ROV Job Australia

[Micbeth]

I don’t know mate, maybe not a flak jacket, but id still try and find a hard-back book to shove down the back of your shorts when dealing with the aussi tax departments !! 😆

If you are taxed as a resident:

2009-2010 tax rates for AUD$80,000 to $180,000 (STG44,600 to 100,500) are AUD$17, 850 (STG9,950) plus 38c in the dollar over $80,000. So the tax on $180,000 is $55,850 (STG31,200)

45% for earnings over $180,000.

And no National Insurance to pay. Compares favourably to most places I would say.

But if you are taxed as a non resident what savante says is true, 29% from dollar 1 up to $35,000, then follow the resident’s rates on the way up.

[luckyjim37]

I thought if you were a non resident you got your first fifteen days free each time you work in Austrailia. Is this the case or another tax lie I heard offshore.

How does it work if you are working as a Ltd company?

[baglimit]

if anyone subscribes to this site, this article is of interest. post it if you can.

http://petroleumnews.net/

Tax change brings overseas workers back home
(Thursday, 28 January 2010)

OPTIONS for employing skilled staff are becoming limited as the big projects snap up available workers, but changes to Australian tax laws for offshore workers could see some Australian talent return home.

[Andy Shiers]

I didn’t think there was any Australian talent 😯
Well …………apart from Dame Edna and Rolf Harris 😆

[baglimit]

http://petroleumnews.net/

INDUSTRY groups have welcomed the Australian government’s permanent skilled migration reforms which will focus on attracting more highly skilled workers into Australia.

again if anyone subscribes to this site, care to share this article ?

notice it says permanent.

[James McLauchlan]

This is off the website: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
If you care to read through it, it implies that Oz states will have more of a say in the type of skilled people they need to fulfil their own local requirements.

Migration reforms to deliver Australia’s skills needs

Monday, 8 February 2010

The Rudd Government is reforming the permanent skilled migration program to ensure it is more responsive to the needs of industry and employers and better addresses the nation’s future skill needs.

The reforms will deliver a demand rather than a supply driven skilled migration program that meets the needs of the economy in sectors and regions where there are shortages of highly skilled workers, such as healthcare, engineering and mining. The major reforms to the skilled migration program are:
20 000 would-be migrants will have their applications cancelled and receive a refund.

All offshore General Skilled Migration applications lodged before 1 September 2007 will have their applications withdrawn. These are people who applied overseas under easier standards, including lower English language skills and a less rigorous work experience requirement. It is expected about 20 000 people fall into this category. The department will refund their visa application charge at an estimated cost of $14 million. Average applications cost between $1500 and $2000 and most contain more than one person.

The list of occupations in demand will be tightened so only highly skilled migrants will be eligible to apply for independent skilled migration visas.

The wide-ranging Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) will be revoked immediately. The list is outdated and contains 106 occupations, many of which are less-skilled and no longer in demand. A new and more targeted Skilled Occupations List (SOL) will be developed by the independent body, Skills Australia, and reviewed annually. It will be introduced mid-year and focus on high value professions and trades. The Critical Skills List introduced at the beginning of 2009 which identified occupations in critical demand at the height of the global financial crisis will also be phased out.

The points test used to assess migrants will be reviewed to ensure it selects the best and brightest.

Potential migrants gain points based on their qualifications, skills and experience, and proficiency in English. The current points test puts an overseas student with a short-term vocational qualification gained in Australia ahead of a Harvard-educated environmental scientist. A review of the points test used to assess General Skilled Migration applicants will consider issues including whether some occupations should warrant more points than others, whether sufficient points are awarded for work experience and excellence in English, and whether there should be points for qualifications obtained from overseas universities. The review will report to Government later this year.

Certain occupations may be capped to ensure skill needs are met across the board.

Amendments to the Migration Act will be introduced this year to give the Minister the power to set the maximum number of visas that may be granted to applicants in any one occupation if need be. This will ensure that the Skilled Migration Program is not dominated by a handful of occupations.

Development of state and territory-specific migration plans.

Individual state and territory migration plans will be developed so they can prioritise skilled migrants of their own choosing. This recognises that each state and territory has different skills requirements. For example, Western Australia may have a shortage of mining engineers while Victoria may have a requirement for more architects. Under the new priority processing arrangements, migrants nominated by a state and territory government under their State Migration Plan will be processed ahead of applications for independent skilled migration.

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, said the new arrangements will give first priority to skilled migrants who have a job to go to with an Australian employer. For those who don’t have an Australian employer willing to sponsor them, the bar is being raised.

‘There are plenty of occupations where there is an adequate supply of young Australians coming through our schools, TAFE colleges and universities to take up new job opportunities. They must be given the opportunity to fill these vacancies first,’ Senator Evans said.

‘But there are some occupations where there will be high demand for skills. Hospitals can’t go without nurses, country towns can’t do without a local GP and the resources sector increasingly needs skills.

‘These latest changes will continue reforms already implemented by the government and result in a more demand-driven skilled migration program that attracts highly skilled migrants to Australia to work in areas of critical need.’

The government recognises that the changes will affect some overseas students currently in Australia intending to apply for permanent residence.

Those international students who hold a vocational, higher education or postgraduate student visa will still be able to apply for a permanent visa if their occupation is on the new Skilled Occupations List. If their occupation is not on the new SOL, they will have until 31 December 2012 to apply for a temporary skilled graduate visa on completion of their studies which will enable them to spend up to 18 months in Australia to acquire work experience and seek sponsorship from an employer.

The changes will in no way impact on international students coming to Australia to gain a legitimate qualification and then return home.

