|
Post by ponto on Jun 16, 2021 19:00:59 GMT 10
How long have you been on a disability pension...?
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Jun 17, 2021 9:15:11 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by matte on Jun 17, 2021 9:20:49 GMT 10
How long have you been on a disability pension...? Conservatives fund themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ponto on Jun 17, 2021 13:46:13 GMT 10
Conservative may fund themselves by paying no or little taxes on their income...biggest tax avoiders going.
How's ScoMo's federal ICAC going....considering the conservatives are the major rorters.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 17, 2021 14:17:18 GMT 10
I don't think Tony Abbott funds himself. Nor does John Howard or any other superannuated conservative politician. On top of their taxpayer funded super they get very lucrative appointments to all sorts of boards - administrative appeals tribunal, Australia Post, ABC ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jun 17, 2021 16:37:40 GMT 10
Returning to the Biloela family - and right there on that very term, the fact that they’re known as “the Biloela family” highlights why the Morrison government has lost the argument - I see from today’s Canberra Times that Peter Dutton is “frustrated” at their changed circumstances. Oh and by the by is Peter Dutton “self-funded”?
But here’s WA Premier Mark McGowan on the Biloela family:
But no, the Morrison government and the Coalition generally is so locked into its Howard era “stop the boats” that it prefers its war on a 4 year old kid, her sister and her parents because it can’t believe that the public has shifted on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Gort on Aug 12, 2021 11:34:07 GMT 10
So, the High Court has ruled against the child ... Will that be the end of this saga? Hell No!!! There are squillions more dollars to be wasted yet. High Court rejects Biloela asylum seeker Tharnicaa Murugappan's bid for court to hear visa caseBy Elizabeth Byrne Posted 1h ago1 hours ago, updated 6m ago The High Court has refused a special leave request from lawyers for a four-year-old girl from Biloela who is seeking a chance to apply for a protection visa. Tharnicaa Murugappan's Tamil parents have been fighting a long legal battle to remain in Australia. The family is now in Perth after Tharnicaa became ill on Christmas Island where they were being held in detention. Despite the High Court's decision today not to hear the case, supporters of the family are hopeful Immigration Minister Alex Hawke will use his discretion to clear the way for her to apply for a protection visa. The family had previously settled in Biloela in rural Queensland, where they lived until they were detained on the island in 2019, when a court order prevented them from being kicked out of the country. Tharnicaa's mother Priya, father Nades and sister Kopika are now on bridging visas in community detention in Perth, while the government has been unable to deport them because of the ongoing legal battle. Even though the children were born in Australia, the parents do not have citizenship because they were deemed illegal arrivals. Federal Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said due to "ongoing legal matters", he would not comment on today's decision. "Today the High Court declined to grant the Sri Lankan family formerly resident on Christmas Island special leave to appeal," Mr Hawke said in a statement. "I note the High Court's decision follows a series of previous decisions by the Department of Home Affairs, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Federal Circuit Court, Federal Court, Full Federal Court and High Court in relation to the family. "The family has a number of other ongoing legal matters. It is therefore inappropriate for me to comment further." The High Court has already refused special leave applications from Nades in 2015 and Priya in 2019. Tharnicaa is fighting a law that states she can not even apply for a visa, unless the minister exercises his discretion to allow it. Her lawyers were hoping to convince the High Court that she does have a valid visa application already in play. That is because, in July 2017, the minister lifted the bar on applications from the children of unauthorised maritime arrivals, for temporary protection visas and safe haven enterprise visas. This included conditions that a parent must have a relevant application in play, that has not been finally determined. Angela Fredericks, a friend of the Murugappan family, said she was disappointed with today's decision. "We're incredibly disappointed by this news, however, at the end of the day no court can make a ruling on Tharnicaa's asylum claim," Ms Fredericks said. "We're still hopeful with the fact that we did win the court's application around procedural fairness not being upheld. "As a result of that, a brief is in front of the minister as we speak, and he still actually has the power to allow Tharnicaa to make an asylum claim. So, I guess our hope is that the minister – now that there is nothing before the court, which he previously said was stopping him – absolutely has the power to do the right thing here." www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-12/high-court-rejects-biloela-aylum-seeker-case/100370346
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Aug 12, 2021 11:44:14 GMT 10
All children born in Australia of foreign parents take the nationality of their parents! Thus it has always been. The reverse is the situation in the US which is why millions of wanna be reffos will risk anything to get into the country and start popping kids. Unfortunately the majority of illegals around the globe believe this is the same here. Honestly, if I were facing extradition, I certainly wouldn't want to complicate things by becoming pregnant! But I imagine that is exactly the advice these refugee advocates give to illegals arriving here. They should have been returned immediately. These advocates just drag out the process for years costing taxpayers millions in the attempt.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 12, 2021 14:59:58 GMT 10
You're kinda right, Stellar. Kinda! On kids inheriting their parents' nationality. You're not wrong, it's just more complex and nuanced.
My parents arrived in this country in the early 1950s with 6 children, among whom was yours truly. They held NL passports and had been granted migrant visas in the Netherlands by Australian migration officials attached to the Australian Embassy in The Hague as permanent settlers in Australia. That part is cut & dried. After a year or so living in the bush in northern NSW - my dad had a job in a sawmill in Dorrigo - my youngest sister was born. She's now a grandmother but that's another story. This is where the citizenship thing becomes complicated. She was born in Australia to Dutch migrant parents who had permanent residency but had not yet qualified to apply for Australian citizenship. In Australian law my sister is different from the rest of us, being an Australian citizen by birth. That is the legal position. We've checked. Under Dutch law my sister is entitled to NL citizenship but she would have to claim it. She has no intention of doing anything of the kind. So to sum up: she's Australian by birth and potentially Dutch. It's a moot point. When my parents passed away and we sorted through their "stuff", as you do, we came across the correspondence relating to the naturalization as Australian citizens in 1956. We were all listed on the "instrument of naturalization" as dependent children having Australian citizenship conferred on us - except for my sister because she was already Australian by birth.
In another case my eldest daughter was born in France while I was teaching English there in the 1970s. Her mother is a 6th generation Australian with an ancestor who fell at Gallipoli. Impeccable Australian credentials. I'm Australian by naturalization. For the first two weeks of her little life my newborn daughter was stateless because the French authorities would not grant French citizenship. Foreign parents on a temporary work visa? No way! Not French! They did issue a birth certificate because under their laws they have to. We then had to submit all our documents - Australian passports, birth certificates, marriage certificate (this was the 1970s) etc to the Australian Embassy in Paris and they issued an Australian birth certificate and endorsed my wife's passport. After that there was no problem. We returned to Australia a year later with baby and sailed through Passports at the airport. The legal position regarding children born overseas to Australian parents is that Australian citizenship is not automatic. The parents have to apply for it on behalf of the child. Which makes sense because some sort of proof test has to be applied to a claim for citizenship made at an Australian embassy.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Aug 12, 2021 17:33:23 GMT 10
Returning to the Biloela family - and right there on that very term, the fact that they’re known as “the Biloela family” highlights why the Morrison government has lost the argument - I see from today’s Canberra Times that Peter Dutton is “frustrated” at their changed circumstances. Oh and by the by is Peter Dutton “self-funded”? But here’s WA Premier Mark McGowan on the Biloela family: But no, the Morrison government and the Coalition generally is so locked into its Howard era “stop the boats” that it prefers its war on a 4 year old kid, her sister and her parents because it can’t believe that the public has shifted on the issue. On this issue, Mark is Wrong and Scummo is right.
|
|
|
Post by matte on Aug 12, 2021 20:19:45 GMT 10
The High Court has ruled.
Time for them to pack up and go back to Sri Lanka.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 12, 2021 23:50:59 GMT 10
The High Court hasn’t “ruled”. Notice the deliberate ambiguity in Matt’s post. Misleadingly, his post is a sentence containing a subject followed by a verb but no predicate. Zero.
I’m not saying Matt’s post is ungrammatical. In fact his grammar, in this instance, is impeccable. This is not me being a grammar Nazi - even though I relish the role when I get to play it. Ask Occam! I’m perfectly capable of being a grammar Nazi ... I’m just not being one this time. So this is not the Grammar Gestapo, just Forensics come to do a bit of CSI like in Silent Witness.
