immigration
21 Oct 2009
We Won't Just Fight Them On The Beaches
Rudd's hard line on immigration policy extends to those applying for skilled migration visas, writes Zuleika Arashiro
Anyone who has attempted to decipher immigration regulations knows how difficult it is to keep up with the pace of amendments. When the Rudd Government announced a series of "measures" to cope with the global financial crisis, no one was surprised to find that they included changes to immigration policy.One aspect of the changes has not received a great deal of public attention, namely, the modifications in priority affecting general skilled independent migration. While the situation of asylum seekers and the exploitation of temporary workers is rightly in the spotlight, the impact of the new rules on those who have already applied for skilled independent migration has been largely ignored.
With fears of economic downturn in the air, the Rudd Government has toughened the selection criteria for general skilled migration. The changes include tighter English language requirements and a "JobReady" test, both to be introduced as of January 2010. The Department for Immigration and Citizenship has also set a new priority list for visa processing, which privileges applicants who are already sponsored and those who are qualified in "on demand" professions.
According to the new directive, dated 23 September 2009, independent skilled migrants who do not find a sponsor and whose skills do not match the critical skills list, will be kept on hold until other categories are processed — even if they qualified under the points system previously in place.
It is quite possible that the Australian Government has adopted the right remedy to contain local unemployment and to avoid the policy challenges potentially posed by a mass of unemployed migrants. That is a topic which I will leave to Australian analysts to assess. But for thousands of people who had already applied for skilled migration to Australia, the changes have been a cause of great uncertainty.
The main problem with the changes are their retroactivity. That is, they affect not only future applicants but also those who submitted visa applications when different rules were in place. Here I use my own experience as a reference. When I applied in February 2009, the fee for onshore application to the skilled independent migration program was $2105 — to which is added around $1500 for the preparation of documents. Those who use a migration agent can accrue costs over $6000.
At the time of my application, the information provided online and by officials over the phone was that onshore applicants should expect to wait from six to nine months for the results of their application. That timeframe was a fundamental factor in my decision to apply onshore rather than offshore, since one of the conditions attached to the onshore status is that you are required to remain in the country during the processing period, and can only go overseas after obtaining prior authorisation from immigration through the bridging B visa. The bridging B visa is usually granted for a maximum of only three months — and also entails a fee. When I asked an immigration officer what would happen if I was not able to return to Australia within that three month period, I was told that it could be assumed that I had no interest in the visa process anymore.
It is worth noting here that the immigration department staff always provided me with friendly and efficient service, and that many of them did not sound very comfortable when communicating the bad news. And to be completely fair, the bureaucratic complexity of Australia's immigration system is not as challenging as those of some other Western democracies.
Under the new rules, onshore independent skilled migration applications are "unlikely to be finalised by the end of 2011" — at least two years from now. Those who have already committed to the process, not only financially but more importantly, psychologically, are provided with few options. This is what the FAQs about the changes published by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship advise:
"... continue to live and work in Australia (if your visa allows) whilst you await a decision on your visa application ... consider your eligibility for an employer sponsored visa, or other substantive visa, or ... withdraw your application and return to your home country.
Note: If you choose to withdraw your application you will not be entitled to a refund of your Visa Application Charge (VAC)."
All sorts of bureaucratic and political factors may justify these changes but we should not lose sight of the fact that many skilled foreigners who qualified for the program, trusted the Australian system and built an honest plan based on the best official information available, now find themselves in a gamble situation of high risk and financial loss.
The minimum that the Government could do to reduce the sense of distrust and unfairness that this measure has generated would be to offer those willing to "return to their home country" the right of reimbursement for the VAC.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship could also allow applicants to wait overseas. The new waiting period for onshore applications has more than doubled the processing time that was previously estimated. Given that the applicants who will be affected by these changes will be looking for work in areas of no skill shortage — with a temporary visa — their chances of finding a non-casual job are effectively reduced.
Financial downturns are characterised by unpredictable conditions and it may be that applicants like me who are affected by these recent changes are simply down on their luck in the lucky country. Yet what has moved me to write about these changes is the support and indignation many Australian colleagues have expressed when I've told them about my situation.
These retroactive changes in no way reflects how Australia is seen by many of us. The commitment to a "fair go" and trustworthy institutions remain one of the most praised characteristics of this nation. Now, applicants for general skilled migration visas are being forced to come to terms with the apparent malleability of those qualities.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
What most Australians do not realize is that there is a New White Australia Policy.that operated under the racist Coalition Government and continues to operate under the Apartheid Labor Party Government.
Foreigners wishing to apply for a student or tourist visa will quickly discover that there is a quick electronic application process for the category of what must most simply be described as the Whites and Honorary Whites and a special form for those who must most simply be described as non-Whites or Poor Whites (notably most Eastern Europeans). The latter have to apply by a more stringent form that must be submitted (at considerable cost) to the nearest available appropriate embassy.
Shades of Apartheid South Africa.
The Apartheid Labor Party Government excludes Northern Territory Indigenous Australians from the protection of the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act - they are forbidden by race-specific legislation to see, buy, transport, buy, sell or consume things available to all other Australians. Further, they can be kicked out of their homes and excluded from their Sacred Land on the say so of White officials with no comeback via the law - I guess even non-White or Poor White foreign applicants can at least APPLY to visit NT Indigenous areas from which Indigenous Australians can be arbitrarily excluded.
What an utter disgrace.
The horrible pro-war, pro-coal, racist Apartheid Labor Party Government has betrayed Labor voters and Australia over the environment, carbon pollution, war, human rights and racial equality - there is no way decent Australians can vote for such people but the problem is the Libs are even worse than the Labs.
The only hope for a decent Australia is if the horrible, pro-coal, pro-war, terracidal, ecocidal, racist Lib-Labs are consigned to the sewer of history by an indignant electorate - however pigs may fly in Murdochracy Australia before that will happen.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
This is news to me. Why is the ABC not bringing this sort of information to the public in Current Affairs programs, even if the Murdoch news media are not? It would make a good change from the same old stories from the same old politicians being recycled ad nauseum!
Good question, Betty…I really look forward to seeing this issue discussed in more detail. I struggle to understand how the measure is compatible with the notion of rights, and it could be a good case for debate by the media and the government.
"Now, applicants for general skilled migration visas are being forced to come to terms with the apparent malleability of those qualities."
To quote Bill C. "Its the economy stupid."
To be fair the author should compare entry qualifications to those in Europe now with the GFC.
I had no complaints about having to to prove I was better or uniquely qualified for a position in the UK in the 1980s in order to obtain a working permit. After all it is only fair that the host country gets a net benefit to justify an alien over a local.
But you will be fine Zulieka. Mr Rudd believes in populate or perish.
Quanity not quality is the new paradigm.
I expect that next year we will be like the USA with less than 50% of graduates having a job waiting in their qualifying field.
Dear Eernest,
Thank you for your comment, having worked in international trade over the last 8 years, I agree that ‘it’s the economy,’ whether that’s good or bad is another issue. Only to clarify, when I mention "those qualities" at the end, i refer to "fair go and trustworthy institutions", not to technical qualifications. Besides I am not worried about my case as I fortunately have other choices. It may sound anti-economic rationality, but there are thousands more affected to be concerned about as well.
Tough on immigration one moment and then telling us we could sustain a population of 35 million the next, Kevin Rudd is not very consistant about immigration.
This should be a very important part of ALP policy, knowing who and how much skilled or unskilled labour is needed by Australia at any particular time.
It would also help knowing if 35 million really is the maximum number of people Australia can actually sustain into the future.
And also (due to a change in global circumstances) there definitely should be an increase in the intake of refugees and asylum seekers.
Rather than always looking to those who can help Australia improve, for a change let’s look to those who Australia can help make a better life for themselves.
And let’s face it some of those boat people will no doubt have the very labour skills we are looking for.
If it’s 35 million we’re aiming for, then let’s stop all the fuss about a few hundred queue jumpers (as if there really are queues for Tamils) and process these potential new Australians as quickly as possible.
The problem is populate and perish,Australia is not the USA or Brazil,this old tired desert cannot support a large population. I welcome skilled immigrants,but at a much lower level.High immigration rates benefit certain sectional interests only and and place a strain on national institutions and infrastructure.However,I agree that the current hysteria over a few hundred asylum seekers is a national disgrace,it’s probably due to our islander mentality-compared to the EU and the US we have no problem at all.
Hello I am a committee member of the Sustainable population association.
This government in line with the past government has shown no leadership to tackling the population issue.
Clearly a made up arbitrary figure of 35 million people [if this is the target] show no clear understanding of sustainability or its consequences or its costs.
Water will need to be artificially produced. Food production will need to impact on the landscape even harder with dire consequences on biodiversity. New infrastructure will need to be built and tacked onto already stretched capacities of cities which includes transport, health and housing. Energy production [electricty and liquid feul] will need to be ramped up to beyond what renewables can cater for which means in effect we will need coal and nuclear – I know this personally as i am in the renewable energy industry. Lastly our standard of living that has been derived because of having physical space will be compromised -the freedom we had becouse of living in the land of plenty will cease. With higher populations densities you need more government and more stringent laws.
SPA’s position on immigration is to cut skilled migration, hold or even increase refugee intakes and have better family planing services with more education and empowerment to women.
In terms of refugees our next generations will need to cater for great waves of climate refugees in the order of millions - we acknowledge Australia will need to take people in but if we fill up our continent now we will be in no position to take further people in as we will be so stretched in capacity that anymore will not be possible.
I have just come back from Kenya and there the population issue is real and the effects are known to all. People are dying of hunger, major cities lack the capacity of water, power and services and the environment is degrading. Kenya’s social structure is quite different from our own but it is clear to Kenyans that if the population was less than currently it is then development would be far less stifled with more to go around.
Population over and above the carrying capacity of the landscape is a COST, a clear example is the Victorian desal plant - currently the worlds most costly civil engineering exercise that will also corpratise Victoria’s water supply. It does not need to be built with a stable population base but it does need to be built if our future governments follow through with their immigration policies.
Federal treasury that guides these policies is in effect a threat to Australians well being and future sustainability.
Mark Feltrin
If the Council of Australian governments is seriousw about a collective response to the nations challenges then immigration targets must be set by considering what the States can absorb in the immediate term. It haqs to be Bottom-Up.
The tyranny of Canberra, with its financial bleckmail tactics, will cause civil unrest and the re=emergence of protest parties like One Nation.
I have thought about your comment Earnest Lee and i have to disagree.
With the pro-growth adgendas of most of the state governments - combined with the unristriced movement of people, the argument of bottom up would distort and complicate the issues without need.
In Victoria [my state] the government openly talks about a population of 7-10 million for Melbourne. This is a bipartisan view Liberal and Labor. The governace process does not account for any valuation or cost of any other ellement of the state ie environment and its role in the productivity and viability of the state. I am sure this government view would be reflected by most other states.
I think it would be easier to deal with the tyranny of 1 Canberra than the tyranny of 7 states.
Again becouse of the movement of people any figure subscribed to a region would not hold up. Unless you forsee the locking down of state borders and expanding on this thought - the creation of 7 nations - highly unlikely.
Dear Mark,
Many, many, Australians would sympathise with you having to endure Victorian governments. We have witnessed the enquiry into the Bushfires with disbelief.
But had you felt and seen the desecration of once beautiful Sydney over the years you would think you were in the midst of a plague of rabbits. Quite simply, Sydney is not coping on any level with the existing population.
In general there are very good reasons for a new Federal Compact and a personal preference to move to a confederation to bust the power block that is Canberra. Combining power and incompetence is screwing the Country.
Hi Earnest
My property went through the fires and i could go on……..
My intrest is in puting back our forests…… as for people and governments ….sometimes i just don’t get it. So when you change the government just make sure its better than what we had.
cya m
A similar thing happened to me in the UK earlier this year. I was a highly skilled migrant there, but the government retroactively changed the rules and abolished that program, including for people who were already on it, when their visa next came up for renewal. After several changes and huge fee increases, I decided that it wasn’t worth it to put up with the awful weather and over-crowded population and I left the UK. The aim of these policy changes is to discourage migration, but given how Australia treats migrants, I accepted that I could not complain about how I was being treated by another country.
I believe it’s a very short sighted policy because these are countries that clearly need their skilled migrants. Especially in Britain, where a huge number of people are on welfare and those that have jobs don’t seem to do much work anyway. No wonder the economy is performing so poorly there.
Here in Australia, the picture is a bit different. Plenty of skilled Australians do not have jobs so I would like to see those people in work before more skilled migrants are allowed in. The problem with applying changes retroactively is that migrants will lose faith in the migration systems of the countries they are applying to and that could discourage good people from pursuing the migration application, as I believe happened in my case. However, with the world becoming over populated, there’s never going to be a shortage of people wanting to come to a relatively pleasant country such as Australia, so the government can really do whatever it wants.
This new priority processing direction affected me too. And I’m totally frustrated. It’s incredibly unfair to wait provisional visa more time than it’s valid then.
Also I don’t understand why DIAC or Minister hasn’t announced further changes. It was like a thunder for a lot of applicants. They requested medical forms, police clearance, we had to spend more money for this. So we will have to do it again in the end of 2012 or 2013. It looks like DIAC earns money for applications, not considering them.
It’s unfair to use retrospective approach to applications that have been lodged.
I think all this politics affects reputation of Australia as a friendly and high-developed country.
Dear all,
I am glad that the issue raises a discussion in Australia. It means that there are some not indifferent people living there. The problem is that it is looks like cheating when somebody promises you something (say, estimated time for application processing) and then changes rules retroactively (says goodbye till 2013). I am more than sure that Mr. Evans did not break the law but this decision contradicts any common sense and respect to people who are a little bit farther than Australia’s boarders. Great pitty.