Rohner v Scanlan [1997] FCA 1202

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA IMMIGRATION - Whether reg 1.15A(2)(a)(i) of the Migration Regulations, which provides that a person is the de facto spouse of another person if the persons are of opposite sexes, is invalid - whether it is discriminatory within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) - whether art 26 and art 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights operate to render reg 1.15A(2)(a)(i) invalid - whether "sex" in the Covenant is to be construed as including "sexual orientation" - whether s 504(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which gives the power to make regulations, is ambiguous. SEX DISCRIMINATION - Whether reg 1.15A(2)(a)(i) of the Migration Regulations, which provides that a person is the de facto spouse of another person if the persons are of opposite sexes, is invalid - whether it is discriminatory within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) - whether art 26 and art 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights operate to render reg 1.15A(2)(a)(i) invalid - whether "sex" in the Covenant is to be construed as including "sexual orientation" - whether s 504(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which gives the power to make regulations, is ambiguous. Migration Act 1958 (Cth) - ss 504(1), 507 Migration Regulations - reg 1.15A(2)(a)(i), Div 2.1 Pt 2 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) - s 26 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - art 26 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, applied Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 71 ALJR 381, referred to FELIX WALTER ROHNER and BRUNO ANGELO BIONDI TINEO v LINDA SCANLAN and THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS QG 57 OF 1997 LEHANE J 7 NOVEMBER 1997 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA