Case: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystrom [2006] HCA 50 ; (2006) 81 ALJR 1
Outcome: followed
The applicant's first submission must be rejected. The High Court considered a similar submission in the recent case of Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Nystrom [2006] HCA 50 ; (2006) 81 ALJR 1 (' Nystrom '). That was a case unlike the present because the visa holder in that case was not liable to deportation under s 200 of the Act. However, the observations of the Court do not turn on that fact. Heydon and Crennan JJ said (at [162]-[169]) (footnotes omitted): 'Mr Nystrom's argument that the power to deport and the power to cancel a visa, which will result in removal, deal with the same subject matter is wrong. The power under s 200, as restricted by s 201, to deport non-citizens is a power in respect of the continuing presence in Australia of non-citizens convicted of certain crimes. The power under s 501(2) to cancel a visa of a non-citizen on character grounds (based on a "substantial criminal record") and thereby remove that non-citizen is a much wider power, although it is also for the protection of the Australian community. The powers are distinct and cumulative. Not only do the powers have different purposes, different criteria apply for their exercise. The criteria in respect of a person's criminal record in s 201(c) and s 501(7) are not co-extensive, although there is some overlap between s 201(c) and s 501(7)(a), (b) and (c). Criteria in s 501(7)(d) and (e) give s 501(2) a wider field of operation than that which is covered by s 201(c). Moreover, it was not disputed that different consequences follow when the powers are exercised. A person who is subject to a deportation order is subject to discretionary rather than mandatory detention during any challenge (ss 253(8) and (9)), but will then be deported unless the Minister revokes the order. A person who has a visa cancelled is subject to mandatory detention and removal (s 189) but may apply for a protection visa (s 501E). While the powers are different, with different criteria for their exercise and different consequences when exercised, they are both special powers. The power in s 501(2), construed as it must be, together with ss 501(6) and (7), is not a vague or general power. The line of authority beginning with Anthony Hordern &amp; Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia , upon which Mr Nystrom relied, has no application here as there is no repugnancy between the two powers. In fact, they are consonant with each other. The provisions have a different legislative history and a different relationship to the constitutional sources of power in s 51(xix) and (xxvii) as already explained. The Act contains two separate but consonant statutory systems for deportation and removal which operate differently, although the final outcome of removal may be the same. Section 201 does not in terms, confer on an alien any "statutory protection" from removal, consequent upon the cancellation of a visa under s 501(2). Here, s 200 has no application. To that extent, the facts here raise the issue of the interaction between s 200, as restricted by s 201, and s 501(2), more squarely than the facts in Jia Legeng . This distinction provides no reason to reconsider the statement in Jia Legeng that s 501 contains a separate statutory power. In fact, the distinction is an illustration of the discrete nature of the powers in question. Further, there is nothing in the relevant legislative history, or the terms of the two provisions, which would warrant "reading down" the power in s 501(2), which rests on s 51(xix), by reference to s 201(b)(i) which, while it applies to "non-citizens", derived its language and purpose from the Act's former resting on s 51(xxvii). Accordingly, the power conferred in s 501(2) is not restricted by the operation of ss 200 and 201.' Gleeson CJ made the following observations at [2] (footnotes omitted): 'As to the issue concerning the effect, if any, upon s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) of ss 200 and 201 of that Act, I would make the following comment. The contention that ss 200 and 201 give a person in the position of the respondent a protection or immunity from the exercise of the power conferred by s 501 is a statement of a conclusion, rather than an expression of a reason for reaching that conclusion. If there is such a reason, it must be found in a process of statutory construction. The provisions of s 501(2), on the one hand, and ss 200 and 201 on the other, are not repugnant, in the sense that they contain conflicting commands which cannot both be obeyed, or produce irreconcilable legal rights or obligations. They create two sources of power, by which a person in the position of the respondent may be exposed, by different processes, and in different circumstances, to similar practical consequences. There is nothing novel, or even particularly unusual, about that. It does not of itself mean that only one source of power is available. If, however, by reason of the apparent exhaustiveness with which one provision, or group of provisions, dealt with the position of a person such as the respondent, there were an incompatibility of a kind that required a conclusion that only one provision or group of provisions was intended to apply, then that would be a reason for accepting the respondent's contention. Again, if one provision, or group of provisions, were directed with particularity to the case of a person such as the respondent, and the other were merely of general application, the same could be said. As explained by Heydon and Crennan JJ, and also by Gummow and Hayne JJ, neither proposition can be made good when regard is had to the legislative history and context. In the result, the respondent's contention amounts to an assertion; a statement of an outcome that would be supportive of his freedom to remain in Australia, and in that sense protective of his interests, but without a convincing argument of statutory construction which sustains that outcome. Therefore, it fails.' The reasoning of Gummow and Heydon JJ was to similar effect (at [60]-[70]). I applied this reasoning in the recent decision of Pull v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 20 at [31] - [33] (' Pull '). That case was also a case where the visa holder was not liable to deportation under s 200 of the Act.