Australian Immigration Daily News

What would you say if a client rang you up with the following scenario:

After coming to Australia on a student visa to do post-doctoral research, his car collided with the wall of a house causing a brick to fall on the head of an occupant of the house. The client told police that another person had been driving the car, but he was “too drunk” to know who that person was. And the client was charged by the police with a motor vehicle offence for “not disclosing the details of the driver”. 

Doesn’t sound too bad yet, does it? 

A Melbourne based businessman and his two companies have been penalised for the deliberate exploitation of vulnerable overseas workers after the Federal Circuit Court found that they had underpaid two overseas workers who had a limited understanding of employment laws and their entitlements.

Pradeep Gaur and his two North Melbourne-based IT companies - Konsulteq Pty Ltd and Konsulteq Upskilling & Training Services Pty Ltd were penalised $160,000 for various breaches of the employment law in connection with the two overseas workers.

Each of the workers paid Gaur up-front “training fees” of more than $2000 that they understood would lead to jobs with Gaur’s companies - but the workers were not provided with accredited training and were not provided with properly paid employment.

In what some agents say is something completely new, the department of immigration has apparently started refusing student visa applications of Indian students who have completed Class XII from schools affiliated to the Punjab School Education Board.

According to a report in the Times of India, in a rejection letter sent to an Indian student who had applied for a "vocational education and training sector (subclass 572) visa", the department’s refusal letter stated that "education and examinations conducted through the PSEB are not listed as equivalent to an Australian Grade 12 qualification under the Australian Education International - National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition Guidelines (AEI-NOOSR)".

Speaking to the newspaper, an education agent said that "Citing this reason is completely new…There have been several rejections on this ground in the last couple of days."

...

If the applicant with overseas qualification is not exempted  and is not nominated for a trade occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument, they must demonstrate that they have qualifications listed in ANZSCO as being necessary to perform the tasks of the occupation 

On-the-job training

The following are considered to be equivalent:

• an Australian Certificate III obtained with 2 years of on-the-job training
• an Australian Certificate III obtained without the on-the-job training, provided the holder has 2 years of post-qualification work experience.

Alternatively, provided the ANZSCO framework (indicative skill level) allows for this, the person may demonstrate 3 years of relevant experience in lieu of the formal qualification.

If the applicant is nominated in a trade occupation, only Australian work experience can be counted towards the two years of post-qualification work experience (where required), or as a substitute for the formal qualifications, as per ANZSCO and 187.234(c). Any overseas experience in a trade occupation cannot be used as a substitute for overseas qualifications under 187.234(b).

"Any overseas experience in a trade occupation cannot be used as a substitute for overseas qualifications under 187.234(b)"

It this a typo or is there a hidden meaning? 

Secondly - When did overseas experience as a trade cease to be recognised by ANZSCO and why? To us the key here is ANZSCO - not a policy modified version of ANZSCO.

The following is the new legislation inserted:

186.312A

Either:

(a)  the Minister is satisfied that the applicant has not, in the previous 3 years, engaged in conduct that constitutes a contravention of subsection245AR(1), 245AS(1), 245AT(1) or 245AU(1) of the Act; or

(b)  both of the following apply: