Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

What the Malaysian refugee High Court decision says

By Katy Barnett - posted Friday, 2 September 2011


But that's the thing about the High Court - as the Court of final jurisdiction in our country, it can change everything you thought you knew about the law in a single judgment. Decisions of the Federal Court are not binding upon it: it has the power to overrule what the decisions of lower courts, including the Federal Court.

Before the judgment was handed down, I heard various people with far more experience in Administrative Law than I say that the plaintiffs' argument was a long shot (for example, see Ken Parish's excellent post here). Nonetheless, as Ken said then, there was always a chance that the plaintiffs would succeed, as their point was "arguable" (meaning that it had some support in law and precedent).

In fact, s 198A(3) has only been in the Migration Act for 10 years, and this is the first time it has had an opportunity to consider it. Thus it is also unfair to say that the decision 'turns on its head the understanding of the law in this country' as Gillard asserted. We simply did not have High Court authority on the section before this.

Advertisement

In addition, it seems to me that the way in which the majority have interpreted the Act in this case is principled, justified and fair. It would be extraordinary, in my view, if the criteria under s 198A(3) could be met without any consideration of the actual legal framework (both international and domestic) and with an apparent desire to sideline the consideration of the situation of asylum seekers and refugees en masse in Malaysia. The whole point of the section and of the Migration Act in general is to ensure people are treated fairly and in accordance with Australia's international obligations. And what is the incentive for other countries around us to deal fairly with asylum seekers and refugees when they see a country such as Australia trying to weasel out of its international obligations?

The decision does not assist us in answering the question of how Australia should fairly decide who comes to our country and who does not; it merely says that we cannot shunt off asylum seekers to a country who has no laws protecting or recognising such people. Malaysia, at least, was certainly not the "solution" to the issue of how we make those decisions. Maybe this decision will force us to come up with a more workable and fair solution which does not involve pushing our problems onto another nation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

Acknowledgments: I do not usually dabble in Administrative Law and thus I am very grateful to these two posts by Ken Parish at Club Troppo and a very informative and clear presentation which I recently attended on this topic given by Kris Walker, one of the counsel for the plaintiffs, as well as a useful chat with my expert colleague Michelle Foster. Any errors in this post are entirely my own! Additionally, the views expressed in this piece are entirely my own, and should not be taken to reflect the views of my colleagues or employer.

This article has been cross-posted at Skeptic Lawyer



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

6 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Katy Barnett is a lawyer, blogger and lecturer at the University of Melbourne. She lives in Melbourne, Australia and blogs at Skepticlawyer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Katy Barnett

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 6 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy