Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, , 6:58:15 to 7:47:36
Senators examine the operationalization of new visa cancellation powers and the significant backlog in onshore protection visa applications.
Topics: Protection visas, Public safety, Human rights
Speakers: Paul Scarr, David Shoebridge, Stephanie Foster PSM, Clare Sharp PSM, Unknown Speaker, Alex Engel, Andrew Kiley, Hamish Hansford, Hon Bridget McKenzie, Hon Murray Watt, Jana Stewart, Michael Willard, Speaker 28
two. We'll proceed directly to your questions and begin with Senator Scarr.
>> Uh thank you very much, Chair. Uh, Secretary, I want to um take you to the migration provisions that were introduced in the combating anti-semitism, hate and extremism, criminal and migration laws
bill 2026, which I strongly support and um was pleased to see pass. uh >> ready for
>> can you tell me in relation to the
amendments which strengthened the government's powers with respect to cancellation and refusal of visas
subsequent to the passage of that operationalize those provisions and in that regard just to provide you context of the things I'm
limbs if I can put that put it that way in terms of the character concern list uh including endorsing statements
Uh and also there's the lawyer's point very important point about changing wood
to might uh which uh changes the um the burden with respect to taking certain action. So I'm very keen to know what steps the department's taken to operationalize the benefit of of those strengthened powers. Thanks, Senator. Um, Cla Sharp, head of immigration. Um, Senator, to date, what we have been focused on is getting our um some training, organizing training for staff on how the new provisions work and um our own internal processes. We're
also um preparing correspondents to reach out to our state and territory um law enforcement to make sure they're aware of the powers as well because in practice the way um we become aware of
people who might be engaged in the sort of conduct that might enliven the powers is often through the state and territory police um where they're also looking at people. So that's a that's a key part of our preparation to put ourselves in a
the new powers
>> and and that note is going from me to >> Um imminently. So I signed off on that content yesterday. Have have there been any additional resources mobilized to enable uh the department to have more people, if we could put it that bluntly, looking into the conduct of of people who especially on temporary visas who might be doing things such as making one or more public statements or endorsing a
dissemination of ideas based on superiority overall hatred of other persons on the basis of race, color, or national ethnic origin. So, do you actually have more people looking um for people who are stepping over the line who are here on temporary visas as a um as as a tool to um deal with people who perhaps um don't share our values? >> Senator, uh we're going to be using our existing team in the cancellation division. The the purpose of the legislation is to make it easier though for that team. You know, we gave some evidence about the time to make it easier to exercise the powers. As we gave evidence about at the time, we already had some powers set at a higher evidentary threshold. What we're hoping is that we can be um we can be faster to act and while of course we must have good reasons and evidence, we don't need quite the same >> degree of it that we required before, which all of which is to say with the
work through cases more quickly. >> Right. Understood. Uh presumably there must have been people who have been brought to your attention in the past. I'm looking I'm not going to ask you about specific individuals, but there presumably are people who maybe have been brought to your attention in the past and you were battling with the elevated evidential thresholds. Is the department going through a process of reconsidering matters to see whether or not they fall within the domain of the new provisions? >> Senator Michael Thomas, Deputy Secretary.
>> Just Yeah, >> I'll move that over. Um Michael Thomas, Deputy Secretary Immigration Compliance. Um, yes, Senator, we've been looking at previous cases as well where they may not have met the thresholds that we had to see if this new threshold may apply.
past cases where we're sort of aware that they didn't meet the threshold to see if the new powers might be applicable. >> Okay. And in terms of uh in terms of people who are seeking visas, so there's the cancellation of visas for people who
already have them, but then there's processes in place with respect to people who are seeking visas. And again, the provisions have um helpfully been strengthened. Uh what how has that ch how are you operationalizing the the strengthening of those provisions? So clearly just to give you an example if someone applies for a visa uh and we have a process in place which identifies that they've liked uh for example ISIS related material or neo-Nazi related material uh you now have the power for that red flag to be acted upon. So how are you operationalizing
uh those new powers? >> Again Senator um we're drawing on the existing architecture we already had for that. So already when a visa processing officer identifies some content of concern that might that goes to this kind of controversial views to to put it in a in a bucket it >> well it's more than controversial we should make that clear for everyone it
>> a threat to our national interest >> that's right um already those sorts of cases are elevated to our controversial visitors unit sorry and that's why the name was um where it will get considered by more experienced um or or sort of more specialist
decision makers who will work through the case. We're going to be using the same architecture with the new powers as we already did, but again the new the new grounds give us a wider variety of
and more robust u bases to make those decisions on. has any been any decision number of uh ASL that are committed to
actually undertaking these processes given what's happened at Bondi. resources around depending on case loads etc. But as Miss Sharp said because the more work to build the case. We are um expecting with the the different
threshold that that will mean that there will be less effort involved in any
individual um case using the new provisions. And so we'll we will we will capacity to to fully utilize this
experience goes with that team. >> Okay. All right. I'll leave that subject there. I we're limited time so I'm
quickly segue to the there's no segue
actually it's a hard uh hard shift. Uh the center for population released its
Uh Miss Sharp, have you noted the observations that were made in that statement in relation to immigration matters and do you have any response to those? Uh, Senator, I believe our team provided some of the data um to Treasury and I'm aware of that population statement.
>> Mr. Willard's poised to come to the
table. Um, my first question was a
fishing question to see if you were going to um make any um high level observations. Uh, Mr. Willard, um, do you have any
high level observations with respect to
what was said in the population statement? >> Uh, Senator, I think it would be easier if you were to ask Mr. to allow specific questions. >> Well, I I I am actually interested to know u I I note that secretary, but I am date. >> Do you have a secretary? Have you got a
target number or some sort of guide with respect to how many bridging visas we should have on issue? And I'm asking this question on the basis that 30 June 2019 there are 180,000 bridging visas on issue. Bridging visas are issued to provide a right to stay in the country resolved. So it necessarily means the greater the number of bridging visa on issues, the greater the number of people in the country whose immigration visa status hasn't yet been resolved. So does the department have some goals or targets that we don't want to see the number of bridging visas above 450 or we need to get this down to 350. What's the what's the plan across the whole of government to actually achieve that? So Santa, um I think perhaps a uh a better way of describing our efforts um is what we are doing uh where we have particularly large cohorts of bridging visa holders to reduce that number. Miss Sharp can take you through that because the way we use that will will the way the numbers and the way we use it will differ according to the the part of the cycle or the circumstances we're in. Um,
and I think there uh Mr. Willard will will phrase this much more eloquently than I, but we in a we are in a process of normalizing post the co bulge >> and so we just need to to work hard on the areas where we can influence it >> and >> and get back to that level. >> I'm certainly aware of the postco bulge. Others others may choose to ignore it, but I'm certainly aware of it. Um, but that's I I at this stage, Mich, I don't need you to do that just because I I've got very limited time. >> Um, number of temporary visas on issue, Mr. Willard. So, uh, 31 October 2025, there were 2,925,000.
December. >> Uh, I have 30th of November. For the number of temporary visa holders uh in
Australia, it's uh 2.857 million. So 2,857,000. Okay. Thank you. Uh in terms of I want to move to onore protection visas. So the last update that was tabled in the Senate was for November 2025. Do you have any uh more up to-ate figures? And I'm very keen once you give me the headline figure for you to break down where the different the numbers of different cohorts depending on where they are in the system. So, uh, as we did last time, if you've got those figures, you can walk through. >> Uh, I do have an update, but it is actually dated November 2025. >> Oh, you don't have any?
>> Let me just Yeah. So the update I have is for it to be able to break down that way is for November 2025. >> Do you have the headline figure? >> I have a headline figure um which is uh 77,14. That's for 31st of December 2025. Uh and the when I looked to November that was 77,933. So a slight reduction. Um >> so what's that number? So the number of so >> that's I beg you pardon that's bridgic visa A and C visa holders in Australia. >> Oh okay >> but that's the only breakdown I have for
December for that period. Mr. Kylie might be able to assist you with a further figure. >> Andrew Kylie first assistant secretary migration citizen citizenship and humanitarian policy division. I've got breakdowns at 30 November sort of across the case load if that would assist. >> Yes. So the the the aggregate figure that I'm looking for a breakdown of as at 30 November 2025 was 102,660. So if you can break that down into where people are up to in the system that
would be helpful. >> Yeah. So I've got uh an on hand at primary stage this at 30 November of 27,611. >> So primary stage what's that mean? >> Uh still with the department undergoing primary assessment. Can we just Senator I'm just not sure we're answering your question. Are you
interested in the number of protection visa applications on hand or the number of failed protection visa >> in the well in the first instance I was after the failed protection visas which is why I was quoting the November figure but Mr. Mr. Kylie that that figure you just gave though is the number on hand sorry is it? So that's in addition to the 100,000 >> 27,611 and then there are 63,341 individuals who are at either merits uh or judicial review >> sorry 63,341 >> and that's either art or >> judicial review >> and and they are of course part of the 102 fail. >> Yeah. Yeah, I understand. >> And then the remainder of that 102,000 are those who have no ongoing matters.
