Plaintiff S156/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The plaintiff, an unauthorised maritime arrival, challenged the constitutional validity of sections 198AB and 198AD of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and the validity of decisions made by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection under those provisions. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, comprising French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, and Keane JJ. The core of the dispute concerned whether the impugned legislative provisions and the Minister's subsequent decisions were lawful.

The legal issues before the Court were whether sections 198AB and 198AD of the *Migration Act* were valid laws with respect to the "aliens power" under section 51(xix) of the Constitution. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the Minister's designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country, and a subsequent direction for the removal of unauthorised maritime arrivals to that country, were invalid. The plaintiff argued that the Minister failed to consider relevant considerations when making these decisions, rendering them unlawful.

The High Court held that sections 198AB and 198AD of the *Migration Act* were valid laws enacted pursuant to the Commonwealth's aliens power. The Court reasoned that these provisions dealt with a class of aliens and were therefore supported by section 51(xix) of the Constitution. Regarding the Minister's decisions, the Court found that section 198AB(2) expressly stipulated that the sole condition for designating a country as a regional processing country was the Minister's opinion that it was in the national interest. The Court determined that, unlike the principles applied in *Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd*, there was no statutory obligation for the Minister to consider other specific matters, such as Australia's international obligations or the UNHCR's views, when making the designation. The Court concluded that the Minister's discretion was not confined in a way that would render the decisions invalid for failing to consider matters not mandated by the legislation.

Consequently, the High Court answered the questions reserved in the Stated Case. It found that sections 198AB and 198AD were not invalid, nor were the Minister's designation of Papua New Guinea as a regional processing country or the subsequent direction for removal. The proceedings were remitted for determination in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the Stated Case.