Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Thanks Gill, A realistic sample of occupations with a letter should be able to convince the Minister not to ignore the genuine applicants. For example they could approve them for first entry into Australia say 12 months latter when the market improves or grant them immediate TR for 24 months to those who have completed all formalities including medicals pending processing of their PR. This is similar to the on-shore applicants. On the expiry of the 24 months if the PR visa has not been processed, the applicant is granted a bridging visa until the PR application is finalised. Review rights should apply on-shore if the applicant is refused. Just a "long shot". Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandymark Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 McKlauts suggestion does have merit but I think if overhauling the system is likely, I would make the following suggestions. Firstly, I would like someone at DIAC to explain why family sponsored applicants are part of the GSM (apart from the fact they still need qualifications and a skills assessment). Whilst not denigrating geniune loving relationships, I find it difficult to accept that partners only have to show 2 yrs in a defacto relationship, which is then deemed preferential to reuniting a brother/sister or father/daughter, for example. This completely flies in the face of Kevin Rudd's stance as leader for working families. It is obvious to all, that just prioritising CSL applicants is not only unfair but isn't working. Some CSL PR visas have been issued to people who applied only 2 months ago. They are now panicking that they can't make the move because they still have houses to sell, concerns about the exchange rates, etc, etc. This makes the priority issuing of a PR visa worthless. They are also not compelled to work in their field, so in many cases the shortages will still be there (e.g. a doctor could choose to go to Sydney because he doesn't want to practise in Coober Pedy, and become a tutor or landscape gardener. There is nothing in the process to stop this. With the above in mind, I would like to see all family sponsored 475 visas issued immediately and taken out of the GSM stream - they are only a temp/provisional visa initially, have sponsorship/assurance of support and will cost the Govt nothing. They become part of the GSM stream when they have to prove eligibility for PR in 2-3 yrs time as an onshore applicant. They can only do this if they have employment and settled into the Australian way of life. If they are willing to take this route, they are no different to students, working holiday visa holders and 457 temps who can get employer sponsorship to stay. Permanent 176 family applicants and State Sponsored applicants should also be offered a 475 visa immediately if they are in a position to move in the next 12 months, particularly those who are willing to go to a regional area. This would not only reduce the immediate backlog for PR, but would provide an alternative to many applicants currently in limbo and would also satisfy the State Govts, who are currently holding expos in the UK and still insisting they are desperate for migrants. Any applicants who can't, or are unwilling to, accept the conditions of the 475 visa can choose to stay in the queue and wait offshore for their PR to come through. The Govt could continue to issue PR visas, if it wishes, to applicants on its CSL/revised MODL list and process others who want to wait for offshore PR after these. In two to three years time, the processing priority list could then look something like: 1. Onshore applicants who have satisifed 475 conditions along with ENS/RSMS 2. CSL/MODL or equivalent 3. State and family sponsored who wanted to wait for offshore PR 4. All other applicants. All applications should be processed within each category on a first come/first served basis, with points score and low risk/high risk country of origin also taken into consideration. Cheers, Kazza I also agree with Kazza's post. We have been tied to OH's job in RAF for 22yrs now and wanted to join his Mum in Oz when he's discharged next year. We have no property to sell, no ties and wanted our children to live near their grandparents - next year, not 3yrs+. Kazza's proposals are an excellent idea. Mandy x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thekevjones Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 S'truth is you can't leave any 'current' project 'unfinished' without losing respect, not in the real life or a demogratic society anyhow! I for one met ALL the criteria anyhow 12 months ago (incl medicals) and not heard a dicky bird since. I imagine lot's of others are in the SAME situation. By the way - should I EVER get my visa I shall not be rushing to Oz in the first instance because of the current job market. I have a good job here with as good a security as anyone could expect right now....though things will change in the future, as they always do with economic cycles! So look at it another way, complete the job you started (keep EXISTING applicants happy), change the rules to suit a new medium term outlook, fine! Build up a new set of applicants with new rules. People still happy. Don't think the DIAC will dish out visas to people with skills that they do not currently have a matching jobs market/open req's for...hence lots of immigrants lounging around, not working...I certainly wouldn't be one of those. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi Gil, Your are right 475/487 485 is an on-shore temporary visa (18 months) applicant to enable a student acquire relevant experience and apply for 885/886/487 (to 887) Just do the nalysis for the off-shore as new guideliens are definetly coming for the on-shore with the announcement of the "Job Ready Test" which is on target. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr luvpants Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Could I ask please your thoughts on whether 176/175 visa holders are not to be given PR straight away in the next round of changes? I know it is pure speculation but what do you think? JOHN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 DIAC is tight lipped on the new changes for 175/176. A core group in DIAC/DEEWR is aware of the changes. The states will be given a quota which will "supervised" DIAc to prevent "scamming". Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi Gil, Your are right 475/487 485 is an on-shore temporary visa (18 months) applicant to enable a student acquire relevant experience and apply for 885/886/487 (to 887) Just do the nalysis for the off-shore as new guideliens are definetly coming for the on-shore with the announcement of the "Job Ready Test" which is on target. Regards Glenn Pereira Hi Glenn Thanks very much for the info. If we don't have to detail the individual applicants' nominated occupations and we can ignore onshore visas then I think Grant will be able to produce a suitable spreadsheet within a couple of days which will be big enough to show a genuinely representative cross section of applicants for the offshore visas. We can progress this pretty quickly, which I think will be valuable. The feedback I am hearing from PiO members who are now in Perth is that general admin type office jobs are thin on the ground but the skilled tradesmen all say that bricklayers, painters & decorators etc are not having trouble finding full time employment as long as they have genuine experience of commercial projects and commercial buildings, not just homes. Experience of the right sort of work seems to be key, and I can see that a student straight out of college would be at a disadvantage even if his 900 hours are completely genuine. The employers prefer candidates who can genuinely say that they have no shortage of commercial experience according to my friends out in Perth. The other thing I am hearing is, "Do not choose where you want to live and expect to find work locally. Find out where the projects are happening and move reasonably close to the action instead." People can find out where the construction activity is by visiting the WA Land Registry in Perth, where the staff are very helpful and know what is happening in and around the city. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TraceyT Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Got some practical theories: - Transparency. Regularly updated figures on the website for applicants to see where the DIAC are upto with each visa category, perhaps by month, which allows prospective applicants to make an informed decision as to whether they are happy to wait. Therefore more customer satisfaction and less people phoning COs for details on timeframes. Applicants will then know when they should be getting meds & police checks done, without always having to wait for a request from their CO, this is less work for the CO as the application is grant ready by the time the CO gets to it. This will also give migrants chance to prepare for their move, such as knowing when to put their house on the market, etc, more people will be ready to move when their visa is granted. - A definate percentage allocation for each class of visa, as McKlaut suggested, but also giving each state its own sub class. This makes it fair on the states that are perhaps not as popular as others, as each state has a certain percentages of visas. This ensures every application is constantly moving up the list and states get their fair share of applicants. - GSM job checks once the migrant arrives in Oz. Maybe difficult to manage, but perhaps TR only until the migrant has been in their nominated occupation for X amount of time. Obvious exceptions such as pregnancy, illness, etc. This would ensure that migrants are striving to secure a job they have the visa for. This way the jobs in real shortage will constantly be filled. The states will be required to monitor this. - Changes to MODL will still occur, perhaps once a year. These will only effect new applicants. It will be advertised on the website clearly with a 3 month notice period to allow applicants who are undertaking skills assessments to proceed without being short changed. - Major global crisis changes, such as the recent GFC will be managed effectively by reducing each visa category by a certain percentage. Thus still ensuring the pipeline of applications are still moving, but at a slower rate. The transparency factor will reassure applicants that visas are still being granted. I may not be eloquent and I certainly am no expert in this field, but I do know how to keep my customers happy and the transparency factor in my business practice ensures that. Any job offers to manage DIAC please PM me! Tracey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz2008 Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi Glenn aussietimeline.com | Australian Visa Application Timeline Tracker We already have a spreadsheet, thanks to a PiO member called Grant 6607. I think people can add their details by themselves. Hi Gill, Just been to the timeline myself to update my SS details and noticed that there are some people on there who have not updated that they have received their SS or visa, so some of the information may not be 100% accurate. I have posted a note on the threads I am running to remind people to update their details on the spreadsheet, but perhaps a new post from you might be better and read by more people. Just a thought! Tasha :wubclub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brads Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I just wish that they would process all the 'older' applications eg 2008. We applied for a 175 visa with our skill on the MODL listings in October 2008, when the CSL listing didn't exsist. At the time MODLs was being processed in aprox 9 months. In Jan '09 the CSL list came about, pushing us back in the waiting, which was fine as long as we still was looked at. Sooooooo many changed to sponsored visas which we didn't want to do, being a family with 4 young kids we thought there was too many risks involved with sponsored visas, single/couples great but kids involved made it harder. So we waited like everyone else............and waited. Then announcements on 23rd Sept tells us that MODL won't be looked at until the end 2012, and lets face it my list might not even be on there at that point and my kids being that many years older would make the move even harder for them. We are desperate to emigrate over there like so many others, but some applicants have only just applied for there visas..................lots like me have already been waiting over 12 months...............I just wish they would look at the 'older' applications and have a 'cut off' for there changes to be for applications received after a certain date. I no I'm clutching at straws, buts its soooo hard all the waiting especially when theres kids involved, I don't want to loose my visa application money. If at the time we applied in 2008 we was told we would have to wait till 2012 we wouldn't have bothered!! Katrina, Brad & kids :sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Transparency gets +1 from me. Unless DIAC is some secret society, I don't see any reason why up to date figures cannot be posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Just pumped in my details at Aussie Timeline, anyone who hasn't done so, please do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KatyNick Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I've put our details on the Aussie Time Line too. Thanks for the direction to this site Gill, it will be interesting reading over the coming months (and years ..... unfortunately!!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie ellis Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi folks , i dont post much . Im not keen on the money back thing we all paid in good faith, eh? so why dont you deliver the same back minster?:idea: its alot o money my family and me are over the £6000 mark the same as everyone else:hug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie ellis Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Sorry we have also put our details on the timeline as well:cute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Judging by the timing of the changes already notified by DIAC, and the new Vetassess regime, I would think that 1 January is the most likely starting date for whatever rule changes come into effect, but I don't hold out much hope for a speedy resolution for those in the backlog, noting that DIAC has just put through a raft of technical changes to the legislation (to commence on 9 November) which could easily have solved relevant issues, but instead the only remotely relevant change is one on refunds, see All Notices of Legislation Changes - Legislation & Regulations . Good luck to all those lobbying, but it does seem that the Australian government will take the notion of an ongoing global financial crisis through to the next election. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi George Thanks very much for the heads up. Hmmmmmm! Australian Immigration - Legislation Change Update What are Robin Hood and his merry men up to now?! Allowing the Minister to specify by way of a legislative instrument, special circumstances in which a person may receive a refund. From the Govt's point of view it does make sense to let people in the backlog pull out of the process and get their VACs back if they wish. In their shoes, I would go further. I would invite everyone who knows that they have submitted an application based on dodgy supporting documents to withdraw their applications and I would refund their VACs without forcing them to admit why they want to withdraw. Example One: When Glenn first joined PiO, he made two intriguing statements. He said: Is TRA a legal entity? and He mentioned the 900 hours. I haven't a clue what sort of legal animal TRA is. I remarked that I understood that AQF require rhe 900 hours as part of the AQF III? Glenn said it is no part of AQF's requirements for the AQF III. Apparently this 900 hours is an invention of TRA's own. Intriguing. What gives TRA locus standi to invent a criterion of this sort? Is it a lawful imposition by a rather nebulous group of people who might or might not be employed by a genuine legal entity? If I were the Govt I would want to avoid the, "bogus 900 hours" argument because it would seem to me that the VET students might be able to attack validity of the 900 hours requirement. If the scammers are part of some sort of organised crime ring, the one thing they won't be short of is the money to fund litigation. I heard that Uddin cost them millions in damages. Do they really want another run-in with the Students? Added to which it is a colossal waste of money to go trawling through thousands of files trying to weed out the dodgy ones, surely? Errors are inevitable with this sort of attempt, too, which might well lead to litigation with the aggrieved. If the Government had to make a profit each year, my unequivocal suggestion would be, "Don't go there. Governments usually make a complete balls-up of the Sherlock Holmes role in any case. Think of the waste of money. DROWN this baby. Fer Gawd's sake don't give it swimming lessons intead!" If they can persuade the backlog to cut itself, refunding the relevant VACs would be cheap at the price, I reckon. It will be interesting to see why the Minister needs this sudden new power. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi Gill, I'm not a fan of infanticide myself and I don't think DIAC think they've got any problems with this situation. My guess is that they think that no court would ever infer that an applicant had a right to a general skilled migration visa, given the points test and pool mechanisms for starters as well as the right being currently exercised to delay processing as long as they darn well please. So, in their thinking, it's most likely whatever relief they give to current GSM applicants is nothing but a courtesy - noblesse oblige and all that. Obviously it's going to take a big stick applied forcefully to change that thinking. On the TRA/900 hours issue I don't see that this is such a problem, given that TRA was originally established under the Tradesman's Rights and Regulation Act to assist post-war migrants have their qualifications recognised - there might be a problem with the mechanics of the legislation but not such as to require judicial vandalism, particularly as the Crown clearly has the right to be an assessing body as much as ACS or Vetassess; and insisting on the 900 hours is a darn sight better than allowing these people to practice a trade on the basis of a Certificate III alone. The legislation gives wide discretion to assessing bodies to establish standards for skills recognition so it's not the 900 hours but whether TRA has locus standi, and as noted I wouldn't have thought the High Court disposed to wipe off 61 years of administrative history quite so readily. Of course, when the prosecutions start - if they ever do - then Glenn's arguments will be gratefully received by defence Senior Counsel, but at the end of the day, fraud is fraud. And immigration fraud always seems to occur when DIAC is asleep at the wheel and a pattern emerges which is then replicated endlessly. Onshore students will find it very difficult to withdraw applications as that will leave almost all of them without further available applications onshore and the immediate loss of permission to work. However I'd just note that before the prosecutions take place there'll be an enormous wave of refusals going to the Migration Review Tribunal, and sensible prosecutors would want to let those processes take place first. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mach Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Added to which it is a colossal waste of money to go trawling through thousands of files trying to weed out the dodgy ones, surely? Errors are inevitable with this sort of attempt, too, which might well lead to litigation with the aggrieved. If the Government had to make a profit each year, my unequivocal suggestion would be, "Don't go there. Governments usually make a complete balls-up of the Sherlock Holmes role in any case. Think of the waste of money. DROWN this baby. Fer Gawd's sake don't give it swimming lessons intead!" Absolutely, sifting through all the applications blindly would be a total waste of time and money. However, I'm sure they could create an accurate risk profile based on scammers they have caught in the past and/or current suspicions to flag a number of likely suspects. By doing that, they may well reduce the lens from hundreds of thousands to just hundreds. In addition, a risk profile would probably not require the same levels of sleuthing or manhours a total audit would require. And even if they don't have the investigative nous right now, such a mechanism is more or less required in the future if they are serious about policing the (new?) system better. You are sadly spot-on about the legal cost of prosecuting these people though. However, the more they catch, the more they learn about who is doing it, what they are doing and where they are getting it done. And it would be good for everyone's morale if they pursued a few of the more open-and-shut cases. Who knows? The result could be seen as both a deterrent to scammers and a positive action instead of yet another round of sweeping reactions made after the train has left the station! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie ellis Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 Hi folks , i think they will change the rules again , the rules go up and down more than :biggrin: well ats another sayen i wont put in:biglaugh: Hey you always need skilled people to build houses and once this gets better we will be in demand again i recon anyway . I cant put in the fancy words like all the other agents , but i think the building trade will come back on top of list again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 1, 2009 Share Posted November 1, 2009 I understand that based on legal advice students are refusing to attend an interview by TRA or DIAC to question the validity of the 900 hours. This means refusal, then MRT and possible Court. Regs state that assessment authority must be a body or assoication. TRA is gazetted to carry out the assessment not DEEWR. In the past Assessment issued was on TRA letterhead . If you notice DEEWR letterhead is used in the assessment process. Administrative Law requires strict compliance in exercising power. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcillc Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 DIAC is tight lipped on the new changes for 175/176. Still do you think that the new changes will result in increase of the pass mark in points test? This is an interesting presentation by DIAC (even though it was presented before the 23/9 changes), and gives a hint towards 'review of the points test' : http://www.occupationalenglishtest.org/Documents/ViewDocument.aspx?club=oet&DocumentID=896ea706-9671-4fb0-9dd7-8920d3d720db Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Good succinct post George, re: Judging by the timing of the changes already notified by DIAC, and the new Vetassess regime, I would think that 1 January is the most likely starting date for whatever rule changes come into effect, but I don't hold out much hope for a speedy resolution for those in the backlog, noting that DIAC has just put through a raft of technical changes to the legislation (to commence on 9 November) which could easily have solved relevant issues, but instead the only remotely relevant change is one on refunds, see All Notices of Legislation Changes - Legislation & Regulations . Good luck to all those lobbying, but it does seem that the Australian government will take the notion of an ongoing global financial crisis through to the next election. Cheers, George Lombard And your follow-up is great too re explanation of TRA I've just been following this thread and whilst bouncing the ideas about is great and if value can be made out of spread sheet, that's fine but I have similar sentiments to George. It may seem unkind but the reality is that PIO will have the slightest to zero impact on what the government/DIAC determine. There are regulations in place that are established by legislation and with the regulations allowing for DIAC to monitor and vary conditions applying to visas, as unfortunate as that is, that is what they are there to do, for whatever reasons. For what it is worth, I'd suggest to people to look at personal analysis of their situations and if you want a good tool for that, Kepner Tregoe outlines some principles, it having been used in training by the US Navy to train for Decision Making under Stress - How to use the Kepner Tregoe decision making model It essentially starts off with asking "where are we at" And in visa applicants situations you need to address what DIAC likely will have as regulations/conditions. And the writing is pretty much on the wall there, with Employer Sponsored PR visas likely to be a big part of the scene. My own personal view is that applicants with 175s/176s could do far worse than focusing their energies on finding Sponsors. No guarantes with that though and DIAC will give no guarantees, never have and they sure will not contemplating a start down that road. Wishing for changes and to have DIAC do this and that etc. is merely wishful thinking. In their shoes, I would go further. I would invite everyone who knows that they have submitted an application based on dodgy supporting documents to withdraw their applications and I would refund their VACs without forcing them to admit why they want to withdraw. That just flys in the face of common law and has as much chance of happening as a pig flying over the moon. Is TRA a legal entity? and I haven't a clue what sort of legal animal TRA is. Intriguing. What gives TRA locus standi to invent a criterion of this sort? Is it a lawful imposition by a rather nebulous group of people who might or might not be employed by a genuine legal entity? George has answered some of that and it's as legal as its mother department DEEWR is, backed by govrnment legislation and to question its existence or legality to assess is something that students may want to pursue but I'd not recommend it and certainly not based on a letterhead!The TRA web site - http://www.deewr.gov.au/Skills/Programs/TRA/Pages/default.aspx Worth a good read for anyone considering an application that will involve TRA assessment. As to sifting through thousands of applications, DIAC have some pretty clued up investigators and they'll be working alonside similar from other government departments. There is something called the 80/20 rule and runs something like 80% of issues can come from just 20% of participants. DIAC will identify suspicious cases and you'll likely find the source has a lot of other sus cases attached to it - already been shown in media article on an investigation. Like George, I wish all well but please put your thinking caps on rather than using the wishing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I cannot find it on the LEGEND.COM Directions 42 Certain skilled migration visas (1) Th The following processing priorities (with highest priority listed first) should be applied to applications under the skilled migration program as specified in Item (2)(a) – (t) of Schedule A and Item (1) and (2) of Schedule B: (a) applications from persons who are employer sponsored under the Employer Nomination Scheme and the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme; (b)applications from persons who are nominated by a State/Territory government and have nominated an occupation on the CSL; © applications from persons who are sponsored by a person other than a person mentioned in 8(1)(a) or (b) and whose occupations is listed on the CSL; (d) applications from persons who are neither nominated nor sponsored but who have nominated an occupation on the CSL; (e) applications from persons who are nominated by a State/Territory government and have not nominated an occupation on the CSL; (f) (i) applications from persons whose occupations are listed on the MODL; and (ii) applications from persons who are sponsored by a person other than a person mentioned in 8(1)(a) or (b) and have not nominated an occupation on the CSL; (g) all other applications are to be processed in the order in which they are received. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wanderer Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I cannot find it on the LEGEND.COM So what is it that you're trying to find Glenn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.