Post by Banjo on Jul 5, 2014 8:50:53 GMT 7
While browsing the AAT decisions today I came across this ruling.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
In her written Statement of Facts and Contentions and her oral evidence, Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the decision under review alters her rights of liberty of movement contrary to the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the ICCPR. Article 12 states:
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Mr Hester submitted that there was no restriction on Mrs xxxxxxxxx’s liberty of movement. He contended that the Australian Government is not required by the ICCPR to provide support to pension benefits.
I have no evidence before me on the status of the ICCPR in the Australian jurisdiction. In any case, it is clear from Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxxx’s evidence that she is able to move freely anywhere within Australia, and that she was free to leave Australia and indeed travelled to Poland with no restrictions on her freedom to travel.
I do not accept that a change to her eligibility for Newstart Allowance constitutes a restriction on her freedom and liberty to leave the country. It is no more than a financial issue that a person may choose to consider when exercising their right to liberty of movement and their freedom to leave the country.
There is no evidence to suggest that her right to liberty of movement within Australia (section 1) or her freedom to leave Australia (section 2) are subject to any restrictions (section 3). Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxx’s submission regarding the application of the ICCPR is not supported by the evidence. Therefore I dismiss it.
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/338.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=portability
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
In her written Statement of Facts and Contentions and her oral evidence, Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the decision under review alters her rights of liberty of movement contrary to the provisions of Article 12 (3) of the ICCPR. Article 12 states:
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
Mr Hester submitted that there was no restriction on Mrs xxxxxxxxx’s liberty of movement. He contended that the Australian Government is not required by the ICCPR to provide support to pension benefits.
I have no evidence before me on the status of the ICCPR in the Australian jurisdiction. In any case, it is clear from Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxxx’s evidence that she is able to move freely anywhere within Australia, and that she was free to leave Australia and indeed travelled to Poland with no restrictions on her freedom to travel.
I do not accept that a change to her eligibility for Newstart Allowance constitutes a restriction on her freedom and liberty to leave the country. It is no more than a financial issue that a person may choose to consider when exercising their right to liberty of movement and their freedom to leave the country.
There is no evidence to suggest that her right to liberty of movement within Australia (section 1) or her freedom to leave Australia (section 2) are subject to any restrictions (section 3). Mrs xxxxxxxxxxxx’s submission regarding the application of the ICCPR is not supported by the evidence. Therefore I dismiss it.
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/338.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=portability