Recently there has been a lot of media hype around children and vaccination.   Do parents always have the final word on whether or not to vaccinate their children?  On Tuesday 29 April 2014 at 5:30PM the ABC Radio Law Report hosted a programme on 'Vaccination and the Law'. 

Essentially the programme covered what happens if parents disagree on whether to vaccinate their children and at what point the court steps in when there are disputes on vaccination?  My question is this: 

Should unvaccinated people, including children who are moving to Australia given a right to 'choose' not to vaccinate their children and themselves from deadly illnesses before they enter the migration zone? 

Migration Alliance RMA members will be disappointed to learn about the AL2-4 Student Visa lodgements.  The following email was received by a MA member last week and sent into the DIBP:

I am sure you are familiar with the Level 2 -4 electronic lodgement of Student visa “trial”  for students from China, India, Thailand and Indonesia.  After more than 10 years(?), DIBP is still trialling?

My questions are:

A migration agent whose registration was cancelled by the MARA in 2012 and whose appeal to the AAT recently failed is now working as an education agent, according The Australian, nicely slipping into the loophole festering with unregulated agents and surely and steadily damaging the $15 billion dollar industry.

In cancelling the migration agent’s registration of Jackie Chang in 2012 due to several serious complaints of the breach of the RMAs Code of Conduct, the MARA stated that:“A registered migration agent is required to be a person of integrity, and a fit and proper person to provide immigration assistance. On the basis of its findings in these complaints, the Authority decided that the Agent was not capable of meeting this standard, and subsequently cancelled his registration”

Clearly this does not apply to education agents as Mr Chang has managed to slip back into business telling The Australian that now “he restricted himself to work as an education agent.”

Many of the breaches of the Code by Mr Chang arose from agreements entered into by Mr Chang with, on the one hand, a Chinese agency, Zhaolong Education Consulting Services Co Ltd (Zhaolong) and, on the other hand, Australian educational institutions.

In brief, Zhaolong promoted courses offered by Australian institutions to Chinese students, for example by advertising in Chinese newspapers. Students who were interested in applying to study in Australia could retain Zhaolong to assist them in finding an appropriate course and in making the necessary arrangements to facilitate their study. Zhaolong charged its clients a fee for its services.

A family of three who believed they met the criteria for grant of a permanent visa have had their court appeal rejected for the simple fact that one of the documents in the original application was considered ‘purposely untrue’ and not an ‘innocent error’.

PIC 4020, also known as the “application integrity” criteria because it allows for a visa application to be refused upon the discovery of fraudulent documents in an application, was recently tested and upheld as a valid criteria by the Federal Court. However, while the court held that “it is not necessary to conclude that a visa applicant is aware that information is “purposely untrue” it noted that PIC 4020 is not directed to information or documents which are “innocent errors”.

PIC 4020 was aimed to close loopholes on dodgy documents and responses in visa applications, including the practice whereby applicants could go unpunished after the tactical withdrawal of a dodgy document. Since 2011, PIC 4020 has enabled refusal of a visa if an applicant provides a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in relation to their application.

The applicant in this matter, when queried by DIBP about the incorrect IELTs test certificates submitted with an application, admitted that it was incorrect. She claimed to have submitted it wrongly, due to misguidance by certain agents in India. In statements to the court, “She begged that she be forgiven,” and that in fact she subsequently achieved the required English outcome.

The DIBP, the MRT and the court rejected these arguments, which in the past may have carried some weight, The visa application was refused for herself, her husband and their son for a breach of regulation 886.22 4(d) which in essence states that at the time of decision, “No evidence has become available since the time of application that the information given or used…was false or misleading in a material particular.”

"A Brisbane father says he is concerned for his eight-month-old son, whose Vietnamese mother faces deportation from Australia" 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-18/father-david-ngugen-fears-deportation-of-baby-vietnamese-mother/5399100

I came across this article and I am concerned about its possible implications if the Government has indeed changed its policy.