rld1177

Any initial thoughts on the new 457 law passing today by one vote?

One general observation (already spoken to my banks legal firm on ideas) - 457's have 90 days now to find new work, BUT jobs must be advertised for 4 months before we can be considered. General views in my bank is existing 457 are OK provided we are not let go, but this will reduce foreign hires due to the obvious extra effort required. I've asked if they suggest applying to the PR track prior to the 2 year window, and the two year window is still advised unless you make 180K plus in which case I was told today to go for PR. Quite interesting developments - I'd imagine this will limit future 457 options mainly to those above 180K or in that range, this reminds me as an American of what happened a few years ago in the UK, where if you were on 150K GBP you were exempt from these rules while otherwise getting a tier 2 visa was quite difficult and all about timing based on quotas.

I assume this will clear the Senate but hard to say at this point.....

the troubadour

Good news. Business should have too seek Australian based workers prior to sourcing overseas.
The 457 should be put back to its original concept. That being a short term solution for a business to source a professional not available in Australia.
It should not be used as a cheap way to immigrate nor to get around training locals.
I guess the supermarkets won't be too happy either.

Amazulu

I read an article this week about how IBM were laying off in Australia but looking to increase their numbers of 457s. That's wrong and if this bill stops this practice then full marks

rld1177

If the intent is to close off lower income immigration I understand it completely. At my bank for example, 5 of us can in on 457's a number of months after they (claimed) that they couldn't get local resources. Keep in mind these were MBA, JD, and or PHD hires but regardless even when I came over I was a bit surprised local talent wasn't available. I think well of myself, but not that well I do wonder if some of the intent / use of 457 at the higher income levels was the bring in international perspective / views. My bank for example was and is big on Asia expansion - those of us that they pulled in from New York, London, and Hong Kong had focused on that region and I'd guess even with the 4 month rule it may not impact 457's at the higher end of the pay scale. The move to 90 days is a welcome change, although if you are here and are let go with the new 4 month rule, 90 days to find something seems a bit difficult. Granted, I understand none of us can vote and I can't blame the government at all for pushing this one through by 1 vote.

Buzzy--Bee

Yes that is completely wrong. The social cost apart from anything....

BB

IvanM

Tech sector abuses 457s massively. There is no shortage of workers. It will increase off shoring of muppet jobs and keep the high payers.

rld1177

That is an interesting observation, I've certainly noticed massive offshoring in IT since I've been here in Melbourne. What seems to be lost in the attacks on 457's (I get it - politics) is the offshoring going on in the entire sector. I thought it was aggressive when I lived in the USA and UK but we at least kept core groups onshore. Some banks here are offshoring so much to India and lately Manila that I wonder if Australia will have a tech sector left in a few more years - I am speaking here about jobs that would have been ideal for 22 - 30 year old Australians just out of Uni - these are going offshore at 1/3 to 1/4 the price fully loaded - I'd strongly debate the quality of the offshore resources but banks here seem quite short term focused and could care less about long term impacts of this. Australians truly worried about protecting jobs should look closer and offshoring and making this sort of thing a bit more difficult vs getting worked up about an Indian coming here make 70K in a job an Australian would do for 80K - which is clearly the major concern in the press, ironically all this will do is cause further offshoring of these sorts of jobs.

GarryP

Exactly. Why both onshoring an indian if you can offshore the job?

At least under 457 they are paying taxes in Australia, soon there won't even be that. The resources get shipped out, and the products get shipped in, and exactly where is the functioning economy going to be to afford to purchase those imports? Gina can only buy so much.

My guess is if Abbott gets in we will be looking at special economic zones, low taxation and guest workers - coupled with cuts in government services and austerity 'necessary to return the accounts to surplus'. Of course, as the evidence shows, the more you cut the less tax you get, so the more you 'have to tax' for that surplus.

457 attacks are massively missing the point of engineering a working economy - like jamming a spanner in the works in the hope the machine won't run away - and ignoring the way the machine actually works. Someone needs to crack open the instruction manual.

RedDragon2008

I am planning a massive offshoring




To Norfolk Island


Staffing all by 457 unless local applicants apply.

IvanM

Not all IT jobs can be offshored.

LeeWillo

So if you earn over $180k does this make it easier to get PR? I'm on a 457 and started PR application, but couldn't continue it as wife was pregnant so couldn't have full medical (x-ray). Now we've had the baby I'm waiting for birth certificate so I can get him a UK passport then get him on our 457, and then I can resume the application process.

Pollyana

No, you still have to meet all the usual requirements for PR.

Phoodilicious

What about company transferees?

I understand wanting to advertise new positions in Australia first for a period of time but where an international company wants to transfer in staff from other countries to help train the local staff (for example said company has acquired an Australian company and wants to put managers and executives in from other places to help with the integration and training) are the rules still going to insist on 4 months advertising? If the purpose of the 457 visa holder coming in is because ey bring company only expertise then no-one locally is going to have that experience.

KJCherokee

In my industry (oil & gas pipelines) and pretty much all across engineering there is a huge experience shortage between the baby boomers (me) and the Gen Y graduates, caused largely by the recessions of the 1980's which sent many engineering graduates out of engineering and into other careers. So if we need to have an engineer who has more than 5-8 years experience we are virtually forced to look offshore - either that or pay an Australian a salary that guarantees we will not make a profit on his work.

The fact that we have 5-6% unemployment here doesn't mean that the skills required for a job can be sourced locally. I certainly don't believe in using 457's for unskilled labour.

Amazulu

I agree but when a company like IBM says that they are going to sack a load of their workers and bring in 457s to replace them - that's wrong

Every country, from the richest to the poorest, benefits from a degree of labour movement but its got to be regulated