# Citizenship changes



## MaxPower

> The Turnbull Government will strengthen Australian citizenship by putting Australian values at the heart of citizenship processes and requirements.
> 
> Our reforms will ensure applicants are competent in English, have been a permanent resident for at least four years and commit to embracing Australian values.
> 
> Australia is an immigration nation. We are the most successful multicultural society in the world. More than 130,000 people from around 210 countries are invited to become Australian citizens each year. We welcome the contribution, opportunities and energy they bring to our community.
> 
> Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.
> 
> Citizenship is at the heart of our national identity. It is the foundation of our democracy. We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest. The reforms will include:
> 
> 
> Requiring all applicants to pass a stand-alone English test, involving reading, writing, listening and speaking;
> Requiring applicants to have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least four years (instead of one year at present);
> Strengthening the citizenship test itself with new and more meaningful questions that assess an applicant's understanding of - and commitment to - our shared values and responsibilities;
> Requiring applicants to show the steps they have taken to integrate into and contribute to the Australian community. Examples would include evidence of employment, membership of community organisations and school enrolment for all eligible children.
> Limiting the number of times an applicant can fail the citizenship test to three (at present there is no limit to the number of times an applicant can fail the test);
> Introducing an automatic fail for applicants who cheat during the citizenship test.
> In our democracy, the most important title is "Australian citizen". Citizenship brings with it great privileges and responsibilities and so deserves respect and commitment from those who seek it, as well as those who are granted it.
> 
> Those who choose to become Australian citizens are making a solemn commitment to our democracy, to our way of life. And that commitment, made by 5 million since 1949, has helped secure and enrich our nation.
> 
> English language proficiency is essential for economic participation. It promotes integration into the Australian community and social cohesion. Relevant exemptions will apply, such as for permanent or enduring incapacity and for those under 16 years of age.
> 
> Any conduct that is inconsistent with Australian values will be considered as part of this process. For example, criminal activity, including violence against women and children, involvement in gangs or organised crime, is thoroughly inconsistent with Australian values.
> 
> These changes have been informed by the feedback received from the National Consultation on Citizenship, conducted by Senator the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and the Hon Philip Ruddock MP in 2015 and the 2016 Productivity Commission Report Migrant Intake into Australia.
> 
> The new requirements will apply to all new applications for Australian citizenship.


Ouch for wifey maybe ... was looking forward to her citizenship application in 2 months but going by this may need to wait another 3 years 

I have no problem with the changes and tougher conditions, but stuff like English requirements, values etc it should be done at PR time not citizenship time

---

edit - have been told by DIBP on the phone that these new requirements won't come into effect until the citizenship law changes is passed by parliament, so in our case hope it drags out for 2 months


----------



## Xyzaus

Totally agree! I would apply in less than a month's time but under the new laws I'm not eligible before 2020!!!


----------



## Xyzaus

MaxPower said:


> edit - have been told by DIBP on the phone that these new requirements won't come into effect until the citizenship law changes is passed by parliament, so in our case hope it drags out for 2 months


That's good news!!


----------



## BionicAllah

Xyzaus said:


> That's good news!!


I hope it drags out until March next year. Feeling so broken today.


----------



## Dinoo

Same  ! More and more waits. In the meantime we can provide our views on these changes by emailing [email protected] by the 1st of June 2017.

Link: Submissions and discussion papers


----------



## JanneKL

So glad I received sc 100 at the same time as sc 309...


----------



## MaxPower

Still a lot of water to go under the bridge before it becomes law and possible amendments and stuff, depends on what the Senate cross benchers are thinking

A fair amendment would be that the 4 year waiting period begins for those granted a PR from the date of the passing of the changes and those with PR grants before that remain at 1 year

Email Messers Xeonphon, Hinch & co


----------



## JanneKL

MaxPower said:


> A fair amendment would be that the 4 year waiting period begins for those granted a PR from the date of the passing of the changes and those with PR grants before that remain at 1 year


Yes, but a fair change to the 457 would also be to process all applications submitted before 18.04.2017 according to the old regulations/ocupation lists and only apply the new rules to the applications submitted after that deadline. They are not doing that though. Some People will have to withdraw their applications. So I doubt they will be fair when it comes to new citizenship regulations....


----------



## summersky

Yeah I agree the English competency requirement should be during the PR application, hence all "future" citizen (by conferral) = most likely able to speak decent English.


----------



## Xyzaus

WHEN ARE THE NEW CHANGES COMING INTO EFFECT?
The Government will introduce new citizenship related legislation into the Parliament, informed by responses to this paper, by the end of 2017. The package of reforms will apply to applications received on or after the Government's announcement on 20 April 2017.

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/discussion-papers/citizenship-paper.pdf

I'm confused :/


----------



## MaxPower

Too confuse matters even more, I've been told that changes to the citizenship law will be backdated to today (20/4) when it passes parliament

But the lady at my local MP office couldn't actually say what would happen to new applications lodged between today and whenever the law gets changed and if they will fall under the new or old requirements or DIBP will stop the lodging of new applications altogether in the meantime

Best to take a valium and let the dust settle a bit


----------



## Eizzi

MaxPower said:


> Too confuse matters even more, I've been told that changes to the citizenship law will be backdated to today (20/4) when it passes parliament


Noooooo, I'm putting my app in today! Hahaha


----------



## BionicAllah

Eizzi said:


> Noooooo, I'm putting my app in today! Hahaha


Ezzi you to be a PR for 12 months. Have you had that?


----------



## Eizzi

BionicAllah said:


> Ezzi you to be a PR for 12 months. Have you had that?


Yes - see my signature


----------



## BionicAllah

Eizzi said:


> Noooooo, I'm putting my app in today! Hahaha


Ignore my last post. My head is spinning.


----------



## Eizzi

Haha no worries. It's all very confusing! I wish I'd put it in a few days ago but I was interstate (plus they need a list of all travel dates for overseas since you turned 18 and in my case that list is 157 items long so it took AGES). Dammit.

I'm now concerned I'll be able to submit (I'm on the submit page now) and pay, only to have it invalidated in the future. Do I lose that money? As was said, nothing will become clear until the dust settles but I don't have the luxury of time here. I suppose waiting 3 more years isn't a big deal. But I was ready to get on with it!


----------



## Hassali.abdi

What is going to happen to pple who are on Temporary visas? Is it going to affect them? Or it will only applicable to anyone comes in to the country after 20th Aprill 2017? It is a bad luck for pple like me still waiting for their PR!


----------



## Dinoo

I know right! I felt as though I was so close! And now I wake up to this beautiful news... I just sent an email to that citizenship submission address they gave and gave feedback on changes such as the english test and the 4 year PR requirement.

Got an automatic email thanking me for my input and that I won't get a reply but that "Government will consider my feedback"...



Hassali.abdi said:


> What is going to happen to pple who are on Temporary visas? Is it going to affect them? Or it will only applicable to anyone comes in to the country after 20th Aprill 2017? It is a bad luck for pple like me still waiting for their PR!


----------



## Valentine1981

And here I was thinking I'd be applying for my citizenship in 6 months time &#55357;&#56398;


----------



## MaxPower

Until the Citizenship Law is changed, I can't see how they can enforce the 4 year waiting period unless they

1/ stop all citizenship applications from today
or
2/ reject all citizenship applications from today until the date the law is changed

The Citizenship Law is written in stone



> AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 - SECT 22
> 
> General residence requirement
> (1) Subject to this section, for the purposes of section 21 a person satisfies the general residence requirement if:
> 
> (a) the person was present in Australia for the period of 4 years immediately before the day the person made the application; and
> 
> (b) the person was not present in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at any time during that 4 year period; and
> 
> (c) the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application.


until the law is changed by parliament (which the govt says will happen by the end of 2017) it leaves open a window from today until the time the law is changed for lawful applications to be submitted by those with 1-4 years PR time


----------



## Eizzi

MaxPower said:


> Until the Citizenship Law is changed, I can't see how they can enforce the 4 year waiting period unless they
> 
> 1/ stop all citizenship applications from today
> or
> 2/ reject all citizenship applications from today until the date the law is changed
> 
> The Citizenship Law is written in stone
> 
> until the law is changed by parliament (which the govt says will happen by the end of 2017) it leaves open a window from today until the time the law is changed for lawful applications to be submitted by those with 1-4 years PR time


I'm inclined to agree. They have not stopped citizenship applications, today at least, because I've just submitted mine. We'll see if it's rejected, I suppose.


----------



## BionicAllah

Do bridging visas A & B count towards 4 years of living in Australia on a valid visa?


----------



## JanneKL

Eizzi said:


> plus they need a list of all travel dates for overseas since you turned 18 and in my case that list is 157 items long so it took AGES). Dammit.


Read this and got out the 10 years-travel list I did for my 309/100...
What exactly do they want to know? ALL travel EVER since turning 18? Or only travel outside the EU?
Better start updating now...won't need it until 2021, but will be easier to keep it up to date from now on and add all the trips between 2000-2006 rather sooner than later...

What else do they need (apart from ID, character checks?) Tried to find a list of required docs, but didn't find anything that said a list of travels....


----------



## Eizzi

JanneKL said:


> Read this and got out the 10 years-travel list I did for my 309/100...
> What exactly do they want to know? ALL travel EVER since turning 18? Or only travel outside the EU?
> Better start updating now...won't need it until 2021, but will be easier to keep it up to date from now on and add all the trips between 2000-2006 rather sooner than later...
> 
> What else do they need (apart from ID, character checks?) Tried to find a list of required docs, but didn't find anything that said a list of travels....


All travel outside of Aus (including homeland) since 18. Dates in, out, where you went and why.

The form is 34 pages long (though not having kids cuts out a lot of that) and includes questions on your travel and family members. You'll need passport details for your parents if they've been to Aus. Everything else is straightforward - passport, drivers licence, birth cert.


----------



## Eizzi

BionicAllah said:


> Do bridging visas A & B count towards 4 years of living in Australia on a valid visa?


I believe so


----------



## summersky

BionicAllah said:


> Do bridging visas A & B count towards 4 years of living in Australia on a valid visa?


I think A does, but I'm not sure about B.


----------



## JanneKL

Eizzi said:


> All travel outside of Aus (including homeland) since 18. Dates in, out, where you went and why.
> 
> The form is 34 pages long (though not having kids cuts out a lot of that) and includes questions on your travel and family members. You'll need passport details for your parents if they've been to Aus. Everything else is straightforward - passport, drivers licence, birth cert.


Thanks! It's going to be a pain to reconstruct all of that. Previously FB helped a lot in finding out the when/where/what...but I think FB only goes back to 2005 for me... a lot of guesswork will be involved....


----------



## LadyRogueRayne

I was just talking to my son yesterday, about when we'll be able to become citizens. Now I see this. Ugh! I've been here since Sep 2015 (on an ETA then to a Bridging visa waiting on 820). But looks like I can't even think of applying for citizenship until 2022-2023 now?? Man, that really stinks...


----------



## Marky_Marc

I think I am going to apply TODAY anyway. Unless someone tells me its a bad idea. I will do it now.

I meet the requirement but just never got around to completing the application.

I would hope that they continue to process the applications until a decision is made in Parliament. The current wait time i believe is 4 months?

My fear would be that they stop processing applications that are from the 20th April onwards.


----------



## MaxPower

Well the current law states

"the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident for the period of 12 months immediately before the day the person made the application"

*the day the person made the application* not when they began processing it

All too confusing, just lodge it and see what happens. The worst that can happen is it gets rejected and needs to go back in a few years


----------



## MaxPower

> Some of the proposed changes to Australian citizenship will require legislation, but others can be done by regulation.


Stuff that needs to done by legislation will take a few months, stuff by regulation a few weeks

June 1 was their cutoff date for submissions on the proposal

So expect to see new test questions and other things that can be changed via the regulations to come into effect on July 1 or so

Parliament sits for 2 weeks in June, so they could if they wanted try and push through the legislative changes or wait until after the winter break


----------



## brittpinkie

I feel like the biggest idiot right now...I could've applied in Feb., but put it off because we had a lot of things going on in our personal life...was planning to apply in August once we got everything together. 

Now I'm not sure if I can...I wonder if this will be effective for people who COULD'VE applied prior to today?

Pretty upset today


----------



## Marky_Marc

brittpinkie said:


> I feel like the biggest idiot right now...I could've applied in Feb., but put it off because we had a lot of things going on in our personal life...was planning to apply in August once we got everything together.
> 
> Now I'm not sure if I can...I wonder if this will be effective for people who COULD'VE applied prior to today?
> 
> Pretty upset today


It does say on the PDF release that the changes will be effective from today, however I am unsure if that is actually enforceable since there is no changes as of yet.

I am in the same boat and have applied anyway. Hopefully I will get a response before the proposals are written into law.


----------



## JandE

brittpinkie said:


> I feel like the biggest idiot right now...I could've applied in Feb., but put it off because we had a lot of things going on in our personal life...was planning to apply in August once we got everything together.
> 
> Now I'm not sure if I can...I wonder if this will be effective for people who COULD'VE applied prior to today?
> 
> Pretty upset today


I remember when I could have applied for citizenship, before the citizenship test was brought in, but I kept delaying, for some years, it until it was too late, and needed to do the test!!

I had told my wife that we can travel to UK when she gets her Australian passport... Looks like we will be putting that trip back for 3+ years from the original planned date..


----------



## MaxPower

JandE said:


> I had told my wife that we can travel to UK when she gets her Australian passport... Looks like we will be putting that trip back for 3+ years from the original planned date..


That was our plan ... get her citizenship & passport this year, travel to Europe & USA mid next year

Still doable.... but have the extra headache and expense of applying for visas for a Chinese Passport holder along with a truckload of forms to fill out

Anyway is what it is ... life will go on even if we need to wait an extra 3 years for an Oz passport .... lots of people in worse situations than us


----------



## brittpinkie

Marky_Marc said:


> It does say on the PDF release that the changes will be effective from today, however I am unsure if that is actually enforceable since there is no changes as of yet.
> 
> I am in the same boat and have applied anyway. Hopefully I will get a response before the proposals are written into law.


Good luck! I'll certainly be following this thread to see what happens 

There's a part of me that's tempted to try and apply anyway, but I'm scared that it won't matter...and I'll be out of the fee. At this point in time, I don't have anything together to apply, because I wasn't _planning_ to start the process until July/August. Such a headache


----------



## brittpinkie

JandE said:


> I remember when I could have applied for citizenship, before the citizenship test was brought in, but I kept delaying, for some years, it until it was too late, and needed to do the test!!
> 
> I had told my wife that we can travel to UK when she gets her Australian passport... Looks like we will be putting that trip back for 3+ years from the original planned date..


When you first were eligible to apply, there was no test?! 

I'm sorry for your wife  I was planning to use Hecs and go back to school once my citizenship came in...now it looks like I'll be waiting even longer


----------



## JandE

brittpinkie said:


> When you first were eligible to apply, there was no test?! (


I arrived in the 80's and the testing only began in 2007.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> I had told my wife that we can travel to UK when she gets her Australian passport... Looks like we will be putting that trip back for 3+ years from the original planned date..


I know that pain!! There are very few European embassies in Brisbane and to apply for the visa you need to go in person.

Our plan was Prague in 2019 and hubby was have an Australian passport by then. Now we will need to travel to Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra every year for a visa to Europe (except Russia for 2018 WC they are being nice and people don't need a visa WOO HOO).

We have already done Italy because they are in Brisbane and doing Austria this year because they are in Brisbane. UK is the only one left that is in Brisbane lol.


----------



## MaxPower

Schengen visas are a bit different though, you only really need a visa from the country you are entering Europe first (or technically from the country you are spending the most time in, but they are flexible with this as you can create any old itinerary)

friends of wife have just got a visa from Germany, arrived in Frankfurt and spent 1 days there and roamed around Europe for the rest) and the consulate doesn't really care about the whole spending the most time in a specific country thing


----------



## Mish

The Italian embassy was very tough on the visa - they issued the visa for the exact time + 1 day at the end. It might depend on where the person is from.

A friend her husband applied at the German embassy about 18 months ago and they were very hard core wanting alot of things like a joint land title (the title was only in my friends name). In the end she had an argument with them and told them that she would cancel the ticket and then they relaxed a bit more and just got different documents from her instead.


----------



## Mish

Hi All

This is what DIBP responded on their Facebook post to people:

_Hi everyone,

The Australian Government has proposed reforms to the Australian Citizenship programme in order to strengthen the test of Australian citizenship. These proposed changes are not in-effect at present, as the government is currently seeking responses on these proposed changes.

The Government is planning to introduce these new changes into the Parliament by the end of 2017. However, all proposed changes that pass in the Parliament will apply to all Citizenship applications received on or after 20 April 2017.

Therefore, we cannot pre-assess how these new proposed changes might affect your Citizenship application or eligibility to apply for Australian Citizenship

We recommend you read more about these proposed changes and how to submit your views on them from our website here: http://www.border.gov.au/.../discus.../citizenship-paper.pdf

Further information on different aspects of the reforms to Australian Citizenship and their impact will be published on our website at Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection in due course.

Thank you._

We need the power of the people to keep the PR at 1 year. Every voice helps, so provide you feedback and cross your fingers and toes and hope that they keep it at 1 year.


----------



## JanneKL

MaxPower said:


> Schengen visas are a bit different though, you only really need a visa from the country you are entering Europe first (or technically from the country you are spending the most time in, but they are flexible with this as you can create any old itinerary)


I think that really depends on the nationality of the applicant, tho. Might be easy for some, but more difficult for others.


----------



## Marky_Marc

Mish said:


> Hi All
> 
> This is what DIBP responded on their Facebook post to people:
> 
> _Hi everyone,
> 
> The Australian Government has proposed reforms to the Australian Citizenship programme in order to strengthen the test of Australian citizenship. These proposed changes are not in-effect at present, as the government is currently seeking responses on these proposed changes.
> 
> The Government is planning to introduce these new changes into the Parliament by the end of 2017. However, all proposed changes that pass in the Parliament will apply to all Citizenship applications received on or after 20 April 2017.
> 
> Therefore, we cannot pre-assess how these new proposed changes might affect your Citizenship application or eligibility to apply for Australian Citizenship
> 
> We recommend you read more about these proposed changes and how to submit your views on them from our website here: http://www.border.gov.au/.../discus.../citizenship-paper.pdf
> 
> Further information on different aspects of the reforms to Australian Citizenship and their impact will be published on our website at Australian Government Department of Immigration and Border Protection in due course.
> 
> Thank you._


As with everything to do with immigration, it's a little bit of guess work along with who you know and what you know, mixed with some contradictions.

Basically they are saying you can still apply, however they are not saying what happens if they process your application and then the law goes into affect, which makes no sense at all.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> The Government is planning to introduce these new changes into the Parliament by the end of 2017. However, all proposed changes that pass in the Parliament will apply to all Citizenship applications received on or after 20 April 2017.


That bit puzzles me.
If someone applies on say 21 April, tomorrow, are they planning to hold it in abeyance until the end of the year, when they decide on the system?

Not sure they have thought that one through...


----------



## sadpuppy

JandE said:


> That bit puzzles me.
> If someone applies on say 21 April, tomorrow, are they planning to hold it in abeyance until the end of the year, when they decide on the system?


I think they might have shut down the system.

I had an draft I was planning to submit tonight (I needed one document) but now if I login I get a blank page


----------



## Arabella

There was always part of me that was thinking about not moving to the UK until I was a citizen here. With current processing times that was 3.5 years. Now I guess it's more like 6.5 :/


----------



## Eizzi

JandE said:


> That bit puzzles me.
> If someone applies on say 21 April, tomorrow, are they planning to hold it in abeyance until the end of the year, when they decide on the system?
> 
> Not sure they have thought that one through...


I'm wondering too. I applied today and have received an acknowledgement email. Technically I could get a test date, pass, and attend a ceremony, all before they decide at the end of the year. Are they just going to hold my application in limbo before then or what?


----------



## Mania

Happy 96th birthday, would you like the citizenship application form in large print or will your glasses suffice?

Ps Eizzi - love the signature.


----------



## LadyRogueRayne

Mish, I tried the link but it's giving me an error. Is there another way to provide feedback? I will definitely add my and my sons' voices! My partner even said that's not right. Maybe if there are enough voices, they'll actually listen.


----------



## JanneKL

https://www.border.gov.au/about/reports-publications/discussion-papers-submissions

First one in the list.


----------



## Mish

You can send your feedback to: [email protected]

I am working on mine over the weekend (I have already started). I am writing about how it is not a fair system for those that do not arrive on PR.

I am hopeful if there are enough voices that will revisit the 4 year PR.


----------



## CollegeGirl

To help with our complaints about this potential change, I've created this thread so we can talk about what the benefits are to citizenship. Can you guys contribute?

http://www.australiaforum.com/visas...you-cant-google-page-ranking.html#post1521353


----------



## K974

Applied today , could have applied in Feb and never got around to it, desperately need it for work purposes . 

Any thoughts ? Surely you would think it would apply to people who have yet to get PR, or would come in from a certain date in the future seems very strange they will be able back date it. Surely you could argue you applied at 6am beige the announcement .

Not to mention australia actively sought people to come in from overseas and advertised the pathway as 4 years they have not potentially made it 8 yrs for same people , it's like on the 70min mark saying a game will be 110min, you can make all future games 110min but if you are in t e game it should stay at 90min if that make sense

Anyway if you were a betting man what would you think for pole who applied on ten 20th

Thanks


----------



## Mish

It all depends if it goes through parliament or not. They have said when it passes parliament it will be backdated. I have my fingers crossed that it will not go through (well atleast the 4 years PR). For those that came to Australia on PR the change will not affect them.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

Unduely harsh on those going thru the partner visa process, if they are going to push it out to 4 years then they need to speed up the interim process, 12 months plus from 820 to 801 isn't good enough.

My wife could now be looking at another 5 1/2 years until citizenship, we could pack up and move over to NZ and have Citizenship in 5 years.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

Mish said:


> It all depends if it goes through parliament or not. They have said when it passes parliament it will be backdated


I don't understand how they can back date it unless they suspend citizenship applications from today.


----------



## Mish

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> I don't understand how they can back date it unless they suspend citizenship applications from today.


Maybe they won't approve them if they have been PR for less than 4 years?

I guess time will tell and hopeful they listen to us.


----------



## Nobody00

Honestly I think 4 year wait is fair for those who arrive with PR. that's what happens by the old system anyway. 
What about people who have already lived in Aus for a while? They already have drivers licences, bank accounts, jobs, they've been paying taxes....
Shouldn't those already living in Australia be more like 2+2 or 6+1 or whatever?

It'll be 12 years in Australia for me when I get the passport with new rules. Considering I arrived here at 15, that's almost half my lifetime. 
Got quite upset reading the news today.


----------



## frequentclicker

Hi Everybody

I made an account just so I could add to this discussion. As is the case with a lot of others here, I am absolutely enraged and gutted by this turn of events. At this stage it looks like even Labor will support the changes to residency requirement and this very important change is not getting any media attention at all. While it is good to post here and share information, we should all be bringing this to the attention of whoever we can. To this extent I suggest the following:
1) Email your members of parliament right away and express why you are disappointed with these changes. Particularly if you would have been eligible soon but now find yourself having to wait for years till you will be.
2) Email journalists covering this story and bring this important change to their attention.
3) The Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection is on the next Q&A panel. Go to the website and ask questions regarding this change.
4) Comment on the news articles to bring this point up.
Hopefully if we make enough noise, somebody will pay attention.


----------



## JandE

I have just done my email to the submissions section:

Basing it on the following:


The 300, 820 and 309 visas are directly part of the relevant Permanent Visa, using the same application as the 801 and 100 Permanent Applications.

Maybe the first stages of the 300/820/801 and 309/100 should be treated as part of the permanent requirement?

A skilled Permanent Visa applicant gets Citizenship in 4 years, with no links to Australia beforehand

A Partner Visa applicant can take 7 years, even though being part of an Australian family, Australian partner etc., for that 7 years or longer.


----------



## pikachufan

Hello,

The following was quoted on Business Insider. It says temporary visa or humanitarian visa will be affected. 
So does that mean partner visas (820/801 etc) are not affected?

"Currently, applicants for citizenship need to be resident in Australia for four years, but they only need to be a permanent resident for one year. Under the proposed change, applicants need to have been permanent residents for four years.

This change will affect those who entered Australia on temporary work or humanitarian visas. These people will no longer be able to count their time as temporary residents toward the residence requirement for citizenship."

Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-citizenship-test-rules-2017-4#GsrwvAVdM5sWiyLc.99


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> Hello,
> 
> The following was quoted on Business Insider. It says temporary visa or humanitarian visa will be affected.
> So does that mean partner visas (820/801 etc) are not affected?
> 
> "Currently, applicants for citizenship need to be resident in Australia for four years, but they only need to be a permanent resident for one year. Under the proposed change, applicants need to have been permanent residents for four years.
> 
> This change will affect those who entered Australia on temporary work or humanitarian visas. These people will no longer be able to count their time as temporary residents toward the residence requirement for citizenship."
> 
> Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australian-citizenship-test-rules-2017-4#GsrwvAVdM5sWiyLc.99


That article is just referencing one or two groups that will be affected, much the same as most of us who are only referencing the partner visa groups

It seems it will affect anyone on temp visas of any kind.

The only ones not affected are those who arrive directly on a PR visa, such as skilled workers and their families, who still get it in 4 years.

Partners of Australians however, have to wait nearer 7 years.

It's the fairness and equality issue here.


----------



## Tusho

Hi All,

Hon Alex Hawke MP - Parliament of Australia

Here is one MP you can contact in order to express your frustration. Click on connect -
contact form and make sure you share your thoughts. I just did that, even if it's a long-shot - we live in a democracy where every opinion can count.

All the best to everyone affected by this.


----------



## Dinoo

Tusho said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Hon Alex Hawke MP - Parliament of Australia
> 
> Here is one MP you can contact in order to express your frustration. Click on connect -
> contact form and make sure you share your thoughts. I just did that, even if it's a long-shot - we live in a democracy where every opinion can count.
> 
> All the best to everyone affected by this.


Thanks for the info I'll do that now as well


----------



## Mowgli21

We have to make a louder noise by messaging those who are in power!

I want to share this e-mail reply from Senator Doug Cameron after I messaged his office yesterday:
--------------------------

Thank you for your email. Your comments on the government proposed changes to citizenship have been noted and will be brought to Senator Cameron's attention. At this stage Labor has not received any information on the proposal but will consider any legislation carefully if and when it is introduced to the Parliament.

I would suggest you also contact the office of the Immigration Minister Peter Dutton MP who is responsible for these changes, to make your concerns known.

The office number is 02 6277 7860 and email [email protected].

Kind regards
Helen Buckle
Office/Diary Manager
Senator the Hon. Doug Cameron
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness
Shadow Minister for Skills and Apprenticeships
Senator for NSW

[email protected]
Phone: 02 4751 4288
Fax: 02 4751 3288

------------------------------------------------


----------



## Tusho

Thanks Mowgli, done - sent an email to that address. Appreciate the work!


----------



## JandE

To find your local member, and the link to contact them use this:
Senators and Members - Parliament of Australia

I've highlighted this:

Can you help in having this unequal treatment reviewed.
Partners with links to Australians must have to wait 7 years to get Citizenship, while new skilled PR arrivals only wait 4 years.

A partner needs to wait 2 years on a Temp partner Visa before applying for a Permanent Partner visa, which takes 1 year to process. Therefore THREE years before becoming a Permanent Resident, and then waiting FOUR more years for Citizenship. Total SEVEN years.

7 years for the spouse of an Australian.
4 years for a new skilled arrival with no previous ties.


----------



## JandE

I emailed my local member 5 minutes ago. They just wrote back asking for a copy of my wifes passport so they can look at the situation for me.


----------



## pikachufan

JandE said:


> I emailed my local member 5 minutes ago. They just wrote back asking for a copy of my wifes passport so they can look at the situation for me.


Hello,

I would also like to write re this.

Did you email a member or a senator in your local area? and does the party matter?

Thank you


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> Hello,
> 
> I would also like to write re this.
> 
> Did you email a member or a senator in your local area? and does the party matter?
> 
> Thank you


Just the local member from the link I gave above.

I entered my postcode and it gave the members details, with a link for sending a message. 
The Political Party is not relevant, they are elected to look after our interests, no matter what party.


----------



## LadyRogueRayne

So would it be good to email both the Minister and the local senator? My partner is upset about this, as well. He's an Australian Citizen by birth and feels this is extremely unfair to all of us going for partner visas. Especially when most of us are working, paying taxes, and like has been stated before, have strong ties here in Australia. Hopefully with our voices being heard, we can make something happen.


----------



## JandE

LadyRogueRayne said:


> So would it be good to email both the Minister and the local senator? My partner is upset about this, as well. He's an Australian Citizen by birth and feels this is extremely unfair to all of us going for partner visas. Especially when most of us are working, paying taxes, and like has been stated before, have strong ties here in Australia. Hopefully with our voices being heard, we can make something happen.


The more officials that are made aware of this the better, I also sent one to Pauline Hanson. I'll do one to Turnbull next, and maybe Dutton.

I am emphasising how wrong it is that a person on a skilled permanent visa still only needs to wait 4 years, but our partners (with stronger ties to Australia through their partners) have to now wait 7 years.


----------



## LadyRogueRayne

JandE said:


> The more officials that are made aware of this the better, I also sent one to Pauline Hanson. I'll do one to Turnbull next, and maybe Dutton.
> 
> I am emphasising how wrong it is that a person on a skilled permanent visa still only needs to wait 4 years, but our partners (with stronger ties to Australia through their partners) have to now wait 7 years.


I'm doing the same. And asking that instead of passing a blanket legislation, that they take into consideration those of us with strong ties/Australian partners.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

well said, shouldn't punish people who are doing the right thing. 

Danny


----------



## divyamahesh

Hi, I am new to the forum. Request your help in understanding the impact of the changes in the immigration rules. I am applying for Australian PR under subclass. 190 this june. How am I affected by the recent change in the rules.


----------



## JandE

divyamahesh said:


> Hi, I am new to the forum. Request your help in understanding the impact of the changes in the immigration rules. I am applying for Australian PR under subclass. 190 this june. How am I affected by the recent change in the rules.


No changes to you, as the 190 is a Permanent Visa.

It is affecting those with Australian partners, to the extent that you will probably get Citizenship 2 or 3 years before my wife my wife is eligible, _as one example_, who has been here since 2015.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

*4 year wait!*

Good people who are dedicated to Australia are being caught in the crossfire here, my australian born son will now be 8 years old by the time we finally are eligible to apply for citizenship we have missed a 14 day gap from eligibility to apply (which we actually had application ready to go . . . we have now lodged. We just didn't submit in time for this requirement change . . . So we now have to wait another 3 years. Stability is everything for successful immigration and we're gutted to say the least we have just missed out. We understand the reasoning behind the new changes but would appeal to the powers that be to also give us some warning of these constant changes so we know where we're at. . . We love Australia and are contributors to our local school/footie/clubs etc, and I can tell you today we feel very unwanted here as professional occupational immigrants. . .

Also getting a lot of mixed up information, and even the department who only heard of the changes yesterday don't know what is going to happen in cases such as ours. Does anyone even know when they are planning on debating this in parliament? The extra wait is mad and I would say that to the thousands of current P.R's that now have to wait longer would be a keen backer to any politician who can stick up for us too. . . please don't pass the 4year wait section of the amendment bill. . . . . Bill.

Under new rules I would have lived in Australia for 11years before we are eligible to apply. . . come on we just want to fit in to this society properly.

Danny


----------



## divyamahesh

JandE said:


> No changes to you, as the 190 is a Permanent Visa.
> 
> It is affecting those with Australian partners, to the extent that you will probably get Citizenship 2 or 3 years before my wife my wife is eligible, _as one example_, who has been here since 2015.


Thanks JandE for your help. So if my husband wants to join me later, this would affect him is what you are implying?


----------



## JanneKL

I'm not affected by the changes, but I just wrote a lenghty email to the local MP (ACT, Fenner electorate). Will let you know if I get a reply.


----------



## JandE

divyamahesh said:


> Thanks JandE for your help. So if my husband wants to join me later, this would affect him is what you are implying?


If using partner visa, or other temporary visas, yes, but only for citizenship, after 4 years on a permanent visa in Australia.


----------



## MarcellusF

I know this will never happen, but I and many others believe that citizenship applicants from high-risk countries (the same high-risk nations the DIBP names by omitting them from their list of "low risk" nations or ETA eligible countries) should be treated differently to those from low risk countries. Things are already streamlined for low risk visitors as far as eligible visas and processing times, so why not also for citizenship applications? Seems reasonable enough to me. Though of course, the fear of being accused of resurrecting the White Australia policy will probably never allow this kind of otherwise rational approach to ever come into existence...


----------



## Tusho

I am from Germany and believe that 'low-risk' countries and 'high-risk' countries should not be treated differently. The PR process is already putting low-risk countries to an advantage and getting the PR is not easy. The citizenship requirement from that point on should in my opinion be equal for everyone.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> The more officials that are made aware of this the better, I also sent one to Pauline Hanson. I'll do one to Turnbull next, and maybe Dutton.
> 
> I am emphasising how wrong it is that a person on a skilled permanent visa still only needs to wait 4 years, but our partners (with stronger ties to Australia through their partners) have to now wait 7 years.


I have included exactly the same thing about how they are discriminating against people that do not arrive as a permanent resident. I am still working on the email though.

Since you are in Brisbane you could always go and visit Peter Dutton in person


----------



## Mish

MarcellusF said:


> I know this will never happen, but I and many others believe that citizenship applicants from high-risk countries (the same high-risk nations the DIBP names by omitting them from their list of "low risk" nations or ETA eligible countries) should be treated differently to those from low risk countries. Things are already streamlined for low risk visitors as far as eligible visas and processing times, so why not also for citizenship applications? Seems reasonable enough to me. Though of course, the fear of being accused of resurrecting the White Australia policy will probably never allow this kind of otherwise rational approach to ever come into existence...


That is discrimination and racist!!!

People from low risk countries sound not be treated differently than high risk countries, it should not matter what country that they have come from at all everyone should be treated equally.

Interesting enough about 5 years ago the radio asked for people to ring up for people who had used someone for a visa and all of the people that rang up were from low risk countries.

This high risk, low risk business needs to stop.


----------



## MarcellusF

Mish said:


> That is discrimination and racist!!!
> 
> People from low risk countries sound not be treated differently than high risk countries, it should not matter what country that they have come from at all everyone should be treated equally.
> 
> Interesting enough about 5 years ago the radio asked for people to ring up for people who had used someone for a visa and all of the people that rang up were from low risk countries.
> 
> This high risk, low risk business needs to stop.


Well, that completely ignores the fact that (as I mentioned in my OP) there already exists a low risk and high risk binary...

And there are nations from multiple continents on that ETA list, including countries in east and south-east Asia.

But thank you for proving my point for me...


----------



## Nobody00

MarcellusF said:


> I know this will never happen, but I and many others believe that citizenship applicants from high-risk countries (the same high-risk nations the DIBP names by omitting them from their list of "low risk" nations or ETA eligible countries) should be treated differently to those from low risk countries. Things are already streamlined for low risk visitors as far as eligible visas and processing times, so why not also for citizenship applications? Seems reasonable enough to me. Though of course, the fear of being accused of resurrecting the White Australia policy will probably never allow this kind of otherwise rational approach to ever come into existence...


Mmm no. Getting PR is already a lot easier for people from low risk countries. That's enough advantages. It should all be equal. They should look at length of staying in Australia prior to PR, integration and ties to Australia, and other things.


----------



## Dinoo

Same here. Should be an equal process. If they want to introduce these changes taking into account Australian values they should then give everyone a fair go right?

Also, I just sent my email to Peter Dutton. Is there anyone you would recommend sending an email to in Victoria? When I put my postcode in a lot of people come up but not sure if there's someone in particular who would be best

Thanks


----------



## MarcellusF

Tusho said:


> I am from Germany and believe that 'low-risk' countries and 'high-risk' countries should not be treated differently. The PR process is already putting low-risk countries to an advantage and getting the PR is not easy. The citizenship requirement from that point on should in my opinion be equal for everyone.


In an ideal world, for sure.

But the reality is some groups adapt better than others to the society in which they find themselves.

A one size fits all approach, while gorgeous from a bureaucratic point of view, isn't necessarily the better one for society.

But yeah, it'll never happen, so it's just gonna become harder for everyone. And partner applicants are the ones who'll get screwed the most.


----------



## ovywasef

MarcellusF said:


> I know this will never happen, but I and many others believe that citizenship applicants from high-risk countries (the same high-risk nations the DIBP names by omitting them from their list of "low risk" nations or ETA eligible countries) should be treated differently to those from low risk countries. Things are already streamlined for low risk visitors as far as eligible visas and processing times, so why not also for citizenship applications? Seems reasonable enough to me. Though of course, the fear of being accused of resurrecting the White Australia policy will probably never allow this kind of otherwise rational approach to ever come into existence...


Racist much!
We all paid the same visa fee, the same income tax, and the same ridiculous housing price. Why would people living in the same community be treated differently? Your suggestion goes against the whole idea of strengthening the citizenship requirements. You are encouraging division and shame on you for that!

Personally, I think for all of the existing PR holders who have been affected unfairly with this recommendation, should remain united. As was posted multiple times lets get in touch with our respective MPs, media outlets and anyone who we think has a voice and can affect the outcome. The more, the merrier!


----------



## MarcellusF

ovywasef said:


> Racist much!
> We all paid the same visa fee, the same income tax, and the same ridiculous housing price. Why would people living in the same community be treated differently? Your suggestion goes against the whole idea of strengthening the citizenship requirements. You are encouraging division and shame on you for that!
> 
> Personally, I think for all of the existing PR holders who have been affected unfairly with this recommendation, should remain united. As was posted multiple times lets get in touch with our respective MPs, media outlets and anyone who we think has a voice and can affect the outcome. The more, the merrier!


Again, ignoring the fact that applicants are already divided into different tiers based on nationality.

And again, thank you for proving again that anyone who suggests that the same tiers be applied to citizenship applications is labelled a racist. Wow.


----------



## vladica

Nobody00 said:


> Mmm no. Getting PR is already a lot easier for people from low risk countries. That's enough advantages. It should all be equal. They should look at length of staying in Australia prior to PR, integration and ties to Australia, and other things.


I agree totally with you i was waiting more than 16 months just to get my provisional (temporary ) visa
and i strongly believe that the reason is because i coming from Serbia 
now i have to wait another 18 months (best case scenario ) to get my permanent visa and then 4 more years to get my citizenship 
and i already been in Australia for 2 years which means from a time since i arrived to the moment i get my citizenship will be 7 and i half years  
luckily my Serbian passport allows me to travel to more than 110 counties including Russia China USA and UK without any visa


----------



## Nobody00

vladica said:


> I agree totally with you i was waiting more than 16 months just to get my provisional (temporary ) visa
> and i strongly believe that the reason is because i coming from Serbia
> now i have to wait another 18 months (best case scenario ) to get my permanent visa and then 4 more years to get my citizenship
> and i already been in Australia for 2 years which means from a time since i arrived to the moment i get my citizenship will be 7 and i half years
> luckily my Serbian passport allows me to travel to more than 110 counties including Russia China USA and UK without any visa


I waited about 16 months for 820 visa and wait time will probably be closer to 20 by the time I'm eligible for 801. I think there are lots of applicants from all different backgrounds waiting just as long so I'm not blaming it on country of origin.

By easier PR for low risk countries I meant options like working holiday visas, easier time getting tourist visas with no no further stay to apply onshore kind of thing. Probably less security checks so that would make it faster too I guess.

Hey, I've been in Aus for 6 and a bit years when my 820 was granted, so I'll be here for 12ish years when I get citizenship with the new rules. Considering I was 15 when first came to Aus that's almost half my lifetime.

I really hope they take time spent in Aus prior to PR into consideration in some way...


----------



## Sahil820

Hey Everyone

Please see the link below for a petition against 4 year time for citizenship. Please complete so we can increase the numbers !!

Thanks

https://www.change.org/p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship


----------



## JandE

Sahil820 said:


> Hey Everyone
> 
> Please see the link below for a petition against 4 year time for citizenship. Please complete so we can increase the numbers !!
> 
> Thanks
> 
> https://www.change.org/p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship


That's a very general petition, and asking for student visa and visitor visa stays to remain as being included in the 4 years. 
It will be very easy for that to be overruled/ignored, as that is exactly why the change has been brought in.

However, still worth signing.

Need to push the problem with the 7 year compulsory stay in Australia for Partner Visa holders, before they can apply for Citizenship.

Need to write to Members of Parliament aswell.


----------



## Angel25

Hi All,

What happens if one submit before 20th April but by paper application and acknowledement hasnt been received till now?
A friend of mine is confused. He submitted on 17th april as normal delivery.


----------



## K974

Few questions

Are all applications frozen until such time as new rules are formalised in late 2017 apparently ? Even the DIPB Facebook page doesn't confirm this question it's been asked numerous times 

What is the legality of back dating a change i.e it's passed in late 217 but is in effect from April 20th?

How are the new citizens to be , supposed to ever trust their representatives ? They were informed they were in pathway and halfway along or 99% along it changes (talking about people eligible but didn't submit) whose to say in 3 yrs time they don't change it to 8 yrs and keep repeating this, thereby you never achieving citizenship . Surely if you are on pathway you see that thru under the rules you entered the pathway , with new rules applying to those not yet with / applied for PR. 

Australia actively sought mining professional overseas and medical professionals they were advised of the pathway , to change it for these people already in possession of PR is moving the goal posts and very un Australian indeed

Finally i applied on 20th about 2pm as a betting man what are my chances when this al washes out ?

Thanks for any opinions


----------



## Mish

Angel25 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> What happens if one submit before 20th April but by paper application and acknowledement hasnt been received till now?
> A friend of mine is confused. He submitted on 17th april as normal delivery.


With immigration it is usually classed as submitted when they received the application. Postage can take anything up to 5 business days so if it was received on or after 20th April then it will fall into the "I don't know" basket.

The applications from 20th April onwards are currently in limbo and they are not saying what will happen with them. Putting them on hold until the end of the year does not seem realistic. There is also the issue that the changes may not even pass parliament. There is alot of unknowns at the moment.


----------



## hhassan

I request everyone to write to them and show your discontent for these new regulations. Every email counts to please drop them an email on the DIBP site.

[email protected]


----------



## rhodered

i called IMMI yesterday to update my passport info and was told to fill in form 929...while I had them on the line as I was number 387 in the que, I asked about the new citizenship updates,and the way the woman spoke was that they are already written in stone, so I have just concluded that writing,calling,and whatever else it is they have already made the changes and that's how it is. none of us are citizens,and basically have no voice...we cant vote,therefor we have no say. its gonna be another 36 months for me til I can apply for citizenship so iv come to the conclusion that I need to just suck it up and wait...it is what it is.


----------



## Miss Swan

MaxPower said:


> edit - have been told by DIBP on the phone that these new requirements won't come into effect until the citizenship law changes is passed by parliament, so in our case hope it drags out for 2 months


I am just terribly confused! When I jump onto the ImmiAccount page, the exact wording is:

"The changes to the requirements to become an Australian citizen will come into effect,* and apply to applications made from the date of the Government's announcement on 20 April 2017*. The changes will not apply to applications made before 20 April 2017. *Applicants will receive communication on the implementation of these measures and any additional information and documentation that may be required to support their application.*"

That contradicts with your phone conversation with DIBP. So it sounds and looks like it's already in effect. Not an expert on laws, but can the government really do this? Is it compliant to enforce a set of 'rules' that have _*not *_been passed by Parliament?


----------



## rhodered

well that's what it is....THEY....the liberals ARE in control of the govt and they've made the changes...im not holding my breath...im gonna look at the bright side and itll give me the opportunity to save more money being here.I don't like leaving the country as everytime I come back in they quiz me about stupid juvenile charges as I have to tik yes to I have committed crimes...I haven't been in trouble with the law in over 20 years and they still pull me aside so until I become a citizen I'm not leaving.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

K974 said:


> Few questions
> 
> Are all applications frozen until such time as new rules are formalised in late 2017 apparently ? Even the DIPB Facebook page doesn't confirm this question it's been asked numerous times
> 
> What is the legality of back dating a change i.e it's passed in late 217 but is in effect from April 20th?
> 
> How are the new citizens to be , supposed to ever trust their representatives ? They were informed they were in pathway and halfway along or 99% along it changes (talking about people eligible but didn't submit) whose to say in 3 yrs time they don't change it to 8 yrs and keep repeating this, thereby you never achieving citizenship . Surely if you are on pathway you see that thru under the rules you entered the pathway , with new rules applying to those not yet with / applied for PR.
> 
> Australia actively sought mining professional overseas and medical professionals they were advised of the pathway , to change it for these people already in possession of PR is moving the goal posts and very un Australian indeed
> 
> Finally i applied on 20th about 2pm as a betting man what are my chances when this al washes out ?
> 
> Thanks for any opinions


A very good point, and well written. that's the pathway we have been sold. We submitted on 21/4 and we became eligible on 6/4 but had to get our our pearents information before lodging so we're two days late and now looking like we have to wait another 3 years. . . This is actually dividing the community more . . .


----------



## Mish

Miss Swan said:


> That contradicts with your phone conversation with DIBP. So it sounds and looks like it's already in effect. Not an expert on laws, but can the government really do this? Is it compliant to enforce a set of 'rules' that have _*not *_been passed by Parliament?


They did something similar maybe 1-2 years ago with one of the parent visas. They stopped taking applications and then had to re-open it when sonething hapoened with the court/parliament.

Hopefully someone remembers what one I am talking about.

Everyone should be emailing their feedback making sure your partner does one too. Also email your local MP and any MP's you think may be able to help.

Just remember it still needs to have enough votes to pass parliament so have your say and make your voice count.


----------



## Mish

DannyjonesBBP said:


> A very good point, and well written. that's the pathway we have been sold. We submitted on 21/4 and we became eligible on 6/4 but had to get our our pearents information before lodging so we're two days late and now looking like we have to wait another 3 years. . . This is actually dividing the community more . . .


I think the big issue and the one everyone providing feedback needs to mention is that people who do not arrive on PR are being disadvantaged and discriminated against. For those that arrive on PR there are no changes. However, those that arrive on a TR there is and how can they argue that they need to migrate into society better - it would be entirely different if they said you now need to live here 5 years as that is not discriminating against either.

With the English test honestly I don't know how a refugee who didn't speak English beforehand can get a level 6 score - I have heard people from English speaking countries struggle.

Can anyone confirm if an English test at all was required prior to 20 April? I need this information for my feedback (I will be comparing our system to UK, USA and Canada).


----------



## Miss Swan

Mish said:


> With the English test honestly I don't know how a refugee who didn't speak English beforehand can get a level 6 score - I have heard people from English speaking countries struggle.
> 
> Can anyone confirm if an English test at all was required prior to 20 April? I need this information for my feedback (I will be comparing our system to UK, USA and Canada).


My co-worker lodged her application this Jan, and the only test she was ever asked to do is the 20 question multiple-choice test.

I'm wondering what this new English test is. It doesn't sounds like an IELTS test, as the paper stated that the pass score should be "Competent". However I do feel strongly that this English test should be exempted for those who come from native-English countries or have studied a Bachelor's where it was taught in English. I personally find it very silly (and time-consuming) to have to take an English test when that's my first language, and I have been writing long emails, proposals and reports in English everyday in my line of work.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

DannyjonesBBP said:


> A very good point, and well written. that's the pathway we have been sold. We submitted on 21/4 and we became eligible on 6/4 but had to get our our pearents information before lodging so we're two days late and now looking like we have to wait another 3 years. . . This is actually dividing the community more . . .


Please sign the petition to stop the amendment on the 4 year wait introduced 20/4/2017 by Malcolm Turnbull. We need as many people to pressure the shadow government to stop this from being approved in parliament. . go to change.org and sign the petition.

A lot of people will be affected by this trump style of pathway change.

Thanks


----------



## pikachufan

Mish said:


> They did something similar maybe 1-2 years ago with one of the parent visas. They stopped taking applications and then had to re-open it when sonething hapoened with the court/parliament.
> 
> Hopefully someone remembers what one I am talking about.
> 
> .


I do remember this. the government did repeal the some parent visas early 2014 and then they had to reinstate the visas later on the same year because it didnt pass the senate.

Low cost 'parent visas' reinstated but 25 year wait times remain | SBS News

Greens have successfully challenged this.


----------



## Mish

Miss Swan said:


> My co-worker lodged her application this Jan, and the only test she was ever asked to do is the 20 question multiple-choice test.
> 
> I'm wondering what this new English test is. It doesn't sounds like an IELTS test, as the paper stated that the pass score should be "Competent". However I do feel strongly that this English test should be exempted for those who come from native-English countries or have studied a Bachelor's where it was taught in English. I personally find it very silly (and time-consuming) to have to take an English test when that's my first language, and I have been writing long emails, proposals and reports in English everyday in my line of work.


It is an IELTS level 6 score they are talking about.

We were talking about this at work yesterday and a few people mentioned that they know of people born in English speaking countries where their English is not as good as someone born in a non-English speaking country. I have even heard of people whose English is their first language not get a level 6.

Honestly if they are going to do it everyone should have to do it no matter if English is their first language or not to show fairness.


----------



## sheilae

Yeah, not that I'll be in the citizenship boat for ages yet, but I've been wondering about the english requirement. Surely Canadians (even those from Quebec lol), Americans, Brits, Irish etc + people who've completed uni studies in english would be exempt. I guess it's not such a big deal if it's a government test that's just included in the process versus needing to have an IELTS score.

I've asked my boyfriend to email his MP, even though I'm not affected by the changes by DIBP yet, they will impact our lives down the road.

Mish, in regards to english testing etc, this is the relevant link for Canada if you hadn't come across it already Determine your eligibility - Citizenship

As far as I know that the first point someone on a partner visa would come across language testing in Canada (minus Quebec, they have their own immigration laws and requirements)


----------



## Mish

DannyjonesBBP said:


> Please sign the petition to stop the amendment on the 4 year wait introduced 20/4/2017 by Malcolm Turnbull. We need as many people to pressure the shadow government to stop this from being approved in parliament. . go to change.org and sign the petition.
> 
> A lot of people will be affected by this trump style of pathway change.
> 
> Thanks


The petition is all good but everyone should also be providing feedback through the offical channel as there is no guarantee they will take the petition into account.

In addition make sure you contact your local MP and any other MP you think may help/listen.


----------



## Mish

sheilae said:


> Yeah, not that I'll be in the citizenship boat for ages yet, but I've been wondering about the english requirement. Surely Canadians (even those from Quebec lol), Americans, Brits, Irish etc + people who've completed uni studies in english would be exempt. I guess it's not such a big deal if it's a government test that's just included in the process versus needing to have an IELTS score.
> 
> I've asked my boyfriend to email his MP, even though I'm not affected by the changes by DIBP yet, they will impact our lives down the road.
> 
> Mish, in regards to english testing etc, this is the relevant link for Canada if you hadn't come across it already Determine your eligibility - Citizenship
> 
> As far as I know that the first point someone on a partner visa would come across language testing in Canada (minus Quebec, they have their own immigration laws and requirements)


Thanks for the link.

You should also provide feedback too to the email address that was posted earlier.

I honestly think that if they have an English requirement everyone should need to do it and no one should be exempt that way everyone is going through the same process.

Hopefully it is not something that will need to be worried about ... time will tell.


----------



## sheilae

Yes, I'm going to write them this weekend. 

And yeah, I guess I hadn't thought about it in terms of fairness. Being Canadian, and having spoken English all of my life it's truly just never been something I've had to prove I can do to anyone (since that last high school english exam anyway).


----------



## Nobody00

I think native English speakers and English speaking university trained professionals should be exempt.

I doubt migration wants to sort through applications and investigate whether they actually qualify for exemptions; its easier to blanket statement it and make everyone do it. 

It's funny how my family had this native speaker prove you can speak the language test in 1990s and the world is still requiring that kind of test haha.


----------



## Rimmel

JandE said:


> I have just done my email to the submissions section:
> 
> Basing it on the following:
> 
> 
> The 300, 820 and 309 visas are directly part of the relevant Permanent Visa, using the same application as the 801 and 100 Permanent Applications.
> 
> Maybe the first stages of the 300/820/801 and 309/100 should be treated as part of the permanent requirement?
> 
> A skilled Permanent Visa applicant gets Citizenship in 4 years, with no links to Australia beforehand
> 
> A Partner Visa applicant can take 7 years, even though being part of an Australian family, Australian partner etc., for that 7 years or longer.


Hello JandE,
Do you mind send a copy of your email? I really really want to write about this issue, just don't know how to put in the words best way!

I am looking for emails to send and express my feelings! I am so angry at the moment and heartbroken! I have spent 7 years in Australia, I couldn't get my PR earlier because of changes they made every year, and every year they took my chance away from to me! Now, I have applied for 820 (13 months!) and finally, i got to the hope that I will become a citizen!

For the past 7 years, I have been volunteering within different community services! When I had a job I paid my tax at the highest rate! I think I have proved my contribution to this country!

New changes are not fair! Most of the people will be affected badly! People who are coming with PR are safe, but how about rest of us? Spending year years and building a life with amazing contributions!! This is like a punishment to me!


----------



## Dinoo

Same, it should be part of everyone's application but there should be different pathways and exemptions depending on people's circumstances like being a native speaker or having studied in Australia..personally I've done high school, Uni and postgrad here..already done an IELTS (which is not cheap!)! lol



Nobody00 said:


> I think native English speakers and English speaking university trained professionals should be exempt.
> 
> I doubt migration wants to sort through applications and investigate whether they actually qualify for exemptions; its easier to blanket statement it and make everyone do it.
> 
> It's funny how my family had this native speaker prove you can speak the language test in 1990s and the world is still requiring that kind of test haha.


----------



## MaxPower

> https://www.change.org/p/department...s-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship


Not a well thought out statement

A majority of Australians (myself included) would think that 1 year of Permanent Residence status before being eligible for citizenship is not enough

But that's not the issue and the petition maker should have outlined the wording better


----------



## hoverguy

I am having a very bad morning of reading this. We need to do something before this happen. I found a petition campaign on Change.org website. I could not post the direct link here because I am a new member. You can go to the site, search for "Malcolm Turnbull needs to reconsider his latest changes to Citizenship eligibility". You guys please spend sometimes to sign. Not sure this will help but at least we not sit back and wait it happen


----------



## Mish

Rimmel said:


> Hello JandE,
> Do you mind send a copy of your email? I really really want to write about this issue, just don't know how to put in the words best way!
> 
> I am looking for emails to send and express my feelings! I am so angry at the moment and heartbroken! I have spent 7 years in Australia, I couldn't get my PR earlier because of changes they made every year, and every year they took my chance away from to me! Now, I have applied for 820 (13 months!) and finally, i got to the hope that I will become a citizen!
> 
> For the past 7 years, I have been volunteering within different community services! When I had a job I paid my tax at the highest rate! I think I have proved my contribution to this country!
> 
> New changes are not fair! Most of the people will be affected badly! People who are coming with PR are safe, but how about rest of us? Spending year years and building a life with amazing contributions!! This is like a punishment to me!


Hi Rimmel

It is best to write things in your own words and talk from the heart and explain your own circumstances etc.

I would firstly quote this *"Increasing the minimum period of permanent residence required to qualify for citizenship will enable greater examination of an aspiring citizens' integration with Australia."*

That has been taken from the booklet. I would then go on to show your timeline of how long you have been in Australia. I would then go to ask how will changing it from 1 year PR to 4 year PR enable greater integration into Australian society when you have already been here longer than those that arrive as a permanent resident.

The point you really need to get across is that those that already hold temporary visas have already had time to integrate into Australian society where those that arrive in Australia do not.

You could also make a suggestion that those that are married to an Australian citizen be exempt from the 4 year PR as they have already integrated into Australian society and have been here a minimum of 3 years before they even obtain PR.

Just remember make sure your partner writes an email too.

In regards to the English testing, my thoughts are that some the visas already have English tests (skilled visa etc), it would be easier for them to add the IELTS to the ones that do not have it instead of making some people redo the test again for citizenship.


----------



## Mish

hoverguy said:


> I am having a very bad morning of reading this. We need to do something before this happen. I found a petition campaign on Change.org website. I could not post the direct link here because I am a new member. You can go to the site, search for "Malcolm Turnbull needs to reconsider his latest changes to Citizenship eligibility". You guys please spend sometimes to sign. Not sure this will help but at least we not sit back and wait it happen


Remember email your feedback to [email protected] and contact your local MP along with emailing other MP's you think may be able to help. Remember at the end of the day it needs to voted through parliament so the more MP's that get contacted the better.

Also make sure your partner emails the feedback email address and also get friends and family to do it too. The more that disagree the better as generally they will not do things that the voting public do not like.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

*Moving goalposts . . .*



Mish said:


> The petition is all good but everyone should also be providing feedback through the offical channel as there is no guarantee they will take the petition into account.
> 
> In addition make sure you contact your local MP and any other MP you think may help/listen.


I've written letters to heads of all the political parties including prime minister, spent all day yesterday researching and speaking with the department, Facebook posts, letter to the email address you provided, and marketing the petition site which now has more than 16000 signatures. It's just the new eligibility criteria that is the big problem here in the revisions. . . And it's effecting thousands of people from the information I have found. I've done my best now all we can do is hope and prey the eligibility is discussed properly in parliament and is kept the same.

''lets hope someone in parliament has our back'' as now it's just the waiting game with our application in limbo.


----------



## JandE

Rimmel said:


> Hello JandE,
> Do you mind send a copy of your email? I really really want to write about this issue, just don't know how to put in the words best way!


Mine was written from a personal perspective, but I have reworded as a general version.

I am not sure if it should be copied word for word, but if nothing else, then why not... This 7 year issue for Partner Visas needs to be highlighted.



> This change: Requiring applicants to have lived in Australia as a PERMANENT RESIDENT for at least four years (instead of one year at present) has this effect on those on a Partner Visa:
> 
> New Citizenship Rules means those on Partner Visas need to be on the Partner Visa route for SEVEN years before becoming citizens.
> 
> Can this be changed to FOUR years like other migrants?
> 
> I understand the need for some changes to citizenship rules, especially excluding various temporary visas, such as Visitor and Student visas that are not specificly planned Permanent Visa routes.
> 
> The 820/801 Partner Visa application is an onshore PERMANENT visa application, but the Immigration rules currently say that the Partner MUST stay on the Temporary Partner Section of this Visa (820) for TWO years before applying for the Permanent section (801).
> This 801 section process now takes about ONE year before the Partner gets Permanent Resident status.
> So THREE YEARS after arriving as the partner of an Australian before getting PR status, and then having to wait another FOUR years to apply for Citizenship.
> A total of SEVEN years living with the Australian partner in Australia, before being eligible for Citizenship.
> 
> Others get it in FOUR Years !! Is that fair ?
> 
> Is there any chance that this can be looked at again from this perspective. Maybe by treating the first stages of the 300/820/801 and 309/100 as part of the Permanent requirement?
> 
> The 300, 820 and 309 visas are direct pre-cursors to the relevant Permanent Visa, using the same application as the 801 and 100 Permanent Applications


.

It is better than some reasons on that change.org petition, which I feel will fail.


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> Not a well thought out statement
> 
> A majority of Australians (myself included) would think that 1 year of Permanent Residence status before being eligible for citizenship is not enough
> 
> But that's not the issue and the petition maker should have outlined the wording better


When looking at people reasons on that change petition I can see how easy it will be to be disregarded:

Some examples that the Politicians will read and decide on..

Many students like me have already spent more than 4 years in Australia
I have been here for last 9-10 years now and have to wait another 4 years. 
facing deportation as 457 visa cancelled, I need Citizenship
It's not fair for the immigrants
Citizens are paying less for education
It's very ridiculous of this so how about pregnant??
I feel insecure because prime minister ultimately trying to bring white policy.

The government need to see REALLY good and VALID reasons to look at this again.


Why do Partner Visa holders need to wait SEVEN years instead of FOUR

They have made this rule to stop those on Visitor Visas, Student visas and other non-migration visas from using that visitor time in Australia to qualify.
I feel the intention is for only those with Permanent applications to be allowed.
My point (OUR POINT) is that the 820/801 visa application should be considered exactly that, a Permanent commitment, and should be allowed from the grant of the FIRST visa in that route.

I would not ask for the Visitor Visa time to be included (although it might be nice), but no point, as THAT is exactly what they want to stop.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Now 17,500 signatures and growing. That's up 1500 In the past few hours alone and still growing fast. Surly our government are going to have to take a good look at this new criteria now??

I think it's a wonderful thing here people are showing so much passion to become cizizens and that can only be a good thing right?


----------



## Rimmel

JandE said:


> Mine was written from a personal perspective, but I have reworded as a general version.
> 
> I am not sure if it should be copied word for word, but if nothing else, then why not... This 7 year issue for Partner Visas needs to be highlighted.
> 
> .
> 
> It is better than some reasons on that change.org petition, which I feel will fail.


Thank you very much! Of course, I won't copy and paste word to word! I would also express my feelings! I just need to see how people put in the words.

 Also, my partner is writing email as well! Everyone needs to be on board!


----------



## JandE

I feel like venting, or at least expressing my thoughts:

Should a Temporary Visa holder be allowed to use that time as residence for Citizenship requirements? *Maybe*, it depends on the type of Temporary Visa.

Does the Australian Government look on a Visitor Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *No*
Does the Australian Government look on a Student Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *No*
Does the Australian Government look on a 457 Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *No*

Does the Australian Government look on a 300 PMV Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *Yes*
Does the Australian Government look on a 820 Partner Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *Yes*
Does the Australian Government look on a 309 Partner Visa as route for Permanent Visa? *Yes*

Should a Partner Visa be treated the same as a Visitor Visa, and if the answer is YES, can they be the same price ?


----------



## K974

DannyjonesBBP said:


> Please sign the petition to stop the amendment on the 4 year wait introduced 20/4/2017 by Malcolm Turnbull. We need as many people to pressure the shadow government to stop this from being approved in parliament. . go to change.org and sign the petition.
> 
> A lot of people will be affected by this trump style of pathway change.
> 
> Thanks


Already signed , any opinion on if you were betting man if you get in on 20th April or not ?


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

*Moving goalposts*



K974 said:


> Already signed , any opinion on if you were betting man if you get in on 20th April or not ?


I also lodged yesterday. If it's passed by parliament from my discussions yesterday with the department than all applications after 19/4/17 will be in limbo and they have no idea what will happen to applications lodged yet.

I'm sorry to say. . . So all we can do now is fight our side of the case to the government.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

DannyjonesBBP said:


> I also lodged yesterday. If it's passed by parliament from my discussions yesterday with the department than all applications after 19/4/17 will be in limbo and they have no idea what will happen to applications lodged yet.
> 
> I'm sorry to say. . . So all we can do now is fight our side of the case to the government.


If anyone has anymore info this would help, a lot of people saying if it's not passed it's not law and the application still lets you apply with the old criteria at the moment so who actually knows WTF is going on.


----------



## Raju roy

DannyjonesBBP said:


> Now 17,500 signatures and growing. That's up 1500 In the past few hours alone and still growing fast. Surly our government are going to have to take a good look at this new criteria now??
> 
> I think it's a wonderful thing here people are showing so much passion to become cizizens and that can only be a good thing right?


Hello Danny I am proud of every members here as everyone is doing strong afford.
Still we have 1 month till 1st June so our target is to achieve 50 thousand plus signature petition.

I request to all to copy and paste this petition message to: THEIR EACH AND EVERY COMMUNITY FACEBOOK GROUP IN AUSTRALIA.


----------



## ampk

I would suggest that a few people with good letter writing skills write to the Independent and minor party Senators in particular Pauline Hanson AND her One Nation Party.

Like her or hate her she gets lots of airtime on migration.

The letter should focus only on the Partner Visa's and the 7 year path being unfair compared to the 4 year waiters.

If she gets on-board both main parties in the senate would, I think easily amend the starting qualifying period for citizenship. 

I would spell out the grant of the first stage of Partner Visa, would be a fair system and an easy amendment to make.


----------



## Mish

ampk said:


> I would suggest that a few people with good letter writing skills write to the Independent and minor party Senators in particular Pauline Hanson AND her One Nation Party.
> 
> Like her or hate her she gets lots of airtime on migration.
> 
> The letter should focus only on the Partner Visa's and the 7 year path being unfair compared to the 4 year waiters.
> 
> If she gets on-board both main parties in the senate would, I think easily amend the starting qualifying period for citizenship.
> 
> I would spell out the grant of the first stage of Partner Visa, would be a fair system and an easy amendment to make.


I would suggest someone who is from the UK/USA or if their partner is, if you get my drift. Pauline seems to really like people from the UK.


----------



## Becky26

Oh dear Lord!! Yet another mess Immigration has put all of us in. From the forever increasing visa fees to never ending visa processing time to playing with people's emotions, their future plans and dreams, this department always seems to keep people on their toes.

I understand why skilled visa holders should be made to follow this new regulation but partner visa holders are so getting roped into this is just ridiculous.

Proving strong ties with Australia for applicants on partner visa was proved when they decided to move to Australia with their partners leaving their own families back home, deciding to make this country their home which I'm sure many of you us know is not an easy decision as some may think. 

People who don't try to dodge the system and actually move to Australia, work to contribute to the economy, send their kids to school here, have no government debt, pay their taxes, basically are living a life of an honest and exemplary citizen as they said they would, are being treated unfairly.

That was my rant! If the legislation passes, I'll get dumped with another year of wait before I can be eligible to apply for the citizenship....here we are all, waiting again.....siiighhhhh


----------



## Mish

Becky!

Long time, no see, I hope you are well.

In my feedback and my husbands I am trying to write about how people that come on a partner visa adapt into Australian society more quickly than those that come not knowing anyone.

Make sure you provide feedback and get your husband to provide it as well.


----------



## K974

Becky26 said:


> Oh dear Lord!! Yet another mess Immigration has put all of us in. From the forever increasing visa fees to never ending visa processing time to playing with people's emotions, their future plans and dreams, this department always seems to keep people on their toes.
> 
> I understand why skilled visa holders should be made to follow this new regulation but partner visa holders are so getting roped into this is just ridiculous.
> 
> Proving strong ties with Australia for applicants on partner visa was proved when they decided to move to Australia with their partners leaving their own families back home, deciding to make this country their home which I'm sure many of you us know is not an easy decision as some may think.
> 
> People who don't try to dodge the system and actually move to Australia, work to contribute to the economy, send their kids to school here, have no government debt, pay their taxes, basically are living a life of an honest and exemplary citizen as they said they would, are being treated unfairly.
> 
> That was my rant! If the legislation passes, I'll get dumped with another year of wait before I can be eligible to apply for the citizenship....here we are all, waiting again.....siiighhhhh


Why would skilled and partners be any different ? It should be total duration in the country ona working visa and 4 is enough , if you've worked you've contributed . Note my friend only was really only in country for 3.5 yrs , she counted a holiday before first entry on 417 as her first entry. Not fair enough but any valid working visa or student visa should count . Remove the holiday ones

Further more if they want to change it , it should aonly apply to new PR , they campainged overseas to bring certain people in provided them with knowedlge of a pathway , the move the goalposts when on the pathway is very unAustralian . Changes should be grandfathered


----------



## K974

I can't uoad screenshot but dibp website under eligibility still has the old rules , who Can send this farce too


----------



## Mish

K974 said:


> Why would skilled and partners be any different ? It should be total duration in the country ona working visa and 4 is enough , if you've worked you've contributed . Note my friend only was really only in country for 3.5 yrs , she counted a holiday before first entry on 417 as her first entry. Not fair enough but any valid working visa or student visa should count . Remove the holiday ones


It because they are saying it is because people don't have strong enough Australian values however those that have Australian partners do have them already because they moved to Australia for their partner.

Research also shows that it is easier for someone to adapt to a new country when they have a spouse/partner/friends to support them and help them in their new country.



K974 said:


> Further more if they want to change it , it should aonly apply to new PR , they campainged overseas to bring certain people in provided them with knowedlge of a pathway , the move the goalposts when on the pathway is very unAustralian . Changes should be grandfathered


That I don't agree with has you have people who are already in the pathway (have a temporary/provisional visa and are awaiting their PR) so they should not have the goal posts moved either.

Maybe they should have it for those that have not applied for the provisional visa.

I am crossing my fingers that it does not come through.


----------



## K974

Mish said:


> It because they are saying it is because people don't have strong enough Australian values however those that have Australian partners do have them already because they moved to Australia for their partner.
> 
> Research also shows that it is easier for someone to adapt to a new country when they have a spouse/partner/friends to support them and help them in their new country.
> 
> That I don't agree with has you have people who are already in the pathway (have a temporary/provisional visa and are awaiting their PR) so they should not have the goal posts moved either.
> 
> Maybe they should have it for those that have not applied for the provisional visa.
> 
> I am crossing my fingers that it does not come through.


Ok I'll disagree on point 1 , but on point 2 I think it's the only fair and reasonable thing to do and think any fair person would think likewise , the changes should be grandfathered amor at the very least effective from the date it's passed In Parliament


----------



## Becky26

Mish said:


> Becky!
> 
> Long time, no see, I hope you are well.
> 
> In my feedback and my husbands I am trying to write about how people that come on a partner visa adapt into Australian society more quickly than those that come not knowing anyone.
> 
> Make sure you provide feedback and get your husband to provide it as well.


Hey Mish,

It has been a while hey! I'm well thank you. How are you?? 

I couldn't believe the wait actually hurt so much, I was so emotional when I read the news; I was on a bus going home from work, it hit me like a brick wall.Got home and just lost the plot and balled my eyes out  not knowing what I was gonna do.

Both my husband and I have been counting down months and days for when I will become eligible to apply for citizenship and be able to go travelling without having to fill out a bucket load of paperwork for visas and more important than that was me wanting to go back to uni to start my studies again being able to get HECS loan and be able to apply for work that requires Australian Citizenship.

I would've understood if they would've doubled the time on PR to 2 years but bumping that up to 4 is just crazy!

Thank you Mish  I will definitely have a look at the feedback page and show it to my husband.

I feel like it might be better making peace with the fact that the legislation might pass and to postpone the plans for an extra 12 months


----------



## Mish

Becky26 said:


> Hey Mish,
> 
> It has been a while hey! I'm well thank you. How are you??
> 
> I couldn't believe the wait actually hurt so much, I was so emotional when I read the news; I was on a bus going home from work, it hit me like a brick wall.Got home and just lost the plot and balled my eyes out  not knowing what I was gonna do.
> 
> Both my husband and I have been counting down months and days for when I will become eligible to apply for citizenship and be able to go travelling without having to fill out a bucket load of paperwork for visas and more important than that was me wanting to go back to uni to start my studies again being able to get HECS loan and be able to apply for work that requires Australian Citizenship.
> 
> I would've understood if they would've doubled the time on PR to 2 years but bumping that up to 4 is just crazy!
> 
> Thank you Mish  I will definitely have a look at the feedback page and show it to my husband.
> 
> I feel like it might be better making peace with the fact that the legislation might pass and to postpone the plans for an extra 12 months


I am good thanks - just waiting for my husband's PR.

My husband is awaiting his PR so for us it would mean having to wait another 4 years from when he gets his PR - he has already been here for 3 years and 2 months! That would mean that instead of being able to get citizenship 1 year of PR and approximately 4.5 years in the country, we could be looking at 7.5 years in the country.

Like you we want the citizenship to be able to travel more freely. We have almost run out of the embassies in Brisbane for Europe (you need to go in person to apply). The citizenship would have meant our holiday in 2019 we have decided anywhere in Europe, not based on what embassy's are in Brisbane.

I am not sure if you are aware but Peter Dutton's office is at Strathpine which I believe is not far from where you are if you want to go and have a talk to him (if he is not in Canberra).


----------



## JandE

ampk said:


> I would suggest that a few people with good letter writing skills write to the Independent and minor party Senators in particular Pauline Hanson AND her One Nation Party.
> 
> Like her or hate her she gets lots of airtime on migration.
> 
> The letter should focus only on the Partner Visa's and the 7 year path being unfair compared to the 4 year waiters.
> 
> If she gets on-board both main parties in the senate would, I think easily amend the starting qualifying period for citizenship.
> 
> I would spell out the grant of the first stage of Partner Visa, would be a fair system and an easy amendment to make.


I agree.

That change.org petition, with more comments like this:


> Australia
> 40 mins ago
> Sto firmando perché non é giusto che le leggi si cambiano da un giorno all'altro senza un consenso, un voto pubblico., un elezione...... etc


will be looked on as a joke.

The government will not cave in to people complaining about it in another language etc.. It will just strengthen their opinion.

It needs quality reasons, to the right people.


----------



## Becky26

K974 said:


> Why would skilled and partners be any different ? It should be total duration in the country ona working visa and 4 is enough , if you've worked you've contributed . Note my friend only was really only in country for 3.5 yrs , she counted a holiday before first entry on 417 as her first entry. Not fair enough but any valid working visa or student visa should count . Remove the holiday ones
> 
> Further more if they want to change it , it should aonly apply to new PR , they campainged overseas to bring certain people in provided them with knowedlge of a pathway , the move the goalposts when on the pathway is very unAustralian . Changes should be grandfathered


Because skilled visa holders (few of them I know personally) often tend to use Australian PR as a pathway to find better employment opportunities in other continents but Australia which is quite ironic to be honest.

They don't live in Australia during the 5 years of their PR and return to Australia during the end of the 5 year period so they can apply for a Resident Return Visa for another 5 years i.e. dodging the system and making things difficult for people who do in fact move their life to a new country when their visas were approved.

I understand why people would do that- self preservation but that doesn't really help Australia.

Agree to disagree I guess.


----------



## K974

Becky26 said:


> Because skilled visa holders (few of them I know personally) often tend to use Australian PR as a pathway to find better employment opportunities in other continents but Australia which quite ironic to be honest.
> 
> They don't live in Australia during the 5 years of their PR and return to Australia during the end of the 5 year period so they can apply for a Resident Return Visa for another 5 years i.e. dodging the system and making things difficult for people who do in fact move their life to a new country when their visas were approved.
> 
> I understand why people would do that- self preservation but that doesn't really help Australia.
> 
> Agree to disagree I guess.


Notwhithstanding that I don't agree with your point, I think everyone shoudl he agreed changes should not be retrospective or apply only to those yet to apply /receive pr.

Otherwise how can you trust in 3 yrs , it won't become 8 years and so on, at some point you entered a defined pathway you need to be able see that thru, otherwise how can any citizen to be trust their future representatives


----------



## JandE

K974 said:


> Notwhithstanding that I don't agree with your point, I think everyone shoudl he agreed changes should not be retrospective or apply only to those yet to apply /receive pr.
> 
> Otherwise how can you trust in 3 yrs , it won't become 8 years and so on, at some point you entered a defined pathway you need to be able see that thru, otherwise how can any citizen to be trust their future representatives


I am trying to see where the retrospective bit applies. Citizenship applications already lodged are not affected, its only those after the event.

Citizenship residence is a 4 year things for most people, and that hasn't changed, except for making it 7 years for some who are on a Permanent Visa route, but have to to wait 3 years on a compulsory temporary visa.


----------



## ampk

Yes a very British letter would be the example to give to her. And hint to her it would give her immigration policy a little more depth than it currently has. 

Hard working Australians should decide who comes to live here! (or however she words her typical Aussie family).

Possibly send a statement of this unfairness for Partner Visa holders to Sunrise, that she is on regularly and have Sunrise ask her position - but make sure you send a copy to her office in advance, as she often does not think before speaking (allow her time to comprehend the British letter).


----------



## Becky26

Mish said:


> I am good thanks - just waiting for my husband's PR.
> 
> My husband is awaiting his PR so for us it would mean having to wait another 4 years from when he gets his PR - he has already been here for 3 years and 2 months! That would mean that instead of being able to get citizenship 1 year of PR and approximately 4.5 years in the country, we could be looking at 7.5 years in the country.
> 
> Like you we want the citizenship to be able to travel more freely. We have almost run out of the embassies in Brisbane for Europe (you need to go in person to apply). The citizenship would have meant our holiday in 2019 we have decided anywhere in Europe, not based on what embassy's are in Brisbane.
> 
> I am not sure if you are aware but Peter Dutton's office is at Strathpine which I believe is not far from where you are if you want to go and have a talk to him (if he is not in Canberra).


That's good to hear 

OMG 4.5 years after PR!!! 
That is ridiculous. I am praying that there are enough people signing the petition to stop this joke of a legislation.

Oh really? I didn't know Immigration Minister's office was in Brisbane. Strathpine is the other side of town for us. We are near QUT Kelvin Grove. Regardless, I will definitely pay a visit to the minister's office if they allow people to see him.

I hope your husband's PR comes through very soon. How long have you guys been waiting?


----------



## K974

JandE said:


> I am trying to see where the retrospective bit applies. Citizenship applications already lodged are not affected, its only those after the event.
> 
> Citizenship residence is a 4 year things for most people, and that hasn't changed, except for making it 7 years for some who are on a Permanent Visa route, but have to to wait 3 years on a compulsory temporary visa.


In my case as below I want the 3 yrs 457 to count ,
Arrive sept 2012 -457
PR feb 2016
Eligible for citizenship feb 2017
Didn't lodge application until the 20th so now locked out until feb 2020 without notice.

Therefore it is retrospective as I was eligible in feb 2017.

You might query why the issue , well point 1 they have changed the goalposts from when I signed up for my PR application , if I knew now what I knew then I might have decided to take my skillset somewhere else . I was attracted to australia by Australian government job fairs and they advised me of the pathway to security as a citizen, they went abroad to Bri g people like me in to fulfill then deman

Secondly it's the issues it creates I have a business here now with frequent international travel , i employ Australians but I don't want the worry of continually failing to meet residence requirements as I will be outside australia driving my business creating Aussie jobs. I'm as committed as the best person to here , house business kids in school in footy club etc but I have to travel for work a lot !

But that's a work around mainly it's point no 1 , I was sold a story by the government I went down the path on that advice and now it changes . It should only apply to people who have applied / received or as of 2/4/17 or more appropriately on date it passes parliament


----------



## Thneed

Can somebody explain the following to me: I'm a NZ citizen with an Australian PR which I've had for nearly 1.5 years, and my wife is also a PR which was granted on the same date as me. Now, since then my son was born here in AU in December last year, and I'm wondering if now I have to wait for another 2-3 years before we're all eligible for AU Citizenship? 

I could have done this before, but didn't get around filling the paperwork for Citizenship, so the question is - can my son get an AU passport so we can travel without waiting for another couple of years?? I'm really confused and would appreciate an answer as there is no information on immigration website. 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Becky26

K974 said:


> Notwhithstanding that I don't agree with your point, I think everyone shoudl he agreed changes should not be retrospective or apply only to those yet to apply /receive pr.
> 
> Otherwise how can you trust in 3 yrs , it won't become 8 years and so on, at some point you entered a defined pathway you need to be able see that thru, otherwise how can any citizen to be trust their future representatives


Like I mentioned, agree to disagree. You don't have to agree with my point.

As for 4 years becoming 8 years, we won't know and that it something that only time will tell. I hope there are enough calls, visits, petitions and emails to make the government throw out this new plan and stick to the 12 months PR requirement.

If not, many of us have a long and an agonising wait ahead of us


----------



## JandE

Becky26 said:


> Oh really? I didn't know Immigration Minister's office was in Brisbane. Strathpine is the other side of town for us. We are near QUT Kelvin Grove. Regardless, I will definitely pay a visit to the minister's office if they allow people to see him


Take a written letter with you, outlining the 7 year issue, so you can at least leave that for him. Maybe print out copies of some of the posts on here?

Most people will email, and who knows if *anyone *reads the thousands of emails.

But a written letter these days may be so unusual, that it gets looked at..

Peter Dutton MP - Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Shop 3,199 Gympie Road, Strathpine Qld 4500


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

*Protest*



JandE said:


> I agree.
> 
> That change.org petition, with more comments like this:
> 
> will be looked on as a joke.
> 
> The government will not cave in to people complaining about it in another language etc.. It will just strengthen their opinion.
> 
> It needs quality reasons, to the right people.


Maybe we could organise a protest in the streets! Lets not give up hope!


----------



## Becky26

JandE said:


> Take a written letter with you, outlining the 7 year issue, so you can at least leave that for him. Maybe print out copies of some of the posts on here?
> 
> Most people will email, and who knows if *anyone *reads the thousands of emails.
> 
> But a written letter these days may be so unusual, that it gets looked at..
> 
> Peter Dutton MP - Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Shop 3,199 Gympie Road, Strathpine Qld 4500


Thank you JandE 

Good point! I will start working on the letter.


----------



## JanneKL

Thneed said:


> Can somebody explain the following to me: I'm a NZ citizen with an Australian PR which I've had for nearly 1.5 years, and my wife is also a PR which was granted on the same date as me. Now, since then my son was born here in AU in December last year, and I'm wondering if now I have to wait for another 2-3 years before we're all eligible for AU Citizenship?
> 
> I could have done this before, but didn't get around filling the paperwork for Citizenship, so the question is - can my son get an AU passport so we can travel without waiting for another couple of years?? I'm really confused and would appreciate an answer as there is no information on immigration website.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I thought every kid born to an Aussie citizen OR permanent resident (which you apparently were at the time of your son's birth) and on Australian soil is a Aussie citizen anyway? Please correct me if I'm wrong!


----------



## JandE

K974 said:


> In my case as below I want the 3 yrs 457 to count ,


I see your point on that, but the change is specifically for that reason, they are cutting back on the 457, and other temporary (non permanent) visas, being used as a stepping stone for PR, as it was never intended for that.

If you have something that says the 457 is a definite route to PR then I would agree that the change should not apply to you.

The thing with the Partner Visa is that we have to wait, *compulsorily*, not by choice, for three years before even being allowed to *apply *for PR. Therefore needing 7 years residence, *after *applying for the permanent visa route, not 4.

A 457 visa holder appears to still only need to wait 4 years after applying for permanent visa route.


----------



## JandE

JanneKL said:


> I thought every kid born to an Aussie citizen OR permanent resident (which you apparently were at the time of your son's birth) and on Australian soil is a Aussie citizen anyway? Please correct me if I'm wrong!


I am pretty sure you are right. The child is Australian, based on PR parents and born in Australia.

Children born in Australia automatically acquire Australian citizenship if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child's birth. https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Life/Chil


----------



## K974

JandE said:


> I see your point on that, but the change is specifically for that reason, they are cutting back on the 457, and other temporary (non permanent) visas, being used as a stepping stone for PR, as it was never intended for that.
> 
> If you have something that says the 457 is a definite route to PR then I would agree that the change should not apply to you.
> 
> The thing with the Partner Visa is that we have to wait, *compulsorily*, not by choice, for three years before even being allowed to *apply *for PR. Therefore needing 7 years residence, *after *applying for the permanent visa route, not 4.
> 
> A 457 visa holder appears to still only need to wait 4 years after applying for permanent visa route.


The only have thing I have for definite is what was in effect when we applied for our PR paid the fees and what was in effect when PR was granted , along with the representations made by the Australian government at the job fairs regarding Ye pathway advised come on 457 get pr after 4 years combined with min 1 as pr good to go.

Don't follow your last paragraph , are you thinking I am still ok?

I feel you case with the partner visa , but to be honest I don't have so much a problem with the rules changing for all cases , my problem is with the people who are affected and are already on pathway . So only new partners should be affected


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

*Moving goalposts*



JanneKL said:


> I thought every kid born to an Aussie citizen OR permanent resident (which you apparently were at the time of your son's birth) and on Australian soil is a Aussie citizen anyway? Please correct me if I'm wrong!


All applications as of 19/4 in its current form may be rejected if the ligistlation is passed. This is the information the department has told me mate. They don't know anymore information. I'm in the same boat lodged it yesterday, but now may have to wait another 3 years. I will have lived in Oz 11 years by the time we can apply with this new setup. We're gutted but doing whenever we can to tell the powers that be that this is not 'a fair go' for us.


----------



## Becky26

Thneed said:


> Can somebody explain the following to me: I'm a NZ citizen with an Australian PR which I've had for nearly 1.5 years, and my wife is also a PR which was granted on the same date as me. Now, since then my son was born here in AU in December last year, and I'm wondering if now I have to wait for another 2-3 years before we're all eligible for AU Citizenship?
> 
> I could have done this before, but didn't get around filling the paperwork for Citizenship, so the question is - can my son get an AU passport so we can travel without waiting for another couple of years?? I'm really confused and would appreciate an answer as there is no information on immigration website.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Children born in Australia automatically acquire Australian citizenship if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child's birth.


----------



## Thneed

Becky26 said:


> Children born in Australia automatically acquire Australian citizenship if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of the child's birth.


You're right, this is what I was told as well but a while back. So in effect I would only have to apply for AU Citizenship for myself and my wife as my son is already an Australian citizen?


----------



## JanneKL

Thneed said:


> You're right, this is what I was told as well but a while back. So in effect I would only have to apply for AU Citizenship for myself and my wife as my son is already an Australian citizen?


Yes, however, I'm not sure how you go about proving that. Maybe go and talk to the passport people at the post office to see which docs you need to provide. I assume his birth certificate and proof that you were PRs at the time of his birth will be the bare minimum. Check with them. they should know.

https://www.passports.gov.au/passportsexplained/pages/quicknewchildpassportguide.aspx

https://www.passports.gov.au/passpo...lityoverview/Pages/confirmingcitizenship.aspx

"If you were born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 and one (or both) of your parents was an Australian permanent resident, you must provide evidence of your own Australian citizenship with a citizenship certificate issued by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP). The DIBP website provides information on how to apply for evidence of Australian citizenship."

http://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/Curr/evidence-of-australian-citizenship


----------



## JandE

Thneed said:


> You're right, this is what I was told as well but a while back. So in effect I would only have to apply for AU Citizenship for myself and my wife as my son is already an Australian citizen?


Yes. The child is born a citizen, 
You can apply for Evidence of Australian citizenship - eligibility if the child is born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 and one parent was a permanent resident or Australian citizen.
They say that takes 5 days.


----------



## tatt

*Citizenship sub100*



JanneKL said:


> So glad I received sc 100 at the same time as sc 309...


Hi JanneKL, 
Can you explain please? how new rules going to work with sub100?
Thanks


----------



## Mish

Becky26 said:


> That's good to hear
> 
> OMG 4.5 years after PR!!!
> That is ridiculous. I am praying that there are enough people signing the petition to stop this joke of a legislation.
> 
> Oh really? I didn't know Immigration Minister's office was in Brisbane. Strathpine is the other side of town for us. We are near QUT Kelvin Grove. Regardless, I will definitely pay a visit to the minister's office if they allow people to see him.
> 
> I hope your husband's PR comes through very soon. How long have you guys been waiting?


It is near Westfield Strathpine. If memory serves me correct it is next door to Sarina Russo.

Here is your local member to contact too, incase you didn't know: Mr Trevor Evans MP - Parliament of Australia

I had a bit of a chuckle when I did mine because I got 2 local members with one being ..... Mr Peter Dutton.


----------



## Mish

tatt said:


> Hi JanneKL,
> Can you explain please? how new rules going to work with sub100?
> Thanks


Because of the length of her relationship so got the 309 followed straight after by the 100. They cannot grant a 100 without a 309 so they grant one straight after the other.

With the new rules you will need to hold a subclass 100 for 4 years prior to applying for citizenship.


----------



## JanneKL

tatt said:


> Hi JanneKL,
> Can you explain please? how new rules going to work with sub100?
> Thanks


As Mish said:

I was granted the visas 309 and 100 at the same time. So by the time I will reach the 4-year in Australia mark, I will also have been here as a PR.

So 4 years for me either way, old or new rules.


----------



## ampk

Becky26 said:


> That's good to hear
> 
> Oh really? I didn't know Immigration Minister's office was in Brisbane. Strathpine is the other side of town for us. We are near QUT Kelvin Grove. Regardless, I will definitely pay a visit to the minister's office if they allow people to see him.


Yes, Becky it is our right to see and speak to them. Sometimes an appointment is required other times they will just see and talk to you - I expect in your case the appointment will be required, but you never know.


----------



## K974

If you had to bet /speculate what are the chance of someone who lodged on the 20th on the old rules being successful when it also washes out .

Just interested in your opinion ? Personally if I had to bet I'd go with ok that it will apply to those who were only eligible to apply after the 20th but that's just a gut feel


----------



## FutureCitizen

So would the department process our applications faster now?


----------



## ampk

K974 said:


> If you had to bet /speculate what are the chance of someone who lodged on the 20th on the old rules being successful when it also washes out .
> 
> Just interested in your opinion ? Personally if I had to bet I'd go with ok that it will apply to those who were only eligible to apply after the 20th but that's just a gut feel


You seem to assume DIBP plays fair - first they refuse under any grounds, then you appeal at a cost - if you prove they were wrong, you get 1/2 that fee back!

Did you win? As that will take over a year or much more.


----------



## K974

ampk said:


> You seem to assume DIBP plays fair - first they refuse under any grounds, then you appeal at a cost - if you prove they were wrong, you get 1/2 that fee back!
> 
> Did you win? As that will take over a year or much more.


I didn't have any hassles to date , lucky I think.

You reckon it'll be from 20th so for everyone ?


----------



## Mish

K974 said:


> If you had to bet /speculate what are the chance of someone who lodged on the 20th on the old rules being successful when it also washes out .
> 
> Just interested in your opinion ? Personally if I had to bet I'd go with ok that it will apply to those who were only eligible to apply after the 20th but that's just a gut feel


If I was a betting person I would say that IF it gets passed through parliament then it would people from 20th April regardless of when they were eligible.

At this stage all we can do is wait and hope that they change their minds.

I think at this stage it is important to provide the feedback and remember that things can change especially if the voting public are not happy with what they are doing.

We also have to remember especially for partner visas for all 60,000 applicants there are also 60,000 sponsors which 50% or more and voting. So if we especially get sponsors to complain who are Australian citizens that will help the case too.


----------



## ampk

I was told by 2 senators offices 1 Labor and 1 Liberal that we had to leave a young kid behind in Ukraine if we wanted a Visitor Visa for my partner and her 2 kids to meet my family and see Australia.

So no don't think the 20th is a safe bet, clearly many have little respect for others in DIBP.

And sadly they don't put it in writing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that should hint you on how they work.


----------



## K974

ampk said:


> I was told by 2 senators offices 1 Labor and 1 Liberal that we had to leave a young kid behind in Ukraine if we wanted a Visitor Visa for my partner and her 2 kids to meet my family and see Australia.
> 
> So no don't think the 20th is a safe bet, clearly many have little respect for others in DIBP.
> 
> And sadly they don't put it in writing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that should hint you on how they work.


I can't see how it might be approved in late 2017 and back dated until 20th. April , this means they will have to freeze everything creating a huge backlog. Surely it would be from when passed or some sort of compromise like only 2 years for those already with Pr at the very most


----------



## ampk

K974, the DIBP has a log history of just making changes the affect persons in the system. And this is not even close to what is or would be a retrospective law change.

* on a PMV - any 820 fee changes affect you.
* on a 820 any temp to perm changes affect you.
* on a perm any citizenship changes affect you.

In the normal World you apply for X and the goal posts don't shift or you can sue, but DIBP are a law among themselves - and not suable in these cases.


----------



## K974

ampk said:


> K974, the DIBP has a log history of just making changes the affect persons in the system. And this is not even close to what is or would be a retrospective law change.
> 
> * on a PMV - any 820 fee changes affect you.
> * on a 820 any temp to perm changes affect you.
> * on a perm any citizenship changes affect you.
> 
> In the normal World you apply for X and the goal posts don't shift or you can sue, but DIBP are a law among themselves - and not suable in these cases.


Didn't know that, feck em anyway .

So you think no chance for those who applied on 20th?


----------



## tatt

*Sub100*



JanneKL said:


> As Mish said:
> 
> I was granted the visas 309 and 100 at the same time. So by the time I will reach the 4-year in Australia mark, I will also have been here as a PR.
> 
> So 4 years for me either way, old or new rules.


I am in Australia from June 2013 holding now sub100 nearly 2years so reading all this info really put me down today  
Looks like we have to wait 4 years on top of our Permanent Visa or if I have done 2 years already now with new rules I need to do 2 extra years?
We pay from the start for 309/100 so the old rules should still apply?! 
As I learned at Uni "the law doesn't work to the past" so they can bring new rules by the end of 2017 but can't take it back to 20/04/17, is there anyone good with the Law/ACT etc...?


----------



## tatt

*sub100*



Mish said:


> Because of the length of her relationship so got the 309 followed straight after by the 100. They cannot grant a 100 without a 309 so they grant one straight after the other.
> 
> With the new rules you will need to hold a subclass 100 for 4 years prior to applying for citizenship.


Thanks Mish
I know all of that I just wonder about this extra 4years if you already on sub 100 for a 2years what's next...
Going to have a chat with someone on Monday at the Embassy and hope they can tell me what to do (for some reason they are close all week and open just Monday hmmmm)


----------



## JanneKL

tatt said:


> I am in Australia from June 2013 holding now sub100 nearly 2years so reading all this info really put me down today
> Looks like we have to wait 4 years on top of our Permanent Visa or if I have done 2 years already now with new rules I need to do 2 extra years?
> We pay from the start for 309/100 so the old rules should still apply?!
> As I learned at Uni "the law doesn't work to the past" so they can bring new rules by the end of 2017 but can't take it back to 20/04/17, is there anyone good with the Law/ACT etc...?


If you had your sc 100 for 2 years already, it should only be two more years for you. It's 4 years total as a permanent resident.

It's 4 years for me, because I only just came to Australia on my sc 100 one month ago.


----------



## Mish

tatt said:


> Thanks Mish
> I know all of that I just wonder about this extra 4years if you already on sub 100 for a 2years what's next...
> Going to have a chat with someone on Monday at the Embassy and hope they can tell me what to do (for some reason they are close all week and open just Monday hmmmm)


They won't be able to tell you anything because they don't know anything yet. Anything is all a guessing game but it all comes down to if it gets through in parliament. If it doesn't then the changes won't happen. Also what the public have to say (especially Australian citizens) will also have a baring on what happens.


----------



## Tusho

What exactly is the process and time frame of getting it through parliament and who would be the most likely instance to challenge the decision?


----------



## ampk

I wonder how this has an affect on my X's plan - she really wanted the free uni stuff.


----------



## Mish

tatt said:


> I am in Australia from June 2013 holding now sub100 nearly 2years so reading all this info really put me down today
> Looks like we have to wait 4 years on top of our Permanent Visa or if I have done 2 years already now with new rules I need to do 2 extra years?
> We pay from the start for 309/100 so the old rules should still apply?!
> As I learned at Uni "the law doesn't work to the past" so they can bring new rules by the end of 2017 but can't take it back to 20/04/17, is there anyone good with the Law/ACT etc...?


I know a little bit about law. It has to do with retrospective law which can be backdated but they need to give enough information about what the changes are (which they have) and the changing of the legislation is just a formality (per say). That is about what I know. It is the same for taxation law and social security law. They could announce tomorrow that the age of a dependent child is changing and will be effective on that date but the legislation would not be changed for a few months. Because they have notified that it will be done then that is allowed.

This is how it defines it on google:
Retrospective laws are ones that seek to change the law relating to the past - for example a retrospective law may make people criminally responsible for doing something that was not actually against the law when they did it.


----------



## ampk

Tusho said:


> What exactly is the process and time frame of getting it through parliament and who would be the most likely instance to challenge the decision?


It is the Senate that can/will make a change. The lower house they have the votes.


----------



## Mish

ampk said:


> I wonder how this has an affect on my X's plan - she really wanted the free uni stuff.


Regardless, it needs to be paid back eventually....

Maybe they need to have like America (and I think the UK too) where you need to be married for a specific amount of time to get citizenship, I thought 3 years.


----------



## Mish

Sarah Hanson-Young is who you should try: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young - Parliament of Australia

I believe she is the one that got the cancellation of the parent visa reversed. Also she is greens and not liberal, so that would help.


----------



## ampk

I don't know how it works when you claim/get DV when you can get these courses, I know the last Darwin one was free. But I know I paid for Cairns courses for her.


----------



## Mish

Another person I would suggest would be Waleed Aly from The Project. He has a very powerful voice and gets alot of attention. What he talks about tends to get alot of media coverage too. I don't know how to contact him, but maybe someone else does.


----------



## Mish

ampk said:


> I don't know how it works when you claim/get DV when you can get these courses, I know the last Darwin one was free. But I know I paid for Cairns courses for her.


It could have something to do with Certificate 3 guarantee. In Queensland they have 3 courses but you can only do 1 which is for free and then after that they charge you. However, you can't hold a degree higher than a certificate 2 to do it, so it is always best not to get a degree recognised if they will not use it and then they can get a certificate 3 guarantee course.


----------



## ampk

Mish said:


> It could have something to do with Certificate 3 guarantee. In Queensland they have 3 courses but you can only do 1 which is for free and then after that they charge you. However, you can't hold a degree higher than a certificate 2 to do it, so it is always best not to get a degree recognised if they will not use it and then they can get a certificate 3 guarantee course.


Has like the Masters in Economics, but does not like that - then did Biology but the campus ended up not approved.

But certainly the Masters in Economics did count.


----------



## james88

I registered to express my frustration about the news, im seriously trying to convince my partner to pack up and leave the country as every time we make plans for life they change something without warning, as an IT professional I need security clearance to have access to most contracts and I can not get that without citizenship, that means that we probable will not be able to buy a house for at least next 3 years and by than prices will have doubled probably, been here for 6 years, they make me pay 45 cent per dollar tax and since paying 10s of thousands to immigration and agents not one visa was finalized within the time frames as quoted, called immi on Thursday and after 2 hours of wait they hung up, if I go to the office there is no one to talk to, they hand over phone to you, so sick of been looked at like a thing. what is the possibility of Pauline Hanson been a prime minister within next four years? everyone would say 0% right? well look at what happened in US and than think twice, and its possible that they will change it again, reality is that majority of Aussies like these changes cause they dont like foreigners, look around Sydney and you wouldn't know which country you are into, there are suburbs where English is not even second language, but what people dont understand is that these changes will not fix anything and foreigners are not the problem, its just a way for do nothing government to pretend that they deliver as if immigration was the biggest problem in the country, %50 of millionaires do not pay any Tax, large multinationals pay %7 on average instead of %28 and Australia is the largest producer of LNG gas and still we are paying one of the highest prices for gas and electricity in the world when mining companies export same product for quarter of the local price to Asia and only thing that needs to be fixed is citizenship apperently


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> Another person I would suggest would be Waleed Aly from The Project. He has a very powerful voice and gets alot of attention. What he talks about tends to get alot of media coverage too. I don't know how to contact him, but maybe someone else does.


Could try contact via this: https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/your-say


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> Could try contact via this: https://tenplay.com.au/channel-ten/the-project/your-say


Thanks. Email address is: [email protected] for people to email them. People need to email through, the more that do the more chances are that a story will get done.


----------



## james88

Turnbull is minority, he can not get it through parliament without oppositions support but looks like opposition is all for change as well, and I can not imagine Labor been against it when majority of Australians support new requirements, we should try to bring facts to Labors and greens attention, its unfair to people who planned their lives based on old requirements, imagine how many people wanted to get a student loan or how many refugees dont have a passport and are basically hostages to Australia, how can we trust the prime minister when he changes rules when polls are not looking good for him? Labor and Greens have majority over Turnbull and his girlfriend pauline hanson opposition could kill two birds with one stone by supporting changes but only for new applications, they are looking at 60k new voters on their side if they can use the opportunity and thats how they are looking at it


----------



## swoorup

So I get 8 points in my PTE this year. So after 4 years I have to take this test again? Do they assume that I will be impaired on my English somehow?

What if I get a medical condition and unable to even communicate properly? Australia kicks you out of the country? Salute to you PM and policy makers!


----------



## JandE

swoorup said:


> What if I get a medical condition and unable to even communicate properly? Australia kicks you out of the country? Salute to you PM and policy makers!


No, there are exemptions for such situations , it's not that bad.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

Thneed said:


> can my son get an AU passport so we can travel without waiting for another couple of years??


You son is an Australian citizen by birth (born in Australia with at least one Parent PR) so you can apply for his passport straight away.


----------



## Mish

james88 said:


> Turnbull is minority, he can not get it through parliament without oppositions support but looks like opposition is all for change as well, and I can not imagine Labor been against it when majority of Australians support new requirements, we should try to bring facts to Labors and greens attention, its unfair to people who planned their lives based on old requirements, imagine how many people wanted to get a student loan or how many refugees dont have a passport and are basically hostages to Australia, how can we trust the prime minister when he changes rules when polls are not looking good for him? Labor and Greens have majority over Turnbull and his girlfriend pauline hanson opposition could kill two birds with one stone by supporting changes but only for new applications, they are looking at 60k new voters on their side if they can use the opportunity and thats how they are looking at it


I posted the information on Sarah Hanson-Young who is a greens. I think we just need to contact alot along with media too and see what they can do.

I think that if enough people complain they will listen to the public and also we need to juat contact MP's etc.

Interesting enough I was speaking to someone last night from America and their equilivant to the 820 & 309 is a permanent visa for 2 years and then after that they get the longer PR. We should be suggesting that and also for other provisional visas. They also said that citizenship is after 5 years in USA.

Interesting you mention refugees because I worry for them being able to pass a university level English test. They need to get a job because Centrelink doesn't pay enough for them not to work and just go to their English course.

James you should contact Pauline Hanson she may list to you as you are from Canada.


----------



## sheilae

I've done a bit more reading about language requirements, and looking at what Canada requires, and I think if/when english requirements are to be introduced they should follow that model. 

For instance if you've completed high school or uni in english that is acceptable. That takes out the nationality factor and allows anyone who studied in English at either level to be exempt from providing test results, regardless of where they're from.

The English requirement as measured by IELTS is also less (4 speak, 4.5 listening) if the Australian citizenship requirement stays in line with the current work visa expectations.


----------



## Mish

The Australian government is looking at a level 6 which IMO is too high. I would fully support them needing functional (level 4.5).


----------



## Thneed

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> You son is an Australian citizen by birth (born in Australia with at least one Parent PR) so you can apply for his passport straight away.


Thank you, and I suppose on my and my wife's Citizenship application we do not have to include our son as he's AU citizen (months/years before us!)


----------



## CCMS

Mish said:


> The Australian government is looking at a level 6 which IMO is too high. I would fully support them needing functional (level 4.5).


No disrespect , but many "home-grown" Australian citizens would have problems getting an IELTS score of 4 x 6.I have a suspicion that some elected members and many supporters of a certain political party would struggle with it.


----------



## tatt

Mish said:


> They won't be able to tell you anything because they don't know anything yet. Anything is all a guessing game but it all comes down to if it gets through in parliament. If it doesn't then the changes won't happen. Also what the public have to say (especially Australian citizens) will also have a baring on what happens.


I haven't seen my family for nearly 4 years and was planning to go and see them maybe for Christmas and now I can't go  I done everything I could to become a good Citizenship, It feels so unfair


----------



## JandE

tatt said:


> I haven't seen my family for nearly 4 years and was planning to go and see them maybe for Christmas and now I can't go  I done everything I could to become a good Citizenship, It feels so unfair


Is there a reason you can't go? Many people do travel while waiting for citizenship. I travelled many times while on PR before becoming a citizen.

Our only reason currently, would be for my wife not wanting to renew her original nationality passport. But that's by choice.


----------



## Mish

CCMS said:


> No disrespect , but many "home-grown" Australian citizens would have problems getting an IELTS score of 4 x 6.I have a suspicion that some elected members and many supporters of a certain political party would struggle with it.


Which is why I said 6 is too high. 4.5 is achievable for most I believe but I know nothing about the IELTS exam. By functional I mean grade 10 English, is that a 4.5 level?

I have heard stories of native English speakers not being able to get a 6 on the IELTS.


----------



## Mish

tatt said:


> I haven't seen my family for nearly 4 years and was planning to go and see them maybe for Christmas and now I can't go  I done everything I could to become a good Citizenship, It feels so unfair


Why can't you go? You can still travel on your own passport.


----------



## summersky

Mish said:


> Why can't you go? You can still travel on your own passport.


I think it's more of a peace of mind. When I got my PR I didn't travel overseas just to avoid any possible problem, and only traveled overseas after I got my Australian passport


----------



## JandE

tatt said:


> I am in Australia from June 2013 holding now sub100 nearly 2years so reading all this info really put me down today
> ..
> We pay from the start for 309/100 so the old rules should still apply?!


I feel that the above is the crux of our argument against these changes.

We apply for, and pay for, a combined 309/100 or 820/801 visa, to specifically get Permanent Residency.
We get the first part of this visa granted (309 or 820), and start living in Australia on a permanent basis.

We must argue that this should be treated as Permanent from the date of that grant.

We are NOT applying for a temporary visa by choice. We are applying for a Permanent visa from the very beginning.

That is the message we need to get to those in power.
Anything else confuses the issue, and could cause them to ignore any concerns.


----------



## tatt

Mish said:


> Why can't you go? You can still travel on your own passport.


Well my situation is different, that's why I am so sad. If you don't have a passport it's hard to travel to see your family. It's to long to explain here. Sorry


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> We must argue that this should be treated as Permanent from the date of that grant.


That is what America does. The first visa is a 2 year permanent visa and then after that they do the interview/evidence etc and then it becomes a 10 year visa (I think, I can't remember if it was 5 or 10 years).


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> That is what America does. The first visa is a 2 year permanent visa and then after that they do the interview/evidence etc and then it becomes a 10 year visa (I think, I can't remember if it was 5 or 10 years).


I am not normally one for following an American way, but this does seem a logical one.

I hope someone in power understands the logic of our argument.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> I am not normally one for following an American way, but this does seem a logical one.
> 
> I hope someone in power understands the logic of our argument.


I am almost thinking of copying the same email to quite a few MP's.

Did you sign yours with your first name only or first and last name?


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> I am almost thinking of copying the same email to quite a few MP's.
> 
> Did you sign yours with your first name only or first and last name?


Full; name, address and phone number. I am aware that they may ignore emails that are almost anonymous. So I feel that by giving full contact details, they see I am serious.

I am concerned by seeing so many "not highly qualified" comments against these new rules, in many places, media etc., that this may just pass regardless.

So many comments are justifying the changes.

Examples:


_The change is wrong as I need University funding_
_I don't want to wait that long_
_I want my time spent as visitor and student to count the same as permanent._
_And of course many written in foreign languages._

They are the reasons why they are changing the rules, but some others, with legitimate permanent entry, are getting caught.


----------



## Bellaella

Hello , I have got my PR 100 on JUne 2015. i was wondering when will i be eligible to apply for citizenship ? according to old laws ..


----------



## guscas

If we worded our case as "There is clear evidence that the citizenship programme needs an overhaul, but partner visas are coming out at a disadvantage, we could use that to protect ourselves against these poor comments you mention, Jande. Not sure what your thoughts are.


----------



## Mish

I didn't even address the "need citizenship for study", I just talked about how a partner visa is a provisional visa and should be counted towards PR, about how there is no change for people that arrive on PR and it would have been more fair to change the total time from 4 years to 5 years and how the English requirements are university level and should be grade 10 level and how what they are asking native English speakers may not pass.


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> If we worded our case as "There is clear evidence that the citizenship programme needs an overhaul, but partner visas are coming out at a disadvantage, we could use that to protect ourselves against these poor comments you mention, Jande. Not sure what your thoughts are.


I don't think it needs an overhaul, I think they need to change the law to give them the ability to cancel citizenship more easily. Otherwise, they still may keep with the English requirements and as CCMS said earlier some native English speakers would have trouble passing what they are asking.


----------



## Mish

Bellaella said:


> Hello , I have got my PR 100 on JUne 2015. i was wondering when will i be eligible to apply for citizenship ? according to old laws ..


Under the old rules it would depend on when you arrived in Australia and ow long you have been in Australia.

If you arrived in Australia in June 2014 and only left Australia for short holidays, you would be eligible in June 2017 under the old rules.


----------



## Bellaella

Mish said:


> Under the old rules it would depend on when you arrived in Australia and ow long you have been in Australia.
> 
> If you arrived in Australia in June 2014 and only left Australia for short holidays, you would be eligible in June 2017 under the old rules.


Dear MIsh

I arrived in Australia on aug 2013 on tourist visa stayed here and before i left i got my TR and in 2015 June i got PR. in this case when will i be eligible? Please advise.thank you


----------



## Mish

Bellaella said:


> Dear MIsh
> 
> I arrived in Australia on aug 2013 on tourist visa stayed here and before i left i got my TR and in 2015 June i got PR. in this case when will i be eligible? Please advise.thank you


Sorry, I did a typo on the other one, I meant June 2018. Anyway.... you would have been eligible in August 2017 based on your timeline.


----------



## guscas

Mish said:


> I don't think it needs an overhaul, I think they need to change the law to give them the ability to cancel citizenship more easily. Otherwise, they still may keep with the English requirements and as CCMS said earlier some native English speakers would have trouble passing what they are asking.


I'm fundamentally against cancelling citizenship.

How do you cancel the citizenship of a person with no other citizenship or residence rights in any other country?

That's not to mention the philosophical reason behind it. I, as a citizen, am required to risk my life and represent Australia in a war, but Australia can revoke my citizenship as it wishes? I know that's not the intention, but such imbalances of power have historically shown not to be very healthy.


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> I'm fundamentally against cancelling citizenship.
> 
> How do you cancel the citizenship of a person with no other citizenship or residence rights in any other country?
> 
> That's not to mention the philosophical reason behind it. I, as a citizen, am required to risk my life and represent Australia in a war, but Australia can revoke my citizenship as it wishes? I know that's not the intention, but such imbalances of power have historically shown not to be very healthy.


If they are not born in Australia, they have a home country by birth. By having that they can cancel the citizenship then it stops people doing terrorism etc (which is what they are trying to stop).


----------



## guscas

Mish said:


> If they are not born in Australia, they have a home country by birth. By having that they can cancel the citizenship then it stops people doing terrorism etc (which is what they are trying to stop).


I see where you are coming from, but someone may choose to abdicate their other citizenship for the Australian one (as some countries prohibit dual citizenship). What happens then?

Also, we have had multiple cases of terrorism perpetrated by citizens by birth. I don't believe there should be any differentiation between a citizen by grant and one by birth... But I'm biased. =)


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> I see where you are coming from, but someone may choose to abdicate their other citizenship for the Australian one (as some countries prohibit dual citizenship). What happens then?
> 
> Also, we have had multiple cases of terrorism perpetrated by citizens by birth. I don't believe there should be any differentiation between a citizen by grant and one by birth... But I'm biased. =)


Obviously it is something that would need some fine tuning. The issue that what they are proposing ie. Asking if you hit your spouse or child won't work as really, people would just lie. So they need to do so something else.

It will be very interesting to see what ends up happening.


----------



## JandE

guscas said:


> If we worded our case as "There is clear evidence that the citizenship programme needs an overhaul, but partner visas are coming out at a disadvantage, we could use that to protect ourselves against these poor comments you mention, Jande. Not sure what your thoughts are.


Not necessarily the _clear evidence that the citizenship programme needs an overhaul,_ but absolutely on the _partner visas are coming out at a disadvantage_, effectively needing Seven Years residence after getting the first part of the PR visa.

We can say we understand the need for their change to excluding those that choose to be temporary, rather than apply for a permanent route first, but the partner visa route is actually a PR application.

Thinking about it, a simple fix is to rename the first part (820 and 309) as Provisional Permanent Visa, that gets around it being temporary, and calls it what it actually is.

Who knows, they may already have intended that, but not specified it, YET.

Example: Most temporary visa holders do not qualify for Medicare, because they are temporary residents, Partner Visa holders do qualify for Medicare because they are on a Permanent Visa route.


----------



## Mish

The 820 and 309 are already called a provisional visa even though we all call them a temporary visa. In my email I have called them a provisional visa to show that it is not a temporary and not permanent either.

Is anyone else sending emails to other MP's? I don't want to appear to be a stalker lol


----------



## JandE

guscas said:


> I'm fundamentally against cancelling citizenship.
> 
> How do you cancel the citizenship of a person with no other citizenship or residence rights in any other country?
> 
> That's not to mention the philosophical reason behind it. I, as a citizen, am required to risk my life and represent Australia in a war, but Australia can revoke my citizenship as it wishes? I know that's not the intention, but such imbalances of power have historically shown not to be very healthy.


They seem to have pushed that point recently, specifically for those who fight on the opposite side to Australia. It is right to remove Citizenship from an enemy who fights against, and tries to kill, our troops.

If an Australian passport holder leaves Australia and fights against Australian Troops, then Citizenship should be able to be revoked, and the person not allowed to re-enter, forcing that person to stay in the country they are fighting for.

However, as far as I am aware, the Minister cannot revoke a person's Australian citizenship, if they are not a national or citizen of any other country. AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 - SECT 34 Revocation by Minister--offences or fraud


----------



## pikachufan

I am just adding my two cents worth.

i think the new laws, if at all they are passed, should only be directed towards any new visa application from April 20th onward and should not affect those who have applied and/or for any kind of visas prior to the 20th.

For example, you get admitted to a school , knowing that you must complete 12 years before graduating. Suddenly the school changes its laws and states that all students must complete 16 years now which is not fair for the who are half way through or whatever. The new laws must only be applied to the yet-to-be enrolled students who will enter the school knowing that you need to study 16 years to graduate.

now just like most of the people here, i am stuck in limbo. Belonging nowhere and having this fear of being kicked to India where its illegal to be gay.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> The 820 and 309 are already called a provisional visa even though we all call them a temporary visa. In my email I have called them a provisional visa to show that it is not a temporary and not permanent either.
> 
> Is anyone else sending emails to other MP's? I don't want to appear to be a stalker lol


The 820 on my wifes grant specifically says: 
Visa Class: Partner (Temporary) (class UK)
Visa Subclass: Partner (subclass 820)

On the page combined 820/801 application page, it also says: "_The temporary Partner visa (subclass 820) is the first stage towards a permanent Partner visa (subclass 801)_."


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> The 820 on my wifes grant specifically says:
> Visa Class: Partner (Temporary) (class UK)
> Visa Subclass: Partner (subclass 820)
> 
> On the page combined 820/801 application page, it also says: "_The temporary Partner visa (subclass 820) is the first stage towards a permanent Partner visa (subclass 801)_."


On VEVO for my husband it says a provisional visa. Interesting.....


----------



## Mish

pikachufan said:


> I am just adding my two cents worth.
> 
> i think the new laws, if at all they are passed, should only be directed towards any new visa application from April 20th onward and should not affect those who have applied and/or for any kind of visas prior to the 20th.
> 
> For example, you get admitted to a school , knowing that you must complete 12 years before graduating. Suddenly the school changes its laws and states that all students must complete 16 years now which is not fair for the who are half way through or whatever. The new laws must only be applied to the yet-to-be enrolled students who will enter the school knowing that you need to study 16 years to graduate.
> 
> now just like most of the people here, i am stuck in limbo. Belonging nowhere and having this fear of being kicked to India where its illegal to be gay.


That is a good example, I hope you included that in your feedback to the citizenship feedback email.


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> now just like most of the people here, i am stuck in limbo. Belonging nowhere and having this fear of being kicked to India where its illegal to be gay.


I would try not to worry too much about that point. You are here on the 820, with an 801 application in place.

It's the 801 being granted that will be most important for you, and once you have PR at least you will be secure as a Resident.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> On VEVO for my husband it says a provisional visa. Interesting.....


I just checked on VEVO too, and:

Visa description: PROVISIONAL RESIDENT

So the grant says Temporary, and VEVO says Provisional.

That's another issue to be cleared up... Which is right ?.. VEVO sounds best.


----------



## Dinoo

Mine says the same!.....but I just checked and it's pretty much a temporary one  guess it just sounds better haha
---
9.1.2.20 Provisional Residence Visas | Guide to Social Security Law
9.1.2.20 Provisional Residence Visas
Introduction
A provisional visa is a temporary visa that may lead to the grant of a permanent visa if the holder meets certain conditions.

Example: Visas subclass 309 and subclass 820 are provisional visas issued to people who are applying for permanent residence on 'partner' grounds. 
---


----------



## pikachufan

Hope this happens for the citizenship ruling as well 

Greens in bid to stymie Malcolm Turnbull's visa changes


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> Hope this happens for the citizenship ruling as well
> 
> Greens in bid to stymie Malcolm Turnbull's visa changes


That report ends with


> However, it is understood most employers are satisfied that the new scheme will work better and that most have taken comfort in the fact that its six-monthly review process will ensure that any missing trades groups can be included on the list if there is a legitimate skills shortage that is unable to be met locally.


----------



## Scarab

Longtime lurker, new poster. Registered to join discussion.

It is shocking how poorly rationalized these new citizenship changes are. They're designed to impose a deficit model upon migrants, whereby focus is accorded solely upon what we lack (that apparently being English, "values", integration, employability) rather than what we have to offer. I strongly agree that they will work to sow further division within many communities across Australia.

Has anybody read the *2015 National Consultation on Citizenship* on which these changes are based upon?? This entire thing is an attempt to appease the emotional patriotism of a number of _voluntary_ participants. To give you an idea of the numbers: 2,544 participants for the online survey and "more than 400" of written submissions from the public. Many of whom feverishly expressed the concern that "citizenship is undervalued by some in our community". It is perplexing how a couple of thousand participants can justify complicating the lives of ~200,000 migrants granted PR every year in Australia. If Turnbull is pissing his pants over his waning constituency appeal, he should know the old cliche "the migrant's hunger to participate in a functioning democracy" stands firm. A better move would have been to appeal to the hundreds of thousands of new PRs every year by defending their interests and hastening their enfranchisement.

The English language test is a crass disregard for Australia's first peoples, whose languages and culture have been relegated to near oblivion due to "Speak English" colonialist demands - now apparently declared an Australian value by Turnbull/Dutton. One shudders to think how this new "Australian value" will embolden the racist bully on public transport, barking at passengers who dare converse in languages other than English. You can afford to overlook the globally acknowledged complexity of the English language if you were privileged enough to be surrounded by it from a young age. I doubt the survey participants know that Australia's Snowy Mountains Scheme in 1949-74 was built by hundreds of thousands of migrants from over 30 countries - most of whom did not speak a word of English.

I am on the 801, granted just last week with the help of CCMS (whom I consider a dear friend and excellent agent). I left my homeland and family to be with my Australian partner who was/is unable to join me in my country (he serves in the RAAF). I paid the DIBP thousands in application and administration fees for four visa stages and travel expenses (at times merely to be given a decision for an application outcome). And whilst grappling with the cold uncertainty of outrageous wait times, I had to cop obscene international student fees for an Australian tertiary qualification that will be used in service of this country, the postponement of which would have delayed our starting a family. All of which had nearly broken our backs financially. It is no secret that Australian migration policies exclude the poor. And yet, voluntary participants within the *2015 National Consultation on Citizenship* deem that citizenship "is not something that should be earned too easily or given away cheaply". How f*cking insulting.


----------



## Zion

Hi guys,anyone here applied their citizenship 21st of April 2017 onwards? Did immi acknowledged your application? Thanks


----------



## Mish

pikachufan said:


> Hope this happens for the citizenship ruling as well
> 
> Greens in bid to stymie Malcolm Turnbull's visa changes


It is being driven by Sarah Hanson-Young who I have heard great things about.

We should all be contacting her. Anyone that lives in Adelaide should try and see her in person.


----------



## MarcellusF

I feel ya.

Btw, that's some solid English skills for a Kuwaiti. Chapeau!



Scarab said:


> Longtime lurker, new poster. Registered to join discussion.
> 
> It is shocking how poorly rationalized these new citizenship changes are. They're designed to impose a deficit model upon migrants, whereby focus is accorded solely upon what we lack (that apparently being English, "values", integration, employability) rather than what we have to offer. I strongly agree that they will work to sow further division within many communities across Australia.
> 
> Has anybody read the *2015 National Consultation on Citizenship* on which these changes are based upon?? This entire thing is an attempt to appease the emotional patriotism of a number of _voluntary_ participants. To give you an idea of the numbers: 2,544 participants for the online survey and "more than 400" of written submissions from the public. Many of whom feverishly expressed the concern that "citizenship is undervalued by some in our community". It is perplexing how a couple of thousand participants can justify complicating the lives of ~200,000 migrants granted PR every year in Australia. If Turnbull is pissing his pants over his waning constituency appeal, he should know the old cliche "the migrant's hunger to participate in a functioning democracy" stands firm. A better move would have been to appeal to the hundreds of thousands of new PRs every year by defending their interests and hastening their enfranchisement.
> 
> The English language test is a crass disregard for Australia's first peoples, whose languages and culture have been relegated to near oblivion due to "Speak English" colonialist demands - now apparently declared an Australian value by Turnbull/Dutton. One shudders to think how this new "Australian value" will embolden the racist bully on public transport, barking at passengers who dare converse in languages other than English. You can afford to overlook the globally acknowledged complexity of the English language if you were privileged enough to be surrounded by it from a young age. I doubt the survey participants know that Australia's Snowy Mountains Scheme in 1949-74 was built by hundreds of thousands of migrants from over 30 countries - most of whom did not speak a word of English.
> 
> I am on the 801, granted just last week with the help of CCMS (whom I consider a dear friend and excellent agent). I left my homeland and family to be with my Australian partner who was/is unable to join me in my country (he serves in the RAAF). I paid the DIBP thousands in application and administration fees for four visa stages and travel expenses (at times merely to be given a decision for an application outcome). And whilst grappling with the cold uncertainty of outrageous wait times, I had to cop obscene international student fees for an Australian tertiary qualification that will be used in service of this country, the postponement of which would have delayed our starting a family. All of which had nearly broken our backs financially. It is no secret that Australian migration policies exclude the poor. And yet, voluntary participants within the *2015 National Consultation on Citizenship* deem that citizenship "is not something that should be earned too easily or given away cheaply". How f*cking insulting.


----------



## Mish

Scarab makes some interesting points. One of them being ... will an English test make people speak English on the train etc? No of course not. If they are more confident in their mother tongue they will speak in their mother tongue.

A friend of mine a born Australian citizen always speaks to her parents in Thai never English. It doesn't mean that her parents are any less an Australian citizen it just means that their mother tongue is easier for them to communicate in.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Yes, we lodged on 21/4/17 - we started our application on 6/4 (the day we became eligible on the old criteria). Finished it on 21/4 and submitted, and we got the confirmation email back same day. 

I'm hoping maybe the system has taken into account that application was started on in 6/4 but when spoke to department they said it's any application lodged on it after 20/4 when government made the announcement and they are not sure what's going to happen to our application, if it passes in parliament then likely it will be refused and we have to wait another 3years!


----------



## Sabindra

*Citizenship*

Applied on 21 April 2017, has only completed 2 year of residency. hope to get approved. New rules come with 4 years of residency .

what will happen if my application is rejected, will my money be refunded back.???

Regards.
Sabindra


----------



## Sabindra

Zion said:


> Hi guys,anyone here applied their citizenship 21st of April 2017 onwards? Did immi acknowledged your application? Thanks


Applied on 21 april 2017, got the acknowledge letter but it just a automatic letter. hope the application get approved. Have just finished 2 year in Pr.

Regards
Sabindra


----------



## Mish

Sabindra said:


> what will happen if my application is rejected, will my money be refunded back.???


I would assume that you get a refund as it is something that was outside of your control.

Don't forget to email through your feedback on the changes.


----------



## Mish

I just saw that Alex Hawke (assistant immigration minister) is on ABC Q & A tonight and you submit your question via this link: Ask a Question | Q&A | ABC TV


----------



## Ritik

Hi Mish, On the immigration department website it is showing the old rules for the citizen if you are partner of an Australian citizen. It is confusing because they have updated there website.

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi...pplication-options/partner-spouse/eligibility


----------



## Mish

Ritik said:


> Hi Mish, on the immigration department website it is showing the old rules for the citizen if you are partner of an Australian citizen. It is confusing because they have updated there website.
> 
> https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi...pplication-options/partner-spouse/eligibility


partner of an Australian citizen only comes into play if the Australian citizen needs to reside outside of Australia (eg. they are in the army etc) and for that reason you can't meet the residency requirements.

I don't imagine they will update the rules until it has gone through parliament.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> I just saw that Alex Hawke (assistant immigration minister) is on ABC Q & A tonight and you submit your question via this link: Ask a Question | Q&A | ABC TV


They only allow 80 words for the question... I got it in to 65 though, hope it explains enough.

Again just asking if we can be treated the same as everyone else with 4 years on Permanent route, instead of 7.


----------



## Scarab

Please look up Skynews article "PM defends citizenship English test".

Turnbull states: "_We're catching up with the rest of the world. In the United States, the period is five years. In Germany, it's eight._"

The articles goes on:

"_Asked if Australia risked missing out on citizens of the calibre of successful businessman Frank Lowy, who came to Australia as a refugee with limited English, Mr Turnbull said that was 'not a fair comparison'.

'What we are saying is that a person comes to Australia, they're a permanent resident for four years and they're expected, if they want to be a citizen, to have competent English,' he said._"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. He makes a grossly "unfair comparison" and then protests when subjected to the same inane reasoning.

The *US department of Homeland Security* states that a spouse of a US citizen may be granted citizenship after having "been a permanent resident (green card holder) for at least 3 years".

US partner green cards are processed within 1.5 years.

The German *Federal Ministry of Interior* states: "Spouses or registered same-sex partners of German citizens are eligible for naturalization after three years of legal residence in Germany. They must have been married or in a registered partnership for at least two years at the time of application."

In Germany, partner-based Residence Visas are processed in 2-3 months.

That is 3-4.5 years for spouses of US citizens, 3-3.5 years for spouses of Germans and SEVEN YEARS for spouses of Australians. It is maddening how government officials deceptively oversimplify these citizenship changes to the media and public. Both Germany and the US make exceptions for Partner PRs' wait times for citizenship. Australia should do the same.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> They only allow 80 words for the question... I got it in to 65 though, hope it explains enough.
> 
> Again just asking if we can be treated the same as everyone else with 4 years on Permanent route, instead of 7.


You can do a video apparently.

There was a good one about the English lessons and how the hours they give them aren't enough to be able to pass what they are asking.

There was another one about a partner visa application and asking about the Australian values.


----------



## ampk

I said as a Australian Citizen I am disgusted how my partner is/has been treated by DIBP.

From being told a kid needs to be left behind, to the massive partner visa fees (that are not cost reflective).

** something about has committed to Australia long ago

And now a longer wait till citizenship, than any other migration sector up to 7.5 years.

How is this fair? Please Explain!! 

Something like that and under current circumstances the best I could do.


----------



## Mish

Here is the link for the article that Scarab mentioned: PM defends citizenship English test

Interesting enough, USA doesn't have an English test and also the first spouse visa (our 820 and 309) is classed as a 2 year permanent visa so it counts towards their 3 years as a permanent resident. Their total time is 5 years. I put in my email to my local MP that it would have been fairer if they changed the time for citizenship from 4 years to 5 years.


----------



## anja-swe

JandE said:


> I just checked on VEVO too, and:
> 
> Visa description: PROVISIONAL RESIDENT
> 
> So the grant says Temporary, and VEVO says Provisional.
> 
> That's another issue to be cleared up... Which is right ?.. VEVO sounds best.


Hi guys! I haven't been active since my 801 grant but I checked my vevo recently and to my surprise it says that I was granted a bridging visa on 2nd of August when in fact I got a letter for my 820 grant. On the actual physical grant it says provisional resident. Don't think this is an issue but just so inconsistent from their side.


----------



## tatt

Mish said:


> I just saw that Alex Hawke (assistant immigration minister) is on ABC Q & A tonight and you submit your question via this link: Ask a Question | Q&A | ABC TV


what time is this show? is it on tv or online?


----------



## JandE

tatt said:


> what time is this show? is it on tv or online?


9:36 tonight ch 2 ABC.

I've set it for recording.


----------



## Mish

People are recommending that those with twitter tweet during the show with the hashtag #qanda as the tweets display across the screen during the show. I have never watched the show, so I am just taking other peoples word for it.

Btw ... the response back from my local MP was extremely disappointing.


----------



## ampk

Mish, I have found this normal over the years.

"Btw ... the response back from my local MP was extremely disappointing."


----------



## K974

ampk said:


> Mish, I have found this normal over the years.
> 
> "Btw ... the response back from my local MP was extremely disappointing."


I spoke to my mp, didn't get favourable response when spoke about the grandfathering rules issues. He informed me they often make retropesctive changes , but could name a specific one.

Left him with the view that most are ok with changes but without grandfathering people on journey feel like they are getting shafted and a large Irish community and those who do eventually get citizenship will remember it at the polls


----------



## rhodered

Just watched Q&A... we are in trouble. They are gonna make these changes and nothing we can do. Time to start studying these new changes and prepping for the new test....in 40 months for me.


----------



## Mish

LNP seem to forget that the people that they annoy will be citizens and voters eventually, not to mention that some have Australian citizen spouses.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Very proud of my partner on q&a tonight the first question they said they have had numerous complaints regarding the changes! 

Lets all hope they listen to us over 27,000 signatures now on change.org

Our family have done all we can do now. Just hope someone sticks up for us in parliament now


----------



## K974

rhodered said:


> Just watched Q&A... we are in trouble. They are gonna make these changes and nothing we can do. Time to start studying these new changes and prepping for the new test....in 40 months for me.


Didn't see it , Any ray of hope for grandfathering the changes for those with Pr on 20/4/17

Thanks


----------



## rhodered

Not a ray of hope at all...the way they spoke was basically "it is what it is" and thats what i figured from the get go. When do they vote on it?


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Who knows it's been made perfectly clear the opposition haven't seen the policy.


----------



## ampk

DannyjonesBBP said:


> Very proud of my partner on q&a tonight the first question they said they have had numerous complaints regarding the changes!
> 
> Lets all hope they listen to us over 27,000 signatures now on change.org
> 
> Our family have done all we can do now. Just hope someone sticks up for us in parliament now


She did well, very well


----------



## Mish

Well Q&A was a waste! They didn't even ask the question about the 4 years and how unfair it is for those that did not arrive on a permanent visa.

I guess off to email Senator Hanson-Young now.....


----------



## ampk

Seems she got Derrins attention a bit


----------



## rhodered

Hanson...shes all about the changes...she basically wrote them and the current govt is taking in her changes...if anything she would make it 25 years not 4.


----------



## ampk

Mish said:


> Well Q&A was a waste! They didn't even ask the question about the 4 years and how unfair it is for those that did not arrive on a permanent visa.
> 
> I guess off to email Senator Hanson-Young now.....


Mish as the opening question - I think it went better than normal.


----------



## Mish

rhodered said:


> Hanson...shes all about the changes...she basically wrote them and the current govt is taking in her changes...if anything she would make it 25 years not 4.


You are thinking of Pauline Hanson. Sarah Hanson-Young is a Greens candidate and she is the one the got the cancellation of the parent visa reversed.

Pauline Hanson only likes people from the UK.


----------



## rhodered

Sorry Mish i stand corrected.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Mish said:


> Well Q&A was a waste! They didn't even ask the question about the 4 years and how unfair it is for those that did not arrive on a permanent visa.
> 
> I guess off to email Senator Hanson-Young now.....


I feel for you, originally I know that was included but was cut in her questions as limited time

Sorry


----------



## Mish

ampk said:


> Mish as the opening question - I think it went better than normal.


The opening question I saw was around lodging the citizenship late even though eligible.


----------



## Mish

DannyjonesBBP said:


> I feel for you, originally I know that was included but was cut in her questions as limited time
> 
> Sorry


Did they actually answer it, or was what we saw on TV is what was asked?


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> Well Q&A was a waste! They didn't even ask the question about the 4 years and how unfair it is for those that did not arrive on a permanent visa.


I was thinking the same.


----------



## rhodered

So dissapointing...i feel as if we were all mislead...as if joining a college to get a degree and you sign up for the school...pay the tuition and books and midway they say its another 4 years. My wife could have been an American citizen already...i had a good job making ships for the navy, i gave it all up to come here and now this??? So misleading...its not right.


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Mish said:


> Did they actually answer it, or was what we saw on TV is what was asked?


Yes it's live. The revised write up was not allowed as producers had only authorised the first question suggestion we offered.

Trust me she done her best and hope they can now think about people in our position at lest


----------



## Mish

rhodered said:


> So dissapointing...i feel as if we were all mislead...as if joining a college to get a degree and you sign up for the school...pay the tuition and books and midway they say its another 4 years. My wife could have been an American citizen already...i had a good job making ships for the navy, i gave it all up to come here and now this??? So misleading...its not right.


Tell me about it. The first time in my life I feel ashamed to be an Australian citizen.

Alot of people want to study and can't afford to pay domestic fees upfront and need HELP.


----------



## ampk

The opening lady got out lots, inc a long 
,very long wait time for her and or kids.

But regardless she got a "lets look" from Hinch and others she put in doubt and did it well.


----------



## K974

Mish said:


> The opening question I saw was around lodging the citizenship late even though eligible.


What was the answer ?


----------



## Scarab

Partner pathway visas are shortcutted for citizenship across the world - even Germany and the US, Turnbull! Australia would be an exception if it didn't give more consideration for it's Family Stream.

These new citizenship changes are being bulldozed with no regard for how complex the visa system is and the lives entangled in it. I hate to sound cliche but this is exactly what happens when you can't vote - as PRs we are a minority group rendered politically impotent by our "second-class citizen" status and the current Liberal government is too shortsighted to see any future gain in looking after our interests.

New Zealand has long been more open minded. Quote from the *New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law* (2014):

"_In New Zealand, the extension of voting rights to permanent residents in 1975 has been credited with producing a 'uniquely inclusive political community.'_"

Please look up an SBS article called *Comment: Australia should give permanent residents the vote.* It gives a point by point refutation of all arguments made against enfrachising PRs:

"_The prejudice against enfranchising non-citizen residents sits in stark contrast to democratic principles. The fundamental principle of a democracy (which literally translates as "rule by the people") is that members of the community should have a say in the decisions that affect them._"


----------



## Scarab

SBS - *Visa, citizenship changes see minor boost in Turnbull's fortunes: poll*

"_With the dip in support for the Greens, One Nation is cementing its position as a leading minor party, with Newspoll showing the party's support either matching or exceeding the Greens since late February._"

Warms your heart, doesn't it?


----------



## JandE

K974 said:


> What was the answer ?


It was a vague answer but saying if submitted before deadline then it would be OK. But the hard deadline was needed, although they may look at individual requests for some...


----------



## MarcellusF

Scarab said:


> SBS - *Visa, citizenship changes see minor boost in Turnbull's fortunes: poll*
> 
> "_With the dip in support for the Greens, One Nation is cementing its position as a leading minor party, with Newspoll showing the party's support either matching or exceeding the Greens since late February._"
> 
> Warms your heart, doesn't it?


While it's difficult to divorce policy from politics sometimes, I would suggest toning down the partisan commentary a tad. This forum is informed by people from both the right and left of domestic politics, Scarab. Let's keep the chances of a flame-war erupting to a minimum.


----------



## JandE

MarcellusF said:


> While it's difficult to divorce policy from politics sometimes, I would suggest toning down the partisan commentary a tad. This forum is informed by people from both the right and left of domestic politics, Scarab. Let's keep the chances of a flame-war erupting to a minimum.


I agree, i avoided getting citizenship myself for so long to avoid politics and voting.

I wouldn't want to go for or against a policy just because of some trying to make it a party issue.


----------



## Ele26

Mish said:


> I guess off to email Senator Hanson-Young now.....


I think Nick McKim is now the Greens spokesperson on Immigration. There's a media release about the proposed changes on his Greens profile page.

I've been reading this thread for the last few days and decided to join in. My partner and step-daughter are still waiting for PR, so like many others we are very upset by the proposed changes. It's appalling - although not surprising - that the government is playing with people's lives to score political points and pander to racists.

I've already emailed my local MP (Labor) and will be sending a submission on the matter to the government. I also plan on contacting other Senators in the coming days.

Senator Richard Di Natale has already said in an interview with GetUp last Friday that if a bill is introduced in the form of the proposed changes, the Greens will oppose it. So I think the key will be convincing Labor and some of the crossbenchers to oppose the changes, or at least demand serious amendments to them.

Bill Shorten so far seems noncommittal, but several Labor senators have been critical of the announcement, so I'll be getting in contact with Labor senators. If Labor and the Greens oppose the bill, the LNP will need the support of 10 out of the 12 crossbenchers.

The three NXT senators so far don't seem to directly oppose changes, but I listened to a radio interview with Nick Xenophon and he did seem concerned with certain elements like the English requirement, so I think it is worth expressing concerns to them.

Not sure on Derryn Hinch - I think he could either way, as he did appear sympathetic to the first questioner on Q&A last night - so I think it's worth a shot contacting him.

Personally I don't think the it's worth bothering with One Nation. As for the rest - I don't know enough about the new Family First senator, and I won't be holding my breath on the other three.

(Note this is not intended as commentary on any political party, I just thought I'd share where I'll be focusing my energy and why).


----------



## Mish

Ele26 said:


> I think Nick McKim is now the Greens spokesperson on Immigration. There's a media release about the proposed changes on his Greens profile page.
> 
> I've been reading this thread for the last few days and decided to join in. My partner and step-daughter are still waiting for PR, so like many others we are very upset by the proposed changes. It's appalling - although not surprising - that the government is playing with people's lives to score political points and pander to racists.
> 
> I've already emailed my local MP (Labor) and will be sending a submission on the matter to the government. I also plan on contacting other Senators in the coming days.
> 
> Senator Richard Di Natale has already said in an interview with GetUp last Friday that if a bill is introduced in the form of the proposed changes, the Greens will oppose it. So I think the key will be convincing Labor and some of the crossbenchers to oppose the changes, or at least demand serious amendments to them.
> 
> Bill Shorten so far seems noncommittal, but several Labor senators have been critical of the announcement, so I'll be getting in contact with Labor senators. If Labor and the Greens oppose the bill, the LNP will need the support of 10 out of the 12 crossbenchers.
> 
> The three NXT senators so far don't seem to directly oppose changes, but I listened to a radio interview with Nick Xenophon and he did seem concerned with certain elements like the English requirement, so I think it is worth expressing concerns to them.
> 
> Not sure on Derryn Hinch - I think he could either way, as he did appear sympathetic to the first questioner on Q&A last night - so I think it's worth a shot contacting him.
> 
> Personally I don't think the it's worth bothering with One Nation. As for the rest - I don't know enough about the new Family First senator, and I won't be holding my breath on the other three.
> 
> (Note this is not intended as commentary on any political party, I just thought I'd share where I'll be focusing my energy and why).


I also emailed Tony Burke. I didn't even know that Greens had a spokes person for immigration. I emailed Senator Hanson-Young as there was a news article about 457 visa and her name was mentioned in it.

I also plan to email the PM and Peter Dutton but from a different prospective. The PM has said that they are getting in line with other countries, so I will tell him how in America the equivalent to our 820 and 309 visa is a permanent visa so if the 4 years as a permanent resident comes in can he please look at making the 820 and 309 a permanent visa (obviously back dated to 2013). I will also mention how Canada only asks for functional English.

The only issue I will have is that America requires 5 years as a resident, but really 5 years as a resident is better than 4 years as a permanent resident.


----------



## Ele26

Mish said:


> I also emailed Tony Burke. I didn't even know that Greens had a spokes person for immigration. I emailed Senator Hanson-Young as there was a news article about 457 visa and her name was mentioned in it.
> 
> I also plan to email the PM and Peter Dutton but from a different prospective. The PM has said that they are getting in line with other countries, so I will tell him how in America the equivalent to our 820 and 309 visa is a permanent visa so if the 4 years as a permanent resident comes in can he please look at making the 820 and 309 a permanent visa (obviously back dated to 2013). I will also mention how Canada only asks for functional English.
> 
> The only issue I will have is that America requires 5 years as a resident, but really 5 years as a resident is better than 4 years as a permanent resident.


I think Senator Hanson-Young was spokesperson for immigration until last year when she was replaced by Senator McKim. He's made some Facebook posts on the issue and I saw there a lot of people commenting asking what they are planning to do about it. I think it's still worth getting in touch with Senator Hanson-Young as she is still pretty vocal on immigration issues.

I think it's a good idea to target the emails to different audiences. Different parties are likely to be swayed by different lines of argument. I'm taking my time and not just copying and pasting an email to a whole bunch of people - I want to tailor each one to the issues and reasoning that I think might resonate with them the most.


----------



## 305865

I am in a Dilemma. I became eligible for citizenship on the 23rd March 2017 and so i started the application then. 

I just Submitted it but did not go past the upload documents page to pay the fees as i did not have all the documents. 

My application Status shows "Awaiting Documents" .

Now I have all the documents and I am thinking of paying for the application tomorrow. 

What category would that application fall in ? Lodged on 23rd March 2017 or lodged on the 26th April 2017

Any thoughts ?


----------



## DannyjonesBBP

Nice one good work


----------



## 305865

DannyjonesBBP said:


> Nice one good work


Was that in reference to my post ?


----------



## ampk

It will be considered lodged at time of payment.


----------



## Mish

Rickee said:


> I am in a Dilemma. I became eligible for citizenship on the 23rd March 2017 and so i started the application then.
> 
> I just Submitted it but did not go past the upload documents page to pay the fees as i did not have all the documents.
> 
> My application Status shows "Awaiting Documents" .
> 
> Now I have all the documents and I am thinking of paying for the application tomorrow.
> 
> What category would that application fall in ? Lodged on 23rd March 2017 or lodged on the 26th April 2017
> 
> Any thoughts ?


IF I was a betting person I would say lodged on 26 April 2017 as DIBP does not consider an application lodged until the fee has been paid.

Fingers crossed it is something that you will not need to worry about. Time will tell.....


----------



## 305865

Fingers crossed Indeed. Most of my friends are on the same boat.

It is a bit strange that they do not let you pay for the application instantaneously and then ask to upload the documents.

How long do you guys think they take to respond to applications whether being successful or not ?


----------



## Mish

I don't think that anything will be known for atleast a few months, or even longer. 

All I can say is that they will have a backlog of applications if the change doesn't go through.

There is a group on Facebook that people are talking about the change for anyone who has Facebook.


----------



## 305865

Mish said:


> I don't think that anything will be known for atleast a few months, or even longer.
> 
> All I can say is that they will have a backlog of applications if the change doesn't go through.
> 
> There is a group on Facebook that people are talking about the change for anyone who has Facebook.


I see. Do you know the name of the group on Facebook ?


----------



## rhodered

Whats the name of the facebook page mish?


----------



## Mish

The Facebook Group is "Say No To 4 Years Wait After PR On Australian Citizen"

It is good to get suggestions on who to try to email and seeing news articles and peoples stories.


----------



## 305865

Mish said:


> The Facebook Group is "Say No To 4 Years Wait After PR On Australian Citizen"
> 
> It is good to get suggestions on who to try to email and seeing news articles and peoples stories.


Thanks for that Mish


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> The only issue I will have is that America requires 5 years as a resident, but really 5 years as a resident is better than 4 years as a permanent resident.


Those that arrive as PR may not agree with that, as that extends their time by one year, from their current 4 years to 5 years.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> Those that arrive as PR may not agree with that, as that extends their time by one year, from their current 4 years to 5 years.


haha true, but they need a fair system for all, if they are going to change the current system.


----------



## cokerags

Mish said:


> I also emailed Tony Burke. I didn't even know that Greens had a spokes person for immigration. I emailed Senator Hanson-Young as there was a news article about 457 visa and her name was mentioned in it.
> 
> I also plan to email the PM and Peter Dutton but from a different prospective. The PM has said that they are getting in line with other countries, so I will tell him how in America the equivalent to our 820 and 309 visa is a permanent visa so if the 4 years as a permanent resident comes in can he please look at making the 820 and 309 a permanent visa (obviously back dated to 2013). I will also mention how Canada only asks for functional English.
> 
> The only issue I will have is that America requires 5 years as a resident, but really 5 years as a resident is better than 4 years as a permanent resident.


America requires 5 years as a Permanent Resident (green card holder.) Spouse of a US citizen requires 3 years as a Permanent Resident. Time spent on any visas prior to acquiring Permanent Residency is not counted towards citizenship in America.

The difference is spouses of US citizen get Permanent Residency from the start unlike here where spouses first get a temporary visa before the permanent visa. Partner visas here should be a permanent visa from the start just like the US.


----------



## pikachufan

hi all,

I would like to know how the abolition of 457 visa programme has affected people with 457 visa prior to the govt's announcement? 

Did their visas get cancelled after the announcement?

I am just trying to understand how it works, hopefully to find a shred of hope for the citizenship case. lol


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> hi all,
> 
> I would like to know how the abolition of 457 visa programme has affected people with 457 visa prior to the govt's announcement?
> 
> Did their visas get cancelled after the announcement?
> 
> I am just trying to understand how it works, hopefully to find a shred of hope for the citizenship case. lol


People on 457 stay on the 457 until they expire. No change to their visa status. Its only for new applications.

Citizenship is a totally different kettle of fish.


----------



## Scarab

MarcellusF said:


> While it's difficult to divorce policy from politics sometimes, I would suggest toning down the partisan commentary a tad. This forum is informed by people from both the right and left of domestic politics, Scarab. Let's keep the chances of a flame-war erupting to a minimum.


Newspoll results are accurate indicators of how well an introduced policy or political platform is being received by the public. A steady increase in favorability for One Nation coupled with a decrease in support for the Greens could encourage other politicians (opposition, cross-benchers, etc) to not put up a fight against these new citizenship changes in October. I am sorry if my expression of dread - that an anti-immigrant political platform is gaining in popularity in Australia - translates as "partisan commentary" to you and is reduced as such. Developments like these often have a very real impact on my and thousands of others' lives, that to relegate them to mere "right vs. left domestic politics" only serves to belie your privilege.



JandE said:


> I agree, i avoided getting citizenship myself for so long to avoid politics and voting. I wouldn't want to go for or against a policy just because of some trying to make it a party issue.


How nice for you to have the luxury of being apolitical.


----------



## FutureCitizen

My friend has applied for citizenship this Monday as she meets all the new requirements, She asked me if the immigration department will process the applicants who applied before 20th of April first then start processing of applicants who were eligible under the old requirements?

What do you guys think?


----------



## hoddie32

Not sure if this will get anything changed, but worth a try...
Change.org petition - Australian Citizenship Eligibility Changes April 2017
https://www.change.org/p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship?utm_medium=email&utm_source=notification&utm_campaign=petition_signer_receipt&share_context=signature_receipt&recruiter=246174231


----------



## MarcellusF

Scarab said:


> Newspoll results are accurate indicators of how well an introduced policy or political platform is being received by the public. A steady increase in favorability for One Nation coupled with a decrease in support for the Greens could encourage other politicians (opposition, cross-benchers, etc) to not put up a fight against these new citizenship changes in October. I am sorry if my expression of dread - that an anti-immigrant political platform is gaining in popularity in Australia - translates as "partisan commentary" to you and is reduced as such. Developments like these often have a very real impact on my and thousands of others' lives, that to relegate them to mere "right vs. left domestic politics" only serves to belie your privilege.


Well, I could do what all good progressives would do and question the validity of a Newspoll, when that particular polling company is owned in part by Murdoch... But hey, that would be too easy. 

My suggestion would be to have faith in the process. One Notion is a joke, and is of no consequence. The cross-benchers with the real clout are your Xenophon types. I would be surprised if all of these proposed changes get through the senate unscathed. But then again, it is possible, yes.

I understand the sentiment, Scarab, I really do. But pointing the finger at a particular side of politics doesn't help the situation. Labor moved the goal posts a lot when they were in power too. Populist policies are not the preserve of the Right, as I'm sure you know.

Someone with your level of erudition should have nothing to be worried about either, and probably won't gain much that is tangible from citizenship. Voting rights and HECS access aren't all that life-changing, really.


----------



## Mish

hoddie32 said:


> Not sure if this will get anything changed, but worth a try...
> Change.org petition - Australian Citizenship Eligibility Changes April 2017
> https://www.change.org/p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship?utm_medium=email&utm_source=notification&utm_campaign=petition_signer_receipt&share_context=signature_receipt&recruiter=246174231


I will be honest .... in the past the government has taken any notice of change petitions, but you never know.

Honestly, I think it will all come down to the voting in parliament etc. I think it will be interesting when parliament resumes, I am sure it will be a hot topic.

All we can do is provide feedback and contact MP's and tell our story/concerns.

What will happen will hapoen and if we have to wait 4 years of holding PR then so be it (just means we have to travel to Sydney when we want to go to Europe to apply for a visa).


----------



## Zion

Why Turnbull did not give everyone a fair time of notice implementing the new law of citizenship. He always talk about australian values like respect, equality and commitment to the rule of law but he just implemented the new law whenever he wants? Where is the australian values there?


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

Zion said:


> Why Turnbull did not give everyone a fair time of notice implementing the new law of citizenship. He always talk about australian values like respect, equality and commitment to the rule of law but he just implemented the new law whenever he wants? Where is the australian values there?


Has happened plenty of times in the past. Often budget measures apply from time of announcement


----------



## pikachufan

Email from a Senator

Thank you for taking the time to contact Senator Richard Di Natale, he has asked me to respond on his behalf.

Peter Dutton and Malcolm Turnbull's rolling citizenship announcements are a transparently desperate attempt to win back votes from Pauline Hanson and appease the far right of the Liberal Party.

We should be bringing people together, not dividing them through patronising citizenship tests and unnecessary waits for permanent residency and citizenship.

Peter Dutton's values are not mainstream Australian values.

Most Australians do not want children, men and women tortured on Manus Island and Nauru or see the Great Barrier Reef killed because of projects like the Adani coal mine.

The additional waits for permanent residency and citizenship are also deeply unfair and create further uncertainty and angst for people who want to make Australia their home.

Thank you for contacting Richard and don’t hesitate to get back in contact.

Yours Sincerely,
"


----------



## JandE

Zion said:


> Why Turnbull did not give everyone a fair time of notice implementing the new law of citizenship. He always talk about australian values like respect, equality and commitment to the rule of law but he just implemented the new law whenever he wants? Where is the australian values there?


Man changes get brought in from date of announcement, from any party, and in many countries too. It is quite normal.

Especially when they specifically say it is to avoid a sudden rush to beat any deadline.


----------



## JandE

pikachufan said:


> Email from a Senator
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to contact Senator Richard Di Natale, he has asked me to respond on his behalf.
> 
> Peter Dutton and Malcolm Turnbull's rolling citizenship announcements are a transparently desperate attempt to win back votes from Pauline Hanson and appease the far right of the Liberal Party.
> 
> We should be bringing people together, not dividing them through patronising citizenship tests and unnecessary waits for permanent residency and citizenship.
> 
> Peter Dutton's values are not mainstream Australian values.
> 
> Most Australians do not want children, men and women tortured on Manus Island and Nauru or see the Great Barrier Reef killed because of projects like the Adani coal mine.
> 
> The additional waits for permanent residency and citizenship are also deeply unfair and create further uncertainty and angst for people who want to make Australia their home.
> 
> Thank you for contacting Richard and don't hesitate to get back in contact.
> 
> Yours Sincerely,
> "


No mention of the 7 year wait for many here? Compared to the fact that there are no changes applying to direct skilled PR applicants.

It's annoying that all they can do is blame opposing politicians instead of recognising specific problems and saying they will do something to help.


----------



## Ele26

JandE said:


> No mention of the 7 year wait for many here? Compared to the fact that there are no changes applying to direct skilled PR applicants.
> 
> It's annoying that all they can do is blame opposing politicians instead of recognising specific problems and saying they will do something to help.


Senator Di Natale has already said that they will oppose the proposed changes if they are put before parliament in their current form. Not sure what else you want them to do? They can't really do much else until the actual legislation is put forward. if you're interested, have a look at his interview with GetUp! last Friday. I don't think I can post links yet but it's on their Facebook page.

I follow several Greens senators and members on Facebook and they have been pretty vocal in their opposition to the changes. Senator McKim and Senator Hanson-Young have both posted videos about it.

We have to realise that not only partner visa holders will be affected by these changes. Politicians get a huge volume of correspondence and they don't have time to go into detail about everyone's specific circumstances.


----------



## Ele26

A quick update on who I've contacted:

My local MP - No response as of yet (sent almost a week ago)
Nick Xenophon - Got an auto-response thanking me for feedback and saying they would be in contact if further details were needed. It also said that due to the high volume of correspondence he gives preference to South Australian constituents, so if anyone is in SA it might be worth trying him (I'm in NSW).
Tony Burke - Only emailed him today so no response yet.

I've been keeping an eye on the responses from other cross-benchers. Jacqui Lambie has been surprisingly quiet, from what I've seen. She's a bit of a wildcard, I don't think she would oppose all the changes but might be worth a shot if targeted from the right angle (eg. the negative impact on Australian citizen partners and children). Could be especially helpful if anyone is in Tasmania and can contact her.


----------



## Ele26

Just got another reply from Nick Xenophon's office:

Thank you for your email to Nick Xenophon. I am responding on his behalf.



Thank you for making Nick aware of your concerns regarding the Government’s Australian Citizenship eligibility changes and for sharing your personal situation – I have passed your comments on to Nick and his senior advisors for their reference and consideration.



Our office is awaiting further information about the changes and will be getting a full briefing when Parliament resumes.



We understand that concerns have been raised with regards to retrospectivity of these changes and will be raising these concerns with the Minister.



You can also listen to a recent interview Nick did on the issue here: (link removed as can't post)


Thank you again for writing to Nick.


----------



## JandE

Ele26 said:


> Not sure what else you want them to do?


The response from Senator Richard Di Natale, in the post above, attacked the party not the policy, and added in problems like Manus Island, Nauru, Great Barrier Reef etc.

It seems from that email, the only concern was to attack the opposite party, for anything they can think of even though not related.

That's the problem with politicians of all parties, they see a chance to attack the other party, and jump in. Forget the detail though...


----------



## Ele26

JandE said:


> The response from Senator Richard Di Natale, in the post above, attacked the party not the policy, and added in problems like Manus Island, Nauru, Great Barrier Reef etc.
> 
> It seems from that email, the only concern was to attack the opposite party, for anything they can think of even though not related.
> 
> That's the problem with politicians of all parties, they see a chance to attack the other party, and jump in. Forget the detail though...


Well, who has introduced the changes? It's difficult to attack the policy without attacking the party when the policy has clearly been designed to prop up a leader's dwindling popularity and to pander to racist sentiments.

I think they mentioned Manus, Nauru, Adani etc to show the hypocrisy of the supposed 'Australian values' behind the changes. Plus he mentioned twice the unfairness of the unnecessary waits for both permanent residency and citizenship.


----------



## Scarab

MarcellusF said:


> Well, I could do what all good progressives would do and question the validity of a Newspoll, when that particular polling company is owned in part by Murdoch... But hey, that would be too easy.


That would be too easy. Newspoll outsourced its polling to Galaxy Research in 2015, which increased it's 'primary vote' accuracy to a near 100%:

"_The [2016 Australian Federal Election] primary vote results of the last Newspoll of the campaign ... were Coalition 42%, Labor 35% and Greens 10% - exactly as the election result was after rounding to whole numbers._"

This isn't to say your "good progressive" sensibilities were wrong, however. Media reporting of poll results - especially aggressive Murdoch-type reporting - has been shown to actually manufacture, rather than reflect, voter preferences. Disturbing, really.



> My suggestion would be to have faith in the process. One Notion is a joke, and is of no consequence. The cross-benchers with the real clout are your Xenophon types. I would be surprised if all of these proposed changes get through the senate unscathed. But then again, it is possible, yes.


One Nation's four seats in the Senate is far from inconsequential. You'd be naive to think PHON's presence today had nothing to do with the introduction of the new citizenship changes.



> I understand the sentiment, Scarab, I really do. But pointing the finger at a particular side of politics doesn't help the situation. Labor moved the goal posts a lot when they were in power too. Populist policies are not the preserve of the Right, as I'm sure you know.


Which is why I was really looking forward to voting Green next year - had it not been for the additional three year wait. Labour always struck me as centre-right by the way - not left.



> Someone with your level of erudition should have nothing to be worried about either, and probably won't gain much that is tangible from citizenship. Voting rights and HECS access aren't all that life-changing, really.


Your privilege is colouring your perspective yet again. You cannot assume whose circumstances are worsened by these citizenship changes and whose are not. Besides, my concern for these changes is by no means limited to myself and Partner PRs - far more dangerous to me than the four year wait is the English language test and the 3-fail limit which will disadvantage refugees the most.


----------



## MarcellusF

Scarab said:


> That would be too easy. Newspoll outsourced its polling to Galaxy Research in 2015, which increased it's 'primary vote' accuracy to a near 100%:
> 
> "_The [2016 Australian Federal Election] primary vote results of the last Newspoll of the campaign ... were Coalition 42%, Labor 35% and Greens 10% - exactly as the election result was after rounding to whole numbers._"
> 
> This isn't to say your "good progressive" sensibilities were wrong, however. Media reporting of poll results - especially aggressive Murdoch-type reporting - has been shown to actually manufacture, rather than reflect, voter preferences. Disturbing, really.
> 
> One Nation's four seats in the Senate is far from inconsequential. You'd be naive to think PHON's presence today had nothing to do with the introduction of the new citizenship changes.
> 
> Which is why I was really looking forward to voting Green next year - had it not been for the additional three year wait. Labour always struck me as centre-right by the way - not left.
> 
> Your privilege is colouring your perspective yet again. You cannot assume whose circumstances are worsened by these citizenship changes and whose are not. Besides, my concern for these changes is by no means limited to myself and Partner PRs - far more dangerous to me than the four year wait is the English language test and the 3-fail limit which will disadvantage refugees the most.


Yep, definitely all political for you. I'll back away before you start quoting Althusser, Gramsci, Barthe et al. cultural theorists to add to your "privilege" barb.

Enjoy the rancour.


----------



## sheilae

Well DIBP updated their website and I think it's safe to say none of the money we pay in fees to them has allowed them to hire a copy or content editor... *sigh*


----------



## Bellaella

Hello People, just a quick question, according to new rules, how long a person ( on 100 visa , 309 before that) has to be a PR before they can apply for citizenship? is it 4 years or seven years? i am confused as their website doesnt specify, it just says PR has to be 4 years in total before they are eligible for citizenship.

Thank you


----------



## Mish

Bellaella said:


> Hello People, just a quick question, according to new rules, how long a person ( on 100 visa , 309 before that) has to be a PR before they can apply for citizenship? is it 4 years or seven years? i am confused as their website doesnt specify, it just says PR has to be 4 years in total before they are eligible for citizenship.
> 
> Thank you


Under the new rules it would be 4 years from the grant of the 100. If you have been in Australia 2 years on a 309 before the 100 is granted then it would be 6 years living in Australia before you are abke to apply for citizenship.


----------



## Bellaella

Mish said:


> Under the new rules it would be 4 years from the grant of the 100. If you have been in Australia 2 years on a 309 before the 100 is granted then it would be 6 years living in Australia before you are abke to apply for citizenship.


Thank you Mish, It will be 2 years of my PR this year so that means two more years i have to wait..2019.....my PR 100 was granted in June 2015


----------



## Mish

Bellaella said:


> Thank you Mish, It will be 2 years of my PR this year so that means two more years i have to wait..2019.....my PR 100 was granted in June 2015


So under the new rules you can apply in June 2019, presuming you meet the requirements ... no more than 12 months outside Australia in 4 years etc.

This is all presuming that it goes through parliament of course.

My feeling is that it may be very close to if it goes through parliament. I have heard that labor and greens won't support it.


----------



## Scarab

MarcellusF said:


> Yep, definitely all political for you. I'll back away before you start quoting Althusser, Gramsci, Barthe et al. cultural theorists to add to your "privilege" barb.
> 
> Enjoy the rancour.


Look mate, I'm sorry you're prickly that an immigrant mentioned your "privilege". Next time, steer clear of making assumptions about their lives and political concerns if you don't want it brought it up. As for rancour, others here have expressed actual rancour. I don't see you running up to them saying "Have faith in the system" and "This forum is informed by people from both the right and left of domestic politics". And as for your little list of Marxist cultural theorists, I'd be very careful what you were insinuating. There are other online places where that kind of "cultural marxist" rhetoric is accomodated and I wouldn't bring it here.


----------



## FutureCitizen

You guys have gone too much into politics for no reason, email the government about the changes as they have requested feedback on that email "[email protected]"

or 

you could call your local representative


----------



## Mish

For anyone in Darwin Luke Gosling MP is having a discussion forum on Thursday May 4. Check out his Facebook page for address details and email address to RSVP.


----------



## Gerrywins

Just received my PR today. Goal post just moved..... until 2021 it seems. Chin up!


----------



## FutureCitizen

Gerrywins said:


> Just received my PR today. Goal post just moved..... until 2021 it seems. Chin up!


How long did it take when you applied for 801 until you received it?


----------



## Gerrywins

FutureCitizen said:


> How long did it take when you applied for 801 until you received it?


It was a 2 in one application. I go the 820 a year after submitting the application then a year later (now) got the 801. So it took 2 years


----------



## Mish

For anyone who is interested I read that someone has been asked to attend Q&A tonight and will be (hopefully) asking a question on both the 4 year PR and the English requirement.


----------



## Adrioloco974

I've been in Australia for 8 years now, PR since November 2014. I'm a bit gutted as I didn't expect the changes to take effect so quick. I started my application in March but couldn't submit it as I didn't have the money at that time to pay the fees. Now that I do, I'm just wondering whether I should just go ahead and see what happens as some people mentioned that they couldn't log in their immiaccount and would receive a blank page meanwhile I can log in mine with no issues and everything is still there and still can apply. Any suggestions anyone?


----------



## Mish

Adrioloco974 said:


> I've been in Australia for 8 years now, PR since November 2014. I'm a bit gutted as I didn't expect the changes to take effect so quick. I started my application in March but couldn't submit it as I didn't have the money at that time to pay the fees. Now that I do, I'm just wondering whether I should just go ahead and see what happens as some people mentioned that they couldn't log in their immiaccount and would receive a blank page meanwhile I can log in mine with no issues and everything is still there and still can apply. Any suggestions anyone?


It is up to you. IF the changes goes ahead you would lose the fee you paid for are you would be deemed not to be eligible. However, IF the change does not go ahead it would be processed (eventually).


----------



## FutureCitizen

Deleted......


----------



## Adrioloco974

FutureCitizen said:


> Who can't afford $290 for the application?
> I work for 16.20 dollars an hour and I was able to afford that....


Who are you to say that? Do you know people's lives for saying such things? Not because you can that means others can. What a really narrow minded thing to say!


----------



## CollegeGirl

FutureCitizen said:


> Who can't afford $290 for the application?
> I work for 16.20 dollars an hour and I was able to afford that....





Adrioloco974 said:


> Who are you to say that? Do you know people's lives for saying such things? Not because you can that means others can. What a really narrow minded thing to say!


Okay, let's take it down a notch, please. There have been times in my life when $290 would have seemed absolutely impossible to save up as I was living paycheck to paycheck with very tight funds. If you haven't experienced that, I'm glad for you, but let's try to remember not everyone is that lucky.


----------



## Adrioloco974

CollegeGirl said:


> Okay, let's take it down a notch, please. There have been times in my life when $290 would have seemed absolutely impossible to save up as I was living paycheck to paycheck with very tight funds. If you haven't experienced that, I'm glad for you, but let's try to remember not everyone is that lucky.


Thank you!


----------



## FutureCitizen

Adrioloco974 said:


> Who are you to say that? Do you know people's lives for saying such things? Not because you can that means others can. What a really narrow minded thing to say!


I would like to apologise for my insensitive comment 
I deleted the comment


----------



## K974

What's people guy feel now on the changes will they still applicable for people who were eligible on the old rules?


----------



## Mish

K974 said:


> What's people guy feel now on the changes will they still applicable for people who were eligible on the old rules?


It all depends if it goes though or not. IF it goes through I would imagine DIBP could do it on a case by case basis.

From what I have read it could go either way in the voting. I think it also depends on what the public says.

I highly doubt applications will be processes until they figure out what they will do.


----------



## Arianwen

I just read the following article in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...funding-to-be-cut-28bn-education-minister-sys

"In other elements of the package the government will:

Restrict subsidies to Australian citizens only and certain special visa category permanent residents from New Zealand and humanitarian refugees"

We were hoping my partner could study in Australia when he gets his PR (eligible in a year) and although there is no access to the HELP/HECS loan scheme, my understanding was that he'd be able to study at the local student price.

Now it sounds as if this will be impossible, as PR is at least two years off (and the wait time is getting longer), then with another four years wait before citizenship it will be much too late. The idea was to get a local qualification to help integrate and get a good job in Australia. Sounds as if we should have stayed in Germany.


----------



## Scarab

Arianwen said:


> I just read the following article in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...funding-to-be-cut-28bn-education-minister-sys
> 
> "In other elements of the package the government will:
> 
> Restrict subsidies to Australian citizens only and certain special visa category permanent residents from New Zealand and humanitarian refugees"
> 
> We were hoping my partner could study in Australia when he gets his PR (eligible in a year) and although there is no access to the HELP/HECS loan scheme, my understanding was that he'd be able to study at the local student price.
> 
> Now it sounds as if this will be impossible, as PR is at least two years off (and the wait time is getting longer), then with another four years wait before citizenship it will be much too late. The idea was to get a local qualification to help integrate and get a good job in Australia. Sounds as if we should have stayed in Germany.


Many articles at the moment are poorly explaining these changes. Here, here and here explain that under these new changes, PRs will be able to access income-contingent loans - so that they won't have to pay fees upfront. It's a compromise. So whilst PRs will no longer be eligible for a subsidised Commonwealth Supported Place like Australian citizens (CSP basically means cheaper domestic fees), they'll be able to avoid having to pay tuition upfront by accessing loans which they previously were unable to.

More will come to light on May 9th and again we'll have to sit tight, write angry letters and pray it doesn't pass the Senate.

EDIT: I thought I should clarify - no where does it say that PRs will be required to pay international student fees. These changes are reported to apply only for subsidised Commonwealth Supported Places where domestic students pay even less (sometimes 50% less) domestic fees for tuition. So with a PR, your partner will still be able to pay domestic tuition fees, he just won't be able to access a CSP. Again - because all of these articles reporting these changes are written for Australian or NZ citizens, they poorly explain what this means for PRs. I would wait until May 9th for clarification.


----------



## Scarab

Actually - this just came out: The Higher Education Reform Package - May 2017.

It confirms what I've said above. PRs will still be able to study as domestic students however their access to CSP is no longer available - to help them, they will be allowed to access income-contingent student loans where they don't have to pay their tuition fees upfront.


----------



## anja-swe

I received my PR in the middle of my degree and was finally to happy to pay less. However, at my university like many universities, there was no big difference in inernational fees and Australian full fee paying fees.


----------



## Scarab

anja-swe said:


> I received my PR in the middle of my degree and was finally to happy to pay less. However, at my university like many universities, there was no big difference in inernational fees and Australian full fee paying fees.


International student fees in Australia are 20-40% more than domestic fees. I'd say that's a significant difference.


----------



## anja-swe

Scarab said:


> International student fees in Australia are 20-40% more than domestic fees. I'd say that's a significant difference.


Yes that's correct! But in my case , international fees were above 35k a year so that 20% off wasn't a significant amount.


----------



## Scarab

anja-swe said:


> Yes that's correct! But in my case , international fees were above 35k a year so that 20% off wasn't a significant amount.


Damn that is steep. 35k+ a year...that's like PhD international fees. Domestic fees at my uni are around 30% cheaper than international, I know I paid $12,000 more per year than domestic students. All in all, none of these changes are positive for PRs. The higher education changes came right at the heels of the citizenship changes - it has been blow after blow.


----------



## anja-swe

Scarab said:


> Damn that is steep. 35k+ a year...that's like PhD international fees. Domestic fees at my uni are around 30% cheaper than international, I know I paid $12,000 more per year than domestic students. All in all, none of these changes are positive for PRs. The higher education changes came right at the heels of the citizenship changes - it has been blow after blow.


Ah lucky! it took me a lot of emailing back and forth to finally transfer into a CSP. How do you think these changes are negative? I think it's a positive change, I mean receiving CSP still means we have to pay upfront, in my case $1350 per subject times 8 subjects per year. With the new changes I get the opportunity to do my masters, which doesn't have CSP places. Hence I get the opportunity to defer my payments whereas with the current rules I have to pay upfront.


----------



## Scarab

anja-swe said:


> Ah lucky! it took me a lot of emailing back and forth to finally transfer into a CSP. How do you think these changes are negative? I think it's a positive change, I mean receiving CSP still means we have to pay upfront, in my case $1350 per subject times 8 subjects per year. With the new changes I get the opportunity to do my masters, which doesn't have CSP places. Hence I get the opportunity to defer my payments whereas with the current rules I have to pay upfront.


Having access to income-contingent student loans is certainly excellent for a postgrad permanent resident. You are right in that CSPs rarely apply for postgrad degrees and these university changes would be a boon for you. But for undergrads (who make up the vast bulk of uni students), to delay university for one year on a PR and attain citizenship straight after with full benefits of CSP & student loans would be a hell of a lot better than four years on a PR - in which time they could have already completed a uni qualification - with no CSP and a student debt up to 50% higher than a citizen's.


----------



## c00kiemonster

If you get your Schengen visa through the Swiss embassy, they will not require you to appear in person on subsequent visa applications as long as they can still "read" your fingerprints from the previous visa application. You just need to mail them your application. I'm going this route for my next application since my previous 2 visas were from the Swiss embassy. 

"If your finger scans were collected within the last 59 months, then you won't have to give new fingerprints for your next visa application(s) and personal appearance is not necessary. However, you have to provide a copy of your visa sticker issued after March 2014. If you are not sure or do not remember whether your fingerprints have been captured for a Schengen visa within the last 59 months, you have to appear in person.
You will still have to appear in person to give your fingerprints in the case the previously collected fingerprints prove to be of insufficient quality
Personal appearances and fingerprint scan is not necessary for children und the age of 12
The Swiss representation still reserves the right to ask the applicant to appear for a personal interview after checking his application"



Mish said:


> I know that pain!! There are very few European embassies in Brisbane and to apply for the visa you need to go in person.


----------



## popolo

This situation of not knowing what is going to happen to applications submitted after the announcement is annoying.
I rang DIBP, they don't know what to do with those applications


----------



## JanneKL

Heard back from the local MP.

He mostly talked about the test itself, english requirements etc. and not so much about my main concern (time from arriving in Australia to Citizenship, inequality between partner visas and sc.190). 

Here are the two most relevant passages:

"The Government didn't consult with Labor on the changes they have proposed before announcing them. We will consider them, but importantly, we will first consult with the community."

"It’s important to have a clear pathway from permanent residency to citizenship, and I have been concerned by the prospect that these changes may cause excessive delays."

If anyone is interested in the full reply, drop me a message.


----------



## popolo

Could you please share the full reply? I can't find how to send you a PM.
I can't even post my email address here  

Cheers


----------



## JanneKL

Dear Janne,

Thank you for writing to me regarding proposed changes to the citizenship test. As you point out, changes to the citizenship test should not be taken lightly. People must be meaningfully consulted so that the range of effects that these amendments would create are understood.

The Government didn't consult with Labor on the changes they have proposed before announcing them. We will consider them, but importantly, we will first consult with the community.

It goes without saying that everyone who wants to live in Australia and become a citizen should be committed to our laws and values. People who commit serious crimes are already barred from becoming Australian citizens.

In regards to tougher English requirements, we'll consider them once the Government presents a formal proposal for Labor to engage with. Naturally people need to know English to prosper in our community, but being good at grammar doesn't make you a good citizen. It is important also to consider how this requirement will affect those who don't have the opportunity to learn perfect English, even though they are good people that we would welcome to our country.

It’s important to have a clear pathway from permanent residency to citizenship, and I have been concerned by the prospect that these changes may cause excessive delays.

One of Australia's greatest strengths is our multicultural foundation. In responding to the proposed changes to the citizenship test, it will be crucial that we first consider those changes through the lens of cherished Australian values like egalitarianism, mateship and the fair go.

Thank you again for your message.

Sincerely,

Andrew Leigh


----------



## Mish

It feels like all labor MP's have the same standard reply.

Just keeping emailing them all and especially the feedback as well. Time will tell what will happen.


----------



## MaxPower

New Citizenship Laws lodged in Parliament this morning

The nosies coming from ALP spokesman Tony Burke on the radio this morning suggests they will block or amend the 4 year requirement wait and block or amend the required English test

Greens have already said they oppose all the changes outright
One Nation wants to increase the time period to 8 years
Xenophon says they will 'wait until they see the legislation'
No comment from other Senators


----------



## Tusho

Thanka a lot for the update Max.


----------



## MaxPower

Labor have announced they will make a decision on their position at a caucus meeting next Tuesday

So now is the time to e-mail ALP members

Here is the actual legislation

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r5914_first-reps/toc_pdf/17130b01.pdf


----------



## guscas

So, here innocent me was, hoping I'd finally know more about what the English requirements are going to be. But as I read the document:



> The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine any one or more of the following:
> (a) the circumstances in which a person has competent English;


So... pretty much whatever the f Peter Dutton wants.

Sad was the day I started worrying about politics.

EDIT: The same applies to whether a person has integrated into the Australian community - whatever the Minister wants.


----------



## Mish

He has pretty discriminated against people from non-English speaking countries by saying that those that do not come from an English speaking country need to display component English unless you have done a degree in Australia at a recognised institution. This is outright discrimination!

One would think that if someone has a job in Australia they are speaking English in the job and therefore can display component English.


----------



## guscas

Mish, where did you see the criteria you mentioned? Was that something that came out today? I'm curious to read through all the requirements. Thanks!


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> Mish, where did you see the criteria you mentioned? Was that something that came out today? I'm curious to read through all the requirements. Thanks!


http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...021/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

Check out Page 8


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

I just fired off an email to my local member, who is Labor.

Coincidentally, I got my Aussie citizenship on Tuesday so I'm a bloody voter now!

I just concentrated on the the process that partners must go through.

They are stuck with at least 3.5 years processing from initial application for the 820 and during that time, by definition they have to integrate in the community to be part of a successful couple.


----------



## Mish

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> I just fired off an email to my local member, who is Labor.
> 
> Coincidentally, I got my Aussie citizenship on Tuesday so I'm a bloody voter now!
> 
> I just concentrated on the the process that partners must go through.
> 
> They are stuck with at least 3.5 years processing from initial application for the 820 and during that time, by definition they have to integrate in the community to be part of a successful couple.


My local member is Liberal arghhh and not much help at all. I am writing to someone (not sure who yet) about the changes and asking why someone who arrives on a permanent visa does not need to demonstrate a more thorough commitment to Australia than someone who has arrived on a temporary visa. Peter Dutton's comments don't make sense. It all honesty it would make more sense if he had said .... 5 years, 6 years, 7 years whatever as a resident as then those that arrive as a permanent resident need to show a longer commitment but because nothing has changed for them idk.

Congrats on your citizenship.


----------



## sheilae

Like as much as I think that there should be a higher english requirement than just taking the citizenship test, it's BS if the only acceptable things are citizenship from an English speaking country or a Australia degree. 

Like, if you're from South Africa and have gone to school in English sorry? You need to sit an IELTS exam?

I feel like the requirement in Canada is more fair in that if you've completed secondary school or university anywhere in the world, but in English, proof of that is sufficient.


----------



## LadyRogueRayne

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you already have to show English capability for most of the skilled (PR) visas already? I know for the 189/190 visas, you do. You can waive it if you are from an English speaking country, or you completed your degree in English at University....but if you haven't, you must take the IELTS or equivalent.

Are there any requirements like this for other visas (skilled/partner/family)? If so, wouldn't it be redundant to have the same as part of the citizenship test? Just a question.


----------



## Mish

Partner visa's don't require any level of English.

I think they need to revisit their English requirements for citizenship. Really if a person is working at Coles for example obviously they can speak English. Just because a person didn't study a degree in English doesn't mean they don't have component English. It just means they don't want to study.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

Mish said:


> Partner visa's don't require any level of English.
> 
> I think they need to revisit their English requirements for citizenship. Really if a person is working at Coles for example obviously they can speak English. Just because a person didn't study a degree in English doesn't mean they don't have component English. It just means they don't want to study.


My wife is from the Philippines, her English is pretty good and she works full time in a cafe serving customers, but she would still need to do an English test.


----------



## MaxPower

Think there should be an English test for Citizenship ... in fact an English test for all residence visas

But in the case of citizenship, it doesn't need to be a high university academic level English, just to be understood reading, writing and speaking

Problem is nobody knows what the requirement will be (as of now)


----------



## Mish

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> My wife is from the Philippines, her English is pretty good and she works full time in a cafe serving customers, but she would still need to do an English test.


Exactly my point. I don't see why she should have to if she can work in Australia.


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> Think there should be an English test for Citizenship ... in fact an English test for all residence visas
> 
> But in the case of citizenship, it doesn't need to be a high university academic level English, just to be understood reading, writing and speaking
> 
> Problem is nobody knows what the requirement will be (as of now)


My issue is that it exempts some people which is discrimination. I don't have an issue if they had one for all because that is fair. I do agree it shouldn't be university level as well.


----------



## guscas

Mish said:


> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...021/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
> 
> Check out Page 8


Thanks, Mish.

Although the paper has claims on what is going to be implemented for the English and society-integration requirements, it is in no way restricted by the actual amendment. The language of the amendment leaves the requirements all up to the Minister to decide.

This bill absolutely s*** on the Judiciary. It uses unpopular decisions from the AAT to justify giving the Minister overhaul over its decisions. Well, how about investing in making AAT decisions more closely aligned with what's deemed in the interest of the Australian society?... This is among other sections that increase the Executive power over the Judiciary.

The paper justifies the changes on the 2015 consultation, but it never presents evidence on how the measures of the bill actually address the concerns found over the consultation (but then the lack of statistically sound measures is not news).

The bill is a joke and I'm voting on whatever party brings these points up and votes against it.


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> Thanks, Mish.
> 
> Although the paper has claims on what is going to be implemented for the English and society-integration requirements, it is in no way restricted by the actual amendment. The language of the amendment leaves the requirements all up to the Minister to decide.
> 
> This bill absolutely s*** on the Judiciary. It uses unpopular decisions from the AAT to justify giving the Minister overhaul over its decisions. Well, how about investing in making AAT decisions more closely aligned with what's deemed in the interest of the Australian society?... This is among other sections that increase the Executive power over the Judiciary.
> 
> The paper justifies the changes on the 2015 consultation, but it never presents evidence on how the measures of the bill actually address the concerns found over the consultation (but then the lack of statistically sound measures is not news).
> 
> The bill is a joke and I'm voting on whatever party brings these points up and votes against it.


We will have a better idea of what is happening on Tuesday. If Labor say that they will not be supporting the bill then we just need to get the independents on board. If Labor say that they will support it then we are essentially screwed 

I would like to know how the 2015 consultation as I definitely did not provide any feedback at that point in time.


----------



## ahmadandlee

*English*

Hi,

I am sorry to say I am against this particularly for English, as my wife cannot give English exams and test after 4 years.

The science has proven learning a language after 18 years becomes 5 to 10 times difficult and even more in some scenarios. So we have to practically think that human brain would not be able to coupe with this new law.

Also for those who are sufficient with funds and do not need any money from Australia back, for those it shall be exempted also. There shall be a way to pay deposit and go for AMEP Australian Migration English program and for those who attend this program shall be exempted.

OR make AMEP education of 510 Hours as acceptable alternate way before granting the passport.

OR for Dependents English can be exempted. Keep it for Primary applicants no issue i can score 7 band or 8 band in IELTS.

But separate test of English shall not be there at least for Secondary/Dependent Applicants.

Thanks,


----------



## Sal91

Now regardless what everyone thinks about this useless political law. If we say that labor will not support it in the senate, will it still have a change to pass?

Voting with:
- Coalition 29
- One Nation 4 (already announced, voting for the changes)

Voting against:
- greens 9
- Labor (undecided yet) 26

Cross bench:
- Xenophon team 3
- Other single independents 5

So basically greens and labor will need 4 votes from the cross bench to stop the law.

I don't know a lot about Australian politics, but can someone help us with any input on the chances of stopping the law even if labor opposed it?


----------



## JandE

Sal91 said:


> I don't know a lot about Australian politics, but can someone help us with any input on the chances of stopping the law even if labor opposed it?


Maybe a petition, if there are enough people.

I am trying to see what we can do to bring the 7+ year residence requirement down for partners of Australian Citizens.

I will be happy if we can get that down to 4 years.


----------



## JandE

ahmadandlee said:


> OR make AMEP education of 510 Hours as acceptable alternate way before granting the passport.


I am not sure that would be acceptable proof of their ability. 
I have seen quite a few take this course, but they don't use English outside the course, saying it isn't necessary for them.
I wonder why they actually bother with the course.

If they take the course, then a test afterwards to get the Certificate, then yes, that should be OK. 
But not just a certificate for attending.


----------



## Mish

ahmadandlee said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am sorry to say I am against this particularly for English, as my wife cannot give English exams and test after 4 years.
> 
> The science has proven learning a language after 18 years becomes 5 to 10 times difficult and even more in some scenarios. So we have to practically think that human brain would not be able to coupe with this new law.
> 
> Also for those who are sufficient with funds and do not need any money from Australia back, for those it shall be exempted also. There shall be a way to pay deposit and go for AMEP Australian Migration English program and for those who attend this program shall be exempted.
> 
> OR make AMEP education of 510 Hours as acceptable alternate way before granting the passport.
> 
> OR for Dependents English can be exempted. Keep it for Primary applicants no issue i can score 7 band or 8 band in IELTS.
> 
> But separate test of English shall not be there at least for Secondary/Dependent Applicants.
> 
> Thanks,


Unlike PR applications there is no secondary/dependent applicant for a spouse it is each for their own.

The issue with AMEP is not everyone practises it at home especially if they can communicate with their spouse in their mother tongue. If a person practises at home etc they should be able to achieve 6 in all 4 categories at the completion of the AMEP.

I do think that 6 is too high and it should be functional.

In all honesty it is in your wife's best interest to learn English to a proficient level as without this level she will not be able to study if she wants to down the track and also it makes it easier to communicate with people and she does not have to rely on people. I have witnessed this first hand as someone I work with her partner is only functional in English so she has to communicate on his behalf with everyone and it is very time consuming with alot of to and frow. The other issue is that if your wife doesn't understand English she may sign something she doesn't understand.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> I am not sure that would be acceptable proof of their ability.
> I have seen quite a few take this course, but they don't use English outside the course, saying it isn't necessary for them.
> I wonder why they actually bother with the course.
> 
> If they take the course, then a test afterwards to get the Certificate, then yes, that should be OK.
> But not just a certificate for attending.


They do test them but with any course at TAFE I would not take the results too seriously.


----------



## MaxPower

ALP Shadow Cabinet have decided they will seek to amend the English test requirements & 4 year waiting period otherwise they will block it completely

Entire legislation lies in the hands of Xenophon now


----------



## popolo

Could you please add a source?

I've set up google alerts and it seems they're leaning towards what you say but no official word is out yet


----------



## MaxPower

Labor to reject key parts of Peter Dutton's citizenship overhaul


----------



## popolo

Thank you.


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> ALP Shadow Cabinet have decided they will seek to amend the English test requirements & 4 year waiting period otherwise they will block it completely
> 
> Entire legislation lies in the hands of Xenophon now


Woo hoo!! I am not surprised at all.


----------



## popolo

I have the feeling that this debate will be stretched for as long as possible, maybe another year, forcing everyone to wait. Also, should the bill get rejected, the number of applications in the queue will be huge and more delays are to come.

What's your view?


----------



## Mish

I think the processing times will be huge if it is rejected. Hopefully they clear them within a few months.


----------



## MaxPower

For the record I'll state that I have no issue with 4 years waiting for PR, 1 year as a PR to citizenship is a joke and don't support protests on this issue as the vast majority would agree that 1 year is too short

However common sense needs to prevail in regards to partner visas as they need to spend 2 years as a TR no fault of their own and that could extend to longer with processing times even before they get their PR not even mentioning the hoops they must jump through as compare to those that apply for direct PR offshore

And common sense needs to prevail to those who got PR before April 20 2017 and overnight went from 1 year wait to a 4 year wait


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Fingers crossed for the rejection of this disturbing bill. If the ALP and Greens to block, do you think it can still go through?


----------



## FutureCitizen

A negotiated 24 months as a PR is a better solution between the Liberals and Labor could be better than Dutton's suggestions or rejecting the legislation as a whole.


----------



## MaxPower

Lodged our citizenship application tonight .... so anyway see what happens


----------



## kei

I am wondering if this whole Citizenship change takes effect for those who apply regardless before/after April 2017 or this only applies for the applicants that partner visas are lodged AFTER that date? 

Because my wife applied for Partner Visa 820 prior in 2015 and is now waiting for the 801 approval?


----------



## Mish

kei said:


> I am wondering if this whole Citizenship change takes effect for those who apply regardless before/after April 2017 or this only applies for the applicants that partner visas are lodged AFTER that date?
> 
> Because my wife applied for Partner Visa 820 prior in 2015 and is now waiting for the 801 approval?


Being on a partner visa has nothing to do with citizenship it is all to do with the residency requirements and if they are met.

At the moment it is for those that applied for citizenship on or after the announcement date.


----------



## kei

Mish said:


> Being on a partner visa has nothing to do with citizenship it is all to do with the residency requirements and if they are met.
> 
> At the moment it is for those that applied for citizenship on or after the announcement date.


Thanks Mish for the clarification

And congratulations on your 801 being approved after a long long wait!


----------



## rhodered

From what ive been reading labor wont accept the bill and will vote against it...so from what im reading the bill is as good as dead...or am i wrong? Are they trying to make ammendments? Ive been reading a lot online and labor is VERY apposed to it. So now what? Ive read immi has to keep taking applications because the law hasnt been passed and we are within the law so they need to keep processing our apps.


----------



## rhodered

Mish congrats on 801 wow!!!


----------



## popolo

No, law could still potentially get approved by the coalition plus support from independent senators


----------



## rhodered

Ugh oh...ok . Hope not.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Correct it can still be passed narrowly with the support of crossbench members from Nick Xenophon team.


----------



## rhodered

But arent they in recess? When do they get back from their holiday?


----------



## popolo

Here's the sitting calendar
Sitting Calendar - Parliament of Australia

today is last day before the winter break


----------



## rhodered

Ok so they could pass it when they come back. So we all have to live in limbo til it passes/doesnt pass?


----------



## popolo

looks that way, DIBP isn't processing applications (I should be on top of the list since I applied on the day of the announcement).

Saying they will discuss it during the next session is very optimistic, I foresee this being stretched out at least until nov. (Of course I hope not)


----------



## Mish

kei said:


> Thanks Mish for the clarification
> 
> And congratulations on your 801 being approved after a long long wait!


Thank you .... unfortunately some are waiting longer. We just got in by the skin of teeth with am ombudsman complaint as not longer after they stopped investigating due to processing times.


----------



## MaxPower

This seems the most promising piece of news for awhile

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ply-worried-about-coalitions-citizenship-bill

Can see amendments being made and hopefully a 'grandfathering' clause put in so all PR holders pre-April 20 2017 stay on the old rules with those that get PR grants after April 20 2017 go under the new 4 year wait


----------



## guscas

MaxPower said:


> This seems the most promising piece of news for awhile
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ply-worried-about-coalitions-citizenship-bill
> 
> Can see amendments being made and hopefully a 'grandfathering' clause put in so all PR holders pre-April 20 2017 stay on the old rules with those that get PR grants after April 20 2017 go under the new 4 year wait





> NXT says it will not support giving Peter Dutton greater powers


Seems like someone read my earlier post and decided to get my vote. Now who wants second preference?


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> This seems the most promising piece of news for awhile
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ply-worried-about-coalitions-citizenship-bill
> 
> Can see amendments being made and hopefully a 'grandfathering' clause put in so all PR holders pre-April 20 2017 stay on the old rules with those that get PR grants after April 20 2017 go under the new 4 year wait


Well that sucks considering my husband got his PR mid May 2017. I would rather no grandfathering at all if that is the case.


----------



## guscas

Since Labour have shown to be against the 4-year requirement, it seems like a good time to hammer NXT with emails arguing it's also moving goal posts for partner visas.


----------



## Mish

guscas said:


> Since Labour have shown to be against the 4-year requirement, it seems like a good time to hammer NXT with emails arguing it's also moving goal posts for partner visas.


In all honesty if they are going to have a grace period it should be either those that have not arrived in Australia when the announcement was made or a reasonable time period for example anyone who applies for citizenship on or after 1 July 2020.

IF the rules were to go through I reckon all partner visa holders should be then campaigning for the grant of the 820 to be treated as the start of the permanent visa and/or different residency requirements for citizenship like alot of other countries do.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> IF the rules were to go through I reckon all partner visa holders should be then campaigning for the grant of the 820 to be treated as the start of the permanent visa and/or different residency requirements for citizenship like alot of other countries do.


That's the one that I feel needs to be pushed.

I wonder how many people would be affected by that.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> That's the one that I feel needs to be pushed.
> 
> I wonder how many people would be affected by that.


Alot ... I would say atleast 30,000 per year.

Tony Burke seems very vocal in it all an email explaining it to him might not hurt.


----------



## guscas

Mish said:


> IF the rules were to go through I reckon all partner visa holders should be then campaigning for the grant of the 820 to be treated as the start of the permanent visa and/or different residency requirements for citizenship like alot of other countries do.


This is definitely fair, but I feel touching on the moved goal posts idea with NXT is such a clear win that we should take it.


----------



## MaxPower

Mish said:


> Well that sucks considering my husband got his PR mid May 2017. I would rather no grandfathering at all if that is the case.


That sounds a bit selfish Somebody is going to get screwed regardless under the changes

Be that those who got PR after April 20 2017 or those that got PR after the date the bill goes through (which are two possible options for a compromise)

At least it seems now by NXT mumourings those that who currently hold PR will get looked after rather than "moving the goal posts" ... take that as a win if they go through with it

And should be easy to write an amendment for partner visas allowing the 2 year PR to count towards citizenship

Get those two changes and it is a win. Lets be honest .... waiting 1 year on PR to gain Citizenship is farcical, it needs to be at least 4 if not more

I'm not even going to bother worrying about the English Test and the debate about that


----------



## FutureCitizen

I think 2 years as a PR and IELTS band 5 is a good compromise between the two sides


----------



## popolo

MaxPower said:


> Get those two changes and it is a win. Lets be honest .... waiting 1 year on PR to gain Citizenship is farcical, it needs to be at least 4 if not more


I disagree. Every nation should set their own rules based on an enormous set of variables. Acquiring citizenship is an incentive to people to move here, same "easier" PR paths if you are willing to live in remote areas.

So, whether 1-2-3-4 or 10 years is not a "standard because other countries do it this way".


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> Lets be honest .... waiting 1 year on PR to gain Citizenship is farcical, it needs to be at least 4 if not more


But you applied for yours exactly 1 year to the date after getting PR, (_from your signature: 801 visa granted: June 21 2016 | Citizenship: Lodged (online) June 21 2017_)

I think these changes for partner Visa holders are creating a lot of tension.

It hardly affects skilled visa applicants, as they originally needed four years residence immediately before applying, including 12 months as a permanent resident.

The new changes for them are still the same 4 years, as they were PR from entry anyway.

But for 801/820 Partner Visa holders it was near enough 4 years residence, but now going up to 7 years.

From your signature, yours took about 3 years 8 months as resident in Australia from the payment of the 801/820 visa, with just the one year as PR.


----------



## MaxPower

JandE said:


> From your signature, yours took about 3 years 8 months as resident in Australia from the payment of the 801/820 visa, with just the one year as PR.


And my wife spent 3 1/2 years on an skilled academic TR visa before that, so has been in Australia since June 2010

6 years TR + 1 year PR


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> Alot ... I would say atleast 30,000 per year.
> 
> Tony Burke seems very vocal in it all an email explaining it to him might not hurt.


I just did one to Tony Burke.
Hope he understands the logic.

I checked the numbers and in 2015-16 there were 47,825 Partner visa applications. It is pretty similar each year, so we have up to about 180,000 *Australian sponsors *over a 4 year period, many of those are already voters.

In the 2016 Federal election, Liberal only got 96,000 more votes than Labor.

Partner Visa sponsors could swing an election, if they got together.


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> That sounds a bit selfish Somebody is going to get screwed regardless under the changes


Yours sounds very selfish. There are alot of people who were already in the transition to PR before the changes were made which is why it shouldn't be for those that held PR before the changes. They need to allow a 2 to 3 years period because there are some (partner visas/457 holders etc) who already hold the TR and are in the process to obtain PR and then would apply for citizenship.


----------



## solskjaer

JandE said:


> I just did one to Tony Burke.
> Hope he understands the logic.
> 
> I checked the numbers and in 2015-16 there were 47,825 Partner visa applications. It is pretty similar each year, so we have up to about 180,000 *Australian sponsors *over a 4 year period, many of those are already voters.
> 
> In the 2016 Federal election, Liberal only got 96,000 more votes than Labor.
> 
> Partner Visa sponsors could swing an election, if they got together.


I guess its very hard to get them all together. Once they become citizen, they probably don't wanna more people from other countries become Australian citizen. There is a chance that they would think new immigrants would increase the competitions in job markets and welfare. What do you think?


----------



## popolo

I think the votes consideration is plain wrong. This is not a political game, although they are doing everything they can to make one out of it.


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> And my wife spent 3 1/2 years on an skilled academic TR visa before that, so has been in Australia since June 2010
> 
> 6 years TR + 1 year PR


That bit is by choice. We are talking about compulsory requirements.


----------



## CollegeGirl

solskjaer said:


> I guess its very hard to get them all together. Once they become citizen, they probably don't wanna more people from other countries become Australian citizen. There is a chance that they would think new immigrants would increase the competitions in job markets and welfare. What do you think?


That wouldn't make sense. You don't have to be a citizen to get a job here, qualify for Medicare, etc.


----------



## JandE

popolo said:


> I think the votes consideration is plain wrong. This is not a political game, although they are doing everything they can to make one out of it.


Almost everything that every party does is geared to the voting consideration.
That will never change.

Politics is a political game, whether we like it or not.

It is down to the public to make them pay for their games at election time.
However, it is normally the majority that win, and the games are normally played to the majority.


----------



## FutureCitizen

"Nick Xenophon Team says it's 'deeply worried' about Coalition's citizenship bill"

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ply-worried-about-coalitions-citizenship-bill


----------



## JandE

FutureCitizen said:


> "Nick Xenophon Team says it's 'deeply worried' about Coalition's citizenship bill"
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ply-worried-about-coalitions-citizenship-bill


There problem with that is; they don't seem to understand it.


> He said he was also concerned about the English language test, which appears to have been designed to "exclude as many people as possible" from coming to Australia.


Having a stronger English test for citizenship does not stop anyone from coming to Australia. It might stop those who have lived here for years, as Permanent Residents, from becoming Citizens, but it does not stop them from coming.

Maybe he is confused with the test for Skilled Migrant visas instead?


----------



## guscas

MaxPower said:


> Get those two changes and it is a win. Lets be honest .... waiting 1 year on PR to gain Citizenship is farcical, it needs to be at least 4 if not more


You know what's farcical? Committing to living in a country *permanently*, have your kids go to school and adapt to the Australian society, pay taxes on the income you earn there, pay taxes on the income you earn overseas, have to abide by the country's laws and customs... While at the same having *no rights* - a PR holder in Australia: can't vote, can have their PR status revoked at any time, is excluded from a multitude of government-related jobs...

Permanent Residents are the slaves of the Australian democracy.


----------



## guscas

And this is why governments like having really long PR periods - don't be fooled. Have a large section of the population with strong grounds to Australia, but who have no power to decide their future (vote)? That's the dream of every coalition politician.

Because the reality is - if they really wanted to address the issue of immigrants disrespecting Australian values (and there is indeed an issue), they would be doing so *very much before* citizenship. A PR holder, or any visa holder, can do the same damage.


----------



## guscas

solskjaer said:


> I guess its very hard to get them all together. Once they become citizen, they probably don't wanna more people from other countries become Australian citizen. There is a chance that they would think new immigrants would increase the competitions in job markets and welfare. What do you think?


When people go on this line of thinking, they are completely missing the point:

Except for refugees - immigration laws are always implemented with the national interest in mind. If you find a single other visa which you believe doesn't have the best interests of an Australian citizen in mind, you should be vocal about it.


----------



## MarcellusF

Melodramatic much?



guscas said:


> You know what's farcical? Committing to living in a country *permanently*, have your kids go to school and adapt to the Australian society, pay taxes on the income you earn there, pay taxes on the income you earn overseas, have to abide by the country's laws and customs... While at the same having *no rights* - a PR holder in Australia: can't vote, can have their PR status revoked at any time, is excluded from a multitude of government-related jobs...
> 
> Permanent Residents are the slaves of the Australian democracy.


----------



## FutureCitizen

look what I found?


----------



## JandE

FutureCitizen said:


> look what I found


The Chaser is an Australian satirical comedy group. But that must have been an old episode befire they increased the pass mark to 15 out of 20.

The old Mind Your Language show would be a good one for learning English 

I wonder what the new REAL test will involve.



> Immigration Minister Peter Dutton called Labor's claims nothing more than a smokescreen.
> 
> In a media release he said, "Labor's claims that the Citizenship legislation currently before the Parliament will require applicants to have a "university" level of English language skills is nothing more than a smokescreen."
> 
> He further adds, "Contrary to Labor's false claims, the IELTS Academic test is *not required *for migration or citizenship purposes.
> 
> "The General Training test is accepted.
> 
> "Level 6 of the General stream focuses on "basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts."





> The IELTS General Training test is for those who are going to English speaking countries for secondary education, work experience or training programs. It is also a requirement for migration to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. The test focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts.


----------



## Mish

If people disagree with citizenship changes you should be emailing the cross benches (at a minimum) as those are the ones that will have the deciding votes. It is all okay and write on forums, Facebook etc but politicians need to see how it will affect people. So email them and share your story. However, if someone can barely speak any English then IMO that would not be good to write about. They should posses functional English and you can write about how the have integrated into society with functional English.


----------



## MaxPower

The bill has been sent to a Senate Committee for scrutiny

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia

I would suggest everybody make a well written submission to the committee


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> The bill has been sent to a Senate Committee for scrutiny
> 
> Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia
> 
> I would suggest everybody make a *well written* submission to the committee


The closing date for submissions is 21 July 2017.


----------



## ahbee

That's so true. That's really ridiculous !!!! Many Australian Citizens don't even know the correct answer. Then why those who wanna apply citizenship must know it ???? My partner is an Australian citizen. He has been living in Australia for more than 25 years , yet he didn't get 60% out of 100% when he try to do the mock test of the citizenship. And for the IELTS it is much more ridiculous....Level 6 for all part of the exam ??? To be honest there are a lot of people who are holding the Australia citizenship could hardly reach this level. And what about this refugees ??? Please be fair...


----------



## ahbee

Yeah, imagine the rich Chinese. Can you OR Will you stop them ??? LOL


----------



## Mish

ahbee said:


> Yeah, imagine the rich Chinese. Can you OR Will you stop them ??? LOL


The ones that can't speak English won't qualify under the new rules if they go through. Even if they did functional English some wouldn't pass that either.


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> That's so true. That's really ridiculous !!!! Many Australian Citizens don't even know the correct answer. Then why those who wanna apply citizenship must know it ???? My partner is an Australian citizen. He has been living in Australia for more than 25 years , yet he didn't get 60% out of 100% when he try to do the mock test of the citizenship.


I find it difficult to believe that many Australian citizens would not pass the current test, when 98.6% of non citizens pass the test, including 91.2% of humanitarian migrants and 99.7% of skilled migrants.

I found the test was quite simple and basic, and finished it in 10 minutes, although I had lived in Australia for 25 years as PR before I took it. But I would consider myself less knowledgeable than an Australian, as I know little about sport here or Vegemite.

I've been going over the current test (official practice test) again recently with my wife, and it seems not to have changed much. She is getting 75% just using common sense.


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> And for the IELTS it is much more ridiculous....Level 6 for all part of the exam ??? To be honest there are a lot of people who are holding the Australia citizenship could hardly reach this level. And what about this refugees ??? Please be fair...


IELTS General level 6 does not seem to be very hard. This is an example of the marking of one Level 6 General IELTS:



> This essay needs work. There are multiple spelling errors and unclear expressions (see comments underlined in blue). Also there are many words that are formed incorrectly (diverted instead of diverse, etc). There are too many paragraphs, all you need is 4 - 5 well-structured paragraphs, not 7 poorly structured ones. On the bright side, the task is covered and there are enough words (275), which is good. The paragraphs are logically connected and the linking words are used effectively. Overall, this looks like a Band 6 essay.


I will admit I had not looked at the IELTS that much, as I did see one where the person was doing the University grade one, (needed good English for Medical studies) and that seemed quite hard, but looking now, the General one does not look anywhere near as bad as I thought.

And with some people saying the new one will be University grade, it would have been bad if it was. But it seems it may not be the university grade one after all.

However, I still feel it may be too hard for some people who choose not to use the English language much.


----------



## MarcellusF

JandE said:


> I find it difficult to believe that many Australian citizens would not pass the current test, when 98.6% of non citizens pass the test, including 91.2% of humanitarian migrants and 99.7% of skilled migrants.
> 
> I found the test was quite simple and basic, and finished it in 10 minutes, although I had lived in Australia for 25 years as PR before I took it. But I would consider myself less knowledgeable than an Australian, as I know little about sport here or Vegemite.
> 
> I've been going over the current test (official practice test) again recently with my wife, and it seems not to have changed much. She is getting 75% just using common sense.


Finally someone breaking through the hysteria


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> And with some people saying the new one will be University grade, it would have been bad if it was. But it seems it may not be the university grade one after all.


What they mean when they say that it is university level English is that for non-English speakers to enrol in university they need an IELTS level of 6 in all 4 categories to be able to enrol.



JandE said:


> However, I still feel it may be too hard for some people who choose not to use the English language much.


I agree. Probably about 80-90% of people that enrol in the AMEP have a partner who speaks their mother tongue therefore they are not getting as much practice as someone who lives with someone who does not speak their mother tongue.

My husband who is from a non-English speaking country agrees with the new English requirements for citizenship that they are proposing. His thoughts are that it will force people to learn English.


----------



## MaxPower

I'd suggest that it should be a requirement for all PR visa grants in every visa catagory that there should be at a minimum a general level of English test (higher for skilled etc) and thus no need for a citizenship English test ... but that is a topic for another thread

Something which Tony Burke agreed with 10 years ago but is now against ... ahhh politicians ....


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> What they mean when they say that it is university level English is that for non-English speakers to enrol in university they need an IELTS level of 6 in all 4 categories to be able to enrol.


I feel that some people are saying the Citizenship test will need grade 6 IELTS Academic (the University version) when in fact it is IELTS grade 6 General version, much easier for writing and reading.
https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/two-types-of-ielts-test

An ABC story quotes 
_



Under the Government's proposed changes, migrants would have to pass an IELTs 6 test, which is university-level English that includes writing an academic essay.

Click to expand...

_However the SBS says 
_



The Government's citizenship test will look at the standard of the General type.

Click to expand...

_IELTS level 5 states:


> The test taker has a partial command of the language and copes with overall meaning in most situations, although they are likely to make many mistakes. They should be able to handle basic communication in their own field.


Level 6 is a bit higher, with _



The test taker has an effective command of the language despite some inaccuracies, inappropriate usage and misunderstandings

Click to expand...

_


----------



## ahbee

Sorry, I just noticed your timeline that "801 visa granted: June 21 2016 ", which means you are not qualify to apply citizenship until 21 June 2018 ...even under existing regulations ....Or am I wrong ??? 2years TR+2yrs PR (Total 4 yrs)


----------



## ahbee

"I feel that some people are saying the Citizenship test will need grade 6 IELTS Academic (the University version) when in fact it is IELTS grade 6 General version, much easier for writing and reading"

No, IELTS Level 6 is actually the entry requirement for university. For example, for Sydney University The University's standard IELTS requirement is an overall score of 6.5 with no band below 6.0, however some faculties and courses have different requirements. 

It is not that easy, especially for those who's English is not their 1st language) I have friends who would like to migrate to Australia and has been taking this exam for many times but yet not reach all level at 7 (Her case requires to pass all with Level 7). She even took courses and did all the past paper.


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> No, IELTS Level 6 is actually the entry requirement for university. For example, for Sydney University The University's standard IELTS requirement is an overall score of 6.5 with no band below 6.0, however some faculties and courses have different requirements.


Most universities quote IELTS (*Academic* module) level 6 for University entry.
IELTS (*General* Entry) level 6 would not be acceptable for University, but is the one being mentioned for *citizenship*.

Two different tests.


----------



## ahbee

JandE said:


> Most universities quote IELTS (*Academic* module) level 6 for University entry.
> IELTS (*General* Entry) level 6 would not be acceptable for University, but is the one being mentioned for *citizenship*.
> 
> Two different tests.


Is it ??? Is there any General Entry Level 6 ????
https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/ielts-scoring-in-detail


----------



## al_ghazal

ahbee said:


> Is it ??? Is there any General Entry Level 6 ????
> https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/ielts-scoring-in-detail


There's two types of IELTS, general IELTS and academic IELTS: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/two-types-of-ielts-test. I dont think anyone has been able to confirm whether the citizenship test is expecting a ranking of 6 on the academic IELTS or a ranking of 6 on the general IELTS. All we know for sure is that they want 'competent' English.


----------



## ahbee

al_ghazal said:


> There's two types of IELTS, general IELTS and academic IELTS: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/two-types-of-ielts-test. I dont think anyone has been able to confirm whether the citizenship test is expecting a ranking of 6 on the academic IELTS or a ranking of 6 on the general IELTS. All we know for sure is that they want 'competent' English.


Thank you for your information


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> Is it ??? Is there any General Entry Level 6 ????
> https://www.ielts.org/ielts-for-organisations/ielts-scoring-in-detail


A quote from your link above


> Academic Reading tests may contain texts which feature more difficult vocabulary or greater complexity of style


And from IELTS https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/two-types-of-ielts-test

There are two types of the IELTS test: IELTS Academic and IELTS General Training.

IELTS Academic
The IELTS Academic test is for people applying for higher education or professional registration in an English speaking environment. It *reflects some of the features of academic language* and assesses whether you are ready to begin studying or training.

IELTS General Training
The IELTS General Training test is for those who are going to English speaking countries for secondary education, work experience or training programs. It is also a requirement for migration to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. *The test focuses on basic survival skills in broad social and workplace contexts*.


----------



## JandE

I think the media and politicians have created confusion on this, which is aggravating the problem.

Few people would actually realise there are two types of IELTS, unless they have actually experienced them both.


----------



## MaxPower

al_ghazal said:


> There's two types of IELTS, general IELTS and academic IELTS: https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/two-types-of-ielts-test. I dont think anyone has been able to confirm whether the citizenship test is expecting a ranking of 6 on the academic IELTS or a ranking of 6 on the general IELTS. All we know for sure is that they want 'competent' English.


The Minister clarified it a few days ago

Minister - Labor's citizenship smokescreen


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> Most universities quote IELTS (*Academic* module) level 6 for University entry.
> IELTS (*General* Entry) level 6 would not be acceptable for University, but is the one being mentioned for *citizenship*.
> 
> Two different tests.


Apparently a word expert says that a 6 in academic and general are pretty much the same. World expert rebuffs Peter Dutton over English language test 'red herring'



> "The general IELTS test is an alternative to the academic IELTS test but the scale is the same. A six on one and a six on the other is more or less the same level of English]," she told Fairfax Media.
> 
> "A level six on both tests requires you to be highly literate and to be able to do things like write an essay. It would take a great deal of time and be beyond the reach of many people who come to Australia."


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> Apparently a word expert says that a 6 in academic and general are pretty much the same. World expert rebuffs Peter Dutton over English language test 'red herring'


But IELTS themselves say:



> Test format - Academic Writing
> 
> *IELTS Academic test*
> 
> Topics are of general interest to, and suitable for, test takers entering undergraduate and postgraduate studies or seeking professional registration. There are two tasks:
> 
> Task 1 - you will be presented with a graph, table, chart or diagram and asked to describe, summarise or explain the information in your own words. You may be asked to describe and explain data, describe the stages of a process, how something works or describe an object or event.
> Task 2 - you will be asked to write an essay in response to a point of view, argument or problem. Responses to both tasks must be in a formal style.
> 
> *IELTS General Training*
> 
> Topics are of general interest. There are two tasks:
> 
> Task 1 - you will be presented with a situation and asked to write a letter requesting information, or explaining the situation. The letter may be personal, semi-formal or formal in style.
> Task 2 - you will be asked to write an essay in response to a point of view, argument or problem. The essay can be fairly personal in style.


A level 6 grade General mode is not sufficient to enter University in Australia, but a level 6 grade Academic mode is.

There must be a major difference.

When some politicians say they people must pass an equivalent to a University pass grade, I find it difficult to believe them, when IELTS say:



> There are two types of IELTS test to choose from, IELTS Academic or IELTS General Training. All test takers take the same Listening and Speaking tests but *different Reading and Writing tests*. Make sure that you prepare for the correct version of the test.
> https://www.ielts.org/about-the-test/sample-test-questions


There are many example tests available for both types of test, to show the differences required, eg:

Academic Reading Sample: http://www.ielts-mentor.com/reading...eading-sample-1-population-viability-analysis
General Reading Sample: http://www.ielts-mentor.com/reading-sample/gt-reading/69-general-training-reading-sample-1

I know someone who did the Academic version, and it was hard. I was helping where I could at the time in studying for it.
If Citizenship applications used that version, it would be totally wrong, for just a general use.
She had previously passed the general training one at level 6, for immigration, but needed to do the Academic one when she was going to Uni.

If that world-leading expert at Melbourne University, Catherine Elder, is correct, then why doesn't her University accept IELTS general level? The University of Melbourne specifies IELTS Academic version only


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> I know someone who did the Academic version, and it was hard. I was helping where I could at the time in studying for it.
> If Citizenship applications used that version, it would be totally wrong, for just a general use.
> She had previously passed the general training one at level 6, for immigration, but needed to do the Academic one when she was going to Uni.


I have never taken an IELTS test but going by what people say on Facebook they are not much difference. Here is something that someone said last night on one group I am on:



> I know ielts test very well and I did 3 times in 2007-2008, general is almost same difficult as acdemic ones


Time will tell if it is as difficult as people say it is. All I know is that IF it goes through all people should have to do it. Since Peter Dutton says it is not hard then those from English speaking countries should be able to pass it no issues at all.


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> The ones that can't speak English won't qualify under the new rules if they go through. Even if they did functional English some wouldn't pass that either.


That's why I said the test is not that easy to pass


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> I have never taken an IELTS test but going by what people say on Facebook they are not much difference. Here is something that someone said last night on one group I am on:
> 
> Time will tell if it is as difficult as people say it is. All I know is that IF it goes through all people should have to do it. Since Peter Dutton says it is not hard then those from English speaking countries should be able to pass it no issues at all.


Maybe yes to those from English Speaking countries but definitely no for me since I comes from an non English speaking country..LoL Anyways, see how it goes


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> I have never taken an IELTS test but going by what people say on Facebook they are not much difference. Here is something that someone said last night on one group I am on:
> 
> Time will tell if it is as difficult as people say it is. All I know is that IF it goes through all people should have to do it. Since Peter Dutton says it is not hard then those from English speaking countries should be able to pass it no issues at all.


It is definitely very confusing at the moment.

But if it goes through as is, then citizenship English will be the same as that needed by new skilled migrants, eg 189 visa applicants. But at least they have at least 4 years living in Australia to get to that level.



> The skilled Visa 189 applicants must have 'competent' English, which is Level 6 IELTS. https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/how-can-i-prove-i-have-competent-english


----------



## ahbee

"But if it goes through as is, then citizenship English will be the same as that needed by new skilled migrants, eg 189 visa applicants. But at least they have at least 4 years living in Australia to get to that level. "

Sad thing is the might not up to that level even if they have lived in Australia for 4 years !!!! eg. One who works in a grocery stores and his job is to fill the stock on the shells ????


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> Sad thing is the might not up to that level even if they have lived in Australia for 4 years !!!! eg. One who works in a grocery stores and his job is to fill the stock on the shells ????


On that, I can only suggest the AMEP https://www.education.gov.au/adult-migrant-english-program-0 program, and do the study involved to get to that level.


> The Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) provides up to 510 hours of English language tuition to eligible migrants and humanitarian entrants to help them learn foundation English language and settlement skills to enable them to participate socially and economically in Australian society.


Many countries allow people to stay forever, without needing the local language, but insist on reasonable English to be recognised as a citizen of that country. Australia is no different in that respect.

Personally I think that general level 5 should be sufficient, but the topic has been taken over by the mention of university level being needed. And that is sidelining other language issues, to the detriment of the real issue.

IELTS 9 Expert user. Their use of English shows complete understanding.
IELTS 8 Very good user. Full operational command of the language, occasional unsystematic inaccuracies and inappropriate usage in unfamiliar situations.
IELTS 7 Good user. Generally handle complex language well and understand detailed reasoning, with occasional inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
IELTS 6 Competent user. Effective command of the language, some inaccuracies, inappropriate usage and misunderstandings.
IELTS 5 Modest user. Copes with overall meaning in most situations, likely to make many mistakes.
IELTS 4 Limited user. Basic competence limited to familiar situations. Frequent problems in understanding and expression.
IELTS 3 Extremely limited user. Only general meaning in very familiar situations. Frequent breakdowns in communication.
IELTS 2 Intermittent user. Great difficulty understanding spoken and written English.
IELTS 1 Non-user. No ability to use the language except a few isolated words.


----------



## Mish

ahbee said:


> Sad thing is the might not up to that level even if they have lived in Australia for 4 years !!!! eg. One who works in a grocery stores and his job is to fill the stock on the shells ????


The AMEP that the government offers helps people with English and at the end of the program people should be able to achieve level 6 in all 4 categories atleast. If you have not commenced this program of yet, I would imagine that you would now need to pay for it as to enrol for free you have to do it within a specific time period (unless it has changed since I last looked at it).

The only issue is the people that do not speak English in their homes those are the people that are going to struggle. People need to speak English in their homes, community and work to practice what they have learnt.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> If you have not commenced this program of yet, I would imagine that you would now need to pay for it as to enrol for free you have to do it within a specific time period (unless it has changed since I last looked at it).


TAFE seem to be very lax on that point. I see quite a few doing it even starting a few years after arriving in Australia. (_People are supposed to register with an AMEP service provider within six months_)

The problem is that some of them still talk in their own language, even during class, and make no effort to try enough.

I've spoken to a couple of the husbands and they seem to think that they don't need to help their wives to learn, and just leave it to the teacher.

My wife now seems to be almost an unofficial teachers aid, after just 3 terms. I feel she is getting close to maybe getting a reasonable grade in IELTS, if she needs to take it eventually.


----------



## JandE

There is also the The Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) program.


> This allows up to 800 hours of free accredited Language, literacy and/or numeracy training delivered under the program. Training is delivered flexibly through full-time or part-time hours, via face-to-face or distance training and may be vocationally contextualised within each stream of training.
> 
> The program caters for various groups including from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
> 
> The Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) program provides language, literacy and numeracy training to eligible job seekers, to help them to participate more effectively in training or in the labour force.The program is delivered across Australia, from metropolitan and regional areas, right through to remote communities. https://www.education.gov.au/skills-education-and-employment


The government seems to offer plenty of options to help people learn the language here.

This might be done with the AMEP course and explain why I see people that I thought would not qualify. They may be on SEE and not AMEP.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> TAFE seem to be very lax on that point. I see quite a few doing it even starting a few years after arriving in Australia. (_People are supposed to register with an AMEP service provider within six months_)


Probably because they need more people to attend . A guy at my husband's work commenced the AMEP after he received his 100 (well over 6 months after arriving in Australia), I should ask if he had to pay or not.



JandE said:


> The problem is that some of them still talk in their own language, even during class, and make no effort to try enough.
> 
> I've spoken to a couple of the husbands and they seem to think that they don't need to help their wives to learn, and just leave it to the teacher.
> 
> My wife now seems to be almost an unofficial teachers aid, after just 3 terms. I feel she is getting close to maybe getting a reasonable grade in IELTS, if she needs to take it eventually.


The major problem is people not practising at home. They say that when they get their Certificate IV in English that they should be able to get at least 6 in all 4 categories.

My husband is from a non-English speaking country and he is happy about the English requirements he said that it will force them to go and learn English.


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> The AMEP that the government offers helps people with English and at the end of the program people should be able to achieve level 6 in all 4 categories atleast. If you have not commenced this program of yet, I would imagine that you would now need to pay for it as to enrol for free you have to do it within a specific time period (unless it has changed since I last looked at it).
> 
> The only issue is the people that do not speak English in their homes those are the people that are going to struggle. .


Talking about this English course I have something to share. An aunt of mine has been living in Australia up to 10 years, she has been attending FREE English course (which provides to migrants )+ PAID English course (After she finished the program). However she could hardly communicate in English !!!! In her case, do you think she can pass the IELTS test ???

Who's going to speak English with her at home ??? Her husband doesn't speak English and his son works shift


----------



## Mish

ahbee said:


> Talking about this English course I have something to share. An aunt of mine has been living in Australia up to 10 years, she has been attending FREE English course (which provides to migrants )+ PAID English course (After she finished the program). However she could hardly communicate in English !!!! In her case, do you think she can pass the IELTS test ???
> 
> Who's going to speak English with her at home ??? Her husband doesn't speak English and his son works shift


Well, her husband should be learning English too. She can go out in the community and practice. You have to speak English when going and ordering things from restaurants for examples. She can volunteer at places to practice her English.

She needs to practice to in order to improve and the responsibility of it should not be put on to the teachers at the AMEP places as they cannot force them to speak English, they can only do the best with what they have. The question for your Aunt is why her son doesn't help when he is around and you can speak English so you can help her too.

I know of someone who came to Australia only being able to speak English to people through google translator. This person attended the AMEP and they can now speak really good English.


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> Talking about this English course I have something to share. An aunt of mine has been living in Australia up to 10 years, she has been attending FREE English course (which provides to migrants )+ PAID English course (After she finished the program). However she could hardly communicate in English !!!! In her case, do you think she can pass the IELTS test ???


You say she has been living in Australia for 10 years, and can hardly communicate in English.

Would she have passed the previous citizenship test, which required a basic knowledge of the English language?



ahbee said:


> Who's going to speak English with her at home ??? Her husband doesn't speak English and his son works shift


My wife watches and listens to a lot of English language programs, on youtube. She is actually doing one right now. They do help a lot.


----------



## Mish

JandE said:


> My wife watches and listens to a lot of English language programs, on youtube. She is actually doing one right now. They do help a lot.


Interesting you say that. My husband and I go to the movies alot and he said that going to the movies has improved his English alot and he increases his vocabulary from the movies too.

You should get her to watch 90 day fiance ... it is all about the American PMV process.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> Interesting you say that. My husband and I go to the movies alot and he said that going to the movies has improved his English alot and he increases his vocabulary from the movies too.
> 
> You should get her to watch 90 day fiance ... it is all about the American PMV process.


My wife said she began by watching movies and now likes to watch the same movies again, now she can understand everything.


----------



## FutureCitizen

Why would Joe who came to Australia on a 309 visa and is married to an Australian citizen, work as bus driver ever need IELTS band 6?
( my neighbour's situation)

2 Years as a PR and IELTS Band 5 is a good compromise.


----------



## JandE

FutureCitizen said:


> Why would Joe who came to Australia on a 309 visa and is married to an Australian citizen, work as bus driver ever need IELTS band 6?
> ( my neighbour's situation)
> 
> 2 Years as a PR and IELTS Band 5 is a good compromise.


Improving English might just help in getting a better job.
I know one example of a new migrant starting at McDonald's putting burgers in bread buns, improved English, and now makes decisions that affect people.

Without improving English that would never have happened.

But, it is peoples choice. If people don't want to try, then it isn't compulsory.

Band 5 isn't a great level of English. _A partial command of the language, with many mistakes_. Maybe worth persevering for a higher grasp of the language of ones citizenship.


----------



## Mish

FutureCitizen said:


> Why would Joe who came to Australia on a 309 visa and is married to an Australian citizen, work as bus driver ever need IELTS band 6?
> ( my neighbour's situation)
> 
> 2 Years as a PR and IELTS Band 5 is a good compromise.


Maybe Joe does not want to be a bus driver forever and it will help him to improve his English to get better opportunities. Maybe Joe gets made redundant and needs to find another job and having good English skills will help.

I would also think that a bus driver would have good English communications and should be able to get an IELTS score of 6.

Joe also needs to know how to communicate in English incase something happens to his wife and he needs to talk to a doctor etc and get her help.

There are a lot of people out there where they get their children to communicate on their behalf, this requirement would actually push people to learn English.


----------



## FutureCitizen

How is someone supposed to improve aka study full time when he or she has a full-time job?
I remember when I did my English course at TAFE, around %20 of the newcomers that the Centrelink was forcing them to do courses never finished the Course but instead got full-time jobs at the target, burger king and others as waitresses and chefs at the local restaurants. 

Do you think that blue collar 7th generation Australians who literally only have about 100 English words in their vocabulary ever be able to score 6 in the IELTS test or Senator Hanson who dropped out of school at the age of 15 and married a Polish immigrant at the age of 16 is 
able to score 6 at the IELTS?

Many people would rather make money than study!


----------



## Mish

FutureCitizen said:


> How is someone supposed to improve aka study full time when he or she has a full-time job?


The same as what Australian citizens do ... either work full time and study part time OR study full time and work part time.

They do not need to study full time, they can study part time.



FutureCitizen said:


> I remember when I did my English course at TAFE, around %20 of the newcomers that the Centrelink was forcing them to do courses never finished the Course but instead got full-time jobs at the target, burger king and others as waitresses and chefs at the local restaurants.


The jobs you mention they are all losing their penalty rates from 1 July, therefore those working in those jobs will be making less money from 1 July, therefore better English would be more beneficial for them to get a better job. Also some people also target people with limited English and try to underpay them or pay them cash without paying them super because they think with limited English they will not understand what their rights are.

Also with those jobs once a person turns 21 they tend to cut their hours because really why pay someone an adult wage when you can pay a 16 year to do the same thing for less?

IMO a person does need component English. I work with someone whose partner only has functional English and she is always ringing up people on their behalf or explaining things to them. What would they do if she was not around to explain these things to them? Most likely they would have signed a lease agreement not understanding what they were liable for.



FutureCitizen said:


> Many people would rather make money than study!


But wouldn't they rather learn English and get a great job and be able to buy a house? The reality is that Australian house prices are expensive and a household on an entry level wage for 1 person only will probably never be able to own a house.


----------



## al_ghazal

I have an issue with the English language requirement. And it's nothing personal for me my husband will pass the test if he needs too. 

For a start ones contribution to Australia shouldn't be measured on their language ability.

Second this sort of requirement mostly penalises women who due to working in the home have less opportunity to master English.

Third it also penalises refugees and especially female refugees who may not even be literate in their first language. 

Fourth the IELTS is less about testing English capabilities and more about ones ability to master the art of the exam. People with limited or no formal education really struggle with IELTS this is well documented.

Finally many people that come to Australia are actually multilingual. English is not just the second but third or fourth language.

Australia has become a rich a prosperous nation due to its ability to embrace multiculturalism and celebrate the diversity of culture, language, religion and thought that brings. The current rejection of multiculturalism is simply a political stunt intended to polarise the community and pander to popularist opinion while deflecting from the real issues that the government does not what to address like education, health, housing, equality and the environment.


----------



## Mish

I agree somewhat al_ghazal. My issue/concern is if people can't speak English or if it is very limited what happens if there is noone else around and something happens to them and they can't tell the doctor or nurse what they are feeling or allergic to? If they have children how do they communicate with the teacher? I am sure if the child is in trouble they are not going to translate correctly to the parent.

It is in everyones best interest to be able to speak English.


----------



## FutureCitizen

How about we force all bus drivers, retailers, waiters, fast food workers, construction workers and any employee who works in a job that does not require "competent" English to study academic English and learn how to do a 2k words essay?

" functional English and she is always ringing up people on their behalf or explaining things to them. What would they do if she was not around to explain these things to them? Most likely they would have signed a lease agreement not understanding what they were liable for."

You're describing a person who would not even score 3.5 at IELTS.... 
I have done the IELTS in 2015 and I scored 5.5 ( don't care if you are going to judge me or not) as I did speak fluent English at the time however my spelling skills needed some improvement and I had no idea on how to structure an essay or a long answer response. 


Why am I even worried my family and I got our approval letters for Australian citizenship in April and May respectively.


----------



## JandE

FutureCitizen said:


> How about we force all bus drivers, retailers, waiters, fast food workers, construction workers and any employee who works in a job that does not require "competent" English to study academic English and learn how to do a 2k words essay?


No one should be forced to study Academic English, that's only for University entry, not immigration or citizenship.

And the IELTS essays are only 150 or 250 words anyway. Exaggeration does not help.

Sufficient English to fit in with general communication with people is about right.
New migrants are understood to have a lower capability, but citizens in many countries seem to be expected to be able to speak their national language reasonably well.


----------



## Mish

FutureCitizen said:


> I have done the IELTS in 2015 and I scored 5.5 ( don't care if you are going to judge me or not) as I did speak fluent English at the time however my spelling skills needed some improvement and I had no idea on how to structure an essay or a long answer response.


If you did the test now you would get atleast 6 so that shows in 2 years you can improve.

There are alot of countries out there where any would be citizen needs to be able to speak the llanguage of the country - Germany for example.


----------



## MarcellusF

FutureCitizen said:


> How is someone supposed to improve aka study full time when he or she has a full-time job?
> I remember when I did my English course at TAFE, around %20 of the newcomers that the Centrelink was forcing them to do courses never finished the Course but instead got full-time jobs at the target, burger king and others as waitresses and chefs at the local restaurants.
> 
> Do you think that blue collar 7th generation Australians who literally only have about 100 English words in their vocabulary ever be able to score 6 in the IELTS test or Senator Hanson who dropped out of school at the age of 15 and married a Polish immigrant at the age of 16 is
> able to score 6 at the IELTS?
> 
> Many people would rather make money than study!


Sounding a little judgy of blue collar 7th generation Australians there, mate. How dare you suggest that because someone votes a certain way and does a certain job that they would be incapable of passing an exam. Who do you think you are, seriously?


----------



## MarcellusF

al_ghazal said:


> I have an issue with the English language requirement. And it's nothing personal for me my husband will pass the test if he needs too.
> 
> For a start ones contribution to Australia shouldn't be measured on their language ability.
> 
> Second this sort of requirement mostly penalises women who due to working in the home have less opportunity to master English.
> 
> Third it also penalises refugees and especially female refugees who may not even be literate in their first language.
> 
> Fourth the IELTS is less about testing English capabilities and more about ones ability to master the art of the exam. People with limited or no formal education really struggle with IELTS this is well documented.
> 
> Finally many people that come to Australia are actually multilingual. English is not just the second but third or fourth language.
> 
> Australia has become a rich a prosperous nation due to its ability to embrace multiculturalism and celebrate the diversity of culture, language, religion and thought that brings. The current rejection of multiculturalism is simply a political stunt intended to polarise the community and pander to popularist opinion while deflecting from the real issues that the government does not what to address like education, health, housing, equality and the environment.


There are loads of thinkers across the world who question the sort of non-interventionist multiculturalism in which a migrant isn't at all expected to assimilate, or at the very least accept some common societal norms. To suggest that current talk is just a political stunt is to ignore over 30 years of Western naval-gazing on this issue.

Why anyone would want to become a citizen of a country who's culture doesn't interest them enough for them to even attempt to learn the official (or majority) language begs the question why they even came. If you're not a refugee, but you here of your own free will (and paid the heavy fees for the privilege) then I can't fathom why you wouldn't want to learn the language.

It's not like it's an obscure language, after all. It's the most studied second language on the planet, hands down. And it also happens to be the first language of over half a billion people.

Learning to speak a good level English just makes sense, and especially if some day you choose to leave Australia. Chances are the next place you land the English language might come in handy.

If you don't want to just be seen as a cynical economic migrant, then learn the freaking language.


----------



## FutureCitizen

MarcellusF said:


> Sounding a little judgy of blue collar 7th generation Australians there, mate. How dare you suggest that because someone votes a certain way and does a certain job that they would be incapable of passing an exam. Who do you think you are, seriously?


Sorry if I offended you but my opinion is purely based on my experience with Australian blue collar workers, all I can say is that judging them by the way they speak and their grammar, they would not be able to score 6 at the IELTS.

-My opinion


----------



## solskjaer

According to DIAC's report, they issued 189,770 pr in 2015-2016 year. 128,550 places were delivered in the Skill stream; 57,400 places were delivered in the Family stream; and 308 places were delivered in the Special Eligibility stream.
Around 70% were delivered in the skill stream, most of people get their pr through skill stream have to have a IELTS score at 5.5 at least to apply their visa. For the young Uni graduates, they need to get 7 to apply. The english requirement change will not really effect on these people. It will only effect on these 30% of people who get their pr through family stream. In these 30% of people, I believe there are many uni graduates who did IELTS test before. Normally for a bachelor degree, the entry requirement for IELTS is 6. For a master degree, the requirement for IELTS is 6.5 or 7. Excluding the people from english speaking countries. I guess, the impact of english requirement is around 20% of the annual immigrants. That's around 40,000 people each year.


----------



## solskjaer

Mish said:


> Well, her husband should be learning English too. She can go out in the community and practice. You have to speak English when going and ordering things from restaurants for examples. She can volunteer at places to practice her English.
> 
> She needs to practice to in order to improve and the responsibility of it should not be put on to the teachers at the AMEP places as they cannot force them to speak English, they can only do the best with what they have. The question for your Aunt is why her son doesn't help when he is around and you can speak English so you can help her too.
> 
> I know of someone who came to Australia only being able to speak English to people through google translator. This person attended the AMEP and they can now speak really good English.


That's the reality. Some people have lived in Australia a long time, they are still not be able to speak or write english. It's kind of pathetic, but that's their own choice. As a chinese speaker, if you stay in a "chinese suburbs" you don't need to speak a single english word to live.


----------



## Mish

solskjaer said:


> That's the reality. Some people have lived in Australia a long time, they are still not be able to speak or write english. It's kind of pathetic, but that's their own choice. As a chinese speaker, if you stay in a "chinese suburbs" you don't need to speak a single english word to live.


I wonder what they do in an emergency situation when they can't communicate with the 000 operator or the doctor in the emergency department?


----------



## MarcellusF

solskjaer said:


> That's the reality. Some people have lived in Australia a long time, they are still not be able to speak or write english. It's kind of pathetic, but that's their own choice. As a chinese speaker, if you stay in a "chinese suburbs" you don't need to speak a single english word to live.


I know some Italians who came out in the post war period who also never picked up the language. They could go grocery shopping and knew the names for products they needed, but could never hold an abstract conversation.

In their defence I'd suggest Australia was a far less welcoming place back when they originally immigrated. Australians weren't as inclusive back in the 50s (let's face it) as they are today, so immigrants would automatically group together and form Little Italys or the like. There were also very few resources for immigrants to learn English back then, and the government figured work would just sort it out. Thankfully for most postwar Italians and their children, work was enough. But many women who stayed home as a matter of course back in the day, suffered the added handicap of very little exposure to English on a daily basis.

In this day and age, and with the internet and all the government programs in place, there is absolutely no excuse to not acquire a high standard of spoken English. We can quibble on whether that should be IELTS 5 or 6, but at the end of the day, I think it's doable.

My Italian wife can't wait to improve her language proficiency. There's nothing worse than not being able articulate your every thought as precisely as possible. Trust me, my Italian is good but it nots perfect, and it kills me too when I struggle to express a finer point or tell a gripping story. Obviously I want that to improve, just as much as my wife wants her English to get better. She's actively making sure that happens. So I don't understand and will probably never appreciate the logic of not wanting to work at speaking the language of the country I've chosen to call my home.

It's ignorant, really, and perpetuates segregation.


----------



## popolo

MarcellusF said:


> I know some Italians who came out in the post war period who also never picked up the language. They could go grocery shopping and knew the names for products they needed, but could never hold an abstract conversation.
> 
> In their defence I'd suggest Australia was a far less welcoming place back when they originally immigrated. Australians weren't as inclusive back in the 50s (let's face it) as they are today, so immigrants would automatically group together and form Little Italys or the like. There were also very few resources for immigrants to learn English back then, and the government figured work would just sort it out. Thankfully for most postwar Italians and their children, work was enough. But many women who stayed home as a matter of course back in the day, suffered the added handicap of very little exposure to English on a daily basis.
> 
> In this day and age, and with the internet and all the government programs in place, there is absolutely no excuse to not acquire a high standard of spoken English. We can quibble on whether that should be IELTS 5 or 6, but at the end of the day, I think it's doable.
> 
> My Italian wife can't wait to improve her language proficiency. There's nothing worse than not being able articulate your every thought as precisely as possible. Trust me, my Italian is good but it nots perfect, and it kills me too when I struggle to express a finer point or tell a gripping story. Obviously I want that to improve, just as much as my wife wants her English to get better. She's actively making sure that happens. So I don't understand and will probably never appreciate the logic of not wanting to work at speaking the language of the country I've chosen to call my home.
> 
> It's ignorant, really, and perpetuates segregation.


In order to apply for citizenship, you must hold a PR visa.
I'm going to simplify a little the pathways to PR just to make my point clearer:
there are mainly 3 streams:
1- skilled migrants
2- partners
3- humanitarian

1- we can say safely assume that these people would score a 6 since they had to do so to get the PR status so test doesn't impact them
2- These ppl could get impacted
3- These ppl are likely to come from places with limited access to basic education and have been through scenarios that I probably am not able to imagine. Think just the journey to get to Australia.

People falling under category 3 are the most likely to have troubles achieving the required level and they are probably who need a sense of security and a passport the most.

If we agree that ppl under stream 3 deserve an exemption, only ppl in stream 2 could get to apply for citizenship without a proper level of English. Should this be the problem, wouldn't it be more fair to ask them to prove their English before getting a PR status instead of preventing the entire category no3 to gain citizenship?

I don't see the point of an English test to gain citizenship. Vetting should happen before people are granted the right to live permanently.

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but from what you are saying I could derive that is ok to live permanently without proper knowledge of the language in Australia, but these people shouldn't call themselves Australian.

What is the advantage of having a group of people who permanently reside but cannot express their opinions by choosing their MP for example?

I think the focus should be on what is required to gain PR status, once people get to that point, I'd personally want them to formally commit to their new home.


----------



## JandE

popolo said:


> What is the advantage of having a group of people who permanently reside but cannot express their opinions by choosing their MP for example?


I feel that those who vote, and contribute to making changes for all Australians, should have the English ability to know exactly what they are voting for.

I am already having to tell some people who to vote for, as they don't understand it. I am not sure it should be right to have to do that.


----------



## popolo

JandE said:


> I feel that those who vote, and contribute to making changes for all Australians, should have the English ability to know exactly what they are voting for.
> 
> I am already having to tell some people who to vote for, as they don't understand it. I am not sure it should be right to have to do that.


Of course man, that's the same as saying: "I think people should speak English."

Do you think there is a correlation between being able to write essays in a structured way and the ability to know exactly what they are voting for?


----------



## popolo

That's another thing that annoys me about these changes. I'm still to hear some numbers about it. 
People ask for an educated audience (IELTS 6+) but no one has addressed the problem from a non trivial stand point.
Have you heard any politician say or mention:
-What these changes are based upon
-How they would make Australia better and why
-How many people will be impacted
-What will be done (or not) for those

It took them 2 months to write down the bill AFTER the announcement was made. Dutton and Turnbull contradicted one another about the special pathway for Kiwis, which is a symptom of something being made on-the-fly.

There's either been no study behind it or the results are not public.

Don't know which one of the 2 options is the most concerning


----------



## rhodered

i reckon not one of these changes will go through...the immigration minister said he wont water down the bill,and on the way home today besides NASA going to admit aliens exist, the coalition is losing support across all fields...so honestly I don't think any of these changes are gonna happen.


----------



## MarcellusF

popolo said:


> That's another thing that annoys me about these changes. I'm still to hear some numbers about it.
> People ask for an educated audience (IELTS 6+) but no one has addressed the problem from a non trivial stand point.
> Have you heard any politician say or mention:
> -What these changes are based upon
> -How they would make Australia better and why
> -How many people will be impacted
> -What will be done (or not) for those
> 
> It took them 2 months to write down the bill AFTER the announcement was made. Dutton and Turnbull contradicted one another about the special pathway for Kiwis, which is a symptom of something being made on-the-fly.
> 
> There's either been no study behind it or the results are not public.
> 
> Don't know which one of the 2 options is the most concerning


I'm not entirely sure how fruitful second guessing the political origin of this policy might be.

Suffice it to say that it is what it is, and we will all have to adapt to the new regime if and when it becomes law.

Admittedly, I'm only concerned about how long it will take for my wife to get an Australian passport. And I'm not all THAT concerned.

While I might be happy to contribute to a philosophical debate on the merits or otherwise of this policy, ultimately I don't think these changes are going to be life-changing. At the end of the day, PR is what matters. My Italian father only had PR for the first 30 years of his life in Oz. Not being able land citizenship immediately isn't going to affect your quality of life.


----------



## popolo

I understand your point, and of course we all be following the law as it is.
I think we should hold politician to high standards, and, as a member of the community, I expect bills to be based on solid grounds and not "just because".

Whoever proposes a bill, should have no problem to be take part of as many Q&A sessions as it is needed to explain it.

As rule of thumb, asking questions never hurts, hiding the answers does.

Since it's a privilege and not a right, it should be crystal clear which reasoning brought to these amendments.
Also, saying that you worry about how long before your wife get a passport, implies treating it as a "right".


----------



## JandE

popolo said:


> Of course man, that's the same as saying: "I think people should speak English."


If they want to be involved in the choice of government, and understand properly, then I think a reasonable grasp of the language is required.



popolo said:


> Do you think there is a correlation between being able to write essays in a structured way and the ability to know exactly what they are voting for?


If they can, then it shows that they have greater chance of understanding.

But that is another point, finding the perfect solution... the perfect test.
Level 5 general, does seem to be more suitable in some respects.


----------



## MarcellusF

Having a passport is only a right once she gets citizenship. Citizenship isn't a right though, as we've established.

I agree with your arguments re political standards, accountability etc. And in an ideal world...

Italian politics is what some might refer to in immigration terms as a "push factor", lols



popolo said:


> I understand your point, and of course we all be following the law as it is.
> I think we should hold politician to high standards, and, as a member of the community, I expect bills to be based on solid grounds and not "just because".
> 
> Whoever proposes a bill, should have no problem to be take part of as many Q&A sessions as it is needed to explain it.q
> 
> As rule of thumb, asking questions never hurts, hiding the answers does.
> 
> Since it's a privilege and not a right, it should be crystal clear which reasoning brought to these amendments.
> Also, saying that you worry about how long before your wife get a passport, implies treating it as a "right".


----------



## popolo

MarcellusF said:


> Having a passport is only a right once she gets citizenship. Citizenship isn't a right though, as we've established.
> 
> I agree with your arguments re political standards, accountability etc. And in an ideal world...
> 
> Italian politics is what some might refer to in immigration terms as a "push factor", lols


thanks for your replies and I wish you and your wife all the best


----------



## JandE

I just printed out a sample IELTS General Writing test for my wife, and asked her to give it a try, just out of curiosity. I am interested in knowing how well the AMEP program actually teaches, and what her chances of getting a 6 would be in a few years time.

I hadn't realised, but it turns out she has been doing these IELTS practice tests for the last month, and her essays are above the level 6 standard examples that I have seen. She showed me her essay on the question I just gave her, which she had apparently just done last week. Only a few spelling errors, some incorrect grammar, etc, but still level 6 standard, when comparing to some actual level 6 pass examples.

I have been putting the AMEP program down a bit, but it seems it might be better than I expected.

Sample Test: https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/115029_general_training_writing_sample_task_-_task_1.ashx?la=en


----------



## solskjaer

Mish said:


> I wonder what they do in an emergency situation when they can't communicate with the 000 operator or the doctor in the emergency department?


I think Australian government does pretty well, most government agencies provide translation services for other language speakers. 
From other point of view, its kind of discourage them from learning English.


----------



## MarcellusF

JandE said:


> I just printed out a sample IELTS General Writing test for my wife, and asked her to give it a try, just out of curiosity. I am interested in knowing how well the AMEP program actually teaches, and what her chances of getting a 6 would be in a few years time.
> 
> I hadn't realised, but it turns out she has been doing these IELTS practice tests for the last month, and her essays are above the level 6 standard examples that I have seen. She showed me her essay on the question I just gave her, which she had apparently just done last week. Only a few spelling errors, some incorrect grammar, etc, but still level 6 standard, when comparing to some actual level 6 pass examples.
> 
> I have been putting the AMEP program down a bit, but it seems it might be better than I expected.
> 
> Sample Test: https://www.ielts.org/-/media/pdfs/115029_general_training_writing_sample_task_-_task_1.ashx?la=en


That's good to know. As soon as wifey gets the 820 she'll be enrolling in the local Tafe AMEP course. They have a creche too for the kids, which is a massive help and will save us having to put the kids in childcare while she's at school.

Pretty awesome service, if you think about it. 500 odd hours for free. Sure, you pay a hefty price for the visa, but at least you get this kind of service in return.


----------



## Mish

rhodered said:


> i reckon not one of these changes will go through...the immigration minister said he wont water down the bill,and on the way home today besides NASA going to admit aliens exist, the coalition is losing support across all fields...so honestly I don't think any of these changes are gonna happen.


I really hope not. After today's frustration at VFS Global for my husband the sooner he gets an Australian passport the better.

Yes even though he has PR we still need to deal with visas *sigh*


----------



## solskjaer

rhodered said:


> i reckon not one of these changes will go through...the immigration minister said he wont water down the bill,and on the way home today besides NASA going to admit aliens exist, the coalition is losing support across all fields...so honestly I don't think any of these changes are gonna happen.


I reckon government will strengthen citizenship regardless of Coalition or Labour in charge. The only question is how hard its gonna be? 
Take a look what Labour did in WA, Perth is no longer a remote region, and there are only 18 occupations in the WA skilled migration occupation lists. Majority voters want to have strengthen citizenship requirements.


----------



## jtananki

Does anybody know when does this Australian Citizenship Legislation Dram will finalise..???


----------



## popolo

Turnbull said before the end of the year when he announced it.


----------



## MarcellusF

solskjaer said:


> I reckon government will strengthen citizenship regardless of Coalition or Labour in charge. The only question is how hard its gonna be?
> Take a look what Labour did in WA, Perth is no longer a remote region, and there are only 18 occupations in the WA skilled migration occupation lists. Majority voters want to have strengthen citizenship requirements.


Well, it probably shouldn't have been considered a remote region to start with. With a population of 2 million, Perth is hardly a rural backwater (even if the east coast likes to see it that way). The mining boom was always going to end, so it's only natural that some of the incentives for people to move to the WA capital need to be scrapped. Infrastructure is already stretched as it is. Obviously, many holes remain in medical and palliative care, and that's exactly the kind of jobs that you see on the revised list.

Italian Pizza chefs might need to look elsewhere...


----------



## sandeepmenon83

*Please Email the Senators*

I had initiated my citizenship application in the first week of April this year as soon as i was eligible. However, i was waiting for a few documents to come through and then the changes were announced and i was no longer eligible. I have to wait another 2 years.
I do understand that the changes are necessary to an extent but i think there are better ways to implement it.

The government will require the support of atleast 10 out of 12 crossbenchers for the new citizenship bill to pass.
The best we can do is to email the crossbenchers explaining our situation so they understand what the actual scenario is... 
The bill cannot be passed if the NXT Team do not support it. 
It would be great if each one of you could email the following senators explaining your situation
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Dear friends,

As we all know Labor and Greens are against the citizenship changes proposed. Malcolm and Dutton can only pass the new changes if they get some votes from the independent senators and Mps. As one of our friends suggested and shared with some emails of independents representatives, I have writen to the following three members and explained to them my situation and on behalf of all those who came on temporarary partner visas.

I requested them to reject the changes as it will unfairly targets people who have integrated in to the comnunity, have strong relationship and have shown a total commitment to Australian values. I compared those who come on PR visa getting their citizenships in just 4 yrs to those who arrive/stayed on Partner visas 300/309/820 and will end up in at least 7 years wait.

Please lets all of us send emails to the following emails as I did it already.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

May you guys share with us if you have emails of more independent reps.

Hassan


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Hey friends,

One of the Indepent senator responded my concern about the citizenship changes. He told me that they are also concern about the english test and the waiting extension and said that Nick Xenophon Team did not decided their position yet. He provided me the following link of committee repsonsible to collect enqueries and submissions he he advised me to submit my submission.

Lets us all sumbit our concern throught this page as the committee is collecting ideas for the proposed changes.
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia

Please take 5 minutes to explain your concern.


----------



## sandeepmenon83

Hello All,
I have emailed Tony Burke MP (ALP) and received the following response. Request all of you to sign the petition as well.
P.S - I am not able to paste the link here as i am a new member.

(*****************************************************************************)
Hi Sandeep,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Governments proposed citizenship changes. In case you haven’t heard we announced our opposition to these proposals last week. Thank you for sharing your personal story I know this has been a difficult time for many people and I appreciate you letting us know about your situation.

I have launched a petition against the Government’s changes and so far over 6,000 people have signed it. 

Labor’s position is:
Oppose the increase in residence requirements. People already have to be in Australia for 4 years. The Liberal’s should not stand in the way when people are ready to pledge allegiance to Australia.
Oppose the university level English test.
Send the Bill to a senate inquiry to look at other details, if any of them have merit, we will ask the government to develop different legislation.

We will present the petition to Parliament after the Winter break so please share it with your friends and family

Citizenship is how we define what it is to be Australian. It’s about who we are. Together we can win this.

Kind regards,
Tony
(**********************************************************************************)


----------



## rhodered

When is this "winter break"over? #1...and #2 watching the results of the cencus...49% of current australians werent born here,and ever since the coalition mentioned citizenship changes its been declining in the polls and nothing but turmoil in the party...im not a gambling man but i hope the immigration minister sticks to what he said and wont "water down "the bill because he has zero support from what i can see from the other parties. He cannot be given powers the be judge,jury,and executioner when it comes to peoples lives...that is such a trait of a megalomaniac.


----------



## Mish

rhodered said:


> When is this "winter break"over? #1...and #2 watching the results of the cencus...49% of current australians werent born here,and ever since the coalition mentioned citizenship changes its been declining in the polls and nothing but turmoil in the party...im not a gambling man but i hope the immigration minister sticks to what he said and wont "water down "the bill because he has zero support from what i can see from the other parties. He cannot be given powers the be judge,jury,and executioner when it comes to peoples lives...that is such a trait of a megalomaniac.


They resume on 8th of August.

It is pretty much down to how the independents vote.

I really hope it doesn't go through so my husband has his citizenship by 2019 because really dealing with the German/Austrian embassy for his tourist visa has given me a headache.


----------



## MaxPower

Meh

Everybody sitting on the fence



> Thank you for your e-mail about the proposed Citizenship Law changes.
> 
> Senator Hinch is well aware of impact it will have to those currently residing here and especially the retrospective nature of these changes.
> 
> The Senator will await the final report of the Senate Committee on the changes before making a final decision.


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> Meh
> 
> Everybody sitting on the fence


I imagine alot of them have made their decision but don't want to say incase they change their mind.

I would be very interested in what Pauline Hansen replies if anyone has emailed her and gets a reply back.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

I don't suggest anyone to write to Hansen. Immediately the changes was announced on April 20th, she jumped and said the government has heed her pressure and it is yielding fruits. She was saying that she put pressure the governnment to strengthen the citizenship.

So noo need to waste time and energy on her email. My view.


----------



## radman

Dear friends I came across this forum by accident when the citizenship changes were announced in April and have been reading and following this thread ever since. Over the months it has provided me with so much useful information I would have not been able to source myself and given me comfort in the knowledge so many other people were in a similar situation to that my wife and I find ourselves in.
I joined today so I could post some questions and hopefully get some advice and an idea of the course of action people who were in a similar situation were taking.
Namely, my wife becomes eligible for citizenship on August 15th (under the old rules) so I am keen to find out whether people who have become eligible since the changes were announced have been sending in their applications regardless? I remember reading earlier posts from people saying their IMMI accounts were letting them send applications through and then also people posting that the internet portal was not allowing them to send their citizenship applications through. It all seems to be shrouded in so much confusion and uncertainty. My wife and I went down the PMV 300, Partner Temp & Permanent 820 & 801 path and all of our applications thus far have been by post (the idea of having to scan and upload pages and pages of documentation throughout the various stages of the application process over the years was not something we wanted to do).
Any advice, personal experience or example would be so beneficial and so so appreciated at this uncertain and stressful time.


----------



## jjs6791

Here in Tasmania this is a reply from our local MP Andrew Wilkie's staff:

_Andrew is not going to support the Government's changes. While Andrew believes it is important that applicants for citizenship can demonstrate a commitment to Australia, he is concerned that the proposed changes go too far and are more about the Government pandering to xenophobia than sensible public policy. For instance the tougher English language requirements will work against some people regardless of the values they hold, contribution they are capable of making to our community, or the circumstances which brought them to Australia. Andrew is also opposed to the Government making retrospective changes and understands how distressing it must be for people whose timelines for applying for citizenship have been disrupted._

I also received a reply from Lambie that didn't really say anything other than she is still looking into it


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Keep the stone rolling guys Lets keep sending emails and explain our concern about the proposed changes to as many reprentatives as possible. This might changes the minds of some mps/senates who have not decided yet.

I have written to 4 so far and their responses were either not decided or disagree with the changes and will oppose it totally.


----------



## FutureCitizen

UPDATED TIMELINE 
Applied Paper – 28 OCT 2016
Acknowledgement – 2 Nov 2016
Email Confirmation on Test Appointment – 25 Mar 2017
Current Visa: Subclass 200
Council: Canterbury
Immigration Office: Parramatta 
Test Date – 12/4/2017 / passed %100
Approval Letter – 9th of May but the date on the sheet was 4th of May
Ceremony Letter – 5th of July 
Ceremony – 8/8/2017


----------



## jemal

My wife would have been eligible to apply exactly the day after the government made its changes. Basically four years whole years of following rules goes down the drain.

The senate inquiry closes this Friday 21st. I encourage you all to make submissions.


----------



## MaxPower

MaxPower said:


> The bill has been sent to a Senate Committee for scrutiny
> 
> Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia
> 
> I would suggest everybody make a well written submission to the committee


Today last day to lodge a submission


----------



## MaxPower

An unexpected response from One Nation of all places



> Thank you for your e-mail,
> 
> One Nation is fully supportive of the Citizenship changes, however I can understand the frustration of those specifically who have lodged Citizenship applications after the Minister's announcement on April 20 this year and having complied fully with the current Citizenship law and the Government gladly taking their money. I will support any measure that allows these legally lodged applications to proceed under the current law. It has been an error of judgement by the Department to allow any Citizenship applications to continue to be submitted after the Ministers announcement and finalisation of the proposed changes.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Brian Burston | Federal Senator for New South Wales


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Hi thanks for all the posts and info everyone has given. There is some great news especially the last email from OneNation, confirming even OneNation is not supporting retrospective.


I have 1 question for everyone

I cannot post link here, search Australia parliament composition, there are 2 vacancies in the senate position. So under such circumstances, how many seats does the government need to get the bill through? (I know it usually needs over half, which is over 39, to get the bill through) Do they still need 39 seats?

Any one clarifies for me? If they still need 39 seats; Labor and Green have already spoken publicly against it, IF Nick Xenophon (has 3 seats) is against it as well, the bill already cannot go through, am I correct? (cos labor 26 + Green 7 + Nick Xenophon 3 + vacancies 2 who cannot vote)


----------



## MaxPower

ILoveMalteser said:


> even OneNation is not supporting retrospective.


I think it is almost certain that there will be changes to the retrospective part

What seems to be suggested now is it will be proposed that all PR grant holders as of April 20 2017 will have 3 years to become a citizen under the current laws

Nothing official yet, but that is what the whispers are saying


----------



## ILoveMalteser

MaxPower said:


> I think it is almost certain that there will be changes to the retrospective part
> 
> What seems to be suggested now is it will be proposed that all PR grant holders as of April 20 2017 will have 3 years to become a citizen under the current laws
> 
> Nothing official yet, but that is what the whispers are saying


Thanks for replying to my thread.

I am a bit confused. Do you mean, the retrospective will be changed and all applications submitted after April 20 2017 (and before the bill amendment becomes official, whether passing or not), will only need to comply with current citizenship law (which is 3 yrs residence out of 4 yrs and at least 1 yr as PR).

Or do you mean applications submitted after April 20 2017 will need to be PR for 3 yrs before they apply?

Thanks.


----------



## MaxPower

It is suggested that the Bill adopts a similar approach to the Australian Citizenship (Transitional and Consequential) Act 2007, which exempts those who have their PR granted on or before April 20 2017 and they have 3 years to apply for citizenship under the existing law while all others after that date will come under any new requirements ... which would suck if you got your PR granted on April 21 2017 but also they might amend it to all PR grants prior to the date of Royal Assent would get the 3 year transitional window


----------



## MaxPower

Some poor Senate offical has started the process of uploading all the submissions

Submissions - Parliament of Australia


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Thanks a lot for explaining. And the latest news of the uploading of all the submissions.

I actually emailed Julian Hill (ALP MP for Bruce) who held a forum opposing to the citizenship change on Tuesday in Melbourne. I asked him about timeline and how the two senate seat vacancies work. I still did not get it. The 2 vacancies senate positions belong to Greens. So If the Green Party decides to oppose to the change, then we will count 9 seats (7+2 vacancies) toward opposing position? That means we already have 35 seats on our side? (Labour 26+Green 7 + Green 2 vacancies)

I will paste Julian Hill's reply below, if anyone could explain to me how the vacancy work?



> Some brief answers as best I can right now.
> 
> There's no specific timeline for how long they can hold applications without processing. I expect we will get a clearer idea in the next couple of months about the timing of legislation. If the laws get through the Senate they will be effective from whatever date the legislation says.
> 
> If they get stuck, then I would expect later in the year the department may have to advise the Minister he cannot lawfully refuse to process people according to the current law. There is no specific timeline however. It is possible that some people could try taking legal action against the Minister to force him to follow the current law. We will have to wait and see.
> 
> I understand the two missing Greens Senators are being treated as a casual vacancy which means they will be granted a pair until those spots are filled again by the Greens political party and it won't make any difference. We will need to get some of the independent and Xenophon Senators to oppose the legislation to stop it.
> 
> Mr Turnbull does not control the Senate so he can't specify a date - it will depend on the Parliament.
> 
> Please keep spreading the word amongst your community how wrong these changes are.


----------



## ampk

The 2 vacant senate positions means that 4 seats in total will not vote from all of the senate.

So the government will have 2 of its member not vote on the legislation.

This happens a lot like if a senator from the main party's is sick or on holiday or away on official duties.


----------



## Mish

MaxPower said:


> I think it is almost certain that there will be changes to the retrospective part
> 
> What seems to be suggested now is it will be proposed that all PR grant holders as of April 20 2017 will have 3 years to become a citizen under the current laws
> 
> Nothing official yet, but that is what the whispers are saying


That is not what I have heard. I have heard that labor or going for a complete dismissal of the entire proposed bill. They do expect that Liberal will win the lower house but Labor believe that they can stop it at a senate vote.


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> Some poor Senate offical has started the process of uploading all the submissions


Currently standing at 458 submissions, most of great quality, and many, many organisations involved too. Submission no. 404 is by Prof Kim Rubenstein who literally wrote the book on Australian Citizenship Law - not kidding, he wrote the book and that is its title, second edition came out last year.

Would be really interested to know where you hear whsipers about the three-year transitional arrangements.


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> Some poor Senate offical has started the process of uploading all the submissions


Up to 461 submissions, many of them of high quality! And lots of organisations too. An important one is no.404 by Prof Kim Rubenstein who literally wrote the book on Australian Citizenship Law - seriously, he is the expert and has a book with that name, originally published in 2002 and 2nd edition 2016. He advised the Howard government on the Citizenship act in 2007.

Would love to know where you hear your whispers about the transitional arrangements, please share!


----------



## captain_hoomi

Hi all,

My first post here, I appreciate if you can help. Me and my wife just became eligible to apply for citizenship under old rules. I want to apply anyway hoping that the new rules will be rejected or at least there will be changes to the retrospective part. My question is , if the new rules get approved and our application gets rejected, will we be banned for applying again for a period of time (i.e 2 or 3 years)? Or it won't effect our future applications (once we become eligible again with the new rules!)?



Cheers,

Hoomi


----------



## laska

I emailed to couple of MP in april and just got the reply from Tanya Plibersek:

Thanks for your email about the proposed citizenship changes, and my apologies for the delay in responding. Since the Government's announcement I have heard from many people in a similar situation to you.

The proposed changes to residency requirements, the university level English language test and the Government's unsubstantiated claims that this is driven by national security give Labor no choice but to oppose the changes. A Senate inquiry will look in to some of the details, but as a package we do not support the Government's changes.

If people have already been here for four years and are ready to become Australian citizens the Government should not stand in their way.

The Government is trying to claim that this is a national security issue. This is absurd - people applying for citizenship are already living in Australia permanently and their entry has been subject to strict character and security background checks.

This announcement affects real people's lives and the decisions that they have made for their families. I am very aware of the unnecessary distress this is causing communities across Australia.

The Shadow Minister for Citizenship has created a petition against these changes which we will present to the Parliament. If you're interested, you can sign the petition here: https://www.tonyburke.com.au/get-active/citizenshippetition

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Tanya


----------



## JanneKL

captain_hoomi said:


> Hi all,
> 
> My first post here, I appreciate if you can help. Me and my wife just became eligible to apply for citizenship under old rules. I want to apply anyway hoping that the new rules will be rejected or at least there will be changes to the retrospective part. My question is , if the new rules get approved and our application gets rejected, will we be banned for applying again for a period of time (i.e 2 or 3 years)? Or it won't effect our future applications (once we become eligible again with the new rules!)?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hoomi


Nobody knows, but I would ASSUME that your application would be just placed on hold until you become eligible to apply under the new rules. Which could take another 2-3 years, depending on your circumstances.


----------



## laska

From Tony Burke:

The Legislation is listed for debate TOMORROW (9th August 2017) in the House of Representatives and I will be the first person to speak. I want to refer to the huge number of people, yourself included, who have signed our online petition.

We are gathering extraordinary momentum around the country right now. I've always said I'm convinced we can win and the more organised we are, the closer this victory becomes.


----------



## MaxPower

I have no time for Tony Burke, he is just a political opportunist

In 2007, he opposed then then Howard govt Citizenship changes because they were "not strong enough" and didn't have an English test component

Yet ... now a decade later ......


----------



## DanilKa

Act has cleared House of Representatives. Even if Barnaby looses his seat, it should stay.
What's next? Any chances Senate will strike it down?
Surprised labor/greens haven't made connection between 4 years on PR and changes to the university fees (residents no longer eligible for commonwealth sponsored places but could take a loan).


----------



## Mish

DanilKa said:


> Act has cleared House of Representatives. Even if Barnaby looses his seat, it should stay.
> What's next? Any chances Senate will strike it down?
> Surprised labor/greens haven't made connection between 4 years on PR and changes to the university fees (residents no longer eligible for commonwealth sponsored places but could take a loan).


It has always been said that it will pass the lower house. Tony Burke seems to think that it will not pass through at the upper house stage. Tony Burke has a petition against it on his page, so make sure you sign that. Also make sure you email all of the independent senators as they are the others that have the deciding vote pretty much. There is also the senate enquiry that is due out next month too.


----------



## jemal

DanilKa said:


> Act has cleared House of Representatives. Even if Barnaby looses his seat, it should stay.
> What's next? Any chances Senate will strike it down?
> Surprised labor/greens haven't made connection between 4 years on PR and changes to the university fees (residents no longer eligible for commonwealth sponsored places but could take a loan).


Quite a few people who have made submissions to the senate inquiry have made that connection - hopefully something will be said about it in the report that will come out on Sept 4.

There is a chance the Senate will strike it down, or at the very least move an amendment to not have it apply retrospectively (and hopefully with transitional arrangements in place).

As Mish said, definitely contact all the independent senators with your story and to tell them to vote it down so we can defeat it.


----------



## DanilKa

jemal said:


> Quite a few people who have made submissions to the senate inquiry have made that connection - hopefully something will be said about it in the report that will come out on Sept 4.
> 
> There is a chance the Senate will strike it down, or at the very least move an amendment to not have it apply retrospectively (and hopefully with transitional arrangements in place).
> 
> As Mish said, definitely contact all the independent senators with your story and to tell them to vote it down so we can defeat it.


Done, done, done and done. 
Got reply from Senator Hon Lucy Gichuhi office:
"Thank you for your message and raising your concerns about the Amendment Bill. The Senator is also concerned about the bill. She has been in discussion with the office of the Minister for Immigration and seeks changes. When she has formed her own position in full, she will release details. 
We wish you well with your endeavours."
Looks like some more convincing may be required. Lucy is a first black Senator, highly critical of welfare state and considers citizenship a privilege (I do as well) - word often used by coalition in connection with the bill. 
No e-mail but she is on Facebook/Messenger.


----------



## DanilKa

Citizenship changes opposed by Law Council - in a news today. 
Law Council voices alarm at government's 'deeply concerning' citizenship changes
Work with independents!


----------



## JandE

DanilKa said:


> Citizenship changes opposed by Law Council - in a news today.
> Law Council voices alarm at government's 'deeply concerning' citizenship changes
> Work with independents!


Law Council president Fiona McLeod said, it would especially discriminate against refugees.

Nothing about the new 7 years total wait for 820 partner visa holders...


----------



## guscas

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the amendment is nuts.

I'm wondering how the dual citizenship debarcle is going to affect our chances. It seems like many of the opposers of the amendment are getting caught out.


----------



## DanilKa

guscas said:


> Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the amendment is nuts.
> 
> I'm wondering how the dual citizenship debarcle is going to affect our chances. It seems like many of the opposers of the amendment are getting caught out.


Entirely different issue - like in a joke about Christmas and a Christmas turkey - Christmas is concerned but turkey is involved... (I'm the involved one...)


----------



## MaxPower

Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has it's say on retrospectivity



> *Retrospective application-applications made on or after 20 April 2017*
> 
> As of 16 July 2017, the Department has received 39,081 applications for citizenship by conferral (for 47,328 primary and dependent applicants) which had been lodged on or after 20 April 2017.
> Of these applications, the Department provides the following estimates:
> • General residence requirement:
> - 21,540 (46%) will meet;
> - 25,788 (54%) will not meet;
> 
> Committee comment
> 2.53 The committee thanks the Minister for this response. The committee notes the Minister's advice that as at 16 July 2017 there are 47,328 people who would be affected by the proposed changes to the citizenship laws, and in relation to residence requirements over half of the applicants would not meet the new requirements as set out in this bill. The committee also notes that in relation to the new requirements for possessing 'competent English', the integration requirement and the requirement to take a pledge of allegiance, the Minister is not able to determine the number of people who would be affected by this change.
> 2.54 The committee reiterates its long-standing scrutiny concern about provisions that have the effect of applying retrospectively,19 as it challenges a basic value of the rule of law that, in general, laws should only operate prospectively (not retrospectively). The committee has a particular concern if the legislation will, or might, have a detrimental effect on individuals.
> 2.55 The committee notes that if the changes proposed to be made in this bill were to apply retrospectively to 20 April 2017, over 25,000 people (and possibly many more) would be adversely affected. As such, there would be thousands of people who made their applications for citizenship on the basis of the law as it currently stands who would be refused citizenship despite meeting the criteria that applied at the date that they made their application. The committee considers that the retrospective application of these provisions would have a detrimental effect on a large number of individuals which has not been adequately justified.
> 2.56 The committee draws its scrutiny concerns to the attention of Senators and leaves to the Senate as a whole the appropriateness of the retrospective application of these amendments.


----------



## DanilKa

*Grandfather all PRs*



MaxPower said:


> Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has it's say on retrospectivity


what about people like me who received PR within a year of 20-Apr-2017 and haven't apply yet? How about my friend who become eligible to apply for Citizenship on Apr-21? 
We've entered Australia with a goal to become Citizens of this great country and moving goal post is just bad sportsmanship and against Aussie values as I understand it... 
Push to keep existing requirements for all residents on record as of Apr-20th or better yet - scrap the bill altogether. It doesn't add value and will indeed create second class of underprivileged residents. 
My political views are more aligned with Liberal than Labor but I will find it hard voting for liberals, not for this bunch of clowns anyway.


----------



## MaxPower

My advice would be your friend should apply today as I'm pretty confident the retrospective nature of the bill will get amended judging by all the noises


----------



## DanilKa

MaxPower said:


> My advice would be your friend should apply today as I'm pretty confident the retrospective nature of the bill will get amended judging by all the noises


He did so and I'm keeping fingers xssed for him. My one year on PR comes in Nov - hope I do now have to wait another 3 years afterwards!


----------



## shepherd

MaxPower said:


> Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee has it's say on retrospectivity


I was wondering from where did you get this document? I can't find it


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> I was wondering from where did you get this document? I can't find it


Pages 45-62

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Commi.../scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/Word/d08.docx?la=en


----------



## DanilKa

MaxPower said:


> Pages 45-62
> 
> http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Commi.../scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/Word/d08.docx?la=en


My reading of it - they are not concerned by retrospective application of the law changes to permanent residents who is yet to become eligible to apply for citizenship. If Senate follows just this recommendation - they will move the date this bill goes into law to when it is signed, with no concerns for folks who come here and plan their life hoping for stable regulatory regime.


----------



## ahbee

Tks for the update


----------



## ahbee

tks for the update


----------



## MaxPower

DanilKa said:


> If Senate follows just this recommendation - they will move the date this bill goes into law to when it is signed, with no concerns for folks who come here and plan their life hoping for stable regulatory regime.


Whatever the final decision, somebody will get screwed under any proposed cutoff date


----------



## ahbee

MaxPower said:


> Whatever the final decision, somebody will get screwed under any proposed cutoff date


Sigh !!!


----------



## DanilKa

MaxPower said:


> Whatever the final decision, somebody will get screwed under any proposed cutoff date


I'd rather see Coalition get screwed and embarrassed with this bill thrown out of the Senate. It will only happen if independents won't allow themselves to be bought out with pork barrel deals or trade-offs. 
Keep the pressure, guys!


----------



## guscas

DanilKa said:


> Entirely different issue - like in a joke about Christmas and a Christmas turkey - Christmas is concerned but turkey is involved... (I'm the involved one...)


The reference went a bit over my head, haha. Don't these senators have to give up their seats? And if so and the majority of them would vote against the bill, wouldn't that affect our quorum?

This may be me just misunderstanding how this works.


----------



## DanilKa

guscas said:


> The reference went a bit over my head, haha. Don't these senators have to give up their seats? And if so and the majority of them would vote against the bill, wouldn't that affect our quorum?
> 
> This may be me just misunderstanding how this works.


I'm assuming nobody else leaves the Senate before their dual citizenship issue is discussed in October. Good chance they will vote on the bill in Sep. 
It will be a much bigger mess if the High Court decides coalition never had a majority (doubt it, most likely they all get back)


----------



## ampk

I think you will find they will be running pairs.

So there but no vote (+1 from the other main (( and think Greens play this too)) from the Senator in question. It will be as if they are sick or need to be away from parliament.


----------



## DanilKa

*Greens are out; Roberts and Canavan change stories*



ampk said:


> I think you will find they will be running pairs.
> 
> So there but no vote (+1 from the other main (( and think Greens play this too)) from the Senator in question. It will be as if they are sick or need to be away from parliament.


Greens are out, there will be a recount (if I understand right - person who came second at a given seat election will get her or his chance)
Matt Canavan and Malcolm Roberts change their stories in High Court citizenship hearing 
Don't know if this will affect Sep-4 hearing, though. Thoughts?


----------



## ampk

The 2 greens are in the High Court hearing with most of the others with 2 more expected to join this group.

Dual citizenship crisis reaches the High Court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So a re count is on hold, I believe.


----------



## jemal

The Senate Inquiry has completed the public hearings this week. Transcripts for two out of three are up

www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Busine...l_Affairs/CitizenshipBill2017/Public_Hearings

The evidence presented is overwhelmingly against the bill in its entirety - not just aspects of it here and there. What was a disgrace to see is that the chairman, Liberals Sen Ian McDonald, had to be informed that the current wait for citizenship is already four years and not one  he doesn't even understand the implications of the bill his party brought in and he's voting on!

Very interestingly, it was mentioned that the inquiry received about 14,000 submissions but was so overwhelmed that they were only able to publish just under 500 of them.

The report will come out next Monday 4th Sept. Quite possibly, since the chair is a Liberals senator it will be along party lines, saying to pass the bill, but then the Greens and Labor will also publish dissenting reports.

Keep calling and writing to the crossbench senators to make sure they vote against this bill and defeat it!

Also just saw this Facebook group which is at the forefront of a grass roots movement and organises protests etc. - Fair Go for Migrants - Stop Dutton's Citizenship Bill. SBS broadcast the last ones this weekend.


----------



## jemal

Also there is potential for class action to lift the freeze on processing of applications received after April 20, but it comes with a hefty price tag see here

change .org /p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship/u/20721580


----------



## shepherd

what report are you talking about?
Are you talking about this report which was already published 
http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Commit...d08.docx?la=en
Pages 45-62


----------



## jemal

Your link isn't working, but I expect you mean the report of the Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism.

No. There was a separate inquiry launched to investigate the citizenship changes specifically. The committee is the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation, and it was looking specifically into the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017. The inquiry was focued specifically on all the ins and outs of this bill only. That report is due to be tabled on 4th September. I still can't post links but you can put together the bits and pieces of the link I posted previously to get to the website.


----------



## shepherd

Sorry, this is the link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Commi.../scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/Word/d08.docx?la=en

I think this is the report of the committee in the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation.


----------



## jemal

No, your link leads to a Scrutiny Digest where a whole heap of bills are considered.

Like I said, at the following link you will find the home page of the inquiry into this bill in particular. It has just finished the public hearings and has not yet tabled its report. The report is due to be tabled on the 4th of September.

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia


----------



## DanilKa

jemal said:


> No, your link leads to a Scrutiny Digest where a whole heap of bills are considered.
> 
> Like I said, at the following link you will find the home page of the inquiry into this bill in particular. It has just finished the public hearings and has not yet tabled its report. The report is due to be tabled on the 4th of September.
> 
> Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia


Jemal, 
right, two different Senate committees - 
1) Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills - Parliament of Australia 
2) Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Parliament of Australia
Write to both!
regards,
daniel


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Correct me if I am wrong, current bill vote is(senators who have specifically expressed their opinions):
Support:
Coalition Government 29
Pauline's One Nation 4
Liberal Democrats 1
Derryn Hinch's Justice Party 1
Total 35

Against:
Labour 26
Green 9
Total 35

I understand 2 member from Greens and 1 member from Liberal is under investigation for their dual citizenship, but as the votes will be counted as pair, so I assume it will not really affect the count?

Am I correct of the votes?

Finger crossed that Nick Xenophon party will block the bill!


----------



## ILoveMalteser

And anyone could answer my question:

People who satisfy the old citizenship law, do they have to submit paper applications? (Online application is not allowed?)


----------



## jemal

ILoveMalteser said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, current bill vote is(senators who have specifically expressed their opinions):
> Support:
> Coalition Government 29
> Pauline's One Nation 4
> Liberal Democrats 1
> Derryn Hinch's Justice Party 1
> Total 35
> 
> Against:
> Labour 26
> Green 9
> Total 35
> 
> I understand 2 member from Greens and 1 member from Liberal is under investigation for their dual citizenship, but as the votes will be counted as pair, so I assume it will not really affect the count?
> 
> Am I correct of the votes?
> 
> Finger crossed that Nick Xenophon party will block the bill!


Hi, can you please link to where Derryn Hinch has declared he will support the bill?

In the public hearing Sen Stirling Griff of the Nick Xenophon Team indicated that he was completely on the side of those giving evidence against the bill, so there is hope that NXT will vote against. They will be determining their position soon. Rebekha Sharkie, who is a NXT MP in the lower house, voted against, so that is also promising.


----------



## jemal

ILoveMalteser said:


> And anyone could answer my question:
> 
> People who satisfy the old citizenship law, do they have to submit paper applications? (Online application is not allowed?)


According to DIBP's testimony on the public hearing on Thursday (24th), it is still possible to make applications online, so try again. They will also accept paper applications. Apparently they had been having some some kind of tech issues which was preventing the system from being accessible. I think it might be illegal for them to decline to accept applications, as the law as it was and is still stands.


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Derry Hinch:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work...n/news-story/cb0735a01ecc5149af5baa4a67358010

And I remember reading a news that he welcomed Malcom's 21st of April speech.

So I assume that he will support the bill to go through.

Would be glad to know if anyone of you know that he changed position.


----------



## DanilKa

ILoveMalteser said:


> Derry Hinch:
> Q&A recap: Derryn Hinch â€" immigration to Australia was â€˜far too easyâ€™
> 
> And I remember reading a news that he welcomed Malcom's 21st of April speech.
> 
> So I assume that he will support the bill to go through.
> 
> Would be glad to know if anyone of you know that he changed position.


Can't find info on Derryn's current position. 
"Senator Derryn Hinch said he hadn't seen the legislation - it has not yet been introduced to the Senate - but he was on the committee to which the legislation will be referred for a review."
His "Selection of Bills" committee referred the bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs on June 21st (report due Sep 4th).


----------



## shepherd

Does anyone know what will happen on 4th of Sept in the Senate? Are they going to have a final decision or will it be just the beginning?


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Any one can tell me what is the use of the report of Legal and Constitutional Affairs (due on 4th of Sept)?
It seems most of the senators have standed their postitions. Seems that even if the report shows very negative impact, it will not change the senator's positions.
Anyone correct me if I am wrong?


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> Does anyone know what will happen on 4th of Sept in the Senate? Are they going to have a final decision or will it be just the beginning?


Just the beginning of the Senate process

Bill will need to be then debated which will drag on and on and on

Possible might have a vote by the end of the Sept session (Sept 14) but probably more likely during the October sitting week (Oct 16-19)

And if any amendments made has to go back to the House to get voted on again there (which could get rejected) and then bounced back to the Senate and back and forth until agreement or govt gives up


----------



## DanilKa

got a reply from Scrutiny committee - they've deliberated on the bill and won't be updating report. 
Suggest you work with: 
Legal and Constitutional Committee (SEN) <[email protected]>
as well as independent Senators 
Cory Bernardi
Lucy Gichuhi
Derryn Hinch
Jacqui Lambie (unsure on her position)
Nick Xenophon, Stirling Griff, Skye Kakoschke-Moore

May even try luck with One Nation - it is their voters Coalition trying to steal; they can play it smart by exposing them. 
Contacts details: Senators & Members Search Results - Parliament of Australia


----------



## ILoveMalteser

jemal said:


> No, your link leads to a Scrutiny Digest where a whole heap of bills are considered.
> 
> Like I said, at the following link you will find the home page of the inquiry into this bill in particular. It has just finished the public hearings and has not yet tabled its report. The report is due to be tabled on the 4th of September.
> 
> Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 â?? Parliament of Australia


Can you tell me what is the use of both reports?

Will senators rely on the report pros and cons to make decisions?

Personally, I don't think they'd even look at the reports at all.


----------



## MaxPower

ILoveMalteser said:


> Personally, I don't think they'd even look at the reports at all.


This is bang on

Doesn't matter what the reports say, they will all be written and voted upon party lines

Welcome to Democracy

BTW the expected handing down of the Senate report on Sept 4 will be delayed due to so many submissions


----------



## shepherd

No transition period for changes to citizenship rules, Senate committee hears | SBS News

It doesn't sound good at all


----------



## ILoveMalteser

shepherd said:


> No transition period for changes to citizenship rules, Senate committee hears | SBS News
> 
> It doesn't sound good at all


How reliable is David Wilden's word? Is he the person who makes the final calls?


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> No transition period for changes to citizenship rules, Senate committee hears | SBS News
> 
> It doesn't sound good at all


Arrogant prick... 
this bill shall not pass, all together.


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> No transition period for changes to citizenship rules, Senate committee hears | SBS News
> 
> It doesn't sound good at all


A pointless story really

The guy is a Department public servant, it his job to agree with and implement government policy

If he said anything different than what the government is proposing, he wouldn't have a job this morning

Most interesting thing to come out of the Brisbane hearings yesterday and what SBS should have reported was that the Chairman Senator Ian McDonald (Liberal. QLD) actually broke ranks with the Govt and said there should be a look at "transitional arrangements"


----------



## ILoveMalteser

MaxPower said:


> shepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> No transition period for changes to citizenship rules, Senate committee hears | SBS News
> 
> It doesn't sound good at all
> 
> 
> 
> Most interesting thing to come out of the Brisbane hearings yesterday and what SBS should have reported was that the Chairman Senator Ian McDonald (Liberal. QLD) actually broke ranks with the Govt and said there should be a look at "transitional arrangements"
Click to expand...

 Bravo! Thx for the update

I am totally confused about all the government titles and who is in charge of what.


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Check this out, looks promising acorrding to this article

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ay-not-have-approved-tighter-citizenship-laws


----------



## DanilKa

ILoveMalteser said:


> Check this out, looks promising acorrding to this article
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ay-not-have-approved-tighter-citizenship-laws


Don't find it promising at all - with Tony Burke not confident bill won't pass the Senate... 
it was bloody obvious government is bulling this bill through the parliament for political gains; nothing to do with security (anyone with half brain will see how situation can get worth when folks unable to pass IELTS or a test become desperate and agitated).


----------



## jemal

The following is very important.

The Senate is scheduled to debate this bill this Wednesday 6th Sept

The Senate Committee's report will be tabled the day before, on the 5th (a slight extension from the original declared date the 4th).

This may be our last chance to make some sort of impact on the result. Make sure to email the crossbench senators today or tomorrow to ensure they have a chance to consider your story.

Since the vote of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) will be absolutely key, definitely email them to encourage them to block the bill. Senator Stirling Griff was at the first public hearing of the committee and seemed to agree 100% with witnesses who were people like us, that it shouldn't pass.

If there is one person you email, make it him, to drive the point home further:

[email protected]

Here are the other NXT senators:

[email protected]
[email protected]

Here are the other crossbenchers worth contacting:

Derryn Hinch: [email protected]
Jacqui Lambie: [email protected]
Lucy Gichuhi: [email protected]

Also email the Liberal senators - as Committee Chair, Liberal Senator Ian McDonald has shown in the public hearings, a lot of the liberal members and senators don't actually understand the details of this bill that their own party is bringing in. Educate them! They are listed here: Photographs of Senators - Parliament of Australia


----------



## ILoveMalteser

jemal said:


> The following is very important.
> 
> The Senate is scheduled to debate this bill this Wednesday 6th Sept
> 
> The Senate Committee's report will be tabled the day before, on the 5th (a slight extension from the original declared date the 4th).
> 
> This may be our last chance to make some sort of impact on the result. Make sure to email the crossbench senators today or tomorrow to ensure they have a chance to consider your story.
> 
> Since the vote of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) will be absolutely key, definitely email them to encourage them to block the bill. Senator Stirling Griff was at the first public hearing of the committee and seemed to agree 100% with witnesses who were people like us, that it shouldn't pass.
> 
> If there is one person you email, make it him, to drive the point home further:
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> Here are the other NXT senators:
> 
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> 
> Here are the other crossbenchers worth contacting:
> 
> Derryn Hinch: [email protected]
> Jacqui Lambie: [email protected]
> Lucy Gichuhi: [email protected]
> 
> Also email the Liberal senators - as Committee Chair, Liberal Senator Ian McDonald has shown in the public hearings, a lot of the liberal members and senators don't actually understand the details of this bill that their own party is bringing in. Educate them! They are listed here: Photographs of Senators â?? Parliament of Australia


How about Cory Bernardi from Australian Conservatives? Has he already decided his position?


----------



## jemal

ILoveMalteser said:


> How about Cory Bernardi from Australian Conservatives? Has he already decided his position?


I don't think he has, so contact him too. Can't find a published email address for him, though. His Canberra phone number: (02) 6277 3278


----------



## DanilKa

jemal said:


> I don't think he has, so contact him too. Can't find a published email address for him, though. His Canberra phone number: (02) 6277 3278


Use his site to e-mail: Contact - Cory Bernardi


----------



## shepherd

jemal said:


> The following is very important.
> 
> The Senate is scheduled to debate this bill this Wednesday 6th Sept
> 
> The Senate Committee's report will be tabled the day before, on the 5th (a slight extension from the original declared date the 4th).
> 
> This may be our last chance to make some sort of impact on the result. Make sure to email the crossbench senators today or tomorrow to ensure they have a chance to consider your story.
> 
> Since the vote of the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) will be absolutely key, definitely email them to encourage them to block the bill. Senator Stirling Griff was at the first public hearing of the committee and seemed to agree 100% with witnesses who were people like us, that it shouldn't pass.
> 
> If there is one person you email, make it him, to drive the point home further:
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> Here are the other NXT senators:
> 
> [email protected]
> [email protected]
> 
> Here are the other crossbenchers worth contacting:
> 
> Derryn Hinch: [email protected]
> Jacqui Lambie: [email protected]
> Lucy Gichuhi: [email protected]
> 
> Also email the Liberal senators - as Committee Chair, Liberal Senator Ian McDonald has shown in the public hearings, a lot of the liberal members and senators don't actually understand the details of this bill that their own party is bringing in. Educate them! They are listed here: Photographs of Senators â€" Parliament of Australia


Will the Senate Committee report be available online before the senate's debate on Wednesday?


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> Will the Senate Committee report be available online before the senate's debate on Wednesday?


Should be published today, according to reply I've received from Senator Griff's Research Officer:

"Thank you for your email to Senator Stirling Griff and for the information you have provided - I will be sure to pass on your views to Stirling.
I note Max has already outlined to you the NXT's main concerns with the proposed legislation and the NXT Senators will be finalising their position on the Bill shortly.
The Committee should also be reporting by today on this Bill. See Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 â€" Parliament of Australia "

"finalizing position" part makes me uneasy...


----------



## ILoveMalteser

DanilKa said:


> shepherd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will the Senate Committee report be available online before the senate's debate on Wednesday?
> 
> 
> 
> Should be published today, according to reply I've received from Senator Griff's Research Officer:
> 
> "Thank you for your email to Senator Stirling Griff and for the information you have provided ? I will be sure to pass on your views to Stirling.
> I note Max has already outlined to you the NXT?s main concerns with the proposed legislation and the NXT Senators will be finalising their position on the Bill shortly.
> The Committee should also be reporting by today on this Bill. See Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 â?? Parliament of Australia "
> 
> "finalizing position" part makes me uneasy...
Click to expand...

what is NXT's main concern with the legislation?

I totally share your feeling... feeling very uneasy now, NXT party is the key now...


----------



## MaxPower

Make no mistake the bill will pass as it is "popular" with the general population

But unlikely to pass in it's current form but will with amendments

NXT will do a deal with transitional arrangements and maybe something to do with the English Test requirements


----------



## JandE

ILoveMalteser said:


> what is NXT's main concern with the legislation?


One thing they said, in a reply to me, is:
_He is also concerned about the English language test which appears to have been designed to exclude as many people as possible from coming to Australia._

Unfortunately, that isn't right, at least not in a Citizenship bill, as not passing the English test does *not *stop them from coming in. They are already here on a PR visa, allowed to live here for ever.

If they use that argument, as stated, it won't hold water...


----------



## jemal

DanilKa said:


> Should be published today, according to reply I've received from Senator Griff's Research Officer:
> 
> "Thank you for your email to Senator Stirling Griff and for the information you have provided - I will be sure to pass on your views to Stirling.
> I note Max has already outlined to you the NXT's main concerns with the proposed legislation and the NXT Senators will be finalising their position on the Bill shortly.
> The Committee should also be reporting by today on this Bill. See Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 â€" Parliament of Australia "
> 
> "finalizing position" part makes me uneasy...


Look, I think we have cause to be optimistic. All of the evidence from all the public hearings of the Senate Inquiry (except, of course, from DIBP) were overwhelmingly negative of the bill.

Senator Stirling Griff was at the first public hearing on 23rd August in Sydney. For what it's worth, he is on the record in the Hansard transcript of the public hearing as saying:

"Thank you for your submissions and what you've told us today. I'm 100 per cent behind you and agree with your positions." (p.10)

"Your statements today were very, very thorough. I have to say I agree personally with everything that you have said and I think your submissions were absolutely fantastic and very worthwhile for all of us here today. I don't require any further clarification, because you've done so well today at this hearing. Thank you." (p.48)

Later that day, he published the following on his official Facebook page. This remains up:

"I am at the first hearing inquiry into the Australian Citizenship Legislation Bill. Overwhelming evidence that the bill is misguided and will have a negative impact on our multicultural nation."

It was also shared by the official Nick Xenophon Team Facebook page. That also remains up.

However, the fact that they haven't already come out and stated their official position may suggest that they are negotiating privately with the government for changes that they could approve. To put pressure on them to vote to defeat it completely, I found this petition:

https://www.change.org/p/nick-xenophon-nxt-vote-down-dutton-s-citizenship-bill

P.S. the Committee received an extension of one day, I think since the Brisbane hearing seemed to have been scheduled really late into the game - that's why it's delayed until the 5th. This information is from my understanding of Chair Ian McDonald's comments in the transcript of the Brisbane hearing.


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> Make no mistake the bill will pass as it is "popular" with the general population


How about the 14,000 submissions to the Senate Inquiry, all from the public and major representative bodies? All but two (from DIBP itself and the Australian Monarchist League) were negative.


----------



## shepherd

https://stirling.nxtmps.org.au/speeches/speech-on-migration/

I feel they are playing a game to make a deal with the government, they didn't speak about the four years PR or any other concerns


----------



## shepherd

Also, I am not sure is that the committee's report?

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...d_binary/5489158.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


----------



## JandE

shepherd said:


> https://stirling.nxtmps.org.au/speeches/speech-on-migration/
> 
> I feel they are playing a game to make a deal with the government, they didn't speak about the four years PR or any other concerns


That link also mentions the comment about: "we don't want you to live in Australia"
but this nothing to do with not being allowed to stay.

I am wondering if they actually understand the bill as it is, or just trying to misrepresent it to gain publicity.

If someone presents arguments that are obviously wrong, why would anyone take any notice of them.

They should stick to the correct facts, and maybe it will be understood.


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> Also, I am not sure is that the committee's report?
> 
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...d_binary/5489158.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


No it's not

The Committee Report is one of the final items on the agenda for today, so won't be tabled until late afternoon


----------



## ILoveMalteser

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...-fail-xenophon-team-slams-bill-fomenting-hate

Stirling Griff spoke publicly and slammed the changes in a late-night speech in the chamber just after 10pm on Mon


----------



## Hassali.abdi

ILoveMalteser said:


> http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...-fail-xenophon-team-slams-bill-fomenting-hate
> 
> Stirling Griff spoke publicly and slammed the changes in a late-night speech in the chamber just after 10pm on Mon


We have strong hope if what stirling is saying is something to go by. Hope NXT are united and have this same view. Then the bill will be completely dead.


----------



## MaxPower

Peter Dutton's Australian citizenship crackdown doomed after key senators pull support

Media jumping at shadows a bit early ... NXT still open to compromise despite the headlines


----------



## MaxPower

The committee report is in ...

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...es/legcon_ctte/CitizenshipBill2017/report.pdf

.... cutting to the chase



> *Recommendations*
> 
> Recommendation 1
> 
> 3.122 That the Government clarify the standard for English-language competency required for citizenship, noting that the required standard should not be so high as to disqualify from citizenship many Australians who, in the past, and with a more basic competency in the English language, have proven to be valuable members of the Australian community.
> 
> Recommendation 2
> 
> 3.123 That the Government reconsider the imposition of a two-year ban on applications for citizenship following three failed attempts of the citizenship test, and consider other arrangements that allow additional tests on a cost-recovery basis that would deter less-genuine applicants.
> 
> Recommendation 3
> 
> 3.124 That the Government consider introducing some form of transitional provisions for those people who held permanent residency visas on or before 20 April 2017 so that the current residency requirements apply to this cohort of citizenship applicants.
> 
> Recommendation 4
> 
> 3.125 That the Senate pass the bill.


----------



## MaxPower

Interesting to note that after all the hot air and blustering from Tony Burke & the ALP they are not opposed to passing the bill, just opposed to the bill in it's present form while the Greens are totally opposed


----------



## Mania

3.124 should say people that applied for pr visas.


----------



## JandE

The bit that many of us are interested in.

*Permanent resident for four years *
3.11 The proposed change to the residency requirement was raised by many submitters. 
Currently, a person must be living in Australia for four years, with the last 12 months as a permanent resident, prior to being eligible to apply for Australian citizenship. 
The bill proposes to increase the residency period to require a person to have been a permanent resident for four years to satisfy the residency requirement.

3.12 The EM sets out the reason for the proposed amendment: 
A residence requirement is an objective measure of an aspiring citizen's association with Australia. 
This period allows a person the opportunity to gain an understanding of shared Australian values, and the commitment they must make to become an Australian citizen. 
It also allows them time to integrate into the Australian community and acquire English language skills required for life in Australia as a successful citizen. 
Extending the general residency period strengthens the integrity of the citizenship programme by providing more time to examine a person's character as a permanent resident in Australia.

For these reasons the National Consultation Report on citizenship *recommended increasing *the permanent residency period to 4 years for the general residence requirement.


----------



## Mania

I still don't see how the class of visa makes any difference.

It should be physically resident within Australia for 4 years, not permanent resident visa class for 4 years


----------



## JandE

For Medicare the 820/801are treated the *same* as PR.
For TAFE the 820/801are treated the *same* as PR.

For Citizenship the 820/801are treated *differently* to PR.

If so many people mentioned this, I wonder why we were just ignored. I wonder how well they read the submissions.


----------



## jemal

A few comments.

1. The Committee was chaired by a Liberal Senator and had a Liberal majority. There was every expectation the report would be along party lines - they tend to be.

2. The fact that the Liberal senators in the committee have broken ranks with the Government in their recommendations is significant and shows that the submissions and the hearings and the lobbying has made a difference.

3. Senator Stirling Griff's latest Facebook post reads as follows:

"To everyone concerned about the proposed 4 year permanent residency requirement for citizenship: NXT is opposed to any retrospective changes. People should be able to plan their lives with certainty, and so our position is that IF there are any changes to the permanent residency rules they should be future dated and should not apply to anyone currently in the system."

It is true the NXT senators are not blocking the bill altogether, but there is still hope and some time for lobbying. As I posted earlier, there is this submission to urge them to vote down the bill in full. It still needs signatures.

https://www.change.org/p/nick-xenophon-nxt-vote-down-dutton-s-citizenship-bill

And you can also call and email the NXT senators individually to lobby them.

Although the bill is scheduled to be discussed in the Senate for the first time tomorrow, there may not yet be a vote as the Government may wait until it has the bill in such an amended form that it will be confident it will pass. That will probably take time.

Keep lobbying the crossbench senators, especially the undecideds as mentioned in an earlier post.


----------



## Mania

JandE said:


> For Medicare the 820/801are treated the *same* as PR.
> For TAFE the 820/801are treated the *same* as PR.
> 
> For Citizenship the 820/801are treated *differently* to PR.
> 
> If so many people mentioned this, I wonder why we were just ignored. I wonder how well they read the submissions.


I'm confused, 801 is PR?


----------



## ahbee

3.12 The EM sets out the reason for the proposed amendment: 
A residence requirement is an objective measure of an aspiring citizen's association with Australia. 
This period allows a person the opportunity to gain an understanding of shared Australian values, and the commitment they must make to become an Australian citizen. 
It also allows them time to integrate into the Australian community and acquire English language skills required for life in Australia as a successful citizen. 
Extending the general residency period strengthens the integrity of the citizenship programme by providing more time to examine a person's character as a permanent resident in Australia.

For these reasons the National Consultation Report on citizenship *recommended increasing *the permanent residency period to 4 years for the general residence requirement.[/QUOTE]

3.12 is kind of ridiculous !!! They do believe the longer the 4 years PR status the better to examine a person's character as a permanent resident in Australia. ??? And more time for them to learn English , to integrate into the Australian community and acquire English language skills required for life in Australia as a successful citizen. ????


----------



## ahbee

They are talking about 4 years in PR Status (Currently only 2 years PR status )


----------



## DanilKa

From Tony Burke:

I wanted you to know straightaway that the Nick Xenophon Senators have just announced they won't support Peter Dutton's citizenship changes.

This is great news but we need to do everything we can to ensure the opposition holds. If you have a moment please send a quick email to one of the three Senators in Nick Xenophon's party.

People always get told when someone isn't happy so it's really helpful if you can just take a couple of minutes to let them know you appreciate the decision.

You can email them by following these links:

Xenophon Team Contacts:

Senator Nick Xenophon - [email protected]

Senator Stirling Griff - [email protected]

Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore - [email protected]

Also here's a copy of the article that's just gone online: Peter Dutton's Australian citizenship crackdown doomed after key senators pull support

We haven't won yet, but this is a huge development in defeating these changes.

Thanks for everything you are doing.

Tony

PS. If you haven't already, please SIGN and SHARE our petition, and encourage your friends and family to do the same.
Link to the petition: www.tonyburke.com.au/get-active/citizenshippetition

Click here to share the petition on your Facebook. 
Click here to share the petition on your Twitter.

Tony Burke
Member for Watson
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia
Shadow Minister for the Arts
Manager of Opposition Business


----------



## JandE

Mania said:


> I'm confused, 801 is PR?


But the 820 isn't. It is only Temporary.

As someone who has paid for the combined 820/801, but has only so far got the 820 part, we get Medicare and TAFE just like PR, but are treated differently for citizenship timeline.

Medicare and TAFE say they treat the 820 the same PR as it is PR route visa. But Citizenship rules treat it the same as a visitor visa.


----------



## JandE

DanilKa said:


> Also here's a copy of the article that's just gone online: Peter Dutton's Australian citizenship crackdown doomed after key senators pull support


No help to those of us on the 820.

_The party also opposed *retrospective* changes that would require permanent residents to wait four years before applying for citizenship._

It would help those who already have the 801, but would it help those living in Australia, on the temporary part of the Partner visa.

No politician who replies seems to want to say anything specifically about their opinion on that.

Over seven years on a specific permanent visa route before being eligible to apply for citizenship, and all they talk about is four years.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

I sent an email to NXT senator Stirling Griff and requested him to reject the bill.

His representative has has replied to my email as follows:

Dear Hassan
Thank you for your email to Senator Stirling Griff. I am responding on his behalf.
Thank you for your kind words of support. As you are aware, the NXT announced it would not be supporting the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 in its current form.
Stirling was involved in the Senate Inquiry into the Bill and this Inquiry has just reported. You can view the outcome of the Inquiry here: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...nd_Constitutional_Affairs/CitizenshipBill2017
Stirling?s key concerns with the legislation were regarding the power the bill will grant to the Immigration Minister to overrule citizenship decisions by the AAT. He was also concerned about the English language test which appears to have been designed to exclude as many people as possible from coming to Australia.
He too commented about the retrospective nature of the bill, particularly the plan to extend permanent residency from one to four years before a person can apply for citizenship. The NXT is also opposed to any retrospective changes. People should be able to plan their lives with certainty, and so our position is that IF there are any changes to the permanent residency rules they should be future dated and should not apply to anyone currently in the system.

You can also read Stirling?s Dissenting Report into the Inquiry here which outlines his position further: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...tional_Affairs/CitizenshipBill2017/Report/d03


----------



## ahbee

Coz 820 is only temporary residency and it doesn't meant PR will be granted.


----------



## MaxPower

Senator Leyonhjelm has lodged an amendment

Wants to increase 4 year PR residency period to 10 years


----------



## MarcellusF

Ah Senator Leyonhjelm... As far as opportunists in the senate are concerned, he takes the cake. Hard to work out whether he's a libertarian, a centrist or a populist sometimes.

Let's just say that his amendment has yours, mine and Buckley's chance of getting up.


----------



## guscas

I've gotten a response from Griffin.

The highlights of the response were restating his position on the past few days, particularly that he's concerned with:

- The power the amendments grant the Minister
- The English requirements
- The retrospective aspect. They defend that changes should only apply to people "not currently in the system".

I'm quite curious as to what "currently in the system" means. I've replied asking what it means. Let's see what they say.


----------



## DanilKa

Report is out: 
Report - Parliament of Australia

Please, take time to write to Sen Lucy Gichuhi - look her up in messenger.

It is not over till it's over!


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> Coz 820 is only temporary residency and it doesn't meant PR will be granted.


But Medicare and TAFE accept it, and subsidise the same as PR. Why not Citizenship too.


----------



## shepherd

MaxPower said:


> Senator Leyonhjelm has lodged an amendment
> 
> Wants to increase 4 year PR residency period to 10 years


He lodged an amendment without even starting the debate?!! I am not sure if they will start anything tonight as it was supposed to be?


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> He lodged an amendment without even starting the debate?!! I am not sure if they will start anything tonight as it was supposed to be?


He outdid Pauline Hanson - she only suggested 8 years on PR... 
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia


----------



## CCMS

Peter Dutton's Australian citizenship crackdown doomed after key senators pull support


----------



## ILoveMalteser

I am also watching the debate, but haven't seen anything relevant to the Citizenship bill. Have I missed anything?


----------



## ahbee

Simply because one can't apply citizenship without a PR status


----------



## ahbee

DanilKa said:


> He outdid Pauline Hanson - she only suggested 8 years on PR...
> Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 - Parliament of Australia


The whole thing is getting even crazier & crazier !!! 10 years ??? What's the point ? I believe most people will simply leave this country or forget the citizenship


----------



## jemal

New article up: Citizenship changes: Labor ridicules English test as Xenophon demands concessions | SBS News

Clip of Tony Burke's speech in Parliament today, interviews with people affected, and interviews with Senator Stirling Griff, Senator Nick Xenophon, and Senator Derryn Hinch explaining exactly what their stances are.

Interesting to hear from Senator Hinch was that "four years... no, it's too long." That indicates a pressure point. Time to lobby Senator Hinch.

And keep lobbying the NXT senators to vote down the bill completely.


----------



## shepherd

I am not sure whats going on in the senate .. they are now discussing different issues and I didnt see them debating yesterday at all .. not sure what is next .. when will be the debate ?


----------



## Hassali.abdi

The bill will go for votting. Read the email below Sent by Tony Burke.

The Senate report into Peter Dutton's changes to citizenship has now been presented.
Click here to view the report.

It works through all the reasons why the changes should not happen. It looks at the absurd requirement for university level English, the delay for some people of more than a decade, and the fact that the claims about national security just don't stack up.

The committee received over 13,000 submissions and it looks like only 12 were in support of the bill.

Now we need to turn these arguments into votes against the bill.

In your state of South Australia, The Labor Party and the Green Party have both committed to opposing the changes.

It's a perfect time to send an email to Senator Lucy Gichuhi and explain your reasons for opposing the changes.

Just click here and you can send, in your own words, a quick message to Senator Gichuhi.

Or email: [email protected]

When this campaign started we didn't have majority support in the Senate. Today's report strengthens our position a lot.

Congratulations on the role you've already played. Please do everything you can to help in the next few weeks.

Tony

PS. If you haven't already, please SIGN and SHARE our petition, and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

Link to the petition: www.tonyburke.com.au/get-active/citizenshippetition

Click here to share the petition on your Facebook. 
Click here to share the petition on your Twitter.

Tony Burke

Member for Watson
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia
Shadow Minister for the Arts
Manager of Opposition Business

Authorised by T. Burke, Level 2 Roselands Shopping Centre, Roselands Drive, Roselands, NSW 2196

Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address or to stop receiving emails from Tony Burke, please click here.


----------



## shepherd

I dont think they will vote now as some Senators submitted amendments already .. I am surprised that this debate is done?!! I doubt it as the progress of the bill wasn't updated with anything related to the debate


----------



## solskjaer

ahbee said:


> The whole thing is getting even crazier & crazier !!! 10 years ??? What's the point ? I believe most people will simply leave this country or forget the citizenship


Both of them are representing rural population. Most of their votes are from remote region. That's what they want. Such as Dick Smith. 
I am working in a remote region. They always say the population of Australia is too large, always complain there are too many people in the camping sites, fishing spots, and beaches......


----------



## ILoveMalteser

shepherd said:


> I dont think they will vote now as some Senators submitted amendments already .. I am surprised that this debate is done?!! I doubt it as the progress of the bill wasn't updated with anything related to the debate


Anyone can explain to me how they decide they gonna vote this September senator sitting session? Or they will vote in the next October senator sitting session?

And what happens when there are many submitted amendments to the bill?

There are over 50,000 applications on hold now, wondering how long they can hold the applications...


----------



## MaxPower

More likely there will be a vote in October as they haven't even started debate on the bill yet in the Senate

It was stated in the Senate committee that DIBP will run out of applications to process prior to April 20 in late October/early November so they won't want their staff to be sitting around doing nothing so should expect a resolution either way by then


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> More likely there will be a vote in October as they haven't even started debate on the bill yet in the Senate
> 
> It was stated in the Senate committee that DIBP will run out of applications to process prior to April 20 in late October/early November so they won't want their staff to be sitting around doing nothing so should expect a resolution either way by then


But that may just mean that they're forced to start processing the 50,000 odd applications that have been made since April - the issue with the bill itself may not yet be resolved even if that happens.


----------



## jemal

solskjaer said:


> Both of them are representing rural population. Most of their votes are from remote region. That's what they want. Such as Dick Smith.
> I am working in a remote region. They always say the population of Australia is too large, always complain there are too many people in the camping sites, fishing spots, and beaches......


There is some interesting analysis of this being done. See, for example, this from The Conversation:



> Those supporting populist leaders are rarely the most oppressed in society. And many of their attitudes do not reflect their direct experiences.
> 
> Take immigration, for example, the issue that above all others seems to drive right-wing populism. [Journalist David] Marr [author of the Quarterly Essay 65, 2017, 'The White Queen: One Nation and the Politics of Race'] found that 83% of One Nation voters want immigration numbers to be cut a lot, compared to just 23% of other voters. Also they were far more likely to think migrants increase crime (79% to 38%) and take jobs from other Australians (67% to 30%).
> 
> Nevertheless, what we are dealing with in these anti-immigration grievances is not direct experience so much as mediated views that the populists have adopted. Peter Scanlon of the Scanlon Foundation, which maps attitudes to migrants and race in Australia, told Marr:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am disappointed by the older age group in Australia, particularly those living in regional areas where there are no migrants. It is an amazing fact to me that the most blowback we get is from people who don't have any experience with them!*
> 
> 
> 
> Another social researcher told Marr that the attitudes were based on fears rather than experience:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you probe for personal experiences on anything they say about welfare or immigration, it's always second and third hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Britain, a 2014 Ipsos MORI poll found that the British public thinks that one in five British people are Muslim when in reality it is one in 20, and that 24% of the population are immigrants when the official figure is 13%.
> 
> We are not dealing then with a spontaneous response growing out of lived experience, but with opinions and misperceptions that are cultivated and amplified in the wider environment, including by politicians and in the media.
Click to expand...


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Seems that the senator sitting is way behind their schedule and the citizenship bill is pushed back to 11th of Sept. 

Don't think they will ever get to the bill on the day......


----------



## guscas

I got a response from the Stirling office and what NXT mean by not affecting "anyone currently in the system" is that new rules "should only apply from a future date and to people who achieve permanent residence at a future date".

So it seems to completely miss out on 820 visas and the like.

I'll email back pointing this out and mentioning my dissatisfaction. It would be good if others in the same situation also emailed the Stirling office mentioning the partner visa situation. His office has been quite responsive.

His email is [email protected] . Make sure to sign with your full name, address and electorate.


----------



## shepherd

The week ahead ... - Parliament of Australia

The bill is scheduled for debate on Monday the 11th


----------



## DanilKa

*debate adjourned for today*



shepherd said:


> The week ahead ... - Parliament of Australia
> 
> The bill is scheduled for debate on Monday the 11th


Debate adjourned, bill not discussed. Bernardi introduced amendment with minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements - of 10 total. No mention of transition period for current residents. Too bad, I sort of liked him 
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...ll 2017 Bernardi.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


----------



## ahbee

DanilKa said:


> Debate adjourned, bill not discussed. Bernardi introduced amendment with minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements - of 10 total. No mention of transition period for current residents. Too bad, I sort of liked him
> 
> "minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements During his 7 yrs residency ??"
> What's the whole thing is about ???


----------



## DanilKa

ahbee said:


> DanilKa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Debate adjourned, bill not discussed. Bernardi introduced amendment with minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements - of 10 total. No mention of transition period for current residents. Too bad, I sort of liked him
> 
> "minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements During his 7 yrs residency ??"
> What's the whole thing is about ???
> 
> 
> 
> doubling down on part of coalition, one nation and now - conservatives.
> Still unsure where Sen. Lucy Gichuhi stands on it and fingers xssed for NXT to hold their ranks and oppose the bill in its entirety - it will be irrelevant how many years of residency Hanson or Bernardi wanted when bill is trashed.
Click to expand...


----------



## shepherd

DanilKa said:


> Debate adjourned, bill not discussed. Bernardi introduced amendment with minimum 7 net tax payer years requirements - of 10 total. No mention of transition period for current residents. Too bad, I sort of liked him
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...ll 2017 Bernardi.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


Do you know till when the bill adjourned for?


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> Do you know till when the bill adjourned for?


can't find - they haven't started discussing it. Assuming - some time during this sitting. 
Dynamic Red - Parliament of Australia


----------



## shepherd

I am not sure now, what are the chances for blocking this bill as shown in this photo?? Who supports and who doesnt


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> I am not sure now, what are the chances for blocking this bill as shown in this photo?? Who supports and who doesnt


We don't know position of Jacquie Lambie and Lucy Gichuhi. Hinch was open to bargain. If we only have support of greens and NXT - we'll loose 38:36 and have to hope for watering down English test requirements and transition regime for residents as of Apr 20th. 
Lobby hard!


----------



## DanilKa

DanilKa said:


> ahbee said:
> 
> 
> 
> doubling down on part of coalition, one nation and now - conservatives.
> Still unsure where Sen. Lucy Gichuhi stands on it and fingers xssed for NXT to hold their ranks and oppose the bill in its entirety - it will be irrelevant how many years of residency Hanson or Bernardi wanted when bill is trashed.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction - Sen David Leyonhjelm is not part of Coalition, he is a Liberal Democrat (my a$$).
> Hence three people will decide the bill:
> Lucy Guchuhi
> Derryn Hinch
> Jacqui Lambie
> if one of them won't vote - bill won't pass (37:37). Provided NXT won't flip...
Click to expand...


----------



## MaxPower

Debate on the bill "should" begin today sometime .... but basically going through the motions until NXT post their list of amendments as they are still discussing a deal with the Govt


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Regarding the vote, I believe that although the Greens have 2 vacancies in the senate. They will vote in pair, which means that Greens will ask to members from Liberal party do not participate the vote. 
Since the two green vacancies still count as opposition, the bill is already destined to be trashed( provided NXT stands their ground), we already have 38 in opposition ( the bill must require 39 or above votes to pass)

Check the "Pairs" Rule
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...cedures/Brief_Guides_to_Senate_Procedure/No_3


----------



## MaxPower

I'm not what you mean by "trashed"?

From all the noises out of NXT, they will do a deal with the Govt and the bill will pass with some amendments


----------



## ahbee

They are debating now !!! Am watching ABC live


----------



## DanilKa

ahbee said:


> They are debating now !!! Am watching ABC live


can't be life - they are on one minute questions w/o notice
http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/LiveMediaPlayer?vID={AEFB3202-542D-41D9-98BD-7C301E4FF654}&type=1 
(watch Senate at Watch Parliament - Parliament of Australia)


----------



## ahbee

they are actually debating on power & energy but brought out the citizenship only ..sorry guys


----------



## ahbee

By the way, I watched the one from ABC News Live


----------



## shepherd

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...ble-unusual-move-strike-down-citizenship-bill

I didn't see anyone talking about it in the Parliament today, did they start any kind of debate today?


----------



## ILoveMalteser

Whether successful or not,well done Greens!

The government has put at least 50K people's life onhold (over 50K applications pending) and lots more unsure where their life is leading to....


----------



## DanilKa

ILoveMalteser said:


> Regarding the vote, I believe that although the Greens have 2 vacancies in the senate. They will vote in pair, which means that Greens will ask to members from Liberal party do not participate the vote.
> Since the two green vacancies still count as opposition, the bill is already destined to be trashed( provided NXT stands their ground), we already have 38 in opposition ( the bill must require 39 or above votes to pass)
> 
> Check the "Pairs" Rule
> No. 3 - Voting in the Senate â€" Parliament of Australia


Research Analyst from Sen Stirling Griff's office confirmed: 
"I note this news article which reports that the PM "confirmed they would be paired while their vacancies were filled, which he didn't anticipate would take long."

See 'Extraordinary negligence' from Greens: PM

It was also reported in the Guardian they would be paired: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-dual-citizenship-larissa-waters-scott-ludlam "

This gives hope - provided Liverals will stick to their word with Greens delivering insulting blow.


----------



## SoItGoes

Not a good news

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...-greens-labor-push-strike-citizenship-reforms


----------



## DanilKa

SoItGoes said:


> Not a good news
> 
> Xenophon group wonâ€™t support Greens, Labor push to strike-off citizenship reforms | SBS News


Disappointing. But this is what NXT is known for. 
Bill is scheduled for discussion today - they may actually come to discuss it:
Dynamic Red â€" Parliament of Australia

Btw, related bill on education (stripping off commonwealth sponsored places from PRs and Kiwis) is in lower house - coalition have a majority there and it may pass fairly soon; already scheduled for Senate. 
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session...
I've opened new thread under Education - please chip in.
http://www.australiaforum.com/education/242178-higher-education-support-legislation-amendment.html


----------



## MaxPower

SoItGoes said:


> Not a good news
> 
> Xenophon group won't support Greens, Labor push to strike-off citizenship reforms | SBS News


Just confirming what most expect .... that the bill will eventually pass with NXT amendments

- 5 or 5.5 IELTS score on the English Test instead of 6
- 4 year residency period for those that gain PR after April 20 2017, with transition period for those before that

Once all agreed to the bill will be debated and pass pretty quickly


----------



## shepherd

DanilKa said:


> Disappointing. But this is what NXT is known for.
> Bill is scheduled for discussion today - they may actually come to discuss it


Do you know when exactly?


----------



## downunder_

MaxPower said:


> - 4 year residency period for those that gain PR after April 20 2017, with transition period for those before that


When you say "*with transition period for those before that*", do you mean to be exempted from the 4-year requirement only, or the new Act altogether..?

So if someone is a PR _prior_ to Apr 20, is he still required to (score IELTS, etc..), but is exempted from the 4-year condition..?

Would it be possible to copy a link to your source, please..?

Also, could someone confirm if Bernardi's changes will be added or not..? Has someone noticed that he required that you present Tax Returns showing that you have paid in tax *more* than any benefits you might have received from Centrelink/ social services..?

Please advise? Thanks.


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> Do you know when exactly?


Nope. Got shifted towards end of the day: 
Dynamic Red - Parliament of Australia
Green's motion to discharge it will be voted first (won't pass). 
Sen Lucy Guchuhi will support the bill with reduced English requirements -



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=819646618206685


----------



## DanilKa

downunder_ said:


> When you say "*with transition period for those before that*", do you mean to be exempted from the 4-year requirement only, or the new Act altogether..?
> 
> So if someone is a PR _prior_ to Apr 20, is he still required to (score IELTS, etc..), but is exempted from the 4-year condition..?
> 
> Would it be possible to copy a link to your source, please..?
> 
> Also, could someone confirm if Bernardi's changes will be added or not..? Has someone noticed that he required that you present Tax Returns showing that you have paid in tax *more* than any benefits you might have received from Centrelink/ social services..?
> 
> Please advise? Thanks.


Hard to make predictions, especially about future. You can watch discussion in the Senate Watch Parliament - Parliament of Australia

Nobody will support more than 4 year residency requirements nor net tax status, except for self-serving buggers who've suggested it.

Biggest issue for me is transition period, hope will be able to apply as per existing law (got PR prior to Apr-20th).


----------



## downunder_

Thanks Danil,

it's just that the way maxpower listed the predicted changes, made it seem like he is sure about them (since he posted exact details)..

I'm in the same boat as you are, been a PR since May 2013.



DanilKa said:


> Hard to make predictions, especially about future. You can watch discussion in the Senate
> 
> Nobody will support more than 4 year residency requirements nor net tax status, except for self-serving buggers who've suggested it.
> 
> Biggest issue for me is transition period, hope will be able to apply as per existing law (got PR prior to Apr-20th).


----------



## downunder_

Thanks Danil,

It's just the way _MaxPower_ listed the changes above made it seem like the details have been confirmed or posted somewhere, that's why I asked.

I'm in the same boat you're in; been a PR since May 2013. That idiot minister announced the changes when I had only *2 weeks* to be eligible for citizenship.


----------



## DanilKa

downunder_ said:


> Thanks Danil,
> 
> It's just the way _MaxPower_ listed the changes above made it seem like the details have been confirmed or posted somewhere, that's why I asked.
> 
> I'm in the same boat you're in; been a PR since May 2013. That idiot minister announced the changes when I had only *2 weeks* to be eligible for citizenship.


suggest you post your application via registered mail, if cannot apply online. They may have to start reviewing applications submitted after Apr-20 if discussion on the Bill drags for longer (probably not, feels they are close to cutting a deal). 
Friend of my become eligible on Apr 20th but couldn't apply because online system was down...


----------



## MaxPower

Vote on the Green motion to "kill the bill" is happening now

edit - motion has been amended .... via Senator Lambie ... vote is that the government proceed with the bill and a final vote to be put within 4 sitting days


----------



## ahbee

downunder_ said:


> Thanks Danil,
> 
> It's just the way _MaxPower_ listed the changes above made it seem like the details have been confirmed or posted somewhere, that's why I asked.
> 
> I'm in the same boat you're in; been a PR since May 2013. That idiot minister announced the changes when I had only *2 weeks* to be eligible for citizenship.


If you have been a PR since May 2013, you already eligible to apply citizenship by 2015 ....why do you still have to wait for 2 weeks ???


----------



## MaxPower

So via Senator Lambie, finally got a deadline date

The bill *must* be voted upon by October 17 or it will be deregistered from the Senate and die


----------



## shepherd

MaxPower said:


> Vote on the Green motion to "kill the bill" is happening now
> 
> edit - motion has been amended .... via Senator Lambie ... vote is that the government proceed with the bill and a final vote to be put within 4 sitting days


Does that mean that they wont debate tonight? What do you mean via Senator Lambie?

Also, is tomorrow that past day, which means that we have to wait till the next sitting?


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> Does that mean that they wont debate tonight? What do you mean via Senator Lambie?
> 
> Also, is tomorrow that past day, which means that we have to wait till the next sitting?


Lambie amended the Greens motion to "kill the bill" entirely and substituted that the Govt has until Oct 17 to put to a vote otherwise it will then die

Pretty unlikely there will be a vote (or even a debate) today or tomorrow (as they are still debating the Broadcasting Bill) so expect it to be considered next sitting Oct 16/17


----------



## ahbee

From what Mr Dutton said,

“But we want to knock out those people who do not support Australian laws and who do not abide by the Australian way of life and integrate into the Australian community.”

Is that funny ??? Does that mean people who have a High English competence and have been living in Australia for 4 years as a PR will 100% abide Australian Law , will not engage in any domestic violence and fully integrate into the Australian ??? Does it make sense ???


----------



## DanilKa

Three sitting days to pass it:
Greens, Labor, crossbench unite to shut down citizenship bill | SBS News


----------



## guscas

Needless to say in the coming month we should be bombarding the NXT with emails demanding they vote to shut down the bill.


----------



## DanilKa

guscas said:


> Needless to say in the coming month we should be bombarding the NXT with emails demanding they vote to shut down the bill.


Don't bother. They had a chance and decided not to shut it down.
Now game will be what to pork-barell for their electorate in exchange of their support. In a sense, One Nation and Bernardi's position is more honest.


----------



## MaxPower

DanilKa said:


> Don't bother. They had a chance and decided not to shut it down.


That is pretty much the case

If the crossbench senators were adamantly against the bill they could've killed it off today

Lambie & NXT bought themselves more time at the negotiating table with the Govt while all the other cross benchers voted against the motion


----------



## guscas

Whether or not the NXT is going to be a balance on what they gain vs how many voters they piss off.

I know I myself have nothing to lose by sending them a couple more emails letting them know how pissed off I will be if they compromise.


----------



## downunder_

Some gut feeling tells me NXT will eventually vote to pass the Act "as is", and even the changes they seek won't be applied.

They will just vote Yes to the bill because the alternative will be the bill dies altogether.. Something is not honest about him.



MaxPower said:


> That is pretty much the case
> 
> If the crossbench senators were adamantly against the bill they could've killed it off today
> 
> Lambie & NXT bought themselves more time at the negotiating table with the Govt while all the other cross benchers voted against the motion


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> That is pretty much the case
> 
> If the crossbench senators were adamantly against the bill they could've killed it off today
> 
> Lambie & NXT bought themselves more time at the negotiating table with the Govt while all the other cross benchers voted against the motion


There is a different interpretation. According to SBS,



> Every Senator has the power to move a bill be struck from the notice paper but it's a move that is rarely seen because it could be interpreted as stifling political debate.


So in context, it is likely that the crossbenchers have allowed the Government a chance to finally bring up the bill because they believe it is important for democratic debate about the bill to take place, even if they intend to vote it down.

Very importantly, when the motion (as amended) was moved, Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore from the Nick Xenophon Team said the following:



> *Let me definitively put on the record, that when the Citizenship Bill does come up for debate in this place, the Nick Xenophon Team will oppose the Bill in its entirety* because it is fundamentally flawed and would require significant redrafting for us to consider it. The Government needs to go back to the drawing board on this. As senators, it is incumbent upon us to do the job we have been elected to do which is debate and vote on bills before us. This is part of a healthy democracy. To honour that duty, the Nick Xenophon Team will support the motion as amended to provide the Government sufficient time to bring the Bill on for debate and subsequent vote thereby providing certainty to many migrants who call Australia home.


See it on video on Senator Griff's Facebook page:



__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=352779545135833


----------



## DanilKa

Think bad and you won't be disappointed... 
Check submarines story and NXT. 
Killing the bill removes negotiations powers, hence it has to stay. 
Keep them honest and keep the pressure!


----------



## MaxPower

Xenophon is a snake

He'd sell out his own mother for some fresh pork barrelling

Said he would oppose the proposed Media Ownership/Broadcasting laws

$60 million "bribe" later .... cha-ching..... he now supports it


----------



## shepherd

I was reading this article and it says that the deadline is just to bring it to debate not to have a vote on it! Which means nothing really as they were going to debate on it soon anyway!
Am I correct?


----------



## DanilKa

*Read for yourself*



shepherd said:


> I was reading this article and it says that the deadline is just to bring it to debate not to have a vote on it! Which means nothing really as they were going to debate on it soon anyway!
> Am I correct?


Senator Lambie, by leave, moved the following amendment:
_Omit all words after "That", substitute "if, by 18 October 2017, the government business order of the day relating to the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 has not been finally considered, the order of the day shall be discharged from the Notice Paper". (_Source).


----------



## shepherd

DanilKa said:


> _has not been finally considered_


Which means that the article is correct, as it is considered not voted, correct?


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> Which means that the article is correct, as it is considered not voted, correct?


my reading of "final consideration" is equal to voting. Max?


----------



## MaxPower

"finally considered" to me sounds like it is decided either way by a vote


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> Which means that the article is correct, as it is considered not voted, correct?


Greens are already celebrating 
https://nick-mckim.greensmps.org.au...s-strike-out-duttons-hateful-citizenship-bill
In my village it's called "putting a good face with a bad game".


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Please read the email below form NXT senator Stirling's office.

Thank you for your message to Senator Stirling Griff. I am responding on his behalf.

Yesterday, with NXT?s support, the Senate agreed to give the Government four sitting days to bring on the citizenship bill so we can debate it and finally deal with it. If it hasn?t been done by 18 October, the bill will be dumped. NXT Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore outlined the Nick Xenophon Team position of being strongly opposed to the proposed changes in the short video below.




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=352779545135833



Yesterday we had many enquiries from concerned citizens regarding the motion to discharge the bill, now that the Senate has agreed on this way forward, I hope this response clears up any questions you may have about NXT?s continued opposition to the bill in its current form.

Thank you again for taking the time to write to us.

Sincerely

James Pratt


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Read this one from Senator Nick Xenaphone's office.

Thank you for sharing your comments surrounding the Government?s proposed changes to citizenship requirements. I have passed your comments on to Nick and his advisors for their reference and consideration.

As you may be aware, the Nick Xenophon Team (NXT) supported an amendment proposed by Senator Jacqui Lambie which requires that if the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 is not voted on by 18 October, the bill will be discharged. Nick and his NXT colleagues supported this amendment for two reasons:
1. People whose lives are currently in limbo as a result of this bill will be able to move forward after this date without added stress concerning uncertainties in their future.
2. As a democratic society, NXT believes that disallowance motions should be avoided where possible so that there is an opportunity to debate the issue being put forward, rather than ?gagging? the issue.

NXT has confirmed that it will not support the Turnbull government?s proposed changes in their current form. NXT opposed most elements of the package; including retrospective changes that would require permanent residents to wait for four years before applying for citizenship, higher-level English language testing, and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton?s bid for the power to overturn decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on citizenship matters.


----------



## shepherd

Do the Dual citizenship cases, which are refered to the High Court, may affect the voting?? As it will be in october as well


----------



## T&M

Received this email from MP. Tony Burke office.

Francis,

We've just had one of the first signs the Government is backing down on the citizenship Bill and I wanted to let you know straight away.

It's only a small step forward but Peter Dutton has now started talking about compromise options on his Citizenship Bill. That means the Government can recognise that even the first draft of this Citizenship Bill can't make it through in it's current form.

Labor has committed to rejecting the Bill entirely rather than trying to amend it in some compromised form. So right now when the Government has started taking backwards steps is the perfect time to be demanding that the Bill be withdrawn completely. Click here to read one of the online articles so you can see where the Government is at right now.

It is the perfect time to be building support in the community, whatever community news, radio and personal conversations you are able to have, please have them now. Let people know that where legislation is as unfair as what the Government is introducing right now should be rejected completely.

If there are any small matters that the Government can claim are reasonable, they should be brought back in separate legislation.

Thanks for everything you are doing. If we can win the argument in the community then I am confident we can win it in the Parliament.

Tony

PS. We haven't won yet, but we are on our way. Please share our petition on Facebook, Twitter, in Facebook Groups or just with your friends and family. This ensures their voices are also heard in this debate.

Link to the petition: www.tonyburke.com.au/get-active/citizenshippetition

Click here to share the petition on your Facebook. 
Click here to share the petition on your Twitter.

Tony Burke

Member for Watson
Shadow Minister for Environment and Water
Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Australia
Shadow Minister for the Arts
Manager of Opposition Business


----------



## Whattodo.

*Help please*

Hello everyone.

I've been reading through all the threads - Lots of information!

I was wondering if anyone could help me as I am very confused with the changes and whether they are in play atm yet or not.

So I'm approaching my 1 year perm residency tomorrow (yay for me!). The Border website says that I need 4 years permanent residency but the actual application form states I only need the 1 year perm residency to be eligible to apply for citizenship.

I called Dept of Immi and they said they are implementing the Turnbull Govts policy changes even though it hasn't passed parliament yet.

I am so confused at this point. 
Is what the Immi officer said correct? 

Any assistance in this matter would be fantastic.

Thanks


----------



## Ramah

Whattodo. said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> I've been reading through all the threads - Lots of information!
> 
> I was wondering if anyone could help me as I am very confused with the changes and whether they are in play atm yet or not.
> 
> So I'm approaching my 1 year perm residency tomorrow (yay for me!). The Border website says that I need 4 years permanent residency but the actual application form states I only need the 1 year perm residency to be eligible to apply for citizenship.
> 
> I called Dept of Immi and they said they are implementing the Turnbull Govts policy changes even though it hasn't passed parliament yet.
> 
> I am so confused at this point.
> Is what the Immi officer said correct?
> 
> Any assistance in this matter would be fantastic.
> 
> Thanks


I believe most applications which didn't meet the proposed 4 year PR requirement from the date of announcement (April this year) are put on hold until there's an answer as to whether it gets passed or not.


----------



## downunder_

Ramah said:


> I believe most applications which didn't meet the proposed 4 year PR requirement from the date of announcement (April this year) are put on hold until there's an answer as to whether it gets passed or not.


I thought *all* applications are put on hold since April 20th.

In fact, there was a news article where they mentioned the number of applications put on hold are close to 50,000 applications. Google _"SBS news citizenship applications on hold"_, it'll show the link to the article.

Because in addition to the 4 year requirement, they still need to decide on the English test -even if you've been here for 4 years as a PR-, and the rest of the requirements.


----------



## Ramah

downunder_ said:


> Ramah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe most applications which didn't meet the proposed 4 year PR requirement from the date of announcement (April this year) are put on hold until there's an answer as to whether it gets passed or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought *all* applications are put on hold since April 20th.
> 
> In fact, there was a news article where they mentioned the number of applications put on hold are close to 50,000 applications. Google _"SBS news citizenship applications on hold"_, it'll show the link to the article.
> 
> Because in addition to the 4 year requirement, they still need to decide on the English test -even if you've been here for 4 years as a PR-, and the rest of the requirements.
Click to expand...

I can't say that it's ALL applications as a friend of mine lodged his application after the announcement and it's been granted, he had his citizenship ceremony just over a month ago. I don't know if he had to sit an English test or not to be honest but I can find out 

He's from the UK (born in Wales to English parents) and been in Australia for 7 years (5 years PR).


----------



## downunder_

Ramah said:


> I can't say that it's ALL applications as a friend of mine lodged his application after the announcement and it's been granted, he had his citizenship ceremony just over a month ago. I don't know if he had to sit an English test or not to be honest but I can find out
> 
> He's from the UK (born in Wales to English parents) and been in Australia for 7 years (5 years PR).


Lodged AND granted!!! WoW! Does he have a relative working in the DIBP?!!!

I don't think they'd test an English citizen's English language (Actually Canada, US, UK,NZ are excluded from the language requirement to start with).

I've been a PR for 4 years on the day of submitting my application, but since I'm from a non-English speaking country, I think I have months to come.

This is becoming really depressing! I'm not sure coming here was a right choice anymore!


----------



## Ramah

downunder_ said:


> Lodged AND granted!!! WoW! Does he have a relative working in the DIBP?!!!
> 
> I don't think they'd test an English citizen's English language (Actually Canada, US, UK,NZ are excluded from the language requirement to start with).
> 
> I've been a PR for 4 years on the day of submitting my application, but since I'm from a non-English speaking country, I think I have months to come.
> 
> This is becoming really depressing! I'm not sure coming here was a right choice anymore!


Haha maybe he just got lucky, I really don't know.

He wasn't initially bothered about citizenship but after all the Brexit stuff and then the citizenship changes here, he went for it.

How long have you been waiting?

If it's any consolation, if the changes go ahead then I'm not likely to be eligible to apply until around 2024


----------



## downunder_

Ramah said:


> Haha maybe he just got lucky, I really don't know.
> 
> He wasn't initially bothered about citizenship but after all the Brexit stuff and then the citizenship changes here, he went for it.
> 
> How long have you been waiting?
> 
> If it's any consolation, if the changes go ahead then I'm not likely to be eligible to apply until around 2024


I applied in May, so that's 5 months _(Which I know is not a long period, on their website they state their normal processing times are approx. 10~13 months)_

I guess my disappointment comes from how this whole matter is being dealt with, a government that is literally bullying its people like that. The way they're framing immigrants as creatures who're after Australians livelihood. Us being told that we're not welcomed here by people whom the land was never theirs to start with.

Their audacity to mess with people's lives the way they're doing, so they would appeal to certain group of the community ONLY to keep their 200k jobs alive! This is disgusting.

And you, my friend, shouldn't have to wait until 2024 to have a milestone like that achieved. How many 7 years do we have in a single lifetime!

but, alas...


----------



## Whattodo.

Thanks for that info. 

So if an application is lodged and fees paid and I am not eligible due to the legislation changes does the fees get refunded?


----------



## Mish

Whattodo. said:


> Thanks for that info.
> 
> So if an application is lodged and fees paid and I am not eligible due to the legislation changes does the fees get refunded?


Apparently not.

We only have a couple more weeks to find out what is happening (hopefully). When they go back to parliament to sit they either need to put the bill to vote or remove it from the list.

Where everyone stands will be made clear soon which will be good


----------



## Ramah

downunder_ said:


> I applied in May, so that's 5 months _(Which I know is not a long period, on their website they state their normal processing times are approx. 10~13 months)_
> 
> I guess my disappointment comes from how this whole matter is being dealt with, a government that is literally bullying its people like that. The way they're framing immigrants as creatures who're after Australians livelihood. Us being told that we're not welcomed here by people whom the land was never theirs to start with.
> 
> Their audacity to mess with people's lives the way they're doing, so they would appeal to certain group of the community ONLY to keep their 200k jobs alive! This is disgusting.
> 
> And you, my friend, shouldn't have to wait until 2024 to have a milestone like that achieved. How many 7 years do we have in a single lifetime!
> 
> but, alas...


I feel your frustration but hang in there.

Believe me, it's not just in Australia, it's going on everywhere. My best friend who's European felt the same way whilst in the UK and in all honesty, I felt ashamed.

I found back home that the people who were shouting at the top of their lungs "they've come here and stolen our jobs and our kids futures" were the ones who had been out of work for many, many, many years and living off the government for various reasons (and not all legitimate, some people just know how to work the system) 

Don't take it to heart, the whole world is multinational nowadays, just the same as there are many people migrating to Australia, there are many Australians migrating elsewhere 

Hopefully with any luck, they won't impose the proposed changes, we can all dream, right?


----------



## MaxPower

downunder_ said:


> The way they're framing immigrants as creatures who're after Australians livelihood.


If you've read the Senate submissions and looked at the posts on Facebook & petitions, a large number of it is people whinging they won't be able to access cheaper HECS fees


----------



## DanilKa

Whattodo. said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> I've been reading through all the threads - Lots of information!
> 
> I was wondering if anyone could help me as I am very confused with the changes and whether they are in play atm yet or not.
> 
> So I'm approaching my 1 year perm residency tomorrow (yay for me!). The Border website says that I need 4 years permanent residency but the actual application form states I only need the 1 year perm residency to be eligible to apply for citizenship.
> 
> I called Dept of Immi and they said they are implementing the Turnbull Govts policy changes even though it hasn't passed parliament yet.
> 
> I am so confused at this point.
> Is what the Immi officer said correct?
> 
> Any assistance in this matter would be fantastic.
> 
> Thanks


If you have 4 years total in country (including one year on PR), I would consider filing the application. If online system doesn't allow you to do that - go ahead and post it by registered mail. Good luck.


----------



## DanilKa

MaxPower said:


> If you've read the Senate submissions and looked at the posts on Facebook & petitions, a large number of it is people whinging they won't be able to access cheaper HECS fees


Max, 
Could you pls elaborate? HECS is a loan; educational reform gives PR and Kiwi passports holders access to it. But they have to pay ~triple for the education, compared to citizens.


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> If you've read the Senate submissions and looked at the posts on Facebook & petitions, a large number of it is people whinging they won't be able to access cheaper HECS fees


Those people might be one of the causes for the bill to pass. There were many submissions that actually strengthened the proposal.

Hope they don't overide the logic for the rest of the submissions.


----------



## ahbee

But not in Canada. Canada just passed a new citizenship bill, which makes everthng easier !!! "Bill C-6 Has Passed, Giving Immigrants a Smoother Pathway to Canadian Citizenship"......

https://www.cicnews.com/2017/06/bil...y-canadian-citizenship-069248.html#gs.T21sc6k


----------



## angelfia

Hi interesting, I saw on The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald that both papers have posted the article entitled " Why the government's citizenship changes have been quietly shelved" posted about 8 hours prior to 5 Oct 2017 2359hours AEST .

However , when you click the link on the article, it generates an error message on both newspapers suggesting it has been taken offline.

However if you search this title on google , the article link as well as a small caption is still available for viewing.

The Age states:
In April, the Turnbull government still felt confident enough to introduce plans to " strengthen" citizenship laws, but times have changed

The Sydney Morning Herald States: 
Remember the simpler, gentler time of April this year, when the government could mention the word "citizenship" without people making baaing ...
Why the government's citizenship changes have been quietly shelved .... was moved to knock the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment Bill ... for citizenship from people who have failed the citizenship test three times

Has anyone read that full article? Why was it posted on the digital edition on both papers then withdrawn? Thanks


----------



## shepherd

angelfia said:


> " Why the government's citizenship changes have been quietly shelved" posted about 8 hours prior to 5 Oct 2017 2359hours AEST .


It is no longer available even in google!


----------



## shepherd

Xenophon quits Senate for state politics | SBS News

Now, I am confused! Nick Xenophon will quit from the senate, what about his vote?!

Also the Dual citizenship cases, which are referred to the High Court, may affect the voting?? As it will be within this month


----------



## downunder_

shepherd said:


> Xenophon quits Senate for state politics | SBS News
> 
> Now, I am confused! Nick Xenophon will quit from the senate, what about his vote?!
> 
> Also the Dual citizenship cases, which are referred to the High Court, may affect the voting?? As it will be within this month


Someone may correct me, but AFAIK, his seat will go to another colleague from the NXT. Which is the same case for that guy from One Nation, Roberts, if ruled ineligible, his seat goes to a colleague from ON.

The real game changer is in the lower house, and since it has already passed, I'm not keeping an eye on it.

I'm not sure about the 2 seats for the greens. But it doesn't make much of a difference, because when this whole mess exploded back in July, there was an agreement that the Liberals will have 2 senates refraining from voting to balance the 2 vacant seats of the greens _(I guess the political term is called "*pairing*", but again, I could be wrong).._

Feel free to correct me, anyone? Thanks.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

I have searched for the article and this where it led me to. Is just someones view about the psossibilty of the citizenship bill gonna collapse.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-the-governments-citizenship-changes-have-been-quietly-shelved-2017


----------



## downunder_

Here is the article, they changed the title, but it's basically an "opinion" article, the writer was linking between the government's attempt to tighten the citizenship laws, when there are senators whose legibility is being questioned DUE to their citizenship status. Nothing about confirmed action of _"shelving the law"_

Dual citizenship debate asks more questions than it answers


----------



## jemal

This just in (9th October):

Labor calls on Peter Dutton to admit defeat over doomed citizenship changes



> Mr Dutton has said he is continuing to negotiate with crossbenchers, but NXT senator Stirling Griff told Fairfax Media on Sunday the NXT had had no further discussions about the bill and its opposition is unchanged.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

jemal said:


> This just in (9th October):
> 
> Labor calls on Peter Dutton to admit defeat over doomed citizenship changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Dutton has said he is continuing to negotiate with crossbenchers, but NXT senator Stirling Griff told Fairfax Media on Sunday the NXT had had no further discussions about the bill and its opposition is unchanged.
Click to expand...

Lets hope the complete rejection of the bill by the senate. The guy insists that he is in negotiation with the NXT.

18th October is not far amd will soon know the fate of this grazy propossal.


----------



## Mish

Hassali.abdi said:


> 18th October is not far amd will soon know the fate of this grazy propossal.


Bring it on! I am totally over visa's and just want my husband to have an Australian passport. We may be finished with Australian visa's but still need to apply for tourist visa's for holidays


----------



## shepherd

Australian citizenship changes will be finalised on next Wednesday. | SBS Your Language

Lets hope it will be blocked next Wednesday!


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Mish said:


> Hassali.abdi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18th October is not far amd will soon know the fate of this grazy propossal.
> 
> 
> 
> Bring it on! I am totally over visa's and just want my husband to have an Australian passport. We may be finished with Australian visa's but still need to apply for tourist visa's for holidays
Click to expand...

Yes Mish over. We are on the same boat. Obvious we will need tourist/visitor visa for to other countries which is not a big deal at all. As long one has Aus passport.

I will mark the day this bill is walked over and dumped into Dutton's dust bin.


----------



## downunder_

Hassali.abdi said:


> Yes Mish over. We are on the same boat. Obvious we will need tourist/visitor visa for to other countries which is not a big deal at all. As long one has Aus passport.
> 
> I will mark the day this bill is walked over and dumped into Dutton's dust bin.


Guys, you really need to hold your horses. Nothing is for sure until the Senate president announces the changes ended in "ney", anything could happen. You do not trust a politician with your future. Oct 18th is the date you can either celebrate, or plan your life differently.


----------



## ahbee

Hassali.abdi said:


> Yes Mish over. We are on the same boat. Obvious we will need tourist/visitor visa for to other countries which is not a big deal at all. As long one has Aus passport.
> 
> I will mark the day this bill is walked over and dumped into Dutton's dust bin.


Come on !! 18th is my Birthday .....Any luck ???


----------



## Hassali.abdi

downunder_ said:


> Hassali.abdi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Mish over. We are on the same boat. Obvious we will need tourist/visitor visa for to other countries which is not a big deal at all. As long one has Aus passport.
> 
> I will mark the day this bill is walked over and dumped into Dutton's dust bin.
> 
> 
> 
> Guys, you really need to hold your horses. Nothing is for sure until the Senate president announces the changes ended in "ney", anything could happen. You do not trust a politician with your future. Oct 18th is the date you can either celebrate, or plan your life differently.[/QUOTE
> 
> That is correct. Even those oppossing can be infiltrated and change their mind the night before the votting day. Politicians do not have defined position. As Peter said earlier on press TV, he has been in negotiation with the crossbench seneator and who knows the outcome.
> 
> We are saying that we are eager to see what happens on that day. We either start counting for 4 years from grant date or we continue counting 4 yrs from the date we entred the country.
> 
> We have to expect the best always. Positive is the best.
> 
> Days to go.
Click to expand...


----------



## ahbee

"We are saying that we are eager to see what happens on that day. We either start counting for 4 years from grant date or we continue counting 4 yrs from the date we entered the country"

We have to expect the best always. Positive is the best.

Days to go.[/QUOTE]

Well, continue counting 4 years from the grant day is fine but just concern about the English language test and doesn't plan to put a lot of money in it...


----------



## Hassali.abdi

ahbee said:


> "We are saying that we are eager to see what happens on that day. We either start counting for 4 years from grant date or we continue counting 4 yrs from the date we entered the country"
> 
> We have to expect the best always. Positive is the best.
> 
> Days to go.


Well, continue counting 4 years from the grant day is fine but just concern about the English language test and doesn't plan to put a lot of money in it...





















[/QUOTE]

You are right. English is another headache and the most disappointing part of this bill. You fail 3 times, bye for two more years and test again.

I saw alot of migrants who already gave up and thinking applying for travel documents to travel outside when they want. I mean the refugees who don not have a recognized passport. And others like me will use their foreign passport.

And peter Dutton is do or die. I dont know what is good he has seen in these bill that already cause havock in Australian society. Who should have seen that it was't welcomed by the pple and give the bill up.


----------



## downunder_

I've just sent another set of messages to Sen. Xenophon and Hinch (Since I'm from Vic) reminding them how bullying those changes are, and reminding them to use their powers to block the changes.

I believe this about the right time we send messages to your state representatives, to make sure they don't lose track of where the public opinion stands.


----------



## couq

Tony Burke MP has sent me this email. 

So it looks to be debated Tuesday so stay informed

Parliament is back on Monday. On Tuesday the 17th of October Peter Dutton’s changes to citizenship will be debated in the Senate.

At the moment it looks like we have a majority to prevent the bill from being carried, I'll keep you posted as information comes in.


Tony.


----------



## shepherd

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...ments/Senate_chamber_documents/The_Week_Ahead

Now it is confirmed, they will start on Tuesday.


----------



## ampk

Are 6 Senators allowed to debate and vote? They clearly don't understand citizenship and their implications very well!

Surly this debate should not be had till after the court has decided on their own citizenship status and its effects are known.


----------



## downunder_

ampk said:


> Are 6 Senators allowed to debate and vote? They clearly don't understand citizenship and their implications very well!
> 
> Surly this debate should not be had till after the court has decided on their own citizenship status and its effects are known.


Doesn't make much of a difference, as their replacements will mostly come from the same party.

Actually I'd rather have it dealt with before the High Court decision, because one of the Greens might be replaced with a conservative senator.


----------



## popolo

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...water-with-nxt-calling-for-it-to-be-scrapped/

Let's see what happens tomorrow, it looks good so far


----------



## shepherd

Sen Lucy GICHUHI submitted her amendment, she changed it to basic english, nothing about the residency period, retrospective or anything else.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...ill 2017 Gichuhi.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


----------



## guscas

popolo said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/austral...water-with-nxt-calling-for-it-to-be-scrapped/
> 
> Let's see what happens tomorrow, it looks good so far


What's an "ethnic community"? Facepalm...

Politicians are supposed to be good at using the correct language.


----------



## downunder_

guscas said:


> What's an "ethnic community"? Facepalm...


The non-whites who can't speak proper English.


----------



## ahbee

shepherd said:


> Sen Lucy GICHUHI submitted her amendment, she changed it to basic english, nothing about the residency period, retrospective or anything else.
> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...ill 2017 Gichuhi.pdf;fileType=application/pdf


which means still need to attend an English test anyway..


----------



## JandE

guscas said:


> What's an "ethnic community"? Facepalm...
> 
> Politicians are supposed to be good at using the correct language.


This might help.
The Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW (ECC) is the peak body for all culturally and linguistically diverse communities. 
Ethnic Communities Council - Ethnic Communities' Council of NSW

I think each state has one.


----------



## MaxPower

shepherd said:


> https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...ments/Senate_chamber_documents/The_Week_Ahead
> 
> Now it is confirmed, they will start on Tuesday.


Might eventually ....

As of now the Greens have suspended all Senate Business to ramble on about Climate Change


----------



## shepherd

MaxPower said:


> suspended all Senate Business to ramble on about Climate Change


what does that mean?


----------



## JandE

shepherd said:


> what does that mean?





> 11.20AM
> Greens to suspend Senate standing orders
> The Greens will move to suspend standing orders in the Senate to debate climate change as the party is reeling with anger about the government's new energy plans.


They seem to feel that climate change is the more important topic at the moment, so don't want to discuss anything else.



> The Greens think the best option to is to work to turf the Turnbull government out of office while encouraging the states to have unilateral renewable targets.


The Australian


----------



## shepherd

Raise citizenship bill or take 'coward's approach' out, McKim tells Dutton | SBS News

It seems that the gov have a plan!


----------



## ahbee

JandE said:


> They seem to feel that climate change is the more important topic at the moment, so don't want to discuss anything else.
> 
> The Australian


Holy Cow !!! Still debating on the energy price !!! Thousands of citizenship application have been set aside !!


----------



## Mish

They can stall all they want but if it is not voted on this week it is gone.


----------



## EDT

Mish said:


> They can stall all they want but if it is not voted on this week it is gone.


Gone as? ???


----------



## JandE

ahbee said:


> Holy Cow !!! Still debating on the energy price !!! Thousands of citizenship application have been set aside !!


Looking at it from the Australian point of view though, which is more important to a Politician?


Lower Energy prices for all 23 million Australians (many of which vote)
or

Allowing a few thousand Permanent Citizens (none whom could vote themselves) to get Citizenship earlier


----------



## Mish

EDT said:


> Gone as? ???


Doesn't exist. If it is not voted this week then it is taken off the list and the current rules still exist ... no English test etc.


----------



## DanilKa

*keep talking, Greens*



MaxPower said:


> Might eventually ....
> 
> As of now the Greens have suspended all Senate Business to ramble on about Climate Change


rare situation when I'd welcome protracted climate change discussion... 
do they still have tomorrow to discuss or bill have to be discharged by end of sitting today, unless extension agreed?


----------



## jemal

DanilKa said:


> rare situation when I'd welcome protracted climate change discussion...
> do they still have tomorrow to discuss or bill have to be discharged by end of sitting today, unless extension agreed?


Based on the article about Sen McKim's challenge out today (and linked by shepherd above), it seems like they have until the end of tomorrow (Wednesday). But I am confused as to why - I thought the Senate motion was for four sitting days? Being the two days at the end of the last sitting period and the first two days of this sitting period 



Mish said:


> Doesn't exist. If it is not voted this week then it is taken off the list and the current rules still exist ... no English test etc.


The thing that worries me is that there is no guarantee they will start processing the existing applications, no matter what happens. Seems they can continue to stall, as suggested by the fact that Tony Burke even needs to make this statement: "But let me say this - if the Senate does reject the government's legislation then the department must start processing every application and processing it immediately under the Australian law,"

And if it gets struck off the Notice Paper (i.e. they don't get to it by tomorrow and there is no vote), then it seems the Gov can keep stalling while it tries to bring it back on, etc. even though they have barely a chance in hell of that being approved.


