Login / Join
Immigration Daily News e-services support and e-visa applications for 457 visas: Complaint to the DIBP Global Feedback Unit ManagerAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5119
- 6 Comments
e-services support and e-visa applications for 457 visas: Complaint to the DIBP Global Feedback Unit Manager
Migration Alliance members will be interested to note a complaint that was sent in to the Global Feedback Unit Manager, this morning by Migration Alliance:
The online system for 457 visa applications is unstable and sometimes is unable to identify the applicants (either onshore or offshore) and therefore agents cannot lodge a valid application.
People are nervous and worried that it is coming towards the 1 July and they are unable to lodge the clients applications successfully.
Please could you let MA know if this is going to be resolved shortly?
Let's see how long it takes for this complaint to be handled and if anything changes.
Comments
-
Thursday, 05 June 2014The DIBP services are getting worse every day.
-
Thursday, 05 June 2014
Maybe it's time DIBP institute some real-world service standards across the board for dealing with enquiries. The problem of no-response (other than an auto-responder) for enquiry emails is not limited to 457 enquiries at all, and seems to reflect a lack of organisational commitment to reasonable service standards. DIBP would never tolerate its own employees maintaining poor service standards (ie, being late for work, etc), so why must agents and clients suffer this kind of "don't call us, we'll call you... maybe." attitude towards service standards? 30-day response time on important email enquiries? Would never, ever be tolerated in any real-world business application. How about taking some of those astronomically high OMARA renewal fees and putting them into staffing some agent enquiry officers instead of making agents do the 45-minute wait on the consumer 131 enquiry line, only to be answered by a person who knows less about migration than the person who's calling, refuses to connect an agent to the case officer, etc.
-
Thursday, 05 June 2014
I suppose the irony is - if agents provided clients with the type of service DIBP provides agents and clients with, we could easily get hauled up on MARA charges and lose our licence. Would any agent expect a client to be satisfied with 30-day response time on telephone enquiries? Of course not. Yet it's ok for DIBP...??
-
Friday, 06 June 2014
I would like to make an apology for naming a DIBP officer in this blog and providing their email address to the public. In hindsight and on reflection, I think it is better if I 'play the ball, not the person' and from now on will not be naming officers within the DIBP when writing controversial pieces.
-
Friday, 06 June 2014Liana,
Well done.
What a pity you cant play the person like DIBP does when they complain to their catspaw OMARA.
Personally I don't think officers of DIBP should get their knickers in a knot they are public servants doing public work. They are publicly accountable and sometimes they mess up. When they do what is the harm in naming them?
They have the protection of defamation law and as it is we have enough employees of DIBP who will only identify themselves by first name and position number, that really gives me the heebie jeebies.
This is all so "stasiland" because Officers of DIBP routinely defame RMAs, criticise our judgement to our clients and do pretty much all they can to undermine the confidence that the client has in the relationship with their RMA.
I have complained about this for years but DIBP does not give a rats.
I for opne dont put up with it.
If DIBP says something to me in relation to their paid duty then I have no problem in telling the world. I do not owe DIBP the courtesy of keeping a weird and wacky view ( articulated by them) to myself. I am not in a business relationship with them and they like me are accountable for what they say. There is no principle of reciprocity which underpins this relationship other than courtesy and respect. If that is not forthcoming then I complain...too bad, they can like it or lump it.
The principle of mutuality which is said to underpin the relationship between the RMA and DIBP is a 2 way street. DIBP thinks that they can do as they please and they often do.
Immigration blog
Some example of what I personally experienced in relation to very slow responses from e-services:
Client A:
Sent an email: 8 April 2014 – Online application showing unable to identify applicant
Send follow up email on 16 April due to no response
Received response: 16 May 2014 – respond from DIBP that the error will be corrected as the client’s profile was recorded with different date of birth
Sent another email on 9 May 2014 as application still cannot be submitted online
Received response on 13 May 2014 that the date of birth is corrected (5 weeks after initial request)
Client can finally lodged application on 16 May 2014 , however auto generated acknowledgement letter still showing wrong date of birth
Sent another email to notify the wrong date of birth on 16 May 2014 and is still waiting for response
Client B:
Sent an email on 22 April 2014 system is unable to identify applicant who is offshore and never came to Australia
Received respond on 7 May 2014 - Still having issue
Sent another email on 27 May 2014
Received response on 3 June 2014
Sent response on request of client’s copy of passport on 3 June 2014 and is still waiting
Client C:
Sent an email: 31 May 2014
Up to date no response has been receiving yet