Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[Nemesis]

1 hour ago, Nick Perth said:

I certainly will be lobbying them all.  Under the current rules the 457 visa and PR both count to PR as long as you have one year PR and a total of four years here. I can't see why this should change or at least there should be transitional rules. 

Its nothing to do with a 457 really. The rules allowed for 3 years of 'temporary residence' - that encompasses far more than just 457s.

Take Spouse Visa holders for instance. Some arrived on a Prospective Marriage Visa, and therefore will have usually done more than a year of temporary residence before even getting their provisional spouse visa. Two years on that at least before getting PR (sometimes three or more depending on processing time). Then a year on PR. Even under the old system many were here for 5-6 years in total before becoming eligible for citizenship. That will now become 4 years on PR, making many Spouse Vosa holders wait 7-8-9 years from arrival before becoming eligible. 

And other visa holders are impacted too, those who started on student visa for instance.

[jess6]

On 24/06/2017 at 17:54, silencio said:

How realistic is it that established migrants with a mortgage, children at school will strive for a career as a student or becoming a pollie in Canberra? Not very likely I guess.

I know of a few people around me re-starting a career and re-studying in their 40's. Why would migrants be any different?

I am quite confident that some well educated migrants would be comfortable with a political career.

At the end of the day, it's always the same: what applies to you does not apply for everyone ; your belief system and reality are just yours.

It's not because you are not interested that the opportunity should be removed from others!

[ian360]

3 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I know of a few people around me re-starting a career and re-studying in their 40's. Why would migrants be any different?

I am quite confident that some well educated migrants would be comfortable with a political career.

At the end of the day, it's always the same: what applies to you does not apply for everyone ; your belief system and reality are just yours.

It's not because you are not interested that the opportunity should be removed from others!

I am one of those migrants. I worked in education for most of my life and made a career change 2 years ago into something completely different. I am now 43 years old. I guess that variety is the spice of life!

Edited June 26, 2017 by ian360

[jess6]

15 hours ago, silencio said:

This is NOT a benefit to me as I would lose my citizenship of my country of origin.

Ha, ha you are an 'intelligent' person recommending others to deprive the citizenship of country of origin to they can NOT after their parents!!! and

You have obviously no idea about countries not permitting their citizens to hold dual nationality?

What a gain to hold an Aussie passport and not being able to look after my parents because my country of origin makes it a requirement to hold a visa while I would look after them which has to be renewed and also to reapply for a work permission. Or how would you look after your parents not working yourself?

By the way, how many people are able to afford to go back to look after their parents with a mortgage and teenagers who don't wish to relocate again? To sell the house, resettle again etc. By the way, even with an Aussie passports we all get older down the track and ageism is still alive as far as I'm concerned and in my job my skills would be outdated coming back to Australia (depending on the industry you are in of course).

So don't waste your breath for not knowing the situation of PR's who are not allowed to become dual nationals. It's only hooey in my ears.

So, because YOU cannot have dual citizenship, other people should not be able to have it either if their country allows it? Maybe you could campaign in your country of origin to have this changed?

Regarding the parent situation, it's up to people to organise their life as they wish. Not everyone has a mortgage. And even if they do, there is always a solution to a problem. People can rent their property!

See the big picture, it's not all about you. 

[Phoenix16]

17 hours ago, silencio said:

This is NOT a benefit to me as I would lose my citizenship of my country of origin.

Ha, ha you are an 'intelligent' person recommending others to deprive the citizenship of country of origin to they can NOT after their parents!!! and

You have obviously no idea about countries not permitting their citizens to hold dual nationality?

What a gain to hold an Aussie passport and not being able to look after my parents because my country of origin makes it a requirement to hold a visa while I would look after them which has to be renewed and also to reapply for a work permission. Or how would you look after your parents not working yourself?

By the way, how many people are able to afford to go back to look after their parents with a mortgage and teenagers who don't wish to relocate again? To sell the house, resettle again etc. By the way, even with an Aussie passports we all get older down the track and ageism is still alive as far as I'm concerned and in my job my skills would be outdated coming back to Australia (depending on the industry you are in of course).

