6. Reducing Complexities and Costs, Improving Processing Times and Transparency
   1. In March 2023, the final report of the Review of the Migration System judged that the existing system was ‘neither fast nor efficient and is often perceived as unfair’. Further, the report added that those who use the system, among them migrants and businesses, ‘find the system unnecessarily complex and difficult to navigate at all levels’.
   2. The reviewers called for the establishment of six migration principles to ‘set out how Australia will develop and implement its migration policies’. One of them, a commitment by the Australian Government that:

Australia’s migration system is transparent, easy to navigate and decisions are made quickly.

Underlying this principle was recognition that complex and difficult to navigate systems, often resulting in drawn-out wait times for decisions, could ‘fundamentally undermine the benefits of the migration system to both migrants and Australia’.[1]

6.3This evidence is not new. In August 2021, for example, the former Joint Standing Committee on Migration in the 46th Parliament commented in the Final Report of the Inquiry into Australia’s Skilled Migration Program that:

From the evidence received during this inquiry, it is clear to the Committee that the skilled migration program is complex and difficult to navigate.

and

The Committee received evidence outlined both here and in the Interim Report that many skilled visas are difficult to apply for, information is hard to understand for most sponsors and that once an application is made processing times both lack transparency and are lengthy.[2]

6.4As outlined below, the evidence received by the Committee during the current inquiry, also, overwhelmingly echoed the findings of the migration system review. This evidence highlighted friction in the migration system—complexity, cost, elongated processing times—and called for streamlining and transparency. As the Migration Hub at the Australian National University (ANU) reminded the Committee, these are typically ‘interlocking issues’.[3]

Barriers to entry

6.5Part of the application process undertaken by migrants is gathering identity documents, providing biometric data, proving English language proficiency, and undergoing a medical examination and related tests (see Chapter 4 for further detail). For many migrants, accessing these services is onerous, as typically they are not located where they live.

6.6Further, these are processes that usually entail a financial burden as it costs the applicant to travel to designated centres, in addition to the fees charged for the service. As sociologist and doctoral candidate Rafael Azeredo remarked:

Obtaining a place in the Migration program is costly and unaffordable for most people.

He pointed out that the expenses associated with the migration journey extend beyond visa application fees to include skills assessments, health exams, certified translations, English tests, lawyers, and agents.[4]

Biometric data

6.7Applicants are required to supply biometric data for many visa types and/or for applications from countries that are part of Australia’s biometric program.[5]

6.8The Committee heard the frustration experienced by an Australian citizen trying to organise tourist visas for his partner’s two daughters in late 2022. The young women are resident in the Philippines, a nation encompassing more than 7,000 islands, and serviced by two biometric centres (located at Cebu and Manila). Biometric processing required that they travel by land to Davao and then fly to Cebu at a cost of more than $1,100 for travel and accommodation. Although the collection was successful, their initial application was refused. For their subsequent application they were advised that biometric information was again required to be collected, a situation that the submitter described as ‘ludicrous’. To make the system ‘fair and equitable for everyone who travels to Australia’, he called for biometric collection to be undertaken on arrival in Australia or at more accessible locations such as the local police station or government offices. And he suggested that biometrics be stored on a database, available for continued use by the applicant over a defined period.[6]

6.9As discussed in Chapter 4, most[7] offshore visa applicants are required to provide biometrics at an Australian Biometrics Collection centre when they apply for a visa that is part of the biometrics program or if they are from one of the 53 countries that are currently part of Australia’s biometric program. Visa subclasses in the biometrics program span permanent family visas, visitor and other temporary visas, temporary family visas, student visas and may be required for refugee and humanitarian visas. For countries in the biometric program, the Department notes that applicants ‘might’ need to provide biometrics in relation to ‘each visa application’ lodged.

6.10Biometrics provided as part of a visa application are checked against data held by the Department, with fingerprints also being checked against records held by Australian law enforcement and Migration Five partners—a group comprising the immigration authorities of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America—before being stored. Further, to confirm their identity, applicants may again have their biometrics collected on arrival in Australia, for the purpose of being compared against the stored biometric data.[8]

6.11The Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System argues that biometric collection and matching is ‘critical to strengthen border security and detect persons of concern while facilitating legitimate travel’. It notes that the Department’s Identity and Biometrics Strategy is still being rolled out with a view to expanding the number of countries in the program. Full implementation, the report outlines, entails the collection of facial images of all travellers prior to arrival in Australia alongside risk-based fingerprint collection. During the rollout, the review suggested increasing biometric collection on arrival and recommended increasing the capability to conduct a stratified random fingerprint verification program on entry to Australia.[9]

Committee Comment

6.12The Committee acknowledges that it is not feasible that the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) provide a comprehensive network of contracted service providers and panel clinics in all nations. At the same time, it also recognises that access to these services can be costly and time consuming for applicants and, if multiple visits are required, these requirements can pose a significant barrier to applicants.

6.13The Committee also notes that more latitude is afforded to the validity of health assessments than biometrics. The results of an applicant’s health assessment (where tests, documentation and opinions are gathered for the purpose of assessing whether applicants meet Australia’s health requirement) remain valid for 12 months from the time the applicant completed their examinations.[10]

6.14The Committee notes that Australia already collects and matches biometric data for some arrivals upon entry and that this process may be enhanced as part of the Australian Government’s consideration of the increases proposed by the Rapid Review. These processes, the Committee believes, may provide the additional layer of security and identity safeguards that might permit biometric data to remain valid for a limited period and not be tied to a specific visa application.

6.15The Committee also is reassured by the Government Response in relation to the biometric program that:

Strengthened collection and reuse of biometric information is a critical underpinning for anchoring applicant identity early in the visa process, and contributes to streamlined collection of client information (i.e. the ‘tell us once’ principle).[11]

The recommendation below is in line with that ‘tell us once’ principle.

6.16The Committee recommends that the Australian Government allows biometric data collected for visa application purposes be stored and remain valid for 12 months following the date of collection and be useable for multiple visa applications within that period.

6.17The Committee is conscious that it did not receive any direct evidence regarding alternative methods of capturing initial biometric information from applicants, in order to counter some of the issues identified with geographic restrictions on attendance at biometric collection centres. However, the Committee is also conscious of the fact that smart devices and their prevalence in communities across the globe present a potentially untapped source of initial biometric data capture.

6.18Most smart phones and tablets have inbuilt biometric security features for facial recognition, as well as some devices extending to fingerprint capture. Whilst there would be a requirement for verification of supplied data at further stages of the application process, the Committee considers there is merit in the Department of Home Affairs investigating technology and biometrics platform options available for visa applicants to provide initial biometric data via authenticated smart device technology. This could be in the form of an app developed in partnership with hardware providers or software solutions that could be integrated into web-based portal applications.

6.19The Committee is however conscious of the evidence received during this inquiry regarding the disjointed and aged nature of migration ICT systems, so any consideration and development of such an option would need to be considered in the context of any overall ICT upgrade or uplift. More commentary on this is made later in this chapter.

6.20The Committee recommends that as part of any upgrade to information technology upgrades to migration and visa processing systems that the Australian Government considers investigating options for the initial capture and provision of biometric data for visa applicants through utilisation of smart technology biometric capture. This data could then be further verified at Australian Biometrics Collection centres if warranted in country of origin, or verified upon arrival in Australia.

Health examinations

6.21As outlined in Chapter 4, most visa applicants are required to meet minimum health standards. Typically, the health requirements are administered under Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4005 and 4007. The difference between the two criteria is explained in Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (2015), which notes that PIC 4005 ‘prescribes the “standard” health requirement’, while 4007 comprises the standard and also makes provision for a health waiver.[12]

6.22The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) maintained that the criterion allocated to a visa subclass, is applied ‘without apparent logic or equity’. They point to the Skilled Independent visa classes where the PIC applied, varied across the streams of that class.[13]

6.23A joint submission from the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC) and Unions NSW voiced their concern that, without access to a waiver, PIC 4005

… does not allow for consideration to be given to the contribution the visa applicant would make to social, cultural and economic life in Australia or the contribution the person would make to meeting the costs associated with their disability (or whether they would actually access any services).[14]

6.24This concern was echoed by Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and by Welcoming Disability who, in their joint submission, drew on Department of Home Affairs figures to point out that only half of those who failed to meet the health requirements were eligible to apply for a waiver. Of those who were eligible and did apply for a waiver, more than 90 per cent were granted one in both 2020–21 and 2021–22. The high success rate, they considered, was indicative of the large number who, when given the opportunity, were able to demonstrate that ‘the benefits they bring to the community outweigh their notional health costs.’[15]

6.25Those applicants subject to PIC 4005 who are without access to a waiver and have their visa refused after failing to meet the health requirements, may be able to access a merits review of that decision at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) (or the tribunal that succeeds it).[16] However, as the Committee heard, the decision is unlikely to be overturned as the AAT ‘is required to accept the opinion of the MOC [Medical Officer of the Commonwealth] as correct’.[17] And, while this process is costly and time-consuming, it is only after this avenue of appeal is exhausted that applicants are eligible to apply for ministerial intervention.[18]

6.26In the view of registered migration agents Heather Marr, Libby Hogarth, and Nish K Padiya, the merits review process is particularly difficult for skilled migrant families with disabled children, where they note there have been many examples of families facing removal ‘until publicity results in last minute Ministerial decisions’.[19] They highlighted the case of the Kollikara family in Western Australia. The couple arrived on a student visa with their two children, one of whom has Down syndrome and an intellectual disability. The couple began working in high skilled sectors where there was a shortage of workers. They applied for permanent residency but faced deportation after their son failed the health requirements. They garnered media attention, and an online petition secured more than 27,000 signatures supporting their case to remain, before the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs intervened and exercised his public interest power to grant their visa application.[20]

6.27Submitters also drew the attention of the Committee to the Significant Cost Threshold (SCT) that underpins decisions on whether an application meets the health requirements. The SCT was established in 1995 as a policy to ‘contain public expenditure on health care and community services’. The threshold is reviewed on a biennial basis and is calculated using Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports into health and welfare expenditure. For temporary visa applicants, the period of assessment is the term of the visa granted to them; for provisional and permanent visas the period assessed is ten years. Currently $51,000 or more (across the relevant period of assessment) is deemed to be significant.[21]

6.28Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability highlighted the complexity of the health requirement provisions for applicants and families with a disability. They noted the costs associated with the special education of a child with disabilities mean that, if that child is school age and their parents are applying for a visa with a term of more than two years, the application is ‘almost guaranteed to fail the health requirement’, irrespective of whether the child would require special education. The current approach to assessment, they indicated, takes a blanket approach to the education needs of children with disabilities, rather than being sensitive to their individual circumstances.[22]

6.29While the Department does not provide a breakdown of the conditions that trigger refusal of an application on health grounds, the experience of migration lawyers, according to Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, suggests that ‘children with disabilities are the most frequently affected category’. Further, they point out there is inconsistency in how education is treated—that while special education is costed under the health requirements, ‘regular’ education is not deemed a community cost under the requirements.[23]

6.30It was also drawn to the Committee’s attention that the corresponding thresholds in comparable countries such as Canada and New Zealand are much higher than Australia’s SCT. In 2022, New Zealand increased its threshold to the equivalent of A$75,500 over five years. While as of 1 January 2024, Canada increased its threshold to the equivalent of A$29,600 over one year (equating to A$148,000 over five years).[24]

Source: Finn McHugh, 'The Greens want an end to the "unconscionable" deportation of migrants with disability', SBS News, 9 August 2023

6.31The Committee acknowledges that the Australian Government is currently undertaking a review of Australia’s visa Significant Cost Threshold.[25] It notes that there is overlap between submissions to that review and the concerns raised by submitters to the Migration, Pathway to Nation Building inquiry.

Committee Comment

6.32The Committee notes the objectives of the Australian Government’s Migration Strategy (the Strategy) to both:

• build a targeted temporary skilled migration system and
• help secure Australia’s long-term prosperity by reshaping the permanent skilled migration system.[26]
  33. The Committee also observes that visa categories likely to bring in migrants to assist in these objectives are subject to PIC 4005 and are not eligible to apply for a health waiver. It follows from the evidence heard by the Committee that, given the opportunity, a proportion of applicants currently denied access to apply for a waiver, might also be able to demonstrate that they too bring benefits to Australia’s social, cultural, and economic life that outweighs their potential healthcare costs.
  34. The Committee is of the view that allowing all visa applicants the opportunity to apply for a waiver of the health requirement, along with an increase to the Significant Cost Threshold will streamline the existing process. It will establish a more holistic approach to the assessment of the merits of visa applications, reduce the burden on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (and its successor tribunal) and, in turn, applications for ministerial intervention. It would also help to ensure that families with disabled children are not disproportionately disadvantaged, and that Australia does not ‘miss out’ on migrants who could have the potential to make an overwhelmingly valuable contribution to our nation.

6.35The Committee recommends that the Australian Government explores simplifying the health requirements to a single Public Interest Criterion that incorporates an entitlement to apply for a waiver of the health requirements.

6.36The Committee recommends that the Australian Government removes specialised education services from the description of ‘community service costs’ in the policy settings for the Australian visa Significant Cost Threshold, with appropriate considerations to Budget impacts.

6.37The Committee recommends that the Australian Government increases the Significant Cost Threshold to an amount that will enable Australia to remain competitive with comparable countries, with appropriate consideration to Budget impacts.

English language proficiency

6.38The Department of Home Affairs outlines that English language requirements are a means by which immigration risk is managed and the capacity of visa holders to fully participate in Australian society is confirmed.[27]

6.39Proof of English language proficiency is required for most visa applicants intending to work or undertake study in Australia. The standard of proficiency required varies according to visa subclass, and typically ranges from functional through to superior English.[28]

6.40For some proficiency levels there is more than one means by which a visa applicant can satisfy the English requirement. For functional, vocational, and competent English this includes being a citizen and holder of a valid passport issued by the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, or the Republic of Ireland. Proof of functional English might also comprise having completed a specific number of years of study (at a particular level or location), where the instruction was provided in English. For all proficiency levels, proof can be supplied by achieving a designated score in an approved test.[29]

6.41Scores from one of the following four tests are accepted by the Department when taken at a secure test centre:

• International English Language Testing System (including One Skill Retake);
• Pearson Test of English;
• Cambridge English; and
• Occupational English Test (for health professionals).
  42. For Australian migration purposes, the Department does not accept scores achieved in tests that you can take at home or online.[30]
  43. The duration of the validity of the score achieved on an English proficiency test varies by level. Applicants for visas requiring functional English, must have tested successfully at that standard in the 12 months prior to making their application.[31] For visas requiring a higher standard of English, applicants typically need to be able to demonstrate that they achieved the required score relevant to the standard of proficiency specified for their visa class in the three years prior to either the date of their application or their invitation to apply (depending on the visa subclass).[32]
  44. In March 2024, the English language proficiency requirements for Student and Temporary Graduate visas tightened. For Temporary Graduate Visas (TGV) the minimum proficiency score required increased, while the duration of the validity of that test decreased from three to one year. Likewise, the minimum score increased for most student visas.[33]

Student visas

6.45The Committee heard from Mr James Holden, the Australian and New Zealand Country Director for Duolingo, a global company specialising in the use of technology to deliver language services and products. He maintained that Australia’s reliance on physical language centres for testing English is

…some of the most outdated, some of the most arduous and, now, some of the most uncompetitive aspects of our [Australia’s] migration policy.[34]

6.46The requirement that visa applicants undertake paper-based English language proficiency tests, Duolingo submitted, creates three ‘massive’ barriers:

• Accessibility—not all countries have test centres, or they are limited in number. Further, those needing to take a test, are required to plan ahead to secure an appointment slot, have the time and funds available to travel to the location, and may have to undertake the process again (for example if they are unsuccessful or if there is an unforeseen cancelation).
• Reliability—the requirement for testing in secure centres has been found to lack resilience in the event of a pandemic, conflict, environmental disasters, or even criminal fraud. (Duolingo noted one case in Vietnam that led to the closure of a centre.)
• Affordability—the cost of a test is more than double the average monthly salary for workers in many countries. In addition, applicants may incur further expenses if they need to travel to the test or undertake multiple tests.[35]
  47. Many countries, Duolingo stated, have adopted ‘modern secure digital tests’ to reduce the costs to applicants and enhance access. In the education sector, they noted that those seeking a student visa to commence university studies in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, are no longer required to sit a paper-based test.
  48. Instead, higher education student visa applicants to these nations must have received an offer to commence study at a relevant university, the offer serving as an indication that they have met the admission requirements of that institution (which may include a digital language test to demonstrate English language proficiency).
  49. The adoption of digital testing, Duolingo argued, allows countries to be more competitive, enabling them to ‘attract a substantially broader, more diverse group of students and migrants’. Further, they argued that Australia will be left behind if it does not transition to digital testing.[36]
  50. Their submission proposed that an Australian student visa digital testing pilot be undertaken. For it to proceed, the Department of Home Affairs would be required to accept the outcome of a digital test (without the need for an additional paper-based test in a secure centre) if an international student has secured acceptance to an Australian university relying on that result. As a safeguard, they noted the proviso that the student’s status and academic progress continues to be monitored.
  51. Duolingo maintained that the pilot is low risk, as only those who are academically talented and meet university entry requirements would be eligible. Further, they considered that the pilot would help make Australian universities more competitive and requires no significant policy changes.
  52. The Committee also heard evidence from Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, and the commercial director for the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) at that firm. IELTS includes one of the tests accepted by the Department of Home Affairs for use by those seeking to migrate to Australia.
  53. Dienhoff argued against Duolingo’s construction of the issue as digital versus paper-based testing. She asserted that, so long as the test takes place in a secure testing centre, not online and not at home, the Department accepts both paper-based and computer-based tests. Tests taken at home, she stated are ‘not accepted for visa purposes by the Australian Government, nor by most other governments of English-speaking countries’.[37]
  54. Further, Dienhoff maintained that digital testing taking place outside of a testing centre makes up a small proportion of the overall industry and it is still in the ‘early adopter phase’. She regarded the approach taken by the Department to testing as prudent as it allows them to maintain high standards and integrity in the process. She added that:

IDP believes it is too important to the integrity of the education system and the accreditation of temporary and permanent migrants to Australia to leave English language tests to the trends and whims of new tech.[38]

6.55Dienhoff pointed out that the ‘controlled and standardised environment’ of secure test centres, mitigates the ‘risk of potential fraud and malpractice attempts’. To illustrate this point, she drew the Committee’s attention to the UK where, during the pandemic, a number of higher education institutions relaxed their requirements to allow online English testing only to withdraw some student placement offers after cheating concerns.[39]

6.56Drawing on IDP Education’s more than twenty years’ experience in testing for the Australian migration system, she observed that many test takers prefer the familiar paper-based format. The secure test centre, she argued, offers an inclusive space for applicants who otherwise might face accessibility or technology barriers that prevent them from undertaking an online test.

6.57With more than 4,000 secure test locations worldwide for IELTS, she asserted that IDP Education can

… ensure that all prospective migrants have equal opportunities to demonstrate their language skills without hindrance, promoting a fair and equitable assessment process.[40]

6.58Dienhoff also drew attention to IDP Education’s new product—‘One Skill Retake’—that aims to minimise the cost to applicants who fail one of the four skills (Listening, Reading, Writing and Speaking) assessed by the IELTS test. Accepted by the Department for most visa subclasses[41], the One Skill Retake provides visa applicants with a single opportunity to undertake re-examination of one skill, rather than the entire test.[42]

6.59The new Migration Strategy affirmed the Australian Government’s intention to continue to strengthen the integrity and quality of international education. In line with the findings of the Nixon review, the Strategy endeavours to reduce exploitation of the student visa system. To achieve this, the Action Plan introduces a range of new measures including increasing English language requirements, strengthening requirements for international education providers, greater scrutiny of student visa applications from high-risk providers, and introducing a Genuine Student Test.[43]

Work Visas

6.60When talking more generally about English language acquisition, testing, and the barriers faced by migrants, Ms Stephanie Long, Systemic Advocacy and Strategic Projects Lead, Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, reminded the Committee that:

English proficiency is not a measure of functional language acquisition that enables people to manage their daily lives, work, pay taxes and contribute to the community.[44]

6.61Certainly, several witnesses considered that there is a mismatch between the English language requirements specified for a visa applicant and the language requirements necessary for people to perform their work in a safe manner.

6.62Mrs Alex Waldren, National Directory Industry Policy, Master Builders Australia, for one, argued that the level of English proficiency required for construction workers was ‘probably too high’ and called for language testing to ‘reflect the work that’s needed’.[45]

6.63The Committee also heard the frustration of Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director, Cutri Fruit, and the challenges he faced in his efforts to secure horticultural workers. Of the English language testing he remarked ‘[w]ho cares’ if they ‘have a score of five or 5.5 or six’. He only wanted ‘great workers’ in his employment and hired those intellectually and verbally equipped to do the job.[46]

6.64Testing also proves to be a barrier for some of those already in Australia who endeavour to progress from a temporary visa to a permanent residency pathway.[47] Mrs Julie Williams, National President, MIA, pointed out that as English language tests only remain valid for three years, many are required to redo and pass this test to satisfy the permanent visa requirements. For Ms Williams it was ‘ludicrous’ that a temporary visa holder who had been working in Australia with a level of English sufficient to undertake the tasks required of their employment, was required to undertake yet another English language test that was mentally draining and costly.[48]

6.65Drawing on its research into the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, VETASSESS’s submission was similarly critical of the requirement that visa applicants, who had been stranded onshore, had to retake English language proficiency tests due to the expiry of their previous examinations.[49]

6.66When asked about access to tests, Ms Dienhoff, of IDP Education, highlighted recent initiatives to improve access to English language tests including trials of mobile testing on a bus, and demand driven off-site testing where the examination was taken to a local community. And, while these were currently options utilised overseas, she noted that these had the potential to be applied in Australia in the future.[50]

Committee Comment

6.67At a time when ICT systems used by the Department of Home Affairs are under review, it is timely that the Department explores the potential of digital processes that could feed into any new or upgraded system.

6.68In the English language testing sector, the Committee recognises that there is tension between the opportunity to enhance access and the imperative to maintain integrity in the system by minimising the chance of fraud. Consequently, it is essential that any digital system is rigorously tested to examine whether it will be fit for the purposes of the migration system.

6.69The Committee recommends that the Government undertakes a digital English language test pilot and suggests that the higher education space, particularly given the integrity measures outlined in the Migration Strategy Action Plan, offers a low-risk testing environment that should be harnessed for such a purpose. As such, a digital English language test pilot would be safeguarded by the new Genuine Student Test[51], alignment of the English language admission requirements with recent increases to the test scores[52], and complemented by ongoing academic assessment at higher education institutions.

6.70As IDP Education pointed out, however, there is also benefit in maintaining a nimble system that offers a variety of testing options, be they digital or paper based. The Committee views initiatives such as mobile testing and the One Skill Retake offering as good examples that provide flexibility and reduce the burdens on visa applicants.

6.71The Committee was also of the view that the Australian Government should ensure that the ‘bar’ in respect to English language proficiency, is not set too high for the work that vias holders are expected to perform. Moreover, the Committee believes that a commonsense approach should be adopted in relation to whether it is necessary to retest visa applicants who are located and living in Australia. Such an approach would appropriately recognise that an applicant had passed the English language requirement necessary for admission to Australia and, since then, had been an active member of the Australian community. It would also acknowledge that for some applicants the expiry of their initial test was beyond their control due to delays in processing and the COVID-19 pandemic.

6.72The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertakes a digital English language testing pilot in the higher education sector, to examine the robustness of a digital system to withstand or detect fraud, and consider the feasibility of a broader roll out.

6.73The Committee recommends that the Australian Government empowers Jobs and Skills Australia to review the English language requirements for a range of occupational roles to ensure that they align with the work and safety requirements of the position.

6.74The Committee recommends that the Australian Government removes the requirement to retest the English language proficiency of visa applicants already in Australia, where the level of proficiency required is the same or lower than the English language requirement that the applicant had previously satisfied.

