Best Practice Principles and Standards for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities

Guiding Australia’s Future Workforce

VETASSESS SUBMISSION TO DEWR DISCUSSION PAPER:

DRAFT BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES ANDSTANDARDS FOR SKILLED MIGRATION
ASSESSING AUTHORITIES

Submission Date: 30 October 2023 vetassess.com.au

Introduction

Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission in response to the Discussion Paper: Draft Best Practice Principles and Standards for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities. VETASSESS strongly supports DEWR’s review of the requirements and assurance framework for assessing authorities and welcomes any new standards that result from this process. We hope that the VETASSESS submission will provide very useful information to help shape the new standards.

As you are aware, VETASSESS is the largest skills assessment body in Australia supporting skilled migration in more than 350 professional and 28 trade occupations. Our assessments cater to a wide range of temporary and permanent visas and our assessment teams are formed by experienced assessment officers who have expertise in the industries across all the occupations they assess. The well-tested assessment processes, rigorous integrity checking measures and highly qualified assessing teams at VETASSESS ensure the consistency, validity and accuracy of our assessment outcomes.

In this submission, VETASSESS has provided general remarks and then we step through each of the seven draft best practice principles and standards taking note of the Questions outlined in the Discussion Paper based on our work as an assessing authority under the remit of AAPA.

Rob Thomason
Executive Director
30 October 2023

GENERAL REMARKS

Acknowledging the key audience for the Best Practice Principles and Standards for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities will be assessing authorities and AAPA as the guiding agency on Government requirements, the final document should speak to applicants and their representatives.

VETASSESS believes that language is therefore very important in what can be an area of intense, sometimes emotional, public policy debate where benefits of migration are often contested. We suggest using the term “applicant” where possible to cast as neutral a frame on the skilled migration process. In addition, while VETASSESS firmly believes and supports the economic prosperity Australia’s migration program delivers, we would welcome mention of the benefits to peace and regional security of soft power diplomacy built through strong people to people links. Framing of migrants as ‘fill[ing] positions where no Australian workers are available’ and as ‘a vital source of skilled labour to supplement Australia’s domestic workforce’ commodifies individuals and implies a migrant underclass. Therefore in practice we might say ‘…Australia’s migration program is designed to attract applicants who want to migrate to Australia and who strengthen links in our region and make a significant contribution to the Australian economy’ rather than ‘…designed to attract migrants who make a significant contribution to the Australian economy’.

A clear articulation of how the Principles and Standards will interact with other assessing authority guidelines, instruments and regulations would be beneficial. This includes the direct interrelationship with the Guidelines for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities 2021 and other legislation including the Migration Regulations.

Added to this, clarity could be drawn in the Principles and Standards – and in amended Guidelines – about the applicability of the Principles and Standards to assessing authorities under the remit of AAPA and those functioning under a labour agreement administered by the Department of Home Affairs where assessing authorities are appointed by the Minister for Immigration. The process for becoming an assessing authority for both scenarios should also be made very clear.

VETASSESS applauds the Australian Government’s strengthening of regulation in the migration and international education sectors, and equally the approach of ‘guidance’ for assessing authorities (rather than a central regulator) commensurate with the sector’s demonstrated record of low risk of malfeasance. We acknowledge the current review of the requirements and assurance framework for assessing authorities will complement this work. VETASSESS encourages this review to take the opportunity to extend the robust approach to ensure no bad actors exist or can move into assessing authority territory such as through cross-ownership or having held key roles in non-compliant operations in, for example, VET, childcare or aged care where we have seen large scale non-compliance.

Indeed, the current means for both approving and revoking assessing authority approval should be made more explicit and include steps for investigation and auditing. Rather than exercising powers of approval and revocation under subsection 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, more explicit regulations should be made, and transparent review processes explicated. This should extend to approval and revocation of assessing authorities under labour agreements as the Guidelines and the Migration regulations don’t appear to speak to each other in this regard.

