FIAN was a finalist for Australia Day Awards 2017 by City of Parramatta Council

7 April, 2017/Sydney

Federation of Indian Associations of NSW Inc (FIAN) was judged as one of the finalists for City of Parramatta Council’s Australia Day awards on 26/1/17.

FIAN was included in the list for its community advocacy, community work and events. FIAN was the only Indian community organisation to receive this honour.

FIAN is determined and committed to doing things which are relevant, important and necessary for our community.

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

 

Maa Tuje Salaam was superb and spectacular 

On 2/4/17, visiting ICCR-approved Indian team led by Dr Sanjay Shantaram of Shivptiya School of Dance in Bangalore showcased their mesmerizing performances, which included classical Indian dances to Bollywood dance items.

They can rightly be described as superb and spectacular.
Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

Maa Tuje Salaam, Dance Drama by Visiting ICCR Troupe, Sun, 2 April, 2017

Sydney, NSW

We invite you to enjoy this great “Dance Drama” performed by this visiting ICCR (Indian Council of Cultural Relations, Govt of India) Troupe.

Sunday, 2 April, 2017, 6.30pm onwards

Castle Grand, 14 Pennant St, Castle Hill, NSW 2154

Book tickets: https://www.trybooking.com/book/event?embed&eid=263648

We are supporting National Defence Fund (Chaired by Prime Minister of India), which assists families of Indian Defence Forces’ martyrs.

Maa Tuje Salaam FB.png

https://yadusingh.com/2017/02/27/maa-tuje-salaam-a-multimedia-tribute-to-indias-brave-hearts-sydney-2-april-2017/

Dr Yadu Singh

fianinc1@gmail.com

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

http://www.Twitter.com/dryadusingh

Federal MP Julian Leeser quotes us in his speech on 18c inquiry

Sydney, 16 March, 2017

Here is the speech of Federal MP for Berowra, Julian Leeser, which quotes me (Dr Yadu Singh) and Federation of Indian Associations of NSW. Thank you Julian.


Julian Leeser MP for Berowra

Speech: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights | Inquiry Report

 

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

The Committee’s Report marks an historic breakthrough in what has been a long and difficult debate on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Section 18C has been an intractable political issue since 2011.  Both sides of the debate have dug into their trenches around the principles of freedom of speech and the need for protection from serious abuse on the basis of race.

For the first time this Report provides a path to fix the problems with section 18C, while maintaining its important role as a limited protection against serious racial abuse.

Since late November, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been conducting an inquiry into the operation and administration of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act. The Inquiry has received submissions and heard evidence from a full range of interested parties, including complainants, respondents, jurists, academics, administrators, news organisations, Indigenous and ethnic communities.  In total, the Inquiry received more than 11,000 submissions and heard evidence from 100 witnesses.

The great success of this Inquiry has been that it has revealed the underlying problem that has fuelled the debate on section 18C. That is, that the problem lies in the way the law has been administered and on that point there is bipartisan consensus.  The process for handling section 18C complaints as it currently stands can be slow, onerous for respondents and is at odds with the case law.  The threshold for making a complaint is so low it is virtually redundant.

The problem with having such a poor administrative process is that it makes section 18C seem, to non-experts, to be much broader than it actually is. The way in which the law has been administered, including the extremely low threshold for making a complaint – sometimes only one line dashed off in a quick email – has totally undermined the original intent of the provision.   The ability to make complaints based on very little information, almost a year after the action was taken as in the QUT case, has understandably warped the public perception of 18C, which was always designed to be a very limited protection available for the most serious types of complaint.

Over the course of our Inquiry we have heard from scores of people who, despite having vastly different views on section 18C, have all agreed that the complaints handling process needs to be fixed or as some put it to us: the ‘process is the punishment’.

The QUT case illustrated the problems with the administration of the law. During the Inquiry we heard from some of the students who shared with us their terrible story of not knowing for years a complaint had been laid against them, of being hauled before the Commission and then taken to Court. Over a period of years they incurred significant cost in time, money and damage to reputation, only to have the complaint brought against them struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

We also heard from cartoonist Bill Leak who spoke of the stress and anxiety he suffered throughout the process, despite the clear artistic exemption that should have seen the complaint rejected instantly.

Ms Helen Kapalos, Chair of the Victorian Multicultural Commission made the following comments about focussing on process change, ‘I think you are absolutely right in endorsing a stronger process and looking at the complaint-handling mechanism’.

The President for the Federation of Indian Associations of NSW, Dr Yadu Singh, appeared before the Committee and noted that the QUT case highlighted problems with the process. Dr Singh told the committee, ‘…I believe the Australian Human Rights Commission Act should be amended so that the complaints-handling process could be streamlined.’

The Institute of Public Affairs, which has been a vocal supporter for repealing section 18C has conceded that process changes would be an improvement in the law.

Even the Commission itself recognised the need for changes to the way the law is administered.

The process changes recommended in the committee’s report will address the problems identified by the hard cases and ensure that cases like QUT and Bill Leak won’t happen again.

On this point I would like to note the comments of Tony Morris QC in today’s Australian. Tony Morris was the lawyer to the QUT students. He is a hero to many fair minded Australians for offering his services pro bono to the students.

Tony Morris is a supporter of the Repeal of section 18C but his comment illustrates why the reforms to the complaints handling process are so important. I want to draw the attention of the House to these comments because they are very significant.

Mr Morris told the Australian:

“When you analyse all the impediments that they (and in this, he means the Committee) are putting in the way of someone making an unjustified complaint, the reality is they are putting an end to the industry….The recommendations are not what some of us who oppose 18C wanted, but I suspect they will do the job.’’

The Australian noted that:

Mr Morris said that if the recommendations were introduced, a complaint similar to those against the QUT students would go nowhere.

Mr Morris went on:

“The best part is the combined effect of all the protections they are proposing to put in for respondents to complaints… If the report’s recommendations are adopted, it will lead to a level playing field so that respondents enjoy rights similar to complainants.”

Tony Morris’ intervention in this debate is highly significant.

We can all take a philosophical position on either side of this issue but what this Committee report does is address the practical concerns raised by the QUT and Bill Leak cases. Taking a practical approach provides us with a way forward for the first time in six years. I encourage all members to consider the report and reflect on it carefully.

Some commentators have suggested that the recommendations don’t do anything. Might I suggest that they have a closer look at the report as the recommendations dealing with the complaints handling process are highly significant.

Recommendations 

The recommendations will do a number of things.

Firstly, they will raise the threshold for complaints – so that less serious matters will not warrant consideration by the Commission. Specifically, any complaint will be required to allege an act which, if true could constitute unlawful discrimination.  It will need to set out sufficient details of the allegation and a lodgement fee will be required to be lodged with the Commission.  This will set a deterrent for nuisance cases. Penalties would be introduced for legal practitioners who institute complaints that have no reasonable prospects of success and for legal practitioners or complainants who act unreasonably in the process.

Second, the proposals are designed to create a more level playing field by empowering the Commission to give reasonable assistance to respondents to match its current powers for complainants and by imposing time limits on the complaints handling process, in particular for notifying respondents.

Third, the recommendations give the Commission greater powers to terminate complaints, allowing the Commission to terminate earlier and expanding the grounds so that a complaint can be terminated if it is assessed to be unwarranted or to have no reasonable prospect of success.

Fourth, the recommendations will also restrict access to the Courts following a complaint’s termination by the Commission by requiring complainants to seek leave of the Court and to provide security for costs before commencing proceedings.

And finally the recommendations create greater accountability by providing for parliamentary oversight of the Human Rights Commission – which has been accused of being a law unto itself.

The recommendations are ground-breaking for what they will achieve.

First and foremost, they will get section 18C off the front pages and allow it to perform its intended function as a limited but effective protection against racial hatred; they will place the onus on the Human Rights Commission and on the lawyers who bring complaints to get the process right; and they will help bolster freedom of speech by limiting the types of complaints that are deemed worthy of further consideration by the Commission.

I know this Report has been criticised yesterday for providing the Government options for dealing with section 18C reflecting the diversity of opinion on a bipartisan committee. To be clear my own preferred option is to codify the test set out by Justice Kiefel in 2001 and repeatedly applied for the last 16 years that 18C refers to the discrimination which must have “profound and serious effects not to be likened to mere slights.”  Such a codification will help the public understanding that the words in section 18C, have not been given their natural and ordinary meaning but apply to a far more limited range of complaints.

But I want to be crystal clear. The root cause of problem is that the legislation has not been administered properly.  The way in which the legislation has been applied by the Australian Human Rights Commission has allowed nuisance complaints to be treated with the same level of consideration as serious complaints.

But when you look at the problem forensically.

When you try to uncover the root cause.

When you try to properly diagnose so that you can then prescribe the required medicine, all the evidence indicates that the process is the problem.

That is why we have recommended significant and serious process changes.

Should these recommendations be adopted, they will go a long way to bridging the gulf between the public perception of what the legislation does and the reality of its legal application.

It is important that we provide some protection against the worst types of hate speech. While freedom of speech is fundamental to any democratic society the Anglo Australian tradition is not one of unrestrained free speech.

The case law on section 18C is settled. It has provided a limited but important protection against Holocaust denial and serious racial abuse against Indigenous people and ethnic communities. At the same time the defences in section 18D, described by Professor Adrienne Stone as a ‘set of defences which have no equal in their extensiveness in any of the law anywhere in the world’, have allowed fair and reasonable public comment and artistic expression through cartoons and satire. The real problem has been the process. For the first time in six years, the Parliament has bipartisan support to fix it.

Section 18C should go back to being a limited protection for only the very worst kind of behaviour – an ‘in case of emergency break glass’ provision – which is what it was always intended to be.

Mr Speaker, I commend this Report to the House.


Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

FIAN Press Release: Not just fines, jail terms should also be given to fake doctors

Press Release: NOT JUST FINES, JAIL TERMS SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO FAKE DOCTORS Final

Sydney, 15 March, 2017

Not just fines, jail terms should also be given to fake doctors

FIAN LOGOShyam Acharya stole the identity and medical degrees of someone else and then entered Australia where he worked as a junior doctor in 4 NSW hospitals during 2003-2014. He was on a limited medical registration and was permitted to work under supervision. He never went through rigorous medical registration processes.

Shyam Acharya obtained Australian citizenship too. After co-workers developed suspicion about his medical background in 2014-15, when he worked with pharmaceutical companies, a complaint was made to Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority (AHPRA). AHPRA has taken him to the court under relevant laws. He is facing a maximum of $30,000 fines. His exact whereabouts are unknown, but the latest reports point this place to be India.

———————————————————–

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fake-doctor-shyam-acharya-shows-big-failing-of-the-system-peter-dutton-says-20170309-guuwjj.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/nsw-health-minister-to-seize-home-of-alleged-fake-doctor/8345566?smid=Page:+ABC+News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf61580228=1

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/nsw-health-minister-to-seize-home-of-alleged-fake-doctor/8345566

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nsw-health-to-seize-home-of-fake-doctor-shyam-acharya/news-story/b9c4629ffc4189dd403d1f5c45cd9e95

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/fake-doctor-shyam-acharya-left-wife-and-child-behind-in-australia-when-he-fled/news-story/a3f4c960f3b78297dc5a58dc90c31c2d

NSW Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, is rightly keen for the relevant rules to be amended so that Mr Acharya or anyone else who acts or pretends as a doctor, but is not a registered doctor and not entitled to hold himself/herself out as a medical doctor, is also punished with a jail term. Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt, supports this proposal.

NSW Health is exploring the possibility to recoup the money paid by NSW Government to this fake doctor by forcing a sale and seizing his share in this house, which he co-owns in Ryde. This house is apparently worth $1.5 million.

Multiple investigations are under way currently to get to the bottom of how a fake doctor could work for 11 years within NSW Health and obtain Australian citizenship, and how it took more than a decade to find his illegal activities.

We have a grave concern about this case because of its real and potential consequences for patients. We are concerned also because of its potential to create a substantial harm to medical profession, especially to those who share his geographical origin as a way of their background or ethnicity.

System failed here big time, but it is well-known that systems and processes for medical registration in Australia have been tightened in 2013. Identification and credentialing are performed stringently.

We are hopeful that investigating authorities will find out ins and outs of this matter, and get him extradited from wherever he is currently hiding. He must be brought to justice.

We believe that fines alone are not sufficient penalties for such people. Custodial sentences should also be in place to punish the culprits and create a significant deterrence against such behavior.

Not just fines, jail terms should also be given to fake doctors.

It is not appropriate or permissible for people to write “Dr” before their names and hold themselves as medical practitioners if they are not registered as a medical practitioner in Australia.

Similarly, there is a trend for some with a PhD from overseas to write “Dr” before their names, even when they are working in a totally unrelated area (to the field of their PhD). The purpose behind this is to gain undeserved reputation and credibility. Unfortunately, some of these people are known to have very poor integrity and are involved in disreputable, if not illegal, activities like exploitation of vulnerable people. People should not be permitted to hold themselves out as scientists or research scholars, with word “Dr” before their names, if they are not working in the field of their PhD.

