Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Warning notice: Lorraine Sullivan, Duty Manager, DIBP Sydney AirportAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 6990
- 7 Comments
Warning notice: Lorraine Sullivan, Duty Manager, DIBP Sydney Airport
If it is ok for the Office of the MARA to issue 'warnings' about agents on their website then it is ok for MA to issue warnings to case officers on ours. The following is a complaint about Lorraine Sullivan which has been sent to the DIBP by a RMA:
I’m a registered migration agent (MARN: 00000000) [number removed for privacy reasons]
On 8 March 2015, my client Mr. XXXX Zhou’s student was cancelled by the Department at the Sydney Airport before he was immigration cleared. I was notified of Mr. Zhou’s situation that night by a friend of his. I rang the Department’s airport office on 02 83378524 at around 9:51 pm and spoke to a male officer (name unknown to me), who advised me to email a copy of Form 956 to his office before I could obtain information about Mr. Zhou from the office. The Form 956 would be forwarded to Mr. Zhou to sign at the Villawood Immigration Detention Facility (VIDF). I emailed the Form to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. at around 11:11 pm pursuant to the officer’s instruction.
I rang the airport office the following morning on Monday 9 March 2015 at around 8:44 am to enquire whether they received the signed form back from the VIDF and the answer was negative. I rang the VIDF straight away to ask whether Mr. Zhou had received the Form and signed it and was advised they could not locate the Form and asked me to request the airport office to fax the Form again to (02) 9780 9188. I rang the airport office back at around 8:53 am and a male officer asked me to fax the form directly to the VIDF myself. When I arrived at my office that morning I saw a copy of Form 956 signed by Mr. Zhou in my fax machine, which had a transmission time of 09/03/2015 01:05. I rang the Department’s airport office at around 10:12 am and obtained their fax number of (02) 9693 2678 from a male officer, and immediately faxed the signed Form 956 to that number. At around 10:21 am I rang the airport office and spoke to a male officer (name unknown to me), whom I asked whether my fax had been received by their office. After he put me on hold for a few minutes a female office, who identified herself as Lorraine – duty manager at the airport officer, took over the phone and said to me the following words “we have contacted the VIDF. The client is still sleeping. How could he have signed the Form when he was still asleep? The client’s signature on the form is different from the one on our record. If you send forged document to us again we will report you to the AFP. Don’t call us again. We will call you.” I was stunned by Lorraine’s outburst and couldn’t understand how she reached such a conclusion that I forged the client’s signature and sent a forged document to the Department.
I immediately rang the VIDF and managed to get into contact with Mr. Zhou. Mr. Zhou advised me that he got the Form 956 the previous night at between 11 pm and 12 am. He signed his name in Romanised spelling on the form and got the VIDF staff to fax to my office on 02 9281 9779, which was on the Form. He also advised me he probably signed some form at the airport office in Chinese characters inadvertently. I asked Mr. Zhou to sign his name again on the Form 956 in Chinese and fax the newly signed form directly to the airport office on 02 9693 2678. I received a newly signed Form 956 from the VIDF at around 11:35 am which had “Lorraine Airport Duty Manager” written on it, supposedly by Mr. Zhou as I had instructed him to do so. After having waited for half an hour without any contact from the air port office, I rang them at around 11:58 am requesting to speak to Lorraine and was advised she was not available. I left a message for her to call me back. Lorraine rang me back at around 12:04 pm and confirmed her office had received the newly signed Form 956 from the VIDF. I asked her for an explanation as to why she thought it appropriate to accuse me of sending forged document to the Department and threaten me with criminal prosecution by reporting me to the AFP in our first conversation. I pointed out to her the time stamp of 1:05 on the faxed form, which indicated whether the client was asleep at 10:21 am when she rang the VIDF was irrelevant. She failed to notice the time stamp and quickly jumped to a conclusion that something evil was at work. She refused to provide any explanation on her conduct. I requested an apology from her for making such a reckless and outrageous accusation against me. She refused and said she had done nothing wrong that warranted an apology. I told her I would make a complaint about her conduct to the Department. She said it was my prerogative.
What Lorraine (I later found out her last name is Sullivan) had done is appalling and unacceptable. I had never dealt with the airport office or her personally prior to the night of 8 March. Without a shred of evidence she accused me of sending forged document to a Departmental office, which was a serious accusation and carried a criminal penalty. It was a direct and unequivocal personal attack on my professional integrity and general character. She also threatened me that she would report me to the AFP. Is this how she views registered migration agents generally that compels her to make such reckless and baseless accusations towards me in the first instance?
