Plaintiff S195/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIEFEL CJ,BELL, GAGELER, KEANE, NETTLE, GORDON AND EDELMAN JJPLAINTIFF S195/2016  PLAINTIFFANDMINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ORS  DEFENDANTSPlaintiff S195/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2017] HCA 3117 August 2017S195/2016ORDERThe questions stated by the parties in the special case dated 14 March 2017 and referred for consideration by the Full Court be answered as follows:Question 1Was the designation of [Papua New Guinea] as a regional processing country on 9 October 2012 beyond the power conferred by s 198AB(1) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?AnswerNo.Question 2Was entry into:(a)      the 2013 Memorandum of Understanding;(b)      the Regional Resettlement Arrangement;(c)      the 2014 Administrative Arrangements; and(d)      the Broadspectrum Contract,beyond the power of the Commonwealth conferred by s 61 of the Constitution and/or s 198AHA of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?AnswerNo.Question 3Was the direction made by the Minister on 29 July 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD(5) of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?AnswerNo.Question 4Was the taking of the plaintiff to [Papua New Guinea] on 21 August 2013 beyond the power conferred by s 198AD of the [Migration Act 1958 (Cth)] by reason of the [decision in Namah v Pato (2016) SC1497]?AnswerNo.Question 5Is the authority for the Commonwealth to undertake conduct in respect of regional processing arrangements in [Papua New Guinea] conferred by s 198AHA of the [Migration...