Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Law Council's late submission to the Inquiry opens further extensions to RMAsAustralian 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: 3421
- 19 Comments
Law Council's late submission to the Inquiry opens further extensions to RMAs
We have just read the Law Council of Australia submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. *
Law-Council-Submission.pdf
Now we understand why our inboxes are full of emails from RMAs who are calling this a 'power grab' and are very critical of the motivations underpinning this submission.
We think it is fair to say that whilst the Law Council of Australia's (LCA) submissions are pitched towards higher standards and the exclusion of RMAs from the representing applicants for review at the AAT, what surprises us is that apart from the general statements and concerns there is simply no real evidence to support the recommendations made by the Council.
We for one do not buy into general statements about competence or incompetence or the conduct of RMAs concerning their clients.
The overwhelming evidence is that the very vast majority of RMAs are competent, diligent and well able to represent their client’s interests at the AAT.
We do however, along with the LCA deplore the conduct of some persons, not necessarily RMAs who in effect act as the ghost writers of pleadings in the FCC. This is difficult to detect and is rarely driven by independent professional advice with an eye to acting in the best interests of the client.
We did detect a bit of a whinge to the effect that MA is offering a 'practising certificate' in the space vacated by Home Affairs, but this is, in my opinion, unfounded. There are various professions and membership associations which produce practicing certificates. Ours is a 'Certified Migration Agent' certificate in any case.
That complaint was driven by the former DIBP through the ACCC but they crashed and burned on or around the 22 June 2017 because membership organisations routinely issue documents called “practising certificates” or such documents. Here are some other professions (apart from lawyers) that use the words 'practising certificate':
Examples of other professions where the words “Practising Certificate” or “Practice Certificate” are used:
Accountants (CPA):
https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/professional-resources/public-practice/public-practice-program
Tax and Management Accountants (ATMA):
https://www.atma.com.au/join/atma-public-practice-certificate
Accounting (ACAA):
http://www.accaglobal.com/an/en/member/sectors/smp/practising-info/practising-cert.html
Clinical Pharmacy:
https://grad.arizona.edu/catalog/programinfo/ACPCRTG
Physicians and Surgeons:
Human Resources (AHRI):
https://www.ahri.com.au/education-and-training/qualifications/AHRI-practising-certification-program
Apart from all of that and notwithstanding any solid evidentiary basis for the recommendations made by the LCA, this in our opinion, is just the Law Council shouting into the void, created by the drive to require Solicitors and Barristers to be RMAs and fall under the regulatory scheme administered by OMARA (Cunliffe’s case https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=67849).
As far as we are aware about 25 percent of the profession are Solicitors or Barristers (many are members of Migration Alliance). We are perplexed by the foreshadowed prohibition on Lawyers from retaining their status as an RMA. However, we note that there is a Bill which will sever that relationship between lawyers and RMAs which is in the future (November 2018). What we don’t understand is why Home Affairs and Parliament have been sitting on the proposal for a couple of years. Don’t they have enough lawyers to draft the amendments to the Act?
In the mean time, Liana Allan, Founder of Migration Alliance, has spoken to the Inquiry Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, Department of the House of Representatives this afternoon, after a collegue pointed out to her that the LCA's submission was dated the 11 May 2018, when the cut off for submissions is published as 27 April 2018. An extension has been granted for Migration Alliance members to make personal submissions. As web-submissions have closed, all late submissions should be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. no later than 11:59pm Thursday the 7 June, 2018.
Comments
-
Tuesday, 05 June 2018Where do I start?
Obviously with a suspicion that this post will never see the light of day.
Has MA - as a representative organisation of the profession, drafted a reply to the LCA submission?
Can you imagine the Real Estate Institute's reaction if Conveyancers attacked their business? (there'd be bayonets!)
Remember how the AMA reacted when it was suggested that Chemists be permitted to write prescriptions?
I have not seen any draft to consider, nor have I heard of any intention for the drafting of such a reply.
What of asking for repudiations of each point?
Why not?
Make no mistake:
-
A submission from the LCA does not need to make sense for the government to take note of it's "recommendations".
it is of no use whatsoever for us to think that we need convince the LCA to "talk to us". We are not their audience - they do not care what we think of their submission. They do not care that the vast bulk of it is unsubstantiated/irrelevant/incorrect.
This "submission" is to give the government a "trigger" to pull when it wants to - they can now simply say that it "is not their idea".
"We do however, along with the LCA deplore the conduct of some persons, not necessarily RMAs who in effect act as the ghost writers of pleadings in the FCC. This is difficult to detect and is rarely driven by independent professional advice with an eye to acting in the best interests of the client."
Why even bring this up? It is irrelevant to the current situation of the LCA attacking RMA's. In a way - it actually "validates" their argument.
Likewise - why mention the "practicing certificates" - such a minor point.
Is there ANY attempt by the profession to fight back.
Is there ANY attempt by ANY representative body making ANY attempt to act in the profession's interests?
Asking all of us to write individual letters/emails is a useless pretence. -
Tuesday, 05 June 2018
I have seen so many bad submission by both lawyers and Migration agents alike.
There is no harder law than migration law, it is specialised. To prevent experienced agents from practicing migration law or supporting an appeal at the AAT which is related to the Migration Law is illogical.
Pretending all lawyers are capable is also a pretence that should not be accepted.
AAT submissions and appeals are based on the regulations and policy that drives the basis for visa grants. Migration Agents specialise and make their income from supporting these applications. Lawyers are doing many aspects of law and not solely committed to Migration Law.
I personally have a number of lawyers and a barrister who seek assistance from me, a lowly migration agent. That in itself says it all I believe.
The issue is not one of professionalism or that of qualifications in law. It is the Understanding and ability of the individual that makes the difference.
If it was not then there would not be a refusal that could be reversed by the AAT, submitted by a lawyer. However, we all know that lawyers have refusals also and a number of them that are due to mistakes or misunderstanding of migration law.
The legal profession is pointing the finger at Migration Agents and I believe the relevant statement from the past is "people who live in glass houses should not throw stones" -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
LCA is just trying to create more protected work for their members. There is no justification for recommendation that only lawyers represent applicant at AAT. They have not presented any figures, as why and where there is shortfall in RMA representation at AAT.
In addition I know many lawyers/barristers who turn up at the court, and have not even looked at the case prior, they have a briefing by applicant/instructing solicitor before court for 30 minutes and then they say the can present the case well in the court. It is just a power grab by LCA -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
The LCA is right.
AAT reviews should be handled by Lawyers only. The AAT is a administrative review body that operates like a court.
how can you expect RMA's to handle Administrative Law processes when they have no experience to present oral/written submissions as a lawyer would do?
Overall I think the quality of RMA's is quite low, as shown in these comments here, The LCA is right as well as per Mr D. Prince (lawyer) who helped write these submissions, migration agents should be barred from lodging reviews/representing clients at AAT, should be barred from helping draft Federal Court applications and should be required to get English above 7.5 at an academic level. -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Ryan Chung: Where in the tribunal's procedure does the lawyer or the representative of the appellant have the right to speak without permission from the member (Oral Submissions)?
Where in the submission to the AAT is there any difference in the supporting evidence for a Visa application to Immigration addressing the regulations and policy?
What is the purpose of the AAT for Migration Matters and other matters?
If what you say here is true, then all people going to the Tribunal will need a lawyer and cannot self represent or have a family member or friend support them.
The Tribunal system was set up to remove cases from the courts and to make appeals accessible to the public at lower cost and allow self representation.
The assumption that lawyers should be the ones to represent people in the Tribunal implies the purpose of the tribunal is wrong and that all need lawyers and should pay the exorbitant fees lawyers charge for such submissions and visa applications without choice.
Where a Migration Agent might charge for a visa application between $5,500 and $7,700 on most visa applications, lawyers charges are in the range of $7,000 - $15,000 for the same application with the same outcome?
Many lawyers and Migration Agents are inexperienced and make serious errors in their Visa submissions. This is a fact.
What makes you think all lawyers offer value to visa applicants or for Tribunal submissions or Visa submissions for that matter?· Timmy Ku likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
you are right Ryan!
I see many migration agent make silly mistake, misunderstand the law, fail to apply legislation properly. they make a lot of mistake!
only lawyers have training to read the law and apply case and do submission on the law!
The submission by Law Council of Australia was prepared by experienced lawyer from kinslor prince lawyers! they are the best in the business! -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
Would a person who sat an IELTS exam and made the following mistakes score 7.5?
Mistake number one: "expect RMA's to handle" instead of "expect RMAs to handle".
Mistake number two: "AAT is a administrative body" instead of "AAT is an administrative body".
Mistake number three: "they make a lot of mistake" instead of "they make a lot of mistakes".
And the list goes on.· Timmy Ku likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
Many lawyers would fail the IETLS test as would many Migration Agents. This is certain. So lets bring it on, test all lawyers, Barristers, Migration Agents and Case Officers. One assessment for all involved in the visa submission and grant process.
But that is rather harsh isn't it.
So is removing the right for Migration Agents to represent clients at the AAT.
A better assessment would be to test the skill of the lawyer and the Migration Agent on the regulations, rather than assume their English is the problem.· Timmy Ku likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 06 June 2018
Nic: you are wrong here. Many lawyers, even those with years of experience, make simple mistakes in visa applications resulting in refusals at both Immigration and the Tribunal.
I can cite many examples of this including submissions from Barristers and lawyers.
One in particular stands out and that is a 457 application for a customer service manager for a workshop with one mechanic, had to be withdrawn after the case officer advised it would be refused if not, then resubmitted the nomination with another occupation where the minimum qualifications for ANZSCO was not met, and was relying on 7 years work experience when there was no exemption for the qualification and no substituting work experience for the qualification, resulting in the nomination and visa subsequently being refused.
This lawyer has 15 years as a Migration Agent so based on your comments is skilled because he is a lawyer.
The argument is not valid. It is dependent on the person submitting the application and their skill.
The number of lawyers failing the graduate certificate in Migration Law is very high. If they were truly gifted to understand legislation as you imply the pass rate for this course would be 100% - But it is not -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Such a divergence of opinion on this issue. Logic must prevail - perhaps then unqualified applicants themselves must ALSO be barred from representing themselves at the AAT - to save themselves from themselves - this is the logical follow on. In reality this almost translates to the suggestion that the non-lawyer agent also has an inability to represent and act for client at initial visa stage. Same law applies. Perhaps the logic for appeals can also apply not just migration appeals but other AAT matters eg social security appeals - get a lawyer. But it doesn't thank goodness. Tax, Immigration, Social Security all wonderfully complex areas of law. Seems to be no recognition of certain other qualified stakeholders by LCA eg Accountants who act as agents. Who seeks a lawyer to prepare their tax? Perhaps a multi national. To do conveyancing?? (perhaps in QLD at least). If I may quote.... Victorian Legal Services Board .http://lsbc.vic.gov.au/?page_id=214....[accessed 07 June 2018] ... for those who simply compare lawyers to migration agents (only) when there are so many areas of law that don't require lawyers. Perhaps the end goal is for all non-lawyer migration agents to work for lawyers to do the non-legal practice work ?? As if tax is no more complex than immigration law..... The Board considers the following types of work to be legal practice, including but not limited to:
•Giving legal advice; or
•Interpreting and applying legislation or case law for use of a client, whether or not for fee; or
•Drafting legal documents
The following types of work are not generally indicative of legal practice:
•Paralegal work
•Working as a judge’s associate
•Policy work
•Working as a conveyancer
•Working as a migration agent
•Working as a tax agent
•Working as a patent attorney.
Excuse us (me) for thinking there is some never ending assault on the (registered) migration agent profession by government and certain related professional bodies. Where does this aqenda really come from?
Why not focus on real issues - so many governments (present and past) unwilling and literally unable so they claim (?) to legislate to exclude unregistered overseas agents from direct dealings for immigration matters - the LAC highlights the ones that use an RMA. As if LCA proposals will resolve the issue of unregistered dealings by Immigration. Australia needed to look across the Tasman (NZ) to identify the benefits (or otherwise) of the EOI system (for those who dont remember NZ introduced EOI well before Australia) - NZ also excluded direct dealings to unregistered overseas agents sooo long ago. NZ recognised NZ lawyers as not needing separate immigration licensing / registration (well done in reality). Canada can regulate offshore agent dealings (repeat repeat repeat same old story) - does it mean this removes 100% unregistered practice - no - but it creates a fairer playing field for those who pay to be in this industry as non-lawyer agents. And of course lets ignore those who invested $20k or more to obtain eg a Masters in Immigration Law (more than what is academically required) One has to wonder what exactly is behind the failure of various Australian governments to act on the issue of unregistered agents - instead of constantly changing the goal posts for the (registered) non-lawyer migration agent industry?? Always interesting to read the views of other professional bodies Australian Institute of Conveyancers (SA Division) has some useful comparable guidelines https://www.aicsa.com.au/buyingsellingproperty/frequently-asked-questions#So what do conveyancers charge accessed 07062018
Do I need a solicitor?
No, registered conveyancers are experts who specialise in conveyancing work; you do not need to use a solicitor at all. Some conveyancers are qualified solicitors but many are non-solicitors who have completed specialist tertiary education in conveyancing. In fact, many law firms employ registered conveyancers to undertake their conveyancing work. Membership of the AIC is your assurance of your conveyancer's expertise and professionalism.
Are conveyancers cheaper than solicitors?
Not necessarily. Conveyancers and solicitors both provide specialist, professional advice and charge for their services accordingly. In most cases, the fees will reflect the complexity of the transaction; this is true whether you use a registered conveyancer or a solicitor. The real difference is that conveyancers are specialists who work only in this area whereas solicitors work in many areas of the law. As with most things in life, you tend to get what you pay for. A registered conveyancer offers expert advice, professional service and peace of mind.
Sorry there's that word again EXPERT - lets ban it
If I had the time I would put forward a submission - but it will fall on deaf ears. Can I just get an overpaid job in Canberra - or anywhere? - covert age discrimination runs rife in all Western countries - that's one reason for working as a sole trader migration agent. It would be nice to have a truly independent professional regulatory body perhaps. Tax Agents Board (??) I guess there are just not enough paying members of the migration agent profession to have a Board anymore.
With greatest respect for all our colleagues in law - this is an interesting survey http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7244-roy-morgan-image-of-professions-may-2017-201706051543 - no mention of migration agents per se of course - does this mean non-lawyers are (1) so good we don't warrant appearing in such surveys or (2) don't really exist as a profession
Perhaps LCA can shift its focus somewhere else .. tax agents?? - too many stakeholders to compete with?? Migration agents are an easy target group I guess.
https://www.tpb.gov.au/recognised-professional-associations
One has to wonder why LCA considers itself able to ignore the stated deadline for submissions (so much for English testing) -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Perhaps the LCA could consider this when placed side by side their submission.
-
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Do I need a solicitor?
No, registered conveyancers are experts who specialise in conveyancing work; you do not need to use a solicitor at all. Some conveyancers are qualified solicitors but many are non-solicitors who have completed specialist tertiary education in conveyancing. In fact, many law firms employ registered conveyancers to undertake their conveyancing work. Membership of the AIC is your assurance of your conveyancer's expertise and professionalism.
Are conveyancers cheaper than solicitors?
Not necessarily. Conveyancers and solicitors both provide specialist, professional advice and charge for their services accordingly. In most cases, the fees will reflect the complexity of the transaction; this is true whether you use a registered conveyancer or a solicitor. The real difference is that conveyancers are specialists who work only in this area whereas solicitors work in many areas of the law. As with most things in life, you tend to get what you pay for. A registered conveyancer offers expert advice, professional service and peace of mind.
How eloquently and well written.
It begs the question, why have we never seen similar words from any Government Authority (or representative body to be honest) regarding REGISTERED Migration Agents.
In comparison:
OMARA: If you want to visit or stay in Australia, or sponsor someone to visit or stay in Australia, you can get help with the visa process from a registered migration agent.
