Changes expected for the 457 visa

ArseBurger · 11-01-2014 12:34am

catbear wrote: »

Garda check and medical not required for 457 as it's not a residency visa.

Since when?

Batgurl · 11-01-2014 12:55am

ArseBurger wrote: »

Since when?

At least the last two years. I didn't have to do either.

massdebater · 11-01-2014 1:01am

I applied for a 457 mid-2011 and didn't have to do any poloce checks.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 1:54am

It's always been the case for 457, you don't need a police check just a declaration that you have no convictions same as a holiday visa.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 2:05am

thedarksh1te wrote: »

I just get the impression my chances of sponsorship are lessoned if I don't pay!

If you are genuinely skilled then the employer should be happy to cover the cost, is that not how it works?

Mellor · 11-01-2014 3:17am

mandrake04 wrote: »

If you are genuinely skilled then the employer should be happy to cover the cost, is that not how it works?

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 3:47am

Mellor wrote: »

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

The better applicants just get snapped up by the bigger successful companies, those at bottom of the barrel go out with the begging bowl. LOL

Batgurl · 11-01-2014 4:01am

Mellor wrote: »

lol, if only it where that easy. There's plenty of business out there struggling to pay wages, just because they wish to sponsor a genuinely skilled person doesn't mean they have the means to.

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

catbear · 11-01-2014 4:03am

Tsipras wrote: »

begging bowl LOL? i hope end up there yourself we'll see how LOL it is.. ur a muppet

In fairness he's got a point. If you present yourself to a potential employer as desperate then it's easier for them to rip you off if. Bargaining power is important and the more experience you have in your profession then the greater your bargaining power.

If you're cheaper to hire than a local then you become expendable if business gets quiet. them's the breaks.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 4:31am

Tsipras wrote: »

begging bowl LOL? i hope end up there yourself we'll see how LOL it is.. ur a muppet

Far from a muppet, just telling it the way it is.

The way of the world, plenty of lads on here have been sponsored directly from Ireland, sponsorship paid for, flights paid for, furniture shipped, months accommodation paid for.... then there are those who can't get sponsored unless they pay the sponsorship themselves and willing to work longer hours for less money.

It's like self depreciation, don't say it doesn't happen.

Mellor · 11-01-2014 4:55am

Batgurl wrote: »

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

Live within their means? Who? Not every industry is booming. Many company's are struggling through no fault of their own. It's not close to Dublin circa 2008, but it's enough to make you glad to have a job and a backlog of work.

Obviously few people would relocate around the world for such a position. But I'm talking about a situation where somebody has a position in a small company, he's a solid employee and the employer genuinely wants to keep him on. But $5k can be a lot to a small company.

I'm not saying this is always the case, nor am I saying people don't get exploited ever. I posted before about 457ers getting a raw deal. But it's naive to think that there's never a gray area.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 5:12am

Batgurl wrote: »

Then perhaps they should live within their means.

If a company is struggling to pay wages then they certainly shouldn't be expecting people to move half way round the world to work for such a volatile company, let alone pay for the privilege.

It's explotation, plain and simple.

I can see Mellors point, if a company is looking for staff and an Aussie walk through the door looking for $65K and someone for example from Ireland might offer to do the job for $53900 if the got sponsored. You can see why the company would do it, hence why the July changes

Mellor · 11-01-2014 9:48am

mandrake04 wrote: »

I can see Mellors point, if a company is looking for staff and an Aussie walk through the door looking for $65K and someone for example from Ireland might offer to do the job for $53900 if the got sponsored. You can see why the company would do it, hence why the July changes

That's not my point and you know it. That example is obvious exploitation of the visa.
(Plus You had to pay equivalent salary long before July did you not?)

I'm talking about where the overseas guy is currently employed, visa is expiring. Has a proven record. Boss wants to keep him on for various reasons but afford the cost.

I can't remember what industry you work in ( I think its IT) and my view might be jaded due to the state of my own industry.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 10:28am

Mellor wrote: »

I'm talking about where the overseas guy is currently employed, visa is expiring. Has a proven record. Boss wants to keep him on for various reasons but afford the cost.

I get that point but the rules are now what they are, now the employer can not pass those costs on. Maybe a few years ago it was acceptable but now it's against the law. If the employer wants to sponsor then they must pay various reasons or not.

But on a side note if the employee was good then they would have many offers of sponsorship, they wouldn't have to opt for one that they have to pay the costs .... Sponsorship means to financially back or vouch. The employer sponsors the employee not the other way round.

Mellor · 11-01-2014 11:57am

mandrake04 wrote: »

I get that point but the rules are now what they are, now the employer can not pass those costs on. Maybe a few years ago it was acceptable but now it's against the law.

My understanding is that it has been against the law for a number of years. Pretty sure that was one of the obligations of the SBS back when I did it. I don't condone breaking the law, and I dont to like the precedent it sets for employers, but I can't begrudge anybody who pays for his own sponsorship as a last resort - as long as the situation was genuine.

But on a side note if the employee was good then they would have many offers of sponsorship, they wouldn't have to opt for one that they have to pay the costs

If only that were true for all of us. When you are stuck in an industry that is downsizing, there are very few new openings regardless of ability.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 12:21pm

Mellor wrote: »

My understanding is that it has been against the law for a number of years. Pretty sure that was one of the obligations of the SBS back when I did it. I don't condone breaking the law, and I dont to like the precedent it sets for employers, but I can't begrudge anybody who pays for his own sponsorship as a last resort - as long as the situation was genuine.

Your understanding is wrong

It was an obligation that appears to have be disregarded, it's now a law.

Sponsors are obligated to pay certain costs
Before 1 July 2013 - Sponsors were obligated not to recover certain costs from a primary or a secondary sponsored person.

After 1 July 2013 - Sponsors will be required to pay certain costs associated with becoming a sponsor and not pass these costs, in any form, onto a sponsored person.

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/changes-457-program.htm

I can understand why people would do it, if they are desperate enough they will do it...but it undermines the integrity of the program.

Mellor · 11-01-2014 12:38pm

Ah right, I assume obligation, meant a legal obligation.
What about paying for flights out of the country once 457 ends. Are people sponsors prior to July bound only by an obligation also.

Batgurl · 11-01-2014 12:45pm

mandrake04 wrote: »

but it undermines the integrity of the program.

Not to mention undermining the positions of the genuinely skilled.

A highly qualified acquaintance had been on a 457 for 3/4 years. Whole thing paid for by the company, flights out, reloc fees etc. they were thrilled to have her.

Gradually though over the months/years they started to get desperate backpackers who were in the admin section looking for sponsorship, even offering to pay for it themselves.

The company started to believe their own bull**** that they were helping these poor souls, instead of the other way around.

They (the company) started throwing their weight around and making demands on 457ers (including my friend) which were totally unreasonable. Then they pulled the 'well we are sponsoring you' card.

She realised that they honestly believed they were doing her some sort of favour!

She left and had a (better) job lined up within two weeks.

The fact is paying your own way is not only going to make it harder for yourself in the long run but others in the same position.

@Mellor: I understand your point but I imagine this would be the minority as opposed to the majority.

mandrake04 · 11-01-2014 12:49pm

Mellor wrote: »

Ah right, I assume obligation, meant a legal obligation.
What about paying for flights out of the country once 457 ends. Are people sponsors prior to July bound only by an obligation also.

Enhancing the enforcement framework to include enforceable undertakings between the Minister and a sponsor and former approved sponsor
Before 1 July 2013  The enforcement framework relating to sponsorship of non-citizens seeking entry to Australia for work purposes, includes administrative sanctions (to bar a sponsor or cancel the approval of a person as a sponsor), an infringement notice scheme and a civil penalty scheme.

After 1 July 2013 - Enforceable undertakings will be an additional enforcement option where there has been a failure by an approved sponsor or former approved sponsor to satisfy an applicable sponsorship obligation. An enforceable undertaking is a court-enforceable promise made between the Minister and a sponsor. This option might avoid substantial legal costs associated with litigation in the courts. They are designed to be flexible and secure compensation to restore harm resulting from contraventions of the obligation (eg payment to a worker to compensate for underpayments).

Court enforceable promise means pay heed to your obligations or else.

ArseBurger · 13-01-2014 11:42pm

Batgurl wrote: »

Not to mention undermining the positions of the genuinely skilled.

A highly qualified acquaintance had been on a 457 for 3/4 years. Whole thing paid for by the company, flights out, reloc fees etc. they were thrilled to have her.

Gradually though over the months/years they started to get desperate backpackers who were in the admin section looking for sponsorship, even offering to pay for it themselves.

The company started to believe their own bull**** that they were helping these poor souls, instead of the other way around.

They (the company) started throwing their weight around and making demands on 457ers (including my friend) which were totally unreasonable. Then they pulled the 'well we are sponsoring you' card.

She realised that they honestly believed they were doing her some sort of favour!

She left and had a (better) job lined up within two weeks.

The fact is paying your own way is not only going to make it harder for yourself in the long run but others in the same position.

@Mellor: I understand your point but I imagine this would be the minority as opposed to the majority.

Add to that people actively rorting the system on both sides. Not even attempting to integrate into society. Giving genuine folk here a bad reputation. I've seen a gradual increase in aggravation towards the numbers of Irish landing in Australia from both Australians and ex-pats. With the general consensus that more and more are simply taking the piss. I don't necessarily disagree.

Mellor · 14-01-2014 1:39am

Batgurl wrote: »

@Mellor: I understand your point but I imagine this would be the minority as opposed to the majority.

Thanks for that bit.
I'm aware the 457 is abused, I've never denied that. And maybe my impression is off due to a poor performing industry.

catbear · 14-01-2014 1:47am

ArseBurger wrote: »

Not even attempting to integrate into society. Giving genuine folk here a bad reputation.

That's the story of Australia!

mandrake04 · 14-01-2014 4:10am

Mellor wrote: »

Thanks for that bit.
I'm aware the 457 is abused, I've never denied that. And maybe my impression is off due to a poor performing industry.

Maybe the occupation should have been removed from the CSOL, if an industry is failing you don't really need to import more workers as there wouldn't the demand.

Mellor · 14-01-2014 4:48am

I wouldn't have been surprised if it was removed from the CSOL in 2012 early 2013 tbh. The problem was more to do with lack of payment, rather than lack of work. So companies have work to keep staff busy, but then can't get paid afterwards. It's nowhere near the extreme end of ireland circa 2008. But its been enough to prevent me taking the risk of going out on my own. I simply couldn't afford a bad debt.
It's turned around a bit the last 6 months, if 2014 is a good year I might take the plunge.

jank · 14-01-2014 5:26am

catbear wrote: »

That's the story of Australia!

I think his point is about Irish people coming over to Oz only to stick with the same crowd, get pissed 5 nights of the week, cause argo to the locals and basicly treat the place like Santa Ponza. Then they feck off once their saved up dole money runs out leaving a bad rep for genuine people who want to make a go of it. Certainly there are more tensions now about it than say 5 or 10 years ago.

ifeelill · 14-01-2014 5:35am

jank wrote: »

I think his point is about Irish people coming over to Oz only to stick with the same crowd, get pissed 5 nights of the week, cause argo to the locals and basicly treat the place like Santa Ponza. Then they feck off once their saved up dole money runs out leaving a bad rep for genuine people who want to make a go of it. Certainly there are more tensions now about it than say 5 or 10 years ago.

Bit of a sweeping generalization to paint the entire mob with one brush.

Perhaps you've been watching too much today tonight?

catbear · 14-01-2014 5:42am

jank wrote: »

I think his point is about Irish people coming over to Oz only to stick with the same crowd, get pissed 5 nights of the week, cause argo to the locals and basicly treat the place like Santa Ponza. Then they feck off once their saved up dole money runs out leaving a bad rep for genuine people who want to make a go of it. Certainly there are more tensions now about it than say 5 or 10 years ago.

The old joke about the difference between the first settlements of America and Australia; when the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock they kneeled and gave thanks, when the first convict ship arrived in Australia they had an orgy.

Here's more about that myth

jank · 14-01-2014 6:07am

ifeelill wrote: »

Bit of a sweeping generalization to paint the entire mob with one brush.

Perhaps you've been watching too much today tonight?

Yet, where did I say this applies to all Irish people?

jank · 14-01-2014 6:10am

catbear wrote: »

The old joke about the difference between the first settlements of America and Australia; when the pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock they kneeled and gave thanks, when the first convict ship arrived in Australia they had an orgy.

Here's more about that myth

I never heard about that before but if anyone has been to SA you will definately feel that there is a different culture of people who live there than say Sydney in general. This is due of course to SA being a Free state settlement i.e. no convicts...

catbear · 14-01-2014 7:09am

jank wrote: »

I never heard about that before but if anyone has been to SA you will definately feel that there is a different culture of people who live there than say Sydney in general. This is due of course to SA being a Free state settlement i.e. no convicts...

1 out of 8 states settled freely! Eeek. No wonder new zealand felt completely different.

ifeelill · 14-01-2014 7:10am

jank wrote: »

I think his point is about Irish people coming over to Oz only to stick with the same crowd, get pissed 5 nights of the week, cause argo to the locals and basicly treat the place like Santa Ponza. Then they feck off once their saved up dole money runs out leaving a bad rep for genuine people who want to make a go of it. Certainly there are more tensions now about it than say 5 or 10 years ago.

