Chapter 3

Annual Reports on the Operation of Acts and 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, as on previous occasions, the committee chose to examine the following reports:

• Report to the Attorney-General on the results of inspections of records under s55 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, August 2008 (published by the Commonwealth Ombudsman)

• Protection Visa Processing Taking More Than 90 days for the Reporting Period 1 November 2007 to 29 February 2008 (published by DIAC)

• Protection Visa Processing Taking More Than 90 days for the Reporting Period 1 March 2008 to 30 June 2008 (published by DIAC)

• 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 November 2007 to 29 February 2008 (published by the Refugee Review Tribunal)

• 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 March 2008 to 30 June 2008 (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.  Under s 61 of the Act, the Ombudsman is required to report to the Minister at six-monthly intervals on the results of each inspection.[2]

3.3        During the reporting period 1 January to 30 June 2007 the Ombudsman finalised reports on the results of inspections for the Australian Crime Commission and the New South Wales Police.  Both agencies were assessed as being generally compliant with the Act. However, a number of compliance and best practice issues were identified as a result of the inspections.[3]

3.4        The committee notes that the Ombudsman identified the treatment of privacy considerations in warrant applications as an area for attention by both agencies.  While both organisations prepared warrant applications which for the most part mentioned privacy[4] or made reference to the effect the surveillance device would have on privacy[5], the Ombudsman noted that there was a lack of detail.[6]

3.5        The committee has noted its concerns in previous reports in relation to privacy issues and the application of s 16 (2)(c) of the Act, and will continue to monitor this issue in future reports of the Ombudsman.

3.6        The committee notes initiatives of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) to improve compliance with the Act which were highlighted in the Ombudsman's report. The Ombudsman noted that the ACC had introduced procedures and training to assist ACC investigators and administrative staff in complying with the Act.  Additionally, the ACC will introduce a mandatory compliance training program in relation to compliance with the Act for all operational staff.[7]

Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days and refugee reviews taking more than 90 days

3.7        Section 65A of the Migration Act 1958 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.

3.8        The Department and the RRT are required to report every four months with the latest reports reviewed by the committee covering the period 1 November 2007 to 30 June 2008.

Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days

3.9        The table below compares protection visa processing by DIAC taking more than 90 days for the three previous reporting periods.

	1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007	1 November 2007 to 29 February 2008	1 March 2008 to 30 June 2008
Total number undecided outside of 90 day period	241	396	375
Total number decided outside of 90 day period	529	251	443
Total number processed outside of 90 day period	770	647	818
Percentage of total applications processed outside of 90 day period	29.3%	16.6%	28.9%

3.10      After a fall in the November to February period, the total number of protection visas processed outside the 90 period has increased in the March to June 2008 period.  The Department noted that for those applications not decided within 90 days due to factors within DIAC control, most had sound reasons for decision deferral.  These included exploration of complex character issues which might warrant visa refusal and awaiting the outcome of serious criminal charges.[8]

Refugee Review Tribunal reviews not completed within 90 days

3.11      This table outlines the number of Refugee Review Tribunal reviews not completed within 90 days for the previous three reporting periods.

	1 July 2007 to 31 October 2007	1 November 2007 to 29 February 2008	1 March 2008 to 30 June 2008
Reviews completed outside of 90 days	201(26%)	216 (32%)	266 (31%)
Reviews completed within 90 days	578(74%)	453 (68%)	603 (69%)
Total	779	669	869

 

Senator Trish Crossin
Committee Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page