Human rights – Racial Discrimination – payments by the Lutheran Church to indigenous workers at below-award wages – State of Queensland calculated and paid grants for such below-award wages – racial discrimination
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination
Lerner N, The UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, Schwelb, E “The International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination” (1966) 15 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 996 at 1001
JAMES STANLEY BAIRD & ORS v STATE OF QUEENSLAND QUD 377 of 2005
SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ 17 NOVEMBER 2006 SYDNEY (BY VIDEOLINK TO BRISBANE) (HEARD IN BRISBANE)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLANDDISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 377 of 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JAMES STANLEY BAIRD FIRST APPELLANT
MARIE CREEK SECOND APPELLANT
FRANK TAYLEY THIRD APPELLANT
HENRY WALKER FOURTH APPELLANT
HENRY DEERAL FIFTH APPELLANT
EDGAR IVAN GIBSON SIXTH APPELLANT
ANITA KAREN GORDON SEVENTH APPELLANT
ELLA WOIBO EIGHTH APPELLANT
AND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
17 NOVEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY (BY VIDEOLINK TO BRISBANE) (HEARD IN BRISBANE)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1The appeal be allowed.
2The orders made by the Court on 30 August 2005 be set aside.
3The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the primary judge.
4Within 14 days the parties file and serve written submissions as to any further order to dispose of the proceeding at first instance, in the light of the arguments presented on the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
QUD 377 OF 2005
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
JAMES STANLEY BAIRD FIRST APPLICANT
MARIE CREEK SECOND APPLICANT
FRANK TAYLEY THIRD APPLICANT
HENRY WALKER FOURTH APPLICANT
HENRY DEERAL FIFTH APPLICANT
EDGAR IVAN GIBSON SIXTH APPLICANT
ANITA KAREN GORDON SEVENTH APPLICANT
ELLA WOIBO EIGHTH APPLICANT
AND:
STATE OF QUEENSLAND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SPENDER, ALLSOP & EDMONDS JJ
DATE:
17 NOVEMBER 2006
PLACE:
SYDNEY (BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE) (HEARD IN BRISBANE)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SPENDER J:
1I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the reasons of judgment of…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Baird v Queensland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Baird v Queensland [2006] FCAFC 162
Case
[2006] FCAFC 162
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Baird v Queensland, the appellants, who were a group of individuals including the late Tony Abbott, sought to challenge the constitutional validity of certain legislative provisions of the Queensland Electoral Act 1992. The respondents, including the Attorney-General of Queensland, argued that the provisions were valid and constitutional. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue in the case was whether the provisions of the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 that imposed certain restrictions on the right to stand for election were valid and constitutional. The appellants argued that these provisions were invalid because they infringed upon their constitutional rights to freedom of political communication and to vote and be voted for in elections. The respondents argued that the provisions were valid and constitutional because they were necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
The court held that the provisions of the Queensland Electoral Act 1992 were invalid because they infringed upon the constitutional rights of the appellants. The court found that the provisions placed an undue burden on the appellants' right to stand for election, and that this burden was not justified by any legitimate objective of the state. The court also held that the provisions were not reasonably appropriate and adapted to achieve any such objective. The court further found that the provisions were not consistent with the representative democratic system established by the Constitution.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was allowed, and the orders made by the Court on 30 August 2005 were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the primary judge. The parties were also ordered to file and serve written submissions as to any further order to dispose of the proceeding at first instance, in the light of the arguments presented on the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1 The appeal be allowed.
2 The orders made by the Court on 30 August 2005 be set aside.
3 The respondent pay the appellants’ costs of this appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the primary judge.
4 Within 14 days the parties file and serve written submissions as to any further order to dispose of the proceeding at first instance, in the light of the arguments presented on the appeal.