Yesterday I shared the Department’s calculation for Subclass 189 invitation numbers by occupation. Today I also obtained the relevant meeting minutes. The Department discussed Subclass 189 invitation reforms internally in May this year; the proposal had been approved before May and has been used for invitations from the start of this financial year (lead image).
The Subclass 189 reforms were prompted by invitation acceptance rates falling as low as 30% during COVID, before gradually recovering to 70% afterwards. The document identifies the following problems:
1. Invitations cannot be guided solely by the priority occupation direction
In recent years, invitations have mainly gone to priority occupations such as healthcare and teaching, in line with the ministerial direction under s499. However, s499 was not intended to guide invitations. Invitations would be extended to non-priority occupations to meet each financial year’s KPIs, but this was not a systematic approach.
Previously, no formal framework or guidance underpinned the Subclass 189 invitation strategy.
2. Longer waits for invitations
The document only provides data up to the 2022–23 financial year, when the wait from lodging an EOI to receiving an invitation was more than half a year (Figure 2).
3. States are also unhappy with unpredictable Subclass 189 invitations
Beyond the aim of making Subclass 189 invitations transparent and fair, states have repeatedly called for greater transparency about invitation timing and priorities. In the 2022–23 financial year, 87% of Subclass 189 applicants also lodged EOIs for Subclass 190/491.
This also led to many duplicate, wasted invitations, while people still waiting missed out.
For example, Western Australia held a round just after a Subclass 189 round last financial year, and many high-scoring WA invitees in civil engineering and construction occupations actually received duplicate invitations.
The Department is therefore working to make changes from this financial year
1. Clear invitation rounds and timing
The Department previously confirmed through several channels that there would be a round every three months this year. For the November round, it also announced the exact invitation date in advance for the first time. There are also official reports for each round.
2. Review priority occupations each financial year
Priority occupations will undergo a systematic review every year, with the necessary policy authorisation sought for the delivery of invitation rounds before each programme year begins.
3. Take state nomination and employer sponsorship into account
The composition of invitation rounds across the year will be adjusted dynamically in light of occupations in other permanent and provisional residence programmes, including Subclass 186, 190 and 491.
4. Strengthen coordination with states
Avoid duplicate invitations caused by poor coordination of invitation round timing and frequency.
5. Establish a tiered priority model
Occupational ceilings will be calculated using the average number of people working in each occupation in Australia and different weighting factors. This is the occupational invitation calculation I wrote about last night. I have included the specific occupations in each tier in Figures 3–6.
Put simply, the calculation considers each occupation’s current workforce, the ceiling for its tier and the number of people who secured PR through Subclass 186/190/491 in the previous financial year.
A higher tier and a large workforce are more favourable.
The calculation only gives an indication of each occupation’s position. The allocation is merely a ceiling, with no guarantee that it will be reached. The Department says that, in theory, there is also an occupational floor of 500 places, but actual numbers will depend on how many invitations are planned for each round.
All we can say is that having a calculation is better than having none, and having a plan is better than having none. Better communication with states to reduce duplicate invitations is a welcome improvement in itself!
