Australian Immigration Daily News

Migration Alliance was invited to this but forgot to apologise as it could not attend due to conflicting events.  We are however sent the minutes and will attend the next Community Liaison Committee Meeting at the MRT-RRT.  If anyone wants us to raise issues / concerns / compliments at the next meeting please place them in the comments below:

MINUTES OF THE NEW SOUTH WALES COMMUNITY LIASION COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 2:00pm – 3:00pm
Training Room A - MRT-RRT
Level 17, 83 Clarence Street, Sydney 

Attendee    Organisation
Kay Ransome (Chair)    Principal Member, MRT-RRT
Emily Kachenko (Minute-taker)    Assistant Director, Communications, MRT-RRT
Amanda MacDonald    Deputy Principal Member, MRT-RRT
Geraldine Macklin    MRT-RRT –  NSW District Registrar
Louise Nicholls    Senior Member, MRT-RRT
Shahyar Roushan    Senior Member, MRT-RRT
David Keegan    Settlement Services International
David Prince    Law Council of NSW
Debra Radjenovic    Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority
Farid Varess    Fragomen
Geoffrey Saul    Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Geraldine Read    Legal Aid NSW
Heather Sare    NSW Bar Association   
Jella Dehsabzi    Ethnic Interpreters & Translators
Jennifer Kwok    The Migration Institute of Australia
Jessica Schulman    Immigration Advice & Rights Centre
Katie Wrigley    Refugee Advice & Rights Centre
Keith Stevens    Community Relations Commission
Kevin Lane    The Migration Institute of Australia
Lucy Morgan    Refugee Council of Australia
Michael Kah    Law Council of NSW
Michael Jones    International Committee of Jurists
Natalie Young    Human Rights Committee of the Law Society
Oliver White    Jesuit Refugee Service Australia
Rosa Loria    Sydney Multicultural Community Services
Sophie Roberts    Anglicare
Tony Mcguire    Department of Immigration and Border Protection

1. Welcome
Kay Ransome welcomed everyone to the second New South Wales community liaison meeting for 2013 and thanked all for making the time to attend.   Kay Ransome acknowledged the traditional owners of the land.  Everyone introduced themselves around the table for the benefit of new attendees.

2. Apologies
Kay Ransome noted the following apologies:
Apology    Organisation
Aileen Crowe        Refugee Advocacy and Pastoral Care
Ellen Hansen    UNHCR
Jashu Hirani        Ethnic Interpreters and Translators
Anthony Hughs    Immigration Advice & Rights Centre
Vicky Kuek    The Law Society of New South Wales
Kruno Kukoc        Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Ali Mojtahedi    Refugee Advice & Rights Centre
Jennifer Tode    Companion House
Susan Vogels        SydWest Multicultural Services Inc.
Virginia Walker        Asylum Seekers Foundation
Cheryl Webster    Anglicare

3. Minutes of previous meeting and business arising
The minutes of the 12 April 2013 New South Wales community liaison meeting were accepted as a true and correct record of the meeting.  They are available on the tribunals’ website at http://www.mrt-rrt.gov.au/getattachment/Information-for/Community-(General-public)/Community-liaison-archives/Minutes_NSWCL_120413_ICC.pdf.aspx.

4. Tribunals’ report 
Kay Ransome provided an update on some the recent initiatives with in the tribunals.

4.1 RRT Practice Direction
Kay Ransome advised that an RRT Practice Direction designed to promote the efficient conduct of RRT reviews has been introduced with effect from 30 September 2013. The RRT Practice Direction applies to the conduct of reviews by the RRT where the applicant is represented by another person. The Practice Direction incorporates feedback from the Community Liaison group. The Practice Direction lists the Tribunal’s requirements for representatives during the conduct of RRT reviews.
David Prince from the NSW Law Council suggested there was an opportunity to go beyond what is included in the current RRT Practice Direction to produce a best practice model. Kay Ransome responded that the RRT Practice Direction clearly sets out the expectations of applicant representatives and is focussed on reducing delays and adjournments and making the process more streamlined and less onerous for representatives. There is scope for the MRT to produce a similar practice direction.
Michael Jones from the International Committee of Jurists raised the lack of legal basis for representatives in the RRT and the lack of clarity around the function of representatives in MRT cases. Kay Ransome responded that there is a common understanding of what a representative is in the tribunals. Michael Jones asked for clarification around parts five and seven of the RRT Practice Direction as they relate to submissions. Kay Ransome clarified that part five refers to all submissions and part seven refers to pre-hearing submissions. The RRT Practice Direction will be reviewed by the tribunals with input into this process welcome.
Geraldine Read said that Legal Aid NSW can only do cases they are funded for and raised concern that the Direction adds to the workload and is cost-prohibitive. Kay Ransome responded that the intention of the Direction is for work to be done in a way that was more useful for the tribunal with new claims identified separately. The aim of the Direction is to let representatives know what is required, including that submissions already prepared be utilised and new claims identified in advance of a hearing. Amanda MacDonald added that often long submissions containing multiple new claims were being submitted on or close to the day of the hearing.
David Varess from Fragomen Lawyers asked about the nature of RRT submissions received since the Direction had been released. Kay Ransome responded that the Direction was still new with Shahyar Roushan adding that there was general satisfaction with how the Direction was being followed.

4.2 PMD1 – Constitution and Prioritisation
Kay Ransome informed that the tribunals have revised Principal Member Direction 1 Caseload and Constitution to focus more narrowly on the key matters of interest to our applicants; constitution and prioritisation policies. The new Direction is briefer and has been renamed Principal Member Direction 1 - Constitution and Prioritisation (PMD1) to reflect its new focus. It is now available on the tribunals’ website. A key change is the inclusion of a reference to Ministerial Direction No. 57, which imposed a particular order on the processing of applications to the Refugee Review Tribunal from 24 June 2013.
Decision target information will no longer be included in PMD 1. The tribunals’ decision-making goals are fluid, requiring on-going adjustment to reflect the availability of resources as well as a range of other variable factors such as lodgement patterns and changes in government policy.  At this stage, the tribunals plan to make 24,000 decisions in 2013-14. 

4.3 Transfer of Country Advice to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Kay Ransome updated all attendees that the tribunals and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) have finalised the arrangements relating to the transfer of the Country Advice section to DIBP. Provision of Country of Origin information will continue to be provided to the tribunals under a Service Level Agreement.  Country of Origin information will no longer be published on the MRT-RRT website. Michael Jones asked why country information had been removed. Kay Ransome responded that that as the tribunals no longer own this information it is not able to publish it on the website. The information is now owned by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) who should be contacted about the issue.
Natalie Young from the Human Rights Committee of the Law Society asked how this change will affect the tribunals’ independence. Kay Ransome responded that tribunal members are receiving the same level of service as they previously were.
David Prince stated that when the tribunals took on the country information function judicial review cases reduced, with the tribunals being seen as a more robust source of country information that the DIBP, and suggested that judicial review cases may increase as a result of the change. David Prince raised issues of procedural fairness and the consequences of members deciding what to do with country information. Kay Ransome responded that member obligations remain to make appropriate use of country information
Lucy Morgan from the Refugee Council of Australia referred to Ministerial Direction No. 56 where members must take into consideration country information issued by the department. Kay Ransome clarified that the department in question is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which issues reports which all decision makers need to take into consideration. Lucy Morgan asked how this differed from what DIBP is producing. Kay Ransome responded that DFAT produce consolidated reports with Amanda MacDonald adding that the two reports released to date, on Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, are available on the DFAT website.
Farid Varess said few irregular maritime arrival (IMA) cases had been listed for hearings and asked if this was a result of Direction No. 57, with numbers dropping from 30-40 per month to around one case per month. Kay Ransome responded that numbers varied state by state and highlighted cases are prioritised for a range of reasons and that a timeframe for processing IMA cases could not be given.

4.4 Tribunal Online
Kay Ransome announced that in early 2014 the tribunals will be introducing an electronic services system, Tribunal Online. Kay Ransome showed the features of the new online lodgement system by PowerPoint presentation.
Kevin Lane from the Migration Institute of Australia asked when phase two of the service would be available and whether Tribunal Online would be separate from DIBP systems. Kay Ransome responded that the implementation of phase two was currently unknown and that Tribunal Online was separate from DIBP online systems but will be integrated with the MRT-RRT case management system.
Natalie Young asked whether documents needed to be provided with Kay Ransome responding that they could be uploaded into the system at the time of application. David Prince asked how the time and date of the application would be determined. Kay Ransome responded that the system would record when the application was lodged. The allowable timeframe will be until midnight (in the state of lodgement) of the final day. Amanda MacDonald encouraged users not to leave application lodgement until the last minute.
Kevin Lane asked whether applications which were out of time would be allowed to be lodged online. Kay Ransome confirmed that the online system would accept out of time applications and that timeframe issues would be decided by the presiding member. Kevin Lane asked if DIBP would continue to be notified of applications and whether paper based lodgements would continue. Kay Ransome responded yes to both questions.

5. Caseloads and statistics
5.1 Migration Review Tribunal
Senior member Louise Nicholls reported on the MRT caseload for the financial year to 31 October 2013.
Nationally
•    Nationally, there has been a decrease in MRT lodgements (down 10%) and a significant increase in decisions (up 86%) compared to the same period last year. This has led to a reduction in the active caseload by 17%.
•    Increased decision making output has been achieved through the implementation of new work practices since mid-2012, including the use of multiple applicant hearing lists, changes to make written reasons more concise and specialist member and staff teams. Increased membership has also contributed to greater decision making output.
•    The top lodgement case categories are partner refusal 19% (930), student refusal 18% (877), skilled refusal 15% (768) and temporary work refusal 9% (433).  
•    The largest increases in lodgements have occurred for temporary work, nomination/sponsor approval, partner and family refusals. There has been a significant decrease in lodgements of skilled and student refusals and a lesser decrease in lodgements of student cancellations.
For applicants residing in New South Wales
Lodgements
•    The proportion of MRT lodgements from applicants residing in New South Wales compared to national lodgements was 35%, up from 32% as for the same period last year.
•    For the year to date there has been a 1% decrease in the number of lodgements compared to the same time last year.
•    The top lodgement case categories for the year to date are student refusal 20% (329), partner refusal 19% (329), skilled refusal 14% (247), temporary work refusal 9% (163) and visitor refusal 8% (144).
Decisions
•    2,496 decisions have been made on MRT cases in the year to 31 October 2013; this is an increase of 74% compared to the same period last year (1,431 decisions).
•    For this period the set aside rate was 27% and the affirm rate 53%; the set aside rate was highest for visitor (57%), partner (41%) and permanent business refusals (37%).
Active caseload
•    There is an active caseload of 4,806 cases; there are 1,286 active student refusal cases and 1,142 partner refusal cases.
Processing times
•    For the year to date, the average processing time from lodgement has been six days for bridging visa refusals.
•    The average processing time for visa cancellations have improved from 353 days for the same period last year to 315 at present, and for all other MRT cases has reduced from 441 days to 402 days. The implementation of new work practices has increased decision making output and therefore improved overall processing times.
Michael Jones asked if any skills select cases had been lodged with the cases with Amanda MacDonald responding that none had. David Prince asked what type of case was heard in multiple applicant hearing lists. Louise Nicholls responded that student and skilled cases were often heard in this format and Kay Ransome added that the process was similar to hearing lists in other jurisdictions.

5.2 Refugee Review Tribunal
Senior Member Shahyay Roushan reported on the RRT caseload for the financial year to 31 October 2013.
Nationally
•    Nationally, there have been significant increases in RRT lodgements (up 17%), while decisions are up (6%) and the on-hand caseload is up (32%) this year to 31 October 2013 compared to the same period last year.
•    The current active RRT caseload constitutes 16% of the total MRT-RRT active caseload.
•    The tribunals are prioritising allocation of applications not from maritime arrivals as set out under Ministerial Direction 57 – Order of consideration for processing Protection visas.
•    Top RRT lodgements are from applicants from Sri Lanka 27% (599), China 13% (285), Iran 10% (208), India 9% (192) and Afghanistan 6% (139). Over 44% of cases lodged this year have been from maritime arrivals.
•    RRT compliance with the 90 day standard remains at 14%, with cases taking on average 231 days to decision from receipt of departmental documents.
•    The set aside rate for maritime arrival cases is 38%. The rate is 19% for all other RRT cases.
For applicants residing in New South Wales
Lodgements
•    53% of national RRT lodgements to 31 October 2013 were from applicants residing in New South Wales; this is 2% more than at the same period last year.
•    The top source countries for RRT lodgements for applicants residing in New South Wales are Sri Lanka, China, Iran, India and Lebanon and Pakistan. While Afghanistan rates fifth highest in lodgements nationally, it is twelfth in New South Wales.
Decisions
•    This financial year, 589 decisions were made on RRT reviews where the residential state of the applicant was given as New South Wales; this is an increase of 6% compared to the same period last year (554 decisions).
•    The set aside rate was 33% for maritime arrival cases and 15% for other RRT cases.
Active caseload
•    There were 1,659 active RRT cases where the residential state of the applicant was New South Wales; this was 55% of the national active RRT caseload.
Processing times
•    The average time from receipt of the departmental documents to decision was 238 calendar days; 14% of decisions were made within 90 days from receipt of departmental documents.

6. Practitioner issues
No practitioner issues were raised.

7. Other business
Geoffrey Saul from DIBP spoke about temporary protection visa policy and noted that the department was working on the mechanics of the policy. Michael Jones asked if Ministerial Direction No. 56 had required members to look differently as to how credibility is assessed. Shahyar Roushan responded that there has not been a significant impact on how members assess credibility.

8. Date of next meeting
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, 6 May 2014 from 2:00pm in the same location.  Kay Ransome thanked everyone for their attendance and contribution, and closed the meeting at 3:00pm.