Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Would you agree to a two-tier Migration Practitioner registration system?
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 7510
- 49 Comments
Would you agree to a two-tier Migration Practitioner registration system?
Former State President and National Board Member of the Migration Institute of Australia Mark Glazbrook has called for the introduction of a two-tier RMA registration scheme, whereby, “migration agents that meet the necessary criteria …would be granted a higher level of accreditation than their peers, and extended streamlined processing rights that make it more attractive for applicants to engage their services,” according to a recent report on the “In Business South Australia” website: http://www.in-business.com.au/news/story/2014-8-12/18852
The report states that the partnership would be similar to the model recently proposed in New Zealand, with responsibility for visa application processing shared between government and approved industry representatives.
The Migration Alliance cannot agree with this proposal. There are currently over 5000 RMAs. The proposed scheme mocks the effectiveness of the MARA Code of Conduct which in essence is meant to put registered practitioners on a similar playing field in order to provide competitive, accessible and professional services to a diverse range of people. However, the MA is not against experienced practitioners being granted ‘Specialist Accreditation’ as is the case currently with Lawyers with the various state law institutes.
MA believes that the big issue that must be addressed is unregistered practice. This must be the focus at present given all the media hype about widespread rorting of Australia’s immigration system. Once unregistered practices is minimised or better still stopped, then perhaps a system whereby applications lodged by experienced registered practitioners are allowed streamlined processing ahead of direct public applications ought to be considered.
Liana Allan of the Migration Alliance says, “The department of immigration must develop a partnership of trust with the migration advisory industry. DIBP must recognise the professionalism of registered practitioners and not mock the entire OMARA registration system by dealing with RMAs in the same light as applications from the general public.
“Given the information in the leaked documents, DIBP has failed to deal with systematic rorts on its own and now will have less money and staff to combat the reportedly widespread problem. The time has come for DIBP to seriously look at developing a closer and better working relationship with the migration advisory industry.” says Liana Allan.
The establishment of an Independent Immigration Services Commissioner (IC) would certainly go a long way to help with all this by independently ensuring that those who are allowed entry into, and to remain in, the regulatory scheme are fit and competent to operate at their IC authorised ‘Advice Level’ as a registered practitioners. The IC could be the cornerstone of that relationship.
Comments
-
Friday, 15 August 2014oh, Please. as prefesional body, you should help and promote your professionals, not make restrictions for them. If you do not stand for the professionals, then you won't stand long.
-
Friday, 15 August 2014
14/8/14
MA newsletter quoted :
Former State President and National Board Member of the Migration Institute of Australia Mark Glazbrook has called for the introduction of a two-tier RMA registration scheme, whereby, "migration agents that meet the necessary criteria ...would be granted a higher level of accreditation than their peers, and extended streamlined processing rights that make it more attractive for applicants to engage their services," according to a recent report on the "In Business South Australia" website.
My opinion :
We need to look at both sides of the coin - a RMA who registered in the 1990s does not necessary mean they are competent today in giving good immigration advice in compared to a RMA registered in e.g. 2010.
Some RMAs no longer practise full time or would not catch up with latest legislations and therefore they can still give the wrong advice or make mistakes; as such they would be classified as “non-competent”
It would be un-fair for those who dig deep to the legislations, the act, the policies, decision records etc, and up-dated their knowledge to the latest although they may have only be practising for lesser years then those who carry a licence since the 1990s. Whoever are good will be recognised by the consumers, which is the most important factor. Being recognized by MIA or Migration Alliance does not mean anything to the general public who use the service.
Immigration Legislations changes at all time, frequently, and unpredictable. It will be a continual challenge to anyone holding a RMA licence instead of claiming on what they have achieved in the past. Let us move on and be alert to refresh our knowledge at all times. Only those who work hard and work with integrity & honesty be automatically recognised by their clients are the winners.
Yours sincerely
Linda W Y Cheng
Registered Migration Agent Nr 9802691
Mob 61-404 166 669
www.migratesouthaustralia.com.au -
Friday, 15 August 2014
MIA .... yep Missing In Action .....more to the point ...... what are they thinking
-
Friday, 15 August 2014
Hello Liana,
At the interview regarding governance of the OMARA evidence was given that there is no proof of the efficacy of the practice ready program. The introduction of regulation without proper supporting investigation fails to meet the Government’s regulatory impact analysis requirement criteria for proper governance of a rule making body. See the discussion on Regulatory Impact Statements in the Best Practice Regulation Handbook, published by Ministry of Finance and Deregulation 2010; Chapter 2. Copy below for your reference.
