Login / Join
Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 16234
- 25 Comments
Training Benchmark A for 457 and 186 visas: new policy
The DIBP's Procedures Advice Manual (PAMs) have been changed and the policy is now as follows:
46.5 Training benchmark A - industry training fund
Industry training funds are statutory authorities responsible for providing funding for training of eligible workers in certain industries. For example, some State/Territory governments have construction industry training funds established by Acts of Parliament to support the training of eligible persons in the building and construction industry such as the ACT Building and Construction Industry Training Fund that is administered under the Building and Construction Industry Training Levy Act 1999. These training funds generally source revenue through levies from businesses operating in that industry. Industry training funds operate in a range of sectors including construction and mining but are not limited to these industries. Immigration has no authority to register or establish industry training funds.
The responsibilities of an industry training fund may include, but is not limited to, paying for training provided to existing and entry level workers, and working with employers and training organisations to assist in the employment of apprentices and trainees.
If an applicant seeks to meet this requirement by demonstrating payment of the equivalent of at least 2% of payroll expenditure to an industry training fund, the applicant should be operating in the same industry as the fund. This is because the training must be related to the purpose of the applicant's business. To meet this benchmark, applicants should provide evidence of having made these contributions, such as a receipt or letter from the industry training fund.
Note: There is no requirement that the monetary contribution made to an industry training fund directly benefits employees of the business that is making the contribution. The intention of this option is that the applicant for sponsorship contributes to the training of Australian citizens or permanent residents to meet skill needs in the industry, not necessarily in the applicant's business. The contribution may benefit employees of their business but this is not a requirement.
To summarise, training benchmark A is available to businesses that have been trading for at least 12 months and do not have a training plan in effect for the training of their Australian citizen or permanent resident employees that is sufficient to meet training benchmark B.
Sectors where there is no statutory industry training fund operating
If there is no statutory industry training fund operating in the same sector as the applicant for approval, for the purposes of meeting Training Benchmark A, the department will accept evidence of contributions made to:
- a recognised industry body who provide training opportunities or
- a recognised scholarship fund operated by an Australian university or TAFE college.
Recognised industry bodies
To meet the requirements of Training Benchmark A, a recognised industry body must have established procedures in place to accept contributions towards the provision of training for Australian workers in their industry sector. Contributions received for this purpose should be quarantined for training purposes only, with no percentage of contributions being allocated to commissions.
Governance of the funds received by a recognised industry body should be administered by a committee overseen by an independent Chairperson and that includes industry representatives (employers and employees). The processes of this committee should be impartial and well documented so as to be transparent and accountable. Moneys should be allocated under established guidelines that:
- allow any potential recipient involved in the industry to apply for funding
- detail the application process
- outline industry training priorities and
- specify the attributes that need to be met for funding to be approved.
Immigration cannot endorse or advertise recognised industry bodies who accept contributions for the purposes of Training Benchmark A.
Contributions to private registered training organisations (RTOs) do not satisfy the requirements of Training Benchmark A.
Recognised scholarship funds operated by Australian universities or TAFE colleges
To meet the requirements of Training Benchmark A, the applicant can show evidence of having made a contribution to a recognised scholarship fund that is operated by an Australian university or TAFE college. The scholarship fund should support education or training for Australian citizens or permanent residents in a course related to the business of the applicant, with no percentage of the contributions being allocated to commissions.
Contributions to scholarship funds that advertise refunds to contributors on the basis of refused immigration applications may not be acceptable for the purpose of meeting Training Benchmark A. In such cases it is generally clear that the applicant does not meet the requirement that they are committing to maintaining the expenditure for the term of approval as a sponsor. However, decisions should be made on a case by case basis and officers should consider all evidence before them.
Contributions to private RTOs do not satisfy the requirements of Training Benchmark A.
Comments
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015Thanks a lot for the update.
However, I was wondering whether it will be applied to the already lodged 457/ENS/RSMS applications, with the benchmark A receipts, that have not been finalized? -
Thursday, 26 February 2015
No more "commissions" "kickbacks"? Great, as I posted recently one provider gives 40% to the agent. Scandalous in my view. So if that has ended,I am happy.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
A commission is not scandalous but part of common market practice. DIBP makes the assumption that the commission is deducted from the actual training fund and not paid for from a marketing budget. Anyone with a sharp pencil can work this. Does anyone believe that every cent actually goes to scholarships? The cost of running such a scheme is always deducted from the fund just like not for profit organisations who pay their staff huge salaries which do not effect their status. Most charities see only 5 -10% of donations go to supposed recipients.
DIBP recently contacted many training benchmark A providers to let them know that it did not consider them to be authorised industry training funds and as such you won't see any 40% commission for Benchmark A any more. Check out the recent generic advertising emails from ESBT, McKKr's, etc to note that only benchmark B is mentioned. -
Thursday, 26 February 2015McKKrs have always advertised training benchmark B and in fact in some seminars have been known to say 'you don't need training benchmark A'. Of course when you run seminars and sell training benchmark B at those seminars there may be a conflict of interest in not covering benchmark A.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Of course the commission paid comes from the fee they charge, I do realise that and I doubt that the DIBP thinks it comes from the money to be invested. But I still think that large commissions mean that the produce being offered is greatly overpriced and I'm against us as agents getting a commission simply for passing on certain information and details. If a real estate agent gives a commission for introducing a vendor, they pay it from the regulated fee they charge. But here there is no regulated fee and they can up their fees to pay what I consider to be unreasonable commissions which our clients in fact pays. The waters are muddy which is why I keep out of muddy waters. Something to do with my strange notion of ethics on my part.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
I'm interested to know the answer to the question above from Min about whether this will affect applications already lodged? I lodged an ENS in January and the client company provided receipts from TAFE evidencing 2% of their gross payroll was contributed to their industry training fund. TAFE did then provide me with a commission, it certainly wasn't 40% but there was a commission. I in turn declared this to the client and then reduced my legal fees - I just didn't feel comfortable taking the commission just because I simply advised them where to contribute, so I reduced my fees to account for the commission I received.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Robert - it's not the commission itself, it's that the Benchmark A & B system has led to some serious ethical lapses within the profession.
I have met a number of clients (employers) who were under the impression that Benchmark A was the _only_ way to meet the DIBP training requirement. The agent(s) they used appear to have 'failed to mention' about Benchmark B (and that's the most generous way I can put it) and steered the client into Benchmark A.
I'm glad DIBP has made this move. -
Thursday, 26 February 2015
I inform my employers of the choices, 2% invested where the employer gets absolutely no benefit. Or pay 1% on a relevant course, seminar whatever for an employee now. Half the cost and an employee, therefore the employer, gets a benefit. To me its a no-brainier.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
It might be a no-brainer under the circumstances you have dealt with, Chris but it is not always possible. The only problem with benchmark B is it relies on the employer having Australian workers. Many companies do not have because directors receive no salary but get a share of profits. Training provided to directors [or family members] is not permitted according to policy. In answer to Min's question, I believe that TAFE has paid commission from other than scholarship/ training fund and DIBP is wrong to presume otherwise. Case by case!
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Training to the owners etc can be counted if employees were also included. Say the owner attends a seminar with an employee, then the total cost is allowed. In saying this, I have to admit I haven't had cause to look at this aspect for a while, but from memory the word were training provided ONLY to an employer cannot be counted, but a mix of employer/employee undertaking the same training counts covered under the same invoice to be sure. And of course my last comment earlier was not intended to cover all circumstances, I agree with you.
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
The interesting question for me is where we can find all the "statutory industry training funds"? How can I advise my client in which fund to contribute (and how should the decision-maker know?) if policy does not even care to list those statutory industry training funds? My understanding is that if there is no statutory industry training fund in the sector of the applicant, then the applicant could still make his contributions to, say, TAFE NSW Sydney Institute, correct? And why then should this be the end of commission payments to us? The new policy puts the burden on the fund by saying that "no percentage of the contributions being allocated to commissions". How the hell should I know how the fund pays my commission? It's not necessarily coming from the contribution made by the client, is it?
-
Thursday, 26 February 2015
Most institutions have more than one account so maybe they could just pay commission or a 'fee' or provide a 'spotters fee' via a general account and not the account which is used to take in for the benchmark A. More to the point, how will DIBP police commission payments or non commission payments from institutions back to referrers? Are they going to audit their books?
-
Monday, 02 March 2015
The Tafe Queensland Foundation does not make commission payments directly from 457 and 186 contributions. Every cent of each contribution goes directly to the foundation and is spent solely on scholarships and traineeships.
-
Tuesday, 03 March 2015
They paying the commissions from contribution money indirectly?
-
Monday, 02 March 2015
Hi Trevor
I tried to obtain the same information from TAFE NSW but it was not available to "public domain" Apparently interested stakeholders who are committed to an agreement are just the public. Chris, you should try to come to grips with the fact that not all companies have Australian workers. I recently did a 457 for a company owned and operated by two doctors- neither who satisfy as employees- no other workers. Benchmark B is was, by policy, simply not possible. This is an example of when benchmark B is NOT possible. I am fully aware of when it is. -
Monday, 02 March 2015
After 32 years in this business, I believe I am well aware and have, as you nicely put it, come to grips with this issue, that not all businesses employ Australian workers, but thanks for the reminder. Strange that the two doctors didn't have a receptionist even. That said what you describe is I suggest not the norm.
-
Monday, 02 March 2015
Hi Robert
I dictated this from the beginning with Gold Coast Tafe.
This "change" is not really news as Policy were
discussing it with me 12 months ago and I am certain
I was aware of this back in 2012. We are currently working
On disclaimers on our site and our receipts regarding commission.
So that Immigration know about it an we can confirm if required.
The "Changes" just mean that agents must ensure commissions
are not derived from contributions, and more importantly
They must ascertain if an industry fund is in place. -
Monday, 02 March 2015
Thanks for the clarification. I wonder why TAFE NSW is not so forthcoming with honest but then, TAFE Qld has a working enrollment system which NSW has been denied. Ask any TAFE NSW employee how bad it is down here! Many [maybe justifiably] believe it a stitch up.
-
Tuesday, 03 March 2015
Hi Robert, thanks for your helpful instruction. After 32 years (thirty two) in this work, I do believe that I have "come to grips" as you nicely put it, with most issues that can arise. But I continue to learn.Two doctors working together with no secretary/receptionist? That is strange but I'm sure you have investigated all options without needing advice from me.
Immigration blog
This is a very important update. Thank you for picking it up and posting Liana.