kangaroo.bruce Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 just a little question, why in january did the DIAC stop 175 visas and prioritise 176s when the later was only taken cause the people that were on it either A, didn't want to take the IELTS test or B,needed ss to get extra points cause they were over 40 and would have more than likely have gone for the 175 if they could ????? the point i'm getting to is that all you have to do is apply for ss to get a 176 ( which any of 175s can ) but it would be more difficult the other way round, also the younger you are the more points you receive but by prioritising 176s they opened the door to older applicants and closed it to the younger ones that you would think they wanted more cause of the points system !!!!!!! most people on a 176 only went for it cause they couldn't get a 175 ( i myself have changed as well now cause of things the DIAC have changed ) and all they had to do was to carry on with the old system but tell people or even give out visas that would only be in the state that their job was needed, as is all the 176 is after all. then instead of people ( and theres quite a few ) being messed about they could have done it in lodgement order and there wouldn't be people that lodged early 08 or even 07 getting visas months and months even years after someone that lodged only weeks ago !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the dougans Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 good post i agree it so frustrating all these changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 I wholeheartedly agree. It doesnt make sense that they are prioritising applications that before they deamed not as desirable. As you quite rightly said people went for the 176 because for one reason or another they did not have enough points for the 175. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sandisonsonthemove Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 Totally agree with what you are saying. The problem is I suspect these ever moving goalposts may well change again come 1st July either DIAC changing things again or states removing professions from their most wanted lists and then making these changes retrospective. Given the way that Queensland are treating their applicants I suspect there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people out there (us included) who will end up on the 175 pile waiting an indeterminable amount of time. I am cynical and a bit of a pessimist but I suppose that way I cannot be disappointed. Donna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kangaroo.bruce Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 thanks for the replies folks, i thought it was just me that thought it was unfair !!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brickie001 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm seems the world has gone mad £4.50 a sq m2 next week mate and £80 for common bring back maggie thatcher n hangin isay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kangaroo.bruce Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm seems the world has gone mad £4.50 a sq m2 next week mate and £80 for common bring back maggie thatcher n hangin isay too right mate, prices are less now than when she was in power years and years on !!!!!!! i reckon the gov want to turn us into a communist country :biglaugh::biglaugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bentkitty Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 To me it all seems political - the central government wants to be seen to be taking a tough stance re: migration (ie only those really worthy and with the right skills will be allowed in). If the state governments wish to still continue to allow those whose skills are now deemed less worthy than before then that is their choice entirely and the central government cannot be blamed (they seem to be saying). I totally agree it is frustrating - we got our 175 now but until the last day i was on tenterhooks wondering if they would drop yet another bombshell restricting the critical skills list further... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kangaroo.bruce Posted June 28, 2009 Author Share Posted June 28, 2009 To me it all seems political - the central government wants to be seen to be taking a tough stance re: migration (ie only those really worthy and with the right skills will be allowed in). If the state governments wish to still continue to allow those whose skills are now deemed less worthy than before then that is their choice entirely and the central government cannot be blamed (they seem to be saying). I totally agree it is frustrating - we got our 175 now but until the last day i was on tenterhooks wondering if they would drop yet another bombshell restricting the critical skills list further... yes i agree with you but it's the same people now applying for ss thats on a 175 so really there is no point in making changes, i could understand if it was another money spinner for the gov but it's not cause they get nothing out of people applying for it !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope2 Posted June 28, 2009 Share Posted June 28, 2009 G'day daz I think it's probably because of the 'global recession' - they can control the occupations for the 176's and not the 175's. If they don't want an influx of certain trades or occupations then the State Govs can remove it from the sponsorship list. They say they have a policy for employing Australians first and I guess the state sponsorships allow only for the trades/professions that they really want to see come into the country. Well........... that's my theory anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted June 29, 2009 Share Posted June 29, 2009 just a little question, why in january did the DIAC stop 175 visas and prioritise 176s when the later was only taken cause the people that were on it either A, didn't want to take the IELTS test or B,needed ss to get extra points cause they were over 40 and would have more than likely have gone for the 175 if they could ?????the point i'm getting to is that all you have to do is apply for ss to get a 176 ( which any of 175s can ) but it would be more difficult the other way round, also the younger you are the more points you receive but by prioritising 176s they opened the door to older applicants and closed it to the younger ones that you would think they wanted more cause of the points system !!!!!!! most people on a 176 only went for it cause they couldn't get a 175 ( i myself have changed as well now cause of things the DIAC have changed ) and all they had to do was to carry on with the old system but tell people or even give out visas that would only be in the state that their job was needed, as is all the 176 is after all. then instead of people ( and theres quite a few ) being messed about they could have done it in lodgement order and there wouldn't be people that lodged early 08 or even 07 getting visas months and months even years after someone that lodged only weeks ago !! HI KB I think it is all part of a move to de-centralise deciding which skilled migrants Australia needs and where they are needed. The problem with the 175 visa is that the holder is free to move to anywhere in Oz. Migrants have therefore been choosing their destinations according to where they want to live, not according to whether or not their skill is actually needed in the place where they want to live. Also the demographic spread of new migrants across Australia has become hopelessly unbalanced with over 50% choosing Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in that order, with Brissy rapidly catching up with the other two in terms of popularity with migrants. These 3 cities have large enough populations as it is, between them able to cover the entire range of skills. In an economic downturn this sort of unbalanced spread simply causes unemployment problems in the 3 major cities and forces house prices upwards whilst holding pay bargains down. Also many, many migrants go to Oz and simply abandon the occupation which got them to Oz in the first place. Apparently 65% of Engineers do not do anything involving Engineering after moving to Oz, ditto Cooks & Hairdressers. This career change idea (or in the cases of some of the ladies, giving up work altogether) does nothing to solve Australia's skills shortages. Therefore the Minister's Idea is that Employer-sponsored Permanent Residency is No 1 popular with him because it sends the migrant to exactly where he is needed, gives him a ready-made job on arrival in Oz and keeps him doing whatever he is skilled at. State sponsorship does not go as far as Employer sponsorship in achieving these goals but it is the next most effective option after employer-sponsorship. At least it does avoid sending brickies to Brisbane where they are not needed, for instance. Brickies are needed in Regional QLD and State sponsorship for the provisional sc 475 visa is on offer to brickies who are prepared to live and work in Regional QLD for a minimum of 2 to 3 years. If the brickie wants immediate PR on an sc 176 visa then he must decide to move to a State which needs brickies State-wide. It is not as good a fix as employer sponsorship but it is the second best fix that could be implemented quickly without any need to make major alterations to the legislation because that would take a lot of time to plan and to implement. A very interesting recent twist in this tale (albeit one which is hell for the applicants caught up in it) is that in the last couple of weeks QLD have started demanding evidence of cash in the bank before they will grant State sponsorship. For would be British migrants, the cash that will form the cushion when they first arrive in Australia is currently in the form of bricks & mortar as equity in their homes. About which Jamie Smith said the other day: Yes to all the above suppositions, and one more - Queensland also need a steady stream of skilled migrants, so there's not much point sponsoring people who might never be able to realise some equity in the time they are sponsored. Better to sponsor people who have liquid assets so the ones with ready money come over the fastest and spend money in the local economy. That is a very good point, I reckon. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HarryGeorge Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Excellent post Gollywobbler. You've thumped the nail on the head. As an older 176 applicant it seemed that the DIAC were saying you can work here, but more specifically in areas with focused local demand which seems sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.