Its done it again, and now achieving a near perfect score in the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) liveability survey of 140 cities.

Just 2.5 points off perfection, the city of Melbourne despite its unpredictable weather, has topped the EIU’s list beating the likes of Vienna, Vancouver and Toronto.

Adelaide came in fifth with a score of 96.6. Seven of the top 10 scoring cities were in Australia and Canada. Sydney came in seventh place behind Calgary, Alberta, Canada, with 96.1. It lost out to Adelaide and Melbourne due to its lower score for culture and environment, and stability.

Perth was ranked ninth with 95.9, and Auckland, New Zealand, rounded out the top 10 with 95.7. Helsinki, Finland, took eighth place.

"Those that score best tend to be mid-sized cities in wealthier countries with a relatively low population density," the EIU report said adding that, “These can foster a range of recreational activities without leading to high crime levels or overburdened infrastructure."

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said his government plans to maintain Melbourne’s top spot pointing to the promised investment of some 25.4 billion into the Melbourne economy to particularly improve transport infrastructure. "Melbourne has the best of everything and this title proves it…Perfect scores in health care, education and infrastructure, culture, environment and sport are all proof there's no place like Victoria," he said.

INVITATION

Investment strategy in the new SIV policy regime

NAB Wealth, a part of NAB Group, provides holistic investment solutions to retail, corporate and institutional clients. It operates the largest financial advisor platform in Australia under brands MLC, JBWere, JANA and Plum.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has started giving effect to the decision in SZOXP where the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia held that, “there is no requirement that the couple previously live together in the definition of a “de facto relationship” or in the requirement that the couple “do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis” prior to lodging an application for a Partner Visa.

In what looks to be the first AAT case on the matter, the Tribunal reviewed a decision by the delegate to refuse the grant of a partner visa to a Sri Lankan applicant on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that the parties had been living together.

The case involved a same-sex couple who admitted that they had not set up a household together as such and had not lived together as de facto partners.

In its decision to remit the application to the delegate for reconsideration, the Tribunal first observed that given societal attitudes and the laws criminalising same sex unions in Sri Lanka, the 12-month de facto requirement ought to have been waived in any case on the basis of ‘compelling and compassionate reasons’.

The Tribunal then went on to give effect to the Full Federal Court’s decision in SZOXP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection FCAFC 69 (11 June 2015) which held that:

The 485 visa enables International graduates to live and work in Australia temporarily after they have finished their studies. When applying for this visa, applicants must provide evidence that they have made appropriate arrangements for health insurance in Australia for the duration of the visa processing period, and their stay in Australia once the visa has been granted.

If you have clients who are applying for a Temporary Graduate Visa (Subclass 485), Bupa’s overseas visitor covers meet Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) health insurance requirements and also include the following benefits:

A recent decision by Judge Street of the Federal Circuit Court has provided clarification concerning the circumstances when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against the Department's refusals to grant 457 visas. 

It is essential that all RMAs who are assisting clients who have received such refusals, and who are considering whether or not to seek review before the AAT, be aware of this case, Kandel v Minister v Immigration & Anor, (2015) FCCA 2013 (7 August 2015). 

It appears that it has been the case that the AAT and its “predecessor”, the Migration Review Tribunal, has been taking the view, based on the decision of Judge Nicholls in the case of Minister for Immigration v Lee & Ors  (2014) FCCA 2881 (10 December 2014) that it did not have jurisdiction to accept appeals in cases where either there was 1) not, at the time that the application for review is made to the AAT, either an approval of the nomination of an occupation in relation to the 457 applicant in force, or, alternatively, 2)an application for review of a Departmental decision not to approve the nomination made by the sponsor pending before the MRT/AAT.  It also seems to have been the case that the MRT/AAT has been sending out what might be referred to as “Lee letters” when the nomination has not been approved and in force, or a refusal of a nomination has not been the subject of an application for review to the AAT/MRT, informing review applicants of its views that it does not have jurisdiction in these situations.