Matt’s predicate-free sentence leaves a trail of ambiguity which of course leaves the suggestion hanging that ...... no that’s for Matt to clarify. “The High Court has ruled” says Matt. On what? On the eligibility of the Biloela family for a protection visa for their infant daughter? Well, no the High Court has made no ruling on that particular matter at all. It has considered an application for leave to present a case and the High Court has declined the application. That’s where it stands. It did NOT rule on the substantive case itself. You don’t just bring a case to the High Court. The first step is that you seek leave to bring a case before the High Court. If the HC decides in its wisdom to grant leave then you may prepare your case and marshal your arguments for your day(s) in the High Court. That didn’t happen. The HC has said “Nope! We’re not gonna hear this case. Piss off”. Doesn’t mean that there are no avenues left.
|
|
|
Post by Stellar on Aug 13, 2021 10:37:52 GMT 10
You're kinda right, Stellar. Kinda! On kids inheriting their parents' nationality. You're not wrong, it's just more complex and nuanced. My parents arrived in this country in the early 1950s with 6 children, among whom was yours truly. They held NL passports and had been granted migrant visas in the Netherlands by Australian migration officials attached to the Australian Embassy in The Hague as permanent settlers in Australia. That part is cut & dried. After a year or so living in the bush in northern NSW - my dad had a job in a sawmill in Dorrigo - my youngest sister was born. She's now a grandmother but that's another story. This is where the citizenship thing becomes complicated. She was born in Australia to Dutch migrant parents who had permanent residency but had not yet qualified to apply for Australian citizenship. In Australian law my sister is different from the rest of us, being an Australian citizen by birth. That is the legal position. We've checked. Under Dutch law my sister is entitled to NL citizenship but she would have to claim it. She has no intention of doing anything of the kind. So to sum up: she's Australian by birth and potentially Dutch. It's a moot point. When my parents passed away and we sorted through their "stuff", as you do, we came across the correspondence relating to the naturalization as Australian citizens in 1956. We were all listed on the "instrument of naturalization" as dependent children having Australian citizenship conferred on us - except for my sister because she was already Australian by birth. In another case my eldest daughter was born in France while I was teaching English there in the 1970s. Her mother is a 6th generation Australian with an ancestor who fell at Gallipoli. Impeccable Australian credentials. I'm Australian by naturalization. For the first two weeks of her little life my newborn daughter was stateless because the French authorities would not grant French citizenship. Foreign parents on a temporary work visa? No way! Not French! They did issue a birth certificate because under their laws they have to. We then had to submit all our documents - Australian passports, birth certificates, marriage certificate (this was the 1970s) etc to the Australian Embassy in Paris and they issued an Australian birth certificate and endorsed my wife's passport. After that there was no problem. We returned to Australia a year later with baby and sailed through Passports at the airport. The legal position regarding children born overseas to Australian parents is that Australian citizenship is not automatic. The parents have to apply for it on behalf of the child. Which makes sense because some sort of proof test has to be applied to a claim for citizenship made at an Australian embassy. The difference in your case, is that your parents were bona fide permanent settlers. They had applied in their own country and been granted migrant visas by the Australian Embassy. So when your sister was born here it would naturally follow that she attained citizenship by birth. Your parents had done everything the right way by applying to migrate in their own country. The Biloelas had not. That is the difference. They were not genuine refugees and their children would not be entitled to Australian citizenship. Ultimately, the High Court will make these decisions as to the laws of this country. Not to the demands of the refugee advocates and supporters.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 13, 2021 11:31:42 GMT 10
Indeed they won’t and neither should they. Doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to engage in public advocacy. You’re spot on regarding my family and how they migrated. I was just trying to point out the complexity of citizenship law. I think in my own family’s case the most straightforward cut & dried case is that of the mother of my adult daughters, my former wife. She had a string of ancestors who arrived on sailing ships during the 19th century who ranged from a free settler from Scotland and various Germans who came during the gold rushes. The Scot arrived in Sydney during the governorship of a fellow Scot Lachlan Macquarie. Apparently Macquarie looked after his fellow Scots and gave a grant of land in 1819 to this remote Scottish ancestor of my grand/children which, canny Scot that he was, he subsequently sold and he took up land in the Moreton Bay colony - which became Brisbane - around where Ipswich is today. So through their mother my girls’ Australian credentials are of a kind that would make the most xenophobic Australian nativist beam with approval. There’s even a Gallipoli veteran in her pedigree. As Scotty from Marketing would bray: <hee haw!> How good is that!
