---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Human Rights and Social Justice: A frontline perspective from a Community
Legal Centre [*]

Teresa Ellis[**]

  1. When Jeffrey Rosales-Casteneda [1] rang me only a few weeks before
     this Conference to ask me to give this paper what went through my
     head? Human rights? CLCs don't have anything to do with human rights.
     Look I am far too busy, can someone else give it? As the words left my
     mouth I realised what I was saying. You see I am like many people here
     and around Australia who see human rights as BIG words.

  2. When those words are mentioned we see Rwanda and dead children,
     Chinese orphanages, we see Bosnia-Herzegovina and mass graves, Burma
     and children working on railways, USA and black men on death row,
     juvenile executions, riots in Timor, Malaysia, Guatemala, Bangladesh,
     Pakistan, Cambodia, Iraq, South Africa.... Some of us will think about
     aboriginal deaths in custody, police behaviour towards Aborigines and
     young people, mining on sacred sites or refugees interned up in the
     North of Western Australia.

  3. But does anyone think of appealing a social security decision as
     exercising human rights? Negotiating with a bank about to foreclose a
     mortgage as a human right? Assisting a woman whilst she is giving
     evidence for a restraining order as a human right? Assisting someone
     with a legal aid application as a human right? Trying to find a bed
     for a homeless man camping on Cantonment Hill? Negotiating with
     landlords/publicans, Homeswest, Alinta Gas, Telecom and Western Power
     as human rights? Applying for criminal compensation for a child who
     was sexually abused as a Human Right?

  4. Human Rights seem so very clear and definitive to us when we look at
     Cambodia and Tibet, but they are not so clear when we begin to look in
     our own backyards, in our own streets, in our parks and in our own
     homes and in our communities. The right to live a dignified life can
     never be attained unless all basic necessities of life - income, food,
     housing, health care, education, culture and respect of human
     individuality - are adequately available to everyone. The term human
     rights covers this series of often disparate rights and freedoms
     asserted by many to be universally accepted and prerequisites for
     peoples' enjoyment of a life based on the centrality of human
     dignity.[2]

  5. What community legal centres do, may not on face value, seem like
     human rights work - it has none of the glamour. Such centres do not
     have important looking men in suits running around, they almost never
     get media coverage, unless they make promises of explicit, agonisingly
     gruesome stories. They do not have flag poles out the front of our
     offices that can be flown at half mast. Community legal Centres are
     completely invisible to the middle class Australian, but are well
     known and used by the disenfranchised, the poor, the illiterate, the
     disempowered, refugees, the homeless, the drug addicts, the working
     poor and I have yet to see a copy of the International Covenant on
     Civil and Political Rights or any optional protocols anywhere in a
     CLC.

  6. And yet the mission statement of our Community Legal & Advocacy Centre
     (CLAC) could come straight out of the International Covenant on
     Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[3]

     Fremantle Community Legal & Advocacy Centre is committed to redressing
     structural inequality within the community and strives to achieve
     social justice and the maintenance of human rights.

  7. And here I was telling Jeffrey that CLCs really did not have any
     expertise on human rights. We know nothing about human rights because
     we are too busy trying to assist people keep roofs over there heads,
     feed themselves, gain access to the legal system, freedom from
     detention, live in safety from violence and gain access to some basic
     form of income!!!

  8. It seems that in Australia we live in a culture of denial. The term
     'human rights' is only relevant to what happens in other countries.
     Stanley Cohen[4] expands upon this, he explains the denial process as
     follows:-

     Initially we say "It doesn't happen here". [5] We deny victims; "She
     started it, look what they have done to us, they are troublemakers, we
     are merely defending ourselves, we are the real victims". We deny any
     injury done; "They exaggerate, they don't really feel it, they are
     used to violence, see what they do to each other". We deny our
     responsibility; "These are the rules, someone else will help them, I
     am only doing my job, I did not make the rules, those things happened
     a long time ago, I am not responsible, they should just get on with
     their lives".

     If 'it' does happen here 'it' is something else. Domestic violence is
     not called a war crime in the war against women. It is barely even
     considered a criminal offence. Eviction from Homeswest properties is
     not called ethnic cleansing. Removing young people from the streets is
     not called harassment it is called cleaning up our streets or
     "Operation Sweep".

     Even if it is what you say it is, we rationalise and then justify.
     "Kids have no right to walk the streets. Domestic violence is a
     private issue. If you have no money then you cannot expect to have the
     same rights as those who do have money. Why don't you just get an
     education, a home, stop drinking, stop taking drugs, stop having
     children, stop spending your money and pay your bills, stay with your
     husband, learn English, stop abusing your children, leave him and get
     a bloody job!!"

  9. Here is an editorial in the Melbourne Age.[6]
     It was a response to an Open Family Foundation advertisement which
     dramatically depicted organised violence against homeless youth, and
     to some remarks made by Brian Burdekin, the then Human Rights
     Commissioner, criticising Australia's performance of its human rights
     commitments. The editorial was titled 'Lets stop crying wolf'.[7]

          "..Australia is not an abuser of human rights. People here
          are not tortured by security police, thrown into jail for
          their political opinions...homeless children are not run
          down and shot by vigilante death quads here.....on a world
          scale, Australia is a decent and compassionate society and
          it is unfair to pretend otherwise."

     The editorial concluded that while white Australia was not entirely
     blameless we should not pretend that we are human rights abusers.

 10. Tell that to Rob Riley. Tell that to the families of those who have
     died in custody. Tell that to Albert Langer who was jailed for
     contempt in relation to his campaign to put the major parties equal
     last on ballot papers. Tell that to our clients who are refused legal
     aid and lose custody of their children.

 11. We live in a state of simultaneously knowing and not knowing. I am not
     talking about simple lies, where facts are accessible but they lead to
     a conclusion that is knowingly evaded.[8] We see homeless people
     living under the Bridges around Perth, we see people begging in our
     streets, we hear the cries of our battered next door neighbor but we
     deny via excuses, justifications, rationalisations or neutralisations.
     These do not assert that events are not happening, but seek to negate
     or impose a different construction of the event . [9]

 12. If human rights are defined in a way that applies to military
     dictatorships then Australia scrubs up pretty well.[10] If we accept
     less limited, internationally negotiated definitions of human rights
     it becomes clear that Australia is as much a violator of human rights
     as its neighbors. We just call it something else.

 13. Australians are complacent also about the protection of human rights.
     We proclaim the satisfactory nature of our legal system in serving the
     rights of individuals although occasionally we acknowledge that some
     groups may have legitimate complaints. But we believe that problems
     can be resolved by what is often called "tinkering" at the edges of an
     otherwise admirable human rights legal regime.

 14. But what we actually have is a haphazard and incomplete structure of
     human rights laws in Australia. No constitutionally entrenched rights
     and common law protection is minimal and difficult to access.
     Commonwealth government power to legislate to implement international
     obligations with respect to human rights has been only partially and
     inadequately explored. The states have given protection of human
     rights a low legislative priority and even Australia's participation
     in International Human rights instruments has been diffident.[11]

 15. Community Legal Centres have no illusions about our socio-political or
     legal system. For the last twenty five years they have been committed
     to working in their respective communities in areas where most human
     rights abuse occur.

 16. If what community legal centres do is fundamentally human rights work
     why are they not called human rights centres? Indeed if the Fremantle
     Community Legal Centre was transported to Sri Lanka, it would
     automatically be labelled a human rights agency....but of course human
     rights agencies are not required in Australia, no ones' rights are
     ever violated!

 17. I would prefer that CLCs be renamed Social Justice Centres. There is
     very little to separate human rights and social justice, indeed the
     line between these two is very blurred. The distinction between them
     is no doubt the product of a range of factors, including the absence
     of constitutional guarantees of rights in Australia and more generally
     the Australian reluctance to analyse issues in terms of rights. To
     most CLCs there is no line between them whatsoever.

     When we talk of human rights something strange occurs in governments.
     It is a term that seems to cross over both sides of politics, in some
     ways human rights seem an 'apolitical' (perhaps non-threatening)
     issue. Human rights are things that men in suits confer and discuss.
     Money quickly appears for extensive reports and other initiatives.
     Human rights conjure up exotic locations and issues and idealistic
     abstract standards.[12]

 18. On the other hand the term "social justice" entails something
     completely different. Social justice conjures up visions of riots,
     marches, hunger strikes, tougher local issues. Social justice
     threatens the status quo. It takes a government of true will and
     belief to pursue goals that are structured around the idea of "social
     justice".

 19. Can Legal Aid's Human Rights unit be called a social justice unit?
     Whilst Legal Aid is an independent statutory authority, can they
     really operate independently of the policies of the government of the
     day? They are mandated to protect the rights of the most disempowered,
     they have responsibility to speak out even against the government
     where rights are violated. But when the human rights abuser is the
     government of the day, can Legal Aid truly act against that
     government's policy?

 20. CLCs are further removed from government and are therefore more
     accountable to their community and are able to speak out publicly
     where there is a perceived violation of human rights. This may be
     hindered though as we move into an era of greater government control
     of tax payers' money. It is called 'accountability'. Governments want
     a greater say over the activities of Legal Aid and CLCs. As witnessed
     recently ATSIC (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission) was
     gutted under the pretext of 'accountability'.

 21. Unfortunately those whose rights are violated almost daily are so
     often not taxpayers or contribute via the taxation system only
     minimally. If our taxes are the measure by which we purchase desirable
     services within our communities, what hope do these people have of
     purchasing protection of their basic rights. Absolutely none. The onus
     therefore falls back onto the government (and the broader community)
     to rate human rights as a high priority.

 22. Community Legal Centres are centres that operate with mostly
     non-legally trained staff, welfare rights advocates, financial
     counsellors and paralegals. At Fremantle we have 2 part-time lawyers
     and 6 full time non legal staff. CLCs are not hampered by the legal
     culture as an ideological orthodoxy which limits activist options more
     than the lack of resources ever can.[13] Welfare workers are perhaps
     the most efficient, flexible workers and important workers in CLCs.
     They see more clients than the solicitors can, they run more test
     cases and can approach issues in a way that is not limited by a
     strictly legal frame of mind.

 23. CLCs are able to use alternative methods to achieve social justice
     because they are not bound by bureaucratic and hierarchical decision
     making structures. Funding for CLCs has traditionally been limited so
     alternative approaches to issues have had to be developed. This really
     means; "we have no money so what can we do that doesn't cost
     anything!!" Awareness raising; via public meetings using the media to
     publish issues and by involvement in community projects such as
     Domestic Violence Intervention Projects and Poverty Committees,
     lobbying; Community Legal Education, law reform and the occasional
     brave attempt to manipulate the media.

 24. There are many who believe the mandate of Legal Aid is litigation and
     criminal defence. But this is not entirely correct. Legal Aid does and
     must continue to work closely with CLCs, ALS (Aboriginal Legal
     Service), the private profession and the broader community to bring
     systematic change through a range of non-litigious strategies.

 25. Let's put a realistic perspective on this.

     The right to an adequate standard of living along with rights of
     privacy and to freedom of expression, are three of the core human
     rights. These three rights are seen as providing the most basic form
     for the full development of an individual. Other civil, political,
     economic, social and cultural rights are important but they can be
     regarded as providing a circle of rights which develop, refine and
     particularise these three main concepts. [14]

 26. Article 25 of the International Bill of Rights provides that everyone
     has the right to a standard of living 'adequate for the health and
     well-being of himself and his family' and singles out single mothers
     and children as entitled to special care and assistance.[15]

     The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
     Article 11 substantially reproduces paragraph 1 of the UDHR Article 25
     and contains an important second paragraph dealing with the right to
     freedom from hunger. Article 11 of the ICESCR reads:

          "The states parties to the present Covenant recognise the
          right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for
          himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing
          and housing and to the continuous improvement of living
          conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps
          to ensure the realisation of this right, recognising to this
          effect the essential importance of international cooperation
          based on free consent."[16]

 27. Lets apply the theory and look at aboriginal families evicted for what
     Homeswest term as 'antisocial' behaviour following a complaint from
     neighbours, or the family which was evicted for being less than $100
     in arrears.

     What do they do? Call Legal Aid? Go into Homeswest waving a copy of
     the International Covenant of Economic Social Political and Cultural
     Rights, call a private solicitor on their mobile phone from the tennis
     club?!!!

