There have been many negative auditor-general reports about the Department of Immigration and its successor, Home Affairs, over the past decade, along with an array of highly critical independent reviews and inquiries.
Yesterday’s report from the Australian National Audit Office on the department’s regulation of migration agents might seem just another “scathing” review about one small aspect of the mega-department’s operations. But it shows a major department, with serious responsibilities, as shambolic and incapable of performing even the simplest tasks.
If every area of Home Affairs was subjected to a performance audit like that conducted by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (OMARA) in this report, what would the result be? How many other areas across its huge expanse of operations would be found to be unable to do the most basic bureaucratic tasks?
“Home Affairs’ regulation of migration agents is not effective” is the headline conclusion by the auditor-general. Not “partially effective” or “largely effective”. Just, not effective. At all. This isn’t about a department getting a few things wrong, and most right, or a lot of things wrong, and a few right. It’s about bureaucrats who aren’t doing anything right.
Beneath the headlines there are some extraordinary revelations. The true import isn’t apparent to people who haven’t worked inside the Australian Public Service. To those who have, they are gobsmacking.
For instance:
- OMARA auto-renews any registered migration agent who sends in an application before the expiry of their registration; if no decision is made about the new application, they are “deemed” to be registered. As a result, multiple agents “for which there are serious integrity concerns”, including allegations of criminal conduct, were automatically renewed: “40% of the agents identified by the department as suspected of facilitation of criminal enterprise have had their registration applications ‘deemed’ [to be successful]”.
- OMARA frequently rejected complaints against migration agents without bothering to seek any information, using the extensive powers it has to do so. Numerous agents suspected of being involved in criminal enterprises simply went uninvestigated. In one instance:
an agent’s applications for registration and re-registration had been approved annually between 2005 and 2022 (although on four occasions the applications were ‘deemed’ to have been approved …). Between 2006 and 2019, 15 complaints had been made against the agent, including allegations related to undeclared assistance and misrepresentation. The department stated in a brief to the minister for immigration, citizenship and multicultural affairs in November 2022 that ‘All 16 [sic] complaints were investigated and dismissed, due mainly to insufficient evidence’. In the matter/s covered in the brief, the department had not issued notices under sections 305C or 308 of the Migration Act to require the RMA to provide information … The department did not advise the minister that it had not used the powers available to it.
- OMARA pretty much ceased using its powers to monitor agent conduct in 2017, with only a brief burst of monitoring in 2019-20.
- “The Department of Home Affairs does not take appropriate action to use the regulatory powers available to it to sanction migration agents. The department’s reporting on its use of regulatory powers has been inaccurate, overstating the extent to which it has acted. Home Affairs is taking sanction action against fewer agents, and the threshold required — in terms of complaints — is increasing.”
- For nine months in 2016-17, OMARA staff didn’t have any lawful authority to exercise its powers. It had simply been left off the relevant instrument of delegation. But it was okay, it advised the then minister — it was only a problem if anyone challenged OMARA’s actions in court. But just in case, it was going to not do too much until a new instrument was approved.
- Departments often fail to keep all their paperwork updated. OMARA, however, took this to a new level. It hadn’t bothered to do the “statement of expectations” required for every agency and its minister. Its compliance plan and procedural handbooks were five years out of date when the ANAO showed up, despite big changes to migration law at that time. Its compliance and performance reporting is also abysmal.
Remember, this is the sector that played a role in the way the Coalition lost control of Australia’s borders to visa scammers and fake refugee applicants. It should have been under intense scrutiny. But there is literally no aspect of OMARA’s operations that was done properly: the framework within which it was supposed to operate didn’t exist or was outdated; it didn’t use its powers to investigate complaints; it didn’t vet applicants; it didn’t use its powers to monitor agents; it didn’t use its powers to sanction agents; it didn’t report properly; and it misled its minister.
Note that these weaknesses have been identified over a long period — from Peter Dutton and David Coleman’s time right up to under the current ministers, Clare O’Neil and Andrew Giles. This isn’t about politicians — although the Coalition’s tolerance for former Home Affairs head Mike Pezzullo despite constant revelations about the incompetence of bureaucrats in his departments is surely a contributing factor. These are public servants who can’t or won’t do their job. The idea that they are atypical doesn’t stand up given the incessant reports and inquiries that reveal how bad Home Affairs is.
Business as usual at Home Affairs can’t continue — or those reports and inquiries will, no matter who is in government.
Should Home Affairs be dismantled? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
