The meaning of 'association'

In a decision that will intensify the debate over ‘activist’ judges, today in the Federal Court Justice Jeffrey Spender ruled that the decision by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to cancel the visa of Dr Mohammed Haneef was invalid.

Spender J ruled that s501 (6)(b) was incorrectly invoked by the minister when making his determination to cancel the Indian doctor’s 457 Visa. His Honour states that "the test which the Minister applied was not the test called for by s501 (6)(b). As a result of this misconception as to what the exercise of the statutory power entailed, there was a purported, but not a real exercise of the power conferred by s 501 (3)."

To help readers come to terms with the decision I have pasted the relevant section of the Migration Act below, and bolded the key sections. If you have more time on your hands you can read the full decision here.


As I write the government has announced that it will appeal the decision, so this will no doubt continue to be an issue right up until election day.

Section 501 of the Migration Act
Decision of Minister--natural justice does not apply
(3) The Minister may:
(a) refuse to grant a visa to a person; or
(b) cancel a visa that has been granted to a person;
if:
(c) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(d) the Minister is satisfied that the refusal or cancellation is in the national interest.
(4) The power under subsection (3) may only be exercised by the Minister personally.
(5) The rules of natural justice, and the code of procedure set out in Subdivision AB of Division 3 of Part 2, do not apply to a decision under subsection (3).
Character test
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a) the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or
(b) the person has or has had an association with someone else, or with a group or organisation, whom the Minister reasonably suspects has been or is involved in criminal conduct; or
(c) having regard to either or both of the following:
(i) the person's past and present criminal conduct;
(ii) the person's past and present general conduct;
the person is not of good character; or
(d) in the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia there is a significant risk that the person would:
(i) engage in criminal conduct in Australia; or
(ii) harass, molest, intimidate or stalk another person in Australia; or
(iii) vilify a segment of the Australian community; or
(iv) incite discord in the Australian community or in a segment of that community; or
(v) represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community, whether by way of being liable to become involved in activities that are disruptive to, or in violence threatening harm to, that community or segment, or in any other way.