Proof that the Morrison Government considers itself above the law

Image: ALEX ELLINGHAUSEN, The Sydney Morning Herald 

Minister for for Cities, Urban Infrastructure and Population & Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge (left) has been Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs since 13 December 2019.

It is to him the following Federal Court of Australia judgment refers.

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v PDWL [2020] FCA 1354 (23 September 2020), excerpts from judgment of 23 September 2020:

CONCLUSIONS

Ground 1 of the Amended Originating Application has been upheld. Notwithstanding the agreement between the parties to the Tribunal proceeding, the Tribunal erred in acting upon the agreement between the parties that the decision in BAL19 required it “to set aside the ... delegate’s decision” and that “[the] only question” to be resolved was the form of the “further order” to be made under s 43(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.

Although the Tribunal quite properly acted upon the agreement of the parties that it was bound by BAL19, the fact remains that the Tribunal failed to give any consideration to a matter of fundamental importance to a decision as to whether to grant or refuse a protection visa – namely, the discretion conferred by s 501(1). In failing to do so, the Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

The second Ground of review, it has tentatively been concluded has some merit.

Even if both Grounds of review were made out, however, relief should be refused in the exercise of the Court’s discretion. The Minister cannot place himself above the law and, at the same time, necessarily expect that this Court will grant discretionary relief. The Minister has acted unlawfully. His actions have unlawfully deprived a person of his liberty. His conduct exposes him to both civil and potentially criminal sanctions, not limited to a proceeding for contempt. In the absence of explanation, the Minister has engaged in conduct which can only be described as criminal. He has intentionally and without lawful authority been responsible for depriving a person of his liberty. Whether or not further proceedings are to be instituted is not a matter of present concern. The duty Judge in the present proceeding was quite correct to describe the Minister’s conduct as “disgraceful”. Such conduct by this particular Minister is, regrettably, not unprecedented: AFX17 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 4) [2020] FCA 926 at [8] to [9] per Flick J. Any deference to decisions made by Ministers by reason of their accountability to Parliament and ultimately the electorate assumes but little relevance in the present case. Ministerial “responsibility”, with respect, cannot embrace unlawful conduct intentionally engaged in by a Minister who seeks to place himself above the law. Although unlawful conduct on the part of a litigant does not necessarily dictate the refusal of relief, on the facts of the present case the Minister’s conduct warrants the refusal of relief.

It is finally concluded that there should be no order for costs. Although PDWL has succeeded in retaining the visa granted to him, that result follows not from the lack of success on the part of the Minister in establishing jurisdictional error but rather from the discretionary refusal of relief.

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE:

The Amended Originating Application filed on 20 July 2020 is dismissed.

There is no order as to costs. [my yellow highlighting]

Alan Tudge should resign from the Australian Parliament with immediate effect.

However, it is highly likely he will refuse any call to do so and instead appeal this judgment.