Developments. Australia
|
|
- Basil Frank Armstrong
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Developments Developments Correspondents Daphne Barak-Erez (Israel), Daniel Bonilla (Colombia), Christina Cerna (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), Rodrigo Correa (Chile), Rohan Edrishinha (Sri Lanka), Mark Elliott (United Kingdom), Simon Evans (Australia/New Zealand), Tania Groppi (Italy), Susi Dwi Harijanti (Indonesia), Christine Langenfeld (Germany), Hector Lopez Bofill (Spain), Jibong Lim (Korea), Shigenori Matsui (Japan), Abdelaziz Nouaydi (Morocco), Wistano Orozco (Mexico), Anashri Pillay (South Africa), Joseph Pini (France), Beate Rudolf (European Union/European Court of Human Rights), Roberto Saba (Argentina), David Schneiderman (Canada), Benny Tai (China/Hong Kong), Caroline Taube (Scandinavia/Baltic States), Li-ann Thio (Singapore), Alexei Trochev (Russia/CIS), Monica Twesiime (Uganda), Renata Uitz (Hungary), Jan Winczorek (Poland) Australia Simon Evans * Immigration Law Standing in Immigration Issues Legislative abrogation of executive prerogative Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia holds that the executive had the power to exclude, detain, and expel alien asylum seekers from Australian waters and that that power had not been abrogated by the Migration Act Ruddock v. Vadarlis (The Tampa Litigation). 1 In this profoundly controversial decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that the executive government of the Commonwealth of Australia had the prerogative or nonstatutory power to exclude, detain, and *Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne, Australia. 1 (September 18, 2001), (2001) 110 F.C.R. 491, (Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia), available at Ruddock v. Vadarlis was an appeal from the decision of North J in Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated v. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs, (2001) 110 F.C.R. 452 (Federal Court of Australia). There was an unsuccessful application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Court to the High Court of Australia: Vadarlis v. MIMA (Unreported, High Court of Australia, Gaudron, Gummow, and Hayne JJ, November 27, 2001). (The High Court is Australia s ultimate appellate court. It also has an original jurisdiction, exercised primarily in constitutional matters.) In Ruddock v. Vadarlis [2001] FCA 1865 (December 21, 2001), the Full Court of the Federal Court refused to order that the applicants pay the Commonwealth s costs despite the Commonwealth s success in the appeal to that Court. These decisions are available at In preparing this note I have drawn on my article, Simon Evans, The Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and the MV Tampa, 13 PUBLIC LAW REVIEW 94 (2002). Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law 2003, 123 I.CON, Volume 1, Number 1, 2003, pp
2 124 DEVELOPMENTS expel alien asylum seekers from Australian waters and that that power had not been abrogated by the detailed provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In practical terms, the decision meant that the executive had lawfully detained 433 asylum seekers, rescued at sea and brought to Australian waters by the MV Tampa, and that the executive could remove them to Pacific nations while their asylum applications were processed. In this way, the executive was able to ensure that the asylum seekers never became entitled to the procedural and substantive protections afforded to asylum seekers under Australian migration legislation. More generally, as this note will argue, the decision marks a backward step in the progressive constitutionalization, moderation, and republicanization of the prerogative powers of the executive. 2 In recent years, increasing numbers of asylum seekers have sought to enter Australia by boat. 3 Many have arrived at Ashmore Reef or Christmas Island, external Australian territories in the Indian Ocean, close to Indonesia, from where the asylum seekers set sail. Once they arrive at these territories, they become subject to the Australian migration regime and have the right to apply for protection visas under the Commonwealth s Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to which they are entitled (in most cases) if Australia owes them obligations under the 1951 Refugees Convention and the 1967 Protocol. 4 In late August 2001, an Indonesian vessel set sail for one of Australia s Indian Ocean territories. It became distressed and, after a search-and-rescue operation coordinated by Australia, the vessel s crew and its passengers 433 asylum seekers, mostly Afghans were rescued by the MV Tampa, a Norwegian container ship. When the master received no response to his request for urgent medical attention for some of the asylum seekers, he brought the MV Tampa into Australian territorial waters off Christmas Island. Within hours, 45 Australian troops boarded the ship and took control of the movements of the asylum seekers. A number of lawyers and nongovernmental organizations sought to obtain instructions from the asylum seekers in order to begin proceedings in the Australian courts on their behalf, but they were not able to contact the asylum seekers. Accordingly, despite the obvious standing problems and the potential liability to pay the respondents costs should they fail, the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated and Melbourne legal practitioner Eric Vadarlis 2 See generally HARVEY C MANSFIELD JR., TAMING THE PRINCE: THE AMBIVALENCE OF MODERN EXECUTIVE POWER (Free Press 1989). 3 See Commonwealth Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs, Australian Immigration Fact Sheet No. 74: Unauthorized Arrivals by Air and Sea, available at (revised May 3, 2002; copy on file with the author). 4 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 150 (entered into force April 22, 1954); Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, January 31, 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 (entered into force October 4, 1967).
