489 work requirements before PR?

[Karstedt]

I've got some 489 employment question for an expert....

Fulfilling the work requirement on the 489 appears to be 12 months at 35+ hours per week in your region.

Does it have to be 35+ hours each week, or can it average out to that over a year and what is considered a working '12 months' (e.g. assuming 6 weeks vacation, 46x35 = 1610 hrs in a year).

Does it have to be contiguous and or to the time you apply for PR? E.g. you have to be there for at least 2 years, so say you work full time 6 months, then have 4 months not working full time, then full time again for 6 more months, then part-time or nothing for 2 months, then apply for PR.

These 3 are kind of combined as a question about the following scenario:

• Does the work have to be for a single employer?
• Does the work have to be in a related occupation to the occupation you filed under? (I've read plenty of stories of people not finding relevant work in regional AU)
• As long as your place of business is in the region, are you allowed and does it count to do work for people outside that region?

Scenario: I am applying as a teacher. I can establish a home business on arrival trading on my previous occupation and do IT work remotely for an easy 20+ hours per week, so in theory I only need to pick up another 15 from relief teaching or tutoring to be 'full time'. I can also do online English tutoring for people in China. Even if I can't find a suitable teaching position at all, I have ways to effectively work full-time. So I could potentially have up to 3 sources of employment (self/school/Chinese company, who knows what else), be working remotely for people outside the region (domestic and international), and worse case scenario not work in my desired occupation at all.

Basically fulfilling the work requirement in a timely fashion seems like a dodgy proposition and I don't want to screw around for 12+ months seeking a cookie cutter job to fulfill the criteria.

[shaunfreo]

5 hours ago, Karstedt said:

I've got some 489 employment question for an expert....

Fulfilling the work requirement on the 489 appears to be 12 months at 35+ hours per week in your region.

Does it have to be 35+ hours each week, or can it average out to that over a year and what is considered a working '12 months' (e.g. assuming 6 weeks vacation, 46x35 = 1610 hrs in a year).

Does it have to be contiguous and or to the time you apply for PR? E.g. you have to be there for at least 2 years, so say you work full time 6 months, then have 4 months not working full time, then full time again for 6 more months, then part-time or nothing for 2 months, then apply for PR.

These 3 are kind of combined as a question about the following scenario:

• Does the work have to be for a single employer?
• Does the work have to be in a related occupation to the occupation you filed under? (I've read plenty of stories of people not finding relevant work in regional AU)
• As long as your place of business is in the region, are you allowed and does it count to do work for people outside that region?

Scenario: I am applying as a teacher. I can establish a home business on arrival trading on my previous occupation and do IT work remotely for an easy 20+ hours per week, so in theory I only need to pick up another 15 from relief teaching or tutoring to be 'full time'. I can also do online English tutoring for people in China. Even if I can't find a suitable teaching position at all, I have ways to effectively work full-time. So I could potentially have up to 3 sources of employment (self/school/Chinese company, who knows what else), be working remotely for people outside the region (domestic and international), and worse case scenario not work in my desired occupation at all.

Basically fulfilling the work requirement in a timely fashion seems like a dodgy proposition and I don't want to screw around for 12+ months seeking a cookie cutter job to fulfill the criteria.

Do you have an agent to assist you , 

[Karstedt]

9 hours ago, shaunfreo said:

Do you have an agent to assist you , 

Are you saying an agent can do this but an individual cannot? I do not have an agent because I haven't even applied. I think the 489 provisionals are dodgy and I'm trying to determine if it is worth a second look.

[Ausvisitor]

I don't think they are, just that your question doesn't fall into the "simple everyone ask this question" and therefore most people won't know the answer - where as an agent's livelihood relies on them being able to answer these types of questions (or get the answer).

There is nothing dodgy about 489s - they are a cast iron pledge to offer you a PR visa so long as you play by the rules. There are other visas that offer no such promises.

No one would choose a 489 if they had points to qualify for a 189 or even a 190 visa - but they do offer a way to give you what you want and for a specific regional area to gain some valuable skills (for a while at least)

[Karstedt]

3 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

There is nothing dodgy about 489s - they are a cast iron pledge to offer you a PR visa so long as you play by the rules. There are other visas that offer no such promises.

The rules are dodgy, specifically the work requirement. It is not a cast iron pledge that you will find 1 year of suitable full-time work there... thus, is not a cast iron pledge to offer PR. I have read many stories about people going to regional AU and not finding suitable work.

[Ausvisitor]

2 minutes ago, Karstedt said:

The rules are dodgy, specifically the work requirement. It is not a cast iron pledge that you will find 1 year of suitable full-time work there... thus, is not a cast iron pledge to offer PR. I have read many stories about people going to regional AU and not finding suitable work.

They can't guarantee that you will find suitable work, no one can. They also don't require you to do a specific job, just any job.

So for instance you may emigrate as a qualified doctor but if you want to work in a gas station as a gas pumper so long as it's full time it counts...

It's no different for people on PR (except that they can't be denied residency) in relation to jobs, no one will guarantee you that a job is waiting for you

They do also say it's your responsibility to check and make yourself confident that adequate opportunities exist for you in terms of employment

[Karstedt]

Ok, so that answers 1 of my questions... it doesn't have to be a related occupation.

I can guarantee that I find suitable work for ME anywhere in the world... i just don't know if it will meet the gov reqs. And being denied PR because you are forced into dodgy labor market circumstances is the very definition of dodgy. The regions are dying not from lack of people, it's from lack of jobs. It's like investing in a farm that you will be grated ownership after 2 years if you can produce a certain yield of crops per annum; but the land is bad and there isn't much water so that may or may not be possible... and if you fail, you lose your investment.

[Ausvisitor]

14 minutes ago, Karstedt said:

Ok, so that answers 1 of my questions... it doesn't have to be a related occupation.

I can guarantee that I find suitable work for ME anywhere in the world... i just don't know if it will meet the gov reqs. And being denied PR because you are forced into dodgy labor market circumstances is the very definition of dodgy. The regions are dying not from lack of people, it's from lack of jobs. It's like investing in a farm that you will be grated ownership after 2 years if you can produce a certain yield of crops per annum; but the land is bad and there isn't much water so that may or may not be possible... and if you fail, you lose your investment.

The simple fact is no one is forcing you to take a 489 visa it's your choice.

If you have the ability to migrate on a 189 or a 190 I'd advise you to do that.

If you don't then I'd be grateful that Australia offer this potential "lifeline" to getting PR when I don't qualify for it - because they really don't have to do it there are more than enough people in the main queue to fill the places many times over

[Karstedt]

4 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

The simple fact is no one is forcing you to take a 489 visa it's your choice.

If you have the ability to migrate on a 189 or a 190 I'd advise you to do that.

If you don't then I'd be grateful that Australia offer this potential "lifeline" to getting PR when I don't qualify for it - because they really don't have to do it there are more than enough people in the main queue to fill the places many times over

Yes, nobody is forcing me, that's why I'm asking my questions. Because I don't want to put myself in a position to fail due to forces beyond my control.

You are free to believe that paying $1000 to toss a coin to determine if you get to keep your $1000 dollars is a good deal. Arguing that I should be grateful for the opportunity to waste my money has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In fact, if I can work my way, then I wouldn't be tossing a coin at all, and it is a good deal. I am trying to determine how much of coin toss it is, and you are telling me to worship at the altar of coin tossing.

[Ausvisitor]

11 minutes ago, Karstedt said:

Yes, nobody is forcing me, that's why I'm asking my questions. Because I don't want to put myself in a position to fail due to forces beyond my control.

You are free to believe that paying $1000 to toss a coin to determine if you get to keep your $1000 dollars is a good deal. Arguing that I should be grateful for the opportunity to waste my money has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In fact, if I can work my way, then I wouldn't be tossing a coin at all, and it is a good deal. I am trying to determine how much of coin toss it is, and you are telling me to worship at the altar of coin tossing.

Ok - I'm out, I tried telling you how it is but you only seem to want to hear an answer that you want to hear.

I wouldn't personally go on a 489 because of the requirement to live in a regional location, and that would have been a deal breaker to me, however I qualified for a PR visa so I am going.

[CivCdn]

Keep in mind that the visa is valid for four years and you only need to work for 1 year total to be eligible for the 187

[Karstedt]

11 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

Ok - I'm out, I tried telling you how it is but you only seem to want to hear an answer that you want to hear.

I wouldn't personally go on a 489 because of the requirement to live in a regional location, and that would have been a deal breaker to me, however I qualified for a PR visa so I am going.

I actually don't care about living in a regional location, I'm happy too, indefinitely even. I only care about the work. But yeah, I don't need an overview, I need the devilish details that can screw you over.

4 minutes ago, CivCdn said:

Keep in mind that the visa is valid for four years and you only need to work for 1 year total to be eligible for the 187

Yes, and my questions are all about that '1 year'. Is it anytime in those 4 years, must it be contiguous, must it be from a single source, does remote work (for entities outside the region) from a home business (in the region) count? I am basically able to guarantee myself 12 months of full-time equivalent work within the first 2 years and then proceed to PR... but does my way of piecing together the 'full-time' count?

Taking a job pumping gas for the sake of fulfilling a rigid definition of, '1 year full-time', would be a substantial pay cut for me and I will not peruse the 489 if there is a possibility I would be reduced to that; and ethically speaking, I don't want to be taking a job from a young local who already has limited options in a poor labor market.