I was of the view that the Department saw the relationship between the Department and the registered migration agents as that of partnership. But Lorraine’s behaviour suggests otherwise. She views migration agents as criminals who would resort to every illegal means to achieve their end. There is no other logical explanation on Lorraine’s shocking behaviour other than her misconceived pre-judgment on the migration agents. And she does not see anything wrong in it.
I would like the Department to investigate the incident and demand an apology from Lorraine. Her conduct shows she is incompetent in carrying out her job as a duty manager at the airport office and should obtain more training on dealing with clients and stakeholders in a professional and appropriate manner.
I look forward to your reply.
Comments
-
Monday, 16 March 2015Michael it would only be defamatory if it were not true. In this case, the information is so precise and the DIBP have a copy of this exact complaint so it is likely to be spot on. The DIBP have been meeting with agents for years and middle and higher management. The truth of it is that many, not all, DIBP staff just don't find agents convenience and the culture is 'us and them'. It's not like agents haven't tried to engage. MIA and MA have been attending these sessions on a regular basis with the DIBP but still the argy bargy exists between agents and delegates. I am beginning to think it's all just head nodding and lip service. Still I will keep on trying.
-
Monday, 16 March 2015Self identification aside, the above example from a departmental official is consistent with the way advocates are seen by the powers that be - they do not want to deal with 'do gooders'. Unfortunately, this has been more the rule than the exception of lat, with ANYTHING 'advocacy' and/or 'representation', giving way to a heightened (and clearly misplaced) 'sense of investigative authority' by those who are there to mind detainees.
Anyone outside their ranks working towards a client's right to procedural fairness (which does exists within the law), is not held in high-esteem, clearly...
Maybr it is the pressures of the work, coupled with an over zealous sense of responsibility because of it, but the 'us' and 'them mentality is very much the issue here - it's almost as if there's a kind of ownership claim over a client who becomes THEIR client as they are or become ours; a generalised understanding that we can work in partnership, even if our roles are different, is NOT a given. The perennial issue remains - HOW is this managed? and HOW effective are these sessions and meetings we use to discuss it? Are they just talkfests which make all involved feel good and leave with a sense of achievement?
In an Industry such as ours, vigilance is all that we can exercise as well as push for clarity - this may call for a more focussed engagement and a re-visit of how the MAs can do this effectively.
What I woud think should come the way of our blogger, is not so much an apology from the officer (as she is unlikely to give one though we can live in hope) but an articulation from HER MINDERS indicating that this was poor form, not likely to happen again with an explanation of what is in place to ensure there isn't a repeat performance anywhere else with anyone else. -
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Hopefully it is not the same Lorainne Sullivan from the Onshore Protection Visa unit NSW that I have worked with for many years when representing my clients and found her to be competent in her work. Perhaps work pressure and a new department environment can bring about changes to a person.
-
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
DIBP staff need to adhere to their Public Service Code of Conduct in much the same way that Registered Migration Agents must adhere to their Code of Conduct. If we have a bad day it doesn't make it ok to breach our code. DIBP and RMAs can call Ethicall or support / counselling services if they are not coping with work.
-
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Hello,
Who is this?
Are you speaking individually or for the organization?
Migration Alliance Tuesday, 17 March 2015· Migration Alliance likes this comment. -
Tuesday, 17 March 2015
Michael it was me Liana Allan making that comment. Sorry I am busy putting another news item up at the moment and didn't have time to swap to my personal login. If this ever happens I will let people know that it was me.
Immigration blog
Angry anonymous posts that may be defamatory in nature are always short on credibility. This one sounds believable.
Aside from the writer's sense of personal pique at being treated in the same way that some of our visitors are treated, I see little here that is new to lawyers and agents who have faced these border aggravations.
A complaint to the department will accomplish very little. What might help all of us is a general face to face meeting between sensible agents and some of the department's middle management staff at the ports of entry. This actually can be arranged with the department.
Sometimes meeting people and explaining feelings will help in future dealings.
I don't want to comment on the officer involved, but the pressures of working the airport at night coupled with a working brief to keep threats away from our shores leads to intolerable stress. The RMA was also under pressure--working at night and wanting to help out someone in need of advice.
As I have written to MA before, a professional blog site should identify the blogger. To mention a department officer's name and not to identify the writer is skating on very thin legal advice.