Melbourne Law School - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemLaw, medical practice and policy development( 2008)This application is based on a range of achievements Which establish, as required by Regulation 3.16 of the university's statutes, that 'I have made `a substantial and original contribution to legal scholarship' (see Part A); and that my work `is of such standard as to give [me] authoritative standing in the field of [my] study [Health and Medical Law]' (see Part B). My achievements include scholarly critique and analysis and cross-disciplinary publications in leading international journals (see Part C).
-
Item
-
ItemThe impact of Australia's refugee status determination system on its implementation of its refugee convention obligation on non-refoulement( 1994)Under article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), Australia has a non-refoulement obligation in respect of `refugees'. This thesis examines whether Australia is violating article 33 of the Refugee Convention by failing to identify the `refugees' amongst its on-shore refugee status claimants. In the absence of a safe third country prepared to receive them, Australia has no choice but to allow persons identified as `refugees' to remain in its territory. The problem is that the Australian Government has goals for the nation it serves and the political party it represents which it believes will be jeopardised to the extent that it is unable to choose which aliens get to reside in Australia and which do not. In consequence, the Australian Government bas a negative attitude towards on-shore refugee status clat. Inimants. This negative attitude has transmitted itself to the officers of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) who are responsible for making refugee status determinations at the primary stage. DIEA decision makers tend to be overly restrictive in their interpretation and application of key elements of the Refugee Convention definition of `refugee'. On the other hand, the courts and the Refugee Review Tribunal (R.R.T.) - institutions which do not have the political agenda of the Australian Government - have come close to interpreting and applying the Refugee Convention definition of `refugee' in line with international standards. The problem is that not all refugee status claimants can afford to pursue R.R.T. and/or judicial review. This leaves open the possibility that Australia is risking breach of article 33 of the Refugee Convention by repatriating persons who are refugees but have not been identified as such. In order for Australia to avoid breaching article 33, its domestic legal and administrative regime considered as a whole must attain a standard of reasonable efficacy in the implementation of that article. In order for Australia to be assured of attaining a standard of reasonable efficacy, Australia's on-shore refugee status determination process must be designed to meet certain minimum procedural standards. These minimum procedural standards are: the use of an inquisitorial determination system; the maintenance of an independent documentation and research centre; the elimination of factors which could lead to incorrect adverse credibility assessments; the provision to claimants of all information available to the decision-maker; the use of independent, impartial, specialised, full-time, career decision-makers who are carefully selected and adequately trained; adequate access to legal assistance by claimants; the provision of an opportunity to be heard in person and by the decision-maker; the processing of claims without undue delay and adequate rights of review. Australia's refugee status determination system falls short of meeting these minimum procedural standards in some significant respects. It is conceivable that a State's other humanitarian protection measures may sufficiently compensate for an inadequate refugee status determination process by serving as a safety net for Refugee Convention refugees who are not identified by the refugee status determination process. Australia's humanitarian protection mechanisms, however, are not an adequate safety net for such persons.
-
ItemIn the public interest? The application of section 41(1)(d) of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act (Cth) in the SEQEB dispute( 1991)In late 1984, the Queensland branch of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) embarked on a major campaign of industrial action in opposition to attempts by the South East Queensland Electricity Board (SEQEB) to introduce contract labour. The campaign was to have far-reaching consequences for the individual members of the ETU and for the regulation of industrial relations in the Queensland electricity industry. On February 11, 1985 approximately 900 members of the ETU who were on strike were summarily dismissed by SEQEB. Soon after, the Queensland Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was stripped of its jurisdiction to deal with industrial disputes in the electricity industry. The Queensland government established a specialist tribunal to deal with industrial affairs in the electricity industry, and enacted legislation which conferred sweeping powers on employers in the electricity industry to deal with employees engaging in industrial action. The ETU responded to these events by seeking an award of the Federal Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which would override the system of regulation set in place by the Queensland government. The Queensland government and electricity authorities vigorously opposed the granting of the award sough by the ETU. This thesis examines the successful application pursued by the Queensland electricity authorities before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, whereby the Commission refrained from proceeding to make the award sought by the ETU on the ground that to do so would not be in the public interest. By analysing the flaws in the Commission's exercise of the public interest discretion, the thesis attempts to enunciate principles governing the proper exercise of the Commission's power to refrain from granting an award on public interest grounds.