Diary of our stinking Govt.

[boris1gary]

As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed.  The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.

This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.

and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598

Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says

The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.

Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).

But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.

"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.

[boris1gary]

not a law expert but I hope this happens,

Medicos should consider boycott of offshore detention centres: doctors

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/medicos-should-consider-boycott-of-offshore-de...

High court verdict spells the end for Australian immigration detention as we know it

Today’s landmark hearing clearly set out the constitutional limits on detaining non-citizens. The federal government will now have to release or process thousands of asylum seekers

In the unanimous decision handed down today, the court threw out the federal government’s strategy of granting temporary visas to asylum seekers through a legal loophole. Unable to get temporary protection visas through parliament, the federal government had been granting other temporary visas which blocked asylum seekers from applying for permanent visas, but today’s case ruled against that practice.

More importantly, and for the first time, the court clearly set out the constitutional limits on immigration detention. It was previously unclear for what purposes the government could detain non-citizens. The court has now clearly stated that the government can only lawfully detain someone in three circumstances: to consider whether or not to let someone apply for a visa; to consider an application for a visa; or to remove someone.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/high-court-verdict-spells-the-end-for-australia...

[cherry*135]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen ( being civil here).

Paints- the whole food labelling re country of origin needs overhauling, not just food that enters from NZ that may be produce of China.
I just bought frozen raspberries...packed in Australia from imported fruit. An Australian brand product.

Australia doesn't have country of origin labelling either. Lots Aust. owned brands of food products have imported fruit or mix of local and imported on the label.

New Zealand and Australia have the same food standards.

[cherry*135]

These products could contain ingredients from other countries. A product with a ‘Made in Australia’ label won’t necessarily contain Australian ingredients.

For example

If ‘Made in Australia’ appears on a jar of jam, this means the jam was made in Australia and at least half of the cost of making the jam was incurred in Australia.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the ingredients for the jam were grown or sourced in Australia.

Some companies use claims like ‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ on their products, however, this doesn’t tell you what proportion of the ingredients are local and what proportion are imported.

http://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/groceries/country-of-origin

[fourandsixpants]

This food labelling, contents, origin of contents etc is very serious. Our bodies recognise 'poisons' and chemicals when ingested and our immune sytem does not take long to go into OVERLOAD......especially when we are probably ingesting lots of chemicals on a daily basis through our foods.

How can consumers make informed decisions about which fresh and processed foods are best for us to eat if relevant information about origin and ALL contents is not on labels?

Who, when and where and how AND which?  regards TESTING of products?

This whole issue does need to be seriously sorted asap.

[tall_bearded01]

It actually helps the read the judgement in it’s entity, before making statement such as “I hope it happens”

Without going into too much detail, the judgement finds, or more correctly follows already established precedent and determines that  -

(1) That ALL persons arriving on our shores without a valid visa are illegal aliens

(2) That it is lawful to detain illegal aliens until they are either deported, or if they claim asylum, until their application has been determined. Most importantly, whilst in the application is being determined, they remain, for the purpose of the Act illegal aliens.

(3) That the minister must ensure that all applications for refugee status are processed in a reasonable time.

(4) If it is determined that the persons falls within Act as a person requiring protection, as Temporary Protection Visa’s were removed from the act, they must be issued with an open ended one.

So what does all of this mean in practical terms?

TSPs can once again be issued once the Act is amended to include them, and as Labor’s immigration policy in this area mirrors that of the LNP’s it will be interesting to see what happens from this point onwards.

Furthermore, the judgement does require that, once refugee status has been established, they are automatically entitled to resident status.  In fact all that is happens iis, they be released from detention and issued with a open ended “visa”, and like all visa it can be revoked, say for instance when situation in their country of origin improves so no longer require protection.  But all of this can be overcome if the Parliment amends teh Ac to reinclude TSPs.

More importantly there is no onus on the government to provide them any benefits. That their status is as an alien non-resident, who unless the Government choses otherwise,  is not entitled to any of the social benefits which residents and citizens are entitled to. No unemployment benefits, no Medicare, no child support, and no ability to lawfully seek and obtain employment. That is their status and circumstances would be the same as simular persons who seek asylum in Europe.

So again, what do you hope happens?

[tall_bearded01]

Should read

Furthermore, the judgement DOESN'T require that, once refugee status has been established, they are automatically entitled to resident status.  In fact all that happens is, they be released from detention and issued with a open ended “visa”, and like all visa it can be revoked, say for instance when situation in their country of origin improves so no longer require protection.  But all of this can be overcome if the Parliment amends teh Ac to reinclude TSPs.

[tall_bearded01]

Take

"The decision to grant both the seven-day visa and the THC visa was a single decision which cannot be severed and treated as if there had been two separate decisions.  Accordingly, the grant of the THC visa falls with the grant of the seven-day visa"

Now add

"Counsel for the plaintiff accepted that the consequence of these conclusions was that the plaintiff would revert to the status of an unlawful non‑citizen, liable to detention.  Regardless of whether the plaintiff is detained again, the decision whether to exercise power under s 46A(2) must be made as soon as reasonably practicable."

So what was achieved.

The three year visa was set aside, as was the original decision that he was in fact was a refugee, which meant his status reverted back to being an unlawful non-citizen liable to be detention until his application for refugee status was once again determined.

This is a win???

[boris1gary]

this

The landmark hearing clearly set out the constitutional limits on detaining non-citizens. The federal government will now have to release or process thousands of asylum seekers.

writer of the Guardian article I posted, a little more qualified to speak on the matter than anyone here. So again I repeat - I hope this happens.

The landmark hearing clearly set out the constitutional limits on detaining non-citizens. The federal government will now have to release or process thousands of asylum seekers.

Dr Joyce Chia is the Senior Research Associate at the Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW. She was awarded her PhD on comparative immigration and refugee law at University College London in 2009. She has previously worked as a Senior Policy Officer at the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, as a Research Fellow at Melbourne Law School, a Legal Officer at the Australian Law Reform Commission, and as a Research Associate at the Federal Court of Australia and the Victorian Court of Appeal

again from the Guardian article

Detention is only lawful if these purposes are being “pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable”, the court held. The length of detention must be assessed by what is “necessary and incidental” to execute and fulfil those purposes. These limits on detention are constitutional. In other words, parliament cannot override them by introducing new legislation.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/high-court-verdict-spells-the-end-for-australia...

[tall_bearded01]

No I didn’t read the article. No need to as the decision was provided.

“Detention is only lawful if these purposes are being “pursued and carried into effect as soon as reasonably practicable”, the court held. The length of detention must be assessed by what is “necessary and incidental” to execute and fulfil those purposes. These limits on detention are constitutional. In other words, parliament cannot override them by introducing new legislation”

So please show where my interpretation in any way conflicts with the above.

For instance did I not say “(3) that the minister must ensure that all applications for refugee status are processed in a reasonable time?”

Mus go will be back later this arvo i you want to continue teh debate

[karliandjacko]

In other words people have to be processed not left indefinitely in detention.