Christopher Levingston Blog

I have just been provided with a copy of the following message from the MIA.

"Message from MIA National President

Dear Members
Recently, there has been much media around alleged behaviour of some (named and unnamed) registered migration agents and officers of the immigration department. This has caused distress to some of our members. The Migration Institute of Australia is greatly concerned about the way this information has been published as it has the potential to damage the reputations of our members. This is not an appropriate way to deal with important issues around standards of professional conduct and provides no opportunity for rebuttal or defence that ensures accountability and fairness. The Migration Institute of Australia will not be republishing this information or any related links to it.
There have also been media reports about “Blacklists” issued by the immigration department to which the Migration Institute of Australia has responded (see here; here; and here for examples).
I have been in discussions with the immigration department on this matter and they have assured me that the only list which now exists is one which contains the names of those agents who have current OMARA sanctions on the register or are deceased. They will also be undertaking an audit of their systems, twice a year, to ensure that this list is restricted to this information only.
The Migration Institute of Australia will continue its active dialogue with the relevant government departments and agencies to seek a resolution of this matter in a way which ensures fairness and equity for all our members. If any members have concerns about this matter, please contact Kevin Lane, MIA Chief Operating Officer or Bronwyn Markey, MIA Professional Support Manager, for a confidential discussion.
Best wishes
Angela Chan, FMIA
National President"

I fully support Angela in these general comments. However, nothwithstanding her discussions and active dialogue with DIBP. I think, it is fair to say that DIBP "assurances" are not something to be taken at face value. The FOI requests and my observations concerning what those documents disclose suggest that DIBP assurances should be taken with a grain of salt.

As I understand it the MARA list was created in 2007 to 2009 when the MIA/MARA self regulation model was in place. It is that list, the "Agents of concern" list, that is creating all of the damage to our colleagues. 

The admission by DIBP that the current list "Agents of Interest" does not appear to line up with the "assurance" of DIBP to the effect that it will only contain a reference to sanctioned agents, if that were the case I would assume that the title of this weeks list would be " Sanctioned Agents". My experience tells me that what DIBP says and then does are 2 different things.

If fairness and equity is in the mix, perhaps what DIBP should consider is writing to all RMAs who are on the list explaining why their name was recorded on it in the first place, how the list has impacted on their clients claims, why the RMA was denied natural justice and a sincere apology and perhaps some financial settlement for the injurious falsehood.

I have written to my local Federal member Craig Laundy asking him to raise the matter directly with The Minister and to have the matter referred to a Senate standing committee so that we can get to the bottom of it. If you want to write to Craig Laundy and ask him to help here, is his email address: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Craig Laundy supports the important work done by RMAs.  He will raise this with the Minister and the ball will start rolling.  Action is what is needed now, not active dialogue and assurances.

In the meantime, I have launched my FOI request and I received an acknowledgement of that request yesterday.

Finally, I note that Angela is a little quiet about who created the original list.

Perhaps there will be another "Message" soon.

I hope so.