Guest Gollywobbler Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Hi Gill Do you think that its possible chopping us off at the knees or is it more likely to be a furthe r 2 yrs plus as we lodged in Nov 2009 ? Ta Shane Hi Shane It is far too soon to say what the Minister might do - if his Government gets re-elected and, if it does, whether Krudd decides to keep Evans as the Minister for Immi. It must be obvious, even to Krudd, that Evans has become a singularly unpopular Minister for Immi and that he is causing dreadful harm to Australia's "image" on the world stage. At the moment, Evans has not said anything about axeing existing applications but he did not say a word to a soul before announcing his plans to ditch all of the pre-September 2007 applications - and the applicants for them - either. His refusal to consult anybody beforehand is the main thing that makes him so profoundly unpopular. (That and his failure to deter the continued stream of irregular boat arrivals - that aspect of his policies is the one which is upsetting the Aussie Voters because the whole detention thing is astronomically expensive to run.) For the rest, I think one just has to wait and see what happens. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Well Gill ......................all I can say is that people like myself who paid in good faith for an agent and got totally ripped off in the process should have access to the same information. Afterall I have done to date a better job than our previous agent, and probably better than most that are registered!! MIA MARA what the hell...... it is my life, my application and the information should not be a secret or used as 'we have something you don't have'! I think I have spent enough time and money peeing about in this process and I think that when it comes to major changes and information which affects my families life and mine, I have the right to know that information and should not have to pay one penny for it. They have ALL had enough out of me! What happened to the freedom of information when it is in the pubic domain? Agent or not! In the beginning I paid in good faith, and in return got sweet FA! I am sure that if a MIA agents were in my shoes, and those of many other applicants, they would be reacting in the same way! I think we have all been messed about for too long. This all gives me very little comfort as I feel as if I am begging to get out of here and be let into the pearly gates of Australia, and the 'ones with the knowledge' are dangeling that carrot, yet again, and toying whether to play the game or not.........nahhhh....lets change the rules..........................hehe.. P.S. I am not being funny about anyone.......before anyone starts.............but having my well deserved say!!! Hi Rach A further e-mail this evening from my own contact reveals that he deplores all the secrecy and skulduggery just as much as you, I and many others all deplore it. He is an MIA member and he got the draft SMP from another MIA member, he has confirmed. Piecing it togather, the draft document was not leaked by DIAC or by the people who work at the State Migration Centre in WA. I think I have pretty well been told who the source of the leak is but I am keeping schtum about that. In fairness to George Lombard, he probably didn't realise that members of his own little club have their claws on a document (that he would probably love to see for himself) when the thing has not fallen in to the MIA's clutches because of anyone who would ordinarily pass it either to George or to Alan Collett. That said, I re-iterate my original point. The document is definitely in the public domain because at least 2 MIA members are in possession of it. DIAC insist that they themselves will not favour the MIA over the man in the street and DIAC themselves stick to their promise about this. However DIAC cannot prevent MIA members from trying to steal a march for themselves, evidently. If the MIA played the white man, they would do exactly as Alan Collett opined earlier - they would take zero interest in these SMPs until DIAC and/or the relevant State Governments see fit to release them. However that is not how other members of Alan's club choose to operate, equally evidently. If that upsets the negotiations between WA and DIAC then it upsets them. There is nothing I can do about that because I won't lie in order to protect either of them and this draft document is not the product of a highly secret type of rocket science, the revealing of which might upset National Security, in any case. There is little to be said for the abilities of negotiators who are unable to negotiate their way out of this one. Complaining to the MIA is a waste of time. Their CEO gets paid a fortune to ignore all members of the hoi-polloi and their interests, despite the fact that if no hoi-polloi were willing to instruct her members, she herself would be out of a job. Her performance over the Clare Molnar affair was quite dismal and in my opinion it remains equally dismal today. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of anything I have been told via the e-mails. I have every reason to suspect that the Manager of the WA SMC was lying to George Lombard when the former denied every word in my post on Saturday, though. A good negotiator knows when the market has beaten him/her and does not try to lie his/her way out of trouble. I expect that DIAC will be livid to learn that a document which they stipulated must be kept confidential is not at all confidential because it is in the clutches of at least two MIA members. Therefore far from being confidential, the thing is actually in the public domain. However DIAC have enough of a sense of balance and justice to understand that it is not the fault of any ordinary member of the public that this has happened. IfI were DIAC, I would jump on the Minister for Immigration. He can demand secrecy from his own Department but he cannot demand it from the whole of the rest of Australia and his own plans rely on being kept secret. Tough old boots, Minister - your own ideas do not work. Exactly the same leak that has happened in WA will undoubtedly also happen in all of the other States/Territories as well, I expect. It is inevitable because the Minister is demanding that the States must all "Prove their needs." The only way that any State Government can do this is by consulting third parties. The more people who get involved, the more inevitable it becomes that there will be a few leaks in the plumbing, frankly. However this Bright Idea was invented by Evans the Taffy so he will just have to learn to live with wet shoes, it seems to me. Rach _ I'm not sure about the Freedom of Information Act. I've never read the relevant Aussie statute for WA (or it might be Commonwealth Law that affects the whole of Australia - dunno.) Howver a lot of International Students read Poms in Oz and they are the people who are the most beleagured and belittled by Minister Evans' antics. I think it will take them 5 minutes to find out about the relevant Law. If so, they will then get this draft and they will publish it, I reckon. I reckon that the moral of the story is to trust the International Students for the time being. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Gill in fact if you go to page 13 at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/estimates/budget1011/2010-11_budget_daily.pdf you can see what "Outcomes" the committee will be investigating, what the times are, and even the contact numbers for the committee and hearing room, although I'm not aware of anyone ever having phoned in questions lol. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandi Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Hi everyone, I am new (as for posting) here, and I am not really sure this is the right place to ask this, please accept my apologies if it is not. I am just another frustrated soul out there hit right on the head by the DIAC's haphazard policies. I received a state sponsorship from Victoria on 30th April (4 months after I lodged it; two months over the due date), was unaware of the "temporary closure" starting on May 8th, and was literally completeing my eVisa application online just before midnight ACT time on the 7th when I was forcibly logged out of the system "due to server error". It was only just after midnight that I realized what has happened! To make matters worse, my nominated occupation (Mathematician) has been removed from the new SOL. In fact, I smelled a rat before and inquired the Victorian state migration centre a week before I was given the sponsorship, about this exact scenario. I was told "You don't have to worry about [your occupation being removed from the new SOL] if you receive a sponsorship from us", which is totally different from what DIAC has to say about it now. (I didn't realize at the time the state migration bodies didn't have a say in anything the DIAC does, and took what I was told for granted) I am sure there are many others like me who were granted State sponsorships that are still valid and some of which issued just before 7th May. A part of these would be for occupations that are not in the new SOL. Does anyone have any idea what is going to happen to them? If individual states can issue sponsorships for occupations not in the SOL after "mid 2010", would they reissue for cases like mine under the new program, or would they pursue DIAC to accept previous sponsorships? After all, half the work they've done in the past 6 months would go in vain if they just throw away all unused sponsorships! Any info/comments would be highly appreciated. Chandi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzieland Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Hi everyone,I am new (as for posting) here, and I am not really sure this is the right place to ask this, please accept my apologies if it is not. I am just another frustrated soul out there hit right on the head by the DIAC's haphazard policies. I received a state sponsorship from Victoria on 30th April (4 months after I lodged it; two months over the due date), was unaware of the "temporary closure" starting on May 8th, and was literally completeing my eVisa application online just before midnight ACT time on the 7th when I was forcibly logged out of the system "due to server error". It was only just after midnight that I realized what has happened! To make matters worse, my nominated occupation (Mathematician) has been removed from the new SOL. In fact, I smelled a rat before and inquired the Victorian state migration centre a week before I was given the sponsorship, about this exact scenario. I was told "You don't have to worry about [your occupation being removed from the new SOL] if you receive a sponsorship from us", which is totally different from what DIAC has to say about it now. (I didn't realize at the time the state migration bodies didn't have a say in anything the DIAC does, and took what I was told for granted) I am sure there are many others like me who were granted State sponsorships that are still valid and some of which issued just before 7th May. A part of these would be for occupations that are not in the new SOL. Does anyone have any idea what is going to happen to them? If individual states can issue sponsorships for occupations not in the SOL after "mid 2010", would they reissue for cases like mine under the new program, or would they pursue DIAC to accept previous sponsorships? After all, half the work they've done in the past 6 months would go in vain if they just throw away all unused sponsorships! Any info/comments would be highly appreciated. Chandi Hi Chandi, You will have to wait for the State's SMP which is expected to appear around the beginning of July. Even if you are not on the new SOL but are on the sponsored State's SMP it is expected that you stand a chance of being able to apply for a visa. Hang in there, I know it is stressful but you will know soon enough.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandi Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Thanks a lot, Ozzieland. I believe the SMPs would have to be approved by the minister. well, maybe I have a pretty good chance if he is not particularly prejudiced against my occupation! I certainly hope he won't. Apart from that, would there be anything I could possibly do now? (I could kill myself for being late once, don't wanna do that again..). You see, I am not at all against the changes DIAC is trying to bring about, and how they started out by asking for everyone's opinion etc. (I commented on both their papers). They had good intentions, but bad management somewhere down the line. I wonder if there are any channels open for the public to comment on transitional arrangements etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Yeah, nothing much on these changes, just agent regulation and humanitarian issues. The Minister will evade most current questions as being involved in current changes that are not set in place yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Ahh well................. I was talking in general terms about freedom of information I am obviously very out of touch with law as I did it many years ago in my degree! I have since slept and had more pressing issues, STUPID VISAS, on my mind! I only hope that once this SMP has properly been approved and released that Mr Evans will stick to the 'PLAN' and stop messing us all around. I personally will be writing a very stong letter together with a bill for the time and money spent directly to him, if he decides after another few months to scrap the SMP or move it to cat 5 like last September! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bilaln30 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Thanks a lot, Ozzieland.I believe the SMPs would have to be approved by the minister. well, maybe I have a pretty good chance if he is not particularly prejudiced against my occupation! I certainly hope he won't. Apart from that, would there be anything I could possibly do now? (I could kill myself for being late once, don't wanna do that again..). You see, I am not at all against the changes DIAC is trying to bring about, and how they started out by asking for everyone's opinion etc. (I commented on both their papers). They had good intentions, but bad management somewhere down the line. I wonder if there are any channels open for the public to comment on transitional arrangements etc... You cant do anything about it right now. So dont blame urself. Call Victorian Skill and Business center and ask them whether Mathematician is in SMP or not? This is maximum u could do. My agent told me that my Vic Skill and Business center is saying that my occupation "Engineering manager" would be in SMP. So they also might tell u that Mathematician is on SMP or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw44 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 police officers also off list,not good news for me as I want to join victoria police but need a permanent residency visa for that.Am serving british offficer now and dont see how I can get one,any ideas please???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MouseBear Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Hi adw44, Is there any way you could get a transfer 'uk police force to oz police force'??? Do they do any programmes like that? MouseBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 police officers also off list,not good news for me as I want to join victoria police but need a permanent residency visa for that.Am serving british offficer now and dont see how I can get one,any ideas please???? Hi adw44 Your own situation has not changed, hun. Your occupation is below: Commissioned Police Officer 1294-15 - Australian Skills Recognition Information You will see from the little Table that the occupation is on the ENSOL but not on the SOL. The ENSOL has not been altered. ENSOL means "Employer Nominated Skilled Occupation List" and it is wider than the old SOL. Basically, a policeman must be sponsored by an employer in Oz. If you want to be a policeman in Oz then please look at WAPOL and SAPOL. These are the two State police forces that have traditionally sponsored British policemen but I believe both of them have halted their International Recuitment drives for the moment. Stepforward South Australian Police | Careers | Overseas Applicants Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Just a reminder for anyone interested that Senate Estimates hearings are on in Canberra today and the minister may face some interesting questions about recent changes. Anyone interested can watch the proceedings live at Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting at the moment Mr Metcalfe is speaking about refugee arrivals etc but I'm sure it will become more interesting as time goes on during the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Just a reminder for anyone interested that Senate Estimates hearings are on in Canberra today and the minister may face some interesting questions about recent changes.Anyone interested can watch the proceedings live at Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting at the moment Mr Metcalfe is speaking about refugee arrivals etc but I'm sure it will become more interesting as time goes on during the day. Hi Nigel I stayed awake for half the night last night, fortified by far too much coffee, which prevented sleep. I couldn't get the live broadcast to work. I clicked on eveything but it just kept going back to the main Index page. Dunno why. I will just have to read the Hansard next week instead. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Hi Gill, I missed most of it as well due to work committments,hopefully they will start loading the hansard sometime today,I'll keep an eye on it and if I see anything of interest to our members I'll post it here. Edited to add: The hearings are on again today but at the moment they are dealing with detention centres,I don't know whether there will be anything about skilled migration today,I suspect not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chandi Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Hi, Nigel's link didn't work for me either, but this one did: Parliament of Australia: Live Broadcasting I guess I missed most of it too though.. somehow felt they had more comments regarding refugee issues.. There was some arguments/clarifications about how Skills Australia set about fixing the new SOL, and how much public participation went into it. The Dept maintained that Skills Australia did everything independent from the dept, and that the final list was accepted by the minister with no changes.. btw, they have a session today too. Hasn't that anything to do with our issue? Also, I failed to find any video archives. Does anybody no if they have any any? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest proud2beaussie Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Todays agenda is focussing on detention centre funding etc so I don't expect anything about skilled migration,I don't believe there is any video archive of estimates hearings,it's a matter of waiting for the hansard to be loaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Not sure if the Hansards of Federal Parliament will make interesting reading - having attended today's MIA seminar on skilled migration in Sydney I'm intrigued as to whether Jamie and I attended the same exposition. The message to migration agents was that there was so much uncertain that it was inappropriate to advise clients on any aspect of General Skilled Migration at the moment. I think that means that any potential skilled migrants to Australia, whether state sponsored, independent, family sponsored or planning a period as an onshore student, really do need to wait until 1 July. And it may be that the changes take place after 1 July but DIAC would look reasonably silly if they failed to meet yet another deadline, given their ferocious application of deadlines to the rest of the world. I expect that most of what we want to know about the State Migration Plans, individual assessing body strategies, transitional arrangements and capping and killing, will filter out by then, but at the moment we know too little. One chilling indication of the likely fate of applications from cooks and hairdressers is the second reading speech of the "cap and kill" legislation as presented in the House of Representatives today. this is the link: ParlInfo - Title Details and this is the speech: Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid) (Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) (10:52 AM) —I» «move»: That this bill «be» «now» «read» «a» «second» «time. The Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to give the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship greater power to effectively manage the migration program. The number of places in the skilled migration program available to applicants who are not sponsored by an employer continues to decline, as the government’s priority is to support demand driven—that is, employer sponsored—migration. At the same time, the number of pending applications continues to grow as the demand for general skilled migration visas exceeds the number of places available in the program. The general skilled migration visa program has also become dominated by applicants nominating a limited number of occupations even though there are some 400 occupations that are acceptable for general skilled migration purposes. This has made it difficult for the program to deliver the broad range of skills needed in the Australian economy and the Australian labour market. In the 2007-08 program year, of the 41,000 general skilled migration visas granted, more than 5,000 went to cooks and hairdressers. Further, there are currently 17,594 valid applications which have been made by people nominating their occupation as a cook or hairdresser which have not yet been finalised. This matter is currently being addressed through priority processing arrangements. Under these arrangements, applicants that are sponsored by an employer, nominated by a state or territory government authority, or have an occupation which is in critical demand in Australia have their application processed before other applications. However, these arrangements alone do not address the problem of large numbers of valid applications that continue to be made by applicants who are not sponsored and who are nominating occupations that are not in demand. Currently there are 147,000 primary and secondary applicants for general skilled migration visas waiting in the pipeline for a visa decision. Amendment to ‘cap and terminate’ measures To address these issues, the bill proposes to introduce a power by which the minister may cap visas and terminate visa applications on the basis of certain characteristics. Currently, the Act gives the minister the power to make a legislative instrument in a certain class or subclass to cap visas and terminate applications for that class or subclass. The proposed amendments will enable the minister to cap visa grants and terminate visa applications based on the class or classes of applicant applying for the visa. In particular, the proposed amendments will allow the minister to make a legislative instrument to determine the maximum number of visas of a specified class or classes that can be granted in a financial year to visa applicants with specified characteristics. Similar to the current power, the amendments will also allow the minister to treat outstanding applications for the capped visa as never having been made. Characteristics that may be specified include the occupation nominated by the applicant, or the time at which the applicant made their application. The characteristics will be objective, and relate to information that is provided to the department when an application for a visa is made. The characteristics that will be specified will depend on the purpose of the particular determination to cap and terminate visa applications and will be consistent with Australia’s international obligations. For example, if the determination is made for the purpose of limiting the number of applicants in the skilled migration program with the same nominated occupation, then a cap would be placed on applications which nominate that particular occupation. To terminate a visa application is different to a decision to refuse a visa application. When an application is terminated it is taken not to have been made. Applicants who are affected by a cap will have their visa application charge refunded to them. Further, a visa application which has been terminated is not subject to merits review. Application to the general skilled migration visa program The amendments proposed in this bill not only provide a power to cap general skilled migration visas and terminate general skilled migration visa applications but are broad enough to allow other classes of visas to be capped. This provides the government with a tool for the targeted management of all aspects of the migration program which will be available as the need arises. The exception to this will be protection visas. The minister cannot make a cap and terminate determination in relation to protection visas. However, the primary policy imperative of the proposed amendments is to allow the minister to end the ongoing uncertainty faced by general skilled migration applicants whose applications are unlikely to be finalised because their skills are not in demand in Australia. The proposed amendments will better address Australia’s skills shortages by limiting the number of general skilled migration visas able to be granted to applicants whose occupations are in oversupply, thereby leaving more spaces in the program available to applicants whose occupation is in demand. This will allow the Australian government to deliver a skilled migration program that is more tightly focused on high-value skills that will assist in meeting the medium- to long-term needs of the Australian economy. The government’s intention is to establish a realistic balance between providing the skills Australian employers need and ensuring the maximum opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents in a changing employment market. This amendment is just one in a package of reforms the government is currently making to the skilled migration program to ensure that it is able to target skilled migrants with the high-value, nation-building skills that Australia needs. Conclusion This bill represents an important step in achieving the government’s objectives of a flexible skilled migration program that can be adapted to the economic and business cycle and the needs of Australian business and industry. Debate (on motion by Mr Robert) adjourned. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Cheers George Thats made my day !! Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pippa1 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Just shocking! When do I start packing?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Just shocking! When do I start packing?... Hi Pippa I understand your own viewpoint completely and I would probably do exactly the same as you and get my suitcases out However a LOT of people will go straight to their solicitors asking, "When can I start suing the Minister for Immi?" I think there will be an enormous row and that the current and former Students could well win it in the end. I think it wil be a bumpy ride but my instinct would be to try to sit tight for the moment and wait to see what other people start doing. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pippa1 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Thanks Gill Yeah, i'm sitting tight! I just can't believe this whole fiasco. I wouldn't mind but i do have a full time job and have been there nearly 2 years, but can't get state sponsorship or employer sponsorship because I work for the state government! I can't tell you how fed up I am, and now the Minister is going to have the power to just cap and cease applications as he pleases. Heaven forbid! When I applied in Dec 08 applications were taking 6 months, there was no sniff of priority processing and the study to PR route was openly promoted. I really don't think I did anything wrong...(oh apart from appointing a incompetent agent in the first place and turning 35!) This situation is horrible for everyone, but being onshore is not easy at the moment Rant over x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulpatel1969 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Well Gill I have a sickening feeling because of the present political mood against immigration he could well get the legislation passed. We will see a lot of fireworks in a few months. This just is so depressing. Rahul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jane1991 Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 I have a sinking feeling that if you are not on the new SOL/ SMP you can kiss the visa a goodbye. I can see a lot of former students on BVA going back home. http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/gsm-changes-study.pdf I always saw this announcement as a signal that applications from dodgy trade students will be refused and their BVAs removed.It seems like now Chrissy boy will have more power to weed out the undesirables ( low IELTS unwanted skills etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virtual_bajwa Posted May 27, 2010 Share Posted May 27, 2010 Not sure if the Hansards of Federal Parliament will make interesting reading - having attended today's MIA seminar on skilled migration in Sydney I'm intrigued as to whether Jamie and I attended the same exposition. The message to migration agents was that there was so much uncertain that it was inappropriate to advise clients on any aspect of General Skilled Migration at the moment. I think that means that any potential skilled migrants to Australia, whether state sponsored, independent, family sponsored or planning a period as an onshore student, really do need to wait until 1 July. And it may be that the changes take place after 1 July but DIAC would look reasonably silly if they failed to meet yet another deadline, given their ferocious application of deadlines to the rest of the world. I expect that most of what we want to know about the State Migration Plans, individual assessing body strategies, transitional arrangements and capping and killing, will filter out by then, but at the moment we know too little. One chilling indication of the likely fate of applications from cooks and hairdressers is the second reading speech of the "cap and kill" legislation as presented in the House of Representatives today. this is the link: ParlInfo - Title Details and this is the speech: Mr LAURIE FERGUSON (Reid) (Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services) (10:52 AM) —I» «move»: That this bill «be» «now» «read» «a» «second» «time. The Migration Amendment (Visa Capping) Bill 2010 amends the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to give the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship greater power to effectively manage the migration program. The number of places in the skilled migration program available to applicants who are not sponsored by an employer continues to decline, as the government’s priority is to support demand driven—that is, employer sponsored—migration. At the same time, the number of pending applications continues to grow as the demand for general skilled migration visas exceeds the number of places available in the program. The general skilled migration visa program has also become dominated by applicants nominating a limited number of occupations even though there are some 400 occupations that are acceptable for general skilled migration purposes. This has made it difficult for the program to deliver the broad range of skills needed in the Australian economy and the Australian labour market. In the 2007-08 program year, of the 41,000 general skilled migration visas granted, more than 5,000 went to cooks and hairdressers. Further, there are currently 17,594 valid applications which have been made by people nominating their occupation as a cook or hairdresser which have not yet been finalised. This matter is currently being addressed through priority processing arrangements. Under these arrangements, applicants that are sponsored by an employer, nominated by a state or territory government authority, or have an occupation which is in critical demand in Australia have their application processed before other applications. However, these arrangements alone do not address the problem of large numbers of valid applications that continue to be made by applicants who are not sponsored and who are nominating occupations that are not in demand. Currently there are 147,000 primary and secondary applicants for general skilled migration visas waiting in the pipeline for a visa decision. Amendment to ‘cap and terminate’ measures To address these issues, the bill proposes to introduce a power by which the minister may cap visas and terminate visa applications on the basis of certain characteristics. Currently, the Act gives the minister the power to make a legislative instrument in a certain class or subclass to cap visas and terminate applications for that class or subclass. The proposed amendments will enable the minister to cap visa grants and terminate visa applications based on the class or classes of applicant applying for the visa. In particular, the proposed amendments will allow the minister to make a legislative instrument to determine the maximum number of visas of a specified class or classes that can be granted in a financial year to visa applicants with specified characteristics. Similar to the current power, the amendments will also allow the minister to treat outstanding applications for the capped visa as never having been made. Characteristics that may be specified include the occupation nominated by the applicant, or the time at which the applicant made their application. The characteristics will be objective, and relate to information that is provided to the department when an application for a visa is made. The characteristics that will be specified will depend on the purpose of the particular determination to cap and terminate visa applications and will be consistent with Australia’s international obligations. For example, if the determination is made for the purpose of limiting the number of applicants in the skilled migration program with the same nominated occupation, then a cap would be placed on applications which nominate that particular occupation. To terminate a visa application is different to a decision to refuse a visa application. When an application is terminated it is taken not to have been made. Applicants who are affected by a cap will have their visa application charge refunded to them. Further, a visa application which has been terminated is not subject to merits review. Application to the general skilled migration visa program The amendments proposed in this bill not only provide a power to cap general skilled migration visas and terminate general skilled migration visa applications but are broad enough to allow other classes of visas to be capped. This provides the government with a tool for the targeted management of all aspects of the migration program which will be available as the need arises. The exception to this will be protection visas. The minister cannot make a cap and terminate determination in relation to protection visas. However, the primary policy imperative of the proposed amendments is to allow the minister to end the ongoing uncertainty faced by general skilled migration applicants whose applications are unlikely to be finalised because their skills are not in demand in Australia. The proposed amendments will better address Australia’s skills shortages by limiting the number of general skilled migration visas able to be granted to applicants whose occupations are in oversupply, thereby leaving more spaces in the program available to applicants whose occupation is in demand. This will allow the Australian government to deliver a skilled migration program that is more tightly focused on high-value skills that will assist in meeting the medium- to long-term needs of the Australian economy. The government’s intention is to establish a realistic balance between providing the skills Australian employers need and ensuring the maximum opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents in a changing employment market. This amendment is just one in a package of reforms the government is currently making to the skilled migration program to ensure that it is able to target skilled migrants with the high-value, nation-building skills that Australia needs. Conclusion This bill represents an important step in achieving the government’s objectives of a flexible skilled migration program that can be adapted to the economic and business cycle and the needs of Australian business and industry. Debate (on motion by Mr Robert) adjourned. Cheers, George Lombard Thanks George for such an important information. It feels so depressing. As the day are passing there is no good news coming from minister in favour of immigrants. I have only one feeling that this is heading towards something disastrous in Australia in coming few weeks or months. June could see some thing serious for Pre - September applicants. I have one question who is this Mr Robert? He needs to step up in the parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.