IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [MELBOURNE] REGISTRY BETWEEN:

No.

of 2012

Le Tuan Pham & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Plaintiff

10

and Attorney General (Commonwealth) & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Defendants

20 APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

To:

Parties (according to the attached Schedule)

30

TAKE NOTICE that this application has been made by the plaintiff for the relief that is set out below on the grounds that are set out below.

IF YOU INTEND TO DEFEND the proceeding you must file a notice of appearance in the office of the Registry named above.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SUBMIT to any order that the Court may make, save as to costs, you may file a submitting appearance in the office of the Registry named above. 40 THE TIME FOR FILING AN APPEARANCE is as follows: (a) where you are served with the application within Australia 14 days from the date of service; (b) in any other case 42 days from the date of service.

50

[Le Tuan Pham] [PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021]

Telephone: [0412 871 985] Fax: [number] Ref: [LT PHAM]

-2THE RELIEF CLAIMED is 1. Plaintiff petitions for a Stay of Proceedings on ALL cases relating to the Plaintiff and or Ms Hilda Zhang from 1996 onwards; In the Federal Court Australia, in the Supreme Court of Queensland and Victoria, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, inter alia. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 2. 3. S APCI 2012 0211 S APCI 2012 0212 S APCI 2012 0213 S APCI 2012 0214 Pham vs Commonwealth, Middleton J, Federal Court Pham vs Commonwealth, Murphy J, Federal Court Pham vs Commonwealth, North J, Federal Court, twice; Inter alia;

10

Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus; for all Plaintiffs; And Or the Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative, a Writ of Prohibition; to prevent the Commonwealth of Australia from violating its obligations under United Nations Human Rights Conventions; And or the Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Certiorari.

20
4. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE RELIEF IS CLAIMED are: 1. 2. 3. There appears to be a conspiracy to pervert justice, by the Defendants, and To pervert Commonwealth and State Laws pertaining to Human Rights and Discrimination; There appears to be a conspiracy to abuse discretion by the Defendants as a predatory means to deny equality before the law, and or a fair hearing in the Australian courts; There appears to be a conspiracy to engage in acts, by the Defendants, of violating Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, And in imprisonment in legal void from Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

30
4. 5.

This application shall be heard at the time and place stated [if a summons is to be served with the application] in the summons served with this application / [if no summons is to be served with the application] in a summons to be served at a later time. This application was filed by the plaintiff.

40
Dated: Friday, November 16, 2012 The plaintiffs address is ................(signed).................... [Name of plaintiff / plaintiffs solicitor] [136 Alfrieda St, St Albans 3021].

The plaintiffs address for service is [PO BOX 1255, St Albans 3021].

-3-

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES Le Tuan Pham Hilda Zhang Phuong Ngo Plaintiff One Plaintiff Two Plaintiff Three

10

Attorney General (Commonwealth) [M1.21 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102 email: attorney@ag.gov.au] Attorney General (Victoria) [Level 26 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne Victoria, 3000 Tel: 03 8684 1101] Attorney General (NSW) [LOCKED BAG 5111, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124 Tel: (02) 8688 7777 Fax: (02) 8688 7980] President (Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal) [55 King Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia GPO Box 5408 Melbourne Vic 3001] President (Australian Human Rights Commission) [Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Defendant One

Defendant Two

20

Defendant Three

30

Defendant Four

Defendant Five

40

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Tel: (02) 9284 9600 Fax: (02) 9284 9611]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [MELBOURNE] REGISTRY BETWEEN:

No.

of 2012

Le Tuan Pham & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Plaintiff

10

and Attorney General (Commonwealth) & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Defendants

20

OUTLINE OF SUBMISSION

1.

This matter should not be remitted to another court, due to the non- independence, non-impartiality and non-competence of those courts of record; There should be a referral to the Full Court on a question of law as below; Plaintiff seeks to expedite the hearing such that Refugees and Immigrants can get a fair hearing such that the Plaintiff should not be interfered in work and daily life; Plaintiff petitions for a Stay of Proceedings on ALL cases relating to the Plaintiff and or Ms Hilda Zhang from 1996 onwards; In the Federal Court Australia, in the Supreme Court of Queensland and Victoria, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, inter alia. a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. S APCI 2012 0211 S APCI 2012 0212 S APCI 2012 0213 S APCI 2012 0214 Pham vs Commonwealth, Middleton J, Federal Court Pham vs Commonwealth, Murphy J, Federal Court Pham vs Commonwealth, North J, Federal Court, twice; Inter alia

2. 3.

