Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[Eddie937]

Has anyone had a reply from DIBP who put their application in after April 20? 

I submitted my application on the 25th April. (Online)

I only qualify on the old rules. 

Thanks

Eddie

[whtzau]

1 hour ago, Eddie937 said:

Has anyone had a reply from DIBP who put their application in after April 20? 

I submitted my application on the 25th April. (Online)

I only qualify on the old rules. 

Thanks

Eddie

Hi Eddie

 

When you lodged your online application through immi website on April 25, was there any message as below ?

 

Residence eligibility

Warning: The applicant may not currently meet the residence criteria to apply for conferral of Australian citizenship.

 

Use the Residence calculator to check when the applicant will have been in Australia long enough to be eligible for Australian citizenship or contact the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880.

 

 

 

[bwatt99]

What calculator they dont have it on there site anymore?

[Eddie937]

25 minutes ago, whtzau said:

Hi Eddie

 

When you lodged your online application through immi website on April 25, was there any message as below ?

 

Residence eligibility

Warning: The applicant may not currently meet the residence criteria to apply for conferral of Australian citizenship.

 

Use the Residence calculator to check when the applicant will have been in Australia long enough to be eligible for Australian citizenship or contact the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880.

 

 

 

There was no warning like the one you posted. I submitted it and had an email saying it has been succesfully submitted.

I started my application in Sept/Oct 16. 

 

[bwatt99]

My wife was due to apply for citizenship 1st june 2017 under old rules,which she has or will have been 4 yrs in australia and come july 3 yrs of this will have been pr.

Under new rules its now july next year to apply to have the 4yrs pr not sure if we should just go ahead next month or wait till next year.

I wonder if there have been many who have applied under old rules just gone ahead and done so to see what happens.

[Eddie937]

I'm more than certain that a majority of people who were eligible on the old rules have put their applications in. 

Like others have mentioned before the DIBP wouldn't even entertain an application  if they weren't eligible. 

Good luck to all who are eligible by the old rules and have submitted after the 20th April 17

 

[milliem]

I am thinking I might apply anyway

I started an application back in January 2017 as that's when we became eligible under the old rules

I might just finish it off and submit it if it will let me. 

Millie

[Eddie937]

It can't do any harm in submitting now. It only costs $285. If you get accepted then it's money well spent. If you don't get accepted then at least you can say you tried ?

 

Good of luck, I hope it goes through.

[rammygirl]

Just to say, my son who completed his application on line on the morning of the 20 th April ( he started it the week before), has heard nothing since the acknowledgment.

 

He qualified under the old rules on the 25 February.  There was nothing at all on the website when he applied, a notice appeared later that day.

 

I hope that just maybe they will backdate it to  people who qualified under the old rules by the 20th April rather than the actual application date.

 

Either way I just hope they make a decision and tell people what is happening soon.

[Eddie937]

34 minutes ago, rammygirl said:

Just to say, my son who completed his application on line on the morning of the 20 th April ( he started it the week before), has heard nothing since the acknowledgment.

 

He qualified under the old rules on the 25 February.  There was nothing at all on the website when he applied, a notice appeared later that day.

 

I hope that just maybe they will backdate it to  people who qualified under the old rules by the 20th April rather than the actual application date.

 

Either way I just hope they make a decision and tell people what is happening soon.

It certainly would be nice to get a definitive answer as to what is happening 

[Roberta2]

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.

[dredg97]

6 hours ago, 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.

Backdating basing on an announcement without even a Bill drafted doesn't seem the norm to me.

Avalanche of applications? Only those meeting the residency requirements would be eligible, therefore I don't see any increase in the volume of applications if the retrospective nature of the proposal will be dropped.

Labor is against certain aspects and I have personally received responses in this direction from MPs and senators from their party.

Time will tell if this will become law or not, for the moment the above is just your speculation.

[bwatt99]

40 minutes ago, dredg97 said:

Backdating basing on an announcement without even a Bill drafted doesn't seem the norm to me.

Avalanche of applications? Only those meeting the residency requirements would be eligible, therefore I don't see any increase in the volume of applications if the retrospective nature of the proposal will be dropped.

Labor is against certain aspects and I have personally received responses in this direction from MPs and senators from their party.

Time will tell if this will become law or not, for the moment the above is just your speculation.

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.

 

[dredg97]

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.

[whtzau]

Hi Guys,

 

You may refer to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JYRvi6XH4LKUvdCW5vmCG44U7VG469oZNQeKgceVDO4/edit?ts=589cfc5c#gid=0

 

looks like DIBP has started to process application lodged on April 19.

 

We will see how they  handle those applications submitted on of after April 20.

[Sheila]

That is good news. I applied on 18th April, may be I will get Test email soon.- 18th & 19 applications processing is just from Perth. Perth office is doing well.

 

Thanks.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Sheila

[wombatinabox]

2 hours ago, dredg97 said:

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.

There is no risk of losing money, they will refund the money if the rules change this has already been confirmed.

Only risk is wasting time & false hope. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by wombatinabox

[Roberta2]

17 minutes ago, whtzau said:

Hi Guys,

 

You may refer to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JYRvi6XH4LKUvdCW5vmCG44U7VG469oZNQeKgceVDO4/edit?ts=589cfc5c#gid=0

 

looks like DIBP has started to process application lodged on April 19.

 

We will see how they  handle those applications submitted on of after April 20.

 

11 minutes ago, Sheila said:

That is good news. I applied on 18th April, may be I will get Test email soon.- 18th & 19 applications processing is just from Perth. Perth office is doing well.

 

Thanks.

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.

[Roberta2]

1 minute ago, wombatinabox said:

There is no risk of losing money, they will refund the money if the rules change this has already been confirmed.

Only risk is wasting time, false hope. 

 

[wombatinabox]

23 minutes ago, whtzau said:

Hi Guys,

 

You may refer to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JYRvi6XH4LKUvdCW5vmCG44U7VG469oZNQeKgceVDO4/edit?ts=589cfc5c#gid=0

 

looks like DIBP has started to process application lodged on April 19.

 

We will see how they  handle those applications submitted on of after April 20.

Keep up the updates, good work.

[Roberta2]

Parliament resumes this week to consider the Budget.  Labour has continued to allow no daylight between itself and the Coalition - even on the asylum seeker issue, which is the most contentious of all issues to do with immigration, citizenship, visas etc.  That is because Labour knows that there is broad popular support for all these measures. Albanese, - the leader of the left faction, has poked his head up recently -  just to remind everyone he is still in the wings.  But he won't take on Shorten on these issues.

[rammygirl]

1 hour ago, wombatinabox said:

There is no risk of losing money, they will refund the money if the rules change this has already been confirmed.

Only risk is wasting time & false hope. 

I didn't see this where has it been stated that refunds will be given?

[Parley]

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.

[bwatt99]

14 minutes ago, rammygirl said:

I didn't see this where has it been stated that refunds will be given?

Where does it say this?

[jolie2015]

15 hours ago, dredg97 said:

Backdating basing on an announcement without even a Bill drafted doesn't seem the norm to me.

Avalanche of applications? Only those meeting the residency requirements would be eligible, therefore I don't see any increase in the volume of applications if the retrospective nature of the proposal will be dropped.

Labor is against certain aspects and I have personally received responses in this direction from MPs and senators from their party.

Time will tell if this will become law or not, for the moment the above is just your speculation.

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.

 

Edited May 22, 2017 by jolie2015