Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[wombatinabox]

Hi Folks,

The Australian latest analysis has labelled the new citizenship laws changes bill as "in trouble" chk it: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/zombie-blockade-to-stymie-turnbulls-agenda/news-story/08ffd24f28abb80035be907d5384adc9

Business groups have also blasted the changes: http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/business-groups-slam-planned-changes-to-citizenship-20170807-gxqt6r.html

Let's keep up the pressure folks, we can get these changes thrown out by the Senate hopefully sometime in September and our apps can resume processing as normal.

Edited August 8, 2017 by wombatinabox

[Roberta2]

It actually says that  it estimates the Bill will not pass in its current form.  Hardly a surprise.   All Bills on contentious issues are subject to horsetrading.  No one should expect that the Bill will be rejected in toto.  Dutton is a powerful and determined Minister who has chalked up a number of successes lately and has significantly expanded his empire, (much to the chagrin of other senior Ministers) and Turnbull needs his support to fend off Abbott.

[Spinny]

"It actually says that  it estimates the Bill will not pass in its current form.  Hardly a surprise.   All Bills on contentious issues are subject to horsetrading.  No one should expect that the Bill will be rejected in toto.  Dutton is a powerful and determined Minister who has chalked up a number of successes lately and has significantly expanded his empire, (much to the chagrin of other senior Ministers) and Turnbull needs his support to fend off Abbott."

A while they're looking inwards................

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Spinny

[Spinny]

3 hours ago, wombatinabox said:

Hi Folks,

The Australian latest analysis has labelled the new citizenship laws changes bill as "in trouble" chk it: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/zombie-blockade-to-stymie-turnbulls-agenda/news-story/08ffd24f28abb80035be907d5384adc9

Business groups have also blasted the changes: http://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace-relations/business-groups-slam-planned-changes-to-citizenship-20170807-gxqt6r.html

Let's keep up the pressure folks, we can get these changes thrown out by the Senate hopefully sometime in September and our apps can resume processing as normal.

As Roberta pointed out, it's unlikely to be scrapped in its entirety. This pony has a little ways to run yet!!!

[Roberta2]

The Senate is especially hard to predict because of all the Section 44 issues.  Sen Cavanan (Nationals) said yesterday, on legal advice,  that he would not participate in votes in the Senate until his situation is resolved.  So that's one down for the government.  The government has apparently decided not to refer the case of One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts to the High Court.  So One Nation will presumably have all of its four Senators voting with the government.   Obviously, the report of the Senate Committee on 4 September will be very important, especially re influencing those Senators whose views are not yet known.  Nick Xenophon will be critical of course.  Presumably Dutton will be pushing hard to get the issue resolved in the current Parliamentary sitting.

[Roberta2]

A rapidly moving target.  The Greens may well have enough support in the Senate  to send Senator Roberts's case to the High Court (sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns.)  Indeed, Roberts's case looks decidedly dodgy.

[captain_hoomi]

I am submitting my citizenship application and got confused by form 1195. There is a list of occupations that can sign the picture and the form. Now I don't know if I  can ask a university lecturer to sign it or not.

The occupation  listed is :
37 . Teacher employed on a full-time basis at a school or
tertiary education institution

Does this include a university lecturer? ( From Swinburne University)

Thank you.
 

[ovel]

On 08/08/2017 at 17:22, Roberta2 said:

It actually says that  it estimates the Bill will not pass in its current form.  Hardly a surprise.   All Bills on contentious issues are subject to horsetrading.  No one should expect that the Bill will be rejected in toto.  Dutton is a powerful and determined Minister who has chalked up a number of successes lately and has significantly expanded his empire, (much to the chagrin of other senior Ministers) and Turnbull needs his support to fend off Abbott.

My main concern now is the frozen applications and the retrospectivity aspect. The Committee gave a good response on their retrospective stuff, but finally they passed on all the stuff on the Senate. Quite interesting reading here: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/PDF/d08.pdf?la=en

I have some plans, and I don't want my family locked in the country, but we have already spent overseas about a year within the last 4, so basically we can't go anywhere now. 

[Roberta2]

1 hour ago, ovel said:

My main concern now is the frozen applications and the retrospectivity aspect. The Committee gave a good response on their retrospective stuff, but finally they passed on all the stuff on the Senate. Quite interesting reading here: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/PDF/d08.pdf?la=en

I have some plans, and I don't want my family locked in the country, but we have already spent overseas about a year within the last 4, so basically we can't go anywhere now. 

Sorry - you are creating confusion because you are referring to the wrong Senate committee.  The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will report on 4 September.  You are referring to the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee which has a much narrower function and is essentially irrelevant to this discussion. 

[wombatinabox]

1 hour ago, ovel said:

My main concern now is the frozen applications and the retrospectivity aspect. The Committee gave a good response on their retrospective stuff, but finally they passed on all the stuff on the Senate. Quite interesting reading here: http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/PDF/d08.pdf?la=en

I have some plans, and I don't want my family locked in the country, but we have already spent overseas about a year within the last 4, so basically we can't go anywhere now. 

Hopefully at the very least the retrospective aspect is rejected, that way existing migrants are not affected and future immigrants can make an informed decision if they want to come to Australia or not with these new rules.

Let's see what happens, meanwhile since you're also affected make sure to contact the relevant senators (you can find my post a page or two behind with details)

Edited August 10, 2017 by wombatinabox

[Roberta2]

The Citizenship Bill is having its Second Reading in the House of Reps today.  It's not getting much media attention, with all the other stuff going on.

[Ken]

10 hours ago, captain_hoomi said:

I am submitting my citizenship application and got confused by form 1195. There is a list of occupations that can sign the picture and the form. Now I don't know if I  can ask a university lecturer to sign it or not.

The occupation  listed is :
37 . Teacher employed on a full-time basis at a school or
tertiary education institution

Does this include a university lecturer? ( From Swinburne University)

Thank you.
 

tertiary education

noun

noun: tertiary education

1. education for people above school age, including college, university, and vocational courses

[Keep me in oz]

Its all gone really quiet, does anyone know anything thats happened since the second reading?

[Roberta2]

It was debated yesterday.  Anyway, it will pass the House of Reps and be sent to the Senate - where the relevant committee will report on 4 September.

[Keep me in oz]

On 8/11/2017 at 15:51, Roberta2 said:

It was debated yesterday.  Anyway, it will pass the House of Reps and be sent to the Senate - where the relevant committee will report on 4 September.

Thanks Roberta, I have no idea how all of this works! it really is gonna take a long time hey! Hopefully they dont keep them all on hold for that length of time! 

[Roberta2]

Presuming the government does not fall.  Big cloud now over Barnaby Joyce's right to sit and vote in the House of Reps, where the government has only a one seat majority.  

[jess6]

2 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

Presuming the government does not fall.  Big cloud now over Barnaby Joyce's right to sit and vote in the House of Reps, where the government has only a one seat majority.  

I just read this. One thing I do not understand: why do some senators or representatives step down and other do not?

What's the difference between Waters and Joyce?

In today's world, it might make sense to revisit the Section 44.

[AJ]

8 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I just read this. One thing I do not understand: why do some senators or representatives step down and other do not?

What's the difference between Waters and Joyce?

In today's world, it might make sense to revisit the Section 44.

I dont understand why all these so called intelligent people do not check they comply with all the regulations before taking a public office.

[Roberta2]

Section 44(i) of the Constitution has been like a wrecking ball lately.  The only "fix" will be if the High Court changes its interpretation of 44(i), or if the Constitution is amended (always very difficult.) Of course Joyce will have to step down.   The ALP and the Greens will keep up the attack in Question Time - and Barnaby will have to go because he will be seen to be "sucking all the oxygen" out of the government.    However,  it also seems possible that some of the Labor side will also be caught re 44(ii). 

What happens in the House of Representatives is, of course, much more important than the Senate. If the government were to lose a vote on the floor of the House, a new election would have to be called.

[jess6]

34 minutes ago, AJ said:

I dont understand why all these so called intelligent people do not check they comply with all the regulations before taking a public office.

I do not know the details for all the cases, but I believe that Waters was born in Canada from Australian parents and left when she was less than a year old.

She did not know she had automatically acquired the Canadian citizenship. Citizenship laws are different in each country and also change.

Nothing to do with intelligence. It is not even a mistake, they just did not know.

And even if it was a mistake, people are allowed to make mistake. No need to finger point.

[Nemesis]

1 hour ago, jess6 said:

I do not know the details for all the cases, but I believe that Waters was born in Canada from Australian parents and left when she was less than a year old.

She did not know she had automatically acquired the Canadian citizenship. Citizenship laws are different in each country and also change.

Nothing to do with intelligence. It is not even a mistake, they just did not know.

And even if it was a mistake, people are allowed to make mistake. No need to finger point.

If anyone has to carry blame it should be their staff officers as much as the MPs themselves. Surely the party staff officers should be checking and scrutinising every aspect of the past of the person when they are first entering politics. They look for previous convictions and other 'embarrassing ' situations, why are they not also looking at simple things like birth certificates? The word Canada (or any other country) in the Place of Birth field should be enough to raise a flag and make them check. I'm not saying I agree with Section 44(i), but its always been there, parties should be ensuring their candidates are thoroughly vetted in ALL areas.  

[Roberta2]

1 hour ago, AJ said:

I dont understand why all these so called intelligent people do not check they comply with all the regulations before taking a public office.

It's not simple. Senator Waters was especially unlucky.   She was born in Canada when her Australian parents were there only temporarily, brought back to Australia as a baby, and the Canadian laws were subsequently changed a very short time later.  I am quite sure that Barnaby Joyce did not believe, until last week, that he had inherited NZ citizenship "by descent"  because his father was born there.  His father has been in Australia since 1947. (Of course the government were stupid to dump on the Greens, because that has now come back to bite them.)

Until after the Second World War, Australians, Brits and Kiwis were all British subjects.  (Not sure about Canada.  Their constitutional evolution was always ahead of ours, probably due to the Quebec issue)  The sense of identity as part of the British Empire was very strong, and in 1939 the Australian PM (Menzies) announced that because Britain was at war, Australia was too.  Didn't bother to consult the Australian parliament. My father, whose parents were born here, went to war in 1942 as a "British subject".  At the time the Australian Constitution came into effect in 1901, no one thought that the idea of dual citizenship was relevant to fellow members of the (white) British Empire.

Rather, the target in 1901 was Germany.  Reunified under Prussian "blood and iron", Germany had shown itself to be very aggressive, and by the end of the 19th Century was grabbing what was left re colonies in the South West Pacific, including part of New Guinea.

In Australia, there were some quite large German colonies.  Many German Protestants were in fact brought to Southeast  Queensland, for example, by Queensland government immigration officials based in Prussia.  Including my great great grandfather.  So the notion that dual citizens could not sit in the Australian federal parliament was meant to keep out - in particular- anyone likely to put Germany's interests first.

Today, I don't believe most people would want dual citizens to be able to sit in federal parliament.  Obviously, anyone wanting preselection is going to have to take clear steps to find out if they are dual citizens - including by descent - and then renounce such citizenship if necessary.

There is another part of Section 44 that is probably more of a longer term problem. That is in relation to "profit under the Crown".  It means for example (the Phil Cleary case) that a schoolteacher has to resign before he or she even goes for preselection.  That is, give up a permanent job before even trying to run for office.  Applies also to the public service.  Clearly anachronistic.  

[logbook100]

The bill has been read a third time and agreed to tonight. It is going to the senate.

[Ken]

32 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

It's not simple.

Actually it is. If you born in Australia and both your parents were born in Australia and all four of your grandparents were born in Australia then (and only then) is it safe to assume you are not entitled to any other citizenship and can stand for the Senate. In any other circumstance you need to take some action to renounce your citizenship entitlements before you stand for Senate. Of course Section 44 is ludicrous - not to mention highly undemocratic - but it is simple.

[AJ]

3 hours ago, jess6 said:

I do not know the details for all the cases, but I believe that Waters was born in Canada from Australian parents and left when she was less than a year old.

She did not know she had automatically acquired the Canadian citizenship. Citizenship laws are different in each country and also change.

Nothing to do with intelligence. It is not even a mistake, they just did not know.

And even if it was a mistake, people are allowed to make mistake. No need to finger point.

Well surely as she knew she was born in Canada, maybe this is something she should have checked out if she didnt know before she accepted her position. Would that fact that she was born in another country not prompt her just to check and make sure?