admin

Calculating multiculturalism? Count us in! Among the many predictable and startling revelations by the 2016 Census results made public this week, one that caught my eye as someone from the Indian descent was that one of every five migrants is either a Chinese or an Indian. Now that makes a lot of Indians in the country, which not only speaks volumes of their capacity and skill but also the promising relationship between Australia and India on many levels, including the migration programme. My point here must not be taken in its manifest meaning. It is about survival, about integration and a chance for a better life and a safe and secure future for those who come from a non-native English speaking background and an entirely unalike culture and society that welcomes them here in Australia. My point is about oneness and the confidence which the Australian people have the ability to give to newcomers in their homeland. My point is about acceptance and not rejection. MY point is about fairness, tolerance and recognition and not about seclusion, racism and prejudice. These numbers have made me proud first as an Australian and then as someone who has lived nearly half of his life in India – a country whose migrants make up a big chunk of the Australian population. The Census is no doubt the largest portrait of any country and exposes a nation in and out. Our 2016 Census has revealed the evergreen image of Australia as one of the most multicultural, diverse and welcoming nations on earth. Where else can one of every fifth person be a migrant; 49.3 per cent of people be first and second generation residents; and the fastest growing religion be a non-Christian religion – Nowhere else, but Australia; and amid all this, a  migration boom from China and India has transformed the face of the nation. I just wish the current and future governments, including the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, continue to make policies that are migrant-friendly and inclusive of them, not ignoring these figures and the talent, skills and diversity that migrants bring to our nation, to our workplaces, to our communities and economy. When the doors of our hearts are open, why should that of our country be closed on anyone who is genuine? This is not about stereotyping, labelling or nationalism; this is about pride, the Australian pride!

Let there be no ‘vs.’ in Tribunal & the Minister As the Immigration Minister, Mr Peter Dutton enjoys power to overrule some decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), however, it seems as if the Minister is not quite happy with the “some” and wants to extend his authority in this regard. Now, he also wants complete authority to be able to block the citizenship applications, which is not an anomaly. At least not as of now. Lately, the AAT and the Immigration Minister have been frequently making it to the news, but not every time for the very amiable reasons; and every time, I thought of writing about it, somewhere inside me, I hoped it would be the last time we come across the tussle. In the last one year, the AAT overturned 4,389 visa decisions made by delegates for the Minister. This rejection rate sits at a staggering 39 per cent of the ministerial visa decisions reviewed by the AAT in the 12 months to April 30. The most notable ones were the AAT’s ruling to overturn the Minister’s cancelation of visas of six Iranians, who were found “holidaying and partying” in Iran; and the overturning of the Minister’s cancellation of visa of an Indian taxi driver found guilty of sexual assault.  Though the Minister later decided to use his powers to override the AAT in both decisions and the six Iranians and the Indian will soon be deported to their homelands, these cases have brought a whole new set of questions to the surface – questions on both ends: the AAT’s and the Minister’s powers. The even more shocking news came with the announcement that more than 50 AAT members, overseeing government decisions, will not be reappointed. Now this is where it seems to be getting political and to an extent worse. These skirmishes and the announcement hint at an unprecedented fear, which makes us question whether our jurists are acting independently. The ruling-overriding-cancellation cycle by both parties may weaken the rule of law and undermine public perception of the legitimacy of these decisions. If I may say, I was first in the queue to question the AAT. What our system, the Department and the migration tribunals need is a mutual understanding on decisions and the way they are made. The loopholes, the miscommunication and the lack of it cannot be fixed by deciding not to reappoint tribunal members. These will be fixed through more focused trainings of the members and a cohesive understanding of the backgrounds, history and dynamics of each appellant. They need to multitask as jurist, psychologists and historians when making decisions to override or accept the Minister’s decisions. If not, the applicants and their appeals will continue to be in a never ending rotation, like an un-owned ball, being kicked from one end to another. Let’s not make it a political game at the cost of the safety of the Australian people and certainly not at that of the [genuine] applicant’s time, money, emotions and future in Australia. We need understanding and a certain independence on both sides before this scrimmage becomes worse and starts to get noticed across our borders.

Cutting through the fog: 457 visa changes explained You must have heard about the changes in the 457-visa program and its implications. Much confusion reigns due to several changes and since less knowledge is worse than no knowledge, let me explain all the things in a detailed manner. To begin with, because the occupation list and caveats are in effect from April 19, 2017, any 457 application that has not been finalised and has nominated an occupation on any of the lists must be able to fulfil these additional requirements. It is harsh, but this is how it is. Caveats apply to all 457 visa and nomination applications which: are lodged on or after April 19, 2017; were lodged before April 19, 2017 and have not yet been decided by the Department Those who have already been granted their 457 visas will not be affected. Unfortunately, those who applied before April 19, 2017, but have not yet been granted their visa will still be affected by the changes. Such pending applications that are based on a removed occupation will not be successful. Applicants will need to withdraw their applications and will receive a refund on the application fees. For those people here on a 457 visa at the moment, there will be a “grandfathering” arrangement and they will continue under the conditions of that visa. However, visa holders should note the changes to the English language and skills requirements if they plan to change employment, change their occupation or seek a further subclass 457 visa. Here is the breakdown of all the changes: Temporary Skill Shortage Visa (TSS visa) The Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) visa will be replaced with the completely new Temporary Skills Shortage (TSS) visa in March 2018. Occupation lists: The occupation lists that underpin the 457 visa have been significantly condensed from 651 to 435 occupations, with 216 occupations removed and access to 59 other occupations restricted. The Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List (CSOL) is renamed as Short-term Skilled Occupations List (STSOL) and will be updated every six months based on advice from the Department of Employment. The other occupations list used for skilled migration, the Skilled Occupations List (SOL) is renamed as Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL). Validity period: The maximum duration of 457 visas issued from this date for occupations that are on the STSOL will be two years with an optional two-year extension allowed only once. Occupations on the MLTSSL will continue to be issued for a maximum duration of four years. Residency: The two-year short-term visa program will offer no prospect of permanent residency. The four-year medium-term visa holders will be able to apply for permanent residency. English Requirements: The four-year visas will require a higher standard of English language skills; a minimum of IELTS 5 (or equivalent test) in each test component. English language exemption salary threshold, which exempted applicants whose salary was over $96,400 from the English language requirement, will be removed. Training benchmarks: Policy settings about the training benchmark requirement will be made clearer in legislative instruments. Training requirement for employers to contribute towards training Australian workers will be strengthened. Please ensure that your clients keep meeting this obligation (training benchmark A or B) as this is expected to be more carefully monitored. Character: Provision of penal clearance certificates will become mandatory. Work Experience: Two-year work experience will be required for both visas. Other documentation: In majority of cases, mandatory Labour market testing will be required, unless an international obligation applies. Employers must pay the Australian market salary rate and meet the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold requirements. A non-discriminatory workforce test to ensure employers are not actively discriminating against Australian workers. Application fees $1150 for two-year visa and $2400 for four-year visas apply Applications already lodged: 457 visa applicants that had lodged their application on or before 18 April 2017 with an occupation that has been removed from the STSOL, and whose application has not yet been decided, may be eligible for a refund of their visa application fee. Nominating businesses for these applications may also be eligible for a refund of related fees. As always, you can contact me or the team at Migration Centre of Australia for further understanding and clarity about how the changes may affect sponsorship, nomination and visa applications.