Can I talk about study visas and Ms Sharp, were you watching the evidence from the AAT last night, or was it brought to your attention?
Respondent:
I was indeed, Senator, as was Mr Willard.
Senator Scarr:
The evidence was to the effect that as at 31 January 2025, there are 50,686 appeals against study‑visa decisions, refusals or cancellations 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 now represents 39.15 per cent of the workload of the AAT. Two and a half years ago, it represented three per cent, and there were only approximately 2,500. So there’s been an absolute explosion in the number of these cases at the AAT.
Ms Bogart from the Attorney‑General’s Department said that she had been engaged in discussions — the department had been engaged in discussions — with the Department of Home Affairs in relation to the matter, and said that the department… or I’ll put it to you: did you have discussions with the Attorney‑General’s Department in relation to this issue of appeals against decisions relating 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 about 44 per cent? And how that can be addressed, or is being addressed?
Respondent:
We engage regularly with AGD, and the most recent discussion was between Ms Boggart and Mr Willard very recently about that issue. Senator, I spoke to Ms Boggart last week. Probably more significantly, there’s also regular engagement on a more operational level between officers who manage the student‑visa program and the AAT officers.
Senator Scarr:
So what’s happened? What have you done?
Respondent:
Senator, as you’re well aware, the passage of the legislation last week will be of significant help to the AAT in helping to work through that caseload. Separately, and to get to the point of passage of legislation, we had been working closely with Attorney‑General’s for months to work out what we could do to address this growing backlog, which is essentially—as Ms Foster referred to before—about the impact of COVID. You know, we had a really significant number of students…
Senator Scarr:
It’s not just COVID though, is it, Ms Sharp? I don’t want to cut you off, but there seems to have been this phenomenon of failed student‑visa applicants discovering that there was a means by which they could appeal to the AAT and potentially lengthen their stay in Australia.
Respondent:
What I would say is that immediately after the borders reopened, globally, all Western countries experienced a large volume of international students seeking to come. Australia responded to that — like Canada and other countries — by really focusing on ensuring students coming were genuine students. That saw us do things like lift the language requirement, tighten evidentiary requirements, and crack down on dodgy providers — all sensible reforms — but with the result that more people were refused a visa.
Senator Scarr:
Okay, and you’re saying therefore they’re appealing — there’s a greater pool of people being denied, therefore a greater number of appeals?
Respondent:
I would add that as that phenomenon occurred, we saw the rate of appeal increase. We then looked at what was happening at merits review. One common reason was that people were submitting applications without a Certificate of Enrolment. That was grounds to refuse the visa. Then, at the AAT, they could say, “I’ve now enrolled, here is my certificate,” and the matter was remitted. Another common issue was that their English improved over one or two years. What Ms Sharp is going on to is what we’re trying to do. So a really important change we’ve made at the front end is to make it such that you cannot submit a valid application unless you upload a Certificate of Enrolment.
Senator Scarr:
Something as simple as that — hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn’t it? But I guess that is effective in terms of stopping someone from making an appeal. They can argue there never was a valid application.
Respondent:
Correct. It wasn’t submitted, so we didn’t have to refuse it, if you like.
Senator Scarr:
The Secretary referred to English‑language requirements. Can you apply a similar approach? If someone can’t upload a certificate showing they meet the required English‑language level, why can’t you make the application invalid?
Respondent:
The current setting is that at the time of application they must have an English‑language result that meets the threshold. The issue is that if they don’t meet it, we must refuse the application.
Senator Scarr:
Why can’t you make it invalid to lodge an application if they don’t have that certificate? It seems efficient.
Respondent:
We would need to consider whether that could be made an objective Schedule 1 requirement.
Senator Scarr:
Can you take that on notice? I’m also interested in the financial‑capacity requirement.
Respondent:
We try to move what we can into Schedule 1, but financial requirements often require further assessment, which is less objective.
Senator Scarr:
I’ll move on quickly. For the 2024–25 permanent migration program, there was a well‑written discussion paper seeking public submissions. But for the 2025–26 program, the answer to my question on notice was that no formal submissions were sought. Why was public consultation undertaken for one year but not the next?
Respondent:
Planning the migration program is ultimately a matter for government. We draw on extensive stakeholder engagement, though I’ll take on notice who made the decision not to publish a discussion paper.
Senator Scarr:
Was it a decision of the Minister?
Respondent:
I’ll take that on notice.
Senator Scarr:
Has any decision been made for the 2026–27 program?
Respondent:
I’m not aware of any decision being made but will take that on notice.
Senator Scarr:
Thank you. Were any submissions made informally, and can you provide copies?
Respondent:
I’ll take that on notice, subject to the circumstances in which submissions were provided.
Senator Scarr:
On to another topic: the proposed increase in registration fees for Registered Migration Agents. Concerns have been raised that the fees are higher than those for other professional bodies, and that we want people to seek qualified advice. How do you respond?
Respondent:
We’ve been consulting stakeholders as we review the fee instrument. The issues you’ve raised have been put to us and are being taken into account.
Senator Scarr:
Has a final decision been made?
Respondent:
Not yet. Work is still underway.
Senator Scarr:
Another concern is fake migration agents taking advantage of vulnerable people. What is the department doing?
Respondent:
We are undertaking compliance activity to identify unregistered providers and applying civil penalties or pursuing prosecutions where appropriate. If you see cases, please refer them to us.
Senator Scarr:
Lastly, the migration strategy referred to processing‑time targets for Skills in Demand and Specialist Skills visas — 21 days and seven days respectively. Can you update me?
Respondent:
We are not at those timeframes yet. Processing times are improving as we work through backlogs.
Senator Scarr:
So what are the current times?
Respondent:
Ten days for Specialist Skills.
Senator Scarr:
So 10 days versus seven.
Respondent:
And Skills in Demand is currently around four months, compared with the 21‑day target. We are reducing backlogs, and if progress continues, times will continue to improve.
