Inefficiencies and duplication of the review process
The existing review process
The review scheme for decisions under s 501 of the Migration Act is complex. Depending on the subsection under s 501 being exercised, there are differences in terms of:
- Whether the person is provided an opportunity to comment or given information or details
- Whether the decision is discretionary or mandatory
- Timelines to apply for revocation of mandatory cancellations
- Which decision makers are allowed to make decisions
- Access to merits review, and
- The power of the Minister to overturn the decision of the tribunal or delegate.
The review processes can be found in the Law Institute of Victoria’s factsheet.
The current review processes are highly inefficient, especially in the consequence of prolonged indefinite detention, including of vulnerable people. The causes of this inefficiency and duplication include:
- Duplication of previous criminal processes
- Duplication of visa processes
- The removal of discretion in the original decision-making processes in s 501(3A)
- The transfer of original decision-making power from delegates to the Minister personally
- The transfer of the power of review from the Tribunal to the Minister
- The power of the Minister to overturn decisions of delegates and the Tribunal, and
- The shift from review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to the courts.
Duplication of criminal law and inequality of law
The visa cancellation process is itself duplicative, because the considerations relevant to the protection of the community, the risk of re-offending, and the seriousness of offences have already been considered by a criminal court. Criminal courts have access to all the evidence, have great experience in determining sentencing, and have the advantage of a well-developed fair criminal process.
Indeed, the changes to the visa cancellations law will make criminal law itself more inefficient. For example, many people are incentivised in the criminal system to plead guilty, which is key to making criminal justice more efficient. However, if a person is (correctly) advised that the consequence of even a minor offence will result in prolonged and indefinite detention, this will discourage a person from resolving their status quickly through the criminal courts.
The re-examination of all of these factors by an executive is not only duplicative and inefficient, but it also undermines one of the key principles of the rule of law, namely equality before the law. The simple fact is that non-citizens, by virtue solely of their migration status, are in effect punished twice because they are detained by the executive after their sentence is complete.
Duplication of visa processes
As discussed above, if people raise non-refoulement obligations in the course of a visa being cancelled, those who have a visa other than a protection visa can apply for a protection visa. Nonrefoulement obligations are therefore not considered in the process of cancelling such visas.
This is clearly duplicative and inefficient, because such people will remain detained while they begin another visa application process. A much more efficient system would recognise that, if a person is owed non-refoulement obligations and cannot therefore be returned, then the cancellation of the visa serves no effective purpose and, ironically, would amount to a clear breach of our international obligations.
Removal of discretion in original decision
In general, legal processes are most efficient where the original decision-making process is robust, enables an examination of all relevant circumstances, and affords procedural fairness. Such a decision will be better informed, fairer, much less expensive than a court decision, and ultimately result in efficiencies in the review process because decisions will be more defensible. This basic principle underpins the rest of our review and appeal schemes to maximise both fairness and efficiency.
The efficiency of review processes cannot be assessed in isolation from the original decision making process. The mandatory visa cancellation powers result in highly inefficient review processes because there is no substantive consideration of relevant factors at the time the visa is cancelled. The result is that all of the considerations then fall to be considered at a (much) later stage of revocation, review and ultimately judicial review. This is a very inefficient use of resources, particularly given the cost of holding these people in detention.
Personal ministerial decisions
The inefficiency of review processes is especially marked because much of the prolonged delay arises from the fact that the Minister personally makes cancellation decisions or revocations in many cases. From 2014-2015 to 30 September 2017, the Minister personally made 199 decisions to cancel a visa under s 501. In a 2016 report on the administration of s 501 cancellations, the Ombudsman reported that the Minister personally makes all decisions to revoke cancellations, as well as most cancellations. At 27 April 2016, the Minister had 492 requests for revocation before him, which was 75% of the total. The Assistant Minister had 12% of the cases and the Department only 13%. This is clearly a major source of delay and inefficiency.
While we do not have current statistics on the delays caused by the revocation process, it is clear from the Ombudsman’s report that this was a significant factor in the prolonged detention experienced by many people. In the period 1 January 2014 to 1 March 2016, 66% (805) of individuals whose visas had been cancelled under s 501(3A) sought revocation of the decision, but by 1 March 2016 only 178 of these had been finalised and 78% of revocation requests were pending. The average time required to process the request was 153 days on 29 February 2016, with 158 cases where people had waited for at least six months and 21 cases where people spent 12 months or more waiting for an outcome.
The general principle of administrative efficiency requires delegation to the appropriate level of decision-making. The continual expansion of the Minister’s personal powers and discretions has led to an untenable situation in which the unavoidable delays in the Minister exercising those powers leads to people being deprived of their liberty unnecessarily. The Refugee Council of Australia is aware of other ministerial decisions that are delayed, such as the renewal of bridging visas, that have the effect of leaving highly vulnerable people either in detention or living unlawfully, through no fault of their own, in the community.
