DIAC General Skilled Migration Reorganisation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by sohi35du on April 21, 2010 at 9:51

Can i expect anything good for me with these new changes?
Subclass: 175; Non CSL, MODL
Occupation: Accountant
Application Date: 12 Feb'09
HR Country
Category: 6(1)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juggan on April 21, 2010 at 12:57

Pray to God that this re-organization may serve in the interest of clients/applicants and their eligible visas be granted within the promised time frame of 12 months ( CSL). As many CSL people are waiting over 12 months and there is complete dark and fog clustering the DIAC regarding the outcome.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagar on April 22, 2010 at 4:00

I wish for all ......
Who are waiting for their visas...

SAGAR................

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagar on April 23, 2010 at 4:21

There are some line is this information which i am pasting again and making it bold.. Simultaneously i am giving assumptions or views or predictions..

1) process and is currently implementing planned changes to enable a consistent management of both the Adelaide and Brisbane GSM sites. To align with other business areas, a restructure of the two GSM sites into a total case management model, is being implemented

Prediction 1) I think That DIAC is going to Update the Two websites

2) This will provide improved client service delivery through the provision of a direct email channel between clients and their case officers

Prd 2) You can now Contact with your CO directly

3) The effective date for the restructure in Adelaide is Monday 3 May 2010.

Prd 3) All this will Start on 3rd May 2010

4) Within the 2009-10 GSM program, the department continues to give priority processing to applicants who have an occupation on the Critical Skills List including those sponsored by state and territory governments. In line with these priority processing arrangements, the department is actively processing applications on hand and will provide information to applicants as their application progresses.

Prd 4) The Department will Start giving Visas from June to Cat 1-4 and also Cat 5, Cat6 etc which are in pipeline and i think as date of lodgement....

5) The GSM program is now aligned to Mr Greg Kelly, Global Manager, Skilled and Family Visas.

Prd 5) Mr Gerg is having Very good Reputation (i have come to know from someone) and he is specialized in SKILLED and FAMILY visas......


Q=6) What will happen to our Applications? ( Created my me)

Ans=6 )
Dear applicant..... Do Believe in GOD. He is working for all...
You need not to worry..... We all will get visas soon..

I think

" NEVER SAY GOD I HAVE BIG PROBLEM..
......................SAY TO PROBLEM THAT...
.....................................I HAVE BIG GOD............" {Sagar}

So Visas are our next Step...

Always Praying
SAGAR.......

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Koushik on April 23, 2010 at 9:50

Lets hope for the best.....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gollywobbler on April 25, 2010 at 9:21

Hi Sagar

Greg Kelly was the DIAC boss for the whole of South Australia. David Edwards was in charge of the GSM program being delivered by the ASPC in Adelaide. Reading between the lines, my suspicion is that David Edwards has received the blame for the hopelessly incompetent, uncommunicative way that the ASPC has been handling the recent crisis caused by the Minister for Immi. Edwards has been promoted and packed off to the NT where he cannot do any harm, it would seem! Meanwhile the more senior Kelly has been promoted and moved to Canberra to manage the PR mess which DIAC have made of handling the implementation of the Minister's ideas, I reckon.

In fairness to David Edwards, I don't think that he was or is responsible for the mess at the ASPC. When I met with DIAC in London in November 2009, one of the attendees was a guy called Andrew Butler. He looked no more than about 27 to me but he may have been older and if so, I apologise to him.

Andrew now works for a Registered Migration Agent in the UK. However Andrew is an Aussie and although I didn't ask, I suspect that he comes from Adelaide because he has almost no Aussie accent. (One of my cousins married a TV presenter from Adelaide. He also had almost no trace of an Aussie accent and you couldn't really tell that he was an Aussie, so I assume that the Aussie twang is very slight with Aussies brought up in Adelaide.)

Anyhow, Andrew Butler told us that he had worked at the ASPC for about 18 months before coming to the UK. I asked him how many COs there are at the ASPC? He said about 50.