Might I suggest it may be appropriate follow up to the submissions made to Dr. Kendall at our meeting and in our submission, noting the cavalier attitudes to an ungoverned OMARA who seem to take themselves as omnipotent, infallible and all knowing.
Always the paranoid, I would suggest without evidence that gazetting of the Practice Ready program could have been at the behest of MIA, the only provider of the program. If that were the case, it is an astonishing move by OMARA.
If the beleaguered Liberal members in my area (Charlestown, Swansea, Newcastle) are copping flack for the noble assistance given to their election campaigns, then the MIA/MARA connection may also warrant investigation. It may be difficult to demonstrate an irregular benefit to the OMARA, but the cronyism is worthy of a hard look.
By the way, don't quote me on that "noble assistance" bit.
http://www.dpmc.gov.au/deregulation/obpr/proposal/coag_requirements/coag-guidance.cfm
John -
Saturday, 16 August 2014
This industry is already plagued by no doubt the highest turnover of any profession - with constant improvisations of requirements to register and/or remain registered. Lets follow MIA (not) and use a tiered system (the MIA - an organisation which has done so much). Unregistered practice is the real issue that such professional bodies should be prioritising with unending vigour - which of course includes the most unfair playing field of all - legally permitting the tens of thousands of unregistered offshore agents to provide immigration assistance. No goverment or Minister has seen fit to regulate the unregistered offshore agents (= competitors) in how many years/decades (stopped counting) - as a certain intellectual from times previous would say - why is it so? This is the REAL issue that needs addressing for all registered migration agents who pay the price of a totally unfair playing field and pay all those extra costs to stay in business to compete with those unregistered agencies. Oh....Lets focus instead on introducing a tier system in this industry to increase the absurdity and viability of the industry. To quote "The proposed scheme mocks the effectiveness of the MARA Code of Conduct which in essence is meant to put registered practitioners on a similar playing field in order to provide competitive, accessible and professional services to a diverse range of people" Damn right. Even New Zealand managed to properly regulate its profession and exclude unregistered agent dealings. NZ had EOI before Australia. Are the Kiwis also ahead in Amazing Race - (probably)
-
Sunday, 17 August 2014
I disagree New Zealand has fixed the issue with unregistered agents.
I practiced NZ mig law for a couple of years after they stopped receiving applications from unregistered advisors, I simply pretended that I am a self managed application thru fake emails, addresses and telephone numbers. There was nothing INZ could do about it, just to make a fool out of themselves.
I considered myself to be ethical but I know some really rip people off and INZ still helpless. -
Monday, 18 August 2014
Unregistered migration Agents..No. Get a move on DIBP and MARA! Priority processing for RMA's YES! An IC, fully acceptable and a must for our industry.
Boat snatching and hatching and dispatching! Oh, I thought it was vote catching? Good to see a humanitarian decision being made. Is that an extra 4000 Humanitarian Places? or have the already allocated number of Humanitarian visas been 'dispatched' to the end of the cue? -
Monday, 18 August 2014
Dear Unregistered INZ contributor. Just to clarify - please read carefully - no-one said NZ has FIXED the issue of unlicensed agents. I said they have regulated their industry to deal (basically) only with registered agents including those offshore (outside NZ) - there will always be those who choose to ignore the laws - both within a jurisdiction and out of it. As to practicalities and effectiveness lets prosecute an offshore agent in another jurisdiction - but multiply that by thousands / tens of thousands - economically unviable and no doubt realsitically improbable - the issue or point being made is simple - governments regulating an industry in Australia but then claiming when it comes to those offshore they cannot (but they will acknowledge it should happen (but it nevers does)) - so it becomes a free for all - no wonder this profession has such a high turnover in terms of those who make the effort and invest in registration process etc etc - the issue is about the economics and the fairness of competition. Of course there are clients who will only seek a registered agent, or those who will only seek a migration lawyer, or no doubt those who wish to risk dealings with others - this doesnt suggest they are all dishonest either (as some may allege). Canada restricts dealings, NZ also - whether it is 100% effective is not the issue. When does anything result in 100% ....perfection. Never. This is about trying to have some semblance of fairness for those who make the effort and invest in registration of course. Whether it be lawyer agents, non-lawyer agents. Cheers
Immigration blog
There is in effect a tiered system within Australia:
Accredited Immigration Specialists
Legal Practitioners who are also registered with OMARA
RMAs who can provide migration assistance
Education Agents who can give migration information
Authorised others
If a regulatory system is to remain in Australia (and why assume that it needs to be?) then DIBP needs to work with the migration assistance industry (and vice versa) in a FAR more constructive way. In my opinion this is unlikely given the fault lines of chaos that exist across the industry and that run through DIBP.