What would you say to the Minister of Immigration? Really.

[Guest valeries]

Since it is a point test visa why not prioritise the applications using the total points they hold?

[Guest maggieandrich]

In fairness to the aussie gov, you cant ask for a refund on meds or police checks, because you dont pay the aussie gov for them, you pay private hospitals, and the british police for them. However, you pay for the visa, and you pay on application not on reciept, but most people will only apply if they are fairly confidant of getting one. So refunds for that should be made available if this new ruling is going to ruin any chance of the move to Aus. We ourselves wre told that we would have our visa by september, then there wasa delay getting our case officer, and now this. Our eldest daughter turns 18 this month, if we dont get granted before then, we may as well give up as she will not be included. What a waste of paying for aqfIII, the TRA, SS, and the visa, plus meds and checks.

So I would ask the minister, why are you treating people who want to live and earn and make money in and for your country in this offhand and cavalier attitude?

most of british emmigrants head to australia, is he really ready to lose that ready and willing manpower, especially when we have to jump through hoops to prove we can work, and support ourselves.

[Guest timkerbell2009]

hi maggieandrich, yeh you do have a point, the meds aren't paid to the aussie government but like you said about the visa, we wouldn't have done them if we didn't think we had a chance and I would have thought that the person looking at all the paperwork would be the people to say yeh go ahead and do the meds, everything else is ok...and I would think that was the aussie government official...so....

 

Sorry to hear about your daughter turning 18 next month, what a stressful situation! Our daughter is 18 in August 2010 and we have been stressing about it already!

 

We were told that if our daughter is in full time education when we get our visa, she will still be able to go on ours so we thought about asking her to enroll in a college course so she is seen as a dependent...at least that buys us another few years. But then you get to thinking of the what if's....like what if she finds a fella and doesn't want to move with us...2 years is a long time and I couldn't move to Australia and leave her behind, no way.

 

I think, although I am not sure so suggest you check it out, that if our daughter turns 18 before our visa is granted, she can go out to australia on a holiday visa and renew it every three or six months (whichever it is), then if she finds work, she can apply for a working visa or onshore visa and after being there for two years, she can apply for permanent residency. Not 100% sure on this but it's what someone told me and I am hoping it's right. Maybe someone could let us know if that's true? Good luck to you though.

[McKlaut]

And you could ask him very sweetly...to get his head out of his arse...actually you better not say that. But just think, if you had said that a good few years ago to a government official in England, you would have probably been exiled... to Australia! Oh the irony!

Made me laugh!:biggrin:

 

For minister: does he know that XXXYYY123.. is not an X file number? It's an Earth human life number coded so to hide our true names. But we have names, we have lives and sooner or later we'll become Australians and then... no ever vote for Labor.. no ever.. :biggrin:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Senator Chris Evans was born in Cuckfield, Sussex, UK.

 

Perhaps he has already been exiled to Oz? :elvis:

[Guest Glenn Pereira]

POMSINOZ can be considered as a powerful lobby group on "Australian Migration Policy"

 

 

I think Gill should start a seperate post

 

 

"Letter to the Minister""

 

From

 

"POMSINOZ"

 

on

 

"Future of Migration"

 

and members should make dot point suggestions.

 

This letter should be sent to Mr. Chris Evans and Secretary Mr. Andrew Metcalf once the suggestions are collated.

 

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

[Kazzarazza]

Since it is a point test visa why not prioritise the applications using the total points they hold?

 

That's how it used to be done in the "Good Ol' Days" B4 Mr C Evans started sticking his mitts in.

[Guest Glenn Pereira]

That's how it used to be done in the "Good Ol' Days" B4 Mr C Evans started sticking his mitts in.

 

 

I think Mr. Evans has a point. Both on-shore and off-shore was scammed by "Agents". They had to fix the problem.

 

I have made 1 submission to the Minister and it appears he has taken some of my points on board.

 

POMSINOZ" can try again.

 

Regards

Glenn Pereira

[Guest eurosyl]

I am not sure if this can add up to a question, but I have been re-reading the statistics report, and chewing on a few thought in relation to recent changes too (and recent changes is for me everthing since the introduction of the CSL in January 2009).

 

It is without doubt that Australia is a popular country for emigration. Australia needs a constant growth of its population to sustain its economy in the long run. And preferably this could be done by a large part by allowing students that have completed a eduction in skills australia need to remain in Australia. One can be ensured of quality of education and the intermediate step of TR (with all noted consequences) ensures that they find experience and work in the job skill they nominate. Big discussions ongoing on this matter, and I follow them carefully.

 

On the other hand skilled people that can be put to work now, in jobs that are in demand now, are needed too. It makes sense for the government to push employer sponsored visas first, and secondary state sponsored visas assuming that states can assess local demands better. Priority has always been in place for this (as far as I can see in the old reports) but the total amount of visas to be handled was relatively small.

 

For the total skilled migration (that includes employer sponsored, state sponsored and family sponsored applications) the following numbers can be found:

--------------- Lodgements ---- Grants ----- In pipeline at end of financial year (30-6)

2006-2007 ---- 150,623 ----- 97,920 ------ unknown

2007-2008 ---- 151,685 ----- 108,540 ----- 130,433

2008-2009 ---- 163,009 ----- 114,777 ----- 133,601

 

For this financial year the planning outcome is set at 108,100 grants and currently (if I remember well) about 5,100 skilled applications are lodged each month.

 

Basically, there is a backlog (buffer) of over 130,000 applications. With the total amount of projected grants (for this year but I don't expect major changes for 2011-2012) this backlog will not be cleared. By introducing a priority system that can change at a whim, the government created a system that allows them to collect a steady amount of application fees, pick out the cherries from the pudding (only those applicants that are in need now and that can change tomorrow) and keep the rest in queue for an undetermined time (with the current priorities the person at the bottom will stay there forever) with no chance of money back ever.

 

I understand how government budgets work (at least I know it for my native country), and you spend whatever is in budget otherwise your next years budget might be cut.

 

It is sure time for change: escrow of clients money (yes a visa applicant is a client) and to clear up the backlog it would be a smart move not to accept new applicants for a while. Current situation basically allows the government to sit on client funds indefinitely whilst they pick the best looking cherries that have just arrived. The most fair way of course is a guaranteed time after which processing will commence (no priority -> your application will be on top of queue after x months latest and processing will commence), so that a system with boosted priority handling interlaced with a first in first out (FIFO) exists.

 

Anyways, just my 2cts.

 

Sylvia

[Guest Justin JIANG]

Dear Minister,

 

I am not questioning about your capability of changing the goalposts all the time as it's delegated by the migration law in Australia.

 

However, i am going to ask, before the changes on 23 Sep 2009, have you thought about any bad effects on the existing applicants, especially those who had got state sponsorship and lodged the application before this change? Is it ethical or appropriate to make this change as you may not understand the situations of those vulnerable applicants who had made tangible commitments to live and work in Australia, had their skills recognized by their sponsoring states as in demand and had expected their visas to be finalized within few months as the timeline for the visa grant before the change confirmed?

 

If you were the family member of those who had been affected, would you regard IMMIGRATON DEPARTMENT as a reliable and trust-worthy government agency? Definitely, no.

 

My suggestions to the Minister is :

 

1. treat those who have got the state sponsorship and applied the GSM visa before the change to be not affected by these changes. As sponsorship visa granted in few years time makes no sense to the applicants and their sponsoring states.

[Guest KatyNick]

What a fantastic thread - thank you for offering to pose questions from PIO members. I will definately be logging on to see if one of 'our' questions was asked and more importantly, what the answer was!

[Guest Off to the Sun]

We got caught out in the March changes, we had a CO in Jan, were asked for our meds which we did and now they have to either give us a visa before Jan 2010 or we have to do them again. How can they justify this, we have the points, the TRA, the meds are fine etc etc.

 

I know a lot of people are vexed because this is happening to them now and I 100% agree we should be peed off. So my question is how can they justify asking people to spend all this money and then telling them to go away we'll deal with you when we have our 100,000 IT and medical people? oh and by the way thanks for all the dosh, that will buy plenty of tinnies!

Its disgraceful.:arghh: With all the time, money, heartache and dissapointment we don't want to go anymore. OH is gone back to college. We should have went to Canada instead, at least they tell you 4 years.

[Guest timkerbell2009]

Senator Chris Evans was born in Cuckfield, Sussex, UK.

 

Perhaps he has already been exiled to Oz? :elvis:

lol Golly. As for him being an English politician, that explains alot!

[Guest Jamie Smith]

OK here's the update.

 

Things are not going to relax anytime soon about skilled visa processing priorities.

 

DIAC hold 2 years of supply of skilled migrant applications of non-CSL applicants. A total of 109,000 people right now are in Adelaide SPC alone. Brisbane has the same oversupply, as does Perth and Melbourne.

