I have to say that although both representatives were at fault, in my view the greater responsibility must lie on the Presenting Officer.
I hope some lessons can be learnt from what went wrong in this case. Formerly a full-time Education and Community Care Paralegal at Just for Kids Law, Intern at Hackney Community Law Centre and Legal Caseworker at the AIRE Centre. Previously studied Classics at Worcester College, Oxford.
Indigenous Working Group - National and State Libraries Australasia Works to develop protocols for the collection, preservation and display of collections relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander peoples and addresses the issues of copyright and community consent for reproduction of materials.
Includes links to the National Policy Framework for Indigenous Library Services and other publications of the group, and updates on recent activities.
As the State Library of Victoria's unique collections record the history of Victoria and Victorians, they tell something of the life, culture and traditions of Aboriginal people from the time of first contact to the issues, concerns and successes of the present day.
The extensive range of collection material, from maps to newspapers; diaries to activist posters combines to allow perspectives and stories from Aboriginal people to be drawn from the historical and contemporary record.
There appears to have been considerable confusion about the way in which this ground was dealt with in the UT.
First, for some reason neither the parties’ then legal representatives, not Mr Malik or Mr Sharland, nor the UT itself appear to have noticed that the seven year rule was not satisfied, notwithstanding that the FTT had said so – albeit in somewhat cryptic terms – and that it was in any event obvious from the undisputed chronology.
The minister estimated that in the year ending March 2015, NSW received 1.3 million visitors who participated in an Aboriginal tourism activity.
So all parties failed to notice that paragraph 276ADE could not apply, and that was so whichever version of the paragraph was in play because in both versions it is a condition for establishing the right to remain that the seven year rule is satisfied at the date of application.
Neither the Home Office Presenting Officer nor the Claimant’s representative referred the Upper Tribunal to the transitional provisions in force at the relevant time, leading to misunderstandings on this case.
He added that its benefits go one step further in promoting cohesion between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, various age groups and sexes.
“But the value of the Koori Knockout is that although it caters for Aboriginal people, it’s also one of the few events that is designed purely for Aboriginal people but not exclusive to Aboriginal people,” said Mr Cromelin.