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