A decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that was handed down in late April of this year has clarified the factors that must be taken into account when the Minister personally exercises the powers to cancel a visa on character grounds under section 501(2) of the Migration Act.

The case – Moana v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCAFC 54 (22 April 2015) – involved the cancellation of a “Special Category” visa that was held by a citizen of New Zealand. At the time that his visa was cancelled, Mr Moana was 53 years old and had lived in Australia for 24 years. During the period of his residence, he had developed strong ties to Australia, with 5 adult children, 14 grandchildren, 2 step-children and a 3 year old son living here.

However, Mr Moana had also compiled a substantial criminal record during his time in Australia. This had included a sentence of imprisonment in 1998 for a series of offences including armed robbery, aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, blackmail and theft.  He had also been convicted of multiple counts of breach of “intervention” orders as well as several counts of breach of suspended sentence. Then, in January 2013 he was sentenced to prison again, for kidnapping.

The first review of skills list in three years began last week, with calls to remove specific skills from the Consolidated Skills Occupation List (CSOL).

Australian Council of Trade Unions president Ged Kearney who is the only union representative on the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration (MACSM) told The Australian that the list did not look at shortages.

“There is no rhyme nor reason for why particular occupations are on the list, and many, such as nurses, teachers, engineers and a number of trades occupations, should be removed,” she said.

MACSM advises the government on visa and policy settings to optimise the contribution of skilled migration to Australia’s productivity and economy. In effect, it determines the occupations on the skills list by advising the government which to add and which to remove.

Opposing Ms Kearney’s view was Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry director Jenny Lambert, who said the CSOL list should not be shortened as it allowed for business and regional differences.

“The list needs to be responsive,” she said.

Starkly missing from the government's first-ever round table discussion on international education last week was the issue of the regulation of education brokers. It continues to ignore warnings by the Productivity Commission that Australian institutions should reduce their reliance on agents for student recruitment.

The promotion of international education is high on the government’s agenda given that education has become the standout performer among Australia’s top export industries. With some 600, 000 students currently enrolled, it now earns $17.5 billion a year and is Australia’s third-largest export, even ahead of tourism. It is now moving into a strong growth phase, up 11.2 per cent from last year.

To help manage the growth, the government’s round table gathered about 100 representatives of the industry including education and training providers, businesses, students, community groups and all levels of government “to exchange new ideas and innovative approaches that will help make Australian international education the best in the world.”

However, according to a report in the Australian Financial Review, the round table failed to address one key issue highlighted in The Productivity Commision’s report on International Education Services: education agents.

The Commission’s report released in April this year, questioned the very extensive use of education agents by Australian universities and colleges to recruit international students.

More than 207,900 migrants settled permanently in Australia in 2013–14 according to latest statistics from the department of immigration. Indian migrants to Australia have surged to record numbers with Indian citizens now beating the once-dominant British expats.

The substantial growth in overseas-born residents is changing Australia’s ethnic composition. In the past 17 years the number of China-born Australian residents has more than tripled to 427,590 people. This rate of growth was surpassed by India-born residents, which increased more than four-fold to 369,680 people over the same period while Australian residents born in the United Kingdom increased by only 5.0 per cent.

Australia’s Migration Trends 2013–14 report released last week indicated that India remained the main source country for migrants with almost 40,000 Indian nationals migrating to Australia in 2013–14.

India, the People’s Republic of China and the United Kingdom were the top three source countries under the Migration Programme. Together, they comprised 46.9 per cent of the total Migration Programme in 2013–14.

Almost 40,000 India citizens migrated to Australia, while China had 26,776 migrants and the United Kingdom 23,220. These were followed by 10,379 from the Philippines and 6,275 from Pakistan. 

One might observe rather flippantly that compiling a record of minor driving offences is a “rite of passage” for Australians! Or perhaps that “getting caught” for relatively minor offences is something that happens to most people who drive a car, sooner or later. 

Whatever the case, a decision that was handed down earlier this week by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Bhownik and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  (2015) AATA 426 (17 June 2015) – demonstrates that relatively minor driving offences are not enough to prevent a person from gaining Australian citizenship if they are otherwise a person of good character.

On the other hand, a second decision, delivered by the AAT just last week, Brown and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) AATA 414 (12 June 2015), shows that having a really horrible driving record combined with a history of other serious criminal offences may well pose difficulties – even when the applicant for citizenship has lived in Australia since early childhood.