CHAPTER 3

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, 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, March 2009 (published by the Commonwealth Ombudsman);
Protection Visa Processing Taking More Than 90 days for the Reporting Period 1 November 2008 to 28 February 2009 (published by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship);
Protection Visa Processing Taking More Than 90 days for the Reporting Period 1 March to 30 June 2009 (published by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship);
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 2008 to 28 February 2009 (published by the Refugee Review Tribunal); 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 March to 30 June 2009 (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 section 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 It is the policy of the Ombudsman's office not to inspect the records relating to surveillance devices which are in use. The committee notes that the Ombudsman is considering amending this policy where the use of surveillance devices is extended beyond a six-month period.[3]

3.4 During the reporting period of 1 July to 31 December 2008, reports on the results of inspections for the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) were completed. These reports cover the inspection of records from the period 1 July to 31 December 2007.

3.5 The ACC was assessed as being generally compliant with the Act.[4] The Ombudsman made four recommendations relating to compliance and administrative issues. The recommendations concerning compliance deal with reports to the Minister and information required to be recorded on a surveillance device warrant. The recommendations aim at improving the administration of the Act relating to privacy issues and information required to be recorded on a surveillance device warrant.[5]

3.6 The Ombudsman completed one inspection of the AFP's surveillance devices records in the reporting period and assessed the agency as being generally compliant with the provisions of the Act. One recommendation relates to compliance with the Act and concerns extraterritorial operation of warrants.[6] The Ombudsman made two recommendations to improve administration in relation to the Act. These concern destruction of records and the installation of a device before a warrant is issued.[7]

3.7 The committee is pleased to note that the Ombudsman reported a significant improvement by the AFP on a matter raised in earlier reports relating to the level of content provided in reports by the AFP to the Minister under section 49 of the Act.[8]

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

3.8 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 Act the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) 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.

3.9 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 2008 to 30 June 2009.

Protection visa processing taking more than 90 days

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

	1 July 2008 to 31 October 2008	1 November 2008 to 28 February 2009	1 March 2009 to 30 June 2009
Total number undecided outside of 90 day period	366	324	480
Total number decided outside of 90 day period	388	409	488
Total number processed outside of 90 day period	754	733	968
Percentage of total applications processed outside of 90 day period	23%	21%	25%

3.11 The committee notes with some concern the rise in the number of processing delays attributable to DIAC. The reports indicate that delays due to DIAC processing have risen from 92 to 175 for the period 1 November 2008 to 28 February 2009 and from 175 to 342 for the period 1 March to 30 June 2009. However, the reports for both periods note that:

The Department continues to work on strategies to eliminate delay, improve adherence to the 90 day timeframe and to clear older cases as quickly as possible.[9]

3.12 The committee will continue to monitor the department's performance in this area.

Refugee Review Tribunal reviews not completed within 90 days

3.13 This table outlines the number of RRT reviews not completed within 90 days for the previous three reporting periods.

	1 July 2008 to 31 October 2008	1 November 2008 – 28 February 2009	1 March 2009 to 30 June 2009
Reviews completed outside of 90 days	186 (25%)	197 (25%)	287 (31%)
Reviews completed within 90 days	557 (75%)	601 (75%)	634 (69%)
Total	743	798	921

Senator Trish Crossin
Committee Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page