Login / Join
Immigration Daily News IARC 'in crisis' and 'under threat': Welcome to commercial realityAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 4356
- 18 Comments
IARC 'in crisis' and 'under threat': Welcome to commercial reality
I received an annoying email today from IARC, an organisation which has largely been living off the purse-strings of the Australian government for as long as I can remember.
The email was nothing short of a political sob-story, a media propoganda piece about IARC's poor legal centre. The email suggests that IARC is losing IAAAS funding ( some of the approximately $17.3 million in 2010-11) to help non-Australian "irregular maritime arrivals" apply for Australian visas.
According to figures from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship this was around double the $8.8 million shelled out the year before that.
The unsolicited email, which arrived on most RMAs desks today, asks the reader the following:
"Help us Mount a Powerful Response to Abbott's Funding Cuts (Immigration News - Special Issue)"
Firstly I will not be supporting anything but powerful support of the Abbott government's Funding Cuts to non-Australians to assist them with their visa applications. I would prefer the millions of dollars being spent on non-Australians to be otherwise dedicated to improving and enriching the lives of our Australian indigenous communities or children of lower socio-economic families. There are plenty of Australian citizens wandering the streets needing help. Look at the disadvantaged youth, look at the unemployment and drug use amongst children. Let's start using the money that was going to the IAAAS schemes towards helping our own citizens first.
If you have a look at the DIBP's legal bill from back in 2010-11, it was was more than fifteen times bigger than the $1.1 million the DIBP spent on migration advice for boatpeople in 2008-09. The removal of the Howard government's Pacific Solution was a bad move.
Isn't this more about the funding of RMAs who don't want to have to create their own viable business model, but prefer to work like public servants?
Immigration Legal Advice and Assistance for boatpeople has been financed by the DIBP (DIAC, DIMA, DIMIA) via the Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS), administered by the DIBP.
There are a few RMAs around who's main source of funding for their business is the IAAAS scheme.
One agent, who I will not name received $1.3m in federal government dollars in 2010 to 2011. The RMAs 'business' had a $1 million wages bill. It's income for that financial year was $1.7m. Back in 2007-08 this same company was earning $341,942 from the IAAAS scheme. Then the Labor government started slowly taking apart offfshore processing. The said company went from receiving $341,942 to $1.3 million, and the wages bill for the company sky-rocketed.
Let's get real. We now have a huge reduction (zero) in the number of boatpeople arriving to Australia. This means that we should be seing a related cessation of the flow of government money into government-funded IAAAS centres.
Some IAAAS providers have been known to declare the income provided by DIBP as "grants" in their accounts. The reality is that the money is supposed to be a "fee for service".
Chris Merritt, the Legal Affairs Editor for The Australian wrote an article on August 17th 2012 titled 'Migration advisors in line for cuts'.
We are now in 2014 and this is exactly what has happened, and with a new government taking charge.
In that article he states that one agent's "legal centre has organised several High Court challenges -- including the litigation that crippled the federal government's Malaysia Solution -- but those cases were run by teams of lawyers from major firms working pro bono."
In my view this is what is happening here with IARC. They are raising funds to fight so that they continue to get paid great salaries off the government teat and don't need to create for themselves a viable business proposition.
If anyone is interested in doing real pro-bono work without being paid for it (financial benefit) then Migration Alliance is an approved voluntary organisation for the purpose of pro-bono advice.
MIA's Chief Operating Officer, Kevin Lane is a 'NO FEE" Registered Migration Agent. There are plenty of agents around who offer 'NO FEE' services at profitable and viable businesses.
IARC's headline states as follows, which I have now crossed out.
Funding Cuts Threaten Immigration Justice!
The reality is the following:
Funding Cuts Threaten IARC staff salaries!
If IARC want to continue on successfully then they will need to re-jig and re-think their entire business model. Suggestions I would make include, if they have not already done so, becoming a member of Pro Bono Australia and Philanthropy Australia and to look for funding elsewhere, perhaps through bequests and donations like they are doing on this website.
As a 'for-profit' migration agent I have provided pro bono advice to persons who needed it and will continue to do so. I spend my own money and my own time doing that to 'give back'. A lot of free advice is provided by migration agents to disadvantaged visa applicants.
Isn't it better for asylum-seekers to Australia to pay a truly independent Registered Migration Agent who can lodge valid offshore protection visa applications rather than diverting thousands of dollars to unregistered people-smugglers to get on leaky boats and then expecting free advice upon arrival from migration agents paid by the DIBP to fix the problem? How can a RMA be truly independent in their advice anyway if the DIBP is footing the bill for their assistance provided to the client through the IAAAS scheme?
IARC claim to provide 'life saving free legal advice'. It's not free. The government is paying. Someone has to pay for that advice.
Registered Agents can receive CPD points for providing pro bono advice and assistance from the Office of the MARA.
Comments
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014As a former Legal Aid lawyer for many years and a private solicitor for even longer I am staggered at the social amnesia that has occurred over the last few decades from politicians trying to bring out the worst in us and turn us against each other. There is a strong and legitimate place for government funded free legal services. They were brought in by both Labor and Liberal governments because access to the law for the poor was thought to be an uplifting moral virtue for our society. To imagine that pro bono work is all that is needed to enable the poor to access justice, is utterly facile and utterly wrong. People who spout these "opinions" should do some socioeconomic research before they burden the rest of us with their ignorant views.
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Michael you are entitled to your opinion. The government, in my view, has made the right choice to stop spending money on funding advice for non-Australians. It is not 'social amnesia'. Quite the opposite. The people of Australia have woken up to the fact that we cannot live on hand-outs forever. It just isn't economically viable. I don't think it brings out the worst in us. I think it causes us to wake up and deal with reality. Whilst that might be difficult to digest we have a national debt problem that needs addressing.
The 'poor' that you speak of are not Australian permanent residents or citizens. Now that non-Australians have stopped coming on boats, they can access the help they need from people in their own or neighbouring countries.
Pro bono work is not 'all that is needed', so I agree with you there.
Just because a person doesn't think the same as you do, does not make them 'wrong'. Nor does it make them 'right'. As a qualified lawyer you should know that 'truth' doesn't work that way.
The socio-economic research was done by the current government. As a result of that research, the IAAAS was voted out. Socially we need to spend the money on Australians in need. Economically it does not make sense to fund non-Australians ahead of our own people.
Those are my views. Thank you for commenting.
It's time for organisations like Legal Aid and IARC to become innovative and think outside the square like the rest of us have to. -
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
I don't necessarily agree that funding cuts just threaten staff salaries only or that it is facing a calamity - the issues that not for profit organisations face are not the same as private busness though I do agree that good business planning is not just the realm of private enterprise and not many charitable organisations take up that challenge. Howeverm IARC was established in the spirit of the Community Legal Services movement, which took a lot grief from many people and sectors to get off the ground, albeit 40 years ago.
Its funding model, based on the CLS model was quite successful and it provided great advice - when our industry wasn't even an industry, IARC had become a respected part of the equation and let us not forget their contribution to policy and community education, including significant input into the way that the Migration Agents Registration Scheme was set up at the time, to ensure that it was a fair and accessible system for the registration of migration professionals, many of which were community workers.
The issues it now faces are complex but most immediately, financial, and it is deserving of assistance as any long standing and respected probono service would deserve, particularly one which has contributed so much to clients, past and present.
Let's hope that it can continue to provide a service into the future as part of the industry, which always has space for registered, ethical, knowledgeable, resourceful, accessible and professional agents, probono or otherwise, no matter who funds them, otherwise it will be a very sad loss indeed. -
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Bea I agree with you but IARC as an organisation has changed a lot since it's inception. Have you got any idea how much these people are paid to offer advice? Lawyers on huge salaries being funded by IAAAS at IARC and other companies. I think some at Salvos Legal and Craddock and Playfair. These people are not in it for the spirit of things any more. They talk to me about lucrative profits. It is all about high salaries and getting paid to do something they like. At the end of the day, yes, in an idea world and with a great economy we could do this, but we don't. We cannot live like socialists if we want to remain AA rated and a force on a global stage. Plus what are lawyers doing working at these places? Surely they could put their degrees to better use and go out and use their brains? They say they can make just as much money on the IAAAS. Go figure.
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Liana - spot on. You will be hated for your views by some people but loved by others. The ones who will hate you will be the socialist left and communists and greenies who don't like to the idea of 'WEALTH FOR TOIL' which is in our anthem. You are entitled to your view and thank you for putting Clothier in his place. Perhaps he could try getting a real job.
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Dear Liana,
I was very much saddened to see these comments.
There is no logical merit in comparing the situation of a commercial agent who is able to effectively "subsidise" pro bono work from our commercial work (something that my firm also does on an extensive basis) with an organisation such as IARC which operates on a purely pro-bono basis. You are comparing apples with oranges.
Organisations such as IARC, RACS, RILC and the like have done much over the decades to support desperate people both onshore and offshore seek access to legal services. It is my experience that the staff who are employed in those organisations receive very modest salaries which are significantly below what they could expect to receive in private practice but who accept that reality due to their passion and desire to "make a difference". Further, many practitioners donate their time and skills to support those organisations due to our passion for those same issues.
It is perfectly legitimate to debate whether IAAAS funding and the like should be forthcoming from the Commonwealth to fund refugee claimants. However it is another thing entirely to seek to demonise genuinely altruistic organisations whose position you may disagree with.
Surely we are better than that.
David -
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Without getting into any deeper into the present argument just allow me please a quick remark. On the website Liana has mentioned in the article, IARC advertises to raise funds for an independent legal team. Quote: "Our first goal is to raise $80,000 for our first independently funded lawyer." In my reading the 80K means the yearly salary of that lawyer. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm right, that money is as far as it can be from any realistic interpretation of a"very modest salary"...
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
Michael Clothier is a typical lawyer who thinks that 'good argument' is based on put downs and name calling. Liana - good on you for taking the high ground. Michael, you need some practice in a court room mate, creating clever legal argument which is based on fact rather than vitriol and sub-standard poo-pooing of others ideas.
-
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
David, with the greatest respect for you, as a lawyer and Accredited Specialist, there is no need for you to be sad. Liana has not demonised IARC. What she has done is pointed out the blinding obvious. At least she has a view. Most people are too afraid to have a view nowdays. IARC does great work, but so to Universities and other non-profits who fund their own activities. David - question for you.....why should Australia fund help for non-Australians ahead of it's own people? The work that IARC does is amazing but so is the work the red cross do, mission beat, alcoholics annonymous, women's shelters, refuges, drug rehabs and the list goes on. Why do you think that the government should give money to places like IARC to help non-Aussies ahead of spending it on Australians?
Liana has not said IARC are doing a bad job. I suppose at some point in time you got paid by IARC so your comments would naturally carry bias.
At least you know you can still offer pro bono without being paid. As a lawyer now in a commercial operation that might be hard for you because you have to make ends meet. Pro Bono might not suit you any more if you aren't being paid for it. Perhaps let us know the full story.
As for modest wages at these places. That is just not true. -
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
David
GREAT TO SEE YOU ON HERE!
Just continue to offer the same services that you used to and encourage others to do the same. It doesn't have to be via IARC. Don't forget, you don't get paid now but I am sure your heart will be in the right place and you will continue to help these non-Australians.
Me - well I am off to help at the local PYC where Australian children with very little hope are in need of a good role model.
I have to agree with Liana I am sorry.
Craig -
Tuesday, 17 June 2014
The issue here is the lack of fact in the statement 'these altruistic organisations'. Where did you get that idea from? I work at one of these type of organisations as an assistant. They all care about money. Money speaks first and the helpless migrant is just a means to get it. The veneer coating is altruism.
-
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Dear All, we are part of a professional industry and this determines the way in which we conduct ourselves; raising and debating industry related issues is fine as is agreeing to disagree, but taking potshots at those whose opinions we don't agree with, is poor form.
There will always be a need for the IARC, the RACS, Salvos and Probono RMAs of this world - whether they continue to function as is (and die in their present form) or become a lot more entrepreneurial (and survive).
IARC's continued existance will depend on its ability to approach its sustainability differently; It's been operating since 1987 and we just notice them now, when they're requesting assistance? let's get real here and save the angst for more important issues, like unregistered overseas practices and unregistered onshore advisors including educational agents, the treatment of applicants by overseas posts, MARA's role in support of the agents they register, the way the Immigration portfolio makes changes with very little notice, affecting our bottom line and making us look incompetent to our clients who believe we are so professional we MUST know everything - I can go on and on.
Immigration related NGOs' calls for support is going to make ZIP dent to our business nor is it impacting on the Industry's credibility or professionalism. Political statements are best posted on facebook or some other social media framework.
IARC is going to have a trying time for a while with or without the help of those who support them (who may be very well be socialists by choice) and that's where this debate should stay. -
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
This article is brilliant. I just realised that Australia was funding immigration help for asylum seekers. Why would a government do that? If a migration agent is getting paid by the government then essentially the government is their employer. Right? What I'm
Struggling with is the conflict of interest. Immigration pays the agent to process a visa application which is going to be (most of the time) refused by immigration.The agent isn't truly independent. Not only that but the agent isn't allowed to use the IAAAS funding to fight immigration in court over legal issues. That means the agent isn't exercising the rights of their client properly and cannot be without bias. After all the agent doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds them. They might not get their IAAAS renewed. I fail to see how the agent is offering a great altruistic service on this basis. If they are serious about offering help to refugees then create or join a charity. There is a lot of self interest involved in the IAAAS model.
People can be socialists if they want to be. It's no surprise there is heated debate on this issue. I don't think liana did demonise IARC. One thing is for sure, liana engaged us in debate. Perhaps people might think if they are demonising her for her views. -
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Correct. $80,000 is not modest. $80,000 is a good salary.
-
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Robert, I'm glad that you're now informed about the IAAAS scheme as it exists today.
No one is demonising Liana; she has a right to raise issues as she always does and make her views known, as we have a right to debate them.
What we're doing is missing the point here. if the debate is about whether charitable organisations should be funded by government, let's have that debate. If the debate is about the merits of whether or not government should fund organisations to provide advice to Asylum seekers, then let's have that debate. If the debate is about whether organisations like IARC should exist as they are or get on with the program of being financially viable on their own, lets have that debate.
What doesn't help is personalising the issue in order to prove someone wrong. the IAAAS program is no different to any funding program to do with the provision of aged services, health services, youth services, housing services and legal services, all of which are subject to guidelines. I don't think we're suggesting that these are socialist programs which should not exist or government should not fund.
There's a diversity of opinion within our industry and debate is good - pot shots are not. MA can certainly engange in qualitative and well informed debate about issues which are pressing to the industry and there's plenty of those, which can help us move forward; personal views are not facts, they're just personal views. Surely we can be a bit more disciplined than this. -
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
David
I disagree that these organisations are 'purely altruistic'. There is no evidence for that. These organisations have been making huge amounts of money out of the IAAAS. The RMAs employed are not necessarily seeing the profit in it.
I didn't intend to demonise the IARC. I just think that Australian government money would be better off being spent on Australian Citizens and their rights first. I have always thought that. I support a move towards that.
I don't think $80K for a lawyer is a 'modest' amount of money. I think the $80K is just the start of it.
There are expert, top-flight lawyers are out there fighting for refugees, but these lawyers are getting paid well for their expertise and precision. They are not government funded and they remain independent from the decision-maker. A lot of them take on public interest cases pro bono.
I haven't heard of $80,000 worth of altrusim before (salary to work representing refugees at IARC).
Migration Alliance is an approved pro bono voluntary organisation. Agents can receive CPD points for providing free advice to desperate visa applicants. Now that is closer to altruism than the '$80,000 per lawyer IARC model' in my view.
Yes, apples with oranges you are quite right. Two very different propositions.
Liana -
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
Perhaps it is interesting to review IARC's 2012 annual report that their main income was from Grants and the employees expenses draws over 65% of its income: https://iarc.worldsecuresystems.com/AboutUs#Annual%20Reports. According to the report, IARC Caseworks for that financial year was total of 81 clients which refugees takes portion of 15%.
Immigration blog
We have an entitlement society that is cutting back on entitlements. Too bad that IARC didn't properly prepare for the calamity it now faces. Perhaps if they had opened a "for profit" arm, they could survive. But, of course, that might interfere with their underlying economic philosophy--whatever that might be. I truly regret seeing the jobs go. But the business entity is not looking too well, and years of living off other people's earnings have made it slow to adapt. Very sad.