An IMGlobalWealth.com News Report
A new agreement between Australia and Vanuatu could become an important reference point in how advanced economies approach citizenship by investment, even if its practical consequences are not yet clear.
The Vanuatu–Australia Nakamal Agreement was signed in Canberra on 29 June 2026. It is a legally binding treaty covering economic transformation, climate cooperation, humanitarian assistance, security, critical infrastructure and mobility. It will enter into force once both countries complete their respective domestic processes.
“It is too early to call the Nakamal Agreement a global precedent. But it may become a reference point for other countries reviewing mobility arrangements with CBI jurisdictions”
For the investment migration industry, the most significant provision appears in Article 6, titled “Enhanced Mobility”. The article states that Australia shall provide Vanuatu with enhanced mobility arrangements for Vanuatu visitors to Australia. It also states that Vanuatu shall develop “effective mechanisms to differentiate citizenship by investment from other forms of citizenship”. The same article provides for an annual review of the enhanced mobility arrangements.
The Agreement does not state that investor citizens will be excluded from any mobility benefit. Nor does it create, at least in the published text, a separate visa category for citizens who acquired Vanuatu nationality through investment.
However, the wording is significant. It suggests that enhanced mobility may be linked to Australia’s ability to distinguish between citizens who acquired Vanuatu nationality through investment and those who acquired it by birth, descent, ordinary naturalisation or other routes.
When contacted by IMGW News, Lisa Chanesman, a recognised expert in migration law and policy with almost two decades of experience advising individuals, families and businesses on residence and citizenship by investment, said the importance of the Agreement may go beyond Vanuatu itself. Chanesman is a member of the Investment Migration Council in Geneva and a Fellow of the Migration Institute of Australia.
In her view, if mobility access is made conditional on a country being able to distinguish between different categories of citizens, this could create a precedent for a form of two-tier citizenship being externally imposed, or at least strongly encouraged, by a more powerful partner.
“The language in the Agreement is significant because it goes beyond ordinary border control.”
Chanesman said any such shift would require more than cosmetic changes: “This would have to be more than a change in terminology. It would require genuine policy re-design.”
Chanesman also said the language raises a sovereignty question because the authority to determine who is recognised as a citizen is one of the fundamental powers of a state.
That would represent a more targeted approach than simply suspending visa-free access. The European Union moved against Vanuatu’s visa-free access in stages from 2022, before deciding in December 2024 to remove Vanuatu from the list of visa-exempt countries. The Council of the EU said the decision was linked to security and migration risks arising from Vanuatu’s investor citizenship scheme.
Australia’s approach appears different. On the face of the Agreement, it places emphasis on traceability and differentiation, although the practical operation of the mobility arrangements has yet to be set out.
If implemented in this way, the model could allow mobility partners to preserve or expand access for ordinary citizens while applying closer scrutiny to investor citizens. That remains an interpretation, not a confirmed policy outcome.
The wider implication is that CBI jurisdictions may increasingly be asked not only to improve due diligence, but also to reconsider the design of their programmes. Chanesman suggested this could push programmes beyond passive capital contribution and towards more substantive forms of national contribution, including innovation, entrepreneurship, strategic industry development, technology transfer, job creation or exceptional talent.
“It becomes easier to treat those citizens differently – even where the domestic law of the passport country does not describe them as unequal.”
Chanesman said any such shift would require more than cosmetic changes: “This would have to be more than a change in terminology. It would require genuine policy re-design.”
It is too early to call the Nakamal Agreement a global precedent. But it may become a reference point for other countries reviewing mobility arrangements with CBI jurisdictions. For the industry, the direction of travel is clear: transparency over how citizenship was acquired is becoming increasingly central to the future of investment migration.
