Guest Glenn Pereira Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 "I don't know what the legal asnwer is but I don't accept the proposition that DIAC made an error of law just because their Minister was displeased. It could be that DIAC should have sat on him and told him that he couldn't have his own way about dumping applicants at the last minute?" The only way to find out is to lodge an application under the Fredoom of Information Act on the 23 rd Sept 09 decision. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jason RM0107604 Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 are we any closer to an answer of what we would really say to the minister of immigration. i nnote my comments about responable expectations but dont hold out any real prospects of success - rather a thought procses. The difficulty is that the minister could always determine the prioritization of cases. this was in place when existing applicants lodged. What people are upset about in the newguidelines is that the minister actually applied this power he had to result in lots of people waiting many years. i dont think any applicants would have seen this comming. morally its unfair - legally. dont think theres much that can be done. i do think however that the minister is listening to the debate and if people make enough noice he may take it into consideration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Hi Gill It's not a failure of the lawyers, it's a failure of the DIAC senior management team. I wouldn't assume for a minute that they always consult the lawyers. There are SO many cases that are argued in court that the DIAC lawyers would say to the processing team they can't win it - if they were but asked. It is quite possible that the Minister's instructions weren't entirely clear, or indeed made formal and circualted. So you could be right that DIAC thought they should do the right and legal thing - but you're not. I asked Peter S and the manger of ASPC why they don't just say a collective NO to the Minister when being told to disadvantage people. Peter S summed it up nicely, he just smiled and said "It's Government". But I do believe that somewhere between the Minsiter's instructions and DIAC's (in)action there is an opportunity to argue that the cases be progressed. I don't care who gets nailed over it, (well I do actually as the Minsiter was informed of the backlog a year ago and did nothing), someone should just say "oops we did the wrong thing now how do we settle it?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Siavash Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 . (btw, I have been asked to pay the application fee a second time because of a change of nominated occupation in the 176 compared to the 175, just 5 weeks before the new rules... how ethical is this?) Hi Valeries, Does it mean that DIAC accepts to change the nominated occupation in visa application – after SS approval – provided that you a pay the applications fee once again? I really would like to do that if it is possible,… thanks for guiding me what to do BTW did you get their agreement to this in writing? One more question, if they accept to change your nominated occupation will they keep your position in the queue or your waiting time will reset to zero? Thanks and wish you all the best, siAvAsh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 if the unlocated CSL applications of more than 6000 are just like JAMIE SMITH has estamated, without the new policy introduced soon after the change on 23 Sep 09, i personal believe that the delay would be at least 5-6months for 176 non-csl, ss applicants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 morally its unfair - legally. dont think theres much that can be done. i do think however that the minister is listening to the debate and if people make enough noice he may take it into consideration I think the moral aspect is many times on our side. As I can see there were some serious mistakes made in the migration policy through last years and continue to make even more. But, why should ordinery applicants pay for them? It's also interesting whether opposition will take their chance for biting the minister on 20/10. If not then we will know that Aus isn't realy interesting in these issues and 2012 target looks very real. It might be a good indicator for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basil Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 basil @ #156, Quote: ok, but they could change the pass mark to say 140 and change the test to include an extra 20points for those on the FSL. The FSL paper has already indicated that any introduction of an FSL would require amendments to the points test. A new pass mark would affect us.....it would make the bulk of the 176 non csl go into a pool for 2 years.....which would bring us nicely to our applications being finalised in 2012....not granted necessarily, just finalised.... Announcing a processing time of 3 years does two things....cuts more people applying when perhaps it is known by the powers that be that they may not be eligible when a new system comes through and it manages expectations of those already applied who are likely to be affected by telling them 'evertyhing has changed and your in for the long haul' before any actual official implementation of a new points test is made. A number of the 176SS's have already scrapped their plans, gone for ENS and a number might well be on the FSL....leaving a smaller number to be very upset in 2010 when the new points test comes and they find themselves pooled. Maybe they'll actually pull some from the pool in 2011/12 if things pick up as they will potentially have a lot less migrants in the system. WANDERER WROTE: George pretty much covered that at #150 FSL?, a typo for CSL? Wanderer, my post above was really just an example of how it *could* affect us in response to someones post previous saying it wouldn't, as our points at application submission remain but of course the test and pass mark doens't have to....nor do the test compnnents. However, I took Georges comment (below) to mean we should be greatful that *currently* they haven't changed the pass mark.....if they plan to re-jig the points test as part of the FSL implementation it stands to reason it would be then (2010?) if/when they review the pass mark and not now. Or have they already committed to not changing it then too? However I'd just note that the Department's decision not to raise the points test (a mechanism available to them but only invoked rarely since 1999 when the foundations of the current system were laid down) is preserving the rights of many applicants who would otherwise face "pooling" and eventual refusal, so in fact as the system works there is something to be thankful for. Cold comfort I know but I think that in the Department's thinking that also mitigates strongly against any overall compensation for applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LukeSkywalker Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I would say to the Australian Minister of Immigration ..... "Well done on making it tougher to get into Australia. Make it even tougher if you want your country to survive. If you want to see what uncontrolled immigration does to a country, look at the UK. Don't allow anyone into your country who cannot bring at least 2 years average salary in cash and a qualification your country needs, along with a commitment to work for at least 5 years. Ignore all the bleeding heart liberals telling you to let "refugees" in, because they will not add value to your country in any way. Keep them all out. Keep Australia as a country that is tought to get into at all costs." Thats how I feel, so thats what I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 I would say to the Australian Minister of Immigration ..... "Well done on making it tougher to get into Australia. Make it even tougher if you want your country to survive. If you want to see what uncontrolled immigration does to a country, look at the UK. Don't allow anyone into your country who cannot bring at least 2 years average salary in cash and a qualification your country needs, along with a commitment to work for at least 5 years. Ignore all the bleeding heart liberals telling you to let "refugees" in, because they will not add value to your country in any way. Keep them all out. Keep Australia as a country that is tought to get into at all costs." Thats how I feel, so thats what I'd say. You may not aware but present gov. have made it tougher for skilled migrants (iow those who come with money and abilities) and laxer for refugees. :cute: So, what's the point for you to thank them? Ha. :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i just check the Parliament of Australia website: www.aph.gov.au and find that there isn't any hearings on 20 Oct 2009 related to the changes on 23 0ct 2009 posed by DIAC. Could any professionals shed some light on this issue? Are we being ignored? Quote from the website: 15 October 2009 Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous CommunitiesContact: Toni Matulick (02) 6277 3113Regional and Remote Indigenous CommunitiesSYDNEY: Northcott Room, Masonic Centre, Level 5, 66 Goulburn Street, 9.00am - 4.45pm 27 October 2009 LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENCES COMMITTEEContact: Peter Hallahan (02) 6277 3494Access to JusticeCANBERRA: Committee Room 2S1, Parliament House, 4.00pm - 10.00pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Gday Justin http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/estimates/supp0910/info.pdf TRANSCRIPT PRODUCTION STATUS FOR SENATE LEGISLATION Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Hi Justin http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/estimates/supp0910/info.pdf The original purpose of tomorrow's hearing is to discuss the performance of various departments to do with the 2009 Budget. However not all of the Senators on the relevant Committee are Labor Lapdogs. By now they know all about the fact that the skilled migration program has blown out and is not under the sort of control that the Minister claimed for it at the time of releasing the Budget in May. Some of Senator Evans' political opponents will do their best to make him squirm tomorrow. Apart from anything else, having 2 years' worth of GSM applications in the pipeline, no way of disposing of all of them in less than 4 years but no means of preventing new applications from reaching DIAC every day will have a significant impact on DIAC's Budget. Parliament wasn't told about this shambles back in May so when they voted to approve the Immi Budget for 2009/10, the cost of sorting this mess out was not built in to the figures. They can use that as a reason to grill the Minister about how bad the problem really is, what he intends to do about it and what doing whatever he claims to intend will cost. My guess is that the Minister's political spin doctors will have spent today scurrying round Canberra trying to soothe some angry dogs and buy others off, whilst DIAC are probably working seriously late to make sure that their figures are accurate. Under the guise of "asking the Minister about the Budget" in May, the Senators grilled him solidly about lots of issues which have only the most tenuous connections with the Budget. If they refuse entry to migrants who can't meet the health requirement, the cost implications for Australia are zero. Nonetheless they went on for ages about that issue, starting on Page 125 in the Hansard report. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12042.pdf They later got the answers to all the questions that DIAC were unable to answer on the day, too: Parliament of Australia: Senate: Committee: Legal and Constitutional Affairs: Budget Estimates 2009-2010 (May 2009): Immigration & Citizenship Portfolio One cannot work out what it will cost to run DIAC without first deciding what DIAC is tasked with doing. The other Senators will be well aware of the brouhaha following the 23rd September Direction, never fear. The Aussie press hasn't been terribly interested but every Senator has constituents who are directly affected by this debacle - not least the State Governments. The State officials don't gossip to the press. They do talk to their Senators, though. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 You may mean the changes of 23 September do you JJ? And then for the meeting 20/10, maybe the ones who posted about could shed some light. There have been a couple of papers issued re submissions on reviewing the GSM structure in a broader sense, aimed at how best it may be possible to cope with a crystal ball that does not ever gleam too well on what the future may hold. Submissions to the second actually closed in September and consideration was to occur with an announcement sometime this month but if it doesn't happen they'll have a reason why not. But the papers were not specifically about the CSL/priority approach though it did get a mention re being the current means to focus immigration where they hope will be best during tighter economic times and as such, changes to be looked at. I would not expect too much will be coming out of the changes to address improving the current situation of a lot of applicants waiting longer because the economics/employment of the GFC cannot be ignored and as such the papers emphasised the hope of continuing with employer sponsorship as a means to handle the volatility of economics demand whilst having the remaining GSM applications scheduled in to handle longer term predictions. If predictions are wrong or they forego prioritisation to handle fluctuations in demand for what they perceive to be the Future Skills List as they are referring to it as, you could still have the worse problem of more people coming and in the pipeline for non-existent work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connaust Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It would help if DIAC, DEEWR, state governments etc. could better assess and evaluate on a timely ongoing basis: the occupations, level of demand. when and where e.g. regional, to inform the skilled immigration debate, and management. Big issue is that there are state Laboor government elections in in Victoria, SA and Tasmania, 2010, NSW 2011 (even though way off NSW state govt. is hurting the Federal Govt. through its incompetence), where immigration is not going to find much support from voters.... However, public perceptions have been formed through media lobbying by various "experts" i.e. those given media time, who were vehement in their belief that Australia had enough or too many cooks, hairdressers, nurses etc., unsustainable population growth, environmental impact, housing shortages etc. without referring to any weighted data or analyisis e.g. Dr. Bob Birrell.....who seems very selective on data, and focussed upon ethnicity or race of immigrants..... (join the dots on that one ) However, news today has advice to Australian students that they should study cookery, hairdressing, nursing etc. because there are shortages.....and increasing..... Best hope for any high level action is for an obvious negative economic or investment bottle neck due to skill shortages (to have any impact on pollies and public perceptions). My guess is this would come from W.A. Firstly because of resources projects mooted, and they being a Liberal government who would love to see Federal govt. and Labor states squirm for cheap electoral points.... and WA Premier has complained already about ongoing skill shortages and changes mooted by DIAC. Australian media (whoops, medium of few news providers) are complicit allowing anti immigration (and racial) lobby too much airtime for the expression of personal opinions, while city based reporters etc. are hardly informed when it comes to matters in industry, demographics, education, employment and regions, let alone interstate (due to media's decreasing resources)..... but unfortunately many of the Australian public (i.e. marginal electorate voters) lap up the racially targetted "putative" lies (as explained once by a little fella with a moustache in Germany in the 30s...used successfully by Howard govt, during Tampa incident)...and let government and administrative incompetence remain unscrutinised....at the expense of prospective migrants and Australia's future.