Federal Court (Full Court). Does the Tribunal’s place in an administrative decision-making continuum necessarily mean that "the issues which emerge for its consideration will be shaped not just by the criteria specified in or with respect to the statutory power it is exercising afresh but also by the way in which those issues have been developed at anterior stages of the continuum"?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Does the Tribunal’s place in an administrative decision-making continuum necessarily mean that "the issues which emerge for its consideration will be shaped not just by the criteria specified in or with respect to the statutory power it is exercising afresh but also by the way in which those issues have been developed at anterior stages of the continuum"?
Question 2: Can it be said that, "while ministerial directions may serve a purpose of consistency of decision-making, the Minister cannot, by such a direction, dictate what must be the outcome before the Tribunal of undertaking its review on the merits of a particular decision"?
Question 3: Does the following principle expounded by the High Court in Plaintiff M1/2021 in the context of s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) limited to this provision?
Question 4: Is the occasion why a person cannot engender satisfaction that he or she passes the “character test” a relevant consideration under s 501(1)?
Question 5: Does the power conferred by s 501(1) of the Act fall to be exercised subject to the Australian community protective purpose of the power?
Question 6: If the answer to Question 5 is 'yes', does the follow that a failure to satisfy the character test should necessarily lead to the discretion in s 501(1) being exercised against the non-citizen in question in every case?
Question 7: Did Direction 90 exhaust the considerations which might inform a decision under ss 501CA(4) or 501(1)?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: