jolie2015

By all means.

Not sure if you're talking about the Queen or aspiring politicians who are dual nationals...

I totally think that was the case. Apparently someone first tried to reach Slater and Gordon, the law firm behind the class action for Manus Island detainees. The law firm declined taking on a class action for the changes on Citizenship legislation, most probably because they found there's no grounds for it.

Love your thoughtful insights into aussie politics, Roberta2 I do learn a lot from your posts! It came as a surprise to me that the Government decided to do the Bill readings this June, wasn't expecting to see some action until the end of the year as they put it on the "Strengthening the Requirements..." paper back in April. Did they expect to have support from the Labor party right away and hence a smooth pass of the Bill through the Senate? Do these changes have anything to do with Dutton's alleged ambitions to replace Malcolm Turnbull? He seems to be showing off some muscle, appealing to -I guess- a certain demographic of anti-immigration voters in QLD.

Canada just voted to reduce it to 3 years as a PR: http://www.canadavisa.com/news/bill-c6-passes-quicker-transition-canadian-citizenship-immigrants.html

The old lady probably had to work her ass off all her life and had little to no means to learn the language. A friend's mother, Vietnamese-born, she can't read English and she barely speaks the language, after 40 years in the country. She's lived most of her life in Cabramatta and simply never needed to learn more English. She brought up three children who are now adults and all three are quite successful in their careers, are fully integrated in the broader community and speak English with an aussie accent, while they still speak Vietnamese with their family. Isn't that the multicultural success the Government likes to brag about? Laws have changed a lot in these 40 years but an English exam as a requirement back then would've probably put her out of the system and who knows, maybe my friend and her siblings wouldn't be here. As much as I don't really see the need for it to be a requirement, I am all in for providing more resources to help people, as I understand language is fundamental to engage with the broader community and minimise the risk of isolation.

I fail to understand the rush in this particular case, though. What makes today's circumstances different to back when the Citizenship Act 2007 was passed and a 3-year transition period was provisioned for then PR holders?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-22/citizenship,-visa-grant-waiting-times-may-increase/8548012?pfmredir=sm 355 staff have gone from department's visa and citizenship section since the beginning of the financial year Growth in visa applications has bigger impact on waiting times than staff cuts, Mr Pezzullo says

Under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007, applicants who were Permanent Residents before 1 July 2007 could still apply for citizenship if they met the old Residence Requirements (2 years vs the then newly introduced 4 year requirement), for applications until 30 June 2010. This, to me, sounds like a fair course of action.

totally agree with you @dredg97 In conversations with friends since the new rules were announced, probably the most controversial aspect of the changes is their retrospective nature. The argument I keep hearing to support that measure is that this way the Government is preventing an avalanche of applications but that to me simply doesn't stack up. "There's a lot of people who've been on a PR for several years and they would apply for citizenship if they see their strengthening the requirements in the near future" I've heard. Well, if they've been here for several years (ie 4+) they can still be eligible under the new rules. Applying under the old rules would save them a "tougher" exam and the new English test and proofs of integration into the Community. Aside from the English test fees, the rest is a pure formality for the average applicant. So, to date, I really haven't heard of anything convincing from the proponents of the changes that supports the retrospective nature of them. I understand that Citizenship is a privilege, and as such, at the end of the day, it is given at the Minister's discretion. However, I consider the retrospective nature of the changes utterly unfair and, as far as I know, uncommon, looking at how Residency requirements and these type of changes were dealt with in previous changes to Citizenship Legislation.

hi @hope2017! So what was your situation when you applied? how long have you been on PR? Good luck! Cheers!

hi everyone! just got the most awaited e-mail in years... IMMI Grant Notification! First of all, thank you to everyone in this forum for the great advice and help your messages mean to so many people. I've been through a lot this year and the waiting was getting really tiresome lately. I sincerely wish all the best to everyone waiting so you all can get your PR promptly. Here's to new beginnings!

slow day, wasn't it? :dull: how many did we see today? the one from the Carpenter in QLD... anyone else?

You're right mate, I probably mixed that up with what my Company was asked by our MA.

as far as I know the training benchmarks must be met for the two years you've been under the 457 Visa. In your case I assume August 2013 through to August 2014 and August 2014 through to August 2015, if you applied in, say, August or September 2015. If you're applying now, then your company should meet the requirements for the two years from May 2014 to May 2015 and May 2015 to May 2016. That's what I was told by my MA.