Natural justice given and withdrawn under s 501BA?

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

Question 1: Is the contrast between the words “the rules of natural justice” in s 501BA(3) the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and the use of the expression “natural justice hearing rule” in other parts of the Act such as s 473DA (which was recently repealed but relevantly replicated in s 357A), indicative that the words in s 501BA(3) are intended "to be wider than simply the audi alteram partem rule — that a person be entitled to a fair hearing before a decision affecting them is made"?

Question 2: Can it be "assumed that the negation of the rules of natural justice in relation to the exercise of power under s 501BA(2) has the result that a party affected by the Minister’s decision is not entitled to notice of the exercise of power, to present evidence or submissions, or to be heard in relation to the matter"?

Question 3: Was the Minister’s decision under s 501BA(2) vitiated by reason of the failure to afford natural justice to the Appellant as a result of the invitations to her to provide material and the subsequent omission to have regard to the last provided piece of information?

Question 4: Is the use of s 501BA(2) limited to circumstances involving emergency?

Question 5: Can it be said that matters of national interest may involve a consideration of information going to national security or the welfare of the nation which, by its nature, is necessarily highly confidential?

Question 6: If the answer to Question 5 is 'yes', does it necessarily follow that, "to accord the visa holder natural justice in circumstances involving those matters is likely to be prejudicial to the very interests which the section is designed to protect"?

Question 7: Can it be said that, "if the Minister invites the making of submissions, his power to make a decision without affording natural justice is “spent” or “exhausted”, and he is obliged to give the visa holder the natural justice which he indicated he would give"?

Question 8: Can there be an estoppel against a statute?

Question 9: Even if it were assumed that the invitation of the Minister to the Appellant to make submissions in relation to the exercise of power under s 501BA(2), and the subsequent failure to give full effect to that invitation by considering all of the submissions filed,  constituted procedural unfairness in the exercise of power under s 501BA(2), is the consequence of s 501BA(3) that the omission to accord procedural fairness does not vitiate the exercise of power?

Question 10: Is the argument that, whilst the Appellant had no entitlement to be afforded natural justice, such rights must be given to her lest the decision made be unreasonable, to seek "to bring in, by the back door, that which is not admissible through the front"?

Question 11: Did the Minister make a jurisdictional error, in the form of overlooking the material given to him following the Department's invitation for the appellant to provide such material?

The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: