Background
Mr and Mrs Kioa, who were both fromKioas' arguments
The Kioas' principal argument was that the decision maker had failed to afford them procedural fairness in not disclosing and allowing an opportunity to respond to the adverse allegations made in the departmental submission. They further argued that the delegate had wrongly failed to take into account: * the detrimental effect the decision may have on their child; and * the provisions of theThe full court
The full court of the Federal Court held that the principles of natural justice did not apply to the decision to deport a person under the ''Migration Act'' and there was no evidence that the delegate had failed to take into account the interests of the Kioas' child. It was further held that the provisions of the Covenant and Declaration did not form part of Australian domestic law and were not required to be taken into account.High Court's Decision
''Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act''
Section 5(1)(a) of the '' Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act'' provided that administrative decisions may be appealed on the ground that there had been a breach of the requirements of natural justice. The court unanimously held that this provision did not oblige a decision maker who was exercising a statutory power to observe the rules of natural justice. In the court's opinion the applicability of natural justice was to be determined by looking at the nature and circumstances of the decision to be made. Brennan J differed slightly in his opinion, contending that the question of whether natural justice applied was to be found through the process of statutory interpretation.Applicability of natural justice
The court held by a majority of 4 to 1 (Gibbs CJ dissenting) that the rules of natural justice applied to a decision under the ''Migration Act'' to deport a prohibited immigrant. The court distinguished previous cases which had come to the opposite conclusion on the basis that these cases had been superseded by legislative development.Adverse material
The majority also held that the failure to disclose the adverse allegations against Mr Kioa and allow him the opportunity to respond to the allegations amounted to a failure to afford the Kioas procedural fairness.International agreements
The question of the applicability of international agreements was only considered by three of the justices (Gibbs CJ, Wilson & Brennan JJ). All three held that there was no legal obligation to consider the specific provisions of either the Covenant or the Declaration but that there was an obligation to take into account general humanitarian principles.Consequences
The decision in ''Kioa'' marked a watershed in Australian administrative law. It radically increased the number of decisions to which natural justice and procedural fairness applied such that, today, the question is often not whether procedural fairness should be afforded but to what extent it should be afforded. The Australia Citizenship Act 1948 was amended in 1986, heavily limiting jus soli and replacing it with jus sanguinis. After this change, birthright citizenship was available only if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident; or else after living the first ten years of their life in Australia, regardless of their parent's citizenship status. This amendment was in part influenced by ''Kioa v West'', and the perception that jus soli was being abused. Although the court did not accept the argument made in ''Kioa'' that, as an Australian citizen, the child was entitled to natural justice, the government nevertheless amended the Act to ensure that this line of argument was not used in future cases.References
{{reflist High Court of Australia cases 1985 in Australian law 1985 in case law