| |
The 2003 Review of Settlement Services for Migrants and Humanitarian Entrants report noted that ‘skills recognition remains a major issue for new arrivals’.1
Major issues identified in that report included a lack of understanding or information about skills recognition processes at the point of visa application; skills recognition processes taking up to three months and the perceived high cost of fees, bridging courses and retraining; perceptions of a ‘gap’ between the skills assessment of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) at visa application and later skills or trade recognition practices undergone in Australia; and the failure of employers to recognise or value overseas qualifications and employment experience.2
- Other Australian inquiries into this issue over the past two decades have included:
- Recognition of Overseas Qualifications in Australia , Fry Committee of Inquiry into Recognition of Overseas Qualifications (1982)
- Wasted Skills: Barriers to Migrant Entry to Occupations in Australia , R. Iredale, Ethnic Affairs Commission of NSW (1987)
- Commonwealth Legal and Administrative Powers in Overseas Skills Recognition , National Advisory Committee on Skills Recognition (1991)
- Assessment of Overseas Qualifications , P. Flatau and G. Wood , Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997)
- The Race to Qualify , Report on the Review of Practices for the Employment of Medical Practitioners in the NSW Health System, NSW Committee for the Review into the Employment of Medical Practitioners (1998)
- Assessment of Overseas Qualifications and Skills: A Comparative Analysis , M. Cully and T. Skladzien, Report to the Overseas Qualifications Board, National Institute of Labour Studies (2001).
More recently, a number of other reports have touched on the efficacy of Australia’s arrangements for recognising overseas skills. The 2006 Productivity Commission report, Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth, concluded that:
Compared with other countries, the Australian regime for assessing and recognising overseas skills and qualifications is well-developed and generally achieves its goals. However, there is evidence that, in some instances, the skills assessment and recognition arrangements for Australia could be improved to better meet their objectives.3
The 2006 study, Evaluation of the General Skilled Migration Categories, similarly noted that the ‘assessment of offshore training and work experience’ by the assessing authorities and DIMA was an operational area considered ‘to warrant further attention’.4 The 2006 National Industry Skills Report further commented that there was a need to develop ‘better arrangements for recognition of overseas qualifications and skills’ and ‘consistent regulations and licensing requirements across jurisdictions’, with ‘links to competency standards’.5
The South Australian Government also recently reported on this area, concluding that, while there are many good practices and initiatives being implemented, ‘there remain several barriers to the effective assessment and recognition of overseas skills and qualifications’. Other issues raised included that there are significant gaps in the availability of information about skills recognition processes for potential migrants offshore and new arrivals, and there is potential to shorten the length of time involved in assessment processes through the establishment of offshore and online processes. Further, the costs associated with assessment and registration can be a significant barrier to some migrants, many migrants require support in navigating the employment and skills system, and community perceptions about the value of overseas qualifications and migrant skills continue to present barriers to the successful transition of migrants into the workforce.6
The Joint Standing Committee on Migration considered this issue in its 2004 report, To Make a Contribution: Review of Skilled Labour Migration Programs, recommending that:
... the General Skilled Migration booklet list the skilled occupations and migration occupations in demand which require migrants to be registered prior to practising in Australia .
... DIMIA seek the cooperation of assessing authorities in providing migrant-oriented summaries of their Australian assessment, post-arrival obligations, and registration requirements in its Skilled Occupations List publication.
... assessing bodies continue to seek harmonisation of registration requirements across the States and Territories.7
The government responded to the Committee’s report on 1 December 2005 and agreed to the above recommendations. Prior to that, on 19 April 2005, t he Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator the Hon Amanda Vanstone, sought the Committee’s agreement to review overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing.
In its submission to the Committee’s inquiry, DIMA noted the importance of having ‘fast, efficient and client friendly skills recognition procedures’, given the expansion in the skill stream of Australia’s migration program to meet current skills shortages and the prospect of a rapidly declining working age population in a decade’s time.8 Inefficiencies in these procedures may directly impact on Australia realising the productive potential of this workforce and, in turn, affect economic growth and competitiveness.
For example, in its submission to the Productivity Commission inquiry referred to above, DIMA noted that ‘some of the contributing factors to the downward occupational mobility of skilled migrants after arrival in Australia’ relate to overseas skills recognition issues :
- Recognition of overseas skills for employment purposes
- Recognition of overseas work experience
- Different licensing and registration requirements in States and Territories
Lack of local work experience, in particular training for use of technology in the workplace
Registration/licensing requirements regarding entry to the labour market of some professions and trades
Real or perceived English language proficiency shortfalls
Perceived attitudes, behavioural and performative traits of qualified/skilled migrants by employers.9
DIMA also commented to the Committee that:
... while employment rates and real income levels of recent skilled migrants have improved significantly compared to those of earlier cohorts in the same categories, a number of skilled migrants are in jobs that do not match their qualifications or in jobs that do not recognise their qualifications. ... for example, 20 per cent of skilled independent migrants and their migrating spouses do not use their qualifications in Australia, compared to only eight per cent not using their qualifications in their home countries.10
Other key Commonwealth departments involved in the development of overseas skills recognition policies and procedures include the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST). In its submission to the Committee inquiry, DEWR noted that, while it ‘considers that, overall, Australia’s skill recognition arrangements work well, there remain some areas where fine-tuning could lead to improvements in the effectiveness of current arrangements’.11
In terms of an international comparison between Australia’s arrangements and those of other major immigration countries, DEWR further commented that ‘[i]n the increasingly competitive international market for highly skilled migrants, analysis shows that Australia’s skills recognition and processing arrangements compare favourably with those of other countries’.12 This comment is supported by the comparative research undertaken in Chapter 6 on skills recognition arrangements across a range of countries.