3 DEVELOPMENTS 125 (together, the applicants ) commenced proceedings in the Federal Court in their own names against the Australian Government and certain Ministers of State ( the respondents ). Vadarlis sought orders, based on the freedom of communication implied in the Constitution, allowing him to give legal advice to the asylum seekers. 5 Relying on earlier High Court authority, the Federal Court (per Justice North) held that the implied freedom could be claimed only for the benefit of Australian citizens, not aliens. 6 Insofar as Vadarlis relied on his own freedom of political communication, it did not require the respondents to facilitate communication with the asylum seekers. 7 In light of Vadarlis s success on other grounds, it was not necessary to rule further on this claim. 8 Both applicants sought orders compelling the respondents to perform their duties under the Migration Act that would bring the asylum seekers within the regime of that Act and enable them to apply for protection visas. 9 The Court accepted the respondents contention that the applicants lacked standing to bring the claims 10 and ruled further that the applicants had not established that the statutory provisions applied to the asylum seekers. 11 The final limb of the applicants argument, and the only one to succeed, was the claim for habeas corpus or an order for release. In light of the long 5 The Constitution does not contain a general Bill of Rights or indeed any express guarantee of freedom of communication. However, beginning with two decisions in 1992, the High Court has recognized an implied freedom of communication on political matters. The freedom is derived from the constitutional provisions entrenching a system of representative and responsible government. It operates as a limitation on Commonwealth and state executive power and not as a source of individual rights. However the common law must conform to the requirements of the constitutional freedom. See Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 C.L.R. 520; GEORGE WILLIAMS, HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION (Oxford University Press 1999) (Chapter 7); Adrienne Stone, The Limits of Constitutional Text and Structure: Standards of Review and the Freedom of Political Communication, 23 MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 668 (1999); Adrienne Stone, Rights, Personal Rights and Freedoms: The Nature of the Freedom of Political Communication, 25 MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 374 (2001). 6 (2001) 110 F.C.R. 452, at 489 [163] [164]. 7 Id. at 489 [166]. 8 Id. at 490 [168]. 9 Both applicants relied on the Migration Act, s 245F(9); Mr. Vadarlis also relied on s (2001) 110 F.C.R. 452, at , 486, 489 [123] [137], [149], [161]. The law relating to standing is in a state of flux; accordingly, the restrictive approach adopted in this litigation may be open for reconsideration in the High Court. See generally Simon Evans & Stephen Donaghue, Standing to Raise Constitutional Issues in Australia, in THE CONVERGENCE OF LEGAL SYSTEMS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 53 (Gabriel Moens & Rodolphe Biffot eds., Copyright Publishing 2002). However, the High Court has recently confirmed that it is wary of affording relief to parties who are strangers to an underlying substantive dispute: Re McBain; Ex parte Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (2002) 188 A.L.R (2001) 110 F.C.R. 452, at 486 [150].
4 126 DEVELOPMENTS recognition that a stranger can seek habeas corpus, the respondents did not contend that the applicants lacked standing to bring this claim. 12 The Court rejected the respondents argument that the asylum seekers were not detained since they were free to go anywhere but Australia 13 and assumed that, as the Migration Act did not apply to them, there was no lawful basis for the detention. Relief in the nature of habeas corpus was issued as of course. The respondents appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court. By majority (Justices Beaumont and French, with Chief Justice Black dissenting), the appeal was allowed. 14 Justice French, with whom Justice Beaumont agreed, held that the asylum seekers had not been detained and that in any event any detention was lawful as a valid exercise of the prerogative power to exclude, detain, and expel aliens. Chief Justice Black dissented from both conclusions. Justice Beaumont gave a separate judgment emphasizing that, in order for the court to grant an order for release that required the asylum seekers to be brought to Australia, the applicants had to show that the asylum seekers had a positive entitlement to enter Australia and not just that they were unlawfully detained. 15 Following this decision, Vadarlis applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court. By the time his application was heard, the asylum seekers were no longer detained by the executive. Some had been taken to Nauru and were detained there under Nauruan law while their claims for asylum were processed; others were taken to New Zealand. Accordingly, the application was dismissed as moot. This relieved the High Court of any need to consider the validity of legislation enacted while the litigation was afoot. The Border Protection (Validation and Enforcement Powers) Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) purported retrospectively to validate, for all purposes, all action taken by the executive in relation to the MV Tampa and to prevent judicial scrutiny of such action. It prohibited the commencement or continuation of civil or criminal proceedings in any court against the Commonwealth or any person who receives the benefit of the validation in relation to any action. The rule of law and constitutionalism concerns surrounding the Act are obvious: the validation regime is retrospective; 16 it purports to enact a special 12 Id. at 469 [56]. 13 Id. at 473 [81]. 14 The applicants did not cross-appeal against the findings on the statutory and constitutional issues; in particular, there was no cross-appeal on the question whether the applicants had standing to bring those claims. 15 (2001) 110 F.C.R. 491, at [109] [125]. Beaumont J also doubted (but did not finally decide) that the Federal Court had been given power to make orders of habeas corpus under its founding statutes (at 517 [101] [103]). 16 The one limitation on retrospective alteration of rights, recognized in s 8 of the Act, is that s 51(xxxi) of the Constitution may require just terms compensation for retrospective alteration to accrued causes of action against the Commonwealth that have arisen under the general law.
5 DEVELOPMENTS 127 regime of immunity from the general law for Commonwealth officers; it effectively delegates unconstrained powers to Commonwealth officers; and it sharply limits access to the courts. The Act does not limit the immunity by requiring that action to which it applies was undertaken in good faith or reasonably or proportionately to the aims that it was undertaken to advance. Nonetheless, the legislation is likely to be valid as (at least on one interpretation) it alters the substantive law rather than directing the courts how to resolve particular proceedings, and it does not wholly remove any part of the courts jurisdiction. 17 Given the failure of the application for special leave to appeal to the High Court, the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court stands. The decision raises two key constitutional questions: first, whether the prerogative or freestanding executive power of the Commonwealth extends to stopping noncitizens at the border and excluding them from Australia, detaining them if necessary in order to exclude them; and, second, whether any such prerogative had been abrogated by legislation. 1. The extent of the prerogative The most important judgment on the extent of the prerogative is that of Justice French. He concluded that [t]he scope of the executive power conferred by s 61 of the Constitution is to be measured by reference to Australia s status as a sovereign nation and by reference to the terms of the Constitution itself : 18 The power to determine who may come into Australia is so central to its sovereignty that it is not to be supposed that the government of the nation would lack under the power conferred upon it directly by the Constitution, the ability to prevent people not part of the Australia community, from entering. 19 This conflates two questions. The first is, Does the government of Australia (in the sense of all of the branches of government operating in their own spheres) have the power to exclude or expel aliens and to detain them for the purposes of exclusion or expulsion? The answer to that question must be 17 Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1992) 176 CLR 1, 36 37; Re McJannet; Ex parte Minister for Employment Training and Industrial Relations for the State of Queensland (1995) 184 C.L.R. 620, 651; see also Justice McHugh, Does Chapter III of the Constitution Protect Substantive as well as Procedural Rights? 21 AUSTRALIAN BAR REVIEW 235 (2001). 18 (2001) 110 F.C.R. 491, 542 [191]. 19 Id. at 543 [193].
6 128 DEVELOPMENTS yes, at least under a constitutional system that adheres to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and to the traditional exclusionary notions of national sovereignty and citizenship. 20 But that does not answer a second question, namely, By which branch of government is that power exercisable? 21 In other words, is the power exercisable by the executive as a prerogative or free-standing power, or does it require supporting legislation? Justice French also does not sufficiently distinguish between the subject matters with respect to which the executive power can be exercised and the activities that can be carried out by the executive in relation to those subject matters. The coercive activities of exclusion, expulsion and detention raise concerns different from those raised by non-coercive activities like patrolling borders and collecting intelligence. 22 Section 61 of the Constitution is the principal source of Commonwealth executive power. But it is not an unlimited reserve of power for the executive to do whatever appears to be in the national interest. 23 Executive power under Westminster systems of government has been progressively limited over the course of the preceding centuries the executive cannot now impose taxation, create new offenses, judge compliance with the law, or dispense with the operation of the law; nor could it do so when the Constitution was adopted in There is no reason to suppose that, to the extent that the prerogative to exclude and expel aliens had fallen away in England by 1901, it received a new lease of life in Australia by the general grant of power in s 61. Accepting that this aspect of the prerogative has become obsolete does not imperil Australia s sovereignty or its status as a fully independent nation. It is certainly a limit on the powers of the executive government, but only until such powers are conferred on the executive government by legislation. Government is distinct from sovereignty. Limits on governmental power reaffirm that sovereignty is exercised under the law and in accordance with the norms of constitutionalism. 2. Abrogating the prerogative Assuming that the prerogative does extend to excluding and detaining aliens, has this aspect of the executive power been abrogated by the Migration Act or 20 As to the latter, see Kim Rubenstein, Citizenship Sovereignty and Migration: Australia s Exclusive Approach to Membership of the Community, 13 PUBLIC LAW REVIEW 102 (2002). 21 Compare French J with Black CJ, id. at 499 [25]. 22 Black CJ refers to the decisions of the High Court confirming the limited coercive reach of the executive power, even on matters central to sovereignty, id. at 501 [31]. 23 Compare French J with Black CJ, id. at 491 [30]. 24 See generally Commonwealth v. Colonial Combing, Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd. (1922) 31 C.L.R. 421; Pfeiffer v. Stevens (2001) 185 A.L.R. 183, 208 [117] [119].
7 DEVELOPMENTS 129 any other legislation? Justice French concluded it had not been abrogated by the Migration Act. 25 It appears that his view was that only direct inconsistency between the statutory regime and the prerogative power will abrogate the prerogative. 26 He asked whether the Act operates in a way that is necessarily inconsistent with the subsistence of the executive power described. 27 He concluded that it is not, because of the facultative nature of the provisions in the Act and the importance to national sovereignty of the prerogative power. 28 This again confuses the importance of the power to national sovereignty, which in any event is a highly contested concept both in constitutional and international law, with the identification of the branch of government by which that power is exercised. As legislative abrogation merely transforms a prerogative power into an executive power regulated by statute, such solicitude for national sovereignty is misplaced. The better view is that the prerogative is abrogated here because Parliament has covered the field ; it has purported to regulate in detail the topic of interdiction, exclusion, and expulsion of unlawful noncitizens. 29 The question whether the prerogative had been abrogated can also be framed in the language of legislative intention, and this was the approach adopted (with differing results) by Chief Justice Black and Justice French: given the detail and nature of the provisions in the Migration Act, is it realistic to think that Parliament intended that parallel statutory and nonstatutory regimes operate? 30 The legitimacy of the exercise of government power depends on its commitment to the forms of legality inherent in the rule of law. If it is assumed that Parliament intended the law the rights and obligations of officers and those whom they seek to exclude from Australia to be clear, certain, and general, it is hardly likely that it intended the parallel operation of two inconsistent regimes, the existence and scope of one of which was uncertain. Equally, it is hardly likely that Parliament intended to leave operating an uncertain nonstatutory regime affecting the liberties of individuals with limited channels of parliamentary accountability. 25 (2001) 110 F.C.R. 491, [199] [205]. None of the judges consider whether any other legislation including defense force legislation might be relevant. 26 The judgments use analogies drawn from the Australian constitutional jurisprudence relating to inconsistency between Commonwealth and State laws. See generally PETER HANKS, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN AUSTRALIA (Butterworths 2nd ed. 1996). 27 (2001) 110 F.C.R. 491, 545 [202]. 28 Id. 29 See especially Migration Act ss 245B to 245H, discussed by Black CJ, id. at [48] [64]. 30 See (2001) 110 F.C.R 491, 507 [61] (Black CJ). As to the future, the new Migration Act s 7A provides that Parliament does so intend.
