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:

1. 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:

  ...

Links to evidence and copies of documents, letters and briefings to MPs that relate to this story can be located at the bottom of this page.

Recently Migration Alliance has been approached by a retired pilot (14,000 hours+) who is now working as a Registered Migration Agent.  Let's call him Agent X.

Most of Agent X's flying was involved with maritime airborne surveillance, the majority of which was involved with customs interdiction.

To cut a long story short, Agent X has had a pretty frustrating time attempting to get the current contractors (let's call them Contractor C) and Border Protection (Michael Crawford), to even listen to some more advanced, more effective, more cost effective radar search techniques.

In so doing Agent X has also identified a serious lack of core surveillance knowledge by Contractor C.

Agent X says:

A case officer who just could not see the wood for the trees in a decision to refuse a young Indian cricket fan a tourist visa, will have that decision internally reviewed by the department’s office in India.

Jignesh Sanghrajka of Mumbai reportedly won an all-expenses paid trip to the MCG for the World Cup final this weekend had his visa application refused because he apparently doesn’t have enough money in the bank, according to a report in The Australian.

For correctly predicting the winner of the February 15 match between India and Pakistan, he won two economy-class return flights, two of the best seats at the MCG and three nights’ twin-share accommodation in a five-star hotel in an Emirates competition. The rough estimate of the package would cost around R3 to 4 lakh per person (which is about AU$12,000 to AU$16,000).

“I was just so taken aback,” he told The Australian. “How could I receive this over 1.2 billion people? I was, like, ‘Wow!’ I immed­iately informed my family and friends (and) decided to take along my brother.”

They submitted their visa ­applications in February, with confirmation of return flights and a supporting letter from the International Cricket Council.

But an Immigration official based in India has denied Mr Sanghrajka a visa, noting in a letter last Wednesday that his ­income is “not significantly high and therefore I am not satisfied such an income/­occupation would constitute an incentive for you to return. Considering this, I am not satisfied that a genuine visit is intended.”

A frightening email message from a Registered Migration Agent and member of Migration Alliance today:

"I apologise for sending this email to your email address; I was hoping to reach Liana but I cannot find her email address in my inbox.

I have had a strange visa grant come in last night. Here are the details:

Toward the end of last year, in December 2014, the Federal Circuit Court (per Judge Nicholls) handed down an important decision concerning the scope of the MRT’s jurisdiction to review decisions of the Department concerning applications for 457 visas.  The Court’s judgment was delivered in the case of Minister for Immigration v Lee & Ors (2014) FCCA 2881 (10 December 2014) and can be reviewed at the following link:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2014/2881.html

It is essential that all RMAs consider the implications of this decision when advising their clients whether to proceed with an appeal in the MRT against the refusal of a 457 application.