2231-79 Computing Professional (ICT Recent Graduate) and the new priority

[Guest noskich]

One of my friend who applied SA recently just got the SA result, program developer on SOL. This confirms the fact that the new IT graduate can go into Schedule 3 or us, even did the same units and submit our case earlier than them, must wait in Schedule 4. The worse thing is that there is no clear estimate processing time for Schedule 4. We have wait almost 2 years, where is the end?

 

This is impossible. ACS assessments take at least 3 months while according to you your friend got it in less than a month. Yeah, right.

[Guest psharma]

To all international students who are waiting or about to apply for PR please sign your petition here....

 

FairGo4InternationalStudents.org - Fair Go for International Students in Australia

[Guest Manj]

I spoke to ASPC today, the lady said that there wil be a very very very long wait for CAT4, she said it's wise to go for the SMP's.

 

When I asked her what the transitional arrangements for ICT-NEC(recent graduates) are (pre July 2010) she said we need to talk to ACS (Australian Computer Society)

 

Now the intresting thing is when we contact ACS they tell us that they have given the code ICT-NEC(recent graduate) based on DIAC's instructions and that we should talk to them.

 

I'm keen to get this mess sorted but seems lost down the track, because both DIAC and ACS keeps passing the buck amongst themselves.

 

So who should I contact? I don't know!

 

Now most these pre July 2010 ICT-NEC(recent graduates) are employed in the ICT inducstry, but surely the SMP will not have a code for us.

 

CPA(Australia) has made the transitional arrangement by letting pre July 2010 applicants who nominated 'Accountant' to be placed in CAT3, but ACS is not willing to do same for us.

__________________________________________________ ___________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

[Guest Manj]

I had a chat with Mr Town, who is the representative for DIAC for client matters in Victoria.

 

He is more than happy to address the ICT- NEC(recent graduate) issue if we send him a letter

 

 

Boniface Town

FCG Legal Pty Ltd

18 Drummond Street

CARLTON Victoria 3053

+61 (0)3 8660 4700

www.fcglegal.com

MIA Number : 72MARA Number : 9358658

[George Lombard]

I think you'll find that Mr Town is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia rather than a DIAC representative, and therefore in much the same position as the agents posting here in terms of coming up with a solution.

 

That being said it's evident that any IT graduates eligible for reassessment under ANZSCO should do so, and the others will need to have their situations sorted out case by case. DIAC must have known what chaos would ensue when they divided the IT profession in half - current suggestions are that many current 485 applicants will need to work on presenting two years work experience a particular occupation or reinvestigating their chances under the ACS professional year.

 

Priorities for onshore students are not set so that the visas will never be granted, the last thing that DIAC wants is a cohort of onshore graduates remaining here but never able to access permanent residence.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Guest TheStig]

I think you'll find that Mr Town is a member of the Migration Institute of Australia rather than a DIAC representative, and therefore in much the same position as the agents posting here in terms of coming up with a solution.

 

That being said it's evident that any IT graduates eligible for reassessment under ANZSCO should do so, and the others will need to have their situations sorted out case by case. DIAC must have known what chaos would ensue when they divided the IT profession in half - current suggestions are that many current 485 applicants will need to work on presenting two years work experience a particular occupation or reinvestigating their chances under the ACS professional year.

 

Priorities for onshore students are not set so that the visas will never be granted, the last thing that DIAC wants is a cohort of onshore graduates remaining here but never able to access permanent residence.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Thanks George. As you mentioned there are transitional arrangements set for 485s and those who are currently on a student visa however its a huge mess for those who have already applied for the PRs as they have met the requirements prior.

 

All other skills assessment bodies have had proper ASCO codes for the onshore graduates whilst ACS decides to take the easy way out instead of anlysing the individual subjects and assigning the respective codes to just dumping all graduates into a pool call (ICT Recent Graduates). I did question on why they had given me a generic ASCO code 2 yrs ago when I received my assessment but they just replied that they have been doing so and there would be no complications to lodge a PR application with this code. Look at where this has led me now!

