See you

 

I’ve often commented on how Australian governments, both federal and state, managed to constrain the spread of the COVID pandemic, especially compared to other countries like the Americans, European and Brasil etc.  They have done this by several measures, amongst others contact tracing, a good rate of people undergoing tests when feeling the relative symptoms and, perhaps the harshest one, huge restrictions on international travel.

 

Recently, however, the Australian federal government took a decision which I’ve rarely seen being reversed so quickly.

 

There is an explosion of cases in India, which have reached 400,000 a day, superseding the United States at its worst.  Part of this increase was attributed to the B1617 virus variant which is more invective than others that have been discovered to date.  The Indian situation is so serious that hospitals are full, oxygen supplies are low or non existent, many people are dying at home while running out of time to be allocated a hospital bed or a private oxygen supply.

 

In response to this situation, the Australian government completely closed flights from this country until mid May and also threatened huge fines and jail time to those Australians who might have been toying with the idea of coming back from India to their country while traversing a third.  It justified this decision b noting that positive COVID-19 cases in quarantine had increased, and wanted to give a chance for state quarantine facilities to recover.1

 

The federal government declared that this decision was taken to protect Australia and Australians, but it seems that Austrlians that were in India weren’t so considered.  One could quickly conclude that the Australian government washed its hands of them for a period of time, leaving them to their own devices, when literally the risk to their lives was the highest it has been since the start of the pandemic in December 2019.

 

To me, this indicates that our quarantine facilities in Australia are not equipped and dimensioned adequately, even after so many months with the virus around.  It should be remembered that right at the start of the pandemic, it was decided that quarantine would be the function of state governments, and not that of the federal government as provided for in the constitution, and therefore each state implements its own quarantine system.2  Therefore, national quarantine facilities are not the primary ones being used.  I would add that state facilities cannot be expected to cater for national crises, as is this one.

 

The reaction against this Australian decision was very negative practically from all quarters, including several elements from within the governing coalition and commentators usually sympathetic to the right.  Opposition was so strong and widespread, that the government immediately started looking into how to roll it back, firstly that the indended criminal sanctions of fines and jail would not be applied to those caught breaking the restrictions, and some time later that repatriation flights would be restarted by 15th May, before the date had been reached.

 

There was also a court case alleging the the government decision was even illegal.  So far, the court has denied this interpretation.  I cannot comment on the legal aspect, I can only agree with the many who felt that this decision was immoral.

Probably also as a reaction to this situation, the Australian government said that the federal quarantine facility at Howard Springs and some others would soon be able to house 850 person every fortnight.

 

Today, repatriation flights of Autralians from India have restarted, thank God, and formally all Australians are deemed worthy of protection, whether in their country or not.

 

Today, also, the serious matter of smothering any escapes from quarantine of the virulent Indian variant is in full swing.

 

1https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-28/australia-india-flights-travel-ban-covid-outbreak/100099906, retrieved 12/5/2021

2https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-19/who-is-responsible-for-quarantine-in-australia/13070108, retrieved 12/5/2021

Pulling legs?

 

These last weeks much ado has been made about the Maltese scheme for naturalised citizenship for foreign investors (initially called Individual Investor Programme, today called Citizenship by Naturalisation for Exceptional Services).  This scheme permits rich foreigners who invest substantial amount of funds in the country (more than €1 million) and are resident in the country (in the initial scheme for 12 months, and now between twelve and thirty months), amongst other conditions, to obtain Maltese citizenship (and consequentially a European one).

 

This scheme is referred to by its critics as ‘citizenship for sale’.

 

I had commented on this scheme in edition 174 of The Voice of the Maltese.  Amongst others, I had considered that several countries had similar (not identical) schemes, like Australia, and Cyprus and Austria in Europe, and so I could not see such as scheme as being inherently objectionable, given it attracts funds and assets to the country, as long as precautions are taken, for example, not to accept people with a criminal history, transparency and independent oversight, unprofessional and corrupt conduct having real consequence etc.

 

Lately, investigative journalists discovered that Identity Malta as well as the concessionaire Henley & Partners had been interpreting the need for the old IIP scheme for twelve months residency as a legal, rather than a physical, one.  This means that an applicant would not necessarily be expected to spending this amount of time physically in the islands.

 

Instead, an applicant would be expected to make alternative activities that demonstrate a genuine relationship with the country, like a donation to a charitable organisation, joining a local club, renting a phone service etc.  This was all evaluated with a points system that measured its relevance to the expectation of a significant relationship with the country.

 

This points system one can understand, however I can not understand why points were also given for the purchase or rental of property, which had been one of the mandatory requirements of the scheme.

 

Probably many people would not understand how a requirement for residency be understood in any other way than a physical presence there for the stipulated period.  The Maltese authorities are making that exact argument, that residence be considered legal, not physical.

 

I have to say that Austria, in its citizenship by investment scheme, asks for a substantial investment and contribution in that country but does not require the applicant to spend a long time physically there.1  Therefore, Malta’s position in this regard resembles that of Austria, more or less.

 

More worrying to me are reports that properties were being rented not to serve as residences, but simply to tick the box that the requirement for a purchase or rental of a property had been accomplished.

 

Even worse was the case where separate applicants had rented the same apartment!  This situation seems to have been acceptable even formally to the authority Identity Malta2 - I personally cannot understand this.

 

One has to also mention the alleged bribery occurring after processing of three applications under this scheme, a case currently before the courts.3

 

This scheme does have its problems.  There is no doubt that it has contributed economically to the country, a substantial one worth hundreds of millions of euros.  There is no doubt also that it has dragged Malta’s name in the mud.

 

Given the importance of this scheme’s revenue in the country’s economy, I understand why the government is doing all it can to keep this scheme in one form or another.  The problem will be that many in the country, and also institutions of the European Union, not least the European Commissin, will be sceptical that its governance can be credible.

 

If the scheme eventually folds prematurely, this will surely be a huge slap in the face economically.

 

 

1https://haskewlaw.com/second-citizenship-investor/residence-investment-austria/, retrieved 29/4/2021

2https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/the-phantom-homes-and-shared-addresses-rented-by-passport-buyers.866349, retrieved 29/4/2021

3https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/european-commission-mulls-legal-proceedings-on-golden-passports-scheme.825460, retrieved 29/4/2021

Tiny houses

 

When we came to Australia some fifteen years ago, one of the things my wife and I started doing was to go camping, as in Malta this pastime was not practically possible, with several from those few who did practice it probably did so illegally, or irregularly, as this activity in places like Armier was known not to be permitted.  Today I understand that the situation has changed for the better.

 

In Australia today we look for the many forests and national parks the country has, but initially we used to stay at commercial camp sites.  Slowly, in some of the latter, we had started to notice that not all residents of these campsites were there temporarily on holiday.  We discovered that generally the place wouldhave asection reserved for those living there permanently.

 

These people generally used to stay in a cabin or caravan whose wheels had been removed, and raised upon bricks or some other permanent structure.  You would often find there to be a small piece of land where some greens were grown, or some animals like chickens or rabbits, which indicated that the residents were not tourists.

 

We realised that this was the way of life for a substantial number of Australians, for some probably their chosen way of life, for others it was perhaps the only type of residence their finances would permit.

 

Today, the popularity of so-called tiny houses is increasing, with a diversity of enterprises offering a number of models, with a variety of styles, sizes, comfort levels etc including air conditioning with price ranges reaching and surpassing a hundred thousand dollars.  Needless to say, these prices aren’t for those on a limited budget.  For these other models are available costing around ten to twenty thousand dollars.

 

There are organisations that are taking the opportunity offered by these type of tiny houses to provide subsidised housing for those not having any, such as the Tiny Homes Foundation of Gosford, in NSW.1

 

There are two principal types of tiny houses, which are those limited in size generally up to 37m2 (some councils permit bigger ones) and having the character and functionality of a permanent home.  Firstly there are those which are built on a wheel base, these would generally be considered to be caravans.  Although all local councils have their own regulations, generally one would be able to place this type of tiny house inside a private property which already houses people without the need to as for council permission.  If the property is empty, there might be some limitations.

 

Secondly, there are those tiny houses without wheels and which would be fixed permanently to the ground.  One would expect these to have permission to be built similar to the traditional development of a property.  For those interested, one would need to research well the council of the desired living area.

 

The movement towards this type of house had some significant events.  In the forties of last century, there was a lack of housing due to the second world war which was alleviated by pre-fabricated houses of 64m2.  More recently, in 2005, the disaster resulting from Hurricane Katrina in the United States led to the development of a tiny house called Katrina Cottage of 28.5m2 to make up for the lack of accommodation in New Orleans and surrounds.

 

There was also the publication of the influential book ‘The Not So Big House’ in 1998 by architect Sarah Susanka that was intended to stop the tendency of residential architecture to always increase in size, by arguing that small hosues have environmental benefits.2

 

Interest in this area is increasing and one would do well to follow developments.

1https://www.tinyhomesfoundation.org.au/, retrieved 14/4/2021

2https://www.qshelter.asn.au/elements/2017/06/Tiny-House-Planning-Resource.pdf, retrieved 14/4/2021