Rebikoff, Stephen --- "Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf: One door closed, another opened?" [2001] FedLawRw 23; (2001) 29(3) Federal Law Review 453
* BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (ANU). I am grateful to John Gibson, Michael Mathieson and Katie Fraser for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. The opinions expressed, and any errors, are my own[.]
1 [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1 ('Yusuf').
[2] See Mary Crock, 'Of Fortress Australia and Castles in the Air: The High Court and the Judicial Review of Migration Decisions' [2000] MelbULawRw 6; (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 190.
[3] [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469.
[4] In relation to Part 8, see Mary Crock, 'Judicial Review and Part 8 of the Migration Act: Necessary Reform or Overkill?' [1996] SydLawRw 14; (1996) 18 Sydney Law Review 267, and Mary Crock, Immigration and Refugee Law in Australia (1998) ch 13. It should be noted that Part 8 has now been substantially amended by the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Act 2001 (Cth) ('the Judicial Review Act'), which replaces 'judicially reviewable' decisions with a new scheme of 'privative clause' decisions that cannot be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed or called into question in any court. Unless otherwise specified, this comment, which was written before the amendments occasioned by the Judicial Review Act came into operation on 2 October 2001, addresses the Act as it stood prior to its amendment.
[5] [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510 ('Abebe').
[6] [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611 ('Eshetu').
[7] In relation to Abebe and Eshetu, see Crock, above n 2. In relation to the ongoing dispute between the Federal Court and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs over the scope of Part 8, see John MacMillan, 'Federal Court v Minister for Immigration' [1999] AIAdminLawF 8; (1999) 22 AIAL Forum 1.
[8] Thirukkumar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 864, [27] (Heerey J).
[9] [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 179 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
[10] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 22[83] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[11] Margaret Allars, Administrative Law: Cases and Commentary (1997), 674. See also Chris Finn, 'Jurisdictional Error: Craig v South Australia' (1996) 3 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 177. Cf Mark Aronson and Bruce Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd ed, 2000), 171-172.
[12] See Geoff Airo-Farulla, 'Rationality and Judicial Review of Administrative Action' [2000] MelbULawRw 23; (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 543.
[13] See above n.4
[14] Compare the decisions of the Full Court in Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469 (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ, Kiefel J dissenting) and Xu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1741; (1999) 95 FCR 425 (Whitlam and Gyles JJ). For a full discussion of this issue, see John Basten QC, 'Judicial Review: Recent Trends' (2001) 29 F L Review Forthcoming.
[15] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf, Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Yusuf, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Israelian, Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Israelian.
[16] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [1999] FCA 1681; (1999) 95 FCR 506 (Heerey, Merkel and Goldberg JJ) and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Israelian [1999] FCA 649 (Einfeld and North JJ, Emmett J dissenting).
[17] Decisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Migration Review Tribunal were defined as 'judicially-reviewable decisions' in s 475 of the Act. This regime has now been replaced by the Judicial Review Act. See above n 4.
[18] The High Court's original jurisdiction under s 75 is constitutionally entrenched, and cannot be abrogated by an Act of Parliament. To the extent that it purports to oust judicial review, therefore, the constitutional validity of the Judicial Review Act is open to question. See Colin Campbell, 'An Examination of the Provisions of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997 Purporting to Limit Judicial Review' (1998) 5 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 135 for a full discussion of the issues raised by the Judicial Review Act.
[19] See Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 25-6 [103] (Kirby J).
[20] See ss 36(2) and 65 of the Act and reg 2.03, Sch 2, cl 866.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
[21] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954); Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967). Article 1A(2) of the Convention defines a refugee as any person who:
'owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country'.
[22] It is well established that past events are relevant in determining whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution in the future: see Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, 387 (Mason CJ) and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; (1997) 191 CLR 559, 575 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
[23] Yusuf v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1053 (Finn J).
[24] Ibid [27].
[25] Section 430(1) of the Act provides:
Where the Tribunal makes its decision on a review, the Tribunal must prepare a written statement that:
- sets out the decision of the Tribunal on the review; and
- sets out the reasons for the decision; and
- sets out the findings on any material questions of fact; and
- refers to the evidence or any other material on which the findings of fact were based.
[26] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [1999] FCA 1681; (1999) 95 FCR 506 (Heerey, Merkel and Goldberg JJ).
[27] Ibid 510 [12]. The Full Court cited Muralidharan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1996] FCA 1342; (1996) 62 FCR 402, 413-416; Paramananthan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1693; (1998) 94 FCR 28, 31, 35-36, 42, 53, 70; Logenthiran v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1691; Hughes v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 325; (1999) 86 FCR 567; Perampalam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 165; (1999) 84 FCR 274; Sellamuthu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 247; (1999) 90 FCR 287; V v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 428; (1999) 92 FCR 355; Thevendram v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 182; Borsa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 348, [26], [27]; and Addo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 940.
[28] It is well established that to amount to persecution, punishment must involve discriminatory conduct: Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, 388 (Mason CJ), 429-430 (McHugh J); Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22; (1997) 191 CLR 559, 570 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] HCA 19; (2000) 201 CLR 293..
[29] Israelian v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 447 (R D Nicholson J).
[30] Ibid [13] (R D Nicholson J).
[31] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Israelian [1999] FCA 649 (Einfeld and North JJ, Emmett J dissenting).
[32] Ibid [6] (Einfeld and North JJ).
[33] Ibid [35] (Emmett J).
[34] [1999] FCA 1741; (1999) 95 FCR 425 (Whitlam, R D Nicholson and Gyles JJ) ('Xu').
[35] Whitlam and Gyles JJ. R D Nicholson J did not consider it necessary to express a view on the issue.
[36] Xu [1999] FCA 1741; (1999) 95 FCR 425, 432 [20] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid 437[32] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[39] Ibid 437-438[33] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[40] Ibid 437[32] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid 438[36] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[43] Ibid 437-8[33].
[44] [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469 (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ, Kiefel J dissenting) ('Singh').
[45] Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ.
[46] Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 478[34] (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ).
[47] Ibid 481[48].
[48] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 50[204] (Callinan J).
[49] Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 491-2[92] (Kiefel J) (citations omitted).
[50] Ibid 493[100] (Kiefel J).
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid 494[102] (Kiefel J).
[54] [1985] HCA 10; (1985) 155 CLR 422, 445-446 (Brennan J). See also Comcare Australia v Lees [1997] FCA 1415; (1997) 151 ALR 647, 656-659 (Finkelstein J).
[55] Hereafter denoting Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
[56] Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 481[48] (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ).
[57] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 17[68] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] [1985] HCA 10; (1985) 155 CLR 422, 445-446 (Brennan J).
[61] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 17-18[69] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). See also Sullivan v Department of Transport [1978] FCA 48; (1978) 20 ALR 323, 348-349 (Deane J), 353 (Fisher J).
[62] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 17[69] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[63] Ibid.
[64] See also ibid 10 [35] (Gaudron J).
[65] Ibid 19 [73] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[66] See Xu [1999] FCA 1741; (1999) 95 FCR 425, 436[28], 439-40[38] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ); Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 491-2[92]-[93] (Kiefel J, dissenting).
[67] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 20[77] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[68] Ibid 19[74] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[69] Ibid 5[10] (Gleeson CJ).
[70] Ibid 4-5[7] (Gleeson CJ).
[71] See text below n 81 and following.
[72] See, especially 10-11[34]-[35] of her Honour's judgment.
[73] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 54[217] (Callinan J).
[74] Citing Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 and Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250, [22] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, and Callinan JJ).
[75] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 52[211] (Callinan J).
[76] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 32-33[130] (Kirby J).
[77] Ibid [112] (Kirby J), citing Liversidge v Anderson [1941] UKHL 1; [1942] AC 206.
[78] [1941] UKHL 1; [1942] AC 206, 245 (Atkin LJ), citing Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass, ch vi (emphasis in original):
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'
[79] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 34[137] (Kirby J), citing Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 482[57] (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ).
[80] Ibid 20[78] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[81] Section 476(1)(b).
[82] Section 476(1)(c).
[83] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 21[79] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[84] Ibid.
[85] Section 476(1)(d).
[86] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 21[80] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). See also Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 10[31] (Gaudron J).
[87] [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
[88] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 21[82] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[89] Craig [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 179 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
[90] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 22[83] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[91] Ibid 22[84] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[92] Ibid 21-22[82] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ). Significantly, here they cited Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 176 ALR 219. See text at n 136 and following, below.
[93] Ibid.
[94] See Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 21-22[82]-[84] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[95] Ibid 22[84] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[96] Ibid 21-22[82] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[97] See particularly, ibid 10[31] and 11-12[38]-[44] (Gaudron J).
[98] Ibid 11-12[39]–[44] (Gaudron J). The test for constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction is whether the tribunal has committed a mistake of law which causes it 'to misunderstand the nature of the jurisdiction which it is to exercise, and to apply "a wrong and inadmissible test", or to "misconceive its duty", or "not to apply itself to the question which the law prescribes", or "to misunderstand the nature of the opinion which it is to form."' Ex parte Hebburn Ltd; Re Kearsley Shire Council (1947) SR (NSW) 416, 420 (Jordan CJ) (citations omitted). See also R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council [1981] HCA 74; (1981) 151 CLR 170, 267-268 (Aickin J); Re Coldham; Ex parte Brideson [1989] HCA 2; (1989) 166 CLR 338, 350 (Wilson, Deane and Gaudron JJ); Public Service Association (SA) v Federated Clerks' Union [1991] HCA 33; (1991) 173 CLR 132, 143-144 (Brennan J); and Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 174 ALR 585, 594[31] (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ). The approach to an excess of jurisdiction is the same.
[99] Ibid.
[100] See text above n 68, above.
[101] Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Callinan, Hayne JJ.
[102] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 23[90] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[103] Ibid 23[91] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[104] Ibid 13[49] (Gaudron J).
[105] Ibid 13[50] (Gaudron J).
[106] Ibid.
[107] Ibid 24[95] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[108] Ibid.
[109] Ibid 24[96] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[110] Ibid 24-25[97] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[111] Ibid 14[55] (Gaudron J). Gleeson CJ agreed with McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ. Kirby J and Callinan J both based their conclusions on their view of the proper interpretation of s 430 and s 476(1)(a)—Kirby J would have dismissed each appeal, Callinan J would have allowed each appeal.
[112] Ibid 14[56] (Gaudron J), 23-24[92], [97] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ), 45[184] (Kirby J), 55[221], 60[248] (Callinan J).
[113] [2001] FCA 1036 (Weinberg J).
[114] Ibid [44]. Gyles J's view has also been upheld in Chhour v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 911 (Weinberg J) and Capa v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 898 (Hely J).
[115] [2001] FCA 746, [15] (Gyles J).
[116] The writ of certiorari, which the High Court has held is also available under s 75(v), does not require jurisdictional error but will issue for error of law on the face of the record: R v Northumberland Compensation Appeal Tribunal; ex parte Shaw [1951] EWCA Civ 1; [1952] KB 338.
[117] See Airo-Farulla, above n 12, 551.
[118] See Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 177-178; Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 174 ALR 585, [82] (Kirby J).
[119] Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1968] UKHL 6; [1969] 2 AC 147 and R v Hull University Visitor; ex parte Page [1992] UKHL 12; [1993] AC 682.
[120] The High Court has affirmed the existence of the distinction in R v Gray; ex parte Marsh [1985] HCA 67; (1985) 157 CLR 351; Hockey v Yelland (1986) 159 CLR 656; Public Service Association (SA) v Federated Clerks' Union (SA) [1991] HCA 33; (1991) 173 CLR 132 and most recently in Re Refugee Review Tribunal; ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 75 ALJR 52 and Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Miah (2001) 179 ALR 238, though cf ibid [212] (Kirby J).
[121] [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ) ('Craig').
[122] Ibid 178.
[123] [1968] UKHL 6; [1969] 2 AC 147.
[124] Ibid 171.
[125] Craig [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 178 (Brennan, Deane, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ).
[126] Ibid 179. The High Court cited Lord Diplock in Re Racal Communications Ltd [1980] UKHL 5; [1981] AC 374, 383.
[127] Ibid. This is the passage that was quoted by McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Yusuf.
