Migration Help
17th December 2009, 03:39 PM
Here are the official minutes from DIAC regarding the meeting which took place at the Australian High Commission in London on the 30th November.
Thanks to all attendees and to Gill for sending the document through to MH for our readers.
************************************
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION
Australia House, Strand, London WC2B 4LA
MEETING
30 November 2009
Overview of discussion
State SponsorshIP
- Discussed that the economic climate triggered changes to the Skilled Migration Program. While the size of the program remains historically large, growth has been halted in response to the current economic situation.
- Attendees mentioned that rumours suggest State/Teritory governments were not consulted. DIAC outlined to attendees that the Department is required to balance the needs of the States/Territories and industries, and State/Terriotry Governments are involved in regular and ongoing discussions with the Department on a number of issues, including migration.
- Attendees subsequently asked how many States/Territories agreed to or supported the 23 September 2009 announcement. DIAC advised attendees that they cannot speak on behalf of the States/Territories and that they would need to consult them directly on this question.
- Highlighted that skill needs continue to differ vastly across each of the States/Territories e.g. NSW are not represented permanently in the UK, while states such as WA are represented here and are actively engaging in regular promotion.
- Outlined that review of the MODL is underway and further change is anticipated in a changing economy.
Medicals and Police Clearances
- Attendees expressed frustration about having being asked by the Department to do medicals and then receiving the 23 September 2009 notice. The request for medicals gave them the impression that their visa was close to being processed and hence they commenced arrangements to migrate e.g. putting house on the market, saying goodbye to family etc.
- They also raised the issue that the standard GSM lodgement email advises applicants to get medicals while other DIAC sources advise applicants to wait for a Case Officer’s instruction.
- Attendees asked whether DIAC only requests medicals when the visa is ready to be granted – this is the general impression. Advised attendees that this depends on the visa subclass and medicals are part of the overall assessment of any visa, not necessarily indicating an imminent visa grant.
- Attendees asked whether there is still discretion for Case Officers to extend medicals for 3 months. Advised attendees that this can still be employed however is considered on a case by case basis.
The ‘3,500 rumour’
- Clarified to attendees that 3,500 represents the number of ‘Category 5 Processing’ applications currently in the pipeline (with or without Case officers).
- Explained that all category 1 – 4 have been processed and Category 5 were being commenced from date of receipt onwards. Clarified that any new Category 1 – 4 applications that arrive in the interim will take precedence and will subsequently impact processing times for Category 5.
Case Officers and Processing Times
- Discussed that the Department adopts a client focus. Service standards for visa processing are published to help manage the expectations and clients should note that these are global standards and it would be unfeasible/unreasonable to break this down via region. Hence, published service standards should be considered as a guide only.
- Attendees expressed their frustration around seeking information from the Contact Centre in Adelaide - feel that staff are reading from a script and that they are not giving any application-specific information. Confirmed to applicants that Contact Centre staff have access to Case Officers Notes via the system and are therefore in a position to provide information that is available at the time of the applicants enquiry.
- Attendees asked about processing staff in Adelaide and the structure of communication channels between Contact Centre Staff and Case Officers. The attendee who used to work in ASPC provided some insight (acknowledging that things may have changed since he has worked there) including that a Case Officer is not obliged to respond directly to clients.
- Attendees highlighted that the 23 September 2009 Fact Sheet asked that clients do not contact their Case Officers. Questions were raised over this and it was explained that an immediate influx of questions would have grinded processing to a halt and slowed systems down while Case Officers were responding. It was advised that clients are welcome to contact their Case Officers at any point.
- Attendees asked how many new cases a Case Officer receives per week. Former ASPC employee advised that he used to receive approximately 30 new files each week. Case Officers can have a Case Load of up to 300 at a time and it was pointed out that this is manageable given the processing is not so much discretionary but more about ensuring the client can be checked off against requirements/criteria.
- Attendees asked how the DIAC pipeline and case-load compares with other countries. It was explained that all countries have different processes and differing levels of demand, making it difficult to compare e.g. the UK has EU countries to consider, NZ have a different concept altogether which involves expressions of interest rather than full application, etc. It was highlighted that DIAC processing times are similar/comparable with other nations when considered on a pro-rata basis.
- Discussed processing staff and whether this was sufficient to cover rising demand should the future economic climate allow for greater flexibility to the Skilled Migration Program. Confirmed that DIAC is committed to meeting targets and there are sufficient staffing levels and shared knowledge across departments/offices to trigger backup resources if and when required.
Refunds
- Explained that the Minister has asked the Department to look at options for assisting applicants who have been adversely affected by priority processing changes. The Department is not without sympathy for people who wish to withdraw and is therefore considering options for this, however the ability to refund applicants may require legislative (or regulative) change which will then require involvement from other government agencies. Matters relating to government revenue can take time.
- A question was raised as to why it is not standard process to issue refunds to people wishing to withdraw a visa application in any circumstance. It was explained that visa fees are in place to cover the administration costs associated with the processing of an application, and it would not be sustainable to allow rights to refund in any given circumstance, partiulalr yas it would be used where people felt they may not be granted a visa. The current situation is different - applicants lodged based on an expectation which now cannot be met due to changes in the economy. As such, the Department is considering options for applicants who wish to withdraw based on the delays to the finalisation of their cases.
Dependents
- It was explained to attendees that the age of 18 is simply a trigger for an assessment of whether a child is still considered a dependent - it is not a black and white ruling that a person is no longer a dependent e.g. if a child was 16 at the time of lodgement and turns 18 prior to visa grant, an assessment will be made by a Case Officer to determine, at time of decision, whether the child is still considered a dependant. If they rely on their parents for living costs and are not working or are studying full-time, then they may be considered a dependant.
General Skilled Migration Discussion
- Discussed that the Department will continue to review the CSL and Migration Program in accordance with economic activity. It is likely that there will be further changes however the nature and timing of these cannot yet be determined.
- MODL is currently under review and an announcement could be expected prior to Christmas.
- Attendees pointed out that the website still says that reporting on the MODL would be issued in October 2009.
- Attendees queried the validity of their State sponsorship. Advised that they need to discuss this directly with the individual state. Indicated that most states are indefinite, however QLD may have a finite period.
- Explained that next year will see more clarity and accuracy in forecasting. Case Officer’s will be better positioned to work with individual applicants to advise when meds and police checks are required.
- It is likely that the size of the program for 2010/11 will be announced around the time of the budget – May 2010, however is not reliant on the budget cycle.
- Attendees expressed concern over the possibility of retrospective changes being made to eligibility criteria and queried whether there is policy to prohibit retrospective changes e.g. MODL points being changed and this being applied to lodged applications. Clarified to attendees that there had been no legislative changes around the 23 September 2009 announcement, this was change to processing timings and order only. Advised that legislative change would take up to 12 months to go through if anything was to be amended, and at this stage there is no knowledge of pending legislative change to GSM. Changes are anticipated in the future and whether these will be legislative changes or amendments to regulations in not yet known.
(continued in next post.............)
Thanks to all attendees and to Gill for sending the document through to MH for our readers.
************************************
AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION
Australia House, Strand, London WC2B 4LA
MEETING
30 November 2009
Overview of discussion
State SponsorshIP
- Discussed that the economic climate triggered changes to the Skilled Migration Program. While the size of the program remains historically large, growth has been halted in response to the current economic situation.
- Attendees mentioned that rumours suggest State/Teritory governments were not consulted. DIAC outlined to attendees that the Department is required to balance the needs of the States/Territories and industries, and State/Terriotry Governments are involved in regular and ongoing discussions with the Department on a number of issues, including migration.
- Attendees subsequently asked how many States/Territories agreed to or supported the 23 September 2009 announcement. DIAC advised attendees that they cannot speak on behalf of the States/Territories and that they would need to consult them directly on this question.
- Highlighted that skill needs continue to differ vastly across each of the States/Territories e.g. NSW are not represented permanently in the UK, while states such as WA are represented here and are actively engaging in regular promotion.
- Outlined that review of the MODL is underway and further change is anticipated in a changing economy.
Medicals and Police Clearances
- Attendees expressed frustration about having being asked by the Department to do medicals and then receiving the 23 September 2009 notice. The request for medicals gave them the impression that their visa was close to being processed and hence they commenced arrangements to migrate e.g. putting house on the market, saying goodbye to family etc.
- They also raised the issue that the standard GSM lodgement email advises applicants to get medicals while other DIAC sources advise applicants to wait for a Case Officer’s instruction.
- Attendees asked whether DIAC only requests medicals when the visa is ready to be granted – this is the general impression. Advised attendees that this depends on the visa subclass and medicals are part of the overall assessment of any visa, not necessarily indicating an imminent visa grant.
- Attendees asked whether there is still discretion for Case Officers to extend medicals for 3 months. Advised attendees that this can still be employed however is considered on a case by case basis.
The ‘3,500 rumour’
- Clarified to attendees that 3,500 represents the number of ‘Category 5 Processing’ applications currently in the pipeline (with or without Case officers).
- Explained that all category 1 – 4 have been processed and Category 5 were being commenced from date of receipt onwards. Clarified that any new Category 1 – 4 applications that arrive in the interim will take precedence and will subsequently impact processing times for Category 5.
