Your client is in immigration detention, and they have no more options left to legally stay in Australia. How can you assist them? The best way to achieve optimal results for your client would be to make an application for a Bridging Visa E on departure grounds [Schedule 2 Clause 050.212(2)] If your client can obtain a Bridging Visa and is therefore able to leave the country as a lawful non-citizen they will not have to be removed. As well, this means they will have a better chance of re-entering Australia, provided of course that they can make a valid visa application. However if they can’t obtain a Bridging Visa because their visa has been cancelled or refused they will have to remain in detention until they are removed. What if your client is unlawful, but has not yet been detected? You will need to counsel them to attend an immigration office as soon as possible, with their valid passport, and a current airline ticket, to make an application for a Bridging Visa on departure grounds. It is important that you ensure your client understands that if they go to the airport without a valid visa they may be questioned and detained by border officials. In the worst case scenario they risk being removed involuntarily from the country as an unlawful non-citizen. Under section 210 of the Migration Act any person, except those on a criminal justice visa, who is removed or deported must repay all the costs of their removal or deportation. An unlawful non-citizen who requests in writing to be removed, and the request is approved, is considered to be a voluntary removal. If they do not require a security escort, or medical, or welfare escorts then they can be removed unescorted. On the other hand, a non-citizen who has not made a written request to be removed, is known as an involuntary removal. If they pose a high security risk, or require medical, or other escorts, then their removal must be escorted. All unlawful non-citizens are required to be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. An officer of the Department also has the discretion to remove the spouse or defacto partner of a non-citizen who has been removed from Australia. Assisted Voluntary Returns (AVR) services are available to assist Bridging Visa E visa holders who may need assistance and support to leave Australia. If you think your visa has expired, or your visa is about to expire, or you are not sure of your immigration status, don’t put your future or your family at risk because you haven’t got the facts. At Migration Centre of Australia we are experienced in handling highly complex and sensitive matters, and we have some of the best immigration agents in Sydney. Call our Registered Migration Agents 02 46261002, or email admin@mckkrs.com.au.
What, then, are the eligibility requirements for the adoption visa? First, the adoption has to be in the best interests of the child. Second, there has to be an eligible sponsor (AUS Citizen/PR) – this is the adoptive parent/s. Third, the child must be under at 18 at the time the decision is made on the visa application. And of course, the primary factor determining whether or not the visa will be granted, the adoption itself. There are 3 principal methods of adoption: Have been or be in the process of being adopted through an intercountry adoption or arrangement with the involvement of an Australian state or territory central authority; OR Have been or be in the process of being adopted through an intercountry adoption between 2 countries, other than Australia, that are parties to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption , OR Have been adopted through an adoption that did not involve an Australian state or territory central authority. This is also called an expatriate adoption. The adoptor must be an Australian citizen, an eligible New Zealand citizen or the holder of an Australian permanent visa. And they must have been living outside Australia for more than 12 months before lodging the visa application . If one of the above is satisfied, then you qualify for this visa subclass. Seems straightforward right? Actually, not quite. As it happens, there is another question that is borne out of these complex definitions of adoption. Funny thing is that it involves adoption, but not this subclass of visa: What if I was adopted by someone who was not an Australian Resident at the time, but became one at a later date? Thankfully, here at the Migration Centre of Australia, we have knowledgeable migration agents that know the answer. Simply put, if you fulfil that criteria and your adoptive parent became an Australian Permanent Resident after the adoption, then this visa subclass does not apply to you. You will need to apply for the child visa (subclass 101). The other eligibility requirements are similar to those of the subclass 101 visa. If you feel you qualify for either subclass, contact the Migration Centre of Australia now and our team of registered migration agents will help you migrate to Australia and join your family. Our expertise will be applied to ensure you get a successful outcome and are granted the visa. So call us at 0246261002 or email at admin@mckkrs.com.au
