Chapter 2
2.1 The Committee considered these issues in the context of the migration
program and the functions of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs in providing information to prospective migrants.
Objective
2.2 The objective of the migration program for skilled migrants is to
bring into Australia people with skills which are considered necessary
and which cannot be otherwise supplied. The expected outcome of such a
program is that people are able to utilise these skills as soon as possible,
upgrade them, and contribute both to national and individual prosperity.
Benefit to Australia
2.3 It was argued by one witness that the Skilled Migrant program enabled
Australia to purchase expensive skills cheaply by not having paid for
or subsidised the training of various categories of skilled migrants.
[1] The Committee considers this an important
point, although it is concerned that there is insufficient correlation
between skills required and jobs available in the short to medium term
that will enable migrants to use these skills.
The role of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
(DIMA)
2.4 The Committee was not satisfied that DIMA in the past had fully understood
or exercised due care and consideration in providing information to prospective
migrants at key stages. This was evidenced by several factors, primarily
relating to the provision of information, and including unacceptable delays
in providing accurate information (although there may be instances where
this responsibility is shared by Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade).
[2]
2.5 It was not apparent to the Committee that DIMA officers in the past
had a sufficient understanding of the pressures and problems that may
occur in other societies and which could seriously affect the extent to
which people understood information or could be disadvantaged in their
own country by beginning the migration process. Such issues have in part
been raised by the AAT in the case of Chelechkov/Antipina which refers
to residency deregistration. [3] A similar situation
is also referred to in AAT case Fomin/Fomina. [4]
These factors must necessarily affect the extent to which people have
limited capacity to change their minds. Hence they must always begin the
process with full knowledge.
2.6 Even where there is no issue relating to residency or citizenship,
it is clear that other difficulties may exist that should as much as possible
be taken into account by Australian officials in two areas in particular:
providing accurate information about employment prospects and required
skills; and advising people of specific factors which may affect employability.
Clearly, departmental officers are not in a position to limit the expectations
of possible migrants or to discriminate against them; however, given the
employment situation in Australia, the likelihood of Mr Chelechkov at
age 53, with no Australian work experience and limited colloquial English,
being easily able to find a job seems limited. [5]
While processing delays may have affected opportunities, the issue of
age in employment is relevant.
Process
2.7 The Committee was given evidence which suggested that limited information
may be given to people at the time they are considering making an application,
or do in fact make an application, to migrate. [6]
This is not so much an issue of the time which is taken to process applications,
as there may be good reasons for this, as it is a matter of ensuring that
people are made aware of a number of issues when they apply; and that
processes are in place which continue to advise them of major changes
while their application is still being processed.
2.8 DIMA officers believed that although there may have been some problems
in the provision of up to date and accurate information, these problems
should more or less have been overcome by now. They stated that there
may be some people who had received information in 1996 who had not yet
been processed. People may be committing themselves to change on the basis
of inaccurate and outdated information, including some more than two years
old. [7] Acknowledgment was made by DSS that
it was important for people to be making an informed decision:
"Yes, I would agree with you that it is very important to get the
information to prospective migrants. We are concerned that they base their
decision making on as much information as they can get about what they
face when they come here. That is absolutely right. Some of the work we
have done with Immigration includes text about this measure to go into
the general brochures and so on that are held at overseas posts for prospective
migrants, and other information products as well. Recently, because the
AAT has made comment on the information, we have updated that information.
We are very concerned in that way." [8]
2.9 The Committee recommends that any person who has made a skills based
visa application but not yet received a visa, and who has not been provided
with accurate information about social security benefits, should be immediately
informed by DIMA of the changes to social security eligibility that came
into effect in March 1997.
2.10 It was also suggested at the Committee's hearing that information
about available employment is also not provided at the time of application.
Again, this may be due to the fact that there is a substantial time period
between application for, and granting of, a visa. Yet it is obvious that
some warning about difficulties in some employment areas may only be provided
when people have expended considerable sums. [9]
It seems appropriate that, prior to paying for medical tests or for language
classes or other items, people be given an opportunity to determine if
they should proceed with these processes in the light of accurate information
about availability of employment in their specific area or a related one.
2.11 Evidence to the Committee suggested that sometimes embassies did
the best they could [10] and that in other
places, the way in which embassies operated was not conducive to information
exchange. [11]
2.12 Lack of information exchange could indicate a lack of awareness
by DIMA staff of the realities of life in many less developed countries
and especially the problem of access to information. Further, DIMA itself
suggested that as a department it had a major task in advising applicants
and embassies of changes. That it was not successful in this task until
some time later was made evident in one AAT case, where an official letter
contained several inaccuracies some time after legislation had changed.
[12] This was also obvious from material provided
to the Committee and from the department's own statement that 100% compliance
had taken some time to achieve – in spite of the Internet. [13]
"Our first effort was to catch up with that population, and we did
it with a very extensive mail-out to both visaed migrants and sponsors
of migrants. Since that time, I think we have seen a progressively improving
explanation to people of what the two-year waiting period is about. We
have also seen efforts in my department to ensure that there is compliance
amongst our posts with what we expect them to do. Again in early days
it produced differing results amongst some of our posts, but as recently
ago as just before our estimates committee hearings we were able to determine
that there was 100 per cent compliance with the issuing of standard letters
and information to prospective migrants." [14]
2.13 It could be argued that if departmental officials did not understand
the information they were writing or summarising, people in other countries
with less experience of social security programs would have less opportunity
of understanding issues. In evidence to the Committee DIMA officials stated
that the information they provided was comprehensible to someone in Australia;
but they had not until recently provided information that might be useful
to people outside of the country. [15]
2.14 The Committee notes that it may be appropriate for a regular evaluation
to be made of DIMA officers's awareness of the communication and other
problems experienced in some countries.
Responsibility for information
2.15 The Committee understands that overseas embassies and missions have
many responsibilities and that the provision of accurate information in
a range of areas is not their prime responsibility. This was indicated
by DIMA which clearly discouraged officials in embassies and posts from
providing information with which they may not be conversant. [16]
2.16 Nonetheless, given that accurate information must be provided, it
appears to be a joint responsibility of DSS and DIMA to ensure that accurate
information is transmitted rapidly.
Information on assets and savings
2.17 The applications process may also require some investigation given
that limited assets were listed on application forms but this did not
prevent the processing of such applications. While it may be accepted
that people therefore accept the risk of not being able to survive on
such limited savings, the issue of comprehension of the cost of living
in Australia would seem to have been a difficulty.
2.18 Again, this relates back in part to the issue of information which
can be placed in a context, as well as the extent to which Australia wishes
to offer an opportunity to people from poorer nations – or those
which restrict export of capital –to migrate. In some instances,
it may be more appropriate for applicants to be in another category where
specific acknowledgment can be made of their limited savings.
2.19 That many migrants are still given a visa in spite of having listed
very small sums as available assets may have been misunderstood by the
applicant as an implicit acceptance that such funds would be sufficient.
[17]
2.20 In the home country of some migrants the funds they have available
are considered to be sufficient for a considerable period of time. In
Australia such sums however may not last as long as anticipated.
The responsibilities of the intending migrant
2.21 It was stated by departmental witnesses that many persons would
migrate regardless of consequences and regardless of any information about
the difficulties involved. [18] While it may
be difficult to separate lack of information or understanding of available
information, from a determination to proceed regardless, the Committee
agrees that there may well be people who will migrate because they see
this as a desirable alternative and are prepared to work to long-term
objectives. As a part of such long-term objectives, working at menial
jobs and living at a basic standard may be accepted.
2.22 The Committee believes it is important that the implications of
government policy or other factors, including fewer job opportunities
in Australia, or limited access by migrants to these and to various services,
if understood, must be accepted as binding by those who have arrived in
Australia.
2.23 Any department which wishes to assess its effectiveness should be
interested in obtaining information about the problems experienced by
some migrants, including those who appealed to the AAT, who clearly did
not have sufficient funds even to set up in Australia much less survive
for a considerable period. For example, departments should wish to obtain
data on whether migrants understood the information they were given and
whether it was timely and accurate.
2.24 The Committee would also suggest that some minor policy changes
could lead to a better re-alignment of the emphasis which is placed on
employability and language facility. This would more effectively relate
the emphasis on skills to the expected objective of employment, and recognise
the need that people have for help with access.
