freebo Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Mach I'd be surpised if Group 4 was being handled as the DIAC chappies were quite adamant that they HAD to do gp1, then Gp2, so forth. You can see the numbers on page 5 of this thread that Gps 4 onwards had no allocated cases. So they had cleared the allocated cases recently, probably well ahead of the priority changes coming into effect. I don't think they would have cleared a few thosuand allocated cases that quick, my suspicion is DIAC were told not to allocate files long before the changes were made public, and to wait until a decision was made on them. They said Gps 1 and 2 would be cleared in coupla days, and that Gp 3 would be finished by February I think. Jamie, firstly can I add my thanks for the great info you've provided after your meetings with DIAC, its finally schedding some light on the announcement, which has understandably been the subject of endless speculation for the past couple of weeks. Just to clarify your post above, you refer to Gps 1-4, which I think are what most here have been calling Priority 2-5. i.e. Gp 3 is CSL non sponsored and Gp 4 being State Sponsored non CSL. I presume your Gp 1-2 are CSL sponsored groups, most here have been referring to Priority 1 as ENS. Sorry, I don't wish to muddy the waters just to suggest we all understand the same groupings. Thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mach Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Mach I'd be surpised if Group 4 was being handled as the DIAC chappies were quite adamant that they HAD to do gp1, then Gp2, so forth. You can see the numbers on page 5 of this thread that Gps 4 onwards had no allocated cases. So they had cleared the allocated cases recently, probably well ahead of the priority changes coming into effect. I don't think they would have cleared a few thosuand allocated cases that quick, my suspicion is DIAC were told not to allocate files long before the changes were made public, and to wait until a decision was made on them. They said Gps 1 and 2 would be cleared in coupla days, and that Gp 3 would be finished by February I think. I think they said that they would be handling new CSLs at target processing times in January February. So the issue becomes how many new CSLs are there going to be to slow down their reaching the Group 4 etc DIAC also said that they were now doing triage, and decision ready cases were to be approved at time of first handling if they could, and then the next best others would get the 28 days to reply letter but if the reply was received before 28 days they would try to approve immediately a satisfactory reply came in and not wait until the 28 days were up before checking the file again. The frustration is it's all bl**dy common sense and logical but case officers had to be wait to be told to do it that way. To DIAC's merit, they told the story of a case officer who said "why approve it same day, that's unnecedssarily fast", and another case officer said "no it's not, don't forget some agent has been working on this file for 5-6 months already". I suggested to the managers that they fire the first and promote the second but they just shrugged... So there's a reason to get an expert to check the file before lodgement at least. Good to know the Group 4 thing was wrong, I thought it sounded a little fast too. Nice insight into the workings of DIAC too. //Mach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Hi Mach I reckon that the ASPC will do everything possible to try to resume processing for people in your situation as fast as they can. DIAC can extend the validity of meds and police checks by up to six months provided the files reveal no medical complications. I think they will do this in order to avoid having to ask people to do two sets of meds. It costs DIAC money to have to process a second set of meds for a family and it is money which they cannot recover from you. After that, I don't know whether they have the resources to say, "Sift all the Cat 5 files. Pull out all the files where there is a child who was 15 or above on the date when the application was lodged. Let us try to get this group of applicants sorted out next so as to avoid the complications of children who have recently turned 18 or soon will. Do the sift and put the files into order according to the age of the eldest child in each case, with the oldest children at the top of the pile." I don't know whether the DIAC computer can be made to do such a search. Unless the machine can be made to do it, I doubt whether it is practicable to try to do it by hand. But the Minister has the powers to use some common sense in deciding how to set about things so as to try to give all applicants an equal and fair chance. In the thread below, Glenn Pereira - a man who has his finger firmly fixed to the Minister's pulse - predicts that the Govt will keep the brakes on until after the General Election in November 2010 but thereafter they will probably increase the quota of skilled migrants. Jamie Smith is more or less predicting the same as Glenn. http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/70356-future-migration.html Glenn says that applying the brakes in the way that the Minister has done will give him time to introduce measures to prevent further scamming of the skills assessment process. That makes sense. If he decides to introduce new legislation the time to do it is whilst the drawbridge is up and people are discouraged from applying. Jamie is also correct. Industry and the Govt in Oz both know that immigration creates new wealth for Australia and keeps Aussies in jobs. The Australian voter is not persuaded at present because his own job is at risk so he is very receptive to propaganda about the alleged Evils Of Immigration right now. If the Rudd Govt gets a new mandate in November 2010, releasing the brakes the day after being sworn in will work well. Glenn has mentioned The Gas Projects. They are massive in scale and will feed