Labour and the Greens have initiated a broader Senate inquiry to investigate the use of temporary working visas and the reported abuse and exploitation of foreign workers, just days after the conclusion of a similar inquiry commissioned by the federal government, according to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald.

The new inquiry follows just days after Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Michaelia Cash, announced that the government will take-up most of the recommendations of an enquiry concluded last month on the 457 visa program.

The new inquiry is expected to have broader terms of reference. ACTU president Ged Kearney said the inquiry would also look at whether employers are genuinely trying to hire Australian workers first. "Australia's migration program should not be at the beck and call of big business" he said.

Greens deputy leader and workplace relations spokesperson Adam Bandt said that "with rising unemployment and a mining investment boom coming off the boil, now is the time to ask whether the current working visa system strikes the right balance".

The Australian Industry Group said the new inquiry was "a waste of Senate time and resources

Just as it is true that every applicant for an Australian visa is subject to the “character test” under section 501 of the Migration Act, it is equally true that applicants for Australian citizenship must pass a second “character test” under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.  The character tests under these laws are not the same: while section 501 of the Migration Act describes with a high level of specificity the types of issues that will disqualify a visa applicant (for example, having a “substantial” criminal record), the Citizenship Act provides only in general terms that an applicant must be a person of “good character” at the time that a decision is made on the application.

Unlike the Migration Act, the Citizenship Act does not include further guidance concerning the meaning of the term “good character”.  The meaning of “good character” has, however, been discussed in decisions of the Federal Court of Australia, including the case of Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs  (1996) FCA 663; (1996) 68 FCR 422. In the Irving case, the Court held that “good character” is to be understood in the “ordinary sense” of these words, and is to be interpreted to mean “the enduring moral qualities of a person”.

The “character test” of the Citizenship Act  proved fatal to an application for citizenship in a case that was decided by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal  earlier this month, FBMR and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, (2015) AATA 116 (2 March 2015).

The Indian man, Jignesh Sanghrajka who won the all-expense trip to watch the cricket finals but was not granted an Australian visa because the case officer formed the opinion that he may not leave Australia, is now making plans to fly to Australia.

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: