Guest pippa1 Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 Hi there If you haven't yet got your 886 application in, then I think the new rules will apply to you:( I would contact your agent today and ask for clarification and advice as that is what you pay them for! There is a sticky thread on another forum (expats) on job ready test with more information on it. Good luck with it all x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted January 3, 2010 Share Posted January 3, 2010 At times such as this when amendments to migration regulations are introduced at short notice agents who are not "on the ball" are often found wanting => move to a new agent if you are not getting timely responses. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Hello, I have been badly hit with the new 2010 changes to the TRA requirements of getting a new assessment. I have completed my hairdressing with a successful TRA outcome. The changes are outrageous and unfair. There are tons of students who have applied before 01-01-2010 on the basis of fake work experience. Is there a group or association who may apparently be opposing this new rule and approaching the minister??? I am sure there will be a big number to follow if something like this is organised. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Hi there If you haven't yet got your 886 application in, then I think the new rules will apply to you:( I would contact your agent today and ask for clarification and advice as that is what you pay them for! There is a sticky thread on another forum (expats) on job ready test with more information on it. Good luck with it all x Hi Pippa Thanks for that yes it does apply to us i spoke to the immigration department today. They have a pre lodgment hotline number for all of this. They said that the job ready assements have been in the pipeline since jan last year but our agent never told us that. We were ready to put the tra in at the start of December but we had family coming out also thought there was going to be post delays. Thought we would wait until Jan then it would go through no problem our fault but when you dont know its frustrating. After all the money we have spent getting here the course then living for two years now we have to find another $4500 to be assessed for a course we paid over $34000 for is a bit annoying. If there is a group about to start up I would join it. Rgds Jfa1967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Hi All This is one of the things I mentioned to Mr Wilden in London. I feel that DIAC ought to have a "Liaison Officer" whose job is it to explain everything to Students and ex-Students and who ought to iron out any glitches in their applications etc. Mr Wilden isn't the man for this task. I got the feeling - talking with him - that I know nothing to speak of concerning the technical and other problems for those who are in Australia and I felt that Mr Wilden didn't really know about the onshore predicament either. Besides which Mr Wilden is too far away, in the wrong time zone etc. Mr Wilden said that if enough onshore people come forward insisting that there must be a "liaison officer" then DIAC would appoint one, he felt sure. Is there a Union of International Students who could perhaps attend to this? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Isn't that what migration agents are s'posed to do, Gill ... assist with applications and iron our glitches ... ? Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 PS. Why not start a Facebook group ...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 In my view, I think the objective of these hard new rules are for the Immigration Department to have time to reorganize the house inside and rescue the international education reputation. Also they can have time to catch up the huge queue of processes they already have. Does it seem that applying offshore will be a easier way, even doing the studies in Australia? Hi Cadom I think that with the first part of your query you are absolutely right. With the second part, I think that only time will tell. I doubt whether applying for (eg) a subclass 176 as opposed to an 886 will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. I think the problems will arise with whether enough (say) garages are willing to hire what are effectively trade apprentices on a 485 visa. According to Government this has been gone into carefully and that Industry leaders say they are all in favour if a year spent doing the actual hands-on job. That is as may be. They will be very keen on the idea but will they put there money where their mouths are in sufficient numbers to provide the necessary apprenticeships? If they won't then I think that Students who have received their training in Oz for the classroom side will have to then go offshore (usually to their country of origin, I imagine) to try to get the necessary experience this way instead. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Isn't that what migration agents are s'posed to do, Gill ... assist with applications and iron our glitches ... ? Best regards. Hi Alan In theory you are right. In practice, however, an awful lot of agents can't even get the basics right even with a much simplified system. Mr Wilden has identified a lot of errors made by agents and the DIAC staff alike when he has looked into some of the offshore applications which have gone wrong. Far too often, when Mr Wilden has applied an open mind to the facts, it appears that the DIAC staff have got some of the fundamentals wrong and the agents - not knowing this fact - have refused to make intelligent inquiries of DIAC as well. I think it needs someone like Mr Wilden who can go in to bat at a seriously high level, insist that his own queries are dealt with fully and adequately, and who can then relay the facts to the visa applicant as they are - not as the DIAC staff and the agents would between them like the facts to be. DIAC are the people who insist that use of an RMA is not necessary so DIAC should be the people to iron all these glitches out as well, plus senior DIAC officers should be aware of just how often their own staff make mistakes. The only way that will come to light is if the senior officers see for themselves just how frequent these errors are and do something about ridding the system of them, I suspect. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 HI George, Thanks for your informations. I would like to know does this new policy posted apply to any categories or only for the trade? TRA? How about those case in CSL? did the immigration department publish that norminated occupation in CSL must have a same relevant experienc in the prior 12months? Thanks a lot~! Jessi Hi Jessi You wish to nominate Importer/Exporter Manager, it seems: Importer or Exporter 1192-11 - Australian Skills Recognition Information This is not a trade skill but it requires a degree and the degree is assessed by Vetasses, plus independent entry to Australia is not available for this occupation. Vetassess will apply their own rules to the skills assessment: Applying for a general professional occupation - VETASSESS Vetassess will require that the degree is specific to or at least highly relevant to the job. Without the skills assessment I suspect that one will have trouble getting a visa at all. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 4, 2010 Share Posted January 4, 2010 Hi Gollywobbler What would be the best forum to start a union of students because at the moment i feel the immigration department and Australian government are just using us as cash cows and not thinking of the pressure we are under. We have left our life behind moved our kids from their friends to start a new life. Yes we knew it was not certain that we would succeed but most of us are law abiding tax paying ordainery people who want to better themselves and they are just making it as hard as possible.How can they justify $4500 to get job ready when in the case of my wife and some of her friends they are working it just feels wrong. But not sure how you complain because i normally dont!!!!. thanks John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I agree with jfa1967. Charging 4500$ is outrageous and it seems like there was no sign of any humanity behind the framing of these rules.. I have already got one NO from an employer who refused to sign up with TRA and above all give me a contract. I have only 13 mths of my TR left and I have a family....where will I go if things don't work out. everybody has their own issues and we should take it up, atleast if they can review the decision, it would be great.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I agree with jfa1967. Charging 4500$ is outrageous and it seems like there was no sign of any humanity behind the framing of these rules.. I have already got one NO from an employer who refused to sign up with TRA and above all give me a contract. I have only 13 mths of my TR left and I have a family....where will I go if things don't work out. everybody has their own issues and we should take it up, atleast if they can review the decision, it would be great.! Hi The thing that really gets under my skin the most is the blanket philossophy they have used. My wife has done everything set out under the rules for a student visa she is one of the best in her class she even helped some of the non English speaking students through the class as thats the type of person she is. She past 3 months early we only had to wait untill January for her 92 weeks study so that we could apply she has worked for 6 months in a salon past her 900 hours so everything the TRA are saying people have struggled to get my wife has. Now if she can get a salon which is TRA registerd which by law in SA they are not requiered to be then we have to pay the $4500 to get the experince she has!!!!!. We knew when we came over that things could change but this is just so frustrating if only one thing we have learened in Australia its everyone deserves a fair go I dont think this is. An Australian friend told me to write to the immigration minister as he has to answer it so why does,nt everyone who is upset about this do that. It will at least put it out there that people are un happy about the situation. rgds Jfa1967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 totally...people who have genuinely done the work deserve a fair go. They should be focusing on verifying the work experiences that people claim to have.I would like to put it out there too...how do you go about writing to the minister? can you just email or post a letter?..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 totally...people who have genuinely done the work deserve a fair go. They should be focusing on verifying the work experiences that people claim to have.I would like to put it out there too...how do you go about writing to the minister? can you just email or post a letter?..! as far as i know you can send an e-mail but i have been told to write so then it gets recorded. I am going to send one. Just trying to find the right words at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Hi All Writing to the Minister is a complete waste of time. He gets thousands of letters and e-mails each day and he does not bother to reply to the ones from "the public." The main grouse seems, from this thread, to be the way that TRA are shifting the goal posts and whacking the price up. I would suggest that Peter Mares would be a good chap to have on your team. He did the two earlier radio interviews on this subject generally, the second interview being the only time that anyone has managed to get the Immigration Minister to open his mouth about the debacle: Migration applicants stuck in two-year limbo - The National Interest - 30 October 2009 Immigration Minister responds to backlog concerns - The National Interest - 13 November 2009 I think that if Mr Mares can be persuaded to take up the cause it will help: The National Interest - About I don't know whether the TRA thing is Peter Speldewinde's baby but I imagine so since he is the boss of DIAC's Labour Market Branch. All that anyone gets from him are anodyne, flannelette replies. Somebody in ESOS surely has the name of a senior DIAC Officer who can represent onshore Trade/VET Students in this matter? Government Activities If all else fails, I don't see why the British Students shouldn't complain to John Dauth LVO, who is the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. Directory.gov.au I complained to Mr Dauth about the way that the offshore applicants for GSM visas were being treated by the Australian Federal Government. Mr Dauth arranged for David Wilden - DIAC's Regional Director for Europe, based in London - to deal with the complaints and very useful that has proved to be. My contact with Mr Dauth resulted in the meeting of 30th November 2009 with Mr Wilden. At the meeting, Mr Wilden said that if enough Students in Australia demanded it, DIAC in Australia would have to provide a suitably senior person (equivalent to Mr Wilden) to examine the issues which affect the Students specifically. It seems to me that now that TRA have published their stuff - which seems to be full of inconsistencies and uncertainties according to the British Expats thread - somebody in Australia needs to get hold of this and sort the inconsistencies out. Job Ready Test Info : British Expat Discussion Forum From a quiet start by George Lombard the thread has developed a life of its own. For instance, if someone has already done the 900 hours, why can't that time be put towards satisfying TRA's latest requirement for six months work instead? Only because nobody has thought of introducing some transitional provisions, I expect, so I think the British Stiudents should go in and ask for some transitional provisions and so forth. As with the offshore applicants, the UK is a low risk country and we can explain our points clearly and without any drama. I think an approach by the Brits to Mr Dauth (who is "Australia in the UK" as it were) should go some way towards getting a suitable Australian based DIAC officer lined up. Also, what joy have any of you had from your local Federal MPs? Please see here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12494.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12042.pdf The Committee does not mince its words. Senator Fierravanti-Wells did especially well in October, I felt. This Committee is due to meet again sometime in February 2010. Parliament of Australia: Senate Estimates They have not given the exact date as yet but it is certainly possible to get hold of the Secretary for the Immigration Committee and ask him/her when the Committee will be meeting again. If you find out, please could you let me know the date please because on behalf of the offshore applicants I intend to make a fuss to every single non-ALP politician on that Committee in time for the next meeting? Thanks - it till save me phoning Canberra in the wee small hours in the UK if someone in Oz could discover the date for me, please. It is the Senate's chance to find out what the Minister for Immigration has been up to, whose lives he is damaging, which jurisdictions Australia now has a terrible name in and so on. However the Senators are not psychic. We have to tell them what the concerns of the affected applicants are. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Hi All Writing to the Minister is a complete waste of time. He gets thousands of letters and e-mails each day and he does not bother to reply to the ones from "the public." The main grouse seems, from this thread, to be the way that TRA are shifting the goal posts and whacking the price up. I would suggest that Peter Mares would be a good chap to have on your team. He did the two earlier radio interviews on this subject generally, the second interview being the only time that anyone has managed to get the Immigration Minister to open his mouth about the debacle: Migration applicants stuck in two-year limbo - The National Interest - 30 October 2009 Immigration Minister responds to backlog concerns - The National Interest - 13 November 2009 I think that if Mr Mares can be persuaded to take up the cause it will help: The National Interest - About I don't know whether the TRA thing is Peter Speldewinde's baby but I imagine so since he is the boss of DIAC's Labour Market Branch. All that anyone gets from him are anodyne, flannelette replies. Somebody in ESOS surely has the name of a senior DIAC Officer who can represent onshore Trade/VET Students in this matter? Government Activities If all else fails, I don't see why the British Students shouldn't complain to John Dauth LVO, who is the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. Directory.gov.au I complained to Mr Dauth about the way that the offshore applicants for GSM visas were being treated by the Australian Federal Government. Mr Dauth arranged for David Wilden - DIAC's Regional Director for Europe, based in London - to deal with the complaints and very useful that has proved to be. My contact with Mr Dauth resulted in the meeting of 30th November 2009 with Mr Wilden. At the meeting, Mr Wilden said that if enough Students in Australia demanded it, DIAC in Australia would have to provide a suitably senior person (equivalent to Mr Wilden) to examine the issues which affect the Students specifically. It seems to me that now that TRA have published their stuff - which seems to be full of inconsistencies and uncertainties according to the British Expats thread - somebody in Australia needs to get hold of this and sort the inconsistencies out. Job Ready Test Info : British Expat Discussion Forum From a quiet start by George Lombard the thread has developed a life of its own. For instance, if someone has already done the 900 hours, why can't that time be put towards satisfying TRA's latest requirement for six months work instead? Only because nobody has thought of introducing some transitional provisions, I expect, so I think the British Stiudents should go in and ask for some transitional provisions and so forth. As with the offshore applicants, the UK is a low risk country and we can explain our points clearly and without any drama. I think an approach by the Brits to Mr Dauth (who is "Australia in the UK" as it were) should go some way towards getting a suitable Australian based DIAC officer lined up. Also, what joy have any of you had from your local Federal MPs? Please see here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12494.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12042.pdf The Committee does not mince its words. Senator Fierravanti-Wells did especially well in October, I felt. This Committee is due to meet again sometime in February 2010. Parliament of Australia: Senate Estimates They have not given the exact date as yet but it is certainly possible to get hold of the Secretary for the Immigration Committee and ask him/her when the Committee will be meeting again. If you find out, please could you let me know the date please because on behalf of the offshore applicants I intend to make a fuss to every single non-ALP politician on that Committee in time for the next meeting? Thanks - it till save me phoning Canberra in the wee small hours in the UK if someone in Oz could discover the date for me, please. It is the Senate's chance to find out what the Minister for Immigration has been up to, whose lives he is damaging, which jurisdictions Australia now has a terrible name in and so on. However the Senators are not psychic. We have to tell them what the concerns of the affected applicants are. Cheers Gill Hi Gollywobbler Thanks for the info that sounds a better idea than writing to the minister. Just frustration coming out on my part. I will look into it and send of some letters thanks Rgds Jfa1967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 as far as i know you can send an e-mail but i have been told to write so then it gets recorded. I am going to send one. Just trying to find the right words at the moment. Great!! thanks. Please let me know if I can be of any help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 8, 2010 Share Posted January 8, 2010 I just spoke to TRA and this is what the rep said: 1. those of us who have a positive TRA outcome already (like already on TR etc ) will still need to fulfill the provisional step 1 BUT they are making some provision for those above to just be able to put in the old assessment reference number. And he just said keep a watch...dunno when it will be updated. When i told him that i am already 5 mths into my TR, he said i need to make arrangements with DIMIA on that. So i don't have much hope..!!!!! Ridiculous!! why can those with positive skill s assessment just go ahead with the next step..????????????? and the 900 hrs will not count towards the 12mths and even if we get the workplace assessment done in 6mths we will have to wait the full 12mts before submitting the final assessment wat a way to start the day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfa1967 Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Hi All Just thought I would give you an update My wife went back to college today after the hols and they do not know anything about the new TRA rules no one from TRA has told them or DIAC. Also one of the mature students went to DIAC to get some answers and was told that as its a new rules TRA are not geared up for it and it will take at least 2 years before you even see a rep in a salon checking skills so if you are close to 45 you are basically (hmm) Knackered. It has left all the students at the college not knowing what is going on. Iits just turning in to a nightmare. We might be ok as the salon my wife works at does not want to lose her so might look at a business sponsorship but not sure what that involves any help would be fab!!!! Thanks jfa1967 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Hi jfa In my opinion Minister Evans should be strung up for the utter chaos he has caused to Ausralia's Immigration program in the space of the last 13 months. If and when Australia does the right thing and gets rid of him sometime in 2010, his successor will have a massive task to sort out the ruddy mess which this man has caused. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluesgirl Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 Hi, does anyone have any idea/ answer/suggestion" I am already on my TR 485 visa of 18mths and have exactly a year left on it. Since I have to go thru the new TRA asessment, and my visa is running out as they still haven't sorted out the information and the process to get started, i still need to find a job with the speicifications.....do i approach DIAC regarding my visa????????/// am so confused and frustrated...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 17, 2010 Share Posted January 17, 2010 Bumping this thread back up to the top in the hope of an answer for Bluegirl. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lin Tang Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Hi All Writing to the Minister is a complete waste of time. He gets thousands of letters and e-mails each day and he does not bother to reply to the ones from "the public." The main grouse seems, from this thread, to be the way that TRA are shifting the goal posts and whacking the price up. I would suggest that Peter Mares would be a good chap to have on your team. He did the two earlier radio interviews on this subject generally, the second interview being the only time that anyone has managed to get the Immigration Minister to open his mouth about the debacle: Migration applicants stuck in two-year limbo - The National Interest - 30 October 2009 Immigration Minister responds to backlog concerns - The National Interest - 13 November 2009 I think that if Mr Mares can be persuaded to take up the cause it will help: The National Interest - About I don't know whether the TRA thing is Peter Speldewinde's baby but I imagine so since he is the boss of DIAC's Labour Market Branch. All that anyone gets from him are anodyne, flannelette replies. Somebody in ESOS surely has the name of a senior DIAC Officer who can represent onshore Trade/VET Students in this matter? Government Activities If all else fails, I don't see why the British Students shouldn't complain to John Dauth LVO, who is the Australian High Commissioner to the UK. Directory.gov.au I complained to Mr Dauth about the way that the offshore applicants for GSM visas were being treated by the Australian Federal Government. Mr Dauth arranged for David Wilden - DIAC's Regional Director for Europe, based in London - to deal with the complaints and very useful that has proved to be. My contact with Mr Dauth resulted in the meeting of 30th November 2009 with Mr Wilden. At the meeting, Mr Wilden said that if enough Students in Australia demanded it, DIAC in Australia would have to provide a suitably senior person (equivalent to Mr Wilden) to examine the issues which affect the Students specifically. It seems to me that now that TRA have published their stuff - which seems to be full of inconsistencies and uncertainties according to the British Expats thread - somebody in Australia needs to get hold of this and sort the inconsistencies out. Job Ready Test Info : British Expat Discussion Forum From a quiet start by George Lombard the thread has developed a life of its own. For instance, if someone has already done the 900 hours, why can't that time be put towards satisfying TRA's latest requirement for six months work instead? Only because nobody has thought of introducing some transitional provisions, I expect, so I think the British Stiudents should go in and ask for some transitional provisions