Border Rules Put Lower Numbers Over Migrants With Biggest Contribution

CANBERRA — Public servants have warned that changes made by the Albanese government to prioritize visa applicants already in Australia over those offshore would have a range of perverse consequences including benefiting categories who make a smaller economic contribution.

The Department of Home Affairs warned its minister Tony Burke in July about likely criticisms of the policy, including Labor's decision to stop giving priority to employer-sponsored applications for jobs in regional Australia, which has caused backlash from the Coalition opposition. The department also noted the policy is likely to cause family separation of vulnerable people and may breach international obligations on the rights of children.

Australia's two major parties, the ruling Labor Party and the Coalition, have both promised cuts to net overseas migration in response to the resurgent right-wing nationalist One Nation, which wants a period of negative net migration for three years.

To help drive net migration down to 245,000 in 2026-27 and 225,000 in 2027-28, the Albanese government in July issued new ministerial directions determining the order of visa processing, giving greater priority for permanent visas to applicants already onshore in Australia at the cost of those offshore who must now wait longer.

That cost was spelled out in the department's July 8 submission to Burke, produced to the Senate due to a successful demand by the Coalition and minor parties.

The department warned that prioritizing certain onshore cohorts over other offshore cohorts could attract criticism. It cited allowing onshore non-contributory parents, who pay visa fees of AU$5,365 for a single to AU$8,665 for a couple, to have higher priority than offshore contributory parents, who pay fees of AU$49,900 for a single or AU$95,625 for a couple. Another example it cited was that "onshore aged dependent relative applicants will be higher priority than offshore partner and child applicants."

Those observations demonstrate that prioritizing applicants based on their location can run directly contrary to objectives of preferring migrants who might make the biggest economic and social contribution to Australia.

"Removing prioritisation for applications in relation to occupations to be carried out in regional Australia may attract criticism from regional sectors / employers," the department said in relation to the July rules. "The strong onshore focus will raise concerns from sectors who are disadvantaged. Some lower value onshore occupations will be prioritised over highly paid, but not priority offshore applicants, including accredited sponsors and higher-paid migrants using the specialist skills stream, who currently receive priority processing."

"Processing times will increase for lower priority applications where the applicant is offshore, which may increase exposure to legal challenge for unreasonable delay," it said. "Increased processing times may also exacerbate risks such as prolonged family separation for vulnerable cohorts, [and] secondary applicants 'ageing out'," it said, referring to children of adult migrants waiting so long they no longer qualify.

"Giving lower priority to offshore family visa applications involving children may be considered inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," the department said, although this could be mitigated by giving delegates some discretion.

Nationals leader Matt Canavan told POLITICO the government had "knowingly removed regional skilled visa processing priority to meet an arbitrary 70:30 onshore migration target, despite being warned it would disadvantage regional employers, and without consulting the agriculture department or a single regional industry body."

The Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said rules set in July were "always intended to be for a limited period which would then be superseded once the government arrived at our new migration policy."

“This is why it was replaced by ministerial directions 121 and 122 shortly following the National Press Club address [in September]."

Those new directions elevated some industries — agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, resources and some construction trades — to the highest priority. They also removed the onshore-only limitation for construction, healthcare and teaching priority, so offshore priority-sector applicants now receive the highest priority. But they otherwise maintained the preference for onshore applicants.

Greens leader and home affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge said the ministerial directions create "an unfair disadvantage for offshore spouses who have followed the correct visa pathway and it turns out that the government knew this too."

"The whole thing stinks," he said. "An immigration system that separates children from their families is morally and culturally repugnant. The fact that this direction seeks to do this by steal doesn't make it any less wrong."

"This is what a race to the bottom on immigration between Labor and One Nation looks like. No actual policy thinking, just Labor rushing to the hard right uncaring that families and children have to pay the price."