The Ombudsman’s role in reporting on the circumstances of long-term detainees has now been operating for over 12 months. It is timely to reflect on where things stand now in comparison to 29 June 2005 when the function began.

There were 149 people who had been detained for two years or more when this function began. Of that original group, 24 people remain in a detention facility, one is living in a detention housing centre, nine are detained in the community in alternative detention arrangements, and the other 115 are either living lawfully in the community or have returned voluntarily or been removed to their home country. As at 30 June 2006, the number of people in a detention facility for more than two years was 66, while 30 people were housed in alternative detention arrangements.

At the date of this bulletin, the Ombudsman had received 262 reports from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) concerning 289 people. In 84 cases, we had received a second report concerning 97 people, where these people had been in detention for a further six months since the first report was received; and 45 third reports received on 49 people.

We have interviewed 209 people, and provided reports on 102 cases to the Minister for Immigration, who has tabled responses to 73 of those reports. The Ombudsman’s annual report, to be published at the end of October, contains an analysis of the Ombudsman’s recommendations and the Minister’s responses.

The priority for Ombudsman reports remains people in a detention facility and people with significant health issues, particularly mental health concerns, and where detention has an impact on children. Our next priorities are people in alternative detention or those who are on temporary visas, including bridging visas and Temporary Protection Visas. People on Temporary Protection Visas have no assurance of their continued stay in Australia; these cases are therefore being given priority ahead of those who have been granted permanent visas.

As always, we remain open to input from detainees and their supporters about issues arising from their current status.

Referred Immigration cases

A total of 247 cases where people have been held in immigration detention and later released as ‘not unlawful’ have now been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. In our Immigration Bulletin 4 (31 October 2005) the seven categories into which the cases have been divided were described.

A report on Mr T was released in March 2006. A further report into the detention of a person suffering from a severe mental illness, Mr G, has been completed and DIMA has provided comments. The investigations into nine cases categorised as ‘mental health’ have been completed and case analyses provided to DIMA for its consideration. The draft consolidated ‘mental health’ report is also with DIMA for comment.

In addition, the investigations into 10 cases categorised as ‘children in detention’ have been completed. The case analyses and the draft consolidated ‘children in detention’ report will be provided to DIMA for comment by November 2006.

It is expected that the two consolidated reports on mental health and children in detention and the report on Mr G will be published in December 2006.

All of the investigations into cases involving data issues have been completed and case analyses are progressively being provided to DIMA for its consideration. The draft consolidated report is in its editorial phase.

Investigations are well underway into the categories of ‘validity of notice’, ‘detention process issues’ and ‘cases affected by the decision of the Srey case’. We still aim to have all of the individual investigations completed by the end of 2006, although the complexity of matters continues to impact on timeliness.

Ombudsman’s own motion report into the Administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies to long-term residents

In Immigration Bulletin 8, reference was made to the Immigration Ombudsman’s own motion report into the Administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies to long-term residents, which was released in February 2006. In accordance with recommendations eight and nine of the report, DIMA has undertaken to review:

DIMA has recently provided an update to the Ombudsman on its implementation of the recommendations in the report. It is possible that further details of the Government’s and the Department’s response to the s 501 report will soon be notified publicly.

Community roundtable meetings

The Ombudsman’s office is holding a number of roundtable meetings with community stakeholder groups to outline our immigration complaint-handling processes as well as the expanded role we have in reviewing immigration administration. These meetings are also an opportunity for people to raise any issues concerning immigration administration and how the Ombudsman’s office deals with immigration matters. Meetings have recently been held in Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne. Meetings in other capital cities are being planned for later in the year.

Inspections/monitoring of removals

An important part of the new Immigration Ombudsman function is implementing an inspections/monitoring role for DIMA’s compliance and detention services. A pilot program on DIMA’s removals activity has commenced. The legal framework for DIMA’s removals activities is extremely broad. Many key aspects are matters of policy rather than legislation.

It is envisaged that the pilot will involve examining a selection of removals undertaken in the previous twelve months, to examine issues such as:

The proposed outcomes of the pilot are a better understanding of DIMA’s current procedures in this area and the development and testing of a methodology that will be used for a future rolling program of inspections/monitoring.

Own motions

As part of its Immigration Ombudsman role, the Ombudsman’s office has expanded its program of own motion investigations. New investigations have commenced in two areas.

The first own motion investigation is the complaints handling process of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA). This investigation seeks to provide an assessment of MARA’s complaint-handling processes with particular focus on visibility, accessibility, timeliness, procedural fairness and methodology. This is part of ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman’s Office into complaint handling in various government agencies.

The second investigation focuses on the quality of notification of reasons for decisions and review rights provided to failed visa applicants. Legislative obligations guide DIMA’s requirements to provide visa applicants with written statements of the reasons for departmental decisions and associated review rights. Government agencies are also expected to communicate clearly and effectively, adopting ‘plain English’ principles wherever possible. The investigation aims to assess a sample of decision notification letters for a range of visa classes that are issued from processing centres and DIMA offices in Australia and overseas, and with different review rights. The assessment will consider the extent to which the notification letters comply with both statutory obligations and good administrative practice.

We expect both own motion investigations to be completed by the end of 2006.

Skip to main content
    0 results available.
      0 results available.
      language assistant menu topper outer language assistant menu topper inner

      Read documents in your language

      If you need more translations, please contact us via: 1300 362 072 or ombudsman@ombudsman.gov.au

      Bulletin 9-26 October 2006 - Progress on Immigration matters - Immigration bulletins

      The Ombudsman’s role in reporting on the circumstances of long-term detainees has now been operating for over 12 months. It is timely to reflect on where things stand now in comparison to 29 June 2005 when the function began.

      There were 149 people who had been detained for two years or more when this function began. Of that original group, 24 people remain in a detention facility, one is living in a detention housing centre, nine are detained in the community in alternative detention arrangements, and the other 115 are either living lawfully in the community or have returned voluntarily or been removed to their home country. As at 30 June 2006, the number of people in a detention facility for more than two years was 66, while 30 people were housed in alternative detention arrangements.

      At the date of this bulletin, the Ombudsman had received 262 reports from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) concerning 289 people. In 84 cases, we had received a second report concerning 97 people, where these people had been in detention for a further six months since the first report was received; and 45 third reports received on 49 people.

      We have interviewed 209 people, and provided reports on 102 cases to the Minister for Immigration, who has tabled responses to 73 of those reports. The Ombudsman’s annual report, to be published at the end of October, contains an analysis of the Ombudsman’s recommendations and the Minister’s responses.

      The priority for Ombudsman reports remains people in a detention facility and people with significant health issues, particularly mental health concerns, and where detention has an impact on children. Our next priorities are people in alternative detention or those who are on temporary visas, including bridging visas and Temporary Protection Visas. People on Temporary Protection Visas have no assurance of their continued stay in Australia; these cases are therefore being given priority ahead of those who have been granted permanent visas.

      As always, we remain open to input from detainees and their supporters about issues arising from their current status.

      Referred Immigration cases

      A total of 247 cases where people have been held in immigration detention and later released as ‘not unlawful’ have now been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. In our Immigration Bulletin 4 (31 October 2005) the seven categories into which the cases have been divided were described.

      A report on Mr T was released in March 2006. A further report into the detention of a person suffering from a severe mental illness, Mr G, has been completed and DIMA has provided comments. The investigations into nine cases categorised as ‘mental health’ have been completed and case analyses provided to DIMA for its consideration. The draft consolidated ‘mental health’ report is also with DIMA for comment.

      In addition, the investigations into 10 cases categorised as ‘children in detention’ have been completed. The case analyses and the draft consolidated ‘children in detention’ report will be provided to DIMA for comment by November 2006.

      It is expected that the two consolidated reports on mental health and children in detention and the report on Mr G will be published in December 2006.

      All of the investigations into cases involving data issues have been completed and case analyses are progressively being provided to DIMA for its consideration. The draft consolidated report is in its editorial phase.

      Investigations are well underway into the categories of ‘validity of notice’, ‘detention process issues’ and ‘cases affected by the decision of the Srey case’. We still aim to have all of the individual investigations completed by the end of 2006, although the complexity of matters continues to impact on timeliness.

      Ombudsman’s own motion report into the Administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies to long-term residents

      In Immigration Bulletin 8, reference was made to the Immigration Ombudsman’s own motion report into the Administration of s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 as it applies to long-term residents, which was released in February 2006. In accordance with recommendations eight and nine of the report, DIMA has undertaken to review:

      • the 35 cases that were part of the own motion investigation and
      • any other cases where at the time of the release of the report the person:
        • has had their visa cancelled under s 501 and
        • had been in Australia for a period of more than 10 years as a permanent resident or as a New Zealand citizen holding a Special Category Visa (subclass 444) and:
          • are currently in immigration detention awaiting removal (which includes being in the community on a residence determination) or
          • are currently in the community awaiting removal and hold a Removal Pending Bridging Visa or
          • are in prison awaiting removal (either unlawful or on a Bridging E Visa); or
          • are unlawful in the community or
          • have been released from detention due to the Nystrom decision (ie they hold an absorbed persons visa that was not cancelled when the other substantive visa was cancelled).
      DIMA has recently provided an update to the Ombudsman on its implementation of the recommendations in the report. It is possible that further details of the Government’s and the Department’s response to the s 501 report will soon be notified publicly.

      Community roundtable meetings

      The Ombudsman’s office is holding a number of roundtable meetings with community stakeholder groups to outline our immigration complaint-handling processes as well as the expanded role we have in reviewing immigration administration. These meetings are also an opportunity for people to raise any issues concerning immigration administration and how the Ombudsman’s office deals with immigration matters. Meetings have recently been held in Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne. Meetings in other capital cities are being planned for later in the year.

      Inspections/monitoring of removals

      An important part of the new Immigration Ombudsman function is implementing an inspections/monitoring role for DIMA’s compliance and detention services. A pilot program on DIMA’s removals activity has commenced. The legal framework for DIMA’s removals activities is extremely broad. Many key aspects are matters of policy rather than legislation.

      It is envisaged that the pilot will involve examining a selection of removals undertaken in the previous twelve months, to examine issues such as:

      • the grounds for removal
      • the choice of location to which the person(s) is removed
      • the amount of notice given to the person
      • any special circumstances surrounding the removal, such as health issues or the involvement of family members
      • consistency of the arrangement with the relevant Departmental policies and procedures.

      The proposed outcomes of the pilot are a better understanding of DIMA’s current procedures in this area and the development and testing of a methodology that will be used for a future rolling program of inspections/monitoring.

      Own motions

      As part of its Immigration Ombudsman role, the Ombudsman’s office has expanded its program of own motion investigations. New investigations have commenced in two areas.

      The first own motion investigation is the complaints handling process of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA). This investigation seeks to provide an assessment of MARA’s complaint-handling processes with particular focus on visibility, accessibility, timeliness, procedural fairness and methodology. This is part of ongoing investigations by the Ombudsman’s Office into complaint handling in various government agencies.

      The second investigation focuses on the quality of notification of reasons for decisions and review rights provided to failed visa applicants. Legislative obligations guide DIMA’s requirements to provide visa applicants with written statements of the reasons for departmental decisions and associated review rights. Government agencies are also expected to communicate clearly and effectively, adopting ‘plain English’ principles wherever possible. The investigation aims to assess a sample of decision notification letters for a range of visa classes that are issued from processing centres and DIMA offices in Australia and overseas, and with different review rights. The assessment will consider the extent to which the notification letters comply with both statutory obligations and good administrative practice.

      We expect both own motion investigations to be completed by the end of 2006.