So don't waste your breath for not knowing the situation of PR's who are not allowed to become dual nationals. It's only hooey in my ears.

Wow, you are incredibly rude and your comment is not worth even replying to

Edited June 26, 2017 by Phoenix16
Not worth responding to

[Roberta2]

Only Citizens can work for the federal or state public services, no?

[NicF]

1 minute ago, Roberta2 said:

Only Citizens can work for the federal or state public services, no?

No.  Only citizens can work for federal public services but the states are happy for people who are not citizens to work for them.

[wombatinabox]

1 minute ago, Roberta2 said:

Only Citizens can work for the federal or state public services, no?

Depends on the job, the state and the department. Some gov jobs are open for PR

[jess6]

5 hours ago, ian360 said:

I am one of those migrants. I worked in education for most of my life and made a career change 2 years ago into something completely different. I am now 43 years old. I guess that variety is the spice of life!

I find that awesome - congrats!

[logbook100]

Just checked the parliament website the bill has been

• Referred to Committee (22/06/2017): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Report due 04/09/2017

[Rick89]

Just now, logbook100 said:

Just checked the parliament website the bill has been

• Referred to Committee (22/06/2017): Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee; Report due 04/09/2017

What does this mean?  Are they to be questioning the legalities of the changes the bill proposes?

Edited June 28, 2017 by Rick89

[Roberta2]

The law is what the politicians make it.  It's called democracy.

[seeker]

31 minutes ago, Roberta2 said:

The law is what the politicians make it.  It's called democracy.

So.. It due date is September in september?

What is the situation of the people who lodged the applications after April 20th?. Are they allowed to travel outside Australia for few months? Should they need inform DIBP before they travel? will their applications considered if they are outside of Australia  when Citizenship application is in progress?

[Roberta2]

September 4 is when the Committee issues its report.  The Bill still has to go through the parliament before it becomes law.  No one can say how it will end up.

[Roberta2]

No citizenship application made after 20 April CAN now be "in progress".  That's because no one can know what will be decided re the length of time PRs have to wait before they can apply for citizenship.  Plus all the other issues in play, such as English language requirements etc.  The factional warfare that has just broken out (again)  in the Liberal Party may complicate matters too. The hardliners who want to topple Turnbull (again) are feeling the heat on their right flank from One Nation, especially in Queensland, where a state election is due soon.  Hanson wants NO immigration, and also wants PRs to have to wait eight years before they can apply for citizenship.

[jess6]

2 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

No citizenship application made after 20 April CAN now be "in progress".  That's because no one can know what will be decided re the length of time PRs have to wait before they can apply for citizenship.  Plus all the other issues in play, such as English language requirements etc.  The factional warfare that has just broken out (again)  in the Liberal Party may complicate matters too. The hardliners who want to topple Turnbull (again) are feeling the heat on their right flank from One Nation, especially in Queensland, where a state election is due soon.  Hanson wants NO immigration, and also wants PRs to have to wait eight years before they can apply for citizenship.

I am really not an expert in Australian politics but I believe there is a very loud minority of nationalists who are far from being representative of Australia.

Now I found the following "The numbers in Senate are as follows: Coalition 30, Labor 26, Greens 9, One Nation 4, Nick Xenophon Team 3, plus Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch, Mr Leyonhjelm and Family First's Bob Day."

Sorry to ask this question but can someone explain me why One Nation is coming up in that thread all the time? 

How realistic is it to believe that this party will ever get anything that they want?

Given this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/australia-reaches-tipping-point-with-quarter-of-population-born-overseas

And this: Approximate breakdown of population by state (rounded): NSW is 7.5M, Victoria is 5.8M, Queensland is 4.7M, WA is 2.6M, South Australia is 1.7M, NT, ACT and Tasmania less than one million each.

This is an honest and candid question. 

