11 However, it is clear that no application has been made to, let alone terminated by, HREOC, and, accordingly, no right has been conferred on any affected person to apply to this Court alleging unlawful discrimination.
12 It was next pointed out that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has not been incorporated into Australian municipal law by any statute. Consistently with the reasoning of the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273, it is not enforceable by order of this Court.
13 Section 116 of the Constitution, which has also been invoked by the applicant, provides;
'The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.'
14 However, that provision is a restraint on the legislative and executive power of the Commonwealth. It does not confer on the applicant or any other citizen any positive right. It is confined to protecting the citizen from the purported establishment of any religion, the imposition of any religious observance or a prohibition on the free exercise of any religion and from the purported imposition of a religious test for appointment to an office or public trust under the Commonwealth. In Attorney-General (Vic) ex rel Black v The Commonwealth (1981) 1946 CLR 559, Stephen J observed, at 605;
'Some things about the section are self-evident. It is not, in form, a constitutional guarantee of the rights of individuals; with it may be contrasted s.117 which, like s.80, at least gives promise of guaranteed rights, however illusory that promise may so far have provide in practical operation:'
15 The applicant has not advanced any submission which compels the rejection of any of the Minister's contentions in support of her objection to competency. Each of those objections is cogent and individually or collectively requires that the objection be upheld. It follows that the claim for interlocutory relief must also fall. That application for interlocutory relief was in these terms in the applicant's application dated 9 May 2005;
'The applicant claims an injunction against any order that the three persons, Processo Carreon, his wife Martina Carreon and Josalito Carreon be required to leave Australia until such time as a court has had time to judicially review the minister's decision in the light of binding federal legislation.'
16 As well, the applicant has signally failed to identify any decision of the Minister which he seeks to review. He has said from the Bar table that he sought a review by the Migration Review Tribunal of some decision but that review was refused more than 12 months ago. The applicant further says that he sought a reconsideration by the Minister of whatever application had been made on behalf of his parents and brothers but that too was refused. In the circumstances, I can discern no answer to the Minister's objection to competency. The application must therefore be dismissed with costs.