The unpredictability of the invitation round system for Subclass 189 – Skilled Independent visas and Subclass 491 – Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visas sponsored by an eligible relative continues as the 11 April 2020 invitation round issued a measly 50 invitations for each visa, 100 in total. While previous rounds have been as low as 200 invitations, this is likely the lowest number since the SkillSelect regime commenced in July 2012 and a probable reaction to the coronavirus pandemic and surge of unemployment in Australia due to businesses shutting down, some permanently.

During times of economic upheaval, the skilled migration program is the first to be reviewed as these visas are purposefully designed to assist in Australia’s economic output when compared to the family migration program that has less overall benefits to Australia’s bottom line. In the wake of the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-09 reforms to Australia’s permanent skilled migration program were implemented.

The history of these reforms is best summarised in a research paper available in the Parliament of Australia’s Library. Effectively, the skilled migration program began shifting from supply-driven independent skilled migration, which comes under the broad classification of General Skilled Migration (GSM) visas, to demand-driven employer sponsored migration.

These reforms were capped off with the introduction of the SkillSelect model and particularly the Expression of Interest model and invitation system for 189 and 491 visas sponsored by an eligible relative. Those wanting more information on this system will find this article useful. The two other GSM visas, namely the Subclass 190 - Skilled – Nominated visa and Subclass 491 – Skilled Work Regional (Provisional) visa nominated by a State or Territory, are subject to the whims and requirements dictated by each State or Territory with limits on the number of invitations each State or Territory can issue.

Tinkering with skilled visas have occurred on a regular basis over the almost eight years since SkillSelect’s introduction. Most recently, employer sponsored visas bore the brunt of major changes, including the need to be nominated in an occupation on an approved list for Subclass 186 – Employer Nomination Scheme visas, and all but abolishing the Subclass 187 – Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa and replacing it with the two-step Subclass 494 – Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa then the Subclass 191 – Permanent Residence (Skilled Regional) visa. Transitional arrangements for Subclass 457 - Temporary Work (Skilled) visas holders for 186 visas and Subclass 482 - Temporary Skill Shortage visa holders under the Medium-term stream for 187 visas still exist.

Making sweeping changes to employer sponsored visas are politically perilous because the government may incur the wrath of a disadvantaged employer at the ballot box. Appeasement for some has taken the form of the increased use of labour agreements, which provides flexibility for almost any skill shortage situation an employer may face.

Because the EOI system for 189 and 491 visas sponsored by an eligible relative is at the mercy of planning levels created by the Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs), it is no surprise any economic shock would place pressure on the number of invitations being issued. The reason in comparison to all other skilled visas is simple, and cannot be understated:

Adjusting the number of invitations issued under the EOI model for 189 and 491 visas is the quickest and most politically appealing response to economic fluctuations.

Home Affairs, despite what some may think, can only actively adjust visa application numbers (and grants) for employer sponsored visas by amending regulations. In many ways they have done this by increasing English language requirements, abolishing English language exemptions, and as already mentioned, without a doubt the biggest change was to require applicants to be nominated in an occupation on a specific occupation list. Outside of this, they cannot refuse 186 nomination and visa applications unless they do not meet the criteria set in the regulations. This is why migration planning numbers, in some sense, cannot be “controlled” outside of changes to the economic climate and is the why criticism has been levelled at processing times for certain visas despite planning levels, such as for partner visas where a substantial number of onhand applications have yet to be processed.

The EOI invitation system is a different ball game entirely. An EOI application is not a visa application. Furthermore, the competitive nature of this system and the limited number of invitations is designed to give those with the highest points visa invitations subject to pro-rata arrangements for certain occupations, which make it even more difficult to receive an invitation. Those who are granted visas are more inclined to work in their nominated occupation than those with fewer points because they are likely to have employment experience in their occupation, better English skills, be in a preferable age bracket, have studied locally, and therefore are more familiar with the local labour market and have better employment prospects – all factors that score points in the GSM points test.

This last point is also significant as to why employer sponsored visas have overtaken priority. All permanent visas and the 491 visa, with the exception of 187 visa holders who can have their visas cancelled should they not commence employment or work in the position nominated for 2 years, do not have any post-grant visa condition for the visa holder to work in their nominate occupation. Invariably many GSM visa grants have been to applicants who have never previously set foot in Australia or will not work in their occupation after their visa has been granted.

In comparison, employer sponsored visa holders must have been working, and must be nominated to work, in a skilled occupation. Those applying under the Temporary Residence Transition stream must have done so for years with their nominating employer to be granted a visa.

The question remains as to whether Home Affairs will reach the number of visas issued according to the 2019-20 planning levels. What should be kept in mind is that the number of invitations does not equate to the number of visa grants. Post-invitation factors cannot justify this conclusion, including refused visa applications from an invitation; invitations lapsing when the corresponding visa applications is not made within the required 60-day window; and secondary visa applicants and grants.

Whether there will be a sustained drop in invitations in the coming months will be telling as to the intention of the program within the current economic climate. At the start of May, reports of a 30 per cent drop in net overseas migration (NOM) was expected this financial year and a whopping 85 per cent drop in 2021 with negative flow-on effects to Australia’s economy. The EOI and invitation system is a fraction of NOM, which counts temporary visa holders in Australia for 12 months or more over a 16 months period.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for the substantial drop in invitation numbers comes from the explanation of the migration program’s size and composition on Home Affairs’ website:

Community views, economic and labour force forecasts, international research, net overseas migration and economic and fiscal modelling are all taken into account when planning the program.

It goes without saying that at the time Australia’s 2019-20 migration planning were being considered, absolutely nobody could have forecasted the economic and labour force Australia, and indeed the world faces presently. The 2020-21 planning levels, when released, will be another important indicator of the government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. They could maintain or increase migration to assist in economic growth, which the Prime Minister is edging towards, or curtail it to primarily reduce the unemployment rate and provide upward pressure on wages, although a recent study by the Reserve Bank of Australia believes this has a negligible effect.

These are certainly conflicting policy positions that the government will need to hold a position on, and which they have recently accused the opposition of hypocrisy in the meantime in a now-deleted media release.