I have been critical of the SVP process for years and have been blogging on the areas of concern.
Thus, when the process of review of the SVP was being conducted, I was exactly apprehensive of what has been announced now… One may go through the various documents and press releases that are now available and the FAQs (Link 1) (Link 2) and then form their own opinion… My short and summary thoughts of this day are…
The following seems to be the way the new system (from mid 2016) will function once the SVP has been dumped:
Thus can I summarise that the processing is indeed going to be going back to the pre-SVP era atleast for the Indian Sub-continent. India, Nepal, Bangladesh… are likely to remain under “Higher Evidentiary Requirement” irrespective of the risk rating of the education providers. (Like AL3 currently). Thus for these students financial and english requirement will be required by DIBP (Like AL3 currently). However the one interesting added element is that the Universities will need to still consider the ambiguous GTE criteria (unlike the current non-SVP system). Therefore in a one line, there will be no SVP but the stricter requirements including GTE will apply to all (more than current non-SVP). The Student Visa Framework has been simplified without streamlining and with added GTE. Expect the visa process to slow down once it is implemented and expect a review once again in two years.
This is why one of my friends(working in International Recruitment) at an alert University describes it as
Old Wine in New Bottle but with a higher price tag.
Interesting interpretation but not how it will work for universities with a risk rating of AL1 (currently the vast majority). For students applying to these universities from AL3 countries they will have access to a low evidentiary requirement system.
Further GTE currently applies to all applications SVP or otherwise.
How will the students and agents know as to which institutions are in AL1 when it is to remain hidden. Thus it will be a nightmare to implement. The financials and english will require to be submitted to the DIBP for all. GTE did apply to all currently too but the onus to check was only on DIBP for non-SVP students. I wish GTE was made more objective… Currently it is an ammunition that can be used to refuse a visa and subject to varying interpretations.
My point of view on this is quite positive. SVP is a processing term and Immigration introduced it as a VISA procedure for Education providers on the basis of their credibility. With 572 it hasn’t been affected much and 573 is as usual working. Being not so successful with whole SVP thing in International market and the partial discrimination towards other Schools. They planned to refined the process by giving equal platform to all providers out there and the allocation of Student VISA will be depended upon the country and the Institution grading solely.
With this new change I suggest the goal should be to have clean profile with in Immigration and Education Authorities by being upto the mark. This would be helpful for education providers after July next year.
Australia is seeking economic growth with external help and I think education would be the easiest and long-term idea for it just like the first half of 2000’s but this time in more better and accumulative immigration pattern. It will also boost the presently dried onshore international market with in upcoming years just like 2009 – 2014.
By maintaining goodwill and promoting VET and Higher Ed courses to GTE applicants with in offshore markets by June 2016 Providers can make good profits and credibility for future growth with upcoming SSVF system
Yes Anubhav, there is an attempt to give an impression of impartiality as for the education providers. Currently some are in SVP and the others are not and thus it affects the ones who are not. My take here will be that the processes will continue to differ based on the AL of the institutions and the problem that DIBP will face will be to somehow communicate the requirements to the student without disclosing as to what is the AL of the institutions. This will be an issue on part of agents and providers too. The AL of the institutions is to remain hidden (unlike the system in NZ where the categories of the institutions is known). Now you can notice that for AL1 institutions irrespective of the risk level of the country, the financials and english are not to be checked by the DIBP. So there is an SVP but how will the student know if the institution is indeed AL1. I believe that the system is neither here or neither there…
Students won’t know their prospective institution’s rating unless their agent advises them of the provider’s status – otherwise it will be a process of the visa application when more evidence (English and $$) will be required of students if their provider’s rating is higher.
While the specifics are yet to be determined, financials and English won’t be called for if the provider is AL1. However, unis will still check English and most likely will request some info on financials even if they’re AL1.
As for GTE – we all wish it was more transparent and objective, but it has certainly improved since the early days of its implementation!
Point taken. So can we then say that the new name for SVP institutions is “AL-1 Institutions”. DIBP document indicates that the list of AL-1 institutions will not be made public. Thus the providers will have to tell their agents on the risk level of their institution to ensure that the visa files are handled that way. Does this not sound unnecessarily complicated. An SVP where the names of the institutions is hidden from public but to be communicated still through the Universities and agents… A clear recipe for confusion.
Plus they’ll potentially change every 6 months as the institution’s status is evaluated against their previous 12 months data. More potential for confusion…
I should think for most universities who work well with their set of trusted agents that very little will change – communication will be open as it is now under SVP.
Hopefully now students will decide on their prospective provider based on what is the best choice for them academically and financially, rather than on which level of study (uni or VET or otherwise) will most readily guarantee them a visa. It should stop students applying for uni when they’d be better off at TAFE etc.
Most of the impact (positive and negative) will be on non-uni providers, who past data tells us are far more likely to have institutional AL levels of 2 or 3.