[128] The distinction has now also been abolished in relation to courts. See R v Hull University Visitor; ex parte Page [1992] UKHL 12; [1993] AC 682. Curiously, in rejecting the abolition of the distinction the High Court's decision makes no reference to Hull.
[129] See Allars, above n 11, and Finn, above n 11.
[130] See Aronson and Dyer, above n 11, 170-172. Also Returned & Services League of Australia (Victorian Sub-branch) Inc v Liquor Licensing Commission [1999] VSCA 37, [27]; Hartley v O'Loughlin [1999] VSC 138, [28] and CFMEU v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [1999] FCA 847; (1999) 164 ALR 73, 94-97[63]-[74]. Cf Edwards v Guidice [1999] FCA 1836 (Finkelstein J).
[131] Aronson and Dyer, above n 11, 172, citing Re Bennett-Borlase; ex parte Commissioner of Police (unreported, WA Sup Ct, Full Ct, 20 June 1997); Re Robbins; ex parte West Australian Newspapers Ltd [1999] WASCA 16; and Re Real Estate and Business Agents Supervisory Board; ex parte Cohen [1999] WASCA 47, [19].
[132] See Aronson and Dyer, above n 11, 167-172.
[133] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 21[82] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[134] See Allars, above n 11, 458.
[135] Airo-Farulla, above n 12, 557.
[136] Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5(1)(a), 6(1)(a), 5(1)(f), 6(1)(f), 13.
[137] [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 176 ALR 219 ('Aala').
[138] Ibid 221[5] (Gleeson CJ), 231[41]-[42] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 258[142] (Kirby J), 265[170] (Hayne J), and 275[216] (Callinan J). McHugh J did not decide the issue.
[139] Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 176 ALR 219, 231[41] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
[140] Ibid 265[169] (Hayne J). See also ibid 258[142] (Kirby J) ('With today's eyes, we see clearly that a performance by a repository of statutory power (including a federal tribunal) of its functions in breach of the rules of procedural fairness is (at least where the breach is substantial) no true exercise of jurisdiction and power in accordance with law. Such a purported exercise therefore amounts to an excess of jurisdiction.')
[141] [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611.
[142] See Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1947] EWCA Civ 1; [1948] 1 KB 223. The term is used to decide a decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached it.
[143] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 627-8 [45] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J), 659[159] (Hayne J), 669[183] (Callinan J).
[144] [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1, 36 (Brennan CJ).
[145] Cited in Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 650[126] (Gummow J).
[146] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 650[126] (Gummow J).
[147] [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 176 ALR 219, 230-1[40] (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
[148] See also Airo-Farulla, above n 12, who argues that the organising principle of administrative law has shifted from jurisdiction to legality, and that a key element of the latter is 'rationality'.
[149] Crock (1996), above n 4, 272.
[150] [1985] 1 AC 374, 407.
[151] In relation to the broadening of the notion of 'jurisdictional error', see Airo-Farulla, above n 12.
[152] In that case s 420 of the Act, which required the Tribunal in reviewing a decision to act 'according to substantial justice and the merits of the case'. See Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611.
[153] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, [48] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh J).
[154] Eshetu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 603; (1997) 71 FCR 300 (Davies and Burchett JJ, Whitlam J dissenting).
[155] Eshetu v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 19; (1997) 142 ALR 474, 486-487 (Hill J).
[156] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611.
[157] Ibid 628[47] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).
[158] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 20[77] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[159] Ibid 21[80] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[160] See Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 5(1) and 6(1).
[161] [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 552[108] (Gaudron J). Cf Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, [40]-[44] (Gaudron J).
[162] [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 628[47]-[49] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J), [109] (Gummow J). Also Sun Zhan Qui v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 (Lindgren J).
[163] [2001] FCA 699 (Conti J).
[164] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 656-7[145] (Gummow J), cited in Cujba v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 699, [105] (Conti J).
[165] Ibid.
[166] Ibid [154] (Gummow J). It is interesting to observe in this reasoning a clear forerunner of McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ's decision in Yusuf.
[167] Airo-Farulla, above n 12, 567.
[168] [2001] FCA 565 (Hill, Finkelstein and Stone JJ).
