Report from DIAC Seminar

[matjones]

Courtesy of George Lombard. I have started a new thread to allow discussion on this:

 

So the whole show took two hours and involved 700 registered migration agents, two DIAC officials, four experienced RMAs as a "panel" and the MIA ED, Maureen Horder.

 

Disappointingly there were no new powerpoint or PDF presentations, so although the DIAC statements were clearly carefully prepared, there's nothing at this stage which can be used as documentation.

 

That being said, the following are the important points:

 

1. There is no hope that the government will reconsider the cap and cease decision for the applications lodged prior to 1 September 2007. If there are still some such people in Australia or who have paid the second instalment of their Visa Application Charge in lieu of a secondary applicant meeting English requirements, then those people should contact the Department - either the ASPC or Canberra - immediately, since the mechanics of the cap and cease decision are about to be implemented. All affected applicants overseas ought to confirm their current address to the Department, since the fear is that a lot of offshore "agents" will be trying to intercept these fees. One of the Departmental staff made the following statement "the Minister and the Department recognise that there will be applicants who are not happy with the cap and cease provisions". For those of you who have never been to Canberra, this translates as "let them eat cake".

 

One very interesting outcome is that the Department is now saying that there were fewer than 20,000 applicants affected, and suggested, or allowed the implication, that it might only be 6,000 applications. The explanation given was that the proposal to cap and kill was first raised in September last year and the numbers had been reduced by the date of decision. My guess is, if that is true, that there must have been an orgy of last minute refusals to minimise the problem. Sadly, the Department is now suggesting informally that the cap and kill caseload are all tradespeople with credibility problems. This is disingenuous. Yes there would be bad apples but there are a lot of people whose applications were perfectly valid. Integrity issues become a bit self-fulfilling after a while, it would be nice if the Auditor-General or Ombudsman were to work through the "6,000" and give an independent summary.

 

2. The new Skilled Occupation List - the commitment is that it will be announced by 30 April, so not long now, and although the implementation date is not set, it cannot be earlier than 18 June due to DIAC operational constraints - their computers can't cope with anything earlier apparently, but I don't see any cause for complaining about that.

 

3. The new SOL - called the "narrow" SOL - might have 200 occupations as opposed to the current 400 but given that those decisions are being made outside DIAC it's impossible to speculate. The moral is that anyone who is still eligible should be trying to apply immediately, since there are no guarantees. It's quite likely that DIAC's new SOL will work on indicative numbers of grants with respect to particular occupations, ie to get away from any possible blow out in particular occupations, eg the cooks and hairdressers fiasco of 2007. English language requirements may also figure prominently in the new SOL, as they do in some of the state skills lists already.

 

4. The caravan of reform is about to reach the ENS and RSMS and there will be significant changes, including major changes with respect to integrity. Details of those changes are not yet available, the work is still underway.

 

5. Some discussion among migration agents suggests that the cap and kill provisions might be used to knock off particular occupations or combinations of occupations and English skills. The suggestion is that the oversupply of cooks and hairdressers in the backlog, as well as accountants with less that 7.0x4 on their IELTS test, may be the next group to be capped and killed.

 

6. The state migration plans will be finalised as time progresses - the first plan to be finalised may well be that of the ACT - and these will probably also specify indicative numbers of applicants to be approved.

 

The MIA will I'm sure be working on a summary paper so there will be more to come.

[Guest tabatha]

Oh Dear..Not good reading.. Where the hell do I stand...I've applied October 09 as a cook on 175 visa..recently just applied for 176 to WA.. Paid over £7000 through an agency....Help I need some positive feedback.......................

[McKlaut]

Oh Dear..Not good reading.. Where the hell do I stand...I've applied October 09 as a cook on 175 visa..recently just applied for 176 to WA.. Paid over £7000 through an agency....Help I need some positive feedback.......................

 

I'd like to have such for myself but everytime I read migration news my brains just blow out.

[Guest HoriFTC]

Someone has posted in another thread the link to Skills Australia's "National Workforce Development Strategy", which was published today.

 

http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/PDFs_RTFs/WWF_strategy.pdf

 

Check page 83 and 84, and the foot-note on page 83.

 

All the occupations or occupation groups are there which the new SOL will include.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi matjones

 

Very many thanks for starting this new thread. You have saved me the bother of doing it myself!

 

Many thanks again :notworthy:

 

Gill

[Pozz]

Someone has posted in another thread the link to Skills Australia's "National Workforce Development Strategy", which was published today.

 

http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/PDFs_RTFs/WWF_strategy.pdf

 

Check page 83 and 84, and the foot-note on page 83.

 

All the occupations or occupation groups are there which the new SOL will include.

 

 

Phew im on there.... just hope they readjust the way points are allocated now.

 

Thank you for posting this.

[Guest HoriFTC]

There are no cooks and no hairdressers on it...

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi George Lombard

 

You have said this:

 

All affected applicants overseas ought to confirm their current address to the Department, since the fear is that a lot of offshore "agents" will be trying to intercept these fees

 

The Department's fears might well have a reasonable foundation.

 

However, so might mine.....

 

Obviously it is unlikely that DIAC will send the refusal letter to an Authorised Recipient but send the money to the visa applicant. I think that they are more likely to cut out the Authorised Recipient/agent and send the refusal plus the refund cheque, together, direct to the applicant.

 

Also, some applicants do not have a third party representing them. Those people may have paid DIAC's fees via a means which would give DIAC the details of the person's bank account prior to 1st September 2007. If DIAC want to keep the money safe from the postman as well as safe from the unscrupulous third party, paying the refund direct into the applicant's known account is even safer.

 

Solicitors in E&W spend a fair amount of time howling at clients, screeching, "If you get any money from Bloggs, DO NOT accept it!!! If you accept the money, Bloggs' next move will be to argue that you have taken the shekel that he has offered, so you are estopped from any further arguments and/or any further proceedings."

 

The Minister for Immi is not making financial refunds because he is a nice guy. If he were a nice guy he would not be using the cap & kill provisions in the first place.

 

I don't trust him not to have the principles of legal estoppel in mind because he has DIAC's legal team hovering at his elbow. He does not want litigation from any of the capped and killed applicants. If he can get them to accept money, they might be estopped from any further complaint?

 

Does acceptance of a refund cause the principle of estoppel to arise in Australia? Please bear in mind that the migration legislation is silent about giving a refund in the first place, so presumably the Minister and DIAC will be relying on general Law?

 

I am worried that DIAC might be hiding a legal trap under a cloak of artless and concerned disingenuity, here.

 

I don't believe that they are using cap & kill to get rid of non-genuine visa applications. If the applications contain fraudulent documents or fraudulent claims, DIAC have the power to refuse the visas instead. I don't believe that they would use cap & kill in order to do a job that could be done by other means. Why would they offer refunds to anyone who has submitted an application that DIAC have reason to believe contains claims that are bogus in some way?

 

Many thanks :notworthy:

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

I haven't a clue about IT, and in particular I haven't a clue about how commercial computer systems work, therefore I haven't a clue about what sort of computer wizard could answer my question below, but here goes......

 

In the roadshow reported by George Lombard, DIAC said:

 

The new Skilled Occupation List - the commitment is that it will be announced by 30 April, so not long now, and although the implementation date is not set, it cannot be earlier than 18 June due to DIAC operational constraints - their computers can't cope with anything earlier apparently, but I don't see any cause for complaining about that.

 

How truthful is the claim about what the DIAC computer systems supposedly can't do before 18th June 2010? Why can't they do it before then? How come that they can apparently do it any time from 19th June onwards?

 

When I and the other members of the Famous Five went to Australia House in London on 30th November 2009 in order to meet with David Wilden of DIAC, Mr Wilden told us about DIAC's remarkable new computer system. He didn't know any IT details to pass on and I wouldn't have understood them so I wouldn't have listened anyway.

 

However the DIAC budget for the 2009/2010 Program Year - which ends on 30th June 2010 - demonstrated clearly that DIAC intended to spend $24 million AUD on improving their computer systems during 2009/2010.

 

Mr Wilden is not a computer expert. However he was extremely enthusiastic about what the DIAC computer would be able to do very soon after 30th November 2009. I got the distinct impression that this wonderful new computer system would be able to knit socks if someone tells it to knit socks.

 

I am well aware that in any commercial organisation, the guys running the commercial computer system invariably and always claim, "We can't....." Most of us accept it because we don't know anything about IT ourselves so we feel forced to accept whatever the IT guys say about what their machine can and can't do.

 

Senator Chris Evans is the current Aussie Minister for Immi. Andrew Metcalfe is the CEO of DIAC. When the two of them attended the Senate Estimates Committee hearing at the end of May 2009, the Hansard from that meeting reveals quite a lot about the Minister. He boasted to the Committee that Andrew Metcalfe and the other very senior Officers within DIAC had all chorussed, "We can't...." when the New Broom of a Minister demanded change and reform. According to the Minister, he had ignored all the objections and had told Mr Metcalfe and the rest of the DIAC team to get on with it and obey the Minister's orders. The Minister happily informed the Committee that he had ridden roughshod over the objections and had got his own way.

