In November last year, the United States offered Chinese tourists a 10-year multiple entry visa. This was quickly matched by Canada in March. Chinese travellers to South Korea and Indonesia are not required to apply for a visa. Japan seemed to have eased up on Chinese travellers as well issuing a record 146,000 visas for Chinese tourists - such was the demand that its consulate in Shanghai ran out of the special paper on which its visas are printed, according to a report in the Australian Financial Review.

The best Australia will do for now is to offer a three-year multiple entry visa to Chinese travellers. Trade Minister, Andrew Robb has announced that, “Chinese travellers will be able to make repeat visits to Australia with ease, with a current online visitor visa pilot extended to offer three-year, multiple entry visas to approved applicants.” Previously, visitor visas for Chinese travellers were only valid for 12 months.

"I think Australia is a slow mover compared to others," Bob Shen from Spring Tours in Shanghai told the AFR. "But I still think it [the new visa] will have a positive impact."

Mr Shen said he had been told by Australian consular officials that the number of Chinese tourists overstaying their visa had declined.

According to the AFR, previously, Chinese travellers to Australia wanting a three-year multiple entry visa needed to receive a guarantee from their travel agent. Under these new laws the guarantee is no longer required.

Click here to download the Victorian Stakeholder meeting notes.

What’s in a name? Possibly the chance of getting two passports and double-dipping into Australia’s work holiday visa program. The Immigration Department is investigating allegations that Irish nationals are using their native language to con the Australian visa system, according to a report in The Irish Independent

In a statement to The Irish Independent newspaper, the Australian department said it was "aware of and is investigating a migration fraud involving Irish applicants using new passport features to access Australian visas". The department is investigating claims that Irish citizens are using passports issued in their Gaelic names to double-dip on working visas in Australia, states the report.

Almost 90,000 people have emigrated from the Republic of Ireland to Australia since the start of the global economic downturn in 2008, according to Ireland's Central Statistics Office. The number appeared to peak in 2012, when an estimated 18,200 emigrated to the other side of the world.

But Australia’s Immigration department has indicated that is not aware how widespread the scam is or for how long it has been used.

According to the report, the department believes that Irish emigrants have been obtaining passports in their native-language forms of their name, in many cases completely unrecognisable to non-Gaelic speakers from its anglicised spelling and pronunciation.

The new passport then allows the worker to obtain a working visa after their previous one has expired and they are no longer eligible to live and work here, with Australian authorities thinking they are dealing with a new applicant.

The significant investor visa program (SIV) will be suspended from 24 April 2015 and reintroduced on 1 July 2015 with a new set of requirements.

The SIV program has brought in $3.475 billion dollars with some 695 approved applications to date according to DIBP. However the program is set to be suspended in preparation for the introduction of the new SIV framework.

“To ensure clarity for prospective applicants about the investment framework that will apply to them, and to ensure the programme continues to offer the best balance between investment migration and economic benefit, the Australian Government has decided to temporarily suspend all new nominations to apply for a SIV” states a news release from the DIBP.

“This suspension will commence on 24 April 2015, with nominations reopening on 1 July 2015 to coincide with the introduction of the new framework through associated amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994.

According to the release, during the suspension of nominations, prospective SIV applicants will still be able to lodge an Expression of Interest (EOI) to be nominated for the programme. Anyone who has an EOI current at 1 July 2015 will be able to be nominated from 1 July 2015 onwards, and will be subject to the new complying investment framework.

“This suspension will not impact existing SIV applicants, or those who have already been invited to apply for a SIV.  Any existing SIV applications and those who have already been invited to apply prior to the suspension will continue to be processed under the current regulations,” states the release.

Ilaria De Fusco is frustrated because her attempt to become an Australian is going nowhere despite having lodged a valid application for permanent residency over five years ago.

Is there anything wrong with her application? Yes. She spent thousands of dollars on DIBP and professional RMA costs to ensure the best possible application was lodged in 2009 after having lived, studied and worked in Australia since 2001 but her application has been put on hold indefinitely draining her mentally and emotionally. That is what is wrong. She recently discussed her plight in a story on the website www.insidestory.org.au.

“I’ve been here almost half my life,” she said, “It’s very sad. This is such a great country...This is not just about my application,” she says. “It’s about the whole concept of it. The ethics behind it are just not right.”

Ms De Fusco is not alone in this issue. According to immigration department statistics, more than 20,000 people in group 5 have waited more than four years for an answer on their applications for permanent residency. The reason for the wait is DIBPs priority processing policy which came into effect in about 2009.

DIBPs priority processing arrangements generally categorise skilled migration applications into 5 groups giving regional employer sponsored visas the highest processing priority. While the top groups can have the visas processed within months, those in group 5 can wait well over 5 years without any indication of a time-frame as to when their applications may be processed.

Upon receipt of a valid application, DIBP surely must have an obligation to process an application within a reasonable time-frame or inform the applicants of the likely time-frame. In the alternative, DIBP should at least allow applicants who wish to withdraw their applications to do so with a full refund. Perhaps this may help speed things up for those who choose to wait.