*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.<\/p>\n
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com<\/a> or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).<\/p>\n The latest issue of the Australian Journal of Administrative Law<\/em> (Volume 32 Part 4) contains the following material:<\/p>\n EDITORIAL \u2013 General Editors: Professor Matthew Groves and Professor Greg Weeks<\/em><\/p>\n The Rise of Section 501BA Visa Cancellations: National Interest vs Administrative Justice<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Jason Donnelly<\/p>\n Section 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 <\/em>(Cth) empowers the Minister to personally override a Tribunal decision revoking a mandatory visa cancellation, provided the visaholder fails the character test and cancellation is in the \u201cnational interest\u201d. Natural justice is expressly excluded, enabling swift executive action. Though intended as an \u201cexceptional\u201d safeguard, the power is now used with increasing frequency, often against long-term residents who had successfully appealed to the AAT. Judicial review in the Federal Court has rarely curtailed its use, with intervention limited to cases of material factual error or illogical reasoning. While courts emphasise that fairness concerns do not displace Parliament\u2019s design, persistent reliance on s 501BA risks eroding the transparency and authority of merits review. The article argues that without restraint or reform, the routine use of this override power undermines rule-of-law values and public confidence in migration decision-making.<\/p>\n Casino Regulation: A Crowning Achievement?<\/strong><\/em><\/a> \u2013 Arie Freiberg<\/p>\n Since the early 2020s casino operators have been found guilty of engaging in money laundering, organising illegal junkets, failing to pay taxes, falsifying documents, exploiting vulnerable gamblers and generally engaging in conduct that has been described as illegal, dishonest, unethical and exploitative. One legislative response was to increase the maximum penalties available to regulators to $100 million. This article examines the legislation relating to the nature of, and grounds for, disciplinary action, the disciplinary sanctions and the processes involved in the exercise of those powers. It argues that there are significant shortcomings in the various schemes, particularly the lack of clear criteria to be applied by regulators when exercising their sanctioning powers, the lack of requirements to give reasons for their decisions, the unavailability of rights of appeal and review of some important decisions and the powers given to Governors in Council and Ministers to impose significant pecuniary penalties.<\/p>\n For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – AJ Admin L Vol 32 No 4 Contents<\/a><\/p>\n\n
Articles<\/h3>\n