NZYQ - Why the High Court held indefinite immigration detention unlawful

In November 2023, controversy erupted in Australia when the High Court held that the continuing detention of an unlawful non-citizen, NZYQ, was unlawful because there was no prospect of deporting him in the reasonably foreseeable future. This led to the release of over 100 other detainees in the same position, many of whom had committed serious criminal offences. This video explains the High Court's judgment, gives context for the current controversy and considers what Parliament could validly do about it.

[@AuspolExplained]

Great video as always. I'd love to know more about the extent of parliament's powers to detain people for contempt of parliament and to what extent it can be challenged by the courts. There are only 2 instances I believe of it happening for the WA state parliament (1904 and 1995). The 1904 case had John Drayton, editor of the Kalgoorlie Sun, jailed for 3 weeks - but members initially wanted him detained until he had either paid a fine or for the remainder of the session which then raises the question how long can parliament detain someone for contempt? Is the end of the session the hard limit? Or is that simply untested and unknowable?

[@JamesVCTH]

@constitutionalclarion1901 I have an unrelated question. Would the meaning of s 51(xxiiiA) allow the Federal Government the legislative power to ban a particular medical procedure. From my reading it seems like the Commonwealth only has the power to provide services rather than regulate them. Is that correct?

[@BauerIvan-s1t]

146 Harley Walk

[@gregorymcleod]

So how can a High court rule to release people with a criminal record to be released into Australia putting Australian citizens in danger of these people re-afending. So in my view the High court should of ruled for all these detainees should be held and put through court system. But by just releasing has seen 4 re-affend so in my view High court has failed its job to 1st and always pass laws to keep Australians safe. In this case the High court has put Australian citizens at risk from criminals released into our communities.

[@FairAndPracticalProgress]

"The main job of the High Court of Australia is to interpret the Australian Constitution and to settle disputes about its meaning. The High Court has the power to consider federal - national - laws and decide whether the Constitution gives the Australian Parliament the power to make that law." I don't know if the High Court's priority is safety, but rather in this case they ensure that Government's don't continue to enact laws that are unconstitutional and unlawful/illegal. This is an important separation of powers that can help keep Government overreach tendencies in check.

[@JamesVCTH]

Persons who commit crimes are sentenced, serve their time and released. Imagine if the government had the power to put you in prison because you “might” commit a crime in the future. That’s effectively what you’re wanting the High Court to allow.