many mouths for a generation. Everybody involved with them agrees that Australia cannot supply enough bodies to fulfil the worker demand which these projects will create. The owners of the Projects predict that the shortage of workers will be felt from early 2011 onwards. I think the Minister's failure to explain his 23rd September Direction to the people affected by it is a massive PR bungle. He deserves the flak which his silence is attracting. Nobody would stick a knife in Chris Evan's real flesh & blood guts - he is probably a very nice man round a private dinner table at home. However it is perfectly legitimate to take potshots at Evans The Job rather than at Evans The Man if you see what I mean. Politicians accept this when they take office. Those who would take the flak to heart are not temperamentally suited for roles in public life. My late Bro in Law was a British MP. Some of his constituents detested him. Some of the family detested him too. But he had a hide like a rhinoceros so he was never fazed by any of the flak! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barab Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 As a pom.....you pile of ****As an Aussie.....good on ya mate. Ha Ha Ha.....This is quality. Keep it up,I'm loving every minute of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Following is what I stated in another post. Once the new policy is finalised for both on-shore and off-shore the waiting list will start "moving". DIAC will be tight lipped on the next announcement. Only a core group in DIAC will know the new changes and will be bound by secrecy. QUOTE In my opinion the announcement of 23rd Sept 09 will give DIAC time to clean up the on-shore and off-shore scams. The Job Ready Test for on-shore will commence 1st Jan 2010 Present Uniform Assessment Criteria (TRA UAC) will be scraped and new guidelines will come into force 1st Jan 2010 Government TAFE colleges will be appointed to carry out off shore TRADE assessment for more "targeted" TRADES to avoid paper based assessment which are scammed with a number of "templates' in the market that are being sold for a price. OFF-SHORE will be targeted based on occupations in demand Fast track CSL Possibly TR for MODL occupations with possibility to go on PR once they find a job in Australia Demand for ENGINEERS, PROJECT MANAGERS & TRADES will soar once the gas project takes off. Work on the $ 2 billion de-salination plant has commenced in Victoria and a demand for TRADES & Engineers will grow. I anticipate this approach will continue once the elections are over. Today's newspaper suggest unemployment will rise for the next 2 years. The GOVERNMENT has to be careful on their policy on migration if they would like to retain Government. Be patient , all is not over. Hold on to your emotions but make sure you are not taken for a "ride" by agents. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 All other State nominated: 3678, 0, 3678 (Unallocated, Allocated, Total) Don't get these numbers. No one under State Sponsored (SS), non-CSLs, have COs allocated? 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebo Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 All other State nominated: 3678, 0, 3678 (Unallocated, Allocated, Total) Don't get these numbers. No one under State Sponsored (SS), non-CSLs, have COs allocated? Jamie refers to this in another post, basically no-one in those categories has a c.o. at the moment as they're not currently being processed, and possibly won't be until all of the CSL has been finalised. If you search all Jamie's recent posts you'll find it (was today I think). EDIT - here is the quote from Jamie above in this thread "Mach I'd be surpised if Group 4 was being handled as the DIAC chappies were quite adamant that they HAD to do gp1, then Gp2, so forth. You can see the numbers on page 5 of this thread that Gps 4 onwards had no allocated cases." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Jamie refers to this in another post, basically no-one in those categories has a c.o. at the moment as they're not currently being processed, and possibly won't be until all of the CSL has been finalised. If you search all Jamie's recent posts you'll find it (was today I think). EDIT - here is the quote from Jamie above in this thread "Mach I'd be surpised if Group 4 was being handled as the DIAC chappies were quite adamant that they HAD to do gp1, then Gp2, so forth. You can see the numbers on page 5 of this thread that Gps 4 onwards had no allocated cases." Thanks freebo, it doesn't reflect non-CSLs who have had COs allocated pre-23-Sep, does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebo Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Thanks freebo, it doesn't reflect non-CSLs who have had COs allocated pre-23-Sep, does it? I see Jamie's online so can answer from the "horse's mouth" but as far as I understand it, yes it does I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandm Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 This thread is such an awesome one. after going through all the posts, i thank all for the effort taken in sharing information and their views. this 23/09 announcement was indeed like a bolt from the blue(to be mild). i am a great fan of fedex and had hoped that i would see him at the oz open next year. but sadly by 2012 he may have retired!!! this constant change in processing is really a big joke on the applicants. its like telling a runner that the race is a 800 m one and so he trains and prepares himself mentally for one. but when the race starts and half a lap is over, the display board flashes saying that the race has been converted to a marathon! its worse than pulling a rug from under one's feet. my advise to the minister is that, atleast start processing the applications which are already with diac. finish them up and apply the new processing arrangements to the new applicants. well that makes sense. and for those applicants whose cases havent allocated