Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Former Qantas Employees Set to Receive Landmark Compensation Following Court Ruling
In a groundbreaking decision, Australia's Federal Court has opened the floodgates for approximately 1,700 former Qantas Airways employees to receive substantial financial restitution, marking a significant victory for workers' rights amid ongoing corporate scrutiny. The ruling, announced on October 18, 2024, mandates that Qantas pay over AUD 200 million (GBP 103 million) in compensation and penalties, following the court's determination that the airline unlawfully outsourced nearly 1,700 ground staff positions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The tumultuous saga began in 2016 when the Transport Workers’ Union of Australia (TWU) filed a lawsuit against Qantas, asserting that the airline's decision to terminate employees under the guise of cost-cutting measures was illegal. Justice Michael Lee ruled that Qantas's actions were primarily driven by a relentless focus on reducing expenses, even as the pandemic presented unique challenges for the aviation sector.
In his 74-page ruling, Justice Lee emphasized that Qantas's redundancy actions were not only unjust but also an attempt to sidestep employees' rights to negotiate new agreements. "The airline’s choices were primarily motivated by a desire to cut costs," he stated, highlighting that employees would likely have faced termination regardless of the pandemic due to Qantas's broader cost-cutting strategies.
As part of the ruling, three affected employees—Christopher Carney, Nicholas Bennett, and Leonie Piggott—were awarded AUD 170,000 (GBP 87,000) in damages. Notably, Mr. Bennett received AUD 100,000 (GBP 51,000) for the severe psychiatric effects stemming from his dismissal, which included depression and anxiety. Meanwhile, Mr. Carney and Ms. Piggott were compensated AUD 30,000 (GBP 15,500) and AUD 40,000 (GBP 20,500), respectively, for their emotional distress.
With the court's decision, the stage is set for the remaining affected employees to claim compensation, as the TWU prepares to pursue a total claim exceeding AUD 100 million on behalf of all impacted workers.
In the wake of this landmark ruling, Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson publicly expressed regret, acknowledging the emotional and financial toll the situation has inflicted on employees and their families. "We aspire to offer closure to those affected," Hudson stated, committing to expedite the compensation process.
However, Qantas is facing mounting pressure to not only settle this case but also to restore its public image. Nick McIntosh, assistant secretary of the TWU’s New South Wales branch, emphasized the importance of holding Qantas accountable for what he deemed "the largest illegal dismissal by a significant margin." He asserted that any financial repercussions should act as a deterrent for other corporations contemplating similar actions.
Related: Covid Fraud: A Costly Side-Effect Of The Pandemic
Among the affected, Don Dixon, who was outsourced by Qantas but not part of this lawsuit, condemned the airline's conduct. "This has left many employees, especially older ones, struggling to find new jobs," he lamented, highlighting the challenges faced by workers in a tough job market.
The case is set to return to court on November 15, 2024, for further proceedings, as the TWU seeks to ensure that justice is served for all affected employees. With the ruling establishing a precedent, this case serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of protecting workers' rights, especially in challenging times.
As Qantas grapples with the consequences of its decisions during the pandemic, the landmark ruling by Australia’s Federal Court signals a turning point for employee rights in the corporate sector. The implications of this case could resonate far beyond the aviation industry, sending a clear message to companies nationwide that unjust employment practices will not go unchallenged.
In the case of Transport Workers’ Union of Australia v Qantas Airways Limited, the applicant was represented by Mark Gibian SC from HB Higgins Chambers and Philip Boncardo from Wardell Chambers, with instructions provided by Maurice Blackburn. The respondent's representation included Richard Dalton KC, Matthew Follett KC, and Nico Burmeister from the Victorian Bar, who were instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills.
In this article we speak with Julia Abrahams, chief counsel at Catholic Healthcare Limited and a leader in aged care law, on the challenges facing older people in Australia and what legal practitioners must do to ensure their wellbeing.
Aged care typically refers to the private and government-funded ageing-related supports and services that are available in Australia for persons aged over 65 years of age.
It can include supports and services for person younger than 65 years of age if they are assessed as requiring aged care. This includes persons in populations known to develop conditions of ageing at a younger age and persons who, because of significant permanent disability and lack of specialist disability accommodation, require residential care through residential aged care services.
It also includes retirement communities (independent and assisted living for persons over 55 years) and, in terms of legal practice, can include related areas such as guardianship and administration, privacy, end of life, human rights and mental health.
In Australia, residential aged care and community aged care are currently governed by:
A new Aged Care Act is expected in or around 2024.
Legislation regulating retirement communities is not regulated at the Commonwealth level. It is regulated on a state-by-state basis.
Disability is regulated under both state and Commonwealth law. The National Disability Insurance Act (Cth) 2013 and its Standards are key pieces of legislation.
The greatest issues currently impacting aged care legal practice in Australia are the speed, volume and far-reaching implications of regulatory change, largely arising as a response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety which tabled its final report in September 2021.
This report, ‘Care Dignity and Respect’, followed two years of well-publicised hearings, public consultation, reports and research which highlighted deficiencies across the aged care sector and made numerous recommendations for reform. The Australian government is committed to introducing as many of these reforms as possible, as swiftly as possible.
Aged care regulatory reform also coincides with regulatory reform occurring across a number of other domains also highly relevant to aged care service provision. These include the most significant workforce reforms in the last 10 years, a dramatic increase in penalties for serious privacy breaches with further privacy/cyber reforms to come, dramatically increased penalties under the unfair contracts regime, progressive implementation of the voluntary assisted dying regimes, persistent agitation for change in human rights laws and promises of change in environmental stewardship requirements to come.
Practitioners advising aged care clients need to be aware of all these reforms and able to support aged care providers as they respond to the changes. Frequently, the need for legal advice and support is urgent.
The greatest issues currently impacting aged care legal practice in Australia are the speed, volume and far-reaching implications of regulatory change.
In some cases, these reforms, together with the impact of funding deficits and significant workforce pressures, may include assisting providers with consolidation and transformation as they rebalance their portfolios.
Arising from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, two reform Acts were passed in 2022: the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Act (Cth) 2022 and the Aged Care Amendment (Implementing Care Reform) Act (Cth) 2022.
Reforms under these Acts that have already commenced include, but are not limited to:
Reforms under these Acts to commence in 2023 and 2024 include, but are not limited to:
My greatest hope is that Australian aged care can be a place where all older persons are provided with quality care and services and treated with profound dignity and respect.
Consumers of aged care are our mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. They are also us in years to come. They deserve our best.
First and foremost, aged care clients require accurate, timely, insightful and helpful legal advice and supports. This requires up-to-date knowledge of the law and the provision of helpful advice and support that takes the realities of aged care service provision into account.
Some of these realities include workforce shortages and transience, costs’ increases and funding shortfalls, increase in regulation and regulatory scrutiny and penalties, increased focus on privacy and cyber, impact of severe weather events and pandemics, crisis response and management, and transformation and consolidation of the aged care sector.
My greatest hope is that Australian aged care can be a place where all older persons are provided with quality care and services and treated with profound dignity and respect.
Next, many providers need legal advice and supports that they can afford; many providers are small- or medium-sized with limited resources.
Legal practitioners can also assist by providing alerts about legislative and regulatory changes and by working with providers, peak bodies and regulators in relation to profound legislative and regulatory change and change across the sector.
Julia Abrahams, Chief Counsel
Suite 1, Level 5, 15 Talavera Road, Macquarie Park, NSW 2113, Australia
Tel: +62 02 8876 2125
Julia Abrahams has served as the chief counsel of Catholic Healthcare Limited for more than 20 years. She has also served for a term on the advisory board of the School of Law, Sydney campus, of the University of Notre Dame Australia and was recently named one of the top 12 In-house counsel in the Health and Aged Care category in Australia in the Doyle’s list. In 2022, she received Lawyer Monthly’s Aged Care Law Counsel of the Year award.
Catholic Healthcare Limited is a for-purpose provider of residential aged care services, community aged care services and retirement communities. The organisation’s staff of almost 4,000 also support aged care residents who participate in the National Disability Scheme, older persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and older persons who live in conditions of severe hoarding and squalor. Catholic Healthcare’s services are provided from over 60 sites across New South Wales and South East Queensland.
