Pulse Survey – Australia & New Zealand immigration: Permanent Residence Mobility Policies

Decoding Permanent Residency Pulse Survey 

Thank you to TEMi for asking me to provide some insights into the pulse survey of Australia and NZ Immigration PR mobility policies. I love graphs and I love this survey because it answers the questions that I am often asked by clients and that is – what is everyone else doing, are other companies paying for PR, do other companies pay for PR, do they include a claw back clause? Have a look at the survey and it will answer all of your questions, so for many HR practitioners I think this is gold.

A graph is a snapshot and you have to fill in the blanks so with my experience hat on and after having just finished my morning muesli and partaken of my 6 cups of ‘Yorkshire Extra Strong Tea’, I am going to endeavour to tell you what I see in this survey, so here goes:

  • Majority of respondents to the survey employ more than 5,000 and the majority have less than 10% on an employer sponsored visa (assume 482 visa) so that is around say 250- 500 visa holders on staff
  • 50% of the companies responding to the survey have a permanent residence policy and then I ask myself why so little, why do only half of companies who sponsor for residency have a Policy?. Is it because it is not considered important, is there a lack of time and or/priorities?
  • I think it is the latter and you know why? It is because the next chart speaks volumes which is – when a business sponsored a permanent residence application the answer to the question – “what was the percentage of the workforce remained employed for greater than 2 years after PR visa grant”, the ‘I don’t know’ answer is off the charts. Why don’t companies know this, after having spent anywhere between $5,000 to $20,000 in government application fees (not including FBT so let’s double it), I find it interesting that after 2 years the dollar figure is written off.
  • ·Key drivers for supporting permanent residence showing at 50% is not a surprise and I thought that it might be even higher. The competitive advantage in retaining talent is also interesting as there are still a large number of businesses who do not sponsor for residency as they fear that the employee will leave the day the visa is granted. Yes, the employee can certainly do this but there are many companies out there who will sponsor for residency and from our experience and also shown in this survey, the offer of sponsoring for residency is on the table for many companies at the very beginning. These are the companies who use residency as an attraction tool.
  • Some foreign nationals come to Australia with the specific idea in their mind of obtaining permanent residency. I would hazard a guess that these are the ones that ask for sponsorship (22%) and will accept paying for the cost with the sponsor covering only the mandated SAF (Skilling Australians Levy) (19%). We often find that where the costs are fully paid for the business (27%) are for those highly talented people who the business does not want to lose/cannot afford to lose or perhaps hold a senior role.

In conclusion, this survey snapshot underscores a distinct opportunity for talent mobility professionals to elevate their strategic decision-making in global talent management. By championing the creation of comprehensive Permanent Residency (PR) policies and implementing processes to address the gaps in information regarding PR as a workforce retention practice, professionals can contribute to a more informed and effective approach. This not only enhances talent management strategies but also ensures a measurable return on investment.

Amanda Tinner

TEMi’s Resident Immigration Expert
Visa Executive Pty Ltd
Fellow of Migration Institute of Australia (MIA)
Fellow of The Employee Mobility Institute (FTEMI)
MARN 0325139

Share This

Related Posts