The pandemic has blocked a great deal of pent up demand potential to migrate to Australia.

This includes good, democratic heritage, citizens of Hong Kong who wish to escape Hong Kong's descent into one-party, communist government.

Many from Hong Kong are cashed up and have the high business skills Australia needs.

More see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#Current_immigration_programs indicates:

"Employment and family visas can often lead to Australian citizenship; however, this requires the applicant to have lived in Australia for at least four years with at least one year as a permanent resident.

INVESTOR VISAS - Foreign investors could invest the business or fund in Australia to acquire the Permanent Residential of Australia, after 4 years (including the year which acquire the visa), they need to take the exam and make a declaration in order to be a citizen of Australia."

Oh ok Murray, then let us all worry over the concerns of the wealthy looking over the future of the rich.

Since when has a lawyer ever lost out on making a motza from over-servicing for profit?
And yours would be a naivety position thinking that lawyers would not ruthlessly scorch the underling opposition of the deplorables diploma.

and if the confusion you describe is an impediment to immigrants, then that’s a great positive for Australians generally, (whatever one of those is in the new age).

Then I read the line that it’s an advantage to match ethnic agents with their clients.
I’d tell you Murray, how I’d run the show; I’d go right out of my way to ensure that never happened, and all negotiations were based strictly on local cultural understandings.

And why would me as a local, give a tinkers damn about the immigration processes when evidence abounds that obviously it’s processes are failing miserably matching suitable immigrants to Australian culture, (whatever that is now in its remnant state).

Dan

plantagenet

I’d prefer to wear a bandana and sport an AK 47 slung over my shoulder, shooting up beer cans for target practice, and readying my self for the disastrous consequences from your social engineering experiment; great ideas, not!

Dan

Deregulation means free from scrutiny, surely. There should be no such thing as immigration agents in the first place; they are well known crooks making money out of what should be an entirely government affair. Australia does not need mass immigration.

Minimum to zero immigration; no urgers (agents).

Those Hong Kong business people whose bilingual upbringing includes Hong Kong's Crown Colony years, speak good English. So they need little cultural education to integrate into Australia.

The last thing Australia needs is a "world class migration advice industry", whatever that might mean.

Net migration should be 80K, which is the long term average, or much less. Not the 200K that the LibLab duopoly is dead keen to get back to ASAP.

If there's one thing the population should be consulted on, it's the population. Under LibLab, this will never happen.

We need more responsible people not mere humans who have no interest apart from asking for more for nothing. We need people who are prepared to contribute in furthering this Nation !

What’s the point of beating around the bush in these comments?

I think the article is quite clear on many “why” questions:

1/ the acclaimed “world class migration industry” has not got any objective standards set: it is very easy to check to confirm this. The next question is WHY this happened?

2/ There is clearly a big concern over the Kendall report: why an executive of LCA was appointed as an only “independent person” to carry out the inquiry and then made all those recommendations which led to this change of law (removing lawyers from OMARA)?

3/ why the Department’s facts sheet did not answer the above question/concern about Kendall report? Why the facts sheet “missed” the “fact” regarding lawyer’s freedom from all those OMARA regulatory scheme?

There are a lot of “WHY” questions raised by this article which need to be answered.