Federal Court. Although the chapeaux in para 12(1) of Direction No 75 and para 10.1 of Direction No 65 refer to a decision whether to cancel a visa, are those paragraphs are about whether to refuse a visa? Although Direction No 75 is not binding on the Minister personally, is it reasonable to expect that the Minister, as a model litigant, would follow the procedure mandated for his surrogates in that direction? Does the prospect of indefinite detention no longer arise by reason of the insertion of s 197C? If so, does that mean that non-refoulement obligations will no longer be considered?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Although the chapeaux in para 12(1) of Direction No 79 and para 10.1 of Direction No 65 refer to a decision whether to cancel a visa, are those paragraphs are about whether to refuse a visa?
Question 2: Although Direction No 75 is not binding on the Minister personally, is it reasonable to expect that the Minister, as a model litigant, would follow the procedure mandated for his surrogates in that direction?
Question 3: Does the prospect of indefinite detention no longer arise by reason of the insertion of s 197C into the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)?
Question 4: If the answer to Question 3 is "yes", does that mean that non-refoulement obligations will no longer be considered?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: