Sezdirmezoglu, Ligor v Acting Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs

[1983] FCA 413

Whether the- Acting Nlnister could not deport the first named appllcsnt because of his family relaticnship wlth

the second named applicant - whether the Actxg Minlster

was bound by the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights - whether the covenant L S Dart of the law of P-ustralla - the effect qf tine covenact on a

clecision made pursuant to the laws of Australia,

Miaration Pct 1958 ss.16 and 18. Human Ricrhcs Commission Act 1981

VG No. 153 of 1983

Smithers J.

21 October 1383

Me'bourne.

IN TEE FEDEK~L COUXT 01.’ AUSTP.ALIA)

)

V I C T O R I A	D I S T R i C T	R E G I S T R Y	)	VG N o .	153 of 1983
)

GENERAL DIVISION	1
)
EX TEMPORE uTDGMENT	)
Between: L I G O R S E Z D I m I E Z O G L U 2nd

PENELO?E DKOKOS

- And: T H E A C T I N G M I N I S T E R F O R

IMMIG&XTIOPj	& E T M I C
A F F A I R S

(Respondent)

- Coram: Smithers J.

21 October 1983

REASONS FOR JUDG:”.ENT

-

..

XIS HONOUR: When an o rde r t ha t t he th l rd q round o f che o rde r t o t h i s m a t t e r was heard in September I nads

revLe-#

be d e a l t w i t h s e p a r a t e l y from the other grounds. I

have handed grounds and ~t LS t h e down a ludqment i n r e l a t i o n t o t:le o t h e r

t h l r d ground whlch is row

be fo re t he C o u r t . The t h l r d ground was l n t h e s e

U

.. a

terms : ,‘l

“ T h a t 1 r . s o f a r t h e s d e p o r t a c l o n of t h e

f l r s t - n a m e d a p p l l c z c t wocld Se I l k e l y t o

2.

seriously lmpalr the exerclse by the second

named appl . icant , an Austral ian c l t izen, of h e r

r i g h t s n c l u d l n g h e r i g h t s t o m a i n t e n a n c e f o r

t h e chlld en ven t r e sa mere o f t h e a p p l l c a n t s ,

lt IS pot w l t h i n t he power of t h e Ccmmonwealth

o f f l c e r so to o r d e r , t h a t i s t o s a y t o make t h e

depor t a t lon o rde r . I'

That ground was ' p a r t i c u l a r l s e d b y M r . L i t t l e th l s

mcrning i n the fo l lowing t e rms , name ly , t ha t i n the

e x e r c i s e of t h e d i s c r e t l o n o f t h e A c t i n g Mi> l s t e r ,

the Actlng Mmister cou ld no t depor t he app l i can t

.

b.ecause of h i s f a m i l y r e l a t l o n s h i p with Mrs. Drokos,

t h a t r e l a t i o n s h r p b e i n g a g e n u i n e d e f a c t o

r e l a t i c n s h i p , h e b e i n g the f a t h e r o f h e r c h i l d a b o u t

t o b e born and a lso bemg accepted as i a loco

pa ren t i s by Mrs. Drokos ' daughter , that LS, the

daughter of Mrs. Drokos by her prevlous marriage.

The r e l e v a n t f a c t s a r e , s h o r t l y , t h a t the a p p l i c a n t

and Mrs. Drokos a r r i v e d i n A u s t r a l i a from Greece and

t o c k u p a g a i n a de f a c t o r e l a t i o n s h i p which according

t o them had commenced i n Greece a t least some 12

months b e f o r e t h e y a r r l v e d i n Australia. Nrs. Drokos

a r r i v e d ln A u s t r a l i a s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e a p p l i c a n t .

Mrs. Drokos is sbout t o be divorced in Greece and

i n t e n d s t o m a r r y t h e a p p l i c a n t . A s p r e v i o u s l y

mentioned tinere i s a daughter from Drokos' previous

marriage who has l ived wi th Drokos and t h e applicant

3 .

at a l l tlmes when they have been l ivlng together and

who rega rds t he app l i can t i n t he pos i t i on o f he r

parent . .

Nrs. Drokos is wi th ch l ld t o t h e a p p l i c a n t a n d

expec ts the baby to be born in about two months tlme.

She i s an Aus t r a l i an c l t l z e n . The applicant is

Turkish. There i s , t h e r e f o r e , so it is s a l d , a

e

f a m i l y s i c u a t l o n i n e x l s t e n c e c o n s l s t r n g o f t h e

app l i can t , Mrs - Drokos, and her daughter, which has

been f u r t h e r e n h a n c e d b y t h e x i s t e n c e of t h e

pregnancy ln r e l a t i o n t o t h e c h i l d of t h e a p p l i c a n t

and Drokos.

