High Court ruling on the offshore processing of asylum claims

Parliament house flag post

High Court ruling on the offshore processing of asylum claims

Posted 22/11/2010 by Elibritt Karlsen


On 11 November 2010 the High Court delivered its much anticipated judgment in the cases of Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth of Australia; Plaintiff M69 of 2010 v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 41. The plaintiffs were asylum seekers intercepted and initially detained on Christmas Island. Although subsection 46A(1) of the Migration Act bars visa applications by such asylum seekers (known as ‘offshore entry persons’ under the Migration Act), the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has the personal discretion to lift the bar under that provision, or to grant a visa under section 195A, if in the public interest. However, neither section imposes a duty on the Minister to consider exercising the discretion.


This judgment is significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, this was the first time that offshore entry persons had fundamentally challenged the offshore processing regime, introduced in the aftermath of the Tampa affair in 2001, in an Australian court. In doing so, the plaintiffs relied on the original jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Commonwealth Constitution. This avenue of appeal is expressly recognised in the Migration Act but had not previously been tested in this context.

Secondly, the High Court clarified the legal character of the offshore processing regime. In this respect, commentators have heralded the judgment as a victory for the rule of law. Under the regime, which was enhanced following an announcement by the Minister in July 2008, officers of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) conduct what is called a Refugee Status Assessment (RSA) for every offshore entry person to determine whether Australia’s protection obligations are engaged under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (and accompanying Protocol). If they are, officers prepare a submission to the Minister seeking his/her agreement allowing the offshore entry person to make a valid visa application. If an asylum seeker receives an adverse RSA they can seek an Independent Merits Review (IMR) by an ‘independent contractor’ engaged on behalf of DIAC.

Under these assessment and review processes, both plaintiffs were found not to be persons to whom Australia owed protection obligations. In arguing their cases before the High Court, both claimed a lack of procedural fairness and error of law during the RSA and IMR processes. One also argued that section 46A of the Act was invalid.

The Commonwealth and the Minister argued in response that both the RSA and the IMR were undertaken in exercise of non-statutory executive power under section 61 of the Constitution. Accordingly, there was no obligation to afford procedural fairness in the conduct of those reviews, and it did not matter if those who undertook those inquiries misunderstood or misapplied the law. The High Court strongly disagreed. In a succinct unanimous judgment the full bench of the High Court found that because the Minister decided to consider exercising power under sections 46A and 195A of the Migration Act in every case where an offshore entry person claims to be a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations, the RSA and IMR processes are ‘steps taken under and for the purposes of the Migration Act’. As these inquiries directly impacted on the plaintiffs’ rights and interests to freedom from detention, those making the inquiries were bound to act according to law, affording procedural fairness to the plaintiffs. The High Court found neither of these requirements to have been met.

The High Court found that those who conduct an RSA or an IMR are bound by the Migration Act and the decisions of Australian courts. It was an error of law to treat the Migration Act and decided cases as no more than guides to decision making. Their Honours said that ‘if the legislation and case law were treated as no more than aids to interpretation, the assessment or review would not address the question that the Minister had to consider when deciding to lift the bar under s 46A'. The fundamental question to be determined by the RSA and IMR was essentially whether the criterion for the grant of a protection visa in subsection 36(2) of the Migration Act was met. ‘Necessarily, that question had to be understood by reference to other relevant provisions of the Migration Act, and the decided cases that bear upon those provisions’. This suggests that provisions in the Migration Act such as those defining ‘persecution’ and ‘membership of a particular social group’ etc (as interpreted by Australian courts), must be applied in conducting an RSA or an IMR for an offshore entry person.

The High Court further found that those conducting an RSA or an IMR must afford offshore entry persons procedural fairness. In this case, they found that one plaintiff was denied procedural fairness when the reviewer failed to address one of the claimed bases for the plaintiff’s fear of persecution. Both plaintiffs were also denied procedural fairness when the reviewer in each case failed to put to them the substance of country information adverse to their case and to provide them an opportunity to comment. The High Court pointed out that although review applicants appearing before the Refugee Review Tribunal need not be provided with an opportunity to comment on general country information under paragraph 424A(3)(a) of the Migration Act, that particular limitation did not apply to an IMR.

The third reason this judgment is significant is because the plaintiffs challenge to the validity of section 46A of the Migration Act which, as previously mentioned, precludes an offshore entry person from lodging a valid visa application unless the Minister ‘lifts the bar’, was rejected. The High Court held that the fact that the Minister could not be compelled to exercise his discretion under section 46A did not render the provision invalid. In commenting on this aspect of the decision, Professor George Williams reportedly said ‘on one side there are people who claim this [the High Court decision] is a massive victory—it’s not...it will lead to more claims and it may lead to people succeeding in claims when there is a genuine problem in the way their application is assessed. But it doesn’t lead to anything because the Minister still retains his discretion’. In the immediate aftermath Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen agreed, noting that ‘they [the High Court] explicitly did not find that my power to lift the bar, to make an application was unconstitutional; they explicitly did not find that the excision was unconstitutional...it was open to them to find that today and they didn’t find that’.

