Young Australians seem to have lost their love affair with technology with the number of graduates with ICT qualifications steadily falling since early 2000s, says a new report by the Australian Computer Society and Deloitte Access Economics. Should the trend continue, the next six years could see a record demand for overseas ICT workers given the steady growth of the technology sector and business demand for ICT workers.

Australia’s ICT industry employs around 600,000 workers. Interestingly enough, one of the biggest employers of ICT workers in Australia is the department of immigration (DIBP) with an estimated 1,600 ICT employees. However, the report notes even the DIBP finds it difficult to get the ICT staff it needs stating, ‘there are still a number of gaps in relation to the technical skills required within the organisation’.

With the government absorbing large numbers of ICT workers and the Silicon Valley companies drawing the best local graduates, private enterprise have been left to rely on ICT workers from overseas to fill the gap for over a decade now.

The ACS has noted that Australia is just not creating enough graduates to meet business demand, and it’s becoming a massive problem forcing companies to turn to overseas skilled workers to meet business needs. There could well be an acute shortage of workers in the next few years.

The reports states that consultations with the business community suggest that there are shortages in skills such as programming and coding, computer science theory and computational thinking with businesses relying on overseas workers for key technical capabilities such as software development and programming.

The report notes that Visa grants for temporary skilled migration of ICT workers have historically accounted for around 10–15% of total 457 visa grants. In the 2013–14 financial year, almost 12,000 ICT workers were granted 457 visas, representing 12% of total visas granted. This year it is expected to increase with the occupational ceilings raised for several ICT related occupations.

It will be well-known to RMAs that a person who fails to lodge an application for a new substantive visa with the Department before an existing visa has expired may encounter major difficulties in obtaining the new visa. 

These difficulties may be posed by the need to comply with the criteria of Schedule 3 of the Migration Regulations.  For example, Clause 3004 of Schedule 3 provides that if the applicant has ceased to hold a substantive visa (or criminal justice visa) at any time after 1 September 1994, the applicant must satisfy the Department , among other things, that she or he does not currently hold a substantive visa due to factors beyond her/his control; that there are compelling reasons for the grant of the new visa; and that the applicant has “complied substantially” with the conditions that applied to the last substantive visa that was held.

A decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has clarified the meaning of clause 3004, and has explained the nature and extent of the “compliance” with the conditions of a person’s last substantive visa that must be achieved in order to satisfy clause 3004. This decision was made in the case of Montero v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (2014) FCAFC 170 (12 December 2014).

The following information has just been received from the DIBP:

Dear Agent

As you have been advised, legislative changes came into effect on 1 July 2015 which will limit nominations for permanent visas for Minister of Religion (ANZSCO 272211) to the Agreement Stream of the Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 186 visa). The Department would like to clarify the impact of these legislative changes.

Legislation to change the Migration Act will be introduced into parliament next month by independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon to create a visa which could allow an estimated 40,000 foreigners to work in special migration zones in regional Australia.

Specifically targeted at ‘economically challenged’ regions of Australia including South Australia and Tasmania, the proposal is supported by several industry groups, The groups say the measures will boost population growth, revive regional towns and create between ‘1.3 to 1.6 jobs for every job filled’ by a foreigner, according to a report in The Australian

 “This program will be a win-win for struggling areas of the nation — boosting the local economy and boosting jobs in the process,” said Senator Xenophon. He believes the program would particularly help address the jobs crisis facing South Australia, where unemployment is at a 15-year high.

National Farmers Federation manager of workplace relations Sarah McKinnon told The Australian that the 457 visa program and the seasonal worker program used by backpackers did not accommodate semi-skilled workers. Without an agriculture-related degree, foreign workers are ineligible for 457-visa sponsorship by a farm employer.

“Across industry there is a need for this particular level of skill that we can’t always find in the local labour market and there is no visa that provides for it,” she said.

Peak horticultural growers’ group Ausveg said the challenge would be to identify a migration zone that covered regional areas most in need. “Many farms struggle to find labour, it is a huge concern for industry that they don’t have access to that labour force to harvest the fruit and vegetables that we consume,” Ausveg deputy chief executive Andrew White said.

Can a person who is not the primary applicant for a visa that has been refused, and is not even aware that the visa application has been made on their behalf, be subject to a bar under section 48 of the Act when they make a further visa application?

The Full Court considered this question in the case of Minister v Immigration and Border Protection v Kim, (2014) FCAFC 47 (24 April 2014). The decision in the case is important for RMAs who are advising visa applicants who were previously “secondary applicants” on a visa application that was refused.

The factual background of this case was that the visa applicant, Ms Kim, had first arrived in Australia from South Korea when she was a small child, less than 3 years old. When she was 5 years old (in 2008), her father lodged an application for an “Other Family (Residence) (subclass 835)” visa. Ms Kim was included as a member of her father’s family unit in this application. Of course, Ms Kim was not aware that she had been included in this visa application, and the “blocks” on the application form above her name had been signed on her behalf by her father.  This application was refused by the Department.  Nonetheless, Ms Kim apparently remained “onshore” with the status of an unlawful non-citizen.