CHAPTER 2
ANNUAL REPORTS OF STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
2.1
The following report of statutory bodies for the financial year 2008-09
were referred to the committee for examination and report:
Attorney-General's
Portfolio
- Administrative Appeals Tribunal
- Administrative Review Council
- Australian Federal Police
- Australian Government Solicitor
- Australian Institute of Criminology and Criminology Research
Council
- Australian Law Reform Commission
- Australian Security Intelligence Organisation
- Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
- Commonwealth Ombudsman[1]
[Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio]
- CrimTrac Agency
- Family Court of Australia
- Federal Court of Australia
- Federal Magistrates Court of Australia
- Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia
- National Capital Authority
- National Native Title Tribunal
- Office of Film and Literature Classification—Classification Board
and Classification Review Board
- Office of Parliamentary Counsel
Immigration and
Citizenship Portfolio
- Migration Agents Registration Authority
- Migration Review Tribunal
- Refugee Review Tribunal
2.2
On this occasion, the committee has decided to examine in more detail the
reports of the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal, as
well as and the Federal Court of Australia.
Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)
2.3
The tribunals decided 8,229 cases during 2008-09, with 39% of cases
being decided in favour of the applicant. The number of cases decided during
the year had increased by 9% from the previous year; while the number of cases
on hand increased by 36% over the number on hand at the end of the previous
financial year.[2]
2.4
The tribunals' registrar indicated that, in response to an increasing
and complex caseload in the last two years, there has been a:
...focus for change in relation to the management of caseloads,
the nature and quality of support services provided to Members, the information
and guidance that we publish and our relationships with stakeholders.[3]
2.5
The Principal Member's report noted that membership of the tribunals has
increased and will provide an increased capacity to deal with cases. Members
appointed on a full-time basis had increased from six to 24. It was further
noted that:
Despite the pressures of an increased caseload, it is important
that the Tribunals continue to provide fair and high quality reviews – fair to
individuals, and capable of improving the quality and consistency of migration
and refugee decisions at the primary level.[4]
2.6
The Principal Member raised the 90-day period for RRT reviews as an area
for possible reconsideration in a review of the merits review architecture of
the Migration Act 1958. Section 414A of the Act sets a 90-day period
for the conduct of RRT reviews of validly made or remitted applications. In
accordance with section 440A of the Act, a report is presented to the
Parliament every four months on reviews not completed within 90 days. The
Principal Member advised that:
The 90-day period was introduced in 2005 when there were
significant backlogs of protection visa cases at the primary and review levels,
and when there were large numbers of protection visa applicants in immigration
detention.
While most cases can be fairly decided within 90 days, the
requirement for reports to be presented to Parliament every 4 months on all
protection visa cases which exceed 90 days has the tendency to place greater
emphasis on speed than on fairness to the applicant and distorts priorities
between the two Tribunals. There is a case for this level of reporting to be maintained
only for applicants who are in immigration detention. This would improve the capacity
of those assisting applicants and our Members to continue to give high priority
to detention cases. The timeliness of reviews involving persons not in
immigration detention could be reported on satisfactorily in Annual Reports, in
the same way as performance against time standards is reported across the MRT
caseload.[5]
2.7
The committee regularly monitors these reports and will watch developments
in this area with interest.
2.8
The performance information contained in Part 4 of the report is well
presented and includes a range of tables, graphs and charts to present
statistics on caseload, lodgements, cases on hand, timeliness and complaints.
This section also includes a report of performance against service standards,
all of which were reported to be achieved.
2.9
The inclusion of case studies provides useful background and an insight
into matters dealt with by the tribunals.[6]
The committee commends the tribunals on a comprehensive annual report which it
considers to be 'apparently satisfactory'.
Federal Court of Australia
2.10
It was reported that the combined workload of the Federal Court and the
Federal Magistrates Court was 10% below the previous year.[7]
There were 10,407 matters filed in the two courts in 2008-09. Filings in the
two courts have increased since 2000, with 6,276 filings in the year
1999-2000. It was noted that:
...overall growth in the number of filings since 2000 has had a
considerable impact on the Federal Court's registries, which process the
documents filed for both courts and provide the administrative support for each
matter to be heard and determined by the relevant Court.[8]
2.11
The Court exceeded its time standard goal of 85% of cases completed
within 18 months of commencement, achieving 90.2% for 2008-09. On the second
time goal, which aims to have judgments delivered within three months, the
Court's performance was slightly down on the previous year:
...86% of appeals (both full court and single judge) were delivered
within three months and 80% of judgments at first instance were delivered
within three months of the date of being reserved'.[9]
2.12
The report presents statistics on the number of matters referred for
mediation over the previous five years and shows an overall increase since
2005. In 2008-09, 522 matters[10]
were referred for mediation compared to 379 in the 2007-08. The settlement
rate for matters for the reporting year was 57%. It was further noted that:
While settlement rates assist the Court to assess the
effectiveness of its mediation program, they are not the only criteria used.
Many matters settle after mediation but before hearing and those matters that
proceed to hearing often do so with the issues narrowed or some of the facts
agreed as a result of the mediation.[11]
2.13
The report includes summaries of developments made during the year to
improve processes and to increase the use of technology to improve
efficiencies. The Chief Justice issued the Fast Track Directions on 24 April
2009 through Practice Note No 30.[12]
The Directions aim to provide a framework where cases may be heard and
finalised within five to eight months from the date of filing, and to reduce
costs by limiting discovery and avoiding lengthy interlocutory disputes.[13]
2.14
On 29 January 2009, the Chief Justice issued a practice note on the use
of technology in the management of discovery and the conduct of litigation. The
aim of the practice note is to encourage and facilitate the effective use of
technology 'by setting out the Court's expectations as to how technology should
be used in the conduct of proceeding before the Court and recommending a
framework for the management of documents electronically in the discovery
process and the conduct of trials'.[14]
2.15
The report also provided an update on the Court's eServices strategy and
advised that work has continued in the reporting year on the development of an
eLodgment application.[15]
2.16
The Court reported a net operating deficit of $1.838 million for 2008-09,
having received approval from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to
incur a $3.8 million deficit. The deficit was reported to be as a result of:
- increases in salaries;
- voluntary redundancy payments; and
- a reduction in the Court's revenue.[16]
2.17
The committee considers the annual report of the Federal Court of
Australia to be 'apparently satisfactory'.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page