A debate has erupted over a proposal to bring back a visa program that once allowed wealthy foreigners to gain residency in Australia by investing a large sum of money. This program, often called the “golden ticket” visa, was scrapped in early 2024 due to concerns about corruption, money laundering, and foreign interference. However, recent comments from opposition leader Peter Dutton have suggested the scheme may be revived if his party is elected.
The visa allowed foreign nationals to secure a four-year residency in Australia by investing at least $5 million. Over time, this could lead to permanent residency. While open to all nationalities, more than 80% of those who used the program were from China. Critics, including Transparency International Australia’s CEO Clancy Moore, argue that this visa was exploited by individuals seeking to move large sums of money out of their home countries, sometimes for questionable reasons.
Financial watchdogs and security agencies raised alarms about the scheme. Reports found that many applicants could not clearly prove where their money came from, making it difficult to ensure that illicit funds were not entering Australia. The decision to abolish the visa was made by then Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil, based on strong evidence that it did not benefit the Australian economy as much as alternative immigration pathways.
Warnings from Experts and Officials
Leading voices in global financial security and anti-corruption efforts are warning against bringing back the golden ticket visa. Bill Browder, a well-known campaigner against corruption and the architect of global Magnitsky sanctions, has strongly criticized the idea. He argues that such programs have been widely abused across the world, allowing individuals with dubious backgrounds to clean their reputations and their money by gaining access to stable countries.
Global anti-corruption advocates, including Moore, argue that golden visas provide an easy route for criminals and corrupt officials to settle in foreign countries without proper scrutiny. They claim that nations, including Australia, have a responsibility to prevent such individuals from using wealth as a shortcut to residency.
Additionally, economic experts suggest that replacing investor visas with programs focused on skilled workers would bring far greater benefits to the country. A government commission report found that shifting from investor-focused immigration to skilled migration could improve the economy by billions of dollars. These findings played a key role in O’Neil’s decision to abolish the program last year.
The Risk of Returning to a Flawed System
Concerns over security and integrity are at the forefront of the debate. Australia’s financial intelligence agency previously warned that the program made it challenging to track the origins of funds being invested. Since many applicants acquired their wealth in foreign jurisdictions with weak financial oversight, verifying the legality of their investments became nearly impossible.
Experts fear that reinstating the golden ticket visa could once again make Australia an attractive destination for individuals looking to hide illicit wealth. Critics, including Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, believe such a program would allow corrupt figures to use the Australian real estate market and businesses to launder money while securing a safe haven for themselves and their families.
Government officials have responded to these concerns by emphasizing that visas should be granted based on national interest rather than financial power. Burke has stated, “You should qualify for a visa because it is in the national interest – not because you have cash.” Transparency and security, he argues, should take precedence over attracting investment from unknown sources.
As the debate continues, financial experts and policy analysts urge caution, warning that bringing back such a visa could open the door to risks that Australia worked hard to eliminate. The discussion remains ongoing, but for now, concerns about corruption, security, and economic benefits dominate the conversation.