The speech by Senator Evans explaining the changes to the skilled migration program delivered at the Australian National University.
See: Changes to Australia’s skilled migration program

[Andy Falconer]

Experienced ROV Shift Supervisor required, to work off the coast of Australia, beginning early December for approx. 1 month duration.

Must hold existing visa, or be able to attain one.

Guys.. My bad… this was my ad, and there was no discrimination of Australian citizens meant, I assumed it’d be taken as given that nationals would be accepted.

I’d never really thought about the old saying; ASSUME = ASS of U & ME, but blimey it seems a bit apt now. 😳

[Micbeth]

Andy,

It was a "hypothetical" that I applied to your post. I also PM’d you asking for further clarification and got no reply which further added to my speculation. Obviously, due to your late participation in the thread, you were looking for email replies to your post rather than PMs.

I didn’t mean to imply that you or your company were trying to circumvent agreed wage agreements, but your post made me think about ways unscrupulous companies may go about doing this. If I have caused any offense please accept my apologies.

As I have recently been offered less than the going trainee’s rate (when the pounds are converted to AUD) by a UK agency for a supervisor’s position in Australia, this thread for me has moved beyond speculation. Not only was the rate unacceptably low for working in Australia, it is also about £30 lower than the UK based Supervisor rate I was getting 3 years ago.

I leave next week to go on the job, they’re about to repossess the Porsche. 😆 😆

[Andy Falconer]

Hi Micbeth,

No offense taken or meant, and apologies about the lack of replies, still not on here regular enough!

It’s always a bit of a minefield posting work, especially when you don’t get as much info as you’d like to!

Here’s hoping that things are picking up, especially from a rates perspective, and good luck on the trip, everyone’s got to have at least one plaything!!

[James McLauchlan]

Here’s hoping that things are picking up, especially from a rates perspective, and good luck on the trip, everyone’s got to have at least one plaything!!

Er… that was probably tongue in cheek remark. Micbeth did say unacceptably low!
If I remember correctly the Porche joke was referring to a post further up in this thread.

Causing offence or not, it does highlight that at least one UK agency (not necessarily STR) is indeed trying to get people to go to Oz on roughly 50% of the agreed Oz MUA rate.
Not only that but (no doubt) there will be tax to be paid by the individual also.

Surely the the guilty parties (Agencies and people that take the jobs) must be aware that they are actively undermining the agreed rates for working offshore in Oz?

As for trying to work as a supervisor in Oz on a job where the trainee on your shift is on more money than you… that’s another matter!

[Andy Falconer]

Ok.. agreed it’s unacceptable, but I’m sure that you don’t need another individual on here going on about how what was unaccptable last year is acceptable now, people are cutting their rates to appear competitive, in most cases voluntarily, simply because they need the work, and we’re not just talking about newbies here.

Take this Mohawk job in Nigeria, I spoke to someone actually willing to go and do that for £350p/d – unheard of 6 months ago.

And please don’t think the agancies are against you guys either, beacuse working on a margin basis, the more you earn, the more we earn.

In most cases, if you have a good relationship with an agency, and they encourage you to take a cut, don’t be upset, it’s beacuse they’ve been limited to what they can offer, or more likely that they’ll want you to get the work rather than some other guy, (at least it is with me). what’s the worst you can say…. No?

If I remember correctly, this position was originally offered up to $2000AU p/d, which I don’t think for a moment is unreasonable, admittedly having very little experience of Oz and it’s working practices leads me to believe I might not be the best person to comment on this.

Apologies if this sounds like a rant, it’s really not, the last thing I want to do is cause a row.

[Scott Beveridge]

Folks,

There’s a glut of new(ish) ROV personnel. Any good manager will weed out necessary dead weight to get the best personnel possible at a fair rate for both parties. Point being is: we should get paid our worth….

[Micbeth]

If I remember correctly, this position was originally offered up to $2000AU p/d,

That’s an extremely good supervisor’s rate, for almost anywhere. That’s around US$1750 or £1150 at today’s exchange rates. I said almost anywhere because I still wouldn’t go to Nigeria for that.

And please don’t think the agencies are against you guys either, because working on a margin basis, the more you earn, the more we earn.

I have a suspicion not all the agencies work on a pure percentage margin basis. The recent supervisor position offer I received for Australia almost immediately had £200 added to the day rate and re-offered as a pilot/tech position after I refused the job because the day rate was too low. Where did this £200 magically appear from? Was the agency holding it back for themself and trying to get away with paying a low rate? Or were their clients trying it on and only increasing rates when people not ignorant of going rates questioned them? If it was the client trying it on then shame on the agency anyway for going along with it.

Maybe you could shed some light on this Andy.

Do clients offer a day rate plus agency commision and then audit the day rates that agencies actually pay, or can the agency take any amount they like from a gross amount offered by the client and leave the client ignorant of the amount they are passing on?

[James McLauchlan]

The recent supervisor position offer I received for Australia almost immediately had £200 added to the day rate and re-offered as a pilot/tech position after I refused the job because the day rate was too low.

I’ve seen similar things happen before. I refused a supervisors job once (with an agency I hadn’t ever worked for, but it appears they had my details) then a short while later my regular agency offered me the same job with the same client which was on the money, so I took it.

I suspect all was not fair on this Oz job offer.

regards
James Mc

[Andy Falconer]

Hi Micbeth.

I’m sure you’re right, in my experience there’s nothing stopping an agency from quoting a charge rate, and paying the contractor what they’re looking for. I personally think, that this is not only dishonest, but surely has a tendency to backfire

As for that £200 that magically appeared, it could be either the client being a bit cheeky, or the recruiter taking the michael, – difficult to say, but my money’s on the client, I can’t see a recruiter claiming £200p/d and thinking he can get away with it?

[Author]

Posts