Beffers

Changes to pathway to Citizenship

Recommended Posts

Roberta2    36
1 hour 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.  

I was wrong on the timing.  The ALP caucus is meeting next week to deliberate on this bill, so obviously it's going to take a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moneycorp

Moneycorp

Roberta2    36
1 hour ago, ovel said:

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 ? 

Yes. Otherwise the ALP and the Greens would be howling about it, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberta2    36

The Parliamentary Winter session ends 22 June.  A lot of contentious Bills, including this one, are likely to go to the wire, but that's pretty standard.  It's not uncommon for parliament to sit late into the night, or even to have a session on the Friday if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberta2    36
46 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

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. 

There are often problems when such people go into aged care if/when they cannot communicate with the staff.   Obviously, the families can't be there all the time to interpret. Only a few migrant communities are big enough to deal with this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wombatinabox    16
2 hours ago, seeker said:

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. 

 

Point #3 is very dangerous and unnerving. Also the bill introduces a new clause that says the first 10 years of your citizenship even if you are born here allows the minister full power to revoke it at any time. It's also not a full citizenship effectively until after 10 years.

Minister powers also over rides courts, it's dictatorship style. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parley    452
1 hour ago, Ali369829 said:

 

IMG_5347.PNG

IMG_5348.PNG

The Greens have a grand total of 1 seat in the parliament so who cares what they think.

They are irrelevant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amibovered    614
3 minutes ago, Parley said:

The Greens have a grand total of 1 seat in the parliament so who cares what they think.

They are irrelevant.

And Labour and the Greens don't really get on that well, Labour will be listening to what the unions say not what the Greens say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberta2    36
5 minutes ago, amibovered said:

And Labour and the Greens don't really get on that well, Labour will be listening to what the unions say not what the Greens say.

The union movement is not a monolith either.  The CMFEU and the AWU are rarely on the same page, for example.  As to Labor and the Greens, they are at daggers drawn over Gonski 2 - and the Greens are also internally divided on that one.  All good fun, but outcomes hard to predict.  All you can say for sure is that they will all be pretty tired by the end of next week!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wombatinabox    16

What do you guys think of the new 10 year rule, does this mean children born to PR will now only recieve a citizenship after 10 years? 

limiting automatic acquisition of citizenship at ten years of age to those persons:
o whose parent(s) is not entitled to any diplomatic and/ or consular 
privileges or immunities; or 
o who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the ten 
years; or
o who held a valid visa permitting them to travel to, enter and remain in 
Australia throughout the ten-year period; or
o whose parent was a lawful non-citizen at all times between that parent’s 
last entry to Australia prior to the person’s birth and the person’s birth. 
Section 12 of the Act provides, among other matters, that a person born in Australia who 
is not otherwise an Australian citizen becomes a citizen on their tenth birthday if they 
were ‘ordinarily resident’ in Australia for the first ten years of their life. This is known as the 10 year rule 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinny    4
9 hours 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.

It is retrospective application. Current legislation is being disregarded in anticipation of revised legislation...hence the referral to backdating!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinny    4
7 hours ago, wombatinabox said:

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. 

Someone earlier pointed out the irony of these proposals and the blanked inclusion of Canada as an English speaking country! These proposals would be more palatable if it at least appeared like some thought went into them....unfortunately, as is the case with politicians the world over, put your ignorance on display and hope that the majority that vote are more ignorant than you and don't notice!

Edited by Spinny
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinny    4

What's the bet on the proposed amendments getting referred to a parliamentary committee....any takers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickyNook    364
1 hour ago, wombatinabox said:

What do you guys think of the new 10 year rule, does this mean children born to PR will now only recieve a citizenship after 10 years? 

limiting automatic acquisition of citizenship at ten years of age to those persons:
o whose parent(s) is not entitled to any diplomatic and/ or consular 
privileges or immunities; or 
o who have maintained lawful residence in Australia throughout the ten 
years; or
o who held a valid visa permitting them to travel to, enter and remain in 
Australia throughout the ten-year period; or
o whose parent was a lawful non-citizen at all times between that parent’s 
last entry to Australia prior to the person’s birth and the person’s birth. 
Section 12 of the Act provides, among other matters, that a person born in Australia who 
is not otherwise an Australian citizen becomes a citizen on their tenth birthday if they 
were ‘ordinarily resident’ in Australia for the first ten years of their life. This is known as the 10 year rule 

 

The 10 Year rule is not new. It provides for automatic citizenship to children who were born in Australia and who were not citizens at birth but who have lived in Australia for 10 years. This means the children of parents who were here on temp visas, children of NZ citizens etc. 

