MARA Misses the Point

October 1, 2003

MARA's written responses to stories about the migration advice industry on the ABC's 7:30 Report and in The Australian focus on minor factual details and ignore the much more significant issues presented by the two pieces.MARA's response engages in virtually meaningless quibbles about members of the MIA who are also lawyers, who are also migration agents, or who may or may not have put in submissions about self-regulation in other industries.It is hard to ignore the fact that MARA makes almost no response to the central thrust of both reports: namely that the current system of self-regulation is failing to protect an extremely vulnerable clientele.None of MARA's responses change the fact that two media organizations working against each other managed to turn up cases of unregistered practice, overcharging and incompetency.In addition, the journalists involved were able to find a number of people who fell victim to incompetent or dishonest agents, providing strong evidence that the current system is not up to scratch.The ILAA feels that this is a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry, and applauds the ABC and the Australian for tackling this important subject. Since the two reports, MARA says it has started to take action on a number of matters, suggesting that ultimately MARA also sees the value of these reports, in spite of its criticism.Nevertheless, this did not stop MARA taking the extraordinary step of blaming journalist Elisabeth Wynhausen for its own faults. In its response, MARA argued that Ms Wynhausen should have provided information to the MARA so that it could investigate a certain migration agent.While we agree with the MARA's position that any enforcement agency needs the help of members of the community in order to operate effectively, we feel that MARA's complaint entirely misses the point. The issue is not what Ms Wynhausen should have told MARA, but why it takes two media organizations to get these matters addressed.Moreover, MARA was perplexed and upset about the 7:30 Report story including claims by Michael Clothier that MARA didn't act against a certain agent.MARA's response was that Mr Clothier forwarded information, recommending MARA forward it to the Federal Police, who were better equipped to handle it. MARA also said it met its obligations to this case by reporting the matter to DIMIA.Far from exonerating MARA in the matter, this confused response simply raises more questions. If a reputable lawyer brings forth credible allegations and MARA can do nothing more than report it to DIMIA, this seriously brings into question the value of the current system of statutory self-regulation.Finally, MARA makes several complaints that lawyers were not also identified as Migration Agents. ILAA would simply respond by noting that legal professionals are held to significantly higher professional standards than other migration agents. Lawyers are first and foremost officers of the Court and as such owe a duty to the Court. The rule of law must always be upheld, irrespective of political objectives.It is therefore essential for a media organization to be making a distinction between the two, even if the lawyer (as required by law) is also a registered migration agent.It remains ILAA's position that immigration lawyers are better regulated and held to higher standards than other migration agents, and are best equipped to handle migration matters.

By: Anne O'Donoghue