to a CO, atleast give them the option of refunds. DIAC can cut maybe 10 or 20 or 30% towards administrative charges and refund the remaining amount. this will certainly show the immi department as being more humane and also treat the applicants with grace and dignity rather than what it looks like now. these are exceptional times and hence some exceptions have to be made. 3 years is a bloody long time to put your life to a pause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mach Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Hi Mach I reckon that the ASPC will do everything possible to try to resume processing for people in your situation as fast as they can. DIAC can extend the validity of meds and police checks by up to six months provided the files reveal no medical complications. I think they will do this in order to avoid having to ask people to do two sets of meds. It costs DIAC money to have to process a second set of meds for a family and it is money which they cannot recover from you. After that, I don't know whether they have the resources to say, "Sift all the Cat 5 files. Pull out all the files where there is a child who was 15 or above on the date when the application was lodged. Let us try to get this group of applicants sorted out next so as to avoid the complications of children who have recently turned 18 or soon will. Do the sift and put the files into order according to the age of the eldest child in each case, with the oldest children at the top of the pile." I don't know whether the DIAC computer can be made to do such a search. Unless the machine can be made to do it, I doubt whether it is practicable to try to do it by hand. But the Minister has the powers to use some common sense in deciding how to set about things so as to try to give all applicants an equal and fair chance. In the thread below, Glenn Pereira - a man who has his finger firmly fixed to the Minister's pulse - predicts that the Govt will keep the brakes on until after the General Election in November 2010 but thereafter they will probably increase the quota of skilled migrants. Jamie Smith is more or less predicting the same as Glenn. http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/70356-future-migration.html Glenn says that applying the brakes in the way that the Minister has done will give him time to introduce measures to prevent further scamming of the skills assessment process. That makes sense. If he decides to introduce new legislation the time to do it is whilst the drawbridge is up and people are discouraged from applying. Jamie is also correct. Industry and the Govt in Oz both know that immigration creates new wealth for Australia and keeps Aussies in jobs. The Australian voter is not persuaded at present because his own job is at risk so he is very receptive to propaganda about the alleged Evils Of Immigration right now. If the Rudd Govt gets a new mandate in November 2010, releasing the brakes the day after being sworn in will work well. Glenn has mentioned The Gas Projects. They are massive in scale and will feed many mouths for a generation. Everybody involved with them agrees that Australia cannot supply enough bodies to fulfil the worker demand which these projects will create. The owners of the Projects predict that the shortage of workers will be felt from early 2011 onwards. I think the Minister's failure to explain his 23rd September Direction to the people affected by it is a massive PR bungle. He deserves the flak which his silence is attracting. Nobody would stick a knife in Chris Evan's real flesh & blood guts - he is probably a very nice man round a private dinner table at home. However it is perfectly legitimate to take potshots at Evans The Job rather than at Evans The Man if you see what I mean. Politicians accept this when they take office. Those who would take the flak to heart are not temperamentally suited for roles in public life. My late Bro in Law was a British MP. Some of his constituents detested him. Some of the family detested him too. But he had a hide like a rhinoceros so he was never fazed by any of the flak! Cheers Gill Hey Gill, You hit the nail on the head in so many parts of the post, I don't know where to begin. I think deep down, us SS non-CSL-ers with a CO are so frustrated because we got shut out while standing on a very wide finish line. But also, that there are so few of us in the grand scale of things that we make a pretty shoddy lobby group. Looking on the bright (well... slightly lighter) side, we are at the front of a very large group of applicants. That's better than being at the back of it. The data mining work Jamie and Glenn (and the advice offered by PiOers like yourself) have done so far has been top notch, and I think everyone knows now where to get their info from in the future Good work guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie ellis Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 I would say you would be better to clip the kangaroos toe nails before putting them down your wellie boots:biglaugh:you.:Randy-git: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Present Uniform Assessment Criteria (TRA UAC) will be scraped and new guidelines will come into force 1st Jan 2010 Glenn I copied this from your post just wondered if you could elaborate a bit please. My wife has recently passed her TRA and we have applied for WA SS. We are hoping to be SS but non csl hoping to put in Visa if SS gets received by end of the year. If the SS isnt recieved by Jan 1st 2010 will this mean her TRA would be invalid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 To the best of my knowledge there is no prescribed period on the validity TRA assessment. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Gday Alan The numbers for other offices than Brisbane and ASPC were my estimate, but the ASPC guys did say that DIAC ASPC and DIAC Brisbane had 2 years of case load on hand already. Thanks Jamie. The backlog in terms of timeline was no different when I went to the ASPC in person in March 2007. The difference then as compared to now was that all applications from "low risk" countries such as the UK were being processed quickly (4 to 5 months), while higher risk country applications were taking 2+ years. As you have indicated, this is a political game - intending migrants are the unfortunate pawns. Perspectives and expectations have to change - those that do so quickly will be best placed to handle the next two to three years, because that period soon passes when you are at the other end of that process. It seems like only yesterday that I migrated to Australia, and that is now more than 8½ years ago. End of philosophy lesson! Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Alan, In fact I think it's worse than that - Jamie and I extracted those figures from DIAC together and another telling statistic is that there are 166,000 applicants in the pipeline and only 63,000 visas in the annual GSM program (less if ENS and RSMS increase), so think the real question is why doesn't DIAC suspend the 475 visa altogether if new applications will take three years and possibly five years to process? The only hope is that the CSL will disappear when the new MODL is concocted, but it seems clear enough that however they define their priorities there won't be enough visas to go around. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 For those of you who posted a message, thank you. Today I handed nine pages of replies, the polite ones at least :biggrin:, to Peter Sepldewinde, who is Assistant Secretary, Labour Market Branch of DIAC. He gets involved in the modelling, analysis and planning of the visa programmes. We discussed how the UK market is in tailspin after the Pathway D fiasco, then a series of rapid changes culminating in September 14. How UK agents might desert supporting Australian visas across all categories and not be aroudn when Australia needs to crank up the visa programmes again in a year or two. I asked him to read the comments and consider passing them on to the Minister or the wallies in policy development to show there are real people on the end of their decision making. I pointed out that some of the message signatures indicated up to 19 months in the process before the door was shut. Peter has the ear of the Minister, his last meeting with Him Indoors ran for 3 hours. He thanked me genuinely, then later said he had read them, and we discussed a few ideas such as: Taking a few thousand of the most advanced cases that have all stages completed and finalising them - he said there were more than a few thousand at that stage but yes they might need to do that to maintain the faith. (Likelihood of that happening I would say about 50/50 especially as he seemed surpised about the length of the process for some people). Refunds for recently lodged cases or people who choose to withdraw at any stage. He made the point that once banked the application fee is in Government hands not DIAC, so refunds won't be a DIAC decision. This is a good thing, as the Government can decide to do it and not face opposition from DIAC getting a hole put in their budget. Likelihood, is probably 2 to 1 in favour at least for recently lodged cases. They should do refunds for all, so let's hope. Publishing statistics to show how many applications are in a queue for the visa about to be lodged and what the likely processing time would be. He pondered that one and could see the benefit as it would to some degree deter people from applying for oversubscribed visas and would encourage them into other classes such as regional RSMS. FWIW, they knew 2 years ago that the overseas students would come through and swamp the skilled migrant programme. DIAC made the previous Government aware of things but there was a labour shortage on so I guess they just shrugged and thought the numbers would take care of themselves. They should have funded DIAC more to process more cases more quickly. Then when the next Govt comes in they too have an oversubscribed visa programme and a labour shortage, so again another shrug, and again they should have cranked up processing but didn't. It's not entirely the current Government's fault that we have the problem now, but what they're doing about it IS their fault. Overreaction without communication is just shoddy behaviour. PETER mentioned that senior butts were kicked in February and March by the Minister when the Minister had directed that from January 1 no non-CSL were to have been brought to pre-grant stage. I would think that the butt kicking went down the line but it took longer for all staff to be made aware of the directive. I am speculating that that original instruction would be contrary to what is acceptable behaviour as there is probably a legal entitlement to have one's valid and properly made case heard without being unfairly subverted. People were asked to spend time and money were doing so at DIAC's request when senior staff and the Minister knew the requests would not result in a visa grant any time soon. DIAC staff were acting without the support of the Minister, in fact contrary to his instructions. Therefore there might be strong legal grounds to appeal for refunds and compensation. For the future- DIAC focus is: Reduce the size of the unsponsored skilled migration programme Shift to demand driven visas like ENS and RSMS as the MODL is now 63% of the skilled progamme, up from 24% in 2005, and it is not necessarily generating employable migrants eg the student visa college fiasco Have a better MODL with more flexibility and speed of response to the labour market, without a CSL in place More scope and flexibility for state sponsorship NB, current net overseas migration (arrivals - dpeartures) is 48,000 above what is deemed to be an acceptable level, with a large amount of that being the student cohort here for a year or more: In the last 12 months: 457 Departures were 30,000 and arrivals were 100,000 Students, 60,000 went and 