30

4.

40

Prepared by: Le Tuan PHAM Address: PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021

Tel: 0412 871 985 Fax:

5. 6.

Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Habeas Corpus; And Or the Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Mandamus or in the Alternative, a Writ of Prohibition. And or the Plaintiff petitions for Writ of Certiorari.

7.

8.

The Appellant gives notice that this proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Nature of constitutional matter

10

9. The constitutional issue raised by the Appellants application for referral to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, on a Question of Law is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria to make a bare declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court Victoria, and Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to ss 36 and 39 of the Charter; The determination and or lack determination of this issue may raise for consideration ss 109, 75, 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution. Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act I903 (Cth) applies

20

10. 11.

Appellant submits the VCAT Charter of Service; On 28 November 2011, the Appellant filed an urgent hearing pursuant to s120 of the VCAT Act; The rehearing was granted orally, on application by VCAT and then reversed overnight without notification; Decision A41/2012 of Grainger, Member VCAT indicates there is NO valid Notice to Vacate; There appears to be a Collusion to effect illegal eviction by VCAT, Victoria Police, McLennans Real Estate; On 26 September 2012, on appeal from Associate Justice Landsdowne; The Supreme Court staff failed to file the Affidavit of Le Tuan Pham dated 13 September in support of that appeal; in front of Dixon J for consideration;

12.

13.

14.

15.
30

16.

17.

Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter was refused by Dixon J and decision is reserved without hearing as to stay of proceedings on other matters before the Supreme Court; On 1 October 2012, on appeal from VCAT in front of AJ Mukhtar; Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter, was refused without proper reasons; Decision is filed and will be rigorously challenged; No arguments or Notice of Appearance were filed by Rachele and Jones; Submissions from Drakopoulos and Ors were filed at 4pm on Friday to be heard the following Monday; On 4 October 2012, the Appellant filed on appeal from VCAT pursuant to s148 of VCAT Act; The Supreme Court Prothonotary refused filing of those Originating Motions without proper reasons as a breach of the Charter; On 25 July 2012, the President of VCAT refused a request for the Orders and Reasons of Cremean, Member, on the initial Possession Order for a current High Court case; At least 5 times now, President of VCAT has refused to provide the copies of Orders and Reasons, for the High Court; On the 10 September 2012, and Application to VCAT listing the President of VCAT, Department of Justice and the Attorney General on a Question of Law; has again been refused without notification, replies or listing; There appears to be a Predatory abuse of discretion and a concerted effort to hijack the Charter, judicially and extra-judicially; There appears to be concerted effort in Racial and or Disability discrimination and vilification against the Appellant; There appears to be concerted effort in denying Procedural Fairness and Equality before the Law to the Appellant; Pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court Rules, we seek relief in form of Mandamus against VCAT and the Supreme Court Victoria, in breach of the Charter; We seek an expedition before the High Court as a matter of urgency with a 2 week preparation in order that Refugees and Immigrants can get fair hearings in Australian Courts.
31. In light of the Charter, and in particular ss 8, 10, 13, 22, 24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law
3

18.

19. 20.

10

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
20

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.
30

10

20

30

rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents; d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute; g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. And acting in blatant bad faith; j. And inciting Racial Hatred. k. An independent, impartial and competent tribunal: the independence, impartiality, and incompetence, of VCAT, and the Supreme Court are in put into question via a referral the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter. l. The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission and or the State and Federal Attorneys Generals have failed to come in defense of VCAT, or the Supreme Court; m. The Supreme Court has failed to answer a simple question of law and constitution from a Refugee, n. As a total violation of the Australian Constitution, in a concerted effort unlawfully to discriminate racially and via disability, as well as vilification of the Applicant.

Reasonable Expectations 32. There is Reasonable Expectation that Judicial Officers would provide a masterclass in reasoning or logic based on evidence and facts, if not a masterclass in English usage, rather than an abuse of Discretion and fallacy in English usage, in vilification of refugees with unsubstantiated slander and libel; There is Reasonable Expectation of Beyond Reasonable Doubt, especially when academics and journalists find evidence wanting. There is reasonable expectation that there is consistency in application of the laws, And equality before the law.

33.

34.

40

35. 36.

Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinism 37. There is Reasonable Expectation that when there is a Question of Law being asked that the Courts would answer it competently, without bias and independently. It appears that Australian citizen needs to have a Mary Jo Fisher syndrome or illness to be afforded discretion in Australian courts. It appear that Australian citizen needs to be Lindy and Michael Chamberlain, or Pauline Hanson, in order to be afforded a fair trial. There appears to be a conspiracy to vilify Immigrants and Refugees in an effort to deprive them of access to the law and legal system. There appears to be a conspiracy to set the Immigrants and Refugees up to fail and when they do to call them inferior; There appears to be a conspiracy to apologise for and aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination, based on race and disability, inter alia; There appears to be a conspiracy to deprive the Immigrants and Refugees of judicial function and or the administration of justice; And or duty of care; Not only should justice be done but be seen to be done; Reason is the 6th sense, reliable as the other 5 senses; Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, onus is on the one who affirms, not the one who denies. Authorities: a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011) b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 c. Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]

38.

39.

40.

10

41.

42.

43.

44. 45. 46. 47.

20

48.

FILED: Friday, 16 November 2012 Le Tuan Pham Student-At-law Human Rights Defender
30

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES Le Tuan Pham Hilda Zhang Phuong Ngo Plaintiff One Plaintiff Two Plaintiff Three

10

Attorney General (Commonwealth) [M1.21 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102 email: attorney@ag.gov.au] Attorney General (Victoria) [Level 26 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne Victoria, 3000 Tel: 03 8684 1101] Attorney General (NSW) [LOCKED BAG 5111, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124

Defendant One

Defendant Two

20

Defendant Three

30

Tel: (02) 8688 7777 Fax: (02) 8688 7980] President (Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal) [55 King Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia GPO Box 5408 Melbourne Vic 3001] President (Australian Human Rights Commission) [Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Defendant Four

Defendant Five

40

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Tel: (02) 9284 9600 Fax: (02) 9284 9611]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [MELBOURNE] REGISTRY BETWEEN:

No.

of 2012

Le Tuan Pham & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Plaintiff

10

and Attorney General (Commonwealth) & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Defendants

20

AFFIDAVIT I, [Le Tuan Pham], of [136 Alfrieda St, ST ALBANS 3021], [IT and Education], [say on oath / affirm*] as follows:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 30 6.

I am the person making this application; I have authorization to make application for Ms Hilda Zhang; I dont know where Ms Zhang is at present; Ms Hilda Zhang so restraint, cannot make an affidavit; Mr Phuong Ngo so restraint, cannot make an affidavit; There appears to be a conspiracy to pervert justice by the Defendants, and Commonwealth and State Laws pertaining to Human Rights and Discrimination;

7.

There appears to be a conspiracy to abuse discretion by the Defendants as a predatory means to deny equality before the law, and or a fair hearing in the Australian courts; There appears to be a conspiracy to engage in acts by the Defendants, in violation of Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, Telephone: [0412 871 985] Fax: [] Ref: [LT PHAM]

8.

[Le Tuan Pham] [PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021]

-29. And in imprisonment in legal void from Protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. I have been misled and misinformed on the definition of the Officer of the Commonwealth by the Registrar Mussolino of the High Court Australia. On 28 November 2011, the Appellant filed an urgent hearing pursuant to s120 of the VCAT Act; The rehearing was granted orally, on application by VCAT and then reversed overnight without notification; Decision A41/2012 of Grainger, Member VCAT indicates there is NO valid Notice to Vacate; There appears to be a Collusion to effect illegal eviction by VCAT, Victoria Police, McLennans Real Estate; On 26 September 2012, on appeal from Associate Justice Landsdowne; The Supreme Court staff failed to file the Affidavit of Le Tuan Pham dated 13 September in support of that appeal; in front of Dixon J for consideration; Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter was refused by Dixon J and decision is reserved without hearing as to stay of proceedings on other matters before the Supreme Court; On 1 October 2012, on appeal from VCAT in front of AJ Mukhtar; Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter, was refused without proper reasons; Decision is filed and will be rigorously challenged; No arguments or Notice of Appearance were filed by Rachele and Jones; Submissions from Drakopoulos and Ors were filed at 4pm on Friday to be heard the following Monday; On 4 October 2012, the Appellant filed on appeal from VCAT pursuant to s148 of VCAT Act; The Supreme Court Prothonotary refused filing of those Originating Motions without proper reasons as a breach of the Charter; On 25 July 2012, the President of VCAT refused a request for the Orders and Reasons of Cremean, Member, on the initial Possession Order for a current High Court case;

10.

11.

12.

13. 10 14.

15. 16.

17.

20

18.

19. 20.

21.

22. 30 23.

-324. At least 5 times now, President of VCAT has refused to provide the copies of Orders and Reasons, for the High Court; On the 10 September 2012, and Application to VCAT listing the President of VCAT, Department of Justice and the Attorney General on a Question of Law; has again been refused without notification, replies or listing; There will be further affidavits.

25.

26.

SWORN / AFFIRMED* by the deponent at [place] in [State or Territory] on [date].

Before me:

Signature of deponent ______________________

Signature [name and qualification of witness administering oath or affirmation]

10

-4-

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES Le Tuan Pham Hilda Zhang Phuong Ngo Plaintiff One Plaintiff Two Plaintiff Three

10

Attorney General (Commonwealth) [M1.21 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102 email: attorney@ag.gov.au] Attorney General (Victoria) [Level 26 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne Victoria, 3000 Tel: 03 8684 1101] Attorney General (NSW) [LOCKED BAG 5111, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124

Defendant One

Defendant Two

20

Defendant Three

30

Tel: (02) 8688 7777 Fax: (02) 8688 7980] President (Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal) [55 King Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia GPO Box 5408 Melbourne Vic 3001] President (Australian Human Rights Commission) [Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Defendant Four

Defendant Five

40
GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Tel: (02) 9284 9600 Fax: (02) 9284 9611]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA [MELBOURNE] REGISTRY BETWEEN:

No.

of 2012

Le Tuan Pham & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Plaintiff

10

and Attorney General (Commonwealth) & Ors (according to the attached Schedule) Defendants

NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER

20

1.

The Appellant gives notice that this proceeding involves a matter arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation within the meaning of s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

Nature of constitutional matter

30

2.

The constitutional issue raised by the Appellants application for referral to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter for Human Rights and Responsibility Act 2006, on a Question of Law is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Victoria to make a bare declaration as to the privileges, powers and immunities of the administrative and or judicial arm of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court Victoria, and Inconsistent Interpretation of the Charter, pursuant to ss 36 and 39 of the Charter;

The determination and or lack determination of this issue may raise for consideration ss 109, 75, 98, 107, 108, 117, 118 of the Constitution.
40

Prepared by: Le Tuan PHAM Address: PO BOX 1255 St Albans 3021

Tel: 0412 871 985 Fax:

Facts showing that s 78B Judiciary Act I903 (Cth) applies

3. 4.

Appellant submits the VCAT Charter of Service; On 28 November 2011, the Appellant filed an urgent hearing pursuant to s120 of the VCAT Act;

5.

The rehearing was granted orally, on application by VCAT and then reversed overnight without notification;

6.

Decision A41/2012 of Grainger, Member VCAT indicates there is NO valid Notice to Vacate;

10

7.

There appears to be a Collusion to effect illegal eviction by VCAT, Victoria Police, McLennans Real Estate;

8. 9.

On 26 September 2012, on appeal from Associate Justice Landsdowne; The Supreme Court staff failed to file the Affidavit of Le Tuan Pham dated 13 September in support of that appeal; in front of Dixon J for consideration;

10.

Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter was refused by Dixon J and decision is reserved without hearing as to stay of proceedings on other matters before the Supreme Court;

11.

On 1 October 2012, on appeal from VCAT in front of AJ Mukhtar; Referral of question of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter, was refused

20

without proper reasons; Decision is filed and will be rigorously challenged; 12. 13. No arguments or Notice of Appearance were filed by Rachele and Jones; Submissions from Drakopoulos and Ors were filed at 4pm on Friday to be heard the following Monday; 14. On 4 October 2012, the Appellant filed on appeal from VCAT pursuant to s148 of VCAT Act; 15. The Supreme Court Prothonotary refused filing of those Originating Motions without proper reasons as a breach of the Charter; 16. On 25 July 2012, the President of VCAT refused a request for the Orders and Reasons of Cremean, Member, on the initial Possession Order for a current High Court case;

30

17.

At least 5 times now, President of VCAT has refused to provide the copies of Orders and Reasons, for the High Court;

18.

On the 10 September 2012, and Application to VCAT listing the President of VCAT, Department of Justice and the Attorney General on a Question of Law; has again been refused without notification, replies or listing;
2

19.

There appears to be a Predatory abuse of discretion and a concerted effort to hijack the Charter, judicially and extra-judicially;

20.

There appears to be concerted effort in Racial and or Disability discrimination and vilification against the Appellant;

21.

There appears to be concerted effort in denying Procedural Fairness and Equality before the Law to the Appellant;

22.

Pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court Rules, we seek relief in form of Mandamus against VCAT and the Supreme Court Victoria, in breach of the Charter;

23.
10

We seek an expedition before the High Court as a matter of urgency with a 2 week preparation in order that Refugees and Immigrants can get fair hearings in Australian Courts.

24.

In light of the Charter, and in particular ss 8, 10, 13, 22, 24, s38, s39, inter alia, how is it best to achieve equality before the law, and or reasonableness in application of basic common law rights, in compliance with Australias obligation under international treaties on human rights, when VCAT registrars, members, senior members and deputy presidents, and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Victoria, all collude, a. In manifest Disregard of the Law and or Facts; and to abuse of discretion, which amounts to NO discretion; b. In order to deny procedural fairness, and or Natural Justice, in setting up the Refugees

20

and Immigrants to fail, and then to call them inferior; c. To vilify Refugees and Immigrants, on their Engrish, or alleged bad English; as an Ignoratio elenchi or an informal fallacy to deny a fair hearing; without referring to the facts, evidence or documents; d. Even if the English is subpar, should lawful, legal and justice ideals and legislations be dependent on the language, rather than the understanding of such ideals; e. To apologise for acts of unlawful discrimination, by concocting facts and evidence; and or refusing to consider relevant facts and evidence; f. To make continuous errors of law, that are blatant, and thereby putting their positions into disrepute;

30

g. To disregard of VCAT Service Charter and the Charter itself; h. To Attack Asian medical doctors and even the Australian Medical Association without cause or reason, as a means to unlawfully discriminate based on race via disability; i. j. And acting in blatant bad faith; And inciting Racial Hatred.

k. An independent, impartial and competent tribunal: the independence, impartiality, and incompetence, of VCAT, and the Supreme Court are in put into question via a referral the Court of Appeal pursuant to s33 of the Charter. l. The Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission and or the State and Federal Attorneys Generals have failed to come in defense of VCAT, or the Supreme Court; m. The Supreme Court has failed to answer a simple question of law and constitution from a Refugee, n. As a total violation of the Australian Constitution, in a concerted effort unlawfully to discriminate racially and via disability, as well as vilification of the Applicant.
10

25.

Authorities: a. Momcilovic v The Queen [2011] HCA 34 (8 September 2011) b. Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 c. Gurnett v The Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2][126]

FILED: Friday, 16 November 2012 Le Tuan Pham Student-At-law Human Rights Defender
20

TO: AND TO:

The Respondents The Honourable Nicola Roxon MP Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia nicola@nicolaroxonmp.com, Nicola.roxon.mp@aph.gov.au, attorney@ag.gov.au,

AND TO:

The Honourable Greg Smith MP Attorney-General of New South Wales office@smith.minister.nsw.gov.au,

AND TO:

The Honourable Robert Clark MP Attorney-General of Victoria

10

robert.clark@parliament.vic.gov.au, AND TO: The Honourable Jairod Bleigie MP Attorney-General of Queensland Attorney@ministerial.qld.gov.au, AND TO: The Honourable Christian Porter MLA Attorney-General of Western Australia christian.porter@mp.wa.gov.au, AND TO: The Honourable John Rau MP Attorney-General of South Australia agd@agd.sa.gov.au,

20

AND TO:

The Honourable Brian Wightman MP Attorney-General of Tasmania Brian.Wightman@dpac.tas.gov.au,

AND TO:

The Honourable Simon Corbell MLA Attomey-General of the Australian Capital Territory corbell@act.gov.au,

AND TO:

The Honourable Johan Wessel Elferink MLA Attomey-General of the Northern Territory of Australia john.elferink@nt.gov.au, ..

30

SCHEDULE OF PARTIES Le Tuan Pham Hilda Zhang Phuong Ngo Plaintiff One Plaintiff Two Plaintiff Three

10

Attorney General (Commonwealth) [M1.21 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Tel: (02) 6277 7300 Fax: (02) 6273 4102 email: attorney@ag.gov.au] Attorney General (Victoria) [Level 26 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne Victoria, 3000 Tel: 03 8684 1101] Attorney General (NSW) [LOCKED BAG 5111, PARRAMATTA NSW 2124 Tel: (02) 8688 7777 Fax: (02) 8688 7980] President (Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal) [55 King Street Melbourne Vic 3000 Australia GPO Box 5408 Melbourne Vic 3001] President (Australian Human Rights Commission) [Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

Defendant One

Defendant Two

20

Defendant Three

30

Defendant Four

Defendant Five

40

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Tel: (02) 9284 9600 Fax: (02) 9284 9611]