“Australians First”: Australia abolishing 457 temporary skilled worker visa(abc.net.au)
abc.net.au
“Australians First”: Australia abolishing 457 temporary skilled worker visa
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-18/government-abolishing-457-visas/8450310
42 comments
PhD should be able to get points for independent or state nominated migration though which is a far better system than 457.
This doesn't really work either anymore, changed on the same day. Almost all biology and science related jobs have been deleted from the list of skilled migration jobs (NOT just 457, this includes all skills-based migration).
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-a...
Removed:
- Life Scientist (General)
- Microbiologist
- Biochemist
- Biotechnologist
- Geophysicist
- Natural and Physical Science Professionals NEC (this one is a catchall)
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-a...
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-a...
Removed:
- Life Scientist (General)
- Microbiologist
- Biochemist
- Biotechnologist
- Geophysicist
- Natural and Physical Science Professionals NEC (this one is a catchall)
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-a...
This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I think most Australians would be aghast that 'foreign nationals' are taking the places of Australians on competitive fellowship grants like the ARC DECRA. Out of 200 fellowships 60 are given to foreign nationals, i.e., 30%.
Personally, I think it is a bad idea to give this type of grant to a foreign national as the researcher will most likely leave Australia once the fellowship is finished as they have little to keep them in the country (extended family, etc). I've seen it so many times...
http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-discovery-early-caree...
I think most Australians would be aghast that 'foreign nationals' are taking the places of Australians on competitive fellowship grants like the ARC DECRA. Out of 200 fellowships 60 are given to foreign nationals, i.e., 30%.
Personally, I think it is a bad idea to give this type of grant to a foreign national as the researcher will most likely leave Australia once the fellowship is finished as they have little to keep them in the country (extended family, etc). I've seen it so many times...
http://www.arc.gov.au/selection-report-discovery-early-caree...
Where is the problem? 16.5% and 17% is almost identical?
Science has been and always will be an international effort, if you shut out foreign researchers you might as well close down science in Australia. It doesn't matter whether a foreign-born researcher gets an ARC DECRA grant as that money goes to an Australian university anyway, funds Australian students etc., it's not like a DECRA grant goes to your own bank account and you can only spend it on yourself.
I've seen the opposite to you, researchers coming from overseas because no-one else has their skills inside Australia, training Australian students here, and then staying on as PR. Scientists who leave Australia still keep on collaborating with Australian researchers and universities, it's not like they burn all bridges. I co-supervise with quite a few overseas-based researchers who left Australia for career opportunities, they're still adjunct here.
Science has been and always will be an international effort, if you shut out foreign researchers you might as well close down science in Australia. It doesn't matter whether a foreign-born researcher gets an ARC DECRA grant as that money goes to an Australian university anyway, funds Australian students etc., it's not like a DECRA grant goes to your own bank account and you can only spend it on yourself.
I've seen the opposite to you, researchers coming from overseas because no-one else has their skills inside Australia, training Australian students here, and then staying on as PR. Scientists who leave Australia still keep on collaborating with Australian researchers and universities, it's not like they burn all bridges. I co-supervise with quite a few overseas-based researchers who left Australia for career opportunities, they're still adjunct here.
I agree that having foreigners come is great for science in Australia but it's a bit dramatic to say "you might as well close down science in Australia".
An ARC DECRA does go to your own bank account as it pays your salary.
Btw, as an Australian you can't apply for a NSF fellowship nor a European fellowship.
An ARC DECRA does go to your own bank account as it pays your salary.
Btw, as an Australian you can't apply for a NSF fellowship nor a European fellowship.
An ARC DECRA goes 50% to your university, without you seeing a cent - the rest goes towards whatever your project needs, and yes that includes your salary. You make it sound like it all goes to your bank account which isn't true.
You can apply for European fellowships if you reside within Europe, same rule that goes for Europeans living in Australia. See for example the rules for DFG funding in Germany: http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/programmes/individual/...
>Eligibility:
> International researchers from all disciplines who have completed their scientific training (doctorate)
You can apply for European fellowships if you reside within Europe, same rule that goes for Europeans living in Australia. See for example the rules for DFG funding in Germany: http://www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/programmes/individual/...
>Eligibility:
> International researchers from all disciplines who have completed their scientific training (doctorate)
In regards to the DFG funding it says that foreigners are allowed "provided they have been resident in Germany for several years and have completed at least three years of scientific work as a doctoral or postdoctoral researcher in the German research system".
And from my understanding that is what replacement 457 will ensure.
"A DECRA Recipient may be awarded ARC funding of up to $139,369 per year of funding. The per annum salary contribution from the ARC is fixed at $99,369 (2016$), including 30 per cent on-costs, and up to a maximum of $40,000 project costs." - From ARC funding rules for DECRA.
So basically, close to $100K per annum goes to you (pre-tax) for 3 years and $30K to the university per annum. For project costs it depends on how you spend them.
And from my understanding that is what replacement 457 will ensure.
"A DECRA Recipient may be awarded ARC funding of up to $139,369 per year of funding. The per annum salary contribution from the ARC is fixed at $99,369 (2016$), including 30 per cent on-costs, and up to a maximum of $40,000 project costs." - From ARC funding rules for DECRA.
So basically, close to $100K per annum goes to you (pre-tax) for 3 years and $30K to the university per annum. For project costs it depends on how you spend them.
I would distinguish between PhD and IT work when it comes to 457 visas. In practice 457, within the IT field at least, has rarely served its intended purpose and often been misused. Likewise it has deterred many locals from considering IT as an area of study.
On the other hand PhD applicants are much closer to the intended purposes of the 457. For example research cannot be developed in the same manner and quantity as IT.
On the other hand PhD applicants are much closer to the intended purposes of the 457. For example research cannot be developed in the same manner and quantity as IT.
> Likewise it has deterred many locals from considering IT as an area of study.
That's a bold statement. Have you got some good source? I'm having a problem imagining a statistically relevant number of people saying "I'm interested in pursuing one of the skills marked by the government as experiencing national shortage, (for years!) but I won't because immigrants will take those positions instead"
That's a bold statement. Have you got some good source? I'm having a problem imagining a statistically relevant number of people saying "I'm interested in pursuing one of the skills marked by the government as experiencing national shortage, (for years!) but I won't because immigrants will take those positions instead"
457 visa workers have driven down salary expectations for entry-level development jobs, thus students have began to shy away from computer science as a field of study (since there are plenty of other fields that pay more)
Based on my own anecdotal observations within IT, few examples:
- Relative size of CS departments (enrolments) and how standalone they are as a faculty now vs 10-15 years ago
- Observations of how many parents who work in IT recommend to their kids to pursue alternative fields of study
Statistically I am not sure how this fits in with other non-IT fields.
Personally I would love to see the points above greatly improved upon as computers are here to stay, so having self-sufficiency and cross-generational (family) expertise would be very complementary and competitive.
- Relative size of CS departments (enrolments) and how standalone they are as a faculty now vs 10-15 years ago
- Observations of how many parents who work in IT recommend to their kids to pursue alternative fields of study
Statistically I am not sure how this fits in with other non-IT fields.
Personally I would love to see the points above greatly improved upon as computers are here to stay, so having self-sufficiency and cross-generational (family) expertise would be very complementary and competitive.
Struggling to understand why any country would not want more smart people, whether scientists or IT. On average I would expect anyone willing to sacrifice by leaving friends and family to move part way across he world in the diligent search for opportunity would be an asset to their new country.
Such a person would be an asset and if there were an infinite supply of jobs to employ such people in, we wouldn't need to restrict immigration nearly as much. Every new skilled person we get would contribute to and grow our economy.
However we don't have an infinite supply of jobs and every job taken by a skilled person from another country could have been taken by a skilled person from within our own country, had they developed the skill. It also reduces demand for those jobs, which reduces the motivation for people within the country to train themselves to perform it in the future and increases our dependence on immigration.
My argument isn't that immigration is bad, I'm an immigrant myself (Australia -> US) but it's definitely a trade off and needs to be controlled carefully.
However we don't have an infinite supply of jobs and every job taken by a skilled person from another country could have been taken by a skilled person from within our own country, had they developed the skill. It also reduces demand for those jobs, which reduces the motivation for people within the country to train themselves to perform it in the future and increases our dependence on immigration.
My argument isn't that immigration is bad, I'm an immigrant myself (Australia -> US) but it's definitely a trade off and needs to be controlled carefully.
ripuarian(2)
It really is good news. 457 visas have been massively abused. Last week there was an article about 475 visas being used to bring in real estate agents from China to sell homes in Australia. During the mining boom they were exploited to bring in 'chefs' to work at mcdonalds in mining towns. These aren't jobs where there are skills shortages. These are just jobs to keep wages down.
That doesn't seem like there's a need to change the program. It seems like gov should just enforce the existing rules, or make position descriptions more precise. McD position != Chef. Real estate agents shouldn't be on the list if there's no shortage.
Enforcing the current rules and spot checks that would make employers less likely to cheat on descriptions should be enough.
Enforcing the current rules and spot checks that would make employers less likely to cheat on descriptions should be enough.
If the demand for chefs and real estate agents are so high that the costs of paying for visa applications and relocating them from half way round the world are worth it, I'm not worried about the domestics. They are doing fine.
They aren't bringing in real chefs, they are bringing in low waged employees. Do you think you really need to have a culinary degree to work at McDonalds?
What specialist skills does a real estate agent have?
Australia's unemployment rate is 5.9%, Youth unemployment is 13.3% You really don't think that Australia's youth should be prioritised for working at a McDonalds?
What specialist skills does a real estate agent have?
Australia's unemployment rate is 5.9%, Youth unemployment is 13.3% You really don't think that Australia's youth should be prioritised for working at a McDonalds?
Shortcomings with 457 visas have been identified by Dr Joanna Howe, a senior lecturer in law at the University of Adelaide (see here and here) as well as in the recent Senate report entitled A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of Temporary Work Visa Holders[1].
The four major problems with the system that need fundamental reform, namely: * There are way too many occupations on the skills shortages list. * Those working under the skill level 1 (so-called “Managers and Professionals”) and skill level 2 (so-called “Associate Professionals”) are not subject to any labour market testing to determine whether an Australian can do the job first. Hence, nearly 80% of total 457 visa holders are not currently subject to labour market testing. * Where labour market testing is required it can be overcome by putting an ad on Facebook or other social media and that is enough to show that you’ve tested the labour market – basically a farce. * The 457 visa system is not sufficiently responsive either to higher levels of unemployment, or to labour market changes in specific skilled occupations.
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena...
The four major problems with the system that need fundamental reform, namely: * There are way too many occupations on the skills shortages list. * Those working under the skill level 1 (so-called “Managers and Professionals”) and skill level 2 (so-called “Associate Professionals”) are not subject to any labour market testing to determine whether an Australian can do the job first. Hence, nearly 80% of total 457 visa holders are not currently subject to labour market testing. * Where labour market testing is required it can be overcome by putting an ad on Facebook or other social media and that is enough to show that you’ve tested the labour market – basically a farce. * The 457 visa system is not sufficiently responsive either to higher levels of unemployment, or to labour market changes in specific skilled occupations.
[1] http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Sena...
Looking at this list, the professions that Turnbull wants to remove is incredibly broad. As a Canadian in the US, I'm not 100% clear, but it seems like the 457 visa is a lot like the H1-B.
With that comparison, it's really surprising to see professions like:
If someone announced they were taking these professions off the H1-B list in the US, I'm pretty sure there'd be a huge uproar. This is not even to mention that lots of these sound pretty important for Australia's resource economy. Can someone educate me on the situation from a more Australian point of view?
With that comparison, it's really surprising to see professions like:
* Chemical engineer
* Petroleum engineer
* Electronics engineer
* Web developer
If someone announced they were taking these professions off the H1-B list in the US, I'm pretty sure there'd be a huge uproar. This is not even to mention that lots of these sound pretty important for Australia's resource economy. Can someone educate me on the situation from a more Australian point of view?
A lot of "programmers/web developers" on this visa are scammers looking for a quick way to gain permanent residency (apparently it's a lot easier for a random person to claim they're a programmer than other professions that require actual skill). There's a whole industry of businesses providing "employment" to these people for a fee. I think the idea is to replace this visa with one that has more stringent skill/language requirements to weed out these scammers.
Whether intentional or not, you imply that programming does not involve an "actual" skillset and that is quite a bold claim to make on Hacker News.
It's easy to suggest this type of fraud and assume it's true based on merit. Do you have any proof of the above statements or is this speculation?
I personally discovered a hair salon that was advertising for a "full time web developer" to manage their website (lol) with the plan to then use that (unfilled, obviously, given the extremely weak salary they were offering) position to bring in a "web developer" hairdresser on a 457. The system is seriously abused.
EDIT: I guess the truth hurts?
EDIT: I guess the truth hurts?
I'd like to hear how it actually went for them. Here's why I think the story, or a successful (fraudulent) outcome is unlikely:
The visas cost quite a lot - in application costs, time to collect documents, cost of tests, etc. And I mean likely a full month or more of a hairdresser salary kind of cost. On top of that you'd need to provide a documentation of both a degree and relevant work experience for the last 10 years just to check if you qualify. Then you get the history and references checked, so that needs to pass as well.
For the company organising such fraud, it would likely be a lot less hassle to take a local person and teach them 1-to-1, full time for a month. And considering you may end up sponsoring someone without skills to come and work for you essentially illegally - what's the point?
Also for the person seeking that position: if you're found out, you'll likely never get a proper visa. That a big risk to take.
The visas cost quite a lot - in application costs, time to collect documents, cost of tests, etc. And I mean likely a full month or more of a hairdresser salary kind of cost. On top of that you'd need to provide a documentation of both a degree and relevant work experience for the last 10 years just to check if you qualify. Then you get the history and references checked, so that needs to pass as well.
For the company organising such fraud, it would likely be a lot less hassle to take a local person and teach them 1-to-1, full time for a month. And considering you may end up sponsoring someone without skills to come and work for you essentially illegally - what's the point?
Also for the person seeking that position: if you're found out, you'll likely never get a proper visa. That a big risk to take.
Okay, how about petroleum engineer? Lot of hair dressing salons advertising for those?
I can't comment on the 457 requirements specifically, but I was granted a Skilled Independent visa (subclass 189) last year, as a "Developer Programmer". In lieu of a degree that would be considered at least a major in Computer Science I had to supply detailed references going back ten years. Certainly not easy.
"Web Developer" is often "code" for bringing in a worker whose job is really to do something else (typically menial.)
Also, these roles are jobs that Australians can be trained to do and there's no reason to source them externally.
Also, these roles are jobs that Australians can be trained to do and there's no reason to source them externally.
A few years ago there was an exposé on 457 abuse in the IT industry on national tv.(http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3786315.htm)
Hence the "TCS" jab from empressplay. A lot of IT contracts for major companies in Australia are outsourced to multinational IT companies. Those multinationals use a lot of 457 workers and get the big contracts via undercutting and paying low wages to poor migrants.
Then various politicians have attacked the 457 scheme over the years. Most recently, one government backbencher from a regional mining area where unemployment is still very high threatened to quit over it.
It's reputation has been shady for quite a while. It is always raised in a bad light by the media due to abuses.
I do feel that this current move has unfairly affected legit skilled researchers like a_bonobo though. How they manage to be lumped in with 457s brought in by outsourcing companies makes zero sense.
Hence the "TCS" jab from empressplay. A lot of IT contracts for major companies in Australia are outsourced to multinational IT companies. Those multinationals use a lot of 457 workers and get the big contracts via undercutting and paying low wages to poor migrants.
Then various politicians have attacked the 457 scheme over the years. Most recently, one government backbencher from a regional mining area where unemployment is still very high threatened to quit over it.
It's reputation has been shady for quite a while. It is always raised in a bad light by the media due to abuses.
I do feel that this current move has unfairly affected legit skilled researchers like a_bonobo though. How they manage to be lumped in with 457s brought in by outsourcing companies makes zero sense.
457 visas were very inflexible for the visa holder .... you needed to be sponsored by the employer and not many employers were interested in doing that.
A lot of it is summarized here: http://www.border.gov.au/WorkinginAustralia/Documents/abolit... Basically, current holder are fine, 457 Visa will also keep being issued until March 2018 with some extra restrictions starting 1st of July.
The company I work for has hired 2 students via 457s that completed their engineering work experience with us during their degree. Finding high quality employees this way worked great for us, it's a shame that it won't work anymore, as I understand it.
Hey TCS, don't let the door hit you on the way out ;)
I'm a postdoctoral researcher who's on a 457 visa out of my PhD. The new 457 replacement requires 3 years of work experience, so we cannot hire people from overseas who've just finished their PhDs. Without a permanent residency outcome we cannot keep these people after their initial contract (which is my own plan). They doubled the price but that's OK (for us!) since the university's reallocation funds pay for that.
This is short-sighted pandering to the far-right who've been clamoring for this, and science loses.