SEARCH
Justinian News

Time's Up for Naughty Nathan ... Recommendation that horrible NSW solicitor be derolled ... Misuse of online funding campaigns ... Spraying ripe and abusive language ... Trolling Robert Beech-Jones ... So unfit and improper as to be beyond reeducation ... Anthony Kanaan reports ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society

Perils of the Defamatorium ... Lovely Linda Reynolds’ “victory” leaves her underwater … Politics, sex, law, and money … Injuries galore … The art of Tottling … Where’s the serious harm? … Trust me … Jurisdictional backwater ... Read more >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Act of gracelessness ... Kathleen Folbigg's miserable ex gratia payout ... Comparable awards in other miscarriage cases ... Weasel words from the NSW Premier ... Need for a proper system of compensation assessment ... Procrustes in a lather ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects ... Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me. And I just want to say that I find, I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now."

Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell interviewed by Trump's former lawyer Todd Blanche, now Deputy Attorney General ... July 25, 2025. Interviews released by DOJ, August 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and Betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... Plenty to think about ... Court reporter Ginger Snatch files ... Read more >> 

 

 

Justinian's archive

The Tamil Times ... The corruption wars ... Blitzkrieg from The Australian's legal affairs man ... Campaigns to sink ICAC and 18C ... Battles lost in the trenches ... Where are they now? ... Extravagant fulminations ... From Justinian's Archive, April 8, 2017 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« Crime Commission Standen still | Main | The law of indefinite detention »
Friday
Sep022011

It's Ruddock's fault

It was Philip Ruddock's 2001 Tampa amendment to the Migration Act that opened the way for the High Court's decision on the Malaysia refugee swap deal ... Ironic isn't it? ... Gillard unfairly shafts French CJ ... The former Liberal Immigration Minister can now wear his Amnesty badge with pride ... Marcus Priest reports 

If Prime Minister Julia Gillard wants to blame someone for her current predicament it should be former Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock, not High Court chief justice Robert French.

This week Gillard was keen to highlight previous decisions by French, apparently contradicting the reasons he applied this week to stymie her Malaysia Swap deal.

Gillard found an uncommon bedfellow in the form of Justice Dyson Heydon, who decried his colleagues' incursion into the powers of the executive.

However, a close reading of one of French's decisions and the history of the legislation which brought the deal undone reveal the delicious irony that it is Ruddock, not the chief justice, who has been the asylum seekers' best friend.

It was Ruddock not the High Court who brought the executive arm of government undone on Wednesday.

At stake in this week's High Court decision was the validity of Immigration Minister Chris Bowen's decision under s198A of the Migration Act to declare Malaysia a place to which asylum seekers could be removed. 

The section requires the minister may declare in writing that a specified country provides effective procedures to assess claims, protection to asylum seekers and refugees and "meets relevant human rights standards in providing that protection".

The section was rushed into parliament by Ruddock on September 11, 2001.

It was part of a package of amendments the day after Federal Court judge Tony North ordered the minister to bring asylum seekers aboard the MV Tampa to Australia to process their claims.

The same day the Federal Court made its orders, the Howard Government signed a deal with Nauru to enable the asylum seekers to be taken to the island state to assess their claims.

Introducing the amendments Ruddock said they confirmed, "recent actions taken in relation to vessels carrying unauthorised arrivals, including the MV Tampa, are valid". 

However, he stressed they should not be misinterpreted as "fortress Australia" legislation. The minister told parliament:

"Australia will continue to honour our international protection obligations." 

The Bill was subsequently passed with Labor's support. Then shadow attorney general, Robert McClellend, said: 

"We are prepared to support and indeed we acknowledge that, if persons who are in distress can be taken out of the sea and brought to dry land for processing, it may actually facilitate more humane treatment of those persons, rather than putting them on board a naval craft such as the Manoora and transporting them to other locations.

Even if they are to be transported via Cocos Island, Christmas Island or another location as designated, clearly it is easier to give them health checks and the like if they are on dry land before so transporting them.

We are also prepared to acknowledge the legitimacy of giving a different class of visa status so that these people who arrive via people smugglers do not have the opportunity of jumping the queue." 

Tampa: brought on the Pacific Solution and s.198A of the Migration Act

As it turned out the legislation was not needed.

On September 18, 2001 - the same day Ruddock gave his Bill a second reading - the full bench of the Federal Court overturned North's decision, saying it was within the executive's common law prerogative power to remove the asylum seekers to Nauru.

This power was in addition to provisions of Migration Act.

On a full bench split 2-1, Justice French delivered the majority decision authorising the removal to Nauru.

"The executive power of the Commonwealth, absent statutory extinguishment or abridgement, would extend to a power to prevent the entry of non-citizens and to do such things as are necessary to effect such exclusion ...

The steps taken in relation to the MV Tampa, which had the purpose and effect of preventing the rescuees from entering the migration zone and arranging for their departure from Australian territorial waters, were within the scope of executive power

Nothing done by the executive on the face of it amounts to a breach of Australia's obligations in respect of non-refoulement under the Refugee Convention." 

It was upon those words that Commonwealth lawyers latched in their defence of the Malaysia deal. 

Solicitor General Stephen Gageler argued s.198A was limited to the principle of non-refoulement - the protection from being returned to a place where a person's life or freedom could be threatened. 

But counsel for the asylum seekers had a deadly counter-blow: the express terms of s.198A and the statements by Ruddock when introducing it to parliament.

The section made redundant any discussion about executive power and confined the question of the lawfulness of the minister's decision to the terms of the section.

French and five other judges of the court agreed, finding the protections given by the amendment gave more protections to asylum seekers than necessarily required. French found: 

"The criteria for a declaration set out in s.198A(3)(a) are not limited to those things necessary to characterise the declared country as a safe third country. 

The question is one of statutory construction. The minister is empowered under s 198A(3) to make a declaration, the content of which is defined by that subsection." 

It is no wonder Ruddock was sounding smug this week when asked on radio about the High Court decision.

"They're the words in the Act. And I would never walk away from those because what we put in place was a regime that ensured that people were able to access protection if there was a need." 

Ruddock can wear his Amnesty badge with pride. 

 

Marcus Priest

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.