Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[wombatinabox]

1 minute ago, Amy Zhang said:

I think it is good to increase the English requirement. However, the standard is too high. In this country, even the local people, I do not think they can get the average of 6/9 in each skill when they undertake IELTS. The language hurdle is too high for the migrants, and it is unnecessary. Again, for the skill migrants, if we have already pass the skill assessment which includes the language requirement, why should we do this again? I just want them to think the things comprehensively and take this into consideration when they do the exemption of English test. That's it! I do not want to mention the other parts at all again! We just need to wait, wait and wait! Australian value? ! 

While personally I scored an 8 on average on my IELTS, I agree a 6 is too high requirement. I saw an article once that ozzie born people and even in UK would get a 4 or 5 on IELTS.

We are definitely looking at a large number of permanent non-citizens. Id imagine many refugees and foreign born spouses would never ever make it at IELTS 6 thus never achieving citizenship.

Again which comes to the point that these rules should apply to future arrivals as those planning to come to Australia can make an informed decision, rather than back dating it for existing residents. 

[Roberta2]

I recently met a Greek lady who has been here for six decades, and barely speaks English.  She lives in inner Brisbane where there are still enough Greek speakers so that she has never felt the need to learn English.  This does of course mean she is isolated as far as the wider community is concerned- not sure how well she can communicate with her own grandchildren.  She is so old now that she will be exempt from any testing.  But we need to do better - both in requiring higher levels of English, and providing more resources to help people. 

[ian360]

6 hours ago, Quoll said:

Talking to both my sons who graduated from Australia's number one (apparently) University, both would say that there were plenty of people on their courses who could not speak English well enough to pass a degree but there was a process which included group assessments so the less able were dragged up by the ones who chose to work - alternatively, the ones who chose to work were dragged down by those who could either not speak English or chose to spend their days stoned/drunk/asleep.  Both of them were very scathing of their university experience

That is pretty shocking, Quoll. But then again, in the past I worked in education for many years so I really should not be surprised. Of course it does diminish the degree for the people who worked hard for it if you can basically get it just for signing up to the university. I have also worked as an English teacher, teaching English as a foreign language, and so I was able to understand how difficult it is for students to learn English. English is not a simple language despite us native speakers using it instinctively. So I certainly feel some sympathy for the people who need an IELTS 6, as this level is really too high and probably not necessary for a person to simply integrate. I can understand that certain jobs need a higher level, but for citizenship it is unnecessary. IELTS 5 would seem like a more appropriate requirement to me as this is more achievable for most learners of English.

[jolie2015]

55 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

It's normal practice.  Both major parties do it when in government, and it won't change.  It is not backdating, because they announced on 20th April that applications made after 20 April would not be processed until a new law was in place.  There are only three sitting days left in this parliamentary session after today-  although it's not unlikely both houses will sit on Friday because there is a raft of contentious bills still going through, of which the proposed change to citizenship laws is only one.  If the government makes enough concessions to meet ALP concerns, the Senate will be irrelevant.  That applies to all these bills, of course.

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?

[wombatinabox]

Reading the new bill more and more I discover that this is a massive power grab by the minister essentially giving him supreme power to give and revoke a citizenship.

For example:

There is a new clause in this bill that states even those born in Australia are not real citizens for the first 10 years and that the minister has the power to revoke their citizenship

"That for the purposes of automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship, a person is not taken to be ordinarily resident in Australia throughout the period of 10 years beginning on the day the person was born "

there are more clauses that define pretty much anyone's first 10 years as a citizen as your not really a "real citizen" until the 10 years are up and minister can change their mind about you for so many open ended reasons. 

 

Very dangerous and unnerving 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2017 by wombatinabox

[jolie2015]

41 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

I recently met a Greek lady who has been here for six decades, and barely speaks English.  She lives in inner Brisbane where there are still enough Greek speakers so that she has never felt the need to learn English.  This does of course mean she is isolated as far as the wider community is concerned- not sure how well she can communicate with her own grandchildren.  She is so old now that she will be exempt from any testing.  But we need to do better - both in requiring higher levels of English, and providing more resources to help people. 

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.

[dredg97]

Everyone agrees English is fundamental, but I honestly don't like the way it is assessed.

I have met several people at work (welders, TA, electricians, scaffolders) speaking very well (8-9 in the IELTS), but would struggle to get a 6 in the writing component. Writing essays is not for everyone, they would probably fail and never become citizens.

The IELTS defines a competent user a person scoring an overall 6, which is very different from asking to score 6 in each components as apparently required by the new law.

The importance of each component's score makes sense for skilled visas and some specific occupations, but not for citizenship applications (a 5 overall for these would be enough in my opinion).

[Bear2015]

Hello, 

Does anyone know , if applicants who have already obtained more than 6 for IELTS for the English requirement purposes in Skilled PR visa need to resit again ? Of course then the IELTS results will be more than 4 years old. ( outside the validity period of the IELTS). 

 

[wombatinabox]

19 minutes ago, Bear2015 said:

Hello, 

Does anyone know , if applicants who have already obtained more than 6 for IELTS for the English requirement purposes in Skilled PR visa need to resit again ? Of course then the IELTS results will be more than 4 years old. ( outside the validity period of the IELTS). 

 

Yes so far the bill has indicated that PR who did IELTS and passed have to resit the exam regardless if its still valid or not. Unless youre from an English speaking country like US, UK.

Pathetic I know but that's where they are going with this. 

[seeker]

Law has mentioned " Language Tests, Score and Passports 2015 (IMMI 15/005) prescribed in the Migration Regulations 1994", which means you can take IELTS or PTE or TOFEL or CAE or OET and  have to demonstrate  competent level score. 

[Amy Zhang]

41 minutes ago, seeker said:

Law has mentioned " Language Tests, Score and Passports 2015 (IMMI 15/005) prescribed in the Migration Regulations 1994", which means you can take IELTS or PTE or TOFEL or CAE or OET and  have to demonstrate  competent level score. 

Could you please give me the link? Thanks

[path2aus]

I just cant believe that they are going to require us to write English test again. I wrote one last year and got overall score of 8, I wrote one in 2012 and got overall score of 8. Now I am required to write again for Citizenship. This is just ridiculous. A person has already proven that he/she has more than competent English and has worked in Australia for 4 years after obtaining PR or in some cases even before that, and they still want him/her to prove English competency? I just feel this particular part of the amendment does not make any sense to me. There needs to be more exceptions to this requirement. Why not exempt primary visa applicants from writing the test who have already done that when submitting their application? Competent English is 6 if the test is IELTS, do you think all secondary applicants can pass with 6.0?That's a serious jump over just 4 years. Other countries like US does not have this criteria, so just based on passport they are exempted from English test, what if the person having US passport does not speak English?or for that matter UK passport holder?

Edited June 16, 2017 by path2aus

[Amy Zhang]

1 minute ago, path2aus said:

I just cant believe that they are going to require us to write English test again. I wrote one last year and got overall score of 8, I wrote one in 2012 and got overall score of 8. Now I am required to write again for Citizenship. This is just ridiculous. A person has already proven that he has more than competent English and has worked in Australia for 4 years after obtaining PR or in some cases even before that, and they still want him/her to prove English competency? I just feel this particular part of the amendment does not make any sense to me. There needs to be more exceptions to this requirement. Why not exempt primary visa applicants from writing the test who have already done that when submitting their application? Competent English is 6 if the test is IELTS, do you think all secondary applicants can pass with 6.0?That's a serious jump over just 4 years. Other countries like US does not have this criteria, so just based on passport they are exempted from English test, what if the person having US passport does not speak English?or for that matter UK passport holder?

Totally agree! Why could not they make more exemptions?

[ian360]

3 minutes ago, path2aus said:

I just cant believe that they are going to require us to write English test again. I wrote one last year and got overall score of 8, I wrote one in 2012 and got overall score of 8. Now I am required to write again for Citizenship. This is just ridiculous. A person has already proven that he/she has more than competent English and has worked in Australia for 4 years after obtaining PR or in some cases even before that, and they still want him/her to prove English competency? I just feel this particular part of the amendment does not make any sense to me. There needs to be more exceptions to this requirement. Why not exempt primary visa applicants from writing the test who have already done that when submitting their application? Competent English is 6 if the test is IELTS, do you think all secondary applicants can pass with 6.0?That's a serious jump over just 4 years. Other countries like US does not have this criteria, so just based on passport they are exempted from English test, what if the person having US passport does not speak English?or for that matter UK passport holder?

I have to agree with this also. It makes no sense.

[seeker]

Proposed amendments link is below, refer page 76 for English requirements. 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5914_ems_93402f76-ce95-4678-928f-9d18e6de4fda/upload_pdf/636073.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

[path2aus]

4 minutes ago, seeker said:

Proposed amendments link is below, refer page 76 for English requirements. 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5914_ems_93402f76-ce95-4678-928f-9d18e6de4fda/upload_pdf/636073.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

Still does not make sense, people who are on PR have already integrated into the community and are working and contributing. This makes us feel that a person will only start contributing after getting citizenship. Also some who probably transitioned from Work visa to PR might have worked for 6 years in Australia before applying for Citizenship. Now are they saying that people who are contributing for 4-6 years and have proven their English competency, suddenly after being in Australia have regressed? I think the GOVT is confused about skilled migration and have forgotten about the requirements to obtain a PR. Every individual who is a primary applicant needs to display at least competent English to even qualify. Now after 4 years of staying, working and contributing, you say that the person needs to prove the English competency again. This proves what one of the posters above mentioned about even the locals might not be able to get 6 in all categories. The Australian GOVT agrees, that speaking and interacting with the locals for a period of 4 years can damage an immigrants English competency, so it needs to be tested again. Now I get it and I don't mind giving the test again. Probably I will take it every year to prove my English competency has remained the same for 4 years?  

[Sheila]

Consider it extra 330 fees, if English competency is not an issue. 

[ovel]

35 minutes ago, path2aus said:

Still does not make sense, people who are on PR have already integrated into the community and are working and contributing. This makes us feel that a person will only start contributing after getting citizenship. Also some who probably transitioned from Work visa to PR might have worked for 6 years in Australia before applying for Citizenship. Now are they saying that people who are contributing for 4-6 years and have proven their English competency, suddenly after being in Australia have regressed? I think the GOVT is confused about skilled migration and have forgotten about the requirements to obtain a PR. Every individual who is a primary applicant needs to display at least competent English to even qualify. Now after 4 years of staying, working and contributing, you say that the person needs to prove the English competency again. This proves what one of the posters above mentioned about even the locals might not be able to get 6 in all categories. The Australian GOVT agrees, that speaking and interacting with the locals for a period of 4 years can damage an immigrants English competency, so it needs to be tested again. Now I get it and I don't mind giving the test again. Probably I will take it every year to prove my English competency has remained the same for 4 years?  

I think it's all more for partners who were waived the IELTS (and then their main applicant paid ~$4000 to be taught up to IELTS 4.5 overall). My wife, for example got IELTS overall 5.5  five years ago. Maybe she has a better level now, but, to be honest the exam itself is quite stressful, especially the writing part where you need to write an essay about some stupid topic which you simply have no idea of. +extra $300 fee. i don't get this. 

[seeker]

17 minutes ago, path2aus said:

Still does not make sense, people who are on PR have already integrated into the community and are working and contributing. This makes us feel that a person will only start contributing after getting citizenship. Also some who probably transitioned from Work visa to PR might have worked for 6 years in Australia before applying for Citizenship. Now are they saying that people who are contributing for 4-6 years and have proven their English competency, suddenly after being in Australia have regressed? I think the GOVT is confused about skilled migration and have forgotten about the requirements to obtain a PR. Every individual who is a primary applicant needs to display at least competent English to even qualify. Now after 4 years of staying, working and contributing, you say that the person needs to prove the English competency again. This proves what one of the posters above mentioned about even the locals might not be able to get 6 in all categories. The Australian GOVT agrees, that speaking and interacting with the locals for a period of 4 years can damage an immigrants English competency, so it needs to be tested again. Now I get it and I don't mind giving the test again. Probably I will take it every year to prove my English competency has remained the same for 4 years?  

Proposed amendments have many rules which doesn't make any sense

1) English test: People who took English exam to get PR, should take the exam again for Citizenship.

Every year around 150000 people taking the citizenship, if at least 75% of them take at least one time and everyone may not be able to clear in first attempt, in this case they have appear for the exam again. Assuming 20% of them appear for test twice, which would be around 150000 attempts needs to be given, which is 150000*330$=50 million dollars goes to English tests centers pockets, so government is looting our money and giving to private organisations.

Number of human hours effort required to pass the test: on an average if we assume 100 hours required to prepare for the test, which would be 15 million hours effort. just to prove that we can speak, read, write and listen English, though have taken the same exam 4 years ago to get a PR and living in English speaking country for at least 4 years. 

2) " increase the maximum period of deferral for making the pledge of allegiance to become an Australian citizen from 12 months to 2 years" 

 

On the contrary, you should take the pledge within the 12 months after the case is approved'

"provide for the discretionary cancellation of approval of Australian citizenship where the applicant is required to make the pledge of allegiance before becoming a citizen and the applicant fails to make the pledge within 12 months after being approved to become an Australian citizen and the reason for the failure is not one prescribed by the Regulation"

Be ready to wait for more time after the citizenship case is approved, max 2 years. so after getting a PR, to get Aussie passport we need to wait 5 to 6 years and 

 

3) Superior powers to minister to cancel the approved citizenship cases. Do u want to go to court? don't waste the money again, Minister and have a final call. 

 

[Roberta2]

5 hours ago, jolie2015 said:

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?

Basically, four Australians killed by terrorists in Australia, and at least a dozen plots foiled.  Extra time to check up on those who already have PR, since once they have citizenship it is much harder to deport them.  Dual citizens can be deported, but you can't deport anyone who has become an Australian citizen and renounced his/her  former citizenship.   The Lindt cafe siege also showed a lot of flaws in the system re Momis, especially the lack of effective communication among various state agencies and judicial systems.  Call it all a loss of innocence if you like.

[path2aus]

8 minutes ago, ovel said:

I think it's all more for partners who were waived the IELTS (and then their main applicant paid ~$4000 to be taught up to IELTS 4.5 overall). My wife, for example got IELTS overall 5.5  five years ago. Maybe she has a better level now, but, to be honest the exam itself is quite stressful, especially the writing part where you need to write an essay about some stupid topic which you simply have no idea of. +extra $300 fee. i don't get this. 

My Wife got overall 7 last year when we wrote the exam. She speaks better English than me, she just lost out on the listening and reading to end up with 7. Like you said the exam is really irritating and stressful. Listening to a conversation in IELTS is not the same as talking to someone in person and responding to them. The latter is much easier than the former. The test does not test your ability to listen and understand, it instead tests your speed. Don't you think that the speaking test kind of covers your listening ability as well? Unless you understood the examiner's question, you would not be able to respond with a relevant answer. So my question is, isn't that more real world listening test? IELTS kind of listening test is probably good for colleges/schools etc where people have to follow lectures and take notes. That level of listening and speed is not required in real world. I don't have to fill up a blank and keenly listen to someone when I am in a conversation with someone. Hope some sense prevails and the GOVT understands what integrating with the community means and what sort of English skills are actually required for that. These tests were never designed for immigration purpose.

Edited June 16, 2017 by path2aus

[Roberta2]

1 hour ago, seeker said:

Proposed amendments link is below, refer page 76 for English requirements. 

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r5914_ems_93402f76-ce95-4678-928f-9d18e6de4fda/upload_pdf/636073.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

It's a bit confusing, but technically this Bill is to amend -  in effect replace - two previous Acts of Parliament.  Next stage is for the Opposition, the Greens and possibly independent Members of the House of Representatives to propose their own amendments.  After that, it's a process of negotiation(haggling)  to see whether the Government can get this Bill (as amended) passed in the lower house, where it has only a one seat majority.  If the ALP supports an amended version of the bill, it will pass through the Senate without further amendments because the crossbenchers will not be able to stop it.  

[ovel]

23 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

It's a bit confusing, but technically this Bill is to amend -  in effect replace - two previous Acts of Parliament.  Next stage is for the Opposition, the Greens and possibly independent Members of the House of Representatives to propose their own amendments.  After that, it's a process of negotiation(haggling)  to see whether the Government can get this Bill (as amended) passed in the lower house, where it has only a one seat majority.  If the ALP supports an amended version of the bill, it will pass through the Senate without further amendments because the crossbenchers will not be able to stop it.  

Thanks for the explanations, but still not clear why all our applications are on hold then ? Why they  actually have already put the requirement about competent English posession on the DIBP site? Is this ok to do like that before the law actually came in effect ? 

[Nemesis]

6 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

I recently met a Greek lady who has been here for six decades, and barely speaks English.  She lives in inner Brisbane where there are still enough Greek speakers so that she has never felt the need to learn English.  This does of course mean she is isolated as far as the wider community is concerned- not sure how well she can communicate with her own grandchildren.  She is so old now that she will be exempt from any testing.  But we need to do better - both in requiring higher levels of English, and providing more resources to help people. 

I now a similar elderly Greek lady,I was friendly with her adult daughter. The lady had been in brisbane since the 1960s, knew barely a word f English and relied on her daughter for all communication. She had plenty of chances to earnt the language as she had no need to work, but she preferred to speak Greek with her friends and family.

 

I forsee the change will just result in fewer people taking citizenship - not just because of the level of English required, but because of the combined cost. 

[Ali369829]

On 6/14/2017 at 12:56, Amy Zhang said:

Well, let's just wait and see. Hopefully next week we can get more clear idea.