Now that you have decided that you would like a more permanent residence in the Land Down Under, you dread going through all the stages of getting approval for permanent residence. Here’s everything you need to know to make the process as smooth as possible.
According to My Australian Visa, immigration laws in Australia can be quite complex and that’s why experienced immigration lawyers can be a vital step in approval. For example, if you visit the Home Affairs website, you’ll see certain information on that very first page that is a bit frightening. They clearly state that the two most common reasons for granting permanent residency are:
And if you are not within one of those two ‘common’ reasons for being granted a PR visa, will you even stand a chance of being approved for a PR visa for retirement, if that is your desire?
One of the things which so many PR visa applicants are concerned with is the point system by which they will be, for lack of better words, graded as if on an entrance exam at university. Applicants for permanent residency must score a minimum of 65 points on a grid where points are awarded for meeting certain criteria. This is even to just be considered for approval! As an example of how those points are awarded, let’s look at a few categories:
And there is a whole page of qualifications for which you will be graded. While a minimum of 65 points will get you to the next level for consideration, if you score between 80 and 85 points it may speed up the process.
Now that you’ve made the decision that Australia is where you would like to live and work, there are other issues that may be problematic with overseas travel as a permanent resident. Just because someone has been granted personal residency doesn’t mean they are free to leave and return again when their trip is over. Certain countries will automatically disqualify you from re-entry on that PR visa and this can be more than a bit concerning especially when you may have family in distress in the country you would like to visit.
There is much to consider and although Australia welcomes visitors with temporary visas, those for expats seeking PR visas are usually more difficult to obtain. For this reason, you may want to seriously consider representation by a knowledgeable and experienced legal team that can warn you of potential problems and help you circumvent issues that could impede the process. If you have a need for speed, this is your safest route.
Ordinarily, parents ought to have freedom of movement. However, this must be carefully balanced against a child’s best interests which include, amongst other matters, a child’s right to:
In Australia, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) governs parenting arrangements for children post-separation. Relevantly:
International child relocation differs from relocation domestically or interstate, as there is no concurrent legislation applying to prevent interstate relocation. However, the same principles apply in that interstate travel may not be in the child’s best interests or impact the child’s meaningful relationship with the other parent, may pose a risk of harm to the child being separated from their other parent, or otherwise impact existing parenting arrangements.
International child relocation differs from relocation domestically or interstate, as there is no concurrent legislation applying to prevent interstate relocation.
A parent seeking to move abroad with their child should in the first instance obtain the other parent’s consent. If consent cannot be achieved, then they will be required to participate in Mandatory Family Dispute Resolution (Mediation) to attempt to reach an agreement or otherwise file an Application with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia permitting the relocation.
If a parent were to move to relocate internationally with the child absent such consent (where there are existing parenting orders or proceedings already on foot) then they risk committing an offence in the terms addressed above, and/or an order being made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia requiring their return. Alternatively, if the other country is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, then an Application may be made by the Department of Social Services (the Australian Central Authority) for the child’s return.
The potential difficulties are referred to above regarding the consequences where a party is found to have removed a child from their habitual place of residence. Also worth considering are the risk of costs and the disruption – particularly to the children – of moving and returning.
By obtaining consent, attending mediation to negotiate the relocation, or being the moving party in a court application.
[ymal]
Considerations which should be made during a relocation includes what is in the child’s best interests and, practically, may include:
To provide you with advice so that you can make informed decisions about your options and avoid the consequences referred to above. It is also important that such advice is obtained at an early stage – ideally before steps have been taken for the relocation (or before the relocation occurs).
Carly Mirza-Price, Partner
Level 7/151 Clarence St, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
Tel: +61 2 8289 5877
E: cmirza-price@millsoakley.com.au
Carly Mirza-Price is a partner in the Mills Oakley family law team in Sydney, with 12 years of experience working exclusively in the area of family law. She is trusted as a subject matter expert in a range of areas including property settlements (both married and de facto), parenting matters (domestic and internationally), binding financial agreements, child support, divorce and collaborative family law. In 2022 she was named as a Recommended Lawyer in the Leading Family & Divorce Lawyers in New South Wales, Australia.
Mills Oakley is a full-service premium commercial and personal service law firm in Australia with a national client base, over 110 partners and more than 700 staff. The firm was founded in Melbourne in 1864 and has been growing ever since. Mills Oakley works with a number of ASX200 clients and assists leading corporates in transferring their legal work from higher-cost firms.
Australia has cancelled Novak Djokovic’s visa for the second time, stating that the world tennis number one, who has not been vaccinated against coronavirus, may pose a health risk to the country. The cancellation effectively ends the tennis star’s bid for a record 21st Grand Slam title at the Australian Open, set to commence January 17.
On Monday, a court quashed an earlier cancellation of Djokovic’s visa and released him from immigration detention. However, Immigration Minister Alex Hawke has now used discretionary powers to once again revoke the visa.
“Today I exercised my power under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act to cancel the visa held by Mr Novak Djokovic on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so,” Hawke said in a statement.
“This decision followed orders by the Federal Circuit and Family Court on 10 January 2022, quashing a prior cancellation decision on procedural fairness grounds.”
Under section 133C(3) of the Migration Act, Djokovic would not be able to secure an Australian visa for three years, unless in compelling circumstances that affect the country’s interest.
Djokovic is reportedly considering the decision and weighing his options.
On Monday, Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic won a court battle to stay in Australia to compete in the Australian Open despite being unvaccinated against Covid-19. However, the Australian government has threatened to cancel the tennis star’s visa a second time.
Federal Circuit Court Judge Anthony Kelly reinstated Djokovic’s visa after it was cancelled following his arrival in the county last week. Judge Kelly also ordered the government to release the tennis player from a Melbourne quarantine hotel where he had spent the past four nights. Officials had previously decided that Djokovic did not meet the criteria for an exemption to an entry requirement that all non-citizens must be fully vaccinated against the virus.
However, following the ruling by Judge Kelly, government lawyer Christopher Tran said that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Alex Hawke, will consider whether to exercise a personal power of cancellation. As such, Djokovic’s visa could be cancelled for a second time and the tennis star could again face deportation ahead of the Australian Open, set to commence January 17.
Westpac admitted to six civil penalty proceedings that were filed by Australia’s securities regulator, including claims against its banking, superannuation wealth management, and divested general insurance units.
According to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), Westpac charged more than A$10 million in advice fees to over 11,000 deceased customers. ASIC also claims that Westpac distributed duplicate insurance policies to over 7,000 of its clients.
In a statement, Westpac chief executive Peter King said, “In each of these matters, Westpac has fallen short of our standards and the standards our customers expect of us. The issues raised in these matters should not have occurred, and our processes, systems and monitoring should have been better. We are putting things right and unreservedly apologise to our customers.”
Westpac, alongside ASIC, is expected to propose a A$113 million penalty to the federal court, with A$80 million set to be remediated to the bank’s customers.
According to Shine Lawyers, who led the class action, the matter will now return to the Federal Court to set up a process to determine payments to over 11,000 claimants in what is Australia’s largest product liability class action. In a statement, Johnson & Johnson said, “Ethicon is disappointed that it has not been successful in its application for special leave to appeal.”
Kathryn Gill, Diane Dawson, and Ann Sanders, who are the three lead members of the class action, are now eligible to receive the 1.276 million Australian dollars, 555,555 million Australian dollars, and 757,372 million Australian dollars they were respectively awarded. The claims of the remaining members will be separately assessed.
Johnson & Johnson had wanted to appeal a ruling from March by the Federal Court of Australia that upheld a November 2019 decision by a federal court judge. The judge had found that Ethicon had sold implants for urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse without warning surgeons or the patients of the risks involved, and had failed to complete proper testing before bringing the products onto the market.
In April, Shine Lawyers filed a second class action against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson in the Federal Court on behalf of patients implanted with a defective mesh product from July 2017 to include patients who had not been eligible to join a first class action filed in 2012. According to Shine Lawyers, the allegations in the second class action are almost the same as those in the first class action.
Johnson & Johnson has faced similar suits regarding its pelvic mesh products in Europe, Canada, and the United States.
The firm’s first intake will begin in early 2022 and is set to include five roles across its network. Two roles will be based in London, two in Australia, and one in Asia. The programme will last 18 months in total, providing graduates with the opportunity to gain varied experience through rotation in several specialist areas, including Legal Automation and Technology, Pricing, Legal Project Management and Process Design. At the end of the scheme, graduates will be given the opportunity to complete a three-month secondment with either a client or another team, before they move into a full-time position in the Legal Operations function.
Herbert Smith Freehills established its global Legal Operations function back in 2018, with the purpose of helping clients in areas including using new technologies to develop collaborative working and applying innovative methods to solving issues. The firm’s global Legal Operations function works alongside its Alternative Legal Services team to advance holistic solutions that provide clients with more value and operational efficiencies.
The launch of the new graduate scheme sees Herbert Smith Freehills join a growing assembly of law firms that are establishing training schemes in non-traditional areas of the legal sector.
Migration has always made substantial contributions to Australia’s culture and economy; what impact have the travel restrictions had on our culture and economy?
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (‘the OECD’) has highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on immigrants and global mobility, which has been detrimental to Australia’s culture and economy overall. The COVID-19 response and travel restrictions imposed in Australia have prompted the net overseas migration to drastically fall in the 2020-2021 financial year and it is set to enter ‘negative levels’ for the first time this century.[1] This development is unsurprising when considering the limited number of exemption categories which permit a person to enter Australia amid the current travel restrictions, as well as the substantial number of persons who chose, or were forced, to depart Australia since the onset of the pandemic.
Due to the high correlation between the overseas migration intake and population growth in Australia, the plummet in overseas migration will have a significant impact on Australia’s economy and GDP growth.[2]
The travel restrictions have also had an immediate effect on families, who have been unable to secure exemptions to reunite during this period, along with international students who have largely been unable to return to study in Australia. This loss of international students has majorly impacted Australia’s tertiary education sector, along with the associated employment opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents.
How does the Australian government plan on addressing this impact?
We have observed the formation of the ‘Trans-Tasman Bubble’ safe travel zone between Australia and New Zealand, which has involved the relaxation of COVID-19 border restrictions and quarantine requirements. A myriad of other exemptions and concessions have been introduced by the Department of Home Affairs for both onshore and offshore migrants. These exemptions and concessions aim to minimise COVID-19 related disruptions and promote the travel of family members of Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents, Business Investors and Skilled Migrants working in ‘critical sectors’.[3]
The Department of Home Affairs has also introduced concessions that provide visa applicants with additional time to complete the necessary requirements for their pending visa applications—including recently introducing a waiver of the requirement for certain applicants to be offshore at the time of their visa grant. Migrants currently can also apply for travel exemptions to enter Australia based on ‘compelling and compassionate’ circumstances if they do not meet any prescribed exemption categories but imminently need to travel to Australia.
The COVID-19 response and travel restrictions imposed in Australia have prompted the net overseas migration to drastically fall in the 2020-2021 financial year and it is set to enter ‘negative levels’ for the first time this century.
The program will continue to have a strong focus on attracting the best and brightest migrants from around the world. What aspects of the plan are appealing for those looking to immigrate?
A major success for the Skilled Migration program to attract the ‘best and brightest migrants’ in the 2019 to 2020 financial year was the Global Talent Independent Visa (GTI), which fulfilled the 5,000 places the program was allocated. Due to this success, the Australian Government has allocated a significant 15,000 places to GTI applicants in the 2020 to 2021 financial year.
To be granted a visa under the GTI Program, a candidate will need to be highly skilled in one of the ten target sectors. They will also be able to attract a salary that meets the high-income threshold which is currently set at $153,600.00AUD, that is subject to yearly changes.
Target sectors include the following:
There are a range of benefits to those high calibre applicants who are nominated by a person or organisation with a national reputation and are invited to apply for this visa.
The most appealing benefit is that the GTI is a Permanent Residency visa and has been reported to have a processing time of mere weeks, as opposed to other Skilled Migration visas which can take months to progress.
Other appealing benefits of the GTI program include: that no skills assessment is required; no offer of employment is necessary; no requirements to invest in an Australian business exist; no age limit has been mandated, and an expression of interest can simply be submitted through the Global Talent contact form on the Department of Home Affairs website. Furthermore, Masters or PhD students in Australia with demonstrable talent and/or international recognition may also be eligible for this visa program.
The Skilled Stream has undergone the most changes; can you expand more upon this? What impact are you hoping to see?
There have been 79,600 places allocated to the Skilled Migration program in the 2020 to 2021 financial year, which unlike previous years, is almost equal to the Family program allocation. The government has placed a renewed focus on visa applicants who will be able to assist with Australia’s post COVID-19 economic recovery efforts, with particular priority being placed upon the above mentioned GTI program, Employer Sponsored visas and the Business Innovation and Investment Program (BIIP). We are hoping that the Skilled Migration program changes will meet the aim of assisting the Australian states and territories with their economic recovery from the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, while providing eligible and skilled visa applicants with priority processing and immediate pathways to Permanent Residency.
Changes to the Provisional Business Innovation and Investment visa seek to improve the quality of applicants. How so?
The Australian Government has announced that they will be implementing changes to streamline and improve the BIIP from 1 July 2021. The current backlog of BIIP visa applications likely has prompted the intended changes, which will assist with reducing the volume of applications by focusing on ‘higher quality candidates’.
The most notable changes include the closure of the Premium Investor stream, the Venture Capital Entrepreneur stream, and the Significant Business History stream, along with a substantial increase in the application charges by an additional 11.3% for the remaining BIIP visas. The aim of these changes is to focus on attracting higher value investors, entrepreneurs, and business owners ‘of scale’ to Australia in order to increase the economic return of the BIIP.
The government has also announced changes that aim to incentivise and reward high calibre BIIP applicants, including increasing the validity of the provisional visas to five years and providing applicants who meet the requirements with the opportunity to apply for Permanent Residency after three years.
Places have nearly doubled from 6,862 to 13,500 and the government will prioritise the processing of these visas. What challenges will your clients potentially face?
The Australian states and territories have fluctuated in their BIIP openings for state-based nomination during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the requirements for nomination by each state and territory are discretionary, different criteria have been introduced in the various jurisdictions which naturally can pose challenges for prospective BIIP applicants under the various streams. While the Australian Government will be streamlining the BIIP streams to only four as of 1 July 2021, the increased allocation of numbers in the program may assist with mitigating the effects of the competition for the reduced BIIP visa pathways available. Nonetheless, a key change that will be introduced for the Business Innovation stream to ensure the program is attracting migrants with ‘proven business skills’ is an increase in the prescribed level of business assets from $800,000 to $1.25 million. The prescribed annual turnover has also been increased from $500,000 to $750,000. These increases both will inherently make the visa requirements tougher for applicants to meet, as they will need to provide increased support of their business skills and acumen.
Aishwarya Somal
Director/Senior Immigration Lawyer
LLB. (UQ) GRAD DIP Legal Practice
OUR LOCATIONS
Brisbane Head office: Level 8 Northpoint,
231 North Quay Brisbane QLD 4000
t: (+617) 3211 4920
Sydney Office: Level 29, Chifley Tower,
2 Chifley Square, Sydney 2000, NSW
t: +61 2 92169045
Taringa office: 175A Swann Road,
Taringa QLD 4068
t: 07 3211 4920
E: reception@emersonmigrationlaw.com.au
W: https://emersonmigrationlaw.com.au/
We are a boutique migration consultation firm recognised as one of the foremost immigration practices, not just in Brisbane but throughout Australia. Founded by Aishwarya, our firm provides specialist advice on all aspects of immigration to Australia for both individual and corporate clients, covering the full range of applications to enter or remain in the country. The various types of visas we are able to assist with include:
We cover all areas of immigration law. We are able to provide expert assistance in relation to the preparation of applications, review of applications as well as represent clients in appeals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (formerly the Migration Review Tribunal).
[1] Maani Truu, ‘Australia’s net migration intake drops to negative levels for the first time since World War II’, SBS News (online) (6 October 2020), < https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-net-migration-intake-drops-to-negative-levels-for-the-first-time-since-world-war-ii>.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Australian Government Department of Home Affairs, COVID-19 visa concessions (12 February 2021) Department of Home Affairs < https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/travel-restrictions>.
