DIAC Announcement on SMPs

[libbysmum]

Typical DIAC cra%

 

How about this frequently asked question( The most obvious that has been ommitted !!!)

 

I already have a visa lodged after receiving SS from a state and my occupation is not on the SMP list will my nomination from that state be valid ?

 

They refer to visas lodged BUT never mention about those already sponsored by a state.

 

Unbelievable !!!!:mad:

 

Hi Shane, I think there is an FAQ which answers just this, have a look, its FAQ number 12

 

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/statmig-faq.pdf

 

Q12 I lodged my visa application before the commencement of State Migration Plans and my occupation is not on my nominating state or territory Plan. What happens to my application now?

 

If you applied for your visa before the relevant Plan commenced, and your occupation is not on that Plan your nomination continues to be valid, however, your application will not receive priority processing (category 2) under a Plan This means that your application will retain its existing processing priority under Ministerial Direction 48 (see Q7 for priority processing information).

 

So it doesn't look good if the states don't include us previous SS applicants on their SMP!!

[Guest JK2510]

Well that does say it all really! It's a disgrace.

[SHANO7]

Hi Sarah (libbysmum)

 

Knowing what DIAC are like they will split hairs with this in the wording. Q12 refers to people lodging their visas prior to the SMPS. It doesnt refer to applicants that have lodged their visa and have already been sponsored by a state. On close scruting none of the questions maek any reference to applicants that have State sponsorship prior to 1.7.10 but are not on SOL3.

 

Strange as you would have thought that this would be one of the most FAQ ??

 

I agree with you that it doesnt look good if those with SS are not on SMP

 

Thanks

 

Shane

[matjones]

Hi Sarah (libbysmum)

 

Knowing what DIAC are like they will split hairs with this in the wording. Q12 refers to people lodging their visas prior to the SMPS. It doesnt refer to applicants that have lodged their visa and have already been sponsored by a state. On close scruting none of the questions maek any reference to applicants that have State sponsorship prior to 1.7.10 but are not on SOL3.

 

Strange as you would have thought that this would be one of the most FAQ ??

 

I agree with you that it doesnt look good if those with SS are not on SMP

 

Thanks

 

Shane

 

This issue has been addressed in the past by DIAC. It is clear that if you are not on the SMP, but state sponsored, you will be in either Cat3 or Cat4 depending on your asco code.

 

See this FAQ from July, Question 15:

 

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/gsm-priority-processing-faqs.pdf

 

 

However, remember, states have the option of some 'offlist' places for their SMP nominations, so even if your not on the actual SMP, you might get lucky and get one of these spots.

[libbysmum]

Hi Sarah (libbysmum)

 

It doesnt refer to applicants that have lodged their visa and have already been sponsored by a state.

 

I read the statement as follows, sort of split into 2 sections

a) I lodged my visa application before the commencement of State Migration Plans and

b) my occupation is not on my nominating state or territory Plan.

 

The way it says "not on MY nominating state" indicates to me this statement does include people who already have a nomination/sponsorship. Otherwise who else would it be specifying?

 

Or maybe I am just reading it wrong, I suppose how these statements are interpreted depend on the person and how they are reading them.

[SHANO7]

This issue has been addressed in the past by DIAC. It is clear that if you are not on the SMP, but state sponsored, you will be in either Cat3 or Cat4 depending on your asco code.

 

See this FAQ from July, Question 15:

 

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/gsm-priority-processing-faqs.pdf

 

 

However, remember, states have the option of some 'offlist' places for their SMP nominations, so even if your not on the actual SMP, you might get lucky and get one of these spots.

 

Hi Matjones

 

The issue raised is more directed to after this date. The states have stated particularly WA that they have been pushing for all sponsored applicants to be included on their smp.

 

All we are asking is for some honesty. Somebody somewhere will know if they have done this in their draft SMP that is with the minister awaiting sign off.

 

My hope is that for those of us with SS that are not on the SMP, and lets remember it is a State Migration Plan and not just a list of jobs and that the Plan might include applicants sponsored prior to the changes that are not on SOL3. My hope is that Wa and the other states will use their off list nominations for this year to include the unlucky ones. AT least that way the states can honor there nomination.

 

Thanks

Shane

[libbysmum]

Im hoping that my sponsoring state, SA, will include our occupation, even if it is as a "strikethrough", similar to that which has been done with the Victoria SMP. For example VIC are including "cook" and "pastry cook" on their SMP, but are not accepting NEW applications, meaning that previously sponsored cooks and pastry chefs do become CAT2, without opening the floodgates for more applications under these occupations.

[SHANO7]

Hi sarah

 

I can see how you get that now. Maybe Im just done in with all the changes and Jargon.

 

If Evans doesnt like Hairdressers then maybe we just have to accept that the man was a law unto himself.

 

Its just to depressing

[George Lombard]

I think it's been clear from the very beginning that the government did not want to repeat the mistakes of the Howard government over creating an enormous pool of poorly trained hairdressers and cooks. Senator Evans mentioned this a number of times when he was Minister. Hence, those occupations have been penalised, however if cooks and chefs are allowed in SMPs, even if with low quotas, judging by the Victorian announcement, then why not hairdressers?

 

Among those applying as hairdressers, the ones who I think have really suffered are the ones who came to Australia and studied and are now working as hairdressers, and just waiting in category 4. For onshore graduates, the Department will eventually need to offer a solution however its just cruelty to prolong this, and I doubt that it sends any inappropriate signals to grant visas to those already here.

 

My own modest suggestion is to abandon the 19th Century laissez faire management principles in the onshore education industry - the closest thing you can find to a business wild west here - and to regulate the colleges so that only enough course places are offered to cater to rational occupational outcomes.

 

Just an idea.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[kellyjamie]

George,

may i ask your opinion on Sen Evans recent speech regarding international education and immigration? Ive just read his speech in the agents info section (melbournegirlinny posted it) just interested what folks thoughts are?

kelly

[SHANO7]

I think it's been clear from the very beginning that the government did not want to repeat the mistakes of the Howard government over creating an enormous pool of poorly trained hairdressers and cooks. Senator Evans mentioned this a number of times when he was Minister. Hence, those occupations have been penalised, however if cooks and chefs are allowed in SMPs, even if with low quotas, judging by the Victorian announcement, then why not hairdressers?

 

Among those applying as hairdressers, the ones who I think have really suffered are the ones who came to Australia and studied and are now working as hairdressers, and just waiting in category 4. For onshore graduates, the Department will eventually need to offer a solution however its just cruelty to prolong this, and I doubt that it sends any inappropriate signals to grant visas to those already here.

 

My own modest suggestion is to abandon the 19th Century laissez faire management principles in the onshore education industry - the closest thing you can find to a business wild west here - and to regulate the colleges so that only enough course places are offered to cater to rational occupational outcomes.

 

Just an idea.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Hi George

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post.

 

Do you think some Hairdressers might be lucky inc offshore?. WA have their own pass criteria for the trade based on qualifications and work experience and therfore this puts offshore in theory in a better place than a recently qualified student using the 2 years to qualify rule and then 3out of last 4 years working.

 

I do sympathise also with onshore students as they have travelled tp Oz to study for a course to obtain the Golden Ticket.

 

My thoughts are Oz should have taken the problem that they created on the chin, stopped taking new applications to process those in the pipeline, learn from their mistake and move on.

 

Cheers

 

Shane

[George Lombard]

Dear KJ,

 

Reading Evans' speech I was as close as you can be to rolling on the floor and laughing at 6.40am. His vandalism of the international students sector was breathtaking at the time and its impact will be felt for generations. Those onshore hairdressing graduates, the ridiculous treatment of IT graduates, the continued growth of the VET sector, the thousands of welfare worker graduates, are all examples of greed and carelessness which occurred on his watch.

 

However the thrust of his speech is greater regulation and the fear factor is a familiar migration cliche:

 

"If this growth were to have continued, Australia would have had more than 1 million international students in-country by 2012." (apparently 950,000 would be ok)

 

So I imagine that Indian and Chinese student visa applicants will be subjected to even greater scrutiny, and in the case of China there will be return to nepotism by selecting particular agencies to bring the students. The more things change, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard