Some say the biggest devaluation of the Chinese currency in 21 years which wiped billions from stock markets came as a surprise and could severely affect the AU$18.1 billion education industry in Australia.

Maryland University finance professor Albert Kyle told The Australian that the devaluation will result in a slowing down of the interest of Chinese businesses and investors in Australian goods and services. This could include Chinese demand for education in Australia, as well as demand for property in Sydney and Melbourne, according to the report in The Australian.

“I think it is going to affect my business and also a big business in Australia, which is educating Chinese students…So that is an export market that will probably shrink since the parents of the children have less discretionary money to afford these relatively expensive degrees and that is why the Australian currency will depreciate along with the Chinese currency,” he said.

However, other analysts disagree and say that the devaluation will have a limited long-term impact on Australia’s education sector.

HSBC chief economist Paul Bloxham told The Australian that the bank didn’t think the currency would fall much further and Australia’s higher education sector would continue to benefit from China’s rising middle class.

“That’s a medium-term structural trend — it doesn’t really get thrown off by what we’ve seen in the last couple of weeks or even the short-term cyclical weakness we’re seeing in China,” Mr Bloxham said.

Some farmers, particularly in Queensland, are under investigation after reports of allegations of sexual coercion of backpackers.

DIBP has told the ABC that ‘there are ongoing investigations of farms identified’ but refused to comment further on the matter or say if the government is considering changing visa laws to prevent such abuse.

Currently, backpackers who arrive on one-year Working Holiday visas are required by law to complete three months farm work in order to qualify for a second year in Australia. Second year Working Holiday Visas were given to 38,000 backpackers from 2014 to 2015. Farmers are tasked with “signing off” and confirming the backpackers have completed the work.

Queensland’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Kevin Cocks has detailed disturbing allegations of farmers using their position to sexually exploit female backpackers seeking visas.

Mr Cocks told the ABC “at least a dozen” cases had been reported of backpackers being asked to perform sexual favours in exchange for having their work signed off.

Is it “jurisdictional error” – and thus grounds for setting aside a Departmental decision to refuse a visa application – when a Departmental officer decides a visa application on the basis that she/he is “required” to take certain matters into account, when the applicable regulation only says that the officer “may” take the matters into consideration?

Does every jurisdictional error require that the underlying decision on the visa application be set aside?

Or does jurisdictional error only matter when it makes a material difference to the outcome of the visa application?

 The Australian Dollar fell to a 6 year low US$70.37 as stock markets around the world have lost billions of dollars over the last 24 hours. This was first time the Aussie had traded below US$72c since the GFC back in 2009.

As well as Australia, markets in The USA, UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain plummeted after China’s Shanghai Composite Index lost 8.5% yesterday – the country’s largest loss in eight years.

Under what circumstances will Australia's protection obligations be “enlivened” under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugess (1951) (“the Refugees Convention”)?

Is it enough for a person to show that she/he is at risk of any period of detention at all if she/he were to return to her/his country of nationality or habitual residence?  In other words, can the simple possibility that a person may be detained for a period of time constitute “serious harm” within the meaning of the Migration Act, sufficient to warrant the grant of a protection visa?  Or is it necessary for there to be a more “granular” assessment of the circumstances relating to the circumstances that are feared by the claimant, and to analyse issues such as the frequency, length or conditions of the threatened detention in order to support a finding that the person will be subject to “serious harm”? And what if the person is taken into detention in an arbitrary manner, without regard to the procedural safeguards that must be observed in Australia and other Western countries?

These issues came before the High Court of Australia for consideration in two companion cases that were decided at the end of June of this year, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZAPN and WZARV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection  (2015) HCA 22 (17 June 2015).