Best Practice Principles and Standards for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities

Unions NSW and IARC Submission

Best Practice Principles and Standards for
Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities

31 October 2023

Unions NSW Trades Hall Suite 3, Level 8, 377-383 Sussex St, Sydney
Level 3, 4-10 Goulburn Street Sydney
T: 02 9881 5999 F: 02 9261 3505 T: 02 8234 0700

1
Summary recommendations

Questions about the draft principles and standards

1. Which standards will improve outcomes? Why/why not?

Principle 1 – User-friendly and migrant-centric experience –

IARC and Unions NSW support establishing new standards for skills assessing bodies to ensure their processes, guidelines and communication materials are more user-friendly and migrant centric but these standards should go further than those listed under Principle 1 in the current draft. Below are additional changes we recommend to ensure the skills assessment process is user-friendly and migrant centric.

1. Clear indication of purposes of skills assessments

Skills assessing bodies should clearly indicate in their materials the exact purposes their skills assessments may be relied upon. Many skills assessing bodies, including AQIS, do not indicate which visa pathways their assessments may be used for. They also often do not respond to pre-assessment questions from migrants enquiring about which skills assessment is relevant to their selected visa pathway. The skills assessing body will instead refer the person to the Department of Home Affairs, who then refer the person back to the skills assessing body. Please refer to Figure 1 for example correspondence. Not only is this inefficient, it causes significant distress to migrants, particularly given the price they are charged for these services and the stakes involved if they accidentally select the wrong assessment. If a person selects the wrong skills assessment, their visa application could be refused, putting their future in Australia in jeopardy. The onus should be on the skills assessing body to provide clear information on the purposes for which the skills assessments they produce can be used for visa application purposes.

2
Figure 1 – AIQS correspondence

2. Detailed breakdown of requirements needed for a positive outcome

It should be mandatory for skills assessing bodies to provide comprehensive information regarding the requirements needed for an applicant to receive a positive skills assessment. This should include a detailed breakdown of relevant qualifications and subjects to be considered in their assessment.
Many skills assessing bodies provide insufficient information on these requirements, leading to unsuccessful skills assessments. These applicants are also generally not eligible for a refund of any fees paid even if they were not properly informed of the requirements to be successful. Migrants are often forced to request a review or appeal in order to supply the relevant documentation. This means they are incurring further costs because assessment processes are flawed and not user- friendly. We recommend skills assessment bodies go through a detailed checklist with migrants or provide them with a detailed checklist before applications are submitted. This would ensure assessors have taken reasonable additional steps to gather the necessary supporting documentation and information required for the applicant to have a successful outcome.

“I am a Technical Expert in Health and Safety, and the assessing authority for my occupation is
VETASSESS. I'm currently preparing my documentation and found that the information is unclear,
particularly when the degree to be validated is not a bachelor's degree, as is the case with my
validation. In Argentina, it is common to study tertiary degrees.
It would be very helpful to have a comparative chart regarding the applicable criteria while
validating degrees from other countries, to assist foreigners in understanding how the validation
process works”

Daniela, Technical Expert in Health and Safety

3. Information provided in multiple languages

It is also critical that information is available in multiple languages, so migrants can clearly understand the requirements set by skills assessing bodies. If an applicant cannot understand the information presented to them, it cannot be considered user-friendly or migrant centric. Having information in multiple languages would also assist migrants planning their future. Those who may still be working on their English language skills or planning on migrating to Australia would find specific information on skills assessment requirements in their own languages a lot more user- friendly and migrant centric than materials in languages they do not understand. Additionally, assessing authorities should have multilingual staff to effectively contact overseas employers and educational institutions.

3
“I moved to Australia in February 2019 on a Work and Holiday Visa, and then managed to get
a Student Visa, Post Graduate Visa, and finally, a 190 Skilled Visa in November 2022.