Work and Holiday visa holders can now work with the same employer for twelve months if they are assisting with bushfire recovery efforts. Any paid or volunteer disaster recovery work in declared areas will count towards the ‘specified work’ needed to apply for a second or third year 462 visa. There is an option to stay for a third year if you choose to work in a specified regional area. Presently the following countries are designated as specified foreign countries. (a) Argentina (b) Austria (c) Chile (d) China, People’s Republic of (e) Czech Republic (f) Ecuador (g) Greece (h) Hungary (i) Indonesia (j) Israel (k) Luxembourg (l) Malaysia (m) Peru (n) Poland (o) Portugal (p) San Marino (q) Singapore (r) Slovak Republic (s) Slovenia (t) Spain (u) Thailand (v) Turkey (w) United States of America (x) Uruguay (y) Vietnam. Recent changes to the legislation have increased the number of places available for applicants from Spain 1500 up to 3400 Peru 100 up to 1500 Chile 2000 up to 3400 Argentina from 1500 up to 2450 Malaysia 100 up to 1100 Singapore 500 up to 2500 Portugal 200 up to 500. As well Greece 500 and Ecuador 100 have been added to the program. India Brazil Mexico Philippines Switzerland Fiji Solomon Islands Croatia Latvia Lithuania Andorra Monaco and Mongolia are also being considered for the program. The following countries are exempt from providing evidence of government support for the grant of their visa (a) Argentina (b) Austria (c) Chile (d) The People’s Republic of China (e) Israel (f) Portugal (g) Singapore (h) Spain (i) United States of America. Work and holiday visa applicants need to meet minimum requirements including having a functional level of English. As well you must be studying or hold tertiary qualifications or successful completion of two years undergraduate university study from the following countries. Argentina Austria People’s Republic of China Ecuador Greece Hungary Indonesia Luxembourg Malaysia Peru Poland Portugal San Marino Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Uruguay Vietnam. Chile nationals must hold tertiary qualifications or successful completion of or approval to undertake third year undergraduate university study. Israel visa applicants need to have completed secondary school and military service or have exemption from military service. Thailand nationals need to have completed a diploma or degree. Applicants from United States of America need to have completed secondary school studies. All applicants need to be aged between 18 to 30 years. At Migration Centre of Australia we have experienced migration agents. Make an appointment with our visa agents in Sydney phone 0246261002 or email admin@mckkrs.com.au. We also speak fluent Hindi, Nepali and Turkish. For other languages we can help you organise an interpreter. Call now and speak to some of the best migration agents in Sydney who are highly trained Registered Migration Agents.
Currently, Immigration laws state that if you were born outside Australia to an Australian citizen, even if the other parent is not, then you will be granted Australian Citizenship by descent. Provided that the parent has lived lawfully in Australia for 2 years and if you are you are of good character (if over 18), citizenship should be granted. The same criteria applies for people that were adopted by an Australian Citizen. The international law that covers this is the Hague Convention of Intercountry Adoption (effective from 1 May 1995). The standards and principles of the Convention must be met, even if the country you were born in is not a signatory. Australia currently has an active intercountry adoption arrangement with 13 countries, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Latvia, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan and Thailand. Citizenship occurs as an operation of law, which means there is no decision on whether to approve or refuse the citizenship. It is merely a finding of fact. To summarise, Australian citizenship by adoption therefore is automatically acquired under section 13 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 when: The adoption is finalised under Australian law; and you are present in Australia as a permanent resident; and at least one adoptive parent is an Australian citizen You do not need to be present in Australia if the adoption is recognised under Australian law while you are overseas. This means you can apply for citizenship overseas prior to arriving in Australia However it is important to note that if you were born before 22 November 1984, you will need to apply for citizenship by conferral. This means a decision can be made to refuse citizenship that is it is not automatically granted. You will need to provide evidence of your adoption and each state and territory in Australia has its own adoption procedures and requirements. Contact our Registered Migration Agents if you were adopted by an Australian citizen and are unsure of whether you qualify for Australian citizenship. We have some of the best immigration agents in Sydney so call us now on 02 46261002 or email admin@mckkrs.com.au and let our migration agents assist you.
