Brigitta Rudnicki Assistant Director Skilled Visa Review and Deregulation Taskforce Department of Immigration and Border Protection 17 October 2014 Dear Ms Rudnicki, Thank you for the invitation to respond to the Discussion Paper on the current review of skilled migration and the 400 series visas. This is a timely and much needed review, and I am in general fully supportive of the idea that a reduction in ‘red tape’ and a streamlining of processes will enable a more effective, more equitable and more sustainable skilled migration program. I have been researching the social and political consequences of elements of the Australian skilled migration program since 2005, with an emphasis on the links between international education and skilled migration, and on the impact of the increase in temporary visa categories. Much of my work has focused on the transitions between visa categories for migrants while onshore, so many of my specific recommendations will relate to onshore applicants, particularly highlighting the need for clearer and more explicit pathways between temporary work visas and permanent skilled migration. Such pathways will provide greater protection for the rights of long-term temporary residents in Australia, but will also align our system more closely with key competitor countries, such as New Zealand and Canada. The recommendations and considerations that I outline below are based on analysis of both my own primary and secondary research and from research on skilled migration from other academics both in Australia and in comparable national contexts. I look forward to following, and where appropriate contributing, to the ongoing progress of the review. Sincere regards,

Dr Shanthi Robertson

Submission to Discussion Paper on the DIBP review of skilled migration and the 400 series visas.

Dr Shanthi Robertson

Research Fellow, Institute for Culture and Society

University of Western Sydney

s.robertson@uws.edu.au

Overall Recommendations and Considerations for Skilled Migration Reform

1. I am fully supportive of a reduction in the number of categories and subclasses within the 400 visa series. The current range of visas is too large and it is difficult for applicants, employers and agents to determine which visa is appropriate. However, criteria as well as categories may need to be streamlined, and different criteria for different ‘intended activities’ under the same visa category (as suggested in the Discussion Paper) may also be confusing, depending on how this is set up in terms of application processes.

2. I urge the Department to consider strengthening the links between temporary work visas and permanent residencies, and creating clearer transition pathways between them. It is clear that onshore applicants are already a key skills pool for permanent migration. In 2012-13, 50% of permanent visas were granted to migrants already onshore on a temporary visa.1 Migrants already living and working onshore have key linguistic and cultural competencies, local work experience and qualifications, local networks and have already contributed economically to Australia, often for extended periods of time. However, there are at present too many barriers in many cases to obtaining employer/state sponsored or independent skilled permanent migration for these long-term temporary residents. Migrants’ dependence on employers for sponsorship can lead to exploitation in the workplace, and migrants can spend very extended periods of time in Australia on a series of temporary visas with a great deal of uncertainty and limited social rights.2 There should be clear and explicit pathways from any temporary stay over a specified time periods (perhaps 3 or 4 years) to PR. This should not be dependent on employer sponsorship or working in an SOL occupation, because annual updates to the SOL can be highly disruptive to long-term temporary migrants’ ability to be eligible for PR. Visas akin to Canada’s ‘Canadian Experience Class’, in which onshore work 1 Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2013) 2012–13 Migration Program Report. Program year to 30 June 2013. https://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2012-13.pdf 2 Robertson, S. (2014) ‘Time and temporary migration: The case of temporary graduate workers and 2 Robertson, S. (2014) ‘Time and temporary migration: The case of temporary graduate workers and working holiday makers in Australia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Published online before print 17 January 2014. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.876896.  

experience over a specific time period in any skilled occupation leads directly to permanent residency, should be considered. This will ensure that skilled, employable, experienced and qualified temporary residents who wish to stay long term will generally be able to do so, and will also better align Australian policy with key competitor countries. As is Canada, these visas could be capped annually to align with labour market needs, and work experience in particular occupations could be made exempt in the case of labour oversupply. These ‘onshore experience’ visas could also require some portion of work experience to be undertaken in regional Australia in order to encourage labour market participation outside of urban centres. 3. Clear pathways for international student graduates to stay in Australia and gain work experience should be retained, either through retaining the 485 category or through another mechanism. This is crucial to maintaining Australia’s market share in a competitive global marketplace for international education, and for the valuable circulation of graduate skills between Australia and source countries. There needs to be some consideration given to better encouraging industry to hire international graduate workers with relevant qualifications, as at present ‘status discrimination’ against 485 workers remains significant in the labour market and leads to the under-skilling and deskilling of graduates.3 Recommendations on Key Visa Components

1. Age Threshold

1a. I would support the raising of the upper age threshold for skilled migration to 55 to reflect current demographic shifts in workforce age globally. This would support highly experienced workers being able to benefit the Australian economy.

1b. I recommend, for similar reasons, a general increase across age brackets in terms of points allocation if this mechanism continues to be part of points tested visas. Changing the 30-point bracket threshold to 35 will enable more successful applications from migrants of prime working age with postgraduate qualifications and significant work experience.

3  Robertson, S. (2014) ‘Time and temporary migration: The case of temporary graduate workers and working holiday makers in Australia’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Published online before print 17 January 2014. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2013.876896. Blackmore, J. et al. (2014) Australian International Graduates and the Transition to Employment: Final Report. Melbourne: Deakin University.  

For example, new points allocations for age could be:

Points Age

30 25-35

25 18-24 and 36-42

15 43-52

2. English Language Proficiency

I support English language proficiency being measured in terms of occupational language capacity, as assessed by industry or employers, or as reflected in migrant work experience, rather than relying on IELTS scores. While IELTS is a good base measure of language competency, it does not adequately reflect a migrants’ competency within their specific occupation. The problematic nature of IELTS as a measure of language competence is reflected in the fact that native English speakers can often score lower than non-native speakers.4 IELTS requirements often become a barrier to otherwise skilled, qualified and employable migrants achieving visas, and repeated re-testing to achieve the required scores is a great financial impost on applicants. In the area of language proficiency I propose the following considerations:

• Applicants on temporary visas who are already living and working in Australia can provide certified letters or reports from employers that they have functional English competency for the workplace as evidence of language proficiency.

• Applicants who have more than 6 years of relatively continuous residence in Australia should be exempt from English language proficiency requirements.

• Applicants with citizenship of countries where one of the official languages is English and who have undertaken English-medium instruction for the majority of their education should be exempt from IELTS requirements.

• The IELTS score of 8 for ‘Superior English’ in the current points test should be lowered to 7.5.

3. Skills and Industry Standards

Discrepancies between immigration requirements and industry standards need to be dealt with, as well as discrepancies within industry standards between skills assessments for migration purposes and licencing or registration requirements. I agree with the

4 British Council (2014). Take IELTS. Native English Speakers. http://takeielts.britishcouncil.org/choose-ielts/native-english-speakers

suggestion in the Discussion Paper that when an applicant meets industry standards, it should constitute a positive skills assessment, and processes to obtain an assessment of meeting industry criteria should be streamlined wherever possible.

4. Skills Assessments

Consideration should be given to ensuring that standards set by industry bodies for assessing migrants’ skills are consistently comparable with the standards set for local workers within the same occupation.

5. Occupations Lists

I agree that ANZSCO is confusing for sponsors and does not reflect changes to skills requirements or emerging occupations in demand in the labour market. I support a single and expanded Occupations List that reflects the needs of Australian businesses. This should be developed in close consultation with industry. Annual changes to the Occupations List should take transition arrangements for long-term temporary migrants trained and working in occupations that may be removed into consideration (the Overall Recommendations above re: explicit and non-occupation dependent pathways from temporary to permanent residency may be of value here).

6. Points Test

I support maintaining the points test, as it has been an effective and flexible mechanism for skilled migration and has become somewhat of a ‘global standard’ approach. I support, however, a more flexible and direct points test that imposes fewer burdens on prospective migrants.

7. SkillSelect

SkillSelect has been a valuable means to connect prospective migrants with employers and state and territory governments. This is especially valuable for regional employers. I support maintaining an EOI database process if state/employer nominated visas are to continue.

8. Sponsorship and Nominations

Sponsorship/nominations are a means to fill genuine labour market vacancies and to encourage migration to regional areas. However, processes should be streamlined and the impost on sponsors should be reduced. Easing requirements for employers to sponsor migrants who do not have a ‘skill list’ occupation should be considered, particularly for regional employers.