General Discussion on George Lombard's report 31st May 2010

[virtual_bajwa]

Capping on the bases of Nationality....

Yet there appears to be nothing in the bill that would prevent visas being capped and terminated on the basis of nationality – nothing to prevent the Australian government deciding to limit the number of visas granted in any one year to nationals of India or China, for example.[/Quote]

Well, I have a question here if they are capping on the bases of nationality then, I thing India and China would be on the priority of the list.

 

Easy to Cap Offshore applicants...

Mr Webster predicts that Senator Evans is more likely to exercise his new visa-capping powers to cull the number of overseas applications stuck in the migration processing queue. He will be able to do this by identifying and capping certain groups of “off-shore” applicants with specific skills. Once the annual cap is reached all other applications in the pipeline can be terminated. There will be understandable howls of protest from the migrants potentially affected – and perhaps even some diplomatic fallout from foreign governments – but it is easier to take harsh measures against people

who are resident in another country than to target those who are resident in your own.[/Quote]

 

Guys, all odds are against us. Please somebody give me assurance what is going on? After three years of waiting they will terminate our application. See offshore applications are more prone to capping and killing rather than onshore applications. Well I have a question Is there any International law in which we can submit our protest?

[Ozzieland]

Well, I have a question here if they are capping on the bases of nationality then, I thing India and China would be on the priority of the list.

 

 

 

Guys, all odds are against us. Please somebody give me assurance what is going on? After three years of waiting they will terminate our application. See offshore applications are more prone to capping and killing rather than onshore applications. Well I have a question Is there any International law in which we can submit our protest?

 

VB... Australia cannot just target a nation without any rhyme or reason. They will put in a clause like IELTS so that many from these nations will be eliminated. The whole world is watching and it is not as easy as it looks. Australia can do without the world calling them a racists country and that too the Government themselves creating a racist act ! Mr. Peter Varghese (Australian Ambassador to India) is exhausted justifying to the media that Australia is not a Racist country !!

.

[dasalcedo]

How can the government expects to attract health professionals to work here in Australia? It is a must to validate the skills before applying to a job, so the government expects that people spend lot of money coming here to do the written and practical tests and come back to their countries to look for an sponsor?

 

They must be crazy don't they?

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Minister Evans being interviewed along with a good migration agent and a UK hairdresser(!), starting at 6pm or 6.14 Australia time

 

ABC Radio National

The National Interest

 

Guests

 

Julie Beaumont

Hairdresser who trained in Australia as an international student

Senator Chris Evans

Immigration Minister

Mark Webster

Registered Migration Agent and the President of the Migration Institute of Australia for NSW and the ACT

[Guest Bob2008]

How can the government expects to attract health professionals to work here in Australia? It is a must to validate the skills before applying to a job, so the government expects that people spend lot of money coming here to do the written and practical tests and come back to their countries to look for an sponsor?

 

They must be crazy don't they?

Well, that might look that way

On the other hand, they don't want to bargain about their health.

I've read reports that they themself realize that their pathway for health professionals approval is a bit complicated, and they have very few that get to a final stage of registration and employment. I don't know what they gonna do about that :goofy:

[Guest Anya]

I just saw this post on the 'Agents Only' thread and have a question...

 

As requested, some of my notes from the DIAC briefings of last week;

 

Points test changes to come in a few weeks.

 

No new points test for several months yet.

 

Was a little confused with the two points mentioned above as they appear to be contradictory. Will the changes to the points test be implemented within a few weeks?

 

Many thanks :-)

[Guest Jamie Smith]

I just saw this post on the 'Agents Only' thread and have a question...

 

 

 

Was a little confused with the two points mentioned above as they appear to be contradictory. Will the changes to the points test be implemented within a few weeks?

 

Many thanks :-)

 

That refers to the release of the new SOL with any points changes to occupations in place for July1, and then the newly revised points testing system, if there are changes to be made, introduced early next calendar year.

 

The lengthy time taken to review the points system and frequent mention of demand drivem migration make me think they are trying to develop a modelling system where those with the highest score come in first.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

That refers to the release of the new SOL with any points changes to occupations in place for July1, and then the newly revised points testing system, if there are changes to be made, introduced early next calendar year.

 

The lengthy time taken to review the points system and frequent mention of demand drivem migration make me think they are trying to develop a modelling system where those with the highest score come in first.

 

Hi Jamie

 

I don't understand this.

 

Let us say that the Minister decides to grant 1,000 GSM visas to Bricklayers during 2010-2011.