The recent case of Nguyen v Minister for Immigration establishes that when assessing the criteria set out under reg 1.15AA (1)(e) in conjunction with reg 1.15AA (1)(b)(iv) of Migration Regulations 1994 with respect to Carer (subclass 836) visa, the decision-maker needs to not only take into account the assistance required temporarily but also the ongoing assistance required for at least two (2) years. Reg 1.15AA(1)(b)(iv) …………… (b) according to a certificate that meets the requirements of subregulation (2): (iv) because of the medical condition, the person has, and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life; ……. Reg 1.15AA(1)(e) (e) the assistance cannot reasonably be: (i) provided by any other relative of the resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; or (ii) obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia Background The applicant, Ms Nguyen applied for a Carer (Subclass 836) visa to enable her to provide assistance to her mother, Ms Ton (sponsor) who is an Australian citizen. The sponsor, Ms Ton had a medical condition that was the subject of a Carer Visa Assessment Certificate provided by Dr Lim who diagnosed her as suffering from chronic bilateral weakness of the lower limbs and atrial fibrillation. Ms Ton met the requirements for a carer, as she had “the need for direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life that will continue for at least two years”. The Department refused to grant Ms Nguyen a carer visa, and the Tribunal affirmed the same on the basis that Ms Ton shared a household with her son, her youngest daughter, Anh including Anh’s husband and their daughter, and that they could reasonably provide the direct assistance that Ms Ton required. The applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA) which was unsuccessful, and appealed to the Federal Court. Issues The main issue at hand was the Tribunal’s findings regarding the direct care that Ms Ton’s Australian relatives could provide, in that, it had not undertaken any realistic assessment of Ms Ton’s relatives’ future capacity or availability to provide her with the direct assistance she would require. In the applicant’s application for judicial review, she relied on a single ground: “The Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error, in that, when considering whether “the assistance” for which the applicant’s mother had a need could reasonably be provided by a relative, the Tribunal misconstrued reg. 1.15AA (1)(e), in that the Tribunal treated the “assistance” as being only required at the time of decision, when on the proper construction of reg. 1.15AA(1)(e), “the assistance” was that for which the applicant’s mother had a need at the time of the assistance and for a period of at least two years from the date the Certificate”. Counter-arguments That two years is not linked to the “assistance” but is instead linked to the “medical condition”. The assistance to be given is assessed against the medical condition rather than any temporal criteria for which the assistance could be provided. To the above, the appellant argued the following: The “assistance” is “direct assistance in attending to the practical aspects of daily life” for which the resident “has, and will continue for at least 2 years to have, a “need”. (In other words, the “assistance” is that which is “needed” by the resident and will continue to be the subject of such a “need” for at least 2 years from the date of certificate). Therefore, the reasonable capacity of another relative or relatives to provide the assistance – the matter dealt in subpar (e)(i) – is to be assessed by reference to the “need” of the resident for assistance over the whole of the period of at least two years from the date of certificate. Federal Court’s decision The “assistance” referred to reg 1.15AA (1)(e) must be a reference to the assistance the person to be cared for needs. The Court rejected the analysis that the word “two years” were not linked to “the assistance” but were instead linked to the “medical condition” on the basis that the medical assessor is required to certify that because of their medical condition a person will need to have a need for assistance for a continuing period of at least two years. The condition a person suffers from and the nature of the direct assistance that the person will require, its quality and quantity, over a period of not less than two years, are not independent variables. The Tribunal must take the assessor’s opinion as to what that person’s need for direct assistance will be over that period to be correct for the purposes of reg 1.15AA(1)(e). For these reasons, the Court is satisfied that the primary judge erred in accepting the submissions of the Minister that there is no link between the “assistance” and the period of at least two years for which the direct assistance will be required. Getting Assistance If you require assistance in understanding the specific requirements or in the preparation of a Carer visa, it is worthwhile to seek immigration legal advice as to whether your case would have a reasonable prospect of success. At Mckkrs, we are well-trained to handle highly complex matters. Book one of our agents for professional advice by calling 02 4626 1002 or email us at admin@mckkrs.com.au
What can be constituted as having a previous relationship has recently been cleared up by the Federal Court of Australia. According to the case of Larney v Minister for Home Affairs, the Tribunal erred in finding that the applicant had previously been in a de facto relationship and had provided information that was false or misleading that triggered Public Interest Criteria 4020. Background The appellant, Mr Larney, a citizen of Ghana who arrived to Australia on a 457 visa (work visa) established a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen. In the appellant’s application for a Partner visa, he answered ‘No’ to the question, “Has the applicant been in any previous relationships with persons other than the sponsor?” This contradicted his response to having had two non-migrating children in his application. The Department questioned the contradicting response to which the appellant’s lawyer confirmed that he had never been married or been in a de facto relationship, and although he has two children, he never lived together or got engaged to the mother of the children. The Department held it to be untrue based on the note in reference to a phone call made by Mr Larney’s former wok visa sponsor who provided that Mr Larney informed him that he has a wife and a two year old son in Ghana. Accordingly, the Department provided Mr Larney a “procedural fairness letter” stating that he has failed to satisfy PIC 4020 and asked him to comment on the discrepancies. The Department went on to refuse his Partner visa application. The appellant exercised his right to seek merits review of the decision in the Tribunal to which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant Mr Larney a Partner visa. Tribunal’s reasoning The Tribunal held that even though Mr Larney claimed that he was never legally married and that the mother of his children is now in another marriage, it does not imply that there was no spouse-like or de facto relationship between them previously. Therefore, the absence of cohabitation is not conclusive. Additionally, it was also held that the birth of the two children over three years implies, in the Tribunal’s view, a considerable degree of commitment rather than a quick interaction resulting in the birth of a child. The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision to affirm the decision of the Delegate in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (FCCA). The FCCA found no jurisdictional error and dismissed the application. The Appellant eventually appealed the FCCA’s decision to the Federal Court. Grounds of Appeal The Appeal involved four (4) important questions: Does the question “has the applicant been in any previous relationships” contained in the partner visa application form refer to relationships in general or only to married or de facto relationships? If that question refers to relationships in general, was it a material error in the sense of Hossain for the AAT to have asked about the existence of previous de facto relationships? Can administrative decision-makers assume the existence of a previous de facto relationship even if s 5CB is not satisfied? If a person provides information about whether they have previously been in a de facto relationship and a decision maker is trying to determine whether that information is false or misleading, does it matter that, at the time the information was given, the FCCA interpreted s 5CB in a way that was subsequently rejected by the FCA? Breakdown of the Federal Court’s Consideration Main Issue: Whether the applicant met PIC 4020 as required for the grant of the visa he had applied for? PIC 4020: “….information must be false and misleading…” – There is no express statement by the Tribunal that permits the Court to identify that information with precision. The Tribunal did not focus on the applicant’s actual answer (to the question whether he had been married previously or in a de facto relationship) but whether his imputed answer was relevantly false and misleading. S 5CB De Facto partner: The Court agrees that a couple might be in a de facto relationship despite not having previously lived together, provided they share a mutual intention, in the future, not to live separately and apart on a permanent basis – The evidence before the Tribunal was wholly inconsistent with the applicant and the mother of the children having formed such a mutual intention. As such, the applicant’s relationship with the mother (of their children) objectively was never capable of being comprehended by the term “de facto relationship”, and as such could not have been false or misleading on the applicant’s part to have disowned his having had such a relationship. The Tribunal asked itself a wrong question: It should have asked whether the answer “No” on the visa application form constituted false or misleading information. Therefore, the Tribunal fell into legal error by failing to address the proper question (Craig v South Australia). Key Takeaways This case reveals the propensity of decision makers to apply a lesser standard of proof as to what might be properly characterised as a spousal or a de facto relationship, especially when that characterisation is likely to be adverse o your client. Therefore, it is important to point out or challenge a decision maker if a departure is made from the one and only standard: the statutory scheme itself.
The Morrison Government’s Population Plan to effectively manage Australia’s future population came into effect on 01 July 2019. The Plan directly affects the Australian migration scheme, in particular applicants who are overseas students or temporary residents. What initiatives are included in this Plan? The Population has four (4) main components, in the following: Easing the population pressures on Australia’s big capitals and supporting the growth of smaller cities and regions; A massive boost in infrastructure; A better planning mechanism with states and territories; and Keeping Australia together by building safe and connected communities How is the government implementing these initiatives? First initiative plans include: Cutting the permanent migration program by a cumulative 120,000 places over four years The new cap is 160,000 per annum, and below the current cap of 190,000 places per annum. Within this 160,000 places cap, there are only 23,000 places for permanent residents who chose to reside outside the four big capitals. Introducing strong incentives for new international students New $94 million scholarship program to study in the regional areas will come into effect. Destination Australia program will also provide 4,720 scholarships Students studying outside of the big capitals to receive an extra year of post-study work rights. Changes to the working holiday maker program There will be increase to the number of countries involved and places available, and allowing people who work in the regional areas to stay an extra year. Second initiative plans include: Operation of National Faster Rail Agency The Agency commenced operating from 01 July 2019, will oversee the government’s 20 years fast rail agenda which will connect satellite regional cities to our big capitals. This will allow people to reside in regional centres with its cheaper housing and regional lifestyle but will still be able to access easily the major employment centres. The first fast rail connection will be Melbourne-Geelong. Third initiative plans include: Establishing a new Centre for Population This centre is being established inside Treasury from 01 July 2019, providing detailed analysis and advice on population issues. $23.4 million has been allocated to establish this Centre. Fourth initiatives plans include: Boosting infrastructure expenditure Ensuring population growth does not outstrip infrastructure capacity Connecting communities Encouraging people out of major cities and into regional areas, helping regional communities to fill employment gaps and grow their economies Takeaways Although, we have yet to see how the above changes will make a significant difference to the migration settings, it will nonetheless support a strong economic growth in Australia. The changes will also complement the four Designated Area Migration Agreements (DAMA) which will assist employers in regional areas across NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia to find the labour and skills they need.
Tribunal’s failure to consider substantial evidence in the assessment of the “four pillars” In the recent decision of Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs, the Federal Court has confirmed that the Tribunal must give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the factors set out in regulation 1.15A (3) and 1.09(A) of Migration Regulations 1994 where there is a finding as to the facts (or evidence) that bear upon those factors. Brief Background The appellant, Ms Nguyen, who was born in Australia married her partner, Mr Huynh, a Vietnamese citizen in 2014. An application for Partner visa (subclass 309) was refused in 2015 to which the appellant sought a review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the partner visa. The appellant exercised her right to seek judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court, which was refused in 2018. Consequently, the appellant sought an appeal in the Federal Court. The Federal Court held that the primary judge in FCC erred in finding that there was no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in failing to consider the four pillars. Grounds of Appeal The following appeals were made: The Tribunal failed to consider evidence as to the couple’s long term plans based on their subjective views (as set out to do so); The Tribunal rejected evidence from family members because they did not set out any reasons for why they believed the relationship is genuine when there were reasons that the Tribunal was required to consider; The Tribunal failed to consider the nature of the couple’s commitment as it did not properly consider evidence of their regular communication; and The Tribunal failed to consider the liability incurred by the sponsor for the cost of an airfare for Ms Nguyen to visit Vietnam that had been paid by the sponsor’s brother Breakdown of the Federal Court’s Consideration Ground 1: Views as to long term relationship The Court held that the statutory declarations provided by both the applicant and the sponsor regarding their long term plans does not demonstrate that there was a failure to consider long term plans. The terms in Reg 1.15A(3)(d(iv) (whether the persons see the relationship as a long-term) expressed concerns their present state of mind concerning the relationship. Therefore, their plans and intentions may form part of the inquiry. However, this factor may also be consider based on objective information about what the couple have done in the past as well as by reference to evidence from the parties as to their future plans. Therefore, Ground 2 failed on the basis that it did not rise above the factual finding made by the Tribunal. Ground 2: Genuine and continuing relationship The Court held that the Tribunal’s reasoning did not concern the reasons why the family members expressed the view in their statutory declarations that the relationship was genuine. The Tribunal considered that none of the sworn statements provided by the family members set out any reasons why they believe the relationship is genuine. The FCC found that the appellant’s submissions was “not based on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons, and that it was apparent from reading the Tribunal’s reasons “as a whole” that the Tribunal expressly referred to the statutory declarations and took them into account in relation to the issue of the genuineness of the relationship. The Court held “it is not correct to describe these statements as not setting out any reasons why each of the deponents consider the relationship to be genuine”. Further, it held that “it is NOT correct to describe the Tribunal’s reasons ‘as a whole’ as considering and not accepting the reasons advanced as to the genuineness of the relationship”. Ground 3: Nature of the commitment The Court found that although the Tribunal has not accepted that there were long telephone calls but has accepted that the parties communicate on a regular basis. For such reason, it is apparent that this ground is no more than a complaint about a factual finding by the Tribunal. Ground 4: Joint liabilities The Court found that the financial matters were considered by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal made a finding directed to a particular evidence. Therefore, the matters raised do not demonstrate jurisdictional error. Key Takeaways It is vital for migration agents who appear before the Tribunal to raise any evidence or facts that the Tribunal had plainly misread or overlooked. Generally, the Tribunal will be found to have failed to perform its review function ‘if it failed to take into account of cogent evidence providing substantial support to the applicant’s case’, or ‘if it failed to take account of a substantial and clearly articulated argument advanced by the applicant in support of that case’: SZMTA Getting Assistance If your partner application has been refused and you believe that the evidence you have provided has not been properly considered, it is worthwhile to seek immigration legal advice as to whether your case would have a reasonable prospect of success. At Migration Centre of Australia, we are well-trained to handle highly complex matters. Book one of our agents for professional advice by calling 02 4626 1002 or email us to book in a time at admin@mckkrs.com.au. We also speak fluent Hindi, Nepalese, Punjabi, Turkish, Tamil, Portuguese and Marathi. If one of these isn’t your language, we can also help you arrange an interpreter.
407 visa applications are among the most difficult visa applications at the moment, with refusal rates higher than any other visa subclass. The most common reasons for refusal are based on poorly written and structured training plans. At the Migration Centre of Australia, we specialise in creating tailor-made training plans to fit individual client training needs and address occupational skill gaps. Generally, the training programme should comprise of at least 30 hours a week of training, and at least 70% of that training must be conducted in the workplace. It must be structured and individually tailored to the nominee, in line with Department of Home Affairs (DOHA) requirement that the workplace-based training be a unique employment-based activity for the nominee. To be structured and individually tailored to the training needs of the nominee, the programme should: Clearly differentiate between periods of practical work experience and periods of instruction and/or observation Outline the objectives, tasks and timeframes ‘include an assessment of the nominated trainee’s current level of skill in the identified occupation Outline the additional or enhanced skills the applicant is aiming to gain The tasks to be completed and outcomes to be achieved should be consistent with the objectives of the programme, include timeframes for completion, and show and increase in difficulty and complexity over the course of the training programme to allow the nominated trainee to progress to a higher level skills capability. It is expected that a structured training programme will include supervision by appropriately qualified and experienced supervisors. An example of an appropriate qualification for a Supervisor would be a Certificate IV in training and assessment. Appropriate experience would be someone with specialised knowledge and experience in the subject area, for example an architect with 10 years’ experience, including specific experience in the area of the proposed training programme, would be qualified to supervise, train and assess the learning outcomes of a junior architect. DOHA will consider the supervisor-to-trainee ratio to ensure the training is individualised to the nominee. The workplace-based training must be a unique employment-based activity for the individual nominee. The training programme should include mechanisms for the learning outcomes of the applicant to be monitored and assessed. Details of any qualifications that will be assessed on completion of the training should be outlined. This is because, although obtaining a qualification should not be the primary purpose of the programme, it can be incidental to the programme. If more than one organisation is providing workplace based training, the training programme must specify each workplace and its address, the training to be undertaken at each workplace and the dates of the training at the each workplace. Without this level of detail, the training plan cannot be considered to meet the requirement that it is structured training. Getting Assistance McKkr’s specialise in writing Training plans for 407 visa, therefore if you need any assistance with subclass 407 visa kindly contact our office. At McKkrs, we also provide CPD classes for RMAs and lawyers practicing migration law and would be happy to assist you where possible. Please contact our office on (02) 4626 1002 or simply email us at admin@mckkrs.com.au.
Small Businesses account for 97% of all Australian enterprises. To put things into perspective, Victoria experienced a 4.8% increase in its small business sector for the year of 2018 which is the highest on record. This imminent growth however, comes with its challenges. One of those challenges includes stress on recruitment. Almost half (48%) of Australian Small Businesses report the recruitment of skilled employees as a challenge for their business, potentially hindering their growth plans for 2018. In a large-scale study commissioned and released by Indeed, one quarter of Australian Small Businesses cite recruitment as their biggest challenge, with 40% believing it to be harder today than it was five years ago, despite two thirds reporting that they plan to expand their workforce in 2018. According to this report, it takes Australian Small Businesses an average of five weeks and $3300 to fill a position, with close to half spending more than $1000 each time, which represents a big investment. With access to fewer resources, this is an arena where 407 Training Visas can be utilised. Migration Agents have access to high quality recruitment opportunities that are democratised. As Migration Agents, we can reach the most relevant talent at a cost that suits everyone’s budget. By understanding the company’s unique appeal and using tools that cater to motivated prospective 407 applicants, Small Businesses can experience great success in recruiting quality candidates faster and at less cost. Tighter budgets, limited time and no dedicated HR department are just some of the sticking points and we can close these gaps and make the process of recruitment easier. Fast growth in particular sectors and the need to fill roles quickly also creates strain. The Indeed report compiled a list of the jobs that small business find the hardest to fill ranked and these include: English teacher, facilitator, chiropractor, general practitioner, fitness trainer, real estate agent, dental technician, plasterer, and architect. If these are occupations which you are pursuing and/or have experience in, this is something to keep in mind when thinking about training opportunities. It is also worth noting that small business usually aren’t encumbered with the same bureaucracy as large companies. If you think you have found the right employer, Mckrrs’ is a leader in the Migration Industry in 407 Training Visas and we are happy to assist with any and all applications you require, as we work closely with businesses to nominate suitable people.