Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Is this government review aimed at justifying massive visa application charge increases?
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3414
- 4 Comments
Is this government review aimed at justifying massive visa application charge increases?
The Australian Government has asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a 12-month long public inquiry into the use of charges to determine the intake of migrants.
According to a media release from the Treasury, in undertaking this inquiry, the Commission will report and make recommendations about the following:
1. The benefits and costs that the intake of permanent entrants can generate with respect to:
- the budgets and balance sheets of Australian governments, including from:
- entry charges
- government services used (including public health, education, housing, social and employment services) now and in the future;
- the dilution of existing, government-held assets and liabilities across a larger population; and
- taxes paid now and in the future;
b. the income, wealth and living standards of Australian citizens, including with respect to:
- impacts on the salaries and employment of Australian citizens, knowledge and skill transfer, productivity, foreign investment, and linkages to global value chains;
- cultural, social and demographic impacts; and
- agglomeration, environmental, amenity and congestion effects.
2. An examination of the scope to use alternative methods for determining intakes – including through payment – and the effects these would have. This should include examination of a specific scenario in which entry charges for migrants are the primary basis for selection of migrants, such that:
- there would be no requirements relating to skills and family connections;
- qualitative requirements relating to health, character and security would remain;
- all entrants would have the right to work;
- entrants would have limited access to social security or subsidised education, housing or healthcare; and
- the charge could be waived for genuine confirmed refugees, whose entry would remain subject to current constraints. The scenario should examine the way in which the above charges could be set, and what they might be, to maintain the current levels of the migrant intake or to maximise the benefits for Australian citizens. The scenario should also examine the impacts of such charges – based on assessment of the factors listed in (1) above and also taking account of: opportunities for Australian citizens to be altruistic towards foreigners including refugees;
- the administration and compliance costs associated with immigration, including costs associated with criminal behaviour and the use of migration agents; and
- interactions with citizenship criteria and existing and potential bilateral agreements.
3. The benefits and costs of temporary migration with an examination of the use of charges as the primary basis for regulating the level and composition of this migration, having regard to:
- complementarity with the Australian workforce; and
- achieving flexibility in responding to structural and cyclical adjustments in the Australian economy.
4. Mechanisms for achieving an optimal interaction between temporary and permanent migration noting that temporary migration is an established pathway to permanent migration.
The Commission is to undertake an appropriate public consultation process including holding hearings and roundtables (where appropriate), and releasing a draft report to the public.
The contacts listed for further information are as follows:
Tracey Horsfall (Administrative matters)
Ph: 02 6240 3261
Stewart Plain (Other matters)
Ph: 02 6240 3219
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Free call: 1800 020 083
Comments
-
Wednesday, 25 March 2015"the administration and compliance costs associated with immigration, including costs associated with criminal behaviour and the use of migration agents"
Anyone would care to explain this statement? Who's cost is it referring to? The Department's or the applicant's? And how does "cost associated with criminal behavior" comes to be in the same sentence with "cost of using a migration agent"???? It is just me being overly associative today or it implies that we agents are a stone in the shoe for DIBP and as much of a nuisance and teeth gritting expense as catching and removing foreigners engaged in criminal activity.
Please someone contradict me and explain that I have understood it all wrong!!!! Even if I have got it wrong and it refers to the applicant's cost, how on earth does "cost of using a migration agent" would be part of a DIBP review? It is not their business! Literally. -
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
Yes I will explain - a very quick take after a very brief read. No need to read between the lines - if FEES are the basis of entry versus skills and family that is there would be no requirements relating to skills and family connections;
= NO real or further general NEED for an advice industry = no need for migration agent industry excepting perhaps for those exceptional matters such as character cases, cancellations etc. In short it equals visas for the wealthy who wont be a drain on the welfare system, and wont also need to go through appeal systems. This way the Government can then receive MORE in fees (ALL the fees) - fees that agents may have otherwise been earning will then go to government coffers in the form of higher application fees. Perhaps start looking for another occupation if you dont already have another source of income? Exceptions aside eg character cases and so forth but this would be a limited market (volume). Also would mean less need for appeals if FEES were the basis of visa grant. Another nail in the coffin for the migration advice industry - online visa options will increase which means more user friendly options to apply. -
Wednesday, 25 March 2015
That is why we need to get more clarity over this, given that it's a knee jerk reaction to all things immigration to appease those pesky little nasties who want everyone except themselves out of 'straya AND money to right the budget...
So, MA will be seeking clarification over this. But we can ALL be forgiven to read lots of stuff in between the lines or being overly associative, though one can NEVER be TOO overly associative, Edith!
This sudden review (which is only a book balancing exercise) is not going to make one bit of difference to what we're doing now -nothing much will change except the utopic idea that a simpler visa system based on affordability to pay will work better than what we have right now... (along with the cost of and resources needed to make changes to the Act, the Regs and the PAMs) - when those whom Australia needs are not necessarily the ones that Australia will get...
Immigration blog
My apologies for the long rant from the outset, but what I think I am reading in between the lines is a tad disturbing (though not unexpected) - or maybe I’m in a conspiracist mood, made worse by my ever increasing workload with complex matters likely to hit the MRT… in any case:
"Point 2: An examination of the scope to use alternative methods for determining intakes – including through payment – and the effects these would have...'' and ‘’point (f)’’ are two of the most significant line that jump at me - why?
If it's costing money to regulate entry, ensure compliance, manage movement, etc; and if RMAs are providing a professional service which then adds to the applicant’s visa financial output when in fact what we want is for them to get in contribute to the economy, what is likely to happen? it will make migration more costly and somewhat limited (except for the sh*t load of application fees the Department is not obliged to refund when the applicant makes a mistake...)
Forgive my over simplification but this may be akin to something like "... access to legal representation is expensive and so is the administration of the system, therefore, in order to strike a balance between access to the law and the cost of running it, we'll introduce a way to balance the books by upping the court fees and funes, and by deregulating the legal profession so that people don't have to have legal representation nor engage in processes which would make it prohibitive (there’s nothing wrong with self-advocacy - we'll set up a bare minimum, self help website...) and as people 'get in' we'll also take a look at the indenture/detention system and charge them for their stay, their insurance, their welfare, their access to services, introduce some sponsorship regime (just in case) and provide rights to work so that they can earn their keep (irrelevant if underpaid) while under ‘our watch’, on a tightly regulated leash..."
Budget adjustment on the backs of vulnerable and relatively right-less people (in comparison to the rights of the permanent citizenry) who want to make a better life for themselves whilst paying through the nose? ABSOLUTELY; we’ll keep the money that failed applications will generate (thank you) whilst at the same time openly AIM for people with lots of money, to fit in immediately - but only the ones that that are so self sufficient (and loaded) that we don't have to invest any money on, nor worry about them – we will make it attractive for the nouveau riche, who have funds galore, but in a highly regulated manner… (I can see changes to making foreign investment easier, as part of the stick and carrot methodology – maybe that poor foreing magnate won’t have to sell his $39milllion investment after all).
The corporate memory of the late 80s and early 90s, lost through the closure of the once very effective Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research (BIMPR) (post 1996)) along with a pretty strong and collaborative migrant settlement sector (which is on its way out post 2014 with cuts to funding) dissected these very issues to the core - proponents of a higher but equitable immigration intake were clear about the social and financial benefits of a non-politicised program for the long term benefit of Australia and opponents quoted population numbers, hike in need of amenities, the need for ‘user pays’, along with the perennial argument about the negative, long-term impact of non-selective migration on the Australian population itself (related to colour? language? Religion? Social status? what?). This is where the bob birrells of this world come in; (three guesses as to who was responsible for eventual introduction of contributory parent visas at a pretty unaffordable price...) and, no, I am NOT making this up – read up on it – it’s what eventually shaped the industry we have now and the business that we’re in.
So migration IS LIKELY TO BE the next boom after the demise of mining in order to balance our economy ? clearly! I’d be very interested in looking at what further documentation is available –the contents of the article is more of a statement of what is going to happen rather than an opportunity to comment on it; one that looks to me as a tad superficial way of weighing all the pros and cons, digging into the financial gains but with a selective vegetable package at the end of the stick in order to achieve it – to be met by only those who can dig deep (the many millionaires within our region can), only to be partly achieved by very few who need some enticement at the expense of the many - to which the usual nationalist and union suspects are SO opposed.
This is only a lesson in budget adjustments and a clear sign of things to come: when in doubt, bring in rich migrants and stuff the impacts of short sighted policies... So, a) what do others think about this and b) what kind of response do we make and how? Our collective intelligence is required here…
Am I barking up the wrong tree or just ‘barking mad’? This last point is more of a statement than a question so, No, don’t answer THAT, only (a) and (b)