I asked Andrew how many visa applications one CO is expected to be able to handle at any given time? I was expecting him to say about 30, or 50 at the outside. To my astonishment, he said that every CO is expected to be able to handle about 300 visa applications at any given time.

I asked how on earth the COs manage this huge number? Andrew said that they are expected to finalise about 30 applications a week, and on the following Monday, another 30 files would be given to each of them. He said that each CO has a support officer who does a lot of the dogsbodying on behalf of the CO. (The COs are pretty senior, I gather. I don't know what DIAC's internal structure is but the COs are Executive Level 1 or something. Whatever their status in the hierarchy, they are definitely pretty senior staff.)

I still wanted to know how they manage such a huge number of live applications apiece? The Principal Migration Officer for the UK is more senior than the COs at the ASPC. She explained that at the ASPC, the COs work to a "checklist." As each bit of processing an application is completed, either the CO or the dogsbody ticks the item as having been completed. When all the boxes are ticked, the visa will be granted.

A similar system works with domestic conveyancing in the UK. The only way to do it cheaply is to do it in volume. In the firms which do this "stack 'em high and sell it cheap" type of conveyancing, the solicitor in charge might be responsible for over 100 files at any one time. I speak from experience! You cannot give each client much (if any) personal attention unless you are dealing with no more than about 30 transactions at a time. So you use unqualified clerks and they do about 95% of the work. Again, they work to a "tick-box" or "check-list" system. The solicitor will look at a file if a problem crops up on it, and the solicitor will check everything before authorising an exchange of contracts, but the client's point of contact is not the solicitor because the solicitor does not have time to give each client much (if any) personal attention.

So I can see how DIAC's idea of 300 applications at a time works, though I think the figure of 300 is still very high. The PMO said that no other section of visa processing within DIAC uses this system and in her opinion, the system is not a good one. She reckons it is much better when an individual CO deals with a much smaller number of applications and can give each client much more attention and much more personal attention. That creates an excellent relationship between the Aussie CO and the prospective migrant, which is as it should be.

Somebody else then asked Andrew why some of the COs at the ASPC respond to e-mails that are sent to the CO but others do not? Andrew said that when the current system was introduced (which I think was only after 1st September 2007) it was decided that the COs do not have time to answer endless e-mails, which are often about very trivial matters. Equally, there will be other queries where the dogsbody either won't know the answer or it is better for the reply to be drafted by the CO, even if it is sent by the dogsbody.

Andrew said that every CO has a personal discretion about whether to reply to e-mails and phone calls him or herself. He said that some of them do so and others do not. He said that this does create a PR shambles, with Smith saying that Smith's CO is very friendly, very approachable etc and Bloggs concluding that Blogg's CO is an uncommunicative, surly bar-steward!

The PMO nodded in agreement but she had obviously decided that she did not want to get involved with criticising her employers at the meeting, and also the meeting was only for 2 hours, so I wanted to move it along instead of discussing the details of how the ASPC might work. I had only asked my question in order to try to find out how many visa applications an individual CO might be able to process in any one year.

We all know what has been happening since 23rd September 2009 especially. People have bombarded the ASPC with phone calls and e-mails, requesting information about what is happening with their own applications. That is the inevitable result of all the different twists and turns that the Minister has been making.

The junior, call and mail centre, staff at the ASPC have been given about 4 standard replies and they have been told to use whichever reply they think is the most appropriate for the questions that the person is asking. The replies ignore the original questions and the whole idea is just plain hopeless. It looks like DIAC's own staff have also been saying that it is hopeless.

When DIAC are no longer allowed to rely on "first come first served" the present GSM visa processing system is not suitable for the new methods introduced by the Minister.

Whether or not the new changes will improve the lack of communication from the ASPC is anybody's guess. I suppose that the only solution is to try out DIAC's latest ideas and see whether or not they are any better than their current, hopeless, ideas.

Cheers

Gill

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Wareham McGrath on April 26, 2010 at 1:11

Hi Sagar

"The Department of Immigration and Citizenship is undergoing a wide-ranging transformation program to position itself as a high performing immigration and citizenship organisation, equipped to compete in global markets"

My thoughts are that it will take a lot more than the the changes in DIAC's advice above to drag it up to a state where it achieves the positioning it's described above.

Deciding who can come into Australia and live here is really a very simple question; and DIAC has made it much more difficult than it needs to be.

When the migration process was codified, it was trumpted by the then Immigration Minister, Robert Ray, that "this will bring certainty to applicants, DIAC officers and all concerned. Officers all round the world will make the same decision if they were given the same file".

Billions of dollars and over twenty years later, DIAC still hasn't got it right, with is announcement above evidencing the fact that it still hasn't managed to achieve the delivery of globally consistent services.

It's the easy way out to reorganise, restructure and revamp.

What is needed to bring DIAC into the 21st century is much harder than that.

To achieve its desired positioning, DIACs political and bureaucratic masters need to lead by example and implement an agency-wide cultural change that is truly focused on the motto "People Our Business".

I believe that as it stands, essentially all that will happen during this "transformation" is that a few responsibilities will be reshuffled at the middle to senior management level.

On the ground, COs and their support staff will continue to be overworked, DIAC's leadership team will continue to make knee-jerk, unstrategic policy decisions, treat applicants with disdain, and work under a cloak of secrecy with its overall motivation one of pleasing its political masters to ensure its own longevity and survival in the cut and thrust world of Australian politics and bureacracy.

Hopefully, I'll be proven wrong. That would make me very happy!

Best regards
Susan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sagar on April 26, 2010 at 5:07

HI Gillian..

Thanks for such a great reply...

This reply is having the information which anyone might not be having...

The major thing one CO and 300 applications
and 30 applications per week

50 CO's
30 Applications/week

50*30 = 1500 applications in one week
if in Sep 2009 there was 1,35,000 applications
this means 135000/1500 = 90 weeks for all applications

from Sep 09 to Apr 2010 = there are approx 28 weeks
means 28 weeks *1500 applications/week = 42,000 applications

I think diac could finalize 42000 applications but.... only there was visas in 100's in last few months.

This was not efficient..

If DIAC could work like above described manner then... There will never be BACKLOGS of files..

Any how....

We all are still waiting...

But REALLY THANKS GILLIAN FOR YOUR VALUABVE REPLIES....
THANKS FOR POSTING YOUR COMMENTS ON EMBRACE AUSTRALIA..

You are also helping others on PomzInOz forum ... like here on this forum SUSAN and LISa is helping people...May God Give you ALL(GILLIAN, SUSAN & LISA and all members) long and Happy life

With Luv and WishesSAGAR........

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Juggan on April 26, 2010 at 11:33

Dear Brian !

I think u have misunderstood my quote. I am have no blind faith in upcoming changes that they might suit the applicants. I just wana say that every immigration policy should have some set criteria to follow:Policies should not be managed in a child like manner of daily mood changing there should be some maturity and strategic thinking. Decisions should be of long term basis rather of knee-jerk reactions. It is of no legal/ethical/moral basis to deprive people of their long term investments in just a spin. Some standards ought to be follow and since the situation is not that so what can people do expect praying to God.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gollywobbler on April 26, 2010 at 12:22

Hi Lisa

My sympathies are completely with you, Susan Wareham McGrath and the visa applicants.

When a group of Poms in Oz members met with Mr Wilden of DIAC in London late in 2009, we asked Mr Wilden about re-funds. The idea that the PiO team had is that if skilled applicants get sick of waiting indefinitely, they should be able to withdraw their visa applications in order to create certainty in their own lives.

I explained to Mr Wilden that I understood that the migration legislation does not provide any machinery for the applicant to receive a refund of the application fees if he changes his mind and decides to withdraw from the Aussie visa process. The legislation assumes that if the application is valid, DIAC will accept the application fee for it and that they will then process the application within a reasonable timescale.

The legislation does not envisage that the applicant will change his mind, so I can understand why there is no provision for a refund. Mr Wilden said that as soon as they receive an application for a GSM visa, they start processing it so that the $2,525 (currently) visa application fee is actually used up very quickly.

