The department knows that if its deputies make a mistake, a citizenship decision can be difficult to reverse. We make four recommendations for the department to assist in its administration, taking into account the risks it seeks to mitigate.
The statistics provided in the rest of this report were provided by the department to our office prior to the commencement of the motion. The ANAO made five recommendations designed to strengthen and improve the department's administration of the citizenship program.
When discussing the role of the Department, the Identity Strategy states that the Department plays an important role, recognized across the administration, in. It is clear that the Department seeks to minimize the risk of this happening in the future, which is part of why it is takes longer to make decisions.
Broadly reflecting the key principles outlined in the Identity ACI, the training module directs decision-makers to relevant resources and tools to support their decision-making, including the department's ACI and Enterprise Identity. To ensure consistency in the information provided to delegates, the department should consider expanding this training module to better reflect the identity material covered in the ACI. The Department has communicated that significant investments and progress have been made within the citizenship program to ensure the quality of approval and rejection decisions and meet the objectives of the ANAO recommendation.
However, the department says reporting on this is subject to the completion of its wider Enterprise Performance Measures review. Recommendation three of the ANAO audit was that, to improve the quality assurance process for the citizenship programme, the department expand its quality. The department reports that it has completed the implementation of this recommendation, subject to formal closure by the departmental audit committee.
The Department reported that it has completed this recommendation, subject to formal closure by the Department's Audit Committee.
We asked the department what proportion of the cases take longer than 80 days to be processed, which it has referred to the Identity Business Support (IDBS) department. The department did not state the proportion, but pointed out that applications undergoing insurance checks may need to be referred to IDBS. In addition, the department announced that several hundred citizenship security identity assessments had been referred to IDBS and that all of these applications took more than 80 days to complete.
The Department stated that applications are mostly referred to IDBS at the assessment stage before an applicant is invited to sit the citizenship test and/or participate in their citizenship appointment. While it is the case that there are specific high-risk cohorts which form part of the insurance caseload, the department's internal guidance document, 'Identity Assessment Framework—Citizenship', makes it clear that each application must be carefully assessed. In the seven months to June 2017, the department reported that the number of completed citizenship by transfer applications rose to 4,457.
This new data is positive and with the introduction of better guidance to delegates it is to be hoped that the department can continue to reduce the backlog of cases.
Other enhancements to processing citizenship by conferral
With a greater emphasis on integrity and identity across the department, not just within the citizenship program, other areas such as IDBS are also being impacted as more and more decision makers seek her support for complex identity assessments, training and referrals. It appears that the citizenship program referred a higher proportion of complex cases to IDBS than it could handle, and consequently had to train its own staff to better handle identity issues and refer only the more complex identity cases to IDBS. Whether this strategy will ultimately reduce decision-making time is something for the department to monitor, and will need to be weighed against ensuring quality decisions.
The Court considered that the Department's evidence of the scarcity of resources contributing to the delay was too general and non-specific for any sensible evaluation. No doubt this judgment is critical for the department to take into account in the management of the citizenship program and other areas that get high. The department did not address the court-examined issue regarding periods of unexplained inactivity and what this means for the department when it comes to making lawful decisions.
To the contrary, the department emphasized in its response to our Agency that its own June 2014 internal audit and the ANAO audit recognized the work effort needed to address the growing risks in the program. The department informed that in late 2016, the Assistant Secretary of State for Immigration and Border Protection decided to make changes to the department's service standards framework by replacing the external publication of service standards with the regular publication of current global visa and citizenship processing times on the. While we understand that each case must be judged on its merits, we believe the Federal Court's decision in BMF16 provides important guidance for the department when considering what is a reasonable time frame for processing citizenship applications.
As the Department's handling of these cases is open to judicial challenge, the Department should review the guidance in this decision to ensure that it has processes in place that enable it to manage its increasing caseload of complex cases in a timely manner and to ensure applications are not subject to periods of substantial inactivity or unreasonable delay.
We recognized the Department's ongoing concerns regarding the applicant's identity, which needed to be resolved. Accordingly, we have suggested that the department take immediate steps to finalize the processing of the applicant's citizenship. Shortly afterwards, the applicant was invited by the department to attend a ceremony, which he did, and he is now an Australian citizen.
However, the doubt about his character appears to have prolonged the decision-making process because the Department informed us that there was insufficient information to cancel Applicant B's visa (and subsequently the consequent cancellation of the approval of his citizenship application). The Department also advised our office that the resolution of Applicant B's character issues may involve disclosure of sensitive information to him in the interest of procedural fairness. We requested a copy of any legal advice the Department received in this matter or that was otherwise applicable.
In doing so, the department must ensure that delegates are aware of the limited time frame available to make a decision once Rule 26(3) has been enacted.
As mentioned above, in developing ACIs, the department must draw from the difficulties currently faced by delegates and ensure that the changes it develops create practical improvements to assist in the decision-making process. Citizenship decisions from applications that take one to four years to decide will not satisfy applicants. In some cases, such as the case of applicant A discussed above and those of BMF16 and BMG16, the department risks unlawfully delaying the granting of citizenship to some applicants while it either postpones decision-making because it is too difficult, struggles with the lack of verifiable evidence, or while allowing an application to be inactive (unprocessed) for long periods of time.
The risk is that the department will have more and more applications that take not just a year to decide, but more than two years to decide, which may well lead to more applications to the courts to force the department to make a decision, which increases internal complaints, it has to respond to and increase the number of complaints to this office. The more this activity occurs, it is a distraction from real decision-making, creates more work for the department, and makes it more difficult for the department to make timely decisions. To avoid an escalation of the problem, the department must manage applications to ensure that they are reasonably actively processed and that they do not sit for long periods awaiting grant or waiting for a case manager to take the next step or decide the case, and support . this process by giving decision makers the capacity, support and guidance they need to make timely and sound decisions.
The Ombudsman recommends that the Department continue its efforts to ensure that the Australian Citizenship Instructions provide adequate information to Delegates on how to verify an applicant's identity; the thresholds that must be met to enable consistent decision making and to give delegates the confidence to make a decision. Agree The department agrees with the recommendation, noting that it recognizes that significant work has already been done to address a range of complex program management and integrity issues. These include an instruction on identity and how it is assessed under the Australian Citizenship Act 2017.
The Ombudsman recommends that the department continue to develop the Australian Citizenship Guidelines to include more information on how to assess and be satisfied that an applicant is of good character, as well as developing internal guidance (not for publication) when it takes into account protected intelligence information and allegations, as opposed to criminal penalties. The Ombudsman recommends that the department continue to develop the Australian Citizenship Guidelines to include information about determinations made under section 26(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, and statutory decision-making, and that it provide us with a copy of the guidelines reviewed once. full. The guidance is expected to be published in early 2018 and will cover cancellation of approval and delay in making an undertaking made under section 26(3) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
The Australian Citizenship Instruction includes procedures to be followed when making decisions to cancel approval and written decision to delay a person making a pledge.
