Racial Abuses That Has Been Happening in Australia against Indian Students - Assignment Example

Question one The case highlights the number of racial abuses that has been happening in Australia against Indian students and other Asian immigrants. The case also takes a light into how it is affecting the most important organ of the society that is medical field and it is surprising that health officials are being getting racial also. On the first case between sally and Winnie there has been abuse of power in administration of government and it is very eminent despite all the tribunal being put up to combat the vice of power abuse and office abuse among members that would hold high offices in the ranks of government administrations. There has been role of racism that could be seen in official government administrator Sally when she confronts Winnie and scolds her saying that she has no obligation telling or giving her information concerning the administration to an immigrant.1 Winnie’s grievances against sally could be said as ; Abuse of office Violation of freedom of information act 1982 Violation of simple ultra Vires Procedural unfairness There would be establishment of tribunals that would be looking at claims of abuse of office and there would be reviewing judicial and there would be helping of immigrants. Winnie could challenge the administration action perpetuated by sally in the administrative decisions (judicial review act 1977) in the common law system that has been performed by ordinary courts of the land. The AAT or Administrative Appeal Tribunal act 1975 its most significant role is reviewing merits and holds the right to ascertain reasons behind decisions.Sally could be accused of taking forward the selfish motive and has been more racial overtone.There has been Christopher (2001) who has been saying that misconduct and abuse of office charges that has been very relevant and essential to this case can also be implemented2 The case that would be put used to advise Winnie would be that Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 657: 483 HEARING 1985, November 7; 1986, February 21. 21:2:1986 APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. DECISION GIBBS C.J.: In 1982 the respondent, Mr Osmond , who had for many years been an officer employed first under the Public Service Act 1902 (N.S.W.), as amended, and more recently under the Public Service Act 1979 (N.S.W.), as amended ("the Act"), which repealed the earlier statute, applied for appointment by way of promotion to a vacant position of Chairman, Local Lands Boards. The appropriate Department Head recommended that another applicant, Mr Galvin, should be appointed. Both the respondent and Mr Galvin were eligible for appointment to the position. The respondent appealed to the appellant, the Public Service Board of New South Wales ("the Board"), under s.116 of the Act. The appeal was heard, and the respondent was later informed orally that the Board had dismissed his appeal. The respondent had asked the board to submit the reason for the decision but the board had failed to do so. The respondent then applied on summons to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for declaratory and other relief. The matter came at first instance before Hunt J. who held that the Board was not obliged to give reasons for its decision to dismiss an appeal brought pursuant to s.116 of the Act and dismissed the respondent's summons. An appeal was brought by the respondent to the Court of Appeal, which by a majority (Kirby P. and Priestley J.A.; Glass J.A. dissenting) declared that the Board was obliged to give reasons for its decision to dismiss the respondent's appeal and ordered the Board to perform its legal duty by giving reasons for its decision. The Board had asked for special leave from the court. The freedom of information act has been passed in the year 1982 and the stipulations would be like this •Obtain access to information that has been held as records by State Government Agencies, a Government Minister, local government and other public bodies; Request amendments to records of a personal nature that would be considered as inaccurate; and appeal against amending personal records. The other point that has to be given as advice to Wally could be termed as follows MICHAEL McKINNON v SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY4 .On 6 September 2006, the High Court of Australia delivered judgment in one of the longest running freedom of information cases in the last 20 years, the matter of McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45.5 There was no error of law when Mr McKinnon’s claim was rejected and it was on this background that that he has been entitled to get certain treasury documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the High Court of Australia held today.6 In 2002, Mr McKinnon, The Australian newspaper’s FOI editor, had asked for a material that could be stated as “bracket creep” from the income tax system . Treasury had given the documents that had fallen under the scheme. One of the 40 documents were said to be exempt. The first home owner’s scheme were considered to be exempt. If disclosure would be exempt from the public interest and there would be documents that would be used for advising the commonwealth government. There would be documents that would be used for advising and that would be involved in the functions of an agency or minister or of the Commonwealth Government. Section 36(3) provides that a minister, if the minister finds that the disclosure would be against the interest of the public then the minister would not be signing it.. The decision were upheld by internal review and that meant Mr McKinnon had to apply for AAT for getting the major decisions reviewed. Section 58(5) of the FOI Act provides that the AAT would be determine the validity of the grounds whether the disclosure of the document would be standing. There has been signing of two documents. The one document that was signed belong to the 40 bracket certificates and the other belonged to the 47 first home owners schemes documents. There would be two justification in the form that the disclosure may be compromising confidence and disclosure could be misleading the documents use of jargon, acronyms and unexplained methodology. The AAT determined that two documents did not fall within section 36(1) .There has been also a finding that said that reasonable grounds exist that disclosure of other documents would be against the public interest. The federal court had dismissed the appeal. There was an appeal that was presented to the high court by the Mr. McKinnon. The court had dismissed the appeal and it was on a majority decision and it was on 3-2 basis. Mr McKinnon had argued that section 58(5) of the Freedom Of Information Act had been used to put pressure on AAT to consider and balance competing facets of the public interest. However, the Court held that section 58(5) does not permit the not giving the honest opinion that disclosure would not be there. McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury has been viewed as the case to "make or break" the FOI Act. When enacted the object of the FOI Act was to extend as far as possible, subject to exceptions and exemptions, the right of the Australian community to access information held by the government. The majority of the High Court has agreed that the strict interpretation of the FOI Act has, in practical terms, defeated one or more of the purposes of the Act - a sentiment not surprisingly echoed by the dissenting Judges. The decision has affirmed the strength of the exemptions available to the government under the FOI Act. In practical terms, a government minister can issue a conclusive certificate stating that disclosure is against the public interest and that, it seems, will operate conclusively to exclude the information from public access. The result is also likely to forestall future challenges against the use of a conclusive certificate and may indeed raise a real prospect of the public questioning the value of the FOI Act as an effective means of accessing government information. Under the ADJR Act a person could be asking for statement of reasons; under the AAT Act a statement of reasons would be got only if the interests gets affected. Both expressions are similar in coverage. There could be an example, of a person who has been refused a benefit or visa, a company refused a license, or an organization refused a grant. The right to seek reasons would be also extended broadly. The Verdict would be The only option here is to commence an appeal to the ADT under section 55 to seek to challenge the reviewable decision Question no 2 There has been good intent from Ann and Badi .The main aim was improving the student’s condition and burden at the university from the federal government’s cut of budgetary support to the universities. There was jumping of protocol and legal affairs from the side of Badi and Ann. Anns intentions had been correct but the method that has been employed has not been in tune with the legal affairs.The aim of the faculty has been to increase the learning sphere of the students.The head of the university should have been the first to react when the university had found out that the resource of the students has been reduced and there has been instances of that cases being repeated all over the world. BOWEN J The question for determination in this appeal is whether a decision of the Council of The Australian National University ("the appellant") to dismiss a professor was 'a decision of an administrative character made ("the Judicial Review Act"7). On 13 November 1981 the Council of the appellant resolved to terminate the appointment of Arthur Lee Burns ("the respondent") as a professor in the appellant's Department of Political Science, Research School of Social Sciences with effect from the close of university business that day on the ground that he had become permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his office. The respondendent had asked for the appellant, pursuant to s. 13 of the Judicial Review Act, to furnish him that would be gi8ving him all the information needed for getting the information. On 4 December 1981 the appellant had said to the respondent that they were not entitled to make the decision.. The respondent had applied to the court and the section that has been used has been 13 (4A) (b) of the Judicial Review Act. The application was heard and the decision of the respondent was granted. The appellant had appealed to the full court from the judgement. The facts are not in dispute. On 9 December 1966 the then Registrar of the Institute of Advanced Studies within the appellant, of which the Research School of Social Sciences forms part, wrote to the respondent offering him appointment to a second Chair in the Department of Political Science effective from 9 December 1966. There have been two copies and one has to be signed and returned. There would be an appeal that has to be placed before the APT and that would mean that the appeal would be strong enough and the main reason for this is that the effort of Ann has been good and there would be intervention of procedural fairness (natural laws) so that the judiciary may see the weight the student have to bear in the implementation of this act. THE CASE FOR THE STUDENTS WILL NOT STAND IN THE COURT Question no 3 There has been failure to get a decision. There would be a decision making that would be following (a) there has been suspending of revoking of order or (b) there has been refusing to give certificate direction, approval, consent or permission; or (c) there has been refusing to give license; d) imposing a condition or restriction; or (e) There has been declaration of demand or requirement or (f) there has been refusing to give an article or (g) there has been refusing to do anything else; There has been provision that has been made by enactment and there would be recommendation before a decision that has been made and there would be making of a decision. There has been reference to failure and there has been decision that has been maintained in the sub section 1 (a) to g and there has been a report that has been mentioned in the sub section 2 Meaning of person aggrieved (1)A person who has been aggrieved by the decision would be having reference to there has been person who has been adversely affected by the decision. There has been a way of making report and recommendation (b) the decision has been made as per the report. (2) For this Act, a reference would be made to the person who has been aggrieved by the damage. . The Damage claim has been right Question no four There are, however, many statutes that impose a duty to give reasons: Section 28 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) provides that a statement of reasons would be given on a request and there would be right to a person who has a right to apply for merits that would be given by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Section 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) would be saying that statement of reasons would be given on request to a person who would be having a right to apply for judicial review of a decision that has been made in the court. There has been number of reasons that have been provided. The legislation would be saying the person would be asking for reasons that have been provided. There are two other circumstances in which an agency can also be expected to provide reasons or an explanation for a decision, even though it may have no legal obligation to do so: Section 15 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 (Cth) provides that, if the Ombudsman would be giving the report for the reasons for the omission. Government service charters would be commonly asking for state of .The agencies should be honouring the commitment. Bibliography Douglas and Jones’s Administrative Law, Roger Douglas, 5th. Ed., (Sydney, The Federation Press 2006),chapter 3,pp.320,chapter 4,pp.480 H Katzen & R Douglas, Administrative Law, Chapter 4,( Butterworths Tutorial Series) (Sydney, Butterworths 1999).pp 220 Australian national university vs Burns,1982,43,Alr 25, Bryan Horrigan,Government law and policy: commercial aspects ,"Judicial review",pp.125 Christopher, E, 2001, ‘Federal Administrative Law’, Sydney, The Federation Press,pp.28 Jennings, I, 1967, ‘The Law and the Constitution’, London, University of London Press,pp.170-190 Read More