Global Mobility Dispatches with Ray Rackham | The Sunday Perspective
As I head to Melbourne, my week with our Sydney clients has been fascinating. Not simply because of the immigration challenges they face, but because of what those challenges reveal.
We’ve explored how changes to the subclass 407 Training visa could disrupt professional development and promotion pathways; the narrowing of specialist international skills; and how separate operational timelines for immigration permission and professional accreditation leaves individuals entitled to work, but not authorised to do so. Immigration policy doesn’t always reflect how businesses develop and deploy talent.
But another development kept resurfacing: the Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Act 2026, which gives the Department of Home Affairs the power to publish prescribed information about approved work sponsors on the Department’s website. While policy will determine the precise scope, the direction is clear.
For decades, corporate immigration has largely been a private dialogue between business and state. Governments scrutinised, employers justified and in partnership with employees, busineses complied. The wider world rarely saw the transaction.
The UK publishes licensed sponsors and separately names employers penalised for illegal working. Canada identifies employers found non-compliant with foreign worker rules. The US publishes employment-based immigration data revealing employers, occupations and wages. Australia already names sanctioned sponsors.
But, publishing lawful sponsorship activity is not the same as naming and shaming those who break the rules. Combined, they demonstrate how immigration is moving beyond a private administrative relationship; raising legitimate questions.
While it’s a genuine concern that sponsorship data might expose recruitment strategies, skills shortages or commercial priorities, maybe the more important point is will the information be understood?
A company sponsoring hundreds of international workers might be neglecting domestic talent development. But equally, it might be transferring critical expertise, building capabilities or creating jobs. Numbers alone cannot distinguish between them.
But, sponsorship is a privilege accompanied by responsibilities. Greater visibility could strengthen accountability, expose abuse and help workers identify alternative sponsors. Labour market buoyancy from within!
So, perhaps the question isn’t whether immigration should be more transparent, but whether transparency without context risks judgement without understanding.
I arrived in Sydney discussing visas and skills. I head to Melbourne considering something much bigger. Corporate immigration is increasingly a matter of workforce strategy, reputation and public accountability. Governments must ensure that greater visibility informs public understanding rather than distorts it; and it’s for businesses to insist upon it.
Invisibility has ended.
