Australian Immigration Daily News

This email  from James Tan has been received by Migration Alliance and written permission provided for it's release in our news:

Dear Colleagues

I forward for your reading and consideration an email I have received from the Queensland/Northern Territory Committee of the MIA. It is a very powerful submission to explain why the motion for consideration by the upcoming EGM to be held in MIA Head office in Sydney should be voted against. I will be passing on my proxy vote to John Hourigan with specific instructions to vote against the motion for the reasons expounded in the submission of the QLD/NT MIA Committee.

I have been a member of the MIA for more than 15 years and my membership number is 437. In the bad old days the National Board of the MIA was wearing two hats, not only as the body representing the interests of members of the MIA but curiously also as the regulating body to discipline and regulate the conduct of members of the MIA. I, together with the majority of the MIA membership felt very strongly that situation was an unacceptable conflicting situation. We campaigned very hard and finally the regulating function of the National Board of the MIA was taken away from the Board by  the Department of Immigration. The current situation of the OMARA is not a perfect situation but preferable to the previous situation.

Another situation that that existed in the bad old days of the MIA was the unlimited terms of office Board Members of the MIA could put their hands up for re-election. Due to the advantages of incumbency we found ourselves in a situation where office bearers were voted into office year in year out. Again I, together with many concerned members,  voiced our concerns strongly against this provision in the MIA Constitution which resulted in the change to a limit of two terms a few years ago.

Now the current National Board, against the wisdom of the previous National Board that consisted of many experienced and long serving members who saw the folly of unlimited tenure of office bearers overwhelmingly got rid of the unlimited tenure of office provision of the Constitution. Of the 6 board members that voted, 5 voted to get rid of the unlimited tenure provision. I urge all of you to consider voting against the motion to be decided on at the coming EGM. Please take time to read the attached "Effective Governance" Effective-Governance.pdf for a detailed  reading of why unlimited tenure in office will lead to an ineffective and tired organisation, bankrupt of new ideas with no infusion of fresh blood into the organisation.

Of the three issues addressed in the one single motion, I am all for staggered elections as that serves to provide continuity in an organisation. As for the increase in the term of service from 2 to 3 years I am against it for the simple reason there is no 3 year plan in existence. The argument that there is a three year plan is BS. As for the abolishment of the limit on the tenure of 2 terms of appointment, I am deadly against the proposal. There appears to be some members of the current National Board holding selfish ambitions to serve in the National Board forever.

The sad thing with the manner in which this motion is to be tabled before the coming EGM is the lack of opportunity for the general membership of the MIA to discuss the pros and cons of the motion. Why such "unholy haste" in ramming down the motion into the throats of members.

Bob, as the State President I would strongly urge you to send out an email to all members in Victoria and Tasmania to attend an urgent meeting as soon as possible to allow the pros and cons of the motion proposed by the National Board can be ventilated.

Thank you.  

Regards
James Tan (MARN: 9686457)
C/- James Tan Immigration Consultants
266 Hawthorn Road
Vermont South VIC 3133
AUSTRALIA
Phone: +61 3 9886 6802
Mobile: +61 412 323 883
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: www.immigrationlawyer.com.au

Notice to All MIA members

Dear Colleagues

IMPORTANT NOTICE

VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION IN THE EGM

This notice is in relation to the Constitutional changes you are being asked by the MIA Board to vote on at the Extraordinary General Meeting ("EGM") to be held on 18/02/2015.

You are strongly urged you to  carefully read the proposed changes contained in the motion you are being asked to vote on and voice your opinion as to whether you are in favour of or against the motion. 

This is a very important and fundamental change to the MIA's Constitution that will potentially shape the future of the MIA.

If you are unable to attend the EGM in Sydney, please do not waste your vote as each vote is crucial to your organisation's future. Ensure that you complete the most recent Proxy Form sent by the MIA National Office and state clearly whether you are in favour of or AGAINST the motion and return it as soon as possible to the National Office and in any event before 5.15pm Eastern Daylight Saving Time on 16 February 2015.

Please make sure you carefully read the attached "how to cast a vote by Proxy" so that your vote is valid. 

In short, and by way of explanation, the motion provides for:

1.      The staggering of elections by States

2.      The extension of each term of appointment of Directors from 2 to 3 years.

3.      The removal of the limit on the tenure of 2 terms of appointment

You are being asked to vote for or against on these matters in one motion. Unfortunately, you cannot vote on the above separately as they are bundled into one motion.

Several State committees have discussed the motion in detail and have resolved that a vote AGAINST the motion is the most sensible way forward for the following reasons.   

