DOCSLIB.ORG

Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Lindell

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Lindell Short description Introduction Professor Geoffrey Geoffrey Lindell was awarded the title of Emeritus Professor of Law at the Adelaide University in December 2017 He retired from full time teaching early in 2002. Since then he was an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Adelaide University (until the end of 2017) and the Australian National University (until the end of 2010); and also a Professorial Fellow of the University of Melbourne (until the end of August 2016). Before then he held full time academic positions at both the Australian National University where he spent the most of his academic life from 1975 to 1993 (Senior Lecturer and Reader in Law) and the University of Melbourne from 1994 to 2001 (Reader and Associate Professor of Law and rising to the position of Professor of Law in 1999). He was a guest of the Washington and Lee University Law School, Lexington, Virginia, USA, where he taught during the Spring Semester (February – April 2004). Throughout his career he has taught and published widely in the field of Australian constitutional and public law, Research and publications since 2002 His most recent publication was the extensive updating and inclusion of several new chapters of a famous book on federal jurisdiction Cowen and Zines’, Federal Jurisdiction in Australia (4rd ed, 2016)) The book has been highly praised by two former Chief Justices of the High Court (Sir Anthony Mason and the Hon Robert French) and already been cited in some recent cases decided by that Court and the New South Wales Court of Appeal. His other publications have included the publication, as editor, Sir Anthony Mason, The Mason Papers (2007), Future Directions in Australian Constitutional Law (1994), senior co - editor of Parliament: The Vision in Hindsight (2001 with R Bennett), and, co-editor of Reflections on the Australian Constitution (2003 with Justice R French and Professor C Saunders) and also as co - author of Sawer's Australian Constitutional Cases (4th ed., 1982 with Professor L Zines). They also include the publication as author of a number of papers published by ANU Centre for International and Public Law: in the Law and Policy Paper Series: “Tribunals of Inquiry and Royal Commissions (Paper 22, 2003) and “Responsible Government and the Australian Constitution – Conventions transformed into Law” (Paper 24, 2004), “The Coalition Wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in the courts of the UK, Ireland and the US – Lessons for Australia” (Paper 26, 2005). He also co-edited with Professor Peter Cane, a special issue of the Federal Law Review (vol 38)published in in 2010 in honour of Professor Leslie Zines on his 80th birthday Other publications since 2008 have included: “The Constitutional Commission and Australia’s First Inhabitants: Its Views on Agreement Making and a New Power to Legislate” (2012) 15(2) Australian Indigenous Law Review 26; “Judicial Review and the Dismissal of an Elected Government in 1975: Then and Now?” (2014) 38 Australian Bar Review 118; 2 “The changed landscape of the executive Power of the Commonwealth after the Williams case” (2013) 39 Monash University Law Review 348; “The Role of a State Governor in relation to illegality” (2012) 23 Public Law Review 268; “In Defence of the High Court: The Role of the High Court as an Agent of Constitutional Change” (2012) 33 Adelaide Law Review 1; “The Resolution of Inconsistent State and Territory Legislation” (co-written with Sir Anthony Mason) (2010) 38 Federal Law Review 391 – 422 (Special Issue published in honour of Professor Leslie Zines on his 80th birthday); “Advancing the Federal Principle through the Inter-governmental Immunity Doctrine” in H P Lee and P Gerangelos (eds), Constitutional Advancement in a Frozen Continent: Essays in Honour of George Winterton (Federation Press, 2009) Ch 2; “Assent or refusal to assent to legislation – on whose advice?” (2009) 11 Constitutional Law and Policy Review (No 3), 126 – 138; “Constitutional Issues Regarding Same Sex Marriage: A Comparative Survey – North America and Australasia” (2008) 30 Sydney Law Review 27 - 60), “The scope of the defence and other powers in the light of Thomas v Mowbray” (2008) 10 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 42- 50, “Detainee 002: The Case of David Hicks by Leigh Sales (Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press, 2007)” – book review article co-authored with Sir Anthony Mason, (2008) 9 Melbourne Journal of International Law 515 - 538. Other publications between 2002 – 2007 have included “The constitutional authority to deploy Australian military forces in the Coalition war against Iraq” (2003) 5 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 46 – 50; Chapter, “Murphy Affair in Retrospect” in H Lee and G Winterton (eds), Australian Constitutional Landmarks (Cambridge Uni Press, 2003), Ch 11, 280 – 311, “The Hollingworth affair: implications for the future appointment of vice-regal representatives” (2004) 6 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 73 – 79, “ A Possible Limit on the Use of Commonwealth Places for ‘Non- Federal Purposes’: From Airports to Shopping Malls” (2004) Public Law Review 265, “Grappling with Inconsistency between Commonwealth and State legislation and the link with statutory interpretation” (2005) 8(2) Constitutional Law and Policy Review 26 – 44 and “Commonwealth control of ports as an exercise of the Commonwealth’s first and foremost power’” (2005) 16 Public Law Review (No 4) 271 – 5, “The Statutory protection of rights and parliamentary sovereignty: Guidance from the United Kingdom?” (2006) 17 Public Law Review 188, “State legislative power to enact same-sex marriage legislation, and the effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) as amended by the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 “ (Cth) (2006) 9(2) Constitutional Law and Policy Review 25 – 36, “ Sir Ninian Stephen as Governor-General” in T McCormack and C Saunders (eds) Sir Ninian Stephen: A Tribute (Miegunyah Press 2007 )Ch 2 (a book containing a collection of chapters devoted to the career of Sir Ninian Stephen ) 26 – 56 and “The Combet Case and the appropriation of taxpayers’ funds for political advertising - an erosion of fundamental principles?” (2007) 66(3) Australian Journal of Public Administration 307 – 328. Lectures and talks After his retirement from full time teaching he continued to give frequent talks and lectures to academic and legal audiences including talks given to the Law Schools at the Adelaide, Australian National Universities and the Universities of Melbourne, Monash, Sydney and Western Australia. 3 During his career he delivered two prestigious public lectures. The first was the Seventh Lucinda Lecture, “The Australian Constitution: Growth, Adaptation and Conflict – Reflections About Some Major Cases and Events” delivered at the Monash University, on Wednesday 28 April 1999. The second was the Fourth George Winterton Memorial Lecture “Judicial Review and the Dismissal of an Elected Government in 1975: Then and Now?” delivered in the Banco Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Sydney, on 14 February 2013: Advice and assistance to governments and parliaments (a) Governments Throughout his career Professor Lindell has played an important role in advising and assisting governments and parliaments. He served as a member of the Distribution of Powers Advisory Committee to the Constitutional Commission (1986 - 1987), and was a consultant to the Australian Constitutional Convention (1975 - 1985). Before he joined the Australian National University Law School he was employed in the Federal Attorney-General’s Department between 1966 and 1975. He held a senior position specialising in constitutional review in that Department by the time he resigned from that employment to pursue an academic career. He has since acted as a consultant to the same Department on several occasions. He has also acted as a standing consultant to the House of Representatives since 2001 and also provided advice to the Western Australian Parliament, the South Australian Auditor-General and a British joint parliamentary committee which inquired into parliamentary privilege. He continued that work after his retirement from full time teaching in 2002. At various times, he provided (sometimes jointly with Professor John Williams) high level constitutional and legal advice to the South Australian Government on questions relating to South Australia’s share of waters from the River Murray and the possibility of launching and commenting on High Court proceedings to challenge the diversion of those waters by the upstream States (b) Parliaments Between 2003 and 2014 he acted as a consultant to the House of Representatives on a standing retainer. This involved being available to provide professional legal and constitutional advice concerning the working of the Commonwealth Parliament, the provision of notes on modern developments in parliamentary law in Australia and other comparable Commonwealth jurisdictions, annual presentations on matters of relevance to parliamentary staff and officers involving the same issues, co-authorship of significant report on powers and procedures of the House of Representatives to deal with breaches of parliamentary privilege – the main recommendations of which were subsequently adopted by the House. Some of the annual presentations were subsequently published as articles in academic and professional journals Professor Lindell delivered annual lectures between 2008 and to 2010, and provided, in 2012, for use in association with such lectures in subsequent years, comprehensive materials
Recommended publications
  • Interpreting the Constitution — Words, History and Changev

    Interpreting the Constitution — Words, History and Changev

    INTERPRETING THE CONSTITUTION — WORDS, HISTORY AND CHANGE* THE HON CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERT FRENCH AC** The Constitution defi nes the essential architecture of our legal universe. Within that framework Parliament makes its laws. Under the authority conferred by the Constitution and by Parliament, the executive makes its regulations and instruments and administers the laws made by the Parliament. Within that framework the courts hear and determine cases including cases about the interpretation of the Constitution and of laws made under it and the extent of legislative and executive powers fl owing from them. Ubiquitous in that universe is the common law, which, as Sir Owen Dixon observed, supplies principles in aid of the interpretation of the Constitution.1 He was not averse to cosmological metaphor. He said of the common law that: ‘[it] is more real and certainly less rigid than the ether with which scientists were accustomed to fi ll interstellar space. But it serves all, and more than all, the purposes in surrounding and pervading the Australian system for which, in the cosmic system, that speculative medium was devised’.2 An updated metaphor for the common law today in lieu of ‘ether’ might be ‘dark energy’. Our metaphorical constitutional universe is not to be likened to the 19th century Newtonian model of the real universe. That is to say, it is not driven by precise laws with determined meanings and a single predictable outcome for each of their applications. Over the last century our view of the real universe has been radically altered, not least by quantum theory which builds uncertainty into the fabric of physical reality.
  • Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture 2003

    Sir Ninian Stephen Lecture 2003

    THE HIGH COURT’S ABANDONMENT OF ‘THE TIME-HONOURED METHODOLOGY OF THE COMMON LAW’ IN ITS INTERPRETATION OF NATIVE TITLE IN MIRRIUWUNG GAJERRONG AND YORTA YORTA Sir Ninian Stephen Annual Lecture 2003 Noel Pearson Law School University of Newcastle 17 March 2003 There are fundamental problems with the way in which the High Court has interpreted native title in Australian law in its two most recent decisions: Mirriuwung Gajerrong1 and Yorta Yorta2. In the space of this lecture I will only be able to deal with three key problems: the court‟s misinterpretation of the definition of native title in section 223(1) of the Native Title Act 1993-1998 (Cth) (“Native Title Act”) the court‟s misinterpretation of how the common law treats traditional indigenous occupants of land when the Crown acquires sovereignty over their land as an injusticiable act of State the court‟s disavowal of native title as a doctrine or body of law within the common law – 1 State of Western Australia v Ward [2002] HCA 28 (8 August 2002). Referred to variously as Ward and Mirriuwung Gajerrong 2 Members of the Yorta Yorta Aboriginal Community v Victoria [2002] HCA 58 (12 December 2002) 1 and its failure to judge the Yorta Yorta people‟s claim in accordance with this body of law I will close with some views about what I think needs to be done in all justice to indigenous Australians. But before I undertake this critique, let me first set out my understanding of what Mabo3 and native title should have meant to Australians.
  • Curriculum Vitae Neil Young Qc