We argued with him about that. It is not the case that it costs DIAC $2,525 simply to open a file and then they do the remainder of the processing at their own cost - that idea would represent a thumping loss to the Aussie tax-payer!

Mr Wilden said that he had worded his reply wrongly. What he meant was that DIAC spends the $2,525 as soon as DIAC receives it. He agreed that they spend some of the money on completely unrelated matters, such as running the detention centre on Christmas Island. However DIAC does not simply collect the money, stick it in a clearly identifiable, interest-bearing account and then $zyz or $abc comes off the total remaining for Bloggs as and when DIAC deal with another item in processing his application. Which we already realised. DIAC is not, say, a firm of solicitors in which every item of expense using clients' money must be identified and accounted for so that the clients account will balance all the time.

We persisted. If DIAC "borrows" Blogg's money in order to spend it on Christmas Island, there is no problem with that because DIAC is the Aussie Government. We expect the Government to be able to borrow more money from somewhere else in order to be able to (a) refund Bloggs' application fee and (b) give him a reasonable amount of interest on it if DIAC have held Bloggs' money for any length of time.

Mr Wilden said that the Minister for Immi himself had anticipated the very argument we were making. Minister Evans also feels that when he or DIAC make an unprecedented and unexpected change to the processing timescale, it is only fair and reasonable that Bloggs should be allowed to withdraw from the process and get his money back.

This Minister is one heck of a nice guy, I gathered. He is all heart. He cries himself to sleep with worry about how to organise re-paying Bloggs in the situation described above, I was more or less told. Unfortunately for Mr Wilden, I am 53 years old and I qualified as a City of London solicitor when I was 24 years old, plus the Minister is a politician. I might look green but I do not have the brains of a pea!

Mr Wilden said that when the Minister had made his generous statement that Bloggs must receive a refund if "he" changes his mind, DIAC told him that the legislation contains no machinery for paying a refund in that scenario. Mr Wilden said that the Minister had ordered DIAC to find a way to arrange to offer Bloggs a refund. (Stupidly, I assumed that "he" meant Bloggs so I did not insist on clarification of who "he" might be.)

To work out how to do what the Minister wants, DIAC have to consult various other Aussie Government Departments according to Mr Wilden. Starting with the Treasury and Mr Wilden thought it might be necessary to consult other Departments besides, though he is not an accountant and does not know who else. Mr Wilden said that since there is no legal machinery for paying this refund at present, it might also be necessary either to change the Immi legislation or at least to write some special legislation in order to cover the situation. I agreed. I don't know - I am also not an accountant - but my guess would be that a Government Department cannot simply make ex-gratia payments in a situation like this.

The Treasury (and possibly others) would say that of course a refund is possible. A sovereign Government can insist on whatever it likes as long as - if the soveriegn Government was elected by a proper democracy - Parliament agrees to make the refunds. Which I think they would. Most Aussies are fair-minded enough to say that Bloggs must have his money back in full at the very least.

In the UK it normally takes a minimum of 5 years to get something like this onto the statute book, though. Politically it is not a hot topic and there are hardly any Parliamentary draftsmen to do the primary drafting. Once they have done that bit, the first draft goes to the Department in charge and to other Government solicitors to see what flaws they can find with the draft. Eventually a second draft is produced. That goes to external solicitors with experience of parliamentary drafting for a final "sanity check." By the time everybody is happy, the draft Bill is produced and the Minister is briefed etc. All this takes forever in the UK. How long does it typically take in Australia? Mr Wilden said that it takes at least a year and could easily take longer. Fair enough.

I knew about Cap & Cease but it never once crossed my mind that the Minister might actually have ordered DIAC to talk to the Treasury about how to offer refunds to people like Jaspreet Singh Bajwa. My own assumption was that Bloggs and Jaspreet would be the in the driving seat and that they might change their minds - not that the Minister might change his mind about a done deal because the Minister represents the Aussie Government, which never goes back on its word.

So I - naively - believed at the time.

Cheers

Gill

• ▶ Reply