[MaggieMay24]

When applying for the 887, you must provide evidence of 52 weeks of full-time work while holding an eligible visa.  The work doesn't have to be continuous, from a single employer or in your nominated occupation.  You can combine several part-time jobs if that's what gets you over the line of full-time hours.  More creative solutions should be discussed with a registered migration agent.

[shaunfreo]

15 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Are you saying an agent can do this but an individual cannot? I do not have an agent because I haven't even applied. I think the 489 provisionals are dodgy and I'm trying to determine if it is worth a second look.

Well you are obviously clueless in everything so I would say an agent may be able to assist but hay ho you will do whatever you want , and when it all goes pear shaped will be back asking more questions 

[Nemesis]

16 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Are you saying an agent can do this but an individual cannot? I do not have an agent because I haven't even applied. I think the 489 provisionals are dodgy and I'm trying to determine if it is worth a second look.

You don't need to have applied for anything in order to seek advice from an agent.Any registered agent would be able to explain the rules to you, and enlighten you as to why they are not "dodgy.

[VERYSTORMY]

First, an agent is incredibly important. You would be amazed how easy it is to make an error that results in a refusal. That means no refund and even a potential ban on reapplying. 

As for a gamble. That is any visa. There is no guarantee of finding work on a PR visa. Far from it. Do not assume that because an occupation is on the skilled lists there is actually work in that occupation. For example, my own occupation remained on the lists when we had nearly 50% unemployed and our professional body begging for its removal. 

[Karstedt]

11 hours ago, shaunfreo said:

Well you are obviously clueless in everything so I would say an agent may be able to assist but hay ho you will do whatever you want , and when it all goes pear shaped will be back asking more questions 

Uncalled for and unhelpful.

10 hours ago, Nemesis said:

You don't need to have applied for anything in order to seek advice from an agent.Any registered agent would be able to explain the rules to you, and enlighten you as to why they are not "dodgy.

Not necessarily, there are lots of crappy agents as anyone in the know is well aware of. It is always best to find out for yourself as well.

The only rule that would make it not dodgy, is a safety net clause for those unable to find a decent job. The government is saying, 'Pay us to fix our regional economic problem that you can't actually fix because there is no government or corporate investment. Furthermore, if you should fail to meet certain criteria that might be out of your control, we kick you out. Thanks for your investment.' It may not be dodgy for certain individuals based on their likelihood of fulfilling the fine print of said criteria.

6 hours ago, VERYSTORMY said:

First, an agent is incredibly important. You would be amazed how easy it is to make an error that results in a refusal. That means no refund and even a potential ban on reapplying. 

As for a gamble. That is any visa. There is no guarantee of finding work on a PR visa. Far from it. Do not assume that because an occupation is on the skilled lists there is actually work in that occupation. For example, my own occupation remained on the lists when we had nearly 50% unemployed and our professional body begging for its removal. 

As I said, I can guarantee finding work. My problem arises merely from whether or not that work will meet the secret requirements.

The point about occupations on the SOL not actually being in demand is exactly where my whole line of questioning and assertion of the dodgy nature of the work requirement comes from. Over 70% of skilled migrants are coming into severely oversupplied occupations and must resort to service jobs... which accounts for most of the real problems they are having with migration. They didn't need to cut the intake by 20k, they only needed to cut the 3 most oversupplied occupational categories and it would have dropped over 40k on its own, possibly a LOT more than that after a few years. I do not think it unlikely that upwards of 85% of all applicants would be cleared from the table if those occupations were cut.

[Nemesis]

4 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Uncalled for and unhelpful.

Not necessarily, there are lots of crappy agents as anyone in the know is well aware of. It is always best to find out for yourself as well.

The only rule that would make it not dodgy, is a safety net clause for those unable to find a decent job. The government is saying, 'Pay us to fix our regional economic problem that you can't actually fix because there is no government or corporate investment. Furthermore, if you should fail to meet certain criteria that might be out of your control, we kick you out. Thanks for your investment.' It may not be dodgy for certain individuals based on their likelihood of fulfilling the fine print of said criteria.

As I said, I can guarantee finding work. My problem arises merely from whether or not that work will meet the secret requirements.

The point about occupations on the SOL not actually being in demand is exactly where my whole line of questioning and assertion of the dodgy nature of the work requirement comes from. Over 70% of skilled migrants are coming into severely oversupplied occupations and must resort to service jobs... which accounts for most of the real problems they are having with migration. They didn't need to cut the intake by 20k, they only needed to cut the 3 most oversupplied occupational categories and it would have dropped over 40k on its own, possibly a LOT more than that after a few years. I do not think it unlikely that upwards of 85% of all applicants would be cleared from the table if those occupations were cut.

