Roberta2

Not sure what you mean by the "Senate's constitutional legal experts". This is the Australian, not the US, Senate. The Australian Senate does not have a large research staff, as does the US Senate. Senators (and Members of the House) can of course use the resources of the Parliamentary Library. Each Senator has a small personal staff. This is a political process - if Labor opposes the Bill, it will come down to what the Senate crossbenchers can agree upon. The Committee itself is just a secretariat - it does not provide legal or constitutional advice, nor does it do any "analysis", proper or otherwise.

Legislation to change the Citizenship law is before parliament. Until the new law is passed, no application made after 20 April will be processed. You will just have to wait.

I would suggest you frame your comments in terms of Australia's national interests. e.g. Canada has recently liberalised its rules re the time people need to be PR (check details), so why would Australia - which competes globally for talent- want to go in the other direction? In many respects, Canada is the foreign country most like us, so what it does is always important. Senators are unlikely to read their e mail in person; they would be overwhelmed. You need to get past the minders. Think about what might be interesting enough to get past a minder. Personally interested to see where Lucy Gichuihi lands on this, given her own background.

Slater and Gordon are in enough trouble as it is.

Good question as to why donations are no longer being accepted. While I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I do know that this is not the US, which has a system of divided government. In our parliamentary system, it would seem odd that any court would have jurisdiction in relation to a Bill that is currently before Parliament, has been hived off to a Senate Committee, but has not yet been debated in Parliament. Someone at an Immigration law firm had a rush of blood to the head??? Saw it as a way to get some good publicity and drum up business in a competitive market? And now thought better of it????

No one can answer your questions because this is Bill before parliament, not a law.

I wouldn't be waiting! Things will be frantic enough when the baby arrives. There are migration agents on this forum who might be willing to give informed advice,

+Lobbying by universities, big business and medical research sectors has prompted Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to relax restrictions on this year's controversial 457 visa changes. In the first shake-up of the eligible occupation lists following April reforms, some occupations like real estate agents and psychotherapists have been excluded entirely, while others including petroleum engineers and horse trainers have been shifted into the scheme. In announcing the second set of major changes in less than three months, Mr Dutton described the occupation lists as "dynamic". "Revisions to the occupation lists are just one element of the Government's reforms strengthening the integrity of Australia's employer sponsored skilled migration programmes and raising the productivity of skilled migrants," he said. He also highlighted changes that mean even high-salaried applicants require English language testing and police checks are now mandatory. The overhaul to the scheme, announced in April, split the old 457 visa into two streams - short and medium-long term - based on skills shortages in the community. However a backlash followed the reforms when it became apparent that people in occupations on the short-term list, including chief executives and university lecturers, no longer had access to a pathway to permanent residency.+

Getting the birth certificate is the first step, then apply for his passport. You can get an expedited passport if you pay (even more) money. Getting an "acceptable" photo of a new baby is always fun! But you really need to address your question to one of the migration agents on this forum.

They aren't new rules yet. You could also send e mails to the key crossbench senators. Re the time between becoming PR and being eligible for citizenship - the Senators will look closely at practice in comparable countries. There is international competition for well educated workers and Australia won't want to risk shooting itself in the foot. We always see ourselves in competition with NZ and Canada in particular.

I suspect the government initially did think Shorten would be on board because Shorten has shown himself unwilling - in the light of recent history- to allow much daylight between himself and the government on national security/refugee/asylum issues. Dutton's electorate of Dickson is based in Strathpine, in the northern outskirts of Brisbane. About 20ks from the CBD. He holds it by a very small margin. Similar demographics to One Nation's heartland near Ipswich/Gatton. He will certainly be feeling the heat from them. All politicians think they are prospective PMs, but I sense that Dutton is now joining the ranks of those who think Abbott has gone too far. There's a strong move behind the scenes, from the moderates who control the Liberal Party in NSW, to get a good candidate to run against Abbott for pre selection in his own seat. Yes, Dutton will want a win, but he won't want to crash in flames either, so will have to compromise on the Citizenship bill. Dutton, a former cop, has shown that he is tough. But if he wants to be PM, there a lot of rivals for that job (including ScoMo) and he needs to show also that he is smart, and has the ability to compromise when necessary. Being a headkicker gets you only so far. Paul Keating, for example, was a headkicker (and very witty, which Dutton is not) but he was also smart. Actually, watching Senator Birmingham last week, I did wonder whether he might be a future contender for the top job. If he hadn't bothered to go and visit Lambie in her home town, in a heavily Catholic area, she probably would not have voted for his education bill. He's in the wrong House of course, but that can be fixed....Maybe I'm dreaming....But if you can get that far in politics with ears like a VW with its doors open, greater things might be possible...

Well, Xenophon has parents who migrated from Cyprus and Greece. His views on most things are fairly middle of the road. Lambie has been outspoken on "ban the burka" (she means the niqab- has anyone ever actually seen a burka in Australia?) and terrorism, but generally votes against the government. Hinch has generally shown middle of the road views and is a canny negotiator. Gichuhi is the first black African woman to sit in the Senate, seems to be socially conservative, but her views on a lot of things are not known. (I thought her maiden speech was the most interesting for years. She is definitely her own woman. A lawyer, like Xenophon) Leyonhjelm is a liberterian - socially very conservative and basically wants to get the government out of the way (pro guns etc) To have a better idea of how each Senator might vote, you'd have to examine how they've voted on re similar issues, and follow their Twitter feed! If anyone has the time.... I do think Xenophon will be the key, especially if the Greens decide to oppose outright. A lot will also depend on the negotiating skills of those in the Senate who have to run this for Dutton (who is in the House of Reps) - especially Senator Cash, who represents Dutton in the Senate. She in the past has shown a willingness and ability to cultivate Hanson, e.g. over the union bills. But really, it's all anyone's guess at this stage... To add to it all, both the Coalition and the Greens are showing their internal divisions right now. Though maybe Abbott has just overplayed his hand - Dutton's comments today quite interesting. i.e. let's not hand the next election to Shorten. And it also looks as if the next parliamentary session will be dominated by the Higher Education Bill. This issue must be resolved, because universities and students need to know very soon how much they have to pay next year etc etc. It's been hanging around since Abbott's dud budget in 2014. Possible that the Citizenship Bill could be deferred again - no idea, really.

Senator Lee Rhiannon is the closest we have, and she is only one senator. She and her parents were longtime communists. They continued to support the Soviet Union after the tanks were sent into Prague in 1968, and were then expelled from the Communist Party. They then started the Australian Socialists, with the support of the most radical unions. After the fall of the Wall, she and her ilk became watermelons - Green on the outside but still red on the inside. Bob Brown has been trying to get rid of her for some time - she gave him a lot more scope last week re what happened on Gonski 2 in the Senate. But she won't go easily. As for the ALP, it learned its lesson during the Split in the 1950s, which kept it out of power for 23 years. It's basically a party of pragmatists which dumped the "socialist objective" some time ago.

It's a fair enough question. Population disparities don't mean anything re the Senate. That's because at Federation in 1901, it was decided that the Senate would be the States' house. So each State has equal representation in the Senate. The Senate was also given a veto on money bills - the cause of the constitutional crisis in 1975 when the Whitlam government lost control of the Senate. Currently, there are 6 Senators from each State and two each from the two territories - the ACT and the Northern Territories. Bob Day had to step down, by the way. His Senate seat is now held by Lucy Gichuhi, who was on the Family First ticket in the last federal election, but has now declared herself an independent. Read her recent maiden speech to get some idea of her views. If the ALP and Greens oppose the new citizenship bill when it gets to the Senate, the government will need the four One Nation Senators. Xenophon's 3 and all the others add up to only seven; the government needs ten. That's why Pauline Hanson has so much clout. And why so few in the government were willing to attack her recently over her autism comments. Barnaby Joyce having to bite his tongue is always worth watching. Of course, if the government can cut a deal with Shorten in the House of Reps, the Senate will be irrelevant. Shorten is among those who have to think carefully.

No citizenship application made after 20 April CAN now be "in progress". That's because no one can know what will be decided re the length of time PRs have to wait before they can apply for citizenship. Plus all the other issues in play, such as English language requirements etc. The factional warfare that has just broken out (again) in the Liberal Party may complicate matters too. The hardliners who want to topple Turnbull (again) are feeling the heat on their right flank from One Nation, especially in Queensland, where a state election is due soon. Hanson wants NO immigration, and also wants PRs to have to wait eight years before they can apply for citizenship.

September 4 is when the Committee issues its report. The Bill still has to go through the parliament before it becomes law. No one can say how it will end up.

The law is what the politicians make it. It's called democracy.

Only Citizens can work for the federal or state public services, no?

You could make a good case to the other key crossbench senators - Hinch, Lambie and Gichuhi- that you have been disadvantaged by the relationship between the Citizenship Bill and the Higher Education Bill, both of which will come before Parliament when it resumes. i.e. that the time period for PRs to apply for citizenship has been extended by three years in the Citizenship Bill AND it is also proposed that from 1 January 2018, PRs will no longer be eligible for Commonwealth Supported Places at university. Perhaps suggest that PRs who have been here for a year should still be entitled to CSP, and not be forced to pay full domestic fees. (I couldn't read the SMH link - have exceeded my monthly quota of free articles.)

Yes - PRs lose the subsidy, but gain access to loans so they don't have to pay upfront. Swings and roundabouts. +Under current arrangements, most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand (NZ) citizens are treated as domestic students for the purposes of receiving a CGS subsidy but are not eligible for HELP loans. Only Australian citizens, permanent humanitarian visa holders, and certain NZ Special Category Visa holders (who arrived in Australia as minors and have been resident for the majority of the last ten years) can access HELP loans. All other students have to pay upfront fees— presenting a significant barrier to higher education for many students. This reform will address this anomalous situation by extending loan support to such permanent residents and New Zealand citizens and removing access to CSPs, effectively treating these students the same as domestic full fee-paying students.+ Comment: a clear link between the Citizenship Bill and the Higher Education Bill. How this will all come out is anyone's guess.

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.

The proposed changes to university fees have to pass the Senate. They are highly contentious. 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.

I was talking about school fees, not university fees. And I quoted from the current Queensland government website. The general question is what advantages do Citizens currently enjoy over PRs - across the board. As noted, the crossbench Senators will be particularly interested in how Australian laws - current and mooted by Dutton- compare with those of "comparable countries".

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.

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.