and so forth. As with the offshore applicants, the UK is a low risk country and we can explain our points clearly and without any drama. I think an approach by the Brits to Mr Dauth (who is "Australia in the UK" as it were) should go some way towards getting a suitable Australian based DIAC officer lined up. Also, what joy have any of you had from your local Federal MPs? Please see here: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12494.pdf http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12042.pdf The Committee does not mince its words. Senator Fierravanti-Wells did especially well in October, I felt. This Committee is due to meet again sometime in February 2010. Parliament of Australia: Senate Estimates They have not given the exact date as yet but it is certainly possible to get hold of the Secretary for the Immigration Committee and ask him/her when the Committee will be meeting again. If you find out, please could you let me know the date please because on behalf of the offshore applicants I intend to make a fuss to every single non-ALP politician on that Committee in time for the next meeting? Thanks - it till save me phoning Canberra in the wee small hours in the UK if someone in Oz could discover the date for me, please. It is the Senate's chance to find out what the Minister for Immigration has been up to, whose lives he is damaging, which jurisdictions Australia now has a terrible name in and so on. However the Senators are not psychic. We have to tell them what the concerns of the affected applicants are. Cheers Gill Well, writing a letter to the Minister may not always a waste of time. Nearly seven years ago Lin Tang and Co. Lawyers wrote the following letter to the then Immigration Minister, Philip Ruddock. Thousand of students supported the letter by forwarding to the letter to the Minister, mostly by email. Guess what? The Minister did postpone the effective date of that particular amendment of migration regulations. Students were quite successful in their campaign. Yes, the Minister received heaps of letters everyday. That alone is not equivalent to the futility of these letters. The Hon. Mr. Philip Ruddock MP Suite MF 40 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7860 Fax: (02) 6273 4144 OUR Ref: Skilled Migration 30 April 2003 Dear Hon. Mr. Philip Ruddock MP, We have been requested by a number of overseas students who are currently enrolled in educational institutions in Australia to write this letter on their behalf in relation to Changes to Skills Migration from 1 July 2003 ("Two Year Policy") as announced by you on DIMIA website on 31st March 2003 notwithstanding such changes were published without endorsement of amendments to the Migration Regulations then and now in effect. On 11th June 2002 we wrote to you on the very same issue in response to the possible change of general skilled migration as referred to in Attachment 5 to the Minister Announces 2002-2003 Migration (Non-Humanitarian) Program dated 7th May 2002. The Hon Gary Hardgrave MP replied on your behalf stating "before any changes are made to the Migration Regulations, there will be considerable consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, who will be provided with opportunity to submit comments and suggestions. The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) have [sic has], for example, been briefed on this issue at variety of fora over the past few months." After being notified of the Two Year Policy, we had an opportunity to talk to Ms Laurette Chao, National President of MIA, who informed us that notwithstanding strong opposition by MIA, you decided to make the Two Year Policy a part of Migration Regulations. We hereby submit concerns of overseas students who are direct victims of the Two Year Policy. By and large, the overseas students, at least those who have talked to us and urged us to voice their opinions to you, are in a strong opposition to the Two Year Policy. We submit, with respect, that their opposition to the Two year Policy is only reasonable. Please consider what they have done so far. They had planned many years before for their study in Australia. They had to raise enough funds required for their mostly postgraduate study. They had to wait for a lengthy period to be granted a student visa. They had to study very hard to improve their English proficiency. They had to concentrate on their study in order to satisfy the required academic performance. They did all these with the assured expectation on the basis of the general skills migration scheme on foot that they will be eligible to apply for a permanent residence upon their graduation and be granted a visa as such. Most of them knew your announcement on the "possible changes" on 7th May 2002, but were of the view and also of the hidden expectation that because it was only possible changes, the Two Year Policy would not come into the effect without your giving a notice of ample time to them, or alternatively, a satisfactory transitional regime so that they would be shielded from its draconian effect, as they nearly reached their destination after an assiduous long march. As a matter of fact, they will be either graduated immediately after 1 July 2003 or shortly thereafter. They were astounded, furious and bewildered when they were notified of the Two Year Policy in early April when they were already in the position not to be able to change anything including their study plans. They are still very much puzzled as to why they had to be affected by the new policy. They know that they are not constituents in Australia. Hence their objection, however forceful, persuasive and coherent, might not be paid enough attentions it deserves. They found us, Lin Tang & Co. Lawyers, a small law firm in Sydney, to have their voice heard, hopefully by you in person. We are, on the other hand, quite delighted and willing to take this pro bono work on their behalf as we also regard that the Two Year Policy is unjustifiable to the extent to be discussed below. The objections to the Two Year Policy are threefold: Transitional Regime needs to be really transitional, the requirement of relevance of the two year studies to the nominated occupation is flawed, and the so-called "two year full-time studies" must be clarified before students undertake further studies. Transitional Regime Needs to Be Reconsidered and Redefined Pursuant to the announcement made on DIMIA website on 31 March 2003, the only transitional regime available is that those applicants who lodged their 497 visa prior to 1 July 2003 will not be affected by the Two Year Policy. This transitional regime virtually means there is no transitional regime. That is because in order to apply for a general skills migration visa including a 497 visa, an applicant has to complete an award. The 497 visa only enables an applicant who has not undertaken skilled occupation assessment to have time to complete this essential requirement. However, the dominant majority of students, if not all of them, will only be able to complete their studies for an award after 1 July 2003. Consequently, they are by no means beneficiaries of the proposed transitional regime as they will not be able to complete their studies before 1st July 2003 and therefore will not be eligible to apply for the 497 visa. A number of universities have ruled out any possibility to accelerate the marking process so that the letter of completion can be issued to a student prior to 1 July 2003. As a result, very few, if any, students are in the position to enjoy the transitional regime having so far designed. One may wonder whether there is any role for the current transitional regime to play if there are only few applicants can enjoy it. The proposed transitional regime should be reconsidered and indeed redefined to the extent to render it a real transitional regime. Here are three proposals, each being an alternate for another, for you to kindly consider: 1. The Two Year Policy will start on 1st March 2004; 2. Alternatively, the Two Year Policy will commence on 1 August 2003; or 3. Alternatively, the Two Year Policy will NOT be applicable to those students who are already enrolled in a course leading to an award. We submit that one of the above three proposals or something similar is more justifiable to be the new transitional regime for the reasons articulated above. In particular, those who are currently enrolled only had three month notice in relation to the new policy. By the time they knew it, they had no way to change their plan or adapt themselves to the new policy in time. Despite our understanding of the enactment of a regulation that you are not bound by natural justice or procedural fairness but only bound by the Migration Act 1958, we petition you to implement a more reasonable transitional regime as the amendments to the Migration Regulations are yet to be proclaimed. Even if they had been so, you still have power to change it. In this regard, we also petition you to take into our proposal to be submitted below. The Issue of Relevance Should Be Removed from the Forthcoming Regime. When the Two Year Policy was first announced in your Media Release in Attachment 5 to the Minister Announces 2002-2003 Migration (Non-Humanitarian) Program dated 7th May 2002 as "possible changes" to be effective from 1 July 2003, it contained only the following brief message: "increasing the period of time students are required to attend a tertiary institution in Australia to be exempt from the work experience requirement from 12 months to 2 years; " It appeared to us that you did not then have any intention to substantially restructure the general skills migration scheme on foot. However, in the announcement made on 31st March 2003, the notion that two year full-time studies has to be related to the nominated occupation was introduced generally for the general skills migration regime for the first time whereas in the current regime, there is no such a requirement whatsoever except for Subclass 497 visa, "the applicant holds, or has completed, a degree, diploma or trade qualification (Note: NOT the 12 months studies leading to an award) that is appropriate for the nominated skilled occupation" (See The Migration Regulations Schedule 1 Item 1212A(3)(h)(iii)). In other words, in the current general skills migration regime, it is not a requirement for the 12 month full-time study in Australia to be relevant to the nominated occupation for all general skills migration visas including even subclass 497 visa. Indeed, the phrase "appropriate for the nominated skilled occupation", presumably the origin of the notion that the two year full-time studies have to be related to the nominated skilled occupation, does not appear to be a requirement for a general skilled migration visa. In other words, it is not a requirement for subclasses 134 to 139 visas. Neither is it a requirement for subclasses 880, 881 and 882 visas and subclasses 861, 862 and 863 visas. The requirement that the two year full-time study in Australia leading to one or two awards must be related to the nominated skilled occupation is completely at odds with the current general skills migration regime. It will substantially change the general skills migration regime. To illustrate, please let us first have a look of the two following hypothetical examples. Example 1: A student who completed a bachelor of accounting overseas and has the qualification assessed by CPA to be suitable for migration can apply for subclasses 497, 880 and 136 visas now if she completes one year studies in Australia leading to an award regardless of what she studied in Australia. However, after 1 July 2003, it seems even though she studies in Australia for two years leading to an award, she may still be able to apply for subclass 497 visa if subclass 497 does not change accordingly, but she will not be eligible to apply for 880 or 136 visa if what she studied in Australia is not relevant to the nominated occupation namely Accountant. Example 2: A student who completed one year full-time study in Australia and obtained Master of International Business. Within 6 months of completion of his studies, he sat for and passed NAATI level 3 translator test. He has applied for and been granted a subclass 880 visa notwithstanding he might not be eligible to apply for a 497 visa as he does not hold, or has completed an award that is appropriate for the nominated skilled occupation Translator. However, under the proposed forthcoming regime, not only he will not be eligible to apply for 497 visa, but also he will not be eligible to apply for any general skills migration visas until and unless he has completed either translation course with duration of at least two year or a course contained in two year full-time studies which is related to translation. As a result, notwithstanding that he has been assessed by a relevant and competent authority for translators namely NAATI to be suitable for migration purpose as a translator, in order to migrate to Australia under the incoming general skills migration scheme, he has to undertake at least a course which is recognised assumingly by your delegate who is presumably not trained in relation to skills of assessing translation skills, to be related to translation. With respect, we are of the opinion that the situation like this is as paradoxical as, if not more than, Catch 22. Not only should he not be assessed again by DIMIA officer as to whether what he had studied was related to translation, but also more importantly, he should not be required to undertake a translation course in the first place as he has already possessed translation skills as recognized by NAATI. The absurdity of this case is that a translator is required to undertake a translation course which makes him a translator. As far as we are able to recall, the current general skills migration regulations were introduced on 1st July 1999. The rationale that an applicant has to pass the nominated skills assessment by a competent authority as gazetted before lodging a visa application is that only the relevant assessing authority possesses knowledge and skills to perform the requested assessment in the relevant profession or occupation. It was not envisaged that your delegates should reassess the assessment made by a relevant assessing authority. Rather, DIMIA officer should stay away from any element of skills assessment and focus on whether an applicant has satisfied other legal requirements. On the other hand, an applicant is required to have minimum period of experience of working in an occupation on the skilled occupation list (note not in the nominated occupation) to satisfy one of the basic requirements for the general skills migration. Exemption was granted to those who have studied for 12 months and obtained an award in Australia, as applicants who have obtained an Australian qualification are apparently more employable than those who have not. It was against this context that the minimum 12 month full-time studies were introduced. There has never been a requirement that these 12 month full-time studies in Australia must be related to the nominated occupation. The core to the Two Year Policy is to extend these 12 month full-time studies in Australia to 24 month or two years, nothing further was contemplated. The possible rationale behind this extension of study period, we suspect, was that one year full-time studies in Australia were too short to justify granting a visa of permanent residence in Australia. A student should study in Australia a bit longer in order to be eligible to apply for a general skills migration visa. However, extension of studies from one year to two years is one thing. It is entirely a different thing to require these extended studies to be related to the nominated occupation. Imposition of this requirement is completely new to the general skills migration scheme and has substantially altered this scheme as a result. It will make the general skills migration scheme notoriously ambiguous and exceptionally hard to follow by prospective applicants as well as by immigration lawyers and migration agents. Indeed we fail to see the rationale behind the requirement that the two year full-time studies have to be related to the nominated skilled occupation to claim the work experience exemption and therefore to make a valid onshore general skills migration visa applications. The issue of relevance has always been a difficult one. In the law of evidence, the issue of relevance is often a ground for an appeal. Even well-trained judiciary may still have difficulties to adjudicate whether one thing is related to the issue on trial, there is no assurance that public servants in your Department will judge better. We assume that DIMIA will issue policy on the issue of relevance on 1st July 2003. However, regardless of how comprehensive the policy is, it will not be able to exhaust all scenarios. On the one extreme, it can be reasonable and flexible and treats most courses to be relevant to the nominated occupation, however far-fetched. If this is the case, one may wonder why the issue of relevance was introduced in the first place. On the other extreme, it may take a narrow, rigid and restrictive approach and regards that a two year course is only related to the nominated skilled occupation provided that as a result of completion of the course per se, the relevant assessing authority will give positive assessment on the nominated occupation. If this is the case, one may wonder why the work exemption concession requirement was set up in the first place. The middle ground is no easy part. This is particularly so when an applicant has finished the two year full-time studies by completing not one award but two awards. This could be a norm as a great number of Australian postgraduate awards are either one year course or one and half year course. The issue of relevance then becomes whether two awards are related to the nominated occupation. A Diploma of Accounting plus a Master of Accounting is on the one side. A Master of Arts plus a Master of Science may be on the other side. In between, we have A Diploma of Information Technology plus a Master of Law, and so forth. One may wonder what the rationale is to design the policy for these sorts of situations no matter what the real policy is. The reason is simple: the question of whether two educational awards are related to a particular occupation is simply too artificial to demand an even plausible answer. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the issue of relevance goes to the decision of whether an onshore application is valid, which is not a MRT-reviewable decision. It will therefore pose a great danger to those applicants who submitted their applications without realising that they were running a risk of not being able to lodge new applications again if their previous applications were returned after 6 months of their completion of an award, provided they have a valid application afterwards. It may open a floodgate to litigations to the Federal Court seeking declaration that an application is validly made due to different interpretation of the meaning of relevance. The inherent ambiguity in the issue of relevance also poses a great risk for students who have completed one year or one and half year of studies in Australia to choose a second course to study in anticipation of having the work experience requirement be exempt from. More importantly, as illustrated in the above two examples, the introduction of the requirement that the two year studies have to be related to the nominated occupation will render a situation where the applicant had his/her skills assessed by relevant assessing authority as suitable for migration purpose but nevertheless be required, in order to be exempt from the work experience requirement, to be enrolled into a course or courses the completion of which will confer him/her nothing but an educational qualification evidencing, as far as skills assessment is concerned, that he has skills which he has already been assessed to possess. Another concern we have is that when a DIMIA officer is conferred to have discretion on deciding whether two year studies are related to the nominated occupation, the DIMIA officer, who is not a relevant assessing authority, may become an ultimate skills de facto assessor. We oppose to the introduction of the requirement that the two year full-time studies have to be related or appropriate to the nominated skilled occupation is also grounded upon our failure to see any benefits, express, implied or apparent, to be gained from such heavily problematic imposition. To conclude, the requirement that the two year full-time studies have to be related or appropriate to the nominated skilled occupation is hardly justifiable. Its rationale is not well-thought and could not be warranted even theoretically. The introduction of this requirement will lead to a situation where a skilled person is forced to learn the same skills s/he has for the purpose of being exempt from required work experience. Its consequence will not be an intended one. Its definition could be anything but clear and easy to follow. It will pose risks to prospective applicants. It will confer too much discretion to a DIMIA officer to the extent it may become a de facto paramount skills assessor. Therefore, it departs substantially from the current general skills migration regime which has so far been well-received. Consequently, we sincerely petition you to reconsider this unnecessary requirement and remove it from the forthcoming general skills migration regime. The Concept of "Two Years Full-Time Studies" Must Be Clearly Defined Apart from the transitional regime and the requirement of relevance, overseas students are also enthusiastic to know what constitutes "Two Year Full-time Studies" so that they can direct and arrange their studies in Australia, in particular, the second award upon the completion of which they will be able to satisfy the requirement of "Two Year Full-time Studies". For the time being, policy dictates the following in relation to 12 months full-time studies: 1. Full-time studies is defined by the National Code; 2. Overseas students are only permitted to study full-time; and 3. Concession is given part-time studies which are to complete an award, whether they are for studying remaining subjects or repeating failed subjects in the final term. We assume that above policy will stay beyond 1st July 2003. Yet due to extension of study from one year to two years, the following situations are still begging for clarification: 1. A student obtained an award after 1.5 half year full-time studies. Whether are further half year full-time studies without satisfying requirements of an award sufficient to enable the student to be exempt from the required work experience? 2. It was announced that if a student studied in two educational institutions, the student had to obtain an award before transferring to the other institution. In this circumstance, whether the student is required to complete an award in the second institution? 3. The current ACS guidelines stipulate that its assessment is only valid 6 months from the date of completion of an award. If IT qualification is the first award, ACS assessment will be invalid after the second award is completed. Hence, guidelines of some assessing authorities need to be amended accordingly in order to match "the Two Year Policy". 4. When does the 6 month period, during which one is able to lodge a valid onshore application, start to run? From the date of the first award or second award or from the date of competing skills assessment? 5. Whether some bridging courses such as Graduate Certificate but excluding English courses leading to eligibility to commence, say Master degree studies will be included in "the two year full-time studies"? 6. If a student studies in one educational institution, whether the student is allowed to upgrade his/her studies by transferring some credits from the unfinished courses but nevertheless be able to count the time spent on the unfinished course into "the two years"? 7. Whether the deliberate failure of a subject for the purpose of extending the studies to two years is permitted? 8. Whether part-time studies are only permitted in the studies for the second award or they are conceded for all awards obtained during "the two year"? The above are concerns that we and the overseas students we represent have. Before the "Two Year Policy" becomes a part of amendments to the Migration Regulations, we wish you and your colleagues in DIMIA have a second thought on it by taking into considerations of demand of the affected students. Thanks for your attention. We are looking forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully, LIN TANG & CO. Lawyers I, __________________(name), agree and support the above submission. Dated: ______________________ Signature: ___________________ The issue is whether reason is on our side. Nice to know you. I am an Australian solicitor and RMA (9474255). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted January 18, 2010 Share Posted January 18, 2010 Hi Lin Tang Please publish the reply that you received from Mr Ruddock. It is no use providing the forum members with only one side of the story, after all. Did Mr Ruddock agree to amend his political intentions to suit your firm? Or did he ignore your firm? What makes you believe that Senator Chris Evans in 2010 will do whatever Mr Ruddock is supposed to have done at the behest of your firm back in 2003? Do, please, be sure to publish the reply which Mr Speldewinde will send you on behalf of the current Minister for Immi in 2010, won't you? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.