Irr the f l r s t i n s t a n c e W . L i t t l e contended tha t

A u s t r a l i a h a v i n g a c c e d e d t oh e I n t e r n a t i o n a l

C o v e n a n t f o r C i v i l a n d P o l i t i c a l R l g h t s ( t h e

covenan t ) t he p rov i s lonso f the covenan t a re b lnd ing

on the Acting MLnister for Immlgratlon and Ethnic

A f f a i r s i n t h i s c a s e i n t h e s e n s e t h a t :le i s

r e s t r a l n e d from making an order for deportaclon whicn

would lnvade, o r f a l l to p r o t e c t , t he farnzly

s i t u a t i o n .

The Human Riqbts Commission Ac t 1981 Ind ica t e s t ha t

it i s d e s i r a b l e tinat the laws o f t h e Commonwealth and

t h e c o n d l l c t o f p e r s o n s n d m i n l s t e r l n g t h o s e l a w s

should conform with the provis ions o f t he covenan t

and c e r t a i n o t h e r i n t e r n a t l o n a l d e c l a r a t l o n s , b u t o f

course such a r e c i t a l s t o p s s h o r t of enac t ing t h a t

t h e p r o v l s i o n s of the covenant are p a r t of t h e law o f

Aus t r a l i a , and in f ac t t hose p rov i s lons a re not p a r t

of the law of A u s t r a l i a .

The- Migration Act 1958 is l a w i n Australia on t h e

s u b j e c t of immigra t ion . In tha t Act ' Pa r l i amen t l ays

down, i n t e r a l l a , t h e c o n d i t l o n s a c c o r d i n g t o whrch

persons may be admltted t o A u s t r a l i a and may be

- . deported therefrom. It is t o those p r o v i s i o n s t h a t

regard must be had.

So f a r as t h e d e p o r t a t i o n of a prohibi ted i ;nmigrant

is concerned, the Mlnis ter has a d i s c r e t i o n , the

w i d t h of which has b e e n d e s c r l b e d l n v a r i o u s

d e c i s i o n s s u c h a s T h e M i n l s t e r f o r I m m i g r a t i o n &

-

E t h n i c A f f a i r s v. T a g l e ( u n r e p o r t e d e c l s i o n of

Sweeney, Woodward a n d F r t z g e r a l d J J . , d a t e d 2 8

September 1983; VG No. 53 of 1983) and Akpan v. The

Minls te r for Immiqra t lon & Ethnlc Affa l r s (unrepor ted

dec i s ion of Sheppard J. dated 7 A p r i l 1983 ) . That

d i s c r e t i o n i t s e l f inust be exercrsed according to law

one orovision of which is tha t t he Min l s t e mus t r

c o n s l d e r a l l c l z c u n s t a n c e s r e l e v a n t t o t h e p o s i t i o n

of t h e p e r s o n w i t h w h o s e d e s i r e t o r e m a l n i n

5 .

Bus t ra l la he 1s concerned. I do no t s ay tha t he m u s t

apply the p r , i nc lp l c s l a id down i n the covenant .

However, t he dec l a ra t ron of Parliament r n t h e iluman

Rrghcs Commlsslon Act 1 9 8 1 t h a t lt 1 s d e s l r a b l e t h a t

t h e conduct of persons administering the laws of

Australia should conform w l t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e

covenant may supply a ground f o r contending tha t the

M i n i s t e r s h o u l d at l e a s t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e

prhncip les expressed	therern .
-

S s f a r as of the Acting L can see i n t h i s c a s e , s a v e tha t the order

Minister as previously nade and a t

p resent under recons ldera t ion may cause a s epa ra t lon ,

it appears that he has m an m d l r e c t way t a k e n m t o

cons ide ra t ion t he p rov i s lons of the covenant. I t i s

a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e Acting Minister i s apprlsed of and

considers it h ls du ty to have r ega rd to t he d e f a c t o

re la t ionship be tween these two p a r t l e s a n d t h a t ne

-

recognises tinat it is hls d u t y t o take that i n t o

account w l t h a l l o t h e r matters whlch Sear upon the

d e s r r a b l l i t y o r o t h e r w l s e from the p o m t of view of

A u s t r a l l a t h a t t h e applicant be depor ted or tha t some

p r i v i l e g e s a r i s i n g o u t of the d e f a c t o r e l a t i o n s h l p

be xtended to him. The duty, however, rs no more

than a d u t y t o t a k e a l l r e l evan t cons ide ra t lons

concerning che prohlbited iLnmlcrant r n r e l a t l c n t o

t he in t e re s t s o f Aas t r a l l a In to accoun t .

The s l t u a t i o n * f o r Mrs. Drokos, of course , i s a very

d l f f i c u l t one indeed from all p o l n t s of view and lt

is n o t e d t h a t s h e i s an Australian c i t i z e n . B u t it

is going t o o f a r t o s u g g e s t t h a t a s a sepa ra t lon

between these p a r t l e s mzcjht p o s s i b l y a r i s e i f t h e

order as previous ly made w e r s c a r r i e d i n t o e f f e c t the

p o s s i b i l i t y of t h a t separa t ion makes It unlawful for

the N i n i s t e r t o make the o rde r . The existence of t h e

family and r e s p e c t f o r what I c a l l the r l g h t s t h e r e o f

d o n l awfu l o t t a k e e f f e c t t o p r o h i b i t t h e e x e r c i s e o f a l l

ac t s whlch may work i n a h o s t i l e manner

towards the family. T h e family i s s t i l l s u b j e c t o

l a w and n o t the r e v e r s e . This is made c l e a r i n the

covenant i tself: see a r t i c l e 9 ( 1 ) , a r t r c l e 10(1),

a r t i c l e 1 3 and a r t i c l e 17(1). If one r eads , fo r

example, a r t i c l e 1 3 it s t a t e s :

-

"An a l i e n lawful ly i n t h e t e r r i t o r y of a

s t a t e p a r t y t o t h e p r e s e n t c o v e n a n t may be

e x p e l l e d t h e r e f r m o n l y ln pursuance of a

decls ion reached in accordsnce wlth law

and shall , except where comgellmcj reasons

of na t iona l s ecu r l ty o the rwise r equ l r e , be

allowed t o submit the reasons aga lns t h l s

expulsion and to have h l s case revlewed

by, and be represented for the purpose

b e f o r e , the competent authority o r a

person or persons especial ly desLgnated by

the competent au thor i ty . I'

The p r i n c i p l e that t h e law of the land as made by the

law-makinq bodies of A u s t r a l i a s h a l l o p e r a t e

-. _ __ . - . . -.

. .I

. . 7.

." .,

' l:,:	. I
- . _ j -

l I notwlthstanding any general provlslons whlch appear

t

1 . I

.

I

covenatit the

in

seems

suppor ted

be

ta

by a number o f

,

dec i s ions

-

lndeed

those

decis lons

which

Yr.

L l t t l e

,

:

:

.

:

:

;

I

.

L

himself submltted

- and

I refer

In p a r t i c u l a r t o R v .

-

c-2

S - .

. .

Home

Sec re t a ry ex parte

Bhajar

Sinqh

C19761

1

Q.B.

- d -

-. .

198:

R v .

Home

R	v . The
Sec re t a ry ex p a r t e Phan Sopkar

C19761

i-: t

.

3 -

c;

I '

1 Q . B .

6 0 6 :

Chief

I rnmlqra t lon

Off

icer

ex

I

r _.

parte

Salamat

Bib1

C19761

l V.L .R .

979.

Reference

*

may

a l so

be

made t o In r e Slmsek (1981-1902)

40 ALR

?-- i

. i 61.

1.1. i

. - i

. ' X

To m y mind Human Rights Commission Act 1961 or the it is p e r f e c t l y c l e a r t h a t n o t h l n g l n t h e

1 covenant , so

I_

..I I

.	I	i	far as	it is c a l l e d	i n a i d	in	that Act.	is	e f f e c t i v e
-:'
- 1

- 1

t o modlfy i n any way the powers of the Mlnls ter under

;

ss.16 and 18 of the Niqra t ion A c t . The only way i n

1 . ' 1 . l

!' i i, which the A c t i s re levanc LS t h a t It makes c l e a r t h a t

i	i
:
,	; .it is t h e d e s l r e of J a r l i amen t ha t he conduc t of
2	4
i	I the Min i s t e r In perforrnlnq h i s d u c i e s s h a l l conform
j	/ with the provis ions of the covenant , and t h e f a c t
!	j t h a t t h e covenan'i r e f e r s t o the en t i t i emen t o f t he
;
1 f a m i l y t o be pro tec ted , bu t it LS a r i g h t f o r t h e
i ! l	l f ami ly t o be p ro t ec t ed in t he con tex t of t n e law o f

. y i t he coun t ry t h o s e conce rned and , o f cou r se , sub~ec t t o

I - ;

q u a l i f l c a t i o n s which a r e t o b e found ln the

. I i

1 ,

j covenant l t se l f .

I :

.

I

1 ',

i

_. - _- - ._ I_ -. _ _ -- - . .. .. . .

\

_ _ >-- - - . - -- - ___._ -.- .. - -- _ _ _ _ _ - . _. -.. -- - -- -

8.

I h a v e s a i d t h a t I n this case it would appear t h a t

the Actlnq Mihister 1s q u i t e well aware of the duty

t o c o n s i d e r a l l r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s and no doubt , w ~ l l

i n h i s r e c o n s i d e r a t l o n , t ake i n t o a c c o u n t t h e

d e s i r a b r l r t y o f t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h - l s f aml ly un i t so ~

far as t h a t p r o t e c t l c n i s compatlble with t h e o t h e r

cons ldera t ions which rt 1s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e Acting

Minister should take into account whlch, of course ,

relate t o t h e r n t e r e s t s of A u s c r a l l a , t h e I n t e r e s t of

the main tenance cf i t s l a w s a n d v a r l o u s o t h e r

cons ide ra t ions whlch apDear from the r easons of the

Act ing Mlnis te r .

The substance of the argument put by M r . L i t t l e would

real ly mean tha t the provis lons of S . 5 1 ( 2 7 ) o f t h e

Cons t i t u t ion dea l ing w i t h Immigration, would have t o

be read s u b j e c t t o a- q u a l i f l c a t l o n that t h e

Parliament was unable t o a u t h o r i s e t h e M l n i s t e r t o

t a k e a c t l o n i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t l o n s where 'nrs a c t r o n

mignt be incornpatlble w i t h the f u l l p r o t e c t l o n o f t h e

family. I th ink it IS impossible so to a rgue and

t h a t m a t t e r i s made c l e a r . I n t h o s e a u t h o r i t i e s t o

which D r . Jessup has referred eg: Osborne v . T h e

Commonwezlth & Xnor (1910-19L1) 1 2 CLR 3 2 1 :

e s p e c i a l l y a t pp.334, 3.13, 346 and 358, and the

r ecen t ca se of The Comonwezlth v. Tasman3.a (1983) 46

ALR, In the ~udgments of b!ascn 2 . a t 713 and 7 1 4 ;

9

Murphy 5. a t 736: Deane J. a t 813 and 814. O f

course, it 1 s - q u i t e c l e a r t h a t o n c e ss .l6 an2 18 a r e

shown t o be laws w l t h r e s p e c t t o m m i g r a t l o n p u r s u a n t

t o S. 5 1 ( 2 7 ) of the Const i tut lon they remaln laws

r e l a t i n g t o immlgrat ion a l though their operation may

have an impact on an a n c r l l a r y m a t t e r .

0n. the general quest ion of the in f luence o f a Eamlly

s l t u a t i o n and t h e s l g n i f i c a n c e of a f a m l l y s l t u a t l o n

on the adminls t rac ion of t h e laws of immlgration

it is u s e f u l t o r e f e r t o A h Yin v. C h r i s t l e ( 1 9 1 2 ) 5 CLR l428 where a boy of 15, convicted of a chazge of

being a prohibl ted lmmlgrant , sought entry t o t h l s

country on t h e b a s i s t l a t he was domlciled m t h i s

c o u n t r y h i s f a t h e r b e i n g a l r e a d y d o m i c i l e d a n d

r e s l d e n t 111 t h i s c o u n t r y . It w a s s a l d b y G r l f f i t h s

C . J . a t p.1431:

- -

“It is a ques t lon of a r i g h t of a s t r a n g e r

t o c l a m admission t o a forelgn country.

That i s a nat ter depending upon p o l l t l c a l ,

n o t upon c i v i l s ca tus . See ?er Lord

Westbury in Udny v . USny L . R . 1 3 . L . Sc . ,

441, a t p.457. It 1 s sectled. law, as

poin ted ou t by th l s Court I n the case of

Robtelmes V . Brecan 4 C . L . R . , 395 , quotrnq

the dec ls lon of t n e J u E l c l a l Committee In

~ ~ ~~~~

At to rney-Genera l fo r Canaea v . Caln and

Gllhula (1906) A . C . , j G 2 , t n a t a n e of =he

rishts ?assessed by the suureme =owe= ~~~ I n

every state 1s Cn-e r l g h t - t o r e f u s e t o

perrnlt an alien t o e n t e r t h a t S t a t e , a n d

t o annex what condltions It p l e a s e s t o t h e

p e r n l s s i o n t o e n t e r ~ t , and t o expel o r

depor t hlm from t h e S t a t e a t p leasure .

10.

Commonwealth The h a s under t h e

Constitution power t o exclude any person,

whether an alLen or not .

SO f2.r as t h e application depends upon ground 3 of

the order to review, I give no r e l l e f .

L w i l L r e s e r v e the c o s t s .