![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
|
Print Chapter 5 (PDF 309KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 4 : Chapter 6 - > |
From my experience the system for assessing foreign tradespeople is a nightmare. ... The whole thing from start to finish has been crazy, it seems that as soon as you provide the correct documentation, the goal posts suddenly get changed ... it really doesseem a lengthy drawn out process for something that should be fairly straight forward.1
Introduction
What is a trade?
How are trades currently assessed?
Pre-migration assessment
Post-migration recognition
COAG initiatives
Trades Recognition Australia
TRA’s pre-migration assessment role
TRA’s domestic assessment role
Alternatives to TRA’s domestic assessment process
Specific issues arising from the TRA process . 175
Future directions for TRA
![]() |
||
Introduction |
5.1 | This chapter examines the current processes by which trade qualifications are assessed, both prior to migration and for those already in Australia. Due to its central role not only in pre-migration assessment but also in domestic assessment for certain trades, Trade Recognition Australia’s performance is also examined in this chapter. |
5.2 | The Skilled Occupation List (SOL) currently contains over 160 occupations in trades and related areas. The Migration Occupation in Demand List (MODL) contains 42 occupations in trades areas, approximately half of the MODL listings. From evidence before the Committee, trade shortages are apparent in regional areas as well as major population centres. |
|
5.3 | As noted in Chapter 1, skilled migration should not be seen as the complete solution to Australia’s trade shortage. A strong commitment to training Australians and maintaining and improving the skill levels of our current workforce is essential. However, skilled migration is one method of addressing the immediate trade shortages facing Australia. |
|
![]() |
||
What is a trade? |
||
5.4 | The term ‘trade’ covers a wide range of occupations with some common characteristics. The occupations generally require technical knowledge and manual skill, and in Australia those skills have traditionally been acquired through a formal apprenticeship program leading to the awarding of a trade certificate. However, as DEWR noted:
|
|
5.5 | The SOL in particular contains a wide range of occupations that fall outside the more traditional definition of a trade, encompassing occupations where the skills are acquired outside of a traditional apprenticeship system. However, the argument has been made that the definition of what constitutes a ‘skilled occupation’ is too restricted by the traditional definition of a trade:
|
|
5.6 | The Australian Hotels Association argued for an expansion of the MODL to ‘include a more contemporary range of skill areas such as front of house of which there are skill shortages’.4 Similar arguments were made by the Australian Trucking Association who felt ‘that it is the lack of mandatory formal tertiary qualifications that handicap the entry of truck drivers as skilled personnel through migration schemes’.5 |
|
5.7 | While the Committee has some sympathy with this view, it notes that the ‘underlying principle of the MODL is that only occupations or specialisations that are in widespread, persistent and ongoing shortage are targeted’.6 Alternatives are available for employers wishing to recruit people with particular skills, including a range of employer-sponsored temporary and permanent migration arrangements. |
|
5.8 | What should or should not be on the MODL or SOL is not a matter for this inquiry—rather the Committee’s task was to examine how individuals in those occupations should have their skills assessed both pre- and post-migration. For the purposes of this chapter, the Committee has accepted a wide definition of ‘trade’ and ‘tradesperson’. |
|
![]() |
||
How are trades currently assessed? |
||
5.9 | For tradespeople wishing to apply for migration to Australia under the General Skilled Migration (GSM) program, their skills are assessed firstly for migration purposes, and then assessed a second time once in Australia, if required for registration and licensing purposes. These pre-migration and post-migration processes are detailed in the following sections. |
|
5.10 | As noted earlier, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) explained that the current skills assessment arrangements:
|
|
5.11 | It is apparent, however, from evidence given to the Committee that the current assessment practice is not ensuring that only those people with the necessary skills and qualifications required to work in their nominated occupation are successful. This has been shown in the significant numbers who fail to obtain registration or licensing when this is required, and by the numbers who do not end up working in their nominated occupations or who end up in lower level positions. |
|
5.12 | DIMA itself, in its first appearance before the Committee, acknowledged that ‘there is a need to continue to refine and improve our skills recognition and licensing processes, particularly in the area of traditional trades’, acknowledging that ‘a number of skilled migrants are in jobs that do not match their qualifications or in jobs that do not recognise their qualifications’.8 To address this, the department highlighted five areas where it saw scope for ‘substantial improvement’. Each of these following areas is relevant when examining the recognition of trades skills:
|
|
5.13 | One of the questions facing the Committee was how the process of trades recognition, with the associated factors of licensing and registration where applicable, could be streamlined without detriment to the skill level of trades. The Committee agreed with the observation by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) that:
|
|
5.14 | This concern was also apparent in a number of the submissions the Committee received. The following comment was very representative:
|
|
5.15 | The apparent gap between offshore assessments and the actual skills levels required for a particular trade was commented on in a number of submissions:
|
|
5.16 | The ideal situation would be for skilled migrants to arrive in Australia job ready and able to enter the work force in their particular occupations without further delay. The current reality in the trades area is unfortunately quite different. Figure 5.1 details the process an overseas trained electrician would have to go through at present in seeking to migrate and work in Australia in that trade. Figure 5.1 Case study of an overseas trained electrician
|
|
5.17 | One of the major deficiencies in the current system is the persistent misapprehension by applicants that pre-migration assessment is the same as post-migration registration and licensing. The need for improved communication about the different stages of the process was a constant theme during the inquiry:
|
|
5.18 | The DIMA website states on the front pages of the SOL form that the ‘assessing authorities are responsible for undertaking skills assessments for migration purposes and are not employment agencies’. However, it is not until page 23 of the document that the statement is made that:
|
|
5.19 | There is no mention in this particular document that registration or licensing may be required prior to an applicant being able to work in their chosen field. The Committee believes a clear statement to this effect should be included in the general information at the start of the SOL document. It is not until the prospective applicant goes to the new part of the DIMA portal, Australian Skills Recognition Information (ASRI), that specific registration requirements are listed. The ASRI site is a major improvement on the level of information provided previously to prospective applicants. |
|
5.20 | Recommendation 35
|
|
![]() |
||
Pre-migration assessment |
||
5.21 | Chapter 1 provided details of the groups that require a pre-migration assessment of their skills. In summary they are:
|
|
5.22 | Other potential migrants to Australia (family stream, humanitarian) and temporary residents such as working holiday makers are not required to have a pre-migration assessment made of any skills they may have. |
|
5.23 | The primary pre-migration assessing authority in the area of trades is Trades Recognition Australia (TRA), which is part of DEWR. The Vocational Education Training and Assessment Services (VETASSESS), the other significant assessing body in the trade area, deals with a range of occupations that fall outside the traditional trade definition. |
|
5.24 | The logic of the distinction between who performs the international assessment is not always obvious. For example, plumbing inspectors are assessed by VETASSESS, whereas supervisors (plumbers) are assessed by TRA, as are general plumbers; jockeys are assessed by TRA, but horse riding coaches by VETASSESS; dental hygienists and dental therapists are assessed by VETASSESS, but dental technicians by TRA.17 TRA has recently been appointed as the assessing authority for child care co-coordinators, a role previously undertaken by VETASSES.18 For clients attempting to establish which assessment body is the appropriate one (and also determine which occupation best suits their particular skills set), this blurring of responsibility adds another degree of complexity. |
|
5.25 | Recommendation 36
|
|
5.26 | The processes of both TRA and VETASSESS for assessment of skills for migration purposes are paper based. Under migration regulations, TRA has set Uniform Assessment Criteria (UAC) which it uses to assess applications for the purposes of migration. The UAC applies a ‘skills pathways’ approach to these assessments—that is:
|
|
5.27 | DEWR advised that ‘TRA has the authority to set its own assessment standards and adopts a flexible approach to assessing applications from skilled trades people, including the recognition of prior learning’.20 |
|
5.28 | Most of the qualifications assessed by VETASSESS are in ‘generalist occupations’ and most do not have a national or state licensing authority ‘to validate the qualifications and experience held for the purposes of employment within Australia. With unregulated occupations the recognition of qualifications is usually at the discretion of the employer’. The VETASSESS process involved ‘assessing the applicant’s qualification according to guidelines published by the National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (NOOSR)’ and providing ‘a written statement on whether an applicant’s post-secondary qualifications meet the educational requirements of their nominated ‘generalist’ occupation selected from the SOL’. VETASSESS advised that:
|
|
![]() |
||
Post-migration recognition |
||
5.29 | In contrast to pre-migration skills assessment, a wider range of individuals may need to seek post-migration recognition of trade qualifications, including:
|
|
5.30 | The nature of the assessment varies enormously with the type of occupation involved. As noted by VETASSESS, in a number of the occupations it covers there is no regulation and it is up to an employer whether they wish to have some documentary evidence setting out what an overseas qualification may mean in Australian terms. |
|
5.31 | While not all trades require registration or licensing, a number do. Registration or licensing requirements usually have been legislated ‘for public health and safety reasons or to reflect internationally accepted standards of practice’.22 |
|
5.32 | Registration and licensing of trades within Australia is primarily a state and territory issue. As DEWR observed:
|
|
5.33 | To illustrate this point, in Queensland, for example, trade recognition processes are conducted by:
|
|
5.34 | The Queensland Government advised that licensing bodies for the electrical, building and plumbing industries accept only Australian qualifications or Australian trade certificates, and one of the ways of meeting the requirements for a number of license categories is by holding an ARTC. However, as a complicating factor for applicants:
|
|
5.35 | The information available now though DIMA’s web portal, particularly the material on the ASRI part of the site, will assist potential migrants as well as those already in Australia to determine the specific requirements for their particular trade. |
|
Licensing, registration and mutual recognition |
||
5.36 | One of the significant frustrations with the present system, clearly identified by the COAG process, is that it is currently difficult for people with trade qualifications to move around Australia to work without undergoing additional testing and registration. |
|
5.37 | In its submission, DEWR noted:
|
|
5.38 | Business SA explained the difficulties created by licensing and registration being different in each state, and the limited ‘transportability’ of such registration:
|
|
5.39 | COAG is working towards putting in place a more effective mutual recognition arrangement across states and territories, initially in a number of skills shortage trades and ultimately for all licensed occupations.28 The Committee applauds this move to more effective mutual recognition arrangements in this regard. |
|
5.40 | Mutual recognition within the trades area is not impossible to achieve. The Committee was advised that already:
|
|
![]() |
||
COAG initiatives |
||
5.41 | As detailed in Chapter 2, in February 2006 COAG announced a national approach to apprenticeships, training and skills recognition to address the skills shortage facing Australia . In addition to the proposed changes to mutual recognition discussed above, there will also be a new streamlined and robust offshore skills assessment process. DEWR indicated that:
|
|
5.42 | This will be mirrored by a parallel onshore assessment arrangement for those who are living in Australia and want overseas skills recognised, and provisional licensing so that people with recognised overseas qualifications can work under supervision for short periods, while they complete licensing requirements.31 |
|
5.43 | TRA will have a central role in the new offshore arrangements, as the overseas assessments will be conducted under its auspices by accredited organisations or individuals, with TRA tasked with maintaining the quality of assessments and protecting Australian standards.32 |
|
5.44 | While many of the details are still to be worked out, DEWR advised that:
|
|
5.45 | The Committee supports this move to improve the offshore skills assessment process but has concerns about the long lead-time to put the revised assessment arrangements in place in the first five target countries for the six priority trades (nearly 18 months since the original decision was announced by COAG); and for the balance of trades and countries it will be nearly three years after the initial decision (December 2008). |
|
5.46 | DIMA officials cautioned:
|
|
5.47 | However, the Committee does not believe that those industries already facing delays and severe shortages in attracting skilled migrants would feel that such a timeframe was reasonable. |
|
5.48 | The Committee does not intend to canvas the nature of the overseas assessment system to be established under the COAG proposals. However, whatever system is established should be transparent, be undertaken by organisations that have a clear understanding of Australian workplaces and how our system works, and maintain the standards necessary to provide public confidence in overseas qualified tradespeople. The Committee believes that the initial system put in place by July 2007 should be independently assessed by a tripartite group comprising industry, union and public service representatives. |
|
5.49 | Recommendation 37
|
|
![]() |
||
Trades Recognition Australia |
||
5.50 | Trades Recognition Australia has a central role in the assessment of trades skills, not only for migration purposes but also domestically in a small number of significant trades. |
|
TRA’s pre-migration assessment role |
||
5.51 | Under Migration regulation 2.26B(1), TRA is one of a number of designated authorities able to assess the trade skills and work experience of prospective migrants. Prior to 1992, TRA only assessed the 49 occupations listed in the schedules to the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act (TRR Act) for pre-migration purposes, but since that date it has increased its scope and now assesses over 170 occupations,35 in occupations as diverse as sign writers, florists, horse trainers and chefs.36 |
|
5.52 | The pre-migration assessment role of TRA has steadily increased over a number of years, and international applications now outnumber domestic applications by a factor of 10. For the period 1 July 2005 to the end of February 2006, there were 12,374 applications for pre-migration skills assessment, with domestic applications in comparison numbering 905 for the same period.37 |
|
5.53 | Until 30 June 2006 , TRA’s fees for international applications were $300 for a standard application, $500 for a priority application and $300 for a review application (which may be refundable). The Committee notes that in the period 1 July 2005 to the end of February 2006, 59% of international applicants chose to have their applications treated as a priority, paying the higher fee.38 Fees are set pursuant to the Australian Government’s Cost Recovery Guidelines, and the fee structure was under review during the inquiry.39 |
|
5.54 | From 1 July 2006 , TRA implemented a standard international application fee of $300, and there will no longer be a $500 priority assessment fee. This change was linked to revised performance targets by TRA, with priority given to assessing MODL applications (95 per cent of international MODL applications are to be finalised within 10 working days), with 95 per cent of all other applications to be finalised within 20 working days.40 |
|
![]() |
||
TRA’s domestic assessment role |
||
5.55 | DEWR through TRA administers the TRR Act . The act provides a mechanism for assessing and formally recognising the skills in the metal and electrical trades of eligible Australian residents41 who developed their trade skills informally in Australia (through means other than the traditional apprenticeship system), in the Australian Defence Force or overseas. TRA conducts assessments in 49 prescribed metal and electrical trades (set out in the TRR Act and subordinate legislation).42 The domestic assessment component of TRA’s work has been steadily decreasing over the last 15 years. |
|
5.56 | The TRR Act’s original purpose was to assist in the task of resettling troops returning from the Second World War into the civilian work force and allow people who had developed their trade skills in industry during the war to receive appropriate recognition of those skills. The act was subsequently amended in the 1950s to also provide for the recognition of trade skills of migrants arriving in Australia . For many years it was the only way of providing a nationally accepted qualification as there was no uniformity of trade training and recognition systems across the states. |
|
5.57 | The Committee was advised that the system had worked ‘relatively well’ in meeting Australian industry requirements. There were offshore assessors to assist in assessing the skills of workers overseas. Those assessors:
|
|
5.58 | The TRR Act was amended on a number of occasions during the 1980s and 1990s. By 1998, however, given developments in the Australian recognition framework, the underlying rationale for continuing the act was felt to be no longer necessary and steps commenced to repeal the act. The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Repeal Bill 1999 proposed that the original act be repealed and that transitional provisions be put in place to deal with existing applications for skill assessment. While the bill passed the House of Representatives, it was still before the Senate when Parliament was dissolved prior to a general election and was not reintroduced in the following parliamentary term. |
|
5.59 | The TRR Act covers six trades: engineering, boilermaking, blacksmithing, electrical, sheet metal and boot trades.44 The act establishes a Central Trades Committee (comprising a representative of the Minister, two employer representatives and two employee representatives) for each of the six trades and a Local Trades Committee (LTC) in each state (comprising a similarly sourced membership).45 LTCs consider requests for recognition of skills and may grant a tradesman’s certificate (an ARTC). The Central Trades Committee supervises the LTCs as to the general procedure to be followed in performing their functions. |
|
5.60 | TRA fees for domestic applications until 30 June 2006 were: |
|
5.61 | New fees were announced by TRA to take effect from 1 July 2006 . TRA no longer requires a $100 application fee for a domestic trade certificate where the person has already been assessed in TRA’s international stream, as ‘Applicants in these circumstances have already paid an application fee to have their skills assessed in the international stream’. TRA has also implemented a $300 reapplication fee. In effect this appears to be operating as a type of appeal process, in that:
|
|
5.62 | As TRA has recognised, a number of the domestic applications it processes include applicants who have already been assessed by it for migration purposes prior to arrival in Australia . Because of time lags, applicants most likely ‘had their international assessment in previous financial years’.49 TRA estimated that, as of April 2006, just over half of TRA’s domestic stream applicants had also been assessed through TRA’s offshore process. From these figures, it appears that less than 500 domestic applications per year may be ‘new’ applications, in the sense of not having had any assessment by TRA previously. |
|
5.63 | This double handling of applications (assessed once by TRA for migration purposes and then a second time by TRA when onshore for issue of an ARTC) was a source of some understandable frustration:
|
|
5.64 | The Committee hopes that the system established under the COAG initiatives will address this issue of double-handling, leading to a situation where the pre-migration assessment is sufficiently rigorous to mean that no further domestic assessment is required for all trades. |
|
5.65 | In examining the way in which these domestic applications are assessed the Committee examined the relationship between the TRA assessors and the LTCs. It was explained in the following terms:
|
|
5.66 | The Committee attempted to determine if TRA had a supervisory role in regard to the Central Trades Committees, but was advised that these committees ‘play a key role in determining the [assessment] criteria. They are established in their own right. … They are responsible for their own performance’.52 |
|
5.67 | The actual relationship between TRA, its assessors and the Committees was not always clear, even to those involved in the system:
|
|
5.68 | Given the declining number of applications dealt with, the allocation of nine assessors in the TRA office and the existence of LTCs in most states and territories, the Committee had concerns about the resources being devoted to a diminishing component of TRA’s work. The current system of TRA and the Central and Local Trades Committees was defended by the National Electrical and Communications Association (NECA), which held that:
|
|
5.69 | The Committee was surprised to note, however, NECA’s observation that:
|
|
5.70 | This goes against a wealth of other evidence received by the Committee about TRA’s performance, detailed later in this chapter. |
|
5.71 | Several submissions held that the Trades Committees played a role in considering applications for pre-migration skills assessment.56 This is clearly not the case, as was confirmed by DEWR, who indicated that ‘the international assessment is completely separate to the domestic process’.57 |
|
![]() |
||
Alternatives to TRA’s domestic assessment process |
||
5.72 | While the ARTC issued by TRA is widely accepted, it is not the only assessment process available in Australia for those seeking recognition of qualifications in the metal and electrical trades. DEWR advised the Committee that:
|
|
5.73 | State and territory based recognition authorities provide trade recognition by assessing an applicant against specific competencies, leading to the issuing of an AQF Certificate III. From TRA’s perspective, however, the AQF is not automatically equivalent to the ARTC. DEWR noted that:
|
|
5.74 | However, under the UAC, TRA requires applicants to ‘provide evidence of relevant and directly relevant work experience equalling not less than 900 hours’.60 |
|
