An FOI request from Migration Alliance’s (MA) Liana Allan has revealed that staff at the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) last about 20 months on the job. The documents provide no reasons for this short tenure of the staff, who come from the public service and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), but reveal that OMARA has a top-heavy structure, and that a third of its’ staff last about a year on the job.

Any commercial operation would be deeply concerned over high staff turnover given that the time, effort and costs of recruitment and training can potentially derail an organisation from the effective provision of its services and achievement of its objectives.

The FOI responses provided to MA were in the form of answers to questions from Labour Senator Mark Furner on the make-up and tenure of officers at the OMARA.

OMARA’s responses revealed the average length of tenure of its employees is 1.8 years and that 39 staff members left the organisation in the last 5 years with some 28 leaving within 3 years of service. OMARA employs about 38 people.

The FOI responses also had OMARA admitting that most of its current staff come from the public service, particularly DIBP, - with only about a third of OMARA staff coming from the private sector. According to OMARA’s report to Senator Furner: “Approximately 33% of current staff came from the private sector, 36% from DIAC, 18% from other government agencies, and 13% from the former MARA.”

The DIBP heavy structure is perhaps a legacy of OMARA’s link with the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), whose early membership was made up of former immigration officers.

However, five years after the separation of MIA and OMARA, the nexus between DIBP and OMARA remains. This is detrimental to the industry. An example of this is OMARA’s recent failure to consult with MA in a meeting to outline OMARA’s priorities for the year. OMARA only met with MIA. This prompted MA’s Liana Allan, to lodge the complaint with OMARA that stakeholder meetings with OMARA should not take place 'in secret' or without notice or invitation.

OMARA’s responses to the Senator made no apologies for the turnover nor did it provide any explanation for its top-heavy and DIBP heavy structure. MA has not received any response from OMARA about future consultations.

Is the OMARA concerned with any of this or how it affects the effective and efficient delivery of its legislated functions?