OPERATIONAL REPORTS

• 519 complaints were received in 2010–11 relating to 343 persons, 311 of whom are current or former registered migration agents.
• 482 complaints were finalised relating to 339 persons, 308 of whom are current or former registered migration agents.
• 41 complaints resulted in eight agents being sanctioned.

The standards for managing complaints about registered migration agents are to:

The key performance indicator in relation to complaints handling is to finalise 75 per cent of complaints within six months from the date of receipt of a complete complaint.

In 2010–11, the Office of the MARA continued to focus on finalising older and more complex complaints. This was done while improving the finalisation rate of complaints compared to that of the previous program year.

Of the 482 complaints finalised in 2010–11:

A dedicated officer in the complaints handling section manages the receipting and allocation of complaints. Unless exceptional circumstances arise, complaints are acknowledged within two business days of receipt of a complaint.

The practice of the Office of the MARA is to notify both the complainant and the registered migration agent of the decision on the same day the complaint is finalised. Decisions include an explanation of the findings and the reasons for the decision.

The Office of the MARA has put in place a range of strategies to ensure that all complaints about registered migration agents are dealt with fairly, in an open, transparent and consistent manner. This has included:

Officers have been provided with regular training to enhance skills and ensure reliable and robust decisions. The Office of the MARA will continue to focus on reducing delays and increasing the finalisation rate while maintaining the high quality of decisions.

In relation to complaints involving a fee dispute, officers engage with the parties to resolve disputes by informal dispute resolution procedures. In addition, arrangements to refer matters within the jurisdiction of New South Wales Fair Trading have been put in place to ensure better redress for consumers.

Table 4 shows the number of complaints received, finalised and on hand in 2009–10 and 2010–11, and indicates the percentage change over the two program years.

Table 4: Complaints received, finalised and on hand, 2009–10 and 2010–11

While the number of complaints received in 2010–11 continued to increase compared to previous program years, the Office of the MARA finalised significantly more complaints than it did in the previous program year.

When comparable data is considered:

As at 30 June 2011, there were 317 complaints under active investigation, compared to 280 complaints on hand at the end of the previous program year.

Top 

The Office of the MARA continued to place a high priority on the finalisation of aged and more complex complaints. In 2010–11, this focus resulted in a:

Figure 6 shows the age of complaints on hand, as at 30 June 2011.

Figure 6: Age of complaints on hand, as at 30 June 2011

Top 

Approximately 70 per cent of the complaints received in 2010–11 were received direct from an individual or on behalf of an individual. This represents an increase of more than 15.6 per cent compared to the previous program year.

As a result of established referral arrangements between the Office of the MARA and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the proportion of complaint referrals from the department decreased by more than 50 per cent in 2010–11. The arrangements also ensured that complaints referred are supported by sufficient information to warrant investigation.

The proportion of complaints referred from a tribunal, court or other organisation (such as a legal regulatory body) more than doubled in 2010–11, although such referrals still constitute a relatively small proportion of the total number of complaints received.

Table 5 compares the sources of complaints received in 2009–10 and 2010–11.

Table 5: Sources of complaints, 2009–10 and 2010–11

Top 

Issues relating to the standards of professional conduct of migration agents (Part 2 of the Code of Conduct) continued to be the most commonly raised in complaints, and increased marginally from the previous program year.

The proportion of issues raised relating to migration agents’ obligations to clients (Part 3) more than doubled compared to the previous program year, and was the second most common issue raised in complaints.

There was also an increase in the proportion of issues raised in complaints relating to relations between agents (Part 4), fees and charges (Part 5) and client awareness of the Code of Conduct (Part 11).

The proportion of issues raised in complaints in relation to parts 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Code of Conduct decreased.

Table 6 compares the types of issues raised in complaints in 2009–10 and 2010–11.

Table 6: Types of issues raised in complaints, 2009–10 and 2010–11

Analysis of complaints relating to Part 2 of the Code of Conduct shows a significant proportion of issues relating to an agent’s competence (Table 7).

Table 7: Complaints raised relating to Part 2 of the Code of Conduct, 2009–10 and 2010–11

Top 

Table 8 shows the outcomes of complaints finalised in 2009–10 and 2010–11.

Table 8: Finalised complaints, 2009–10 and 2010–11

Top 

Compared to 2009–10, there was an increase of 19.8 per cent of complaints finalised without a sanction. These complaints include those that are found to be a breach of the Code of Conduct, but do not warrant serious disciplinary actions, as well as those that are closed following investigation without the agents having been found to have breached the Code of Conduct. The Office of the MARA has been collecting further details on the outcomes of these complaints.

In 2010–11, 236 complaints were finalised without a sanction. Of these:

Top 

In 2010–11, 176 complaints were closed as a result of the complaint being discontinued or dismissed. Of these 176 complaints, 96 were discontinued where:

The remaining 80 complaints were dismissed where:

Top 

Complaints relating to unregistered practice by an individual are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and are referred to the department for investigation. In 2010–11, 27 complaints concerning allegations of unregistered practice were referred, which is fewer than in the previous program year (40 complaints).

In addition, one complaint was referred to the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner as it related to the provision of immigration legal assistance. One other complaint was referred to the Office of the MARA’s registration section to be dealt with in the context of the agent’s repeat registration application.

Top 

The Office of the MARA takes strong disciplinary action against agents where warranted in the interests of consumer protection.

In 2010–11, the Office of the MARA sanctioned eight agents for significant and serious breaches of the Code of Conduct, including the agent not being a fit and proper person to be registered or otherwise not a person of integrity. By comparison, the same number of agents were also sanctioned in 2009–10 (Table 9).

Table 9: Complaints resulting in a sanction outcome, 2009–10 and 2010–11

Top 

The Office of the MARA continued to engage with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on the investigation by these agencies of agents for possible criminal offences.

Top 

The Office of the MARA may receive a complaint concerning a fee dispute. Sometimes the complaint may also raise conduct issues. The professional standards officers will evaluate the complaint and determine how best to handle it.

In relation to complaints involving a fee dispute, while the Office of the MARA does not have power to formally assess costs or to make a costs order, professional standards officers will try to resolve the fee dispute by informal dispute resolution. Officers will engage with each party to try to resolve the fee dispute, with the parties reaching an agreed outcome.

In 2010–11, the Office of the MARA successfully negotiated resolution of a fee dispute in 38 complaint matters, recovering a total sum of $68 893.20 on behalf of consumers. Of these 38 complaints, a full refund was negotiated in 12 complaints.

Failing agreement, arrangements have been put in place with New South Wales Fair Trading for referral of complaints that are within their jurisdiction. Matters that cannot be conciliated by the Fair Trading agency are referred to the relevant state tribunal.

In addition, in suitable matters, the Office of the MARA can appoint an independent mediator. One matter was mediated with an expert mediator, and an outcome on the fee dispute was agreed.

Throughout 2010–11, the Office of the MARA met with the Insurance Council of Australia to explore avenues that might assist consumers in obtaining redress under an agent’s professional indemnity policy, and to continue consultations on better information exchange.

Top 

In accordance with its jurisdiction, the Office of the MARA investigates complaints concerning agents who are also Australian legal practitioners if the complaint relates to the provision of immigration assistance.

Complaints concerning the legal work provided by these agents are referred to the relevant legal regulatory body.

In 2010–11, the Office of the MARA received 104 complaints concerning 68 agents holding a legal practising certificate. This represents 20 per cent of all complaints received (104 of 519) and 20 per cent of all persons who were the subject of complaints (68 of 343).

Of the 104 complaints:

No decisions made by the Office of the MARA involving agents holding a legal practising certificate resulted in a sanction.

One complaint was referred by the Office of the MARA to the New South Wales Legal Services Commissioner concerning a lawyer agent and the conduct of legal work.

Top 

During 2010–11, there was one appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal against the Office of the MARA’s decision to cancel an agent’s registration on 3 February 2011.

On 17 February 2011, the agent lodged an application for an extension of time for review. The extension of time was granted and the agent formally lodged his review application on 25 March 2011.

As at 30 June 2011 the matter was under review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Top 

Throughout 2010–11, the Office of the MARA continued to undertake monitoring audits of agents. In 2010–11, 86 agents participated in a voluntary audit. During an audit, various checks are made of an agent’s compliance with the Code of Conduct, including:

Of the agents audited, 28 were found to have breached the Code of Conduct and were required to take corrective actions. However, no significant issues were identified.

The focus of the program continued to be on raising professional standards and agents’ awareness of their responsibilities under the Code of Conduct. Where errors or omissions were detected in an audit, agents were requested to address and rectify them. Some examples include:

Visits to agents’ business premises will continue to be made by prior arrangement.

The feedback from agents who have participated in an audit has been positive. The Office of the MARA welcomes ongoing feedback from agents as the program continues.

Top