|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Chapter 2 - Overview of the Bill
2.1
This chapter briefly outlines the rationale for the Migration Amendment
(Review Provisions) Bill 2006 (the Bill) and the main provisions of the Bill.[1]
Rationale for the Bill
2.2
The Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT,
and together the Tribunals[2])
provide final independent merits review of visa-related decisions made by the
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister), or by officers of the Department
of Immigration and Citizenship (the Department) acting as delegates of the
Minister. The Tribunals are required to deliver a mechanism of review that is
fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[3]
2.3
Merits review by the Tribunals is an administrative reconsideration of
the subject matter of the case. The principal objective of a merits review is:
...to ensure that the administrative decision reached in a case is
the correct and preferable decision. Correct in the sense that the decision
made is consistent with law and policy, and preferable in the sense that, if
there is an area of discretion in making a correct decision, the decision made
is the most appropriate in the circumstances.[4]
2.4
The review process provides review applicants with an opportunity to
give further information supporting his or her case, and to be informed of any
information which could form the basis for an adverse decision before his or
her case is decided. The Tribunals can also conduct further investigations to
support their decision-making process. The issues and evidence are considered
afresh and the Tribunals have the power to affirm the Department's decision,
vary the decision, set the decision aside and substitute a new decision, or
remit the matter to the Department for reconsideration.[5]
2.5
Currently, the MRT and RRT have an obligation under the Migration Act
1958 (the Act) to provide review applicants with procedural fairness. The
Tribunals must:
- give to the applicant, in the way that the Tribunal considers
appropriate in the circumstances, particulars of any information that the
Tribunal considers would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming
the decision that is under review;
- ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the applicant
understands why the information is relevant to the review; and
- invite the applicant to comment on the information.[6]
2.6
The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) states that the cumulative effect of Federal
Court and High Court decisions has been to require the Tribunals to adopt a
very literal approach to providing applicants with procedural fairness. The
main issue relates to the requirement to provide information in writing and
also for the Tribunals to provide the applicant with a written copy of
information (even if the applicant originally provided the information) and
allow the applicant the opportunity to comment. The EM suggests that these
issues are having considerable practical ramifications on the operations of the
Tribunals.[7]
2.7
The EM provided these examples:
- delays are being caused by matters that have already been covered
exhaustively at the Tribunal hearings, having to be put to the applicants again
in writing following the hearing; and
- information such as passport details, family composition and
statutory declarations provided by the applicant during the process leading to
the decision under review, if the Tribunals are to rely on the information,
must be put to the applicant in writing for comment.[8]
2.8
The amendments proposed in the Bill seek to resolve these difficulties. In
his Second Reading Speech, the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator the
Honourable Chris Ellison stated that:
These amendments will uphold the fundamental right of all review
applicants to receive procedural fairness during review proceedings, while at
the same time giving the tribunals flexibility in how they meet their
procedural fairness obligations.
These amendments will allow the tribunals to conduct reviews
more efficiently, with less unnecessary process and paperwork. This will help
the Refugee Review Tribunal to comply with its statutory 90-day time limit for
finalising decisions. It will also lead, in many cases, to the faster
completion of many cases, which will benefit review applicants who no doubt
experience stress and uncertainty in waiting to hear of a decision.[9]
Main provisions of the Bill
2.9
The two major provisions of the Bill which alter the review process of
the MRT and RRT are:
- proposed sections 359AA and 424AA which allow the Tribunals
discretion to provide information to the applicant orally and also allow the
invitation to the applicant to respond to be given orally rather than in
writing; and
- proposed paragraphs 359A(4)(b) and 424A(3)(b) which state that
the Tribunals do not have to provide the applicant with a written copy of
information that the applicant supplied during the process that led to the
decision under review (other than information provided orally to the
Department).
2.10
Proposed subsections 357A(3) and 422B(3) require that, in the conduct of
review by both the MRT and the RRT, 'the Tribunal[s] must act in a way that is
fair and just'. The Department commented that these subsections:
[E]xplicitly reinforce that the Tribunals must act in a way that
is fair and just. This complements subsections 353(1) and 420(1) of the Act,
which provide that in carrying out their functions under the Act, the MRT and
the RRT must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is
fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[10]
Discretion to give adverse
information orally
2.11
Proposed sections 359AA and 424AA provide that where an applicant is at
a hearing before one of the Tribunals, the tribunal member will have a
discretion to either:
- tell the applicant about any adverse information before the
tribunal at the hearing, and invite him or her to respond; or
- write to the applicant about the adverse information, and invite
him or her to respond.
2.12
The Second Reading Speech explained that the discretion of the tribunal
member as to whether they accord procedural fairness to an applicant orally or
in writing will depend on what is appropriate in a particular case and with the
member bearing in mind the guiding principle, which is stated in the Act, that
the Tribunals endeavour to provide a review that is fair, just, economical,
informal and quick.[11]
Applicant must understand the
relevance and the consequence
2.13
If the tribunal member opts for the oral method of according procedural
fairness, the proposed amendments will require that the Tribunals do their best
to ensure that the applicant understands why the adverse information being put
to them is relevant to the review, and that the applicant understands the
consequences of the Tribunals relying on that information to affirm the
decision that is under review.[12]
Opportunity for applicant to ask
for more time
2.14
If the Tribunals choose to tell the applicant at the hearing about any
adverse information, the member must orally invite the applicant to comment on
or respond to the information and then also advise the applicant that they may
seek additional time to provide comment or response. If the applicant asks for
more time, and the Tribunals consider that this request is reasonable, the
Tribunals must adjourn the review.[13]
Access to interpreters
2.15
Interpreters will remain available to applicants who have difficulty
with English and require assistance for review proceedings.
Changes to adverse information
provided to applicants
2.16
Sections 359A and 424A, as they currently stand, require that the
Tribunals must provide to the applicant particulars of information that the
Tribunals consider would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming
the decision that is under review (that is, adverse information).
2.17
The current requirement, under paragraphs 359A(1)(a) and 424A(1)(a), to
give an applicant particulars of adverse information is subject to a number of
exceptions. One exception relates to information that has been given by the
applicant for the purposes of 'the application'. The courts have strictly
interpreted this exception to apply only to information provided to the
Tribunals, and not to information provided by the applicant to the Department
during the process leading to the decision under review.
2.18
The Bill amends this requirement and new paragraphs 359A(4)(ba) and
424A(3)(ba) provide for a new class of information that is excepted, being
information given by the applicant to the Department during the process leading
to the decision that is under review. This exception will not extend to
information that the applicant orally gave to the Department, such as
information provided during an interview with a departmental officer for a visa
application.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Website feedback: web.senate@aph.gov.au
Last reviewed 22 February 2007 by the Senate Web Administrator
© Commonwealth of Australia
Parliament of Australia Web Site Privacy Statement
Images courtesy of AUSPIC
|