 

I am drafting a letter to Mr. Town as well as to the CEO of ACS, Bruce Lakin and Dr. Helen Martynyuk (Skills Assessment and Certification Manager) helen.martynyuk@acs.org.au. The main point is this matter has to get out there and be known and I don't think one should take this lying down.

 

Hell, with these apes running the Immigration process, I'll even write to The Queen if I have to..

[Guest zzzsianzzz]

I spoke to ASPC today, the lady said that there wil be a very very very long wait for CAT4, she said it's wise to go for the SMP's.

 

When I asked her what the transitional arrangements for ICT-NEC(recent graduates) are (pre July 2010) she said we need to talk to ACS (Australian Computer Society)

 

Now the intresting thing is when we contact ACS they tell us that they have given the code ICT-NEC(recent graduate) based on DIAC's instructions and that we should talk to them.

 

I'm keen to get this mess sorted but seems lost down the track, because both DIAC and ACS keeps passing the buck amongst themselves.

 

So who should I contact? I don't know!

 

Now most these pre July 2010 ICT-NEC(recent graduates) are employed in the ICT inducstry, but surely the SMP will not have a code for us.

 

CPA(Australia) has made the transitional arrangement by letting pre July 2010 applicants who nominated 'Accountant' to be placed in CAT3, but ACS is not willing to do same for us.

__________________________________________________ ___________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

 

I agree that most of us that applied should be in the ICT industry somehow or rather, either part time or full time and some might still have the problem of looking for jobs due to our visa. But at the end of all these crap, it looks like we have to bring our local work experience back to where we came from. Thats what the current situation is, and some of us have above higher degree qualifications like PhDs and Masters. I don't think it will be a problem to look for a job in other countries even if Australia rejects us at the end. Lets face it, we're highly qualified and skilled in our specialized areas. What most countries want for migration are just degree qualifications and skills, after the cap-and-cease. Those who are already in Australia workforce are already contributing to their economy and reducing their number of vacancies which resulted in the skill shortages having limited number of specializations left.

 

The most senseless and illogical thing which the immigration is doing at the moment is to classify those pre-July onshore with offshore applicants. Once offshore people have it, they have 5 years to choose when to enter Australia immediately and it doesn't solve what Australia is facing. It doesn't really solve what Australia want, o well, we can also see the competency of the immigration minister and their so called crappy decisions for a sustainable but not big Australia implemented by the government.

 

But I do acknowledge that some offshore applicants once approved do come here immediately, and there are some that will still work in their own countries that will come here just before their PR visa expires. No offence to those applying offshore applicants.

 

I've also lodged a complaint to ACS regarding the unfairness of transitional arrangements for free reassessment within certain period and not before May, esp. for those pre-July applicants. Failure to provide current, usable information for the immigration department. Just drop them a complaint if you have time as they are still our assessment body and our nominations are through them to determine our SOL.

 

To those that are still looking for jobs that are on bridging visa, don't despair. There's always someone who is willing to hire you, i took quite long to look for my current job otherwise I don't see myself having a problem working for large organizations if it isn't because of my bloody visa. I have to "thank" immigration for that.

 

"How do you know if its a gem or diamond or something precious, if they don't even look at it (the pre-July applications)?" DIAC is using sixth sense.

 

Thank you.

[Guest Manj]

Thanks George. As you mentioned there are transitional arrangements set for 485s and those who are currently on a student visa however its a huge mess for those who have already applied for the PRs as they have met the requirements prior.

 

All other skills assessment bodies have had proper ASCO codes for the onshore graduates whilst ACS decides to take the easy way out instead of anlysing the individual subjects and assigning the respective codes to just dumping all graduates into a pool call (ICT Recent Graduates). I did question on why they had given me a generic ASCO code 2 yrs ago when I received my assessment but they just replied that they have been doing so and there would be no complications to lodge a PR application with this code. Look at where this has led me now!

 

I am drafting a letter to Mr. Town as well as to the CEO of ACS, Bruce Lakin and Dr. Helen Martynyuk (Skills Assessment and Certification Manager) helen.martynyuk@acs.org.au. The main point is this matter has to get out there and be known and I don't think one should take this lying down.

 

Hell, with these apes running the Immigration process, I'll even write to The Queen if I have to..

 

 

Thanks for the email address for the ACS staffers, I will be emailing them as well....hell they have put us in this mess and surely someone needs to take the responsibility rather than passing the buck amongst each other. :mad:

 

_____________________________________________________________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

[Guest TheStig]

Thanks for the email address for the ACS staffers, I will be emailing them as well....hell they have put us in this mess and surely someone needs to take the responsibility rather than passing the buck amongst each other. :mad:

 

_____________________________________________________________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

 

Not a prob..

 

 

 

Chief Executive Officer

 

Mr Bruce Lakin

C/- ACS National Office

PO Box Q534 QVB

Sydney NSW 1230

Ph: +61 2 9299 3666

Fax: +61 29299 3997

Email: bruce.lakin@acs.org.au

 

 

President

 

Mr Anthony Wong MACS PCP

C/- ACS National Office

PO Box Q534

QVB

Sydney NSW 1230

Ph: +61 2 9299 3666

Fax: +61 2 9299 3997

Email: president@acs.org.au

 

 

Vice President Academic Boards

 

Ms Jacky Hartnett MACS

C/- ACS TAS Branch

API Centre

69 Liverpool

HOBART TAS 7000

Ph: +61 3 6324-3392

Email: j.hartnett@utas.edu.au

[George Lombard]

FWIW I think you should hold fire on ACS - they've had this ridiculous arrangement sprung on them and have been carefully trying to sort it out. I understand that a lot of IT graduates are frustrated but the correct target of your frustration ought to be Skills Australia, the architects of this new division of occupations, and in that regard the key approach ought to be ensuring that their next annual review does not attempt such an artificial division of IT occupations.

 

Skills Australia has now published a summary of its assumptions and findings with respect to every occupation included on the SOL, see Skills Australia . I would suggest that every onshore graduate who feels aggrieved by the current situation should look at that link first. Anyone wanting to work on the Skills Australia assumptions should review their website closely and then think about an appropriate methodology. In particular, they seem to have used evidence of a downturn in IT recruitment during the global financial crisis as evidence of a decrease in underlying demand. Also clear that they failed to understand the difference between IT business analysts and other "analysts" working in business. I'm sure others will pursue this.

 

FWIW the choice of 2231-79 as a code for recent graduates was probably determined by the Department rather than ACS, and at the time it was unobjectionable, particularly given that the content of IT subjects studied doesn't always feed into predictable occupational specialisations. It's the Department which has chosen to put such applicants into Schedule 4 and Category 4.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Guest ddd2010]

Thanks for the link George. I just had a look at http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/PD...rogrammers.pdf

 

 

Software and Applications Programmers nec have not been included on the SOL.

 This occupation comprises software testers, and made up 5 per cent of the unit group’s employment at the 2006 Census.

 

 

So, SkillsAustralia considered software testers to be the only occupation in this group? And since 2231-79 is mapped to this occupation, then there's clearly some conflictions between this document and the way ACS assessed 2231-79 applicants based on the old guideline.

[Guest chajath]

Thanks for the link George. I just had a look at http://www.skillsaustralia.gov.au/PD...rogrammers.pdf

 

 

 

So, SkillsAustralia considered software testers to be the only occupation in this group? And since 2231-79 is mapped to this occupation, then there's clearly some conflictions between this document and the way ACS assessed 2231-79 applicants based on the old guideline.

 

So I guess what we can observe from this report is, despite the use of all those fancy terms, how grossly inadequate their understanding of GSM programme was in general, and lack of communication between concerned bodies. Had they have a quick look at what is going on with 2231-79 they couldn't possibly have missed that 2231-79 (.net) can't mean someone doing some mouse clicking for application testing. Pure negligence on their part to assume 2231-79 means software testers.

[Guest psharma]

Hi forum moderators,

 

Can we please make this thread as sticky thread so that more and more visitors can find it easily?

 

Thanks in advance!!!!

[User Name]

So I guess what we can observe from this report is, despite the use of all those fancy terms, how grossly inadequate their understanding of GSM programme was in general, and lack of communication between concerned bodies. Had they have a quick look at what is going on with 2231-79 they couldn't possibly have missed that 2231-79 (.net) can't mean someone doing some mouse clicking for application testing. Pure negligence on their part to assume 2231-79 means software testers.

 

People who invented these categories have little or no IT knowledge. You can tell by looking at codes like "developer programmer" in new SOL. Its like having "Chef cook" or "teacher tutor".

[Guest zzzsianzzz]

I would have to say that Skills Australia is just a "statistical based" rubbish which just looks at some graphs and numbers and tell you that Internet vacancies rate decrease and employment increase, so we don't need this skill anymore and all these has been declining as we have more employments that are filled with people. Its main purpose is to aid the immigration department determine what skills Australia requires, but is it doing what it is supposed to be doing? Like some of them said, what determines this graph? some seek.com + all other career website statistics? they're just doing quantitative analysis without actually understanding what these skills are. Some of it can be seen by "developer programmer","analyst programmer", etc. analyst programmer is one who is able to analyse which developer programmer can't? Regardless of what programming, you need to think (or analyse what is required) before developing the code. Gosh! Its senseless how they define their specialization as they know nothing or little about what we doing?They chose to do it based on a graph? whats the factors? no dependencies? one graph fits all? i've also noticed that the summary they provide is only for one specialization which is utterly rubbish, which is software tester and applications programmer, 3-4 pages for 3 ANZSCO codes ( or 1 code to be exact) and thats it. They are not professionals in our field, but ACS is an IT professional board. ACS is partially responsible for causing this chaos as well if they didnt follow the immigration blindly and categorizing their specialization to what they require instead of our specialization. They are being assigned as a professional accreditation board. Its like the blind following the blind and hopefully getting something at the end of it or end up somewhere. The least they could do is offer us reassessments. Its not entirely their fault, but its still partially their fault. They should have like how many people are PRs, locals, other visas for IT profession that are in the employment field. Then again, usually those on bridging visa cant qualify the basic requirement into large organizations, and these organizations might be lacking these type of staff and lacking immigration knowledge. Almost all employers lack that kind of knowledge. Whats the immigration doing not educating while asking people to try to find for work?! Then the large orgs start outsourcing as they cant find the skills they need here. its cheaper and easier to get those skills abroad. its so obvious and the government starts questioning why these type of skills are still required. Why does large orgs want to pay for all those immigration fees and all those paperwork with immigration when they can get it from other countries and issue them a working visa. Its a few grand to pay for a PR visa without refund. Once u pay for it, its most likely to be eaten by them unless theres too many of us waiting in the pipeline. Like 1 member mentioned, CPA is willing to reassess their applicants, why can't ACS? ACS just sucks your money legally like immigration is doing right now. Even local brands like Bonds went outsourcing abroad to remain competitive.

 

Skills Australia - follow statistics to determine what Australia requires and advises immigration department, theyre newly established for gods sake. wheres the credibility on basis of some numbers and graphs?

ACS - follows what immigration department gives them and throws most of us in a fish tank of NEC/ICT grad and we have to apply as what is given by ACS for norminated SOL.

Immigration Department - follows the Minister's direction, sucks the money out of you and doesn't allow a refund unless they have too many of us and the worst thing is u cant change your nominated occupation but they didnt say that you cant change your specialization.

Immigration Minister - follows the PM and Cabinet and allowing free express rides for refugees while chucking those professionals they need aside. Some of the worst people might be within the refugees and allowed into the country as they cant go back to their own country due to reasons like serious crime, etc. they don't need background and criminal checks as they cant go back to where they're from.

 

How many of us have filled in different IT roles given the uncertainties of the bridging visa and employer's willingness to hire us?

