Consyl Publishing & Publicity Ltd

Consyl Publishing & Publicity Ltd

Home > Our Publications > Australian Outlook> 2009> July

PROGRAMME IN CRISIS

By Lance Fee

THE present direction that the migration programme architects are taking appears to be leading to a crisis that could take years to resolve. That is my considered opinion having been closely involved in the migration profession for over nineteen years.
I have, over the years, been critical of many of the decisions taken in respect to various aspects of the programme, such as the drastic change to the business stream where opportunities for permanent residence were significantly curtailed. Then we saw the parent stream cut drastically and still in urgent need of a fair and genuine review.
The skilled stream that makes up the largest part of our migrant intake has undergone many changes in the last 20 years. Many of these changes have been beneficial for both the Country and visa applicants and, to be fair, they have given many applicants a degree of certainty. A big change from the times of a fluctuating pass mark which could result in a negative decision when knowing you qualify at the time of application and years of waiting for the decision.
There is no question that the skilled programme has been of great benefit to the Australian economy - generally it brings young migrants that have a genuine desire to settle in the Country and contribute to the workforce. They have made a decision based on family connections or a genuine love for Australia that is the motivation.
These migrants are very different to those that have elected to come down under the employer sponsored streams, either temporarily or permanently. In many cases, these migrants are pursuing career opportunities and are more focussed on their employment opportunities than a love for Australia.
Of course, they are a very valuable contribution to the economic development of the country, but my concern is that this group should not be given priority in the processing to all others under the General Skilled Migration programme.
Under the existing processing guidelines, priority is given to the Employer Sponsored applications first, followed by State or Territory Sponsored, those on the Critical Skills List, Migration Occupations in Demand List and, finally, all those who qualify under the Skilled Occupations List. The latter group can expect a delay of up to 3 years for processing their application.
This is a big change from 12 to 18 months, which was the norm for most applications under the skills stream. The change has been justified on the grounds that the Global Economic Crisis has resulted in climbing unemployment and fewer job opportunities. But Australia has shown that the downturn here will be short-lived.
There are a number of major resource projects that are scheduled to start in the next six to 12 months and the home building industry is already in recovery mode.
There is a real and urgent need to review the Skilled Occupation List and the existence of the two priority skills lists, CSL and MODL, is both confusing and unnecessary - in my view they need combining.
Finally, the other issue that needs urgent review under this stream of migration is the description of various occupations. At the moment, we rely on the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) dictionary, soon to change to the Australian New Zealand Classification of Occupations (ANSCO). Whilst the latter is more up-to-date, it is still well behind the times in many fields due to the rapid development of many new technologies and specialised occupations.
I think we are about to enter a period where there will be massive gaps in the skills needed to develop our country and, unless there is a determined look at the future by all interest groups and not just reliance on some academic papers, we will see a rapid rewind of programme changes introduced over the last 36 months.