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.

The following message has been sent out to all MIA members:

The Board of the MIA has today passed the following motion:

"That the Board rescinds the motion that it had proposed to be considered by Members at an Extraordinary General Meeting to be held on 18 February 2015 and the Board therefore cancels that Extraordinary General Meeting.

Today is the Freaky Friday 13th migration agent networking event in Sydney.  This is what I am wearing.  If you have not got your outfit ready then quickly go and buy a mask or costume.  See you there.

When: Friday 13th February 2015

Where: The Angel Hotel, 125 Pitt St Sydney

What time: 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm

What to wear: Something black or freaky

Cost: $50 per head for canapés and drinks

Proposed menu: 

- spiced lamb samosa
- tomato, black olive and basil crostini (v)
- mexican prawn and lime salad on corn chips (gf)
- vegetarian spring roll (v)
- green pea and mint risotto balls (v)
- tandoori chicken drummer and cucumber raita (gf)
- pumpkin and goats cheese ravioli with fresh tomato and parmesan (v)
* (v) - vegetarian (gf) - gluten free

Places are limited so get in early and pay now to secure your place at this premium networking event.

To register, please download the registration form below and return to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

Click to download event Registration Form

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.