Borkovic v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1981] FCA 252

CATCHIWORDS

Immigration - Depor ta t ion - Appl i ca t ions made under

Admin i s t r a t ive Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l Review) Act, 1 9 7 7 -

"Improper exercise o f power" d i scussed - s . 6 A

Migrat ion Act considered.

Admln i s t r a t ive Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l Rcview) Act , 1 9 7 7

(Cth) ss. 3 , 5 , 6, 7 , 13 , 1 6

Migrat ion Act, 1 9 6 8 (Cth) s.6A

MARGARITA BORKOVIC v MINISTER FOR IFRiIGRATION AND	ETHNIC
AFFAIRS

NADA KNEZEVIC V MINISTER FOR IEIfiIIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS

No.	G134 of 1 9 8 1
No.	G135 o f 1 9 8 1
No.	G183 o f 1 9 8 1
No.	G184 o f 1 9 8 1

Fox J

1 6 December	1 9 8 1
Sydney .

IN	THE
FEDERAL NElV SOUTH COURT OF AUSTR4LIA ) N o . c 134 of 1981

No. G 135 o € 1981

WALES	D I S T R I C T	R E G I S T R Y	No.	G	183	of	1981
No.	G	1 8 4	o €	1 9 8 1

GENERAL D I V I S I O K

MARGARITA	BORKOVIC
and

M I N I S T E R F O R I M M I G R 4 T I O Y AND

E T H K I C A F F A I R S

NADA KNEZEVIC

and

M I N I S T E R F O R I k I N I G R 4 T I O N AND

E T H K I C A F F A I R S

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Fox J

DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE : 1 6 D e c e m b e r 1981

Sydney

Thc C o u r t o r d e r s t h a t :

1. T h e a p p l i c a t l o n s be d i s m i s s e d wlth cos t s .

No. G 134 o f 1 9 8 1

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1 No. G 135 o f 1 9 8 1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) x o a G of 1981
1

GENCR4L DIVISION j No. G 184 of 1 9 8 1

MARGARITA	B O R K O V I C
and

NADA KNEZEVIC

and

MINISTER FOR II\IMIGRATION AND

ETHNIC AFFAIRS

C O R f i i : Fox J

1 6 December 1 9 8 1

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT -

I am d e a l i n g w l t h t h c two app l l ca t ions unde r

the Admin i s t r a t ive Dec i s ions ( Jud ic i a l Review) Act , 1 9 7 7 .

They r a i s e t h e same p o m t and have been hcard togethcr

by a g r e m e n t . The s i t u a t i o n b r o a d l y i s t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a n t s came t o A u s t r a l i a i n l a t e 19SO a s v i s i t o r s

and wcre granted tcmporary entry permits in accordance

w i t h the Migrat ion Act 1958. Thesc permits expired on

10 March 1 9 8 1 .

On 2 5 February 1 9 8 1 app l i ca t lons were made In

bo th cases fo r en t ry pe rmi t s of i n d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n o r

a l t e r n a t i v e l y a n e x t e n s i o n of the tcnlporary entry perrnl ts .

The f a c t 1s tha t the appl icants have not been granted any

entry permit temporary o r o the rwise s ince the exp i ry on

10 March 1951 oi t he o r ig ina l pe rmi t s t hcy were r c spcc

t l v e l y g r a n t e d .

I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s madc on 25

February 1 9 S 1 were examined in the dcpa r tmen t du r ing

March and A p r i l . The app l i can t s were i nd iv idua l ly

informed by l e t t e r s d a t e d 2 8 A p r i l - Mrs. Borkovic - and

30 Apr i l - Mrs. Knezevic - t h a t a s t h c y d l d n o t s a t i s f y

the terms of s . 6 A ( 1 ) o f the Migra t ion Act , no f u r t h e r

grant could s l t u a t l o n t h a t a r o s e be made. There i s some confus ion about the

t h c n and subsequent ly but except as

I wlll now mention it i s n o t m a t e r l a l t o t h e m a t t e r w h l c h

I have to dec ide .

Sec t ion 6A(1) of the Migration Act, which was

i n s e r t e d i n 1 9 8 0 , p rov ides tha t an en t ry pe rmi t i s n o t t o

be g r a n t e d t o a n i m m i g r a n t a f t c r h i s c n t r y i n t o , \ u s t r a l l a

unless one o r more o f t h e s t l p u l a t c d c o n d i t i o n s i s f u l -

f i l l e d . Thc pa r t l cu la r cond i t ion wh lch has been r ega rded

as a p p l i c a b l e t o t h c p r e s e n t a p p l i c a n t s i s s . 6 A ( l ) ( c )

which is in the fo l lowing t e rms :

“he 1 s t he ho ldc r o f a temporary entry

permit which i s i n f o r c e and t h e r c a r e

s t rong compassionate o r humanltarlan

grounds for the gran t o f an cn t ry p e r -

m i t to h im.“

Sub-sec t ion S of s.6A p r o v i d c s t h a t i n t h a t s e c t i o n a

r e f e r e n c e t o a n e n t r y p e r m i t s h a l l b e r c a d as a r e fe rence

t o an e n t r y p e r m i t o t h c r t h a n a temporary- entry permit.

The s i t u a t i o n was t h e r e f o r e t h a t i n A p r i l 1 9 S 1

- 3 -

t he app l i can t s cou ld no t succced in the g ran t t o them of

a permit a permanent o f i n d e f i n i t c d u r a t l o n , s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o a s

residencv permit, because they were not then

the ho lde r s Thcy could , o f t emporary en t ry permi ts then in Iorce .

i t would seem, have succeedcd s o f a r a s c o n -

c e r n s l e g a l porary en t ry permi tsand th i s might c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , i n o b t a i n i n g f u r t h e r t e m -

then have put them i n

t h e p o s i t i o n	o f	having the i r case cons idcred undcr
s . 6 A ( l ) ( e ) .

No fur ther en t ry permi t having been granted ,

they became p roh ib i t ed immigran t s a f t e r 1 0 &larch 1981 .

E a r l y t h l s month t h e M i n i s t e r a c t e d on t h i s b a s i s and

made depor t a t ion o rde r s i n r c spec t o f t hem. Accord ing t o

the papers before mc, i t was s u b m i t t e d t o him t h a t t h e

evidence was n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e g r a n t o i per-

manent residence on the basis o f "s t rong compassionatc or

humani ta r ian grounds" and tha t he , the Minis te r , should

t h e r e f o r e s i g n t h e d e p o r t a t i o n o r d e r s . As I unders tand ,

he could not have done s o because o f s . 6 4 ( 1 ) , b u t t h e

submission may have mcant t h a t e v e n i f temporary permits

werc f i r s t g ran ted , t he app l i ca t ions fo r pe rmanen t

res idency should be refused.

Procedura l ly the mat te r secms to have taken an

i r r e g u l a r c o u r s e b u t it i s agreed on b o t h s i d e s t h a t t h e

ques t ion I should now cons ider i s t h e s u b m i s s ~ o n on b c h a l l

o f the appl icants tha t under the Adminis t ra t ivc Decis ions

( J u d i c l a l Review) Act t h i s c o u r t has power t o e n t e r i n t o a

- 4 -

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m e r i t s o f t h e f a c t u a l m a t t e r s

g i v l n g r i s e t o t h e r c f u s a l o f t h e g r a n t 01 the permancnt

res idency pcrmi t . More s h o r t l y , t h e q u e s t i o n i s whether

t h i s c o u r t h a s power t o and should for i t se l f exannne

t h e I a c t s which go to thc ques t ion o f whe thc r s t rong

compassionate o r humani ta r ian grounds ex ls t o r e x i s t e d

f o r t h e g r a n t o f a n e n t r y p e r m i t t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s .

I do not think I do any i n j u s t i c e t o t h e sub-

mission on beha l f o f t he app l i can t s when I l eave the

m a t t e r i n t h a t f o r m , a l t h o u g h it has been p u t I n a number

of ways by counsel on t h c i r b e h a l f . I t has been sa id

for example tha t in order to examine the mat te r under

s .5 (1 ) (e ) of the Adminis t ra t ive Decis ions ( Judic ia l Revlew)

A c t , t o t a k e t h e p a r t i c u l a r p a r a g r a p h r e l i e d upon, it 1s

n e c e s s a r y f o r t h i s C o u r t t o l o o k a t t h e " o b j e c t i v e € a c t s "

and to sce whcthcr they were cor rec t ly dcc idcd o r

assessed o r o therwise .

I t i s p l a i n t h a t u n d c r t h e A c t i n q u e s t i o n t h i s

Court docs not have power to make a d e c l s l o n on t h e

m e r i t s o f t h e f a c t u a l p o s i t i o n f o r l t s c l f . I t i s p l a i n

t h a t i t i s n o t i n v i t e d o r emporcered undcr the Act to con-

s l d c r t h e f a c t s f o r i t s e l f f o r t h c p u r p o s e of formmg and

d e c l a r i n g i t s own view thercon. O f c o u r s c , i n o r d e r t o

apply somc of thc p rov i s ions o r the Act I t i s n e c c s s a r y t o

examine t h c f a c t s q u l t e c l o s e l y h u t t h i s i s not € o r t he

pu rpose o f t he cour t a r r lv ing a t i t s own d c c i s i o n ; r a t h e r

i s i t to see whe the r t he case comes wi th in one o f t h e

s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s o f t h e Act.

- 5 -

The argument submitted on behalf of the

applicants is in fact covered by authoritatlve statcments

in a number of dcclsions of this court. >lost have been

cited and I do not proposc to set them out. The hlstory

o f thc Act has been referred to s metimes when thc court

has been considering appea ls , so callcd, under the

Administrative Appcals Trlbunal Act. It 1s one of three

that was passed in order to enable there to be somc

judicial review or chcck on the exercise of admlnist-

rative power. One is the Administrativc Appeals Tribunal

Act, to which I have just refcrrcd, another is the

Ombudsman Act, and the third is thc present Act.

As counsel for the applicants himsclf pointed

out thc short title of the Act rcfers to revlcw on

"qucstions of law of certain administrativc decisions".

The short title of the -Act, o i course, is not a sure or

certain gulde to its construction but I rcfer to thc

matter in particular because one has at the outset the

constitutional problem to which attcntion was paid by the

committees whosc reports werc relied on whcn the various

cnactments were drafted. They refcr to the necessity to

ensure that fedcral courts are only vcsted with the

judicial power oC the Commonwealth, and, on the other

hand, that admlnistratlve bodies, not having t h e full

structure o f courts nor ~udges appointed in accordancc

with Chapter I11 of the constitution, are not left to

determine in a final way questions o f law. The line of

- 6 -

demarcation has bccn described i n r e s p o n s i b l e c i r c l e s as

"review on the meri ts" , the view bcing taken that review

on t h e m c r l t s was someth ing tha t Ec l l wi th ln admlnls t -

r a t i v e power and competence and o u t s i d e j u d i c i a l power.

I t seems t o me t h a t t h e whole framework and

substance o f the enactment plainly supports the view sub-

ml t t ed by counsel f o r the respondent and , as I have sa ld ,

t ha t v i ew has been s t a t ed In a number o f cases jn t h i s

Court . I s h a l l n o t e n d e a v o u r t o a n a l y s c a l l t h e p r o v i s i o n s

o f the .4ct. The key s ec t ions a r e ss . 5 , 6 and 7 , and

associated with them i s t h e d e f i n i t i o n i n S. 3 O F a

"dec is ion to which th i s Act appl ies" . That i s , a d e c i s i o n

o f an admin i s t r a t ive cha rac t e r made, proposed t o bc madc,

o r r equ i r ed to be made, ... under an enactment.

Sec t ion 5 , a s w i t h s s . 6 and 7 , dea l s w i th

dec i s lons and t h e manner o f t h c i r e x c r c i s e and i n some

c a s e s t h c i r c o n t e n t . The s e c t i o n s do n o t i n v i t e m exam-

inat ion of the issues which were the sub-~ect of the

d e c i s i o n s . The impact o f the Act 1s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h c

dec is lons thcmselvcs , a l though, as I havc a l r cady s a id ,

f o r some purposes it is n e c c s s a r y t o go behtnd the

d e c i s i o n s a n d I n t o t h e f a c t s .

I t can be s a i d i n a gene ra l way t h a t s . 5 I S

conccrned with acts wrong i n law o r c o n t r a r y t o law and,

onc might add, misuse o r abuse o f power. Ifhat i s s e t o u t

in parag raphs ( a ) t o (1) of s .5 (1 ) accords very c lose ly

with the type of review with which one has become

accustomed under prerogative wrlts o r other avcnues of

review o f admin i s t r a t lve dec i s ions , such a s by hay of

d e c l a r a t i o n .

There i s t h i s c o n s t a n t r e f e r e n c e t o t he

exe rc i se o f power and t h e maklng of decls ions without any

i n v i t a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r t t o examine f o r I t s e l f t h e i s s u e s

which a re involved . One can pause f o r t h c t h o u g h t t h a t

an Act impossibly which i s already vcry wide i n I t s scope would be

wide i f it were t o empower t h i s C o u r t t o

examine f o r i t s e l f t h c € a c t s b e h i n d e v e r y d e c i s l o n w h i c h

was capable of be ing renewed.

Sec t ion 13 enables rcasons to be g iven which

would hardly be necessary were one t o p r e s s t h e s c o p e o f

t h e c a r l l e r s e c t i o n s t o t h c p o i n t t o which counsel Invi tes

t he Cour i n d i c a t e s , t t o go. Scc t lon 1 6 , which deals with r e l i e f ,

t o o , t h a t one i s concerned with a l i m i t e d n a t u r e

o f r e l i e f g o m g t o what should be done in re la t ion to the

d e c i s i o n	i n	t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s .
Something \vas made o r sough t t o bc madc i n

argumcnt about the use o f t h e word "Improper" in pa rag raph

(e) o i s u b s e c t i o n (1) o f 5 . 5 and the e luc ida t ion o i t h a t

term In the phrase " improper cxcrc1sc" in sub-sec t ion ( 2 )

of S. 5. "Improper", whatcver i t s precisc meanlng,

c c r t a i n l y d o e s n o t mean s imply wrong o r Inco r rec t . I t

r e l a t e s more obvlous ly to someth ing r ih lch , for some rcason

known to the l a lv , i s not a proper exercise of porcer .

- 8 -

I do not think i t 1 s nccessary t o go f u r t h e r .

]\‘hat I have said should not be taken as any more than a

br ief extempore s ta tcnlent concerning the purview of thc

Act. I t 1 s s u f f i c i e n t t o s a y t h a t i n my view there i s no

substance i n the submisslon put forward. As I unders tand ,

tha t conc ludcs the cases . I w i l l s i m p l y o r d e r t h a t t h e

a p p l i c a t i o n s be d ismissed . As c o s t s a r e asked f o r , I will

add - w i t h c o s t s .