>> Okay. So how many of those are unlawful non-citizens? >> Senator 29,000 of those are unlawful nonizens. >> 29,000 and then the balance presumably Mr. Thomas are on bridging visas. >> Uh they are so they're a combination of people awaiting ministerial intervention
or they're on a departure pathway or awaiting another substandard visa. >> And how many of them are there?
>> I think the balance is about 10,000. >> It's just the balance. Okay. Can I ask you Mr. Thomas, this has been bugging me. Um, if you can cure my irritation, that would uh to your great benefit. Uh, and and it is a question of people refer to this figure. It's in fact been referred in this place before. When you table these reports, you table the total number of individuals that were not granted a final protection visa that were deported during the period and
Now I know uh from previous evidence you've given that that doesn't mean there's only 13 of these people have left during the course of a year. Why do
you put 13 in that report? Why don't you actually put the number of the total number of people um who've actually gone through the process of nonvoluntary deportation if I can put it that way. they've gone into a detention center and then left um or people who've left of their own valition in order to give a better understanding to the Australian public as to what the department's doing. >> I'll have to pass that question to my colleague Senator that do the report over [laughter] time. >> Apologies, Senator. Okay. Um >> my understanding is that the basis of that report draws on a Senate order that was made a number of years ago that set out a certain uh types of categories
that we had to report. >> So maybe we need to amend the Senate order because it doesn't make much sense. I think it it actually misleads people >> and it unersells the work that we have to secretary. It does. It does. Uh let me just see if I've got um one of the issues. This is the last question uh for this block. Um one of the questions raised by the registar of the federal uh
and family circuit court last night uh m Dr. Pringle or Mr. Pringle registar Pringle was when cases go to judicial
so they're going before the courts 80% he estimated of migration cases have a self-acting um appellant 80%. uh and in fact 80% of them need a
translator. He also spoke about the fact that there's been an exponential uh growth in the number of cases
uh on short protection cases which are ending up in judicial review. He he went through the figures. They've gone up from say 2 and a half thousand to 4,000 to he's expecting 10 to 11,000 during
the course of this financial review. What steps is the department taking practically u to try and address this issue of
self-acting uh appellants uh in the court system which obviously slows down proceedings and and clogs up the system. Does the department have any strategy uh in relation to dealing with that issue? >> Mr. Car, do you want to give an overview of the funding we provide to legal
>> So um there have been two misses. that have provided funding to legal providers to support individuals going through the protection visa process. Uh so two years ago there was a um a measure where uh if you just let me find exact amount it was approximately $50 million support individuals going through primary uh and review stages. Uh and again designed to ensure that people
have that legal advice available to them. >> But Mr. Cleary, there's and and look, I'll I'll finish it here, but um and maybe take it on notice. As at last night, we're receiving evidence, 80% of those 10 to 11,000 cases are a self-acting appellant. >> 80%. >> Senator, we share his pain and your pain. Um it's an issue that we are actively looking at um and uh and at a range of measures to um reduce the
impact um on the appeal process on the
courts um and on the efficiency of the process itself. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Schub. >> Uh thanks chair. Um Secretary, what visa is President Herzog on?
Uh, Senator, we don't comment on individual circumstances, individual cases. Um, obviously, President Herzog is a is a very public one, but the the
uh kind of visa um I think is a is a personal detail that we wouldn't
provide. This is a head of state who's been invited here by the prime minister.
privacy rationale to avoid telling the
Australian public what visa Israeli President Herzog is on. Are you? So, Senator, um there's a really important principle about not providing
details on individuals um that we have uh obviously processed through our visa system. Um, I uh >> absolutely accept and I acknowledge that
this is a very public visit, but that
doesn't mean that the details surrounding it um are ones that we should share. >> Well, can you confirm that he's on a visa?
>> Senator, let me take your questions
around his visa on notice so that I can
ensure that there are no sensitivities. >> I'm taking the qu now. Now, you can't as a government have it both ways. Complain about the number of questions on notice and then take on notice a question like that. Is President Herzog on a visa? >> Senator, I took the question on notice. >> Um, >> let her finish. >> Chair, I'm going to ask you, >> if I may just take a point point of order against the the um witness in this regard. the um in your opening address you pointed out that witnesses need to answer questions that are within the capacity of the witnesses. It's in the government's own guidelines to witnesses. Your minister continues to object about the number of questions on notice. And I asked the secretary whether or not President Herzog has a visa and I I saw
right of her. Um, and then we get this um, refrain that we get all the time from this secretary um, that she'll take it on notice and how dare you question whether or not she takes it on notice. I'd ask you to direct the witness if it's within their capacity to answer the questions today if for no other reason than to stop your minister continuing to complain about the number of questions that they take on notice. >> How about you let Miss Foster finish her sentence? Uh so I think um talking about the secretary in a way that suggests that um she she she's trying to be un unhelpful to this committee I think is um un unfair. I think uh the secretary has taken your question on notice to see what she can provide to the committee. I think she's
sensitivities around but let's see what she can provide. >> Is that um feel free to finish uh answering uh secretary if I've mischaracterized uh what you were saying uh and it is absolutely within uh the officials right to take questions on notice where >> if they cannot answer it here >> yeah or they feel like there is a public
interest immunity claim that they need to make >> correct >> uh so I think the secretary is is trying to to assist here >> so senator I'm trying to make a distinction between my concern about providing detail details on any
individual. Um but um I can say um that every person who enters Australia um uh comes in on a visa >> and I assume that we would have the same discussion about former Israeli Major General Doran Olm who has come out with President Herzog as part of the delegation. I'll ask you what visa he's on. You'll
decline to answer it. But he like everybody coming to this country is on a visa. Would that be fair to say? >> who is not an Australian >> secretary. Has the department undertaken any due diligence about the multiple concerns about the previous conduct of former major general including those that went before a UK court that ended up with a warrant being issued against him for breaches of the
Geneva Convention. Have you undertaken th that due diligence in respect of
former Major General Almog? Senator, um, cases. >> Will you see, Secretary Almog is accused of a series of war
crimes? These matters were put before a UK magistrate court and they result from his time as general officer commanding the Israel Israel military southern
command between December 2000 and July 2003. And they include the murder of three teenage boys killed as a result of injuries inflicted by flesh shells fired by an Israeli tank and flashets are pointed fin stabilized steel
projectiles. In January 2002, Israeli bulldozers under the command of then major general
flattened 59 houses in the Rafa refugee
camp in Gaza. Residents fled and couldn't take their possessions.
under his command. There was the mass murder committed on the 22nd of July, 2002 when a one-tonon bomb was dropped on Gaza City to target um one individual
but killed 14 civilians including eight children and injured more than 150. And also under his command, the killing of Noah Shukri al- Makdam who was nine
months into her pregnancy at the time of He's been accused of these crimes and a warrant has issued against him from a UK magistrate's court in relation to them.
How on earth did he not fail the character test?
>> Senator, I have nothing to add to my previous evidence. We don't discuss
details of individual cases. Minister,
your government celebrated the fact that they had new powers to cancel visas on cancel visas if a person has been involved in conduct
um which amount to war crimes, crime against humanity uh or whether the attendance of a person
How on earth has your minister former major general? And why on earth doesn't he cancel it? >> Uh well again as the Ms. Foster has said we don't discuss the details of individual cases. >> Well you see hiding behind privacy provisions when the notorious behavior of major general who's here only because a labor minister refuses to cancel the visa doesn't answer the concerns in the community. Minister, again, why doesn't your government cancel his visa? And why did you ever grant him a visa in the first place? Or is it one rule, one rule for one group of visitors and a different rule if somebody's a former member of the IDF? >> I've answered your question. >> Mhm. Well, you see, Minister, the the Migration Act also permits
indeed um grants a a broad power to the
minister to cancel the visa of somebody if there in the event that if the person were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person might incite discord in the Australian
community. Sydney erupted into violence because
your prime minister invited President
Herzog to this city. It was predictable outrageous and certain. That's an outrageous. >> Why won't you cancel President Herzog's visit? >> I've answered your question. His president his presence is also a threat to the good order of the Australian community as evidenced by the appalling behavior of your Labor of your your fellow Labor government and Premier Chris Mins in New South Wales unleashing appalling violence on the community in Sydney. Clearly clearly a threat to the good order of this country. Why won't you cancel President Herzog's v visa because it is evident that his continued presence is a threat to the good order in in in Australia? >> Why won't you do it? >> I've answered your question. >> Senator Shoebridge indicating I'm going to share the call. >> Um I'm going to answer something different. >> Thank you. Uh, can I talk about study visas? And Miss Sharp, were you watching the evidence from the art last night or was it brought to your attention? >> Uh, I was. Was indeed, Senator, as was Mr. Willard and Mr. Kiley for that matter. >> Oh, excellent. Wonderful. Did you find it entertaining? >> Uh, >> you don't have to answer that. >> No. >> Uh, >> I found it interesting. the the evidence uh was to the effect that uh as at 31
January 2025 there are 50,686
appeals against uh study visa decisions, refusals or cancellations uh made by the department. So I'll just repeat that figure. 50,686 and that is out of a total of 129,444 cases. So just the component of study visas represents now 39.15%
of the workload of the art. 2 and a half years ago it represented 3% and there was only approximately 2 and a half thousand. So there's been an absolute explosion in the number of these cases at the art. Uh Miss Bogaart from the attorney
general's department and said that she had been engaged in discussions the department had been engaged in discussions uh with the department of home affairs in relation to the matter and said that the department or gi well I'll put it to you. Did you have discussions with the attorney general's department in relation to this issue of
to study visas? The fact that the
success rate if I can put it that way or the rate at which they're remitting back to the Department of Home Affairs is
And how that can be addressed or is being addressed. >> Yes, Senator. Um we we engage regularly with AGD and the most recent discussion was between Miss Bogaart and Mr. Willard um just very recently about that issue. Would you like to >> Senator I spoke to M Bogot last week uh probably more significantly there's also regular engagement on a on a more operational level between between
program uh and and the art offices. >> I I think just just going to the >> So what's happened? >> Yeah. um >> what have you done? >> So, Senator, I think as as you're well aware, the passage of the legislation last week will will be of significant
help, we think, to the art in helping to make its way through that case load. um separately a and to get to the point obviously of passage of legislation we had been working closely with attorney generals for months to work out what could we do to address this growing backlog which is essentially kind of miss foster referred to before about the impact of co you know we had a really significant number of students >> um >> it's not just co though is it miss sharp I don't want to cut you off but it's there there seems to have been this
phenomenon of of um failed student visa
applicants discovering that there was a means by which they could appeal uh to the art and potentially lengthen their
stay in Australia. So >> well certainly what I would say is immediately after the borders reopened globally >> all western countries experienced a large volume of international students
seeking to come. >> Sure. Australia responded to that like
Canada and other countries by really uh focusing in on ensuring students who were coming were genuine students. >> Yep. >> That saw in Australia us do things like lift the language requirement. It saw us be tougher on um the evidentiary requirements. Yep. >> Crack down on dodgy providers. >> All sensible reforms, >> but all with the result that more people will refuse to visa. >> Okay. And you're saying therefore they're appealing. there's a there's a greater pool of people have been denied, therefore there's a greater number of appeals. >> And I guess I would add to that that as that phenomena occurred, we started seeing that rate of appeal and then saying, well, we're going to need to look at what is happening at merits review. >> Yeah. >> Um, as Miss Bogaart um we we really have been looking closely at that. One of the common reasons was at the time people were submitting their application to us and they could make a valid application at the time they did not have a certificate of enrollment. that was a grounds for us to cancel or sorry to refuse the visa. Then they've got a visa refusal they can take to the art and when they go to merits review they say
comes back to us to study >> because because merits review they have >> one of the other very common things is that um their English language improves in the year or two between the initial case >> but I think what Miss Sharp is going on to is what we're trying to do to address this >> so so a really important change we've made at the front end is to make it such that you cannot submit a valid application um unless you're uploading a certificate of enrollment. So, so that really is quite significant in reducing the number >> and something as uh simple as that uh you know I'm not I'm not going
hindsight's a wonderful thing isn't it
but um I guess um that that is effective in terms of stopping someone from making um an appeal
>> they can they can argue that the application >> well there never was an application never was an application because the application was invalid. >> Correct. It wasn't submitted. So we didn't have to refuse it if you like. >> So the the secretary referred to English language requirements. Can you apply a similar approach with respect to English language requirements? If someone
doesn't can't upload a certificate that has English language at a certain level that they can't make an a valid application. uh the the current setting is is that at the time of application they have uh an English lang language result which allows them uh to meet the threshold. The the issue with that of course is we then have to refuse the application if
they're not at that threshold. >> So why can't you just make it invalid for them to lodge an application if they
if they don't have a certificate that has an English language threshold of X? uh it it could be a consideration in terms of schedule one. So requirements that set out what's required at time of application. Typically we have to look at at uh whether or not that's a requirement that can be entirely objective in terms of its application. >> Okay. So you're saying maybe it's not entirely objective. Can you take that on notice? because I'm also interested in terms of the the other one which was
relation to financial capacity and and whether or not if someone can lodge um
it seems to me a very efficient way of dealing with the matter if uh if you simply don't meet the requirements uh you can't lodge an application >> broadly >> for the objective ones right >> we seek to move what we can into schedule one in terms of objectivity for the point that you made senator uh things like financial requirements do sometimes require further assessment which would make it difficult to be a schedule one. >> Maybe they shouldn't. >> Uh can I move to another topic quickly? I'm I'm going very quickly here to try and assist to catch up time uh for the planning of the 202425 permanent migration program. There was a very useful well-written discussion paper. Did you draft it Mr. Willard? the very good discussion paper that was released with respect to the permanent migration program uh for 2024 25 that was seeking submissions >> I it was a departmental product senator >> oh that's humble response uh it um it actually said and I quote from it to support the planning of the migration program the department is conducting a consultation process to enable all Australians to have a say we are committed to engaging with you to ensure the planning of the 2024 4 25 migration program considers real world impacts. As part of our long-standing annual consultation process, we are pleased to invite public submissions to inform the planning of Australia's migration
Uh I asked a question uh previous
submissions for the 2526 program and the answer to the question on notice advised me that no formal submissions were sought. Why was it a good thing to give all Australians a say with respect to the permanent migration program for the 2425 year, but someone decided that we shouldn't give all Australians a say with respect to the 2526 migration program? >> Senator, I'd make the point that ultimately planning of the migration uh program is something that uh government considers. When we give advice in terms of the migration program, we do draw on >> Mr. Mr. Willard, sorry, I've got limited time. I don't want to be rude, but there was obviously a policy decision made that you Well, I didn't do that for effect. There was obviously a policy decision that was made that you would not publish a discussion paper for the 2526 permanent migration program and you would not enable all Australians to have a say with respect to the 2526 program who made that decision and what is the basis for that decision? Uh in terms of the basis for the decision, Senator, a a huge range of contemporaneously with the planning made the decision. >> Was a a decision that was made by the minister and and communicated to the >> I'd have to take on notice to give you a correct answer. >> What's the approach you're going to take for next year's permanent migration program? Are you going to take the approach you took in 2425 of enabling all Australians to have a say with respect to a matter of great interest as we're seeing in the current debate to all Australians with respect to in particular the rate of migration submissions ultimately that will be a question for government um but we we're noting your um your interest um and we find out that >> so minister can I ask you I know it's not not your portfolio minister has any decision been made as to whether or not the department or the government will revert to the process that was taken in 24-25 of providing all Australians with an opportunity to make a submission with respect to the permanent migration program for the 2627 year >> I'm not aware of any decision being made >> okay but can you take that on notice as well thank you uh I also So, uh, I know
