Australian immigration - too many pointless changes

I am currently applying for permanent residency in Australia. As a (possibly) perpetual permanent resident in Malaysia and holder of a Bangladesh passport, as well as a relative to many migrants, I am very familiar with the pains and hassles of the visa and residency process. Every country in the world makes it unnecessarily difficult for someone to be a resident (let alone a permanent resident or a citizen), especially if you come from a developing country, particularly one filled with potential migrants. Financial checks, character checks, layers upon layers of bureaucracy...the whole process is a mess, and yet the People in Charge never seem to think of the real-life effects of their always-changing policies.

Just yesterday the current Australian Immigration Minister Chris Evans announced that they are automatically rejecting 20,000 applications - all of whom applied before late 2007 under relaxed rules. My application was made last year so hopefully it won't be part of the churn, but the prospect of my app suddenly being cut due to the whims and fancies of whoever's in charge is frightening.

Evans claims that they are building a more targeted list of skills needed and basing applications on that, with priority given to people who already have jobs lined up. Just that last line shows how out of touch with reality the Australia Government is when it comes to migrants. Based on my experiences, and from talking to other migrants (past and present), here's what I see is problematic with current Australian immigration policy:

1. The current "skills" database isn't really a list of skills, but a list of occupations. It totally disregards the fact that many people nowadays, especially young people, don't just belong to an occupation - they often multitask, transferring skills between one occupation to another. An architect, a hairdresser, and an executive all share skills in design, problem solving, research, knowing their client, application of ideas and concepts - yet they're all treated differently.

2. Newer industries, such as the Creative Industries, are not represented in the Skills list at all. Each occupation is given a number of points according to demand, and applicants need to meet a minimum number of points to have their application approved. However, there are a lot of occupations that don't give you points at all. Anything to do with the creative industries, for example, doesn't get you points - you need to already be hired as that role for that "skill" to be useful. The only CI-related occupations I could think of that are pointed are journalistic skills - but they favour traditional media over new media, not considering that traditional media sources are currently losing ground. They claim to be updating this list, but I don't think they'll get out of their left-brain science/health kick.

3. You can only claim one "skilled occupation" on the list, regardless of your abilities. If I could claim more than one skill on that list, I'd have about 300 points easy - stage management, production, journalism, marketing, all sorts. But I could only claim one. As I said before, the list doesn't account for people who have worked across occupations and industries, and those that have changed careers. Wouldn't Australia be happy to have people that are flexible and can adapt?

4. Determining your "skilled occupation" doesn't actually involve your past experience, but rather your degree (and now where you've worked for a year). If my CV had anything to do with the occupation I could choose for my PR application, I'd be some version of youth or community worker. However, my CV and gobs of experience within the Brisbane community didn't matter one bit. According to my degree, I was qualified to be a Print Journalist (even though I haven't written for any Australian print media). They've now added a new rule saying the degree wasn't enough - you need to have one year's worth of work experience to claim it. Yet how many students are actually able to get a skilled job while doing a full-time degree (until very recently international students couldn't do part-time study) continuously over a year? Volunteering doesn't count, personal projects doesn't count, ad-hoc or short-but-regular projects (like festivals) don't count. It also significantly disadvantages people who change their minds after their degree, or who took a degree in one thing but realised that their skills and passions lay elsewhere - perhaps somewhere without a degree available.

5. It is extremely difficult for international students and migrants (especially people on Bridging visas) to get any sort of employment. The reasoning behind all these changes is the idea that migrants should be able to get a job in Australia. However, it ignores the fact that migrants are already significantly disadvantaged in the job market. Here's how:

• Stigma against minorities - just having an ethnic-sounding name can disqualify you from fair job prospects. Then they see your green passport and visa and positively freak out.
• Company policies (written or otherwise) against hiring people on student/Bridging visas due to possible lack of permanence - QUT's HR Department actually tried to tell me that they have a policy against hiring people with Bridging visas since we had no end date. It wasn't in their policy documents at all.
• Temporary residents (a.k.a. not PRs or citizens) are not allowed access to options that help with their job search - no Centrelink, grants, scholarships, skills training, Recognition of Prior Learning, job assistance, mentoring programs-  basically anything Government-funded. (Which means stuff like YAQ's JUMP and YAMP programs are right out too.) Any options tha are available, such as further study, still charge full-fee rates, which are prohibitively expensive.
• International students can only work about 20 hours a week - most part-time jobs want at least 25, and they want 9-5 hours too (which clash with uni study).

Employers don't want to hire people without a permanent visa. They won't even interview you. But the Government won't give you a visa unless you have a job. Chicken and egg?

6. It doesn't encourage entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs should be welcomed by Australia - they create jobs and opportunities, they stimulate the economy. Even people who don't make for-profit businesses, such as artsworkers or community developers, still enhance Australia's culture and lifestyle in major ways. These people are dedicating part of their existence to the betterment of Australia - but are not given any resources, support, or recognition for it. Sure, their immediate community may welcome them, but they're not the ones with the power of the Visa. The focus on jobs actually discourages entrepreneurship and innovation - you're expected to fit into a mold. Yet with the Global Financial Crisis, the idea of a "job" has changed so much - we need to rethink what it means to be employed.

7. The Immigration Department makes changes quicker than they, or anyone else, can keep up with them. Notice how they still had applications from 2007 that were unprocessed. A few months ago they mentioned more changes that would likely make my application only processed by 2012! At that rate I should skip over permanent residency and get citizenship on the spot! Yet they change the rules every year, less than that even - and expect everyone to change their lifestyles immediately to follow suit. Worse of all, they make it retroactive - so if you applied before the rules changed, and you followed everything to the letter, bad luck anyway. What a waste of time and resources for everyone involved - at least clear the backlog first before you start making sweeping changes.

8. There are no recourses for people who are suddenly negatively affected by the rule changes. 20,000 people are going to get a letter saying that even though they followed the rules, their applications will be denied because the Immigration Minister changed his mind. These people have sacrificed years of their lives, sources of income, family connections, possibly their passions and livelihoods, and have willingly put themselves through the gauntlet that is the immigration process - only to have all their hard work thrown away. The whole process costs thousands of dollars - sure, they'll refund the fee, but can you refund lost time? Some have started lives in Australia - are you going to help them transition? Will they be deported because they haven't left fast enough? The process is invasive and stressful - comprehensive health checks (even HIV!), bank checks, police checks, family trees, what have you. But there's nothing to compenstate for that.

9. The English language requirements completely disregard the degree. You need to score at least a 6 in your IELTS tests to qualify (the highest is 9, I got 8). The tests are only valid for 2 years, so the one you took to get to Australia to study in the first place likely won't be valid. The fact that you did an English language degree apparently doesn't mean anything to anyone. Also, if you scored pretty high on your first IELTS test, surely your English can't have deteriorated from living and studying in Australia? (I do feel that local Australians' command of the language leaves something to be desired, but that's another rant...)

Visas disgust me in general, but this especially makes me frustrated. So many vulnerable people - young people, arts and humanities, people living non-traditional lives - affected by stupid unrealistic policies. So many of us came to Australia because there were communities that supported us (I don't thinK I could do half the stuff that I do back in Malaysia). Yet, even though there are Australians who would welcome us with open arms, the Government doesn't seem to care.

You want to know why there are illegal migrants? Because things like these just show what a big sham the whole process is. Why bother putting yourself through the wringer if you're only going to end up worse than you are before?

Yet the only time the Australian public ever gets to know about things like these are when it affects someone from a developed, privileged country. Today Tonight or the Courier Mail will report about a British person that now doesn't have a visa and they make such a big deal about "how terrible!" it all is. But this is the reality for many migrants out there, especially from developing countries. Yet because we're not white, we don't get the press. We deserved it after all, filthy people fresh off the boats.

The Immigration policies definitely need a reform. However, they need a reform that is realistic, humanistic, and takes into account the real-world experiences of migrants and current job-seekers. At the very least, talk to migrants about what they experience. Don't just make up a whole bunch of rules, fail to keep up with them, and then just say "Ooops, we're sorry you're disappointed."

Comments

1. Tiara, great article!

   — stephanie · Feb 10, 03:51 PM · #

2. You’ve posted a thorough examination of the rules past and present. When I first looked at them – 2 years ago when we considered moving here to Sydney from Hong Kong – a Norwegian/Australian friend said “They don’t want you here.” Because I’m an artist. The arts are so competitive and there are plenty of qualified artists here already.

   Eventually my husband got a job here in his practical engineering field but I’ve spent much of my time in Asia – because that’s where my work and connections are. And frankly, while there’s much to be enjoyed in Australia, there’s a lot more out there…and it’s all so far away from here. In a week I leave for several months in Bangkok because monthly rent for a studio & flat there is cheaper than my commute to a studio here in Sydney!

   — Elizabeth · Feb 11, 10:41 PM · #

3. Tiara, this is a brilliant analysis. Makes me want to have a look at PR processes in Canada as well. Great stuff.

   — Jha · Feb 20, 07:28 PM · #

4. IELTS is a fair bit of a shame too. I know of plenty of people who have passed it well enough to study in Australia, but have significant problems communicating in english

   — alex · Feb 20, 10:50 PM · #

5. Hey, great article. I’m glad someone has taken the time to study the new rules and explain them so cogently.

   Personally I definitely think there are upsides to SOME of the new changes. It’s ludicrous that so many people come here to study certain courses (hairdressing is the obvious example) that they have no desire to pursue post-study, but primarily as a way to get PR. This can effectively deny places to locals who do want to pursue that career.

   But obviously some applicants are going to get seriously short-changed by these new regulations. The Government needs to make sure that all those who have applied while the old rulings were in place can still get a fair chance.
   Even with the hairdressing example I mentioned above, those who applied in such a way still did so through a legal process and need to be treated with due respect.

   — Eurasian Sensation · Feb 22, 03:44 PM · #

6. I got my assesment 2 weeks ago and suddenly got the news of MODL removal while I was preparing for final apply.Now My application,effort ,investment of money ?..all out of order.At least there should be provision for those who has already received their assesment.Because we applied for Assesment after getting the MODL points and already received positive aasesment.

   — Liza · Feb 24, 01:20 AM · #