Following the rules

6.75The work undertaken by Department of Home Affairs staff in relation to its migration settlement and citizenship programs is regulated by legislation and regulation—most notably the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations)—aided by an array of policy documents. As Mr Michael Pezzullo, then Secretary of the Department, succinctly explained to the Committee:

We just apply the law as it is written. If you change the law, we’ll apply it differently.[53]

The clarity of the then Secretary’s statement, however, belies the complexity of the regulatory framework which confronts applicants, migration lawyers, and registered migration agents, among others.

6.76Ms Maria Jockel, Global and National Immigration Leader, Accredited Immigration Law Specialist, Legal Principal and Managing Director, BDO Migration Services, expressed her frustration that

… through the nearly four decades I've worked in this jurisdiction, simplification has only resulted in more of the same. We've collapsed the visas from 153, if I recall correctly, to 99. We still have 3,000 pages of highly codified legislation and multiple schedules in the legislation underpinned by over 50,000 pages of internal policy guidelines to which I and my legal team work.[54]

To Jockel, complexity in Australia’s migration system is longstanding and embedded in the legislation.

Legislation

6.77The final report of the Review of the Migration System assessed that

… [c]reating a fit for purpose system will require major reform, it cannot be achieved by further tinkering and incrementalism.[55]

6.78While recognising that their proposals for reform would entail ‘substantial legislative change’, the reviewers considered that the existing legislative framework underpinning the migration system remained ‘broadly fit for purpose’. In their view, the Act did not need to be replaced, but ‘phased’ reform of the legislation was required, focussing on opportunities for simplification or modernisation.[56]

6.79The reviewers’ reluctance to propose repealing and replacing the Act, in part, stems from their assessment that the current Act provides ‘a relatively high degree of certainty’, having been tried and tested in the courts. A new legislative framework, they warn, would not provide the benefit of such certainty.[57]

6.80Further, they maintain that ‘[a]rguably, the migration legislation is not unusual in its complexity’ and that the ‘legislative framework necessarily reflects the complexity of migration policy settings’. Drawing on a 2022 blog post by University of New South Wales academics on legislative complexity, the reviewers remarked that theAct, despite having risen from 15,614 to 222,519 words (an increase of 1,325 per cent), had a comparatively low word count. They also observed that the rate of change to the Act was below average at roughly once every two months (amended 55 times, comprising 1,056 individual amendments).[58]

6.81Yet, as the Migration Hub at ANU pointed out, the current migration system was established at a time when Australia was ‘less diverse than it is today’. Adding, while this diversity presents opportunities, it also brings challenges that, in their view, required ‘innovative regulatory and governance responses’.[59]

6.82Certainly, the Committee became concerned about the enduring effects of legislation created in 1958, a period in which notions of a male primary bread winner was prevalent. Its attention was drawn to the issue of secondary applicants and how the process by which they are dealt with under the Act could be considered out of touch with current community expectations.

6.83As the Women’s Legal Services Australia submission pointed out, that we know most about primary applicants—who are overwhelmingly male—and gather little information about secondary applicants, ‘reinforces’ the gendered nature of Australia’s migration system.[60]

6.84For Vialto Partners, the lack of recognition given to the family members of employer sponsored visa applicants is a missed opportunity. As partners of successful applicants have full working rights, they argue that Australia should have a mechanism whereby applicants’ partners who also meet the skills criteria are given priority visa processing.[61]

6.85While broader issues associated with maximising the contribution of secondary applicants after arrival will be considered in more detail in Chapter 8, the Committee was interested in understanding how secondary applicants are processed under the Act and whether greater recognition of their skills might improve the chance of their visa application being successful.

6.86In particular, members of the Committee sought answers from senior staff at the Department as to why the skills and qualifications of secondary applicants were not appropriately assessed and valued.

6.87Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, at the Department acknowledged that the Act was ‘quite old now’ and the current process for dealing with family members of the primary applicant was a ‘legacy of how the [A]ct was first drafted’. She explained:

It's really been designed in a way where what we call the primary applicant has to meet the criteria around age, language, skill and qualifications et cetera. Family members just need to demonstrate that they are, in fact, a family member of that primary applicant.[62]

6.88Departmental witnesses stressed that this process could be altered, with Ms Cavanagh remarking ‘[o]f course, that can be legislated differently in a future system’. When asked directly by the Committee, what changes were necessary, Mr Pezzullo responded that Departmental delegates needed to have the option to assign value to the skills and qualifications held by a person who is not the visa applicant and that this provision needed to be reflected in theAct.[63]

Committee Comment

6.89The Committee takes the point made by the reviewers of the migration system that there is value in an established legislative framework. The Committee, however, does remain concerned that, despite the number and rate of amendments since 1958, legacy issues continue to arise from the Act having been born of a societal past that bears little resemblance to today.

6.90In particular, the evidence heard by the Committee highlighted that the Act is out of step with community expectations in only assigning value to the skills and qualifications of the primary applicant. This approach means that the Australian Government has little information about those who accompany primary applicants, limiting its ability to address their needs, foster their potential, or harness the contribution they can make to the nation.

6.91The Committee recommends that the Australian Government conducts a comprehensive review to guide the staged reform of the Migration Act 1958 to ensure that the Act remains fit for purpose as the legislative framework supporting the new migration strategy.

6.92The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amends the Migration Act 1958, and any other relevant subordinate legislation, to enable recognition of the skills, and qualifications of secondary applicants when considering the primary applicant’s visa suitability.

Visa Categories

6.93The Committee heard from a number of witnesses who called for streamlining of visa categories and/or a reduction in their number. The submission from VETASSESS, for example, pointed out that Australia’s migration system comprised 12 visa categories that are accessed by more than 90 visa pathways. Characterising the system as ‘complex and time-intensive’ and in need of simplification, VETASSESS believed the solution was fewer visas, each with a ‘well-defined purpose and easy to understand criteria and eligibility’.[64]

6.94For the Australian College of Nursing (ACN), complexity embedded in the visa system had several causes. They drew attention to the system being ‘notoriously difficult to navigate, with multiple visa categories’ and that these challenges were intensified by elongated wait times.[65] The Swan Hill Rural City Council echoed the ACN’s concerns and proposed that a review of visa categories be undertaken with a view to reducing their number and making the process more straightforward.[66]

6.95Multicultural Australia drew attention to the benefits that were likely to flow from the simplification of visa categories. They noted that the Department might face a reduction in administrative and compliance costs and resources. Moreover, in their view, a simplified system would also be ‘instrumental in promoting social cohesion’.’[67]

6.96Some witnesses pointed out that in the past, changes to the migration system sometimes had the effect of compounding its complexity. Fragomen (Australia) Pty Ltd, for example, raised the issue of short-term concessions. While, on the one hand, they welcomed the concessions that were introduced for Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa holders who were onshore during the pandemic, on the flipside, they recognised that short-term concessions added ‘further complexity to the patchwork of eligibility criteria for employer sponsored permanent residence’.[68]

6.97The Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) was similarly critical of the introduction of visa arrangements by other agencies such as the Pacific Australia Labour Mobility scheme (PALM scheme) managed by the departments of Employment and Workplace Relations, and Foreign Affairs and Trade. They argue that the introduction of such arrangements only added to the complexities by creating additional visa streams linked to new policy initiatives. They told the Committee that their members were of the view that ‘rules were needed to prevent the further expansion of visa categories’.[69]

6.98Several submissions noted that simplification had been tried before without success. As noted earlier, Maria Jockel complained ‘simplification has only resulted in more of the same’.[70]

6.99The CPSU attributed the failures of previous attempts to a reluctance to do things like ‘reducing requirements and removing restrictions on work rights’. Further, they claimed that efforts intended to reduce the number of visa streams ‘became a rebranding exercise’ that had the effect of disadvantaging some applicants and visa holders.[71]

6.100Moreover, as Dr Andrew Theophanous, a former Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, pointed out, recommendations to improve the visa processing system had been made previously by the Committee. He particularly identified the need to implement recommendation 12 made by the Committee for its 2021 Inquiry into Australia’s Skilled Migration Program that the Department of Home Affairs ‘update their visa processing system to ensure a more streamlined application process for applicants and employers’.[72]

6.101Ms Bronwyn Markey, Senior Manager, Professional Services, at the MIA, recalled that while a prior attempt at visa simplification did reduce the number of visas, it resulted in an increase in the number of visa streams. As Ms Markey put it, ‘we ended up having one visa class with 21 streams’. Consequently, the MIA suggested that the emphasis should shift from the number of visas, towards simplification so that the processing would be faster.[73]

6.102Reflecting on their own migration system, Mr Richard Owen, General Manager of Immigration Risk and Border at Immigration New Zealand, noted that like Australia they had a ‘long list of visa types’. Simplification, he believed was desirable, reasoning that:

The broader the range and the broader the different policy intent, the more complex it becomes in terms of designing new systems and processes; therefore, as a consequence, it’s more complicated for your customers, or their representatives, like immigration advisers and the like.[74]

6.103The Australian Government’s Migration Strategy acknowledged that, while ‘[g]enuine simplification is more than a reduction in the number of visas’, the ‘proliferation’ of visas made the system challenging for applicants to navigate and for departmental staff to administer.[75]

6.104In their final report, the reviewers of the Migration System commented that concerns about the number of visa types partly resulted from diagrams of visa subclasses and streams (see Figure 7.2), that were somewhat misleading about the scale and degree of complexity of the visa system. Such diagrams, they pointed out, include many legacy visa classes (encircled by a dotted line) that are no longer available. While the reviewers did note that there might be scope to remove inactive and duplicate visa products, they argued that a streamlined system was more likely to be achieved through policy simplification and a reduction in the complexity of visa requirements, rather than a decrease in the number of visas. Moreover, they pointed out that if the number of visas is reduced too much, the migration system is unlikely to meet the needs of government. In the view of the reviewers, an enhanced engagement with the migration system could be achieved through ‘improved client interfaces and service delivery’.[76]

Source: Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, p. 179.

6.105The Grattan Institute advocated for a ‘less prescriptive visa system’. In their view a system that is too granular, seeking to target specific skills or capabilities, was ‘likely to prove counterproductive’. In considering the consequences of such a system, they pointed to problems including lags between the identification of an occupation being in demand to when it is added on the skilled migration occupation list. Even once an identified migrant arrives, they added, there is no guarantee that they will remain in that field or be working at their skill level. Instead, the Institute argued for a simpler more flexible approach that focused on skilled workers capable of earning high wages, regardless of the occupation (Chapter 7 discuses this issue in more detail).[77]

6.106The Law Council of Australia (Law Council), likewise, called for the removal of ‘overly prescriptive aspects of the visa processing framework which impede dynamic and responsive visa processing’. In particular, the Law Council highlighted inflexibility and opacity in the employer sponsored visa program that impedes the ability of businesses to attract and retain workers to service their needs. While recognising recent government efforts to reduce the visa processing backlog, they (and particularly the Queensland Legal Service) called for better communication and assistance to sponsoring employers to help navigate the complexity, ensure the lodging of ‘decision ready applications’, and ultimately contribute to a more streamlined process.[78]

6.107The importance of communication was echoed by the NSW Government’s submission. In their view, immediate action was required to:

Develop whole-of-government strategic communications to promote understanding and use of visa products and increase the ease of navigating the migration system.

While their longer-term recommendation was to:

Simplify the Commonwealth Government’s core visa products and settings to improve transparency, simplicity, processing times, affordability and increase the attractiveness of migrating to Australia.[79]

6.108Some witnesses highlighted how the complexity of the visa system, with multiple visas and streams, facilitated permanent or protracted temporariness. Sociologist Rafael Azeredo drew on his doctoral research that found hundreds of thousands of migrants struggle to move from temporary visas to a permanent visa. He pointed out that, by and large, this cohort are lawful and documented, they are active members in Australian society, they pay taxes, work, and study.

6.109Azeredo described these migrants as ‘trapped’, unable to secure a pathway to the permanency they desire, they consequently lack entitlements to services and are vulnerable to exploitation. Many, he noted, have valuable skills and qualifications, but these do not appear on the shortage list. He recommended that measures be implemented to enable protracted temporary migrants to transition to permanent residency. Among them, he suggested the continuation of the July 2022 COVID-19 pandemic measures expanding the eligibility of TSS (subclass 482) visa holders to the Temporary Residence Transition stream.[80]

6.110The Committee notes that in April 2023 the then Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Clare O’Neil MP, spoke on the need to end permanent temporariness by avoiding policies and conditions that create this situation, the provision of permanent resident pathways to those with desirable skills, and providing greater clarity to other workers about their prospect of becoming a permanent resident.[81] In November 2023 the Australian Government introduced measures to ‘provide a simpler and clearer pathway to permanent residence for TSS visa holders’, including expansion of the eligibility of all TSS visa streams to access the Employer Nomination Scheme (subclass 186) Temporary Residence Transition Stream.[82]

6.111The Australian Government also highlighted ‘visa hopping’ (moving between different temporary visas when already in-country) as an issue in the Migration Strategy. The Government has committed to implementing measures during early to mid-2024 to:

Restrict onshore visa hopping that undermines system integrity and drives ‘permanent temporariness’.

While the Government particularly focused on students and graduates who were endeavouring to prolong their stay. The report foreshadowed that it was also considering additional measures to limit onshore visa hopping ‘where it circumvents offshore processes’.[83]

Committee Comment

6.112In its submission, the Department of Home Affairs recognised that, alongside outreach and engagement, ‘visa processing times are also critical in ensuring that Australia remains an attractive destination to travel, work and live’. The submission indicated that this recognition translated into action, and told the Committee that, ‘[i]n key visa programs, the Department is now finalising more visas than before the pandemic’.[84] Although encouraged by these developments, the Committee remains concerned about the effect that shifting priorities has on wait times for processing applications that sit outside ‘key’ programs.

6.113The Committee also acknowledges that the Government’s Migration Strategy has made a new commitment to ‘abolish unnecessary and duplicative visas to simplify the visa system’. Alongside this, there will be ‘ongoing’ measures to modernise the system, reduce the visa processing backlog, and embed simplification as a ‘key objective’ into all of its actions.[85] While these objectives are to be applauded, the Committee agrees with the CPSU that the Migration Strategy’s progress towards these commitments should be regularly reported.[86] Moreover, the Committee believes that the success of these measures should be subject to recurrent review both internally by the Department (ideally via the Department’s Performance Framework) and periodically by an independent body such as the Australian National Audit Office.

6.114The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develops internal mechanisms to assess, and report publicly in relevant Annual Reports, the effectiveness of the measures introduced to:

• reduce the visa backlog;
• modernise the visa system; and
• embed simplification as a key objective of all actions in the Migration Strategy.

6.115The Committee recommends that, in due course, the Auditor-General and Australian National Audit Office considers conducting a performance audit into the effectiveness of the measures outlined in Recommendation 16.

Garnering trust

6.116The Committee heard that complexity in the migration system was compounded by a lack of transparency, accountability, and integrity, that further eroded the confidence of applicants, businesses, migration advice agents, and other users.

6.117Mr Peter Barns, Chair of the Rural Workforce Agencies, described the migration system as being ‘like a field of flaming hoops that people have to jump through’. He explained further that:

There could be a hundred hoops they've got to jump through. Each hoop has a little website attached to it that has information that is confusing and is not even connected to the next hoop. I don't know which order you're supposed to jump through these hoops, and they're very costly. So you can get through hoop 2 and then discover you've got to go back through hoop 1 because you didn't do it the right way. And it just goes on and on and on. It can take between 12 to 24 months for people to jump through all the hoops. Sometimes they have to go back and redo a hoop, getting burned in the process and costing a lot of money.

This experience, he summed up, was negative, time consuming, and sent mixed messages to potential applicants.[87]

6.118The MIA told the Committee that frequent policy changes served to ‘reduce confidence in the longer-term stability of Australia’s migration programs’. They quoted one member who claimed that it was ‘practically impossible to give advice that is not immediately compromised by policy change or exercise of hidden discretion and delay at just about every level of decision making’.

6.119The MIA noted also instances of contradictions between legislative changes and Departmental policy interpretations. They wrote with concern that long-standing policies are changed ‘without warning or notification’. Adding that the haste in making these changes, has had ‘unintended consequences’ that are, in turn, addressed by ‘further legislative amendment or policy “workaround”’. Additionally, the MIA claimed that these ad hoc changes are ‘frequently at odds with the migration legislation’ and they contended that they ‘would not be upheld in tribunal or judicial proceedings’.[88]

6.120The challenges and opacity faced by applicants and other users of Australia’s migration system, the Committee heard, is not confined to the intricacies of legislation and regulations. Many experienced difficulties in being able to navigate the Department’s website to find information essential to their application. In 2020 and 2021, VETASSESS surveyed more than 1,400 successful visa applicants who had undertaken a skills assessment. As part of that survey, they asked whether the information provided on the Department of Home Affairs’ website was ‘useful’. Tellingly the answer was overwhelmingly negative (see Figure 6.3) with some 60 to 70 per cent disagreeing with the statement.

Source: VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 15

6.121Science & Technology Australia informed the Committee of the challenges faced by universities navigating the migration system in their efforts to recruit the best postgraduate students and researchers. They highlighted inefficient visa processing and a lack of transparency as the key issues faced by applicants and their supporting tertiary institutions. As an example, they related the case of a university which endeavoured to recruit two doctoral students. The students had much in common: they applied to undertake the same course, had the same country of origin, and made their visa application within two weeks of each other. Yet, the experience of these applicants was widely divergent, with one of the students receiving their visa in the following fortnight, while the application of the other candidate languished for more than a year. They conveyed their frustration at the lack of explanation for such delays and concern at the effect of inconsistent visa processing on their ability to recruit top graduates.[89]

6.122The MIA also argued that accountability and transparency in the migration system should not be confined to the operations of government departments. In their view, the same set of standards should extend to those external bodies that ‘provide input on which the Department of Home Affairs relies as part of the legal process for both temporary and permanent residence visa processes’.[90]

6.123Certainly, the Committee heard criticism of the cumulative amount of time taken by the Department along with external bodies. Ms Rebecca Baggiano, Special Counsel at Fragomen (Australia) Pty Ltd, detailed the many conditions that needed to be satisfied for the Skilled Employer Sponsored Regional (Provisional) visa (subclass 494). Taking the example of a human resource advisor, they note that in addition to the applicant requiring three years post qualification employment experience, they would need to achieve a positive skills assessment (a process conducted by VETASSESS taking 12 to 20 weeks), alongside the nominating employer undertaking four weeks of labour market testing, and endorsement by a regional certifying body. All up, they estimate a visa processing time frame of 10 to 16 months.[91]

6.124The Committee also received a submission from three Registered Migration Agents (RMAs), representing an informal group of RMAs and migration lawyers, who referred to the last five years in the industry as a ‘very dark and distressing period’. Drawing on the group’s collective 160 years of experience, they argued that the migration system had become less transparent and more punitive in its operation.

6.125Their submission pointed out the challenges of interacting with the Department. They noted that it had become progressively difficult to make direct contact with decision makers, that increasingly Departmental officers were identified only by a position number and contact is funnelled through online portals. They recorded with frustration the poor treatment that RMA’s experienced when dealing with Departmental officers.[92]

6.126They recalled an earlier period when the motto of the former Department was “People—our business” (2005–2014[93]) and officers of the relevant department worked together with RMAs to ‘ensure informed, fair and timely decisions’. That joint mission, they indicated, had ended some time ago and quoted the 2021 submission of Ms Marion Le to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee’, that, in their view, continued to reflect the current situation:

Migration Agents are seldom recognised for the important role they can play in assessing the veracity of the claims of applicants and communication between Migration Agents and assessing officers is now almost non-existent.[94]

6.127Mr Gabriel Dain, Operations Manager at the Migrant Workers Centre Inc., also reminded the Committee of the effect that an inefficient and convoluted migration system can have on individuals and their trust in that system:

This complex and uncertain migration system has profound implications for migrants' lives and their ability to be full members of the community. Safe, secure, fair jobs are essential for dignity and to be full members of the community for those who are able to work. You cannot feel at home where you are exploited. You cannot feel at home where you are discriminated against. You cannot feel at home where you're uncertain about your future or your family's future. [95]

6.128The Committee notes that many of these issues have been considered by previous inquiries. Perhaps most notably the 2022 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into The efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allow for family and partner reunions. The resulting report contained just two recommendations[96]:

The committee recommends that, as a matter of urgency, the Department of Home Affairs develops a long-term strategy to update its system for the processing of visas; to improve its efficiency, to reduce its complexities, reduce waiting times substantially, and to provide greater transparency for applicants.

and

The committee recommends that the Australian government appropriately resources the Department of Home Affairs to undertake, urgently, the development of the strategy and its timely implementation, as outlined in Recommendation 1.

While the Migration Strategy addresses aspects of these recommendations, the Government formally responded to both recommendations with the following:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.[97]

An Expensive Exercise

6.129The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA) were one of several witnesses who pointed out that the complexity associated with finding information and making applications results in potential migrants who are more likely to submit an invalid application, be frustrated by their inability to satisfy the requirements, or have their application rejected. Few, they noted, have the capacity to pay for the assistance of an RMA or a lawyer to navigate the system as to do so would incur additional costs of $4000-5000 on top of the visa fee.[98]

6.130As Rafael Azeredo told the Committee, there is a lack of equity in the migration system that has the result of placing those with funds in a more advantageous position. He noted, for example, that applicants with greater financial resources might take several English proficiency tests until they gain a better language skill ranking and, by so doing, improve their points score. More generally, he observed the range of expenses potential visa applicants might incur:

In addition to application fees, there are several other costs involved in the application for permanent visas, such as paying for skills assessments, health exams, certified translations, English tests, lawyers and agents, among others.[99]

6.131The Migrant Workers Centre pointed out that many migrants are vulnerable to unscrupulous actors in the migration service industry. They called for improvements in the quality and integrity of the industry to help prevent unethical businesses from manipulatively profiting from their client’s unfamiliarity with the Australian system, or insecure migration status.[100]

6.132Some witnesses regarded the fees imposed on applicants as a moneymaking exercise. In respect to English language tests, Duolingo quoted research recording that Australian migrants found the costs ‘intolerably exorbitant’ and that these costs, along with the frequent need to retake tests, was ‘a reflection of private companies’ profit-seeking from migrants without alternatives’.[101]

6.133The Grattan Institute, meanwhile, pointed out that Australia’s visa fees are higher than comparable countries and ‘go far beyond’ the amount needed to recoup the costs of administering the system.[102] A joint submission from peak bodies representing the licenced hospitality and accommodation industry also noted the high cost of Australia’s fees when compared to those of rival countries but instead called for ‘benchmarking’ of visa prices to enhance the nation’s competitiveness in attracting international talent.[103]

6.134Drawing on the Productivity Commission’s 2016 Migrant Intake into Australia inquiry, FECCA noted significant increases in visa charges such that the revenue generated was more than triple the cost of processing the applications. They called on the Australian Government to reduce the cost to ‘better reflect the actual cost of visa processing’.[104]

6.135Several submissions made the point that expenses related to visa applications could be minimised if Australia put in place a simpler, easier to navigate migration system. For example, the Australian College of Nursing argued that strategies to attract and retain Internationally Qualified Nurses and Midwives (IQNMs) should begin with streamlining application and registration processes and in reducing the associated costs. They noted that the cost of the permanent visa and the expenses associated with registration, alongside the delays associated with these processes, has pushed applicants to relocate to other countries.[105]

6.136Likewise, the National Farmers’ Federation drew attention to the ‘significant costs’ associated with skills shortage visas, encompassing visa fees, assistance from migration agents or other experts, and the requirement for sponsoring employers to contribute to the Skilling Australians Fund. While acknowledging some of the costs were ‘understandable’, others, they believed, could be minimised through simplification and streamlining and, in so doing, reduce visa processing cost and the need to engage migration experts.[106]

6.137The joint submission from the Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre noted a dramatic increase in the costs associated with applications in the Family Stream making them inaccessible to applicants on low incomes. Over the ten years from July 2012 to 2022, the visa application fee had risen almost fourfold from $2,060 to $8,082. This is additional to the fees for dependent children ($2,025 for those under 18 and $4,045 for those over that age) and the ‘hidden costs’ for required tests and checks, or payment for migration or translation assistance. They hold the position that, ‘[g]iven the essential nature of family reunion, visas must be accessible to all people regardless of economic circumstances’. [107]

6.138The Committee heard that the impact of these costs was not confined to individuals. Consult Australia gave the example of one of their members, a small business called Gamcorp, who noted that the costs associated with hiring a migration agent or lawyer to provide advice on skilled migration was ‘not justifiable’. The member noted:

It can cost up to $6,000 or more for an initial conversation. This coupled with the visa costs and resources required to attend to the visa process is a lot to ask when I am trying to retain my existing staff and need to obtain staff immediately to meet pipeline demands.[108]

6.139Similarly, the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association recorded the experience of one of their members who runs a specialist mechanical workshop about the financial barriers they face in engaging appropriately skilled technicians. They reported that the more than $14,000 investment required to bring out potential applicants from the United Kingdom was ‘too large for either party with personal and business cash flows tightening’.[109]

Shifting Goalposts

6.140For some contributors, it was stated that the certainty associated with legislation is undermined by policy changes and ministerial decisions that reset direction and processing priorities.

6.141The Human Rights Law Cantre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre drew attention to what they referred to as ‘“dead end” pathways’. Such pathways, they argued, have arisen due to constantly changing visa rules whereby an applicant who may have initially met the requirements for permanent residency, no longer does so following changes during their time in the country. They added that:

Across visa subclasses – from students, employer sponsored visa holders, refugees and people seeking asylum – visa holders are subjected to an open-ended period of uncertainty as they navigate everchanging requirements that evolve without regard to their future or the lives that they have built in Australia.[110]

6.142Rafael Azeredo told the Committee that, as part of his research, he met migrants who were working to obtain a qualification or relevant experience that would make them eligible for a skilled visa place, only to find that the occupation was later removed from the list of eligible occupations. Azeredo’s research also revealed that ‘protracted temporariness is imposed on migrants, and not desired by them’. Migrants are willing to invest what money they have, change careers, or work in undesirable jobs in their pursuit of permanent residence status. Yet, too often those he interviewed cited ‘luck’ as playing a role in successfully obtaining permanent residency.

6.143In an environment where ‘[v]isa policies and requirements are constantly changing’, Azeredo pointed out that migrants are at a disadvantage: they ‘have trouble keeping up with all changes and how they open/close pathways for a permanent visa.’ For some migrants the move from a temporary to a permanent visa is dependent on an employer or spouse—a precarious situation in which promises may not be kept, or a business might be sold, damaging the migrant’s chance of success. Further, he added that the longevity of the process for migrants seeking to move from a temporary to permanent status can result in some falling outside the most desirable age brackets, thus losing points, and perhaps becoming ineligible for a place.[111]

6.144The Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre submission pointed out that ‘in some cases’ the processing time exceeds the period of the visa sought’. Among them they note the Prospective Marriage Subclass 300 visas entitle the holder to stay from 9 to 15 months but, at the time of their submission, took 37 months for 90 per cent of applications to be processed (unchanged for new applications as of May 2024). They also pointed to the almost sixfold increase to the time taken to process 90 per cent of Skilled Regional (Subclass 887) visas ranging from 83 to 146 days in 2010-11 up to 542 to 692 days in 2019-20 (a timeframe that has continued to escalate).

6.145Their submission argued that increases in processing times do not relate to visa requirements becoming more onerous, observing that they have remained largely unchanged. Instead, they call for the introduction of standard processing times to help end visa uncertainty, reduce the precarious situation of visa applicants, and minimise damage to Australia’s reputation as a migrant destination.[112] The National Farmers Federation, similarly, called for ‘key performance targets’ in relation to visa processing, but went further in suggesting that they be ‘pegged’ to funding and that the Department be more transparent by ‘publishing clearance rates against those targets’.[113]

Committee Comment

6.146The Committee welcomes the recent commitment by the Australian Government to establish a best practice service level agreement for processing times as part of its Migration Strategy. It is a vital step in helping to end the visa uncertainty that is faced by many migrants onshore and offshore hoping to make Australia their home.

6.147Under the current system, where elongated processing times have been prevalent and more recently as ministerial directives on priorities push the processing of some visas to the bottom of the pile, the Committee feels that a standardised framework needs to be introduced to allow more transparency and give certainty to migrants.

6.148It is also the Committee’s view that, where possible, third-party providers contracted to deliver visa application assessment services should face scrutiny and be held accountable if they too do not abide by a best practice service level agreement.

6.149Further, the principles of best practice, fairness, and equity, should not be limited to visa processing times. The Committee believes that a more transparent and thus accountable system is one that acknowledges visa applicants, be they onshore or offshore, as humans rather than numbers, and allows them to make informed decisions about their future.

6.150The Committee recommends that the Australian Government provides greater transparency to applicants, agents, and sponsors regarding the progress of visa applications.

6.151The Committee recommends that the Australian Government requires external agencies contracted to perform assessment services for visa applications to abide by a best practice service level agreement for processing times.

Department fundamentals

Staff

6.152As discussed in Chapter 4, since late 2022 there have been a series of Government announcements allocating funding to address visa processing backlog issues. Initially, the funding was to provide surge capacity and then extended to provide support into 2024. The Department’s own submission noted that it was ‘now finalising more visas than before the pandemic’ and that this funding for visa processing officers was a measure to ‘continue efforts to manage the number of visa application on hand’.[114]

6.153Yet, as the CPSU’s answer to a question on notice indicated to the Committee, visa backlog issues might more appropriately be described as a symptom of long standing under staffing of the Department. The CPSU provided the Committee with evidence that between 2013 and 2024 average staffing levels had either decreased or stagnated ‘irrespective of increased functions or service delivery volumes’ (see Table 6.1).

Source: Australian Government Budget Papers cited in Community and Public Sector Union, Answer to Question on Notice, Public Hearing, 16 May 2023, p. 2.

6.154They also drew on the findings of a February 2022 independent review into the Department’s budget outcomes conducted by Proximity consultants. The report found that funding had not kept up with operational needs, with the result that some of the Department’s activities were ‘underfunded and under resourced’.[115]

6.155The Committee notes that the Department, responding to questioning on the report by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, acknowledged that it

… manages the ongoing resourcing challenges, including ASL [Average Staffing Levels], through ongoing trade-offs across operational delivery systems and processes, and people – which have come at a cost.[116]

6.156The final report of the Review of the Migration System made it clear that a combination of factors— ‘outdated ICT architecture, cumbersome processes and legislative complexity’ —had diminished the capacity of staff to perform at a high level and had a corrosive effect on staff morale. Further, they cautioned that reforms stemming from their review would ‘place further strain on ICT systems and resources that are struggling’.[117]

6.157The CPSU, too, pointed out that there has been a significant ‘cost’ to staff morale. Citing the results of the 2022 Home Affairs APS Census they noted:

Only half (49%) would recommend Home Affairs as a good place to work and only two in five (43%) say Home Affairs really inspires them to do their best work every day. Less than two in five (37%) believe they are fairly remunerated for the work they do. Only two in five (44%) believe internal communication within their agency is effective and less than a third (31%) believe change is managed well in Home Affairs.[118]

6.158While recognising that policy changes had been flagged to make the migration system ‘quicker and easier’, Ms Brooke Muscat, National President of the CPSU, stated that currently the Department did not have the ‘capability or capacity’ to implement these changes. She implored that addressing these resourcing issues ‘has to be central to fixing the migration system’.[119]

6.159The Committee received multiple submissions that called for better resourcing and staffing of the Department of Home Affairs. Most made the connection between under resourcing and decreased staffing with the elongation of processing times. For example, the joint submission made by the Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, and the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, drew attention to the progressive worsening of processing delays, even when requirements remained unchanged. In their view, this suggested that delays resulted from ‘under-resourcing and de-prioritisation of visa processing functions’.[120]

6.160Submissions from VETASSESS; the National Farmers’ Federation; the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and jointly from the Australian Hotels Association, Tourism Accommodation Australia, and Accommodation Association of Australia; were among several that made the point that funding and/or resourcing must be maintained at appropriate levels, not just be a one-off boost.[121] The range of industries—in this instance, an assessing authority, and peak bodies representing the disparate sectors of farming, business associations, and of hospitality and accommodation providers—indicative of broad-ranging concern and the impact of slow processing on their ability to attract and secure migrant workers across an array of industries.

6.161The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) drew the Committee’s attention to delays in the processing of protection and humanitarian visas which, unlike some other visa categories, had not seen improvement. They cautioned, however, that speeding up processing of these visas should not be at the expense of Departmental interviews with applicants. These interviews, the ASRC maintained, remain essential to procedural fairness as applicants are given appropriate time to explain their claims for protection. They urged the reintroduction of the ’90 day rule’ into the Migration Act[122], ensuring that all protection visa applications are determined within 90 days. Reintroduction of this principle, that they noted has been endorsed by successive Australian Labor Party National Platforms, would assist in appropriately directing funding so as to reduce delays in processing. [123]

6.162The submission from the CPSU also acknowledged the damaging effect of understaffing that:

… [y]ears of cuts and under resourcing left backlogs’ and that ‘[m]ore complex work … [was] put aside to clear other backlogs, creating bigger backlogs for more complex visas.[124]

6.163The CPSU also pointed to the need for a culture shift in the Department. They noted that staff were working in ‘an incredibly challenging and resource constrained environment’ and hinted that this pressure was not conducive to delivering the best outcomes. They suggested that in recent times, staff processing visas had focused on ‘identifying reasons to deny visas’ rather than having ‘a clear understanding of how to process visas efficiently’ and called for training to reverse this trend. Alongside this they called for a change management process to support the implementation of visa regulatory changes.[125]

6.164They also noted that their members believed that migration regulations had been used to ‘target and “punish” specific cohorts’. While concerned generally about the deprioritisation of family visas, the CPSU particularly drew attention to Ministerial Direction 80 under which sponsors holding a permanent visa who had originally arrived by boat as an Unauthorised Maritime Arrival (UMA), were accorded the lowest processing priority.[126] The Committee notes that in February 2023, the Australian Government took action revoking Ministerial Direction 80 and replacing it with Ministerial Direction 102, whereby family migration application that had been subject to ministerial intervention are now accorded the highest processing priority.[127]

6.165Apparent in the evidence gathered was that visa processing challenges extended beyond understaffing. Some submitters drew the Committee’s attention to the need for training to better equip Department of Home Affairs staff to appropriately deal with complex cases. The evidence from both Women’s Legal Services Australia (WLSA) and the joint response from the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW pointed to the need for enhanced resourcing and training of Departmental staff in relation to family violence and the effects of trauma.[128]

Systems

We are obviously seeing pressures in regard to our data and systems, knowing that we’re dealing with aged systems today.

6.166The above remark on the state of the Department of Home Affairs ICT infrastructure was made in March 2023 by Ms Justine Saunders APM, then Chief Operating Officer at the Department, to a Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit inquiry.[129]

6.167As noted in Chapter 4, the ageing ICT programs supporting the current migration system have faced criticism in the past, and previous wide-ranging attempts at overhauling them have stalled. The Global Digital Platform project, for example, was cancelled more than two years into the procurement process to allow the Australian Government to pursue a new policy direction.[130] As Mr Michael Pezzullo, then Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, told the Committee:

You asked about whether such technology is around [for an integrated digital platform]. Yes. Have we trialled it? Yes. We actually had a red team and a blue team playing with the technology. The staff productivity, staff engagement and staff effectiveness just went through the roof, because, instead of manually moving bits of data around and cutting and pasting, your day got more efficient. The machine worked with you to help to triage your cases. Higher risk was assigned to more problematic applications, where the system was picking up potentially fraudulent or perhaps concerning documents attached to the application. They would be streamed off to deeper investigative areas. The officers were able to tier their work.

As with any modern industry, you have tools that are actually helping, from a customer engagement point of view, the officer to work more efficiently. Does the technology exist? Absolutely. In fact, it's in most large private enterprises; it is just not in government, which is a shame.[131]

6.168The Committee heard that the Department of Home Affairs has again secured funding to upgrade its existing visa system. The Department’s submission noted that $27.8 million over two years had been allocated in the 2023-24 Budget for the upgrade, with the aim of making visa service delivery more efficient and to enhance Australia’s attractiveness as a destination for global talent.[132]

6.169The funding followed the final report of the Review of the Migration System, which judged that:

High performing ICT systems and the use of data and digital technologies are key to the migration system’s success.[133]

6.170Ms Stephanie Foster, then Associate Secretary of Immigration at the Department of Home Affairs, told the Committee that a ‘core part’ of the reform package arising from the review would be ‘new, underpinning ICT’. She indicated that there were three primary drivers for the reform: ease of user experience, reinforcing the attractiveness of Australia; improving staff efficiency, morale, and motivation; and enhancing the integrity of the system.[134]

6.171The CPSU provided a different perspective on past attempts at upgrading the visa processing system. Their submission indicated that previous ventures failed as they did not make use of the knowledge and skills of those within the Department. The CPSU outlined several of these costly attempts, including the outsourced Generic Visa Portal that they described as ‘not fit for purpose and was decommissioned costing hundreds of millions of dollars’. So, while the CPSU agrees that there is an urgent need for investment to replace of the almost thirty-year-old legacy visa processing platform, they called for this to be ‘[a]n in-house upgrade, involving APS staff, who know about the system currently in place’.[135]

6.172The Committee heard about recent changes to New Zealand’s approach to improving their visa processing. From the end of January 2022, Immigration NZ began phasing in paperless visa processing technology to make applying for a visa easier and to improve processing. The new system advises applicants of the information they need to provide based on their visa type, nationality and the location they are travelling from, and uses smart forms to help individually tailor the process. Where possible, the system makes use of information applicants have previously provided to Immigration NZ, such as medical certificates, so as to reduce processing times and complexity. Applicants receive email notifications and have access to real time status updates to provide a more transparent process with clarity about any actions required.[136]

6.173Mr Richard Owen, General Manager of Immigration Risk and Border at Immigration New Zealand, told the Committee that their processing system was one of three key aspects—alongside risk and their staff—that were integral to improving processing speed and decision making. The system, he noted, provided an opportunity to incorporate more automation into the front end of the process, including much of their identity requirements. Further, the enhancements enabled ‘direct system-to-system engagement’ with other agencies to speed up processes including police and national security checks. He indicated that the aim was for the systems to ‘do the heavy lifting’ at the same time as retaining ‘the human intelligence to work on those more difficult cases’.[137]

6.174Yet, other evidence heard by the Committee on the potential use of automation in visa processing was mixed. For instance, VETASSESS recommended that the Australian Government ‘invest in digital solutions to automate those parts of visa processing that lend themselves to automation.’[138] The Law Council of Australia (Law Council), however, called for automation to be subject to ‘broader parliamentary and government scrutiny’. The Law Council, while recognising that ‘automated decision-making can be beneficial to administrative law outcomes when properly employed’, cautioned that automation needed to be authorised in the empowering legislation. They also urged that its use be in line with ‘principles of lawfulness, fairness, rationality, and transparency’.[139]

6.175The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) drew the Committee’s attention to their recent report on the Family Migration Program. This report made it clear that the Department’s ageing ICT system hindered its ability to provide transparency via digital updates on the progress of applications. The Department told the ANAO that it, was ‘limited by its systems’ and moreover that ‘the nature of visa processing makes it difficult to breakdown information that would be meaningful and helpful’.[140]

6.176Having heard the frustration of some witnesses regarding the need to submit (and sometimes resubmit) the same documentation to different assessing bodies, the Committee asked the Department of Home Affairs about the viability of developing a secure single portal. Ms Foster indicated that while they had not looked specifically at the possibility of a portal, the capacity to provide ‘a means by which the supply and demand can connect as quickly as possible’ was part of their thinking. Mr Pezzullo added some words of caution. In line with the Law Council, he suggested that while such a portal might offer benefit, the sharing of information would be subject to information sharing protocols and need to be authorised in the legislation. And, while the Department didn’t have any interest in locking up data, it was a matter of balancing privacy and security with ‘appropriate sharing, where it’s of benefit’.[141]

Committee Comment

6.177The Committee acknowledges that the Australian Government has made considerable investment in funding and resourcing many aspects of the migration functions of the Department of Home Affairs. It is also heartened by many of the new directions set out in the Migration Strategy. The Committee particularly notes the final action of the Migration Strategy’s action plan to ‘[s]implify the migration system to improve the experience for migrants and employers’. And while, of course, the Committee endorses this objective, it also suggests that this action be directed at improving the experience for Departmental staff as well (rather than perhaps being a byproduct of that process).

6.178The Committee also recognises that the Australian Government has allocated $54million to establish real-time priority processing of Protection visa applications to help disrupt those abusing the system and ensure faster processing. The Committee notes the statement by the then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs that Australia’s ‘protection system and the backlogs will take time to fix’.[142] As these new measures take effect, the Committee views that it would be appropriate to reintroduce the ’90-day rule’ for the processing of protection visas. Reintroducing this provision into the Migration Act would provide certainty to applicants (and the organisations that support them) that determinations on their refugee status are finalised in a timely manner.

6.179Further, the Committee welcomes the Government’s commitment to provide $27.8million over two years to fund an upgrade to the visa processing system. To help ensure that this new system is fit-for-purpose and has the full support of the staff who will use the system on a daily basis, it is imperative that Departmental staff with the relevant knowledge and skills are a vital part of the team who plan, design and implement any new system.

6.180Departmental staff are an asset that the Committee believes require ongoing support. As indicated by the Committee’s comments above, staff should be meaningfully involved in reforms underway in the Department. Investment in staffing should not just be in staffing levels, but investing to ensure that there is a positive change in workplace culture and that staff feel that their work is adequately resourced.

6.181The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers reintroducing the ’90-day rule’ into the Migration Act 1958 to ensure that refugee status determinations are concluded within 90 days.

6.182Recognising that reform of the migration system will place further pressure on Departmental systems and staff, the Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs reintroduces a change management process to better support staff, guide implementation of reforms, and monitor the effect of this process.

6.183The Committee recommends that the Australian Government makes use of the existing skills and knowledge of Department of Home Affairs staff during all stages of the work to upgrade the existing legacy visa processing systems.

6.184The Committee recommends that the Australian Government’s commitment to ‘modernise the visa system experience for migrant and employers’ includes:

• automation of low-risk processes, and
• a real time tracker for applicants to chart the progress of their application.

6.185The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs conducts a feasibility study into the creation of a secure digital portal for visa application documentation and investigate legislative changes that would enable sharing of this information with trusted partners.

The Cost of Time

6.186The lack of timeliness of the current migration system has faced considerable criticism.

6.187The Australian Government acknowledges that the current system is regarded as ‘lacking in efficiency and fairness’. Moreover, they add that this ‘refrain’ was common across most elements of the system, be it occupation lists, skills assessments, or the visa application process.[143]

6.188Evidence gathered during this inquiry reveals that very real human costs are incurred by excessive passage of time. And, in turn, the cumulative impact can be felt locally, state-wide, and nationally. As the Tasmanian Government told the Committee, ongoing delays in the processing of provisional and permanent visas

… is not only affecting the growth of business, but also the wellbeing of the individuals involved who are eager to start work, or progress their careers, and contribute fully to the Tasmanian community.[144]

Individuals, couples, and families

6.189AMES Australia was one of several submitters who highlighted the effect of lengthy separation in the family migration program. They note that prolonged separation of family members has negative impacts on the physical and mental wellbeing of migrants and applicants and, in turn, this can be the cause of social as well as financial stress. They particularly drew attention to the way in which prolonged family separation can have a detrimental effect on settlement success. Among their clients they noted many are struggling to arrange for their partners and children to join them, while others are left worrying about the welfare of parents left overseas.[145]

6.190The joint submission by the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, likewise, pointed to the lengthy wait times and excessive cost of partner visas as placing ‘undue strain’ on couples. At the same time, they noted that capping and queueing arrangements for parent visas resulted in processing times that were so long that few ‘have any prospect of seeing a Parent visa granted’.[146]

6.191Currently, the Committee notes that applications by a parent, aged parent, remaining relative or aged dependent relative make up the lowest category on the family visa processing priority list. In respect to permanent visas, the estimated processing time frame for contributory parent visas is more than a decade while for parent and aged parent visas the wait extends to almost three decades. (The contributory visa offers a somewhat expedited process with an allocation of more places but requires the payment of a much higher fee.)[147]

6.192Commenting on parent visas, the Final report of the Review of the Migration System remarked that ‘[p]roviding an opportunity for people to apply for a visa that will probably never come seems both cruel and unnecessary’. They suggested that the Australian Government make improvements to the temporary parent visa and consider following the lead of Canada and New Zealand and adopt a lottery approach to manage demand and avoid backlogs.[148]

6.193Peter Mares, writing for the Scanlon Foundation Research Institute in the report, The Parent Conundrum: Considering Australia’s troubled approach to parent migration, explores the dilemma that while there is a social desire for migrants to bring out their parents, economically these older migrants do not fit the desired profile of those most likely to make the biggest fiscal contribution over their lifespan. While conceding that the lottery approach to parent visas offers a fairer system, Mares likens it to another queue in which families face the same ‘mixture of hope, anxiety and uncertainty, unable to plan for the future’. In his view, the alternative of scrapping permanent parent migration altogether would at least provide certainty rather than false hopes.[149]

6.194The 2023 Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System found that:

Protracted processing times for some visa subclasses and merits review processes are motivating abuse of Australia’s visa system.

Discussion of this finding in the review focused on abuse of the visa system by applicants. Yet, the evidence heard by this Committee illustrates that migrants holding temporary visas were also vulnerable to exploitation due to the instability of their migration status.[151]

6.195The ASRC, for instance, drew attention to the precarious situation of those placed on bridging visas, a visa that was designed as a short-term measure. Those seeking asylum, they noted, were likely to experience processing delays across several stages of review—the Department, merits review, and judicial review. During this process, applicants can spend a decade on a series of temporary bridging visas, unable to take up long-term employment. The uncertainty of their future undermines ‘their rights their health and their ability to effectively contribute to our society’ and places individuals at risk. Employers, they noted, are reluctant to engage people who regularly lose their right to work. In this environment those on bridging visas are more likely to take up illegal employment under exploitative and sometimes dangerous conditions.[152]

6.196A report submitted by the Migrant Workers Centre titled Insecure by Design drew on a survey of more than 1,000 migrant workers and a further 65 in depth interviews focusing on their engagement with the workplace and with the migration system. They observed that many migrant workers get caught in a loop:

You need a permanent visa to get a decent job, and you need a decent job from which to earn migration points to get a permanent visa.

Further, their survey demonstrated that those on temporary visas were more likely to report feeling unsafe at work with interviews revealing that some experienced discrimination and bullying.[153]

6.197Drawing on case studies such as that above, the FECCA pointed out that the cost of Australia’s visa process varies in its impact on applicants and their families. Beyond the actual visa application charge, there is the cost of time be it spent trying to find suitable employment, satisfying visa residency conditions, waiting to be eligible for government services, continuing delays in visa processing, or the mental impact of this experience. Underscoring the longevity of this experience, one member told FECCA that they had been ‘navigating the process from temporary visa holder to Permanent Residency to citizen for so long their children were now adults wanting to go to university’, a prospect that was unaffordable as they would be charged international student fees.[155]

6.198Applicants experiencing lengthy delays span visa types, including those whose strong financial positions had enabled their eligibility. The Committee heard of the challenge faced by a family who arrived on a Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa (Subclass 188) in the Significant Investor stream. They then applied for the permanent visa (Subclass 888) before spending months on a bridging visa awaiting processing of their substantive application. The submitter highlighted the uncertainty and lack of transparency associated with this process; months passed by without any communication from the department at the same time as their visa processing time continued to blow out (beyond double the time that they were initially advised). In addition, their long-term temporary status had a personal, professional, and financial impacts including being excluded from employment opportunities and being required to pay stamp duty surcharge, alongside the uncertainty arising from their vulnerable residential status.[156]

6.199While a review of the Department of Home Affairs’ Family Migration Program by the ANAO found that the design and delivery of the program were ‘largely effective’, they outlined ‘shortcomings in implementation’ that impacted ‘the department’s effectiveness and efficiency in delivering visa services’. Among them they noted that the Department lacked a ‘clear policy’ to determine when a case was ‘excessively delayed’ Their recommendations drew attention to the need to establish processes to ‘identify, analyse and remediate potential processing inactivity’ and for ‘detecting and remediating aged cases’.[157]

Businesses and industries

6.200A survey conducted by Vialto Partners of their clients and industry stakeholders found that the primary barrier to use of the Australian visa program was processing times (See figure 6.5).[159] This finding reflects the evidence presented to the Committee revealing that delays in visa processing have a very real impact on businesses across the spectrum of sectors. Further, delays associated with the complexity of navigating the migration system, are particularly apparent among smaller businesses who do not regularly employ migrant workers and lack the resources and skills to effectively engage with the process.

Source: Vialto Partners, Submission 28, p. [3].

6.201Consult Australia’s submission drew on the example of one of their members, a regional small consultancy business, who was frustrated with the lack of information available to them as a potential employer of migrant workers. The time that they devoted to understanding and complying with the visa requirements including their own reporting obligations, they pointed out, was ‘a cost to us, because we spend time looking this up and trying to seek assistance’.[160]

6.202As the Master Builders Association submission illustrated, delays and complexity in the migration system go hand in hand. The association quoted feedback from a construction sector employer revealing the exasperation of those trying to navigate the system:

It’s easier and quicker to go to other countries. I have just lost a guy from Chile as he can go to Canada much easier than here. I can’t blame him as the hoops we have had to jump through here are painful.[161]

6.203The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) drew the Committee’s attention to a recent case of a small business owner who decided to sponsor the employment of an overseas applicant but, unfamiliar with the process, and without Departmental guidance, inadvertently failed to fulfil the job advertising requirements. He then mistakenly believed he had already supplied additional information requested by the Department before his application was declined. To appeal the decision, however, was costly and involved a process that may take up to three years, so the business owner chose to restart the application process from the beginning.

6.204More generally, the Ombudsman noted that local businesses were at a disadvantage due to elongated wait times and expensive application processes. To speed up the process they called for Department staff to conduct an early review of applications to ensure that the required paperwork was present and to notify applicants of any omissions to ensure that the application process is not delayed. They also advocated for the introduction of a ‘small employer concierge’ service within the Department of Home Affairs to aid Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in navigating the complexities of the migration system to avoid wasting time and money.[162]

6.205The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies went so far as to say that delays in processing times, alongside increasing fees, was ‘a business risk’ for junior companies. They indicated that the inability of these companies to access migrant workers in a timely manner threatened the capacity of these companies to operate.[163]

6.206Australian Pork Limited was one of several peak bodies that provided evidence of the immediate cost of processing delays to their industry. They noted that elongated processing times placed pressure on business which was left operating on minimal resources. Existing staff were, in turn, affected by this pressure as they are left ‘fatigued and stressed’. The also noted that delays impeded the ability of their members to undertake strategic workforce planning. Among these impacts they noted:

• Business confidence is affected. Some can see growth opportunities they want to pursue but are holding back.
• Expanded operations are constrained e.g. businesses with new production sites requiring additional skilled staff have undertaken workforce planning well in advance but due to ongoing delays with visa processing, new sites may still be significantly under resourced.[164]
  207. Similarly, Elmtree Migration Lawyers, referred to their experience working with horticulture growers to engage migrant workers. Elmtree characterised the effect of elongated waiting times spanning from the identification of a suitable employee to the day they started work as being ‘simply too long’. They judged that the operation of the migration system ‘does not meet most business’s operation needs’.[165]
  208. The Tech Council of Australia highlighted that in their sector there was a major disparity between the time taken to process an Australian tech visa compared to the time taken by countries competing for the same talent. Processing of an Australian visa in the tech sector, they noted took a minimum of about a month, up to a year, while competitor countries like Canada and Israel processed similar visas within ten days. The difference of the processing timing, alongside the absence of a fast pathway to permanency, they argued, placed Australia at a disadvantage in the global marketplace for tech talent. To remedy this, they called for the Australian Government to deliver a service standard of visa processing that was in line with competitor countries.[166]
  209. Submitters noted there were opportunities for the Department of Home Affairs to take a less risk adverse approach to visa processing. That a ‘light touch’ be applied to those migrants who meet certain criteria such as they will be paid above a certain threshold, possess desired post graduate qualifications or skills that are in high demand. Rewarding applicants in these categories with accelerated processing, in recognition that they have been ‘vetted’ to some degree by their extensive work or educational background. The Tech Council, for example, noted its 2022 agreement with the Australian Council of Trade Unions that included:

… explicit endorsement of expedited consideration of highly skilled, highly paid skilled migration places where there are clear shortages, and where these roles can provide valuable coaching and expertise to the local workforce.[167]

6.210Vialto Partners, along with the Business Council of Australia and the Grattan Institute, were among several submitters that recommended that the Government introduce a form of accreditation for businesses who in return receive certain benefits. Vialto Partners, for example recommended a streamlined system that incorporated ‘visa autogrant for approved sponsors with accredited status’.[168]

6.211As discussed further in Chapter 7, the Business Council of Australia proposes a ‘Trusted Trainer’ sponsor category where businesses meeting a specified criteria are rewarded with benefits such as expedited processing and shortened Labour Market Testing requirements.[169] While the Grattan Institute suggested that streamlined processing be offered to accredited employers sponsoring high wage workers.[170]

Committee Comment

6.212The Migration Strategy acknowledges that more than half of all Australians have a parent born overseas, although the strategy itself is largely silent on the family migration program. The report affirms that the current system is ‘not working for many Australian families, including for the partners, parents and children of Australian citizens’, and states that work on appropriate visa settings in the family program is ‘being progressed separately’.[171]

6.213The Committee strongly agrees that a shift in the Australian Government’s approach to family migration is necessary, particularly in respect to parent visas. Family, in all of its diversity and across generations, plays a significant part in the building of our nation. While recognising that a solution that meets the demographic and economic needs of the country, as well as the social needs of its people is unlikely, the Committee urges that equity and fairness be the underpinning principles of any new programs put in place. To this end, fees should be affordable and not encompass options that offer a faster track.

6.214The Committee also welcomes the commitment in the Migration Strategy to launch an ‘enhanced outreach program’ as a point of contact for stakeholder groups, including small businesses and unions.[172] As indicated in the evidence received, there is demand, especially among small businesses, for greater assistance in navigating the migration system.

6.215More commentary on the impact of the migration system on businesses is covered in Chapter 7.

6.216The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, recognising that the current permanent parent visas fail to offer realistic completion time frames, considers whether to:

• cease to offer permanent parent visas to new applicants, and
• expedite the development of appropriate visa settings for the family migration stream.

6.217The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs’ ‘enhanced outreach program’ incorporates feedback and periodic review processes to ensure that its operation is fit for purpose.

Footnotes

[1]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 28-29.

[2]Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Final Report of the Inquiry into Australia’s Skilled Migration Program, August 2021, p. 67.

[3]Migration Hub at ANU, Submission 70, p. 16.

[4]Mr Rafael Azeredo, Submission 21, p. 5.

[5]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Biometrics’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/biometrics, viewed 31 May 2024.

[6]Mr Michael J. Spicer, Submission 9, p. [1].

[7]Exceptions are made for those under a specified age (ie. offshore applicants under 5 years), those unable to provide fingerprints and those unable to understand the purpose of biometrics.

[8]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Meeting our requirements: Biometrics’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/biometrics, viewed 31 October 2023; Department of Home Affairs, ‘The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs’, 11th Edition, p. 41.

[9]Christine Nixon, Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System, 31 March 2023, pp. 22-23.

[10]Department of Home Affairs, ‘After your health examinations’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/health/after-your-health-examinations, viewed 20 February 2024.

[11]Australian Government, Government Response to the Nixon Review Recommendations, [2023], p. 8.

[12]Department of Home Affairs, PAM3-Migration Regulations Schedules, Sch4/4005-4007 – The health requirement, 2015, section 3.

[13]Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, pp. 22-23.

[14]Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, Submission 32, pp. [27-28].

[15]Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, p. 4.

[16]Access to such a review is less likely for applicants located offshore. See Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, p. 6.

[17]Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, pp. 5-6

[18]Jan Gothard, ‘A migration review could close some disability discrimination loopholes – but not for people already waiting or refused visas’, The Conversation, 24 October 2024, https://theconversation.com/a-migration-review-could-close-some-disability-discrimination-loopholes-but-not-for-people-already-waiting-or-refused-visas-215894 viewed 21 February 2024.

[19]Heather Marr, Libby Hogarth, Nish K Padiya, Submission 88, p. 9.

[20]See for example Mikala Theocharous, ‘“I burst into tears”: Perth family facing deportation over son’s disability allowed to stay’, Nine News, 8 March 2023, https://www.9news.com.au/national/kollikkara-family-facing-deportation-son-down-syndrome-permanent-residency-intervention-immigration-minister-andrew-giles/d67b6e2d-6931-4645-99d9-2a0f8f264b87, viewed 26 February 2024; Finn McHugh, ‘The Greens want to end the “unconscionable” deportation of migrants with disability’, SBS News, 9 August 2023, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/unconscionable-greens-push-to-end-deportations-of-migrants-with-disability/wuapkmg2h, 26 February 2024.

[21]Department of Home Affairs, Discussion Paper: Review of Australia’s visa Significant Cost Threshold (SCT), pp. 3-4. See also Department of Home Affairs, ‘Protecting health care and community services’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/health/protecting-health-care-and-community-services, viewed 22 February 2024.

[22]Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, pp. 6-7.

[23]Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, pp. 6-7.

[24]Estrin Saul Migration Specialists and Welcoming Disability, Submission 68, p. 5; and Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, pp. 23-24. See Government of Canada, ‘Excessive demand on health services and on social services’, https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/standard-requirements/medical-requirements/refusals-inadmissibility/excessive-demand-on-health-social-services.html, viewed 26 February 2024; and New Zealand Immigration, ‘Significant-cost health threshold increased’, https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/news-notifications/significant-cost-health-threshold-increased, viewed 26 February 2024.

[25]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Review of Australia’s visa Significant Cost Threshold’, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-publications/submissions-and-discussion-papers/review-of-australias-visa-significant-cost-threshold, viewed 19 February 2024.

[26]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, p. 14.

[27]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for the selection of English language tests for Australian visas’, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-publications/submissions-and-discussion-papers/request-for-eoi-selection-of-english-language-tests, viewed 5 March 2024.

[28]Department of Home Affairs, ‘English language visa requirements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/english-language, 29 February 2024.

[29]See Department of Home Affairs webpages for the various levels of English proficiency, for example—Vocational English, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/english-language/vocational-english, viewed 29 February 2024.

[30]Department of Home Affairs, ‘English language visa requirements’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/english-language, 29 February 2024.

[31]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Functional English’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/english-language/functional-english, viewed 19 February 2024.

[32]See Department of Home Affairs webpages for Vocational English, Competent English, Proficient English, and Superior English.

[33]Department of Home Affairs, ‘New English Language Requirements’, 20 March 2024, viewed 28 March 2024, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1188; See also Department of Home Affairs, Temporary Graduate visa, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-graduate-485, and Student visa, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/student-500#Eligibility, viewed 28 March 2024.

[34]Mr James Holden, Australian and New Zealand Country Director, Duolingo, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 1.

[35]Duolingo, Submission 22, pp. 2-3.

[36]Duolingo, Submission 22, pp. 3-4.

[37]Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, pp. 28-29.

[38]Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 28.

[39]IDP Education, Answers to Questions on Notice, Public Hearing, 27 September 2023, QON1, Attachments 1 and 2.

[40]Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 29.

[41]The Department notes that visa subclasses 476, 482 and 485 are not eligible as the English language scores need to be achieved in a single sitting. See Department of Home Affairs English language visa requirements, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/meeting-our-requirements/english-language, 6 March 2024.

[42]Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 30.

[43]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, pp. 60-69; Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Action Plan, [December 2023], p. 2.

[44]Ms Stephanie Long, Systemic Advocacy and Strategic Projects Lead, Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 8.

[45]Mrs Alex Waldren, National Directory Industry Policy, Master Builders Australia, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 12 May 2023, p. 14

[46]Mr Gaethan Cutri, Managing Director, Cutri Fruit, Committee Hansard, Robinvale, Victoria, 27 April 2023, p. 18

[47]Referred to as the ‘two-step visas pathways to permanent residency’ in the Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, p. 15.

[48]Mrs Julie Williams, National President, Migration Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, p. 32.

[49]VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 10. See VETASSESS, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. 35, for recommendation made on this point to the Migration System for Australia’s Future review.

[50]Ms Kim Dienhoff, Head, Government Relations, IDP Education, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 30

[51]Department of Home Affairs, ‘New Genuine Student Requirement’, Media Release, 20 March 2024, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1187, viewed 15 May 2024.

[52]Department of Home Affairs, ‘New English Language Requirements’, Media Release, 20 March 2024, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1188, viewed 15 May 2024.

[53]Mr Michael Pezzullo AO, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. 9

[54]Ms Maria Jockel, Global and National Immigration Leader, Accredited Immigration Law Specialist, Legal Principal and Managing Director, BDO Migration Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 7.

[55]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p. 31.

[56]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p.181.

[57]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p.180.

[58]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 177-78; Lisa Burton Crawford, Elma Akand, Steefan Contractor and Scott Sisson, ‘Legislative complexity: what is it, how do we measure it, and why does it matter?', AUSPUBLAW, 23 November 2022, https://auspublaw.org/blog/2022/11/legislative-complexity-what -is-it-how-do-we-measure-it-and-why-does-it-matter/, viewed 18 March 2023.

[59]Migration Hub at ANU, Submission 70, p. 11.

[60]Women’s Legal Services Australia, Submission 98, p. [4].

[61]Vialto Partners, Submission 28, p. [3].

[62]Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. 9.

[63]Ms Tara Cavanagh, Group Manager, Immigration Policy, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. 9-10.

[64]VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 16.

[65]Australian College of Nursing, Submission 90, p. 5.

[66]Swan Hill Rural City Council, Submission 31, p. [6].

[67]Multicultural Australia, Submission 40, p. 17.

[68]Fragomen (Australia) Pty Ltd, Submission 54, p. 10.

[69]CPSU, Submission 62, Attachment 1, p. [2].

[70]Ms Maria Jockel, Global and National Immigration Leader, Accredited Immigration Law Specialist, Legal Principal and Managing Director, BDO Migration Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 27 September 2023, p. 7

[71]CPSU, Submission 62, Attachment 1, pp. [2-3].

[72]Dr Andrew Theophanous, Submission 61, p. 12. See also Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Final Report of the Inquiry into Australia’s Skilled Migration Program, Canberra, August 2021, xii.

[73]Ms Bronwyn Markey, Senior Manager, Professional Services, Migration Institute of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 48.

[74]Mr Richard Owen, General Manager of Immigration Risk and Border, Immigration New Zealand, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand Government, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 9 August 2023, p. 5

[75]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, p. 96.

[76]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 178-80.

[77]Grattan Institute, Submission 17, pp. 31-32.

[78]Law Council of Australia, Submission 117, pp. 7, 14, 36.

[79]NSW Government, Submission 57, pp. 4-5.

[80]Rafael Azeredo, Submission 21, pp. 1-5, 7. See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Explanatory Statement, Migration Amendment (Expanding Access to Temporary Residence Transition Stream) Regulations 2023, https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2023L01543/asmade/2023-11-24/es/original/pdf, viewed 17 April 2024.

[81]Hon Clare O’Neil MP, Minister for Home Affairs, ‘Australia’s Migration System’, National Press Club address, 27 April 2023, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/ClareONeil/Pages/national-press-club-address-australias-migration-system-27042023.aspx, viewed 17 April 2024.

[82]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Expanding pathways to PR for temporary skilled sponsored workers’, Media Release, 3 November 2023, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/news-media/archive/article?itemId=1136, viewed 17 April 2024.

[83]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, pp. 66-67; Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Action Plan, [December 2023], p. 2.

[84]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 10.

[85]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Action Plan, [2023], p. 5

[86]Community and Public Sector Union, Submission 62, p. [6].

[87]Mr Peter Barns, Chair, Rural Workforce Agencies, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 14 August 2023, p. 13.

[88]Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, p. 15.

[89]Science & Technology Australia, Submission 106, p. 4.

[90]Migration Institute of Australia, Submission 87, p. 29.

[91]Ms Rebecca Baggiano, Special Counsel at Fragomen (Australia) Pty Ltd, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, p. 38

[92]Heather Marr, Libby Hogarth and Nish K. Padiya, Submission 88, pp. 1, 10-11.

[93]See Annual Reports, especially: Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Annual Report, 2004-05; and Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Annual Report, 2013-14.

[94]Heather Marr, Libby Hogarth and Nish K. Padiya, Submission 88, p. 11. See also Marion Lê Consultancy, Submission 110, pp. 2-3, to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allow for family and partner reunions.

[95]Mr Gabriel Dain, Operations Manager, Migrant Workers Centre Inc., Committee Hansard, Melbourne, 26 April 2023, p. 39.

[96]Note the ‘Additional comments from the Australian Greens’ comprised a further 11 recommendations. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allow for family and partner reunions, March 2022, p. ix, 93-101.

[97]Australian Government, ‘Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Reference Committee report—The efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allow for family and partner reunions’, April 2024, p. [2]. Emphasis in original.

[98]Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission 52, p. 5.

[99]Mr Rafael Azeredo, Submission 21, p. 5-6.

[100]Migrant Workers Centre, Submission 78, p. 2.

[101]Duolingo, Submission 22, p. 3.

[102]Grattan Institute, Submission 17, p. 17.

[103]Australian Hotel Association, Tourism Accommodation Australia, and the Accommodation Association of Australia, Submission 83, p. 4.

[104]FECCA, Submission 52, p. 5. See also Productivity Commission, Migrant Intake into Australia, Inquiry Report, No. 77, 13 April 2016, p. 21.

[105]Australian College of Nursing, Submission 90, p. 5.

[106]National Farmers’ Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 14.

[107]Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, p. 27.

[108]Consult Australia, Submission 27, p. 2.

[109]Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association, Submission 101, p. 8.

[110]Human Rights Law Cantre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, pp. 12-13, 32.

[111]Rafael Azeredo, Submission 21, pp. 5-6.

[112]Human Rights Law Cantre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, pp. 7-9.

[113]National Farmers Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 15.

[114]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 10.

[115]Community and Public Sector Union, Answer to Question on Notice, Public Hearing, 16 May 2023, pp. 1-2.

[116]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 14, p. [3]; Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Inquiry into Commonwealth Financial Statements, 2021-22.

[117]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, pp. 35, 172.

[118]Community and Public Sector Union, Submission 62, pp. [5-6].

[119]Ms Brooke Muscat, National President, Community and Public Sector Union, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, p. 42.

[120]Human Rights Law Cantre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, p. 8.

[121]VETASSESS, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. iii, 28; National Farmers Federation, Submission 81, Attachment 1, p. 15; Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Submission 79, pp. 4-5; and Australian Hotel Association, Tourism Accommodation Australia, and the Accommodation Association of Australia, Submission 83, p. 4.

[122]The 90-day principle for resolving protection visas had been introduced under the Migration and Ombudsman Legislation Amendment Act 2005 and was repealed by the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014.

[123]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 4. Australian Labor Party National Platform, 49th National Conference, 17-19 August 2023, https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf, viewed 22/04/2024.

[124]CPSU, Submission 62, p. [4].

[125]CPSU, Submission 62, pp. [2, 4-5].

[126]CPSU, Submission 62, pp. [4-5].

[127]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Family visa processing priorities’, Department of Home Affairs webpage, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities, viewed 23 May 2024.

[128]Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, Answer to Question on Notice, Public Hearing, 16 May 2023; Women’s Legal Services Australia, Answer to Question on Notice, Public Hearing, 12 May 2023.

[129]Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, Inquiry into Commonwealth Financial Statements 2021-22, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 31 March 2023, p. 17.

[130]Australian National Audit Office, Procurement of the Permissions Capability: Department of Home Affairs, Auditor-General Report No. 34, 2022-23, Performance Audit, pp. 6-7.

[131]Mr Michael Pezzullo AO, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. 15.

[132]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 10.

[133]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, p. 167.

[134]Ms Stephanie Foster, Associate Secretary, Immigration, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, p. 14.

[135]CPSU, Submission 62, pp. [1-2].

[136]Immigration New Zealand, ‘Enhancements to Immigration Online’, INZ website, https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/our-online-systems/enhancements-to-immigration-online, viewed 8 August 2023; Immigration New Zealand, Enhancements to Immigration Online: A guide for external users, April 2024, p. 8.

[137]Mr Richard Owen, General Manager of Immigration Risk and Border, Immigration New Zealand, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, New Zealand Government, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 9 August 2023, pp. 5-6.

[138]VETASSESS, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. 35.

[139]Law Council of Australia, Submission 117, p. 37.

[140]Australian National Audit Office, Management of Migration to Australia – Family Migration Program, Auditor-General Report No. 16, 2022-23, p. 41

[141]Mr Michael Pezzullo AO, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 14 June 2023, pp. 6-7.

[142]Hon Andrew Giles MP, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, ‘Restoring integrity to our protection system’, Joint Media Release, 5 October 2023, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/restoring-integrity-protection-system.aspx, viewed 22 May 2024.

[143]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, p. 36.

[144]The Tasmanian Government, Submission 115, p. 5.

[145]AMES Australia, Answer to Question on Notice, Public Hearing, 16 May 2023, p. [3].

[146]Immigration Advice and Rights Centre and Unions NSW, Submission 32, paras. 51-52, 77-81.

[147]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Family visa processing priorities’, Department of Home Affairs website, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities, viewed 29 May 2024; and Department of Home Affairs, ‘Capping and Queuing of Parent visa applications’, Department of Home Affairs website, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities/parent-visas-queue-release-dates, viewed 29 May 2024.

[148]Australian Government, Review of the Migration System, Final Report, March 2023, pp. 137, 140-42.

[149]Peter Mares, The Parent Conundrum: Considering Australia’s troubled approach to parent migration, Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, Narrative 11, July 2023, pp. 5-8, 30, 67.

[150]Peter Mares, The Parent Conundrum: Considering Australia’s troubled approach to parent migration, Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, Narrative 11, July 2023, pp. 5-6.

[151]Christine Nixon, Rapid Review into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System, 31 March 2023, pp. 24-28.

[152]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 3.

[153]Migrant Workers Centre, Insecure by Design: Australia’s migration system and migrant worker’s job market experience, Migrant Workers Centre Inc, Melbourne, 2023, pp. 6-8, 40-45.

[154]‘Interviewee No. 2072701’, Migrant Workers Centre, Insecure by Design: Australia’s migration system and migrant worker’s job market experience, Migrant Workers Centre Inc, Melbourne, 2023, p. 45

[155]Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission 52, pp. 5, 10.

[156]Name Withheld, Submission 29, pp. [1-2].

[157]Australian National Audit Office, Submission 121, pp. 3, 5; ANAO, Management of Migration to Australia – Family Migration Program, Auditor-General Report No. 16, 2022-23, pp, 74-76, 81.

[158]Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia, Submission 52, p. 10.

[159]Vialto Partners, Submission 28, p. [3].

[160]Consult Australia, Submission 27, p. 2.

[161]Master Builders Association, Submission 38, p. 5.

[162]Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Submission 113, pp. [2-3].

[163]Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, Submission 111, p. 3.

[164]Australian Pork Limited, Submission 114, p. 11.

[165]Lamattina Holdings Pty Ltd/Elmtree Migration Lawyers, Submission 123, p. [2].

[166]Tech Council of Australia, Submission 39, pp. 9, 11.

[167]Tech Council of Australia, Submission 39, p. 4; Tech Council of Australia, ‘The ACTU And The TCA Agree On Future Industry Priorities Ahead Of The Jobs And Skills Summit’, Media Release, August 2022, https://techcouncil.com.au/newsroom/actu-tca-priorities/, viewed 30 May 2024.

[168]Vialto Partners, Submission 28, p. [4].

[169]Business Council of Australia, Submission 56, Attachment 1, pp. 23-25.

[170]Grattan Institute, Submission 17, p. 5

[171]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, pp. 8, 16.

[172]Australian Government, Migration Strategy – Getting migration working for the nation, December 2023, p. 82.