Can the current MIA board still carry on? It’s hard not to wonder if the MIA’s recent backflip was to avoid facing an embarrassing outcome at the EGM. In calling off the motion and the EGM just days before the vote, the Board has acknowledged the ‘need for a more comprehensive process to ensure wider consultation’.

It remains baffling how such an ill-conceived motion came to be tabled in the first place, and subsequently defended with equally flawed logic. Contributors to the Migration Alliance blog have lashed out at the MIA board with some now calling for the entire Board to resign.

“This was always headed for disaster. I had intended to fly from Queensland to oppose the proposal which was based on spurious arguments relating to other non-comparable organisations across the world. Whoever wrote that should be sacked” wrote Peter Tully, who asserts that, “The board should resign so that fresh blood can be injected into the MIA.”

All this embarrassing and damaging publicity which forced the back-flip are scars that are going to remain and begs the question: has the current board lost its credibility with the members to such an extent that they should now consider inviting new faces with fresh ideas to steer the MIA henceforth.

The publicity drummed up by the Migration Alliance and the selfless efforts of many members who offered to personally attend the EGM and act as proxies for those who couldn’t was effectively a revolt. No one was going to let the Board sneak in such a major change through an EGM announced on such short notice. And to save itself from the embarrassment of a romp at the EGM, the Board has made a tactical retreat to rescind the motion and cancel the EGM.

The MIA now needs to appoint a CEO to get its house in order and prevent the National Board from making a mockery of the organisation again.

“The decision not to appoint an independent, professional CEO after the departure of Maureen Horder has led to what is in effect an anomaly that is a President acting through a former member of staff, namely Kevin Lane” notes Liana Allan. This cannot continue. At least, now the current MIA board should know where it stands with its members. And yes, we told you so.

It looks like a taste for high-risk investments is set to become a new default criteria for prospective applicants under the Significant Investor Visa scheme should the draft investment framework released by the Abbot Government yesterday, take effect.

The reforms are aimed at “better directing investment through the visa schemes into more dynamic areas of the economy, including venture capital and small emerging companies,” noted the joint release from the Minister of Trade, Andrew Robb and Assistant Minister for DIBP, Michaelia Cash.

The release states that the proposed complying investment framework for the SIV scheme includes:

• Specifying that at least 20 per cent ($1m) of the applicant’s $5m investment must flow into early stage, growth capital investments, through approved venture capital funds.
• Specifying that at least 30 per cent ($1.5m) of the applicant’s investment must flow into emerging listed companies, through managed funds investing in small Australian stock exchange listed companies
• Reinforcing the existing rules banning direct investment into residential real estate, and introducing new measures to clamp down on indirect investment into residential real estate.  A portion of funds will continue to be permitted to flow into commercial real estate, via managed funds.
• Enhanced measures to improve protection for investors.

Media reports suggest that while venture capital fund managers have supported the idea, others indicate the measures may well kill off the SIV program given the conservative nature of SIV applicants who are largely looking for a safe place to park their funds whilst waiting on their permanent residency visa.

The Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia supported by a unanimous decision has made an unusual order “commanding” the Minister to grant an asylum seeker a protection visa within seven days.

The recent High Court decision which ordered Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to grant a permanent protection visa to a Pakistani asylum-seeker is a timely reminder of the power of the third arm of government – the judiciary. It takes politics out of the matter and addresses the intent of the law, rules on it and enforces it with orders, which sometimes need to be phrased strongly to get its message across.

This time, the wording of the orders, which essentially commanded the minister to act within 7 days, indicated a disdain at the disregard shown by former Minister of Immigration, Scott Morrison, to Australia’s protection obligations enshrined in the s65A of the Migration Act.

After the Tribunal had found the asylum seeker, known as “S297” was a genuine refugee and overturned DIBPs original 2012 refusal decision, former Immigration Minister Scott Morrison decided, with a determination to discourage boat arrivals, that it was “not in the national interest” to protect an unauthorised boat arrival. He then refused to grant a protection visa to “S297”. What is in the “National interest” is of course largely a political question.

DIBP originally denied a protection visa due to regulations capping the number of visas granted. DIBP relied on s85 of the Act, which allowed for the capping of visa numbers.

The brain drain from the immigration department is well on its way with ‘quite serious numbers…quite serious talent’ leaving the department, since its takeover by Mike Pezzullo, according to a report on the website themandarin.com. What’s left are bosses enforcing a ‘command and control’ style of operation which is enveloping the department in a ‘culture of fear’.

The long-feared purge of Immigration's Senior Executive service by their new boss Mike Pezzullo is expected soon with up to 20 per cent of the department's SES expected to be shown the door, according to media reports. In addition to the purge of the top ranks, about 100 of Immigration's 530 middle managers at Executive Level 2 classification are expected to be clearing out their desks by the end of 2015.

Is Mike Pezzullo, in recasting DIBPs mission, getting rid of anyone likely to stand in his way? If so, at what cost.

“…there are signs confidence in the department is low among immigration bureaucrats, including some of Australia’s most committed and experienced experts,” according to a report by Stephen Easton on the website themandarin.com. “Deputy Secretaries Liz Cosson, Wendy Southern and Mark Cormack have all handed in their resignations…At least two first assistant secretaries, including the chief lawyer, have also jumped ship along with at least two assistant secretaries.”

The report says that that things have gotten so bad that ‘It is not known who is performing the key roles…nor is the effect that such a dramatic loss of corporate knowledge and policy capability will have on the organisation. “

It was no surprise that DIBPs usually reticent media department was unable to provide any answers or somehow take control of the mystery and poor publicity around the issue.

The surge of Indian and Chinese migrants over the last ten years has driven the growth rate of overseas born Australians to a 120 year high.

Not since the gold rush of 1880s has Australia seen such high migration rates. The difference however is that Asian countries now figure prominently in this surge according to a media release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

People born overseas now make-up 28 per cent of the resident population of Australia, sates the release. That equals to about 6.6 million people, numbers not seen in 120 years or since the tail end of the gold rush, said ABS spokesperson Denise Carlton in the media release.

“Overseas migration has been a large contributor to the total Australian population growth for several years: it has consistently been the main driver since 2005-06, contributing more than 50 per cent of population growth in Australia,” Ms Carlton said.

“While the largest migrant groups were people born in the UK and New Zealand, with a total of over 1.8 million Australian residents being born in those two countries, the next two most common birthplaces were from the Asian region.” These were China and India, with about 450,000 and 400,000 respectively.