Finally, an important recent development was the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announcement on 3 June 2005 that a working group would examine ‘effective implementation of full mutual recognition of skills qualifications across Australia [and] an appropriate system for recognition of
overseas qualifications’.13 COAG initiatives relating to these areas were announced in February and July 2006. (These initiatives are discussed in detail in the report.) |
| |
The inquiry was advertised in The Australian in May 2005 and letters were sent to over 200 organisations and individuals with a possible interest in this matter. Further advertisements were placed in the Courier Mail, Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and The West Australian in early July 2005 inviting comment from skilled migrants themselves. The Committee received 107 submissions, 23 supplementary submissions and 86 exhibits. Details are at Appendices A and C to this report.
Public hearings were held in Canberra ( 5 September 2005, 27 February 2006, 27 March 2006 and 24 May 2006), Melbourne ( 24 November 2005), Sydney ( 23 November 2005), Perth ( 15 November 2005 and 20 April 2006), Adelaide ( 14 November 2005) and Brisbane ( 9 March 2006). Details of witnesses are at Appendix B.
The Committee appreciated the quality of input from a wide range of interested groups and individuals and their continued interest in this area. |
| |
On 14 April 2005 the government announced an increase of up to 20,000 places for Australia’s 2005-06 skilled migration intake.14 The importance of skilled migration has been further highlighted by the widespread recognition that Australia faces a serious shortage of skilled labour.15 Given the numbers and skill levels involved, the Committee focused much attention on Australia’s current arrangements for overseas skills recognition for skills stream migrants.
However, as overseas skills recognition is an important issue for people who come to Australia outside of the skills stream, the Committee also examined the arrangements in place for other migrant groups needing post-arrival skills recognition, as well as arrangements for Australian citizens returning to Australia with overseas qualifications.
The Committee also looked at Australia’s overseas skills recognition arrangements in comparison with those of other major immigration countries to identify areas where Australia’s procedures could be improved.
A particular feature of this inquiry was that action was taken by a number of agencies over the course of the inquiry to address several areas that had been raised with the Committee as being of particular concern. For example, there were improvements in the processing times of Trades Recognition Australia within DEWR, and the Migration Occupations in Demand List moved to being updated by DEWR twice a year instead of once a year and was modified to include specialisations within occupations. Further, the Country Education Profiles, produced by Australian Education International and the National Office for Overseas Skills Recognition within DEST, were updated and made available online. These profiles are used by the assessing authorities, state and territory Overseas Qualifications Units, employers and others to compare overseas and Australian qualifications.
Two significant developments impacted on the inquiry during the conduct of hearings and the report drafting stage. Firstly, there was the series of COAG announcements in June 2005, February 2006 and July 2006 on new overseas skills recognition arrangements for trades, revised assessment processes for overseas trained doctors and the creation of national accreditation and registration bodies for the health professions. These COAG initiatives are discussed in detail in the report. Secondly, in May 2006 the Minister launched the much-anticipated DIMA Australian Skills Recognition Information website. This initiative has streamlined information on overseas skills recognition, particularly across occupational areas. The website is discussed in the report.
The Committee was selected to visit New Zealand as part of the annual committee exchange between the two parliaments, and took the opportunity to examine New Zealand’s skilled migration program, and in particular its skills assessment and recognition process. The visit took place at the end of August 2006, after the Committee had largely finalised its report. Chapter 6 provides an overview of how Australia’s skills recognition arrangements compare with those of other major immigration countries, including New Zealand. A summary of some of the Committee’s key observations in this area as a result of the visit serves as a useful introduction to the section on New Zealand.
|
| |
The report consists of seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the skilled migration program and the various groups that require skills assessment,
either prior to migration or after arrival. Chapter 2 examines a range of policy coordination issues. Chapter 3 sets out in some detail the framework for the overseas skills recognition process as it operates currently. Chapter 4 deals with assessment issues principally affecting professions, while Chapter 5 deals with trades. Chapter 6 looks in detail at how Australia’s arrangements compare with those of other major immigration countries, including some indication of the international competition for skilled workers. Chapter 7 concludes with an examination of a number of other issues that arose during the inquiry, including the importance of local work experience, English language ability, bridging courses and specific challenges faced by humanitarian entrants in having their skills recognised.
Over the course of the inquiry, the Committee noted some examples of confused terminology and muddled references to the roles of various agencies involved in the overseas skills recognition process. This is inevitable given the complexity of the process, the number of agencies operating in the area and the broad scope of issues involved. Space has therefore been allotted in this report to explaining the various roles of these agencies and defining some of the broader issues relevant to this area.
The evolutionary nature of overseas skills recognition policy and procedures across a broad range of authorities has meant that the Committee has often been reliant on the internet to keep its information up to date. All website content quoted in this report was as it appeared during the period of drafting between June and August 2006. Much of the website content cited was continually accessed over this period. As the content of websites rapidly changes, specific dates for some citations, to indicate when the material was accessed, have therefore been provided. The Committee acknowledges that website content quoted in this report may have been updated or otherwise altered subsequent to the report being finalised.
On 24 January 2006, the Prime Minister announced ministerial changes that affected the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA). The Office of Indigenous Policy Coordination was moved to the Family and Community Services portfolio. As a result, the portfolio of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs was renamed Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. As this change occurred during the period of this inquiry, many of the submissions and transcripts refer to DIMIA rather than DIMA. The report refers consistently to DIMA, but references to DIMIA in quoted material have been left unchanged. |