Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Ombudsman and ACCC Complaint: Denial of access to Australian Citizens: Student e-visa AL2-4Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 6727
- 15 Comments
Ombudsman and ACCC Complaint: Denial of access to Australian Citizens: Student e-visa AL2-4
The following complaint has gone in today:
I would like to make a complaint that the DIBP denies Australian Citizens access to it's e-visa student lodgement systems, whilst at the same time allowing non-Australian citizens to access the systems. This is a restraint of trade and denial of our country's own citizens to a service, whilst prioritising non-citizens. Citizens experiencing denial of service are Registered Migration Agents, amongst others.
How to make a complaint to the Ombudsman
If you are a RMA and being denied access to the online AL2-4 e-visa system then lodge your complaint directly to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. with the subject line 'Complaint re DIBP denial of access to Australian Citizens: Student e-visa AL2-4 system'.
Alternatively lodge your complaint using the online complaint form:
https://forms.business.gov.au/aba/ombudsman/ombudsman-complaint-form-
It is my belief that if we complain in numbers that the Ombudsman will prioritise the problem.
How to make a complaint to the ACCC
I have had a look at the ACCC and seen the following information on their website:
Unfair contract terms
There are laws protecting consumers from unfair terms in circumstances where they have little or no opportunity to negotiate with the business, such as standard from contracts.
Most terms in standard form consumer contracts are covered by unfair contract terms law. However, terms in consumer contracts that set the price or define the product or service being supplied are exempt.
The fairness of a term must be considered in the context of the contract as a whole.
A finding by a court that a contract term is unfair, and therefore void, means that the term is treated as if it never existed. However, the contract will continue to bind the affected parties to the extent that the contract is capable of operating without the unfair terms.
The following questions can help you recognise a potentially unfair term:
- Does the term cause a significant imbalance between your rights and obligations and those of the consumer's?
- Is the term reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the business?
- Would the term cause the consumer detriment (financial or non-financial) if you tried to enforce it?
- How transparent is the term?
Refusal to Supply Products or Services may also be relevant and can be found here on the ACCC website:
http://www.accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/refusal-to-supply-products-or-services
When lodging your online complaint at the ACCC they will ask for the ABN and ACN. The DIBP's ABN is located here. The ABN for the DIBP is 33 380 054 835.
In the box that requests the ACN place the number: 158580191. This is the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Organisation Number which is located here on ASIC. I have completed my complaint successfully using the above number in place of an ACN.
The online consumer complaint form for the ACCC is here.
To exercise our rights as RMAs and Australian Citizens over and above the rights of non-citizen student education agents located offshore (unregistered agents) complete the above steps. If other agents have suggestions please let us all know in the comments section of this blog.
Comments
-
Monday, 02 June 2014Fantastic ! Thanks Liana. I will do it instantly.
-
Monday, 02 June 2014
Well done, this action was long awaited and have already raised questions about the RMA's denied access to EVISA system compared to non citizens, unregistered education agents ...
I will lodge the complain soon... -
Monday, 02 June 2014
Thank you so much for the information
-
Thursday, 05 June 2014
Well done Liana!
The department continues to degrade our industry by such implementations as not allowing qualified RMA's, who are restricted under Australian Law to ensure better consumer practices, to have access to the E Visa system, to efficiently lodge visas through offshore Department Global Partners etc. This creates a negative image of our industry by, when our own government favours offshore nobody's compared to people that they themselves have given authority to. Where is the credibility in that?
A few years back, we were lucky enough to have access to the student E Visa system. We had a very good success rate, however, we lost access due to the numbers we put through being too low. We are an Australian based company, who of course do not churn out the amount of applications that an offshore "education agent" would. But I can say for damn sure, we are a lot more ethical in our practice in terms of documents and our dealings with the department and the client. And we approach each case with the knowledge and foresight to make a valid and hopefully successful application. Unlike many offshore agents who continue to advise clients to leave out critical information for the sake of a successful application now, but that leaves them with no options at the end, or even the possibility of PIC4020.
Not being able to access the E Visa for student visas has had a negative impact on the growth of our business. As not having access to this system has caused us to lose some clients and has caused projects regarding joint education providers and courses to be lost due to the fact that we are unable to provide fast and efficient visa services through the E Visa system.
I will be lodging a complaint. And I urge others to do so too. This has been a long time coming. -
Thursday, 05 June 2014
I refer DIBP eVisa team email dated 16 August 2012 regarding the access to eVisa Assessment Level 2-4 Students.
I note the following points in particular:
“10.7.1 (i) achieve a Visa Application approval rate of 90 per cent or more in any six (6) month period”
I note that the automatic audit by your system has led to serious errors and deprived we as RMA using this facility to reduce the scope of work at DIAC office and work load with Case officers.
I further note that this facility is seen as luxury to RMA and unrestricted business operating in overseas.
However I believe that this facility was very successfully used by RMA who maintained highest level of integrity, quality and standards to keep up with access contract.
Before I make a submission and response, I humbly request you to provide me additional information before a suitable response can be drafted and sent to your office.
Thus, I request your office to provide me statistics of the periods subjected to Auditing my performance and rationale behind the notice.
I ask the following questions:
- Why the Student eVisa system is still Trial Assessment Level 2-4 Students
- Why me as an RMA is denied access to this system where is law treats every one equal
- Why Australian citizen and practicing RMA is disadvantaged by incorrect application and misinterpretation of law to draft an invalid and void Contract tailoring the needs of overseas Non-citizens
- Why the equal opportunity of Business operation is hampered with the draft of incorrect Term and conditions of evisa usage contract
- Why all online visa applications are in use except student visa for Assessment Level 2-4 Students
- Why NON CITIZENS ARE BEING SERVED while RIGHTS OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN IS VIOLATED
Please explain the verification processes your agency has in place regarding Student visa applications:
1. Obtain all documents required by DIAC from applicants to support a valid and proper application including translations as notified by DIAC
2. A applicant interview about the applicant visa application and supporting document is carried
3. All key documents are received in original and visual inspection, quality checks & verification is carried to check genuineness & authenticity
4. The validity & genuineness of all documents are checked with the issuing authority or the source of origin using a Telephonic interview & email inquiry to verify the authenticity of the key documents
5. Responsible for any cost for the translation or provision of documents as directed by DIAC
6. Used all reasonable and demonstrable efforts to verify the authenticity and validity of all documents and the efforts to verify the authenticity of the documents
7. On DIAC request, we forward any documents relating to a particular eVisa application in the form and to the address specified
Please explain the record keeping procedures that you have in place to ensure safe and secure storage of applications and client information?
1. All electronic copies of key documents are securely saved on computer system after verification & eVisa application lodgement
2. The electronic storage and backup copies of all Key documents, attached at the time of lodgement of the eVisa Application are retained in secured area and store securely
3. Original documents received are filed with client ID and secured in locked storage cabinet for a period of 12 months from the date of the decision, after the 12 months retention period from the date of the decision, the Original documents are returned to the client and certified copies are kept in the record storage area
4. Retain good quality hard copies (clear and legible) of all documents relating to eVisa Applications for DIAC random auditing and quality assurance purposes
5. We retain documents supporting a visa application and store in a locked cabint, at the address specified, for a period specified by DIAC or the MARA Code of Conduct, whichever is the longer period
6. Documents are adequately stored & filed, in a high quality and secure storage facility that is waterproof and vermin free, in a locked cabinet at storage address
7. Inform DIAC about the change in user information & document storage place which was supplied to DIAC in the first instance
8. Welcome DIAC to audit any documents relating to a particular eVisa application for the AL2-4 Student
Is there any additional information relating to Agents or the Agency that you believe is relevant to gaining access to the eVisa facility?
We follow Statutory and Regulatory Requirements as stated in the eVisa Trial
contract 4.13, 4.14 & 4.15 as below:
1. As a continued RMA, member of MIA & MA, we have and maintained a sound knowledge of the criteria set out in the Migration Regulations 1994, Australian legislation and regulatory requirements and ensured that our office comply with legislation and registration requirements at all times
2. We have maintain a sound knowledge of eVisa Application lodgement procedures and have a capacity to lodge accurate, complete and timely applications, we refer to last training program conducted by DIAC office evisa team in Sydney
3. Our efforts are to lodge application within 24 hours of receiving application and forward Health check up Paper forms & eHealth advice
4. We follow high standards and strict procedures in handling client matters and follow the Privacy Act legislation
Our comment on only 2 refusal cases:
1. we feel that the 1st refused case was incorrectly assessed by interviewing officer over 1.5 hour, we are confident that the applicant was genuine, had access to sufficient funds and wanted to come to Australia only for further studies
2. we also feel that the 2nd refusal was also incorrectly assessed by the interviewing officer in China, as her father as employed with the employer for over 10 years and had sufficient funds to support the education of his daughter
The 7 withdrawal cases were forwarded to DIAC on applicant's request because the applicants changed their mind due to delay in visa decisions and decided to go to other country like UK, Canada & New Zealand for higher studies
I would like you to forward my feedback on this subject to your seniors and decision makers.
This expensive facility was created for the use of Migration agents to facilitate the efficient and faster lodgment and quick processing time to reduce the overhead of DIAC processing area.
Unfortunately this system is high jacked by IDP, other agents and companies who are doing this work for $200 to $300 lodgment charges and lodging massive application, use this precious facility as eVisa factory.
We as Migration agents follow strict code of conduct, follow Migration Law and carry on our work in most efficient manner and achieve high level of results and yet we are not given this facility as Migration agent to increase the visa lodging efficiency and reduce the paper work.
We note that it is over a long time since the eVisa Lodgment for Assessment Levels 2-4 was released and this facility is not yet extended to most deserving Migration Agents. We have been deprived of equal rights because this expensive evisa lodgment facility is been lobbied by IDP and some companies and DIAC has been on their side and did not extended this to all Migration Agents.
I demand this difference and disparity should end now and eVisa Lodgment for Assessment Levels 2-4.
Australian citizens have first right and first access to Commonwealth Laws that protects our interest before any other non-citizen.
Please do not continue to insult Australian Citizens any more while Immigration Minister continues to appease non-citizens unregistered migration agents. -
Thursday, 05 June 2014
Thanks for this information Liana
I will be lodging my complaint as well.
There are many times that I have wondered why on earth we I (as an onshore RMA) am restricted from doing evisa submissions for AL2-4. It just doesn't make any sense at all. We are certainly at a huge disadvantage whilst this remains the case. Thanks as always for your proactive work for our industry -
Friday, 06 June 2014
Here is the response from the ACCC. Christopher Levingston is about to write to them and let them know what the real position is. So, the DIBP is not 'carrying on a business' or 'engaged in trade or commerce'. What do you think RMAs?
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Infocentre wrote:
Dear Ms Allan
Thank you for your email of 2 June 2014 to the Australian Compeititon and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP)
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), which includes the Australian Consumer Law, is unlikely to apply to the DIBP in relation to the eVisa service.
The competition provisions of the CCA only apply to the Commonwealth (in this case the DIBP) when the conduct complained of is engaged in 'the course of carrying on a business'. Further, breaches of the ACL will only occur when the conduct complained of has been engaged in 'trade or commerce'.
The provision of the eVisa service by the DIBP is unlikely to meet both of these requirements making the DIBP exempt from the CCA and the ACL and the ACCC will not be taking any action.
I note on your blog, 'Australian Immigration Daily News' , you have provided information about unfair contract terms and how to lodge a complaint with the ACCC against DIBP. In light of the above information please revise the advice on your blog.
Thank you for contacting the ACCC with your concerns and if you would like to discuss this response further please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Davin Phillips
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (name removed)
Assistant Director | ACCC Infocentre
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
23 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra 2601 | http://www.accc.gov.au
T: 1300 302 502 -
Friday, 06 June 2014Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 5:35 PM
Dear Mr Phillips,
Thank you for your email to my colleague Liana Allan.
I note that you say that it is “unlikely” that DIBP is engaged in the course of carrying on a business and that they are engaged in trade or commerce.
Is the characterisation of this entity settled in your view and that the word “unlikely” is an artefact?
What we seek from you is a definitive statement based on the conduct of an enquiry by you as to whether the ACCC is precluded from the examination of this complaint.
It seems to me that your resort to it being “unlikely” is not a want of jurisdiction but a complete lack of will to investigate.
Please address this matter properly.
I have extracted your reply below for your convenience.
From: Infocentre
Date: Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Subject: ACCC Response [DLM=For-Official-Use-Only]
To: Liana Allan
Dear Ms Allan
Thank you for your email of 2 June 2014 to the Australian Compeititon and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP)
The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA), which includes the Australian Consumer Law, is unlikely to apply to the DIBP in relation to the eVisa service.
The competition provisions of the CCA only apply to the Commonwealth (in this case the DIBP) when the conduct complained of is engaged in 'the course of carrying on a business'. Further, breaches of the ACL will only occur when the conduct complained of has been engaged in 'trade or commerce'.
The provision of the eVisa service by the DIBP is unlikely to meet both of these requirements making the DIBP exempt from the CCA and the ACL and the ACCC will not be taking any action.
I note on your blog, 'Australian Immigration Daily News' , you have provided information about unfair contract terms and how to lodge a complaint with the ACCC against DIBP. In light of the above information please revise the advice on your blog.
Thank you for contacting the ACCC with your concerns and if you would like to discuss this response further please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Davin Phillips
Davin Phillips
Assistant Director | ACCC Infocentre
Australian Competition & Consumer Commission
23 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra 2601 | http://www.accc.gov.au
T: 1300 302 502
P Please consider the environment before printing this ema -
Friday, 06 June 2014
The competition provisions of the CCA only apply to the Commonwealth (in this case the DIBP) when the conduct complained of is engaged in 'the course of carrying on a business'. Further, breaches of the ACL will only occur when the conduct complained of has been engaged in 'trade or commerce'.
That being the case what the hell is DIBP engaged in if it is not business and they have derived 1.123 Billion dollars? Is it a crime gang?
Their motto is "people our business" sounds like a business to me albeit not very grammatical but at least they are trying...very very trying
Wake up get off your backside Jack! -
Sunday, 08 June 2014
Spot on Chris and Liana. I am not convinced with ACCC response.
Let us take this fight to tnext level until our rights are reserved. -
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
People. Our Business.
They charge fees for a service. Sounds like engaging in trade or commerce to me. -
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
Owen 'OUR BUSINESS' means they are carrying on a business, right? I mean, their slogan says so, but the ACCC aren't sure. 1984.
-
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
I received the following response from the Office of Ombudsman
From: Ombudsman [mailto:Ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 2014 3:31 PM
To: advice@aussieimmi.com
Subject: Ombudsman's response. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Our ref: 2014-505150
Dear Mr Kohli
Thank you for your email of 10 June 2014 about the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP).
I have considered the information in your letter. You have said that there is a disparity in process for lodging certain visas through the eVisa process. It is your position that the current practice of DIBP favours those lodging from overseas over local agents.
It is useful if I begin by explaining our role as it relates to your complaint. The Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office investigates complaints about the administrative actions of Australian Government agencies (that is ‘Federal’ or ‘Commonwealth’ Government agencies). We examine the process of administrative decision making to determine if an agency is following its policies and procedures correctly. Our office conducts independent and impartial investigations and does not act as an advocate for either the person making the complaint or the agency involved.
I refer to our discussion of 13 June 2014 on the matter. As it appears that DIBP are complying with the relevant policy, it does not appear that an investigation by this office is likely to produce a remedy in relation to your concerns. I have therefore decided to not investigate your complaint.
If you have any concerns about DIBP policy, it is open to you to raise your concerns with DIBP. You may also wish to consider contacting the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection or the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.
If you believe that you have another reason why we should investigate your complaint, please let me know so that I may consider it.
If you want to discuss this decision, please contact me on 1300 362 072
You can view a copy of our Service Charter and our brochure Making a complaint to the Ombudsman, which explains the Commonwealth Ombudsman's role in more detail at www.ombudsman.gov.au.
Regards
Adam K
Public Contact Officer
Public Contact Team | Operations South
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Phone 1300 362 072 | Fax 02 6276 0123
Email: ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au
Website: www.ombudsman.gov.au
PO Box 442, CANBERRA CITY ACT 2601
---------------------------------------------------------
This is evident that we need to take this matter further up to sue the Immigration Minister or challenge the discriminating policies.
I do not believe incorrect and discriminating policy can be drafted by any Commonwealth Law maker that violates rights of equal opportunity to at least Australian citizens.
It is injustice to Australian Citizens that discriminating and appeasing policies can be drafted and office of Ombudsman and other DIBP offices continues to practice under umbrella of incorrect law that violates our rights.
This practice further denies our access to Commonwealth Law to protect our interest as Australian Citizen; while the Commonwealth Law makers drafts incorrect and appeasing policies just to care for non-Australians who are not even come under Australian Legal jurisdiction.
please let me know what way I can contribute and participate to take this battle further for the restoration of rights. -
Saturday, 12 March 2016
Hello Team,
just wondering has this issue been resolved as I also like to have e-visa facility. If it has not been resolved kindly advise the departmental email address who looks after the e-visa facility system. I am really not looking forward to ask offshore agents to assist me in lodging e-visa for few of my clients.
thanks and regards,
Rajni
Immigration blog
Liana, well done.
This is part of a course of conduct which aids and abets the provision of Immigration assistance by unregistered persons.
it occurred to me on the weekend that the whole EVISA system could be used to shut out unregistered agents.
If it were a term of use that the applicant be either unrepresented or if represented then that reperesentation be by an RMA, then the EVISA could be restricted by limiting the access.
Thus a field which required the Applicant to nominate whether they were represented or not would be a PIOC4020" statement and if represented the RMA would enter their MARN and unique password to access the system.( like legend)
Even if an offshore unregistered agent were to get a MARN from an RMA then they would still have to get the password which I suspect that no sensible RMA would give out because of the consequences of the Code of Conduct.
Perhaps this is a solution?