Classification of Occupations: ANZSCO

On 1 July 2010 ANZSCO replaced ASCO as the standard that would be used by the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship ("DIAC") to assess and classify occupations for the purpose of immigration to Australia.

Just like ASCO, ANZSCO is available on the ABS Website.

ANZSCO has a different structure to ASCO which means that there isn't a one to one correlation and this lead to some interesting transitional issues (eg ASCO had one classification for "nurse" but ANZSCO has 10). DIAC have provided on their website a useful diagram showing the ANZSCO structure.

There shouldn't be too many problems with visa applications that were already lodged before 1 July and there shouldn't be any ANZSCO related issues for applicants who have a skills assessment with an ANZSCO code. However, what happens if someone has an assessment with an ASCO code and wants to lodge a visa application after 1 July 2010? The short answer seems to be that this will be OK provided:

1. there is a DIAC approved ASCO-ANZSCO correlation for the occupation;
2. the occupation is still on the list of occupations for the visa being applied for; and
3. the skills assessment is still valid.

I would have thought 2 and 3 were self explanatory. The correlation tables have been published on the DIAC website (and come from the relevant legislative instrument) for each of:

• General skilled migration (look at schedules 2 and 3 in that document); and
• Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS).

All that doesn't sound too bad, but I am sure there will be more teething problems.

Creative commons attribution for the photograph.

List of Lists

The legislative instruments which have enabled many of the changes to the lists of occupations for migration purposes were announced at the end of June.

Although it will be the subject of another post (or posts), 1 July 2010 also sees DIAC switching from ASCO to ANZCO. The various lists of occupations are:

1. The new skilled occupation list for general skilled migration. There are 4 schedules in this list which deal with various categories of transitional arrangements;
2. Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) occupation list. This list also specifies base salaries and assessing authorities. This list only applies to nominations made after 1 July;
3. The 457 Occupations List (this also includes the occupational trainee occupation list). There are a number of exemptions to the english language requirement for 457 visa holders. One of these is based on salary (the base has just been raised to A$85,090), but there are others. The TSMIT (the income threshold for a 457 has also been raised - an occupation can't be nominated if the proposed pay falls below the TSMIT) has also been amended; and
4. MODL list - although this was abolished certain applicants who lodged before 8 Febraury 2010 can still rely on it.

Now I have to go and try and get my head around the ANZCO changes!

Creative commons acknowledgment for the photograph

Enquiry into the health requirement

All Australian visas are subject to a health requirement, which simply stated is that applicants will not meet the requirement if

1. they are considered to be a risk to public health or a danger to the community (usually if they have active TB); or

2. they have a disease or condition that would likely result in significant costs to the community or would prejudice access by citizens to health care and community services.Some (but not all) visas have facility for a waiver of this condition.

The health requirement is imposed on a "one fail all fail" basis, so that one family member who does not pass will result in no family members being granted a visa. There was a case which received media coverage last year of a foreign doctor whose visa was refused on the basis that he had a Downes Syndrome child.

Whether the health requirement should be relaxed and/or the circumstances in which a waiver is granted is currently the subject of a parliamentary enquiry. It is interesting to read the various submissions, but one recurring theme is that the current policy is discriminatory because it does not distinguish between a disease on one hand and a disability on the other.There was also an article about the inquiry by Natasha Bita in The Australian on 28 January 2010.

The committee's final report was released this week and is available by clicking the link to the inquiry's home page.

The MIA (in its email bulletin to members) summarised the report in the following way:

"Making 18 recommendations to Government, the Committee supports: modernised and transparent "significant cost thresholds"; a visa waiver process for "social and economic contributions" for those who fail new health requirements; a revision of the so-called "one fails, all fail" rule; a strengthening of compelling and compassionate visa waivers; and the distinguishing of disabilities from public health risks."

It will be interesting to see what changes are actually adopted.

Creative commons attribution for photograph:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrianclarkmbbs/ / CC BY-ND 2.0