8 130 DEVELOPMENTS The preferable view, then, is that, even if the prerogative existed, it was abrogated by the detailed provisions of the Migration Act. 31 The approach adopted by Justice French (with which Justice Beaumont agreed) fails to give effect to the values of democratic constitutionalism. It is to be hoped that future cases pay those values more heed. 31 This is not to suggest that the actual decision is incorrect. It can be upheld either on the ground that the asylum seekers were not detained or on the ground that habeas corpus should not issue in the absence of a positive statutory entitlement to enter Australia. Chile Rodrigo P. Correa G.* International Criminal Court Judicial Sovereignty of a State Party Chilean Constitutional Court finds the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court unconstitutional. Decision of April 8, Shortly before the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) 2 entered into force, the Chilean Constitutional Court declared it unconstitutional on various grounds. Most prominent among these was the Court s conclusion that the jurisdiction of the ICC would infringe upon the constitutionally protected jurisdiction of the Chilean judiciary. As a consequence of this decision, Chile will need to amend its constitution before it can ratify the treaty. The Chilean Constitution accords considerable power to the president, who is directly chosen in general elections and is not responsible to congress except for qualified misconduct, for which he or she can be impeached. The president has the power to ratify international treaties approved by congress (the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate), with the quorum for congressional approval varying according to the subject matter of the treaty. Previous decisions of the Constitutional Court have established that any number of deputies or senators larger than a quarter of the members of the both chambers can require the Court to determine the constitutionality of an international treaty *Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chile. 1 Chilean Constitutional Court, decision of April 8, 2002, Case No. 346, unpublished [hereinafter Decision], available at Citations refer to the numbered paragraphs in the original. 2 U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9*, available at [hereinafter Rome Statute].
EXECUTIVE DETENTION: A LAW UNTO ITSELF? A CASE STUDY OF AL-KATEB V GODWIN
30877 NOTRE DAME - BOYLE (7):30877 NOTRE DAME - BOYLE (7) 6/07/09 9:17 AM Page 119 EXECUTIVE DETENTION: A LAW UNTO ITSELF? A CASE STUDY OF AL-KATEB V GODWIN Cameron Boyle* I INTRODUCTION The detention
More informationHOW LONG IS TOO LONG? THE IMPLIED LIMIT ON THE EXECUTIVE S POWER TO HOLD NON-CITIZENS IN DETENTION UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW
HOW LONG IS TOO LONG? THE IMPLIED LIMIT ON THE EXECUTIVE S POWER TO HOLD NON-CITIZENS IN DETENTION UNDER AUSTRALIAN LAW Lara Wood Gladwin* Detention of non-citizens, particularly mandatory detention, is
More informationHIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH C, HAYNE, CRENNAN, KIEFEL, BELL, GAGELER AND KEANE PLAINTIFF M76/2013 PLAINTIFF AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP & ORS DEFENDANTS Plaintiff
More informationIndex. 224 (2003) 10 AJ Admin L 224
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) AAT Act enactment, definition of, 158 decisions of powers of review of ASIC decisions, 171-175 legislative basis, 172-173 unreasonableness of penalty, 174-175 Administrative
More informationREFUGEE LAW: THE SHIFTING BALANCE
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF AUSTRALIA COLLOQUIUM 2003 DARWIN 30 MAY-1 JUNE 2003 REFUGEE LAW: THE SHIFTING BALANCE by JUSTICE RONALD SACKVILLE A New Discipline Not so long ago, the notion that refugee law could
More information41 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 251, * 1 of 1 DOCUMENT. Copyright (c) 2002 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Association,
Page 1 LENGTH: 26339 words 1 of 1 DOCUMENT Copyright (c) 2002 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Association, Inc. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 2002 41 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 251 NOTE: The
More informationTHE HIGH COURT AND THE TAMPA REFUGEES
THE HIGH COURT AND THE TAMPA REFUGEES Michael ~ead* On 27 November 2001, the High Court brought the Tampa case to an abrupt halt. A panel of three justices refused to consider an appeal from a split decision
More informationFederal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia Victorian Council for Civil Liberties Incorporated v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs ( & summary) [2001] FCA 1297 (11 September 2001) Last Updated: 11 September
More informationPlaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32 (31 August 2011) NAOMI HART I Introduction On 25 July 2011, the
More informationInternational Asylum and Boat People: The Tampa Affair and Australia's "Pacific Solution"
Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 17 International Asylum and Boat People: The Tampa Affair and Australia's "Pacific Solution" Peter D. Fox Follow this and additional works
More informationVARIATION ON A THEME: CPCF V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION [2015] HCA 1
VARIATION ON A THEME: CPCF V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION [2015] HCA 1 TOMASI BENJAMIN Textually, CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 2015 (CPCF) appears
More informationSUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 20
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 195 ALR 24 The text on pages 893-94 sets out s 474 of the Migration Act, as amended in 2001 in the wake of the Tampa controversy (see Chapter 12); and also refers
More informationPolicy statement on Human Rights and the Legal Profession
Policy statement on Human Rights and the Legal Profession Key principles and commitments May 2017 The Policy was first adopted by Directors in June 2016. Key principles and commitments: background and
More informationSmooth sailing for Australia's automatic forfeiture of foreign fishing vessels
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2005 Smooth sailing for Australia's automatic forfeiture of foreign fishing vessels Warwick
More informationImmigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Judicial Review: Emerging Trends & Themes
Immigration Law Conference February 2017 Panel discussion Brenda Tronson Barrister Level 22 Chambers btronson@level22.com.au 02 9151 2212 Unreasonableness In December, Bromberg J delivered judgment in
More informationMigration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012 Submission to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee December 2012 Prepared by Adam Fletcher and Tania Penovic
More informationFederal Taxation of Aliens Working in the United States
Order Code RS21732 Updated January 18, 2007 Federal Taxation of Aliens Working in the United States Summary Erika Lunder Legislative Attorney American Law Division As Congress considers immigration reform,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v WALU [2006] FCA 657 MIGRATION protection visas well-founded fear of persecution claimed to be based on conscientious
More informationChapter Six Immigration Policy and the Separation of Powers. Hon Philip Ruddock, MHR
Chapter Six Immigration Policy and the Separation of Powers Hon Philip Ruddock, MHR I would like to thank The Samuel Griffith Society for the invitation to present this address, and I offer my congratulations
More informationTort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration
Tort proceedings as an accountability mechanism against decisions made by the Department of Immigration Immigration Law Conference, Sydney 24-25 February 2017 1. The focus of immigration law practitioners
More informationAUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION 8 November 2013
AUSTRALIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE FROM THE WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION 8 November 2013 ABN 47 996 232 602 Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000 GPO Box 5218, Sydney
More informationIn Unions New South Wales v New South Wales,1 the High Court of Australia
Samantha Graham * UNIONS NEW SOUTH WALES v NEW SOUTH WALES (2013) 304 ALR 266 I Introduction In Unions New South Wales v New South Wales,1 the High Court of Australia considered the constitutional validity
More informationOpinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its seventy-ninth session, August 2017
Advance Edited Version Distr.: General 22 September 2017 A/HRC/WGAD/2017/42 Original: English Human Rights Council Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
More informationIMA ILLEGAL MARITIME ARRIVALS
IMA ILLEGAL MARITIME ARRIVALS Atiq Rhaman Solicitor, the Supreme Court of NSW Registered Migration Agent 1685401 Presentation to the Lawyers & Barristers on 10 points CPD Course, 25 March 2018. Murbury
More informationTAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW
TAJJOUR V NEW SOUTH WALES, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND THE HIGH COURT S UNEVEN EMBRACE OF PROPORTIONALITY REVIEW DR MURRAY WESSON * I INTRODUCTION In Tajjour v New South Wales, 1 the High Court considered
More information449/786 visa offers for 866 applicants
449/786 visa offers for 866 applicants Since 3 February 2014 some people who came by boat to Australia have had their applications for an 866 permanent protection visa refused on the grounds of Migration
More informationExpert Panel on Asylum Seekers 19 July 2012
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers 19 July 2012 PO Box 6500 Canberra ACT 2600. expertpanelonasylumseekers@pmc.gov.au BY EMAIL Dear Expert Panel, We are pleased to make a brief submission to your Panel which
More informationMigration, Refugees and Forced Migration
LAWS5199 Contents Migration, Refugees and Forced Migration Weeks 1-3... 3 1. MIGRATION CONTROL AND THE LAW: THEORIES, HISTORY AND PRACTICE... 3 1.1. Control, Culture and Context: White Australia and the
More informationPARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Emeritus Professor Enid Campbell Introduction In the course of parliamentary proceedings ministers may sometimes provide explanations
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES. A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003
DEVELOPMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION CASES A Comment Prepared for the Judicial Conference of Australia's Colloquium 2003 DARWIN - 30 MAY 2003 John Basten QC Dr Crock has provided
More informationFAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO
2018 A Critique of Carrascalao 1 FAILURE TO GIVE PROPER, GENUINE AND REALISTIC CONSIDERATION TO THE MERITS OF A CASE: A CRITIQUE OF CARRASCALAO JASON DONNELLY In Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration
More informationCastan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University Melbourne
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University Melbourne Submission to the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations Relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in
More informationYanner v Eafon - The High Court's Next Opportunity to
Yanner v Eafon - The High Court's Next Opportunity to Consider the Extinguishment of Native Title Joanne Segger B Econ (Qld), LLB Student, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland. In the
More informationIntroduction. Australian Constitution. Federalism. Separation of Powers
Introduction Australian Constitution Commonwealth of Australia was formed on 1st January 1901 by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (Imp) Our system is a hybrid model between: United Kingdom
More informationEuropean Court of Human Rights: An absolute ban on deportation of foreign citizens to countries where torture or ill-treatment is a genuine risk
The Author 2010. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.... Developments Developments
More informationNATIONHOOD AND SECTION 61 OF THE CONSTITUTION
NATIONHOOD AND SECTION 61 OF THE CONSTITUTION Dr Peta Stephenson * This article explores the relationship between the nationhood power and s 61 of the Constitution. It argues that, in the majority of decided
More information2013 FEDERAL ELECTION: REFUGEE POLICIES OF LABOR, LIBERAL-NATIONAL COALITION AND THE GREENS
2013 FEDERAL ELECTION: REFUGEE POLICIES OF LABOR, LIBERAL-NATIONAL COALITION AND THE GREENS This Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) summary explains the 2013 Federal election policies on refugee issues
More informationLAW315: Administrative Law Notes
LAW315: Administrative Law Notes Table of Contents Introduction to Administrative Law 1 Avenues of Review: Judicial, Merits, Ombudsman & Internal 8 Statutory Interpretation 12 Introduction to Jurisdictional
More informationCase management in the Commercial Court and under the Civil Procedure Act *
Case management in the Commercial Court and under the Civil Procedure Act * The Hon. Justice Clyde Croft 1 SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA * A presentation given at Civil Procedure Act 2010 Conference presented
More informationQueensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
Queensland Public Interest Law Clearing House Inc A BRIEF GUIDE TO COSTS IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION January 2005 Preface In a court proceeding, while orders as to costs are ultimately left to the discretion
More informationJOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28
CASENOTE: JOAN MONICA MALONEY v THE QUEEN [2013] HCA 28 by Simon Rice Introduction In Joan Monica Maloney v The Queen ( Maloney ), the High Court decided that laws that prohibit an Indigenous person from
More informationCastan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University. Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University Submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 Prepared
More informationUnits 3 and 4: Global Politics
Units 3 and 4: Global Politics 2016 2017 This revised curriculum for VCE Global Politics Units 3 and 4 replaces the units within the Australian and Global Politics Study Design 2012 2017. VCAA July 2015
More informationALRC s Traditional Rights and Freedoms Report: Implications for Australian Migration Laws. Khanh Hoang. Introduction. Rights and Freedoms in Context
ALRC s Traditional Rights and Freedoms Report: Implications for Australian Migration Laws Khanh Hoang Introduction On 2 March 2016, the Australian Law Reform Commission released its final report, Traditional
More informationAustralia out of step with the world as more than 60 nations criticise our refugee policies
MEDIA RELEASE Australia out of step with the world as more than 60 nations criticise our refugee policies November 10, 2015. The Refugee Council of Australia has called on the Australian Government to
More informationREFUGEE CLAIMS AND AUSTRALIAN MIGRATION LAW: A MINISTERIAL PERSPECTIVE I. AUSTRALIA S REFUGEE DETERMINATION SYSTEM
2000 UNSW Law Journal 1 REFUGEE CLAIMS AND AUSTRALIAN MIGRATION LAW: A MINISTERIAL PERSPECTIVE THE HON PHILIP RUDDOCK MP* This article attempts to set out the context in which the refugee determination
More informationTHEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD*
THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* Introduction On 12 October 1994 the High Court handed down its judgments in the cases of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly
More informationAUSTRALIAN PUBLIC LAW SUMMARY 2011
AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC LAW SUMMARY 2011 LAWSKOOL PTY LTD CONTENTS Introduction 8 Constitutional Validity 9 Judicial Review 10 Advantages of judicial review 10 Is Judicial Review democratic? 10 Is Judicial Review
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJRU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 315 MIGRATION application for protection visa claim that appellant has well-founded fear of being persecuted for membership
More informationHow to determine error in administrative decisions A cheat s guide Paper given to law firms What is judicial review?