220,000 arrived Skilled migrants 70,000 arrived Family 40,000 arrived Plus the ususal Aussies and kiwis coming and going. ENS for this year is 19% above forecast but they're not too concerned as that is the Minister's focus and every ENS is one less Skilled Unsponsored to process. Category numbers, being the percent that each category makes of the total skilled programme for the last 3 years: Skilled Independent, was 55%, 51% now 39% Employer sponsored, 17%, 22%, 33% Skilled Australian sponsored 17%, 16% 10% State nominated, 7% 7%, 12% it is clear that to "get with the programme" migrants now need to seek a job offer or expect to wait a few years. There has been no signal from the Minister that he is considering lifting the whole programme numbers above the existing 108,100 for 2009/10. In terms of the backlogs: 0-3 months wait has grown slowly 7-12 months wait has grown slowly 13-18 months waiting had significant reduction 18 months plus (higher risk countries?) many more people waiting DIAC priorities for review and change are: Further review the CSL to add or remove occupations Make the 457 to PR pathway clearer Introduce JobReady test for Trades (January 1 2010) this is aimed at sorting out the students who have got a qualification from a shoddy institution or whose qualification is based on bogus documents such as having false work experience Review the MODL (underway) This is a review of the MODL mechanism for selecting occupations, not the selection of occupations itself. Expect a new MODL methodology due end 2010 to result in a new list of occupations. Review Business Skills 160, 163 etc (underway, due end 2010 calendar year). Apparently many business owners have less than $300,000 turnover and one or less Australians. This is different to what the States see at PR time, so it appears there are a large group here with no intention of getting PR just doing a bare something to justify being here... I would advocate using a two step system like NZ LTBV. Review ERNS/RSMS - about what constitues an exception, English level needed, leakage into this category from non bona fide individuals, due end 2010 calendar year English level needed for ASCO 4 onshore, takes effect January 1 Apparently the MODLapplciants might take up to 3 years to actually be fully migrated to Australia, 62% do validation trip and then come back a year later. We know that's because you shouldn't sell ahosue or resign a job without a visa and you only have the visa when it's activated onshore and you need to go home to tidy up your affairs, but apparently DIAC think it's a bit strange to take so long. 100,000 student vocational graduates only resulted in 500 sponsorships for PR from employers. That shows us how flaky the training is from many colleges. Suggestions from the floor included giving a preference for student visa pathway to PR to only include degree and above graduates, thus encouraging students to move up to University and TAFE and effectively shutting most of the shonky vocational colleges down. Synopsis: 136,000 applications on hand PLUS 120,000 expected for the next 12 months DOES NOT FIT into the 108,000 positions in the programme for the next 12 months. ie 256,000 pegs do not fit into 108,100 holes. So with a hugly greater demand for places than can be supplied, expect a lack of compassion from the Minister when it comes to making changes to the visa system and only a modicum of sympathy when it comes to compensating people affected. My best advice is - shift your thinking to how do I get a job to get a visa, unless you want to wait a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mach Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Thanks again Jamie. 50/50 eh? At this stage, those odds look pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Yeah, well Mach, I thought it would be less of a chance until I heard that DIAC staff had been instructed to freeze things and hadn't. Therefore DIAC relieved you guys of dough by asking for things that they had been told not to ask for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Yeah, well Mach, I thought it would be less of a chance until I heard that DIAC staff had been instructed to freeze things and hadn't. Therefore DIAC relieved you guys of dough by asking for things that they had been told not to ask for. Could that have explained why some of us in the other thread¹ that Mach has started have had their online status page updated post-23-Sep? ¹The non-CSL, State Sponsored group 5-ers with a CO thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mach Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Yeah I hough 50/50 sounded a litte generous considering the craptastic way things have gone the past month! Dear me, on another day in another life I think I might laugh at the farcical nature of everything that's happened. So fingers crossed then! Seeing as we've had a CO since May and everything was sent in before September 23, we might be one of the lucky ones. One way or another, G5 SS non-CSLers with a CO are due a break... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebo Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 In terms of the backlogs: 0-3 months wait has grown slowly 7-12 months wait has grown slowly 13-18 months waiting had significant reduction 18 months plus (higher risk countries?) many more people waiting DIAC priorities for review and change are: Further review the CSL to add or remove occupations Make the 457 to PR pathway clearer Introduce JobReady test for Trades (January 1 2010) this is aimed at sorting out the students who have got a qualification from a shoddy institution or whose qualification is based on bogus documents such as having false work experience Review the MODL (underway) This is a review of the MODL mechanism for selecting occupations, not the selection of occupations itself. Expect a new MODL methodology due end 2010 to result in a new list of occupations. Review Business Skills 160, 163 etc (underway, due end 2010 calendar year). Apparently many business owners have less than $300,000 turnover and one or less Australians. This is different to what the States see at PR time, so it appears there are a large group here with no intention of getting PR just doing a bare something to justify being here... I would advocate using a two step system like NZ LTBV. Review ERNS/RSMS - about what constitues an exception, English level needed, leakage into this category from non bona fide individuals, due end 2010 calendar year English level needed for ASCO 4 onshore, takes effect January 1 My best advice is - shift your thinking to how do I get a job to get a visa, unless you want to wait a few years. Jamie, thanks as always - do you know if the timeframe for the MODL/CSL review is still oon track to be early next year, as you've listed it as No 1 in your list above. Lots of people are understandably hoping this will come sooner but my guess is the new MODL/CSL list will be smaller than the current one. I'm asking for my own self interest as (currently :confused:) a CSL applicant. Many Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Yeah I hough 50/50 sounded a litte generous considering the craptastic way things have gone the past month! Dear me, on another day in another life I think I might laugh at the farcical nature of everything that's happened. So fingers crossed then! Seeing as we've had a CO since May and everything was sent in before September 23, we might be one of the lucky ones. One way or another, G5 SS non-CSLers with a CO are due a break... So my understanding is that non-CSL applications with COs, with all stages completed and lodged before 23 Sep may get a 50-50 chance of getting visas finalised. Now I'm just wondering how do they pick those to finalise? Just by looking at when the medicals or police certs will expire, i.e. picking the oldest cases? If they don't have guidelines how to handle such applications which all of a sudden were tossed into limbo amidst this brouhaha, wouldn't that be an uphill task? Unless of course they say, "F*&k it, let's finalise all those with COs". Far fetched? I'm hoping for at least some transparency with the way such cases including mine will be handled, that I think itself is 50-50 chance of happening, or perhaps no chance at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 Hi Jamie First of all, on behalf of all PiO members, thank you very much indeed for your sterling work in getting so much information from DIAC in the last couple of days. Thenk you very much to George Lombard, too, since it seems that he joined you in fact-finding for at least part of the time. It's not entirely the current Government's fault that we have the problem now, but what they're doing about it IS their fault. Overreaction without communication is just shoddy behaviour. I couldn't agree with you more. PETER mentioned that senior butts were kicked in February and March by the Minister when the Minister had directed that from January 1 no non-CSL were to have been brought to pre-grant stage. I would think that the butt kicking went down the line but it took longer for all staff to be made aware of the directive. I am intrigued. Every single week without fail after the 17th December announcement, I collected an aspc update e-mail like a faithful bloodhound! From the week beginning 12th January until the week beginning 16th March, every single e-mail said, "Applications which were already allocated to case officers before 1 January 2009 are un-affected and will be processed as usual to finalisation." In fairness to DIAC, they took the view that since the first new Direction would not come into force until 1st January 2009, they were honour bound - if not necessarily legally bound - to complete the processing of "first come, first served" applications where COs had been allocated on or before 31st December 2008. I understood that to be the basis of the statement in the e-mails, quoted above. I sent all of the actual e-mails to a couple who are PiO members. Their application was not CSL, MODL or State Sponsored but they were contacted by a CO in November 2008. To start with the CO asked for more information about the man's work so that was provided. In about late December or early January the CO asked for the meds and pccs, so they were promptly arranged. On 16th March the couple's application was suddenly dumped without a word from DIAC. They found out they had been dumped when they rang the ASPC at around the end of March, wondering why there was suddenly stony silence from their CO. They then complained to the relevant ASPC Manager. The Manager pointed out that their meds had not been received. The meds had been done by Dr Million in Manchester. Enquiries at his surgery revealed that his clerical staff had blundered and had not sent the meds off to Sydney. Dr Million wrote to DIAC accepting full responsiblity for the oversight and saying he hoped DIAC would treat the meds as having been sent when they should have been sent, because that was the only outstanding matter. Had the meds been sent promptly the chances were that their sc 175 visas would have been granted before 16th March. DIAC's response was, "Tough. Our hands are tied." So the couple complained to the Ombudsman, who agreed that the way they were treated was unfair. I mentioned the ASPC e-mails so the Ombudsman asked for those. I sent every single e-mail to the couple, who passed them to the Ombudsman. The Ministerial Statement of 17th December 2008 is here: http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/2008/changes-to-2008-09-skilled-migration-program.pdf It does say that wef 1st Jan 2009 the new arrangements would apply to every single application and it does not suggest that applications which had COs by then would necessarily be honoured, but the aspc e-mails all did say that. Next, please see the second section of the extract from Hansard below, which the MIA ferreted out and published: http://mia.org.au/media/File/Hansard_question_gsm_visa_processing.pdf According to the Minister's Answer to Dr Stone, 546 non-CSL applications were finalised and visas granted between 1st January 2009 and 12 May 2009. Far more than 546 applications were affected, though, I suspect. On another forum, Glenn Pereira and Robert Chelliah have both said that they think a prominent barrister should be consulted about whether the Minister has made any jurisdictional errors with his endless tinkering with the GSM program since mid-December 2008. The problem with that idea, in my view, is that any individual visa applicant who sets about trying to find the right barrister for the job is (a) likely to incur considerable expense and (b) wouldn't have a clue which barrister would be the right one or the best one to ask. I don't understand the Aussie concept of "jurisdictional error" well enough to know how to draft a decent set of Instructions to Counsel and the majority of RMAs would not be able to make a proper job of it either. I can think of a small handful of non-lawyer RMAs who could draft the Instructions competently. All of the Accredited Specialists could presumably do so as well but after that, I start scraping the barrel and scratching my head simply because I know so few RMAs. I'm sure that several others could do it but I don't know their names. It is too complicated for a lay-applicant to attempt this, I reckon, even with the aid of the average RMA. I think it would be far better for the MIA to identify a suitable barrister and get the correct questions asked. Apart from anything else, quite a few of the newer RMAs, without a solid enough client base to ensure enough continuing word of mouth recommendations, might well go bust because of this latest move by the Minister. Since there is likely to be a dramatic tailing off in new instructions for GSM visas by British clients and with DIAC determined to be difficult with applicants from HR countries, I suspect - as you say - that quite a few RMAs won't go bust but that they will abandon being migration agents for the foreseeable future. Westly Russell has mentioned this in another thread on here in the last 24 hours. He says: To continue to represent clients whose applications are in limbo, or even the black hole, an RMA in Australia must remain registered and annually pay the various useless acronyms: OMARA, CPD, PII (and others) and maintain a professional library and telephone and so on. Westly makes a very fair point, it seems to me. Would the MIA be willing to ask Counsel whether there is any way to insist that the Minister cannot be as draconian as he is trying to be? It would be far better for the MIA to ask on behalf of all of its members than to have individual applicants and individual RMAs getting into a tangle with the idea, it seems to me. If Counsel is consulted and says, "Yep, there is a viable argument here," individual applicants could then be invited to contribute to a fighting fund to get the question tested in Court. I've heard mutters that any attempt - if one is viable - should be made in the High Court to prevent the Minister from appealing against any decision that goes against him or something. I don't know enough about the various Courts in Oz to understand this bit and I haven't a clue what it would cost for the High Court if that is the right one to go to. Do applicants for onshore and offshore GSM visas have identical interests in this question? I don't even know that but one of the agents might say, I hope. People were asked to spend time and money were doing so at DIAC's request when senior staff and the Minister knew the requests would not result in a visa grant any time soon. I disagree. My understanding is that certainly at the begining of the year, DIAC's senior staff believed they were obeying the law by honouring applications which had reached an advanced stage. I assume the Top Brass would have taken advice from DIAC's legal team in reaching the conclusion they evidently did reach, as demonstrated by the e-mails? What the Minister understood is anyone's guess but I reckon that DIAC's head honchos believed that the law require(s/d) them to do as they did. Moving on down your post, another statement intrigues me: In the last 12 months...... Students, 60,000 went and 220,000 arrived Really? According to the Minister on 22nd September 2009, "It is important to remember that most temporary entrants to Australia, including temporary skilled workers, international students and visitors do not remain in Australia permanently and will eventually return to their home countries." Temporary migrants and visitors factored in population figures According to the Minister on 10th August 2009, "A total of 278 184 student visas were granted in 2007-08. This figure does not include Permission to Work or Student Guardian visas. This represents a significant increase of 21.69 per cent over the 2007-08 figure of 228 592 visas and continues the trend of strong growth in Australia's international education sector." Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 50. Overseas Students in Australia Every word on the DIAC website is published in the Minister's name, after all. Your figure suggests that only about 1/4 of Students go home? Considering that he has just about killed off the biggest market for Student visas - the Indian market, according to this own stats in the link above - this "trend of strong growth" which he is apparently pleased with does not seem to me to be set to last for much longer! ENS for this year is 19% above forecast but they're not too concerned as that is the Minister's focus and every ENS is one less Skilled Unsponsored to process. Mmmmmm. DIAC's forecast for 2009/10, published in August 2009, is a total of about 35,000 ENS and RSMS visas, plus maybe a few Labour Agreement PR visas: Migration Program Statistics - Statistics - Publications, Research & Statistics 20% more makes 42,000 (according to my extremely wobbly maths? Somebody please shout if I am wrong!) George has mentioned 63,000 GSM visas. These figures make 105,000 with only 108,100 to play with in total. How do DIAC intend to squeeze 7,800 Business Skills visas into 3,000 left over, or are Business Skills visas part of the GSM program? it is clear that to "get with the programme" migrants now need to seek a job offer or expect to wait a few years. You are absolutely right but this is not going to be easy to do unless DIAC spend money on encouraging Aussie employers to like the idea of ENS and RSMS visas for total strangers when the employers have no way of knowing in advance whether the migrant worker will be any good at laying bricks or whatever his occupation happens to be. Not many British visa applicants are prepared to agree to only one member of the family heading for Oz on a 457 visa - about which DIAC might well be obstructive anyway. Not many Britons are prepared to move the whole family to the far side of the planet for anything less than immediate PR, either. From PMs I am getting, where the worker is already in Oz on a 457, the employer likes him etc, Aussie employers seem to be catching on fast to the notion that a contented employee will be more productive than a worried one and they do seem to be offering to cut the Gordian Knot by offering to back their employees for immediate PR where it is possible to do so. I think the problem will be persuading the employers to take a chance on people they don't know. Expect a new MODL methodology due end 2010 to result in a new list of occupations. Do you mean the end of 2010 or 2009, please? I ask because my hunch is that the Minister wants to appease the Construction industry unions by taking construction skills off the MODL as soon as poss, though this is only my private instinct and I don't have any evidence to support my niggling feeling except what happened to the construction industry applicants when they were suddenly chucked off the CSL in mid March. Apparently the MODLapplcants might take up to 3 years to actually be fully migrated to Australia, 62% do validation trip and then come back a year later. We know that's because you shouldn't sell a hosue or resign a job without a visa and you only have the visa when it's activated onshore and you need to go home to tidy up your affairs, but apparently DIAC think it's a bit strange to take so long. The State Governments say that they know this and that a lot of forward planning for future need is included in their various lists of occupations they want to attract. 100,000 student vocational graduates only resulted in 500 sponsorships for PR from employers. So does this mean that the bulk of the ENS and RSMS visas are being offered to migrants who are already in Oz on 457 visas or am I missing something out somewhere here, please? It is all very head banging to my mind and I might well have overlooked something? Suggestions from the floor included giving a preference for student visa pathway to PR to only include degree and above graduates, thus encouraging students to move up to University and TAFE and effectively shutting most of the shonky vocational colleges down. I'm not persuaded of the ethics of this idea. It isn't possible to do a degree in Bricklaying as far as I know. As for degree holding Brickies who have done a vague degree in an 'ology merely in order to get a degree, the idea strikes me as absurd. There is nothing wrong with being an honest to goodness tradie! Besides which, by creating a clear visa pathway mapping out how forking out shedloads of money to study in Oz can result in PR in Oz for those who want it, Australia does - in effect - promise the prospective VET Student that PR in Oz will be his for the taking provided that he is prepared to pay well over the odds for the privilege. Australia has made these Students an implied promise, it seems to me. If the Rudd Govt wants to get known as, "Those Aussie Weasels," shifting the goalposts on the current crop of Students will ensure the soubriquet and it would be deserved in my view. Whilst I think they can - and perhaps shoiuld - sever the link between studying in Oz and remaining in Oz for life, I think that is something Australia can only properly do to people who have not applied for Student visas as yet. It would be quite wrong to let somebody pay the first semester's fees, buy his health cover, enrol his children in schools and maybe pay the first term's school fees and then tell him, "Money down the drain, mate, because you won't want to come and study in Oz once you hear that I plan to prevent you from getting PR at the end of it." The education providers can't be forced to return the money, after all. I think the Govt has to say, "With effect from.... there will no longer be a link" to the people who have not started the application process as yet but might do so in the future. It needs a reasonable lead-in period, I feel. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted October 11, 2009 Share Posted October 11, 2009 So my understanding is that non-CSL applications with COs, with all stages completed and lodged before 23 Sep may get a 50-50 chance of getting visas finalised. Now I'm just wondering how do they pick those to finalise? Just by looking at when the medicals or police certs will expire, i.e. picking the oldest cases? If they don't have guidelines how to handle such applications which all of a sudden were tossed into limbo amidst this brouhaha, wouldn't that be an uphill task? Unless of course they say, "F*&k it, let's finalise all those with COs". Far fetched? I'm hoping for at least some transparency with the way such cases including mine will be handled, that I think itself is 50-50 chance of happening, or perhaps no chance at all? I hope for transparency too. Maybe the end of October will give us some ground for knowing DIAC procedures for SS non CSL?:eek: At least with such good advises as here we will know it among first ones.:wubclub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.