The ability of the Minister to substitute his own decision for that of delegates or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is also administratively inefficient and duplicative. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is a generalist merits review tribunal that routinely reviews the merits of many government decisions. It exists partly because such tribunals are much more efficient in reviewing government decisions than relying on the courts, but also because it is more appropriate for an independent body to review government decisions than to entrust such decisions to a politician.
In this context, we note that the reputation for independence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal could be improved. Under both Liberal and Labor governments, the appointments of people with links to the governing party and the refusal to renew appointments of unpopular members have undermined the perception of independence of the Tribunal. For example, the appointments to the AAT at the end of the 2017 financial year raised serious (albeit longstanding) concerns about the politicisation of the Tribunal. Such politicisation should be remedied, as in the UK, through an independent appointments body that will take these decisions out of the hands of a government that is all too easily frustrated by limitations on its power.
This is consistent with the well-established political and constitutional principle of separation of powers, which recognises the potential for the conflict of interest in political decision-making. The existence of a robust merits review process, and access to the courts to review government decisions, also goes to the heart of the rule of law.
The rule of law requires that people are not detained by the caprice of the Minister. This is exactly what is happening as a result of the transfer of decision-making and review powers to the Minister.
The rule of law also requires that all government decisions should be subject to the supervision of the courts, to ensure the legality of such decision-making.
The principle of the rule of law is even more flagrantly breached by the provisions of the Act which enable the Minister to overturn the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and to remove the right to merits review by making a personal decision. Effectively, a person’s right to liberty and to remain in a country, often with family, is now dependent on the whim of one man, not the rule of law.
Of even greater concern is the well-founded perception that the Minister is using such decisions for political advantage. The Minister has conducted numerous radio interviews boasting of his record on visa cancellations, and is also on record criticising the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The former Attorney-General, George Brandis, observed before he left office:
I have not disguised my concern that attacks upon the institutions of the law, upon the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself and it is for the Attorney-General always to defend the rule of law, sometimes from political colleagues who fail to understand it or are impatient of the limitations it may impose upon executive power.
Limitations on executive power are a crucial element of a well-functioning democracy. They are not inefficiencies but rather important democratic safeguards, especially where those affected are vulnerable minorities, as in this case. In this respect, while the rule of law may mean that individual decision-making may take longer, overall the rule of law is efficient because it preserves the respect for the law that sustains a democracy.
Parliament and the courts play a critical role in scrutinising and checking the power of the executive. Nowhere is this more significant than when a person is being deprived of liberty by the executive. This role is even more significant where the person is a refugee or person seeking asylum, where that person cannot be returned to a country without breaching our international legal obligations.
Shifting the focus to the courts
The reduction of power at the delegate and Tribunal level has had the natural consequence of meaning more people are contesting their visa cancellations in the courts, which as part of their constitutional role retain the right to review decisions for jurisdictional error. As part of its work, the Refugee Council of Australia has been maintaining a database on visa cancellation decisions in the courts. While not comprehensive, there are at least 23 Full Federal Court case decisions and 85 decisions at the Federal Court level in relation to visa cancellations. In at least four cases at the Full Federal Court, and 19 at the Federal Court, the Minister did not succeed.
Identifying jurisdictional error is very difficult, and virtually impossible without legal representation. Most people in this situation will struggle to afford legal representation, and pro bono support for refugees is also under severe strain because of competing demands in the asylum context. Courts do not have the right to review the merits of the decision, and the legislation is tightly framed to mitigate the risk of judicial review, so in this context the success rate is relatively high.
It is obviously inefficient to move resources from the primary decision at a departmental level to the much more expensive court system. More importantly, it is highly inefficient for those whose visas are cancelled, as they have to spend years in detention to resolve cases.
>Scope of AAT to review ministerial decisions
We also take the opportunity to express concern about the third term of reference, the nonexistent scope of the AAT to review ministerial decisions under s 501. The Minister’s personal decision trumps that of the independent administrative tribunal in all cases under s 501.
If the Minister personally makes or substitutes his own decision for that of a delegate or the AAT, that decision is not subject to merits review by the AAT. Even if the AAT decides to affirm a cancellation of a visa, the Minister can set this aside for a more favourable decision under s 501J of the Act.
As noted above, the ability of the Minister to personally trump the AAT in all cases involving s 501 is administratively inefficient and duplicative. More importantly, it goes to the heart of the rule of law. This is yet another instance of the extraordinary powers of the Minister. These do not exist in any other area of administrative law and would not be accepted if exercised over Australian citizens.
These extraordinary powers effectively excise the general principle of merits review for this group of vulnerable people. All people, no matter their visa status, deserve the equal protection of our laws. This is especially so when those laws affect people who may have been living in Australia for most of their lives, and who have family in Australia.
The effects of these powers are especially draconian for people who came to Australia seeking safety and protection. Detention, and the fear of detention, can have profound consequences for their mental and physical health. Tragically and perversely, by attempting to honour its international legal obligations to protect such people from persecution or other serious harm, the Australian Government is breaching other important legal obligations by subjecting them to arbitrary detention, without due process or the equal protections of the law.