The proposed royalty structure will more accurately reflect the actual cost of using mara when assessing initial authorization applications, which involves a much more comprehensive verification system. This is consistent with the cost coverage funding regime. It will have less impact on agents requesting a new registration. This is justified by the fact that the cost of assessing applications to re-ense the registration is lower (see the comparison of these costs below in Option 2 below). While, under this option, fees for non-commercial agents are not set to cover costs, MARA is expected to be able to streamline the processing of these agents` registration applications, which will reduce the difference between non-commercial fees collected and actual processing costs. > evidence of two separate accounts where agents are required to pay an application fee on behalf of clients The Australian Justice Council stated, prior to MARA`s appointment, that lawyers with practical certificates should not be subject to MARA regulations, but to their own legal professional associations. In particular, the Commission expressed concern that representatives of lawyers, who must pay their annual certification fees, must also pay high fees for migration agents. The Commission considers that the number of migration lawyers has decreased due to the level of registration fees for agents who also have to pay them. In order to continue to support after-sales services and consumer protection, procedures and practices should be reviewed and streamlined to allow adequate public access to the mara secretariat, including complaints and registration requests. The MARAC Act sets the cap on deposit fees that can be collected. The limit is currently $1,800. The MARAC regulation imposes the actual application fees currently imposed by mara within this limit: the MIA is the only professional organisation to represent the migration council and to represent 35% of registered migration agents. The MIA is also appointed by the government as the Industry Regulatory Authority (MARA).

MARA`s Board of Directors (composed of current migration agents, MIA members and MIA membership representatives) believes that the increase in rates for migration agents, particularly for new agents entering the sector, is reasonable and sustainable. The 2001-02 report provides an overview of the views of the Community and industry on the regulation of the migration consultancy sector and the level of registration fees. The audit was conducted by DIMIA with the help of an external reference group (ERG) and received contributions from individuals and organizations (see Appendix B). The „MIA conditions“ have been updated to respond to changes in departmental legislation and policy. The „MIA Appeal Agreements“ and „MIA Intermedary Agreement“ have been updated to support changes to the mia terms update. „MIA Data Protection Protocol“ is a new document that has been introduced to help health authorities comply with the general data protection regulation. Your agent must notify you in writing of any changes to the amount they calculate for service delivery. Your agent should do so as soon as he or she becomes aware of the change (for example. B the extra work that your agent didn`t know when he agreed to work for you). > the cross-subsidy of the initial registration fee by the re-registration fee does not reflect actual cost coverage, and Option 1 – increase in registration fees for commercial agents, particularly for the first registration MARA submitted a detailed bid in support of its request for an increase in royalties. MARA also commented on the audit: „Costs to consumers are minimized by competition between Lesern and/or by an increased number of practitioners who meet existing or increased demand…

However, in the practical market in this sector, MARA feels that the choice of product for consumers is less