But for those non-unis with an AL1 rating, with good agent partners, this is a much better world.
Didn’t realise that the AL will change every six months. Clearly the whole thing has not been thought out well. Another big issue has just come to my awareness. Course hopping will increase big time. Students will enter using AL1 institutions and can move to AL3 institutions and be not stopped. AL1 unlike SVP will be a hidden list and so nothing to stop a movement from AL1 to AL3… Why don’t they learn the lessons.
Dear Ravilochan sir
As i read all the guidelines of SSVF rules which are effected from July 2016 , but after lot of search around the universities and DIBP website , i could not find the list of institute under AL1, AL2 and AL3 …
Colud you please share the list of that universities .
But I think Ravi that Immigration is aware of this story very well now and once the new SSFV takes place the education authorities and immigration will have to come up with the idea of individual existing VISA establishment or Variation of Conditions (VOC) just like way its in NZ.
A student can only continue their stay in country with a valid VISA and VISA has to be changed with changing course or course provider.
For which an individual has to prove it in an justifying manner and trust me its not that easy at all, no matter how many loop holes provided. And it is a last thing a student would ever ask for. Though it can work as money making scheme for the onshore immigration advisers but we should really ask ourselves is that what an intellectual look for as a responsible human.
I have worked in NZ as Marketing Official for PTE and now working in Australia as Marketing Manager at an RTO. Story has developing in an interchanging circumstances. New Zealand following Australian rules and Australian as NZ conditions.
If they are unable to do so, there is no way that course hopping would ever stop and this way Australian present MOTTO of controlling illegal by terming it into “legal” will put officials into re-electing the SVP arrangements again (may be with some other abbreviation/name this time). Now that’s when I called it “OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE” with tremendous waste of energy, time and resources. Which is not what politicians planning, therefore its going to be a positive thing not negative at all from Australian point of view or any growing nation point of view. I think its changing time and student clientele selection or preparation has to be changed to for a win win solution.
I just came back from the seminar for new Visa framework.
I asked the question for what two subclass for students visa.
– There will be only one student Visa (with new condition as per the elected studies).
RESULTING RESTRICTED COURSE HOPPING
– Another subclass is Guardian Visa
They are doing new framework for student visa because they have received 32 stakeholders feedback regarding SVP and they all say that SVP is not sustainable for long term due to lots of reasons
The key points for new student visa will be :
– Student visa will be assessed by
1. Country Risk Factor (1,2,3)
2. Education Provider’s Risk Factor (1,2,3)
For example, if education provider’s risk category is 1, then students from any level of countries will be treated as current SVP process.
If education provider’s risk category is 3, then students from any level of countries will be assessed as Regular processing, except level 1 country.
Country Risk Factor
Education Risk Factor 1 2 3
1 SVP SVP SVP
2 SVP SVP Regular
3 SVP SVP Regular
The new student visa framework will give more obligation and responsibilities to Education Providers.
The Education Provider’s risk Factor will not be publicized but anyone can check the required VISA documentation for an individual from Client Service Tools through DIBP’s online.
GTE students are the future of education industry, it effects both the Immigration and Education consultants. The new framework is way much easier for all if the Genuine student and their recruitment agencies and vice versa.
Like I explained last time, its time to for lots of organizations to change clientele and mission for education providers. Positive can bring positive.
Dear Sir I state that my work experience 13 years.I obtain Bachelor and Masters in Administration from California U.S.A. before that I have completed my Bachelor form Dhaka Bangladesh.But my
U.S.A. certificates no acrediation,But Dhaka Bachelor Have Acredistion. I need your advice how its
possible to obtain Immigration for Australia .I am now at the age of 47 years old and married.
Thanking you faithful
Mohammad Protap Khan ( Bangladeshi Citizen)
I am not a migration agent or even profess to be an expert. If you need direct migration advise, please contact a migration lawyer.
Hello Ravi Lochan Singh Ji,
I am just reading all your views regarding SVP and SSVF, As an education consultant, i fully agree with your views. I am checking SVP rules from the first day of its implementation and i realised that even the education providers doesn’t know the meaning of SVP or GTE. Sometimes if an education provider says that the students are Non GTE but another says they are GTE, no body knows about the financial requirements under SVP, its different with all the education providers. Some education providers who frame strict rules and financials doesn’t get visa. Some frame easy rules get easy visa. So, i think this GTE and SVP words are not completely expalined to the education providers. which is a very big discussion issue. ………. email@example.com
Lets hope for the best
Hi Anubhav Sharma. On 2nd July 2015, you posted about a seminar you attended regarding the visa requirements….do you by chance still have the contact details of the institution or department that conducted that seminar?
Can you just send SSVF brief?
Please look up the information on DIBP website.
there is a question in my mind sir, is we show third party’s funds as fd’s under the ssvf program?