Added to the above, VETASSESS takes this opportunity to put on record its view that occupations should be open to more than a single assessing authority. The current Guidelines state that ‘only one assessing authority per occupation will be approved except in extraordinary circumstances’. Our understand is the this has been based on a belief there would be a ‘race to the bottom’ in quality as assessing authorities sought to undercut one another. However, this runs counter to the well-established maxim that competition leads to increased quality and downward pressure on prices for the consumer.

An element of continuation of approval should be mandatory ongoing professional development by assessing authorities – sessions run by AAPA – about the new Standards and Principles and any modifications as the sector continues to adapt to migration reforms.

VETASSESS has previously reported suspected fraud perpetrated by smaller Registered Training
Organisations (RTO); however, there has been no feedback as to whether this had been investigated and action taken. We do not expect the Australian Government to give those who report fraud any specific details. However, we believe there would be more reporting of fraud a) if those doing the reporting knew that there was at least some action taken in relation to the concerns; and b) it would serve as a deterrent if more light was shone on action being taken to counter such malevolent activities.

For its part, VETASSESS set up an office in New Delhi in 2015 to critically examine claims and evidence in skills assessment applications and provide support for Skills Recognition Trades (SRT) technical interviews and practical assessments. We have integrity checking support in other countries such as China, Iran, Pakistan and the UK. We are not aware of a similar investment by other assessing authorities in developing that integrity checking capability and neither has much interest been shown in leveraging our integrity checking capabilities by other assessing authorities.

The general remarks above and against each of the seven Principles and Standards below cover off on the first three questions about improving outcomes, what’s achievable and gaps in the Discussion Paper.

Principle 1 – User-friendly and migrant-centric experience
Clear, accessible, and user-friendly skills assessment processes, guidelines, and communications enhance migrants’ overall experience and understanding of the system. This supports more efficient and higher quality outcomes. New standards for assessing authorities may include:

1.1 Offering diverse communication channels and adopting user-friendly platforms that are easy to navigate, expressed in simple language, and give helpful information about all aspects of the skills assessment process.

1.2 Providing timely, informative, and accessible updates regarding the status of an application.

1.3 Exploring options to incorporate alternative skills recognition methods into skills assessments.

Example
Assessing authorities use a variety of methods to communicate with applicants. Such as:
• Using visual aids like videos, infographics, storyboards, and cheat sheets to make complex topics easier to understand.
• Online candidate portals to flag missing or inadequate documentation and offer application status tracking for transparency and efficiency.
• Multiple interaction channels like live chat, webinars, information forums, and dedicated case managers.

RESPONSE
VETASSESS acknowledges the complex system skilled migrants are navigating and fully supports easily accessed, timely and clear information as described in the Discussion Paper. VETASSESS believes this approach should permeate the whole of the migration journey.

The Standards and Principles should similarly provide clarity and Australian and state/territory government information sources should follow suit. It is common to hear complaints from users that the migration system as a whole – including navigating and understanding the Department of Home Affairs website – is clumsy, difficult and at times opaque; and this from Australian-born users whose first language is English.

The display of a short version of the Principles and Standards in all business electronic media and office walls, with easily accessed links to the full version should be expected of assessing authorities and applicant intermediaries such as migration practitioners (agents and lawyers).

Related to the above point, clear expectations of applicants and applicant intermediaries could be developed and spelled out in the Best Practice Principles and Standards. We encourage clear strong messaging from DEWR that the process also places obligations on applicants and incomplete applications may result in their immediate rejection.

Streamlining skills assessment processes are core to reforms of the system. The speed of processing an application largely depends on the quality, completeness and integrity of an application received by assessing authorities from applicants and applicant intermediaries.

With regard to standard 1.3, we welcome the introduction of alternative skills recognition methods to provide skilled migrants more options to prove their skills. However, DEWR should clearly spell out the options so that there is a consistent approach among all assessing authorities with due consideration to specific needs of ascertaining skills in each occupation.

Principle 2 – Reasonable and justified fee structures
Fees are commensurate with the cost of conducting high-quality skills assessments, do not impose an unreasonable barrier for prospective migrants, and represent value for money for applicants. New standards for assessing authorities may include:

2.1 Providing transparency in setting fees and inclusions.

2.2 Innovation through collaboration to identify and implement cost-effective strategies, opportunities, and practices, to remain cost-competitive in a global market.

2.3 Undertaking regular and strategic reviews of fees to ensure skills assessment services are appropriate and commensurate with demand in an evolving skilled migration environment.

Example
A current assessing authority demonstrates transparency on its website by providing a clear fee structure, outlining various service offerings that applicants can choose based on their needs. Applicants are able to benefit from selecting discounts for combined assessments including employment-only, qualification- only, or combined assessments.

RESPONSE
VETASSESS fully agrees that fees should not impose unreasonable barriers to migrants and should represent value for money in line with the cost of high-quality assessments. Fee transparency is highly important and should involve providing clear explanations of which fees are required for a standard assessment and which supplementary fees may apply for additional scenarios, such as additional top-up services, priority services, or documents reissue and other administrative services. Both the primary skills assessment service and any accelerated service need to be clearly priced for applicants to select as appropriate.

VETASSESS fees are clearly visible on our website and applicants are fully informed of the service they receive for the fees they pay. Our fee structure caters to the specific needs of our applicants, and they pay based on the scope of assessment. For more information please refer to https://www.vetassess.com.au/skills-assessment-for-migration/professional-occupations/fees-and- payment

VETASSESS Priority Processing fees, for example, reflect the additional resources needed to deliver assessments within an accelerated timeframe. Due to high demand for rapid assessment turnaround times, assessing authorities need to invest in robust mechanisms to deliver priority assessment services, including tracking the status of assessments both internally and for clients, and clearly communicating what assessment scenarios can and cannot be addressed through a priority service. VETASSESS does not accept priority processing requests for applications that involve complex qualifications assessment and/or possible integrity checks that cannot be completed within the shorter timeframe.

Assessing authorities should be encouraged to ensure that assessment integrity is not compromised by unrealistic or inappropriate fee structures for expedited assessments; all assessment categories must be delivered in a robust and high-quality manner, and fees charged should reflect that expectation. When referral to external parties is required, the cost of such a referral may be determined by the market rate for consultancy services in the relevant area and would be largely or partially outside the control of the assessing authority.

Principle 3 – Evidence based occupational assessment standards
Well informed assessment standards that are fair, sensible, and relevant, ensure prospective migrants have the requisite skills to secure meaningful employment and contribute to Australian society.

New standards for assessing authorities may include:

3.1 Ensuring occupational assessment standards do not go beyond what is required by industry and employers and any registration or licensing requirements for an occupation.

3.2 Aligning English language requirements with visa and industry standards to reduce inconsistencies and confusion for migrants.

3.3 Setting a schedule for regularly reviewing occupational assessment standards in close consultation with key industry stakeholders such as employers and unions, to ensure continued relevance and competitiveness in a global market.

Example

Various industry peak bodies informed an assessing authority that the Bachelor-level qualification requirement set for an occupation exceeded the skill level needed for employment in the Australian industry. In response, the authority revised the assessment standards for that occupation to an AQF Certificate IV or III plus relevant employment experience.

RESPONSE
VETASSESS supports the proposed new standards in this principle. Regarding English language requirements, VETASESS does not have an English language standard embedded within its criteria. Our assessment process mandates that all technical interviews with applicants as part of their skills assessment be undertaken in English. VETASSESS is aware the Department of Home Affairs has a mandatory requirement for English as part of the visa application process and hence we do not see value in duplicating that requirement for our applicants.

As an independent assessment only Registered Training Organisation (RTO),
VETASSESS has invested in an ongoing engagement mechanism with industry peak
bodies to ensure its skills assessment criteria to support migration applications is
aligned to the standards of the industry bodies. The criteria for assessing the majority
of applications received by VETASSESS have already been endorsed and updated by the
industry bodies for their occupations. This process has also led VETASSESS to forego
the ANZSCO skill level stipulated for some occupations if the industry advice requires
us to do so. For example, for the occupation of Diver, a Diver Card from the industry
association is the most common and relevant qualification in practice in Australia. In
consultation with the Australian Diver Accreditation Scheme (ADAS), VETASSESS
revised our assessment criteria to permit holders of the ADAS Diver Card to receive a
positive assessment outcome provided they have relevant experience in the industry,
even if they do not possess an AQF-comparable qualification.