You're a self hating Irishman admit it, it'll make a great story.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/contactus/

Mellor · 14-01-2014 7:19am

catbear wrote: »

1 out of 8 states settled freely! Eeek. No wonder new zealand felt completely different.

There's 6 states, not 8. I'm not just being pedantic about the territories, when it's said SA is the only state freely settled, it likely refers to actual states.

Some of the first European settlers in NZ were convicts too btw.

mandrake04 · 14-01-2014 12:54pm

ifeelill wrote: »

Bit of a sweeping generalization to paint the entire mob with one brush.

Don't think he did .... he just shares what a lot of other people think, I have 2 Irish friends who both have their own construction businesses and won't hire anyone who is not a PR (Irish or not). Both have Irish guys working for them but they won't employ anyone who is on a temporary visa, are these self hating Irishmen too?

Jank is a PR.... he just sees it differently than you.

ifeelill · 14-01-2014 3:36pm

jank · 14-01-2014 11:37pm

Ah so your just a troll..it figures….

15-01-2014 11:11am

Irish people should stick together and make no apology for that. Has anyone on here been to the Bronx in NY. Massive Irish community. In fact I think Irish people in oz need to be more organised. We need Irish owned pubs, cabs, cafe's etc.
I recall when Irish lads used to be getting mugged on McLean Avenue the Irish were so organised that other Irish used to take turns patrolling the streets keeping a watchful eye on their Irish brothers and sisters.

catbear · 15-01-2014 12:16pm

6541 wrote: »

Irish people should stick together and make no apology for that. Has anyone on here been to the Bronx in NY. Massive Irish community. In fact I think Irish people in oz need to be more organised. We need Irish owned pubs, cabs, cafe's etc.
I recall when Irish lads used to be getting mugged on McLean Avenue the Irish were so organised that other Irish used to take turns patrolling the streets keeping a watchful eye on their Irish brothers and sisters.

Yeah, life in the Irish ghettos of Australia is so tough, not!

15-01-2014 3:23pm

catbear wrote: »

Yeah, life in the Irish ghettos of Australia is so tough, not!

I know, but in context I for one think that Irish people sticking together is a good thing! And McLean Avenue is not a ghetto

catbear · 15-01-2014 3:53pm

6541 wrote: »

I know, but in context I for one think that Irish people sticking together is a good thing! And McLean Avenue is not a ghetto

Irish people who want to hang out with other Irish people do that anyway in Irish clubs etc...
I can't envisage a need for Irish people in Australia to form private militias to "patrol the streets".
Anyway as you're on this thread what's your interest in changes to the 457 visa or are you just trying to flog a few black beret and balaclava sets?

16-01-2014 9:29am

catbear wrote: »

Irish people who want to hang out with other Irish people do that anyway in Irish clubs etc...
I can't envisage a need for Irish people in Australia to form private militias to "patrol the streets".
Anyway as you're on this thread what's your interest in changes to the 457 visa or are you just trying to flog a few black beret and balaclava sets?

Ha, anyone for the last balaclava! I did the WHV thing for two years and was in and out of Oz for over 5 years after that, often having to embark on visa runs. I have connections all over Sydney and Perth. In fact I am part of the real Bondi Mafia

( graduated from the magical tea gardens to the more hip beach road lol - If you know some of the permanent Irish Bondi residents you will know what I mean by that statement!) I work as a professional in Ireland at the moment and I must say I am still toying with the idea of a permanent move.
The issue I have is one of a gamble, I have a Permanent, pensionable, skilled job, but our little island is in trouble now and not a fun place to live.
On the other hand life is short and maybe one should throw caution to the wind and move to Sydney be that with a quicker entry of 457 or slower 175 entry !
This is why I keep an eye on developments in Australia as it has been a part of my life for over seven years !

mandrake04 · 16-01-2014 11:00am

6541 wrote: »

Ha, anyone for the last balaclava! I did the WHV thing for two years and was in and out of Oz for over 5 years after that, often having to embark on visa runs. I have connections all over Sydney and Perth. In fact I am part of the real Bondi Mafia ( graduated from the magical tea gardens to the more hip beach road lol - If you know some of the permanent Irish Bondi residents you will know what I mean by that statement!) I work as a professional in Ireland at the moment and I must say I am still toying with the idea of a permanent move.
The issue I have is one of a gamble, I have a Permanent, pensionable, skilled job, but our little island is in trouble now and not a fun place to live.
On the other hand life is short and maybe one should throw caution to the wind and move to Sydney be that with a quicker entry of 457 or slower 175 entry !
This is why I keep an eye on developments in Australia as it has been a part of my life for over seven years !

Well Walter Mitty I would say the 175 visa might be the slow entry alright.... Very very very slow.

Obviously your skilled job has distracted your keen eye on the old visa developments.

16-01-2014 12:37pm

mandrake04 wrote: »

Well Walter Mitty I would say the 175 visa might be the slow entry alright.... Very very very slow.

Obviously your skilled job has distracted your keen eye on the old visa developments.

Sorry pal 189 !

menuisier · 16-02-2014 1:16pm

Hey Guy,

Not sure if anything can answer this but if someone can shed some light on it that would be great. I was offered sponsorship awhile ago but haven't applied yet as I had to pay the visa costs and I couldn't nail down my boss to speak to him about it as I work in a different office anyway at the end of the month my first 6 months with this employer with be over on my second working holiday visa so at least I don't have to worry about leaving the country.

So basically I have two weeks to apply and hopefully get a work extension to continues to work while the application is being processed so whats im asking is can I get it done? I have letters of recommendation from old bosses and my exam results already. Being out of work would make things very difficult for me!

Thanks in advance

DeclanClune · 25-02-2014 7:06pm

menuisier wrote: »

Hey Guy,

Not sure if anything can answer this but if someone can shed some light on it that would be great. I was offered sponsorship awhile ago but haven't applied yet as I had to pay the visa costs and I couldn't nail down my boss to speak to him about it as I work in a different office anyway at the end of the month my first 6 months with this employer with be over on my second working holiday visa so at least I don't have to worry about leaving the country.

So basically I have two weeks to apply and hopefully get a work extension to continues to work while the application is being processed so whats im asking is can I get it done? I have letters of recommendation from old bosses and my exam results already. Being out of work would make things very difficult for me!

Thanks in advance

Hi there,
it is possible but there is a lot to get done in that short timeframe - not just from your side but also from the employer's side so I hope they don't drag their heels.

I guy came to me with less than 24 hours to spare but was able to get him sorted so if you have everything in place, it can be done.

Declan Clune

Mellor · 25-02-2014 11:09pm

menuisier wrote: »

Hey Guy,

Not sure if anything can answer this but if someone can shed some light on it that would be great. I was offered sponsorship awhile ago but haven't applied yet as I had to pay the visa costs and I couldn't nail down my boss to speak to him about it as I work in a different office anyway at the end of the month my first 6 months with this employer with be over on my second working holiday visa so at least I don't have to worry about leaving the country.

So basically I have two weeks to apply and hopefully get a work extension to continues to work while the application is being processed so whats im asking is can I get it done? I have letters of recommendation from old bosses and my exam results already. Being out of work would make things very difficult for me!

Thanks in advance

It's now been ten days so hopefully you've made progress.
I think it'll be fine. two weeks is plenty of time to get the information in, a 457 application is straight forward, its just a few forms and some company info like turnover, staff, ACIS, ABN, etc...this is all easy to find for a sort of organised company. The training requirement might have been developed a bit in recent years, but if you meet it you'll be fine.

While not technically acceptable, going over the 6 months before you get the visa application in is not that big a deal. Nothing like going over the 12 months of your visa, and even if you did that you are still ok.

Legend100 · 25-02-2014 11:28pm

was wondering if anyone knows the answer to this

I'm sponsored on a 457 and it looks like I'm going to be promoted (wuhoo!!) to manager level. Does this effect my sponsorship given that I was sponsored in the position I am now (with that job title on the sponsorship)

Mellor · 25-02-2014 11:36pm

It would probably depend on the duties of the role rather than the specific title. Does the new role still fit the same ASCO code?
For example, somebody sponsored as an architect or engineer and promoted to senior architect or engineer. While is could be seen as a managing role, its still the same field so it fits the previous ASCO code.

If it was a totally unrelated job, it would probably need a new 457 application.

Most cases would probably fall somewhere between the two. If you are unsure talk to immigration

Legend100 · 25-02-2014 11:38pm

Finance Analyst to Finance Manager

Basically just a step up the chain and I was sponsored as accountant (general)

Mellor · 26-02-2014 12:34am

Would Finance Analyst/Finance Manager still technically be a type of accountant?
Is it under a separate ASCO code, or is it just a form of specialization within accountancy.

Legend100 · 26-02-2014 1:15am

I see on the CSOL that Finance Manager is a separate ANZSCO code alright to accountant (general) which I applied under

Basically the job is what I do now but to a more advanced level (doing my bosses job in essence)

maybe I should get our HR dept to check

Changes expected for the 457 visa

Comments