Dr Yadu Singh

President   Fianinc1@gmail.com

Further Info:

https://yadusingh.com/2017/03/11/not-just-fines-jail-terms-should-also-be-given-to-fake-doctors/

https://yadusingh.com/2017/03/15/smh-should-not-allow-its-platform-for-racially-abusing-indians/

Jon us for Clean Up Australia Day, Sunday, 5 March, 2017

Sydney, 3 March, 2017

329bdbdb-67a7-438d-b46b-b3f905ecab0a

You are invited to join us for;

  • Clean Up Australia Day

  • Sunday, 5 March, 2017, 8-11am

  • Angle park, Chipping Norton, NSW 2170

  • Join us, tell your friends, turn up along with your friends, and do the right thing for Australia

  • Contact: Satish Bhadranna  sat103@yahoo.com 0416 018 581 and/or Dr Yadu Singh fianinc1@gmail.com

Dr Yadu Singh

Federation of Indian Associations of NSW

http://www.fianinc.org.au

http://www.facebook.com/FianInc     http://www.Facebook.com/dryadusingh

http://www.Twitter.com/FianInc       http://www.Twitter.com/FianInc

Maa Tuje Salaam: A Multimedia Tribute to India’s brave Hearts, Sydney, 2 April, 2017

Sydney, 16 March, 2017


Book your Tickets: https://www.trybooking.com/book/event?embed&eid=263648

—————————————————————————

Maa Thuje Salaam R Final.jpg

Maa Tuje Salam – A Multimedia Performance (involving dance, song, music, film and animation), Sydney, 2 April, 2017.

 

This is a tribute to India’s brave hearts who sacrifice their lives to the nation.

This is a beautiful concoction of Indian classical and Bollywood dance styles by Kala Ratna Dr.Sanjay Shantaram and his team from Shivpriya Dance School, Bangalore, India. http://www.shivapriya.in/?page_id=32

Maa Tuje Salam is our contribution in our support for National Defence Fund, which works for the welfare of the members of the Indian Armed Forces (including Para Military Forces) and their dependents including assistance to Indian defence martyrs’ families. The National Defence Fund is administered by an Executive Committee, with PM as the Chairperson, and Defence, Finance and Home Ministers as Members. Finance Minister is the Treasurer of the Fund. Accounts of the Fund are kept with the Reserve Bank of India. http://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/national-defence-fund/

Dr Sanjay Shantaram is a talented dancer and actor in Kannada and Telugu film industry. Sanjay was born to, ‘Dr. Shantaram’ and ‘Swarna’. He started to learn classical dance at the age of seven. Sankara bharanam was the inspirational film, which made Sanjay go deep into the classical dance. He started his training at the age of 7 under the coaching of Smt. G. S. Rajalakshmi. He was the first rank holder in the dance examination, which was organized and carried out by the ‘Karnataka Secondary Education Board’. He made his debut as a child actor in 1981 in the film Bhaktha Gnana Deva.

He started to act in Telugu and Kannada films. At the same time, his love for dance did not diminish. He was also a good student in academics too. He scored 80% marks in his tenth standard board exams and in the same year, he ranked first in the senior grade dance competition by the ‘Karnataka Secondary Education Board’. In fact, Sanjay is a dentist too. In the year 1992, he won gold medal in a dance competition conducted in Hyderabad by ‘Navya Nataka Samithi’. He has also learnt Kuchipudi from Smt. Sunanda Devi.

Sanjay is acting in television serials too.

His dance school named ‘Shivapriya School of Dance’ in Bangalore teaches. Bharathanatyam, Kuchipudi and other folk dances to the students.

He is an internationally acclaimed dancer and his team has performed in many cities all over the world. His troupe is also in the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) panel.

It is a “Must Go” and “not-To-Be-Missed” event, with a noble purpose behind it in the support of National Defence Fund. A significant part of the money saved will go the National Defence Fund.

All tickets will be pre-booked through a booking system to make it easier for everyone.

LINK: https://www.trybooking.com/book/event?embed&eid=263648

Dr Yadu Singh

Federation of Indian Associations of NSW

fianinc1@gmail.com

http://www.fian.org.au

http://www.facebook.com/FianInc

http://www.Twitter.com/FianInc