Ford, Sarah --- "Judicial Review of Migration Decisions: Ousting The Hickman Privative Clause?" [2002] MelbULawRw 28; (2002) 26(3) Melbourne University Law Review 537

[*] BA (Hons), LLB (Hons) (UWA). I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Peter Johnston, for his ongoing encouragement and assistance in the preparation of this paper. I am also indebted to Ian Murray for his invaluable editing suggestions. This paper is based upon a 2001 Law Honours dissertation.

[1] As evidenced by reforms in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands: see Justice Ian Callinan, ‘Review and Appeals in Immigration Law’ (Paper presented at the Migration Institute of Australia Ltd 1999 National Conference and Annual General Meeting, Sydney, 26 March 1999) <http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/

callinanj/callinanj_Miaspe1.htm> at 12 September 2002; Stephen Legomsky, Immigration and the Judiciary: Law and Politics in Britain and America (1987); Charles Blake and Maurice Sunkin, ‘Immigration: Appeals and Judicial Review’ [1998] Public Law 583; Pieter Boeles, Fair Immigration Proceedings in Europe (1997) 468; Cynthia Schiesswohl, ‘Judicial Autonomy in the Immigration Adjudicatory System’ (1996) 21 University of Dayton Law Review 743; Mary Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law: The Place of Judicial Review within the Construct of Australian Democracy’ in Susan Kneebone (ed), Administrative Law and the Rule of Law: Still Part of the Same Package? (1999) 57, 58.

[2] Migration Amendment Act 1989 (Cth); Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1989 (Cth); Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 1989 (Cth); Migration Legislation Amendment (Consequential Amendments) Act 1989 (Cth). See Jillyanne Redpath, ‘Recent High Court Developments in Migration Law: A Necessary Compromise?’ (2000) 28 Australian Business Law Review 125, 126.

[3] Migration Reform Act 1992 (Cth) s 33 (commencement deferred to 1 September 1994 by Migration Laws Amendment Act 1993 (Cth) s 5). See Justice Ronald Sackville, ‘Judicial Review of Migration Decisions: An Institution in Peril?’ [2000] UNSWLawJl 59; (2000) 23 University of New South Wales Law Journal 190, 192; Mary Crock, ‘Judicial Review and Part 8 of the Migration Act: Necessary Reform or Overkill?’ [1996] SydLawRw 14; (1996) 18 Sydney Law Review 267, 274–80.

[4] Crock, ‘Judicial Review’, above n 3, 274–80.

[5] Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997. The relevant provisions of the Bill were later reintroduced in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth).

[6] Philip Ruddock, ‘The Broad Implications for Administrative Law under the Coalition Government with Particular Reference to Migration Matters’ in John McMillan (ed), Administrative Law under the Coalition Government (1997) 9, 16; Michael Chaaya, ‘Proposed Changes to the Review of Migration Decisions: Sensible Reform Agenda or Political Expediency?’ [1997] SydLawRw 28; (1997) 19 Sydney Law Review 547, 559. The attempt to curb judicial review is not surprising when the expansion of grounds for review within the migration field has led to a perceived obfuscation of the division between judicial and merits review and a presumed incursion by the courts into the executive realm: see David Bennett, ‘Balancing Judicial Review and Merits Review’ (2000) 53 Admin Review 3, 7–8. Although note that merits review has itself been streamlined with the creation of the Migration Review Tribunal: Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1)

1998 (Cth).

[7] Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No 1) 1998 (Cth); Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 2000 (Cth); Migration Legislation Amendment (Temporary Safe Haven Visas) Act 1999 (Cth).

[8] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 26 September 2001, 31 559 (Philip Ruddock, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (‘Amendment Act Second Reading Speech’).

[9] Philip Ruddock, ‘Narrowing of Judicial Review in the Migration Context’ [1997] AIAdminLawF 15; (1997) 15 AIAL Forum 13, 17, referring to Eshetu v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 603; (1997) 71 FCR 300; Thambythurai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 997 (Unreported, Finkelstein J, 16 September 1997); Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 77 FCR 440. See also Henry Burmester, ‘Commentary’ (1996) 24 Federal Law Review 387, 388.

[10] Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21; (1999) 197 CLR 611, 641 (Gaudron and Kirby JJ). See also at 658 (Gummow J); Sackville, above n 3, 192.

[11] Bennett, above n 6, 29; Abebe v Commonwealth [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 534 (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J), 582–3 (Kirby J) (‘Abebe’); Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 168 ALR 407, 409, 411 (McHugh J) (‘Durairajasingham’).

[12] Ruddock, ‘The Broad Implications for Administrative Law’, above n 6, 18.

[13] Evidence to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 and Associated Bills, Official Committee Hansard, 29 January 1999, 56 (Mark Sullivan, Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs).

[14] [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598 (‘Hickman’).

[15] Department of the Parliamentary Library, Bills Digest No 90 1998–99: Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 6 (‘Bills Digest’).

[16] Ibid 1.

[17] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 534 (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J), 582–3 (Kirby J); Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 168 ALR 407, 409, 411 (McHugh J); Amendment Act Second Reading Speech, above n 8, 31 559.

[18] Coal Miners’ Industrial Union of Workers of Western Australia v Amalgamated Collieries of Western Australia Ltd [1960] HCA 68; (1960) 104 CLR 437, 455 (Menzies J) (‘Coal Miners’ Case).

[19] O’Toole v Charles David Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 232 (‘O’Toole’); Darling Casino Ltd v New South Wales Casino Control Authority [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602 (‘Darling Casino’); R v Coldham; Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415 (‘Coldham’); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168 (‘Richard Walter’); R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union (Australian Section) [1967] HCA 47; (1967) 118 CLR 219; R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor [1949] HCA 10; (1949) 77 CLR 387; Coal Miners’ Case [1960] HCA 68; (1960) 104 CLR 437; R v Members of the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board; Ex parte Maryborough Sugar Factory Ltd [1959] HCA 35; (1959) 101 CLR 246, 255 (Dixon CJ, Kitto and Windeyer JJ); R v Metal Trades Employers’ Association; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australian Section [1951] HCA 3; (1950) 82 CLR 208, 249 (Dixon J).

[20] Hickman [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598, 615.

[21] Coldham [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415, 419 (Mason ACJ and Brennan J). See also R v Metal Trades Employers’ Association; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union, Australian Section [1951] HCA 3; (1950) 82 CLR 208, 248 (Dixon J); O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, but note Dawson J (at 305) and Brennan J (at 274) who incorporate this limitation into the existing provisos.

[22] O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232; Mark Aronson and Bruce Dyer, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (2nd ed, 2000) 683.

[23] O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, 275 (Brennan J) (emphasis added).

[24] Darling Casino [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602, 632 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), quoting Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 180 (Mason CJ).

[25] Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth) 5.

[26] [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415 (‘Coldham’).

[27] (1991) 171 CLR 232 (‘O’Toole’).

[28] 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, 140.

[29] Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth) 5.

[30] O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, 249 (Mason CJ).

[31] Campbell, above n 28, 147–8.

[32] Michael Jones, Judicial Review of Immigration Decisions — Making It Legal (1998) Parish Patience <http://www.parishpatience.com.au/immigration/privativ.htm> at 12 September 2002.

[33] NABL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 102 (Unreported, Allsop J, 15 February 2002); NADB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 200; (2002) 189 ALR 293, 297.

[34] NAAV v Minister Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 (Unreported, Black CJ, Beaumont, Wilcox, French and von Doussa JJ, 15 August 2002); NAAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 263 (Unreported, Gyles J, 15 March 2002); NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 281 (Unreported, Tamberlin J, 19 March 2002); Ratumaiwai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 311 (Unreported, Hill J, 20 March 2002); Walton v Ruddock, Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1839 (Unreported, Merkel J, 20 December 2001); Wang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 167 (Unreported, Mansfield J, 27 February 2002).

[35] Ruddock, ‘The Broad Implications for Administrative Law’, above n 6, 17; Amendment Act Second Reading Speech, above n 8, 31 651 (Duncan Kerr), 31 647 (Con Sciacca). The full High Court reserved its decision in Plaintiff S157 of 2002 v Commonwealth on 4 September 2002.

[36] Mary Crock, Immigration Law and Practice (1997) 59.

[37] See J Symon, quoted in John Quick and Robert Garran, The Annotated Constitution of the Australian Commonwealth (1901) 780.

[38] Ince Brothers v Federated Clothing and Allied Trades Unions [1924] HCA 33; (1924) 34 CLR 457, 464 (Isaacs, Powers and Rich JJ) (‘Ince Brothers’); Waterside Workers’ Federation of Australia v Gilchrist, Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, 526 (Isaacs and Rich JJ) (‘Waterside Workers’ Case’); Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 139 (Hayne J) (‘Aala’); Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 178 (Mason CJ), 232 (Toohey J). See Washington v Commonwealth [1939] NSWStRp 16; (1939) 39 SR (NSW) 133, 140 (Jordan CJ) with respect to s 75(iii).

[39] See Darling Casino [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602, 632–3 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

[40] See P H Lane, The Australian Federal System (2nd ed, 1979) 447.

[41] Aala (2000) 204 CLR 139, 134.

[42] (2001) 204 CLR 559, 590. See also Harris v Caladine [1991] HCA 9; (1991) 172 CLR 84, 136 (Toohey J).

[43] For example, by an individual asserting a ‘private right of action for damages’: Kruger v Commonwealth [1997] HCA 27; (1997) 190 CLR 1, 46 (Brennan CJ).

[44] A-G (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 36 (Brennan J).

[45] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 549–50 (Gaudron J), 567–8 (Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[46] Ibid.

[47] See also Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Epeabaka [2001] HCA 23; (2001) 206 CLR 128, 136 (Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ) (‘Epeabaka’); Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 139 (Hayne J); Ayub v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1844; (2000) 181 ALR 522, 529 (Lee J).

[48] Transcript of Proceedings, Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Ervin (Unreported, High Court of Australia, Brennan CJ, 10 July 1997). See also Epeabaka [2001] HCA 23; (2001) 206 CLR 128, 149 (Kirby J).

[49] See Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 121–2 (Kirby J) (‘Miah’); Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte HB [2001] HCA 34; (2001) 179 ALR 513, 516; Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 137 (Kirby J), 142 (Hayne J); Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 536–7 (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J); Hickman [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598, 606 (Latham CJ), 614 (Dixon J); O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, 270 (Brennan J), 308 (Dawson J); Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v Aberfield Coal Mining Company Ltd [1942] HCA 23; (1942) 66 CLR 161, 176 (Latham CJ); Darling Casino [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602, 631–2 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Coldham [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415, 418 (Mason ACJ and Brennan J), 427 (Deane and Dawson JJ); David Jones Finance & Investments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 28 FCR 484, 495 (Morling and French JJ); Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 179 (Mason CJ); R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Brisbane Tramways Company Ltd [1914] HCA 15; (1914) 18 CLR 54 (‘Tramways Case [No 1]’); Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 32 CLR 200, 216 (Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ); Waterside Workers’ Case [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, 526 (Isaacs and Rich JJ); R v Connell; Ex parte Hetton Bellbird Collieries Ltd [1944] HCA 42; (1944) 69 CLR 407, 428 (Latham CJ), 438 (Starke J); Ince Brothers [1924] HCA 33; (1924) 34 CLR 457, 464 (Isaacs, Powers and Rich JJ); R v Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; Ex parte Amalgamated Engineering Union (Australian Section) [1967] HCA 47; (1967) 118 CLR 219, 252 (Kitto J); R v Murray; Ex parte Proctor [1949] HCA 10; (1949) 77 CLR 387, 394 (Latham CJ); Re Cram; Ex parte New South Wales Colliery Proprietors’ Association Ltd [1987] HCA 28; (1987) 163 CLR 117, 131 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); Re Coldham; Ex parte Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ Federation [1986] HCA 87; (1985) 159 CLR 522, 530 (Gibbs CJ, Wilson and Dawson JJ).

[50] Mary Crock, ‘Abebe v Commonwealth; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu — 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, 195.

[51] O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, 271 (Brennan J). See also Coldham [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415, 421 (Murphy J); Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 32 CLR 200, 216 (Isaacs, Rich and Starke JJ).

[52] Coldham [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415, 421 (Murphy J).

[53] David Jones Finance & Investments Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1991) 28 FCR 484, 496 (Morling and French JJ); Ince Brothers [1924] HCA 33; (1924) 34 CLR 457, 464 (Isaacs, Powers and Rich JJ); Waterside Workers’ Case [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, 526 (Isaacs and Rich JJ).

[54] Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 179 ALR 425, 435–6 (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ); Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 103 (McHugh J); Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 106–7 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ), 136–7 (Kirby J); R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Australia) Ltd [1949] HCA 33; (1949) 78 CLR 389, 400 (Latham CJ, Rich, Dixon, McTiernan and Webb JJ).

[55] Ayub v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1844; (2000) 181 ALR 522, 529; Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 178 (Mason CJ); Commonwealth v New South Wales (1923) 32 CLR 200, 217–20 (Higgins J); Werrin v Commonwealth (1938) 59 CLR 150, 167 (Dixon J); Maguire v Simpson [1977] HCA 63; (1977) 139 CLR 362, 404–5 (Jacobs J); Quick and Garran, above n 37, 784; Zelman Cowen and Leslie Zines, Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (2nd ed, 1978) 55.

[56] Cowen and Zines, above n 55, 55; R v Blakeley; Ex parte Association of Architects, Engineers, Surveyors and Draughtsmen of Australia [1950] HCA 40; (1950) 82 CLR 54, 88–9 (Fullagar J); Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 87 (Gaudron J).

[57] Waterside Workers’ Case [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, 525 (Isaacs and Rich JJ).

[58] See Polyukhovich v Commonwealth [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, 703 (Gaudron J) (‘Polyukhovich’); Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 536–7 (Gleeson CJ and McHugh J).

[59] Bills Digest, above n 15, 5.

[60] J J Doyle, ‘Constitutional Law: “At the Eye of the Storm”’ [1993] UWALawRw 2; (1993) 23 University of Western Australia Law Review 15.

[61] Ha v New South Wales [1997] HCA 34; (1997) 189 CLR 465, 498 (Brennan CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Kirby JJ). See also Waterside Workers’ Case [1924] HCA 61; (1924) 34 CLR 482, 551 (Starke J).

[62] Bills Digest, above n 15, 6; Amendment Act Second Reading Speech, above n 8, 31 559.

[63] Mary Crock, Immigration and Refugee Law in Australia (1998) 298.

[64] [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602, 632–3 (‘Darling Casino’).

[65] Aronson and Dyer, above n 22, 696.

[66] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 31.

[67] Campbell, above n 28, 146.

[68] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 536.

[69] Kable v DPP (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51, 108 (Gaudron J).

[70] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 587 (Kirby J).

[71] (1991) 171 CLR 232, 308.

[72] Campbell, above n 28, 146.

[73] Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 179 (Mason CJ).

[74] [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168 (‘Richard Walter’).

[75] Ibid 205–7, affirmed in Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 121–2 (Kirby J).

[76] Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 205–6. Note that it could also be argued that the definition of ‘matter’ may even prevent the Court’s jurisdiction being attracted: see Lane, above n 40, 447.

[77] Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 185 (Mason CJ).

[78] Ibid 205.

[79] Ibid 242 (McHugh J). See also 184–5 (Mason CJ).

[80] O’Toole (1991) 171 CLR 232, 271 (Brennan J).

[81] Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 184.

[82] Ibid. Note a clearer line can be drawn on the facts in Nicholas v The Queen [1998] HCA 9; (1998) 193 CLR 173, 188 (Brennan CJ).

[83] Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1, 27 (Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ). See Sir Anthony Mason, ‘Administrative Law — Form versus Substance’ in Kathryn Cole (ed), Administrative Law and Public Administration: Form vs Substance (1995) 1, 3.

[84] Polyukhovich [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501, 607 (Deane J).

[85] See French J’s reference to the ‘Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court’ as an ‘Irreducible Core’ in Justice Robert French, ‘The Rise and Rise of Judicial Review’ [1993] UWALawRw 7; (1993) 23 University of Western Australia Law Review 120, 122.

[86] See the reference to a ‘constitutionally entrenched minimum’ in Henry Burmester, ‘Commentary’ in Adrienne Stone and George Williams (eds), The High Court at the Crossroads: Essays in Constitutional Law (2000) 142, 146.

[87] Stephen Gageler, ‘The Legitimate Scope of Judicial Review’ (2001) 54 Admin Review 28.

[88] Leslie Zines, ‘Federal, Associated and Accrued Jurisdiction’ in Brian Opeskin and Fiona Wheeler (eds), The Australian Federal Judicial System (2000) 265, 277.

[89] Note that, although not authoritatively resolved, it appears that the remedy of injunction within s 75(v) may be less restrictively available and have associations beyond jurisdictional error: Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 551–2 (Gaudron J); Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 182 ALR 657, 742 (Kirby J); John Basten, ‘The Original Jurisdiction of the High Court: A Constitutional Guarantee of Due Process?’ (Paper presented to the Constitutional Law Section of the New South Wales Bar Association, Sydney, 9 August 2001) 6.

[90] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’ in Robin Creyke and John McMillan (eds), Administrative Justice — The Core and the Fringe (2000) 78, 84; Leslie Zines, ‘Constitutional Aspects of Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (1998) 1 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 50, 53, although Zines asserts that this approach ‘begs the question of interpretation’. Note Kirby J’s recent statements that the constitutional writs may not have such limited associations: Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor (2001) 182 ALR 657, 742–3; Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 122–3.

[91] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference with the Judicial Process: Abebe v Commonwealth and Nicholas v The Queen’ in Adrienne Stone and George Williams (eds), The High Court at the Crossroads: Essays in Constitutional Law (2000) 119, 124; Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 69; Campbell, above n 28.

[92] Note this interpretation is unequivocally adopted in the Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (Cth) and Revised Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 2001 (Cth).

[93] Hickman [1945] HCA 53; (1945) 70 CLR 598, 616 (Dixon J) (emphasis added). See also R v Kelly; Ex parte Berman [1953] HCA 82; (1953) 89 CLR 608, 630 (Kitto J); Coal Miners’ Case [1960] HCA 68; (1960) 104 CLR 437, 454–5 (Menzies J), discussed in Campbell, above n 28, 141–2.

[94] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 84. Cf Zines, ‘Constitutional Aspects of Judicial Review’, above n 90.

[95] [1983] HCA 35; (1983) 153 CLR 415, 427.

[96] Darling Casino [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602, 633 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

[97] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 91; Zines, ‘Constitutional Aspects of Judicial Review’, above n 90, 52.

[98] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 91.

[99] Zines, ‘Constitutional Aspects of Judicial Review’, above n 90, 53. See also at 51.

[100] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 84 (emphasis in original).

[101] Ibid 86, citing Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994] HCA 46; (1994) 182 CLR 104, 196 (McHugh J).

[102] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 85–7.

[103] [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163, 179. See also Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323, 351–2 (McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ).

[104] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference’, above n 91, 124. See also recent cases asserting that denial of natural justice constitutes jurisdictional error within the terms of s 75(v): Epeabaka [2001] HCA 23; (2001) 206 CLR 128, 146–7 (Kirby J); Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte PT (2001) 178 ALR 497, [24] (Kirby J); Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 67 (Gleeson CJ and Hayne J); Aala [2000] HCA 57; (2000) 204 CLR 82, 100–1 (Gaudron and Gummow JJ).

[105] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 85, 87.

[106] Ibid 87–9. Grounds such as relevant/irrelevant considerations and acting for a proper purpose, which seek to conform with statutory intention, would not be encompassed.

[107] Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, 123. See also at 121.

[108] Ibid 123. See also Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 583–4.

[109] Polyukhovich [1991] HCA 32; (1991) 172 CLR 501; R v Dietrich [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292; Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; Kable v DPP (NSW) [1996] HCA 24; (1996) 189 CLR 51.

[110] Evidence to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Official Committee Hansard, 9 October 1997, 359–60 (John McMillan); Evidence to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 and Associated Bills, Official Committee Hansard, 29 January 1999, 71 (Anne Reich, Immigration Advice and Rights Centre).

[111] [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 204–5 (Deane and Gaudron JJ). See also Bank of New South Wales v Commonwealth [1948] HCA 7; (1948) 76 CLR 1, 363 (Dixon J).

[112] [2000] HCA 37; (2000) 173 ALR 145, 147 (Kirby J).

[113] Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan [2000] HCA 37; (2000) 173 ALR 145, 147 (Kirby J). See also Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507, 545 (Kirby J); Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (Unreported, Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne and Callinan JJ, 6 September 2001); Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194, 230 (Kirby J).

[114] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference’, above n 91, 124; Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 69; Campbell, above n 28, 145.

[115] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference’, above n 91, 124, referring to Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 162.

[116] Richard Walter [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168, 180.

[117] [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 552, 554.

[118] Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 71.

[119] It is noteworthy that although the special leave application arising from the New South Wales Supreme Court decision of Vanmeld Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council [1999] NSWCA 6; (1999) 46 NSWLR 78 was ultimately unsuccessful, Gaudron J did not expressly disapprove of the comment made by Spigelman CJ (at 108) that the Hickman principle was not ‘intended to be an exhaustive statement of the categories of legal error in which a privative clause will be subject to particular stringency in the course of strict construction’: Transcript of Proceedings, Vanmeld Pty Ltd v Fairfield City Council (Unreported, High Court of Australia, Gaudron and Hayne JJ, 10 November 1999).

[120] T R S Allan, ‘Legislative Supremacy and the Rule of Law: Democracy and Constitutionalism’ (1985) 44 Cambridge Law Journal 111, 126. See also Sir Gerard Brennan, ‘The Parliament, the Executive and the Courts: Roles and Immunities’ (Paper presented at School of Law, Bond University, Gold Coast, 21 February 1998) High Court of Australia <http://www.hcourt.gov.au/

speeches/brennanj/brennanj_bond2.htm> at 12 September 2002.

[121] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 35 (Robert Gotterson).

[122] Linda Kirk, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Administrative Justice’ in Robin Creyke and John McMillan (eds), Administrative Justice — The Core and the Fringe (2000) 106, 108.

[123] Ross Anderson, ‘Parliament v Court: The Effect of Legislative Attempts to Restrict the Control of Supreme Courts over Administrative Tribunals through the Prerogative Writs’ [1949] UQLawJl 5; (1948) 1 University of Queensland Law Journal 39.

[124] Jeremy Kirk, ‘Administrative Justice and the Australian Constitution’, above n 90, 89.

[125] Ibid 97–8.

[126] Ibid 89.

[127] Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 67. See also Sir Anthony Mason, ‘The Increasing Importance of Judicial Review of Administrative Action’ (Speech delivered at the Administrative Law Section of the Law Institute of Victoria’s Annual Dinner, Melbourne, 6 June 1994) quoted in ‘Sir Anthony Mason Stresses Importance of Judicial Review’ (1994) 68 Law Institute Journal 704.

[128] Note however that the derailing majority view (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ) in Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511 has cast considerable doubt upon pragmatic constitutional interpretations being automatically adopted by the High Court.

[129] See Justice John Doyle, ‘Accountability: Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary’ in Susan Kneebone (ed), Administrative Law and the Rule of Law: Still Part of the Same Package? (1999) 18, 28; Administrative Review Council, Twenty-Third Annual Report (1998–1999)

Administrative Review Council <http://www.law.gov.au/aghome/other/arc/arcnew/

annualreport99/arcannrep.pdf> at 12 September 2002; Linda Kirk, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Administrative Justice’, above n 122, 109; Campbell, above n 28, 151–2.

[130] Doyle, above n 129, 29.

[131] Sir Anthony Mason, ‘The Importance of Judicial Review of Administrative Action as a Safeguard of Individual Rights’ (1994) Australian Journal of Human Rights 3, 5.

[132] Ibid; Doyle, above n 129, 29.

[133] Administrative Review Council, above n 129.

[134] [1995] HCA 23; (1995) 183 CLR 168.

[135] [1997] HCA 11; (1997) 191 CLR 602.

[136] Jones, above n 32.

[137] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 32–3 (John McMillan).

[138] This conclusion is especially evident in the refugee field where applications for protection visas address an asylum seeker’s fear of persecution on returning home for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion: Migration Act

1958 (Cth) s 36; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150, art 1A (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). See Linda Kirk, ‘The Constitutionalisation of Administrative Justice’, above n 124, 109–10; Kerry Murphy, ‘Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Courts?’ (1994) 32(9) Law Society Journal 60.

[139] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 34 (Immigration Advice and Rights Centre); evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 33 (Refugee Council of Australia). See also Stephen Legomsky, ‘Political Asylum and the Theory of Judicial Review’ (1989) 73 Minnesota Law Review 1205, 1207–11.

[140] Campbell, above n 28, 152.

[141] Ibid 152–3; Administrative Review Council, above n 129.

[142] Church of Scientology Inc v Woodward [1982] HCA 78; (1982) 154 CLR 25, 70 (Brennan J), describing judicial review as the ‘means by which executive action is prevented from exceeding the powers and functions assigned to the executive by law and the interests of individuals are protected accordingly’.

[143] Campbell, above n 28, 155.

[144] Ibid 154.

[145] Evidence to Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 1998 and Associated Bills, Official Committee Hansard, 29 January 1999, 60 (John Griffiths).

[146] See Crock, ‘Abebe’, above n 50, 216; Legomsky, ‘Political Asylum and the Theory of Judicial Review’, above n 139, 1210; Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 57,

73–4.

[147] Chaaya, above n 6, 560.

[148] See, eg, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171, arts 14(1) and 26 (entered into force 23 March 1976); Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150, art 15 (entered into force 22 April 1954); Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, opened for signature 26 April 1964, 360 UNTS 117, art 16 (entered into force 6 June 1960); Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3, art 22 (entered into force 2 September 1990); Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85, art 3(1) (entered into force 26 June 1987); Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 38; Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 35–6. See generally Susan Kneebone, ‘Removing Judicial Review of Migration (Refugee) Decisions: A System in Crisis in Need of a Holistic Approach’ (2000) 11 Public Law Review 87.

[149] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 39; Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 36–7.

[150] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 39–40.

[151] Commonwealth Ombudsman, quoted in ibid 39.

[152] The Federal Court has recognised the need to read the Migration Act widely so as to promote Australia’s ‘good name’: Fuduche v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1993] FCA 503; (1993) 45 FCR 515, 523 (Burchett J); Chaudhary v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 994; (1994) 49 FCR 84, 87–8 (Wilcox, Burchett and Foster JJ).

[153] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference’, above n 91, 120.

[154] Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1986] UKHL 3; [1987] 1 All ER 940, 952

(Lord Bridge). See also Khawaja v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1982] UKHL 5; [1983] 1 All ER 765, 780–2 (Lord Scarman), 790 (Lord Bridge).

