Australian Immigration Daily News

Are Registered Migration Agents in Australia “over-regulated” when it comes to requirements for Continuing Professional Development? 

Is the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority “overly prescriptive” about what is, and what is not, an acceptable continuing professional development activity? 

And are Australia’s requirements for CPD in line with what other Commonwealth countries that have frameworks for the regulation of migration advisers require? 

Is Australia consistent with “world best practice”, or are we lagging behind? 

Should OMARA be more flexible, progressive and up-to-date? 

I am betting that no RMA who reads this post will have any opinions on this subject, and that no one will post a comment (haha!). Prove me wrong!!! 

How does Australia compare? 

Well, we all know that the current requirement for renewal of our registrations is that we must complete “approved activities” that have a value of at least 10 points in the 12 months immediately before we apply!  This requirement is specified in Schedule 1 to the Migration Agents Regulations 1998 and finds its source in section 290A of the Migration Act and regulation 6 of the Migration Agents Regulations (anyone who was able to identify the basis for the CPD requirement before reading this article is invited to contact me via email for a prize!) 

So what is an “approved CPD activity”? Glad you asked!  It is one that is approved by OMARA and is given by a “provider” that is approved by OMARA (see subregulations 9E(1) and 9H(1) (and you thought trying to figure out Schedule 2  requirements was hard enough!! 

So what does regulation 9E envision as an acceptable approved activity for CPD? Subregulation 9E(4) tells us that it can be either “live”, in person courses such as:: 

• A program of education conducted by a person who is qualified by practical experience or academic qualifications in the subject matter of the course;
• A program of education that is comprehensive or refresher training; 

Or alternatively, “distance learning” which may include: 

• The “collective” or private study written material or live or recorded material in electronic form, which may or may not require a “facilitator” – such as a web-based seminar, a live streamed or recorded event, or participation in video conferencing. 

Did you know, by the way, that under regulation 9E, an example of acceptable distance learning may include providing immigration assistance without charge for a voluntary organization? Participating in a mentoring arrangement? Writing a book or an article? 

What’s the story in the UK? 

The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner in the UK informs us as follows: 

• Regulated advisers are not required to undertake a set number of hours of learning;
• They are not required to obtain their core knowledge from accredited providers;
• They are free to undertake any training they choose as long as they maintain their competence in line with their own needs;
• OISC does not manage a list of recognized training providers and migration advisers are free to obtain their training from wherever they choose (even from distance learning providers based in Australia, for example!
• And what a surprise, the scheme that will come into force in the UK on 1 April 2017 will focus on the outcome of the learning undertaken by advisers, rather than the time spent learning! 

And what about our good friends across the Tasman Sea? 

The CPD requirements under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (NZ) are as follows: 

• 20 hours of CPD must be completed each year
• Advisers must identify their own learning needs and maintain a CPD plan and record which includes a description of learning needs, an action plan, an activities record, reflections, and documentation verifying attendance.
• There are currently no mandatory CPD activities
• Acceptable CPD includes giving or receiving training; giving or receiving mentoring or supervision; contributing to relevant industry bodies or consultation processes; and facilitating or participating in study groups
• Neither providers or particular courses need to be “accredited” 

Sounds like both the UK and NZ are light years ahead of us, doesn’t it? 

The regulators in both countries seem to be taking a modern, pragmatic and realistic approach that is placing the emphasis on what you learn, and how you improve and enhance your knowledge and skills, and allow you to achieve these goals in a variety of ways, not just be attending seminars in-person or on-line. 

How refreshing and up-to-date!  And models that OMARA would do well to consider! 

Just to give you an example from my own experience about how OMARA’s current scheme can fall short: 

I recently signed up for a private study module from a very well-known CPD  provider. I was in a state of shock after I downloaded and read through the materials, as they consisted mainly of a “cut and paste” of the applicable sections of the Act, with only a tiny bit of commentary added.  I actually learned far more by reading (and re-reading, and re-reading, the Act and PAM (don't ask why!!!). Well anyway the provider was nice enough to refund my fee when I complained about the quality of the materials. 

But my own recent experience just goes to show that just because some materials are “OMARA-approved” doesn’t mean they are good, useful or valuable.  It was a classic case of OMARA’s elevating “form over substance” – and I literally could not believe that OMARA would actually ever approve something that was mainly a cut and paste of the Act. 

So what do you say? Have you ever had a bummer of a CPD experience yourself? Have you had enough of CPD that does no more than recite Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 requirements with a bit of PAM sprinkled in? Wouldn’t group study or getting mentoring be a reasonable alternative to CPD, as NZ has recognized? 

Isn’t time for OMARA to look at the CPD requirements again? 

Have your say below!!

Concordia Pacific, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.