 

Will he wait till, say, April 2011 and then weed out the 1,000 Bricklayers with the highest points scores for further processing and send all the other Bricklayer applicants packing?

 

If this is exactly what he intends, is he also saying that he does not want any of the wannabe Bricklayers to waste any money on anything except DIAC's own fees until they have discovered whether they are in the Chosen 1,000?

 

I can't see that such an idea would do anything except (a) deter most Bricklayers from considering Australia at all; and (b) delay the arrival of the Bricklayers who choose to get involved with a pure lottery?

 

Puzzled

 

Gill

[Guest umairghias]

Hi ,

 

I was wondering how long does it normally take to get a case officer assigned .

Holding a 485 at the moment

computing professional 2231-79 (nec)

logged = 6th May 2010

Ielts bands in all

 

Any idea how long does it take to get assigned a co?

[Guest umairghias]

Sorry forgot 7 bands in all

Hi ,

 

I was wondering how long does it normally take to get a case officer assigned .

Holding a 485 at the moment

computing professional 2231-79 (nec)

logged = 6th May 2010

Ielts 7 bands in all

 

Any idea how long does it take to get assigned a co?

[User Name]

Hi ,

 

I was wondering how long does it normally take to get a case officer assigned .

Holding a 485 at the moment

computing professional 2231-79 (nec)

logged = 6th May 2010

Ielts bands in all

 

Any idea how long does it take to get assigned a co?

 

They are only processing CSL ones, non CSL wont get processed until 2012.

 

If your ASCO code is 2231-79 (ICT Recent Graduate) then you are not in CSL. Only 2231-79 Computing Professional (specialisation like Java, C# etc.) gets priority processing.

[Guest umairghias]

same story was told about 2010 but when i applied my 485 ,i got it in 6 months

[Guest Jane1991]

They are only processing CSL ones, non CSL wont get processed until 2012.

 

If your ASCO code is 2231-79 (ICT Recent Graduate) then you are not in CSL. Only 2231-79 Computing Professional (specialisation like Java, C# etc.) gets priority processing.

 

Such a policy will encourage exodus of students to pursue Accounting ... only one more cooking fiasco in making ...

 

 

 

I noticed that criteria for 175 "Location" has been modified to accommodate this situation. At least one good thing the DIAC had the sense to do

[User Name]

same story was told about 2010 but when i applied my 485 ,i got it in 6 months

 

I didnt hear of any delays about 485. Problem with PR is that there is a massive queue with massive number of onshore + offshore compared to 485 which is just handful ones.

 

Thats not to mention many students go straight for PR without TR if they get their docs in order in time.

 

Lot of my friends are getting 485 in coming June some being asked to do medicals, their wait so far has been 7 months approx.

 

With PR its different story. Check this out: New GSM Priority Processing Arrangements

[Guest 885]

Hi Jamie

 

I don't understand this.

 

Let us say that the Minister decides to grant 1,000 GSM visas to Bricklayers during 2010-2011.

 

Will he wait till, say, April 2011 and then weed out the 1,000 Bricklayers with the highest points scores for further processing and send all the other Bricklayer applicants packing?

 

If this is exactly what he intends, is he also saying that he does not want any of the wannabe Bricklayers to waste any money on anything except DIAC's own fees until they have discovered whether they are in the Chosen 1,000?

 

I can't see that such an idea would do anything except (a) deter most Bricklayers from considering Australia at all; and (b) delay the arrival of the Bricklayers who choose to get involved with a pure lottery?

 

Puzzled

 

Gill

 

i think this issue was discussed in one of threads. picking those who score the highest is New Zealand's migration model which only attracts those who are willing to take a punt but not those who want certainty to plan their life ahead.

[Guest 885]

Good point, every employer I've ever approached sees sponsoring as too much hassle, even though I can do the job, and have Australian experience!

 

On another point, I don't suppose there was any indication whether state sponsored applicants would have to reapply to be on a SMP, or if people with sponsorship would get automatically transferred if their occupation is on the list?

 

some employers don't even brother to hire someone from another state, let alone people from oversea. because it is too much hassle to arrange an interview.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Hi Jamie

 

I don't understand this.

 

Let us say that the Minister decides to grant 1,000 GSM visas to Bricklayers during 2010-2011.

 

Will he wait till, say, April 2011 and then weed out the 1,000 Bricklayers with the highest points scores for further processing and send all the other Bricklayer applicants packing?

