Section 367E — Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule
Text of provision
(1) The relevant provisions are taken to be an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters they deal with.
(2) If there is any inconsistency between the relevant provisions and any of the following provisions of the ART Act, the relevant provisions prevail to the extent of the inconsistency: Migration Act 1958 153 Part 5 Reviewable migration decisions and reviewable protection decisions Division 4A Conduct of ART review—applications to be reviewed on the papers
(a) section 49 (Tribunal has discretion in relation to procedure);
(b) section 50 (Tribunal is to act informally etc.);
(c) section 51 (Tribunal to be accessible);
(d) section 53 (Tribunal controls scope of review of decision). Note 1: The ART Act generally applies in relation to reviews by the ART (see subsection 336P(1) of this Act). Note 2: Various provisions of the ART Act do not apply in relation to applications to be reviewed on the papers (see subsection 336P(2) and section 367D of this Act).
(3) As an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule, the relevant provisions do not require the ART to observe any principle or rule of common law relating to the matters the relevant provisions deal with.
(4) In this section, the relevant provisions are:
(a) this Division; and
(b) sections 374, 375, 375A and 376 and Division 7, in so far as they relate to this Division.
Plain English
Section 367E declares that the procedural provisions in Division 4A are an exhaustive statement of natural justice requirements for paper reviews. This means the applicant's entire right to be heard is defined by Division 4A — nothing more can be implied from general administrative law principles or the ART Act.
If there is any inconsistency between Division 4A and ART Act procedural provisions, Division 4A prevails.
Practical effect
This provision prevents applicants from arguing that they have implied natural justice rights beyond what Division 4A expressly provides (such as a right to attend a hearing or make oral submissions). The High Court has upheld analogous exhaustive statement clauses in other migration review provisions (e.g., s 357A for general ART reviews).