1.      Although the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) states that the increased term will be in line with the 3 year strategic plan, there is, in fact, NO existing 3 year strategic plan.  On the contrary, there was a plan for 2011-2013 and the current one for 2013-2015, both of which are two-year plans.    The information provided in the EM is, at best, misleading as it implies that there is in fact an existing 3 year plan.  If it is, indeed, the intention of the National Board to implement a 3 year strategic plan from July 2015, this should have been clearly stated in the EM.  The National Board should then have explained why a 3 year plan is preferable to a 2 year plan.  Without such information, we are unsure whether there is actually a genuine need to increase the term from 2 to 3 years or whether the 3 year plan was merely proposed to justify the increase of the term from 2 to 3 years.

There is no other reason presented by the Board explaining why a 3 year term of appointment is better than a 2 year term.  Its proposition that the amendment will “bring greater stability and continuity to the governance and strategic management”  fails to provide an insight on how this increase in term will deliver the stability and continuity.  There is no reasoning given as to why 3 or even 5 years would achieve this.

2.      The imposition of the limit on tenure was imposed in recent years by the National Board with the best interest of  the members in mind.  Five of the six  sitting Board members at the time, who are well respected and experienced migration agents, knew that they would have to step down following the approval of the change.  Yet, they voted in favour of the motion as they believed it was in the best interest of all members.  Consequently, before members can make an informed decision on the current motion in the EGM, we need to know whether there are any major changes in the circumstances of the MIA since the limit was imposed by the Board's predecessors which would justify the removal of the limit on the tenure now.

3.      At the last time members were asked to vote for a change in the Constitution, the Board, at the time, undertook detailed scoping studies on corporate governance and even went to the extent of engaging a consultant corporate governance expert to provide it with professional advice on current corporate governance issues. The current National Executive is seeking to overturn the previous extensive consultations of the previous board of directors to modernise the MIA governance arrangements. While the previous board provided members with a rationale for constitutional amendment, no evidence has been placed before members as to the extent of the current board’s deliberations and why it considers it is necessary to overturn the previous decision of members to limit the number of terms a director may stand for election. “

4.       Even if the Board wishes to “bring greater stability and continuity to the governance and strategic management”, it is open to the Board to consider increasing the limit of tenure to 3 terms instead of completely abolishing the limit.

5.      In addition, “A topic of increasing focus for boards is the impact director tenure has on performance. Many governance authorities recommend a limitation on the length of service of a director for two reasons:

1.      There is a concern that independent directors may lose the independence and the external viewpoint that they were intended to bring to the board if they remain on a board for an extended period. This can be as a result of becoming ‘too trusting’ of particular executives (or to a lesser extent by alignment to a faction of a board).

2. Some commentators voice a concern that a long‐serving director’s contribution andusefulness may wane (for example, as a result of running out of new ideas) or become less relevant to the organisation’s future.”  http://betterboards.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Director-Tenure-Paper_v1.0_1Jul14.pdf

Essentially, the MIA undertook significant studies with professional advice in relation to constitutional changes less than five years ago, resulting in adoption of the current constitution.  Any subsequent changes should also be based on the same level of due diligence and advice demonstrating to the members what the pros and cons of any changes are and what effect they will have on the MIA as the peak professional body. Only then can  the members make an informed decision.  There is grave concern that these changes   appear  to be rushed through with an almost “indecent haste” and lack of complete transparency.

In addition, there is an overwhelming view that each proposed change to the Constitution should be subject to separate and well founded and considered motions, not bundled together in the current fashion. It may well be that a member agrees with one or more "parts" of the current motion but not others yet be forced to agree to something she/he does not agree to in order to have part of the motion passed.

Mr John Hourigan, Secretary of the ACT Chapter, will be attending the EGM and will vote AGAINST the motion.   He has agreed to be appointed proxy by all members wishing to cast a vote. Please put his name and address as your proxy form in accordance with the instructions provided so that he can vote AGAINST the motion in accordance with your instructions. 

Proxy Name:  John Hourigan

Address: 1st Floor, AMP Building
1 Hobart Place
CANBERRA ACT, 2600 Australia 

By Resolution of the Queensland/Northern Territory Committee MIA

How-to-cast-a-Proxy-vote---Brian-Jones.pdf

About James Tan

James Tan, the principal of the firm, read law at the Middle Temple in London and was admitted to the Bar of England and Wales in July 1977. He is also a member of the Malayan Bar and the Borneo Bar.  In October 1989 he was admitted as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland. In September 2004 he was admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and currently holds a practicing certificate for the state of Victoria.

Following a distinguished service career in the Malaysian Armed Forces, during which he attended courses in the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Australia, James sought early retirement from the Malaysian Armed Forces in 1987 at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.