In this article, I will highlight the new visa changes in relation to the new sponsorship framework for family visas and the impact of longer processing times and delay on family sponsored visa category. The article will conclude that these changes are part of a broader ‘neoliberal’ agenda of the Australian government that focuses more on securitisation and border control rather than on the well-being of migrants and their families here and abroad.
New sponsorship framework
The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Act 2018 has now been passed in the Australian parliament to provide extra requirements for people seeking to sponsor family members under family sponsored visas.
The main feature of this new framework is that it creates a two-stage application procedure, which requires first the assessment of the sponsorship, and once the sponsorship is approved, then the visa application can be lodged.
This is a very tough rule which means that the lodgement of the visa application may be delayed until a family sponsorship application is approved. For instance, if your student visa or tourist visa is expiring in a month or two, you cannot lodge an onshore partner visa application because you must wait for the approval of the sponsorship, which could take a few months to process given that, nowadays, it is taking a long time to process a partner visa application (see the second major changes below).
This new framework also shows a significant departure from any past and present sponsorship regime, such as those for the Temporary Skill Shortage (TSS) visa and Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) visa, where sponsorship application and visa application can be lodged at the same time.
One of the primary objectives of the new sponsorship framework is to extend the government’s power to scrutinise sponsors with a violent criminal history, particularly those who have a history of family violence.
This new framework would also extend to a new temporary sponsored parent visa that will allow parents of migrants to stay in Australia for a period of up to five years.
Under this new parent visa, the applicant can ask for a three-year visa for a fee of $5,000 or a five-year visa for $10,000—a very expensive lodgement fee which many migrants may not be able to afford.
Sponsors of this parent visa would have to ensure that their parents have health insurance and do not incur any healthcare costs to Australian taxpayers. This would certainly put a heavy burden and discouragement to sponsors as ‘legally-bound’ financial guarantors.
Longer processing times and delay
The above change on sponsorship requirement has a profound impact on processing times and waiting period for applicants who applied under family sponsored visas.
As a result of this two-stage process of sponsorship and visa application, it means that there would be more waiting time for partner visa application because both applicants and sponsors will have to go through a rigorous process of internal checking regarding their identity, character, travel history, employment and so on.
Yet, even before these new changes were introduced, partner visas were already taking nearly 18 months to process for offshore applications and up to 25 months (nearly two years) for onshore applications.
One of the main reasons for this long processing period has been the result of the government’s cut in the migration intake. According to the government’s report, Australia’s annual permanent migration intake in 2017-2018 has been reduced to 162,417, which is well below the 190,000 places planned in the budget.
The previous Minister for Immigration Peter Dutton argues that this cut to the migration intake is indeed necessary to weed-out “applications lodged by individuals with complex immigration histories, including extensive travel histories, unsuccessful visa applications and/or periods of being unlawful in Australia”.
This entails increased scrutiny that includes more character and bona fides checks, which would further result into more delays and longer processing times.
The other major reason is related to the present culture of ‘securitisation’ and ‘border control’ which impacts on the way resources and budget are allocated within the Department of Immigration, which has now become part of the ‘super-ministry’ Department of Home Affairs that combines various government agencies including immigration and citizenship, customs and border control, national security and counter-terrorism and multicultural affairs.
It is apparent that outsourcing of public service and prioritisation of resources to border security and terrorism (rather than the visa processing) is the main goal of the current Australian government. It is revealed that “more than 250 public servants at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection face sack as the department moves to outsource its key call centres to a private operator”.
Home Affairs Secretary Michael Pezzulo told the Senate committee that the Department’s stance on border protection is of paramount importance, saying that even if more staff and funding becomes available it will most likely not be used to improve visa processing times.
It is worrying to see that administrative measures such as these are being used to slow the processing of visa applications for political reasons.
Conclusion
To conclude, it appears that these changes are nothing new but the continuation of the government’s cling to neoliberal strategy of ‘economic rationalisation’ on Australia’s migration program.
We are witnessing a complete overhaul of the migration policy that select migrants who are young, skilled, mobile, with excellent English language, and are able to quickly contribute to the Australian economy.
In the government’s point of view, migrants who do not fit within this ‘ideal’ model is therefore undeserving and unworthy to become a member of Australian society. Indeed, Australian permanent residency and Australian citizenship come with a high price.
Despite all these changes, migration to Australia will continue. But what we need is a new perspective that puts human being (the migrant) at the centre of the discussion, rather than the state’s focus on profit-making, criminalisation of migrant community and border control.
References:
Button, James, ‘Dutton’s Dark Victory’, The Monthly (February 2018)
Department of Home Affairs, Annual Report 2017-2018 (May 2017)
Mares, Peter, ‘Migration by numbers’, Inside Story (5 November 2018)
Towell, Noel, ‘Hundreds of public servants face sack as Immigration outsources visa centres’, The Sydney Morning Herald (16 May 2017)
*This article first appeared in Batingaw (Issue 40, Jan-Feb 2019), Migrante Australia’s Newsletter, in a slightly different version.
Reyvi Marinas 