The Office took steps to advise agencies of the level of security required by the Office. During the same period, the department improved its governance arrangements to centrally track the implementation of recommendations made by the office in our investigative reports. The department notified the office that it provided facial recognition training to ceremonial officers between July 2018 and June 2019.
Based on our analysis of the department's self-assessment and supporting documentation, the Office considers three recommendations implemented and one recommendation partially implemented.
The Ombudsman recommends that the department review, with the assistance of external legal counsel if necessary, how it maintains the reasonable suspicion that a person in
In July 2017, as part of the department's process to prepare for Mr G's removal from Australia, it determined that the notice of refusal of his partner visa was defective and he in fact still had a valid visa. The department accepted all of the report's recommendations, noting that implementation of recommendations one, two and three will depend on the outcome of ongoing litigation related to other individuals who have raised similar issues.
The Ombudsman recommends that the department update its relevant policies and procedures in light of the review in Recommendation 1 to ensure the ongoing lawfulness of a
The Office revised the new framework, which includes reasonable suspicion as a new control point and outlines the proposed model for officers to form and convey reasonable suspicion during an individual's detention.
The Ombudsman notes that the department has commenced a formal legal review of the detention of Mr G and recommends that if this review, taking into account the
In March and April 2017, the department identified that it was holding two Australian citizens in immigration detention. The Department commissioned Dr Vivienne Thom AM to conduct an independent review (Thom Review) into the circumstances leading to the detention of these Australian citizens.
The department should ensure that all officers who are required to cancel visas, assess immigration status and/or detain or remove unlawful non-citizens are adequately
The Department should develop or, if already developed, approve a short citizenship triage checklist to identify cases requiring a full citizenship assessment using the Citizenship Tool. This tool should be developed in consultation with Citizenship Operations to meet the operational requirements of the business areas using it.
The National Character Consideration Centre should complete the agreed triage checklist and, if indicated, the Citizenship Tool, prior to every mandatory cancellation decision
The Office considers this recommendation partially implemented.2 The Office has reviewed the "Interview with the located person" (LPI) form and the accompanying SOP, which includes. The Department has provided the Office with supporting documentation to show evidence of the department's compliance with the LPI. The Department has advised that it is undertaking various activities for the implementation of this recommendation and the Office has been provided with a working document on "Procedural Guidelines for the Management of Non-Citizens in Criminal Detention".
The Bureau expects the procedural instruction to be completed and published to the department's internal database for this recommendation to be considered implemented. The Bureau has reviewed documentation showing that the department will communicate the results of the Thom study to staff and how it can be adapted for other reviews. The Bureau has revised the department's SOP: Changing or Updating Citizenship Registers When There is No Application to Consider.
The department advised that the matrix and additional risk-based quality control measures will be incorporated into the new 'Detention Review Manager Procedural Instruction'. The Office notes that there is an opportunity for the Department to improve its quality control processes by releasing the draft “Detention Review Manager Procedural Instruction” to provide consistent guidance to staff. The department provided the office with supporting documentation to show evidence of the department's compliance with located person interviewing (LPI) as described in the response to recommendation 5b).
The department should develop a risk-based process for triaging, prioritising and allocating initial detention reviews to Detention Review Managers
A senior officer should review all Community placement assessment tools completed when an individual enters immigration detention to ensure that citizenship issues have been identified and resolved. The Bureau has revised the Status Resolution Officer Procedural Instruction, which provides guidance to Status Resolution Officers (SROs) on their core duties, including but not limited to interview preparation and conduct. It also includes guidance on the tools and points of contact available to an SRO to support case management and areas of collaboration.
The instruction also sets out an expectation that managers must continuously observe and coach their employees while conducting interviews. The office notes that a quality assurance process has been implemented and that feedback is provided to officials who do not comply with standard procedure.
The National Character Consideration Centre should require team leaders to complete and file a quality control checklist as a formal part of the quality control process for
The department should prioritise expanding and embedding automated quality management reporting to enable business areas to better identify emerging trends and
The department should develop processes for relevant areas to provide regular feedback to ‘upstream’ areas including the visa and status resolution networks and the ABF,
Based on our analysis of the department's self-assessment and supporting documentation, the Office considers that the department has implemented thirteen recommendations and partially implemented two recommendations.
P ART 4: D EPARTMENT OF H OME AFFAIRS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
- The department increase x-ray capacity at the smaller ports to increase inspection capacity and reduce inspection timeframes and the need to physically unpack containers
- The ABF, in consultation with industry, develop and make publicly available on its website plain English guidance information on the potential messaging capabilities of the
- Noting the difficulty the department has in meeting targets, combined with increased delays in the processing of containerised sea cargo and an increasing number of
- The department
- The department improve complaint handling by providing timely and detailed responses to complainants utilising subject matter experts
- In cases where the ABF has not been able to process containers efficiently, consideration should be given to advising complainants of compensation schemes available under
- The ABF to work with industry to improve its methodologies for asbestos risk assessment to reduce the repeated targeting of importers with a history of compliance, except
- The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources revise its cost recovery model to ensure importers are charged the same for the assessment of identical import declarations
The department said it would not support the introduction of a three-day service standard for security reasons. 3 Following our finalization of the report, the department provided further information on progress as part of its formal response (see appendix). The department has informed the Bureau that it is developing a formal schedule that will support the implementation of this recommendation.
To assess whether this recommendation has been implemented, the Bureau expects the department to implement the proposed website improvements and review documentation. Joint advice to the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Agriculture Recommendation 9: The Ministry and the Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management strengthen cooperation on container inspections and, where possible, carry out inspections at the same location and at the same time. The Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources acknowledged the recommendation and welcomed more cooperation with the Interior Ministry, but notes that it may be limited.
Both departments advised the Office that they continue to work together and cooperation will be strengthened by proposed programs, including as part of the Department of the Interior's trade modernization agenda. The Department of Agriculture accepted the recommendation, noting that it regularly reviews and updates cost recovery rates in line with the Australian Government's Cost Recovery Guidelines. Based on our self-assessment analysis and supporting documentation provided by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, the Office considers one recommendation implemented, three recommendations partially implemented, and one recommendation not implemented.
P ART 5: N ATIONAL D ISABILITY I NSURANCE A GENCY
- Establish standard operating procedures requiring staff to acknowledge review requests within a specified timeframe. Acknowledgement should include confirmation of the type of
- Implement a standard operating procedure requiring staff to advise
- Amend the decision letter template to require staff to state explicitly the relevant assessment criteria and explain how the decision maker applied that criteria with specific
- We note that the Operational Guidelines–Planning (section 15.2) provides four (4) general assessment criteria for determining whether the NDIA will accept a request and each
- Review the information available to Contact Centre and other frontline staff to ensure it provides clear, simple guidance about the review rights that are available for different
- Prioritise the update to the ICT system to override the current manual
- Pending the ICT update, review the Operational Guidelines and task cards to stress the importance of ensuring only one (correct) letter is sent to participants following an
- Update the template to specify that the review is an internal review of a reviewable decision pursuant to s 99 and s 100 of the Act. In addition, the letter should include clear
- Include the AAT website address and telephone number in its letter template
- Review Operational Guidelines and relevant task cards to require staff to issue review decision letters on the date of decision or within a specified period following the decision
- Update Operational Guidelines and task cards to make it clear that plans resulting from an internal review decision are reviewable by the AAT (instead of a further internal
- Review any scripts, task cards or other materials which guide staff and contracted providers’ discussions with participants about their review rights to ensure they require
- Reference triage principles in sections of the Operational Guidelines or in task cards that specifically focus on triaging reviews
- Amend the Operational Guidelines and task cards to make it clear to staff that plan reviews must be (at least) allocated within 14 days after being accepted for review, to ensure
- In the immediate term
The NDIA recommended that it instruct officers to include a link to the specific section of operational guidance used to support a decision. The Bureau reviewed the NDIA's revised practice guides, operating procedures and process documents regarding requests for scheduled and unscheduled reviews. The NDIA recommended revising the operational guidelines and internal work instructions so that one correct letter template is used to inform participants of the internal assessment decision.
The Office noted that the NDIA's revised draft letter now includes the AAT's website address and telephone number. The Bureau has reviewed the NDIA's revised operational guidelines, which now include a statement that "a participant's plan resulting from an internal review decision may be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal". The Bureau revised the updated NDIA SOP for initiating unscheduled plan reviews to include a statement that staff should clearly communicate to participants that all plan elements will be reviewed as part of an unscheduled plan review.
The NDIA advised us that these KPIs are being considered for inclusion in the proposed Participant Service Guarantee. To consider this recommendation implemented, the Office expects to see evidence of how the NDIA is using intelligence from improved data collection capabilities to inform its practice and improve performance. Based on our analysis of the NDIA's self-assessment and supporting documentation, the office considers 16 recommendations as implemented and four recommendations as partially implemented.
P ART 6: D EPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS
- The Ombudsman recommends that DVA ensure that appropriate quality assurance processes are implemented in the following areas
- The Ombudsman recommends that DVA continue to work with the Australian Defence Force (Defence) and CSC on the enhancement of data exchange regarding Defence member
- The Ombudsman recommends the development of a simplified template for offsetting and overpayment decisions to assist affected veterans in better identifying the
- The Ombudsman recommends that DVA, if it has not already taken this step, identify all cases that may have been affected by the same misapplication of offsetting legislation
- The Ombudsman recommends that DVA consider amending its current policy on the recovery of overpayments to waive any taxation component
- The Ombudsman recommends that DVA
The office notes that DVA has taken steps to improve data exchange with the defense and CSC. Once this has been achieved, the office expects to be able to assess this recommendation as implemented. Cooperation between agencies has been increased through the creation of working groups to improve DVA's ability to receive accurate data.
The Office reviewed a number of old and updated letter templates related to disability benefits and found the letter. The DVA provided the Office with a summary of its review of 393 cases that were found to be similar to those of Mr A. The Office believes that the DVA has taken steps to identify cases that may have been affected by the same misapplication of equalization legislation and policy.
The Office believes there is scope for DVA to provide additional assurance that it has taken all reasonable steps to alert veterans to this issue through its usual public notification processes, as proposed in the recommendation. In order to assess this recommendation as implemented, the Office will expect the debt collection manual to be finalised. Based on our analysis of DVA's self-assessment and supporting documentation, the Office considers four recommendations implemented and two recommendations partially implemented.
APPENDIX: R ESPONSES FROM AGENCIES
Preventing the immigration detention of Australian citizens: Inquiry into the Department of Home Affairs' implementation of the recommendations of the Thom Review. Across the four reports, the Ombudsman made 32 recommendations, including one joint recommendation to the Department and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The Department accepted the four recommendations, three were fully implemented and one was partially implemented (recommendation two).
Investigation into the conditions of Mr G's detention. The report Investigation into the conditions of Mr G's detention made four recommendations to improve the department's processes. The Department agrees with the Ombudsman that recommendations one and four have been fully implemented and recommendation two partially implemented. The department also provided evidence to the Ombudsman's office of an assessment of the localized person interview.
The Department accepted the eight Department-only recommendations, five in full and three in part. Recommendation nine was a joint recommendation for the Department and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Thank you for your letter of 6 July 2020 offering the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (the department) the opportunity to review the draft report.