The SOL no longer exists. It has been replaced. Its that sort of issue where a good registered agent would be able to help you out. None of the requirements are "secret" goodness knows why you think that, but a good agent can help make them clearer and advise what is the best route for you. 

I am aware that there are many unscrupulous agents around, that is why people are advised to look carefully at recommendations from other posters, as well as ensuring the agent is MARA registered.  There are several excellent agents recommended on this forum.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Nemesis

[MaggieMay24]

You have a rather broad perspective of the term dodgy.  The requirement is that you live and work in a regional area for 4 years.  If you want to apply for an 887 visa, you must have worked at least 12 months in a full-time capacity in a regional area and you must have lived at least 24 months in a regional area.  The type of work doesn't matter, whether it's in a single job or made up of multiple jobs to reach full-time hours for a total of 52 weeks, that's fine as well.  Nothing is secret about it and nothing is dodgy.  It may be a bit complicated and that's where a registered migration agent can help assess whether applicants have enough for the 887 visa.  But the 489 part of it is pretty clear cut.

[Karstedt]

18 hours ago, Nemesis said:

The SOL no longer exists. It has been replaced. Its that sort of issue where a good registered agent would be able to help you out. None of the requirements are "secret" goodness knows why you think that, but a good agent can help make them clearer and advise what is the best route for you. 

I am aware that there are many unscrupulous agents around, that is why people are advised to look carefully at recommendations from other posters, as well as ensuring the agent is MARA registered.  There are several excellent agents recommended on this forum.

I was using SOL as a generic term for the current list of eligible occupations for a particular visa category.

There are definitely 'secret' requirements, as in ridiculously obfuscated (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not). An agent on this forum even once commented that there can be over a thousand legislated requirements in a given year and only 5-10 may appear in the information published by Home Affairs. Try calling the department of immigration and asking if they require a skills assessment, when the assessing authority has said it does not offer one in your case and you should ask the department of immigration. It's so secret even their their own people don't know.

[Karstedt]

1 minute ago, MaggieMay24 said:

You have a rather broad perspective of the term dodgy.  The requirement is that you live and work in a regional area for 4 years.  If you want to apply for an 887 visa, you must have worked at least 12 months in a full-time capacity in a regional area and you must have lived at least 24 months in a regional area.  The type of work doesn't matter, whether it's in a single job or made up of multiple jobs to reach full-time hours for a total of 52 weeks, that's fine as well.  Nothing is secret about it and nothing is dodgy.  It may be a bit complicated and that's where a registered migration agent can help assess whether applicants have enough for the 887 visa.  But the 489 part of it is pretty clear cut.

That is not so bad, you provided those answers earlier and I gave you a trophy .

The whole dodgy thing stemmed from not knowing the dirty details of what is accepted as 'full-time'. The early respondents jumped on the 'seems dodgy' part at the very end and ignored all the questions. From the perspective of not knowing the exact details and playing it safe to presume it meant a 'single job at 35+ hrs per week for a contiguous 52 weeks', that is a dodgy requirement considering being forced into a place on the economic decline. It wasn't until you, the 12th post and 4th person, that a single one of my questions was addressed.

[Ausvisitor]

6 hours ago, Karstedt said:

That is not so bad, you provided those answers earlier and I gave you a trophy .

The whole dodgy thing stemmed from not knowing the dirty details of what is accepted as 'full-time'. The early respondents jumped on the 'seems dodgy' part at the very end and ignored all the questions. From the perspective of not knowing the exact details and playing it safe to presume it meant a 'single job at 35+ hrs per week for a contiguous 52 weeks', that is a dodgy requirement considering being forced into a place on the economic decline. It wasn't until you, the 12th post and 4th person, that a single one of my questions was addressed.

You can't really complain, you are getting this info for free, the rest of us have either had to pay for it, invest time in finding it out or do it as a job.

Complaining that you don't get something you want for free is a bit off, especially as it actually has a value.

[Karstedt]

9 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

You can't really complain, you are getting this info for free, the rest of us have either had to pay for it, invest time in finding it out or do it as a job.

Complaining that you don't get something you want for free is a bit off, especially as it actually has a value.

I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out that most of the responses were targeting a single out of context sentence and provided no real relevance to the post. It was a criticism, and I was trying to avoid being unhelpfully combative with a statement like, "LEARN HOW TO READ!". I would not have even presented the scenario and left it to merely the pointed questions, but I was certain that I would just get a bunch of people asking "why do you want to know" instead of providing any insight.

[ali]

Reading the thread, it appears the consensus is for you to employ a registered agent to assist you in your specific questions.