Can Parliament abolish natural justice requirements?

Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:

Question 1: In the context of s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), can it be said that "the matters which result in a person failing the character test may also (but will not always) provide the foundation for the Minister’s satisfaction that it is in the national interest that the person’s visa be cancelled"?

Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is 'yes', where the same conduct is relied upon as to both the character test and the national interest, must there "be something in the nature, or the seriousness, of that conduct, or in the circumstances surrounding it, to found a satisfaction that it is in the national interest to cancel the visa of the person concerned"?

Question 3: Is the Minister's discretion under s 501BA broad and evaluative but not unbounded?

Question 4: Can the Parliament "abolish natural justice to the extent that it no longer applies to an officer of the Commonwealth in the context of constitutional writs under s 75(v) of the Constitution"?

Question 5: Can it be said that "s 501BA(3) impermissibly confines or restricts the judicial power conferred on the High Court under s 75(v) of the Constitution and is therefore invalid"?

Question 6: Can it be said that, in assessing s 501BA, "the Minister, in his reasoning, needed to “rebut” the reasoning of the Tribunal"?

Question 7: If the answer to Question 6 is 'yes', may it nevertheless be an error for the Minister not to consider the Tribunal’s reasoning at all?

Question 8: Are rules of natural justice recognised as having two limbs, namely the hearing rule and the bias rule?

Question 9: If the answer to Question 8 is 'yes', can it be said that s 501BA(3), which provided that "[t]he rules of natural justice do not apply to a decision under [s 501BA(2)]", was only directed at the hearing rule?

Question 10: In determining under s 501BA whether to set aside the Tribunal's decision, can it be said that "there was no obligation to have any real regard to the devastating consequences being visited upon [the Appellant] and his family"?

Question 11: In determining under s 501BA whether to set aside the Tribunal's decision, can it be said that there was "no obligation to act with common decency and humanity"?

Question 12: In determining under s 501BA whether to set aside the Tribunal's decision, can it be said that there was no obligation to "recognise that the harm that will be done to [the Appellant] and his family must surely exceed the miniscule risk he poses to the Australian community as a result of his most recent conduct giving rise to his visa cancellation"?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: