The Significant Investor Visa program may need to be modified, but certainly NOT ABOLISHED！

The likely abolish of the “Significant Investor Visa”（hereafter referred as SIV） has been sending shockwaves to the migration and Wealth management industry, the public and certainly overseas.

I have been a registered migration agent for over 20 years and I have been involved in the promotion of this visa since its inception, and I was on the delegation to travel to China with NSW business migration unit, in 2019, I had the privilege to invite a tier ONE wealth management firm to travel to China to jointly promote the visa to the High Net worth Individuals in China. I think the Australian public should know the truth, nothing but the truth, and that’s why I feel it an absolute necessity to clarify the visa category:

What is the Significant Investor Visa Program?

The Significant Investor Visa program (SIV) took effects from 24 Nov, 2012. It is an Australian visa that requires a successful principal applicant (together with his/her spouse and children under 23 years of age)  to invest a minimum of $5 million and stay provisionally in Australia for up to five years period. This is actually a provisional visa program that is considered a pathway to obtaining Australian permanent residency, after a minimum of 4 years of investment and, according to the home affairs official website, it takes at least 26 months to process the permanent visa application. Therefore, it is not too difficult to figure out how fast this “Golden” visa can bring people permanently in Australia, based on today’s figure in the department website, logically, anyone who applies for a permanent residency in Australia needs a minimum of 6.5 years for the privilege – Permanent Residence.

Sandra Li, pictured above, was on the panel of the recent ACBC event(pictured above)

However, on the 8 September, 2022, an article appeared in “The Australian” as above

“ Golden visa for Australia: Money is all that matters”. Frankly speaking, the author of the article is at best, biased or ignorant about the subject matter, when he claimed that the more than 2000 main applicants (90% Chinese, more than 7000 inclusive of family members) were granted the visa, not one has been refused on character grounds or background checks. This statement is irresponsible as it indicated that “the Chinese criminal were let in”, thus painting a terrible picture of those granted for such visas, particularly the visa applicants from Chinese background. However, this would sound very reasonable and logical, except to the insiders, who understand the visa process. I consider this very misleading for the following reasons:

1)    SIV is an Australian visa that happens to be more patronized by the Chinese HNWIs.  I am confident that this visa, like any other Australian visas, is strictly administrated by the department of Home Affairs, and each and every visa applicant has to go through stringent regulations. I have the confidence in Australian legal framework that would not allow any criminals to easily get into our country. How could we allow this visa to let in any criminals?

2)    Each and every applicant needs to have character clearance, and he/she is required to take two “Police Clearance” – One from Australia if he/she is in Australia for over 3 months, or from his/her home country.

Richard YUAN raised a SIV related question during the Seminar (above)

3)    Many applicants, even though they have enough funds, may be discouraged to continue with their applications by professionals like auditors or migration agents if their cases are “too weak” -taxation and source of funds, or any criminal offenses are to be considered. The applicants need to prove that they are good and of sound characters.

4)    As for the source of funds and valuation of the assets of the applicants, an extra precaution has been taken to utilize the service of only those Australian qualified Accountant and Auditors for the applicants’ financial audit or professional valuers for valuation, to ensure all financial documentation are in conformity with Australian standard.   

5)    A typical visa applicant needs to go through a stringent process of an initial EOI (Expression of Interests) period, applying through the relevant state or territory government for a sponsorship, but this is only possible when all financial documents are audited based on Australian standard, by an Australian qualified auditor. Once he/she received the sponsorship, he/she needs to apply for the visa within a limited time.  That’s why you can see from the department statistics that there is a significant gap between the EOI number and the number of “Applications lodged”.

There are three components for the $5m dollars investment- to be put into what are referred as “compliant investments”, namely, the Venture Capital component (which invest in start-ups and small private companies) constitutes 20% of the total investment, which is $1 million and 30% to invest in the Australia Stock Exchange listed Emerging Companies at $1.5million. The rest 50% is the less risky, balancing fund, that is $2.5m.

Generally speaking, most applicants’ $5m dollars investment are not returning a great deal at all, as there are quite a few strings attached to it, with many “don’ts” with regards to what can be invested, unlike other private funds. Many applicants consider this as a cost for the visa, as they are aware that they need to “make some contributions” and “sacrifices” to obtain the permanent residence.

I maintain my position as I did 5 years ago that I believe the visa is good for Australia and Australian economy.

I disagree that this visa does not bring enough value to the Australian Economy.  I believe if Australia can administrate the visa scheme properly, this would be an easy to manage program and its benefits would certainly outweigh its problems.

By November 24, 2022, this SIV program would celebrate its 10th anniversary.

According to Department of Home Affairs figures as of June 2020, 2,349 SIV visas have been granted. During this time, about $11.7 billion has been tipped into complying investments (by now, it surely should be more than $12billion)

In the past couple of years, we had an immigration intake of about 160k people each year. I simply couldn’t understand how anyone in decision making position, or in the media that influence the ideas and thoughts of many, can jump into the conclusion that “this visa does not bring enough value to the Australian Economy”?

What value does an average migrant bring to Australia? Would any Australians believe that the average SIV visa holder would contribute less than any average migrant in a year, or in their lifetime?

Naturally, most SIV families would buy family homes and investment homes that are compatible to the social status, many keep investing outside the normal $5m SIV funds into business or other investment, which further contributes tax and employment, certainly benefiting our economy.  

You don’t have to be a mathematicians to work out there are plenty of tangible benefits in this visa, not to mention many flow on effects of additional investment.

In summing up, the current SIV program is a beneficial visa category that may need to be modified, NOT ABOLISHED!