I had two options for my skills assessment, as an Engineering Manager through Engineers
Australia or obtaining a positive skills assessment as a Construction Project Manager with
VETASSESS. I decided to go through VETASSESS after some investigation around the likelihood
of getting a Skilled Visa.

The key obstacle I faced was the difficulties VETASSESS had in contacting my previous overseas
employer to verify my experience. In many countries, English is not the official language, and
people usually don’t speak English (at least not in South America), so in my case, an English
email sent by VETASSESS was considered SPAM and deleted by my previous employer. This
issue caused a process delay as I did not know that something went wrong until I was contacted
by the officer who warned me about the lack of response. Skills assessments are extremely
expensive and given the nature of their work, they should hire staff who are able to contact
overseas organisations in their relevant language”

Martin, Engineer

Principle 2 – Reasonable and justified fee structure

We support the new standards proposed in Principle 2 however we have additional recommendations to ensure fees do not impose an unreasonable barrier for prospective migrants and represent value for money for applicants.

1. Eliminate additional fees for reviews/appeals of skills assessment

Additional fees should not be applicable for the review or appeal of an unsuccessful skills assessment application. We have received reports of skills assessments being refused at first, only to then be successfully appealed, based on the same facts. It is unreasonable that migrants are charged fees to appeal decisions in situations where skills assessing officers have either not applied their own policies correctly or failed to request the necessary supporting documents or information required for a positive skills assessment during processing. Please see above recommendation for checklists
(Principle 1 - 2. Detailed breakdown of requirements needed for a positive outcome) to prevent situations like this happening in the future.

4
Case study – Jason - Multimedia Specialist – the Australian Computer Society

Jason has always been passionate about computer games. Following high school, he enrolled in a
Bachelor of Games Development (Honours) at KDU University College. KDU University College, now
known as University of Wollongong Malaysia, is internationally renowned for its computing and
creative media courses. In his final year of study, Jason worked as a Game Designer Project Lead and
Project Manager at a leading Malaysian game developer. He worked there for 12 months before
commencing work as a Game Designer at a renowned international gaming and app development
company, where he worked for 3 ½ years. In both roles, Jason honed his computer coding and game
design skills. In 2022, Jason moved to Australia on a working holiday visa. He decided to pursue
options to relocate permanently and applied for a skills assessment as a Multimedia Specialist
(ANZSCO code: 261211), which covers computer game designers. His application for a skills
assessment was rejected on the basis that his qualification did not meet the Australian Computer
Society (ACS) definition of an ICT major. Jason had reviewed all definitions on the ACS website and
contacted them directly for clarification on what subjects would have constituted an ICT major but
did not receive a useful response. In Jason’s case, ACS’s requirements appear to be out of step with
those of the occupation – Jason’s qualifications are highly relevant to his occupation. Jason appealed
the decision and was ultimately successful in receiving a positive skills assessment on the basis of
the same information and documentation as provided in the initial application. Jason expressed that
this process was nerve-wracking and expensive.

Principle 3 – Evidence based occupational assessment standards
We agree that assessment standards should be fair, sensible and relevant to ensure prospective migrants have the requisite skills to secure meaningful employment and contribute to Australian society. In our view, the changes detailed in Principle 3 should go further to ensure that occupational assessment standards do not go beyond:
• what is required by industry and employers
• any registration or licensing requirements for an occupation.

1. No skills assessment for migrants with relevant licensing or registration

If a migrant holds licensing or registration associated with their relevant occupation, a skills assessment should not be required. If these licensing and registration bodies have already certified that these applicants have the skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience to work in their nominated occupation in Australia then further skills assessment is unnecessary. Requiring registered or licensed professionals to also pay for skills assessments creates an additional and unnecessary cost and administrative burden for migrants. If the requirement to hold both a positive skills assessment and licensing and registration persists, applicants that hold relevant licenses or registration should face a less-rigorous assessment process, with a lower application fee.

