Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 4921
- 4 Comments
SIV Update: Minister's Press Release
Coalition to reboot significant investor visa programme
The Coalition government today announced a review will be undertaken to reboot the significant investor visa (SIV) programme, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash said.
'We recognise there are significant implementation issues that are currently holding up the progress of this programme and want to get this review underway to send a clear message that Australia is open for business on this visa,' Minister Cash said.
The review, to be undertaken by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, will look at all options to enhance the significant investor visa programme. The internal review will be conducted in close consultation with the financial services industry and stakeholders.
'There will be particular emphasis on examining ways of enhancing greater flexibility and investment choices to significant investor visa applicants, as well as faster processing of applications for this visa. The review will also examine the possibility of introducing a new permanent visa stream for investment migrants,' Minister Cash said.
'From the programme's commencement in November 2012 until September 2013 when the election was held, just 28 visa applications were approved with $140 million in complying investments,' Minister Cash said.
'Since the Coalition Government came to office, more than 116 significant investor visa applications have been approved with more than $580 million in complying investments.
'In January this year, more than $165 million in complying investments came through the programme compared with Labor's monthly peak of $30 million in July last year.
'This review will further assist the programme to attract international investment to Australia in the competitive global market.'
The significant investor visa programme is designed to facilitate migration of investment migrants who are willing to invest a minimum of $5 million in a complying investment in Australia over at least a four year period.
Terms of reference for the review broadly cover the policy settings of the significant investor visa, application processing arrangements, and international promotion of the programme.
Comments
-
Tuesday, 11 March 2014Well said Christopher! I have issue with the standard of provenance in ALL visa subclasses. The DIBP seems to be applying the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) to visa applications which are clearly civil matters (balance of probabilities as the standard of provenance). This is a real "make work" scenario for DIBP, it would make the likes of Sir Humprey Appleby proud. The Minister and the Assistant Minister could find many, many redundant positions in the department if they were to merely change the standard of provenance. The savings to the budget bottom line could be very significant. John Findley MARN0316938
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014Some Stats on the SIV just hit my inbox...this is the latest
A total of 1118 EOI's have been raised, there are 875 "invitations" afoot consisting of 702 primary applications and a grand total of 144 primary visa grants.
Thus in the period from 24 November 2012 to 28 February 2014 the crack ( not on crack but crack as in elite) DIBP processing teams at some undisclosed but no doubt "center of excellence" have finalised 144 visa applications.
What a disgrace!
If I were conducting a review I would be asking some very serious questions about DIBP competence and commitment to this visa.· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Hello Christopher,
I regularly complain to the HK Business Centre that their procedures are inappropriate. They are;
1. Using the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) when the appropriate standard for a civil matter such as a visa application is "on balance of probabilities". This leads to a make-work situation in the DIBP offices, demanding more evidence and then pondering greatly over the material submitted.
2. The case officers challenge us to proove a negative hypothesis. Any lawyer or logician knows it is impossible to proove the case when it is set as a negative hypothesis. It is more "make-work" for the department.
3. A competent migration agent can prepare and submit a business skills application in about 5- 10 days working, plus allowance for third party work such as Hong Kong Auditor and Hong Kong Property Valuer. Yet it seems the DIBP needs 18 months to process cases. The Audit needs no investigation, its findings are definitive. The property valuation needs no investigation, its findings are definitive. The applicant identification, passport, Hukou, ID Card, Birth Certificates, need little investigation, they are definitive. So what is taking the time?
4. I have made a case to the Hong Kong DIBP that they have based a refusal decision on third party hearsay. We were invited to comment on a finding; we were told that the case was fraudulent. The information was incorrect and I objected, requested the letter be withdrawn and re-issued without the term "fraud". There are standards to be met and whilst the DIBP is not bound by the rules of evidence, those rules are the distillation of hundreds of years of ensuring a fair hearing. But I eceived correspondence from the Vice Consul Immigration that the procedures were appropriate. There was no Saeed procedural fairness, despite my requesting it (prior to the decision).
The government could save a lot of money by establishing the civil standard for visa applications and firing a department.
John Findley MARN0316938
Immigration blog
The word is out that DIBP hates this visa and has embarked on a concerted campaign to starve this visa subclass of resources and to create hurdles to make it next to impossible to get this visa approved. If you want the evidence for this proposition look at the number of approvals so far as against the number of visas set aside for this program. Also look at the number of crack staff DIBP has dedicated to this particular visa in Canberra. (3?)
The word is out that DIBP doesn't like this visa because it is "selling PR".
DIBP is also very worried that this visa subclass can be used to 'launder money".
I guess if DIBP was serious about this visa they would be removing the red tape that stifled this baby at birth.
How about a slight change of direction...is Australia open for business? If so, can DIBP get their foot off the neck of this visa?