Login / Join
Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 9984
- 26 Comments
Cutting red tape government website - RMA call to action
Make a submission today to stop over-regulation of the migration agent profession:
http://www.cuttingredtape.gov.au/form/make-submission
Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) can take advantage of the Australian Government's plan to cut $1 billion in red tape every year. The first repeal day will be in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 26 March. That is coming up very shortly. Please urgently make submissions to assist deregulate our profession, in particular the Office of the MARA (OMARA) and their shocking and ever increasing levels of red tape. The Office of the MARA have become nothing short of the 'RMA police'.
Have a look at the hefty obligations and huge fees ($1595) RMAs pay every year to re-register. I think the Office of the MARA call it a 'charge' so they can get away with not providing us with a service. If they really wanted to provide the public with value then they would be advocating the use of migration agents to the vulnerable public and asking the DIBP to get rid of unregistered practice. Instead they spent $0.00 last financial year advertising the services of RMAs. Instead the Office of the MARA spend their time in their micro-bubble regulating the life out of RMAs. OMARA also spend huge amounts of money on their relatively new prestigious offices overlooking Hyde Park in Sydney. Surely OMARA could rent space in accommodation more befitting of the public service and not a high-end law firm?
If you do nothing at all this year, at least make a submission to the the Cutting Red Tape website and ask that the government reduce the amount of over-regulation of our Continuing Professional Development.
A survey went out to all RMAs recently regarding the Office of the MARA's imposition of 2 hours for 1 point (min 6 hours per day = 3 points) for a conference. Who wants to sit for 6 hours to get 3 points for a conference? Why has the Office of the MARA done this to our annual conferences? We used to be able to run a low-cost annual conference every year for agents over a 2 day period (1.5 hours per point). Then out of nowhere the Office of the MARA decided to spoil it all and increase the time to 2 hours per point (6 hours = 3 points). That means to get 10 points for a conference you now need to sit for 3 days (6 hours day 1, 6 hours day 2, 8 hours day 3).
I have made countless submissions to the Office of the MARA regarding the importance of conferences and how they have literally killed them dead, but unfortunately they have stuck to their guns. The short answer from them is always along the same lines... "No, our policy framework... and under Reg 9G...'. This one has unfortunately hit the Federal Court. Yes, I have finally had enough of the OMARA's hardline stance and overly prescriptive frameworks regarding agent CPD. On 14 March 2014 the application was lodged in the Federal Court. Note here the respondent is MARIANNE BREGOVIC who is in Professional Development at the Office of the MARA. Ms Bregovic is long-term public servant who previously worked with the DIBP. This is what it has come to. Court action to stop red tape.
Then there is the recent problem where an agent is fighting Professional Standards about interest on the Clients' account. Don't the Office of the MARA have bigger fish to fry?
Why are they so prescriptive about how we do our CPD?
Why are class sizes capped at 45 for a seminar?
Why are workshops capped at 20 agents?
Now have a look at the functions of the Office of the MARA as per their website. Don't forget we pay them a huge fee to carry out these functions. I will put my comments next to each function. Have a look at the services that the NSW Law Society offers to lawyers. Compare this offering which comes in at $374.00 max per annum to what agents are getting from the OMARA. I can assure you that the Law Society is a lot more professional than the Office of the MARA by a long stretch, and the staff are legally qualified professionals in the legal industry. Here is the cut and paste from the Office of the MARA site:
Our main objectives are to ensure that:
- clients needing migration services understand their rights Do migration agents understand their rights when faced with unruly clients? Why is this just about consumer protection and not protecting Australian Citizen agents equally? There is no provision for their protection at all.
- registered migration agents understand their obligations Do clients understand their obligations when dealing with a RMA, the DIBP / MRT-RRT and does the OMARA explain and reinforce those client obligations via it's messaging? Eg fraud, bogus documents, vexatious complaints, non bona-fide complaints, penalties for doing so....etc
- only suitable people are registered as agents and that unsuitable people are refused registration or re-registration Fair enough
- agents maintain the knowledge and skills needed to provide accurate and timely advice to their clients This is CPD. See comments above re CPD. Please note that not one officer at the OMARA has evidence of 'sound knowledge' or competence as a RMA. How on earth the OMARA officers can possibly assess the content of CPD providers is beyond me. And yet the red tape and fiddling around with CPD units increases. When I told Ms Bregovic in a meeting at the OMARA once that agents don't want to sit for 6 hours to get 3 CPD points for a conference, Ms Bregovic responded with words to the following effect, 'My children tell me they like chocolate but it doesn't mean I give them chocolate'. Hopefully this sets the scene for how we are viewed by the Office of the MARA.
- agents are monitored for integrity of conduct and quality of immigration assistance Does this mean random audits? How does OMARA assess 'quality of immigration assistance'? Do OMARA monitor / assess/ quantify complaining clients and measure the integrity of their conduct in the face of a vexatious complaints? Is their monitoring fair and reasonable / even-handed? No. It is biased to the client. Perhaps I will ask the OMARA to define 'integrity of conduct' and 'quality of immigration assistance' so that we have some written standards to work with. Or is this open to interpretation and guesswork depending on which officer the RMA is subjected to at the time?
- clients of registered or formerly registered agents have an effective way to complain The Office of the MARA can do nothing about a formerly registered agent and have no power over a person who is no longer registered. Once they have cancelled the agent's registration they cannot touch them. So what is this? A free complaints service that allows clients to whinge on the phone or in writing via an OMARA soap box. What exactly are the OMARA achieving for the client?
- we handle complaints efficiently. They don't do this, in my opinion. They waste money investigating agents causing us all hours of time gathering evidence to prove ourselves innocent. It's 'guilty until proven innocent' which is the majority of cases.
We have an extensive probity framework to address concerns about potential or real conflicts of interest.
Then why hasn't the probity framework picked up that having the OMARA as part of the DIBP is an actual and also a perceived conflict of interest? Self-serving.
This is reviewed every year to make sure it is up-to-date and relevant.
Obviously not. My comment: 'House of Cards'.
So please, make your submission to via the Cutting Red Tape government website today. If we join forces and each put in a submission to the Cutting Red Tape government website then we stand a real chance of change. And finally, please RSVP and attend the Craig Laundy MP and Josh Frydenberg MP 'Cutting Red Tape' business lunch in Sydney on Monday 28 April at 12pm. Being at the event will re-inforce our position and will demonstrate an act of solidarity. We deserve better.
Liana Allan Ph 02 9221 0370
Comments
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014Lawyers have to register all at the same date each year. When I was a lawyer in Sydney in the few weeks leading up to that date, if you put on a CPD about grooming a dog (joke) the seminar would be full! One can do the same seminars every year and get registered, there is little points in repeating what you have done previously, yet you can!. The whole area needs to re done to make it RELEVANT to our real needs
· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
I don't like this comment
"Ms Bregovic responded with words to the following effect, 'My children tell me they like chocolate but it doesn't mean I give them chocolate'. Hopefully this sets the scene for how we are viewed by the Office of the MARA."
Does she think we are her kids and be treated like shit. We can see OMARA'S attitude towards registered RMAS. This is offending and degrading. We need an apology from Ms. Bregovic· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Mat:
"Does she think we are her kids and be treated like shit. "
Answer: Yes!!· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Well said, Liana and Chris. Thanks for drawing our attention to the forum of cutting red tape so we may all voice an opinion.
I submitted the following.
The Office of MARA continues to attempt to justify DIBP's tenure for the regulation of Registered Migration Agents [RMA] by imposing ever-increasing burdens upon RMAs.
The fees for registration are prohibitive. Many RMAs with several years’ experience and provision of services to the public are forced out of the profession due to the cost of registration as a work for profit RMA. It would seem that those profits are to be consumed to afford premium office space for DIBP staffers who seek a comfortable retirement plan via OMARA.
The presumption by OMARA officers that they have some arcane knowledge of educational standards regarding CPA courses and seminar and workshop sizes reeks of elitism. Did OMARA conduct any studies relating to this or is it more likely to be a brain wave from some self-serving public servant trying to justify his/her position and exercise authority? No evidence has been presented to support the changes imposed which demonstrates a “home insulation scheme” diligence.
The intrinsic conflict of interest in DIBP being the regulators must be addressed. The claimed independence of the OMARA is contradicted by the number of ex-DIBP staffers on the payroll.
Each of the above factors shows the typical red tape where none is required.
The role of regulation should be that of self-regulation by the premier migration body, that being the Migration Alliance. This would cut costs, increase efficiency, remove red tape and the obvious conflict of interest. If solicitors are permitted self-regulation, as opposed to being given a function of the Judiciary, and that system works, why not the same for the Migration profession?· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014I have just posted another complaint to the slash the red tape crowd:
Table 3. Significant Investor Visa: State/territory distribution
(24 Nov 2012- 28 February 2014)
EOIs Invitations Primary Applications Primary grants
ANY 29 na Na na
ACT 3 0 0 0
NSW 411 321 267 56
NT 1 0 0 0
QLD 69 55 45 12
SA 34 30 17 2
TAS 3 1 1
VIC 528 434 345 68
WA 40 34 27 6
TOTAL 1118 875 702 144
Is this the very best that DIBP can do in 18 months...issue 144 visas?
This is a problem of commitment and effort. DIBP does not like this visa and although the statutory scheme is relaxed the Officers in HK( in particular) are creating imaginary problems and issues which are slowing down this intake.
The belief that this visa subclass will in some way undermine the integrity of the migration program and lead to money laundering is quite frankly ludicrous.
The stats don’t lie!
DIBP is under performing.
This visa subclass has 7500 places allocated to it each year...144 visas issued in 18 months?
What is going on? -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
I totally agree, this is the point - why is it that the regulation of our profession has to differ so much from the legal profession - do we have to be saved from 'ourselves'? are we 'that thick' that we need to have more time to learn and 'that fragile' that we could not possibly do that effectively with more than 45 people in a room? does the regulator think that we have the IQ and attention span of a mosquito?
Is that role of the regulator - saving us from ourselves when it comes to learning? Or is it another layer of control? Are we not controlled enough - financially (both in registration and in fees), educationally (the changes in how we learn), regulation and legislative-wise?
I take the point Liana makes about people making decisions about Continuing Professional Development who are not RMAs, who may not necessarily have a training background but are decision making positions (I'm paraphrasing here) - these positions have to be discharged appropriately and with a sense of understanding and fairness, not just from a stance of authority.
It is impinging on our ability to access cost effective educational product as RMAs, which is meaningful and useful to the industry - does this mean that when the conferences of the past took place, attendees DIDN'T learn anything? Is this a new trend in education which, as a trainer, I am not aware of?
Isn't the argument about class sizes a primary and secondary education issue? (and with reason - children learn differently that adults) so what is the regulator saying? That our learning capacity is that of a 5 to 17 year old?...
I'm in the process of making a submission, too - but out of interest - please visit the 'cutting red tape' website and please share your thoughts - it talks about two days in the year where hundreds of pieces of legislation will be introduced to be repealed, amongst other useful things - perhaps the Regulator's legislation should be introduced on the upcoming day or the next one, as we need a fair, robust and independent regulator which recognizes and acknowledged our expertise and the complex work that we do, as opposed to the notion that we need to be babysat, controlled cautioned and put in time out if we let our guard down and dare to make a mistake...
Maybe the Regulator needs to refresh its memory:
http://cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbook/australian-government-guide-regulation
Is there a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) produced by the MARA or is it included as one of the many parts of the Department in DIPB's RIS?
FOI anyone? we need these answers otherwise we're always reacting and dismissed as an unhappy mob who advocates change for change's sake.
Bea -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Marianne Bregovic's comments will be tendered as evidence in LTA's case in the Federal Court and are already the subject of an official complaint to the CEO of the Office of the MARA. I took detailed notes and have detailed minutes from that meeting. There were four witnesses (minimum) to that offensive and undermining comment regarding migration agents. One was Christopher Levingston and the other was Michael Suss.
· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
'Hi XXXXXXXXX
Does the Office of the MARA produce a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS)?
If so could you please link me to the part of the OMARA website which hosts this?
Thank you.'
DONE· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
'Dear XXXX
With reference to the link below, could you please let me know who is responsible for the Portfolio Dergulation Unit at the DIBP? Could you please supply me with their contact details?
http://cuttingredtape.gov.au/handbook/ten-principles-australian-government-policy-makers
Thank you.'
DONE· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
The MIA/MARA was a complete disaster. The conflict was perceived and actual. The same people who in the morning sat around a table discussing MIA issues and whats good for the members, sat at the same table in the afternoon as the MARA and targeted agents. I wrote many times on this issue when I was a member of the MIA at that time in the MIA Forum (The best part of being a member), they simply could not see it. It was commented that they manage conflict! You cant, the only way is not let it arise. Anyway, the then Minister simple took the MARA from the MIA, people were "paid off" and all was forgotten and forgiven. However some people have long memories.
And so it is here the MARA IS the DIBP, they are interchangeable and the mindset/culture is the same with both. We want a truly independent body, totally removed from the DIBP.· Liana - Allan likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
I would like seminars with Skill Assessment organisations to also attract CPD points and possible webinars and MOOCS a number of Cross discipline CPD points should also apply.
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
I think all of the evidence is in, RMAs are stupid and are rapacious criminals deserving of regulation like any other criminal gang.
That was certainly the approach take by that secret organisation that I can't mention. The same clowns who in effect wanted a jaunt through the migration program by an independent expert but weren't prepared to pay for it...but I digress.
DIBP /OMARA will always default to complexity and regulation because Parliament is so busy and is bamboozled by DIBP, that they will, in essence, agree to anything.
The "need to protect consumers" is such a powerful catch all that the regulation of RMAs is an inevitable consequence of the accrued evidence of widespread malfeasance and fraud amongst persons providing immigration assistance to "vulnerable" persons in the community.
Guess what, that is complete bullshit!
Look at the stats from OMARA:
"2012–13 in brief
•
There were 407 complaints received, relating to 277 registered migration agents.
•
There were 527 complaints finalised, relating to 325 registered migration agents.
•
As a result of 70 complaints, 12 registered migration agents were sanctioned.
So, 407 complaints in respect of 277 Agents out of a total population of no less than 4600 RMA's which resulted in 12 RMAs being the subject of a sanction?
I think we can safely assume that the other 265 RMAs did not receive a sanction, which means that this massive edifice of regulation and control which costs about 5 million to administer ( paid for by RMAs) can only find 12 RMAs worth of a sanction?
We know that OMARA look very hard at every complaint. We know that this mighty juggernaut rolls and that issues of guilt and innocence are determined at the whim of officers in "professional standards" ( an oxymoron) who are in the main DIBP lackeys, either DIBP rejects, the seconded, the recruited ( aka The Good , The Bad and the Ugly).
The OMARA imposes standards of conduct and determines "facts" by a process almost devoid of legal expertise and training with scant regard to the evidence but even with all of that being the case...the best they can do is find 12 out of 4600+ whose conduct is so egregious so as to warrant deregistration at worst or suspension.
Now this is not a case of "tiger spray"..(eg " A. What are you doing? B. I am spraying for tigers. A. But there are no tigers here! A. Yes, I know it really works doesn't it)
Don't let anyone tell you that RMAs are crooks.
The heavy handed approach of DIBP, who are control freaks and the OMARA who are their cats paw creates a statutory melee which operates in concert to oppress Australian Citizens and permanent residents trying to untangle the byzantine complexity of the Migration Act and regulations driven, it would appear, by individuals who apparently suffer from statutory turettes syndrome.
The wholesale lack of integrity, consistency and competence serves to drive, in my opinion, despair and desperation on the part of candidates for migration which in turn creates a culture of impunity amongst criminal entrepreneurs like Eddy Kang who prey on these poor devils.
The problem here and the evidence supports the view,that the vulnerable consumer is let down by DIBP who do NOTHING about unregistered practice.
In fact DIBP is such a disgrace they "register" persons off shore who provide immigration assistance.
we are over regulated, over supervised and over looked.
The Migration Act and regulations are a complete disgrace. the resort to legislative instruments to "tune" the regulations is also a complete disgrace. How could a 'normal" person ever decipher this stuff.
I don't care what DIBP, does the more complex the better, the more oppression the better.
Eventually DIBP will come a cropper and probably bring a Minister down as well.
OMARA needs to be independent.
The Advisory Board should be scrapped as soon as possible.
People in professional standards need to be properly trained and in at least one case need to be sacked for telling lies.
How about less regulation, less micro management, less waste and better performance...or is that too much to ask?
What do you want? -
Thursday, 27 March 2014
Hi Liana, Christopher and all. I am really disappointed that the career I chose has all this problems with the regulating body.... I am already frustrated as a second language speaker having to do the IELTS, which was incorporated in Regulation from July/12. I have friends that if asked would not be able to achieve the overall band of 7 with minimum scoring of 6.5. I have done the test twice and because of .05 point would not be registered. So it is not only over regulating the RMA's but also making it harder and harder to even get registered. It is so unfortunate that after spending a whole lot of money and a year studying a PosGrad at ANU, my Distinctions and High Distinctions are not considered and I still have to prove I can achieve the marks MARA wants in order to register.... And now entering a career where my fellow colleagues have so much to rave about makes me wonder...
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
Hi Anthony
Great point! Skills Assessment organisations offered long presentations at our conferences in years gone by. TRA and VETASSESS used to attend because we had HUGE numbers of agents in the same room at the same time and they could maximise their ROI. Now that nobody really wants to attend conferences any more because time is money and agents don't want to spent 6 hours to get 3 CPD points, conferences are dying. Do you really think VETASSESS want to fly to a seminar and present to a room where OMARA has set the capacity at 45 agents? Anthony I would love to be able to get the skills assessors to come back and lecture like they used to, but the business case for them is not strong if their audience is 45 people! That's what OMARA has done to our CPD framework. Restrictions. Put it this way, if I was the ACS or VETASSESS I would not want to bother rocking up to present to 45 people. -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
It seems the 'Advisory Board' has it's fingers in our OVER-REGULATION. See who is responsible for the CPD framwork changing for the worse: https://www.mara.gov.au/media/138925/Office_of_the_MARA_AnnualReport_2012_13.pdf Page one, 'The Advisory Board' bullet point 1.
Who would like to see a re-vamp of our'Advisory Board' to include people who truly represent ther business of being agents and not some government agenda to put red-tape nooses around our necks? -
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
One member of the board sat on the old MIA/MARA board. I wrote then we needed new blood, members with DIAC or whatever it used to be called (I have seen many names for Immigration over 31 years) is not necessarily whats required in my view. In fact, its NOT what's required at all.
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
I think that was a little ray of sunshine representing all non lawyer RMAs who were members of the MIA.
-
Tuesday, 18 March 2014
No it was definitely yellow in colour not brown.
-
Wednesday, 19 March 2014
If nothing is done to control or get rid off the unregistered offshore, this RMA profession will be let down.
many of my family visa clients are offshore, you will see many unregistered agent hand around the Australian embassy waiting for clients and sometime they even try to win client over by saying that their service is the best or they have someone inside the embassy can fast track the application.· Liana - Allan likes this comment.
Immigration blog
Dear Colleagues,
I have made this submission.
The OMARA has imposed limitations on mandatory CPD which impose an unreasonable burden on RMAs in turns of limitation on class sizes and the awarding of "points" for attendance at CPD which differentiate between various classes of activity (seminar, workshop conference) which are "awarded" different points for different periods of time. This system is overly complex, it limits the scope of RMAs to blend their CPD needs and is unduly prescriptive and increases costs to the RMA. RMAs want equivalency with CPD requirements for lawyers with 1 hour of CPD attendance constituting 1 CPD point. There should be no limitation on class sizes either because universities and lawyers seem to be able to cope with class sizes of more than 45 (the OMARA limitation). This space needs deregulation as it increases costs and complexity with no discernible benefit to the consumer. It also locks out not-for-profit providers as it creates a demand constraint and means that CPD providers are reluctant to give free CPD to not for profit attendees which increases the financial burden on those providers. Mr Abbott "tear down this wall!"
Have your say!