 

Waiting for more than 1 year is torturing, its inhumane torturing applicants' minds waiting indefinitely and restricted overseas travel with this crappy program. Just imagine someone telling you, you cant stay in Australia anymore, your PR application has been refunded and you're working as normal. That's no difference from being sacked on the spot when u actually didn't do anything wrong but they inform you, you're not required here as we're "full". Even redundancy package has a couple of months salary advancement. What does immigration give u? a free kick out of australia with what you've paid but they didnt do anything on your application or get back in waiting queue and pay me that amount the dept refunded you and WAIT AGAIN. Illogical and senseless?!

 

i will fire at those that are partially responsible, at least someone who has some intelligence might raise this issue. We're talking about futures and the number of lives and impact. Its not like we can restart what we're doing unless we can go back in time. Given a choice, some of us wouldn't have even applied to get ourselves into indefinite waiting state, there are other countries out there like Canada, United States, etc. Theres no Silicon Valley in Australia! Australia might be losing some of the talents with all the mess the current government has created.

[Guest LizaMel]

So I guess what we can observe from this report is, despite the use of all those fancy terms, how grossly inadequate their understanding of GSM programme was in general, and lack of communication between concerned bodies. Had they have a quick look at what is going on with 2231-79 they couldn't possibly have missed that 2231-79 (.net) can't mean someone doing some mouse clicking for application testing. Pure negligence on their part to assume 2231-79 means software testers.

 

Can help but agree with you. How can 2231-71 Specialising in Unix be considered as Tester? Don't they know that a person can be a Unix Administrator? Far from just being a Tester...:mad:

[Guest TheStig]

People who invented these categories have little or no IT knowledge. You can tell by looking at codes like "developer programmer" in new SOL. Its like having "Chef cook" or "teacher tutor".

 

I was trying to get me head around that one as well.. LOL

 

Seems to me its not just those apes at DIAC and ACS who do not know what they are doing but also those at Skills Aust!

[User Name]

I doubt ACS brought up these issues with DIAC. If I were a skill assessment officer, I would have great trouble trying fit people in these bizarre classifications. Given its over a month since the new SOL came out, ACS just played along.

[Guest chajath]

I have been emailing Skills Australia. They said they have redirected the query to DIAC, and DIAC is working on a response. I have telephoned SkillAustralia myself today and they said they take the matter seriously.

 

Well, we just have to wait, I guess. Here is the email that I sent to them:

 

I am writing to you to draw your attention to the current situation of the Permanent Residency GSM (885) applicants with the nominated skill group of 2231-79 (Computing Professionals NEC - ICT Recent Grads), who applied before 1 Jul 2010.

Prior to the new priority arrangement, 2231-79 with specialisation was on MODL/CSL. In order to obtain such skill assessment, we had to have 12-month full-time experience in a nominated specialisation. A lot of us applicants were working towards such requirement. The reality of labour market is that if we don’t have Permanent Residency (PR), employers show a lot of reluctance in employing such people. We the applicants with a job/job offer are the ones who were managed to find a job despite the fact that we don’t have PR yet. Although it was tough to find a job, at least it was a fair arrangement, letting the market select legitimate 2231-79 applicants.

The new arrangement is that 2231-79 applicants are categorically excluded from any priority, which will practically mean that the applications are not being looked at for an indefinite period of time.

What the new arrangement has done is that it has severed this nexus between employability and priority. According to what Australia Computing Society (ACS), a relevant skill assessing body, has published, it seems that the new fresh graduates from ICT courses will be able to be assessed under a different category, which will give them priority. This will effectively undo the change the government was pushing through with MODL/CSL arrangement.

A greater problem, which concerns me the most personally, is that the new arrangement discriminates the old applicants from the new applicants on a simple ground that we submitted application in a wrong time. Fresh graduates with the exact same education credentials will be assessed into a different category and will get a priority. While I understand that it is inevitable for the priority arrangement to have a retrospective effect, could I respectfully point out that this goes well beyond the injustice of retrospective change. The end result of the new arrangement is absurd, giving fresh graduates priority over us who were able to get a job in such a difficult situation and being largely integrated into Australian society and lifestyle.

We were relying on this government’s advice to find a job, have a 12-month experience ready and get reassessed with the experience. When people were relying on the government’s advice, wouldn’t it be fair to argue that the government should turn its mind to the injustice being done to the people they were giving advice to, and come up with a transitional arrangement for those people?

