Search results

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (‘the Commission’) has sought leave to appear as amicus curiae in the hearing of both appeal proceedings. The Commission does not argue for a particular outcome in the appeal, but rather seeks to identify the relevant principles of law as they apply to the appeal for the assistance of the Court.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (‘the Commission’)[1] has been granted leave to appear as an amicus curiae in the hearing of this appeal.

The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) has sought leave to appear as amicus curiae in these appeal proceedings. The Commission does not argue for a particular outcome in the appeal, but rather seeks to identify the relevant principles of law for the assistance of the Court.

Explore a report by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding Qantas v Gama in relation to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act.

You can explore a report by the Australian Human Rights Commission regarding Qantas v Gama in relation to the Racial Discrimination Act (1975).

3. HREOC makes no submissions about the factual findings. These submissions are concerned with the proper legal tests to apply and not the application of the facts under those tests.

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (‘the Commission’) has been granted leave to intervene in the hearing of this matter, in the exercise of its function under s 20(1)(e) of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975  (Cth) (‘the RDA’).

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") by notice of motion dated 24 December 1997, has sought leave to intervene in these proceedings pursuant to ss.11(1)(o)of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the Act") relying upon the affidavit of Christopher Dominic Sidoti sworn on 24 December 1997.

The Commission has an interest and expertise in relation to the interpretation of the RDA, the application of the International Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD),[1] and racial discrimination issues generally, as set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the affidavit of Ms Branson dated 18 July 2011.

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”) seeks the leave of the Court to intervene to make submissions in this case.

The Commonwealth relies upon Australia's response to the UNHRC's decision in A v Australia.(34) Nothing flows from that response. The UNHRC hears individual complaints of violations of the ICCPR (called "communications") under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. (35) Australia is a party to the First Optional Protocol. (36) The decisions or "views" of the UNHRC regarding…

SHDB Appellant PHILIPPA GODWIN First Respondent JULIE HELEN KEENAN Second Respondent MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS Third Respondent

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") files these written submissions pursuant to the orders entered 24 September 2002. The Commission makes no submissions on the respondent's motion of 18 September 2002. On the assumption that the appeal is competent, the Commission's submissions address the proper construction of s.196 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) …

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the 'Commission') files these written submissions pursuant to the orders entered on 13 September 2002. The Commission makes no submissions on the issue of whether the Minister should be granted leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of Merkel J. On the assumption that such leave is granted, the Commission's submissions address the proper…

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") makes no submissions about the constitutional validity of s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), nor about the nature of this Court's jurisdiction under s 75(v) of the Constitution. Rather, these submissions are made on the basis that the principles of statutory construction which ground the…

1. The key concept underlying the Commission's submissions is the proposition that the Australian legal system recognises, in various ways, an obligation to provide an effective remedy to persons present in this country whose interests have been adversely affected by a decision of an officer of the Commonwealth, where the decision is otherwise than in accordance with law. In this case, the need…

1.1 On 5 March 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ( Commission') was established by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the HREOC Act"). On 13 April 1995, His Honour Justice Carr directed that leave be granted to the Commission, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the HREOC Act, to file and serve written submissions in these matters limited to the issues referred to…

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") was established by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the HREOC Act"). On 13 April 1995, Carr J. directed that leave be granted to the Commission, pursuant to s.11(1)(o) of the HREOC Act, to file and serve written submissions in these matters limited to the issues referred to…

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") was granted leave by his Honour Justice Marshall on 5 June 2001 to intervene in these proceedings pursuant to s 11(1)(o) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the "HREOC Act").