This morning, the Australian Computer Society is due to release its policy on the impact of skilled migration on the local ICT labour market. The content of the policy document will provide a good indication of whether the ACS really serves the interests of Australian ICT professionals or is beholden to other vested interests.

Strangely, the question of ACS loyalties stems from two reports on the skills immigration issue commissioned by the ACS itself. Both reports were completed by labour market analyst and consultant Bob Kinnaird, principal of Kinnaird & Associates. To date, the ACS seems to have shown a strange and even remarkable reluctance to act on the findings and recommendations in Kinnaird's first report and it remains to be seen whether it will adopt the findings of the second.

The saga of Kinnaird's first report, done in conjunction with management consultant the Whitehorse Strategic Group, is on the public record. The report, was submitted to the ACS in February 2004, with Kinnaird focussing on the impact of ICT immigration on the local industry while Whitehorse focussed on the use of offshore ICT personnel. The Whitehorse findings were released in May 2004. However, the Kinnaird component of the report, while aired through leaks to the media, never publicly made it to the light of day through the ACS.

Strangely, however, the ACS commissioned Kinnaird again in September 2004 to produce a second updated report on the skills immigration question. According to our sources, Kinnaird submitted the second report and conclusions to the ACS in January 2005. The ACS has supposedly formulated its immigration policy based on the two Kinnaird reports. However, there appears to be some doubt as to whether the second report will be made public either.

The problem appears to be that the ACS did not like the conclusions of the first report and, unless Kinnaird has done a backflip, probably finds the conclusions of the second report anathema as well.

So what does Kinnaird say that the ACS finds so hard to swallow? Firstly, he recommends that the ACS lifts its professional accreditation requirements for foreign students. Currently, the ACS accreditation requirement is a mere 18 months of study in an ICT course, while Kinnaird believes this should be raised to a minimum three years Bachelor Degree. Even the Department of Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) has raised the bar beyond the ACS accreditation requirement to two years of study as a minimum. Kinnaird believes raising the educational requirements for foreign students studying ICT courses would reduce the supply of foreign students gaining permanent residency and thus flooding the local graduate market.

While this would undoubtedly ease the plight of the dwindling numbers of Australian ICT graduates, it would also greatly upset the tertiary institutions establishment, which has come to rely heavily on full fee paying foreign students. Jobs in academia depend on foreign bums on seats and they'll get less bums willing to pay $45,000 ($15,000 per year) than $30,000 to gain accreditation for a permanent working visa. One question that needs to be answered then is: does the ACS represent academics teaching foreign students or local graduates who have been encouraged to study ICT?

Kinnaird also believes that the ACS has been far too liberal in its English language skills requirements for accreditation. In fact, the ACS does not even have an English language skills requirement. DIMIA has a minimum standard of English called Vocational English which applies to all skilled migrants. The ACS English language requirement therefore defaults to this standard. However, professions such as Engineers, Accountants, Nurses and others, impose a higher standard of English on foreign workers requiring local accreditation, called Competent English. Does the ACS believe that English language communications skills requirements are less important in the ICT profession than, say, the engineering profession?

Then of course there is the much discussed 457 temporary skills immigration visa. Under present laws, there is no requirement for employers to test the local labour market properly by advertising skilled jobs at a fair salary before bringing in temporary overseas workers. The ACS president, Edward Mandla, has raised this as an issue himself. However, the ACS is also lobbying the Government to grant it the status of gatekeeper to assess the skills of incoming 457 ICT workers. No problem, says the ACS, for a fee of $350 a pop we will assess and verify the skills of each incoming 457 ICT visa worker. The question is: Does the ACS think that such an obvious money spinning program might not skew its interests toward the ICT skills importation industry, such as recruiters and contract management companies, and away from the interests of local ICT professionals?

Kinnaird is known to hold very firm views based on his research into the ICT labour supply market. His first report presented the ACS with a dilemma which caused it to attempt to shelve his findings. It is quite possible his second report has had a similar effect. If the ACS does not like what he has to say, it will have to shelve Kinnaird's report again because our understanding is that legally it must be published in its entirety or not at all. If the ACS does decide to shelve the report, however, it may yet see the light of day because it is also our understanding that Kinnaird owns the international publication rights. Hopefully, however, all this is just conjecture and the ACS does the right thing this morning and releases the full unabridged version of the most recent Kinnaird report. After all, it would be in the interests of the ICT profession, which the ACS claims to represent.