State Migration Plans - Numbers to be limited

[George Lombard]

The ACT has today advised that it will contact all currently ACT sponsored General Skilled Migration applicants to confirm that they are maintaining their commitment to the ACT, and giving them 28 days to so indicate. This applies to anyone who has a current subclass 886 or 176 application with the Department and who is sponsored by the ACT.

 

As you are aware, the State Migration Plan, that we hope to have finalised by end October, will limit the number of 176/886 visa applicants that the ACT Government is able to nominate. Government sponsorship will also become more valuable as DIAC implement their processing priorities and non sponsored applicants join the end of the queue.

 

We are currently contacting all ACT Government clients who have a pending 176/886 visa application. We are seeking confirmation of their employability in the ACT and their genuine, ongoing commitment to living in Canberra. A copy of the email below has been sent to your clients personal email address.

 

 

The indication is that each state may only be able to sponsor a specified maximum number of visas in each calendar year, and so therefore after winnowing their lists the states will be forced to rank candidates. The implication is that not everyone currently sponsored by a state will receive the benefit of priority processing under the State Migration Plans. It may be that the states can withdraw sponsorship for people already sponsored but I think the legislation on that is ambiguous and probably DIAC would hesitate to allow that to happen where people have already expended thousands of dollars in costs. On the other hand it's most likely that the legislation does allow the states to be choosy with respect to who gets included in the State Migration Plan, since that is ultimately just a question of prioritising.

 

Hold onto your hats people this might be a bumpy ride.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[reza]

The ACT has today advised that it will contact all currently ACT sponsored General Skilled Migration applicants to confirm that they are maintaining their commitment to the ACT, and giving them 28 days to so indicate. This applies to anyone who has a current subclass 886 or 176 application with the Department and who is sponsored by the ACT.

 

As you are aware, the State Migration Plan, that we hope to have finalised by end October, will limit the number of 176/886 visa applicants that the ACT Government is able to nominate. Government sponsorship will also become more valuable as DIAC implement their processing priorities and non sponsored applicants join the end of the queue.

 

We are currently contacting all ACT Government clients who have a pending 176/886 visa application. We are seeking confirmation of their employability in the ACT and their genuine, ongoing commitment to living in Canberra. A copy of the email below has been sent to your clients personal email address.

 

 

The indication is that each state may only be able to sponsor a specified maximum number of visas in each calendar year, and so therefore after winnowing their lists the states will be forced to rank candidates. The implication is that not everyone currently sponsored by a state will receive the benefit of priority processing under the State Migration Plans. It may be that the states can withdraw sponsorship for people already sponsored but I think the legislation on that is ambiguous and probably DIAC would hesitate to allow that to happen where people have already expended thousands of dollars in costs. On the other hand it's most likely that the legislation does allow the states to be choosy with respect to who gets included in the State Migration Plan, since that is ultimately just a question of prioritising.

 

Hold onto your hats people this might be a bumpy ride.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

Hi

What happens for those 176 applicants whose occupation is in SOL and are not chosen in SMP priority and have already obtained SS?

[Guest Jamie Smith]

With such a log jam building up in each State (thank you Senator Evans) the States can do any of the following:

 

 

 

1. accept all applications and process by lodgement date, ie no preference for differing occupations, just a long wait for many
   
2. accept all occupations but cap each one, based on priorities of occupation eg engineers have more places than hairdressers but all occupations get a fair go
   
3. select some priority occupations for first SMP roll out, and gradually expand the SMP list as those occupations either dwindle in application numbers or the cap is reached per occupation
   

 

Methinks we'll see different approaches by State, and later on movement across each system.

 

ACT will probably do #3 and move to #2 later, as would Qld and SA.

 

NSW would do #3 and stay #3 (so might Qld)

 

WA might go #1 or #2 and then move to #1.

 

Victoria will probably start and stay #2.

 

A mix of occupations would then be available across different states, ie some in this state but not in that one.

 

And different timing of changes to occupations on the SMP lists as they expand will mean that many applicants might be tempted to change state because they fear their prefered state might not list their occupation in sufficient numbers.

 

Who really knows?

 

Again, thank you Senator Evans for the confusion. :notworthy:

 

The new deciding factor for many people's applications will now be how each state chooses to address their individual backlogs.

 

Wait for some people to be sponsored in State 1, then seeing their occupation appear in another more preferred State and wanting to change over, perhaps after their visa application is made for the first State.

 

So who knows if DIAC would entertain a substitute sponsorship half way through processing????? :GEEK:

[Guest arun123]

It is true that SMP will be limited and there will be no surprise if we do not see occupation like Cook and Hairdresser on the list.

But How will State Government reward to those applicant who are not on the SMP but they already have State Sponsorship

Where will they fall which category for priority processing ?

[Guest recherche]

Hi George,

 

In your post, you mentioned about subclass 176.. Any information about 475?

 

Thanks!

Tiff

[George Lombard]

@Recherche - the ACT only does PR applications so only the 176 and 886 are relevant to them but I think all the states will be forced to make life and death decisions concerning the people they have already sponsored as well as the ones they want to sponsor now.

 

@Jamie - I think the states will be looking at these and many more options. Obviously the ACT approach of first winnowing out those who have lost interest is a very good idea, I imagine they'll reduce their sponsored applicants by 10% straight off, and without any angst. What comes next might be harder.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Guest dragsterwish]

Post deleted as it's a duplicate post due to upload error.

[Guest dragsterwish]

Hi George,

 

Tks for sharing the info. What do you reckon the phrase "seeking confirmation of their employability" entails for the applicant? I imagine myself receiving this email and asking myself the question of how do i confirm my employability?!? I don't even have a job offer because i don't have the visa. How do i then confirm my employability?

[crispysince70]

Anyone got any thoughts on what Tas might do?

[jools123]

hi george i was given ss from wa in may09 im a dreaded hairdresser in your opinion do you think i stand a chance, im quite confused with new info, everybody seems to assume hairdressers and cooks automatically will not be on the lists, but ive still got some hope.

thanks

 

jools x

[Guest arun123]

Hi Jools i am also in same boat. I am WA state Sponsored applicant and Cook occupation. As we are hearing the rumors that Cook and hairdresser will not be on the SMP list. But i reckon there are some chances for WA SMP to have Cook and Hairdresser on their list as compared to other state like VIC, SA and NSW

[Guest dragsterwish]

hi george i was given ss from wa in may09 im a dreaded hairdresser in your opinion do you think i stand a chance, im quite confused with new info, everybody seems to assume hairdressers and cooks automatically will not be on the lists, but ive still got some hope.

thanks

 

jools x

 

Hi, this is my opinion on WA situation. WA has already rolled out a State Priority Skill Occupation list in July 2010 which WA said will influence the SMP. They have ranked their occupations in priority according to their research. Mapping this into the situation here, it makes sense that they have already put in place a system to allocate the limited visa they can grant according to the skill priority list. So once those applicants with skills in the TOP priority are granted, they move on to HIGH, then the remaining quota are then given to PRIORITY. Within the same priority skills (e.g. TOP), processing should be done according to lodgement date.

 

To reiterate, this is only my opinion. Ultimately, we still have to wait for the release of the final SMP to know the outcome.

 

Cheers.

[Guest JK2510]

Is the release date of the SMPs likely to be very soon now?? Would all states release at the same time or at different times?

[SHANO7]

We say this time and time again !!!!

 

People that have been sponsored by states PRIOR to the changes should get priority. WE made the commitment to live in YOUR state so YOU should reciprocate and HONOUR your sponsorship to us. The ONLY order for this should be

 

1- Already sponsored applicants allowed on SMP in date order.

2- Next priority to those on SOL3 or new SMP only once Cat one has been processed.

 

I know people will say that isn't fair but to be honest nothing has been fair in the last 12 months.

 

Shane

[Guest Gollywobbler]

The ACT has today advised that it will contact all currently ACT sponsored General Skilled Migration applicants to confirm that they are maintaining their commitment to the ACT, and giving them 28 days to so indicate. This applies to anyone who has a current subclass 886 or 176 application with the Department and who is sponsored by the ACT.

 

As you are aware, the State Migration Plan, that we hope to have finalised by end October, will limit the number of 176/886 visa applicants that the ACT Government is able to nominate. Government sponsorship will also become more valuable as DIAC implement their processing priorities and non sponsored applicants join the end of the queue.

 

We are currently contacting all ACT Government clients who have a pending 176/886 visa application. We are seeking confirmation of their employability in the ACT and their genuine, ongoing commitment to living in Canberra. A copy of the email below has been sent to your clients personal email address.

 

 

The indication is that each state may only be able to sponsor a specified maximum number of visas in each calendar year, and so therefore after winnowing their lists the states will be forced to rank candidates. The implication is that not everyone currently sponsored by a state will receive the benefit of priority processing under the State Migration Plans. It may be that the states can withdraw sponsorship for people already sponsored but I think the legislation on that is ambiguous and probably DIAC would hesitate to allow that to happen where people have already expended thousands of dollars in costs. On the other hand it's most likely that the legislation does allow the states to be choosy with respect to who gets included in the State Migration Plan, since that is ultimately just a question of prioritising.