DOHA: The department accepts all applications lodged, regardless of who lodges them. You are able to lodge any kind of visa application or asylum claim yourself and most applications can be lodged online. However, if you do not feel confident in lodging an application, or if your case is complex, you may want to engage a registered migration agent to help you in your dealings with the department. A migration agent cannot influence the outcome or fast-track the processing of your application or guarantee you a visa. -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Migration Law Committee - Law Council of Australia
Mr David Prince, Chair
Ms Carina Ford, Deputy Chair
The submission by the migration law committee of the law council of Australia have sought to demonise agents, ridicule them, paint everyone in the profession with the same brush and sought to place Lawyers on a higher pedestal within the Migration industry.
what is MA going to do about this?
why should migration agents be subject to such harsh treatment by migration lawyers on the council?
Their submission is a pure opinion piece, it provides no stats, no community surveys, no industry surveys/information.
its just the migration committee chair/board giving their opinion.
what a sour bunch -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Did I get the sequence of events right?
1- The LCA pushed hard to split lawyers away from the RMA profession;
2- The MIA scores an own goal because of their lack of basic advocacy skills by proposing an inquiry into unregistered agents, which eventually turned out to be focused almost exclusively on RMAs;
3- The LCA takes the opportunity to make a submission recommending that only legal practitioners be allowed to do AAT work and provide citizenship advice;
4- The MIA, despite item 3 above, invite the current chair of the Migration Law Committee of the LCA (David Prince) and a former chair of the same committee to be guest speakers at its upcoming annual conference;
5- The MA has to step in and fix part of the mess by convincing politicians to extend the deadline for submissions, given LCA's late submission.
And the MIA still want their members to pay to renew their membership AND to attend their annual conference?· Timmy Ku likes this comment. -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
Perhaps agents should express their dissatisfaction with the law council's submission by being more selective when choosing their next CPD provider.
We should chose providers who are in favour of agents, not against them. -
Thursday, 07 June 2018
What Guest says above is right. Why am I a member of the MIA when they invite the enemy to our livelihoods to their annual conference? And make them into fellows. David Prince is a fellow of the MIA and by the way Laurette Chau's LinkedIn account says she likes the Law Council of Australia too and she was the previous president of the MIA wasn't she?
-
Thursday, 07 June 2018
MIA doesn't know what it stands for any more. Money? Is that it? We pay them to F*** us over but send us news?
-
Friday, 08 June 2018
The LCA should forfeit their right to make any submissions to the commission, This will show some decency on their part. The commission should accept the LCA's submission and give weight to everything that they have said. The commission should then reject all their unfounded nasty claims against RMAs based on the current legislation.
Giving the LCA a chance to change their submission and giving an extension to do so already shows bias. On the other hand RMAs should be given more time to provide submissions, the extension provided is only symbolic and not of much use. Most of us RMAs are still in shock and worried for our future based on these blasphemous claims made by the LCA.
Oh ...by the way... are we really saying that all of us RMAs accept that the LCA made an "error "in their submission ? ...This is adding insult to injury...but then again that's just my opinion. If this is the case, then all the lawyers involved in that error should be severely sanctioned and even lose their licence to practice and be subject to legal consequences.
The impact that this has on our lives as RMAs is massive. Some of us have sacrificed our lives and all our lifetime savings to become and remain RMAs. Most of us have incurred debts and are struggling to make ends meet while being under the scrutiny of MARA who can put an end to our practice at any time . Some RMAs have specialised in AAT and other appeal processes and are doing a great job... We have our families relying on us to earn a living as RMA and some of us are probably paying off our HECS debt and working at a loss.
It is beyond belief that the lawyers who are responsible for this blunder are still walking around saying...oops !!! We made an error.. and you have to accept it and pay the consequences....
I have not seen any acknowledgement whatsoever form the LCA saying that they made an error.. i might be missing something...Or is this not coming from the horse's mouth again...Be careful ..these are lawyers ..they will turn around and say..." I did not say anything to that woman "...
My opinion : Any person should have the right to choose who represents them in ANY tribunal and court of Law and for any matter and that chosen person does not need to have any legal qualification or any qualification whatsoever for that matter. This would be mean access to justice for everyone.
Advance Australia Fair !· Migration Alliance likes this comment.
Immigration blog
When it counts Liana Allan strikes. Maybe the Law Council would like to talk to us. After all so many of us are lawyers.