CHAPTER 3
ANNUAL REPORTS ON THE OPERATION OF ACTS & PROGRAMS
3.1
Standing Order 25(20) does not provide for consideration of reports on
the implementation or operation of Acts or programs. The committee is not
therefore required to include them in its report on the examination of annual
reports. However, the committee chose on this occasion to examine in some
detail the following reports:
- Report to the Attorney-General on the results of inspections of
records under s 55 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (published by the
Commonwealth Ombudsman);
- Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days for the reporting
period 1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007 (published by DIAC); and
- Report pursuant to Section 440a of the Migration Act on the conduct
of Refugee Review Tribunal Reviews not completed within 90 days for the period 1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007 (published by the Refugee Review Tribunal).
Report under the Surveillance Devices Act 2004
3.2
The Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (the Act) regulates the use of
surveillance devices by law enforcement agencies.[1]
Subsection 55(1) of the Act requires the Ombudsman to inspect the records of
each law enforcement agency to determine the extent of compliance with the Act
by the agency and its law enforcement officers.[2]
Privacy Issues
3.3
The Ombudsman reported concerns in relation to compliance with section
16(2)(c) of the Act.[3]
Section 16(2)(c) states that in determining whether to issue a surveillance
device warrant, the issuing officer must have regard to the extent to which the
privacy of any person is likely to be affected.[4]
In relation to AFP compliance with this section of the Act the Ombudsman found
that:
Although most warrant applications made reference to the effect
of the surveillance device would have on privacy, there was a general lack of
detail, and some applications did not make any reference to privacy. This issue
has been noted in all previous inspection reports to the AFP. While we note an
improvement in the number of applications addressing privacy and the manner in
which they do so, there remains scope for improvement.[5]
3.4
The committee has previously noted the Ombudsman's concerns relating to AFP
compliance with paragraph 16(2)(c) of the Act[6]
and is disappointed to see that the Ombudsman has had to raise these issues
again. The committee was particularly concerned to read that this issue has
been raised in all previous inspection reports to the AFP. The committee
encourages the AFP to examine why these problems have occurred and take
appropriate corrective action.
Protection visa processing and reviews taking more than 90 days
3.5
Section 65A of the Migration Act imposes a requirement for the Minister
to make a decision on a protection visa application within 90 days of the
lodgement of the application. If this target is exceeded, under section 91Y of
the Migration Act the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship is required to report on protection visa applications for which
decision making has taken over 90 days. Similarly, section 440A requires the
Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to report on reviews not completed within 90
days. The Department and the RRT are required to report every four months with
the latest reporting period being 1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007. In this report, the committee has considered the outcomes reported in the three previous
reporting periods.
Protection Visa processing taking
more than 90 days
3.6
The table below compares protection visa processing by DIAC taking more
than 90 days for the three previous reporting periods:
|
1 November 2006 to 28 February 2007
|
1 March 2007 to 30 June 2007
|
31 July 2007 to 31 October 2007
|
Total number undecided
outside of 90 day period
|
325
|
373
|
241
|
Total number decided
outside of 90 day period
|
284
|
503
|
529
|
Total number processed
outside of 90 day period
|
609
|
876
|
770
|
Percentage of total
applications processed outside of 90 day period
|
18.5%
|
27.6%
|
29.3%
|
3.7
The committee notes that there has been an increase in the percentage of
protection visas processed outside of 90 days. However, the committee also
notes that this is largely due to factors outside DIAC's control.[7]
Refugee Review Tribunal reviews not
completed within 90 days
3.8
This table outlines RRT reviews not completed within 90 days, compared
with reviews completed within 90 days, for the previous three reporting
periods:
|
1 November 2006 to 28 February 2007
|
1 March 2007 to 30 June 2007
|
1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007
|
Reviews completed outside of 90 days
|
243(22%)
|
177(22%)
|
201(26%)
|
Reviews completed within 90 days
|
873(78%)
|
642(78%)
|
578(74%)
|
Total
|
1116
|
819
|
779
|
Senator Trish
Crossin
Committee Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page