Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
The Migration Alliance has learned that Angela Julian-Armitage, the President of our sister organisation, the Migration Institute of Australia, appeared on the national ABC news on 20 April 2017 and has said that she "doesn't have a big issue with the changes" and that the changes amount to no more than "re-branding" and "shoring" up of the temporary skilled migration programme.
It should be noted that during this interview, Ms Julian-Armitage was apparently speaking in her official capacity as the President of the MIA, and was not stating her personal views.
If you'd like to see the full interview you can watch it on You Tube through this link.
You will note that during the interview, when Ms Julian-Armiatge was asked what reaction people should have to these out-of the-blue changes to the Migration Regulations, she said that the appropriate response was for people to “just breathe and stay calm”.
While of course we at MA would never recommend that anyone “stop breathing” (!!!), we at Migration Alliance would take extremely strong exception to the characterisation of these dramatic changes as simply an exercise in"re-branding".
That is simply incorrect. It is inaccurate. And in my view it is not a characterisation of these changes that should be broadcast to the Australian public at-large.
The changes are not only “cosmetic” or “re-branding:” (In any event, even though the Department seems to like to refer to visas as a “product” they are anything but a marketable commodity. Visas are not toothpaste, soap shampoo or dog kibble!!! They confer exceptionally important legal rights and entitlements!)
In what respect are the changes more than just a “re-branding” exercise?
To quote a line from the poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “Let me count the ways”.
First, immediately and without any prior notice or consultation, 216 occupations have been removed from the list of occupations eligible for a 457 visa.
The occupations that have been removed include such “non-vital and common occupations” as airplane pilot, air traffic controller, emergency service worker, geophysicists, microbiologists and hydrogeologists. Also people working in the creative arts like authors, composers, painters, sculptors and singers (who needs the arts when we have “footy”, but guess what sports umpires and sports administrators have also been crossed off the list.
Somewhat hilariously, Migration Agent (Aus) and Tribunal Member have also been removed from the list!!! What about Immigration Lawyer (US)? Guess no one is queuing up to sign up for that one right now!! (Maybe no immediate demand for “Border Wall Builder (Mexico) either!)
The Department’s really useful suggestion for people who have lodged 457 visa applications for any of the occupations that have been taken off the list is truly “brilliant” – no transition period, no “grandfathering” – what they are offering is the opportunity to withdraw the application and get a refund of the VAC. Thanks a lot Department for all the innocent people caught up in this change, “touch luck, have a nice life” is really poor consolation, isn’t it.
More substance: on and after 19 April 2017, the maximum visa period for persons whose occupations are on the Short Term Skilled Occupation List is only 2 years. That includes for visa applicants whose applications were lodged before the changes!
The four year validity period previously commonplace for 457 visas will now be available only for persons whose occupations are on the Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List.
Additionally, the Government has announced that effective 1 July 2017, there will be further substantive changes to the 457 programme, including:
And here are the further substantive changes which the Government has announced will come into force in March 2018:
So it is all just window-dressing, non-substantive “re-branding” of a “visa product”?
MIA: if you think that’s so, we respectfully disagree!!!!!!!
In my view, and I suspect that on this topic I speak on behalf of many migration agents and lawyers, the appropriate response to these changes is not just to "breathe and stay calm".
It is not the role of the migration profession to stand by happily and nod in agreement with every change that the government makes.
It is not our role as an advocacy organisation to blandly characterise a major, unannounced change to Australia's migration framework by saying that something that has a major impact on the rights of migrants and on the business activities of employers who depend on the 457 programme for skilled workers to say that something which is actually a huge change is "not a big change" and "not as bad as it looks".
Sorry, MIA, and apologies and with all due respect, Ms Julian-Armitage, but in my opinion it is a big change, it is not just as bad as it looks, it is a whole lot worse than it looks.
As I have said in happier contexts, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it is a duck.
Likewise, if this is a change to the law that will harm skilled migrants who can advance Australia's economy, and if it will harm Australian employers who need the skills these workers can offer, then we at Migration Alliance will give our frank opinion about it, and we certainly won't try to minimise these dramatic changes to the skilled migration programme by characterising them as "re-branding".
That is not what this is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not remotely!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thoughts or comments?
This 457 changes was a cruel joke and removing of occupations from long term list and then u ask international students to study bachelors and masters for whooping 400000 to 120000 dollars.If they studied u never know after a year ur occupation is there or not .If u don't want to give residency to international students why make them spend so much.Let the fees be equal to demostic students!!Example bachelor of nursing for home students is not more than 10000 bucks but for international students it's 100000 dollars.Well ppl sitting in aircon need to think.ITs unfair totally unfair for students who doing bachelor or masters !!!
MIA always boasting that they are for the consumer and migration agents but too many self righteous egos boasting about how wonderful they are and how shit everyone else is, has lead them to become the departments lackeys!!! look what has happened whilst they have been 'in co-operation' with the department!!
I think the MIA senior officer in question was either on drugs or hadn't been appropriately briefed on the changes. I saw the broadcast (a YouTube link was provided with an MIA mailout) and my initial reaction was that the MIA couldn't possibly know the actual details of the changes, as why would they label them a re-brand?
Indeed Liana,
It is actually abhorrent to hear such from the president of the so called peak industry body, while Pauline Hanson is claiming credit for the substantial change.
During the interview, this elected national president was actually worrying about how to charge a client fee to hand over department’s refund.
President of the Go8 University has written to the Prime Minister to express grave concern for its impact on Australia’s innovative science development.
This president did nothing other than borrowing words from unions of “re-branding”, reminding me of CEO of United Airlines to “re-accommodate” the affected passengers/clients.
Thanks again for raising this matter. I can only think of this president is probably out of touch with her clients or probably has not been doing any real work anyway.
The comments were made by MIA National President Angela Julian-Armitage during an interview on the ABC. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAf7O4zg_r8
As a long time Registered Migration Agent, I was very disappointed with her comments and feel they were not reflective of the true situation.
We keep making fun of Trump for his views on Mexican wall but what has been done here is far more serious for those who are actually impacted by this Dutton/Turnbull duo! Very unethical to ask someone to wait for 4 more years when they had plans for future based on citizenship, which they were going to file may be next day/week/month!
The consequences will be far reaching, much more than USA where international student enrolment has dropped as can be seen in the uptick to Canadian enrolment. I say much more because USA is no. 1 destination for students worldwide and Australia trying to make Trump happy now, will feel the brunt 2-3 years down the line.
A little bit off track, but why does MIA with just over 10 staff, have a board, a President AND a CEO ? AIM who do skill assessments for CEO, GM etc, would never consider the structure large enough to support a positive occupation assessment for these roles.
What a waste of our membership money paying multiple redundant levels of bureaucracy
I also saw the interview where the MIA President characterized the changes as re-branding, Whilst on one hand you could say that os the case there are also a number of aspects that go well beyond re-branding. Most notable is is retrospective aspect of the proposed regulatory changes.
My clients main concern is to transnational pathways towards Permanent residency and Citizenship.
I can see no merit in changing the time required to obtain Citizenship.
The main issue is the Changes do not give recognition to the time spent in Australia.
I have no issues with a 6 year wait for citizenship but think that shifting the goal posts to only take into consideration time spent as a Permanent resident is discriminatory and negative.
It means a person who comes to Australia on a 186/189 or 190 visa has to wait just four years before they can apply for Citizenship whilst a person who comes on a Marriage/Partner(6 years). Student or Temporary work visa visa and wants to stay in Australia will have to wait 7 years or more.
The ill-considered changes will reduce Australia's appeal as a destination for study and for temporary work entitlements.
A student visa holder will have to wait 4 years as a student another 2 to 4 years on a Graduate visa and then 4 more years if they can secure a Permanent Residency visa. No consideration or credit given to the many years spent already living and working in Australia. This will add to the divisions and leave open visa holders to abuse.
There is no consistent or fair pathway for citizenship for those who come on Temporary Visas, (Including Student visas).
The changes do nothing to address the rorts in the Training Benchmark process or unemployed Australians.
The retrospective aspect of the changes make the situation even worst and seriously undermines Australia Immigration program. There are many who qualified under the old rules now will have to wait up to an additional 3 years because there was no notification of the governments intent.
The Senate should take steps to deny these changes. Many that are regulatory not legislative.
Anthony, you are completely correct.
I would like to add that the retrospectivity of the 457 changes (in that they affect and change the circumstance of lawfully submitted applications) is against the 'Rule of Law". This at a time when the Citizenship changes are put forward as a 'strengthening of Australian values"?
Ironic or hypocritical?
Policy or politics?
This is the key reason that I ceased being a member of the MIA after only two years some eight years ago. It was evident back then that they were unable to represent the interests of migration agents; something, that hasn't changed after all these years. With rubbish like this served up, one questions the motives of the MIA or their level of understanding of how dire the situation is. Is it simply me, or has the government just screwed migrants that have spent years studying here whilst contributing to both our economy and society whilst there is an element within our society that bleed our welfare system dry? Oh, yes, let's not look at that issue whatsoever as it doesn't contribute to votes! How one expects migrants to even decide to come to Australia to study with a view to a better life is beyond my comprehension. Knee jerk reaction that wreaks of political skulduggery if you ask me! This great country of ours was built on the sweat of many a migrant; something, that has been evidently forgotten by this government. Unfortunately, we have far too many uninformed citizens that believe the propaganda that is dished out by the government and groups with vested interests. On another note, I can't wait to see what the ramifications will be to the economy many months down the track as a consequence of these changes.
Dear Liana,
Ok. All that is correct. But what can we do now? I think the opinions of the MA and Migration Agents must be voiced in a form of report which should be sent to the people of authority such as PM, Minister of Immigration, President of AMI, Parliamentarians of all parties etc. to reconsider these changes. This report must also be web-based as an appeal which could be signed by all Migration Agents, affected employers, affected applicants and the public not agreeing to these changes. Tens of thousands of signatures obtained this way could generate an impact towards obtaining at least:
- a transitional period during which the changed laws would not affect the process of already lodged applications and lodgment of certain 457, 186 (DE & TRT) and 187 applications until a certain specified date.
- abolishing 4-year rule for obtaining citizenship which has absolutely no basis, unless delaying the prospective votes of migrants.
MA has all the power to do this. My best wishes!
the MIA flogged by wet lettuce approach is pretty dissappointing, hopefully 'balanced' changes are subtly made in the future.
The so called party of "business" and "business certainity" is a joke.
We have many died in the wool tory lib employer clients that have lost money (on our fees) that they will not be able to recover due to retrospective changes.
Liana get that house in order!