Because the High Court found that the Minister could not be compelled to exercise his discretion under section 46A (or section 195A), the High Court held that writs could not be issued to compel the Minister to exercise either power. Therefore, though the two Sri Lankan asylum seekers who brought these proceedings technically ‘won’, the court issued them only declaratory relief which essentially means the court only resolved a dispute about the law. Nonetheless, their Honours noted that there was no present threat that either plaintiff would be removed from Australia without a further RSA being undertaken in which the law would be correctly applied and procedural fairness afforded. Both plaintiffs may still therefore end up being removed from Australia.

This judgment will impact upon all offshore entry persons currently undergoing refugee assessments under the offshore processing regime. In fact, the Government has already reportedly undertaken to re-assess at least 150 adverse assessments that were made prior to the High Court’s judgment. However, it is not clear whether it will have broader implications for the Government’s proposed regional processing framework. Much will depend on whether refugee status assessments will be conducted by Australian or third country government officials/international agencies. It also remains to be seen whether the Government will attempt to introduce legislation to curb the impact of this judgment which will inevitably lead to longer processing times, prolonged detention, and an increased workload for the High Court and/or the Federal Magistrates Court—though in the end presumably also better decision making.

(image sourced from http://www.hboemtb.com)


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.

Add your comment

[Click to expand]

We welcome your comments, or additional information which is relevant to a post. These can be added by clicking on the ‘Add your comment’ option above. Please note that the Parliamentary Library will moderate comments, and reserves the right not to publish comments that are inconsistent with the objectives of FlagPost. This includes spam, profanity and personal abuse, as well as comments that are factually incorrect or politically partisan. We will close comments after three months.




Captcha
Generate a new image
Type characters from the image:

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum climate change immigration Australian foreign policy parliament social security welfare policy elections welfare reform school education health financing higher education Australian Defence Force emissions trading indigenous Australians women private health insurance people trafficking illicit drugs gambling health reform federal election 2010 United Nations Employment Asia disability income management Middle East Medicare Australian Bureau of Statistics statistics sport health forced labour federal budget Afghanistan Industrial Relations Carbon Pricing Mechanism politics dental health United States aid child protection environment poker machines Australia in the Asian Century Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency steroids World Anti-Doping Agency National Disability Insurance Scheme detention aged care 43rd Parliament slavery health system Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Criminal Law Fair Work Act Australian Public Service governance labour force people smuggling transport debt taxation international relations constitution New Zealand food WADA Australian Crime Commission pharmaceutical benefits scheme pensions public service reform children's health Aviation foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability parliamentary procedure Senate Senators and Members ALP ASADA Newstart Parenting Payment multiculturalism Youth Allowance sea farers Higher Education Loan Program HECS federal state relations accountability Papua New Guinea youth paid parental leave same sex relationships corruption coal seam gas customs planning federal election 2013 Australian Electoral Commission doping OECD crime health risks International Women's Day Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery Special Rapporteur Northern Territory Emergency Response social policy welfare ASIO intelligence community terrorist groups Australian Security Intelligence Organisation carbon tax mining High Court military history electoral reform employer employee renewable energy regional unemployment fishing European Union Federal Court family assistance skilled migration banking United Nations Security Council Australian economy forestry food labelling vocational education and training Drugs UK Parliament welfare systems Indonesia social media children Constitutional reform local government codes of conduct terrorist financing homelessness Parliamentary remuneration money laundering Trafficking in Persons Report energy science social inclusion human rights paternalism Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse terrorism World Trade Organization Australia public health China housing affordability bulk billing political parties water productivity health policy Governor-General US economy trade unions domestic violence export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery firearms question time speaker superannuation public housing election results by-election expertise public policy climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership voting Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry regulation Pacific Islands reserved seats research and development new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets animal health middle class welfare ADRV Census Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government referendum consumer laws PISA competition policy royal commission US politics violence against women language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition citizen engagement policymaking Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol forced marriage Population rural and regional mental health alcohol entitlements ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship maritime Iran transparency ANZUS regional students school chaplains federal budget 2011-12 salary Medicare Locals primary care Building the Education Revolution early childhood education Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly national security smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid disability employment Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies same-sex marriage disorderly conduct integrity retirement Parliament House standing orders prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines workers financial sector Canada Somalia United Kingdom GDP Tasmania world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports infant mortality honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Rent Assistance obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Members suspension workplace health and safety marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament Korea fuel rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education Social Inclusion Board early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits qantas counselling Korean peninsula Work Choices biosecurity hendra environmental law federalism federation preselection therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration plebiscites computer games pests suicide nuclear COAG Ministerial Councils floods ADHD stimulant medication advertising electricity extradition standards conscience votes poverty preventative health rural health coastal erosion Parliamentary Budget Office NATO work-life balance

Show all
Show less