dredg97

On 5/21/2017 at 13:46, Roberta2 said:

Please don't be deluded about the process. It's common for a government to indicate a date by which changes will be put into effect.  How could it be otherwise?  If they said they were going to make changes effective from two months in advance, there would be an avalanche of applications.  The effective date is 20 April.  Labor has shown no inclination that I have seen to oppose them.  To the contrary, both major parties are terrified of One Nation, which wants to end ALL immigration.  (True, this is a loony policy.  True but irrelevant.)  Therefore the Senate doesn't matter (because it only matters when Labor opposes the government) and there is no doubt this will become law.

On 5/22/2017 at 11:05, Parley said:

Of course these measures will pass.

The average Australian voter couldn't care less about immigrants having to wait a while longer to become citizens.

Last famous words...as the Romans used to say...'don't say cat until you have it in the bag!' (pi-iate ver inter cul)...

I was not affected by the change but since the beginning I had sympathy for those whose life changed after the Government made the announcement on April 20th.

Anyway, DIBP website is now updated, including the new proposal that will be introduced in the next coming months (IELTS 5, 4 years PR, etc., from July 2018). 

http://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/whats-new

16 minutes ago, Coupleinoz said:

I'm not quite clear if they are supporting a reduction from the 4 years? In the reports, they oppose this but in the recommendations they do not call it out. 

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/CitizenshipBill2017/Report/b01

This are the recommendations from the Committee led by Liberals. Have a look at the dissenting reports from Labors, Greens and NXT.

They all oppose the Bill in its current form. If no amendments will come from the government and the Bill will get voted, it will be rejected (Labors+Greens+NXT have the majority).

Dutton doesn't seem to be willing to amend anything. Even few amendments could not be sufficient to get the 3 votes from NXT (their position was made quite clear yesterday in the Senate). We will see what happens in the next 3 sitting dates (16-18/10).

Just for your information, I recommend you to follow all Facebook groups created on opposing the Bill. They will be able to recommend what actions you can take for the time being. You will not find much sympathy in this thread unfortunately.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/13/greens-labor-crossbench-unite-force-governments-hand-citizenship-bill

Could be interesting, let's see what happens in the next 4 sittings, if it is not voted by then, the Bill will be removed from the notice paper.

The Bill wasn't debated yesterday in the Senate, but it is listed as number 3 in the Order of the day for today.

There are no amendments from the Government, the only three amendments are coming from One Nation, Liberal Democratics and Conversatives, requesting a further extension of the residency requirements (not 4 years as PR but 8 or 10).

Labors, Greens and NXT are opposing the Bill in its current form, last night Lucy Gichuhi for the first time has shown concerns on the English test requirement.

The Bill might be voted today, let's see what happens.

Draft legislation programme in the Senate for next week is now available:

https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/senate-week4-spring.pdf

There are 8 Bills on the table, so it's not guaranteed that the highly contentious on Citizenship will be dealt with on Monday.

Dutton in an interview this morning said he is confident the Bill will get through with minor changes. He may ignore the recommendations from the Senate Committee and the dissenting reports by Labors and Greens, but he will have to make more than 'minor' changes to get the three NXT votes. 

During a public hearing in late August, DIPB reps said they are clearing all applications made prior to April 20th, and this will take them up to the end of the year (November-December). At that time, they will ask the Minister about how to proceed with the applications lodged after the announcement. 

The Bill is dead in its current form, after NXT announced its position.

Dutton will need to amend it, at least watering down the English requirements and granting a transitional period.

The Bill was supposed to be debated yesterday in the Senate, but it wasn't.  Let's see how the government will decide to proceed.

This is definitely huge, but as the Romans used to say ('don't say cat until you have it in the bag'), it's better not getting too excited until the Bill is rejected officially in the Senate.

It's just a matter of hours until the Senate Committee will issue its reports, after receiving over 10,000 submissions against the Bill VS just 2 (yes, only two) in favour. This could be another big hit to the new proposed legislation.

2 hours ago, seeker said:

Is it worth to sending the concerns to parliamentary committe?

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/CitizenshipBill2017 

Absolutely, this won't be kept secret as the DIBP/Government did with the submissions received in May.

It's important to include you personal situation and how you are affected by the proposed Bill.

7 minutes ago, NicF said:

Page 18 of this document https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/ed17-0138_-_he_-_glossy_budget_report_acc.pdf towards the bottom of the page and going on to page 19.  PR and New Zealand students will still be domestic students but will have to pay full domestic fees rather than getting the subsidy from the government.  Note, full fee paying is not the same as being an international student as international students are charged more than domestic students, even when the amount the government pays is taken in to account.