[169] Gamaethige v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 565, [28] (Finkelstein J, dissenting). His Honour cited Hill v Green [1999] NSWCA 477; (1999) 48 NSWLR 161 (Spigelman CJ). Cf Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka [1999] FCA 1; (1998) 84 FCR 411 (Black CJ, von Doussa and Carr JJ).
[170] Ibid [33] (Finkelstein J, dissenting).
[171] See Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia v Gilchrist, Watt and Sanderson Ltd [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v Aberfield Coal Mining Co Ltd [1942] HCA 23; (1942) 66 CLR 161 and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168.
[172] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510.
[173] In relation to the Judicial Review Act, see above n 4.
[174] [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598. See also R v Coldham; ex parte Australian Workers' Union [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415.
[175] Explanatory Memorandum to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (Cth), 6. In relation to the courts' historically narrow interpretation of privative and ouster clauses, see Susan Kenny, 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation Relating to Government' in Paul Finn (ed), Essays on Law and Government: Volume 2, The Citizen and the State in the Courts (1996) 215.
[176] Unfortunately this question is beyond the scope of this paper. For a discussion of the High Court's likely approach to an earlier form of the Judicial Review Act, see Campbell, above n 17.
[177] (2000) 179 ALR 238, [212] (Kirby J).
[178] Ibid.
[179] Crock, above n 11, 212.
[180] Singh [2000] FCA 845; (2000) 98 FCR 469, 481[49] (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ).
[181] Ibid 482[54] (Black CJ, Sundberg, Katz and Hely JJ).
[182] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, [75] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[183] Ibid.
[184] Ibid.
[185] Ibid 25[100] (Kiefel J, dissenting). Cf Xu [1999] FCA 1741; (1999) 95 FCR 425, 437[32] (Whitlam and Gyles JJ).
[186] Paul v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1196, [78]-[79] (Allsop J). In relation to the debate within the Federal Court over the effect of the High Court's decision in Yusuf, see Khan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 736 (Gyles J), Subramaniam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 891 (Ryan J) and Ragunathan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1142 (Beaumont J).
[187] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 19[73] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[188] [1997] HCA 22; (1997) 191 CLR 559.
[189] Ibid 575 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
[190] [2001] FCA 864 (Heerey J).
[191] [2001] FCA 911 (Weinberg J).
[192] Ibid [58]. See also Awan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1036 (Weinberg J).
[193] [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 (Gibbs CJ, Mason, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ).
[194] Ibid 39 (Mason J).
[195] Ibid 39-40 (Mason J).
[196] Section 36(2). In this respect the position of applicants for protection visas can be contrasted with that of applicants for other types of visa under the Act, where there has been extensive codification of the matters to be taken into account. See Crock, above n 4, 277-280. The only issue in relation to those applicants would be whether the factors described in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) are to be interpreted exhaustively or inclusively. See Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, 39 (Mason J).
[197] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 19[74] (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).
[198] Ibid.
[199] [2001] FCA 864 (Heerey J).
[200] Ibid [23].
[201] Aronson and Dyer, above n 11, 222. See also Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24, 46, where Mason J declared the considerations grounds 'conform to the principles of natural justice'.
[202] [1993] FCA 297; (1993) 43 FCR 100, 129 (Wilcox J).
[203] Cited in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Miah (2000) 179 ALR 238, 269[140] (McHugh J).
[204] Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 180 ALR 1, 13[49] (Gaudron J) (emphasis added).
[205] In relation to the availability of review where a finding of fact is made but not recorded pursuant to s 430(1)(b) see Zyfi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 978 (Sundberg J); Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1045 (Heerey J) and Javillonar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 854 (Stone J). Cf Applicant RV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1034 (Weinberg J).
[206] See Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 74 ALJR 405, [7]-[15] (McHugh J). Also Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 534[50] (Gleeson CJ, McHugh J), 582-3[207] (Kirby J).
[207] See McHugh J's comments in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 74 ALJR 405, 407 (n 2) (McHugh J) where his Honour recited statistics that of the 102 applications for prerogative relief pending at that time in the High Court, 66 arose under the Act.
[208] See Crock, above n 2, 215.
[209] Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (2000) 162 ALR 577, 588[48] (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).