OMARA annual loss challenged

Details

Created on Tuesday, 12 March 2013 17:55

Written by Editorial staff

The latest annual financial report by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) has been challenged by immigration law expert Christopher Levingston.

According to OMARA's 2011-12 statement, the organisation moved from an operating surplus of $105,000 in 2010-11 to a deficit of $315,000 in the last fiscal period - despite gross revenues remaining largely the same.

In 2009-10, there was a profit of $24,000 - meaning that over the last two financial years there has been a reduction in the organisation's net position of approximately $420,000.

Mr Levingston, accredited specialist in immigration law, said that while OMARA does not get to keep additional funds, there were still a number of issues raised by the annual report.

He remarked: "I do not think that OMARA retains its surplus as it is paid into consolidated revenue with a Budget allocation in the following period by DIAC (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) out of [the] Treasury.

"The allocation, in effect, reflects gross receipts from the registration of migration agents. The question that arises therefore is why the loss? How is it that OMARA overspent its allocation of $2.457 million?"

Examining salaries and wages, Mr Levingston noted that since 2009-10, there have been four additional employees added to the roster at OMARA, with total wages rising from $2.482 million to $3.457 million during the same time.

Therefore, the mean average salary over the two years increased from $68,667 per employee to $86,425, despite an overall drop in the organisation's allocation.

However, expenditure on consultants plummeted over the same period of time, falling from over $400,000, including advertising, in 2010-11 to just $67,366 a year later.

Mr Levingston said there are several worrying elements to these figures when comparing them to the overall loss for the latest fiscal period.

"The saving of $320,000 not [being] spent on consultants, even factoring in the pay increase of $593,000, only creates an expense differential of $593,000 less $320,000, which amounts to $273,000," he explained.

"That does not explain why OMARA has an overall loss of $315,000. Does the OMARA have any scrutiny of its salaries and wages?"

He argued for a clearer and more transparent set of accounts for stakeholders that could be analysed in more detail, claiming that financial statements had become increasingly "opaque".

The expert also suggested parliamentary oversight for OMARA, in an effort to help it function within its budgetary restraints.