DIMA Annual Report 1997-98
Sub-program 5.3: Review
Objective
Description
Performance information
Financial and staffing resources summary
Performance outcomes
Objective
To support efficient and effective merits review of Migration Act 1958 decisions, and to support the exercise of Ministerial public interest intervention powers.
Description
This sub-program provides policy advice in relation to review of decisions made under portfolio legislation and maintains liaison with the review Tribunals.
It is responsible for managing the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO), which provides internal administrative review for applicants who have been refused a visa onshore and for sponsors of applicants who have been refused a visa offshore.
MIRO takes a fresh look at these cases and, where necessary, seeks new information or evidence.
MIRO decision-makers are located in offices in four States - in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.
This sub-program is also responsible for managing the administration of the Minister's public interest intervention powers, including policy, performance monitoring and reporting.
Onshore Protection and Review Branch in Canberra provides policy and program support.
[ Top Of Page ]Performance information
Outcomes are measured by the extent to which:
- reforms to review of immigration decision-making are successfully implemented;
- appointments, of members of merits review tribunals, are effected and cooperative relationships with tribunals maintained;
- MIRO decisions are fair, just and easily understandable;
- MIRO decisions are provided quickly and cost effectively; and
- the Minister is fully supported in the exercise of his public interest intervention powers.
Financial and staffing resources summary
See: Resources table ]
[ Top Of Page ]
Performance outcomes
(i) Review reforms
In March 1997, the Minister announced major changes to refugee and immigration decision making to improve efficiency, credibility and accountability.
The major change will be to reduce the current three portfolio review bodies to two review tribunals by merging MIRO with the independent Immigration Review Tribunal (IRT) to form the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT).
The RRT will remain a separate body reviewing the Department's decisions on refugee applications.
Other measures foreshadowed include clearer articulation of the Minister's general expectations and directions to tribunal members, and improved utilisation and reduced duplication of resources.
These measures are included in Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) (MLAB4) of 1997 which, at 30 June 1998, is awaiting passage by the Senate.
In the absence of the enabling legislation, the start of the MRT on 1 July 1998 was postponed and MIRO is now expected to continue operation during 1998–99 (as is the IRT).
Careful and comprehensive planning has been undertaken to enable the changes to be implemented quickly once the legislation has been passed.
The changes to the immigration review structure are consistent with foreshadowed Government action to introduce further reform of merits review tribunals across portfolios.
On 3 February 1998, the Attorney General announced that the Government will proceed with the amalgamation of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Immigration Review Tribunal (or MRT) and the Refugee Review Tribunal into a single tribunal, to be called the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).
The immigration and refugee review process will remain a discrete division within the proposed ART.
Other reforms, introduced from July 1997, to shorten overall processing times for review of protection visas, are detailed under sub-program 3.2.
[ Top Of Page ](ii) Tribunal appointments and liaison with tribunals
Following a full merit selection for members of the RRT, 19 members were reappointed from 8 June 1997 or 6 September 1997 and 41 new members were appointed from 28 July 1997.
As well as addressing the immediate need for the RRT to continue to efficiently review protection visa determinations, the combination of full and parttime appointments and staggered terms of one, two or three years also allows some flexibility for future reform of merits review tribunals.
On 10 November 1997, a Senior Member was appointed to the RRT to assist with Tribunal management in Melbourne. One additional part-time member was also appointed.
On 1 June 1998, an Acting Principal Member was appointed to the RRT, for a period of one year, following the resignation of the former Principal Member.
On 3 June 1998, a Deputy Principal Member and two Senior Members were appointed and 11 Members were re-appointed to the RRT.
Relationships between the Tribunals and the Department are cooperative and effective. Regular meetings take place and processes are in place for sharing information and matters of priority processing.
As part of the sub-program's monitoring and analysis role, decisions of the Tribunals are carefully analysed to provide feedback to policy areas within the Department.
[ Top Of Page ](iii) Fair, just and easily understandable MIRO decisions
MIRO can affirm, set aside or remit a decision to the primary decision-maker. In 1997–98, MIRO set aside 1 149 primary decisions, the reasons for those set aside are as follows:
[ Top Of Page ]Table 5.3 (a): The reasons for setting aside decisions
See: Table 5.3a
The degree of understanding of, and client satisfaction with, MIRO decisions may to some extent be measured by the number of cases which go on to further review by the IRT.
However, a decision to seek review may also be influenced by the perceived benefit of delaying the requirement to leave Australia.
The percentage of MIRO decisions where applicants have sought IRT review has remained at about the same level as last year following a significant decrease in 1995–96. In 1997–98, 32 per cent of MIRO decisions went on to further review by the IRT (compared with 30 per cent in 1996–97 and 62 per cent in 1995–96).
A further indicator of fairness is the proportion of MIRO decisions subsequently set aside by the IRT (in 1997–98 it was 50 per cent, compared with 40 per cent in 1996–97 and 55 per cent in 1995–96).
Not all set-asides occur because the IRT perceives a fault in the MIRO decision. For example, a large number occur because new information is provided to the IRT, which the IRT is required to consider.
From time to time cases involving disputed visa decisions are remitted to the portfolio by a court or by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, either by direction following a hearing or by consent prior to hearing.
Since amendments to the Migration Act 1958 in 1994, most of these cases are reconsidered by the relevant independent review tribunal. However, some cases remain for the Department to reconsider.
In 1997–98, 57 such cases were received for reconsideration compared with 19 in 1996–97.
There were 88 cases finalised resulting in 48 approvals, 33 refusals, and seven cases otherwise resolved. The comparable figures for 1996–97 were 64 cases, 34 approvals, nine refusals and 21 cases otherwise resolved.
(iv) Quick and cost efficient MIRO review processing
As forecast, the number of review applications lodged decreased in 1997–98 to 5 189, from the 6 540 review applications reported in 1996–97. During 1997–98, 60 per cent of applications received related to permanent visas and 39 per cent related to temporary visas.
This is compared with 63 per cent and 37 per cent in 1996–97 and 69 per cent and 31 per cent in 1995–96.
MIRO aims to conclude all review applications within 120 days of receipt. Forty nine per cent of applications finalised within 120 days of lodgement against a target of 90 per cent. This is the same as 1996–97 (49 per cent), and a decrease on earlier years (62 per cent in
1995–96, 83 per cent in 1994–95, 78 per cent in 1993–94 and 77 per cent in 1992–93). It is also a reflection of considerable effort taken during the financial year to clear older cases.
[ Top Of Page ]Chart 5.3 (1): Percentage of applicants finalised within 120 days
In 1997–98, there were 6 540 review applications finalised by MIRO against the revised target of 5 980.
An adjustment, from 5 460, was made to the original target to enable MIRO to address the backlog of cases in anticipation of the then expected 1 July 1998 start of the Migration Review Tribunal. In 1996–97, there were 5 705 applications finalised.
MIRO produced decisions within the agreed Department of Finance and Administration (DoFA) Resource Agreement unit costs, despite applying more skilled and experienced staff than provided for in the Resource Agreement.
[ Top Of Page ]Chart 5.3 (2): Received and finalised cases
Productivity averaged 172 cases per staff member against the target of 159, compared with 150 for 1996–97 and 136 for 1995–96.
[ Top Of Page ]Table 5.3 (b): Age analysis of applications on hand
See: Table 5.3b
[ Top Of Page ]
(v) Ministerial public interest intervention powers
Where a review authority affirms a decision to refuse the grant of a visa, the Minister may intervene under various sections of the Migration Act 1958 to substitute a more favourable decision.
Where the review decision is made by MIRO, the Minister may intervene under s345, where the decision is made by the IRT under s351, the RRT under s417, and the AAT under s391 or s454.
Support is provided by departmental officers through the preparation of submissions on cases, in accordance with guidelines on what the Minister may consider to be in the public interest.
The Minister will exercise his powers only if he considers it is in the public interest to do so. He is under no obligation to consider a case.
In 1997–98, the Minister intervened in 90 cases to grant visas, 55 cases using his powers under s417 and 35 cases under s345, s351 and s391. The Minister is required to table his reasons for intervening in a case in Parliament.