Bills Digest no. 24, 2017–18
PDF version [587KB]
Claire Petrie
Law and Bills Digest Section
4 September 2017
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Section 503A
History of the provision
Who is a ‘gazetted agency’?
High Court challenge
Background to cases
Arguments regarding validity
Infringement on separation of powers
Original jurisdiction of the High
Court
Counter-arguments
Committee consideration
Senate Standing Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
Retrospective validation
Date introduced: 21
June 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Immigration
and Border Protection
Commencement: On
the day after the Act receives Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at September 2017.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Validation of
Decisions) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act
1958 (Cth) (the Act) to safeguard the validity of character decisions
made by the Department, in the case of a successful High Court challenge to the
validity of section 503A of the Act.
Background
Section
503A
Section 503A applies to a range of decisions made under
the Migration Act to cancel or refuse to grant a visa on the basis that
a person does not pass the character test.[1]
It prohibits an authorised migration officer[2]
from communicating or divulging certain information where:
- a
gazetted agency communicates the information to the officer on the condition
that it be treated as confidential information and
- the
information is relevant to the exercise of a power under one of the character
provisions.
Information falling into this category cannot be divulged
to any person or body except the Minister or another authorised migration
officer—it cannot be provided to the visa holder or applicant, a court,
tribunal, parliament or parliamentary committee.[3]
The Minister has the power to authorise the disclosure of information to a
specified Minister, Commonwealth officer, court or tribunal, but is required to
consult with the relevant gazetted agency before doing so.[4]
The Minister’s discretion to consider whether to authorise disclosure is not
compellable, meaning that a failure to do so cannot be subject to review.[5]
The effect of the provision is that where the Minister or
a delegate decides to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds based on
information captured by this section, this information cannot be provided to
the visa holder or visa applicant. The Federal Court has noted that the purpose
of section 503A:
... is to remove what would otherwise be an entitlement to
natural justice, or procedural fairness, for a person who is subject to the
application of the character test in relation to an application for a visa or
the consideration of the cancellation of an existing visa. There is little
doubt that, on the application of the ordinary principles of natural justice,
an applicant for a visa, or a person whose visa the Minister is considering
cancelling, and whose character is in issue, would be entitled to adequate
notice of, and an opportunity to respond to `adverse information that is
credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made'.[6]
Similarly, the information cannot be provided to a
tribunal or court as part of the appeals process for a cancellation/refusal
decision, unless the Minister decides to authorise the disclosure to such a
body.
History of
the provision
Section 503A was first inserted into the Act in 1998, as
part of a suite of amendments which largely established the character test in
its current form.[7]
At the time of its introduction, then-Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs, Phillip Ruddock explained that section 503A would better
facilitate the sharing of criminal intelligence and related information, as:
... at present, it is difficult for my department to use such
information in making character decisions because its disclosure might be
threatened. Australian and international law enforcement agencies are reluctant
to provide sensitive information unless they are sure that both the information
and its sources can be protected. Greater protection for such material would
complement broader national and international strategies to counter
transnational crime and the activities of those associated with it.[8]
Prior to 2003, information disclosed to a court under
subsection 503A(3) could be prevented from further disclosure if the court
upheld a claim of public interest immunity under common law.[9]
Amendments made by the Migration
Legislation Amendment (Protected Information) Act 2003 codified
procedures by which the courts may issue a non-disclosure order over
confidential information.[10]
On application by the Minister, the Federal Court or Federal Circuit Court may
make a non-disclosure order which prevents access by an applicant in the
relevant substantive proceedings, a legal representative of the applicant, or
any other member of the public.[11]
In considering whether to make such an order the Court
must consider an exhaustive list of matters set out in subsection 503B(5),
including: the fact of the information having been originally communicated on
the condition of confidence, and the possibility of disclosure discouraging
future disclosures; Australia’s national security and international relations; the
need to avoid disruption to national and international law enforcement,
intelligence and criminal investigation efforts; the protection and safety of informants
(where applicable); and the interests of the administration of justice.[12]
Who is a ‘gazetted agency’?
A gazetted agency is defined as:
- an
Australian law enforcement or intelligence body specified by the Minister in a
notice in the Gazette
- a
foreign law enforcement body for a country which is specified by the Minister
in a notice in the Gazette or
- a
war crimes tribunal.[13]
The most recent Gazette notice, which commenced on 1 April
2016, specifies 42 Australian agencies or bodies as well as 285 foreign law
enforcement countries (or parts of foreign law enforcement countries) for the
purposes of section 503A.[14]
Specified Australian agencies include Commonwealth intelligence agencies, the
AFP and state and territory police, as well as government departments such as
the Australian Taxation Office, Department of Human Services, Department of
Social Services and state and territory departments of community services and
correctional services.[15]
High Court
challenge
The Bill is aimed at safeguarding decisions which have
been made on the basis of information protected by section 503A, in light of a
challenge to the validity of the provision in two related matters before the
High Court of Australia—Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border
Protection (Graham) and Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and
Border Protection (Te Puia).[16]
A hearing for both matters took place on 30 March 2017, with the Court
reserving its decision. The decision remains pending at the time of writing.[17]
Background
to cases
In the matter of Graham, the plaintiff is a New
Zealand citizen who has been resident in Australia since 1976. In 2009 he was
sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for assault offences. He has also been a
member of the Rebels Motor Cycle Club.[18]
His visa (a Special Category (Temporary) visa available only to New Zealand
citizens) was initially cancelled by the Minister in June 2015, but the
cancellation was held to be invalid by the Federal Court in June 2016.[19]
Immediately following the Federal Court’s decision, the Minister again
cancelled the plaintiff’s visa under subsection 501(3) of the Migration Act,
which allows the Minister to cancel or refuse to grant a visa on character
grounds where satisfied that doing so is in the national interest, without a
requirement to afford natural justice. The Minister provided a statement of
reasons which referred to certain information protected from disclosure under
section 503A.[20]
In the matter of Te Puia, the plaintiff is also a
New Zealand citizen, and has been resident in Australia since May 2005, holding
a Special Category (Temporary) visa. The Minister cancelled the visa in October
2015 on character grounds, on the basis of the plaintiff’s membership ‘of a
group or organisation ... [which] has been or is involved in criminal conduct’.[21]
Prior to the decision being made, the Department had provided the Minister with
a submission inviting him to consider whether to cancel the visa, with an
attachment protected from disclosure under section 503A.[22]
Both plaintiffs have sought a writ of prohibition
preventing the Minister from acting upon his decision to cancel the visas, and
a writ of certiorari quashing the Minister’s decision, on the basis that subsections
501(3) and/or 503A(2) of the Migration Act are invalid. In November 2016
the cases were removed from the Federal Court in order to be considered by the
High Court.[23]
Arguments
regarding validity
The plaintiffs have challenged the validity of the
legislative scheme (namely, section 503A and subsection 501(3)) on two key
grounds.
Infringement
on separation of powers
Firstly, they have claimed that the scheme infringes the
separation of powers, by authorising an impermissible level of Executive
interference with the exercise of judicial power. According to the plaintiffs’
submissions, in reviewing a decision based on information protected by section
503A, the Court is confined to determining whether a number of objective facts
exist, that is:
- whether
the information was communicated by a gazetted agency to an authorised
migration officer
- whether
it was communicated on the condition that it be treated as confidential
information and
- whether
the information was relevant to the exercise of the Minister’s powers under
sections 501, 501A, 501B, 501BA, 501C or 501CA.[24]
The Court does not have the scope to consider whether
confidentiality is required in the particular circumstances of the case, or to
weigh up competing public interest considerations.[25]
Furthermore, there is no requirement that information relevant to the exercise
of power being reviewed be produced to the court.[26]
The plaintiffs have argued that this undermines the Court’s ability to exercise
its judicial function, requiring it to depart ‘from the methods and standards
which have historically characterised the exercise of judicial power’.[27]
Original
jurisdiction of the High Court
Secondly, the plaintiffs have argued that the legislative
scheme is inconsistent with subsection 75(v) of the Constitution,
which provides the High Court with an entrenched jurisdiction to conduct
judicial review of administrative actions for jurisdictional error. They claim
that the practical effect of the scheme is to impair the judicial review of
administrative action by withholding information from the court that is
relevant to the exercise of power the court is attempting to review.[28]
Counter-arguments
In their submission to the High Court, the Minister for
Immigration and Border Protection (as the defendant) and the Attorney-General
(as an intervening party) rejected the argument that the provision infringed on
the Constitutional separation of powers, stating that section 503A can be seen
to be a:
... conventional exercise of Parliament’s well-established
power to strike a balance of competing public interests for and against the
disclosure of particular kinds of information.
... The balance reflected in s 503A encourages law enforcement
agencies to provide information to the Minister so as to facilitate fully
informed decisions as to the grant or refusal of visas on character grounds,
thereby advancing the objects in s 4 of the [Migration Act].[29]
The Commonwealth argued that the court remains the ‘final
arbiter’ of whether the statutory criteria on which the section 503A immunity
is enlivened are satisfied—although these criteria do not require the court to
make its own assessment as to how competing public interest considerations
should be balanced, the Constitution does not mandate that the court
perform this role.[30]
The Commonwealth’s submission acknowledged that the
provision creates a ‘forensic impediment to success’ for an applicant who seeks
review of a matter before the courts, but argued that section 503A does not
exclude judicial review or strike at any essential characteristic of a court.[31]
It drew the distinction between a law that would deprive a court of its
supervisory jurisdiction and a law that ‘regulates, structures, guides or
informs’ the court’s exercise of its jurisdiction.[32]
It further argued that the Constitution does not require that a court
must have access to all material relevant to an issue to be litigated before
it.[33]
Committee
consideration
Senate
Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Standing
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 4
September 2017. Details can be found at the inquiry
homepage.
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee reported on the Bill on 9
August 2017, and raised concerns about the retrospective validation of
decisions.[34]
These concerns are discussed in more detail below.
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The Australian Labor Party supported the passage of the
Bill through the House of Representatives. In a second reading speech, Shadow
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Shayne Neumann stated:
Labor has consistently demonstrated our bipartisan commitment
to keeping Australia and Australians safe. It’s absolutely crucial to protect
the ability of our law enforcement agencies and intelligence bodies to freely
provide information to immigration ministers to make decisions. Labor wants to
uphold the integrity of the Migration Act and ensure this Bill is
absolutely watertight. That’s why this Bill has been referred to a short Senate
inquiry with the timetable agreed with the government ...[35]
The Australian Greens did not support the Bill in the
House of Representatives. Independents Cathy McGowan and Andrew Wilkie also
voted against the Bill.[36]
Position of
major interest groups
The Law Council of Australia and Refugee Legal have raised
concerns with the Bill in submissions to the Senate Inquiry. The Law Council
recommended that the Bill should not be passed until the High Court issues its
decision in the matters of Graham and Te Puia, in order to ‘fully
determine and understand the consequences of the Bill and the subsections of
the existing Act and their impact’.[37]
It expressed particular concern about the Bill’s retrospective application, and
suggested that depending on the High Court’s decision, this may deny
individuals the opportunity to have their cases reconsidered lawfully.[38]
Refugee Legal recommended that the Bill not be passed,
arguing that it ‘amounts to an entirely inappropriate and profoundly concerning
encroachment on the jurisdiction of the courts and is fundamentally
inconsistent with the separation of powers’.[39]
It claimed that by purporting to pre-emptively negate the legal implications of
a High Court ruling, the proposed amendment offends the principle of separation
of powers, noting that the judiciary’s independence is:
... undermined if the legislature purports to prevent the
judiciary from examining the legality of the conduct of those who are bound by
those rules of law.[40]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Bill will have
a low financial impact.[41]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[42]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) reported
on the Bill in its eighth Scrutiny Report of 2017. It raised questions
about the Bill’s compatibility with a number of human rights, including the
right to due process prior to expulsion; right to liberty; right to protection
of the family; right to non-refoulement; right to freedom of movement and the
right to an effective remedy.[43]
While acknowledging that the rationales provided in the Statement of
Compatibility—to ensure the safety of the Australian community and the
integrity of the migration programme—were capable of constituting legitimate objectives
for the purposes of international human rights law, the Committee stated:
... the measure seeks to validate administrative decisions made
with regard to information which was not disclosed to the affected person, and
could not be effectively tested in a court for reliability, relevance or
accuracy. The effectiveness of the measure to ensure the safety of Australians
and the integrity of the immigration system is therefore questionable.[44]
The Committee requested further information from the
Minister on a number of these matters. Further concerns are discussed below.
Key issues
and provisions
The Bill has one provision: item 1 inserts proposed
section 503E into the Act. This provides that if:
- section
503A is not a valid law of the Commonwealth (either in part or in whole) and
- the
Minister made a decision under section 501, 501A, 501B, 501BA, 501C or 501CA before
the commencement of the proposed section
then the decision is not invalid, and is taken to have
never been invalid, solely because the Minister:
- relied
on, had regard to or failed to disclose information covered (or purportedly
covered) by section 503A or
- made
the decision on the basis of an erroneous understanding of section 503A or the
protection the section provided against an obligation to disclose information.[45]
Proposed subsection 503E(2) states that this
amendment does not affect the rights and liabilities of parties to proceedings
in which judgment is reserved by a court at the date of commencement, or where
a court has delivered a judgment prior to commencement, which set aside or
declared invalid a decision of the Minister under section 501, 501A, 501B,
501BA, 501C or 501CA.
The proposed amendment is aimed at safeguarding decisions
previously made on the basis of information protected by section 503A, from
being found invalid if the High Court invalidates section 503A. In his second
reading speech introducing the Bill, Michael McCormack stated:
Should the High Court find any part of section 503A invalid,
there is a real risk that such an outcome could result in several non-citizens
of serious character concern being released from immigration detention into the
Australian community, or being allowed to return to Australia where they are
currently offshore.
These would present an unacceptable risk to the Australian
community and would understandably undermine public confidence in the integrity
of Australia's migration framework.[46]
The proposed amendment applies only to decisions made
before the commencement of proposed section 503E—it does not work
to validate future decisions made in reliance on section 503A information.
This means that a decision by the Minister based on
section 503A information, made after the commencement of the provision but
before the High Court issues its decision (if the latter event does not occur
first), will not be protected in the event that the Court invalidates all or
part of section 503A.
Retrospective
validation
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee has raised concerns about
the retrospective operation of proposed section 503E in light of the
significant consequences of decisions made in connection with information
protected by section 503A.[47]
One such consequence is that the Migration Act expressly prohibits a
person whose visa is cancelled, or whose visa application is rejected, on
character grounds, from applying for another visa.[48]
A person who receives an adverse visa decision on character grounds based on
information protection by section 503A, after exhausting any avenues for review
will in most circumstances be unable to make a further visa application.
In its comments on the Bill, the Scrutiny of Bills
Committee acknowledged that there may be cases in which legislation
retrospectively validating administrative decisions is justified. It provided
the example of where the invalidity has resulted from an administrative
oversight that does not affect the substance of the power being exercised, such
as an oversight relating to the appointment of the officer who made the
decision.[49]
However, the Committee questioned whether such a provision was appropriate in
relation to section 503A, noting that the issue under consideration by the High
Court:
... is whether the non-disclosure provided for by current
section 503A affects the proper administration of justice and strikes at the
role of the court in granting a fair hearing. Deeming decisions reached in
these circumstances to be valid, even though the decision applied or relied on
a potentially unconstitutional provision, cannot, therefore, be characterised
as curing a mere technical or administrative failing.[50]
The Committee requested the Minister provide ‘detailed
justification’ for seeking to retrospectively validate decisions made in these
circumstances.[51]
In relation to the Bill’s impact, the Statement of Compatibility
states that ‘this Bill will not prevent the affected non-citizens from
individually challenging their decisions in a court’.[52]
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry, the Department further provided:
Persons who have had their visa cancelled, or visa
application refused, on the basis of section 503A protected information will
remain able to seek judicial review of their visa decision following the
commencement of these amendments. The amendments will not affect any review
rights afforded to non-citizens under law.[53]
However, the PJCHR has noted that it is unclear on what
basis an affected non-citizen would be able to challenge their visa
cancellation or refusal in a court:
... indeed, the intent of the measure appears to be to preclude
affected persons from successfully challenging visa cancellations or refusals
made in reliance on information that was not disclosed pursuant to section
503A, in the event that section 503A is held to be invalid.[54]
In the case of a High Court finding that section 503A was
invalid, proposed section 503E would be likely to operate to protect any
decisions made in reliance on section 503A prior to the commencement date, from
being overturned by the courts on the basis of that invalidity. Additionally,
as noted by the PJCHR, it is unclear whether the Bill would allow affected
persons to access the information previously protected by section 503A, should
the High Court invalidate or read down the provision.[55]
In its submission to the Senate Inquiry, Refugee Legal
argued that allowing affected persons to access a fair hearing of their claims
in the absence of section 503A would not necessarily mean that the relevant
sensitive information previously protected by that section would be disclosed
to the individual.[56]
It noted that common law public immunity protections require a careful
balancing of national security, law enforcement and foreign policy
considerations against the principle of a right to a fair hearing.[57]
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain
further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. That
is, decisions made under sections 501, 501A, 501B, 501BA, 501C or 501CA of the Migration
Act.
[2]. An
authorised migration officer is defined as a Commonwealth officer
whose duties consist of, or include, the performance of functions, or the
exercise of powers, under the Migration Act, subsection 503A(9).
[3]. Migration
Act, subsections 503A(1) and (2). Non-disclosure extends to the identity of
the gazetted agency and the conditions on which the information was disclosed:
section 503D.
[4]. Ibid.,
subsection 503A(3).
[5]. Ibid.,
subsection 503A(3A).
[6]. Evans
v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003)
135 FCR 306, [2003] FCAFC
276 at paragraph 13.
