I have just sent an open letter to MIA members and Ms Chan:
Dear MIA Members and Angela Chan
I have called Angela Chan twice and both times she was unavailable. Over a week ago, I wrote to Kevin Lane asking if there might be a way for Migration Alliance and the MIA to work together in the interests of the profession. I used his email and the generic MIA email to be 100% sure he got it. No response. That's ok. I now choose an open letter to the MIA Board and Members to question some of the information our joint members have received from Ms Chan in an email on Tuesday 10 September at 5:40pm.
Firstly, I think it is a mistake for the MIA to assume that it's members are only members of the MIA. I would like to invite the MIA to consider that more than half their members are also Migration Alliance members. This means that MIA-MA joint members bring their issues straight to Migration Alliance. Nothing much escapes us. This includes issues that these joint MIA-MA members have with the MIA, the MIA messaging and so on and so forth. Some could say that the majority of MIA members are now in a three-way relationship with Migration Alliance.
Following the resignation of CEO Maurene Horder, which was announced to our members on 30th August 2013, the MIA is trying to reassure its members that all operations and activities of the Institute are continuing as normal. The MIA states that everything is normal despite the email received by Migration Alliance to the contrary from Jacqui Ure, WA State President of the MIA.
The National Management Committee of Migration Alliance and the extremely hardworking and loyal members (many of whom are also MIA members) are keen to get to the bottom of the email sent out by WA State President, Jacqui Ure.
Perhaps Angela Chan can deal with that email instead of writing a long email to MIA members addressing everything else but what was written in Jacqui Ure's email. Migration Agents aren't stupid fools. Migration Agents can tell when a person is omitting information from the message.
Here are the questions that I believe should have been addressed in Ms Chan's email to MIA members?
What were the circumstances of Maurene's departure?
What the 'personal reasons' for her departure?
Why does Jacqui Ure say that Maurene has been isolated from the MIA staff?
Why is Jacqui Ure suggesting that it would be appropriate to isolate Maurene from the MIA members?
What is the relationship between Maurene's departure and the financials of the MIA as noted by Jacqui Ure?
Why can't Maurene speak for herself?
Why was there no send-off party or event for Maurene in recognition of her good work and contribution to the growth of the MIA?
As the old saying goes 'If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is probably a duck'.
Ms Chan, the MIA President says that 'it is of concern that some members of the MIA have received messages alleging that the MIA is in financial difficulty'. If Ms Chan is concerned then we say that she should take this up with her WA State Director who sent the 'concerning' email directly to Migration Alliance.
Interestingly, Ms Chan neither explains nor addresses why Migration Alliance received an email from the MIA's WA State Director indicating that there are problems which will be seen in the financials.
We say that Ms Chan could perhaps deal with the contents of her own Board member's email sent to Migration Alliance instead of talking about how great the MIA is generally. If Ms Horder did not leave under mysterious circumstances, then why is the State Director of the MIA talking about preventing her access to the members and staff in her email to Migration Alliance? Why the mention of the financials in the email to Migration Alliance?
The MIA National President says that the decision was a personal one, discussed and agreed upon between Ms Horder and the Board. What kind of discussion? A heated discussion? Which parts of the story are being omitted, if any?
It is interesting to note that the National President says the relationship with their sponsors is strong and ongoing. Let's see whether one or more of their sponsors jumps ship shall we? Just saying. Watch this space for reality instead of fiction.
Ms Chan says the support to memebrs at MIA is second to none. That is not what joint MIA-MA members are reporting to Migration Alliance. How is this comment that Ms Chan makes actually measured? Or is it just a 'belief in a vacuum'? Who at the MIA on the board or staff is an accredited specialist immigration lawyer offering free, ultra-qualified help to MIA members? To me, that kind of education and that level of knowledge is what makes a service 'second to none'. Migration Alliance has that service and offers that service.
Now onto Kevin Lane. When was the last time he processed a visa application for a real client? Does he know what it is like to be in the real world of running a migration practice or dealing day in day out with clients? Who are Kevin Lane's clients? What practical experience does he have which allows him to educate agents or understand the needs of his members?
Now onto CPD and Ms Chan's comments about MIA's CPD. The MIA no longer have the lions share in the CPD market since they lost control of the MARA. That is the fact. Other players have entered the market and in my opinion offer better CPD at a lower cost than the MIA. Does the MIA offer free CPD to it's members on occasion for the hefty annual membership fee their members pay?
Migration Alliance is also regularly invited by government departments, organisations and media for its authoritative opinion. There is nothing 'special' about this. It just happens. Ms Chan says that in recent weeks the MIA was invited to give evidence before a NSW Government enquiry into the State's skills needs. So was Migration Alliance. Invites aren't issued exclusively to the MIA. Ms Chan says that the MIA have been invited to consultations for its views on Labour Market Testing. So was Migration Alliance. Again, its' really not that special and we fail to see why this is even mentioned.
Ms Chan says 'As National President I have spoken on behalf of RMAs at numerous national forums and events on migration matters during the past month'. We say 'so what?'. This looks to me like plain old puffery and as an email space-filler to be completely honest. Christopher Levingston speaks every week or two across Australia and lectures to the majority of the profession. A lot more engagement than Ms Chan. People already know what he does so he doesn't need to broadcast it or notify members. It's not a rare or special thing. He just does it!
Ms Chan says that 'Many members cite benefits such as our timely legislation and policy updates. We say that MIA members can obtain this information for free from Migration Alliance, and usually well before the MIA publish it.
OK, the MIA have free travel insurance for members and their immediate family members. Migration Alliance does not offer travel insurance . Instead we say that you can use your Amex card to book your travel and you will get the insurance for free that way. Many credit cards offer travel insurance and cost a lot less than the annual membership fee to the MIA.
Ms Chan says 'As a new Government is ushered in, the MIA continues to be the definitive voice representing Professional Registered Migration Agents in Australia' We say that this is just not true. If this was the case then why is the MIA ranked lower online than Migration Alliance in the Australian Immigration space? Calling the MIA 'the definitive voice' is a bit much. Is this another comment made in a vacuum? How has Ms Chan formed a conclusion that this is the case? Overseas, Migration Alliance is also ranked higher online than the MIA by a long shot and the Migration Alliance website has far more traffic than the MIA. Check Alexa.com and see for yourself.
Ms Chan says that the MIA 'looks forward to working closely with the incoming Government and Minister in the best interests of its membership'. We say that Migration Alliance is already working closely with the new Minister and has been for some time now. This means that the MIA is behind the 8 ball here.
Finally, and proudly, board members of Migration Alliance are Liberal Party supporters with some holding positions such as Branch President, Women's Delegate, State Council Delegate and Branch Secretary.
Given we currently have a Liberal government in power, and given that Migration Alliance saw this coming 18 months ago and started our relationship with the Liberal Party before then, you do the maths.
Shared members means shared concerns and there is no dodging these bullets now that there are two peak professional associations in the arena.
Yours sincerely
Liana Allan
Treasurer and Chief Possum Stirrer
Migration Alliance
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.