Background

The travel to, entry and stay in Australia of people who are not Australian citizens is regulated by a visa system. The Migration Act 1958 and Migration Regulations 1994 provide the statutory framework for the grant and cancellation of these visas. This legislation is administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC),¹ which makes the primary decisions to grant or refuse, and to cancel visas in particular cases. Some types of decisions that are unfavourable to visa applicants or holders are reviewable.

The Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) are statutory bodies which provide independent merits review of certain general visa decisions and protection visa decisions of DIAC officers. ‘Merits review' involves administrative reconsideration of the subject matter of the case. The Tribunals have the power to affirm, vary or set aside a decision under review, remit a matter for reconsideration, or substitute a new decision.

While the Migration Act 1958 provides for the MRT and the RRT as two separate agencies, these Tribunals now operate closely together to achieve administrative efficiencies. In particular, the Principal Member and the Registrar hold dual appointments in both Tribunals. The MRT and the RRT also have joint governance arrangements, including a Joint Management Board, and became a single entity for financial management purposes in 2006.

The Tribunals have Registries in Sydney (the Principal Registry) and Melbourne. They now have shared office facilities and common support services. Review cases are considered and decided by individual Tribunal Members, with assistance from staff organised into support services and case teams. Members and staff are now cross-appointed to both Tribunals.

Performance information on case processing and decision-making is reported to Tribunal senior management and also to the Parliament, through Annual Reports. The Tribunals have had a strong focus on achieving a high volume of annual case finalisations, improving the timeliness of case processing, and meeting case productivity targets set for Tribunal Members.

Client services provided by the Tribunals include forms and guidance for review applicants; Registry operations to process applications and to support the conduct of hearings into review cases; and complaints handling mechanisms to deal with applicants dissatisfied with service provision. Tribunal service charters have set out service commitments for client services.

Audit objective and scope

The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the Tribunals' management of their operations. To this end, the audit examined whether the MRT and the RRT:

• have achieved intended operational efficiencies from the introduction of common facilities, services and resourcing;
• have established appropriate arrangements for governance, business planning and guidance of Members and staff, and for performance monitoring and reporting of Tribunal operations;
• finalise cases within Tribunal time and productivity standards; and
• provide applicants with services in accordance with service standards.

The audit covered Tribunal operations for review of visa decisions. The correctness of individual decisions was not assessed as part of the audit.

The audit focused particularly on developments in the Tribunals' management performance in the four year period from 2001–02 to 2004–05.

Overall Audit Conclusion

The ANAO concluded that the MRT and the RRT were effectively managing their operations.

The Tribunals successfully implemented a series of proposals since 2001 to achieve operational efficiencies from the introduction of common facilities, services and resourcing. However, efficiency gains achieved from these initiatives were not clearly assessed.

The Tribunals also established sound governance arrangements for their operations, through the establishment of joint management structures, the development of risk management and fraud control plans, and an improved funding arrangement with Finance.

The Tribunals had in place an adequate set of performance indicators to monitor and report on their case processing and decision making performance. However, their actual performance results from 2001–02 to 2004–05 were mixed. Annual case finalisations were above target in most years, but the Tribunals did not meet targets for case processing times and Member productivity in 2004–05.

Applicants had access to a range of services, including forms and guidance, interpreter and other assistance for clients with particular service needs, and complaints handling mechanisms. While the Tribunals had service standards in their service charters, they did not adequately report against them in their Annual Reports.

The ANAO identified scope for the Tribunals to improve management performance in several areas, particularly by strengthening operational planning and the design and reporting of performance information, and by enhancing client service communication, delivery and assessment.

In particular, the Tribunals' capability in the planning and coordination of future organisation change and in the monitoring and reporting on ongoing performance would be improved by the development of an annual operational plan and the preparation of an annual performance information framework.

Clearer reporting of the Tribunals' performance results against targets or previous results, and the relative contribution of the Tribunals to overall decision-making in relation to general and protection visas, would strengthen the accountability of the Tribunals. Internal management reporting would also be enhanced by the introduction of an overarching ‘balanced scorecard'-type management report covering all major aspects of case processing.

There are opportunities for the Tribunals to enhance various aspects of client services, to improve service performance and to assess service quality. In particular, the wider promotion of the Tribunals' new service charter would help increase review applicants' awareness of their rights as well as their responsibilities. The conduct of regular surveys of applicants and their representatives would also provide the Tribunals with useful information on their satisfaction with services and desire for particular service improvements.

The ANAO made five recommendations in relation to the areas for improvement mentioned above. The Tribunals agreed with all five recommendations.

Key Findings

Operational alignment of the Tribunals (Chapter 2)

Since 2001, the Tribunals have progressively aligned their operations. They now operate administratively as a single organisation, through joint governance arrangements; integrated corporate management and research functions which service both Tribunals; co located Registries in Sydney and Melbourne, and cross-appointed Members and staff.

The Tribunals effectively planned and managed the implementation of efficiency initiatives, in accordance with Government intentions for closer cooperation between the Tribunals to achieve administrative efficiencies. Proposals identified by the Tribunals to align their operations were successfully implemented during the period from 2001–02 to 2004–05. However, efficiency gains achieved from these initiatives were not clearly assessed. The Tribunals could enhance their accountability for the management of future major initiatives, through improved reporting on the achievement of planned objectives and the extent of realisation of efficiencies from such initiatives.

Governance, risk assessment, planning, resourcing and guidance (Chapter 3)

The governance arrangements of the Tribunals for case processing and case decision-making operations were sound in most respects. In particular, the Tribunals' management structures were operating satisfactorily, and appropriate arrangements for consultation with stakeholders were in place. A risk management plan and a fraud control plan had been developed to deal with risks to operations. The Tribunals' funding arrangement with Finance had been based on solid preparatory work, and provided the Tribunals with a more assured resourcing base than had existed under previous agreements.

The Tribunals had a new joint corporate plan that included appropriate elements, albeit at a high level. However, the Tribunals did not have a separate annual operational plan for their business activities and initiatives. The development of an annual operational plan and the preparation of an annual performance information framework would enhance the Tribunals' capability to plan and assign responsibilities for business initiatives and to monitor and report on performance.

The Tribunals had in place a wide range of operational policies and procedural guidance, to assist Members in case processing and decision making. Key guidelines covered the general conduct of reviews and arrangements for the allocation of casework to Members. A Code of Conduct also set out the ethical standards expected of Members in the course of their appointment. On-line guidance on case processing procedures is now available to Registry staff who previously did not have authoritative and up-to-date guidelines. Notwithstanding these positive features of Tribunal procedural guidance, Members and staff would benefit from the issue of an overview guide which described the various types of guidance in force.

Performance indicators (Chapter 4)

The Tribunals had an adequate set of performance indicators for measuring their case processing and decision making performance. The indicators were published in their PBS, set out in their funding agreement with Finance, specified in operational policies or contained in management reports.

These performance indicators provided coverage of the main aspects of the Tribunals' operational performance. These aspects included: the cost of operations; the volume of case finalisations; unit cost targets; case processing priorities; and the timeliness of case processing. The productivity of Members; the level and outcome of judicial reviews; and the level of complaints from review applicants and their representatives were also covered.

Consistent with sound business practice, targets were set for a number of these performance indicators, including the cost of operations; case finalisations; unit costs; processing times; and Members' productivity. However, there was scope to set targets or other bases for comparison for other performance indicators, such as complaints and appeals against decisions. Additional targets would provide the Tribunals with a clearer basis for assessing their business performance and the quality of services provided to applicants.

Most targets were reviewed on at least an annual basis. However, time targets for MRT cases had not been reviewed for at least five years. Most MRT time targets were also set at unrealistic levels, and there would be merit in the MRT setting more achievable, interim time targets, for at least the short term.

Targets for case finalisations and unit costs had been prepared by the Tribunals, having regard to factors such as trends in case lodgements; the increasing complexity of caseload; and the establishment costs of major Tribunal initiatives. However, there was not adequate analysis of trends in the complexity of national caseload and Member productivity performance, in operational policies setting out productivity targets for the Tribunals.

At a strategic level, the Tribunals' outcomes and outputs frameworks which were set out in their PBS required strengthening. The Tribunals' current effectiveness indicator for measuring their contribution to outcomes was not clearly defined, and sufficiently comprehensive performance indicators by which their contribution could be measured had not been identified. The Tribunal ‘set aside' rate of DIAC/DIMA decisions could be used as one effectiveness indicator, additional to the outcome of judicial review of Tribunal decisions, for assessing the Tribunals' contribution to correct and preferable visa-related decisions. In addition, targets or other bases for comparison for all quality indicators for the Tribunals' outputs should be published in their PBS, to reinforce the commitment of the Tribunals to improved service delivery and to assist PBS users to assess the Tribunals' actual operational performance.

Reporting on performance (Chapter 5)

The Tribunals report externally on their performance each year, mainly through their Annual Reports. A range of performance information is provided on their case processing operations, including some information relating to performance indicators in their outcomes and outputs frameworks.

The Tribunals did not effectively use their Annual Reports to report on the impact of their outputs-independent merits review of visa related decisions-on desired outcomes, and their relative contribution to outcomes. A stronger Tribunal focus on the reporting of the effectiveness of Tribunal performance in terms of outcomes is crucial, for accountability purposes.

The Tribunal Annual Reports included considerable information on their output performance results and made extensive use of charts and tables, to present this information for report users. However, there is scope to strengthen the quality of several areas of Tribunal performance reporting. Performance results, such as case finalisation and case timeliness performance, were not reported against PBS targets which were specified in their outcomes and outputs frameworks. More analysis of factors which had affected performance results in the current year would assist report users to interpret the Tribunals' operational performance. In addition, the Tribunals did not clearly articulate through their Annual Reports whether output performance had been satisfactory, relative to targets or previous performance results. As a result, Annual Report users would not obtain a clear and comprehensive view of Tribunal operational performance from the information provided.

For internal management purposes, the Tribunals had a structured set of internal reports, which were provided to senior management each month. This frequency of reporting met the performance needs of the Tribunals. The reports covered most relevant areas and aspects of Tribunal performance, including case processing volumes, case outcomes, and processing timeliness. However, the utility of internal reporting would be strengthened by introducing a ‘balanced scorecard'-type management report, which would provide Tribunal senior management with a concise overview of all major aspects of case processing. This type of overarching management report is a widely accepted business tool for highlighting areas of less satisfactory operational performance which require timely management action. In addition, the adoption of common formats, across both Tribunals and both Registries, for all management reports on particular areas of performance would help Tribunal management to interpret performance trends.

The Tribunals achieved mixed performance results in a number of areas from 2001–02 to 2004–05. Actual case finalisations were above target in most years, but unit costs were generally outside targets. Over the same period, the processing times of finalised cases improved, and the age of cases on hand was reduced. Notwithstanding these improvements, the Tribunals did not meet their time targets for case processing in 2004–05. The processing of permanent business visa refusals and student cancellations, where processing times had not improved since 2001–02, particularly required management attention.

Tribunal Member productivity was below target in 2004–05, especially for the MRT. The lower productivity of Members who commenced on MRT casework during the year contributed to the MRT performance result. There would be merit in setting a series of graduated productivity targets for such Members, who require time to become as productive as experienced Members.

Client services to applicants (Chapter 6)

Tribunal client services included the provision of forms and supporting guidance to help applicants and their representatives to lodge review applications; the operation of Registries to process applications and to support the conduct of hearings into review cases; and the availability of complaints handling mechanisms to deal with applicants dissatisfied with service provision. Tribunal service commitments for their range of client services were set out in service charters issued in 2001 and updated in 2006.

Notwithstanding the considerable changes to Tribunal operations since 2001, the service charters were not reviewed and updated at regular intervals. The Tribunals also did not consult openly with client and community stakeholders in the course of preparing their new joint charter. Periodic future review of the charter in consultation with stakeholders would help ensure that it remains relevant to clients.

The Tribunals promoted the messages of their previous charters to applicants, Members and staff, by a variety of means. However, there would be benefit in the Tribunals pursuing some further means of informing clients about the charter, including mail-outs of a brochure to all applicants and the display of charter signage in client areas of Registries. Increased promotion of the charter would increase awareness of client rights and responsibilities.

Although the Tribunals were required to report on their service performance against service standards contained in their charters, this had not been done for most service standards in recent Annual Reports. It would be appropriate for the Tribunals to give more attention to performance reporting against client service standards in future Annual Reports. This would help the Tribunals to identify areas of client service in need of improvement, as well as to meet accountability obligations to report against their service standards.

The Tribunals' new charter covered the key requirements of service charters. However, one service commitment in the new charter which the Tribunals could more effectively implement was the publication of time standards for Tribunal case finalisations in a format which would be easier for clients to access and read. This should be addressed as a matter of priority.

Application forms were used by the Tribunals to obtain the information from applicants needed to process their review cases. The Tribunals had a structured approach to the most recent redesign of MRT forms. However, the inclusion of explanatory guidance on the forms; the closer linkage of form sections and supporting guidance; and further changes to the structure and the format of the forms, would make it easier for applicants to complete the forms.

The Tribunals' Registries in Sydney and Melbourne provided full Tribunal client services to applicants, while AAT Registries in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth assisted with the receipt of MRT applications and provided administrative support for Tribunal hearings in those cities. Various services and facilities were provided to clients with particular service needs. In particular, the Tribunals provided interpreter assistance at hearings to applicants who had little or no English language proficiency.

Tribunal complaints handling mechanisms provided avenues for applicants to raise their dissatisfaction with services, including the conduct of hearings. The issuance of more comprehensive guidance on complaints handling would make these mechanisms more effective. More systematic feedback to Tribunal Members on the lessons learned from complaints handling would also help them to improve their future service performance.

Regular surveys of applicants and their representatives were not undertaken by the Tribunals to assess their satisfaction with services and desire for particular service improvements. Client surveys are recognised as being a very useful means of obtaining feedback on service quality issues.

Tribunal's response to the audit

The Tribunals provided the following summary response.

The ANAO's conclusion that the Tribunals were effectively managing their operations is pleasing to note in the light of historic changes in the administrative structures, operations and work practices being experienced in the Tribunals during and since the audit. The conduct of the audit has provided benefits to the Tribunals by assisting them to identify ways to strengthen their capacity to plan, report and communicate more effectively with stakeholders. It provided a sound basis for the Tribunals to make improvements in the areas identified and in the planning and coordination of future organisational change.

The Tribunals agree with all five recommendations made by the ANAO and are taking action to implement them.

Footnotes

1 Prior to 30 January 2007, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA). Where appropriate in the audit report, the abbreviation DIAC/DIMA is used.