Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A tale of three cases: reflections on rights protection

By Stephen Keim - posted Tuesday, 12 August 2008


They also argued that the purpose of the Australian Security Organisation Act 1979 is such that ASIO never have to tell anybody anything if they don’t want to.

By a careful analysis of the rules which relate to discovery and the case law relating to public interest immunity, the Full Court said that the judge at first instance had got it right and ASIO should produce a list of relevant documents as they were ordered to do. The common law coped again although this is just one more step in the battle for openness and justice by these three plaintiffs.

In the third case, Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs [2008] a young Australian citizen, Syed Mustapha Hussain, won a scholarship to study in Medina in Saudi Arabia but, after a year of such studies, on his holidays back in Australia had his Australian passport cancelled such that he was unable to travel overseas (and continue his studies). The cancellation was on the basis of, you guessed it, an adverse security assessment by ASIO.

Advertisement

Mr Hussain sought to review the cancellation in Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The former Attorney-General, Mr Ruddock, issued certificates that prevented Mr Hussain or his lawyers having access to the material on which the adverse security assessment was made. Not surprisingly, not knowing the case against him, for reasons he is still unaware of, Mr Hussain lost his case in the Tribunal.

The issue in the Federal Court concerned the fact that the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (and who sat on the case) is a Federal Court judge, one who exercises the judicial power of the Commonwealth. The Full Court of Justices Weinberg, Bennett and Edmonds asked themselves the question whether it was incompatible for a judicial officer to sit in a Tribunal where one side did not get to see the other side’s evidence; whether such a process involved acting on the “advice, wish or instruction” of the Executive; whether the task in the Tribunal really involved independence from the Executive. Perhaps surprisingly, they said “No problem: we do this sort of thing every day”.

Neither the common law nor Chapter III of the Constitution was able to ensure a right to a fair go in this case. In an era when the Munich Beer Festival is constitutionally unable to start without a generous sprinkling of Australian yobbos in attendance, one might think that the right to know why one is losing one’s right to travel overseas (and contest that reason) is a pretty fundamental right.

A Charter of Rights may not stop, in every case, the latest Phillip Ruddock from taking away a few more fundamental rights, especially, those of powerless minority groups or demonstrators like Scott Parkin who some politicians love to hate. It will ensure, however, that we have a decent debate about such proposals. It will ensure that the Parliament, if it really wants the Executive to take such steps, thinks long and hard about it before it authorises the Executive to do so.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in Justinian on July 24, 2008.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

16 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Stephen Keim has been a legal practitioner for 30 years, the last 23 of which have been as a barrister. He became a Senior Counsel for the State of Queensland in 2004. Stephen is book reviews editor for the Queensland Bar Association emagazine Hearsay. Stephen is President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and is also Chair of QPIX, a non-profit film production company that develops the skills of emerging film makers for their place in industry.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Keim

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 16 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy