Last year, an unlicensed immigration adviser for New Zealand visas, Richard Martin, was sentenced to three years and seven months’ imprisonment after being found guilty on 93 immigration-related charges.

The New Zealand’s Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) said that this was the heaviest penalty handed down to an unlicensed adviser, since the IAA’s inception in 2007. Undoubtedly, it reflects how aggressively the IAA pursues and prosecutes fraudsters in the industry and how seriously it takes its role in protecting vulnerable people.

Acting Assistant General Manager of Compliance and Border Operations at Immigration New Zealand (INZ) Arron Baker said the sentencing is a result of a thorough investigation by INZ and the IAA. 

“Today’s sentencing should act as a deterrent to any other unlicensed adviser operating outside the system. They can expect the full force of INZ, IAA and New Zealand Police, if necessary, to ensure the integrity of our systems are maintained and vulnerable people are protected” said Mr Baker in a statement.

Like New Zealand, Australia has a system of licensing migration advisers. The system managed by MARA aims to promote and protect the interests of people receiving immigration advice. Essentially, it does this by issuing licenses to people who:

• are fit and competent to give immigration advice;
• maintain competent professional advisory standards; and
• abide by a professional standards code of conduct.

Registration as Migration Agent is perhaps the only service guarantee the system can offer to those seeking migration advice: registration means that the advisors have been regularly screened for competency and ethical conduct; and working with a registered migration agent (RMA) possibly gives an applicant the best chance of achieving success in an application.

Unfortunately, despite New Zealand’s lead, Australia has chosen to lag behind in its obligation to vulnerable applicants by continuing to not only allow unregistered practice, by accepting applications from agents not screened under the MARA process but also by  effectively encouraging unregistered practice through a system of shadow agreements with unregistered practitioners overseas.

Why doesn’t Australia follow New Zealand’s lead by categorically abolishing unregistered practice? You are either qualified to provide migration advice or you are not. It can’t be that hard. Once done, perhaps it can properly get on with the job of aggressively pursuing and discouraging fraudsters as the IAA did in this case.

The Migration Alliance recommends that DIBP considers this as a new year’s resolution:

That DIBP will look closely at removing the ability for a person or organisation to submit an Australian visa application unless they are registered migration agents.  For inspiration, DIBP could study the NZ system which deals with this issue particularly at Sections 9, 11 and 12 of the NZ Immigration Advisors Licencing Act 2007.

MA’s Liana Allan wrote to Senator Michaelia Cash last year with this request. Over the year MA has lodged various submissions to improve the standards in the migration advisory industry including lobbying for the appointment of an independent commissioner. MA was particularly pleased with Senator Cash’s decision to order a review of the OMARA to properly consider its effectiveness in managing the industry.

Ultimately, the Migration Alliance would like to see DIBP/MARA pay more attention to pursuing unregistered fraudsters and start dealing with RMAs with greater trust and respect.