​By Elizabeth Byrne, Jordan Hayne

An Iranian man whose bid to stay in Australia was denied because authorities did not believe he had genuinely converted to Christianity has lost his High Court fight against the fast-track protection visa system.

A key piece of evidence used to make the decision was that the man's church attendance had dropped off in recent years.

However, the man may remain in Australia to appeal the decision on other grounds.

The man was challenging the fast-track visa process set up to clear the backlog of applicants, who arrived in Australia by boat between August 2012 and January 2014.

The man had arrived by boat, and argued he should not be sent back to Iran because he would be persecuted for converting to Christianity.

His case was reviewed by the Immigration Assessment Authority, which denied his application.

Key to the case was evidence from the man's church reverend, including a letter the man supplied confirming the fact he had attended the Melbourne church.

But in a follow-up phone call with the government delegate assessing the case, the reverend said the man had attended the church, but his attendance had dropped off significantly over the previous two years.

The reverend did note that the drop in attendance coincided with the man moving to another suburb.

The delegate later made the decision to deny the man a visa, on the grounds his conversion to Christianity was not genuine.

The man was never given details of the phone call, or given the chance to respond to them.

His lawyers from Victoria Legal Aid brought the case, arguing the man had been treated unfairly, because he was not given an opportunity to contest the information used to make the decision.

However, the High Court found the authority had exercised its discretion appropriately, and dismissed the man's appeal.

Chelsea Clark from Victoria Legal Aid's migration program said the fast-track review system remained an unfair process.

"The fast-track review system is a uniquely narrow method of government decision-making which is less fair, and less thorough, than the processes millions of Australians use each year to review government decisions that affect them," she said.

"In our client's case, the Court found that the delegate had not breached the legal obligations under s57 to provide our client with an opportunity to comment on adverse information."

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
amp.abc.net.au/article/9672292

​IMAGE: Michaela Banerji lost her job in 2013 after sending tweets critical of immigration policy.(ABC News)

A Canberra public servant sacked for expressing her views on asylum seeker policy, has won her case for compensation after the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia found she was unlawfully dismissed.

In September 2013, Michaela Banerji was fired from the Federal Department of Immigration after it was revealed she had been using the anonymous Twitter name @LaLegale to criticise the then-government, the minister and department policies — particularly over the handling of refugees.

In one tweet Ms Banerji wrote:

"Think of the deaths we are responsible for in Iraq! Think of the refugees we have created by our invasion of Iraq!"

In another she said:

"When a nation state permits eighty-six percent of detainees to suffer mental health problems, it #fails. Understanding #itsnotwelfare"

Ms Banerji lodged a claim for workers compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder she said arose from her termination.

She brought proceedings before the Federal Circuit Court, the Federal Court and the High Court over several years.

Ms Banerji said her termination was unreasonable because it breached a constitutional right to freedom of political communication.

In a decision handed down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) this week, the tribunal overturned a decision by the Commonwealth insurer to deny her workers compensation — though the tribunal did not specify the amount of compensation Ms Banerji should receive.
​
During the tribunal's deliberations, it referred to the Australian Public Service (APS) guidelines that state:


"APS employees have the same right to freedom of expression as other members of the community, subject to legitimate public interests, such as the maintenance of an impartial and effective public service in which the community can have confidence."

The Tribunal ultimately found "the termination trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication, was thus unlawful, and so cannot constitute reasonable administrative action".

It likened Commonwealth efforts to restrict anonymous comments from public servants as resembling George Orwell's "thoughtcrime".

The AATA also found Ms Banerji had been careful to avoid tweeting in work hours.

​FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
amp.abc.net.au/article/9671516

​By political reporter Jane Norman

IMAGE: The report found skilled migrants increase Australia's GDP and GDP per person.(Reuters: David Gray)

C​utting Australia's migration rate would cost the budget billions of dollars, lower living standards and reduce jobs growth, according to a report delivered to the Federal Government.

​The paper, prepared by the departments of Treasury and Home Affairs, found the 2014/15 intake alone would contribute nearly $10 billion to the budget over the next 50 years.