How to determine error in administrative decisions A cheat s guide Paper given to law firms 2014 Cameron Jackson Second Floor Selborne Chambers Ph 9223 0925 cjackson@selbornechambers.com.au What is judicial
More informationTHE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1985 THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AUSTRALIA BILL 1986 AUSTRALIA (REQUEST AND CONSENT) BILL 1985 EXPLANAIORY MEMORANDUM (Circulated by Authority of the Honourable
More informationRethinking Australian Migration
Rethinking Australian Migration Stephen Castles University of Sydney Department of Sociology and Social Policy Challenges to Australian migration model 1. Changes in global and regional migration 2. From
More informationA CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP
Genevieve Ebbeck * A CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ABSTRACT It is argued in this paper that Australian citizenship may be a constitutional, and not merely statutory, concept. Australian
More informationThis paper examines offshore processing arrangements through the prism
HUMAN RIGHTS AND OFFSHORE PROCESSING John von Doussa* This paper examines offshore processing arrangements through the prism of Australia s international human rights obligations. It contends that the
More informationFEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZGFA & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2007] FMCA 6 MIGRATION Application to review decision of Refugee Review Tribunal whether Tribunal failed to consider
More informationNAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002)
NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1456 (27 November 2002) FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NAGV of 2002 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous
More informationSUBMISSION TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY- GENERAL ON PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS
SUBMISSION TO THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY- GENERAL ON PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS Lucy McKernan & Gregor Husper Co-Managers, Public Interest Scheme Public Interest Law Clearing House (PILCH) Inc 17/461 Bourke
More informationChapter Two. Flights of Fancy: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication 20 Years On. Michael Sexton
Chapter Two Flights of Fancy: The Implied Freedom of Political Communication 20 Years On Michael Sexton The implied freedom of political communication is something of a case study for the discovery and
More information10 th CONGRESS OF THE IASAJ SYDNEY, MARCH 2010 NATIONAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA
10 th CONGRESS OF THE IASAJ SYDNEY, MARCH 2010 NATIONAL REPORT OF AUSTRALIA REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF GOVERNMENT BY ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 12 February 2010 Introduction Australia
More informationCases and Comments. Choice of Law on the High Seas: Blunden v Commonwealth. Abstract
Cases and Comments Choice of Law on the High Seas: Blunden v Commonwealth ALISON MUTTON * Abstract The High Court of Australia has in recent years clarified issues of choice of law in tort, formulating
More informationFACULTY OF LAW: UNIVERSITY OF NSW LECTURE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 28 MARCH 2012
FACULTY OF LAW: UNIVERSITY OF NSW LECTURE ON JUDICIAL REVIEW 28 MARCH 2012 Delivered by the Hon John Basten, Judge of the NSW Court of Appeal As will no doubt be quite plain to you now, if it was not when
More informationAustralian Lawyers for Human Rights Refugee Law Kit 2004 (last updated 30 November 2004)
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Refugee Law Kit 2004 (last updated 30 November 2004) CHAPTER 1 - WHO IS A REFUGEE? Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Australian Lawyers for Human
More informationSome ethical questions when opposing parties are. unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor
Some ethical questions when opposing parties are unrepresented or upon ceasing to act as a solicitor Monash Guest Lecture in Ethics 9 March 2011 G.T. Pagone * I thought I might talk to you today about
More informationWilliams v Commonwealth (No 2) [2014] HCA 23
Williams v Commonwealth (No 2) [2014] HCA 23 [10.117A] The enactment of s 32B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (Cth) and the addition of Sch 1AA to the regulations enabled the continuation
More informationResponsibilities. Enforcing Rights: The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and KIRSTY CHAMPION
Enforcing Rights: The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities KIRSTY CHAMPION On the first of January 2007, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities1 came into effect in Victoria.2
More informationSubmission to review of application of Migration Act to offshore resource workers. By the Australian Mines & Metals Association (AMMA)
Submission to review of application of Migration Act to offshore resource workers By the Australian Mines & Metals Association (AMMA) December 2012 AMMA is Australia s national resource industry employer
More informationAl-Kateb, Al Khafaji, Behrooz and Re Woolley. Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER 29 Al-Kateb, Al Khafaji, Behrooz and Re Woolley Mr Ahmed Al-Kateb arrived in Australia by boat in December 2000 without a passport or visa. He was taken into detention under the Migration
More informationPublic Law & Policy Research Unit
Public Law & Policy Research Unit Friday, 21 July 2017 Submission to the Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures)
More informationLIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH?
129 LIMITS TO STATE PARLIAMENTARY POWER AND THE PROTECTION OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY: A PRINCIPLED APPROACH? SIMON KOZLINA * AND FRANCOIS BRUN ** Case citation; Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181;
More information20. ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES A RIGHTS BASED APPROACH
POLICY A FAIR GO FOR ALL 20. ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES A RIGHTS BASED APPROACH INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1. Australia s policies towards asylum seekers and refugees should, at all times, reflect respect
More informationAn Indigenous Advisory Body Addressing the Concerns about Justiciability and Parliamentary Sovereignty. By Anne Twomey *
1 An Indigenous Advisory Body Addressing the Concerns about Justiciability and Parliamentary Sovereignty By Anne Twomey * In this paper I wish to address two main concerns raised in the media about an
More informationJudicial Review. The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction.
Judicial Review Jurisdiction The issue is whether the decision was made under Commonwealth or State law and which court has jurisdiction. Federal decisions must go to the Federal courts and State (and
More informationPart II ONSHORE REFUGEE PROGRAM. Section 1 CRITERIA. Section 2 UNITED NATIONS DEFINITION
Part II ONSHORE REFUGEE PROGRAM Section 1 CRITERIA Section 2 UNITED NATIONS DEFINITION Section 3 KEY CONCEPTS Persecution Well-Founded Fear Convention Reasons Section 4 LIMITATIONS OF APPLYING FOR REFUGEE
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Zentai v Republic of Hungary [2009] FCAFC 139 EXTRADITION function of magistrate in conducting hearing under s 19 of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) function of primary judge
More informationHuman Rights Bill No., A Bill for an Act to respect, protect and promote human rights
2009-2010 The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Presented and read a first time Human Rights Bill 2009 No., 2009 A Bill for an Act to respect, protect and promote human
More informationHAUT-COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS DE L HOMME OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND
HAUT-COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS DE L HOMME OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND Mandates of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; the Special
More informationMinister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs V Applicant C [2001] FCA 1332 (18 September 2001)
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs V Applicant C [2001] FCA 1332 (18 September 2001) FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Applicant C [2001] FCA 1332
More informationTEMPORARY HUMANITARIAN CONCERN VISA FACT SHEET 08 APRIL 2014
TEMPORARY HUMANITARIAN CONCERN VISA FACT SHEET 08 APRIL 2014 Please note this information sheet is subject to change and updates. Please frequently check the ASRC website at: www.asrc.org.au for updated
More informationHAUT-COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS DE L HOMME OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND
HAUT-COMMISSARIAT AUX DROITS DE L HOMME OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PALAIS DES NATIONS 1211 GENEVA 10, SWITZERLAND Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
More informationJUDICIAL REVIEW RIGHTS
JUDICIAL REVIEW RIGHTS Justice R S French Introduction Judicial review is concerned with the supervision by courts of decision-making by public officials. It is about administrative justice. More people
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA MZXQS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 97 MIGRATION visa protection visa whether Refugee Review Tribunal failed to consider all claims of appellants whether
More informationOperation Sovereign Borders. Visiting Professor Clive Williams MG Centre for Military and Security Law ANU
Operation Sovereign Borders Visiting Professor Clive Williams MG Centre for Military and Security Law ANU 1 Background Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) is the Defence-managed operation aimed at stopping
More informationgeography Bingo Instructions
Bingo Instructions Host Instructions: Decide when to start and select your goal(s) Designate a judge to announce events Cross off events from the list below when announced Goals: First to get any line
More informationCircular of Supreme People's Court on Implementing Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Entered by China
Circular of Supreme People's Court on Implementing Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Entered by China All Higher People's Courts and Intermediate People's Courts
More informationThe rights of non-citizens. Joint Statement addressed to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
International Commission of Jurists International Catholic Migration Commission The rights of non-citizens Joint Statement addressed to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Geneva,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Al Masri v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1009 MIGRATION mandatory detention of an unlawful non-citizen pending removal from Australia
More information1. Why do third-country audit entities have to register with authorities in Member States?
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Form A Annex to the Common Application Form for Registration of Third-Country Audit Entities under a European Commission Decision 2008/627/EC of 29 July 2008 on transitional
More informationMBE Constitutional Law Sample
MBE Constitutional Law Sample Approximately 50% of the Constitutional Law questions for each MBE will be based on Individual Rights such as due process, equal protections, and state action. "State Action"
More informationThe cost of policital donation reform: a burden on the implied freedom of political communication - unions NSW and others v State of New South Wales
Bond Law Review Volume 25 Issue 1 Article 4 2013 The cost of policital donation reform: a burden on the implied freedom of political communication - unions NSW and others v State of New South Wales Domenico
More informationProposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative approach to the flow of asylum seekers into and within the Asia-Pacific region
Proposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative approach to the flow of asylum seekers into and within the Asia-Pacific region Table of Contents Proposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative
More informationJames C Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under lnternational Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
James C Hathaway, The Rights of Refugees under lnternational Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005). Professor James C. Hathaway is recognised as one of the world's leading refugee law scholars. His text
More informationUNSC. : United nations security council. Junwon Yang and Leo Jung
UNSC : United nations security council Junwon Yang and Leo Jung table of contents I. List of participating countries II. Questions to consider III. Introduction IV. Background information - Europe - Middle
More informationMigration (IMMI 17/002: Places and Currencies for Paying of Fees) Instrument 2017
Migration (IMMI 17/002: Places and Currencies for Paying of Fees) Instrument 2017 I, Steven Groves, Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, make the following instrument. Dated:
More informationJudicial Review of Decisions: The Statement of Reasons
Judicial Review of Decisions: The Statement of Reasons Paper by: Matt Black Barrister-at-Law Presented by: Matthew Taylor Barrister-at-Law A seminar paper prepared for Legalwise: The Decision Making and
More informationMIGRATION UPDATE 2013
MIGRATION UPDATE 2013 by Graeme Hugo ARC Australian Professorial Fellow and Professor of Geography, The University of Adelaide Presentation to 2013 Migration Update Conference, Adelaide 19 th September,
More informationNew Zealand s approach to Refugees: Legal obligations and current practices
New Zealand s approach to Refugees: Legal obligations and current practices Marie-Charlotte de Lapaillone The purpose of this report is to understand New Zealand s approach to its legal obligations concerning
More informationREFUGEE STATUS DETERMINATION IN NAURU. Research Brief. Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law. Contents.
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law Research Brief REFUGEE STATUS DETERMINATION IN NAURU Last update: August 2018 Contents Contents... 1 Introduction... 1 Refugee status determination
More informationMigration Amendment (Visa Integrity) Bill 2006
Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information analysis and advice for the Parliament BILLS DIGEST 26 July 2006, no. 2, 2006 07, ISSN 1328-8091 Migration
More informationTranslation from Norwegian
Statistics for May 2018 Forced returns from Norway The National Police Immigration Service (NPIS) forcibly returned 402 persons in May 2018, and 156 of these were convicted offenders. The NPIS is responsible
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/18/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00812, and on FDsys.gov DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 9110-9M-P
More information