[155] Linda Kirk, ‘Chapter III and Legislative Interference’, above n 91, 126.

[156] Aronson and Dyer, above n 22, 698.

[157] Campbell, above n 28, 155.

[158] Burmester, above n 86, 146. Note that Burmester even queries whether the courts should be reserved as the ultimate bastion of fundamental freedoms: at 142.

[159] Campbell, above n 28, 152.

[160] See Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, 577 (Brennan CJ, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ); Bennett, above n 6; A-G (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1, 36 (Brennan J).

[161] Abebe [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510, 587 (Kirby J).

[162] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997, Official Committee Hansard, 9 October 1997, 358–9 (John McMillan).

[163] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997 (1997) 32 (Kim Rubenstein).

[164] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Inquiry into Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 4) 1997; Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No 5) 1997, Official Committee Hansard, 9 October 1997, 358–9 (John McMillan).

[165] Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 57, 82.

[166] Encompassing concessional immigration visas of sub-class 816 and 818 which extend to those applying for ‘refugee status ... who could meet prescribed criteria going to family relationship and/or skills and qualifications’: Crock, Immigration Law and Practice, above n 36, 55.

[167] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 9 (Immigration Advice and Rights Centre); evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 9 (Law Council of Australia); evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 9–10 (Australian Council of Social Services). See also Crock, Immigration Law and Practice, above n 36, 61; Crock, ‘Judicial Review’, above n 3, 292.

[168] Crock, Immigration Law and Practice, above n 36, 65.

[169] Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 57, 82.

[170] Crock, Immigration Law and Practice, above n 36, 64. See also Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 10–15.

[171] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 45–7. Based upon the Victorian experience, the docket judge appointed is a migration law expert who is usually able to hold the first directions hearing within a month of the filing of an appeal.

[172] See Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 43.

[173] Ibid 47.

[174] See Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 43 fn 2.

[175] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 44 (Law Institute of Victoria).

[176] Evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 44 (Mark Sullivan, Deputy Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultrual Affairs); evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 44–5 (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs); evidence cited in Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 45 (Warwick Soden, Registrar, Federal Court of Australia).

[177] Crock, ‘Privative Clauses and the Rule of Law’, above n 1, 57, 82. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee identified the need for further research but was impressed with the proposal and noted its use in refugee appeals in the Canadian Federal Court: Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 45, 49.

[178] Amendment Act Second Reading Speech, above n 8, 31 476; Ruddock, ‘Narrowing of Judicial Review’, above n 9, 20; Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Sydney, Official Committee Hansard, 9 October 1997, 414–15.

[179] See above n 176.

[180] Ibid.

[181] [2000] HCA 37; (2000) 173 ALR 145, 146–7.

[182] Ibid 148. See also Re Brennan; Ex parte Muldowney (1993) 116 ALR 619, 624 (Mason CJ);

Re Australian Nursing Federation; Ex parte Victoria [1993] HCA 8; (1993) 112 ALR 177.

[183] However, note the availability of a Full Court application under High Court Rules 1952 (Cth) O 55 r 2.

[184] Re Carmody; Ex parte Glennan [2000] HCA 37; (2000) 173 ALR 145, 147, 148, where Kirby J gave as an example the failure by an applicant to exhaust all available avenues. It is noteworthy that this situation can be distinguished from the current situation under pt 8 of the Migration Act where judicial ‘discretion’ to deny an order nisi is significantly ‘limited’ by the fact that the High Court’s original jurisdiction ‘is the only avenue left open to litigants’: Crock, Immigration and Refugee Law in Australia, above n 63, 278.

[185] Doyle, above n 129, 29, 26.

[186] Durairajasingham [2000] HCA 1; (2000) 168 ALR 407, 411 (McHugh J).

[187] Crock, Immigration Law and Practice, above n 36, 65.

[188] Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, Migration Legislation Amendment (Judicial Review) Bill 1998 (1999) 28.