As an independent assessment only Registered Training Organisation (RTO), VETASSESS has invested in an ongoing engagement mechanism with industry peak bodies to ensure its skills assessment criteria to support migration applications is aligned to the standards of the industry bodies. The criteria for assessing the majority of applications received by VETASSESS have already been endorsed and updated by the industry bodies for their occupations. This process has also led VETASSESS to forego the ANZSCO skill level stipulated for some occupations if the industry advice requires us to do so. For example, for the occupation of Diver, a Diver Card from the industry association is the most common and relevant qualification in practice in Australia. In consultation with the Australian Diver Accreditation Scheme (ADAS), VETASSESS revised our assessment criteria to permit holders of the ADAS Diver Card to receive a positive assessment outcome provided they have relevant experience in the industry, even if they do not possess an AQF-comparable qualification.

VETASSESS has advised the Australian Government and delegates to the Allyship Symposium1 series we have been running, that we will shortly seek to garner support in the sector for an assessing authority peak organisation. Such an organisation will be a focal point for Government to communicate to the sector and for the sector to collaborate to harmonise many of its systems and practices for the streamlining of assessment processes.

To this end VETASSESS has engaged the Associations Forum for advice and anticipates holding a meeting of key assessing authorities late November this yesar to progress this initiative. One of the elements of the charter for an assessing authority peak should be alignment of standards with requirements of industry and employers as well as alignment of assessing processes.

1 The concept behind the Allyship Symposium, is to create a cross-sector collaboration of migration practitioners, assessing authorities and government that6 will enable all parties to better know each other, find more synergistic relationships, streamline assessment processes and an optimum way to advise government on the efficacy of policies and programs.

Principle 4 – Fair and equitable assessments
An objective and unbiased assessment of an applicant’s skills promotes consistency and fairness, regardless of a migrant’s background.

New standards for assessing authorities may include:

4.1 Eliminating bias or discrimination in the assessment process by applying procedural fairness and objective, equitable and consistent assessment standards.

4.2 Offering flexible skills assessment processes, including appropriate adjustments and support for applicants with disabilities, refugees, or victims of exploitative employment arrangements.

4.3 Offering clear and fair complaints, review, and appeals processes.

Example
Practical-based assessments or alternative pathways are utilised when verifiable work experience and qualifications are unavailable due to exceptional circumstances.

RESPONSE
Fairness, consistency, and objectivity are vital elements of an effective skills assessment process.
VETASSESS ensures these expectations are met through a suite of complementary and overlapping practices, including clear assessment standards, transparent complaint and feedback processes, robust internal audit practices, continual monitoring of assessment delivery trends, and clear staff guidelines on procedural fairness, including, if relevant, conflict of interest handling.

Flexibility should always be provided in a consistent and transparent way to minimise bias. Authorities should establish and publish clear guidelines on how they handle scenarios such as appropriate adjustments for applicants with disabilities, refugees, or victims of exploitative employment arrangements. These guidelines should be realistic and in line with industry standards and expectations. While flexibility is important, this needs to be balanced with assessment rigour. Hence careful work is required to ensure guidelines are appropriate and implemented correctly.

Assessing authorities should be encouraged to continually monitor trends in assessment outcomes and review and appeal rates, modifying assessment practices and guidance in line with issues observed.

Standard 4.3 is of particular interest as there is inconsistency in how different assessing authorities offer review and appeal processes. It would be helpful if DEWR could clearly stipulate whether assessing authorities are required to apply the principle of ‘Natural Justice’ and what specific scenarios would be exempt. For instance if an application is deemed unsuccessful based on misleading information supplied by applicants or integrity checks confirm non-genuine claims presented in an application, should these applications also be eligible for a review unless there is new evidence. Clear directions from DEWR would be required to ensure consistency across all assessing bodies on conditions for review.

We would also like to emphasise here that there is an inconsistent approach amongst assessing bodies in terms of assessing an applicant’s skills in terms of qualifications and experience. We would prefer that the Guidelines provide some clarity on whether a qualification-only approach is consistent with the need for robust assessment of an applicant’s skills, given that overseas qualifications do not necessarily capture the range of skills and depth of experience required by Australian industry. In our view, an approach to assessment based on a combination of qualification and employment not only enables a more complete picture of an applicant’s capability to be established, but also supports more reliable verification to be embedded in the assessment process.

Principle 5 – Timely and efficient skills assessment delivery
The assessment process is optimised to reduce duplication and maximise efficiency.
New standards for assessing authorities may include:

5.1 Adopting efficient and streamlined assessment processes to minimise unnecessary delays or bottlenecks.

5.2 Using technology to monitor caseloads and systematise and simplify administrative tasks.

5.3 Developing robust contingency plans to handle fluctuations in demand and a constantly evolving skilled migration landscape.

Example

1. Implementing a client relationship team to ensure application completeness, regular communication, and assessment readiness management.
2. Removing redundant requirements, such as excluding exams duplicated in registration/licensing requirements for the occupation, to streamline the process.

RESPONSE
This principle warrants careful attention as the current context in which it has been drafted is a surge or rush in demand in migration globally at a time of global shortage of tradespeople to conduct assessments. Assessing authorities have seen nothing like this demand before and this principle needs to be viewed in this context and not as the norm.

Assessment processes require continual revision to maximise both efficiency and the quality of the assessment decisions. Contingency planning to handle fluctuations in demand is vital, but it is important to recognise that skills shortages in certain areas may make quick recruitment for additional assessment staff difficult. It is very important to ensure that assessing authorities do not cut corners in recruiting inexperienced or low-skilled staff to deliver assessments.

Poorly planned and resourced assessment practices will compromise the reputation of the skilled migration program and lead to suboptimal assessment outcomes. Assessment teams need to be trained and supported by comprehensive professional development programs and supported to adopt a mindset of continuous improvement in their practices.

The potential of technology to simplify assessment processes is significant, but not consistent across all areas of migration assessment. Assessing authorities need to ensure that automation and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is carefully thought-out, fair, appropriate, and robustly managed.

VETASSESS has a dedicated case management team that attends to initial application handling, payments, and documenting checking. The customer service team responds to all queries received via emails and phones and there is dedicated staff managing complaints and feedback. Furthermore, we are investing in developing an enhanced application system that will streamline and improve the internal and external user experience.

Principle 6 – Meaningful employment outcomes are enabled
Post-assessment assistance is provided to help migrants obtain meaningful employment, including vulnerable cohorts such as partners, migrant women, and international graduates. New standards that assessing authorities could be required to meet include:

6.1 Providing end-to-end information and after care for migrants to support their post-assessment migration and employment journey.

6.2 Leading or participating in ventures that proactively educate employers and industry on the benefits of a migrant workforce and the hiring of international graduates.

6.3 Building an understanding of applicants’ visa and employment outcomes post-assessment to inform continuous improvement of skills assessment processes and standards.

Example

1. Providing outcome letters to successful applicants which offer comprehensive information on job searching, labour market intelligence, registration/licensing requirements, and relevant unions, ensuring a seamless transition into the Australian employment environment.
2. Conducting surveys of successful applicants 6-12 months post-assessment and implementing necessary process changes based on the feedback received.

RESPONSE
Aspects of this principle can be argued to be out of scope of assessing authorities, require capabilities that may well be outside an assessing authority’s area of expertise and effectively taking on the role of an employment service such as those contracted as part of the Workforce Australia program funded by DEWR.

Meaningful employment outcomes are enabled is conceptually different to a principle and a standard. Assessing authorities can directly impact all other Principles and Standards but this aspect is contingent on other actors external to the assessing authority process.

This principle also falls outside the Guidelines for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities which define the role of assessing authorities:

Assessing authorities approved by the Government conduct assessments to
ensure that an applicant’s skills meet the industry standards required to work in a
relevant occupation, with outcomes used to inform the Department of Home
Affairs (Home Affairs) on skilled migration visas.

A survey of successful skills assessment applicants would be a very useful exercise. Ideally, Home Affairs and/or DEWR could establish a longitudinal study of skilled migrants to capture valuable insights into short, medium and long-term experiences of applicants to inform policy development and validate the effectiveness of assessing authority processes. The need for this is particularly acute given that assessing authorities are not in a position to establish whether applicants receive invitations to apply for visas or which successful applicants for their assessments end up arriving in Australia at the conclusion of the process.

Notwithstanding, VETASSESS already provides employment information to applicants as part of the package of information with outcome letters. Where relevant, we refer applicants to industry bodies and support them to share their outcomes with industry networks. We have collaborated with industry bodies such as the Australian Marketing Institute and Customer Service Institute of Australia to issue digital badges to validate applicants’ skills in their industry areas, and support employability. These badges are eagerly shared by successful applicants with their professional networks. VETASSESS has issued nearly 4,000 badges in the past few years, with a 60% acceptance rate, above the industry norm.

There may in fact be an even greater need for such information for those applicants who are not successful. Two initiatives VETASSESS has commenced discussions on are: post-migration settlement services for skilled migrants. The recent Parkinson Migration Review noted this was a gap; and establishing an applicant alumni group both to track their journeys and facilitate support services.

Principle 7 – Integrity and transparency in operations
Integrity and transparency in the operations of assessing authorities facilitates quality migration outcomes.

In addition to being financially viable and having effective records and risk management practices, new standards that assessing authorities could be required to meet include:

7.1 Ongoing engagement and cooperation with government through data provision on skills assessment caseloads, trends, and outcomes, including gender-disaggregated data, and the development and testing of policy solutions to meet the needs of migrants and employers.

7.2 Providing applicants with transparency in how data is handled and protected to meet Australian Privacy requirements.

7.3 Implementing effective fraud awareness and control measures to safeguard the integrity of skills assessments.

Example

1. Proactive collaboration with government and third-party providers around fraud detection and awareness provides assessing authorities with clear guidelines for handling suspected or confirmed fraudulent cases.
2. This has allowed authorities to build extensive data libraries to efficiently verify potentially fraudulent documents, further strengthening the integrity of the assessment process.

RESPONSE
Data libraries developed by assessment authorities are invaluable in detecting and verifying cases of fraud. Authorities should establish robust and fair mechanisms for using these and sharing key findings with Home Affairs and DEWR where appropriate. Any third-party providers used should be carefully screened to ensure the quality and integrity of their activities. Assessing authorities should support each other to address areas of concern and leverage the experience of other assessing authorities who have relevant networks and integrity processes in place.

Data sharing with Government can greatly assist in supporting best practice in migration assessment. Government support to assessing authorities on consistent and clear use of data is welcomed, as is sharing of survey data in the possession of Home Affairs or other departments.

The assessing authority community should act in concert with Government to advance best practice on operational integrity and transparency. Authorities should be encouraged to deepen work with migration agents on practices in the sector. Closer collaboration between Jobs and Skills Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Home Affairs is vital to ensure migration planning is coherent, and stakeholders are kept well-informed of all developments that may affect their activities.

We strongly recommend that integrity checking should be embedded within the assessment function and be defined as going beyond a desktop approach. Based on our experience, mechanisms such as site visits, technical interviews and practical assessments are far more effective.

As mentioned earlier, VETASSESS appears to be standalone assessing body that has invested in setting up extensive integrity checking systems that go far beyond telephone checks. We have capacity to undertake site visits in India, China, Pakistan, Iran (soon to expand across the Middle East), the Philippines, and the UK. Furthermore, VETASSESS has qualification check mechanisms in place as well through collaborations with Ministries of Higher Education in various countries. In China, for instance, VETASSESS is the only assessing body in Australia that has an arrangement with the Chinese Ministry of Higher Education to verify tertiary qualifications issued from China to support our skills assessment decisions.

END