5.75 | DEWR has stated that the AQF does not hold the same level of industry support as the ARTC and that its system is more affordable and timely for applications.61 While there are issues about the level of acceptability of qualifications outside the ARTC, the Committee received no evidence to support the claims about the affordability and timeliness of the ARTC in relation to other qualifications. DEWR did indicate that COAG initiatives in developing a national approach to apprenticeships, training and skills recognition will strengthen the AQF. |
|
5.76 | A major stumbling block to the wider acceptance of the AQF by registration authorities is the lack of preparedness of state registration bodies to accept alternatives to the ARTC. In May 2005 the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced that for the Employer Nominated Scheme, ‘as an alternative to TRA, the department would accept a skills assessment from the department of industrial relations in the state or territory where [the person] would be working’.62 |
|
5.77 | The Committee was advised that, at least in one state, this did not have the desired result of providing greater flexibility:
|
|
5.78 | As with the work currently being done by COAG, greater participation by the states and territories in assessment and recognition across all trades should provide a more flexible and responsive system to all involved:
|
|
5.79 | Frustrations with the current system were obvious in the evidence taken by the Committee, leading to a number of options being suggested. The Goldfields Esperance Development Commission argued:
|
|
5.80 | An alternative solution was put by Business SA:
|
|
5.81 | The Western Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted that the state-based licensing systems were a second assessment process (following TRA approval) and involved additional time delays:
|
|
5.82 | The Committee fully supports the initiatives underway under the auspices of COAG to bring greater rationality to the system. While there is some appeal in centralising all assessment, recognition and licensing on a national basis, the Committee believes the best way to move forward is to follow the COAG model of more effective mutual recognition across states and territories and standardisation of what skills are necessary for a particular trade. |
|
![]() |
||
Specific issues arising from the TRA process |
||
5.83 | Criticism of TRA’s performance was a strong theme in submissions to the inquiry. Typical of the comments were the following:
|
|
5.84 | The Migration Institute of Australia summarised the concerns of its members in relation to TRA in the following terms:
|
|
5.85 | The decline in performance by TRA was traced by one witness to budgetary cuts that affected the way TRA worked:
|
|
5.86 | TRA was very aware of the criticisms of its performance and has taken steps during the course of the inquiry to address a number of issues. The Committee was pleased to note that since mid-2005 TRA’s performance had improved. DEWR reported that ‘the re-engineering of TRA’s international business processes in 2004’ has led to significant reductions in processing times, while maintaining a high standard of audit and fraud control.73 |
|
5.87 | The Committee was advised:
|
|
5.88 | Despite these improvements a number of concerns remain about TRA’s performance. These are discussed in the following sections. Because of TRA’s dual role, some issues relate more to domestic applications, while others relate to TRA’s role as a pre-migration assessing authority. Other concerns cover both roles. |
|
Structural issues |
||
5.89 | TRA operates in two locations: in Canberra , where international applications are processed, and in Melbourne , where domestic applications are processed. This is a significant contraction of TRA’s presence around Australia , with offices in Western Australia , Queensland and Tasmania having been closed in recent years. |
|
5.90 | There are approximately 30 staff based in Canberra (of which 15 are assessors); in Melbourne there are nine assessing staff, with additional support personnel. Staffing numbers in TRA ‘have increased by about 10 overall’ since June 2005, and as at March 2006, further recruitment action was underway.75 |
|
5.91 | Based on the figures from 1 July 2005 to 28 February 2006, the 15 assessors based in Canberra dealt with 12,374 pre-migration applications; the nine assessors in Melbourne, supporting the LTCs, dealt with 905 applications. This disparity in workload, particularly given that the actual decision-making is with the LTCs, is of concern. The Committee found DEWR’s explanation for the disparity less than convincing:
|
|
5.92 | Another common complaint was the lack of a TRA presence in the states and associated difficulties in making contact with the two remaining TRA offices by telephone. |
|
5.93 | State representatives argued for local offices of TRA to be re-established:
|
|
5.94 | DEWR argued that re-establishing TRA offices in other locations was not warranted:
|
|
5.95 | DEWR provided the Committee with a table showing the geographic distribution of domestic applications for the period 2003‑04 to 2005‑06. The Northern Territory and Tasmania , for each of the three years, was the source of seven or less applications each per year. For the remaining states, in the last full financial year (2004‑05) numbers were:
|
|
5.96 | The Committee agrees that, on the basis of these figures, it would be hard to establish a business case to support the reopening of individual state-based TRA offices to deal solely with domestic applications. However, the Committee believes that TRA would provide better service to the state and territory Overseas Qualifications Units (OQUs), industry and other stakeholders if it outposted officers to each OQU, similar to the outposting of DIMA officers to industry that has proved so successful. With TRA’s enhanced role under the COAG reforms, closer contact and liaison will be vital to ensure that the reforms proceed and the new systems instituted meet the needs of employers and industry. |
|
5.97 | Recommendation 38
|
|
5.98 | While closure of the state TRA offices may have been as a result of changing business practices, it is important that clients of TRA are able to contact the office in a reasonable timeframe if necessary. The hours for the telephone inquiry line were also criticised. In March 2006, the Committee was advised the hours were:
|
|
5.99 | TRA advised that ‘the inquiry line relates to the international application stream of applicants’ and that feedback indicated that the majority of applicants were only waiting a short time: ‘Those hours are flexible inasmuch as they relate to resource availability to enable our business support unit to deal with applications that come in’. However, the TRA representative went on to indicate that the times would be reviewed in future.82 TRA also indicated that a message system was on at all times, and contact by email was also another method used by applicants. |
|
5.100 | The Committee examined the implications for the five main source countries (as identified by COAG) for trades: India , the UK , South Africa , Sri Lanka and South Korea . Based on AEST, the impact is varied across the five countries. For South Korea , the hours are not too great an impediment to an individual attempting to make contact (AEST minus 1); Sri Lanka and India (AEST minus 4 ½) are still able to contact TRA on the three days at reasonable times. For South Africa and the United Kingdom (AEST minus 8 hours and minus 10 hours respectively), the current business hours require applicants to call in the middle of the night or very early in the morning if they wish to speak to someone in TRA. The Committee concluded that the hours as they stand are largely inadequate for any meaningful contact to be made from those countries. |
|
5.101 | It was apparent also that the problem with contacting the TRA office was not just limited to international calls and that there was confusion about the hours within which TRA could be contacted. TRA indicated that for domestic applications ‘we generally take calls live but if someone is unable to take a call it goes to an answering machine and we respond to that call as soon as possible’.83 |
|
5.102 | A representative of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, WA, advised that:
|
|
5.103 | Not only were the difficulties of making contact an issue; the whole question of use of the telephone to undertake assessment of individuals was also criticised:
|
|
5.104 | As the Queensland Department of Employment and Training observed:
|
|
5.105 | Recommendation 39
|
|
Processing times |
||
5.106 | One of the major criticisms of TRA centered around the time taken to process assessments. TRA’s performance was described as:
|
|
5.107 | While anecdotal evidence varied, it appeared that TRA in the past was taking over three months to process a priority application, and six months for a non-priority application.89 |
|
5.108 | On 1 January 2006 , TRA introduced a new performance indicator—that 95 per cent of international MODL applications would be assessed within 10 working days. This target was being met when TRA spoke to the Committee in March 2006.90 |
|
5.109 | Given the continuing increase in applications being dealt with by TRA and the new responsibilities being allocated to it under the COAG initiatives, the Committee remains concerned that TRA may not be able to sustain the improved response times it has moved to this year. It is important that TRA’s performance in meeting these targets is maintained as a return to the long delays of the past is not acceptable. |
|
TRA’s assessment process |
||
5.110 | TRA’s system of assessment of international applications is paper based. While there is detailed information on the web site setting out what is required, TRA was criticised for not seeking additional documentation:
|
|
5.111 | A second issue was identified by the Queensland Department of Employment and Training:
|
|
5.112 | This point was also made by Restaurant and Catering Australia:
|
|
5.113 | The lack of feedback to an applicant was also of concern, particularly in regard to domestic applications when an applicant might be in a position to undertake additional training to meet any gaps in the required competencies. However:
|
|
5.114 | The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Workers Union of Australia was critical of the TRA process in two ways:
|
|
5.115 | The CEPU felt that ‘changes have been made over the last decade to the assessment regime which have weakened the rigorousness of the checking process and made it easier for applicants to engage in credential and experience deception’.96 The CEPU argued for the reinstituting of overseas based assessors to speed up the process ‘as applications could be more quickly technically assessed by people with local knowledge of what constitutes equivalent skills and training’.97 |
|
5.116 | The Immigration Lawyers Association of Australia noted that:
|
|
5.117 | The Committee believes that TRA should reexamine its international assessment processes in the area of metal and electrical trades as part of the move to revised overseas assessment processes. For the period 1 July 2005 to the end of February 2006, 84 per cent of domestic applicants who had previously been accepted by TRA’s international stream obtained an ARTC. However, on these figures, 16 per cent did not, leading to questions about the gap between assessment for migration and assessment to be ‘job ready’. DEWR noted that applicants were unsuccessful because they ‘cannot fulfill a capability-based assessment’.99 Under the more ‘robust’ off-shore skills assessment envisaged by COAG, the Committee hopes that such failure rates will become a thing of the past. |
|
Appeal process |
||
5.118 | The review process available to those dissatisfied with a pre-migration assessment decision was also raised with the Committee. A review of the TRA decision can occur, for a fee of $A300. |
|
5.119 | The way in which reviews are conducted was also criticised:
|
|
5.120 | The Committee notes that, under the new fee structure that commenced on 1 July 2006 , domestic applicants can reapply, submitting additional information, for a fee of $300. This is in effect the same as lodging a new (updated) application for assessment. |
