Login / Join
DIPB defends black list.
DIBP admits that it has used an RMA secret list in the allocation of applications to case officers but makes no apology for the use and insists that it has been for the purpose of ‘triaging’ applications.
In a recent statement DIBP says that the “list was previously used within the temporary or provisional Partner visa caseload to help triage and streamline the allocation of applications to officers of appropriate seniority, depending on the complexity of the case.”
The statement suggests that right up to October 2013, applications for partner visas were allocated to case officers according to the list. According to the statement the list was ‘removed from use between August and October 2013’.
This contradicts a news report that quotes an email from the director of the department's Migration Agents Policy section in March to a concerned migration agent that said "Lists A and B go back nearly 10 years so it is unfortunate that this has been dragged out again as they are really old ...".
The statement contends that, “Triaging applications based on complexity did not impact on visa decision-making”.
Allocation to senior case officers certainly suggests that applications from certain RMAs were deemed higher risk even before the details of any merits of an application were considered.
The statement however insists that ‘No inference or interpretation should be drawn on the basis of inclusion on the list’.
As migration agents would already be aware, Migration Alliance's Convenor, Accredited Specialist immigration lawyer, Christopher Levingston said that the creation and maintenance of what he called a "shi* list" of registered migration agents "is a complete disgrace and shows the absolute contempt that the department has for the profession".
Mr Levingston said the department had acted deceitfully and in a manner that damaged the clients of agents because of some unspecified criteria.
He also questioned assurances from the department it had stopped using the list. "Why should any of us believe that?"
Read more:
http://www.immi.gov.au/News/Pages/statement-triaging-applications.aspx
http://www.smh.com.au/national/agents-on-secret-immigration-blacklist-have-their-names-published-20140822-106m58.html#ixzz3CfwuEcGh
Immigration blog
The sad reality of this saga is that the lists exist, that the department's use of the list is contemptuous and that it does nothing to ensure collaboration between it and RMAs, let alone add any value to any internal process.
It also shows that RMAs are not only controlled to the hilt overtly but also covertly - that is, it is not enough to regulate RMAs professional behaviour in a way that paints the industry as one which can be guilt of all kinds of things from which the unsuspecting public has to be protected from, but it's also provided license to departmental officers to internally regulate RMAs without their knowing, sanctioned by the 'regulator', which are one and the same.
I would personally like to think that the Department would now be wary of utilising these lists but I don't believe it is and if not these lists, future lists will inevitably appear, for whatever reasons, least of all for the protection of the public.
Having worked in the public service, I know that it is not possible to dictate what it does internally because it is important that there are policy frameworks and strategies in place to deal with a variety of issues, however, it is the responsibility of the public service be transparent in terms of what they do and how they do it, regardless of whether the rest of the world agrees - after all, it is a service available to the public, funded by the Australian community and in the case of Immigration, paid through the nose by aspiring Australian residents and citizens who support them.
In order for this to end for once and for all in its present form (until one day, perhaps, it starts off somewhere else within the PS) MA and MIA must call for the Department to contact those ‘listed’ RMAs to at least disclose to them that they are on it and come up with a better (and real) explanation for the use of the list - the spin on the press release is meaningless to those who feel themselves affected or their clients.
As far as a triage system goes, there are better and much more manageable and transparent ways to triage applications based on fact rather than on personal stereotypes created on the back of fictitious perceptions of possible wrongdoing AND whilst there are RMAs out there who set out to do the wrong thing to begin with, it's up to the regulator to deal with it with the help of the industry (AKA: us), we're a pretty responsible and professional mob.
Further, the need for an independent commission is a matter of urgency if the kinds of issues that is plaguing the industry are going to be dealt with decisively, rather than in secrecy by structures which believe can act in particular ways with little accountability. This is about walking the talk, not spinning the talk and trampling on everyone in the process.
So, where to from here, decisively?