 28. Think about this. A woman claiming a Sole Parent Pension escaping a
     domestic violence situation. She is followed constantly by her
     obsessive violent partner. He forces his way into her home and stays.
     She cannot ask him to leave out of fear for her and her children's
     safety. He has already found her once before. She waits for her time
     to escape again. He gives her no money and demands that she gives him
     her pension. The Department of Social Security investigate following
     on from their suspicions that she is living in a 'marriage like '
     situation. They decide that she is guilty and she is prosecuted for
     fraud.[17]

 29. We must be reminded that DSS Benefits are not a legal right, but in
     effect as of the grace of the government. The government provides
     income support according to its categories and pursuant to
     legislation, but an individual has no rights except to due processing
     of his/her claim and then to proper payment of the pension/allowance
     once a claim has been established. Thus there is a right to due
     payment of your claim but not a general right to some form of income
     support regardless of what category you may fit in to. [18]

 30. So where do you go when DSS or CES breaches or prosecutes you? If you
     are reasonably articulate and educated and have the time you could run
     an appeal yourself. Most of the clients who attend CLCs are too busy
     trying to feed themselves after being denied the only income they had.
     Many end up going from welfare agency to welfare agency trying
     desperately to get someone to help them. They are fighting a
     government department with long experience in these matters as well as
     plenty of resources.

     You are alone, you have no money, you have heard of these things
     called human rights and social justice but unless you can access a
     service to help you implement them they are not worth the breath it
     takes to say them out loud. [19]

 31. CLCs mode of operation attempts to work in such a way that when a
     group or class of clients face similar problems CLCs work with their
     clients to change the laws, administrative practices or social
     behaviours which underlie the problem rather than offer the more
     individualised (and sometimes ineffective) solution of casework
     assistance.[20] One of the techniques to achieve this is through the
     running of test cases.

     The test case work of CLCs naturally has focussed on those areas of
     law which have been neglected and ignored by the private legal
     profession. How many solicitors do you know who know anything about
     social security law? Let alone feel inclined to run a test case on an
     DSS procedural issue?

     Test cases are extremely resource intensive as well as requiring
     expertise in the operation of higher courts. The never ending stream
     of day to day clients with difficulties that are important and always
     urgent makes it extremely difficult for CLCs to manage test cases
     alone. CLCs are renowned for being unable to say 'NO'. The reality is
     that for many people CLCs are avenues of last resort.[21] I have lost
     count of how many times I have said to a client "have you tried legal
     Aid" to get the exasperated response "Yes and they sent me to you". I
     then get out the list of other CLCs "Have you tried this one ?" "yes"
     'this one' 'yes'........

 32. How can you turn away a client who has been breached by the CES and is
     being denied the only income they have, in order to put in the time to
     work on a test case that could be overturned by a wave of a Minister's
     magic wand, be crushed by the innate conservatism of the judiciary or
     appealed by a government department who merely hand the brief over to
     their paddock of in-house solicitors?

 33. Tests cases can create a problem for CLCs of having to live up to
     unrealistic expectations. In effect, centres can become victims of
     their own publicity with expectations often developing within the
     community that the centre will take on particular cases or do other
     particular work. If a centre advocates strongly on behalf of a group
     then this will (just as it should) result in more members of that
     group directing their requests for assistance to that centre and
     adding new strains to an already excessive caseload.[22]

 34. Legal Aid is available at the pleasure of the government of the day.
     It is a tool that should be used by the impoverished and their
     advocates to address - through litigation - injustices, anomalies and
     oppression, or simply to give individuals a fairer hearing than if
     they were unrepresented. In short, it attempts to ameliorate some of
     the harshness of the inequitable distribution of wealth in our
     society.[23]

     To achieve for the disenfranchised whatever social change can result
     from litigation and other strategies and the decision of a court,
     realistically requires the involvement of Legal Aid in running test
     cases, and to that extent Legal Aid is an indispensable part of the
     fight for social justice. Substantive rights available under welfare,
     housing or consumer credit law may be clarified and expanded by the
     running of test cases.[24]

 35. Legal Aid can only do as much as it is funded to do.[25] If the
     complaint is that governments give insufficient support to legal aid
     to enable it to ensure service for the poor and disenfranchised, the
     failing is with the government not with the operation of Legal
     Aid.[26] The very same can be said for Community Legal Centres. They
     can only do what the funding allows.

 36. But the same cannot be said if the complaint is that Legal Aid could,
     with the resources it has been given, reach more of the poor and
     disenfranchised. By that I mean more of a focus on non-criminal
     matters such as family law, civil law and social security matters
     where people who have absolutely nothing could lose everything and
     often face imprisonment. Legal Aid must begin to be defined beyond its
     conventional sense to include more than merely litigious and criminal
     issues.

 37. Housing, income and access to adequate legal representation are human
     rights issues. Significant groups within the community have been
     denied any real opportunity to exert their rights. The political and
     economic climate of today is becoming increasingly conservative. The
     government is trying to fill apparently endless streams of black holes
     and the unemployed, women, recent immigrants, students, homeless
     people, mentally ill and Aborigines have become scapegoats for failed
     economic policies.

 38. Indeed, sometimes it seems like a war. I'm not very endeared to war
     analogies but after a long day it can often seem like one. If you look
     at it as a war then CLCs are the front line, the foot soldiers and the
     Legal Aid Commission is the Commander-in-chief. If the commander is
     ill, then the foot soldiers are dying. If the LAC is suffering from
     lack of funds, then the CLCs are in need of intensive care.

 39. CLCs are doing the best they can but as the foot soldiers they are
     suffering. They have, for too long now been seen by government as the
     'cheaper alternative' to legal aid.[27] CLCs can no longer be seen as
     the bucket that is catching the Legal Aid overflow. If CLCs are
     turning clients away where do they go? Back to a violent, abusive
     relationship, back onto the streets, back to a house with no water or
     electricity or food, living lives without dignity or respect. Where do
     they go? They go nowhere. They remain invisible and they remain mute.
     They do not register in our statistics.

 40. Unless there is full access to services to implement human rights, all
     the Protocols and Covenants in the world can be signed and stacked up
     a mile high and they will all amount......to nothing.

References

Alston, P (ed.) Towards an Australian Bill of Rights. 1994. Centre for
International and Public Law, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission, Canberra.

Bailey, Peter. Human Rights: Australia in an International Context. 1990.
Butterworths, North Ryde.

Bothmann, S & Gordon, R. Practicing Poverty Law. 1979. Fitzroy Legal
Service Publishing, Fitzroy.

Bruce, S., Van Moorst, E. And Panagiotidis, S. "Access to Justice" in
Alternative Law Journal, Vol.17, Nos.6, December 1992, pp:278-280.

CLC Notebook. Newsletter of the National Association of Community Legal
Centres Issue 3, May 1996.

Cohen, S. Human Rights and Crimes of the State: The Culture of Denial.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol. 26, Nos.6, 1993, pp:
97-115.

Charlesworth, H. "Human rights and public interest advocacy" in Alternative
Law Journal, Vol.19, Nos.1, February 1994, pp: 8-10.

Charlesworth, Hilary. "The Australian reluctance about Rights" in Towards
an Australian Bill of Rights (1994) Philip Alston (Ed.). Centre for
International & Public Law, Canberra pp:21-54.

Chesterman, J. "A look back for a look forward: 20 years of Fitzroy Legal
Service" in Alternative Law Journal, Vol.17, Nos.6, December 1992,
pp:257-260.

Davidson, A. and Spegele, R. (Eds) Rights, justice and Democracy in
Australia. 1991. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne.

De Maria, William. "Second Class lawyers for second class Citizens" in
Alternative Law Journal, Vol 17, No.6, December 1992, pp:266-270.

Discrimination against women: The convention and the Committee. Fact sheet
No. 22. Centre for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneva, January 1995.

Eastman, Kate. "Human Rights Remedies: A Guide" in Alternative Law Journal,
Vol.17, Nos.4, August 1992, pp:169-172.

Fletcher, K. "Legal Aid: Right or privilege?" in Alternative Law Journal,
Vol.18, Nos.1, February 1993, pp:21-26.

Forced Evictions and Human Rights. Fact Sheet No.25. Centre for Human
Rights, United Nations, Geneva, May 1996.

Giddings, J. "Casework, Bloody casework" in Alternative Law Journal,
Vol.17, Nos.6, December 1992, pp:261-265.

Human Rights Manual. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, AGPS,
Canberra, 1993 .

Justice Statement. 1995. Office of Legal Information and Publishing,
Attorney-General's Department, Barton.

Kemp, D. "Legal Aid in the early 1990's: A broad view of a bleak picture"
in Alternative Law Journal, Vol.17, Nos.3, June 1992, pp:124 - 126.

Mathew, P. "International law and the Protection of Human Rights in
Australia: Recent Trends" in Sydney Law Review, Vol.17, Nos.3, February
1995, pp:77 -115.

Noone, Mary Anee. "Imperatives for Community Legal Centres" in Alternative
Law Journal, Vol.17, Nos.3, June 1992, pp:120-126.

Rice, Simon. "Legal Aid: A Domestic Diagnosis" in Alternative Law Journal,
Vol.19, No.6, December 1994, pp:276-280.

