r/ImmigrationAustralia • u/Original_Two5771 • 4d ago
Why are there no workforce retention conditions on skilled visas once PR is granted in Australia?
As an immigrant working in my trained professional field here in Australia, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to wrap my head around the current state of our skilled migration system.
We constantly hear about critical skills shortages across various vital sectors: healthcare, engineering, teaching, IT, and trades. People spend years studying, clearing rigorous local credentialing and skills assessments, working lower-level or temporary roles, and sweating through a hyper-competitive points-based system just to get a foot in the door.
Yet, it’s an open secret that once permanent residency (PR) is finally granted, there is zero obligation for someone to actually continue working in the nominated skilled profession that got them the visa in the first place.
It begs the question: What is the actual point of granting residency based on a "shortage of skills" if the recipient can immediately pivot out of that industry the moment their PR hits?
If a profession is on the skills list because the country genuinely lacks workers, why is there no accountability or post-PR condition attached? Without any requirement to practice or contribute to that specific sector for a set period, the "shortage" becomes a permanent, self-fulfilling loop. The system ends up importing professionals to fill a quota rather than fixing the structural workforce gap.
For those of us actually grinding it out day-to-day in our fields, watching others use a critical occupation merely as a fast-track ticket to PR only to abandon it immediately feels profoundly unfair.
Is there a functional reason why Australia doesn’t tie PR conditions to a minimum period of work in the nominated occupation? Or are we just stuck with a perpetual "skills shortage" cycle?