Login / Join
Australian 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: 3303
- 13 Comments
Law Council of Australia drafting error
Since the publication of the blog concerning the Law Council of Australia submission to the JSCM, the Founder of Migration Alliance, Liana Allan received an email from and also spoke to David Prince, the Chair of the LCA's Migration Law Committee. The email and phone conversations between them took place yesterday. David Prince told Ms Allan that the Law Council submission has a drafting error in it.
That error was said to apparently lie in the Law Council of Australia's submission which suggested that RMAs not be permitted to act for clients at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
What was apparently intended was a recommendation to the effect that RMAs not be permitted to appear in adversarial proceedings at the AAT. Accordingly the Law Council submission is being amended to continue to permit Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) to appear in the Migration Review division of the AAT.
Just shows you, anyone can make a mistake! It also shows you how important it is to highlight mistakes. Interestingly it seems that the Law Council of Australia noticed the errors in their own submission after Migration Alliance pointed them out. Maybe this is not the case.
Legal Advice Obtained on this Matter
RMAs can appear in the General Division of the AAT but must first seek leave to do so. The General Division includes review of character cases, citizenship, and other proceedings which would involve the Minister being legally represented. Cancellation of an RMAs licence under OMARA's sanction regime cases are heard in the General Division. Section 134 (cancellation of business visas) cases are heard in the Migration Review Division.
In addition, revocation decisions following from the mandatory cancellation regime do not fall within the jurisdiction of the AAT but are matters to be heard in the Federal Court. Section 501 and Character cases are heard within the General Division of the AAT and in those proceedings the Minister is legally represented.
As a general rule wheee proceeesings in the AAT are adversarial, RMAs need to seek leave to appear and represent if they aren’t barristers or solicitors. Similar arrangements apply in the Federal Circuit Court.
Further reading: Administrative Decision-Making in Australian Migration Law
Listen to the Migration Show podcast on this issue. The most recent show is said to "cover 8 hard-hitting emails from RMA listeners, many of whom gave permission for their names to be aired, that strike back at the LCA proposals regarding RMAs being restricted from AAT work."
Comments
-
Thursday, 07 June 2018What about citizenship asdvice? Have they made an error in that as well?
-
Friday, 08 June 2018
Saikumar it looks like they made lots of "errors" that they didn't notice until migration agents pointed it out to them..... these very intelligent and superior lawyers, who deem themselves more suited to representing clients. Why don't they start by representing themselves properly first.
-
Thursday, 07 June 2018
oh come on... Do you really believe that it was an error?
The wording of the original submission clearly refers to the entire review process, and clearly disparages RMA competency to run reviews. They then specifically refer to the general division as "nowhere is this brought into more stark relief"... They were clearly trying it on and then they were probably advised to tone it down so they can quietly execute their strategy - the submission kicked up too much stink. -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Human vs Artificial Intelligence, Digital disruption etc
Law Council of Australia is acting for the best interest of its members and sister bodies -
Friday, 08 June 2018
Kevin Lane has issued a statement last night that is factually incorrect about the AAT.
Also, now that the law council have egg on their faces, will they submit that lawyers, just because they have a 3 year degree, are NOT that important or special compared to agents (who had to point out the flaws in the law council submission)? In fact, anyone can get a law degree. I did and that is saying something. -
Friday, 08 June 2018
Correct! The lawyers only realised they made a drafting error after a migration agent pointed it out to them. Cancels out their whole argument. They can't even represent themselves without errors.
-
Friday, 08 June 2018
In my view, the LCA submission appears to me based on false assumptions and not based on fact and should be ignored by the decision makers. It shows how desperate these group people are due to its shirking legal profession. The decision makers should impose the same conditions required for RMAs for solicitors to practice within the migration advise industry to protect the community.
· Timmy Ku likes this comment. -
Friday, 08 June 2018
They werent errors!
-
Friday, 08 June 2018
How long do the Law Council of Australia have to resubmit their already late and flawed submission? I wonder how long an extension they will get to LORD IT OVER the Parliamentary Inquiry. I wonder what utter *** they are going to come up with in their upgrade Version 1.2. I think they are trying to dig out of a grave and that MIA should remove those people on the 'fellows' list who are part of Law Council. Its not like they didn't realise what they were typing in their original (late) submission. They got caught out. I bet they thought they could submit it late and it would just slide in without anyone noticing or being able to get in afterwards with more submissions. Bad judgement for a huge bunch of lawyers!
-
Friday, 08 June 2018
David Prince just "noticed" a drafting error.
More like he was scared of the backlash and decided to back pedal on the submission.
Nice work! -
Friday, 08 June 2018
So. the LCA requires aspiring RMAs from non-English speaking background countries to achieve exceptionally high IELTS test band scores to become a migration agent, but there is an absence of any supporting evidence on why that is needed, other than a hypothetical explanation. Where is the evidence?
I think that there is another error in their Submission by leaving out the minimum requirements for the IELTS test band scores. The LCA would have to agree that their recommendation of an average of 7.5 in the IELTS Academic test could be achieved with a score of, say, 5.5 for writing, 9.0 for speaking and 6.0 for reading and 9.0 for listening. -
Wednesday, 13 June 2018
Please people - it was not a drafting error. It was a planned tactic.
They wanted the usual immediate/reactionary response that they received.
While there has been lots of "noise" on representation at the AAT, and some on the English requirement, you'll notice that other "points" are not "withdrawn" nor "explained away" as "mistakes". That gives them 'validity".
The LCA submission has achieved everything that it was meant to.
The core presumptions made in it are unchanged - and are still just as damaging as they were before the "admission of a drafting error".
Immigration blog
Let me get this straight:
The Law Council, which is full of very bright, educated lawyers, could not get their submission in on time.
The Law Council not only submit late but with all that extra time they submit it with errors.
The Law Council then, with all their intelligent lawyers inside, don't notice that their submission is drafted incorrectly for over a month!
It is only when migration agents get angry that they realise.
Drafting error or digging themselves out of the grave?
You be the judge.