Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 11 February 1999:

(1) When was the State/Territory Nominated Independent Migration Scheme established and what were its precursors.

(2) How were the numbers of skilled migrants each State and Territory could nominate established.

(3) Were State and Territory Governments consulted before the numbers were allocated; if so, when were they consulted; if not, why were they not consulted.

(4) What other individuals or organisations were consulted in each State and Territory before the numbers were allocated.

(5) How many skilled migrants could each State and Territory nominate in each year of operation of the scheme.

(6) How many skilled migrants were actually recruited under this scheme for each State and Territory in each year of operation of this scheme.

(7) From which countries did skilled migrants come and what skills did each individual have to allow them to be recruited under this scheme.

(8) Was the level of English language competence tested for each person who successfully came to Australia under the scheme.

(9) Have persons recruited under the scheme had prior association with Australia such as other members of the family already being in Australia or the ownership of property or other investments in Australia.

(10) How many persons recruited under the scheme settled in non-metropolitan Australia.

(11) What was the policy basis for the establishment of this scheme to replace any precursor scheme.

(12) Will the scheme be independently assessed for its social and economic value to Australia; if so, when.

Mr Ruddock (Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation) —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

(1) Regulations to establish the State Territory Nominated Independent (STNI) scheme came into effect on 1 November 1997. It did not have any precursors.

(2) The Regulations provide that the Minister can gazette a specified number of nominations under the scheme for a given financial year for each State or Territory. The relevant regulation [135.222(3)] reads as follows:

The Minister must not accept a nomination if its acceptance would result in the number of Subclass 135 visa nominations made in a financial year, for a State or Territory, exceeding the maximum number of Subclass 135 visa nominations, as determined by Gazette Notice, that may be accepted, for the State or Territory, in that financial year.

No Gazette notice has been made under this Regulation to date. A notional figure of 200 primary applicants per State/Territory per program year emerged from discussions with State/Territory governments on the scheme. This notional figure has not been reached in any one year by any State or Territory. To date only the South Australian Government has actually used the scheme. Other State/Territory governments have indicated that they will monitor South Australia's experience before making any commitment to participate.

(3) A recommendation to establish a scheme of this nature was contained in the report of the Commonwealth State Working Party on Regional Migration which was presented to Ministers in December 1996. State and Territory Ministers endorsed the concept at the Ministerial Council meeting in Darwin on 14 March 1997. State and Territory Government officials were subsequently consulted at several stages in the development of the Regulations.

There continues to be ongoing consultation on the scheme via the existing Commonwealth/State Working Party on Long Term Options for Skilled Migration.

Individual nominations by South Australia are made by the South Australian Government in consultation with the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB).

(4) It was open to State and Territory Governments to consult with other bodies and agencies within their jurisdiction as part of the consultative process. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) consulted with relevant Commonwealth agencies, notably the former Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). Consultations on the scheme continue with DEWRSB.

(5) No Gazette Notice has been made limiting nominations under the scheme. If the notional allocation of 200 primary applicants is reached, it is open to the relevant State/Territory Government to negotiate a higher figure. I have indicated on a number of occasions that room would be found within the Migration Program if demand under the scheme was to increase.

(6) In 1997-98 no visas were granted under the scheme although the first nominations were processed towards the end of 1997-98 (some 6 months after the scheme came into effect). During this 6 month period there were extensive consultations between agencies in the South Australian Government and DIMA and the former DEETYA on the detailed operation of the scheme. In 1998-99 some 132 visas were granted to the end of January 1999 of which 37 were to primary applicants and the remainder to dependents.

(7) The country of origin breakdown for the primary applicants granted visas under the scheme was as follows:

* It should be noted that country of birth does not necessarily correspond to the country where visa was issued.

The skill breakdown by occupational group for primary applicants was as follows:

(8) Yes—all applicants who are recorded in the Skill Matching Database, which is the source for all nominations under the scheme, have had their English language proficiency assessed.

(9) Persons nominated under the scheme may have had previous associations with Australia but this is not a requirement of the scheme and is not tested in the regulations. The core requirements are:

. that they meet prescribed skill, English language and age criteria; and

. that they are nominated by a State or Territory government on the basis of the fact that they have an occupation which is deemed by the nominating government to be in shortage in that jurisdiction

(10) This is not known. The South Australian Government is keen to attract more skilled migrants to the State as a whole and it makes use of the scheme in that context.

(11) There was no precursor scheme. The policy basis of the scheme was to create a State/Territory government driven mechanism that would enable a higher degree of targeting of Independent migrants to State specific skill shortages.

(12) One barometer of the scheme's success will be the feedback from the jurisdictions using the scheme. Feedback to date from South Australia has been highly positive. My Department is also considering the practicability of setting up (in cooperation with participating State governments) a longer term monitoring strategy, which might include some form of longitudinal survey.