Previous 
OPERATIONAL REPORTS
Professional Standards and Integrity
2009–2010 in brief
- 499 matters were received in 2009–10 relating to 311 registered migration agents.
- Fourteen complaints resulted in eight agents being sanctioned, of which:
- three agents had their registration suspended for periods up to three years
- two agents were cautioned
- three former agents were barred from re-applying for registration for a period of up to five years.
Performance standards for complaints
The Office of the MARA adopted the following performance standards for managing complaints about registered migration agents:
- acknowledge receipt of the complaint by letter within two business days of receipt
- finalise 99 per cent of complaints within 12 months from the date of receipt of a complete complaint
- finalise 100 per cent of complaints within 24 months from the date of receipt of a complete complaint
- write to tell the complainant of the Office of the MARA’s decision on the complaint within a week of making a decision. The letter will include an explanation of the findings and the reasons for the decision by the Office of the MARA.
Performance against standards
The Office of the MARA focussed on finalising older and more complex complaints in 2009–10. As a result, the average processing time for complaints finalised increased from approximately four to five months. There was, however, a consequent reduction in the average age of complaints on hand from over nine months to approximately six months.
- In 2009–10, 70.0 per cent of complaints were finalised within 12 months from the date of receipt of a complete complaint.
- In 2009–10, 96.1 per cent of complaints were finalised within 24 months from the date of receipt of a complete complaint.
Age of complaints on hand as at 30 June 2010
Complaints handling
The Policy and Procedures Manual guides Office of the MARA decision makers to ensure they consider relevant facts, applicable case law, the legislation and the migration agents Code of Conduct requirements.
To further strengthen its complaint management, the Office of the MARA engaged an experienced senior lawyer from the Australian Government Solicitor to provide guidance and training in relation to the establishment of procedures for decision making and the conduct of complaint investigations.
That senior lawyer also reviewed the Policy and Procedures Manual. Procedures implemented in December 2009 ensure that:
- before a complaint is finalised, the proposed approach is validated by another officer, based on the legislation and the Policy and Procedures Manual
- contentious and complex complaints are referred for independent legal advice
- quality control processes are followed including use of standard templates and correspondence.
In addition, training was provided to all staff in the Professional Standards and Integrity section on Part 3 of the Migration Act and Good Administrative Decision Making. Selected staff also attended the Interview Fundamentals course.
A flowchart outlining the complaints handling process can be found in Appendix 8.
Data integrity
A comprehensive exercise was undertaken to identify and correct data integrity issues. This has provided greater confidence in the Office of the MARA’s ability to analyse and report on trends.
The way in which complaints are recorded was also reviewed and procedures put in place to record all complaints and their source in the one database. This change has been implemented to improve the integrity of performance information available for analysis and reporting.
An explanation is provided in the performance tables contained in this chapter, where the manner in which performance is represented is not directly comparable with previously reported figures.
Complaints received and finalised
Unresolved complaints carried forward from 2008–09 |
2051 |
Complaints received or re-opened |
499 |
Complaints finalised 2009–10 |
424 |
Unresolved complaints carried forward to 2010–11 |
280 |
The number of complaints received in 2009–10 continued the pattern from the previous year of exceeding the number of complaints which were able to be finalised, resulting in an increase in complaints on hand.
Productivity has been impacted by the recruitment and training of new staff, implementation of new procedures, and quality assurance mechanisms. The investment in staff training and support in 2009–10 is expected to result in improved productivity in the next program year.
When comparable data is considered:
- 499 complaints were received and re-opened in 2009–10 relating to 311 registered migration agents, which is not a material change from the 490 complaints received and re-opened over the previous program year.
- 424 complaints were finalised compared with 411 in the previous year.
- As at 30 June 2010, there were 280 complaints under investigation compared with 205 in the previous year1.
1 As part of the implementation of measures to improve data integrity and the changes in the recording of complaints, the number of complaints on hand at 1 July 2009 was revised. At 1 July 2009, the 205 complaints that remained under investigation comprised of:
• 123 recorded complaints
• 34 complaints received prior to 1 July 2009 which had not been entered into the database until after 30 June 2009.
• nine own motion complaints
• 39 issues (complaints of a minor nature).
Source of complaints
There was a slight increase in the proportion of complaints received from registered migration agents and individuals. There was a decrease in the proportion of ‘own motion’ complaints initiated by the Office of the MARA and an increase in the proportion of complaint referrals from DIAC, primarily as a result in the change to reporting.
The Office of the MARA conducted information sessions for DIAC’s staff to increase their understanding of an agent’s obligations under the Code of Conduct. A Memorandum of Understanding was also finalised with the Migration Agents Section in the Migration and Visa Policy Division of DIAC which, amongst other things, established improved guidelines for referral of complaints.
Source of complaints |
Proportion of |
Proportion of |
Direct from individuals |
53.7% |
54.7% |
Referred by DIAC |
19.8% |
31.1% |
Referred by another registered migration agent |
2.4% |
6.2% |
Referred by the Office of the MARA (own motion) |
19.0% |
3.8% |
Complaints re-opened |
1.0% |
1.6% |
Referred by a tribunal or court |
2.7% |
1.0% |
Referred by another individual |
1.0% |
0.8% |
Referred by other organisations |
0.2% |
0.6% |
Referred by a professional association |
0.0% |
0.2% |
Referred by a Member of Parliament |
0.2% |
0.0% |
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
Issues raised in complaints
Issues raised in complaints in relation to the Code of Conduct showed an increase from the previous year in complaints concerning migration agents’ duties to their employees (Part 8), and a slight increase in Part 3 of the Code of Conduct relevant to obligations to clients.
There was also a relative increase in the proportion of issues raised in complaints in relation to an agent’s obligations to keep proper records and client files (Part 6) and to manage client monies (Part 7).
Part of the Code of Conduct |
Proportion of issues |
Proportion of issues |
Standards of professional conduct (Part 2) |
73.4% |
70.7% |
Obligations to clients (Part 3) |
3.4% |
3.8% |
Relations between agents (Part 4) |
0.7% |
0.4% |
Fees and charges (Part 5) |
9.3% |
7.3% |
Record keeping and management (Part 6) |
1.2% |
3.0% |
Financial duties (Part 7) |
2.0% |
3.7% |
Duties of agents to employees (Part 8) |
2.7% |
6.6% |
Complaints handling process (Part 9) |
1.5% |
1.0% |
Termination of services (Part 10) |
3.6% |
3.1% |
Client awareness of the Code (Part 11) |
2.3% |
0.4% |
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
Overall the proportion of issues raised in complaints relating to Part 2 of the migration agents Code of Conduct decreased.
There has been a shift in the area of concerns specifically relating to Part 2. The proportion of issues relating to an agent’s competence increased.
There was a reduction relating to advertising not to imply a relationship with DIAC or the Office of the MARA.
Alleged breach – Complaints relating to Code of Conduct Part 2: |
Proportion of issues |
Proportion of issues |
Competence |
50.2% |
55.9% |
Integrity |
16.0% |
15.9% |
Follow client's instructions |
8.9% |
8.4% |
Act in a timely manner |
4.7% |
4.0% |
Prospects of success |
2.9% |
3.9% |
Conflict of interest |
2.6% |
2.8% |
Submit application without documents |
2.0% |
2.3% |
Vexatious applications |
1.2% |
1.8% |
Maintenance of a professional library |
0.3% |
1.0% |
Advertising is not to be false or misleading |
1.3% |
0.9% |
Advertising included Migration Agents Registration Number |
2.2% |
0.8% |
Advertising not to imply relationship with DIAC/Office of the MARA |
5.9% |
0.7% |
Not mislead or deceive the Office of the MARA |
0.6% |
0.6% |
Procure particular decision |
0.2% |
0.6% |
Not imply relationship with the minister or government |
0.1% |
0.4% |
Notify change of registration details |
0.4% |
0.2% |
Migration Agents Registration Number listed on translations |
0.3% |
0.0% |
Total |
100.0% |
100.0% |
Finalised complaints
Outcome |
Number of complaints |
Complaints resolved and finalised without sanction |
197 |
Discontinued or dismissed |
168 |
Referred to DIAC or other agencies |
45 |
Sanction decision |
14 |
Total |
424 |
Complaints resolved and finalised without sanction
A large number of complaints (197) raised issues that are not sufficient to warrant a sanction. These cases may be able to be resolved by issuing a warning or corrective action letter to the registered migration agent.
A warning or corrective action letter may recommend that an agent undertake CPD activities in relation to issues addressed in the letter. In 2009–10, 67 warning or corrective action letters were issued to agents.
Of these:
- 53 complaints involving 47 agents led to requests for corrective action to be undertaken by agents.
- 11 complaints were resolved through informal mediation.
- A further three complaints in relation to misleading advertising were resolved informally.
In a number of complaints, the agents either waived all or part of their fees or made a full or partial refund to the complainant.
Discontinued or dismissed complaints
In 2009–10, 168 complaints were either:
- discontinued in cases where the complainant did not agree to a copy of the complaint being provided to the agent, where the agent’s registration was cancelled or barred prior to the complaint being investigated or the complaint was withdrawn, or
- dismissed because the Office of the MARA had no jurisdiction (for example, complaints about overseas agents), where no breach had occurred or there was insufficient evidence to pursue the complaint.
Complaints referred to DIAC
Complaints received against individuals who are not registered migration agents are referred to DIAC. In 2009–10 there were 40 cases referred, which is the same number as in 2008–09.
In 2009–10, five cases were also referred to DIAC for investigation of possible breaches of other sections of the Migration Act and fraud related matters.
Complaints about lawyer agents
In accordance with its jurisdiction, the Office of the MARA investigates complaints concerning lawyer agents if the complaint relates to the provision of immigration assistance. In 2009–10, the NSW Office of the Legal Services Commissioner referred three cases to the Office of the MARA.
Complaints about lawyer agents performing immigration legal assistance, for example, preparing for proceedings before a court, are referred to the relevant legal services regulator. In 2009–10 no complaints were received involving lawyer agents performing immigration legal work.
Complaints resulting in a sanction
Where warranted, strong disciplinary action was taken against agents. If the agent is not satisfied with the Office of the MARA’s decision to sanction, the agent may seek a merits review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
In 2009–10, the Office of the MARA was satisfied that eight registered migration agents significantly breached the Code of Conduct, or that the agent was not a fit and proper person to be a registered migration agent or was not a person of integrity. The following sanctions were applied:
- cautioned – two agents based on two complaints
- suspended – three agents based on five complaints
- former registered migration agents barred – three agents based on seven complaints.
The sanction decisions were published on the Office of the MARA website after the agents were notified.
Sanction outcomes
Outcome |
Number of agents |
Based on number of complaints |
Cautioned |
2 |
2 |
Registration suspended |
3 |
5 |
Registration cancelled |
0 |
0 |
Barred |
3 |
7 |
Total |
8 |
14 |
Litigation
During 2009–10, there was one appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against a suspension decision made in the previous year. This appeal was subsequently withdrawn. As at 30 June 2010, no appeals were lodged against decisions made in 2009–10.
Integrity Unit
The Integrity Unit was set up in early 2010 to monitor and audit registered migration agents. Its primary focus is to help registered migration agents better understand their obligations under the Code of Conduct and identify opportunities to improve their business practices.
Visits can also deter, detect and address non-compliance. Registered migration agents were kept informed of the proposal to set up the Integrity Unit and the progress of the pilot through the CEO’s newsletters.
In May 2010, the Office of the MARA carried out pilot site visits in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. With the full co-operation of a number of experienced registered migration agents, the pilot visits were used to validate monitoring procedures.
Full operations commenced on 1 June 2010.
In 2009–10, 15 businesses were visited. Within the businesses, 19 registered migration agents were audited with minor breaches identified in three instances. In each case, the agent rectified the identified breach.
WORKING WITH AGENTS FOR AN ETHICAL PROFESSION
In June 2010 the Integrity Unit commenced its monitoring program aimed at educating and making agents aware of their responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. Where errors or oversights are noted during the conduct of an audit, integrity officers ask agents to rectify the omissions.
- On examination of one registered migration agent’s website, it was discovered that there was not a link to the Code of Conduct on the Office of the MARA website. At the monitoring audit, the agent was advised that this was a requirement of the code. The agent immediately rectified the omission.
- One agent was not aware of the Code of Conduct requirement to keep all records securely. The agent was advised of the code obligations to secure closed client files in locked cabinets and a follow up letter was issued. Within the required timeframe the agent provided a receipt for the purchase of a lockable filing cabinet.
- Another agent was regularly advertising in a foreign language newspaper and provided a copy of the advertisement to integrity officers. The advertisement made reference to a special relationship with DIAC. The agent removed the advertising content which was in breach of the Code of Conduct and continues to advertise with the remaining appropriate content.