Whilst nationals from most of the top ten poorest countries in the world have made it to the department of immigration’s list for expedited processing of temporary work visas (sc400), economic giants China and India have been notably left out of the recently released list with no reasons provided.

Australia and China recently signed an intention to enter a Free Trade Agreement with several promises including simplifying of visa applications. India and Australia have also indicated that such an agreement is being negotiated and could well be signed in the near future. Both the leaders were here recently and even spoke at a joint session of both houses of the Australian parliament promising better trade ties.

Given this it may come as a shock to many that the recent government instrument IMMI 14/100 excludes both China and India from the expanded list of 197 countries and territories eligible to submit online applications for Temporary Work Visas. The list is over three-times the size of the previous list.

From 23 November, nationals from the countries listed in the instrument will be eligible to make online applications and are expected to enjoy faster processing of their visa applications eliminating the need to post or courier paper applications or make in-person visits to Australian DFAT offices.

The SC400 visa is for employers requiring foreign workers to travel to Australia to do short-term, highly specialised, non-ongoing work; participate in non-ongoing cultural or social activities at the invitation of an Australian organisation; or in limited circumstances, participate in an activity or work relating to Australia’s interests.

The recent boom in student migration numbers is being attributed not only to the lower Australian dollar and better working rights via the post-study sc485 visa but also to the streamlined visa processing system (SVP). However the SVP is beginning to look like a convenient backdoor into Australia for some who enter Australia easily on the SVP but then change courses to cheaper non-SVP providers soon after. 

RMAs are monitored closely and scrutinised for indiscretions. What about education agents and SVP approved instituitions? The emerging trend of 'course-hopping' among students begs the question: what steps, if any, are being taking by education agents and SVP approved institutions to discourage course-hopping and how exactly are these education agents and providers being monitored?

Over the last year the department of immigration has issued some 1400 warning letters to students who entered Australia on the SVP system but had since left the SVP-approved institutions before completing their course, reports The Australian. According to the report 503 students received notices of DIBPs intention to cancel their visas with 103 visas actually being subsequently cancelled.

The report notes that “there was increasing evidence that students were entering the country by enrolling in a government-approved university or college under what is known as streamlined visa processing, then jumping ship to a cheap private college to finish their qualification at a fraction of the cost while ¬remaining eligible for post-study work rights.”

The streamlined visa processing arrangements was recently extended to eligible advanced diploma level students. It was previously the domain of universities but now vocational and education training institutes assessed by DIPB to be ‘low- risk providers’ have also been included.

Given this and the potential further increase in student numbers, it remains unclear how exactly education agents and SVP approved institutions are managing the SVP privileges or how DIBP is monitoring them.

The Australian High Commission is urging Indian nationals to be cautious of scams while applying for Australian visas, and report any frauds to the authorities. Last month, the Australian Government launched a national campaign ‘Work visa scams. Don’t pay the price’ to investigate allegations of unauthorized payments to visa sponsors in return for visas.

The campaign involved an initial assessment of up to 100 visa sponsors who are subject to allegations of receiving payment for arranging sponsorship for individuals under the 457 visa programme.

‘Work visa scams. Don’t pay the price’ also has a public education component to further educate visa sponsors about their obligations and make visa holders more aware of their rights and responsibilities.

The government website Scamwatch, states that some scammers contact prospects by post, email, or phone offering a visa in return for payments, personal details and identity documents.  They may claim to be a ‘registered provider’ or ‘Australian visa application service’.

Other scams involve people posing as staff from an Australian Government department, or by using websites which look like official Government sites.

The government wants to strengthen the integrity of the citizenship program and hand Immigration Minister Scott Morrison powers to revoke citizenship where it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. These are among the several changes slated in a proposed bill.

Generally, the stricter citizenship laws are set to make it harder to obtain and maintain Australian citizenship.The proposed amendments set out in the Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 are as follows:

• allow the Minister to revoke citizenship on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation in the citizenship process, without the requirement for a conviction of relevant criminal offences
• extend the good character requirement to include applicants under 18 years of age
• include the bar on approval for criminal offences in all citizenship streams include reference to contemporary sentencing practices in the bar on approval for criminal offences
• enable the Minister to cancel approval of citizenship by conferral prior to the Pledge of Commitment if the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is no longer eligible
• allow the Minister to defer the applicant taking the Pledge of Commitment for up to two years and align the grounds for deferral with the grounds for cancellation of approval
• require those who automatically acquire citizenship on adoption in Australia to have commenced the adoption process before turning 18 years of age
• require a standardised 12 month waiting period for resumption of citizenship clarify the residence requirements by specifying when the four year lawful period commences and that the 12 month period as a permanent resident must be continuous
• clarify who is covered by the partner discretion in the residence requirement and insert a minimum physical presence requirement for those claiming the partner discretion for absences from Australia
• provide the power to make a legislative instrument setting out when a period of unlawful presence may be treated as lawful presence
• put beyond doubt that children born in Australia to parents with diplomatic and other privileges and immunities are not eligible for Australian citizenship
• provide a discretion to revoke citizenship by descent in place of the current operation of law provision
• limit automatic acquisition of citizenship at ten years of age to those persons who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the ten years
• clarify the provision giving citizenship to a child found abandoned in Australia
• make holders of prescribed visas eligible for citizenship by conferral before entering Australia
• enable use and disclosure of personal information collected about a client under the Migration Act to be used for the purposes of the Citizenship Act and vice versa
• provide that personal decisions made by the Minister, taken in the public interest, are not subject to merits review
• provide the Minister with the power to set aside decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning character and identity if it would be in the public interest to do so
• align access to merits review for conferral applicants under 18 years of age with citizenship eligibility requirements and
• provide that the Australian Citizenship Regulations 2007 (the Citizenship Regulations) may confer on the Minister the power to make legislative instruments

A recently introduced government instrument indicates that the department of immigration has an agreement in place with ‘agents’ in China for the purposes of lodging internet applications. On the face of it, the instrument gives recognition to unregistered practice in China because it fails to make the distinction between registered and unregistered practitioners in its wording. It would be good to know if any readers here are aware of (or party to) this agreement and if the agreement includes unregistered practitioners.

The recently introduced instrument IMMI 14/104 makes internet applications compulsory for certain types of tourist visa applications from China. Particularly, the instrument states as follows,

“that form 1419 (Internet) must be used by persons applying for a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa who:

(a)        hold a passport issued by a country specified in column 1 of Schedule A and subject to the conditions (if any) specified in column 2 of Schedule A; and