flat out racism).  You could stop migration tomorrow, and not only would Australia find it had a whole host of new problems (where's the doctor, dude?), but its existing problems that some attribute to migration - housing prices and speculation, unemployment and underemployment, transport congestion - would not go away, because the root causes aren't all about migration. It's just a convenient scapegoat that prevents pollies on both sides from having the gumption to actually tackle, and acknowledge, the real problems and their root causes.   And a country which closes its doors closes its mind too...  Sorry rant over...

I think real implications of record and near record levels of immigration and temporally entrants (many that don't return home) is clearly understood by many and by ever increasing numbers of the public.

The decline in living standards are clearly evident. Of course large numbers of people compete for jobs and housing and add to congestion with times infrastructure failing to keep up. You appear in denial of this fact. It is not the only reason for sure, but sure aggravates an already trying situation many times fold.Not forgetting an alleged list of most skills, many where little shortage is evident. Nor the conditions unscrupulous employers have been rorting both the system as well as overseas sourced labour. (including from own former country)

What better way to sustain the   successful multi cultural spin than to abuse what has been a generally accepted migration policy by bringing in far more people than the nation can handle? Yes indeed certain vested interests will attempt to cloud the argument by waving the racist tag. Nothing could be further rom the truth. At least in my argument.

 

[ItchyFeet76]

We moved over on a 457 last June and thankfully applied for PR last December (delayed processing times mean we're looking at 9-12 months for a decision though :-/), after 13 years of trying to get over here. 

My husband was sponsored by an IT security (penetration testing / hacking) company as there are very few qualified / experienced computer hackers in Australia, and half the workforce is on 457s (the majority from Brazil, for some reason!?!).So he isn't taking anyone's job and neither am I - I spend my husband's wages in the local shops and have probably helped a few local dentists with their retirement fund too, lol ;-)

I think it's good that they're clamping down on the low-skilled visas but good that they're keeping the door open for workers in genuinely-needed roles :-)

[ItchyFeet76]

Does anyone know if / how this will affect people who are onshore on a bridging visa and have applied for a 457 but not yet received it? My husband's employer has a couple guys in this situation...

[Samson]

13 minutes ago, ItchyFeet76 said:

Does anyone know if / how this will affect people who are onshore on a bridging visa and have applied for a 457 but not yet received it? My husband's employer has a couple guys in this situation...

This is only going on what I have been advised so far.. Providing the occupation has not been removed from the new lists then the will progress as normal, however from what I have read its not clear if they will be able to apply for PR as they do now. If the occupations have been removed I have been advised they will need to withdraw the application. 

Only time will tell. 

[ItchyFeet76]

Thank Samson, yes that makes sense... their occupation is still on the list (and unlikely to be removed, given the prominence of cyber attacks nowadays!), so it sounds reassuring for them ?