 

Hold onto your hats people this might be a bumpy ride.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

 

Hi George

 

Many thanks for this information. I noticed last night that SA have introduced quotas in each of the occupations they are prepared to offer State sponsorship for under their new Interim List.

 

I guessed that limiting the numbers of SMP-sponsored applications for each occupation will probably be a limitation in the SMPs as well when they are eventually produced.

 

Let us take Hairdessers. Currently they are in Cat 4. WA have probably offered State sponsorship to many more Hairdresser applicants than WA's SMP is likely to allow them to sponsor for this occupation in 2010-2011.

 

If WA insist that Hairdressers must be in WA's SMP then I suspect that DIAC will say, "OK, put Hairdressers on your SMP but we insist on no more than [say 200] WA-sponsored Hairdressers in 2010-2011. Weed out the Hairdressers you have offered to sponsor and work out which [200] of them will move up to Cat 2."

 

The big problem that I can see with this is that Evans was determined that he would not simply close the GSM programme to all new applicants until he had sorted out the current mess with GSM applications. Evans' idea was to deal with it by another means - ie let some of the Hairdressers either move up to Cat 2 or move straight into Cat 2 via a new application to WA. Then he would use his own proposed Cap & Kill Bill powers to get rid of the rest, I suspect.

 

If this was Evans' Cunning Plan, he would be able to argue that the Fed Govt is whiter than white. Brave little soldiers that they are, the Fed Govt has allowed the States to decide which Hairdressers they actually want and then the Fed Govt has used its own Cap & Kill powers in order to provide *certainty* to all the remaining Hairdressers. The squeaky clean Fed Govt has even refunded their VACs (after a delay that might last for a year but eventually they will get their VACs refunded.) The refunds mean that that the WA-sponsored Hairdressers whose visa applications have been terminated can always apply to WA again if they want to and if WA sponsor the Hairdresser again then the Hairdresser can make a new application for a sc 176 visa, using the promised VAC refund to pay for it. This time the newly-sponsored Hairdresser would go straight into Cat 2 and his/her visa application would be processed promptly.

 

I'm sure that this Machiavellan little scheme is what Evans had in mind and I suspect that Bowen would go along with it for the time being, since Bowen will need more than 5 minutes for his own thoughts about any of it to come to the fore. Evans could say that he had used "objective criteria" via which to select the ones for slaughter - he would slaughter the ones that the State Governments have not sponsored under their SMPs. Parliament would wear that one OK. Whether the Courts would wear it as well is another matter, but Evans was plainly advised that the Courts would be OK about it.

 

Enter Christopher Levingston. He alone seems to have been arguing that S65 of the Act prevails over everything else and he is demanding that the visa applications *must* be processed by the Minister in accordance with S65 and without unnecessary delay. As far as I know, CL is NOT saying that his argument would necessarily be a winner in Court but I agree with him that it is a very good place to start from. It is a lot more useful to a visa applicant than letting the Fed Govt shove him/her around.

 

I don't know anything like enough about the workings of the Migration Act to be sure but I am wondering whether S65 is stronger than anyone except CL has said so far? The aggrieved visa applicant would obviously have the Court's sympathy. I don't know the answer to my question but I am wondering.....

 

Leaving that question aside, I can foresee immense difficulties for the State Governments. They will need to be seen to use *objective criteria* as well, I suspect - their own State's political paymasters would probably insist on that bit. However sorting the applicants out into Priority Hairdressers and non-priority Hairdressers would involve a huge amount of extra work for the State's own Immigration Department and they might need to hire additional staff etc.

 

Also, if I were a prospective Hairdresser applicant for SS from WA, the first thing I would do is to e-mail WA and find out how close they are to filling their quota of [200] Hairdressers. I see no reason why I should pay WA any money for the sake of a purely speculative application to them, after all. I suspect that the States will be forced into the "pre-weeding" idea that the ACT have used all along.

 

Additionally, given the sheer size of WA, in WA's shoes I'd be telling DIAC, "I'll split it with you. I'll agree to only [100] Hairdressers for Perth - and I can justify that because a lot f the existing Hairdressers in Perth are moving towards retirement - but in return for my generosity with that bit, I want [500] Hairdressers who are willing to move to Regional WA instead."

 

WA and the Federal Government have no quarrel about the idea of populating Regional WA instead of trying to stretch Perth, it seems to me. An Aussie who is settled in Perth Metro tends to be unwilling to budge outside it, at least until s/he has retired and the children are settled etc. A new immigrant who has never lived in Perth Metro would be more willing to move straight to Geraldton or Karratha instead, I reckon.

 

For the prospective migrants, I predict extra work for migration agents in the short term but then a dearth of new clients in the longer term. If my own hunch is correct, there will be a scramble for SMP-sponsored sc 475 visas before long, with the sc 475 visa being changed so that its own criteria are as stringent as those for a sc 176 visa but the prospects of SMP sponsorship might well be much better with an sc 475.

 

Especially if the Cap & Kill Bill is enacted fairly quickly, I don't think it would take more than a couple of years to get rid of the existing GSM backlog and then to use immigration as a means of populating Regional Australia instead of adding pressure to the main cities etc. Since nearly every Voter is a NIMBY and something like 85% of Australia's existing population lives in the main cities, the Voter won't care much about where a new immigrant moves to as long as it isn't the Voter's own backyard, it seems to me. Gillard can then howl "sustainable" and she seems to think that her new Broadband project will remove the evils of geographical distance etc. The Greens might whinge about the scenery in the short term but another Election would be likely to cause a pretty strong swing towards a convincing Coalition majority, I suspect, so Gillard could probably tell both the Greens and her own Independents to shut up about the scenery in, say, Port Hedland. None of the pollies will be moving there anyway apart from the one or two who already have constituencies there.

 

Which brings me to......

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2010-11/11bd003.pdf

 

The Coalition know that their own days of controlling the Senate are numbered, so I suspect that it might not even be necessary to wait till after 1st July 2011 for the Cap & Kill Bill to be revived. The Digest seems to be confident that Parliament will pass it and although the Digest was written before the General Election, I suspect that there is no real need to alter its conclusions.

 

Interesting times ahead, I predict.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

So who knows if DIAC would entertain a substitute sponsorship half way through processing????? :GEEK:

 

 

Hi Jamie

 

I've been wondering about the same question for the last few days.

 

I have not read the latest provisions about the sc 176 visa - ie the new bit that says that the Sponsor must be identified at the beginning. I've been lazing around waiting for one of the RMAs to tell us what the answer to this question is because the good RMAs will have studied the details by now, I suspect.

 

The question cropped up on another thread. The guy concerned has not applied for a visa as yet. His occupation is on SA's interim list but he actually wants to move to Brisbane, where his family live, so he said. He is an IT Type, to complicate matters! Apparently he was a Unix Specialist under ASCO and he has been reassessed by the ACS, so he is now Something Else under ANZSCO (I can't remember what) but Something Else is on SA's Interim list, apparently.

 

Now here's the fun...! QLD's own current sponsorship list relies on ASCO. QLD are looking for Unix Specialists, apparently. Obviously the guy should talk to QLD, for a start, but should he apply for a sc 176 visa before the new SMPs are published or should he bide his time about that bit? I suggested that he should:-

 

1. Start a separate thread about whether or not a new sc 176 application would allow him to chop & change about which State is the eventual sponsor; and

2. Talk to QLD in a hurry, to find out how they feel about him.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[littlem]

Thanks for your post gill, just the fact that you have mentioned the 475 regional visa has given me some hope and put a smile on my face, it seems us 475 ers are the forgotten few! We are WA state sponsored for a 475 but are an off-list nomination. So are currently festering in cat 4. I so hope you are right and those applying for regional visas get a look in with the smp's before cap and kill, and without re applying as we would not have enough points anymore due to age. It's the not knowing so I wish they would just get on with it !

[gordonnes]

Will they be contacting us direct or via our agent(those of us who have used one)

[Guest VickyMel]

Thanks for the info George and great to read everyone's take on the news.

 

I always kind of expected that the SMPs were likely to have limited numbers for each of the specific occupations and assume they will adjust it to their needs. It makes sense to be able to say that the states will take 100 of this and 50 of that. It also makes it fairer for those in the other categories in that hopefully they will also be looked at rather than everyone who can jumping in ahead and you are left at the end of an always expanding queue that you are never likely to see the front of.

 

It does make sense and hopefully will help reduce and prevent the mess they got themselves into last time.

However, it really is a s**t time for those of us caught up in the mess and left in limbo land. I just hope they will be fair and generous to those of us that they messed around with.

 

Again I still think that the government could reduce the numbers of those waiting by offering a refund in the Visa fee to all those that no longer wanted to go to Oz - and that this would also provide them with a lot of goodwill from those that have seen such shoddy treatment of would be migrants caught up in the farce over the last year or so.

 

Also, if I were a prospective Hairdresser applicant for SS from WA, the first thing I would do is to e-mail WA and find out how close they are to filling their quota of [200] Hairdressers. I see no reason why I should pay WA any money for the sake of a purely speculative application to them, after all. I suspect that the States will be forced into the "pre-weeding" idea that the ACT have used all along.

 

I totally agree I really do think that if quotas are to be undertaken there needs to be some form of pre-screening where fees are being paid to the states or when they require you spend money on providing qualification assesements etc up front.

 

I really wish that DIAC would also pre-screen applicants for a lesser fee in the same way as NZ so that you only had to pay out for all the assessments and the visa once you knew that all being well with the assessments that you would follow through to a visa within a certain time period.

 

Interesting times ahead, I predict.

 

Mmmm would be more interesting if I was an interested bystander rather than caught up in the middle of it :cry:

 

Good luck all - I hope that this takes us closer to the SMPs being announced and it is not just ACT being their lovely efficient selves again...

 

VickyMel

[sherin]

Hi everyone I received an email from ACT (forwarded by my agent to me )

 

Should I wait till I get a direct Email to respond ?

 

 

Dear xx

 

Your skilled migration 176/886 visa application was nominated by the ACT Government on xxxxx. As you may be aware, under the proposed State Migration Plan, the ACT Government will have a limited number of visa applicants that we can nominate each year. Therefore we are reviewing all ACT Government nominations for 176/886 Sponsorship approved since September 2007, as we need to ensure that all applicants who have lodged their visa with Immigration:

·have reasonable employment prospects given the changed economic circumstances since time of lodgement; and

· are still committed to living in Canberra for at least two years from visa grant.

 

 

We would like you to demonstrate that your skills and experience are still in demand in Canberra by providing evidence of research into suitable positions currently being advertised in the ACT; and confirm that you are still committed to live and work in Canberra for at least two years from visa grant.

 

The confirmation must be emailed to: businessmigration@act.gov.au within 28 days of date of this email.

 

 

If we do not hear back from you within 28 days, we will assume that you are no longer committed to coming to Canberra and we will inform the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that the ACT’s nomination of your application is withdrawn.

[sherin]

"We would like you to demonstrate that your skills and experience are still in demand in Canberra by providing evidence of research into suitable positions currently being advertised in the ACT; and confirm that you are still committed to live and work in Canberra for at least two years from visa grant"

 

This would be a challenge do not know what to do .

[Kokki]

QUOTE: Enter Christopher Levingston. He alone seems to have been arguing that S65 of the Act prevails over everything else and he is demanding that the visa applications *must* be processed by the Minister in accordance with S65 and without unnecessary delay. As far as I know, CL is NOT saying that his argument would necessarily be a winner in Court but I agree with him that it is a very good place to start from. It is a lot more useful to a visa applicant than letting the Fed Govt shove him/her around.

 

I don't know anything like enough about the workings of the Migration Act to be sure but I am wondering whether S65 is stronger than anyone except CL has said so far? The aggrieved visa applicant would obviously have the Court's sympathy. I don't know the answer to my question but I am wondering.....

 

 

 

Hi Gill,

 

As always, thanks for the info. I'm interested to know whether Chris L. is already taking this to the courts and if there is a specific case going on at the moment?

Another thing I was hoping you might have the answer to is that, if an application is capped then it is said to be treated "as if it had never been lodged". Well supposedly an application is capped (I'm preparing myself for the worst) but some work has already been done on it. For example, a CO was allocated to an application and processing had commenced before Evans decided to make the priority chaos. In that case, can it be 'legally' be treated as if it had never been lodged?

Hope you can help.

Cheers

[Jimm]

Will all states follow the footsteps of ACT in this regards asking people they sponsored to show their

"employability"

including WA ?

[Jimm]

"We would like you to demonstrate that your skills and experience are still in demand in Canberra by providing evidence of research into suitable positions currently being advertised in the ACT; and confirm that you are still committed to live and work in Canberra for at least two years from visa grant"

 

This would be a challenge do not know what to do .

Hi Sherin

What is your nominated occupation ?

[Guest JK2510]

When we filled out our WA SS form they asked about potential employment?! We sent many an email to companies explaining that if we were in oz would they be interested in employing OH based on his CV. We got no replies back and no evidence to add to our SS application! If this is the same thing that it will be a headache for companies all over oz.