 

Yours Sincerely,

In-Ho Yi

 

 

The response I got:

 

Dear Mr Yi

I have referred your enquiry to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and they are currently preparing a response for you.

Kind regards

 

 

So I emailed them back

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

While I can appreciate that DIAC is a concerned body, this specific

inquiry is directed to how the new SOL is formulated given how ASCO

code 2231-79 has been used by immigration system for a decade. My

understanding is that SkillsAustralia is the body who created the new

SOL. So may I point out that the inquiry should be answered by

SkillsAustralia, along with the discussion of how we should rectify

this absurd outcome.

 

Thanks and looking forward to hearing back from you.

 

Sincerely,

In-Ho Yi

 

 

And their response was:

 

Dear Mr Yi

Thank you for your email. As I indicated to you last Thursday 29 July your enquiry has been sent to DIAC for a response. I followed up with DIAC today and they assure me a response will be sent to you in due course.

Sincerely

 

 

At this point I lost my patience and actually called them up. (They gave the contact detail of an officer). They said they have consulted opinions of DIAC and officers working there and decided that it will be best answered by DIAC, and they take this matter seriously. I guess I just have to be patient to get the response from them. At least it won't be a copied-and-pasted bull****tery a lot of people in this forum is getting.

 

Will post an update on this thread once I have the response.

[Guest zzzsianzzz]

its just a finger-pointing game to them as they are not the ones being affected. Then DIAC will forward your email to ACS. ACS forwards it to Skills Australia and then back to DIAC. but coordination = nil, effort = nothing, only truckload of rubbish.

Those people working at these organizations are mostly citizens who doesn't really care what is happening after their working hours. If you're a citizen, will you have knowledge of immigration laws and all these rubbish? If you ask me how the visa works in my country, I have a bit of understanding about it.

 

I think the most effective way is to firing directly towards an organization, who can they forward to? I would like to see how they are going to forward to? The most they can do is choose not to reply you, just like ALP. Its a generic reply for everyone who used that MIA website to send that email. They don't read the contents of your email as they assume that it should be the same. Jees... nice copy n paste for ALP if you ask me.

[Sydneytina]

Oh.....I was a moron to hurry up my application process and filed 885(IT recent grad) on 26th June. What a joke it has become. People who filed just after a week will be processed faster. Why did I do this :cry:, I wish I waited just 1 more week.

[Guest guanqunc]

guys, any news for 2213-79 nec?

[Guest chajath]

Yesterday was a humble start of a journey to rectify this absurd situation, in which me and psharma gathered and discussed possible future action items.

 

What we are focusing now is:

 

 

• Please post in community/ethnic group web boards looking for people in the same situation as us. If you do find them, please let us know so we can grow in number.
  
• I am in contact with a Director from Labour Market Information Section, Skills Australia, who generously showed great interest in current situation. She said there is going to be a regular meeting with DIAC next week. So I will focus on getting our voice heard through her to DIAC.
  
• At some point of time, we want to organise a meeting with people from concerned bodies here in Melbourne. Mr. Town, MIA representative in Melbourne, would be a good choice to begin with.
  

 

Time is tough for us applicants. But it is too early to lose all hope. Let's see if we can persuade the government to put in a sort of 'grandfathering' (their jargon for transitional arrangement) for us 2231-79 applicants.

 

My contact detail is:

In-Ho Yi

0433 964 101

chajath @ gmail . com (remove spaces, of course)

 

If you haven't contact us yet, please contact us and we will invite you to the next meeting.

 

Next meeting will be in a week beginning 16th. Will ask participants' availability to set up a exact time and place in near future.

[Guest Seb]

@chajath

 

Would love to join, but currently in NSW

Let me know if you need any help

[Guest chajath]

@chajath

 

Would love to join, but currently in NSW

Let me know if you need any help

 

Hi.

It would be best if people in NSW/Sydney can gather and start a similar group. I found that a lot of HQs are located in Sydney. There are a lot of people affected by this change in Sydney, I personally know one. If you are starting a group, I can refer him to you, I think.