Deficiencies and loopholes: Clashing discourses, problems and solutions in Australian migration advice regulation

Smith-Khan, L

Deficiencies and loopholes: Clashing discourses, problems and solutions in Australian migration advice regulation

Smith-Khan, L

Permalink

Publisher:: SAGE Publications
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Discourse and Society, 2021, 32, (5), pp. 598-621
Issue Date:: 2021-09-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (728.81 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Smith-Khan, L https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3551-221X
dc.date.accessioned	2021-10-16T22:37:29Z
dc.date.available	2021-10-16T22:37:29Z
dc.date.issued	2021-09-01
dc.identifier.citation	Discourse and Society, 2021, 32, (5), pp. 598-621
dc.identifier.issn	0957-9265
dc.identifier.issn	1460-3624
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/151120
dc.description.abstract	In Australia, access to high-quality migration advice can often be crucial to obtaining a visa, and migration advisors have attracted ongoing scrutiny from policymakers, leading to successive inquiries and reviews. Such inquiries and the recommendations they produce are used to justify policy design and reform that can have significant impacts on a range of stakeholders, including of course, migration advisors and their clients. This article explores one such recent inquiry, completed in 2018. It adopts a critical discourse analysis to examine the way the inquiry’s official report presents migration advisors, and how it frames the inquiry process itself. Finding that the report presents its recommendations as being based on evidence created by external stakeholder submissions, the examination goes on to explore to what extent this is actually the case. Through an examination of the ‘textual travels’ submissions undergo when incorporated in the report, the article finds that these texts are either transformed to support dominant discourses, or simply excluded. The article concludes that decision-making is inaccurately presented as a participatory, evidence-based process, thus legitimising particular policy decisions, and unfairly continuing to present migration advisors as problems requiring fixing.
dc.language	en
dc.publisher	SAGE Publications
dc.relation.ispartof	Discourse and Society
dc.relation.hasversion	Accepted Manuscript Version	en
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/09579265211013113
dc.rights	Stavrova, O., & Ehlebracht, D., The Cynical Genius Illusion: Exploring and Debunking Lay Beliefs About Cynicism and Competence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5) pp. 254–269. Copyright © 2021 (Authors). DOI: 10.1177/09579265211013113	en
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	16 Studies in Human Society, 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, 20 Language, Communication and Culture
dc.subject.classification	Languages & Linguistics
dc.title	Deficiencies and loopholes: Clashing discourses, problems and solutions in Australian migration advice regulation
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	32
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society
utslib.for	17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
utslib.for	20 Language, Communication and Culture
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2021-10-16T22:37:28Z
pubs.issue	5
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	32
utslib.citation.issue	5

Abstract:

In Australia, access to high-quality migration advice can often be crucial to obtaining a visa, and migration advisors have attracted ongoing scrutiny from policymakers, leading to successive inquiries and reviews. Such inquiries and the recommendations they produce are used to justify policy design and reform that can have significant impacts on a range of stakeholders, including of course, migration advisors and their clients. This article explores one such recent inquiry, completed in 2018. It adopts a critical discourse analysis to examine the way the inquiry’s official report presents migration advisors, and how it frames the inquiry process itself. Finding that the report presents its recommendations as being based on evidence created by external stakeholder submissions, the examination goes on to explore to what extent this is actually the case. Through an examination of the ‘textual travels’ submissions undergo when incorporated in the report, the article finds that these texts are either transformed to support dominant discourses, or simply excluded. The article concludes that decision-making is inaccurately presented as a participatory, evidence-based process, thus legitimising particular policy decisions, and unfairly continuing to present migration advisors as problems requiring fixing.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/151120