 

I didn't watch that debate live on TV. However even Hansard reveals that Mr Metcalfe must have squirmed. He said something that was completely anodyne, pointless, meaningless and squirmy just to show that he lurved his Minister to pieces - which all senior civil servants are supposed to say, regardless of whether or not they actually mean it - which mostly they don't. They usually see their Minister in the same way as everyone else sees him - as a dim, slimy pollie who can't be trusted an inch and who won't let his civil servants - the experts - get on and deal with things in their own way.

 

It was obvious that there clearly had been some hundinging stand up rows between Mr Metcalfe and the Minister but that they were being seen to show a united front to the Committee.

 

If the Minister told Mr Metcalfe to jump when ordered and how high to jump - as he clearly did - there is no reason why this Minister should not get hold of DIAC's Head of IT and give him a similar mauling - which I expect the Minister to win. The man is plainly a thug and prides himself on being a thug. It is his Department and his computer, in effect. He is not the type to accept "We can't..." for an answer.

 

IT Experts - if the Minister orders that this machine must be rendered capable of making the imminent changes by, say, 1st June 2010, would there be any convincing reason why the DIAC computer could not be re-programmed or whatever so that it can do what the Minister wants it to do by, say, 1st June 2010?

 

Many thanks :notworthy:

 

Gill

[Guest paulandtara]

This is not good reading for us, Tara is a hairdresser, we Have WA SS and lodged our 176 application a few weeks ago.

Does anybody know iff hairdressing isn't on the new SOL will our application still stand or be rejected as we won't be on the list if and when we get a case officer?

 

One glimmer of hope is that I am a firefighter and fire and emergency workers are on the preliminary list, can my points be added to Tara's application to keep it alive?

 

So many if's and but's I know but we're both getting worried now!

[matjones]

Hi All

IT Experts - if the Minister orders that this machine must be rendered capable of making the imminent changes by, say, 1st June 2010, would there be any convincing reason why the DIAC computer could not be re-programmed or whatever so that it can do what the Minister wants it to do by, say, 1st June 2010?

 

Maybe they are overworked as it is, and do not have the man power to make sweeping changes to a software before that date?

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Maybe they are overworked as it is, and do not have the man power to make sweeping changes to a software before that date?

 

Hi Mat

 

That is the usual excuse.

 

However the DIAC team at the meeting in London (5 or 6 of them in total) all nodded in agreement, assured us and clearly believed it 100% when they all chanted, "What the Government wants, the Government gets."

 

At the time, I was asking them how the system of switching COs around works? My point was this: say you get to 1st June 2010 and 10,000 visas have still to be granted by the ASPC by 30th June. COs at the Parents Visa Centre in Perth might well also know the details of GSM visas and how they work. Parents enjoy a very low priority ranking compared to skilled visa applicants. In this situation, would a CO from Perth have to go to Adelaide in person and stay in a hotel in Adelaide in order to help the ASPC? Or can the help be provided via the computer system, meaning that the CO can physically stay in Perth?

 

DIAC didn't answer the question I had actually asked. Instead, they fell over themselves to assure me that no matter what targets the Government tells them to meet, those targets will be met and will be met on time. They were absolutely adamant about this bit.

 

I was impressed. I've worked for the British Civil Service and mostly, it has the Government well and truly Organised. If the Civil Service say that something can't be done then sod the Government's targets. They can't be met so they won't be met and that is that. That British Government accepts that from its own Civil Service just as readily as it accepts similar orders from Brussels.

 

Therefore I did have the definite impression that the Aussies are different. Their Government gets everything that it wants, it would seem.

 

Hence I want to know what the IT Glitch is said to be and whether it can be overcome quickly if the Minister orders that it should happen?

 

Cheers

 

Gil

[matjones]

Hence I want to know what the IT Glitch is said to be and whether it can be overcome quickly if the Minister orders that it should happen?

 

 

Not having the time or resources is not just an excuse, it is a reality of many workplaces nowadays. As a programmer, and small business owner myself, we often have resource limitations, and have to schedule projects out.

 

Having said that, I see that your point is that DIAC indicated there was a technical reason why the system couldn't be upgraded. This to me, makes no sense too, unless the system was so poorly written it would need a complete overhaul to achieve. We often tell our clients that anything can be done. It just either gonna a) take time, or b) cost an awful lot of money, or c) both a & b