 

If this is exactly what he intends, is he also saying that he does not want any of the wannabe Bricklayers to waste any money on anything except DIAC's own fees until they have discovered whether they are in the Chosen 1,000?

 

I can't see that such an idea would do anything except (a) deter most Bricklayers from considering Australia at all; and (b) delay the arrival of the Bricklayers who choose to get involved with a pure lottery?

 

Puzzled

 

Gill

 

Hi Gill

 

Anything is possible. DIAC are currently researching demand driven systems from many countries, and who knows what the policy wonks might create by adding parts of overseas systems (with differing legal obligations and requirements) to "the Australian way".

 

With a state sponsorship system where the states have to show their demand forecast, there is no need for DIAc to use a demand system, as demand/supply is largely being managed at state level. :huh:

[Guest bindog1uk]

Does anyone know if your job is on the SMP and you already have State Sponsership for that state, will you then have to re-apply for State Sponsership again, Cheers Lesley:biggrin:

[Guest Susan Wareham McGrath]

Does anyone know if your job is on the SMP and you already have State Sponsership for that state, will you then have to re-apply for State Sponsership again, Cheers Lesley:biggrin:

Hi Lesley

 

It depends on whether DIAC does yet another policy backflip, or sticks to the information it provided in February.

 

If it sticks to Feb's advice, SMPs and current State Sponsored applications will both continue to be processed, but with different priorities (2 and 5 respectively).

 

Feb's advice was rather bizarre, because it listed SMPs as Priority 2, although none had been prepared at the time.

 

And in an even stranger decision, it inferred that DIAC intended to hold back currently sponsored applicants, who had already waited a long time to have their cases progressed, in favour of people with the same occupations who would be able to claim a position on an SMP.

 

In an ideal world, DIAC will have realised that it's made yet another unstrategic decision, and will devise a way to transfer existing State Sponsored applicants directly onto the SMPs, where their occupations allow, or to the 100 off-list places each state will be allocated, where their occupatoins are not on the SMP lists, but until it makes an official announcement, unfortunately, no-one can give you authoritative advice on your question.

 

Best wishes

Susan

[Guest theweirs]

Hi Lesley

 

It depends on whether DIAC does yet another policy backflip, or sticks to the information it provided in February.

 

If it sticks to Feb's advice, SMPs and current State Sponsored applications will both continue to be processed, but with different priorities (2 and 5 respectively).

 

Feb's advice was rather bizarre, because it listed SMPs as Priority 2, although none had been prepared at the time.

 

And in an even stranger decision, it inferred that DIAC intended to hold back currently sponsored applicants, who had already waited a long time to have their cases progressed, in favour of people with the same occupations who would be able to claim a position on an SMP.

 

In an ideal world, DIAC will have realised that it's made yet another unstrategic decision, and will devise a way to transfer existing State Sponsored applicants directly onto the SMPs, where their occupations allow, or to the 100 off-list places each state will be allocated, where their occupatoins are not on the SMP lists, but until it makes an official announcement, unfortunately, no-one can give you authoritative advice on your question.

 

Best wishes

Susan

Hi Susan

 

I asked WA this question and they just told me to contact DIAC.

 

I thought cat 5 would no longer exist after the 1 July, as the CSL will cease to exist after 1 July as the new SOL comes into effect, therefore previous applicants for state sponsored that are on the new SMP should go the cat 2. Wishful thinking on my part, maybe

 

Jo x

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Lesley

 

It depends on whether DIAC does yet another policy backflip, or sticks to the information it provided in February.

 

If it sticks to Feb's advice, SMPs and current State Sponsored applications will both continue to be processed, but with different priorities (2 and 5 respectively).

 

Feb's advice was rather bizarre, because it listed SMPs as Priority 2, although none had been prepared at the time.

 

And in an even stranger decision, it inferred that DIAC intended to hold back currently sponsored applicants, who had already waited a long time to have their cases progressed, in favour of people with the same occupations who would be able to claim a position on an SMP.

 

In an ideal world, DIAC will have realised that it's made yet another unstrategic decision, and will devise a way to transfer existing State Sponsored applicants directly onto the SMPs, where their occupations allow, or to the 100 off-list places each state will be allocated, where their occupatoins are not on the SMP lists, but until it makes an official announcement, unfortunately, no-one can give you authoritative advice on your question.

 

Best wishes

Susan

 

Hi Susan

 

A couple of weeks ago, I phoned David Wilden for a chat one Friday morning. He is DIAC's Regional Director for Europe, based at the Aussie High Commission in London. (A civilised chat between the very civilised David Wilden & I also saved the tiler =aged about 17 from the look of him - who was working in my kitchen from an otherwise certain death that particular morning!)

 

I mentioned the SMPs to Mr Wilden and remarked that there is still very little information about them. He said that some RMAs had asked him some very pointed questions about the occupations that are likely to be on the SMPs and that he had asked Canberra about that.

 

I explained that this was not my own concern. I wanted to know about the sponsorship arrangements for the SMPs. The ASPC's Information e-mail can be obtained by sending a blank e-mail to aspc.processing@immi.gov.au as you know. The e-mail specifically states that people who are "sponsored" for one of the SMPs will be in Category 2.

 

Therefore are people going to have to apply for a special SMP State sponsorship as well as for the State sponsorship that they already have? Are there going to be two different types of State sponsorship? How is this going to work, exactly?

 

Mr Wilden said that Canberra have now produced a formal set of "rules" which set out exactly how the whole thing will work. He reckoned that the new rules will answer my questions. Mr Wilden said that he had asked Canberra to send him a copy of these new rules and said that he would send me a copy of them when they arrive.

 

However Mr Wilden then went on holiday and only returned to his office yesterday. If Canberra have sent him the new rules, I would think that there is likely to be a fatwah on them, preventing Mr Wilden from sending copies to anybody else.

 

It does not seem to have cropped up in the recent DIAC roadshows but it might be that you can get hold of a copy of these new rules via your own contacts? They might answer the questions that Lesley, myself and many others are asking about this?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[George Lombard]

Hi Gill,

 

I think I can answer the question at least in part. None of the states are looking to increase their workload unnecessarily by reapproving people already sponsored. However in determining new lists of occupations and other circumstances I understand that they've all been aware of the option of giving priority status, under their SMP, to existing sponsored applicants.

 

For people whose occupations are no longer in demand in the state in question that may throw up interesting issues for each state to address, and I would encourage anyone who thinks they will be affected to contact the administration of the state in question.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[jools123]

Hi Gill,

 

I think I can answer the question at least in part. None of the states are looking to increase their workload unnecessarily by reapproving people already sponsored. However in determining new lists of occupations and other circumstances I understand that they've all been aware of the option of giving priority status, under their SMP, to existing sponsored applicants.

 

For people whose occupations are no longer in demand in the state in question that may throw up interesting issues for each state to address, and I would encourage anyone who thinks they will be affected to contact the administration of the state in question.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

hi george,

i believe someone has been in touch with wa about this and got no joy, obviously as a hairdresser sponserd by wa i realise there is not going to be much of a surprise on july 1st for me but i would like to know how they will deal with people who are not on the new smp but are sponserd? any ideas???

jools x

[George Lombard]

Hi Jools,

 

I'm pretty sure that WA hasn't finished its negotiations - the "WA List" that some agents were waving around here was no more than a consultation draft, I was told - and that with the new requirements that all SMP occupations must at least be on the ENSOL and must also be expressed in ANZSCO terms, there will still be many SMPs unfinalised by 1 July, particularly if their modelling has been based on ASCO and has to be done again.

 

There's also the problem that no state will want to release any information publicly until the state Minister signs off on the Memorandum of Understanding establishing its SMP and the Federal Minister does likewise. But to that extent there's plenty of scope for lobbying your target state for a fair go.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Guest VickyMel]

Mr Wilden said that Canberra have now produced a formal set of "rules" which set out exactly how the whole thing will work. He reckoned that the new rules will answer my questions. Mr Wilden said that he had asked Canberra to send him a copy of these new rules and said that he would send me a copy of them when they arrive.

 

However Mr Wilden then went on holiday and only returned to his office yesterday. If Canberra have sent him the new rules, I would think that there is likely to be a fatwah on them, preventing Mr Wilden from sending copies to anybody else.

 

Thanks Gill - I think this would make interesting reading... It is good to know they are developing some rules and that therefore it will hopefully be clearer if we qualify or not.

Otherwise it may just be one mass scramble once it is announced.

 

...I was told - and that with the new requirements that all SMP occupations must at least be on the ENSOL and must also be expressed in ANZSCO terms, there will still be many SMPs unfinalised by 1 July, particularly if their modelling has been based on ASCO and has to be done again.

 

I just took another look at the file that I downloaded a while ago on the correspondence tables between the old ASCO and new ANZSCO codes and noticed for the first time some of the codes have 6 digits and some have 4 digits.

Just wondering if there is any difference between the two categories?

 

VickyMel