Truth of the matter is that the points test is giving a lot of PR visas out to people who have in some ways gamed the system with the help of PY to gain skill assessment without ever having worked in the occupation. Once PR is granted most end up doing something else and that’s a big loophole that needs to be closed. If you haven’t worked in your skilled occupation for a year or two you shouldn’t be getting a PR visa. I think that’s the position of the Grattan Institute which I agree with having seen a lot of cases like this.
The current system awards 20 points for superior English and 20 points for a PhD. In your proposal, a PhD is worth only 60 points. Why not 90, like the superior English scores? I'm not measuring the complexity of the degree, but quite often a PhD program is about a 6-year commitment (!), which might warrant awarding more than 60 points. The suggested 30 points for a bachelor's degree devalue a doctorate.
Having said that I don’t see how the community language test should be given points at all. It has no contribution and is only done to receive points to get independent PR. Surely if you abolish the PY points you should abolish the community language points
Its not just high tech employees that are employer sponsored. It's mostly chefs and other low paying jobs that are sponsored. I can't see how keeping all employer sponsored skilled people in same bracket would help to produce better economic outcomes. By ramping up employer sponsored, you might just get more chefs than high income earnings skilled workers if income stratas are not mentioned specifically
You might be interested in reading our research on the 'Goldilocks' threshhold, which argued for a $70,000 floor on the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold. grattan.edu.au/news/the-goldilocks-wage-threshold-for-temporary-skilled-migrants/
Truth of the matter is that the points test is giving a lot of PR visas out to people who have in some ways gamed the system with the help of PY to gain skill assessment without ever having worked in the occupation. Once PR is granted most end up doing something else and that’s a big loophole that needs to be closed. If you haven’t worked in your skilled occupation for a year or two you shouldn’t be getting a PR visa. I think that’s the position of the Grattan Institute which I agree with having seen a lot of cases like this.
The current system awards 20 points for superior English and 20 points for a PhD. In your proposal, a PhD is worth only 60 points. Why not 90, like the superior English scores? I'm not measuring the complexity of the degree, but quite often a PhD program is about a 6-year commitment (!), which might warrant awarding more than 60 points. The suggested 30 points for a bachelor's degree devalue a doctorate.
Will there be any concessions for 482 holders receiving less than 70k? Its not their fault the award is less than 70k.
Having said that I don’t see how the community language test should be given points at all. It has no contribution and is only done to receive points to get independent PR. Surely if you abolish the PY points you should abolish the community language points
Its not just high tech employees that are employer sponsored. It's mostly chefs and other low paying jobs that are sponsored. I can't see how keeping all employer sponsored skilled people in same bracket would help to produce better economic outcomes.
By ramping up employer sponsored, you might just get more chefs than high income earnings skilled workers if income stratas are not mentioned specifically
You might be interested in reading our research on the 'Goldilocks' threshhold, which argued for a $70,000 floor on the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold.
grattan.edu.au/news/the-goldilocks-wage-threshold-for-temporary-skilled-migrants/
@@GrattanInstituteAustralia Why were my comments deleted? Idiots with dumb report.