[Nemesis]

5 hours ago, seeker said:

So.. It due date is September in september?

What is the situation of the people who lodged the applications after April 20th?. Are they allowed to travel outside Australia for few months? Should they need inform DIBP before they travel? will their applications considered if they are outside of Australia  when Citizenship application is in progress?

The situation is that they remain on their existing visas. If those visas allow travel, they can continue to travel. If the travel section of the visa has run out they will need a RRV. Their applications are on hold and so they just continue with normal life.

[Nemesis]

1 hour ago, jess6 said:

I am really not an expert in Australian politics but I believe there is a very loud minority of nationalists who are far from being representative of Australia.

Now I found the following "The numbers in Senate are as follows: Coalition 30, Labor 26, Greens 9, One Nation 4, Nick Xenophon Team 3, plus Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch, Mr Leyonhjelm and Family First's Bob Day."

Sorry to ask this question but can someone explain me why One Nation is coming up in that thread all the time? 

How realistic is it to believe that this party will ever get anything that they want?

Given this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/australia-reaches-tipping-point-with-quarter-of-population-born-overseas

And this: Approximate breakdown of population by state (rounded): NSW is 7.5M, Victoria is 5.8M, Queensland is 4.7M, WA is 2.6M, South Australia is 1.7M, NT, ACT and Tasmania less than one million each.

This is an honest and candid question. 

Unfortunately after living for many years in Queensland I can tell you that One Nation are becoming increasingly popular there, especially in the country areas. Many country queenslanders have always been suspicious of immigrants, of muslims and followers of other religions that rhey consider "unaustralian", of people who have a different cultural background from themselves, etc. Hanson knows exactly how to dance to their tune and get them to support her. As a result of living there so long I have many born & bred Queensland mates on my facebook and it's quite scary at times seeing how supposedly intelligent people can be taken in by Hanson's rubbish. I see posts being shared about how immigration should be stopped at once, or limited to white people, how Brisbane is now totally populated by Asians and should be reclaimed for the "true blue ozzie" (whatever the heck that is!), how speaking of other languages should be banned, and even a petition to try and stop the government from translating emergency cyclone leaflets into other languages -it basically said that if people can't read it in English they don't deserve to survive. 

Hanson is one reason why I am very glad to be out of that place. 

[ian360]

4 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Unfortunately after living for many years in Queensland I can tell you that One Nation are becoming increasingly popular there, especially in the country areas. Many country queenslanders have always been suspicious of immigrants, of muslims and followers of other religions that rhey consider "unaustralian", of people who have a different cultural background from themselves, etc. Hanson knows exactly how to dance to their tune and get them to support her. As a result of living there so long I have many born & bred Queensland mates on my facebook and it's quite scary at times seeing how supposedly intelligent people can be taken in by Hanson's rubbish. I see posts being shared about how immigration should be stopped at once, or limited to white people, how Brisbane is now totally populated by Asians and should be reclaimed for the "true blue ozzie" (whatever the heck that is!), how speaking of other languages should be banned, and even a petition to try and stop the government from translating emergency cyclone leaflets into other languages -it basically said that if people can't read it in English they don't deserve to survive. 

Hanson is one reason why I am very glad to be out of that place. 

Wow! I never knew it had got to that point. That is appalling!

[Roberta2]

24 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I am really not an expert in Australian politics but I believe there is a very loud minority of nationalists who are far from being representative of Australia.

Now I found the following "The numbers in Senate are as follows: Coalition 30, Labor 26, Greens 9, One Nation 4, Nick Xenophon Team 3, plus Jacqui Lambie, Derryn Hinch, Mr Leyonhjelm and Family First's Bob Day."

Sorry to ask this question but can someone explain me why One Nation is coming up in that thread all the time? 

How realistic is it to believe that this party will ever get anything that they want?

Given this: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jun/27/australia-reaches-tipping-point-with-quarter-of-population-born-overseas

And this: Approximate breakdown of population by state (rounded): NSW is 7.5M, Victoria is 5.8M, Queensland is 4.7M, WA is 2.6M, South Australia is 1.7M, NT, ACT and Tasmania less than one million each.

This is an honest and candid question. 

It's a fair enough question.

Population disparities don't mean anything re the Senate.

That's because at Federation in 1901, it was decided that the Senate would be the States' house.  So each State has equal representation in the Senate.  The Senate was also given a veto on money bills - the cause of the constitutional crisis in 1975 when the Whitlam government lost control of the Senate.  

Currently, there are 6 Senators from each State and two each from the two territories - the ACT and the Northern Territories. 

Bob Day had to step down, by the way.  His Senate seat is now held by Lucy Gichuhi, who was on the Family First ticket in the last federal election, but has now declared herself an independent.  Read her recent maiden speech to get some idea of her views.

If the ALP and Greens oppose the new citizenship bill when it gets to the Senate, the government will need the four One Nation Senators.  Xenophon's 3 and all the others add up to only seven; the government needs ten. 

That's why Pauline Hanson has so much clout.  And why so few in the government were willing to attack her recently over her autism comments. Barnaby Joyce having to bite his tongue is always worth watching.

Of course, if the government can cut a deal with Shorten in the House of Reps, the Senate will be irrelevant.  Shorten is among those who have to think carefully.

 

[Parley]

Malcolm has taken the Liberal party to the verge of a split.

I will be voting for either One Nation or Cory Bernadi at the next election unless Tony Abbott is back as PM before then.

Only then will I resume voting for the Liberals.

[ian360]

Do Australia have an equivalent to Bernie Sanders in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK?

[Parley]

6 minutes ago, ian360 said:

Do Australia have an equivalent to Bernie Sanders in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK?

We don't really have full on left wing socialists here for some reason.

I don't think they get any support. They are seen as too radical and akin to communists.

[Roberta2]

Just now, Parley said:

We don't really have full on left wing socialists here for some reason.

I don't think they get any support. They are seen as too radical and akin to communists.

Senator Lee Rhiannon is the closest we have, and she is only one senator.  She and her parents were longtime communists.  They continued to support the Soviet Union after the tanks were sent into Prague in 1968, and were then expelled from the Communist Party.  They then started the Australian Socialists,  with the support of the most radical unions.  After the fall of the Wall, she and her ilk became watermelons - Green on the outside but still red on the inside.  Bob Brown has been trying to get rid of her for some time - she gave him a lot more scope last week re what happened on Gonski 2 in the Senate.  But she won't go easily.  As for the ALP, it learned its lesson during the Split in the 1950s, which kept it out of power for 23 years.  It's basically a party of pragmatists which dumped the "socialist objective" some time ago.

[jess6]

2 hours ago, Roberta2 said:

It's a fair enough question.

Population disparities don't mean anything re the Senate.

That's because at Federation in 1901, it was decided that the Senate would be the States' house.  So each State has equal representation in the Senate.  The Senate was also given a veto on money bills - the cause of the constitutional crisis in 1975 when the Whitlam government lost control of the Senate.  

Currently, there are 6 Senators from each State and two each from the two territories - the ACT and the Northern Territories. 

Bob Day had to step down, by the way.  His Senate seat is now held by Lucy Gichuhi, who was on the Family First ticket in the last federal election, but has now declared herself an independent.  Read her recent maiden speech to get some idea of her views.

If the ALP and Greens oppose the new citizenship bill when it gets to the Senate, the government will need the four One Nation Senators.  Xenophon's 3 and all the others add up to only seven; the government needs ten. 

That's why Pauline Hanson has so much clout.  And why so few in the government were willing to attack her recently over her autism comments. Barnaby Joyce having to bite his tongue is always worth watching.

Of course, if the government can cut a deal with Shorten in the House of Reps, the Senate will be irrelevant.  Shorten is among those who have to think carefully.

 

Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me - everything makes much more sense to me now  

Do we know the position of Xenophon and Hinch on the matter?