Access to employment services
2.25 Some witnesses stated that there was very limited access to employment
assistance and that this would worsen once various changes came into effect
in May 1998. The Committee asked the Department of Employment, Education,
Training and Youth Affairs the following question:
What access will migrants not in receipt of social security payments
have to Job Network? [19]
2.26 The Department provided the following answer:
All job seekers including migrants not in receipt of Social Security
benefits, will have access to a range of improved job search support services
provided free of charge by the Government in Centrelink offices, including:
- an expanded vacancy data base;
- photocopiers;
- facsimile machines;
- telephones; and
- newspapers.
- From 1 May, Centrelink offices will be progressively equipped with
personal computers with a range of suitable software packages and, later,
internet access. The provision of these facilities will enable job seekers
to be even better informed about labour market opportunities, identify
suitable employment opportunities, produce resumes and job applications,
investigate career options and make contact with employers.
- Also, a number of major Job Network members, including Employment
National, have indicated that they will be offering free job matching
assistance to any job seeker who wishes to register with them regardless
of whether the job seeker is in receipt of Social Security payments.
- In addition, migrants not in receipt of Social Security payments but
who have permanent residence and are registered with Centrelink, will
have access to the following employment assistance:
- the Advanced English for Migrants Programme (AEMP) which provides
advanced English as a second language training to assist job seekers
obtain employment or participate in vocational education;
- the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR) Bridging
Courses for Australian residents preparing to meet recognition requirements
for entry to their profession in Australia; and
- NOOSR Assessment Fee Subsidy for Disadvantaged Overseas Trained Australian
Residents (ASDOT) Scheme. [20]
2.27 This extensive range of services will be of undoubted assistance
to the newly arrived migrant seeking employment opportunities.
The importance of fluent English in gaining employment
2.28 While Australian work experience may be seen to be of higher importance
(and therefore something of a Catch-22) the value of fluent English was
high. In a sense this is recognised by government through the fact that
attendance at language tuition in Australia is a condition of obtaining
a permanent visa. Such classes must be paid for in part by the applicant,
a factor which also limits the amount of capital a person may be able
to take out of the country from which they are migrating. [21]
Although fluent English will not necessarily guarantee employment, it
is important that people be able to access studies they have paid for
and any courses which will facilitate their employment. Otherwise hard-earned
personal savings are being wasted and a message is given that this sacrifice
is irrelevant.
Footnotes
[1] Evidence, p. 35 (FECCA).
[2] See for example Chelechkov v DSS,
AAT, No. N97/1271, 18 February 1998, para. 5; Evidence, p. 40 (Welfare
Rights Centre).
[3] Chelechkov v DSS, AAT, No. N97/1271,
18 February 1998.
[4] Fomin and Fomina v DSS, AAT, No.
N97/421, 12 March 1998, para. 9.
[5] Chelechkov v DSS, AAT, No. N97/1271,
18 February 1998.
[6] Evidence pp. 11 and 19 (Department
of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs), and p. 28 (Welfare Rights
Centre).
[7] Evidence, p. 11 (Department of Immigration
& Multicultural Affairs), p. 40 (Welfare Rights Centre).
[8] Evidence, p. 10 (Department of Social
Security).
[9] Evidence, p. 8 (Department of Immigration
& Multicultural Affairs). See also the facts in Re DSS and Singh
and Pal Kaur, AAT, N97/1703, 2 March 1998.
[10] Evidence, p. 28 (Welfare Rights
Centre).
[11] Submission No. 2, Welfare Rights
Centre, paras 7, 7.6 and 7.9. See also the facts in Re Secretary, DSS
and Tadros, AAT, No. N97/1383, 26 February 1998.
[12] Re DSS and Singh and Pal Kaur,
AAT, N97/1703, 2 March 1998. The information contained in a letter of
28 April 1997 was inaccurate and appeared to be a blending of various
pieces of information.
[13] Evidence, pp. 11-12 (Department
of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs).
[14] Evidence, pp. 4-5 (Department of
Immigration & Multicultural Affairs).
[15] Evidence, p. 5 (Department of Immigration
& Multicultural Affairs).
[16] Evidence, p. 9 (Department of Immigration
& Multicultural Affairs).
[17] Evidence, pp. 28, 37 (Welfare Rights
Centre).
[18] eg. see Evidence, p. 21 (Department
of Social Security).
[19] Evidence, p. 23.
[20] Written Answer to Question on Notice supplied
by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs,
31 March 1998 (Submission No. 12).
[21] Submission No. 2, Welfare Rights
Centre, Section 6.