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.

在澳大利亚，获得高质量的移民建议通常对于获得签证至关重要，而且移民顾问已经吸引了政策制定者的持续审查，导致不断的询问和审查。这些查询及其所产生的建议用于证明政策设计和改革的合理性，这些政策和改革可能对一系列利益相关者（包括移民顾问及其客户）产生重大影响。本文探讨了一项最近的调查，该调查于2018年完成。它采用了重要的话语分析方法，以研究该调查的官方报告介绍移民顾问的方式，以及调查过程本身的框架。发现该报告提出的建议是基于外部利益相关者提交的证据而得出的，考试将继续探讨实际情况到何种程度。通过检查纳入报告中的“文字旅行”提交内容，文章发现这些文字要么被转换为支持占主导地位的论述，要么被简单地排除在外。该文章的结论是，决策过程不准确地表现为参与性，基于证据的过程，从而使特定的政策决策合法化，并且不公平地继续将移民顾问视为需要解决的问题。