2. Eliminate need for English language criteria in skills assessment

It is unnecessary for English language criteria to be considered as part of a skills assessment. English language criteria are already assessed at the visa application stage. If skills assessing bodies were to assess English language criteria, this would create an additional and unnecessary hurdle for migrants.
Note , some skills assessing authorities already provide alternatives to satisfy the English test requirement. For example, the Architecture Accreditation Council of Australia will accept a letter from an employer certifying that an applicant’s English language proficiency in lieu of an exam result. This

5
shows that English testing is a requirement that some assessing authorities already consider unnecessary.

Principle 4 – Fair and equitable assessments

We support the proposals to ensure fair and equitable assessments including the availability of alternative pathways when verifiable work experience and qualifications are unavailable due to exceptional circumstances. However, we believe the draft standards should go further and establish a mandatory requirement to provide flexible arrangements for employees subject to workplace exploitation, including the possibility to provide a statutory declaration where it’s not possible to obtain verification in other ways.

We note that the current standards for skills assessments often prohibit migrant workers who have experienced workplace exploitation from successfully applying for skills assessments. In cases of workplace exploitation, workers are often underpaid and not provided with the documents required for a skills assessment (letters of reference or payslips). In these cases, we recommend that skills assessing bodies take a flexible approach in the evidence that they accept, so that these workers are not unfairly excluded from obtaining positive skills assessments and pursuing long-term residency in
Australia.

A fair and equitable assessment process would require skills assessing bodies to request additional information during processing, in cases where an applicant’s documents do not satisfy requirements
(see recommendations under Principle 1).

6
Massage Therapist- VETASSESS

Visa Assist has been assisting a group of women brough to Australia on Subclass 457 visas as Massage
Therapists. During their employment, they experienced severe workplace exploitation and slavery like treatment, including threats against their lives. As a result, they left their employer and lost their opportunity to obtain permanent residency. They are now required to undergo a skills assessment with
VETASSESS as a “Massage Therapist” to open up possible skilled visa pathways.

The women have worked as Massage Therapists for over a decade. However, most are not eligible for a positive skills assessment as they do not hold a qualification on at AQF Diploma level or higher. It is worth noting that the qualification would not have to be related to Massage Therapy at all to be accepted by VETASSESS.

Visa Assist also booked a consultation with VETASSESS, which cost over $200, to discuss the women’s situation and clarify the requirements for a positive skills assessment. Most notably, Visa Assist raised the issue that the women had been exploited and would be unable to obtain a work reference for that employment but would still like to rely on it for the purpose of obtaining a positive skills assessment.
During that call, we were informed that a statutory declaration from the women should suffice.

Acting on that advice, the women had to then save to be able to afford a skills assessment as it costs more than $1,000. Visa Assist lodged a skills assessment for the remaining woman who had a qualification at AQF Diploma level or higher and relevant work experience and included a statutory declaration in place of a work reference.

VETASSESS then repeatedly refused to accept that statutory declaration and requested a work reference instead (which the client could not obtain due to the exploitation and threats made by the previous employer). VETASSESS also requested “additional information” which was already provided and have claimed other evidence was deficient but would not specify why. Visa Assist wrote numerous emails advocating for the client. While the application was ultimately successful, this process was cumbersome, expensive and difficult to navigate.

“I am a Civil Engineering, and I moved to Australia in October 2022 with a Student Visa. I gained a job as
a civil engineering drafter, and then got a 408 visa (covid). The relevant assessing authority for my
occupation was Engineers Australia.
The key obstacle I faced was getting all the documents from my previous employers. There are some
countries, such as Colombia, where an informal job is common, or the company disappears after the
project is completed, so it’s really hard to get reference letters from them. Assessing authorities should
provide alternatives in cases where the evidence of work experience cannot be provided through
employer references”

Andres, Engineer

7
Principle 5 – Timely and efficient skills assessment delivery
We support the proposed standards outlined in Principle 5.

Principle 6 – Meaningful employment outcomes are enabled
We support the suggested standards for Principle 6. In addition to this, we propose that skills
assessing bodies provide advice regarding possible alternate occupations in cases where a skills
assessment is unsuccessful in a migrant’s chosen occupation. Additionally, assessing authorities have
a role to play in increasing migrant workers' employability and facilitating their insertion into the
Australian employment market, including the development of programs that help migrant
workers build networks within their relevant industry, including with their relevant union.

“I have a Bachelor of Physiotherapy and more than 10 years of specialised clinical experience in the musculoskeletal field in Chile. I practised as a physiotherapist under supervision in Australia for two years. Additionally, I have spent five years in research, initially with the musculoskeletal team at
University of Sydney and currently at The George Institute for Global Health
The Australian Physiotherapy Council (APC) is the relevant assessing authority for physiotherapists. I initiated the standard assessment pathway with APC and successfully completed the eligibility assessment, interim certificate, and written assessment, with only the clinical assessment pending.
Initially, my main alternative to transitioning to permanent residency was to continue with the skills assessment process and apply for a Skilled Visa. However, due to the process’s inherent uncertainties and cost, I opted to apply as a dependent on my wife's skilled visa application.
Upon arrival, I envisioned a transparent and efficient process that would value and make use of my extensive experience as a physiotherapist. However, the journey was riddled with obstacles which I perceived as “punitive” because my experience was gained overseas.
I believe that APC should assist physiotherapists in accessing employment opportunities. Under the current system, obtaining a positive skills assessment does very little to improve physiotherapists employability. For example, while overseas trained medical doctors can do placements in rural areas, there is no structure to support this in professions such as physiotherapy”

Jose, physiotherapist

Principle 7 – Integrity and transparency in operations
We support the proposed standards outlined in Principle 7 but also recommend the following.

1. Clear complaints mechanism
We recommend establishing a clear complaints mechanism for migrants, lawyers and migration
agents to give feedback on the skills assessment process, including the information provided by
these services. Particularly when the information provided by skills assessing bodies is not adequate,
user-friendly or migrant centric.

Which standards are achievable and why/why not?
We believe the standards are achievable but would require additional considerations to be effective.
Please see our comments and recommendations above in relation to each principle.

What have we missed?

8
Please see our recommendations outlined above, in relation to each principle for additional details on what has been missed.

Questions about the delivery of skills assessments
4) What changes are needed to improve skills assessment processes to make them simpler and more migrant centric?
Please see our recommendations above, outlined under Principle 1 and Principle 4.

5) Are skills assessments appropriately aligned with domestic employment, visa, and licensing/registration requirements? Why/why not?
Skills assessments are not always appropriately aligned with visa requirements. Many skills assessing bodies take a different approach to assessing work experience than the Department of Home Affairs takes. This can lead to confusion for applicants, particularly when applying for points-tested migration, where claims regarding work experience are critical.

“I studied a bachelor’s degree in mass media communication and graduated as a journalist
with a television specialisation. My assessing authority was VETASSESS, and I found the
process extremely confusing.
I conducted extensive research about my occupation, however, the criteria used to assess my
work experience and what was considered relevant experience for my occupation is still
unclear to me. An issue I faced was that VETASSESS recognised 4.6 years of work experience,
although under the criteria used by the Department of Home Affairs, I was assessed to have 5
years of work experience”

Carolina, journalist

6) How could skills assessment processes be streamlined with occupational licensing and registration schemes?

As discussed earlier, if a migrant already holds licensing or registration associated with their relevant occupation, a skills assessment should not be required. These licensing and registration bodies have already certified that these applicants have the skills, knowledge, qualifications and experience to work in their nominated occupation in Australia. Requiring registered or licensed professionals to also pay for skills assessments creates an additional and unnecessary cost and administrative burden for migrants. Eliminating the need for a skills assessment would ensure that occupational assessment standards do not go beyond what is required by industry and employers, and any registration or licensing requirements for an occupation. If the requirement to hold both a positive skills assessment and licensing and registration persists, applicants that hold the relevant license or registration should face a less-rigorous skills assessment process, with a lower application fee.

7) What other functions could assessing authorities deliver to support employment and migration outcomes?

As was mentioned previously, skills assessing authorities should facilitate migrant workers insertion into the employment market. Unions NSW and IARC support the design of a government-regulated skills-matching platform that allows employers to advertise job opportunities, receive applications from, negotiate with, and offer employment to migrant workers even before they arrive in Australia.
The data provided by assessing authorities to Government can be extremely useful in designing a skills-matching platform.

9
Additionally, assessing authorities should provide information to applicants about relevant unions, which will ensure workers are informed of their rights at work and paid legal wages.

8) Should there be more than one assessing authority appointed to assess an occupation?
Why/why not?
Our view is that having two assessing bodies covering the same occupation is likely to lead to confusion for applicants.

9) Should English language testing be a skills assessment requirement? Noting English levels are tested as part of the visa application stage.

As discussed earlier in our submission, English should not be assessed at the skills assessment stage, as this is part of the visa application process. Assessing English language skills at the skills assessment stage creates an unfair burden for migrants in terms of additional costs and administrative requirements.

10) Is there anything else you want to tell us about skills assessments?

Skills assessing bodies are largely redundant and create an unnecessary administrative and financial burden for migrants. The process of selecting the right skills assessing body and undertaking the skills assessment process is daunting and stressful for migrants to Australia. We note that the components that skills assessing authorities test for are largely already covered by the visa process, including an assessment of the relevancy of qualifications and work experience, as well as English language ability. If a role requires licensing or registration in Australia, this is also required at the visa stage. For this reason, skills assessments seem to involve a lot of double handling on matters already assessed by the Department of Home Affairs.
We also submit that making skills assessments valid for only three years is unfair and unreasonable. It creates an unfair financial and administrative burden for migrants. If a skills assessment is positive, a person’s relevant qualifications and work experience would typically not change in three years’ time. In the case that a person’s work experience was deemed to have taken place too long ago to be relevant, this is captured by visa requirements, which stipulate the timeframes for when work experience is considered relevant. For this reason, a three year validity period for skills assessments is redundant and unfair to migrant workers.

10
“I have a bachelor’s degree in architecture and over six years of professional experience. I was required to complete a skills assessment as part of the requirements for transitioning to permanent residency under the skilled visa framework.

During my second year in Australia, because of my skills and competencies, I successfully secured employment in roles related to my profession. However, I have been prevented from performing roles in line with my skill level due to the complexity of the skill recognition system and the migration regime. Some of the difficulties that I found during the process were the high cost of the skills assessment process and a lack of transparency regarding the likelihood of receiving a positive skills assessment.

Currently, I’m preparing documentation to lodge a subclass 186 visa; I completed stage 1 of the skills assessment with AACA (Architects Accreditation Council of Australia) in 2021. However, from March 2022, stage 1 is insufficient to satisfy the skills assessment requirement, and given that skills assessment has a validity of just 3 years, I’m at risk of being required to complete a new skills assessment with more stringent requirements that could result in me losing my opportunity to transition to permanent residency. It’s unfair that after trying for over 6 years to fulfill the skill assessment requirements, including satisfying the work experience and English requirements, and saving to pay for the skills assessment, it is only valid for 3 years”

Eliana, Architect

“I studied Planning and Social Development and the assessing authority for my occupation is
VETASSESS. I consider that the skill assessment requirements for my occupation are relatively easy to meet, however, VETASSESS response times could be improved as processing could take up to 4 months. I also think that the validity period of skill assessments should be for a period greater than three years.”

Maria, Planning and Social Development

11