Case Officers and Processing Times
- Discussed that the Department adopts a client focus. Service standards for visa processing are published to help manage the expectations and clients should note that these are global standards and it would be unfeasible/unreasonable to break this down via region. Hence, published service standards should be considered as a guide only.
- Attendees expressed their frustration around seeking information from the Contact Centre in Adelaide - feel that staff are reading from a script and that they are not giving any application-specific information. Confirmed to applicants that Contact Centre staff have access to Case Officers Notes via the system and are therefore in a position to provide information that is available at the time of the applicants enquiry.
- Attendees asked about processing staff in Adelaide and the structure of communication channels between Contact Centre Staff and Case Officers. The attendee who used to work in ASPC provided some insight (acknowledging that things may have changed since he has worked there) including that a Case Officer is not obliged to respond directly to clients.
- Attendees highlighted that the 23 September 2009 Fact Sheet asked that clients do not contact their Case Officers. Questions were raised over this and it was explained that an immediate influx of questions would have grinded processing to a halt and slowed systems down while Case Officers were responding. It was advised that clients are welcome to contact their Case Officers at any point.
- Attendees asked how many new cases a Case Officer receives per week. Former ASPC employee advised that he used to receive approximately 30 new files each week. Case Officers can have a Case Load of up to 300 at a time and it was pointed out that this is manageable given the processing is not so much discretionary but more about ensuring the client can be checked off against requirements/criteria.
- Attendees asked how the DIAC pipeline and case-load compares with other countries. It was explained that all countries have different processes and differing levels of demand, making it difficult to compare e.g. the UK has EU countries to consider, NZ have a different concept altogether which involves expressions of interest rather than full application, etc. It was highlighted that DIAC processing times are similar/comparable with other nations when considered on a pro-rata basis.
- Discussed processing staff and whether this was sufficient to cover rising demand should the future economic climate allow for greater flexibility to the Skilled Migration Program. Confirmed that DIAC is committed to meeting targets and there are sufficient staffing levels and shared knowledge across departments/offices to trigger backup resources if and when required.
Refunds
- Explained that the Minister has asked the Department to look at options for assisting applicants who have been adversely affected by priority processing changes. The Department is not without sympathy for people who wish to withdraw and is therefore considering options for this, however the ability to refund applicants may require legislative (or regulative) change which will then require involvement from other government agencies. Matters relating to government revenue can take time.
- A question was raised as to why it is not standard process to issue refunds to people wishing to withdraw a visa application in any circumstance. It was explained that visa fees are in place to cover the administration costs associated with the processing of an application, and it would not be sustainable to allow rights to refund in any given circumstance, partiulalr yas it would be used where people felt they may not be granted a visa. The current situation is different - applicants lodged based on an expectation which now cannot be met due to changes in the economy. As such, the Department is considering options for applicants who wish to withdraw based on the delays to the finalisation of their cases.
Dependents
- It was explained to attendees that the age of 18 is simply a trigger for an assessment of whether a child is still considered a dependent - it is not a black and white ruling that a person is no longer a dependent e.g. if a child was 16 at the time of lodgement and turns 18 prior to visa grant, an assessment will be made by a Case Officer to determine, at time of decision, whether the child is still considered a dependant. If they rely on their parents for living costs and are not working or are studying full-time, then they may be considered a dependant.
General Skilled Migration Discussion
- Discussed that the Department will continue to review the CSL and Migration Program in accordance with economic activity. It is likely that there will be further changes however the nature and timing of these cannot yet be determined.
- MODL is currently under review and an announcement could be expected prior to Christmas.
- Attendees pointed out that the website still says that reporting on the MODL would be issued in October 2009.
- Attendees queried the validity of their State sponsorship. Advised that they need to discuss this directly with the individual state. Indicated that most states are indefinite, however QLD may have a finite period.
- Explained that next year will see more clarity and accuracy in forecasting. Case Officer’s will be better positioned to work with individual applicants to advise when meds and police checks are required.
- It is likely that the size of the program for 2010/11 will be announced around the time of the budget – May 2010, however is not reliant on the budget cycle.
- Attendees expressed concern over the possibility of retrospective changes being made to eligibility criteria and queried whether there is policy to prohibit retrospective changes e.g. MODL points being changed and this being applied to lodged applications. Clarified to attendees that there had been no legislative changes around the 23 September 2009 announcement, this was change to processing timings and order only. Advised that legislative change would take up to 12 months to go through if anything was to be amended, and at this stage there is no knowledge of pending legislative change to GSM. Changes are anticipated in the future and whether these will be legislative changes or amendments to regulations in not yet known.
(continued in next post.............)