Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3814
- 12 Comments
Work Visa Review: The key question for the panel.
The battleground in the government’s sc457 review has now become more defined with both unions and industry bodies targeting the English-language standard as the key question the panel must decide on: should the panel recommend that the standard be maintained, or lowered?
The unions want it to be maintained given the current high-unemployment rates. But industry bodies indicate that due to the unrealistic English-language standards here, unemployment rates will go-up even further should employers be forced to send more jobs offshore in search of skills.
This stark industry warning has been put to the sc457 review panel by the Australian Industry Group (AIG), according to a report in The Australian.
Minimum English-language requirements were introduced in 2007 by the Howard government and raised by the former Labour government a few years later. Unions concerned about losing out jobs to foreign workers maintain that low English-standards threaten local jobs, lead to rorting and exploitation of workers.
Employers however maintain that evidence from their workforce surveys reveal that there is a national skills shortage which can be addressed with the lowering of the language standards to a level that is actually required in the workplace.
The Australian reports that the AIG has made a submission to the independent review panel calling for the English-language requirement to be "significantly" lowered. AIG chief executive Innes Willox told the The Australian that language requirements are shrinking the pool of people who can apply for the skilled migration program. “This is a particular issue for skilled trades,” the submission says. “Language requirements should be significantly reduced and take into account the fact that many Australian workplaces are multilingual.”
The report states that the AIG’s submission also hits out at Labor’s 457 visa crackdown as rushed and declares that “excessively defensive arguments against the temporary inflow of skilled labour are reminiscent of the arguments made against imported goods and non-British migrants for most of the last century”.
“These attitudes on immigration resonate with these discredited protectionist sentiments which have no part in our globalised economy,” it says.
But the ACTU has urged the panel to reject calls to water down the standards. It argues that English-language requirements are critical to ensuring good workplace safety and reducing the potential for exploitation.
Comments
-
Thursday, 15 May 2014Submission made by Migration Alliance which supports the position of AIG.
The Australian reports that the AIG has made a submission to the independent review panel calling for the English-language requirement to be "significantly" lowered. AIG chief executive Innes Willox told the The Australian that language requirements are shrinking the pool of people who can apply for the skilled migration program. “This is a particular issue for skilled trades,” the submission says. “Language requirements should be significantly reduced and take into account the fact that many Australian workplaces are multilingual.” -
Thursday, 15 May 2014I think there are some industries where it is clear that English levels should drop. Restaurants for example - the language used in the environment is not going to be English in a Chinese restaurant. I don't advocate for zero English because they still need some English in the community. But 4 x 5's or $96400 for a cook??? I know of restaurants that are struggling to get cooks.
There are going to be some industries which clearly have higher and lower English requirements, whether it is to do with safety or professional requirement (eg law, teaching), but it shouldn't affect all industries.
How about having different TSMIT and English requirements for different industries? I believe that MA published an article within the last few months where the tourism industry said that TSMIT was making it impossible to find workers in the industry, especially when Australians weren't applying. -
Thursday, 15 May 2014
In the mid 80s I received a letter from a top executive of Alan Bond Corporation who couldn't differential the, there, their, they in his letter but was paid close to or more than 1m a year.
-
Thursday, 15 May 2014
IELTS is hardly the issue here. The unions can be assuaged by offering to compel overseas workers to join unions. The 457 employees' union dues are just as good as those of anyone else. It will also allow the unions, if they are genuinely interested in member-employees, to get authentic feedback from the 457 visa holders. I have represented native Australian employees who worked in jobs where the venue's first language was not English. They seemed to get along well. I cannot imagine in that situation how an overseas 457 visa holder who spoke the predominant language of the venue would be disadvantaged.
It seems to be a pervasive fear in government agencies of large numbers of 457 Asian workers that is driving the IELTS. The concept of English language testing for 457 visa applicants is a sound one. However, it should be used for monitoring the visa class with a view to seeing whether, over the years, there is a correlation between low English language skills and later departmental complaints against employers violating the law. The concept, a priori, that low language skills of 457 visa holders relates directly to employer abuse must be examined carefully and unemotionally. It may be there; it may not be. -
Thursday, 15 May 2014
The best solution would be as follows:-
1. Bring back the language occupation language exemption for professionals (ANZSCO groups 1-2). Removing this restriction was a mistake for a number of reasons but one key reason is that it stifles international investment via creating hurdles to the dispatch of foreign staff. With the 'end of the mining boom', this should be a serious concern. The majority of these workers do not work in high risk work environments so safety is less of a concern. Perhaps also require them to sign off on a Fair Work information statement in their language if necessary.
2. For groups 3 and downwards, reduce the IELTS requirement to Functional English. Allow an exemption for employers who show a receipt for payment of English tuition equal to the AMEP offering for their staff members and insert a clause in the employment contract allowing the employee time to study. This should ensure that the staff gain sufficient English to do their jobs and would also stimulate the local ESL market at a time when international student numbers have been decreasing. Also have these employees sign off on a Fair Work information statement in their own language (or alternatively an industry standard statement, I am sure the Union movement would be happy to fund the creation of such a document).
Problem solved. -
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Hi, Matt,
your solutions are quite feasible and measurable. I think MA should consider put these in the submission. -
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Industry-specific or occupation-specific IELTS requirements only make sense, as a previous commenter has said. Fixing the TSMIT as a single number for the entire country and all industries is also something that makes no sense given the vast range of cost-of-living differences between regional and urban areas of the country. Slapping a single requirement on either of these simply does not represent the realities in the workplace or community today with any sort of accuracy.
-
Thursday, 15 May 2014
I find it absurd that overseas workers are subjected to conditions that Australian workers are not. I am personally aware of many Australian trained and qualified tradespersons who are illiterate. This has not impacted on their abilities to fulfill their duties as bricklayers, concreters, plasterers or carpenters.
-
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Hi, English is the national language of our country Australia. People who come here and/or live here are expected to know English. The question is at what level of proficiency? Surely that depends on which occupation they are in. Soccer player, hairdresser, welder, airline pilot, surgeon., accountant, butcher baker and candlestick maker? Let their UNIONS/PROFESSIONAL BODIES set their own bar before they grant membership!
We think a baseline of FUNCTIONAL ENGLISH is all that our IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT should concern itself with. Functional Englosh is defined as an AVERAGE score of 5.0 in an IELTS test. [NB: This business of a score in each segment and that to in the one sitting is simply a money making ruse.] Even IELTS Cambridge says in their marketing material that competency should be measured by the AVERAGE SCORE across all 4 components of the Test.
A DIBP visa requirement of AVERAGE 5 in IELTS will fix 90% of our problems - across ALL VISA CLASSES. Anything else simply smacks of the discredited "White Australia Policy" - notong that if you hold a Passport from UK, Canada, USA, Ireland or NZ you automatically qualify for a 6 in IELTS! How's that for Fairness in Testing English? -
Friday, 16 May 2014
Function English is defined as 4.5 average see http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01447
-
Thursday, 15 May 2014
By all means (if the unions insist) have an IELTS test for trades persons but then make it compulsory across the board. I wonder how many Aussies will pass. By the way, has anyone noted that there is no trade terminology anywhere in an IELTS.
Immigration blog
Suggest the Union Members sit for the IELTS themselves to see if they can pass 6.6.6.6. Maybe then we will get a different opinion - from my experience some can hardly write their own language.
Ben Scheelings
MARN: 9472279