in in the answer to the question on formal submissions had been made. Had
you can take it on notice. Can you
submissions that were made? >> I'll take it on notice. In doing so, we need to consider the circumstance in which the submission was made. >> Okay. Uh, I want to move quickly onto
another topic. uh the proposed increase in registration fees for registered
migration agents. This is uh had some uh
has has had some currency in terms of
current debate who uh who can answer that. Mr. Thomas, is that you? You hitting registered migration agents with additional fees. So, Mr. Thomas, the argument is that there's a number of arguments that have been raised in particular by the migration institute of Australia. One is that when you compare registration fees against other professions, uh registered migration the the the new registered migration agent fees registration fees are higher than that which applies to other professions. The other point is that we actually want more people with migration uh matters of concern to go and see a qualified registered migration agent to get proper advice and hopefully that assists in terms of dealing with two uh matters which have been raised by amongst others the migration institute of Australia? Um I guess in a general sense senator we have been engaging um with stakeholders on this as we've been working through um the proposal and what it could look like. So this is in relation to updating the instrument um around the costs. Um I think what you've said are considerations that have been raised directly with us um and taken into account as we sort of look through what those costs could and should look like. >> Has a final decision been made? Uh not yet, Senator. The work's still underway
>> Okay. All right. Um another uh issue which they raises this phenomenon of fake migration agents. So this is people who purport hold themselves out to be uh
migration agents. There's lots of people in vulnerable positions. Uh they can charge great amounts of money. What's the uh department doing to uh crack down on people holding themselves out as
migration agents when they're not? So we unregistered and unauthorized providers of immigration assistance um to try and identify instances where we think people are being exploited through that mechanism um and looking at using our powers to um either use our civil penalties or taking them through to a prosecution pathway. could you just take on notice that that area and provide as much information as you can in terms of your success in cracking down on people. I deal with lots of vulnerable people. Uh and they tell me about paying thousands of dollars to people and I see the results of their investment and it's uh
it's just terribly confronting. Last question I've I've just got Oh, sorry. >> I was just going to say if that if you do see that, please do refer those particular [snorts] instances to us. >> Yeah, I will. >> A really quick point. We're also um promoting the use of registered migration agents that encourage people to use them and how to use them and we campaign that goes over.
>> Excellent. >> I agree. You can use my um endorsement in that campaign if you want. Uh lastly, in the migration strategy that was released and I raised this before Mr. Willard, so uh I am empathetic um but I'm gonna ask a question anyway. Uh we discussed the uh target for the processing time for skills in demand visas and specialist skills pathway visas. And the target in the migration strategy was a median uh issue standard time of 21 days for new skills in demand
visas, 7 days for specialist skills pathway visas. I'm wondering if you can give us an update as to where we're up to in terms of those
>> uh figures. >> Senator, I can I we are not at those time frames. We're continuing to work in respect to processing uh of those case loads. Uh we have made progress in terms of the number we're finalizing versus the number that are being lodged. So we are catching up in terms of uh processing, but processing times are not at those levels. >> So what what are they? >> I'm just going to find them for you. Uh they are we do publish them on our um website. I >> I was having trouble using the website. It just went into a
>> sort of a suspended animation for some reason. Might be me.
>> That wasn't deliberate. Senator,
>> I have some. >> We can't target it towards particular [laughter] >> 10 days for specialist skills. >> Oh, okay. So 10 days versus seven. And
uh unfortunately core skills is at four months. >> Four months >> compared to 21 days >> as we as you know when we report on processing times it's the cases finalized in that particular month. We have been making progress when you look at the number of cases coming in. So
that suggests we're working through a will improve. >> Okay. I've still got some questions on outcome too, but I know you want to go to the anti-semitism envoy. >> Yeah. Uh yes. Uh so we are at uh the afternoon tea break, but for people's time management for the rest of the evening. Uh we are going to pause
outcome two uh because as you've heard from Senator Scarr, he's indicated he's
got further questions and so does Senator Shoebridge. Uh we are going to return from the afternoon tea break with the uh Australia special envoy envoy to combat anti-semitism. Uh she's currently on the program for an
uh it's likely we will get to back to outcome 2 post dinner and then the rest of the program after that. Uh so we will break now for afternoon tea and return at 5:05.