$2bn jet fighter contracts at risk

IAN McPHEDRAN
July 06, 2009 12:01am

AUSTRALIA is set to lose $2 billion worth of hi-tech contracts as local companies and governments are reluctant to join the global supply chain for a new-generation fighter plane.

American giant Lockheed Martin this week will send out executives from its headquarters in Texas in a last-ditch attempt to find Australian firms willing to manufacture composite skins and other parts for the massive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program.

The Government has refused to assist companies wanting to join the JSF project. Senior Australian industry sources said there was a deep mistrust of defence companies within the departments of defence and industry, so ministers were not getting the full story.

“Unfortunately, the Government is not seeing the big picture in terms of hi-tech manufacturing skills,” one key player said. “It is enormously embarrassing how we are looking a gift horse in the mouth.”

Taxpayers will spend $16 billion to buy up to 100 of the new generation stealth fighters.

Prime contractor Lockheed wants local firms involved in aspects of construction. Those include composite skins, assembly of vertical tail fins, machining metal parts and electronics – creating hundreds of jobs. The potential through-life value for Australia in support contracts is up to $9 billion with more than 2000 technical and engineering jobs.

Nine countries have signed up to buy the JSF.

Estimates put the global buy at more than 3000 aircraft.

“This work is sole sourced to Australia, it is not a global competition but unless there is a decision in the next few weeks it will go elsewhere,” an industry source said. Several state governments have expressed interest, but none has committed funds to support their companies.

Head of Lockheed’s JSF project, Tom Burbage, was surprised by the lack of support after five years of effort by the company. “Our objective is a noble one,” he said. “Australia is not at risk of losing it to another country. They may be at risk of not having anybody that wants to do it.”

Initial potential partner Hawker pulled out in favour of civilian work and discussions with Australian Aerospace have bogged down.

Lockheed now is looking at WA company Quick Step Technologies. Unless a solution is found this year, Lockheed will go to its sub contractors in Britain, the U.S. and Europe to get the work done.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25737444-2682,00.html

Union backs plan to raise bar in childcare sector

Posted Fri Jul 3, 2009 12:44am AEST

The union representing childcare workers, the Liquor Hospitality Miscellaneous Union (LHMU), has applauded the Council of Australian Governments for making progress on national standards for the sector.

The Federal, state and territory Governments agreed to a national strategy and are seeking feedback on a plan to overhaul regulation of childcare.

The plan would see a new rating system for kindergartens and childcare centres, nation-wide standards for staff-to-child ratios and minimum qualification requirements for childcare workers.

LHMU spokeswoman Sue Lines says it is an important step forward for the sector, but she is worried there may not be enough funding.

“Some recognition that under fives have some sort of universal right to childcare in this country, that will be fantastic, and if it’s consistent across the country that will be something that hasn’t been achieved before,” she said.

“But the funding to make it work needs to be there. We’ve got to lift workers’ wages and we’ve got to make sure there’s proper programming time in paid work time for staff.”

Childcare workers say they are encouraged by the plan and Ms Lines says workers are happy to work with the national qualifications and ratio benchmarks.

Bosses fret over new IR laws

Kirsty Needham and Stephanie Peatling
July 2, 2009

UNEASY employer groups lined up beside the triumphant ACTU president, Sharan Burrow, and the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, to face the full bench of the nation’s new workplace tribunal yesterday.

Fair Work Australia replaces the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in an expanded role in which it will set minimum wages and adjudicate collective agreements – heralding a significantly altered industrial relations landscape.

The acting chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Greg Evans, told Fair Work Australia that in the difficult economic climate many businesses were struggling to maintain viability and employment levels.

The chamber is concerned about the effect of unfair dismissal laws on small business and noted Fair Work Australia had already appointed 25 roaming conciliators that it said highlighted an expected “upsurge in claims”. All employers were also now facing widened anti-discrimination provisions, it said.

Outside the tribunal Mr Evans warned unions against going “too hard too early” under the new workplace laws and said this would threaten not only the existence of their members’ jobs “but potentially Australia’s economic recovery”.

“Unfortunately, employers are now required to sit down at the bargaining table despite unions making irresponsible wage claims,” he said.

However Ms Gillard said employers should be celebrating the introduction of a system “that matches the will of the Australian community, that ends the era of division”.

“Employers can look to this system as one that is simpler, has less red tape and enables them to bargain at the enterprise level in good faith,” she said. “And gives them a safety net that is simple to understand rather than thousands of complex pages which employers had to struggle with in the past.”

She said it was to be expected “that unions will make claims on behalf of their members, you would expect that employers will respond to those claims … what matters is what happens at the enterprise level where representatives of employers and employees will sit down and work out a deal that is best for their enterprise”.

Unions have moved quickly to test the new system. The hospitality union, the LHMEU, has lodged an application to bargain collectively for agreements on behalf of low-paid staff at 15 hotels. The Australian Workers Union also signalled the start of a campaign to increase membership in 100 workplaces.

The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, dismissed a call by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union for a wage increase of 4 per cent as an “ambit claim”.

The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, urged wage restraint on the first day of the new industrial relations system, saying employers and workers had a responsibility to remember the fragile state of the economy.

Telstra, the ACTU and three communications unions yesterday jointly released a set of principles for bargaining in good faith under the Fair Work laws.

Unions hail win for the lowly paid

Ben Schneiders
July 2, 2009

LOWLY paid workers such as security guards and cleaners will be the big winners under Labor’s new Fair Work laws, unions say.

But employers warned that the new system, which took effect yesterday, would result in a sharp rise in unfair dismissal cases and greater costs for business.

Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union national secretary Louise Tarrant said many low-paid workers would now be able to collectively bargain with employers rather than rely on changes to award rates to boost their pay.

The introduction of laws to help low-income workers bargain and laws that required parties to negotiate in “good faith” were a marked shift from WorkChoices, Ms Tarrant said.

Other significant changes include enhanced unfair dismissal rights and a more significant role for the industrial umpire to settle disputes. Standards covering penalty rates and hours of work will start from January.

The LHMU was the first union to use the new industrial watchdog, Fair Work Australia, yesterday when it applied to represent 3000 hotel workers in negotiations. Australia Post could be the first employer to face a strike, with the Communications Workers Union set to apply for industrial action.

Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes said his organisation would go on a recruitment drive this month as it took advantage of the improved environment for unions. But he said the top priority for members was job security.

Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry workplace head David Gregory warned of a rise in unfair dismissal claims as thousands of businesses with 100 or fewer staff lose the exemption they had under WorkChoices.

But Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary Brian Boyd said he was yet to be convinced the new laws would reverse the extremes of WorkChoices.

Fair Work Australia will replace several bodies including the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and the Workplace Ombudsman.

Speaking at yesterday’s launch of Fair Work Australia in Sydney, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the laws would provide a “decent safety net”, but enterprise bargaining would secure conditions in workplaces – not decisions by the independent umpire.

Meanwhile, Treasurer Wayne Swan and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd yesterday called for restraint amid claims that the laws could produce increased wage demands in the manufacturing sector, where 1300 agreements have expired. But the Australian Industry Group’s Peter Nolan said that in Victoria, wage settlements so far had typically been around 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent. “We don’t expect to see any massive outbreak of industrial activity,” he said.

With STEPHANIE PEATLING

http://www.theage.com.au/national/unions-hail-win-for-the-lowly-paid-20090701-d583.html

Kevin Rudd signs deal to help jobless

By Stephen Johnson
July 02, 2009 06:33pm

Jobless given access to subsidised training
“Training for training’s sake is … cruel”
Billions ‘wasted’ on intervention

A PLAN to help up to 124,000 retrenched workers has united the states but drawn criticism in Canberra.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed a deal with the states and territories to give intensive help to unemployed people aged over 25.

The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) conference in Darwin agreed to give the jobless access to government-subsidised vocational training.

Labor says the “compact with retrenched workers” will help up to 124,000 people.

“Workers who have been retrenched as a consequence of this global recession have lost their jobs through no fault of their own,” Mr Rudd said.

“Acting to support young Australians who are finding it hard to enter the labour market … represents an important intervention by government.”

Under the agreement, the Federal Government’s new employment agency Job Services Australia matches retrenched workers, aged over 25, with a path to a qualification.

The state and territories would set aside training places.

The training is for people who have been out of work since January 2009 and who are registered with a Job Services Australia provider.

The entitlement is available from now until the end of 2011.

Plan is “cruel”

Opposition employment participation spokesman Andrew Southcott said training programs for the unemployed had failed when Labor last took that approach in the mid-1990s.

“Training for training’s sake, without a job at the end of it, is cruel to the unemployed,” Mr Southcott said.

“The experience around the world is that a skills-first approach for the unemployed tends to be very expensive and you have poor outcomes.”

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said COAG’s new scheme would prepare Australia for economic recovery.

“We know only too well how quickly this country can find itself in a situation of serious skills shortage.”

The plan follows an “earn or learn” COAG agreement reached in April to make youths aged 15 to 19 undertake training and guarantee places for 20-24 year-olds in skills development.

The Rudd Government says it has invested $300 million in programs to help retrenched workers, but it did not provide a cost for the latest one.

Migrants worst hit by jobs slump

By George Megalogenis
The Australian
July 06, 2009 12:00am

AUSTRALIAN-BORN workers have been shielded from the worst of the global recession, as employers have mainly restricted the economy-wide job losses to migrant workers.

Although unemployment is rising across the board as opportunities vanish, there is a clear divide emerging between the treatment of local and overseas-born workers, The Australian reports.

Australian-born workers dropped 22,000 full-time jobs in the 12 months to May but picked up an extra 74,500 part-time jobs for a net gain of 52,500 positions.

By contrast, migrant workers lost 37,100 full-time jobs, offset by 21,600 extra part-time jobs for a net loss of 15,500.

The detailed research by The Australian suggests employers have been laying off workers on a last-on, first-off basis.

This puts the migrants who claimed the majority of the jobs available at the top of the boom, when the economy faced acute skills shortages, in the employment firing line now.

In the early 1990s recession, non-English speakers were the most disadvantaged as blue-collar manufacturing jobs disappeared.

This time, New Zealand-born workers are the most likely to be retrenched, with 11,000 full-time jobs and a further 9800 part-time jobs shed in the 12 months to May, for a net loss of 20,800.

The Indian-born are faring much better, with 19,500 more full-time and 18,500 more part-time jobs.

This is a sign that shortages remain across significant pockets of the economy as the Indian migrants tend to have higher skills on average.

On the other hand, northeast-and southeast-Asian-born workers have lost their jobs in roughly the same numbers as the New Zealanders.

Overall, English-speaking migrants are down 11,600 jobs in net terms, while non-English speaking migrants have lost 4000 jobs.

Australia has defied the global recession som far, with unemployment at 5.7 per cent. More tellingly, the wider economy has yet to move into the red zone where a larger number of jobs are being lost than are created.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25738596-462,00.html?referrer=email&source=eDM_newspulse

Emails exhausting workers, etiquette needed urgently

06 July 2009 8:40am

Employers must train their staff in technology etiquette to reduce the stress from being swamped by overly-complex and emotionally-charged emails, says the University of Queensland’s Rowena Brown.

Brown – a provisional psychologist writing a PhD on emails as a workplace stressor – says that interpreting ambiguous emails can be just as stressful as receiving large volumes of emails.

Poorly crafted or complex emails, she says, can leave recipients feeling overloaded and affect job satisfaction and working relationships. A combination of ambiguous emails and an excessive email load can render workers emotionally exhausted.

Brown’s comments follow her study of more than 200 administrative staff and academics at the University of Queensland.

She says that on one particular (randomly chosen) day, respondents spent about 28 per cent of their work time dealing with emails. They received an average of 35 work-related emails (in addition to 19 spam messages) each, and sent an average of 24. One respondent received 150 work-related emails, and another was sent more than 300 spam or other unsolicited messages.

“Email is not necessarily a bad medium,” Brown says. “But it has its weaknesses.”

Correspondents tend to be over-confident in their ability to convey a particular message and presumptuous about how it will be interpreted, she says.

Emails, she says, can’t convey tone in the way that a phone call or face-to-face meeting can, and rarely adhere to a standard structure – in the way that snail-mail generally does – that people are familiar with.

“Poorly-written emails can create confusion and disagreements over work-related activities and responsibilities,” she says. They can lead to “intragroup conflict” and burnout.

But email, Brown notes, is a “double-edged sword”. Receiving large numbers of emails, she says, can also increase job satisfaction.

“Receiving workplace emails enables users to feel connected and important within their work environment,” she says. “However the impact of a poor quality email, combined with the expectation to respond immediately, can create unnecessary stress.”

Employers must put in place protocols
Brown says her research raises important issues for employers, “who have a responsibility to train their staff in appropriate email etiquette”.

Firstly, she says, employees should be encouraged to avoid using emails, where possible, when it comes to sensitive or pressing issues.

“Don’t be reliant on text,” she says, “when there’s no reason you can’t talk face-to-face.”

There is a chance that the email won’t be immediately tended to, she says, and face-to-face meetings are not only much quicker, but leave far less room for ambiguity.

Brown says that staff should be directed to keep messages professional and concise and to avoid emotive language.

Organisations should establish “email availability times”, or specific checking times, and set a time period within which recipients of messages are expected to respond.

Employees should also be encouraged to regularly filter or file their inbox, she says, and to stipulate the importance of messages they send.

But workers must also set standards for themselves, Brown says. If staff respond to emails at three o’clock in the morning, she says, employers might presume that they’re always accessible.

12 email tips
David Tuffley – a lecturer in information and communication technology at Griffith University – says there are no “official” rules governing electronic communication.

“Though there have been attempts to establish one standard as the default, there is no common agreement,” he says. “So beware people telling you there is one right way.”

However, to increase the chances of a message being read – and creating a favourable impression – composers, he says, should:
summarise accurately the message in the subject line;

include sufficient contextual information, and don’t assume that the reader is familiar with the topic;

keep it concise, and delete irrelevant text when an email has been sent back and forth a number of times;

reply promptly to responses and other emails, avoiding a “log-jam” of unanswered mail;

avoid shouting at or threatening people with capital letters or oversized fonts;

avoid angry outbursts, and only send emails when calm;

use correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, and remember that one exclamation mark is “as effective as five”;

use spaces and breaks so that the email is easier to read;

avoid replying “to all” and unnecessarily cluttering other people’s in-trays;

warn recipients if the email contains material “not suitable for work”;

avoid being over-familiar with recipients, particularly if they’re superiors or strangers; and

remember that emails are not confidential, and can easily end up in an unintended person’s hands.

http://www.hrdaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=1&selkey=1203

Video interviews will have the biggest impact on recruitment: Sullivan

02 July 2009 6:40am

Forget social networking and blogging, video interviewing will have the biggest impact on recruitment of any new technology, argues leading international HR consultant Dr John Sullivan.

Sullivan says the move to video interviewing is finally becoming widespread in the US and Europe and is starting to be seen as a necessity rather than a “nice to have” by leading employers.

Not only is video interviewing a major cost saver, says Sullivan, it speeds up time to fill, reduces interview drop out rates and vastly improves the candidate experience. As well, the “interview from anywhere” concept opens the possibility that recruitment companies and employers may decide to outsource the entire shortlisting process to lower-cost offshore locations.

The trend to video interviewing takes advantage of widespread broadband internet access and inexpensive webcams, two factors that severely restricted videoconferencing as a feasible alternative to face-to-face interviews a decade ago.

The quality of the video has improved significantly with broadband and the latest generation of webcams, adds Sullivan.

“Unlike telephone interviews, facial expressions and body language can be readily seen, something that hiring managers rate as a “must-have” feature,” he says.

Sullivan says hundreds of major employers including HP, Google, Rio Tinto, E*Trade, Whirlpool and Pepsico are now using video interviewing, and usage patterns are climbing at a significant pace.

“I predict that within a few years the ‘interview from anywhere’ approach will become the standard practice for all but final hiring interviews,” Sullivan says in a recent article.

Besides being cheaper, faster and more efficient, Sullivan argues that video interviewing broadens the potential candidate pool by making it possible to easily interview candidates from outside a company’s local area. It also improves candidate availability by enabling candidates to do an interview without spending a day or half day out of their office.

Offering this approach to interviews will help employers and recruiters to be seen as cutting-edge in their field and improve their employer brand.

“By showing respect both for the candidate’s time and the needs of their current firm, you may also build goodwill in your image,” he says.

Australia yet to embrace video interviews
Very few recruiters are using video interviews in Australia at present, according to Tom Culver, national sales manager of video solutions company Vipepower.

Culver argued that video interviews are only practical for the preliminary stages of interviews for executive level jobs. He said one of the biggest hurdles for widespread use of live video interviews is that many companies’ IT firewalls prevent the use of Skype and other video programs.

There is also currently little demand from Australian employers to have the ability to manage video interviews in their applicant tracking systems, according to Adam Whitelaw, product director of recruitment and talent management systems company NGA.NET.

Whitelaw told Recruiter Daily NGA.NET’s software has the ability to work with embedded video links such as Google Videos and clients can also load video files into a file library and link to them from assessment screens or candidate files.

NGA.NET may consider integrating its software with the software of a client’s preferred video partner in the future if requested, he said.

Recruitment Directory’s Thomas Shaw said video interviews “certainly cut down resources if you’re interviewing remotely located staff or you have hiring managers in different locations”.

“[But] nothing still beats a one on one personal interview,” he added.

“You still need to meet the person and get a feel for them. Video interviews are a great introduction to the next step.”

http://www.recruiterdaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=1&selkey=39911

Social networking is not the holy grail, says Savage

30 June 2009 6:49am

Social networking is an important part of a recruitment strategy but won’t take the place of “old fashioned” personal connections with talent and clients, according to Aquent CEO Greg Savage.

Savage says that when the internet and email first came along, it was widely believed they would “wipe traditional recruiters from the landscape”.

“And none of it came true. None of it,” he says. “The internet and email and job boards didn’t kill off recruiters. New technologies helped them to new heights and new riches.”

While he has embraced social networking, Savage says he does not believe it will inspire a new world of recruiting.

“The truth is that the recruiters who are doing the best now are those who are able to integrate the traditionally required skills with new technologies, and make one plus one equal three.”

Social networking is just a tool
In a recent blog, Savage says social networking is a communications channel recruiters must embrace, but stresses that it’s “not the Holy Grail”.

“It’s just a tool. An enabler, and it needs to be harnessed like all the other mechanisms we use to manage our relationships with clients and candidates,” he says.

He predicts a downturn in the use of social networking sites by recruiters, as the full reality of how hard it is to get a return on investment in that arena becomes clear.

Recruiting by Twitter is not targeted
Savage says that until a more structured and fruitful way to mine networking sites is developed, posting a job vacancy via Twitter is “even less targeted than the least targeted job board”.

“Of course, candidates and even clients, will originate from your social networking site on occasion,” he says.

“But I also pick up candidates and clients from amongst the parents on the sidelines of my son’s rugby matches! No one is really suggesting that as a targeted, sustainable way to re-invent recruiting are they?”

Nothing wrong with being “old-fashioned”
Savage says that just before the recruitment market crashed about 18 months ago, an exiting employee of his company commented, “Aquent is a great place and Greg a good enough guy, just too old-fashioned”.

“The departing employee who made that remark was going to a new staffing world of in-house café lattes, flexible work hours, torn-jeans dress code – and a talent management strategy based entirely on scanning Facebook all day,” he says.

“Sadly that business is gone, along with many of its ilk.”

Savage says it is the “old fashioned” recruiters who actually look to connect, personally, with talent and clients that will survive the current downturn and thrive in the inevitable upswing.

http://www.recruiterdaily.com.au/nl06_news_selected.php?act=2&nav=1&selkey=39889

‘You don’t have Australian experience’ – the biggest cop out in a recruiter’s lexicon

01 July 2009
‘You don’t have Australian experience’ – the biggest cop out in a recruiter’s lexicon
When I was recruiting temp accountants for Recruitment Solutions in Sydney during the 1990s, I took a lot of satisfaction in placing many ‘number crunchers’ who didn’t have ‘Australian experience’.

These arrivals to the Great Southern Land had permanently left homes in countries such as Sri Lanka, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Fiji, to name just a few. None of these accountants had previously set foot in a workplace full of Vegemite lovers, yet I was able to secure them assignments with my varied clients , covering industries such as Financial Services, Travel, Freight & Logistics, Telecommunications and Property.

I accomplished this in an environment where ‘skills shortage’ was barely a glint in the amorous eye of the Australian labour market. For the benefit of the Gen Y’s reading this, who were merely a glint in their father’s eye, at the time, unemployment took four years to move down a miniscule 1.5 percentage points (9.7% in July 1994 to 8.2% in July 1998) as the Australian economy slowly built up steam after the ‘recession we had to have’.

When I hear today’s recruiters moan about any alleged ‘skills shortage’ in their market, I am always interested to know how many candidates without ‘Australian experience’ they have placed or even referred to their clients recently. The response that is typically shot back at me is ‘my clients won’t look at them’.

Really? And as expert in your field of work, you accept this response?

What a cop out!

It’s a lame excuse typical of an unskilled, under-trained or lazy recruiter – or all three.

Why is it a lame excuse? Because competence at work is determined by behavior.

Australian workplace behavior is NOT unique – it has far more similarities than differences when compared to other workplaces around the world.

Humans tend to observe differences and exaggerate their magnitude and significance far beyond what objective analysis would justify. Believing that workplace behaviours found in other countries are not replicated in Australia (or vice versa) is ignorant, arrogant, naïve and patently false.

No matter in what workplace or which country a candidate has gained their experience, they will have developed a range of competencies to a certain level. The fundamental job of ANY recruiter is to identify these competencies and assess whether the level of these competencies at least matches the minimum level required for the job the candidate has applied for.

In circumstances where ‘Australian experience’ is relevant it is mostly tied to appropriate standards and qualifications required of immigrants by professional associations, as distinct from a specific amount of experience in an Australian workplace (eg medicine, accounting).

Even so, I still placed plenty of ‘No Australian Experience Candidates’ (NAECs) into temp roles that required competency in accounting skills (eg management accounting, reconciliations etc) rather than Australian-specific accounting knowledge areas (eg tax and law).

So was I a politically correct, bleeding heart, do-gooder leftie who had a personal crusade against discrimination in Australian workplaces? LOL. Far from it!

As a recruiter, I was one of the most hard-arsed, commercially driven recruiters around. I only placed candidates that were the best possible candidates for my clients’ jobs, regardless of Australian work experience or not.

It made huge commercial sense for me to place accountants without land girt by sea experience. Here are the major reasons why:

Skill: Accounting fundamentals around the world are the same. As long as I asked the right questions I could quickly ascertain how well matched the skills of a NAEC were to my client’s requirements.

Reliability, loyalty and commitment: An Australian reference, even from a 4 week temp job, was seen as invaluable to NAECs, so they worked hard, never complained and completed their assignments as agreed.

Flexibility: After all the inevitable patience, drama and organisation required to relocate to Australia, changing trains, catching buses or working in grungy, off-the-beaten-track, Sydney suburban offices, didn’t phase a NAEC as much as it did my true-blue Aussie candidates.

Value: Grateful for a job, NAECs accepted a fair rate for the job and never attempted to negotiate an unjustified rate increase half way through their assignment.

No distracting perm interviews: Because perm recruiters put my NAECs in the ‘too hard basket’, my candidates were not distracted by calls and interviews for perm jobs.

Temp-to-perm pot of gold: As skilled workers who were also reliable and committed, it didn’t take too long for my clients to be convinced of the excellent value offered by my NAECs. Perm job offers often followed and were never turned down.

Referrals: NAECs had close-knit, well-connected communities and networks and as a result I always had a steady stream of quality referrals (candidates AND clients).

Given this long and not exhaustive list, it would seem that it’s a no-brainer to place competent NAECs into relevant roles – so why isn’t it happening in recruitment agencies all over Australia?

To find out the answer go to http://rossclennett.com/docs/Web_InSight/2009/monthly/jul-part2.html for Part 2 of my article

http://rossclennett.blogspot.com/2009/07/you-dont-have-australian-experience.html