Legislation Updates
Migration Legislation Tracker
A single source about the status of pieces of legislation, Bills, commencement dates, disallowances, etc
Clarifying international obligations for removal Bill
The Bill introduced on 25 March 2021 in the House of Representatives seeks to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to "modify the effect of section 197C to ensure it does not require or authorise the removal of an unlawful non-citizen (UNC) who has been found to engage protection obligations through the protection visa process unless"...
Facilitating onshore/offshore grant of parent visas
"The proposed amendments enable visa grants to some Parent visa applicants who are located in Australia, but who would be otherwise required to be outside Australia at the time of visa grant... The proposed amendments also enable visa grants to some Parent visa applicants who are located outside Australia, but who would otherwise be required to be in Australia at the time of visa grant".
Case Law Updates
Opposite to an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error
Federal Court (Full Court). Can it be said that, although a court cannot scrutinise an administrative decision with "an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error", it is equally well-established that the eyes of a reader “should not be so blinkered as to avoid discerning an absence of reasons or reasons devoid of any consideration of a submission central to a party’s case"?
Abuse of process?
High Court. Can it be said that, "while [the respondent] may have been motivated to bring the current proceedings out of loyalty to [another person] or to avoid a possible forensic disadvantage to [that person], that does not mean that the proceedings were brought for an improper purpose"?
Appellant S395 applicable to s 36(2)(aa)?
High Court. Can it be said that "the differences in the text, context and purpose of s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) and, thus, in the construction and application of the separate criteria in s 36(2)(a) and s 36(2)(aa) compel the conclusion that the principle in Appellant S395 in relation to s 36(2)(a) (whether as that provision was framed at the time of the decision or as now in force) does not apply to the statutory task when considering the complementary protection criterion in s 36(2)(aa)? Are the circumstances constituting "significant harm" exhaustively identified in s 36(2A)?