 

They don't need to take any more applications at all, for a year to 18 months even if a quarter of people withdrew their applications.

 

So the Minister can "afford" to be unkind, as he has more people applying than he can accommodate - even though the country needs all the people who have applied. :Randy-git:

 

A combination of time spent in processing cases with the annual total set at that level is now the obstacle. If they lift the cap numbers for the year, and process faster, they can clear the backlog.

 

But they won't, because there is public fear that more new arrivals means more unemployment for Australians, when the reality is the opposite. The Government knows that's the truth and admits it, but the public don't and won't believe it so it becomes too hard to sell politically, and this Government won't try.

 

The Minister apparently loves RSMS/ENS more than unsponsored skilled visas as there's an instant benefit for everyone and the issue of employability and skills/capailities has in essence already been solved. With unsponsored visass there are no guarantees that the skilled migrant will actually work in the profession or area for which they are being awarded points to migrate. ie issuing a visa to a chemist who then does property renovations doesn't solve the shortage of chemists.

 

Although the state Government people involved in sponsoring say the changes were news to them, THEIR bosses knew it was coming as DIAC advised the state government skilled employment representatives at the last COAG meeting (where state and federal governments meet to try and work out how to cooperate on things). I guess the head honchos decided not to, or were asked not to, leak the onfo to the public so that DIAC didn't get more in the queue than are in it now.

 

The last time a change was advertised something like 40% of a year's worth of cases were lodged in about 10 weeks.

 

So..... Jamie's crystal ball says:

 

The UK and many other country's migration markets to Australia will go flat and some agents will fold because of reduced demand and extended cash flow / payments as per contract.

 

Without viable agents, the market will go even more pear shaped.

 

Then, when the Aussie visa volume situation does recover, there will be a lag in applications due to reduced agent marketing and lack of interest from the UK etc.

 

End result, a continued shortage of workers in Australia.

 

 

 

• A shortage now as the 2 years supply of stock on hand will include many who do what the chemist did above - change occupation to something less demanding.
  

 

 

 

• A shortage now and for the near term as few employers know anything about sponsoring a person from overseas, and it will take some time to wrap their heads around sponsoring for PR without "control" over the worker as per the 457 which now has more onerous compliance obligations and huge difficulties showing DIAC their commitment to training existing staff and local hiring effort.
  

 

 

 

• A shortage in the future as it will take some time for market confidence to recover and agents to start marketing Australia again.
  

 

It's frustrating and not the fault of the applicant.

 

The Govt would have known when they came to power that they had uncomfortably high volume in the pipeline yet did nothing due to the low unemployment rate. What they should have done then was increase the speed of processing and solve two problems at the same time, but they didn't.

 

Then when the unemployment rate started to rise it made political sense to cut annual migrant volumes, plus add a deterrent to existing migration inflow and not process cases as fast.

 

Of course people were in the pipeline months ahead of the flattening of the employment market and they didn't stop applying for visas...

 

So the Govt let a a back log build up because they wouldn't invest in processing resources, and now they have a big backlog they think they can afford to just kill off the inflow.

 

It's basic economics, supply and demand, but that doesn't factor in the issue of emotional confidence, which markets need to sustain a hit and recover later. By making agent businesses uneconomical now they undermine the recovery effort later.

 

It's typical of a union led Government to not think about business issues.

 

Will you get your money back if you withdraw - probably not, because if 50% did so the Govt would have to find about 40,000 application fees and refund them, about $40 million to come out of DIAC budget and DIAC will be saying "hang on, we already spent that money processing them to this point".

 

All you can reasonably expect to get with the Minister holding all the cards (more demand than capacity to supply) is a freeze on conditions, like the age of children to now be set at time of application rather than time of decision. :notworthy:

 

If they don't freeze conditions either, well consider this - in Canada some years ago, the migrant community and their agents sued the Government for deliberately slowly processing the cases by hiring too few processing staff, thereby artificially restricting inflow and robbing people of the ability to qualify for a visa when their case was decided 2-3 years later.

 

The migrants and agents won.

 

The best way forward however is to again switch visas to an ENS or RSMS, or come over on a 457 until the other visa is eventually decided if everyone still meets all the conditions later.

 

Unless you are on the CSL you'll now need an employer to offer you a job to get a visa - and that won't change for the next year or two.

