The Government wants to get a "better deal" from controversial pay-for-residency visas.
But the head of the firm driving uptake of the significant investor visa (SIV) in Australia — and attracting billions in capital for Australian companies — has claimed the country is already getting "fair value".
The SIV provides a streamlined pathway to permanent residency for migrants with $5 million to invest.
Andrew Martin, managing director of asset management at Moelis Australia, said the SIV program in Australia has been "a massive success", leading to direct investment of more than $11 billion since it commenced in 2012.
"It has been estimated that the follow-on investment from SIV investors has been up to four to five times more than the mandatory $5 million, meaning capital invested into Australia could be as much as $50 billion."
The program was tweaked in 2015 to shift investment towards venture capital and emerging companies and away from real estate.
But Immigration Minister David Coleman flagged this month that the business and investment visa scheme — of which the SIV is the headline program — will be reviewed.
I will be reviewing our business investment visas with a simple question in mind: can we get a better deal for Australia?
Behind investment visas
About 7,000 visas are granted each year across the entire business and investment visa program.
Business innovation and investor visas, not SIVs, represent the majority of grants under the scheme. These apply business and investment requirements as well as a points test, which values migrants with youth, English language ability, qualifications and experience.
But larger investments arrive through the SIV scheme, which does not apply a points test. Plus, SIV holders qualify for permanent residency if they have spent just 40 days in Australia per year.
There were 183 SIVs were granted in 2017-18, with the program on track to deliver a similar figure for 2018-19, according to figures released in February.
Eighty-seven per cent of SIVs have been given to Chinese nationals since 2012, ahead of Hong Kong (3.2 per cent), Malaysia (1.5 per cent), South Africa (1.3 per cent) and Vietnam (0.9 per cent).
The first permanent visas under the program were awarded in 2017-18. Approximately 700 had been granted at January 31, 2019.
Moelis, the largest manager of SIV investments in Australia, has a team of 12 across Sydney, Melbourne and Shanghai working with clients.
Its 2019 first-half results released this week stated capital flows from high net worth Chinese clients into the SIV program have "remained strong".
"Despite the redemption of some SIV funds by clients who have achieved their residency objective, we have been successful in retaining the investment funds of many SIV clients who, despite having received permanent residency from the Australian Government, have chosen to retain their investment with Moelis Australia."
"Despite the redemption of some SIV funds by clients who have achieved their residency objective, we have been successful in retaining the investment funds of many SIV clients who, despite having received permanent residency from the Australian Government, have chosen to retain their investment with Moelis Australia."
It is an attractive pool of capital to manage given the relatively long duration of investment up to eight years.
The share price of Moelis Australia hit a two-year low after results were released.
Towards a 'better deal'
Mr Coleman declined to elaborate to the ABC on his planned review of the scheme.
In the speech two weeks ago, he said: "We need to sharply focus on the practical execution to ensure that we are fully delivering on the goal."
"Immigration to Australia is highly attractive to this cohort, and we need to ensure that we maximise the returns to our economy from their investment."
A 2016 report into the migration program argued the SIV (and its little-used "premium" $15 million investor visa) should be abolished.
"The broader economic benefits of the significant investor and premium investor visas are negligible, and any benefits accrue mainly to those visa holders and to fund managers," it stated.
It is likely that immigrants through these streams have less favourable social impacts than other skilled immigrants.
Mr Martin said he welcomed the review but stressed it needed to consider competition from the US and Europe.
"It is widely accepted that Australia's SIV program is best of breed in terms of investment migration — especially in terms of its key investment requirements such as the $5 million amount which is much, much higher than most competing programs," he said.
He suggested the Government could increase the proportion of funds that had to be invested into emerging companies, but that "we are getting fair value".
Source: www.abc.net.au
