Does Australia/New Zealand have any law that prevents foreign residency applicants from applying on the same ground?

[Jay71483]

Hello everyone!

This is my first post on this site!

I would like to ask you whether there is any restricting law like the RLMT (in the UK) present in Australia and/or New Zealand because of which foreign IMGs (non-citizens) are prevented to apply for residency/fellowship positions in the first round of recruitment? Generally, the UK RLMT dictates that no foreign worker should be employed when there is a suitable UK applicant, and this rule applies for residency/specialty training as well. Exceptions would be there if the particular specialty doesn't have all spots filled up by UK applicants. Only then could foreigners be allowed to compete for residency positions.

Is there anything like that in Australia and/or New Zealand that protects its own newly graduated doctors so that residency spots are not given to foreigners?

Thank you so much

Kind regards.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sean80439]

Every college has their own rules for advanced training. You’ll have to look at the specific recruitment and application requirements. I do know for FACEM training all they want is a visa that will last long enough for training. Internship is a different beast and state dependent.

 

[Jay71483]

Thanks sean80439 for replying to my post!

In simplistic terms, I meant do all residency (I mean vocational training) applicants in Australia/ New Zealand apply on the same ground without discrimination regardless of whether they need a visa or not?

In the UK, such discrimination does exist to protect local applicants from international ones. That's called the Resident Labour Market Test, which applies to specialty training/residency/registrarship as well. This has only recently been planned to be abolished in wake of its ineffectiveness in general, and particularly to avoid negative consequences on NHS staffing issues due to Brexit.

Anything similar in Australia/New Zealand that protects australian/new zealander residency applicants?

Thanks.

 

[txm88]

Not really - most colleges just have a residency (PR) requirement
Theoretically, as long as the IMG has general (full) registration with the medical board they won't have their IMG status held against them

 

[Jay71483]

Not really - most colleges just have a residency (PR) requirement
Theoretically, as long as the IMG has general (full) registration with the medical board they won't have their IMG status held against them

Thanks for answering!

Does this mean that foreign nationals and Australian/New Zealand citizens/PRs compete on the same footing? Without discrimination imposed by law (like there is the Resident Labour Market Test in the UK)?

Thanks again!

 

[marble30]

For public hospitals I think they usually prefer to hire citizens/PR. For example, at St Vincent's (Sydney), I've heard from a few friends working there that SVH will outright refuse to hire those on a temporary visa unless the applicant's status changes to PR prior to the start of the new clinical year and if the spot is still available then.

This is probably relevant insofar as part of the requirements of a number of training colleges is that you manage to secure an accredited training position (the majority of which are still in public hospitals for specialties that are not GP) which would affect this.

 

[Jay71483]

Thanks marble30 for your answer.

I am aware that all of the 9 surgical specialties compulsorily require PR/Citizenship for residency spot(I mean vocational training). A few others as well, for example, Dermatology. They clearly state that on the website. However, Basic Physician Training, Advanced Physician Training (Cardiology, Rheumatology...) do not state this. I interpret this as a sign of their willingness of taking in foreigners if they compete better than local graduates.

(1) Have I misinterpreted this?

(2) Are you aware of any Labour Market Test requirements for employers who want to employ foreigners (on a visa) for specialist vocational training?

I would be really grateful for your help.

Thank you

 

[marble30]

Thanks marble30 for your answer.

I am aware that all of the 9 surgical specialties compulsorily require PR/Citizenship for residency spot(I mean vocational training). A few others as well, for example, Dermatology. They clearly state that on the website. However, Basic Physician Training, Advanced Physician Training (Cardiology, Rheumatology...) do not state this. I interpret this as a sign of their willingness of taking in foreigners if they compete better than local graduates.

(1) Have I misinterpreted this?

(2) Are you aware of any Labour Market Test requirements for employers who want to employ foreigners (on a visa) for specialist vocational training?

I would be really grateful for your help.

Thank you

What I'm getting at is that it's been the case that most, if not all spots at hospitals such as SVH (such as physician training, paeds, even junior ward resident jobs) appear to only be available to those with PR/citizenship. This has nothing to do with the training colleges but more so of a hospital admin decision which can vary between individual hospitals (which is partly because admin needs to do more paperwork and jump through more hoops for temp visa holders versus those with PR/citizenship).

This can impact training in that if you are gunning for a popular specialty, you've just lost one more chance at getting a training spot due to the decision of hospital administration to not hire temporary visa holders for those positions in their hospital.

Again, these hiring decisions are completely separate and unrelated to the training colleges themselves. Just because RACP says that temp visa holders are okay to be accepted for training is no use if no hospital will hire you for those training spots.

EDIT: I'm most familiar with RACP (which covers internal med, paeds, Occ med, PM&R) so I'll use that as an example. Getting accepted onto the training program is separate to getting an accredited training spot in a hospital - these are 2 separate applications to 2 separate bodies. Usually what happens is that you get an accredited training spot (so hospital admin need to hire you) and once you secure employment in that hospital training spot, you then apply to RACP to get that training time accredited every 6-12 months.

 

[Jay71483]

@marble30 Very kind of you in helping in an apparently deserted post. I really value your effort to help me.

What I'm getting at is that it's been the case that most, if not all spots at hospitals such as SVH (such as physician training, paeds, even junior ward resident jobs) appear to only be available to those with PR/citizenship. This has nothing to do with the training colleges but more so of a hospital admin decision which can vary between individual hospitals (which is partly because admin needs to do more paperwork and jump through more hoops for temp visa holders versus those with PR/citizenship).

I see what you mean. May I know whether you have an opinion or not, comparing Australia with the US in relation to hospital admins' willingness to employ foreign doctors in training spots on visa? I guess in the US they are equally reluctant in doing so.

This can impact training in that if you are gunning for a popular specialty, you've just lost one more chance at getting a training spot due to the decision of hospital administration to not hire temporary visa holders for those positions in their hospital.

Again, these hiring decisions are completely separate and unrelated to the training colleges themselves. Just because RACP says that temp visa holders are okay to be accepted for training is no use if no hospital will hire you for those training spots.

Good to know that! Thanks!

EDIT: I'm most familiar with RACP (which covers internal med, paeds, Occ med, PM&R) so I'll use that as an example. Getting accepted onto the training program is separate to getting an accredited training spot in a hospital - these are 2 separate applications to 2 separate bodies. Usually what happens is that you get an accredited training spot (so hospital admin need to hire you) and once you secure employment in that hospital training spot, you then apply to RACP to get that training time accredited every 6-12 months.

This is honestly a big clarification for me. I was unaware (quite naive) that the doctor-in-training is responsible for securing a spot (where he can work and train) AND getting that training time accredited (which you say is every 6-12 months). Usually in other countries like the UK and US, once you secure a training spot, that's it. After all it's a training spot, isn't it? But what role does RACP play in "Accrediting" training time? If the spot is accredited, what more is required? I am comparing this with other training systems where no such additional accreditation is required once you enter an already-accredited post.

Thanks

Best wishes,

Jay

 

[marble30]

I can only speak from my experience with RACP. The training colleges do not keep track of who is hired for an accredited training spot in each hospital. However, you can only get that job experience counted towards training if it's an accredited spot.

Due to this disconnect between the colleges and the hospitals hiring you, the onus falls upon the trainee to get your training time "accredited" as the colleges have no idea of knowing that you are working in one of their accredited training spots. There's also a bunch of assessments that the colleges want from you that your hospitals don't care about.

BPT is a bit better in that they usually guarantee you a full 2-3 contract if you manage to get a job in a training network (and that's only if you get past the exams on time - seen so many poor med regs abandoned by their networks after failure to pass either written or clinical despite all the effort they put in to help out their network) but for PM&R you essentially have to beg for your job back each year.

 

[Jay71483]

I can only speak from my experience with RACP. The training colleges do not keep track of who is hired for an accredited training spot in each hospital. However, you can only get that job experience counted towards training if it's an accredited spot.

Due to this disconnect between the colleges and the hospitals hiring you, the onus falls upon the trainee to get your training time "accredited" as the colleges have no idea of knowing that you are working in one of their accredited training spots. There's also a bunch of assessments that the colleges want from you that your hospitals don't care about.

BPT is a bit better in that they usually guarantee you a full 2-3 contract if you manage to get a job in a training network (and that's only if you get past the exams on time - seen so many poor med regs abandoned by their networks after failure to pass either written or clinical despite all the effort they put in to help out their network) but for PM&R you essentially have to beg for your job back each year.

Thank you so much for the clarification!

In case you are not too much occupied at the moment, would you please have a look at this one?

Best wishes,

Jay