    Curriculum Vitae Neil Young Qc

    CURRICULUM VITAE NEIL YOUNG QC Address Melbourne Ninian Stephen Chambers (Chambers) Level 38, 140 William Street, Melbourne Vic 3000 Email [email protected] Clerk Michael Green – Ph 03 9225 7864 Sydney New Chambers 126 Phillip Street, Sydney NSW 2000 Email [email protected] Clerk Ian Belshaw – Ph 02 9151 2080 Present position Queen’s Counsel, all Australian States Academic LL.B (1st class honours), University of Melbourne Qualifications LL.M Harvard, 1977 Current Member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Geneva, since 1999 professional Director, Victorian Bar Foundation positions Director of the Melbourne Law School Foundation Board Previous Vice-Chairman, Victorian Bar Council, September 1995 to March 1997 professional Director, Barristers’ Chambers Limited, 1994 to 1998 positions Chairman of the Victorian Bar Council, March 1997 to September 1998 President, Australian Bar Association, January 1999 to February 2000 Member, Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne, 1997 2005 Member of the Monash University Faculty of Law Selection Committee, 1998 Member of the JD Advisory Board, Melbourne University, since 1999 Member of the Steering Committee, Forum of Barristers and Advocates of the International Bar Association, January 1999 to February 2000 Member of the Trade Practices and Taxation Law Committees of the Law Council of Australia Chairman of the Continuing Legal Education Committee of the Victorian Bar, 2003 – November 2005 Justice of the Federal Court of Australia, 2005-2007 Page 1 of 2 Admission Details Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria since 3 March 1975 Practitioner of the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court since 3 April 1975 Signed the Victorian Bar Roll on 15 March 1979 Admitted as a barrister, or barrister and solicitor in each of the other States of Australia Appointment Appointed one of Her Majesty’s Counsel for the State of Victoria on 27 November to the Inner Bar 1990.
  • Curriculum Vitae of the Honourable Chief Justice Robert French AC 1

    Curriculum Vitae of the Honourable Chief Justice Robert French AC 1

    Annex Curriculum Vitae of The Honourable Chief Justice Robert French AC 1. Personal Background Robert Shenton French is a citizen of Australia, born in Perth, Western Australia on March 19, 1947. He married Valerie French in 1976. They have three sons and two granddaughters. 2. Education Chief Justice French was educated at St Louis Jesuit College, Claremont in Western Australia and then at the University of Western Australia from which he graduated in 1967 with a Bachelor of Science degree majoring in physics and in 1970 with a Bachelor of Laws. He undertook two years of articles of clerkship with a law firm in Perth. 3. Professional History Chief Justice French was admitted to practice in Western Australia in December 1972 as a Barrister and Solicitor – the profession in Western Australia being a fused profession. In 1975, with three friends, he established a law firm in which he practised as both Barrister and Solicitor until 1983 when he commenced practice at the Independent Bar in Western Australia. While in practice he served as a part-time Member of the Western Australian Law Reform Commission, the Western Australian Legal Aid Commission, the Trade Practices Commission (now known as the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) and as Deputy President and later President of the Town Planning Appeal Tribunal of Western Australia. On November 25, 1986, Chief Justice French was appointed as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. He continued to serve as a Judge of that Court until September 1, 2008. As a Judge of that Court he sat in both its original and appellate jurisdiction dealing with a wide range of civil cases including commercial disputes, corporations, intellectual property, bankruptcy and corporate insolvency, taxation, competition law, industrial law, constitutional law and public administrative law.
  • Referendum - the Australian Way

