Chapter 3 - Key issues
3.1
This chapter examines the main issues and concerns raised in the course
of the committee's inquiry. The chapter starts by covering general concerns
raised in relation to the Bill and then moves on to look at issues in relation
to specific provisions in the Bill.
General issues
3.2
The majority of submissions and witnesses supported the stated intention
of the Bill and its objectives of providing the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)
and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT, and together the Tribunals) with
'flexibility' while according 'procedural fairness'. However, submissions and
witnesses, with the exception of the Tribunals and the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (the Department), unanimously stated that the Bill
would not achieve its stated intentions and, in fact, would most likely result
in further issues and problems.
3.3
Another concern raised with the committee was the extent of the
discretions that the Bill confers on members of the Tribunals, in particular
that these discretions would lead to inconsistency in decision-making.
Flexibility, efficiency and speed
of the processes of the Tribunals
3.4
Many witnesses agreed that the Tribunals should have some form of
flexibility in their administrative processes and that the aim of improving the
review process was a sound one.[1]
However, in relation to the Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC) stated that 'while the Bill certainly gives greater
flexibility to tribunals, this should not come at the expense of the rights of
applicants'.[2]
3.5
The Law Council of Australia (Law Council), in a submission to the
Department on the proposed amendments in the Bill, acknowledged that:
...(S)ome rigidity of the operation of
procedural fairness obligations has arisen as a result of the statutory scheme...(I)t
would be in the interests of justice and in the public interest to remove the
statutory codification of procedural fairness requirements in migration
decision-making altogether and to return to a system in which the common law
rules of Natural Justice can once again apply to decisions of Tribunals in the
migration jurisdictions.[3]
3.6
Evidence received during the hearing indicated that the amendments
contained in the Bill were not the most appropriate solution. Witnesses
highlighted problems with the processes of the Tribunals, as well as concerns
as to the quality of primary decisions made by the Department. Witnesses viewed
these as areas which need to be considered in the context of the flexibility,
efficiency and quality of the processes of the Tribunals.
3.7
A Just Australia stated 'that the inconsistency and high error rates of
primary decisions at the departmental level is what is causing the high rates
of appeals. If the initial processing cannot be trusted, asylum seekers are
more likely to appeal'.[4]
A Just Australia also commented that:
The Government's focus on the cost of the determination system,
rather than on its effectiveness has fostered poor decision-making. The focus
on performance indicators, that is, a set number of cases each member is
expected to finalise per year, also contributes to poor decision-making. 'Efficiency'
becomes an end in itself rather than an aid to effective and fair
decision-making.
Additionally, the RRT's funding is based on the number of cases
finalised each year. This pressure will result in more and more oral directions
being given, despite written direction being a better guarantor of...real
procedural fairness, in order to achieve set targets and so maintain funding
rates. In time, any written direction will become an anomaly.[5]
3.8
Evidence raised the prospect that rather than amend the Migration Act
1958 (the Act) to achieve administrative efficiencies, this issue may be
better addressed by increasing the resources available to Tribunals:
Maybe the simpler way to do that is to increase the number of
members of the tribunal or to increase the support staff of the tribunal to
assist the tribunal members in preparing these cases, rather than saying, 'Right,
let's just make it quicker and rush through these cases in this way.' I think
that may be where the onus is. It is a procedural, internal issue for the
tribunals to address. Obviously that would be a budgetary consideration for them,
rather than trying to run a swathe through and say, 'Let's just split up these
hearings and do it orally'.[6]
3.9
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law (Castan Centre) expressed concern
that any reforms introduced to address inefficiency and delay 'have shown that
the obligation to accord litigants procedural fairness tends to militate against
speed and efficiency'.[7]
3.10
A number of organisations also indicated that they believed that the Bill
would result in increased complexity of proceedings and litigation.[8]
3.11
Mr David Manne of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre stated that
'we would submit that this Bill, if passed, would create the very real
likelihood of increased litigation' and provided the following reasons:
Firstly, what the bill proposes would almost certainly give rise
to the increased likelihood of the tribunal lacking particularity and clarity
in relation to matters put to applicants for response. Secondly, it would
result in applicants being more likely to fail to appreciate or be able to
respond fully to concerns. Thirdly, it would be more likely to leave the
ultimate legal status of the decision, if I could say that—whether or not, for
example, it was infected by jurisdictional error—far more uncertain. That is
almost certainly, in our experience with assisting applicants and indeed in
communicating with barristers, counsel who advise on these matters, more likely
to result in people seeking judicial review in an area which is already plagued
by complexity.[9]
3.12
In its submission the Department acknowledged that, at least in the
short term, the amendments proposed by the Bill may result in increased costs
and complexity:
It is likely that at least initially, litigation after enactment
of the Bill will be more complex, as the courts will be called on to interpret
and apply the new provisions for the first time. This particular scenario is to
be expected in the case of any new legislation, particularly in an area of the
law which attracts as much judicial consideration as the migration law. Once
the interpretation of the new provisions is settled, their application to
particular fact scenarios can be expected to be relatively clear...It is possible
that there will be increased costs associated with litigation as a result of
the amendments contained in the Bill. Increased complexity in the conduct of
litigation may result in higher costs. Although higher costs can be expected
during the initial period after enactment until the interpretation of the
provisions is settled, once this occurs litigation costs are likely to lessen
for all parties.[10]
3.13
HREOC also expressed concerns that the amendments proposed in the Bill,
by creating the potential for an unfair process for determining refugee and
migration cases, may breach the human rights of applicants:
- By breaching an applicant's right to a fair hearing,
as protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
('ICCPR'); and/or
- By leading to incorrect decisions which increase the
likelihood of 'refoulement' of asylum seekers (returning a person to a country
where they face persecution).[11]
3.14
The Department emphasised that new subsections 357A(3) and 422B(3) will
require that the Tribunals act in a way that is fair and just:
Lastly and significantly, the amendments will make explicit the
requirement that the tribunals are required to meet their obligations in a way
that is fair and just. This amendment is an explicit acknowledgement that review
applicants must be treated fairly and justly in the conduct of reviews,
including in relation to hearings and review applicants dealing with adverse
information orally.[12]
Inconsistency and the Tribunals'
use of discretion
3.15
The committee also received evidence expressing great concern at the breadth
of discretion the Bill provides for members of the Tribunals; in particular
witnesses commented that inconsistencies may arise in the application of
discretion.
3.16
HREOC commented that 'given the breadth of the discretion, it may be
difficult to ensure it is applied consistently as between different tribunal
members and applicants' cases. This may lead to unfairness, in that
differential treatment may be accorded to applicants in similar circumstances'.[13]
3.17
Mr John Gibson of the Refugee Council of Australia highlighted two areas
for potential inconsistency if the Bill were to proceed:
Firstly...the inconsistency between members—those who will follow
the oral path and those who will follow the written path. Then there will be
inconsistency as to when and in what way the tribunal considers a request for
time and a decision to adjourn the review to provide that.[14]
3.18
The Refugee Advice and Casework Service (Aust) (RACS) commented that the
proposed changes:
...give the RRT Member tremendous discretion in determining
whether he or she thinks it reasonable to grant the applicant an adjournment of
the review and allow additional time for consideration and preparation of a
response...Accordingly, if the Senate proceeds to pass the Bill, we submit that
clause 424AA(b) of the Bill should be amended to state that if the applicant
seeks additional time to comment or respond, the RRT must adjourn the review
hearing for two weeks to allow the applicant time to prepare his/her response.[15]
3.19
Mr Manne from the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre also noted that
the Tribunals are not bound by rules of evidence or precedent, and this would
impact on the consistency of the exercise of discretion:
...one of the problems in relation to inconsistency over time has
been that members are not bound by the rules of evidence, nor are they bound by
precedence in the sense of having to follow precedent from other cases. What
you have is a jurisdiction which is riddled with problems of inconsistency on
all of those matters. To come up with provisions now which are only likely to
compound that problem is, in our view, unacceptable.[16]
3.20
Many organisations commented that having guidelines or an accepted
procedure as well as training provided for tribunal members when exercising this
discretion would benefit the review process if these amendments were passed. Ms
Michaela Byers, a solicitor and migration agent, commented that '(i)f the
members were required to follow certain procedural steps, all in uniform that
would be fantastic. A lot of problems in dealing with the tribunal would be
alleviated if the members were to follow procedural steps'.[17]
3.21
The Legal Aid Commission of NSW commented that:
The overriding goal in this bill is to ensure that Tribunal
processes are 'fair and just' (proposed ss357A(3) and 422B(3). Accordingly, the
Commission submits that the Tribunals need to develop new Practice Directions,
in line with any amendments...[T]he proposed bill gives Tribunal members the
discretion to vary their approaches to additional information; therefore the
Practice Directions need to ensure that minimum standards of natural justice
are preserved.[18]
3.22
Mr Steve Karas, Principal Member of the MRT and the RRT provided further
information on how the Tribunals would ensure that tribunal members exercise
their discretion consistently:
There will be a briefing session and a training session for
members to acquaint them with the amendments. At the same time...we intend to
issue a principal member direction, which has the force of law that guides the
members on how to deal with certain situations.[19]
Discretion to give adverse information orally
3.23
Proposed sections 359AA and 424AA give the Tribunals the discretion to
provide the applicant with information orally. The provisions also allow for
the applicant to be invited to respond to the information orally, rather than
in writing.
3.24
The key concern raised in relation to these provisions was that they would
adversely impact on the procedural fairness accorded to applicants in the
review process. The concerns raised in relation to procedural fairness were
interlinked, but can broadly be divided into three issues, namely:
- the importance of written communications in according applicants procedural
fairness in the review process;
- the impact of these provisions on the role of advisers and legal
representatives of review applicants; and
- how the use of interpreters would affect the implementation of
provisions in the Bill.
The importance of written
communication in according procedural fairness
3.25
A number of submissions highlighted the importance of written
communication in according procedural fairness to RRTand MRT applicants.
3.26
The Castan Centre cited Justice Kirby in the SAAP case[20]
to demonstrate the value that applicants place on written communication:
A written communication will ordinarily be taken more seriously
than oral exchanges. People of differing intellectual capacity, operating in an
institution of a different culture, communicating through an unfamiliar
language, in circumstances of emotional and psychological disadvantage will
often need the provision of important information in writing. Even if they
cannot read the English language...the presentation of a tangible communication
of a potentially important, even decisive, circumstance from the Tribunal
permits them to receive advice and give instructions.[21]
3.27
HREOC outlined its concerns in relation to procedural fairness not being
accorded to applicants who are required to respond orally to adverse
information:
Even if the bill does improve efficiency, it is likely to create
an unfair process. In particular, the bill's reliance on oral communication in
migration and refugee cases is unfair. This is because there is a grave danger
that an applicant may not fully understand the meaning or significance of what
they are being told or of what they are responding to. Even where an applicant
does understand the case against them, the changes may mean that they may not
have the chance to fully or adequately put their case before the tribunal.
Language and cultural barriers can significantly impact on oral communication.
Interpreters are used in 90 per cent of hearings in these tribunals—an
unusually high percentage of interpreters in any tribunal in which I have had
experience. Accordingly, misunderstandings, incorrect translations and
conflicts of interest are not uncommon.[22]
3.28
In particular, HREOC highlighted the adverse impact that the provisions
may have on child applicants who are required to respond orally to adverse
information.[23]
3.29
The Legal Aid Commission of NSW also expressed doubts as to whether
applicants would be afforded procedural fairness under these provisions:
The Commission opposes this bill as it removes an important
protection for applicants. Following the decision in SAAP v MIMIA [2005]
HCA 23, ss359A and 424A letters have created a new stage in the [Tribunals'] decision
making process, by which applicants are notified in writing of information and
which can be used to refuse the review application. An oral process of
providing the information at the hearing and requesting an immediate response
will not allow many applicants the opportunity to comment on the [Tribunals']
concerns. Natural justice requires that applicants are afforded a meaningful
opportunity to respond to adverse information.[24]
3.30
The Department submitted that applicants would not be accorded a lower
standard of procedural fairness through receiving information orally rather
than in writing:
By putting adverse information to applicants orally, applicants
will not receive a lower standard of procedural fairness. The standard is the
same as that required where the Tribunals put adverse information to the
applicant in writing, and in many cases may be enhanced by the benefits of
being given the information, and the explanation of its relevance in the
presence of the Tribunal and with the assistance of an interpreter in the
applicant's language...The Tribunals must continue to act fairly and justly in conducting
the hearing, including testing any evidence provided by the applicant in
response to adverse information put to them during the hearing. Moreover, the
Department anticipates that the courts will continue to closely scrutinise
Tribunal decisions which come before them to ensure that the Tribunals have
complied with the statutory requirements.[25]
The role of advisers and legal
representatives
3.31
The committee was told that the proposed amendments would 'further limit
the role of the advisor in review applications'.[26]
3.32
Mr Kerry Murphy of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) explained
his current role as an adviser to applicants:
The Act provides that there is no right of representation in the
tribunal. However, the tribunal's practices are such that, as a rule, tribunal
members accept advisers to come along to hearings, though the tribunal's own
information and documentation that it produces indicate that the role of the
adviser is a very limited role and in no way akin to tribunals such as the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal, where the advocate's role is quite strong. In
these tribunals my role is commonly as a note taker—I write down everything
that happens—and occasionally I make a comment because I think something has
been misunderstood or that there is a mistake that needs to be corrected. At
the end of the hearing the tribunal may give you an opportunity to make
comments if it thinks it is worth while or if members of the tribunal want you
to.[27]
3.33
Mr Murphy went on to outline how the current procedure of putting
adverse information in writing assisted applicants:
In my experience, though, the current practice, given the
structure of 424A and 359A, is that it may be in the applicant's interest not
to say very much at all at the end, because it may be that you think there are
four points that are important to the tribunal but in fact, of the four, only
two are really important and the tribunal has another two points it is worried
about. So, as an advocate, it is of more use to respond to the things that really
are of concern to the tribunal, which they can send you in a letter, rather
than what you think may be of concern to the tribunal, having sat through the
hearing. The advantage of the current process is that it makes it very clear
what the important issues are.[28]
3.34
Ms Michaela Byers told the committee that, in her view, one of the
concerns with the Bill is that it is silent on advisers being able to intervene
in proceedings where they feel that their client has misunderstood the
information presented by the Tribunals:
I do not find that there is any room for that at all in the
bill. It is silent on the adviser or on seeking advice before making that
decision. This is very frustrating as I have seen since the tribunal was
established in 1993 that, each time the rights of the adviser to seek advice
seems to be further taken away. I see this is going to cause even more
restrictions on that.[29]
3.35
The Department responded to these concerns saying that:
The Department is not of the view that lawyers and migration agents
will be presented with any new or unique difficulties in properly representing
their clients as a result of the Bill...Applicants (and their lawyers and
migration agents) will continue to be able to make submissions to the Tribunals
at any time, and the Tribunals are required to consider any submissions that
are received up until the time the decision is handed down.[30]
3.36
The Tribunals commented that advisers and representatives would be able to
express a view during the hearing. However, the tribunal member would not
necessarily be obliged to accept a request from the adviser. Mr John Lynch,
Registrar of the Tribunals stated that:
Most advisers today, without this sort of provision, would
express a view. If they thought the hearing was running badly for the client or
if the client was not well or was not prepared, they would say it. Under this
new arrangement, if this passes, they would be perfectly entitled to say: 'We
don't want this to happen this particular way. We'd prefer it if you put these
particular aspects in writing. They are too complicated for my client,' or, 'We're
not prepared today to deal with them...'[31]
The use of interpreters
3.37
The Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal Annual
Report 2005-06 (Annual Report) stated that 66% of MRT hearings and 90% of
RRT hearings required the services of an interpreter, with more than 60
languages and dialects used.[32]
3.38
Many witnesses expressed concern about the operation of the provisions
in the Bill where interpreters are required.
3.39
The Refugee Advice and Casework Service (Aust) Inc (RACS) stated that
'[t]he new provisions place a huge burden on interpreters accurately to convey
the nature of the adverse information and the significance of any oral response
the applicant is being invited to make to the information'.[33]
3.40
The Castan Centre commented on the additional complexities when oral
evidence is given remotely:
The oral communication of reasons through an interpreter may
obfuscate the process and lead to misunderstandings between Tribunal and
applicant. The problem of misunderstanding is likely to be exacerbated where
the review is conducted through video link up or telephone conferencing, and
particularly where the RRT member and/or interpreter is separated
geographically from the applicant.[34]
3.41
Ms Byers commented that 'the review applicant and witnesses usually do
not speak English and must respond to the Member's questions through an
interpreter. The competency of the interpreter is paramount in such
circumstances'.[35]
3.42
Ms Byers described some difficulties she had experienced with
interpreters when appearing before the Tribunals:
I have a number of interpreters whom I have made complaints
about to the tribunal who are banned from being the interpreter for my clients.
...They just did not know how to interpret the words of the review
applicant. Some of them are very particular and very special but they are not
rare, I would say, with the language that I was looking at particularly where
there is a problem, which is Mandarin.
...I have also had a problem where the review applicant was asked
questions about Christianity and they could not be interpreted by the
interpreter because the interpreter was not a Christian and just did not
understand the terminology. So there are similar problems there on the basis of
religion. It could be for the other convention grounds as well, but those are
the most dire problems that I have had in the tribunal.[36]
3.43
The committee notes Ms Byers' evidence that the interpreters she has
lodged complaints against and who have been removed from her particular cases,
are still working within the Tribunals' review system. Ms Byers stated that:
I regularly see the ones that I have asked not to be allocated
to my clients in the tribunals and the courts. Normally you have to put in a
written complaint to the tribunal and they will investigate that complaint by
asking the member who was at that hearing for their opinion. If the member
agrees with me, they will then put on the system that that interpreter not be
allocated to any of my clients in the future.[37]
3.44
The Tribunals responded to Ms Byers' comments as follows:
In such cases, the Tribunals may accommodate the representative's
request and not allocate the interpreter in question to any case involving that
particular representative but may not necessarily exclude the interpreter from
other work in the Tribunals. The Tribunals have generally had regard to such
requests in booking interpreters for particular representatives, even though
the Tribunals may, in some cases, otherwise consider that the interpreter
continues to meet the high standards expected of interpreters.[38]
3.45
In its submission, the Department also highlighted the benefit that
applicants would have in interpreters being present when adverse information
was put to the applicant:
Wherever required, Tribunal hearings are conducted with the
assistance of an interpreter accredited in the relevant language. Putting
adverse information to applicants with the assistance of an accredited
interpreter is more likely to result in the applicant understanding the
substance of the information and its significance to the outcome of the review.
Correspondence from the Tribunals, including invitations issued in compliance
with s.359A and s.424A, are in English and an applicant may rely on a person
other than an accredited translator to assist them in understanding the letter.
Under the amendments, applicants will be able to directly discuss issues with
the Tribunals with the services of an interpreter provided by the Tribunals.
From this perspective, the Bill may result in a more effective practical
standard of procedural fairness for applicants.[39]
Other concerns
3.46
The committee heard evidence on other ways in which the provision of
information orally may adversely impact on review applicants. Ms Byers commented
that:
...the review system already places a great burden on review
applicants to present their own cases. The proposed sections 359AA and 424AA [place]
a further burden on review applicants to make a legal decision on the spot
during a hearing whether to comment or to ask for an adjournment...most review
applicants seek a quick decision and will attempt to comment regardless of
whether it is in their best interests to do so.[40]
3.47
Of particular concern in this respect were the implications for
unrepresented applicants. Ms Alexandra Newton of HREOC highlighted the
increased proportion of unrepresented litigants appearing before the Tribunals:
From the RRT's annual report...currently 37 per cent of applicants
in the RRT are unrepresented and 33 per cent in the MRT are unrepresented. That
figure has increased...over the past five years. Back in 2002-2003, it was 20 per
cent, building to 23 per cent in 2003-2004 and 31 per cent in 2004-2005. There
definitely does seem to be a trend towards decreasing representation of
applicants.[41]
3.48
A Just Australia argued that, as the number of unrepresented applicants
increased, it was important that they be able to seek adequate advice on how to
respond to potentially adverse information.[42]
3.49
HREOC raised concerns that 'in the context of refugee cases, some
applicants may be reluctant to request more time to respond from the tribunal
for fear that this may be held against them and, potentially, jeopardise the
outcome of their case'.[43]
Amnesty International Australia (Amnesty) also stated that it is common for
applicants to feel 'compelled' to demonstrate to a Tribunal member their
understanding of what is going on, often responding in the affirmative,
although not understanding the question being put to them.[44]
3.50
HREOC also raised the situation of access to tapes of hearings
proceedings and stated:
Currently, merits review applicants may request a copy of the
taped recording of proceedings following the hearing of their matter in the MRT
or RRT...Under the Bill's changes, an applicant required to respond orally at the
hearing to adverse information, will not have the opportunity to review the
recording before doing so. This change may lead to unfairness in some cases.[45]
Changes to adverse information provided to applicants
3.51
The second set of amendments in proposed paragraphs 359A(4)(ba) and
424A(3)(ba) mean that the Tribunals will not have to provide the applicant with
a written copy of information that the applicant previously provided to the
Department as a part of the application process. This exception does not extend
to information given orally by the applicant to the Department, such as
information provided during an interview with a Departmental officer for a visa
application.[46]
3.52
The committee received evidence suggesting that the amendments proposed
by these provisions would fundamentally change the merits review process
undertaken by the Tribunals and would deny applicants procedural fairness.
3.53
For example, ALHR submitted that:
...section 359A(4)(ba) represents a regrettable attempt to narrow
the scope of the merits review process. Although claiming to loosen what is
stated to be a strict interpretation of section 359A, the Bill fundamentally
alters the role of the MRT to the detriment of applicants and the review
process more broadly.[47]
3.54
The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Graeme Innes AM, stated that:
The bill is unfair because there is no requirement to put the
full case against them to an applicant. The changes only require that
information which has not been put to the department previously be conveyed to
the applicant orally. Contrary to the rules of natural justice, this means that
an applicant may not have the chance to comment on information which forms the
basis of an adverse decision against them.[48]
3.55
The Department submitted that it is anomalous for the Tribunals to have
to put to an applicant information which the applicant has already given the
Department in connection with the process leading to the decision under review:
[Under the Act, the Secretary for the Department is required] to
give to the Registrar of the Tribunals each document, or part of a document,
that is in the Secretary's possession or control and is considered by the
Secretary to be relevant to the decision under review. In practice this entails
the Department providing a copy of the relevant file(s) to the Tribunals...The
Tribunals are bound to consider this material in deciding the review. It is an
anomalous situation for the Tribunals to have to put to an applicant
information that the applicant had already provided in support of their claims for
the decision under review, and which the Tribunal is bound to consider (having
received that information from the Secretary of the Department who is required
to give it to the Tribunal). Moreover, it is not an obligation for[the] primary
decision-maker, in whose shoes the Tribunals stand on review, to put to an
applicant adverse information that applicant provided to the primary
decision-maker.[49]
Committee view
3.56
The committee is supportive of the stated intent of the Bill to provide
the Tribunals with some flexibility in their administrative processes while according
procedural fairness to applicants. However, the evidence provided to the
committee during the inquiry was equivocal as to whether the amendments
contained in the Bill would achieve this aim.
Proposed sections 359AA and 424AA
3.57
The committee has concerns about the amendments in the Bill which insert
sections 359AA and 424AA and provide tribunal members with discretion to give
the applicant adverse information orally and invite the applicant to comment
verbally during the hearing.
3.58
The committee accepts evidence from the Department that in some
circumstances it may be advantageous for the applicant to receive adverse
information orally during the hearing and to be able to respond or comment on
this information verbally during the hearing. However, the committee is
concerned that the current drafting of proposed sections 359AA and 424AA enable
tribunal members to exercise a range of discretions. The applicant will be
unaware of how or why the discretion may be exercised, or not, in any
particular case. In particular, the committee is concerned by evidence,
including from the Department, that proposed sections 359AA and 424AA are
likely to be the subject of further litigation. It is almost certain that the
provisions will invite litigation challenging whether the Tribunals:
- considered that the applicant understood the information;
- reasonably formed the view that the applicant did not require
more time to respond to the information; and
- met the overarching requirement to apply the provisions in a fair
and just manner.
This litigation will
likely involve reference to records of the proceedings and disputes between the
parties regarding the accuracy of the translation.
3.59
In addition, the committee is mindful that the circumstances of the
applicants before the Tribunals potentially place the applicants in a
vulnerable position: for example, applicants are generally communicating using
an interpreter; they may have experienced torture or persecution by authorities;
and may seek, above all, a quick resolution of their status. The risk of
unfairness and further disadvantage to applicants in these circumstances is
simply unacceptable.
3.60
During the public hearing, HREOC stated that 'one alternative that we
have considered is the potential to give applicants an alternative as to
whether they would prefer the adverse information to be provided by the
tribunal orally or in writing'.[50]
3.61
Accordingly, the committee recommends that adverse information should
only be provided verbally where the applicant elects this course. This approach
would introduce flexibility into how the Tribunals accord procedural fairness
without introducing a range of discretions that tribunal members must exercise
and associated uncertainty around the exercise of those discretions.
Proposed paragraphs 359A(4)(ba) and
424A(3)(ba)
3.62
The committee accepts that the requirement for the Tribunals to provide
applicants with information they have previously provided in support of their
application is overly prescriptive and was an unintended consequence of the
drafting of sections 359A and 424A. Accordingly, the committee recommends that
the Senate pass the amendments to introduce proposed paragraphs 359A(4)(ba) and
424A(3)(ba).
Recommendation 1
3.63
The committee recommends that proposed sections 359AA and 424AA be
amended so that adverse material may only be provided orally at the election of
the applicant.
Recommendation 2
3.64
Subject to the preceding recommendation, the committee recommends that
the Senate pass the Bill.
Senator Marise Payne
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page