Roberta2

Are you sure that the application fee would be lost?

Of course new applications will be affected by new laws. How could it be otherwise?

Dutton is trying to change the waiting period after the grant PR status from one year to four. Personally I doubt it will stay at one year, but it is unlikely to be four either. It all depends on the final provisions of the Citizenship Bill when it becomes law, and no one can predict that. If your wife had applied two months ago, her application would have been frozen, so I don't understand your point. All applications submitted after 20 April have been frozen.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that if you applied in all good faith and have committed no kind of fraud, and then later you find that the laws have been changed, so that you are not (yet) eligible, your application fee will have to be refunded. Anybody know for sure?

The bureaucracy cannot implement any new law until it becomes a law. The next session of Parliament starts next week.

All applications from 20th April were frozen. You will have to wait until Parliament decides on the new legislation.

My neighbour has been a teacher in Brisbane for 33 years. He would endorse what Quoll said. However, there is a demand for STEM teachers.

How does an Indian national without a birth certificate get an Indian passport?

The Bill has already been introduced into the Parliament. It will be debated when Parliament returns for the Spring session. The report of the Senate Committee will obviously be important, but who knows how it will all finish up. Don't see it being put on any back burner. As for the Section 44 cases, they will be referred by the Senate - when it resumes - to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. The Court doesn't usually muck around in such cases, which do come up from time to time.

Not sure about that one. Suspect everyone will have to apply or reapply under the new rules once the new law is put into effect. I doubt officials are going to trawl through thousands of frozen applications to make sure the applicant is eligible under the new laws. The Senate committee is due to report on 4 September.

I don't think Dutton's recent power grab has helped his cause.....quite the contrary. I wouldn't bother contacting the One Nation Senators....

Well, I recently learned (by reading the papers) that although Elizabeth II was in Australia,[5] New Zealand, and the United Kingdom,[6] she was proclaimed as Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, our very own High Court in 1999 proclaimed her to be a foreigner. When push came to shove over a One Nation senator, incidentally. Jeez, next we'll be asking which faith she is defending. Of course, Henry VIII proclaimed himself "Defender of the Faith" even before The Split. Then when Elizabeth I had no "issue", James VI of Scotland became James 1, and thus became Defender of two faiths - the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, whose doctrines ain't exactly the same by any means. Once the Great Unwashed start asking questions, where will it end? Mindya, Prince Charles is said to be a disestablishmentarian. Try pronouncing that one when you fall out of bed in the morning...

The Senate Committee reports early Sept. Then presumably the Bill will be debated in the House and then the Senate. No one can predict the result with this Senate, though the report of its own committee will obviously be very important. As a guess, I would think they will "land" somewhere between the current four year wait and the proposed one year. But who knows?

Do you read the papers or listen to the news, or even read posts properly?

List of those who may not be federal politicians: 44. Any person who - (i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:

Not a simple matter at all, in some cases. Sam Dastyari says he paid $25,000 to be sure he was not still a citizen of Iran. Larissa Waters says she paid two QCs to look at her case last weekend; would not want to pay that bill. In her case, she came back to Australia as a baby a week before the rules were changed. In some countries, citizenship is conferred by being born there. In many others, it is not. e.g. Malcolm Roberts was born in Singapore, but there is no way he could ever have become a citizen of Singapore. And, as in Waters's case, countries can also change their rules over time. She has never even visited Canada.

Lizzie is a foreigner. Of course it's absurd. But isn't the hereditary principle absurd?

I don't vote for the Greens but I do think the cases of the two Green Senators were genuine mistakes. Everyone has 20: 20 hindsight.

We had a referendum in 1999, with Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the Republican movement, and Tony Abbott on the other side. (One reason they have never been exactly mates.) Those in favour could not agree on how the Head of State would be chosen - by popular election, or by two thirds vote of the parliament. So then PM John Howard was able to drive through the middle and it was defeated. I think there is widespread agreement that the Republican movement will have another go - after a decent interval following the Queen's passing. And will probably succeed next time. Among other things, we've had high levels of immigration since then from China and India, and most of those people probably think the current situation is odd. (India became a republic upon independence in 1947) . By the way, Elizabeth II is a foreigner according to the Australian High Court ruling in 1999. The case of Heather Hill, a One Nation Senator. Precisely this issue of dual citizenship. As for dual citizenship, you can't say the NZ or Canada is OK, but China is not. Has to be one law for all.

I don't see any great push to change 44 (i). The Greens are not challenging it. There was a recent hoo-haa about Senator Gichuhi when there were (unsubtantiated) claims she was still a Kenyan citizen. A dual citizen is always going to be suspected of having divided loyalties, even if that is not the case. Would we want people in the parliament who were still citizens of China, Russia, Iran, etc? Don't think so. Aspiring politicians are just going to be much more careful in ensuring that if born overseas, they are sure that they are not still citizens of the country they were born in. As for the Queen as head of state, it's more or less a given that Australia will become a republic after the Queen dies. While there is a lot of respect for the job she has done, Australia is a very different country now. King Charles and Queen Camilla - don't think so....

Australia was in fact built on monoculture. The constitution was written in 1901, when Britannia ruled the waves, and Social Darwinism was widely believed - i.e. that there was a hierarchy of races, with the Anglo Saxons at the top. (The Celts in Scotland were more or less OK because Protestant; the Catholic Celts in Ireland definitely not.) The country was anything but multicultural. In fact, the first act of the federal parliament was legislation to enact the White Australia Policy (although it was never officially called that.) Many Chinese, Pacific Islanders etc were deported. The drive to federation was partly to ensure uniform legislation throughout the country to exclude "inferior races" from the island continent. Even by the time of the Second World War, the population was more than 90% Anglo Celtic. My father, when he enlisted in 1942, had to declare that he was of "pure European descent". The remnants of the WAP were not abandoned until Whitlam came to office in 1972. The US Constitution, by the way, stipulates that the President must be a "native born" American. Hence the drive by Trump and other so-called "birthers" to deny that Barak Obama had been born in Hawaii. What they were really saying, of course, was that as a black man he was not fit to be president. (A bit rich since his wife's ancestors had been brought to the US in chains....) There are many aspects of the Australian Constitution that could do with updating. It doesn't even mention the Prime Minister, Ministers, Cabinet government etc. (All were assumed because it followed the British model.) But it is notoriously difficult to amend. You have to get a majority of voters in a majority of states in a referendum to change it. So most referenda have failed. Forget the statistics - I think only 8 out of 54 have succeeded.

It's nothing to do with multiculturalism. Section 44(i) of the Constitution forbids dual citizenship because it would potentially lead to divided loyalties. It's not controversial. The Greens, among the greatest advocates in parliament for multiculturalism, are not complaining about it. What does the current French constitution say about dual citizens being allowed to sit in your legislature?

Good question about timing. The Senate will refer these issues to the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns, but the Senate has to be in session before it can do this. So the issue cannot be resolved and the Senators replaced before parliament sits again. That's how I read it anyway. Have asked Antony Green!

Brandis does not lose "all his power". But no doubt he has been squared away. Were he not to be compensated, he would be squawking. There will be a cabinet reshuffle before Christmas. High Commissioner to London, probably. For all this, blame Tony Abbott. ScoMo tried this one on when he had Dutton's job, but Bishop and others ensured he didn't get his way. Now Turnbull is so weakened by Abbott he has had to give in to Dutton - who has been coming out against Abbott, even if not overtly. Bishop is a big loser. But at least she held onto ASIS....Dutton is certainly on a roll.

Dutton has just had a big win on the creation of the new department of homeland security, or whatever they are calling it. His price for helping Turnbull fend off Abbott, and presumably will now hope to position himself as next Liberal leader if Turnbull loses the next election (which currently is very likely.) All dressed up by Turnbull in London, talking to Amber Rudd and Teresa May on how the Home Office works and why we should emulate it. Of course, it could be reversed by a future Labor government, and probably would be. The idea of ASIO being taken away from Attorney General's is highly questionable. Not clear either if the Greens will be down a Senator when parliament resumes for the Spring session. The issue of Ludlam's successor will be decided by the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns. I guess the High Court marches to its own drum.....