High Court of Australia
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
KIEFEL CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJ
PLAINTIFF S195/2016 PLAINTIFF
AND
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ORS DEFENDANTS
Plaintiff S195/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 31 17 August 2017 S195/2016
ORDER
The questions stated by the parties in the special case dated 14 March 2017 and referred for consideration by the Full Court be answered as follows:
Question 1
Was the designation of [Papua New Guinea] as a regional processing country on 9 October 2012 beyond the power conferred by s 198AB(1) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 2
Was entry into:
(a) the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding;
(b) the Regional Resettlement Arrangement;
(c) the 2014 Administrative Arrangements; and
(d) the Broadspectrum Contract,
beyond the power of the Commonwealth conferred by s 61 of the Constitution and/or s 198AHA of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 3
Was the direction made by the Minister on 29 July 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD(5) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 4
Was the taking of the plaintiff to [Papua New Guinea] on 21 August 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
Answer
No.
Question 5
Is the authority for the Commonwealth to undertake conduct in respect of regional processing arrangements in [Papua New Guinea] conferred by s 198AHA of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] dependent on whether those arrangements are lawful under the law of [Papua New Guinea]?
Answer
No.
Question 6
Is the Commonwealth precluded from assisting [Papua New Guinea] to take action pursuant to the orders outlined at paragraph 35 [of the special case] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate