A lower birth rate and an ageing population means a diminishing tax base. How then is Australia going to support itself in the next few decades, if this continues?

The number of people aged between 15 and 64 for every older person has fallen from 7.3 in 1974-1975 to an estimated 4.5 this year. By 2054-55 that number is likely to be 2.7, according to Treasury statistics.

These figures presumably take into account current migration planning levels which have been set at 190,000 per year. But by the way things are going, it doesn’t look like it is enough.

Late last year, the ABS released statistics showing that the total birth-rate, or fertility rate, was 1.8 babies per woman. This rate is well below the replacement level of 2.1. Last year’s rate was lower than the 1.88 in 2013, and charts a downward trend evident for the past five years.

Altogether, 299,700 births were registered in Australia in 2014, down from 308,100 in 2013. For the first time the ABS mapped birth rates and found families in city centres have a much lower birth rates than outer suburbs, where the rate exceeds two children.

The refugee crises and what it means for the LGBTQI Asylum Seekers

In the times we live in, there are more people forcibly displaced by situations beyond their control. War, poverty, and climate change have caused more migrations than both World War I and World War II combined and in 2015, around 60 million people were forced to become refugees.

Many people among these refugees belong to the LGBTQI class (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer or Intersex), and Australia’s immigration policies directly create the conditions which increase the trouble these people have to go through during their migration. These conditions increase the harassment, exclusion, humiliation and violence against refugees who belong to the LGBTQI group.

It has to be kept in mind that these people are already coming from places where they have faced rejection and hurt by the general attitude against the LQBTQI community and have come to foreign lands to escape war, terrorism, and trauma.

One of our colleagues has been in contact with everyone he can concerning what appears to be the provision of immigration assistance by unauthorised persons. even if the owners of the business were using RMAs then the advert is non compliance.  Here is the complaint:

Please note attached immigration integrity complaint thus far sent to:

1. Minister for Immigration and Border Protection – 3 times
2. PM – once and thank you for the response, the only one I received
3. DIBP – allegations area 3 times
4. Senator Brandis – my local Senator but also AG as chief law officer
5. The Migration Institute of Australia - representations to the Department.

Now copied to

It is so incredibly important for a person who wishes to remain in Australia to lodge a valid application with the Department for a new substantive visa before their original visa expires. 

If a visa holder allows her/his visa to “expire” before applying for a new, or “further” visa, they may find themselves in a position where they and their family members have no choice but to leave Australia and then apply for the new visa from “offshore”.  Of course, the visa holder and her/his family may suffer from substantial inconvenience and upheaval if they have to go offshore to make another application.  Not to mention that they may have to “wait” offshore for an indeterminate period of time while the Department assesses the application. 

For these reasons, it is also essential that a person must take an active role in safeguarding her/his visa entitlements, and not passively hand the process of applying for a further substantive visa to “someone else”.  

Faced with an appeal involving a relationship between a 90-year old man and his Indonesian de facto partner, Ms Angkawijaya aged almost 60, the Full Federal Court recently considered whether there must be love and affection for there to be a genuine spousal or de facto relationship.

The couple’s circumstances and explanations did not fit well into what the delegate and subsequently, the Tribunal expected to see in a relationship. When the member asked Ms Angkawijaya about the reason for her partner visa application, she said that, “she loved [Mr Limberiou] and she loved people generally” and that when she was asked if she loved him more than she loved people generally she said that she “loves all” and “loves everybody”.

Given her ambivalence about her feelings towards Mr Limberiou, and the other concerns, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the couple had a mutual commitment to a shared life together. The Tribunal held that a de facto relationship which in the circumstances of this case did not include love and affection was not and could not be a de facto relationship within s 5CB(2) of the Act

However, the Full Federal Court found that the Tribunal erred and held that, “A couple may have a commitment to each other to a shared life together as partners in the absence of what one might call emotional or romantic love.”

In their joint judgement, Kenny and Griffiths JJ stated:

51. All the matters and considerations which are set out in reg 1.09A(3) may properly be described as relevant considerations which the decisionmaker is bound to take into account because the legislation so requires.