Christopher Levingston Blog

For about 5 years now I have been locked into a struggle with the Permanent Partner Processing Centre in Victoria.

The opening shots in that battle started in a family violence case when my client received a telephone call from the then Independent Experts (IE) saying that an interview had been scheduled. Needless to say I rang the case officer only to be told that he was not satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to enliven the "family violence exception" and it was on that basis that the matter had been referred to the IE. When I remonstrated with the Officer concerned and requested access to the referral, I was denied access and also denied access under FOI. I have had that experience a number of times now and the relevant officers have without exception been relatively senior and very experienced.

In each case when the applications have been refused and the matters have gone to the MRT, I have had access to the referral generated by the case officer to the IE and in each case the referral has denied the applicant natural justice, DIBP has concealed material facts and sought by inference and smear to direct the IE to a finding adverse to the Applicant.

Little wonder they refuse access, little wonder they do not give notice of an intention to refer the matter, little wonder they deny the client natural justice.

What we do know that if the matter was at the MRT then the requisite lack of satisfaction  and the intention to refer the matter to an IE is classed as an "administrative decision" and is sufficient to enliven an enforceable obligation on the part of the MRT to issue a section 359A letter before referring the matter to the IE. This was decided in the High Court in SOK's case.

DIBP tells me that SOK's case does not require them to do the same.

Now is this an aberration or is something wrong with the Permanent Partner Processing Centre in Victoria?

Their latest craze is to assert that they are not satisfied as to the paternity of an Australian citizen child in the context of a spouse application. When I drew their attention to the legal presumptions of paternity in Section 69 of the Family Law Act they went quiet on me.

I have no less that 3 cases running at the moment with this "requirement'.

In the most recent case when we asked for FOI and pointed out that we were being denied natural justice we got the file under FOI but all of the material which was said to be prejudicial was excluded. However shortly after that we received an "invitation to comment" which recited in chapter and verse the reasons why it was requested that the client undertake DNA testing.

Now it is obvious that DIBP had all of that information before they asked the client to do DNA testing.

If that is correct why didn't they tell us that before they tried to get the client to do the DNA testing?

Was it a trap?

I have just written to DIBP Melbourne and asked them why they did not disclose this adverse information earlier but in any event before the request for DNA testing.  I have asked whether they understood the principles under pinning good administrative decision making and whether they were being open, honest and transparent in their dealings with clients?

Who are these people?

What is wrong with this unit?

Is there some ' adversarial culture" of  secrecy, stonewalling and denial in operation here?

Who is responsible for this attitude and conduct?

Is this best practice and is it in accordance with the Public Service Code of Conduct.

Does anyone know?

Christopher Levingston