Job Title: GAZ – APS5 – ACT/NSW/VIC/QLD/SA – Compliance Assessment Officer
Word Limit: Provide a maximum 2000 character response to each question
Location: ACT/NSW/VIC/QLD/SA
Strategic Thinking – give us an example of a time when you have balanced the need to complete urgent, but less important tasks with the need to progress more significant but less pressing projects
In my current position as a Visa Processing Officer I am required to complete approximately twenty-five cases per week in line with key performance indicators. Each week I provide a report to my supervisors advising of my caseloads and availability. If I have a number of total case management model (TCM) cases which require in-depth investigation I request less cases to enable me to process my investigations and ongoing case load. If I have identified I only have communal case management (CCM) cases I request additional cases.
While processing a Partner Visa Application I identified anomalies with the identity documents of the applicant. I contacted the relevant overseas entity and they confirmed these documents were fraudulent and had been doctored from the original documents. We were therefore unable to establish the identity of the applicant. I contacted the Identity Referral Team to discuss the concerns we had with these documents. Their advice was that as we were unable to confirm the identity of the applicant we were to refuse the visa application as per the Migration Act 1958 – Public Interest Criteria 4020.
I contacted the applicant with natural justice and advised them of our findings and decision. The applicant provided a response and the application was again refused. They were advised of their rights to request a review within twenty-one days through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This case took three months to assess and finalise.
While progressing this application I was required to complete applications for CCM cases. Being aware of processing timeframes I set calendar reminders in outlook to review the case and progress information or follow-up on outstanding requests as needed. This enabled me to complete ongoing work while also remaining focussed on this task. At any time I can have multiple applications requiring in-depth investigation and have found the use of reminders invaluable in keeping focused on long-term workload.
Productive Working Relationships and Achieves Results – tell us about a time when you were responsible for the allocation of tasks and the negotiation of responsibility, and worked in an inclusive way with colleagues towards a particular goal
During a team building activity to create a mode of transportation to protect Australia’s waters the branch was separated into individual teams and asked to elect a team leader. I was nominated by the team to be the team leader.
I was responsible for allocating each team member to their positions within the team. The positions were instructor, deliverer, and builder. I made an initial list of who I thought would excel in each area and then discussed this with the team and provided the opportunity for them to negotiate their assigned task based on their relevant skills.
We were required to build a Lego structure with limited instruction and information. The instructor was given one piece of the instruction at a time, they could view this instruction once and were then required to draw this and convey to me what was required. I would then advise the deliverer which piece was required and would give this to the builder to build that portion of the structure. Instructors could only speak to other instructors, deliverers could only speak to other deliverers, and builders could only speak to other builders.
As the team leader I was the only person who was able to communicate with all team members, other team leaders and the judges. The judges would provide tips to the team leaders about the project requirement but we were unable to request further clarification. It was from these communications I was required to convey to relevant team members what the task was and ensure that progression was occurring and the structure was being built.
When the structure was completed we were required to present this to the judges and give a sales pitch regarding how this would be used to protect Australian waters. The judges then judged how well the mode of transportation was put together and met the key objective. My team won and I was given special mention for what was seen to be the best communication mode between my own team members and other team leaders.
Displays Personal Drive and Integrity – tell us about a time when you have had to make an assessment of the accuracy of two competing perspectives or contradictory sources of information
In processing an application for a partner visa an allegation was received from the public that the relationship was not a genuine relationship and was only there for the purpose of gaining citizenship to Australia, the applicant was in a relationship with another person, and the sponsor was being paid a large sum of money to support the application for citizenship.
Requirements of the application are that an applicant and sponsor must be in a genuine and continuing relationship to the exclusion of all others and that neither party is being forced to facilitate the relationship via monetary payment.
I undertook the following steps in my investigation of this allegation: contacted the applicant and sponsor by phone and conducted a phone interview; and contacted the Bona Fides Unit (BFU) and arranged for them to conduct a face-to-face interview at the addresses listed in the application and allegation. My phone interview provided inconsistencies but not enough to refuse the application. The BFU were able to conclude that the applicant and sponsor were living permanently at separate addresses and with separate spouses. Based on this information I was able to give credibility to the allegation.
I provided the applicant with natural justice and gave them the opportunity to respond. In the response provided by the applicant, the applicant was unable to appropriately explain the allegations which had been presented to them. My assessment was that the allegation was credible and I was able to conclude that the spouse and sponsor were not in a genuine relationship and were facilitating and contriving a relationship to gain residency for the applicant. The application was refused based on this evidence. Once the final assessment was made the applicant was informed of the decision to refuse the visa and was provided the opportunity to request a review of this decision through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal within twenty-one days.
Communicates with Influence and Displays Professional Proficiency – tell us about a time when you have been responsible for checking or reviewing the accuracy of work completed by someone else and providing feedback to them
I was nominated as a delegated decision maker to provide quality assurance (QA) on a streamline project undertaken by lower level staff members. This project was created to fast track the assessment of applications identified as low risk. Lower level staff were trained to make an initial assessment on these applications which would later be passed to a delegated decision maker to review the assessment notes in order to accelerate the assessment process.
I performed QA on three staff members for approximately thirty cases in total. The process I followed to undertake this task included: making my own assessment of the application; comparing my assessment notes against the assessment notes of the reviewer; investigating any inconsistencies and making appropriate notes on discrepancies; noting if this was a repetitive or major mistake; and noting any outstanding documentation or information which wasn’t met in the initial application and needed to be requested from the applicant.
When I had finalised my QA I provided feedback to management and processing officers. Anything which was identified as a processing or training error I provided individual feedback to the processing officer. Errors which were consistent throughout the group or were a training error I brought to the attention of the Managers as identification of an additional training requirement. I identified errors in assessments by individual officers, a recurring error in the information communicated during training, and an error in a template which was used by processing officers.
On completion of this project I was thanked by management for my involvement and asked to conduct the training as identified. An example of training I was asked to provide was in relation to the Migration Act 1958 – Public Interest Criteria 4001 – Character Assessment of an Applicant – specifically relating to police checks.