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SO,DIZZY Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Some of Senator Evans' political opponents will do their best to make him squirm tomorrow. Apart from anything else, having 2 years' worth of GSM applications in the pipeline, no way of disposing of all of them in less than 4 years but no means of preventing new applications from reaching DIAC every day will have a significant impact on DIAC's Budget. In response to gills comments above im sure given recent processing changes there will be far fewer applicants in the near future and anyone who does apply will be well aware of the time frames involved and should be prepared for the wait.... it is unfortunate for those who are caught in the middle and there should be some contingency put in place for them.. ie got a co meds and pc's finalised.. It was a big concern for me when I applied for our visa should any changes take place with diac in regards to there processing procedures if it should effect me negatively would I be prepared to wait without any hope of a refund??.. the answer ultimatly was yes.. they do highlight that these changes can and do happen and in light of the recent economical meltown it was in my mind a real possibility.. even though it seems unfair, it is something you are asked to consider when submitting your application, so ministers cannot be held responsible.. its very unfortunate but there it is... dizz.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 HI Wanderer You may mean the changes of 23 September do you JJ? And then for the meeting 20/10, maybe the ones who posted about could shed some light. Justin is referring to the Senate Estimates Committee hearing tomorrow, 20th October. It is not an Inquiry into the changes wrought on 23rd September but the Minister, Andrew Metcalfe, Peter Vardos and Peter Speldewinde will all be on parade. Every Govt Department accompanies its Minister mob-handed to these meetings to keep the Minister out of trouble vis-a-vis his political opponents. I have provided the relevant links in my reply to Justin. Read Hansard from the last Hearing and you will see how wide ranging it is. The topics due to be covered tomorrow are listed here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/estimates/supp0910/lca.pdf The early morning stuff doesn't sound very interesting but I think the second half of the morning will be. Please see this link next: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12041.pdf The relevant page reference in the document itself is L&C107. Adobe may give you a different page number so use the one in Hansard. A verbatim copy and paste of the discussion is here: ************************************************************** Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—Minister, there has been a bit of confusion. Back in February Minister Gillard made some comments about rejecting calls to slash the skilled migration intake to preserve domestic jobs following research undertaken by Bob Birrell. Basically, the minister is calling for a rejection of the cut in skilled migration. You have announced these cuts. How do you reconcile those two situations? What is the government’s position? Will it continue to cut? Senator Chris Evans—No, Senator. The government sets a migration program for the year as part of the budget process. In this budget process, given the overall economic situation, we made a decision about the size of the program, as we did the previous year. We made an adjustment towards the second half of the last financial year because of the changed economic circumstances and we reduced the overall size of the program. But we still run a very solid skilled migration program. I have attempted to do something, which the previous government started down the path of doing but it did not make much progress. I have tried to refocus the program to ensure that we are bringing in the skills that we need. Part of Bob Birrell’s critique is that the program has been bringing in the wrong people. Sometimes there are two critiques: first, we are bringing into too many people and, second, we are not bringing in the right people. We have tried to move from a system driven by people choosing to come here to a system driven by the needs of our economy. We have increased and encouraged the number of people in the general skilled migration program who come in as employer sponsored or who come in as state sponsored. Increasingly, we will be up to just short of 50 per cent in this year’s program. Instead of having people who choose to come here—they may well be good people, but they do not necessarily come here to do a job—we have tried to focus on people who are coming here for a job. The number of people who are employer sponsored—the department will give you the figures—has been increasing. These people who come here arrive and go straight into work. They are not a drain on society and they are making a contribution from the day that they arrive. That focus is an important part—it is not just about numbers. Another thing to which I wish to refer, which never gets any recognition in debate, relates to the percentage of people who are already in the country and who are converting from temporary to permanent visas. When you say that 100,000 people are coming in under the migration program, they are not. Mr Hughes—Thirty-five per cent of migration program visa grants for the period 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2009 were made to people who are onshore. Senator Chris Evans—We are trying to change the understanding of the migration program. Effectively, what has happened with the growth in students and people coming in for temporary work reasons, there has been an emphasis on skills sponsorship and state sponsorship. The annual migration program, half of that is people who are already here, people converting to permanent visas. I have been trying to emphasise that the raw number debate about the annual migration program is not the big issue, when you look at the other people who come in on temporary visas. Halfway through this financial year the number of people coming in on temporary 457s was equivalent to the number coming in permanently, so the nature of the program has changed. We have tried to focus on those people who are coming directly into work, who have a job and who have been sponsored by an employer because they cannot get somebody else to do so. That is the link that we are trying to build. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—What skilled areas are you now targeting? Senator Chris Evans—We have created what we call the critical skills list, which is designed to apply to those people who self-nominate. An employer can nominate someone to come into a particular skill position, and that is based on the employer’s needs. Currently, if someone wants to self-nominate to come in, the critical skills list gets priority. There are about 30 occupations. We can table this information and it is available on the website. Primarily those occupations are in the health field—doctors, specialists, et cetera—and in the engineering field where we have had huge labour shortages. The critical skills list relates to those areas where the states and industry, when consulted said, ‘Those are the areas in which we really need people.’ Those are the critical skills that are short in the economy. We made one change to that. Originally we had some trades levels on it and we took those off when we saw the demand for tradesmen weakening so as to ensure that people were not coming in to compete with Australians at a time when there were not that many jobs available. It is capable of being moved and we take advice on it. But at the moment it is pretty well focused on high-level engineering type areas and almost half would be for medical type professions. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—We saw those who were asking to come under 457s visas basically. Senator Chris Evans—As you know, we have a huge shortage of doctors and specialists. They dominate the list, as do some of the engineering trades. We have radiologists,pathologists, paediatricians, ophthalmologists, stenographers—I am not sure whether I know what those are—and speech pathologists, which I might need. Senator BARNETT—Speech pathologists are very important. I am married to one! Senator Chris Evans—Registered nurses are also on the list. I can table that list. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—The New South Wales government will be most impressed to see that there because they are the biggest takers of nurses. Senator Chris Evans—For the first time we have had a close engagement with the states in designing the list. They have a finger on the pulse in relation to some of those industry needs. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—In reassessing your critical list, did you have a look at the numbers that we were getting, for example, of hairdressers and accountants? How many students were studying hairdressing and accounting, when we had so many of them here in the country. Did you conduct an analysis over the past few years of those categories that were so-called being ‘abused’? Senator Chris Evans—There are two issues here. This is not about the student issue; it is about what skills are in short supply in the Australian economy. We are looking at the modal, that is, the list of occupations which has traditionally governed these things. We created the critical skills list because we found that the modal was not a fair reflection of what was going on in the economy. Hairdressers are a good example. In the past 10 years—the department will give you the figures—we brought in a lot of hairdressers because they always showed up in the employment surveys as being in short supply. They were in short supply because the wage rates were low. People who come in as hairdressers then go and get jobs doing other things. It did not matter how many hairdressers came in under the previous government and this government—we were still short of hairdressers. Bringing in another 3,000 hairdressers has never solved the problem of hairdressers. We said, ‘Hang on; a more realistic assessment of skills in demand needs to be done.’ You will notice on the critical skills list that those occupations are no longer there. That does not stop an employer from sponsoring a hairdresser into a job into a particular region, but it means that a hairdresser in Canada cannot say, ‘I’m going to Australia because I am on the list’. Hairdressers would have to be sponsored because they are no longer on the critical skills list. They are not barred from coming in but they are not priority processed. ************************************************************** Based on his own claims back in May, I can think of a number of killer questions to ask the Minister tomorrow and no doubt his political opponents will do so. What bunch of dumbclucks put Hairdresser on the MODL year after year without it dawning on them that the reason why there is a chronic shortage of Hairdressers is because the work is poorly paid and Saturday is often the busiest day of the week in a salon? The fact that the occupation kept cropping up on the MODL encouraged thousands of International Students to go to Australia to study the subject. They had no long term intention of Hairdressing in Australia. The GSM program did not require - and still does not require - that they should do so. However the present Government and the one before it boosted Australia's export earnings by at least $0.5 billion a year out of Student Hairdressers alone, I should think. One does not trek all the way to Australia to learn Hairdressing at vast expense just for the privilege of returning to another country to be a Hairdresser there. Australia beamed as it took the foreign earnings shekel from these Student Hairdressers. There is no way that it is reasonable for Australia to turn round now and tell them, "Tough. We've had shedloads of your money. We've done very nicely out of you, thank you. But now you can b*gger off home again." If there were scams going on in and around some of the Colleges, who was too dozy to see them coming and do something about them before it turned into a thriving - unchecked - scam industry? That is the Government's responsibility, isn't it? They are responsible for the DEEWR, which is in charge of skills assessments. They are also in charge of DIAC - which deals with visas. Ultimately the buck stops with the Minister for Immigration. It is unfortunate for Minister Evans that he happened to be holding the explosive parcel just at the moment when the music stopped, but he gets paid enough to shoulder the burden and he sought election for the post. so he does not need to be wrapped in cotton wool and cossetted. There are 108,000 skilled visas available during 2009/10. According to the Minister: We have increased and encouraged the number of people in the general skilled migration program who come in as employer sponsored or who come in as state sponsored. Increasingly, we will be up to just short of 50 per cent in this year’s program. And Another thing to which I wish to refer, which never gets any recognition in debate, relates to the percentage of people who are already in the country and who are converting from temporary to permanent visas. When you say that 100,000 people are coming in under the migration program, they are not. Mr Hughes—Thirty-five per cent of migration program visa grants for the period 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2009 were made to people who are onshore. The Minister quipped that he might need a speech therapist. If I had the chance to cross examine him tomorrow he definitely would need one afterwards. Continued in another post/......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WJK Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 [ Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS—In reassessing your critical list, did you have a look at the numbers that we were getting, for example, of hairdressers and accountants? How many students were studying hairdressing and accounting, when we had so many of them here in the country. Did you conduct an analysis over the past few years of those categories that were so-called being ‘abused’? Senator Chris Evans—There are two issues here. This is not about the student issue; it is about what skills are in short supply in the Australian economy. We are looking at the modal, that is, the list of occupations which has traditionally governed these things. We created the critical skills list because we found that the modal was not a fair reflection of what was going on in the economy. Hairdressers are a good example. In the past 10 years—the department will give you the figures—we brought in a lot of hairdressers because they always showed up in the employment surveys as being in short supply. They were in short supply because the wage rates were low. People who come in as hairdressers then go and get jobs doing other things. It did not matter how many hairdressers came in under the previous government and this government—we were still short of hairdressers. Bringing in another 3,000 hairdressers has never solved the problem of hairdressers. We said, ‘Hang on; a more realistic assessment of skills in demand needs to be done.’ You will notice on the critical skills list that those occupations are no longer there. That does not stop an employer from sponsoring a hairdresser into a job into a particular region, but it means that a hairdresser in Canada cannot say, ‘I’m going to Australia because I am on the list’. Hairdressers would have to be sponsored because they are no longer on the critical skills list. They are not barred from coming in but they are not priority processed. Gill looks bad for me Hairdresser I want to work happy with the pay love my trade wouldnt want to do anything else had SS Co medicals PC requested and met Then 23/09 from this looks like I can forget FSL WJK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 [ Gill looks bad for me Hairdresser I want to work happy with the pay love my trade wouldnt want to do anything else had SS Co medicals PC requested and met Then 23/09 from this looks like I can forget FSL WJK Hi WJK I'm sorry for interfering with your post but I wanted to quote only the bit that you have said. There is still a shortage of Hairdressers in some States in Oz. That shortage won't go away simply because the Minister fiddles with the MODL, the CSL, the FSL or any other List. The States which want Hairdressers are calling for them via their SS 176 Lists. If Hairdressing courses in Oz have been scammed, that is as maybe but there is still a shortage of properly qualified, properly trained, experienced, dedicated Hairdressers according to the Minister himself. So what is this guy thinking of doing? Leaving WA without any new Hairdressers until at least the end of 2011? How many Hairdressers run large enough salons that they have a training program for trainee/apprentice Hairdressers? I suspect that many of them could not meet the employer-criteria for ENS visas. I suspect that many of them are small, independent operators with maybe one trainee and no more than about 4 stylists (if that) in total. I'm not a Hairdresser so I know nothing about the technical end of your job. But please tell me, WJK. If you were going to hire a stylist for your salon, how would you choose her? Would you be content not to have met her in the flesh, so that you don't know whether she reeks of acohol or BO? I would have thought that the Hairdresser/Customer relationship is so intimate that it is absolutely crucial for the salon owner to meet the prospective stylist before deciding whether to take him/her on? It could be that the previous Govt knew that there is a high drop out rate with migrant Hairdressers. It may be equally true with British Hairdressers in the UK and Aussie Hairdressers in Oz. Most of them tend to be ladies. It is the sort of career that one can easily return to after a motherhood break. One can also do it part time or one can work alone as a mobile Hairdresser. It appeals because there is so much potential career-flexibility. Short of asking the Australian Tax Office whether they can supply figures, there is probably no way to know how many Hairdressers are not working full time in Oz but are nevertheless doing Hairdressing, possibly as part time mobile Hairdressers. Counting the salons in a town will not provide the true figure. But I would be interested to know how the Minister proposes to solve the shortage of Hairdressers when he intends to slam the door on the majority of them - offshore and onshore applicants alike - until at least the end of 2011 according to his own Department's FAQ of 23rd September 2009. How many existing Hairdressers in Oz will give it up before the end of 2011? How many will retire because they are coming up to retirement age and want to hang up their scissors and enjoy a well-earned retirement? Unless the Minister has all these figures at his fingertips, he is playing with fire it seems to me. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Engineers Defending the CSL Mk II, on 27th May 2009 the Minister told the Senate: and in the engineering field where we have had huge labour shortages. On 21st July 2009, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Australia said: A clear majority of firms (67 per cent) believe that graduates are not job ready as they make the transition from university to paid employment in the industry. This affirms the ongoing need for review and reform in higher education engineering courses They are saying that Aussie Universities are not providing the right type of education to aspiring Engineers, evidently. It doesn't matter whether it is a domestic or an international student. It is the wrong type of training for the real Engineering workplace in Oz, it would seem. That problem won't be solved by the Migration Program. They complained about other issues as well: Careers in Mining and Resources WA - The Association of Consulting Engineers Australia - Skills shortage here to stay# A little over a year earlier, Engineers Media said all the same things: http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=06E80FA5-F65E-DBB3-7771-CE34FC03F96E&siteName=ieaust The Association of Consulting Engineers of Australia has told the Government that employer-sponsorship is a very unattractive idea as far as their Members are concerned, for several reasons: http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/F0B93094-0B3B-496D-90F5-F709038F7643/13043/ACEA_att_G.pdf So the Minister thinks, "OK, I can get this engineer to you pronto by fast tracking him via my new CSL." The Minister does that. The Engineer moves to Oz. He goes to a few job interviews but he does not have the right skills set for what the employer Consulting Engineers actually need according to them. The newbie Engineer might be told, "Not to worry, we will train you." That would cost his employers money when they cannot force him to stay with them afterwards. Then the newbie interviewee learns that the "Infrastructure projects" which sound so exciting in Head Office in Perth are actually going to take place 1,500 kms from Perth, in the middle of one of the most arid deserts in the world, constructing the extension of the Great Northern Highway so as to make a direct-route, tarmac road between Darwin and Perth. Even if they train him specially etc etc, he can look forward to being away from home for weeks at a time, living in a remote site-camp whilst they get this road built. The new boy on the block is bound to get the grotty job of being expected to go and look after the site. I should think most turn the job down when they hear that bit.... The pay certainly isn't attractive enough to justify the personal sacrifice. And since this newbie Engineer arrived via the CSL, he cannot be forced to continue to be an Engineer after he has arrived in Australia. The CSL provides the Minister with nothing but a prayer mat. It does not actually address any of the problems which the Engineering profession has reported to him. The MODL was not broken. It was in need of updating and tweaking but that could have been done quickly, plus instructions could have been given to DIAC to give MODL applicants a meaningful amount of processing priority, but with a little common sense the MODL could have been made to strut its stuff properly without any of the elaborate cartwheeling that the Minister has been up to all year. Why is Minister Evans trying to re-invent the wheel? Has he noticed that his own design is an octagonal "wheel," which is what usually happens when re-invention of the wheel is attempted? Somebody (I forget who) once remarked, "A camel is a horse designed by a committee." I have a strong suspicion - now - that the CSL is another camel. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jason RM0107604 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 bob birrell writes what ever he thinks the govt wants him to hear. im tired of hearing the govt tell us what bob birrell thinks about migration because its simply just a rehash of what the govt thinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Gill, HI Wanderer Quote: You may mean the changes of 23 September do you JJ? And then for the meeting 20/10, maybe the ones who posted about could shed some light. Justin is referring to the Senate Estimates Committee hearing tomorrow, 20th October. It is not an Inquiry into the changes wrought on 23rd September but the Minister, Andrew Metcalfe, Peter Vardos and Peter Speldewinde will all be on parade. Every Govt Department accompanies its Minister mob-handed to these meetings to keep the Minister out of trouble vis-a-vis his political opponents. JJ posted " i just check the Parliament of Australia website: www.aph.gov.au and find that there isn't any hearings on 20 Oct 2009 related to the changes on 23 0ct 2009 posed by DIAC. " Gill, I try not to do too much mind reading but JJ clearly mentioned in his post the 23 Oct which I have highlighted in the quote of JJs post. Parliamentary meetings are an ongoing part of any ministers brief and sure they take along whatever department folk they choose will have back-up info. But meanwhile there have been two discussion papers put out re the MODL/CSL/FSL and whatever the future for contributing to Australia's needs with immigration might be. But as I've said I'm no mind reader as to what JJ sought. The very nature of immigration in turbulent economic times is always going to be a very dynamic subject. DEEWR in consultation with various bodies create the job market picture but even their information will have a lag time to it and that has been clearly stated, and their ability to predict is made no better in turbulent economic times. I would think that most people do realise that if a storm has hit and whether you be on land, water or in the air, you can be in for a rough ride. Is not picking holes in what a Minister might have said in May or June or whenever all a bit pointless in such circumstances, especially when what might be said one time may have been based on best information of some months before hoping to account for what may be some months if not years ahead. The Senator does not need to squirm other than in turning so as to offer a crystal ball to any critic and say "see if your polish is any better than the departments" [i may have to drop him that line] To me, it'll be much more relevant what the department does come up with re concept of how to manage the focus on employer sponsorship and the supposed future skills as there are potential problems with both. As for engineers, or be it most graduates, getting ones with practical exposure has been a problem for decades, nothing new in that. I posted a reply to a post you made on another thread and you alleged I had made a racist remark if you recall. As an engineer with several decades of experience I do klnow what I am talking about. It is the same even with trades people and companies are loathe to take on apprentices and if they do not want to have a program of taking on graduate engineers as part of a practical skills program, they will suffer. The universities cannot offer them the workplace skills and to think otherwise is just plain stupid of the employers. In one way you can put it down to the beast called competition, our planet now driven more and more by Wall streets and what the share price is etc., can't do it here as cheap as it can be done in a low labour cost market approach, the WTO level playing field scenario - and so you then have company A saying my costs will be up if I do all this training whilst company B will have a lower production cost and I'll be out the door backwards. You got the answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 The MODL was not broken. It was in need of updating and tweaking but that could have been done quickly, plus instructions could have been given to DIAC to give MODL applicants a meaningful amount of processing priority, but with a little common sense the MODL could have been made to strut its stuff properly without any of the elaborate cartwheeling that the Minister has been up to all year. I doubt that the Minister is capable of cartwheels and a read is in order it would seem of the two discussion papers. It is not about MODL being broken but tweaking! http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/modl-review/_pdf/issue1.pdf http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/modl-review/_pdf/issues2.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Live now: htmlConditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stillwaiting79 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Live now: htmlConditions am trying & its not working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It's working ok for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.