    Referendum - the Australian Way

    THE SEVENTH SIR JOHN QUICK BENDIGO LECTURE REFERENDUM - THE AUSTRALIAN WAY THE RT HON SIR NINIAN STEPHEN SIR JOHN QUICK LECTURE 11 OCTOBER 2000 LA TROBE UNIVERSITY, BENDIGO ISSN 1325 - 0787 The publication of the Year 2000 Lecture is generously supported by Robertson HYETTS Solicitors, Molesworth Chambers, 51 Bull Street, Bendigo. Sir John Quick was a partner in the Bendigo law firm, Quick Hyett and Rymer, later Quick and Hyett, from 1890 to 1912. From 1891 the firm practised from premises at 51 Bull Street. Robertson Hyetts are proud to be associated with the Sir John Quick Lecture. REFERENDUM - THE AUSTRALIAN WAY THE RT HON SIR NINIAN STEPHEN When asked to give this Sir John Quick Lecture I immediately thought of s.128 of our Constitution and its referendum procedure, so closely associated with John Quick, whose memory this series of lectures honours. The most intriguing thing about the Australian form of Constitutional referendum is surely how we ever came to have it formally written into our constitution. In 1900 the referendum was not only a very rare feature of constitutions world wide; it was directly opposed to the principle of representative democracy which Australia had inherited from Britain and which before federation was accepted by all six of the Australian colonies as the normal and very traditional form of government. It was that principle which Edmund Burke described when, in his speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774, he said "you choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a Member of Parliament".
  • Speech Delivered at the 10Th Anniversary Conference of the Asia-Pacific Regional Arbitration Group, Sofitel, Melbourne, 27 March 2014)

    Speech Delivered at the 10Th Anniversary Conference of the Asia-Pacific Regional Arbitration Group, Sofitel, Melbourne, 27 March 2014)

    Australia’s Place in the World Remarks of the Honourable Marilyn Warren AC Chief Justice of Victoria to the Law Society of Western Australia Law Summer School 2017, Perth, Western Australia Friday 17 February 2017* Introduction First things first, what is the world in which Australia is placed? The rate of change seen particularly in 2016 with BREXIT and the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States is astonishing and must have far ranging and reaching consequences beyond the short term. The changes taking place abroad will have an undeniable impact at home. ‘Australia’s place in the world’ was a prescient yet challenging choice of topic by the organisers of this conference as it asks us to draw up a map while the ground is shifting beneath our feet. Page 1 of 48 * The author acknowledges the invaluable assistance of her Research Assistant David O’Loughlin. Supreme Court of Victoria 17 February 2017 Overview Perth is a fitting location to discuss Australia’s place in the world. At the Asia-Pacific Regional Arbitration Group conference some years ago, Chief Justice Martin noted that Perth is closer to Singapore than it is to Sydney, and that it enjoys the same time zone as many Asian commercial centres. He said that to appreciate Western Australia’s orientation to Asia, he need only speak to his neighbours.1 With our location in mind, today I would like set the scene by looking at the shift from the old world to the new. I will look at some recent developments in global politics and trade, including President Trump’s inauguration, Prime Minister May’s Brexit plans, and China’s increasing engagement with the global economy.
  • Hybrid Constitutional Courts: Foreign Judges on National Constitutional Courts

    Hybrid Constitutional Courts: Foreign Judges on National Constitutional Courts

    Hybrid Constitutional Courts: Foreign Judges on National Constitutional Courts ROSALIND DIXON* & VICKI JACKSON** Foreign judges play an important role in deciding constitutional cases in the appellate courts of a range of countries. Comparative constitutional scholars, however, have to date paid limited attention to the phenomenon of “hybrid” constitutional courts staffed by a mix of local and foreign judges. This Article ad- dresses this gap in comparative constitutional schol- arship by providing a general framework for under- standing the potential advantages and disadvantages of hybrid models of constitutional justice, as well as the factors likely to inform the trade-off between these competing factors. Building on prior work by the au- thors on “outsider” models of constitutional interpre- tation, it suggests that the hybrid constitutional mod- el’s attractiveness may depend on answers to the following questions: Why are foreign judges appoint- ed to constitutional courts—for what historical and functional reasons? What degree of local democratic support exists for their appointment? Who are the foreign judges, where are they from, what are their backgrounds, and what personal characteristics of wisdom and prudence do they possess? By what means are they appointed and paid, and how are their terms in office structured? How do the foreign judges approach their adjudicatory role? When do foreign * Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney. ** Thurgood Marshall Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School. The authors thank Anna Dziedzic, Mark Graber, Bert Huang, David Feldman, Heinz Klug, Andrew Li, Joseph Marko, Sir Anthony Mason, Will Partlett, Iddo Porat, Theunis Roux, Amelia Simpson, Scott Stephenson, Adrienne Stone, Mark Tushnet, and Simon Young for extremely helpful comments on prior versions of the paper, and Libby Bova, Alisha Jarwala, Amelia Loughland, Brigid McManus, Lachlan Peake, Andrew Roberts, and Melissa Vogt for outstanding research assistance.
  • What Is Executive Power?

    What Is Executive Power?

    1 What is Executive Power? I Introduction In the 1988 case of Davis v Commonwealth, Mason J said of executive power that it is potentially very broad yet ‘its scope [is not] amenable to exhaustive definition.’1 Executive power is a power with significant content but ill-defined limits. It is not the particular power of lawmaking, or of determining disputes but, rather, the general power to carry out all the other functions of government. In the Westminster tradition, all governmental power derived originally from the Crown2 and independent legislative3 and judicial4 functions were a subsequent development. The Coronation Charter of Henry I, the immediate successor to William I and, therefore, the first postconquest king to have a coronation as such, illustrates the breadth of the original power of the Crown (the following excerpts indicating executive, judicial and legislative power respectively): 1 Davis v Commonwealth (1988) 166 CLR 79, 93. 2 Magna Carta 1215 (Imp); NSW v Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 337, 480, 487–91 (‘Seas and Submerged Lands Case’) (Jacobs J); J H Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, (Butterworths, 2nd ed, 1979) 12–15; John Gillingham, ‘The Early Middle Ages 1066–1290’ in Kenneth Morgan (ed), The Oxford Illustrated History of Britain (Oxford University Press, 1984), 104; Elizabeth Wicks, The Evolution of a Constitution: Eight Key Moments in British Constitutional History(Hart, 2006) 3–6; cf Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106, 137–8 Mason CJ discussing ‘sovereign power which resides in the people’ by virtue of the mechanism for constitutional amendment being a referendum under s 128 of the Constitution.
  • Dialogue Vol. 22, 2/2003

    Dialogue Vol. 22, 2/2003

    he Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia was established in 1971. T Previously, some of the functions were carried out through the Social Science Research Council of Australia, established in 1942. Elected to the Academy for distinguished contributions to the social sciences, the 382 Fellows of the Academy offer expertise in the fields of accounting, anthropology, demography, economics, economic history, education, geography, history, law, linguistics, philosophy, political science, psychology, social medicine, sociology and statistics. The Academy’s objectives are: · to promote excellence in and encourage the advancement of the social sciences in Australia; · to act as a coordinating group for the promotion of research and teaching in the social sciences; · to foster excellence in research and to subsidise the publication of studies in the social sciences; · to encourage and assist in the formation of other national associations or institutions for the promotion of the social sciences or any branch of them; · to promote international scholarly cooperation and to act as an Australian national member of international organisations concerned with the social sciences; · to act as consultant and adviser in regard to the social sciences; and, · to comment where appropriate on national needs and priorities in the area of the social sciences. These objectives are fulfilled through a program of activities, research projects, independent advice to government and the community, publication and cooperation with fellow institutions both within
  • Religious Freedom and the Australian Constitution – Origins and Future

    Religious Freedom and the Australian Constitution – Origins and Future

    The Denning Law Journal 2018 Vol 30 pp 207-217 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION – ORIGINS AND FUTURE Luke Beck (Routledge 2018) pp 178 Jocelynne A. Scutt* The most recent Australian Census, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2016 (with a 95.1 per cent response rate), confirms that Australia is ‘increasingly a story of religious diversity, with Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam, and Buddhism all increasingly common religious beliefs’.1 Of these, between 2006 and 2016 Hinduism shows the ‘most significant growth’, attribut- ed to immigration from South East Asia, whilst Islam (2.6 per cent of the popu- lation) and Buddhism (2.4 per cent) were the most common religions reported next to Christianity, the latter ‘remaining the most common religion’ (52 per cent stating this as their belief). Nevertheless, Christianity is declining, drop- ping from 88 per cent in 1966 to 74 per cent in 1991, and thence to the 2016 figure. At the same time, nearly one-third of Australians (30 per cent) state they have no religion,2 this group reflecting ‘a trend for decades’ which, says the ABS, is ‘accelerating’: Those reporting no religion increased noticeably from 19% in 2006 to 30% in 2016 [with] the largest change … between 2011 (22%) and 2016, when an additional 2.2 million people reported having no religion.3 In this, there were not insignificant differences between the states: Tasmania reported the lowest religious affiliation rate (53 per cent), whilst New South Wales had the highest rate (66 per cent). Age was a significant factor, both in terms of particular religious affiliation and in the ‘no religion’ category.
  • Annual Report 2014-2015 HAEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION AUSTRALIA

    Annual Report 2014-2015 HAEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION AUSTRALIA

    annual report 2014-2015 HAEMOPHILIA FOUNDATION AUSTRALIA Haemophilia Foundation Australia (HFA) is the national peak body which represents people with haemophilia, von Willebrand disorder and other rare inherited bleeding disorders and their families throughout Australia. HFA supports a network of state and territory Foundations in Australia and as a National Member Organisation of the World Federation of Hemophilia, HFA participates in international efforts to improve access to care and treatment for people with bleeding disorders around the world. Our Mission: to inspire excellence in treatment, care and support through representation, education and promotion of research. Our Vision: for people with bleeding disorders to lead active, independent and fulfilling lives. Our Goals: good governance effective advocacy strategic education and communication financial sustainability to advance research, care and treatment to be the trusted national organisation and recognised community expert on inherited bleeding disorders Our Governance HFA is incorporated in Victoria. Its members are each of the state/territory Haemophilia Foundations around Australia. Each Foundation is represented on the HFA Council and Council elects office-bearers from its own number. At the Annual General Meeting on 25 October 2014, a special resolution to change the HFA Constitution was considered. This had been preceded by a full consultation with members and legal advice. The HFA Council subsequently adopted a number of Constitution changes aimed at creating a smaller, more efficient and agile Council. The effect of the changes was that there would no longer be an Executive Board and each member Haemophilia Foundation would have just one representative on Council. Executive Board meetings would be replaced with up to 3 Council meetings during the year.
  • The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    57 THE TOOHEY LEGACY: RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, COMPASSION AND HONOUR GREG MCINTYRE* I INTRODUCTION John Toohey is a person whom I have admired as a model of how to behave as a lawyer, since my first years in practice. A fundamental theme of John Toohey’s approach to life and the law, which shines through, is that he remained keenly aware of the fact that there are groups and individuals within our society who are vulnerable to the exercise of power and that the law has a role in ensuring that they are not disadvantaged by its exercise. A group who clearly fit within that category, and upon whom a lot of John’s work focussed, were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In 1987, in a speech to the Student Law Reform Society of Western Australia Toohey said: Complex though it may be, the relation between Aborigines and the law is an important issue and one that will remain with us;1 and in Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case)2 he reaffirmed what was said in the Tasmanian Dam Case,3 that ‘[t]he relationship between the Aboriginal people and the lands which they occupy lies at the heart of traditional Aboriginal culture and traditional Aboriginal life’. A University of Western Australia John Toohey had a long-standing relationship with the University of Western Australia, having graduated in 1950 in Law and in 1956 in Arts and winning the F E Parsons (outstanding graduate) and HCF Keall (best fourth year student) prizes. He was a Senior Lecturer at the Law School from 1957 to 1958, and a Visiting Lecturer from 1958 to 1965.