|
5.121 | The Committee notes that if applicants do not get sufficient feedback on why their applications are unsuccessful, the chances of any reapplication (or appeal) is reduced. |
|
![]() |
||
Future directions for TRA |
||
5.122 | The improvements in TRA’s performance over the previous 12 months were noted in evidence to the Committee in the later stages of the inquiry:
|
|
5.123 | While those improvements were acknowledged, however, further improvements were sought:
|
|
5.124 | A word of caution was sounded, however:
|
|
5.125 | Given the elaborate system (TRA assessors plus Local and Central Trades Committees) in place for assessing a comparatively small number of domestic applications, the existence of alternative skills assessment pathways and the moves to strengthen the recognition of AQF, the Committee can see little justification for TRA continuing its role in assessment of domestic applications in the area of electrical and metal trades. |
|
5.126 | Recommendation 40
|
|
5.127 | Recommendation 41
|
|
5.128 | Recommendation 42
|
1 | Mr Campbell, Submission No. 52, p. 1. Back |
2 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 9. Back |
3 | Australian Hotels Association, Submission No. 45, p. 2. Back |
4 | Australian Hotels Association, Submission No. 45, p. 3. Back |
5 | Australian Trucking Association, Submission No. 90, p. 4 .Back |
6 | DIMA, Submission No. 80b, p. 1. Back |
7 | DIMA, Submission No. 80, p. 3. Back |
8 | Mr Rizvi, DIMA, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005, p. 2. Back |
9 | Mr Rizvi, DIMA, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005, p. 3. Back |
10 | Ms Connell, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005, p. 30. Back |
11 | Mrs Cunningham , Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, Northern Territory, Transcript of Evidence, 14 November 2005 , p. 1. Back |
12 | Ms Rogers , Queensland Department of Employment and Training, Transcript of Evidence, 9 March 2006 , p. 44. Back |
13 | Mr Rizvi, DIMA, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005, p. 4. Back |
14 | Ms Winter , South Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 31. Back |
15 | DIMA website, http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1121i.pdf (accessed 6 June 2006 ). Back |
16 | DIMA advised that for the Employer Nominated Scheme, where the trade skills require formal assessment, ‘evidence of their acceptance by Trades Recognition Australia or a State government skills assessing body is required. However, where there is a mandatory licensing or registration requirement for their trade, licensing or registration by the appropriate State body is considered equivalent to a successful trade skills assessment’, DIMA, Submission No. 80, p. 7. Back |
17 | See the Skilled Occupation List (SOL), on the DIMA website, http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1121i.pdf (accessed 31 July 2006 ). Back |
18 | Announced on TRA website, http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/SchemesInitiatives/TRA/ (accessed on 7 July 2006 ). Back |
19 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 10. Back |
20 | Ms Connell , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 2. Back |
21 | VETASSESS, Submission No.86, pp. 4-5. Back |
22 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 5. Back |
23 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 8. Back |
24 | Queensland Government, Submission No. 83, p. 9. Back |
25 | Queensland Government, Submission No. 83, p. 9. Back |
26 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 8. Back |
27 | Mr Frith, Business SA, Transcript of Evidence, 14 November 20005, p. 43. Back |
28 | COAG, Communique, 10 February 2006 , p. 14. Back |
29 | Mr Tighe , Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union , Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005 , pp. 88-89. Back |
30 | DEWR, Submission No. 63d, item 9. Back |
31 | COAG, Communique, 10 February 2006, p. 14. Back |
32 | COAG, Communique, 10 February 2006 , p. 14. Back |
33 | Mr Thomas, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, pp. 16-17. Back |
34 | Mr Mills , DIMA, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 30. Back |
35 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 9. Back |
36 | For more details on the assessing authorities, see the Skilled Occupation list on the DIMA website, http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1121i.pdf (accessed 31 July 2006 ). Back |
37 | DEWR, Submission No. 63b, p. 7. Back |
38 | DEWR, Submission No. 63e, p. 2. Back |
39 | DEWR, Submission No. 63, p. 10. Back |
40 | Trades Recognition Bulletin (undated), available at: http://www. workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/88CA2A42-CDE7-4A38-9738-20DD5ADED79B/0/TRAFeeBulletin.doc (accessed 1 August 2006 ). Back |
41 | The Committee received conflicting advice on whether temporary residents could obtain an ARTC through TRA. DEST indicated in its submission that this was the case (Submission No. 91, p. 28); but evidence from ILAA (Submission No. 82, p. 17) indicated that TRA would not issue an ARTC where the applicant was a temporary resident. Back |
42 | See Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946, http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/1F37716EDA2D8EB2CA25713E008212E3/$file/TradesRightReg46.pdf (accessed 25 July 2005). Back |
43 | Mr Tighe , Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union , Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005 , pp. 84-85. Back |
44 | The Committee did receive one suggestion that the TRRA be extended to include all trades, but did not consider this appropriate given its conclusions about the operation of the act. See Mr Maxwell , Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005 , p. 93. Back |
45 | Although evidence from DEWR suggests there are no Committees established for boot trades currently. See DEWR, Submission No. 63c, p.1. Back |
46 | The Committee understands that TRA subsidise the cost of such trade test s (see Mr Thomas , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 9). Back |
47 | Western Australian Department of Education and Training, Submission No. 20a, p. 2. Back |