Nevertheless citizenship law can unexpectedly turn around and bite you on the bum as a slew of Australian politicians found recently. Revealingly, it was the old colonial British connection that caused them to come to grief. The constitution that the British enacted for us in 1900 and which came into force in 1901 was essentially an imperial constitution. To be fair it reflected the realities of the time. The British Empire was the context within which we federated so Section 44 implies that members of the Australian parliament must not be “under any allegiance to a foreign power”. It’s part of the the vast backlog of constitutional reform that a future more stable and more courageous government will commit to. But not now. Not today. Not in my lifetime. Actually the Constitution fudges the citizenship question and doesn’t really define it clearly so whatever citizenship laws are on the statute books have been enacted in a piecemeal reactive fashion and Covid-19 has exploded the most fundamental right of citizenship, the right to return to Australia, as a hollow myth. Come the Republic (he says with tongue wedged in cheek), and we’ve subjected the 1901 constitution to a complete re-drafting and makeover including enshrining the Uluru Statement at its heart, I would expect that a redrafted Republican Constitution for Australia would be anything but silent on what “citizenship” means.
Regarding the Biloela family, it isn’t over for them. I hope that they don’t get deported to Sri Lanka and I reject with contempt the characterisation of them as “country shoppers”. I doubt that a “country shopper” with no other motivation would have been able to endure what this family has been going through for years. If there’s a change of government next year and they’re still on Australian soil there might be a chance for them to stay here. But I wouldn’t wish another day of this ordeal on that family let alone ten months. If NZ offers them a visa I hope they grab it and go there. It’s a better country ruled by a more civilised government than this nasty outfit.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Aug 13, 2021 14:54:39 GMT 10
New Zealand would be 1. too cold, 2. too expensive, 3. And they are, no more wanted than here.
They are Sri Lankan and Sri Lanka is a beautiful country.
They are here for the perks, one of which is to send money home from their public paid benefit so their family back there can buy rice and other food and goods.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Aug 13, 2021 15:49:40 GMT 10
Not so sure about that! They're very popular in a Qld country town I could name which is located in the federal electorate of Flynn, held currently for the LNP by a certain Ken O'Dowd. He holds it comfortably because the Shorten factor gave him a 7% swing in 2019 but before then the seat was marginal. Remove the Shorten Factor and key in all the negatives regarding the Morrison Government, the on-the-ground campaigning that Albo has been doing up there and add to that the very real public feeling in support of the Biloela family and you might be surprised. No it won't change the seat on its own but it could swing votes in that country town. Scotty from Marketing, behind the Smirk & Mirrors facade, is aware of this. Whatever the outcome of the 2022 federal election it's not going to be a rerun of the 2019 show. Scotty from Marketing is in the fight of his political life. The Biloela family aren't the stop-the-boats distraction that they once were and in fact this whole issue could go from welcome distraction to the-monkey-on-our-back-we-don't-need. The Kiwis are better people than you. You're so addled and befuddled by your nativist xenophobic ranting that you've lost your moral compass.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Aug 13, 2021 15:53:33 GMT 10
Ever heard of paragraphs? Try using them...ta!~
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Aug 13, 2021 16:08:08 GMT 10
I've had 3 Asians married into my family. One Filopina, one Sumartran, Indonesian and wayyyy back one from Burma...
I know EVERYTHING about them plus I had Thai neighbours... Don't even bother trying to yank my chains about Asian culture and what they want from Australia... my own mother used to go to Bali 3 times a year. She used to send them thousands of dollars.
Too bad mister teacher you couldn't give two knobs of goat shit to the poor working man in Austrralia... You want to keep his wages down flooding the country with cheap labour. You go you!
|
|