 

Thanks to all of those who sent comments. I showed them to several DIAC managers (who usually shrugged and said hey I only process these things I don't set policy) and couldn't get the Parliamentary Undersecretary interested.

 

But I don't blame the DIAC staff, the DIAC managers are stumbling as much as everyone else trying to keep up with changes, eg they have been given the legal requirement to consider "market rate" salaries and "effort to employ and train Australians", with no clear definition of what constitutes acceptable levels of effort and pay.

 

A case officer without a guideline is like a machine without electricity. It will do nothing just sit there, (rather than try to make a decision and possibly get it wrong.)

 

Your comments will now go off to the Minister by direct post.

[cartertucker]

Thankyou for filling us in, much appreciated....:yes:

 

__________________________________________

 

 

Myself & My Family ......:sad:

[basil]

DIAC hold 2 years of supply of skilled migrant applications of non-CSL applicants. A total of 109,000 people right now are in Adelaide SPC alone. Brisbane has the same oversupply, as does Perth and Melbourne.

 

They don't need to take any more applications at all, for a year to 18 months even if a quarter of people withdrew their applications.

 

 

 

Thanks for the update.

 

Regarding the timescales and backlog did anyone differentiate between the non-csl applicants? ie does priority 5 state sponsored count for anything v's independant visa applicants?

Still just gripping onto the idea SS visas might be 2 yars away not 3!

[Guest biohacker]

Jamie: I am so grateful with you. Thanks for your patience and commitment with the cause. Do you think that CSLers are going to have news soon? for example a change on CSL or priorities? I used to think that my future was in Australia but now I am not even sure if I will get a visa or the dream will melt down on the next months.

 

Thanks again and my best wishes.

[basil]

THEIR bosses knew it was coming as DIAC advised the state government skilled employment representatives at the last COAG meeting (where state and federal governments meet to try and work out how to cooperate on things). I guess the head honchos decided not to, or were asked not to, leak the onfo to the public so that DIAC didn't get more in the queue than are in it now.

 

The last time a change was advertised something like 40% of a year's worth of cases were lodged in about 10 weeks

 

Great, so to avoid them getting a surge of applicants (and more money, poor them!) they not only left us in the dark but continued on with the charade by requesting meds and PCC's from a heap of us

It IS nice to have the update but it is hard to grin and bear it all.

[Guest Magnetic6]

Jamie, just to refer to one of your points. I think DIAC would get more skilled people applying for ENS rather than 175 CSl if it wasn't necessary to work for the employer full time.

The CSL comprises of lots of health professionals, many of these will be women, who in turn will be mothers. In the maternity unit where i work i'd say only 10% of the midwives work full time, most do 24-30 hours /week. Perhaps if you were able to do this on an ENS it would be better, or can you and i've just read the information wrong?

I'm sure more people would apply for this visa if the working hours were more flexible.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Gday basil

 

The Adelaide numbers are ranked like this, reflecting priority of processing, numbers are individual applications, not total people involved:

 

State nominated with CSL, Unallocated 27, Allocated 720, Total 747

Family sponsored CSL, 1130, 279, 1409

All other CSL, 6335, 4289, 10624

All other State nominated, 3678, 0, 3678

MODL only, 12388, 0, 12388

Other, 15659, 0, 15659

Total, 39217, 5279, 44496

 

So Adelaide hold 12000+ CSL applicants, allow another 12000 for Brisbane and more for Perth etc.

 

That's the rest of this year's quota right there, and all have priority processing and CSL.... not much hope for the regular non-CSL applicant, sad to say.

 

The only positive there is that the CSL numbers built up as did all other categories while everyone was being treated evenly. CSL ratio to non CSL about 27%.

 

If they have double what they need and CSL inflow is 1/4 of usual numbers then , it will take six mionths at least to process the CLS now, plus 3-6 months to process the new CSL that arrive after today, adn then they can look at the oldest non CSL which will probably be State sponsored and about 6000 or 4 months processing capacity by then, and only then will they move onto MODL in no less than about 6 months plus 3-6 months plus 4 months at the earliest.

 

The downside is that this new situation will encourage more use of RSMS and ENS, and every one of those ENS/RSMS is one less spot for a MODL or CSL visa to be processed.

 

And less MODL means more ENS which means less MODL which means more ENS etc etc :shocked:

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Gday Biohacker.