48 | TRA Bulletin, http://www.workplace.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/88CA2A42-CDE7-4A38-9738-20DD5ADED79B/0/TRAFeeBulletin.doc (accessed 1 August 2006 ). Back |
49 | DEWR, Submission No. 63d, p. 6. Back |
50 | Ms Fletcher , Goldfields Esperance Development Commission, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , pp. 48-49. Back |
51 | Mr Thomas, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, pp. 4-6. Back |
52 | Mr Thomas, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, p. 13. Back |
53 | Mr Tighe , Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union , Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005 , p. 86. Back |
54 | National Electrical and Communications Association, Submission No. 53, p. 2. Back |
55 | National Electrical and Communications Association, Submission No. 53, p. 2. Back |
56 | See for example, CFMEU, Submission No. 11, p. 5; and CEPU Electrical Division, Submission No. 87, p. 5. Back |
57 | Mr Thomas , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 14. Back |
58 | DEWR, Submission No. 63c, p. 2. Back |
59 | Mr Kibble , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005 , p. 35. Back |
60 | DEWR, Submission No. 63b, p. 15. Back |
61 | DEWR, Submission No. 63d, item 2. Back |
62 | Mr Fitzhardinge , Western Australian Skills Advisory Board, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 7. Back |
63 | Goldfields Esperance Development Commission, Submission No. 38, p. 5. Back |
64 | Ms Fletcher , Goldfields Esperance Development Commission, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005, pp. 46-47. Back |
65 | Goldfields Esperance Development Commission, Submission No. 38, p. 8. Back |
66 | Ms Lablack, Business SA, Transcript of Evidence, 14 November 2005 , pp. 42-43. Back |
67 | Chamber of Commerce and Industry Western Australia, Submission No. 50, p. 2. Back |
68 | Western Australian Government, Submission No. 16, p. 2. Back |
69 | Mr Fitzhardinge , WA Skills Advisory Board, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 4. Back |
70 | Immigration Lawyers Association of Australia , Submission No. 82, p. 17. Back |
71 | Migration Institute of Australia , Submission No. 34, p. 25. Back |
72 | Mr Tighe , Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union , Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005 , pp. 84-85. Back |
73 | Ms Connell , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 5 September 2005 , pp. 30-31. Back |
74 | Ms Connell , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 2. Back |
75 | Mr Thomas, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, pp. 3-4. Back |
76 | DEWR, Submission No. 63d, item 7. Back |
77 | Mr Fitzhardinge , WA Skills Advisory Board, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 6. Back |
78 | Ms Connell, DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, pp. 5-6. Back |
79 | DEWR, Submission No. 63e, p. 2. Back |
80 | TRA website, http://www.workplace.gov.au/workplace/Category/SchemesInitiatives/TRA/ContactTRA-forpeopleintendingtomigratetoAustralia.htm (accessed 7 July 2006 ). Back |
81 | DEWR, Submission No. 63e, p. 1. Back |
82 | Mr Jamonts, TRA, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, pp. 6-7. Back |
83 | Mr Jamonts, TRA, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006, p. 8. Back |
84 | Ms Thomas , Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Western Australia , Transcript of Evidence, 20 April 2006 , p. 31. Back |
85 | Mr Player , Department of Education and Training, Western Australia , Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 18. Back |
86 | Ms Winter , South Metropolitan Migrant Resource Centre, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 32. Back |
87 | Ms Rogers , Queensland Department of Employment and Training, Transcript of Evidence, 9 March 2006 , p. 47. Back |
88 | Mrs Cunningham , Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, Northern Territory, Transcript of Evidence, 14 November 2005 , p. 2. Back |
89 | See for example, Mr Webster, Migration Institute of Australia Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005, p. 45; the previous average processing time of 120 working days (ie nearly six months) was referred to in a number of submissions, including Goldfields Esperance Development Commission, Submission No. 38, p. 3. One submission (No. 52) told of a four month wait for a priority assessment. Back |
90 | Mr Thomas , DEWR, Transcript of Evidence, 27 March 2006 , p. 14. Back |
91 | Migration Institute of Australia , Submission No. 34, p. 22. Back |
92 | Ms Rogers , Queensland Department of Employment and Training, Transcript of Evidence, 9 March 2006 , p. 45. Back |
93 | Restaurant and Catering Australia , Submission No. 41, p. 13. Back |
94 | Brotherhood of St Laurence , Submission No. 23, p. 3. Back |
95 | CEPU, SubmissionNo. 87, pp. 2-3. Back |
96 | CEPU, Submission No. 87, p. 4. Back |
97 | CEPU, Submission No. 87, p. 6. Back |
98 | Immigration Lawyers Association of Australia, Submission No. 82, p. 15. Back |
99 | DEWR, Submission No. 63d, p. 6. Back |
100 | Migration Institute of Australia, Submission No. 34, p. 22. Back |
101 | Mrs Cunningham, Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, Northern Territory, Transcript of Evidence, 14 November 2005, p. 2. Back |
102 | Mr Fitzhardinge , Western Australian Skills Advisory Board, Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 4. Back |
103 | Mr Webster, Migration Institute of Australia Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005, p. 44. Back |
104 | Mr Hill, Department of Industry and Resources, Western Australia , Transcript of Evidence, 15 November 2005 , p. 5. Back |
105 | Mr Webster, Migration Institute of Australia Ltd, Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005, p. 42. Back |
106 | Ms Thomas , Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Western Australia , Transcript of Evidence, 20 April 2006 , p. 39. Back |
107 | Mr Lingham, Absolute Immigration Services, Transcript of Evidence, 23 November 2005, p. 46. Back |
Print Chapter 5 (PDF 309KB) | < - Report Home < - Chapter 4 : Chapter 6 - > |