Thank you for that, it will be interesting to see a comparison between the domestic full fee vs international fee.

2 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

I strongly doubt anyone is assuming anything.  Everyone knows it's like herding cats in the Senate. The education bill (schools) scraped through the Senate at 2.30 a.m.or so on Friday, by one vote.  The higher education and the citizenship bills are equally contentious.  The voting records of the Senators give some clues of course, but Lambie (who votes against the government 70% of the time) was a big surprise on the Gonski bill when she voted for the legislation.  (The Greens unexpectedly found themselves with worse than nothing, because they found they had hung out their internal squabbles like dirty washing)  New Senator Lucy Gichuhi's maiden speech was very interesting, but eclipsed by all the drama going on.  Well worth a read.  True, Dutton is not known as a good negotiator, as Birmingham clearly is - but Senator Cash, not Dutton, will be running the show in the Senate, with the help of Senator Cormann and others.  Basically, it would be unwise to assume anything until the fate of this citizenship bill is known.

Good, at least this time you have refrained from talking about terrorism attacks...

Agree, it is highly contentious and far from being resolved.

Truth is that hundreds of applications are currently not being processed in the interim, and that's unfair, un-Australian, illogical...

11 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

People here seem to be assuming that they are already in place.  Nothing proposed in any Budget becomes law until it clears the Senate, which is a much more powerful upper house than in some comparable countries such as the UK.  There are many Senators who will be worried about Australia pricing itself out of the international student market if these PROPOSED changes become law.

LOL...not just here, also the Government seems to be assuming that the PROPOSED changes to the Citizenship Act 2007 are already in place.

2 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

In relation to school fees (government schools), in Queensland PRs are treated no differently from Citizens.  I presume it's the same in other states.

 

 

You need to get up to date, check the Budget announced in May...

We are talking about University fees by the way...

49 minutes ago, NicF said:

Actually this is not entirely true.  PR students will pay domestic fees but will not be entitled to any commonwealth funding so they will be paying something like $15k to $25k per year (can't remember the exact figures).  And they will be able to access loans to pay for fees rather than having to pay up front like they do at the moment.

PR students will pay domestic fees? Could you please provide the source of information?

As far as I am aware, permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will be stopped from enrolling in Commonwealth-supported places, meaning they will have to pay full fees for degrees.

They can access loans, whereas previously they had to pay upfront, but what's they point if the fees increase enormously.

Staying on PR rather than getting citizenship has several disadvantages.

Do you want to study at university? From next year, as per new budget announced in May, permanent residents will pay as much as international students (i.e.$35-40K rather than $5-10K per year). Think about those families being here on PR for 1 year with 16-17 yo waiting to go to university. If the Bill will pass, they have to wait up to 3 years before having their children enrolled at university.

It's true you can stay indefinitely, but things can change in the future. At the end of the day, you are still on a visa and what you are entitled to today may not be there tomorrow.

Do you have to leave the country extensively for work? What if your parents in your country of origin get sick and require you to come back for a certain period of time?  You might not be able to qualify for your next RRV.

40 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

I do wish people would stop conflating a freeze with backdating.  A freeze is normal practice and all governments do it.  Obviously, this legislation will now have to wait until the next parliamentary session.  But the government has just shown its ability to get contentious legislation through the Senate without the support of either the ALP or the Greens.  Not without some important concessions, of course - but politics is the art of the possible. (Senator Lambie was a surprise..I think the Catholic lobby may have overdone it with her.) Senator Michaelia Cash, who represents Dutton in the Senate, will be the chief negotiator in the Senate for the Bill on citizenship changes.  Basically, she will have to make enough concessions to round up six Senators (One Nation is in the bag already, of course.)  A lot can happen in a few weeks too of course - e.g. more terrorist attacks in Australia.

Lots of speculation and a very poor last remark....

You should have reported that the Senate has referred the Bill for inquiry.

7 minutes ago, Parley said:

What about the UK ?

Googling it:

https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-british-citizen/check-if-you-can-apply

2 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

Canada seems to be six years.

 

3 out of 5 years with a new Bill approved these days, migrants will have a smoother pathway for Canadian citizenship:

https://www.cicnews.com/2017/06/bill-c6-passed-giving-immigrants-smoother-pathway-canadian-citizenship-069248.html

I think if the proposal had a lower bar on the English requirements (something like a IELTS 5 overall) and some sort of phase in period (as occurred when the Citizenship Act 2007 was introduced), there wouldn't be much opposition and the Bill would have passed easily.

Maybe it is just my impression, but Dutton seems to be the person seeing only black or white....yes or no, so I am not sure how he will be willing to negotiate 'his' Bill and amend it to make it pass through the Senate.

Everyone agrees English is fundamental, but I honestly don't like the way it is assessed.

I have met several people at work (welders, TA, electricians, scaffolders) speaking very well (8-9 in the IELTS), but would struggle to get a 6 in the writing component. Writing essays is not for everyone, they would probably fail and never become citizens.

The IELTS defines a competent user a person scoring an overall 6, which is very different from asking to score 6 in each components as apparently required by the new law.

The importance of each component's score makes sense for skilled visas and some specific occupations, but not for citizenship applications (a 5 overall for these would be enough in my opinion).

The Bill is finally available:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId%3Ar5914 Recstruct%3Abillhome

There are some exemptions on the English test, other than that I am not surprised.

Labor will have an official position next Tuesday.

Let's be honest, I do not agree with few aspects of the new proposal, but I understand and totally accept that the Government has the power to strengthen the process and introduce a new law. An Act can also be retrospective, even if a transitional period, as occurred in the past when the Citizenship Act 2007 was introduced, would probably be a more appropriate approach.

Having said that, what is truly unacceptable is how applications after April 20th are currently managed.

It is clearly stated that the applicable legislation CURRENTLY IN FORCE is the Citizenship Act 2007, see below:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2007A00020

as such, the Citizenship Act 2007 should still be applied in the interim, until the new Citizenship Act 2017 (or 2018) is enacted, no matter if it will be retroactive or not.

Please read this legal case:

Raveendran and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection ( Citizenship ) [2017] AATA 653 (5 May 2017)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2017/653.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=citizenship

Considerations section, n.42-44, number 44 in particular

42. For the sake of completeness, I note that on 20 April 2017, that is, on the day of the hearing, a joint media statement was published on the website of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The media statement was by the Hon. Peter Dutton MP Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, and the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister, titled “Strengthening the Integrity of Australian  Citizenship ”.
43. The joint media statement provided in part as follows:

The Turnbull Government will strengthen Australian  citizenship  by putting Australian values at the heart of  citizenship  processes and requirements.
Our reforms will ensure applicants are competent in English, have been a permanent resident for at least four years and commit to embracing Australian values.

44. In this decision, I take no account of the pending changes to the law governing Australian  Citizenship . These announced alterations have not been legislated into law, nor has the date of their operation been announced.

10 minutes ago, seraphim said:

Applications should by law follow the law IN FORCE, until they change it, and if it's so important, then they should priority change the law. 

That's what I have been trying to say yesterday...

Obviously we are considering the worst case scenario in saying it's gonna take up to 2020 now, but I do hope the retrospective aspect (and yes IT IS retrospective) will be dropped during the process.

1 minute ago, Parley said:

There is no backdating of the policy.

It will apply from the date of announcement of the policy.

No backdating, are you serious?

The new proposal was announced on April 20th, a Bill has NOT been drafted, once the Bill will pass through parliament and becomes law, it will be applied to all applications lodged after April 20th.

All applications made after April 20th are currently not being processed, they are sitting in a limbo/loop/black hole and who knows when they will be processed.

The current law is the Citizenship Act 2007, a new Citizenship Act 2017 or 2018 is far from being enacted and once it will, if all aspects of the proposal are kept, it will be applied retrospectively from April 20th.

Are you still not seeing the backdating issue?

9 hours ago, bwatt99 said:

So if your wife was eligible under old rules on 1st june to apply would you just go ahead? Or wait till next year july next year where she will have 4yrs pr by then which is required under new rules.

I simply cant afford to apply and down the line get rejected and loose the fee,if refunded then all good.

But we had hoped before all this was announced that wife would be citizen by end of this or into next.

Mine too about 7 months and this was with a 1 month delay due to my daughter still being on temp visa when she was supposed to be pr.

At my interview they noticed this but it which was not known to us or nothing to do with us but admin error. As when wife went from partner visa temp to pr daughter should have been same but she wasn't.

So it delayed mine for a month until it was sorted. She needed to be pr before she could get citizenship which they changed.

But we are just over a week and not sure if should go ahead or what.

 

It is up to you whether applying or not on June 1st. If losing the fee is an issue, I would then suggest to sit back and see how things progress in the next 6 months.

It is a personal choice. Those applying with current requirements are accepting the risk to lose their money, hoping a transitional period will be granted or some of the new requirements will be dropped.