About those rules for joining the Liberal-Nationals' cosy little citizenship club.......

Currently the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is before the Australian Parliament.

This bill raises the bar on applications for citizenship and increases the power of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, over the citizenship process - including granting him the power to override Administrative Appeals Tribunal decisions on citizenship applications.

One of the components of this bill is the introduction of an English language test, which means that with few exceptions applicants between 16 and 60 years of age will need to demonstrate competent English language listening, speaking, reading and writing skills before being able to sit the citizenship test.

Applicants will be required to undertake a separate upfront English language test with an accredited provider and achieve a minimum level of ‘competent’.

According to the Immigration Minister the minimum level of competency is the IELTS General Training language test at  “Level 6 of the General stream focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts".

This particular test has three components – listening, reading and writing - and takes the better part of three hours to complete.

An example of the type of questions contained in the General Training reading test can be found here.

There is a strong likelihood that between est. 7-16 million Australians (including those born in Australia of Australian parents) would fail this test if they were required to take it today.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) recorded the results of direct measurement of three critical information-processing skills: literacy; numeracy; and problem solving in technology-rich environments and the 16.3 million people whose skills were measured included those not in the workforce, those in employment and those without a job.

In 2016 ABS recorded:

Approximately 7 million (46%) Australians aged 15 to 74 years had scores at Level 1 or 2 on the prose scale, a further 5.6 million (37%) at Level 3 and 2.5 million (16%) at Level 4/5. Results for document literacy were similar to prose. There were 7 million (47%) Australians at Level 1 or 2 on the document scale, 5.4 million (36%) at Level 3 and 2.7 million (18%) at Level 4/5.

By 2011-12 ABS was stating:

Around 3.7% (620,000) of Australians aged 15 to 74 years had literacy skills at Below Level 1, a further 10% (1.7 million) at Level 1, 30% (5.0 million) at Level 2, 38% (6.3 million) at Level 3, 14% (2.4 million) at Level 4, and 1.2% (200,000) at Level 5.

In the 2011-12 round of testing 43% of participants born in Australia and 51% of participants born outside of Australia had English literacy levels below Level 3.

The chances of the majority of these people, regardless of whether they are citizens or residents with visas, being able to pass Peter Dutton’s new English language test is slim to say the least.

According to Catherine Elder, a world-leading expert at Melbourne University and president of the International Language Testing Association; "A level six on both tests requires you to be highly literate and to be able to do things like write an essay. It would take a great deal of time and be beyond the reach of many people who come to Australia."

The fact of the matter is that in 2011-12 it was people who had attained a higher education qualification (Bachelor degree and above) who were more likely than others to have achieved a score at Level 3 or above in literacy and numeracy, and Level 2 or above in problem solving in technology-rich environments.

So according to the new citizenship rules being supported by millionaire parliamentarians Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Peter Craig Dutton, it would appear that only those that managed to acquire a decent education need apply to join the Liberal-Nationals’ cosy little citizenship club.¹

  

Footnote:

1. In 1788 when the forbears of many individuals and families - which are both grand and humble members of  Australian society of today - first stumbled off those early British convict ships onto shore the vast majority of them would have been illiterate. On the basis of poor literacy levels and criminal records Malcolm Bligh Turnbull's many convict forbears wouldn't be allowed to become permanent residents much less citizens today under the new rules.

When Labor senators play petty politics and women literally pay the price

On 19 June 2017 The Greens Senator Larissa Waters moved an amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017.

This amendment sought to remove the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from sanitary products used by the vast majority of Australian women and girls during their reproductive years.

The Australian Parliament Senate Hansard recorded the fate of this proposed amendment of 19 June 2017 at Page 17:

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Leyonhjelm): The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8153 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:52): I move amendment (1) on sheet 8156:

(1) Page 27 (after line 16), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2—Exemptions

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 1 At the end of Subdivision 38-B

Add:

38-65 Sanitary products

A supply of *sanitary products is GST-free.

2 Section 195-1

Insert: sanitary products means tampons, sanitary pads, panty liners and similar items.

3 Application

The amendments made to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 by this Schedule apply in relation to supplies made on or after 1 July 2017

…………..

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8156 as moved by Senator Waters be agreed to. The committee divided. [12:07] (The Chair—Senator Lines)

Ayes ......................15

Noes ......................33

Majority...................18

AYES

Di Natale, R

Gichuhi, LM

Griff, S

Hanson-Young, SC

Hinch, D

Kakoschke-Moore, S

Leyonhjelm, DE

Ludlam, S

McKim, NJ

Rhiannon, L

Rice, J

Siewert, R (teller)

Waters, LJ

Whish-Wilson, PS

Xenophon, N

NOES

Bernardi, C

Burston, B

Bushby, DC

Chisholm, A

Cormann, M

Dodson, P

Duniam, J

Farrell, D

Fawcett, DJ

Fierravanti-Wells, C

Gallagher, KR

Georgiou, P

Hanson, P

Hume, J

Ketter, CR

Kitching, K

Lines, S

McAllister, J (teller)

McCarthy, M

McGrath, J

McKenzie, B

Moore, CM

Nash, F

Payne, MA

Pratt, LC

Reynolds, L

Roberts, M

Ryan, SM

Sinodinos, A

Smith, D

Sterle, G

Watt, M

Williams, JR

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Noticeably absent for this particular vote were all 26 Labor senators.

The House of Representatives passed the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 (with the four other Senate amendments agreed to) on 21 June 2017.

Females of all ages who still have their menses will continue to pay GST on the sanitary items necessary for their general health and wellbeing.

I'll remember to 'thank' those missing Labor senators at the ballot box, along with those senators who voted Senator Waters' amendment down.

In my case that means not voting for NSW senators Sam Dastyari, Jenny McAllistar, Deborah O'Neill and Doug Cameron (all Labor), along with Brian Burston (One Nation), Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Fiona Nash, Marise Payne  and Arthur Sinodinos (Liberal) & John Williams (Nationals).

Airbrushing the ugly underbelly of special religious education classes in state public schools

Government reports that review policies which interface education, religion and political ideology can be slippery creatures......

The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 September 2016:

The findings and recommendations of a controversial $300,000 review of special religious education and ethics classes in schools has been kept under wraps by the NSW government for up to nine months.

The review was a recommendation of a 2012 upper house inquiry into ethics classes in NSW schools, which found they should be retained as an option for students who do not want to take part in special religious education.

The inquiry recommended the Department of Education publish the number of students taking part in ethics (SEE) and special religious education (SRE) classes, or neither, and that both types of class be reviewed in 2014-15.

The review, by ARTD Consultants, cost $295,988. Submissions closed on July 31 last year and the review was due for delivery to the NSW government shortly after the contract period ended on December 31…..

A spokesman for Mr Piccoli confirmed the cost of the review.

But he would not say when the report was handed to the government, whether a draft was first provided to the minister, when it would be released or when the government would respond…

A new enrolment form was later introduced that removed a clear choice between ethics and scripture by omitting a box that could be ticked by parents who wanted to enrol their children in ethics classes.

It came after documents obtained under freedom of information laws revealed religious groups blamed the introduction of ethics classes for falling participation in special religious education classes for the 2015 school year.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 June 2017:

The NSW government's review of scripture in public schools deleted a section of a 2015 draft report showing children were exposed to lessons on the conservative Christian concept of "headship" – where women "submit" to their husbands – and negative messages on homosexuality.

When the Department of Education released a final report in April, after a 17-month delay, sections of the draft report that validated scripture opponents' concerns about the growing and unacknowledged influence of evangelical Christian groups in state schools were deleted or paraphrased.

The deleted sections included a primary school principal's difficulty obtaining evidence of working with children clearances from a special religious education (SRE) or scripture provider, and examples of children exposed to messages on gender and homosexuality that breached department guidelines…..

The draft ARTD Consultants report found an unidentified major Christian publisher's lesson material taught "the concept of 'headship' and that women should submit to their husbands, abstinence only sex education, negative LGBTI messages and that sexual intimacy is only acceptable to God between a married man and woman".

The Department of Education deleted the sentence and replaced it with the words: "The text also contained messages about sex education, which is not appropriate or the role of SRE"…..

The department deleted a section of the draft stating the conservative Sydney Anglican Diocese-backed Generate Ministries "has become a very influential player" in the delivery of secondary school SRE. The organisation was founded by Sydney Anglican Youthworks, Presbyterian Youth NSW, NSW Baptist Churches and Scripture Union NSW.

The department also deleted that "parents (and schools) appear to be largely unaware of the links their high school SRE teacher might have with Generate Ministries", and that the "influence" of third party groups "such as Generate Ministries on the delivery of SRE is currently unacknowledged".

It replaced the section with a sentence noting that the roles of boards, committees and "third party groups doing their human resource functions may not always be known or clear to parents", and without identifying Generate Ministries. 

Generate Ministries is governed by its founding partners, has at least 110 SRE "boards" and received $4 million in government funds in 2016 to provide chaplains in more than 200 NSW schools. Its website values include seeking to "be dependent on God" and "model courageous, entrepreneurial, servant-hearted leadership". 

The final ARTD Consultants report released in April noted some NSW school principals reported feeling "undue pressure" from a scripture provider, but the Department of Education deleted the draft report's naming of it as an Anglican provider…..

The final report retained a section of the draft showing a large Christian publisher's workbook in 2015 contained material that was "age-inappropriate and insensitive to children's welfare", with "negative passages" including that "cancer is a consequence of our sin and a gift from God" and that "we should die for our faith if necessary".

The ARTD report found the level of complaints about SRE was low but they were most often about lesson content. Parents were less satisfied than principals and scripture providers that complaints were handled appropriately.

BACKGROUND

NSW Dept. of Education, website as of 19 June 2017:

Review of Special Religious Education and Special Education in Ethics in NSW government schools

The 2015 Review of Special Religious Education (SRE) and Special Education in Ethics (SEE) in NSW Government Schools was conducted by ARTD Consultants.

The report makes 56 recommendations. 22 of the recommendations will be considered in consultation with the NSW Consultative Committee for SRE and NSW Consultative Committee for SEE. The department has responded to the remaining 34 recommendations. These are provided as separate documents.

Full report (PDF 2.96MB) [airbrushed report, dated 23 March 2016]*

NSW Department of Education's response to recommendations (PDF 79.4KB)

Recommendations to be considered in consultation with the Consultative Committees (PDF 57.5KB)

* My annotation

Legal profession sets out core principles and commitments on human rights as international spotlight shines on Australia

Medianet Release
16 Jun 2017 10:55 AM AEST - Legal profession sets out core principles and commitments on human rights, as international spotlight shines on nation The Law Council today launched its Policy Statement on Human Rights and the Legal Profession, laying out core principles and commitments of behalf of the Australian legal profession. The Policy Statement sets out a framework for evaluating the merits of legislation, policy, and practice by reference to international human rights law. The Statement includes a commitment to advocate for a federal charter or bill of rights, as well as for more State and Territory charters of rights to join those of Victoria and the ACT. It also commits the Law Council to promote respect for human rights by Australian corporations and other incorporated and non-incorporated entities, including through implementation of the UN's Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The Law Council of Australia's President, Fiona McLeod SC, said with Australia bidding for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council this year the policy was particularly timely. "Australia has a proud history in the human rights sphere. We played a prominent role in drafting the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and have since been an active participant in the development of an international system for the protection and promotion of human rights," Ms McLeod said. "The Law Council endorses a central and constructive role for Australia in the international human rights system. This year, as Australia seeks a seat on the UN Human Rights Council, it is important to assert and articulate the legal profession's principles and commitments on human rights. "The Law Council supports an approach, consistent with international law and practice, which confirms that all human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent and interrelated. "We believe this makes it vital to consider legislation and government action through a human rights lens. The principles in this framework guide myriad aspects of the Law Council's work in the policy space – from asylum seekers to marriage equality to metadata," Ms McLeod said. The Policy Statement on Human Rights and the Legal Profession was prepared by the Law Council's National Human Rights Committee and approved by its Directors. The Statement is available at https://lawcouncil.asn.au/ Patrick Pantano: Public Affairs / P 02 6246 3715 / Patrick.Pantano@lawcouncil.asn.au  Anil Lambert: Media / P 0416 426 722 / anil@hortonadvisory.com.au Distributed by AAP Medianet JN#:880833
Contact Us	© Australian Associated Press, 2017

A wolf in sheep's clothing in the human rights fold?

“We resource strategic legal cases that are related, either directly or indirectly, to the protection and advancement of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. This includes cases relating to other rights and freedoms such as speech and association……The Human Rights Law Alliance is able to provide fully funded legal advocacy with respect to a limited number of highly strategic cases that have significant implications for fundamental freedoms. The purpose of our grant funding program is to ensure that no strategic case is under resourced on account of the victim’s inability to pay.” [Human Rights Law Alliance (HRLA), 10 September 2016]

Sounds legitimate, doesn’t it?

Well, this little group was established by the Australian Christian Lobby* as a “new initiative” and its interest in human rights appears to be restricted to defending the rights of ‘aggressively’ Christian individuals, those who are against abortion, anti-gay rights & same sex marriage and apparently would support a weakening of provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

In addition to aiding Christian individuals this group makes submissions to government.

What the HRLA states on its website in 2017 is that:

“We arrange good lawyers and funding for cases where people are in trouble with the law for living out their faith. By providing this practical help, we also set freedom-protecting legal precedents……The Human Rights Law Alliance produces resources for faith-based organisations to better protect their freedom.”

The HRLA is also of a mind that the Australian Human Rights Commission should be altered:

Martyn Iles, director of the Human Rights Law Alliance, who does not personally know Professor Croucher, said she would likely be less outspoken and controversial than Professor Triggs but believed she would not reform the AHRC “in the way it needs to be changed”.

In a show of hypocrisy this pressure group also stated:

Martyn Iles, who is director of the Human Rights Law Alliance, said the commission’s next president should be someone who was committed to the traditional Western concept in which the role of rights was to enable individuals to live free from tyranny. “We need someone who has not imbibed this new idea of rights as a power struggle,” Mr Iles said.

Being just twelve months old the AHRLA has few notches on its belt, but in the fetid far-right atmosphere of parliamentary corridors of power I don’t doubt it is getting a hearing.

This bears watching.

* Human Rights Law Alliance has been a registered business name since 25 May 2016. The managing director of the Human Rights Law Alliance since its inception is Martin Iles, former Chief of Staff at the Australian Christian Lobby. Donations made to this group are not tax deductable and “Because HRLA participates in some political activities, donations of over $13,000 may be subject to disclosure under Commonwealth laws.”

Trump still unwilling to let his 'Muslim Travel Ban' go

According to Lawfare on 13 June 2017 :

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed in part a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's revised travel ban issued by a federal district court in Hawaii v. Trump. The decision comes on the heels of the Fourth Circuit’s decision in IRAP v. Trump, which we summarized for Lawfare here. The government has appealed that decision to the Supreme Court…..

The court rests its holding on statutory limits to the President’s immigration powers. Although the court recognizes the President’s broad powers to control an alien’s entry to the country and to protect the nation, the court concludes that Trump exceeded the authority given him by Congress when he suspended the entry of 180 million nationals from six countries, suspended the entry of all refugees, and reduced the admission cap of refugees from 110,000 to 50,000 because he did not make a sufficient finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The court also finds that the executive order is also incongruent with other INA provisions, including anti-discrimination provisions, and upheld the preliminary enjoining of most of Sections 2 and 6 of the order.

Donald Trump then issued this presidential memorandum while he awaits the response of the US Supreme Court.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

June 14, 2017

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE                                        THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                                       THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
                                       THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

SUBJECT:         Effective Date in Executive Order 13780

This memorandum provides guidance for the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence in light of two preliminary injunctions that bar enforcement of certain provisions of Executive Order 13780, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" (Mar. 6, 2017).  The preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, and affirmed in substantial part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, bars enforcement of section 2(c) of the Executive Order.  The portions of the preliminary injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii that were affirmed by the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bar enforcement of certain provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order.

Various provisions of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order (as well as sections 3 and 12(c), which delineate the scope of the suspension contained in section 2(c)), refer to the Order's effective date.  Section 14 of the Executive Order provides that the Order was effective at 12:01 a.m., eastern daylight time on March 16, 2017.  Sections 2 and 6, however, were enjoined before that effective date, and the courts of appeals have affirmed the injunctions with respect to certain provisions of sections 2 and 6.  As a result, under the terms of the Executive Order, the effective date of the enjoined provisions (as well as related provisions of sections 3 and 12(c)) is delayed or tolled until those injunctions are lifted or stayed.

In light of questions in litigation about the effective date of the enjoined provisions and in the interest of clarity, I hereby declare the effective date of each enjoined provision to be the date and time at which the referenced injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision.  To the extent it is necessary, this memorandum should be construed to amend the Executive Order.

Because the injunctions have delayed the effective date of section 12(c), no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the effective date of section 2(c) shall be revoked pursuant to the Executive Order.

I hereby direct the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly begin implementation of each relevant provision of sections 2 and 6 of the Executive Order 72 hours after all applicable injunctions are lifted or stayed with respect to that provision, to ensure an orderly and proper implementation of those provisions.  Prior to that time, consular officers may issue valid visas to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security may admit, otherwise eligible aliens without regard to sections 2 and 6.  If not otherwise revoked, visas and other travel documents issued during this period remain valid for travel as if they were issued prior to the effective date.

DONALD J. TRUMP

Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?

THE PROPHETIC QUESTION IS POSED

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 July 2016:

Should Derryn Hinch really be a senator?......

One of the outcomes of Saturday's federal election is that Victorians now have as one of their 12 representatives in the Senate a man who has over the past 30 years been to jail twice and fined $100,000 for breaching court orders, and who has been roundly criticised by the High Court for undermining the right of an accused person to a fair trial. We are talking about broadcaster Derryn Hinch.

While Hinch is not disqualified under the constitution from being a candidate for the Senate because he is not serving or waiting to serve a sentence for an offence under Commonwealth or state law punishable by a prison sentence of 12 months or more, the broader question is whether a person with Hinch's record is fit to hold the office of a legislator whose role is to ensure that laws are enforceable and that the rule of law is upheld?

THE ANSWER IS IN THE SENATOR'S FAILURE TO SUPPORT THE RULE OF LAW

The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 June 2017:

it was Senator Hinch - twice jailed for contempt - who declared "the system is rotten".

"The three ministers were well within their rights to do what they did," he told Fairfax Media. "If I was the minister I would have told them to go jump. Courts are not inviolate."…

"I watched the performance yesterday and those guys up there in their black robes, it was like something out of Kafka," he said. "If that's contempt of court, I couldn't give a shit."

What was started by three Turnbull Government ministers allegedly working in unison to attack the judiciary now threatens to widen into something that may not be able to be easily contained.