It looks like the new regulations are tightening up this automatic citizenship to exclude children who have not spend the entire 10 years here legally. 

It has nothing to do with children of PR parents who get Australian citizenship automatically at birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian360    20
43 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Someone earlier pointed out the irony of these proposals and the blanked inclusion of Canada as an English speaking country! These proposals would be more palatable if it at least appeared like some thought went into them....unfortunately, as is the case with politicians the world over, put your ignorance on display and hope that the majority that vote are more ignorant than you and don't notice!

Hahahaha! This is actually very true!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottieGirl    842
3 hours ago, wombatinabox said:

Point #3 is very dangerous and unnerving. Also the bill introduces a new clause that says the first 10 years of your citizenship even if you are born here allows the minister full power to revoke it at any time. It's also not a full citizenship effectively until after 10 years.

Minister powers also over rides courts, it's dictatorship style. 

This is so that they can deport terrorists or suspected  terrorists ,  most Aussies will be more than happy to do so, Human rights lawyers may have a problem with it but the man in the street won't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NickyNook    364
10 hours ago, wombatinabox said:

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 

 

 

You've completely got the wrong end of the stick here.

The 'automatic acquisition of Australian citizenship' refers to the current rule whereby children born in Australia to parents who are not PR or citizens, and who have lived in Australia for 10 years, have an automatic right to Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday. 

It's got absolutely nothing to do with people being born with Australian citizenship or people acquiring citizenship as adults. It most certainly does not say that these people are not 'real' citizens. It's just a tightening up of the current eligibility requirements for these children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spinny    4

This has to do with the contempt of court case involving three govt ministers........This is due to Section 44 of the Constitution, which precludes anyone who is under sentence, or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer from remaining as an MP. - See more at: http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/06/16/turnbull-government-ministers-to-face-court.html#sthash.xPKxtpgF.dpuf....

If they're dual nationals they better watch out....Dutton may deem them undesirable and deport them!!!

 

Edited by Spinny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberta2    36
17 hours ago, amibovered said:

And Labour and the Greens don't really get on that well, Labour will be listening to what the unions say not what the Greens say.

The Greens hold 9 Senate seats.  The government has 29; it needs 39 to pass a Bill.  So if the ALP and the Greens won't pass this Bill, the government has to get the support of 10 of the 12 crossbenchers.  Like herding cats.  Hanson's One Nation has 4 seats; her support is assured on this.  IF the ALP supports some amended version of the Bill, the Senate becomes irrelevant.  The outcome could well hinge on the ALP Caucus meeting some time early next week.  Among other things, the Caucus members from Queensland will be very wary of conceding ground to Hanson - State elections are due fairly soon, and she is polling strongly in regional and rural seats where unemployment is high and job prospects generally gloomy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ali369829    10

Today 12pm will parliamentary start hope labor oppose..

if im not wrong without labor support it will be hard to pass from parliament 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberta2    36
15 minutes ago, Ali369829 said:

Today 12pm will parliamentary start hope labor oppose..

if im not wrong without labor support it will be hard to pass from parliament 

A lot of horse trading is taking place.  Without the support of the ALP and the Greens, the Government will need the support of 10 of the 12 crossbenchers in the Senate.  Difficult but not impossible - and of course the Government will have to be willing to make changes to get the Bill (in some form) across the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dv4    16
On 2017-6-15 at 21:26, Roberta2 said:

Possibly true.  Totally irrelevant.

Hi Roberta2,

Just wondering what your comment above was in reference to? That the average Joe has an IELTS English of 4.5 but migrants need a 6.0? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now