"Migrants deliver an economic dividend for Australia due to current policy settings which favour migrants of working age who have skills to contribute to the economy," the report states.

"This, in turn, increases Australia's GDP and GDP per person, with positive flow-on effects for living standards."

The release of the report coincides with a heated debate within the Coalition about Australia's immigration rate and increasing community concerns about how quickly the country is growing.

Australia accepts up to 190,000 permanent migrants each year — most of them skilled — but former prime minister Tony Abbott wants that number halved to help lower the cost of living and reduce pressure on infrastructure.

The report acknowledges a bigger population brings challenges, including more congestion and demand for housing, and warns infrastructure investment must keep up with the growth.
​
But it also warned a reduction in immigration would shrink Australia's workforce.
In turn, that would have far-reaching consequences for the economy, including "significantly lower[ing] GDP and GDP per person than would otherwise be the case".

"Migration has been critical to growth in the Australian workforce in recent years," it states.

According to the report, recent migrants account for 65 per cent of the new jobs that have been created in the past five years, which is significant given that Mr Abbott made a pledge in 2013 to create a million jobs in that time-frame.
​
Australia is on track to meet that million jobs target, but the report makes it clear that it is mainly because of high immigration.

Report debunks myth that migrants 'steal' Australian jobs​

The report also counters claims that migrants are a drag on the welfare system, revealing migrants are likely to pay more in tax than they claim in social services.

And it found the existing labour market had been neither "helped nor harmed" by migration, debunking the myth that migrants "steal" Australians' jobs.

"[Migrants] offset Australia's ageing population, improve labour force participation and productivity, and help businesses to source skills that are difficult to develop at short notice," it states.

​Skilled migrants granted visas in 2014/15 are expected to make a net lifetime contribution of nearly $7 billion to the budget, while those on 457 visas are expected to contribute close to $4 billion.

The only migrants expected to cost the budget over their lifetime are those granted refugee or humanitarian visas.

While making the case for a big Australia, the report also carries a warning that governments need to spend more money maintaining existing infrastructure to keep up with the pace of growth.
​
"These pressures should not only be addressed by new infrastructure. They should also include better use of existing infrastructure," the report states.

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW
amp.abc.net.au/article/9666232

Right and left-wing groups have faced off outside Foreign Minister Julie Bishop's office during a protest over the treatment of white farmers in South Africa.

Members of the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) and other groups delivered a petition calling on the Federal Government to create a special refugee visa category for the farmers.
​
Both sides taunted each other from across the street, with the left-wingers holding signs saying "fight racism" while the right-wingers carried banners saying "let the right ones in".

The right-wing protesters want a special refugee visa category created for the farmers.(ABC News: Hugh Sando)

The petition calls for 80 per cent of humanitarian visas to be given to white farmers.

As the ALA supporters crossed the street to deliver the petition, they had to walk through the left-wing groups.

​The shouting increased and there was some pushing and shoving, forcing the police to intervene and keep the rival groups apart.

However, no-one was arrested.

ALA activist Avi Yemini said the Government should create a quota for South Africans within the humanitarian visa intake for next financial year.

"We want a commitment … just like we did for the Syrians last year," he said.
​
"The only reason anybody [from the Government] can give that they're not doing that is because they're white and they're Christian."

​Supporters of white farmers in South Africa say they are facing a dire situation.(ABC News: Hugh Sando)

​ALA president Debbie Robinson said South Africans did not have time to wait for visas.
​
"The situation in South Africa right now is dire," she said.

"There are people being slaughtered, women and children [are] being raped.
​
"[Visas], they take time and there is no time for these people, they are going to disappear if we don't do something soon."

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
amp.abc.net.au/article/9653624

A men's squash pairing from Sierra Leone have become the latest African athletes to miss their event at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games.

Hours after Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton warned athletes who breached their visa conditions they'd be tracked down, locked up and deported, Sierra Leone's Ernest Jombla and Yusif Mansaray did not appear for their men's doubles match on Thursday morning.
​
Jombla and Mansaray's disappearance meant India's Ramit Tandon and Vikram Malhotra were handed a walkover in the Pool F clash.

​Games officials have confirmed a Rwandan athlete, two Ugandans and potentially one Ghanaian are also missing in action.

The news comes after Cameroon revealed on Wednesday eight of its 42-strong Games team are missing, including two boxers who failed to appear for their events.
​
Mr Dutton said most Games athletes were on visas that remained valid until mid-May, but he was concerned by two instances in which athletes missed their events at the Games "when that was the reason they were here". He said they were "taking the mickey".

"The compliance officers will be out there, I promise, tracking these people down and they'll be deported as quickly as possible," he told Macquarie Radio on Thursday.

"If they don't want to be held in detention or locked up at the local watch house, they'd better jump on a plane before the 15th and comply with their visas conditions."

Mr Dutton said if any of the missing athletes claimed protection status, Border Force would test each case.
"These people and others that might have a similar objective need to hear this message very clearly - they aren't going to game the system," he said.

Commonwealth Games boss Peter Beattie said while the athletes' visas allow them to spend time enjoying Australia, they should return to their home country as scheduled.

"We encourage people to get a visa, come here and compete, stay a little while after, spend some money in this country and then go home, and that's our position," Mr Beattie told ABC Radio.

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
www.sbs.com.au/news/dutton-warns-games-athletes-as-more-flee

By Mosiqi Acharya

29-year-old Bhumika Aneja is determined to take her former employer to court if her unpaid wages are not paid back in full.

Ms Aneja arrived in Melbourne on a spouse visa in March 2014.

After looking for work for three months, she finally got a job at an Indian grocery store in Melbourne's south-east.

"I was looking for work and had no experience. When I got work at this local Indian grocery store, I felt I will learn customer interaction skills so I took it up," Ms Aneja told SBS Hindi.

The full-time job paid $16.50 an hour but she wasn't receiving any payslips. Ms Aneja said she raised the issue of underpayment and the missing payslips with her employer throughout the duration of her employment before finally quitting in February 2017. Two and a half years after she began working at the grocery store. 

Ms Aneja, who was responsible for handling the store's cash, further claimed the employer would often deduct money from her salary whenever there was a till shortage. 

"It is illegal to do that," she said. 

"I had no payslips and was underpaid. I wasn't paid my superannuation either. I was told point-blank that they did not give any annual leave or sick leave. I quit my job and complained to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) for underpayment and Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for my unpaid superannuation." 
​

With help from her husband, she went to the Australian authorities.

After receiving assistance from FWO and ATO, Ms Aneja's former employer gave her what she was owed: $42,000 in unpaid wages and $10,000 in superannuation.

But her fight isn't over yet. 

"He still needs to pay $10,000 in unpaid wages which he hasn't. I am determined to take him to court if he doesn't".
According to Ms Aneja, she isn't the only migrant who has been taken advantage of in Australia, and urged recent-arrivals to know their working rights and not be afraid to take on employers. 

"Many of my ex-colleagues at the same store are underpaid but they are afraid to speak up as they feel their visa status will be affected," she said.

The Fair Work Ombudsman provides free advice and assistance to all workers to help them understand their rights. Migrant workers and visa holders, including international students, have the same workplace rights as Australian-born workers.
​
Learn more about working rights in Australia, here.

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW:
www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/hindi/en/article/2018/04/09/underpaid-migrant-receives-42000-dues-after-dragging-employer-fair-work-ombudsman

By Michael Pascoe
6 April 2018 — 12:15am

As the populist drums beat louder for cutting Australian immigration, the numbers used to attack the program get ropier, ranging from questionable statistical concepts and oversights to the simply inane.
​

In the former category, we’re arguably overstating annual net overseas migration (NOM) by about 20 per cent.
In the latter, there’s Dick Smith’s “Do any of us really want to live in a city of eight million people?” question. Self-evidently, eight million people would, just as five million want to live in Sydney now, 14 million want to live in London and 20 million want to live in New York.

Migration is being blamed for everything from housing prices in Sydney and Melbourne to congestion.
Photo: Nick Moir

While Dick would like to set Sydney in aspic, keep it as the sleepier town of his younger days, most of us have moved on with the busier, buzzier 21st century city. Or you can move to Adelaide.
​
As the chorus blaming immigration for all society’s ills grows, numbers are selectively recruited to suit the cause, while a little perspective and the benefits we’ve gained from strong immigration are ignored.

​A quick example is the constant repetition of the “record high immigration” phrase. Yes, in absolute numbers the annual 190,000 permanent visas plus humanitarian cases is the highest we’ve done, as was the 250,100 NOM for the year to the end of September, but in percentage terms – a better guide to the perceived impact of migration on the ground – we’re nowhere near it.

​Our 250,100 NOM (the extras on top of permanent and humanitarian visas mainly being international students on temporary visas followed by 457 temporary workers) was for a country of 24.7 million – 1 per cent. In 1950, a little Australia of 8.2 million had NOM of 153,685 – 1.9 per cent. That 1950 NOM would have included precious few temporary migrants. The rate of permanent migration was double what it is now.

More recently, to consider the total population growth that so concerns critics, Australia’s resident population increase averaged 1.6 per cent per annum over the five years to 2016, higher than the 1.4 per cent we averaged over the 20 years to 2016, but lower than the 1.8 per cent over the preceding five years. We managed 1.6 per cent again last year – so on an 11-year view, our population growth rate has slowed.

What’s more, it’s arguable that NOM is overstated by about 20 per cent.

A migrant getting off the plane here adds one to our NOM total. If he or she eventually decides to get back on a plane, perhaps deciding to retire to a Greek island, it’s a subtraction from NOM. But if that migrant “leaves” Australia by dying here, the Australian Bureau of Statistics counts the death as a subtraction from our “natural” population increase.

In 2016, the most recent period with detailed information on deaths, 50,664 foreign-born people died in Australia. Only 339 of them were normally resident overseas, so an extra 50,325 migrants left Australia than are counted in NOM. Delete migrants leaving in pine boxes from the “natural” figure and include them in NOM, hey presto, NOM and natural are roughly level pegging, instead of the 63 per cent to 37 per cent split that contributes an exaggerated optic to the anti-migration picture.

Facts versus perceptions

That’s a big picture argument about perceptions. There’s much more to debate about in various migration details.
For example, Bob Birrell, a constant critic of our immigration program through his Australian Population Research Institute, has had another crack at the skilled migration program which accounts for 130,000 of our annual 190,000 non-humanitarian permanent visas. Birrell claims the program is not needed, employers would barely notice if it was scrapped, that it includes skills that are not in short supply and that most non-English-speaking professionals end up not working as professionals.

There are problems with the list of skills in the program, but his core attack using census data on non-English-speaking professionals has been sunk by a former Immigration Department deputy secretary, Abul Rizvi.

“As Birrell would know better than anyone, high-level census data is a poor tool for making conclusions regarding the effectiveness of skilled migration visa categories,” writes Rizvi. “Migrants who put ‘skilled’ in response to a census question may have entered Australia under a range circumstances, including via the humanitarian program, the family stream; or as secondary applicants in the skill stream (eg the spouse of a primary skilled migrant)…

“It is surprising Birrell makes no reference in his report to the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants (CSAM), which does survey primary migrants in the skill stream. The 2015 CSAM Reportsays ‘at the six-month stage of settlement, almost nine in ten skilled migrants (ie primary migrants in the skill stream) were employed. More than three quarters were working in full-time jobs and more than six in ten were in highly skilled employment. On the basis of these measures, skilled migrants significantly outperformed Australia’s general population. Skilled migrants also had higher earnings on average than the Australian population, but unemployment was slightly worse than the national average.’ It should be noted these are outcomes only six months after arrival.”

The Indian-engineer-turned-taxi-driver mythSuch is the growing popularity of knocking migration though, Birrell’s contribution to perpetuating the Indian-engineer-taxi-driver image gets noticed and Rizvi’s demolition doesn’t.
​
And that’s only one example. Australian National University demographer Dr Liz Allen has taken aim at Tony Walker’s endorsement on these pages of Tony Abbott’s call to nearly halve our migration program, tweeting that public disquiet about population pressures was being fuelled by such articles that were “false on facts, blaming population rather than politicians” for infrastructure problems.

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLIKC THE LINK BELOW;
www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/populist-drum-beats-wrong-numbers-drive-our-migration-debate-20180404-p4z7qk.html

A SYDNEY mum says her one-year-old baby will be “torn apart” from his Australian family in less than two months’ time unless she is able to raise $75,000 to prevent being deported to the Czech Republic.
​
Alenka S, who asked not to use her full surname, said she had exhausted all of her options to stay in the country with her son Oliver after a work visa sponsorship fell through, with the “last resort” being a costly parent visa.

She now has around 40 days before her current student visa expires and she is forced to return home, separating Oliver from his father, grandparents and great-grandparents.

“Our family is desperate,” said the 37-year-old, who has been in the country for the five years and currently works as a pilates teacher and fitness trainer.

“If I have to leave most likely I will have to take Oliver with me. This could traumatise him for the rest of his life. Our family will be torn apart, we won’t know when we are going to see each other again. Oliver will lose a parent and potentially a whole family.”

According to a breakdown of costs from Alenka’s immigration lawyer, she would need to apply for first a temporary parent visa and then a permanent parent visa for a total of $51,420 — not including legal fees.

Because Alenka has separated from Oliver’s father, she is unable to apply for the much cheaper partner visa, which costs around $7000.

But as the process can take up to three years, she would need to re-apply for another student visa in the meantime. If that is rejected, she would then have to go the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to seek to have the decision overturned, at a cost of $10,291, including $8000 in legal fees.

The total cost for the entire process is estimated at $74,711, including $16,000 in legal fees, according to a YouCaring fundraising page set up by one of Alenka’s friends.
​
​“When I contacted my [immigration] agent, he said you can’t apply for another student visa because you’ve been in Australia for quite a long time and they’ve made the rules really strict, and because you have a child most likely they wouldn’t agree to extend for another one-and-a-half years,” she said.

Having a child who is an Australian citizen “unfortunately doesn’t give me the right to stay”, she added. “I respect that, because otherwise there would probably be lots of people coming in and having a baby here,” she said.

“I respect the law in Australia, I’m not trying to say it’s too hard or there should be a change or anything, we just unfortunately don’t have that big amount of money which is required. We are all average working people.”

Alenka said Oliver’s Australian family was “counting down the days” until separation. “They all love him, but if we have to leave it would be really difficult for us to see them,” she said.

“I would have to return back to my country and start a new life there. He’s only one year old so travelling for him would be really difficult. His father is working hard so for him it’s also difficult, it’s so far away.”

Alenka said if she ended up raising more money than necessary, she would donate it to an “organisation that helps other Aussie kids in a similar situation”. “I really like people in Australia, I met lots of great friends here and people who are willing to help, they are very nice. I like to be part of the community,” she said.

Immigration lawyer Erskine Rodan OAM, chairman of the Law Council of Australia’s Migration Law Committee, said the costs seemed about right. “The father doesn’t want to lodge an application for a partner visa, [so] there’s no immediate visa available to her,” he said, describing Alenka’s situation as unusual.

“In the olden days before 1989 you had a visa that would let someone stay on compassionate grounds. There is no actual visa for this situation, that’s why it’s such a spiderweb.

“There is a parent visa for younger people but you have to be overseas when you apply, [there is another for which] you can be here [when you apply] but you have to have some other visa allowing you to stay here.”

Mr Rodan said the large processing fees were brought in 15 years ago under then Attorney-General Philip Ruddock as a way of ensuring contributed to their Medicare costs. “The government gets about $3 billion a year from application fees,” he said. “That’ll go up.”

FOR FULL STORY PLEASE CLICK THE LINK BELOW: 
www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/sydney-mum-facing-deportation-with-her-baby-unless-she-can-raise-75000-for-two-visas-and-a-court-case/news-story/e99f3f391191142da127f68c88435360