Search results

1. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission makes two submissions with respect to the interpretation of s.170DF(2)(f) of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth). They are:

1.1 It is submitted that the law in Australia is both uncertain and unsatisfactory as to the issue of whether a child's view should ordinarily be taken into account by a court when that court is considering whether to authorise medical treatment on the child.

1.1 On 15 January 2004, the Family Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in these proceedings, pursuant to s 92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Family Law Act").

1.1 On 8 February 2002, the Full Court granted leave to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("the Commission") to intervene in this appeal, pursuant to s.92 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ("Family Law Act").

1.1  It is submitted that the law in Australia is both uncertain and unsatisfactory as to the issue of whether a child's views should ordinarily be taken into account by a court when that court is considering whether to authorise medical treatment on the child.

1.2 These written submissions are made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (‘the Commission’) pursuant to its functions relating to human rights under section 11(1) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (‘HREOC Act’).[1] In these submissions, the Commission sets out the human rights issues surrounding the incarceration and…

2. The exercise of the jurisdiction of the Family Court is directly linked to the child's capacity to consent and therefore the capacity to consent must be the first issue to be decided.

3. His Honour failed to take into account the decision of the High Court of Australia in Waters -v- the Public Transport Commission in stating that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission is not limited in its consideration by anything set down in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

a) the Family Law Reform Act 1995 (Cth) ("the Reform Act") does not change the basic and long-standing principle that in all matters affecting children it is the 'best interests of the child' that remains the paramount consideration;

Apart from the express statutory authority for such intervention it would appear that the non party intervention may only be allowed where the intervener can provide arguments or facts which will contribute to the Court's reaching an informed decision, and where the significance of those arguments or facts is sufficient to outweigh any expense and/or delay which may be caused to the parties by…

Provide input on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006.

Review the Senate file listing from January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2006.