[7]. Migration
Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and
Conduct) Act 1998.
[8]. P
Ruddock (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Legislation Amendment (Strengthening of Provisions
relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997’, House of Representatives, Debates,
30 October 1997, p. 10364.
[9]. For
further discussion, see: S Sen, Migration
Legislation Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2002, Bills digest,
135, 2002–03, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2003.
[10]. Migration
Legislation Amendment (Protected Information) Act 2003, proposed
sections 503B (permanent non-disclosure orders) and 503C (interim
non-disclosure orders).
[11]. Migration
Act, subsection 503B(1).
[12]. Ibid.,
subsection 503B(5).
[13]. Migration
Act, subsection 503A(9).
[14]. ‘Notice under section
503A of the Migration Act 1958—16/001’.
[15]. Ibid.,
Schedule 1.
[16]. High
Court of Australia (HCA), ‘Case M97/2016: Graham v
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’, HCA website; HCA, ‘Case P58/2016: Te
Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’, HCA website.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Graham
v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 439, [2016] FCA 682,
at paragraphs 2–3.
[19]. Graham
v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 682;
HCA, ‘Short
particulars: Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’,
HCA website.
[20]. HCA,
‘Short
particulars: Graham v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’,
op. cit.
[21]. ‘P58/2016:
Applicant’s annotated submissions’, HCA website, 12 December 2016, pp. 1–2;
HCA, ‘Short
particulars: Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’,
HCA website.
[22]. HCA,
‘Short
particulars: Te Puia v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection’,
op. cit.
[23]. Ibid.
[24]. ‘M97/2016:
Plaintiff’s annotated submissions’, HCA website, 12 December 2016, p. 3.
[25]. Ibid.,
pp. 13–14.
[26]. Ibid.,
p. 14.
[27]. Ibid.,
p. 6, citing Thomas v Mowbray (2007) 233 CLR 307, [2007]
HCA 33.
[28]. ‘M97/2016:
Plaintiff’s annotated submissions’, op. cit., p. 16.
[29]. ‘M97/2016
Annotated submissions of the defendant and the Commonwealth Attorney-General
(intervening)’, HCA website, 25 January 2017, pp. 8–9.
[30]. Ibid.,
p. 1.
[31]. Ibid.,
p. 9.
[32]. Ibid.,
p. 15.
[33]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
[34]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, 8, 2017, The Senate, 9 August 2017, pp. 15–17.
[35]. S
Neumann (Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017’,
House of Representatives, Debates, (proof), 16 August 2017, p. 35.
[36]. Australia,
House of Representatives, ‘Migration
Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017’, Votes and proceedings,
HVP 70, 16 August 2017; also see P Billings, ‘Greens
alarm over security laws push’, The Mercury, 15 August 2017, p. 8.
[37]. Law
Council of Australia, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 [Provisions],
The Senate, 25 August 2017, pp. 4–5.
[38]. Ibid.,
p. 7.
[39]. Refugee
Legal, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 [Provisions],
The Senate, 25 August 2017, 24 August 2017, p. 1.
[40]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[41]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017, p. 1.
[42]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pp. 5–8 of the Explanatory
Memorandum to the Bill.
[43]. Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR), Scrutiny
report, 8, 2017, 15 August 2017, pp. 32–43.
[44]. Ibid.,
p. 37.
[45]. Proposed
subsection 503E(1).
[46]. M
McCormack (Minister for Small Business), ‘Second
reading speech: Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017’,
House of Representatives, Debates, 21 June 2017, p. 7191.
[47]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 16.
[48]. Migration
Act, section 501E. There is an exception for protection visas and any other
visa type specified in the Migration Regulations 1994: subsection 501E(2).
However, section 48A of the Act prevents a person whose protection visa
application is refused, or protection visa is cancelled, from making a
subsequent protection visa application.
[49]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Scrutiny
digest, op. cit., p. 16.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. Ibid.,
p. 17.
[52]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017, op. cit.,
p. 6.
[53]. Department
of Immigration and Border Protection, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 [Provisions],
The Senate, August 2017, p. 4.
[54]. PJCHR,
Scrutiny
report, op. cit., p. 37.
[55]. Ibid.,
pp. 42–43.
[56]. Refugee
Legal, Submission
to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry
into the Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 [Provisions],
op. cit., pp. 4–5.
[57]. Ibid.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth
Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party,
this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and
communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as
long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence
terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this
publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of
publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists
in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may
be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and
any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament.
They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available
in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do
not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor
do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the
relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments
or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official
status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be
directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are
available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members
and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or
the Library’s Central Enquiry Point for referral.