Stewart, D and Renouf, G. "Strategies for Community groups" in Alternative
Law Journal, Vol.17, Nos.5, October 1992, pp:240-241.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Fact Sheet No. 16.
Centre for Human Rights, United Nations, Geneva, May 1996.

Walker, K. "Who's the boss? The Judiciary, the Executive, the Parliament
and the Protection of Human Rights" in Western Australian Law Review,
Vol.25, December 1995, pp:239-254.

Case Law

Minister for Immigration v Ah Hin Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 353

List Of Human Rights Treaties to Which Australia is a party

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (ICCPR)

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
(ICESCR)

The First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR

The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR

The Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD)

The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatments or Punishments (CAT)

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women (CEDAW)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The Convention on the Political Rights of Women

The Convention on the Nationality of Married Women

The Slavery Convention of 1926 (as amended) and the 1953 Protocol amending
the 1926 Convention

The Supplementary Convention on the abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade
and Institutions and Practices similar to Slavery

The Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness

The Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and related 1968 Protocol

Notes

[*] Presented to the Legal Aid Conference on Human Rights 16 -17 August
1996 Perth, Western Australia

[**] Community Legal Education Officer at Fremantle Community Legal &
Advocacy Centre and student at Murdoch University School of Law. I would
like to thank Lynda Wennstrom, Eddie Cade, Trish Blake and Jill Davies for
their comments, suggestions, encouragement and support.

[1] Jeffrey Rosales-Castenada is the head of the Human Rights section of
Legal Aid in Western Australia.

[2] Human Rights Manual. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. AGPS.
Canberra. 1993 at pg.10

[3] The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was
adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General
Assembly resolution 220A(XXI) of 16 December 1966.

[4] Cohen, S. "Human Rights and Crimes of the State: The Culture of Denial"
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol.26, Nos.6, 1993, pp:
97-115 at pg.103.

[5] ibid at pg.107

[6] Published on 3 June 1993. Charlesworth, H. "Human rights and public
interest advocacy" Alternative Law Journal, Vol.19, Nos.1, February 1994,
pp:8-10 at pg.8

[7] ibid 5 at pg.8

[8] ibid 3 at pg.109

[9] ibid 3 at pg.112

[10] ibid 6 at pg.8.

[11] Charlesworth, Hilary. "The Australian reluctance about Rights" in
Towards an Australian Bill of Rights (1994) Philip Alston (Ed.) Centre for
International & Public Law, Canberra, pp:21-54 at 21.

[12] ibid at pg. 8

[13] De Maria, William. "Second Class lawyers for second class Citizens"
Alternative law Journal. Vol 17, No.6, December 1992, pp:266-270 at pg.270.

[14] Bailey, Peter. Human Rights: Australia in an International Context.
1990. Butterworths, North Ryde at pg. 319.

[15] The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by
General Assembly resolution 217A (III) of 10 December 1948.

[16] ibid 4

[17] This is scenario is based on a case experienced by CLAC in 1995.

[18] ibid 14 at pg.327.

[19] It is important to note that a person who considers that their rights
have been violated can only make a compliant (communication) to the Human
Rights Commission, when they have exhausted all domestic remedies. As
Australia offers relatively little protection for the rights set out in the
ICCPR, apart from discrimination legislation, there are often no domestic
remedies to exhaust.

[20] Stewart, D and Renouf, G. "Strategies for Community groups"
Alternative Law Journal Vol.17, Nos.5, October 1992, pp:240-241 at pg.240.

[21] Bruce, S., Van Moorst, E. And Panagiotidis, S. "Access to Justice"
Alternative Law Journal. Vol.17, Nos.6, December 1992, pp:278-280 at
pg.279.

[22] Giddings, J. "Casework, Bloody casework" Alternative Law Journal,
vol.17, nos.6, December 1992, pp:261-265 at pg.264.

[23] Rice, Simon. "Legal Aid: A Domestic Diagnosis" Alternative Law
Journal. Vol.19, No.6, December 1994, pp:276-280 at pg.277

[24] ibid 23 at pg 277

[25] Noone, Mary Anee. "Imperatives for Community Legal Centres"
Alternative Law Journal, vol 17, Nos. 3, June 1992, pp:120-126 at pg 121.

[26] ibid 19. Compared with the UK, Australia spends half as much per head
on legal aid.

[27] ibid 24 at pg.278