Uncertainty in the interaction between SAAP and Hossain?

Section 120(1)-(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provided:

(1)     In this section, relevant information means information (other than non-disclosable information) that the Minister considers:

(a)     would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for cancelling a visa; and

(b)     is specifically about the holder or another person and is not just about a class of persons of which the holder or other person is a member; and

(c)     was not given by the holder; and

(d)     was not disclosed to the holder in the notification under section 119.

(2)     The Minister must:

(a)     give particulars of the relevant information to the holder; and

(b)     ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the holder understands why it is relevant to the cancellation; and

(c)     invite the holder to comment on it.

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

Question 1: Is there some uncertainty in the interaction between SAAP and Hossain, in that the former held that an error in the form of a failure to afford procedural fairness is necessarily jurisdictional and the latter held that this would depend on whether the error was material?

Question 2: In determining, pursuant to s 120(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), whether a fact adverted to by the delegate in the Decision Record constituted “part of the reason” for the delegate’s decision to cancel the appellant’s visa, is it is necessary to have regard to the form (including its pre-populated questions) and content of the Decision Record?

Question 3: In Plaintiff M1, the plurality of the High Court held that the requisite level of engagement by a decision-maker in making a decision under s 501CA(4) (i.e. the degree of effort needed by the decision-maker) "will vary, among other things, according to the length, clarity and degree of relevance of the representations". Does the same principle apply to decisions made under s 116?

The FCA answered those questions as follows: