Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5651
- 12 Comments
RMA blacklist still in use
The Sydney Morning Herald has revealed that that blacklists of immigration lawyers and agents compiled by the Department of Immigration are still being used, despite government promises they had been removed.
“Documents dated late May show the lists are still being used to rate applicants for partner visas according to which lawyer or agent they have acting on their behalf. The document shows the lists remain part of a "risk tiering tool" that adds three points to an application and may affect the outcome. (The more points, the higher risk rating the application receives.)” reports the Sydney Morning Herald.
However, DIBP has again denied the lists are still in use. A DIBP Spokesperson said, “Consistent with previous statements, the agents-of-concern lists were removed from use last year as the information was out of date.”
The department had previously said the lists were created in 2010 and were supposed to have been destroyed. The discovery of the blacklists prompted a departmental audit.
The discovery of the lists also prompted calls for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to investigate.
“Migration lawyers had previously warned the existence of such a categorisation of migration agents, for whatever purpose, exposed the secretive and clandestine activities for which the department had a reputation,” the newspapers states, adding that, “Some of the lawyers and agents on the ‘‘Agents of Concern List A and List B’’ had been in business for decades and more than three-quarters of them had never had any official sanction against them. Some of them believed they had been deliberately targeted by the Immigration Department.”
Migration Alliance raised the issue of the A and B list of migration agents on March 12, 2014. Liana Allan spoke with the Migration Agents Section (MAS) at DIBP in Canberra after receiving numerous enquiries from RMAs about how to find out which list they are on but was advised that “the lists A and B are not in use any more and are very old and the lists were never decision making tools.”
RMA Peter Bollard, in his Newsletter 419 of March 2014 Migration_Newsletter_419 (Click here for a copy), wrote of DIBP's migration agent A and B lists and mentioned that migration agents can use FOI requests to seek information held on them by DIBP.
Comments
-
Monday, 18 August 2014I concur.
The "lists" are at best unethical.
Any cover-up is criminal. -
Monday, 18 August 2014
This is really one of the shameful conduct from the DIBP.
-
Monday, 18 August 2014These are the remarks attributed to Angela Chan at the MIA:
This is the context:
When the existence of the lists was revealed in early May, the national president of the Migration Institute of Australia Angela Chan said the department needed to have an open and transparent process and, if agents were put on lists, they should have the opportunity to respond.
These are the remarks:
Ms Chan said the department had admitted there was a flaw in the system and had stopped using the lists.
The only flaw in the system that I can see is that DIBP has defamed certain RMAs and denied them natural justice. The so called "admission" is not a flaw it is part on a concerted effort by DIBP to regulate the conduct of certain RMAs through their clients.
The lack of probity, integrity and honesty ( not transparency) is the problem here.
DIBP has acted deceitfully and in a manner which damages the clients of our colleagues because of some unspecified criteria which might see a practitioner "blacklisted".
Finally, we are assured that DIBP has "stopped" using the list.
Why should any of us believe that?
I do not defend any aspect of the conduct of DIBP in this matter. They need to be held accountable for their decisions and their conduct just like the rest of us. Every person whose name is on that list needs to be notified so they can make the decision about what they are going to do about it.
How about DIBP writes to every person on that list and says "sorry" that might be a good place to start?
I wish the Journalist had asked me what I thought about this completely disgraceful and outrageous set of circumstances. -
Monday, 18 August 2014
My RMA's details were stolen and used by a scammer living somewhere in UK a few years ago. I was told he contacted the DIBP on many occasion on simple matters. The officer at UK lodged a complaint to OMARA and that's how I discovered that my details were stolen.
OMARA did not mention anything further except that my ID was used by an unregistered person living overseas.
I'm afraid I will be on one of the lists because the scammer made many calls to DIBP before it was discovered. His conduct and poor knowledge of migration laws may have impacted my integrity and reputation in the eyes of DIBP.
I agree with Ben that MA should write to DIBP seeking information on each agent under FOI. -
Monday, 18 August 2014
The DIBP is the most incompetent of all departments . They get away with so much ...and are unaccountable .Centrelink and ATO staff have much fairer culture and attitude .
It does not surprise me if this list is still in use . I am sure the OMARA has access to the list .... -
Monday, 18 August 2014
Outrageous. Just had a call from a prospect interested in a sc300 visa. She said, "did you read the paper? How can I tell whether you're on the agent blacklist or not?". I explained that the blacklist had been discontinued, but she said "but the paper said it wasn't". It is time for DIBP to make an announcement on their website that we can direct all clients to that indicates there is no blacklist or any other agent risk level tool in use on partner or any other sort of visas. That's the best way we can try to start repairing some of the damage and destruction this outrageous policy has done to our industry and to the good reputations of agents.
-
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
I've taken the liberty to comment on Peter Bollard's most currnet newsletter, where he posts about an FOI response regarding Risk Tiering for partner visas, as well as what is happening in NZ which is very disturbing indeed: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11160383.
Peter goes on further, indicating the risk factors on this sheet, which includes, amongst others, 'Having an advisor from List "A' and 'B'; an interesting proposition since there doesn't seem to be a use for such lists (which are not updated, anyway).
Mark, you've clearly articulated the main issue here - the Department muddying the reputation of RMAs and of the industry arbitrarily and without the knowledge of RMAs. The NZ newspaper article above quotes The New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment Chairman indicating that '(this practice goes) against basic principles of fairness and natural justice to place the alert in secret and not give the adviser the right of reply', which is essentially what seems to be happening in Oz.
This is unacceptable and DIBP must formally clarify with all RMAs what's the go and who is on that list, un-updated, not in use or otherwise. This is., no doubt, one of MA's many challenges and follow it up, we will.
For more info on getting onto Peter's newsletter, register through his website. It's a useful addition to all things migration, which we can never have enough; thank you Peter.
Bea -
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
A class action against DIBP is required from the RMAs like the one going on against the big banks.
-
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
DIBP needs to undergo a little bit of aversion therapy.
They just keep on doing dumb stuff don't they?
Perhaps we need to send in some "Inspectors" to make sure there is no bullying, harassment or failure to pay entitlements.
I bet DIBP would love to get a dose of its own medicine.
Each member of the class would be a person whose name appears on the list.
Their damage would be the damage to their reputation by the fact of their being on the list coupled with the shame and embarrassment.
DIBP leaks like a sieve it is only a matter of time until this list escapes DIBP and goes "wild". -
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
So Gary Fleming's statement of November 2013 that the list has been removed is untrue?
I think a Departmental enquiry by a third party is called for as well as a possible class action for those agents on the list.
My favourite part is Diana Trionfi's response to the question of what information was used to create the list.
" The list was created on information available to the department."
excellent so was that google searches, stuff on facebook - anonymous tip offs or what?
A lawyer would have a field day with a court case if the prosecution relied on such evidence
" -
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Sharing it with other RMAs, our request for FOI sent as per the MA template has been refused by the department citing s.24AA of the FOI Act. Has someone else been refused too and what should be the appropriate way to get the information about the 'black list/s'?
Thanks in anticipation
Immigration blog
Good MA Folk, we need to formally request that the department write to each and everyone on this list, separately to get around privacy issues, and advise that they are on it and the reasons for it - Surely THAT'S Procedural Fairness.
Alternatively the WHOLE membership of the MA could write to DIBP under FOI to seek information about whether we are indeed on a list and why...
I cannot fathom how a government department can disavantage a client's application WITHOUT telling them that their RMA is ALLEGEDLY on a BLACK LIST, which the RMA DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT... this is almost like the ASIO adverse report - we're looking into your case but we can't tell you what you've done or why or who has told us...'
This secrecy and lack of accountability is beyond the pale (though not unusual at this present moment in time).
If the Department has issues with particular RMAs, they should make these issues known to the OMARA for them to follow up rather than establish a paralel, in-house and secret black list (which seems to be in writing, even if out of date...) without due process. People may have done stupid things in the past but that's no reason to subject anyone to an arbitrary, unaccountable process for ever and a day. an RMA who *technically* mucks up all the time will come under the watchful eye of the OMARA and will *eventually* be punished and that should be the end of the list for that individual since he/she can no longer practice.
How arbitrary can this get - it only takes a DIBP officer to make a judgement call based on some unknown criteria to secretly defame an RMA amongst their departmental colleagues and I would say within the industry, and place a client's application process at risk, unbeknownst to the applicant or the RMA. What's the point of having a Registration Authority when the Department takes matters into their own hands? (oh, wait, OMARA IS the department and the Department IS OMARA... we DO need an Independent Commission NOW - but that's in another current blog)
VERY poor form - let's stop talking about this and take decisive action - after all, it is a document which exist in some shape or form and it is reasonable for those who may be on it, to want to know what's in it, why it's been used and how it's being used. Its mere existence (albeit outdated or no longer in use, depending who one talks to) impacts on US ALL.
Looking forward to more comments and opinions about this.
Bea