 

No problem and I'm sorry you guys have to deal with the incompetencies of Government over here as well as at home. (oops, did I say that?) :policeman:

 

CSL won't go any faster, but it will get done.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Great, so to avoid them getting a surge of applicants (and more money, poor them!) they not only left us in the dark but continued on with the charade by requesting meds and PCC's from a heap of us

It IS nice to have the update but it is hard to grin and bear it all.

 

Yes well , what can I say, DIAC staff do what they're told until they're told not to do it any more. They'll make concrete life jackets until the Minister says stop.:goofy:

[basil]

Thanks for replying Jamie, so from your crystal ball prediction you think it could be about a year before they look at non CSL SS visas (or me!).

Of course that depends on what happens now re inflation or employer sponsored visas and growth of the CSL list and whether they continually push non CSL SS further back in the queue.

 

How do you believe they 'work' at DIAC though, surely there comes a point where they're waiting for documents etc from CSLers....will they then push through a few non CSL SS or do they have to not move onto priority 5 until all priority 1-4 are actually finalised and granted?

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Jamie

 

First, thank you very much indeed for your efforts with all this. It is brilliant that you managed to get so much information out of the DIAC staff and others. People can handle the truth if they know what it is. The Minister's decision not to address the applicants himself and tell them the facts is the thing that has done his reputation the most harm in this debacle.

 

The UK and many other country's migration markets to Australia will go flat and some agents will fold because of reduced demand and extended cash flow / payments as per contract.

 

I think you are right that the market in the UK will go flat as far as potential skilled independent migrants are concerned. IN a way, though, I think this will be for the best. LIke Oz, the UK will have a General Election in 2010. I think the present UK Govt will be thrown out. I think the UK is ready for a change and the sense of optimism whikch a change of Govt will provide will kick start the UK housing market and might well be a shot in the arm for sterling as well.

 

So although it is galling and distressing in the short term, I think the delay will work out quite well for most Brits in the end.

 

Without viable agents, the market will go even more pear shaped.

 

Why do you think this, please? Unless I am missing something, I don't think an absence of agents will have any effect on the market?

 

Will you get your money back if you withdraw - probably not, because if 50% did so the Govt would have to find about 40,000 application fees and refund them, about $40 million to come out of DIAC budget and DIAC will be saying "hang on, we already spent that money processing them to this point".

 

I reckon you are absolutely right plus as long as the Minister does not decline to process the visa application - eventually - he is legally entitled to hang on to the fees already received.

 

What he could do - and what I hope he will have the common decency to do - is that where people will have to re-do meds, the Panel Doctors and x-ray clinics should be told to send their bills to the Australian High Commission in London for settlement by DIAC instead of by the visa applicant. The Minister could easily make this gesture and it would not blow a massive hole in DIAC's budget, so I hope he will have the decency to do it. The same process should be used in other countries.

 

All you can reasonably expect to get with the Minister holding all the cards (more demand than capacity to supply) is a freeze on conditions, like the age of children to now be set at time of application rather than time of decision.

 

It would be another honourable, decent gesture but I am not holding my breath. It suits the Minister if people abandon their plans because a by-then-adult child will not be able to migrate with the rest of teh family. People de-selecting themselves relieves the Minister's backlog headache so I don't think he will make any gestures of this sort.

 

If they don't freeze conditions either, well consider this - in Canada some years ago, the migrant community and their agents sued the Government for deliberately slowly processing the cases by hiring too few processing staff, thereby artificially restricting inflow and robbing people of the ability to qualify for a visa when their case was decided 2-3 years later.

 

The migrants and agents won.

 

They sued under Canadian Law. Australian Law on this point is watertight and on the Minister's side, I suspect.

 

The best way forward however is to again switch visas to an ENS or RSMS,

Absolutely right. I agree with you 100%.

 

Thanks to all of those who sent comments. I showed them to several DIAC managers (who usually shrugged and said hey I only process these things I don't set policy) and couldn't get the Parliamentary Undersecretary interested.

 

Thanks very much indeed for trying. Making the effort is enough for me to say that you should be carried around shoulder high for having bothered.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

xx

[Guest biohacker]

Your comments will now go off to the Minister by direct post.

 

Really?? how straight?? in that case I beg all you guys to show respect in your enquiries because we are still civilized persons even when some of us feel frustrated because of the recent news.

 

I'd ask to the minister (it is difficult not to think about an IT engineer) if there is a chance to improve the information system in order to provide more information to the applicants, so one could count on an accurate timeline and be able to make changes and moves on a real basis.

 

Thanks in advance and have a nice day.