----------



## jemal

Update: yes, it is now on the Notice Paper for tomorrow, but it is almost last on the list so looks like he will let it slip off.

We may still have to wait and fight for them to resume processing applications made after 20 April. I don't know how legal it would be for them to continue to hold them with no bill proposed - I think I even saw a legal expert questioning this during the Senate inquiry hearings.


----------



## ahbee

I too agree this will slip off tomorrow...


----------



## Mania

Sigh, just sigh.


----------



## DanilKa

jemal said:


> Update: yes, it is now on the Notice Paper for tomorrow, but it is almost last on the list so looks like he will let it slip off.


bumped up in the agenda - before lunch. It ain't over till its over. 
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/Dynamic_Red

Note education bill discussion before - if you have kids or considering uni, it will cost permanent residents and Qiwis ~3x, shall it pass. Unless you are a citizen, of course...


----------



## MaxPower

Per ABC midday news - the Govt will be moving some amendments to the bill (reducing the IELTS level to 5 instead of 6)

So it ain't dead yet


----------



## shepherd

MaxPower said:


> Per ABC midday news - the Govt will be moving some amendments to the bill (reducing the IELTS level to 5 instead of 6)


http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...oad_pdf/B17GJ148.pdf;fileType=application/pdf

The government made amendments .. but I really don't understand the application of amendments part, any help Max?


----------



## downunder_

shepherd said:


> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...oad_pdf/B17GJ148.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
> 
> The government made amendments .. but I really don't understand the application of amendments part, any help Max?


This line here:

_Schedule 1, item 136, page 48 (lines 5 to 7), omit "applications made under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 *on or after 20 April 2017*", substitute "pledges of allegiance made under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after the commencement of this item"._

and this one:

_"Schedule 1, item 139, page 50 (line 31), *omit "20 April 2017"*, substitute "the commencement of this item"."_

As I understand it, changes won't apply retrospectively to applications made on or after Apr 20th, but to applications made *after* a *specified future date* (after the changes pass parliament, and receive the Royal Assent.)

the date is specified under this clause at the top of the amendments:
Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
1. The whole of this Act *1 July 2018.*

Someone correct me..?


----------



## jemal

Commencement of item seems to be listed as July 2018. Still the fact that they are bringing in these amendments last minute is a huge blow to them


----------



## DanilKa

shepherd said:


> http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...oad_pdf/B17GJ148.pdf;fileType=application/pdf
> 
> The government made amendments .. but I really don't understand the application of amendments part, any help Max?


other than "modest" English (IELTS 5?) they are replacing Apr 20 with "commencement of this item" - have you figured out what happens with 4 years on PR requirement?


----------



## downunder_

DanilKa said:


> other than "modest" English (IELTS 5?) they are replacing Apr 20 with "commencement of this item" - have you figured out what happens with 4 years on PR requirement?


That requirement is untouched. You'd still need 4 yrs of PR.


----------



## MaxPower

The current bill is basically dead and doesn't matter if it falls off the Senate notice paper or not as going by the Govt amendments they will just reintroduce a new bill sometime in the future with IELTS 5 level and July 1 2018 start date

Everything else remains the same

So even if an amended bill passes down the track in the next few months, it can now be confirmed that the current rules will apply to all applications up until June 30 2018


----------



## Tusho

So would this mean that if you apply for Citizenship in June 2018 you would still be on the old rules (no need for 4 years on permanent residency)?


----------



## MaxPower

Yes ... all current rules (no English test, 1PR+3TR etc) will be in place until June 30 2018 at least


----------



## Tusho

Still would be good to be scrapped completely but thanks a lot for clarifying Max.


----------



## downunder_

Tusho said:


> So would this mean that if you apply for Citizenship in June 2018 you would still be on the old rules (no need for 4 years on permanent residency)?


Correct. If it passes with the last amendments, up to 30 Jun 2018, you'd need 3 yrs of anything + 1 year as PR


----------



## downunder_

I've just received this from Tony Burke's office. Copied from the email:

_"BREAKING NEWS: a win for multicultural Australia

I wanted you to know straight away, just moments ago, the Senate here in the Australian Parliament threw out the Government's changes to Australia citizenship laws.

That means they have said no to the university level English test. It means they have said no to the three year additional wait that was going to cause some people to wait more than ten years before they got to become Australian citizens.

Because of the university English test, some people were going to live here their entire working lives and were never going to be able to become Australian citizens.

So right now, we've just had the win that you've been campaigning for."_

I have no idea how true this is. I can see the Senate still has the item on its Order of Business!!!


----------



## jemal

The Dynamic Red (order of business) is delayed by about a half hour though.


----------



## Ror

It's all very odd at the moment. The government added their own amendments just a few hours ago which changed the English requirement to "modest", and looked like they were dropping the retrospective nature of the changes.

Department of immigration IMMI portal is still saying the 20th of April thing


----------



## jemal

We may still have to campaign for the misleading info to be taken off the website


----------



## s4161441

Just a question, under the old rules, does it need the applicant physically stay in Australia for 12 months after granted of permanent residency in order to apply citizenship?


----------



## jemal

Absence of maximum three months is permitted in final year of four years


----------



## downunder_

jemal said:


> We may still have to campaign for the misleading info to be taken off the website


That should be easy. Complaints against a government agency are dealt through the Commonwealth Ombudsman 
Home - Commonwealth Ombudsman

but again, that's the easy part, it's a simple Wordpress edit on the government part (Like all governments around the world, their offices tend to be slow, and they only move or change when ordered)


----------



## AngeliquePrince

Guys, the changes to the citizenship was successfully rejected in the Senate today! A great win for us who will be submitting soon.


----------



## Ror

Looks like it just fell off the notice paper because it didn't pass before the conclusion of government business. Tony Burkes Facebook page has the info.

It's very odd that the government tabled an amendment and then didn't push for a vote. Maybe that's some sort of procedural thing? Or maybe they're setting themselves up to say something along the lines of "we did water down the proposal, and they still rejected it".


----------



## AngeliquePrince

The good thing about this everyone can move on!


----------



## downunder_

I want to feel happy, but I'll wait until either ABC or SBS confirms it. The tension I've been through the past couple of months makes it hard for me to simply believe it.


----------



## jemal

As Tony Burke says, the Government will probably try again in coming weeks, probably with a wartered down bill


----------



## Tusho

https://www.facebook.com/burke.tony.mp/


----------



## jemal

Here it is now on the ABC http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...or-senate-doom-despite-dutton-changes/9062412


----------



## Syr

Migrants rejoice as citizenship bill is struck down | SBS Your Language

Does this mean this bill gone for ever or the Government will try again in the future with amended version


----------



## Ror

jemal said:


> As Tony Burke says, the Government will probably try again in coming weeks, probably with a wartered down bill


This is what I don't understand, they did try a watered down version:

I can't see to copy links in here, but you'll see their amendments on the page if you google "Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017"


----------



## downunder_

Syr said:


> Migrants rejoice as citizenship bill is struck down | SBS Your Language
> 
> Does this mean this bill gone for ever or the Government will try again in the future with amended version


If you're eligible, apply as soon as you could.

To me, this is not about the government, this is Peter Dutton. In simple words, the guy is the worst conservative MP you can come across, why? Because he's a man of action -former police officer-.

He will try again. He said it few days ago in an interview _"The more people mock me for doing something, it gives me the energy to do more"_

If you believe your application is eligible now or soon, do it.

And Tony Burke himself said it, this government will have another go at it.


----------



## Ror

jemal said:


> Here it is now on the ABC [Citizenship bill headed for Senate doom despite last dash changes by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)[/url]


No mention in the article that the Government amendments, the way I read them anyway, looked like they were dropping the retrospective nature of the bill.


----------



## DanilKa

downunder_ said:


> That requirement is untouched. You'd still need 4 yrs of PR.


Nope - bill is thrown out!
Just got a message from Sen Tony Burke.


----------



## jemal

The ABC article does mention the non-retrospective amendment here:

"A last-minute proposal by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, hours before a parliamentary deadline to keep his bill alive, looks set to be rejected by the Senate crossbench.

The amendments to the initial bill reduce the English competency required by applicants from "competent" to "modest" and change the start date to July next year."


----------



## MaxPower

Trust me, there is no need to lock this thread yet, there is still stuff going on behind the scenes we don't know about and there is a few more twists in this tale yet

The Govt has lodged amendments but will not even debate it

Why is that? 

Xenophon & NXT have been very quiet lately and I'd bet Xenophon & Dutton have been quietly negotiating a backroom deal with a whole new bill to be introduced soon (as Xenophon wanted)

NXT have always been against the retrospective nature & English Test levels ... and voila they have been amended today


----------



## Ror

jemal said:


> The ABC article does mention the non-retrospective amendment here:
> 
> "A last-minute proposal by Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, hours before a parliamentary deadline to keep his bill alive, looks set to be rejected by the Senate crossbench.
> 
> The amendments to the initial bill reduce the English competency required by applicants from "competent" to "modest" and change the start date to July next year."


Good spot, I take it back


----------



## jemal

What do you mean NXT have been quiet lately? They reconfirmed their opposition early this week and Sen Stirling Griff is quoted in the ABC article. Agree that things are happening behind the scenes but can't say that NXT have been quiet


----------



## downunder_

Guys, it's not over until it's over. You do NOT trust a politician with your future 5 mins from now. Mind you a whole 3 hours.

We wait till the sitting is adjourned. That's the definitive moment.

Let me remind everyone that the deadline is for the government to _"bring the bill for vote"_, so if they start debating the bill tonight, even for 5 mins, and adjourn, it can be moved to tomorrow's Order of Business, and their latest amendments might actually be brought back to life.

You do not trust a politician. Including the ones on your team.


----------



## Mk83

My eligibility is tomorrow under old rules .not sure what to do until they finish today in the senate .based on experiences u cant trust politicians on ur life for 5 min .how about life decision


----------



## Mk83

Received that message from Tony burke office now:
"I wanted you to know straight away, just moments ago, the Senate here in the Australian Parliament threw out the Government?s changes to Australia citizenship laws.

That means they have said no to the university level English test. It means they have said no to the three year additional wait that was going to cause some people to wait more than ten years before they got to become Australian citizens.

Because of the university English test, some people were going to live here their entire working lives and were never going to be able to become Australian citizens.

So right now, we?ve just had the win that you?ve been campaigning for.

I want to give you full credit, because let?s not pretend this was done by members of Parliament.

This was done by an extraordinary community activism that you were part of and you made sure that you never wasted a conversation.

This will make a real difference to the lives of people who will become good Australian citizens.

This will make a massive difference in people?s lives.

And will guarantee that a whole lot of people who were never going to hear the words ?Welcome home? will now be able to make a pledge of commitment to Australia.

Now the Government may well have another go at this.

The Government may well come back and try again.

So, if you are eligible for Australian citizenship under current law my advice is don't waste time.

Get your application in under current law. Get your application in before the government tries to do this again.

I was Minister for Citizenship for a time and when I was, I got to write the message that was read out of every citizenship ceremony and the message that I had finished with the words ?Welcome home.?

We want to be able to say ?welcome home? to you.

Those of you who are ready to become good Australian citizens, those of you who are ready to make your pledge of commitment to Australia. Get your applications in. Make the application go through the existing test. Make your pledge of commitment to this country and the Labor Party will be very, very proud to say back to you ?welcome home?.

No doubt the government will come back.

There will be another attempt at this.

But right now enjoy the victory, enjoy the moment and know your activism made this happen.



Congratulations."

It is a war , u might loose a fight but doesnt mean u lost the war.
So Mr Dutton's coming back with new bill or some changes.


----------



## cokerags

downunder_ said:


> This line here:
> 
> _Schedule 1, item 136, page 48 (lines 5 to 7), omit "applications made under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after 20 April 2017", substitute "pledges of allegiance made under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after the commencement of this item"._
> 
> and this one:
> 
> _"Schedule 1, item 139, page 50 (line 31), *omit "20 April 2017"*, substitute "the commencement of this item"."_
> 
> As I understand it, changes won't apply retrospectively to applications made on or after Apr 20th, but to applications made *after* a *specified future date* (after the changes pass parliament, and receive the Royal Assent.)
> 
> the date is specified under this clause at the top of the amendments:
> Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
> 1. The whole of this Act *1 July 2018.*
> 
> Someone correct me..?


This part is still confusing:

Schedule 1, item 136, page 48 (lines 5 to 7), omit "*applications made* under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after 20 April 2017", substitute "*pledges of allegiance* made under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after the commencement of this item

They are saying *pledges of allegiance* made after the commencement of this item.

Based on current timelines it is unlikely anybody who applied after April 20 will have their pledge of allegiance (at citizenship ceremonies) before July 2018.

Does this mean if your citizenship ceremony is scheduled after July 2018 you will fall under the new rules? Very confusing!


----------



## MaxPower

Mk83 said:


> Now the Government may well have another go at this.
> 
> The Government may well come back and try again.
> 
> So, if you are eligible for Australian citizenship under current law my advice is don't waste time.
> 
> Get your application in under current law. Get your application in before the government tries to do this again.


Political code for he knows that Xenophon is about to do a deal with the Govt and there is nothing he can do to stop it


----------



## cokerags

downunder_ said:


> This line here:
> 
> _Schedule 1, item 136, page 48 (lines 5 to 7), omit "applications made under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 *on or after 20 April 2017*", substitute "pledges of allegiance made under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after the commencement of this item"._
> 
> and this one:
> 
> _"Schedule 1, item 139, page 50 (line 31), *omit "20 April 2017"*, substitute "the commencement of this item"."_
> 
> As I understand it, changes won't apply retrospectively to applications made on or after Apr 20th, but to applications made *after* a *specified future date* (after the changes pass parliament, and receive the Royal Assent.)
> 
> the date is specified under this clause at the top of the amendments:
> Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:
> 1. The whole of this Act *1 July 2018.*
> 
> Someone correct me..?


This is still confusing:

Schedule 1, item 136, page 48 (lines 5 to 7), omit "*applications made* under Division 2 of Part 2 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after 20 April 2017", substitute "*pledges of allegiance* made under the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 on or after the commencement of this item"

They are saying *pledges of allegiance* made after the commencement of this item.

Does this mean if your citizenship ceremony is after July 2018, you will still fall under the new rules? Very confusing!


----------



## Nolas

Hi everyone - my wife is eligible under the old rules on the 4th of Nov - but could apply today with ministerial discretion to cover our time overseas on holiday together this past year. What would you recommend - just wait it out or apply today with the Australian citizenship partner discretion (ie time spent overseas while PR and with AU Citizen partner = time onshore.


----------



## downunder_

Congrats guys, the bill has just been *formally discharged *(ironically, announced by Bernardi)...

Now you can pop that champaign open.. : ))

and *THIS* is the news I was looking for, not a Facebook post...

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/...onger-limbo-citizenship-changes-killed-senate


----------



## downunder_

Nolas said:


> Hi everyone - my wife is eligible under the old rules on the 4th of Nov - but could apply today with ministerial discretion to cover our time overseas on holiday together this past year. What would you recommend - just wait it out or apply today with the Australian citizenship partner discretion (ie time spent overseas while PR and with AU Citizen partner = time onshore.


You don't have to worry about that now. The bill was struck off the Senate's business.


----------



## cokerags

"A spokesperson for Mr Dutton has confirmed to SBS News that migrants who have already put in applications for citizenship, and those who still plan to, will be assessed under current requirements rather than the tougher measures announced by the government earlier this year."

sbs. com. au/news/article/2017/10/18/migrants-no-longer-limbo-citizenship-changes-killed-senate


----------



## MaxPower

downunder_ said:


> Migrants no longer in limbo as citizenship changes killed off by Senate | SBS News


Pretty much confirms that those who can apply up until June 30 2018 can breathe easy, those with citizenship aspirations after that date should still be nervous about the future


----------



## downunder_

MaxPower said:


> Pretty much confirms that those who can apply up until June 30 2018 can breathe easy, those with citizenship aspirations after that date should still be nervous about the future


Yup, true! For now, I will take the breathing easy! : )

Wishing you all the best of luck in your lives' endeavours..!


----------



## Syr

Hi fellows, Congratulation for the win today! 
do you think that the bill gone for ever or the government will try to introduce another version in the near future,this mean people who won't be eligible for the citizenship in the next few months might suffer again


----------



## kv7193

Syr said:


> Hi fellows, Congratulation for the win today!
> do you think that the bill gone for ever or the government will try to introduce another version in the near future,this mean people who won't be eligible for the citizenship in the next few months might suffer again


Yes! I am worried. I will become eligible next Sept but still I would like certainty that I can apply next year after July 2018. I am feeling uneasy that new changes will appear which will affect applicants post July 2018


----------



## DanilKa

kv7193 said:


> Yes! I am worried. I will become eligible next Sept but still I would like certainty that I can apply next year after July 2018. I am feeling uneasy that new changes will appear which will affect applicants post July 2018


Bill is discharged from Notice paper - see for yourself: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...mic_Red?autorefresh=1&track=0&scrollto=newest
which mean Jul-2018 date introduced in attempt to "water down" bill to make it pass is no longer relevant. 
That is not to say you can sleep well (maybe just tonight, after champagne )


----------



## jemal

Hmm I think the July 2018 date that's been floated today is a sign of what will be proposed in the new bill. They are intent on getting it through in some form


----------



## ahbee

DanilKa said:


> Bill is discharged from Notice paper - see for yourself: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...mic_Red?autorefresh=1&track=0&scrollto=newest
> which mean Jul-2018 date introduced in attempt to "water down" bill to make it pass is no longer relevant.
> That is not to say you can sleep well (maybe just tonight, after champagne )


OK...so it's a great news !!! A very great present to my birthday


----------



## kv7193

DanilKa said:


> Bill is discharged from Notice paper - see for yourself:
> which mean Jul-2018 date introduced in attempt to "water down" bill to make it pass is no longer relevant.
> That is not to say you can sleep well (maybe just tonight, after champagne )


I hope so too  I am just scared that they will introduce changes before that and suddenly bam! may feel better in a couple of days or weeks when Peter Dutton does nothing! Apparently there is a rumour floating around that he is thinking of introducing a new amended bill this week...hope not.


----------



## ahbee

The Government has been forced to go back to the drawing board after its citizenship crackdown laws were killed off by the Senate


----------



## Mimamasalha

*hi guys i came to Australia on 27/12/2013 i got my PR 06/2015 ill be full 4years in Australia by the last week of january as i went overeas for 3 weeks now i wanna apply before they start changing the rules again knowing i got my PR 2years ago now im just afraid i get rejected as the 4 years stay in Australia will be till january*


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Mimamasalha said:


> *hi guys i came to Australia on 27/12/2013 i got my PR 06/2015 ill be full 4years in Australia by the last week of january as i went overeas for 3 weeks now i wanna apply before they start changing the rules again knowing i got my PR 2years ago now im just afraid i get rejected as the 4 years stay in Australia will be till january*


Hey you do not need to wait until January. You will be eligible on 27 December unless you have been absent from Australia for more than 12 months over the 4 years, or more than 90 days from the final year of the 4 years.

This means you are allowed to be away from Australia up to 12 months over the 4 years required to be Aus resident And upto 90 days over the year prior to the citi application date.


----------



## shepherd

Mimamasalha said:


> *hi guys i came to Australia on 27/12/2013 i got my PR 06/2015 ill be full 4years in Australia by the last week of january as i went overeas for 3 weeks now i wanna apply before they start changing the rules again knowing i got my PR 2years ago now im just afraid i get rejected as the 4 years stay in Australia will be till january*


Also, this calculator can tell exactly when will you be eligible for applying.
Residence Calculator


----------



## ahbee

The residence calculator on IMMI site is working again

However I notice one thing

"Lawful residence means living in Australia on a valid Australian temporary or permanent visa.

If any of the following applied to you in the past 4 years, please telephone the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880 during business hours to discuss your circumstances.

1)You obtained an e-visa to replace an expired Resident Return Visa (RRV)
2)You obtained a bridging visa of any type
3)You lodged an onshore application for a permanent visa then travelled overseas on your temporary visa
4)You are a New Zealand citizen on a Special Category Visa (SCV) 

So a "a bridging visa" doesn/t mean one can legally stay in Australia ??? Lets say one is with bridging visa why applying 801/802 visa onshore. The fact is one is eligible to apply medicare care with bridging visa .


----------



## Mimamasalha

*thank you guys for your replies im just wondering whats the requirments now a friend told me you need to pass the citizenship test before you apply and on the website its shows that i need to lodge the application first and especially with the few changes they made on the website i am just confused *


----------



## Mish

Mimamasalha said:


> *thank you guys for your replies im just wondering whats the requirments now a friend told me you need to pass the citizenship test before you apply and on the website its shows that i need to lodge the application first and especially with the few changes they made on the website i am just confused *


You lodge the application first and then after awhile they will send you an email with your appointment date. After you do your citizenship test and get atleast 75% you will then get a date for your citizenship ceremony. The overall process from application to ceremony can take up to 12 months. It differs from location to location based on the people waiting for their ceremony.


----------



## kv7193

ahbee said:


> The residence calculator on IMMI site is working again
> 
> However I notice one thing
> 
> "Lawful residence means living in Australia on a valid Australian temporary or permanent visa.
> 
> If any of the following applied to you in the past 4 years, please telephone the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880 during business hours to discuss your circumstances.
> 
> 1)You obtained an e-visa to replace an expired Resident Return Visa (RRV)
> 2)You obtained a bridging visa of any type
> 3)You lodged an onshore application for a permanent visa then travelled overseas on your temporary visa
> 4)You are a New Zealand citizen on a Special Category Visa (SCV)
> 
> So a "a bridging visa" doesn/t mean one can legally stay in Australia ??? Lets say one is with bridging visa why applying 801/802 visa onshore. The fact is one is eligible to apply medicare care with bridging visa .


Hmm, I wonder if this means that time accumulated on a bridging visa counts towards the 12 month PR duration. (I had a bridging visa from my 457 visa to my 189 PR from July 4th till sept) and thus hoping by next year July I can quickly apply for citizenship before the law changes (again!)


----------



## Vinzo

Hey guys,

Does this mean the old citizenship test/requirements is back?

Im doing this for my wife, she has got her temp partner visa to permanet visa a while go.


---
On the immi site, it has two options. which one?
Australian citizenship by conferral 
Australian citizenship by descent


----------



## Eizzi

Vinzo said:


> On the immi site, it has two options. which one?
> Australian citizenship by conferral
> Australian citizenship by descent


Conferral. Descent is for those with Australian parents.


----------



## Eizzi

Mimamasalha said:


> thank you guys for your replies im just wondering whats the requirments now a friend told me you need to pass the citizenship test before you apply and on the website its shows that i need to lodge the application first and especially with the few changes they made on the website i am just confused.





Mish said:


> You lodge the application first and then after awhile they will send you an email with your appointment date. After you do your citizenship test and get atleast 75% youwill then get a date for your citizenship ceremony. The overall process from application to ceremony can take up to 12 months. It differs from location to location based on the people waiting for their ceremony.


Bear in mind that it's likely to take longer now. I think there was a rush of applications submitted on and just after April 20th, when the bill was announced. None of these have been processed at all, as far as I can tell - I don't think anyone has gotten more than an acknowledgement email (2 months after submitting, in my case) which states that the situation is in flux and no one knows what the heck is going on (I'm paraphrasing).

So, assuming these applications are now even being looked at, from yesterday onwards, there will definitely be a big backlog to get through. Then of course there's all the people who held off before or weren't eligible before, who now are. So there's a second big wave of applications being submitted now.

It's 6 months to the day since I submitted and I've heard basically nothing, so I'd be very surprised if I get my ceremony in the next 6 months. And I'm fortunate to be towards the front of the queue, since I was eligible to apply on April 15th and had all my docs ready to go the night before the news broke. Those submitting now can probably expect a much longer wait than usual.


----------



## ahbee

kv7193 said:


> Hmm, I wonder if this means that time accumulated on a bridging visa counts towards the 12 month PR duration. (I had a bridging visa from my 457 visa to my 189 PR from July 4th till sept) and thus hoping by next year July I can quickly apply for citizenship before the law changes (again!)


Umm....it says you need to call IMMI to discuss your circumstances

And my situation is:
I was on bridging visa on Sept 2012 (while applying onshore 820 Temporary visa)
TR 820 visa granted Dec 2013 (almost spent 15 months)
PR 801 visa granted Jan 2015
If bringing visa was not considered as illegally living in Australia, I will have to wait until Dec 2017 to be elligible to apply citizenship


----------



## ahbee

Similar to you I was submitted the application online in July and I only received an acknowledgement email since then. Different is when I browse the IMMI website yesterday I just notice something has changed !! Bridging visa is not count as a visa which allow you legally staying in Australia. And the 4 years actually counts as you get your Temporary visa. What the hell is going on ??? It took me 15 months from Bridging visa to Temporary visa !!!Hence I am afraid my application won't be process and I need to wait for another 3 months an resubmitted again...What a waste of money & time !!!


----------



## Mimamasalha

Mish said:


> You lodge the application first and then after awhile they will send you an email with your appointment date. After you do your citizenship test and get atleast 75% you will then get a date for your citizenship ceremony. The overall process from application to ceremony can take up to 12 months. It differs from location to location based on the people waiting for their ceremony.


hey mish thanks again for your help you became famous here lol do you have an idea about the requirements.. im separated now will they ask me to provide some proofs of my relationship with my PR sponsor again?


----------



## Mish

Mimamasalha said:


> hey mish thanks again for your help you became famous here lol do you have an idea about the requirements.. im separated now will they ask me to provide some proofs of my relationship with my PR sponsor again?


Here is the link for citizenship: https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/whats-new on the page there is "am I eligible" which you can check.

The basic is 4 years in Australia with atleast 1 year PR. In the 4 years no more than 12 months outside of Australia with no more than 90 days in the year before citizenship.

Citizenship is not based on the relationship but on your residency requirements so usually they do not check about the relationship. However, I did hear of a couple of cases where they did ask for information about the relationship at the time the PR was granted and then their PR ended up being cancelled because they were not in a genuine relationship at the time that it was granted. I don't believe it is very common but I have heard of a couple of people that it happened to.


----------



## Mimamasalha

Mish said:


> Here is the link for citizenship: https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/whats-new on the page there is "am I eligible" which you can check.
> 
> The basic is 4 years in Australia with atleast 1 year PR. In the 4 years no more than 12 months outside of Australia with no more than 90 days in the year before citizenship.
> 
> Citizenship is not based on the relationship but on your residency requirements so usually they do not check about the relationship. However, I did hear of a couple of cases where they did ask for information about the relationship at the time the PR was granted and then their PR ended up being cancelled because they were not in a genuine relationship at the time that it was granted. I don't believe it is very common but I have heard of a couple of people that it happened to.


thanks for your reply, yes i am eligible to apply this December 27th but what do they usually ask for ' as a residency requirements'?the relationship was genuine at that time we split up not awhile ago..


----------



## CollegeGirl

ahbee said:


> Similar to you I was submitted the application online in July and I only received an acknowledgement email since then. Different is when I browse the IMMI website yesterday I just notice something has changed !! Bridging visa is not count as a visa which allow you legally staying in Australia. And the 4 years actually counts as you get your Temporary visa. What the hell is going on ??? It took me 15 months from Bridging visa to Temporary visa !!!Hence I am afraid my application won't be process and I need to wait for another 3 months an resubmitted again...What a waste of money & time !!!


The Bridging Visa E has never counted. I wonder if what you saw was a reference to that. The Bridging Visa A has always counted. I would think if that had changed we would have heard about it.


----------



## Mish

Mimamasalha said:


> thanks for your reply, yes i am eligible to apply this December 27th but what do they usually ask for ' as a residency requirements'?the relationship was genuine at that time we split up not awhile ago..


The residency requirements are: 4 years in Australia with atleast 1 year PR. In the 4 years no more than 12 months outside of Australia with no more than 90 days in the year before citizenship.


----------



## Mimamasalha

Mish said:


> The residency requirements are: 4 years in Australia with atleast 1 year PR. In the 4 years no more than 12 months outside of Australia with no more than 90 days in the year before citizenship.


thanks Mish and what paperwork do they ask for ?


----------



## Mish

Mimamasalha said:


> thanks Mish and what paperwork do they ask for ?


My husband isn't eligible for another 6 months so I haven't done it yet. The documents required should be on the checklist on the citizenship page on border.gov.au (I provided the link earlier).


----------



## Becky26

Hey All,

Congratulations to all who are in the clear to apply for the Citizenship after yet another long period of being in limbo Feels like I'm becoming a pro at waiting haha.

I am still a little confused there are so many articles about this bill. I saw the new FY's date floating around in these articles; is that happening or is it a possibility that it Could happen next July 

Also saw this link on DIBP's website, which if is correct, I'm gonna have to wait for an extra year so pretty much nothing would change for me, new eligibility date will be 20/10/2019 :-
What's new for Australian citizenship

Thanks in advance for your help 

Bec


----------



## Mish

Becky26 said:


> Hey All,
> 
> Congratulations to all who are in the clear to apply for the Citizenship after yet another long period of being in limbo Feels like I'm becoming a pro at waiting haha.
> 
> I am still a little confused there are so many articles about this bill. I saw the new FY's date floating around in these articles; is that happening or is it a possibility that it Could happen next July
> 
> Also saw this link on DIBP's website, which if is correct, I'm gonna have to wait for an extra year so pretty much nothing would change for me, new eligibility date will be 20/10/2019 :-
> What's new for Australian citizenship
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help
> 
> Bec


Hi Becky!

Long time no hear, I hope you are doing well and keeping dry (will it ever stop raining?).

The citizenship stuff can be abit confusing. DIBP/Peter Dutton are jumping the gun abit. They are hopeful that the changes can take affect from 1 July 2018 however to do that they need to amend the bill and get enough support to get it through which they do not currently have. From what I have read NXT will not support the amended bill while it gives Peter Dutton power - it says the immigration minister can override the decision of AAT. If he removes this they may agree to the changes then that they currently have (IELST 5 and 4 years PR).

I am unsure how NXT feel about the 4 years PR though.

For the bill to be amended Peter Dutton really just needs the support from NXT.

So the changes may or may not b effective from 1 July 2018. If they go through then you will need to wait 4 years from when your 100 was granted if not then it is 4 years from when you arrived in Australia as you were out of Australia for 16 months waiting from the 309 if my memory serves me correctly.

Parliament doesn't have alot of sitting days for the rest of the year, so logically I wouldn't expect anything to happen until next year in regards to it.


----------



## Becky26

Mish said:


> Hi Becky!
> 
> Long time no hear, I hope you are doing well and keeping dry (will it ever stop raining?).
> 
> The citizenship stuff can be abit confusing. DIBP/Peter Dutton are jumping the gun abit. They are hopeful that the changes can take affect from 1 July 2018 however to do that they need to amend the bill and get enough support to get it through which they do not currently have. From what I have read NXT will not support the amended bill while it gives Peter Dutton power - it says the immigration minister can override the decision of AAT. If he removes this they may agree to the changes then that they currently have (IELST 5 and 4 years PR).
> 
> I am unsure how NXT feel about the 4 years PR though.
> 
> For the bill to be amended Peter Dutton really just needs the support from NXT.
> 
> So the changes may or may not b effective from 1 July 2018. If they go through then you will need to wait 4 years from when your 100 was granted if not then it is 4 years from when you arrived in Australia as you were out of Australia for 16 months waiting from the 309 if my memory serves me correctly.
> 
> Parliament doesn't have alot of sitting days for the rest of the year, so logically I wouldn't expect anything to happen until next year in regards to it.


Hey Mish!!

Yeah, it has been a while. I'm well thank you I hope you're well too. The weather has been horrible. What a waste of a weekend 

Congratulations to you and your hubby on the PR grant earlier this year!  Finally it came through for you guys 

Thanks so much for the above explanation. Makes sense now 

You are right! 4 years from 20/10/2014, that's when I returned on my subclass 309. Let's see if its going to be next year for me that's if coming July they don't decide to ruin more of our future plans again 

I think its really unfair. And whats the guarantee that some other p***k in the office next time won't make the waiting time even longer after an extra year of wait or even longer for many others.

It honestly feels nothing more than a game that people making these new so called "Reforms" are playing with people who have very little to no say in what happens; treating hard working and honest people like second class citizens.

I'll be three months off before my eligibility date if they implement the changes in July. So close, yet so far *sigh* 

Thanks again 

Bec


----------



## JandE

Becky26 said:


> Also saw this link on DIBP's website, which if is correct, I'm gonna have to wait for an extra year so pretty much nothing would change for me, new eligibility date will be 20/10/2019 :-
> What's new for Australian citizenship
> 
> Thanks in advance for your help
> 
> Bec


This is from that "What's new for Australian citizenship" link you show. I have highlighted one bit that might get interesting again next year...



> From 1 July 2018 (subject to the passage of legislation), the new requirements for Australian citizenship will take effect. If you apply for Australian citizenship on or after this date, your application will be assessed against the new requirements.


Wonder what changes will be needed to get it past legislation at the next attempt.

And we get affected by whatever the 2018 changes end up being.


----------



## Becky26

JandE said:


> This is from that "What's new for Australian citizenship" link you show. I have highlighted one bit that might get interesting again next year...
> 
> Wonder what changes will be needed to get it past legislation at the next attempt.
> 
> And we get affected by whatever the 2018 changes end up being.


Thank you for clarifying this JandE.

Just hoping and praying that the waiting period doesn't change at all 

Thanks 
Bec


----------



## JandE

Becky26 said:


> Just hoping and praying that the waiting period doesn't change at all
> 
> Thanks
> Bec


Same here. If they do keep that change, and it passes, my wife will have been resident here for 7 years, with full Medicare etc, before she is eligible for Citizenship.

I can't help thinking that they want to make it harder for Australians, who bring a partner here, than for new migrants, with no previous ties to Australia.

Might think about UK again one day, only 3 years residence needed, but the weather isn't as good


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

JandE said:


> Same here. If they do keep that change, and it passes, my wife will have been resident here for 7 years, with full Medicare etc, before she is eligible for Citizenship


It will be closer to 8 years for my wife, she arrived Jan 2015 (on PMV 300) and on current processing time will be lucky to have her 801 by end of next year (18 months processing) so that will be 4 years pretty much to PR, then another 4 years.

We should have just gone to NZ.

We could go to NZ today and she would have NZ citizenship before she would have been eligible for Australian citizenship on the current timeline.

At least I am a voter here now so time to annoy my MP.

And don't forget that is until you can apply for Australian Citizenship - add another year to actually go through the process.


----------



## Mish

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> It will be closer to 8 years for my wife, she arrived Jan 2015 (on PMV 300) and on current processing time will be lucky to have her 801 by end of next year (18 months processing) so that will be 4 years pretty much to PR, then another 4 years.
> 
> We should have just gone to NZ.
> 
> We could go to NZ today and she would have NZ citizenship before she would have been eligible for Australian citizenship on the current timeline.
> 
> At least I am a voter here now so time to annoy my MP.
> 
> And don't forget that is until you can apply for Australian Citizenship - add another year to actually go through the process.


You will also be a voter next election too 

The thing that seems to be forgotten is that the people who had their lives on hold for 5 months should be voting next election (based on current processing times to ceremony date), I am pretty sure that these people will not vote Liberal. They may not vote Labor either but they will vote for anyone but Liberal I assume. They then have the spouses of temporary or permanent residents who vote too.

The election last time was very tight, I wouldn't think it would be a smart move to be pissing off voters when you really need them.

A co-worker of mine her local member is Peter Dutton. She has said that she will go out and campaign with someone who is running against him. She has never done that in her entire life but she said that she wants him gone.

I do wonder what will happen if the worse case scenario happens and the changes are effective happen from 1 July 2018 and Labor win office next time. Will they reverse the changes?


----------



## EDT

I don’t follow politic a lot but Peter Dutton has pissed off a lot of people. If we dig down his roots hes a migrant as well .


----------



## ampk

Conehead, I was betting it was going to be 10 years from the PMV to citizenship at the end of the day for our era, for the new changes.

Hope all is well mate.


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

ampk said:


> Hope all is well mate.


Yep, living the dream in GA ?


----------



## ahbee

CollegeGirl said:


> The Bridging Visa E has never counted. I wonder if what you saw was a reference to that. The Bridging Visa A has always counted. I would think if that had changed we would have heard about it.


Hi CollegeGirl

Actually I got married in Australia and then applied the Bridging Visa A in 2012


----------



## praveentpt

Hi All,

I have got a question to clarify my doubts before i jump into more questions....

I have been granted PR(Spouse) in july this year but eligibility for was back more than a year and half back....eligibility i mean in 2 stage process of spouse visa....I have been in australia more than 5 yrs now.

Question is to be eligible for citizenship do i consider this july as start date for 1 year on PR or since i have been eligible(during my 2ndstage) but took long time by immi to process my application.
As of now i am ignoring new dutton rules of 4 yr....

Thanks in advance for replies.


----------



## Mish

praveentpt said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have got a question to clarify my doubts before i jump into more questions....
> 
> I have been granted PR(Spouse) in july this year but eligibility for was back more than a year and half back....eligibility i mean in 2 stage process of spouse visa....I have been in australia more than 5 yrs now.
> 
> Question is to be eligible for citizenship do i consider this july as start date for 1 year on PR or since i have been eligible(during my 2ndstage) but took long time by immi to process my application.
> As of now i am ignoring new dutton rules of 4 yr....
> 
> Thanks in advance for replies.


The one year PR starts from the day you were granted your PR.

You will be eligible in July 2018 unless Peter Dutton gets his way.


----------



## CollegeGirl

ahbee said:


> Hi CollegeGirl
> 
> Actually I got married in Australia and then applied the Bridging Visa A in 2012


Time spent on a Bridging Visa A *does* count toward citizenship.


----------



## Eizzi

ahbee said:


> Similar to you I was submitted the application online in July and I only received an acknowledgement email since then. Different is when I browse the IMMI website yesterday I just notice something has changed !! Bridging visa is not count as a visa which allow you legally staying in Australia. And the 4 years actually counts as you get your Temporary visa. What the hell is going on ??? It took me 15 months from Bridging visa to Temporary visa !!!Hence I am afraid my application won't be process and I need to wait for another 3 months an resubmitted again...What a waste of money & time !!!


You're all good, calm down 

Nothing has changed; the immi site has always said this:

_If any of the following applied to you in the past 4 years, please telephone the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880 during business hours to discuss your circumstances.

1)You obtained an e-visa to replace an expired Resident Return Visa (RRV)
2)You obtained a bridging visa of any type
3)You lodged an onshore application for a permanent visa then travelled overseas on your temporary visa
4)You are a New Zealand citizen on a Special Category Visa (SCV) _

That is not a new thing. I remember seeing it a long time ago. It caught my attention because, like many on partner visas, I too held a bridging visa for a time. (I also travelled overseas on a temporary residency visa.)

All it means is, if any of that applies to you, you need to _call them_. Not that you're ineligible, just that you need to call and speak to someone. I think they're just covering all bases, since time on bridging visa E (as College Girl mentioned) doesn't count towards legal residency for citz purposes.

To be honest, I don't think you even need to call. I didn't. But then again, my bridging visa A never even became active.

Your bridging visa A definitely counts. Apply when you reach 4 years residency/1 year PR and you'll be good (barring any overseas travel limits and Dutton's revenge 2018).


----------



## couscous

Hi All,
Does anyone know if the time on tourist visa count towards the 4 years? Did anyone tried before?

Cheers


----------



## ahbee

Eizzi said:


> You're all good, calm down
> 
> Nothing has changed; the immi site has always said this:
> 
> _If any of the following applied to you in the past 4 years, please telephone the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880 during business hours to discuss your circumstances.
> 
> 1)You obtained an e-visa to replace an expired Resident Return Visa (RRV)
> 2)You obtained a bridging visa of any type
> 3)You lodged an onshore application for a permanent visa then travelled overseas on your temporary visa
> 4)You are a New Zealand citizen on a Special Category Visa (SCV) _
> 
> That is not a new thing. I remember seeing it a long time ago. It caught my attention because, like many on partner visas, I too held a bridging visa for a time. (I also travelled overseas on a temporary residency visa.)
> 
> All it means is, if any of that applies to you, you need to _call them_. Not that you're ineligible, just that you need to call and speak to someone. I think they're just covering all bases, since time on bridging visa E (as College Girl mentioned) doesn't count towards legal residency for citz purposes.
> 
> To be honest, I don't think you even need to call. I didn't. But then again, my bridging visa A never even became active.
> 
> Your bridging visa A definitely counts. Apply when you reach 4 years residency/1 year PR and you'll be good (barring any overseas travel limits and Dutton's revenge 2018).


Hi , Eizzi. Tks. Not panic. it is just wanna apply the citizenship as fast as I can . you know you never know what going to happen in the next min...LOL I am sure you can start the application too


----------



## Ror

Does anyone know if the wait times are impacted by this? I submitted on the 20th April and according to the website there is a 90% chance (90% of applications are processed within 14 months) that my ceremony will be within 14 months of this date.

Has anyone heard otherwise? Has anyone heard that the wait times are going to blow out?


----------



## Mish

couscous said:


> Hi All,
> Does anyone know if the time on tourist visa count towards the 4 years? Did anyone tried before?
> 
> Cheers


Yes and no. It depends on how long you spent out of Australia between the tourist visa and the other visa and the overall time outside Australia in total is.

Did you come on a PMV? If so with processing times for the 801 most are here longer than 4 years before they can apply for citizenship due to the 1 year as PR requirement.


----------



## ahbee

Ror said:


> Does anyone know if the wait times are impacted by this? I submitted on the 20th April and according to the website there is a 90% chance (90% of applications are processed within 14 months) that my ceremony will be within 14 months of this date.
> 
> Has anyone heard otherwise? Has anyone heard that the wait times are going to blow out?


"90% of applications are processed within 14 months" ???
You submitted in April and have to wait for 14 months for the process , What about those who submitted after April ??? By that time the new rules will be applied....


----------



## thvu6649

*Citizenship eligilibity*

Hi guys,

I have a question regarding my husband's eligibility for citizenship and hope someone can help. He has been in Australia for more than ten years. The most recent visas he had were student visa from 03/09/2012 to 11/06/2014, dependent in business visa from 20/12/2013 to 29/12/2017, and PR since 19/12/2014. Due to overseas travel, we couldn't apply for citizenship for him until 19/10 this year (13/10 was the eligible date according to DIBP residence calculator before it was taken down due to the citizenship bill). But when we tried to apply online, we always got stuck at page 6 like some other members. So we sent paper application.

However today my husband called DIBP and surprisingly they said his 4 years span only counted since 20/12/2013 which is the business visa, whereas they should have counted the student visa he got before that as well. We asked why the student visa wasn't counted and the lady there just simply said she didn't know, the system just showed that the beginning date for 4 years period was 20/12/2013, so my husband has to wait until 20/12/2017 to apply.

Does anyone have any idea what is wrong here? Any thoughts would be much appreciated, as it is very frustrating for us to wait for another 2 months especially when the government is about to introduce another bill.


----------



## Ror

ahbee said:


> "90% of applications are processed within 14 months" ???
> You submitted in April and have to wait for 14 months for the process , What about those who submitted after April ??? By that time the new rules will be applied....


I'm actually not sure when the clock starts, that's what I'm trying to find out. The processing times are on the website; https://www.border.gov.au/about/acc...ards/global-visa-citizenship-processing-times


----------



## couscous

Mish said:


> Yes and no. It depends on how long you spent out of Australia between the tourist visa and the other visa and the overall time outside Australia in total is.
> 
> Did you come on a PMV? If so with processing times for the 801 most are here longer than 4 years before they can apply for citizenship due to the 1 year as PR requirement.


Thanks Mish,

Mine was sub 309. My tourist visa : 27 Dec 2013 - 26 March 2014 ( left for 1 month) back on 2 May 2014 arrived - 26 July 2014 departed ( 2 month 17 days out side australia ) and on 12 oct 2014 back on my 309 visa.
If the tourist visa count i assume i will be eligible on 27 Dec 2017.

Cheers


----------



## Mish

couscous said:


> Thanks Mish,
> 
> Mine was sub 309. My tourist visa : 27 Dec 2013 - 26 March 2014 ( left for 1 month) back on 2 May 2014 arrived - 26 July 2014 departed ( 2 month 17 days out side australia ) and on 12 oct 2014 back on my 309 visa.
> If the tourist visa count i assume i will be eligible on 27 Dec 2017.
> 
> Cheers


When was your subclass 100 granted? If your subclass 100 has not been granted yet or was granted after 28 December 2016 then you will not be eligible for citizenship on 27 December 2017.


----------



## couscous

Mish said:


> When was your subclass 100 granted? If your subclass 100 has not been granted yet or was granted after 28 December 2016 then you will not be eligible for citizenship on 27 December 2017.


Sorry Mish forgot to mention about my sub 100. It was granted on 23 Sep 2016.


----------



## Mish

couscous said:


> Sorry Mish forgot to mention about my sub 100. It was granted on 23 Sep 2016.


In that case you are eligible 27 December 2017 then. IMO it is best to apply as soon as you are eligible if you want citizenship as we don't know what Peter Dutton will be doing after 1 July 2018.


----------



## Mish

couscous said:


> Thanks Mish,
> 
> Mine was sub 309. My tourist visa : 27 Dec 2013 - 26 March 2014 ( left for 1 month) back on 2 May 2014 arrived - 26 July 2014 departed ( 2 month 17 days out side australia ) and on 12 oct 2014 back on my 309 visa.
> If the tourist visa count i assume i will be eligible on 27 Dec 2017.
> 
> Cheers


I just had a think about this because I remembered the "have lived in Australia on a valid Australian visa for four years immediately before applying" and I am guessing you did not hold a subclass 600 from 27 December 2013 to October 2014?

Edit: Check out this post: http://www.australiaforum.com/1434217-post36.html - it seems to indicate that if you spend time in Australia on a tourist visa and then you are outside Australia without a valid visa then the time in Australia on a tourist visa does not count towards citizenship at all as you were outside of Australia without a valid visa.

I think it will all come down to if you had a valid visa while you were outside of Australia or not. If you did not hold a valid visa while outside of Australia it looks like you will not be eligible until 12 October 2018.


----------



## jemal

Mish said:


> You will also be a voter next election too
> 
> The thing that seems to be forgotten is that the people who had their lives on hold for 5 months should be voting next election (based on current processing times to ceremony date), I am pretty sure that these people will not vote Liberal.
> 
> ...
> 
> The election last time was very tight, I wouldn't think it would be a smart move to be pissing off voters when you really need them.
> 
> ...
> 
> I do wonder what will happen if the worse case scenario happens and the changes are effective happen from 1 July 2018 and Labor win office next time. Will they reverse the changes?


We may already have a hint of an answer to that question, in this interview that Tony Burke gave just over a week ago:



> *Assuming that the government manages to pass the legislation through the Senate, something that many consider as highly unlikely, if Labor wins office after the next election, will you repel this set of changes and reintroduce the current system?*
> 
> I think it is pretty clear by how hard we have gone on this issue what sort of election promises we would make. But right at this point I am not going to contemplate defeat. At this point right now I am just determined to stop it. If I am unsuccessful on that I will have a lot more to say and it is pretty clear from my public comments. I think it is pretty clear we will end up making a commitment like that, I am just not going to make that commitment now because by doing that I am accepting defeat and I do not want to do that.


----------



## jemal

By the way, I was listening to the Senate Estimates hearing on Monday, where the Senate committee who undertook the inquiry on this bill posed questions to DIBP.

The definition of processing standards was confirmed by DIBP itself: when they say that 75% of citizenship applications are processed within 10 months, and 90% are processed within 14 months, they are counting from date of application to conferral.

They said on Monday that they expect these standards to hold despite the run-around with this bill - in fact, they said there is not even any delay or back log (go figure, not sure how true that is).

There was not too much additional information given, but if anyone is interested you can watch the hearing here:

Legal & Constitutional Affairs [Part 3] - 23/10/2017 19:20:00 - Parliament of Australia

Questions on citizenship begin around 20:52 with Sen McKim.


----------



## cokerags

jemal said:


> By the way, I was listening to the Senate Estimates hearing on Monday, where the Senate committee who undertook the inquiry on this bill posed questions to DIBP.
> 
> The definition of processing standards was confirmed by DIBP itself: when they say that 75% of citizenship applications are processed within 10 months, and 90% are processed within 14 months, they are counting from date of application to conferral.
> 
> They said on Monday that they expect these standards to hold despite the run-around with this bill - in fact, they said there is not even any delay or back log (go figure, not sure how true that is).


DIBP is blatantly lying in this hearing. They are making the case repeatedly that applications lodged after April 20 were never frozen. According to them they are still processing applications received before April 20 and haven't yet gotten to the application lodged after April 20.

We know that's a lie. Every single application lodged before April 20 has finished the test months ago and not a single applicant after April 20 has received a date for the test.

We all know the processing time stated is from date of application to conferral. It says so on the DIBP website itself. However those calling DIBP to ask for status after giving the test are being told they have to wait that long just to get the approval letter.

This is what we have to deal with now. An incompetent bureaucracy serving misleading information and a deliberate delay to satisfy the ego of one Peter Dutton. This is going to be a nightmarish process.


----------



## Mish

cokerags said:


> We know that's a lie. Every single application lodged before April 20 has finished the test months ago and not a single applicant after April 20 has received a date for the test.


What proof do you have? I know of a couple of people that lodged prior to 20 April and they do not have a test date yet.


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> What proof do you have? I know of a couple of people that lodged prior to 20 April and they do not have a test date yet.


Mish, I think that's true !! Couple of friends of mine submitted the applications before April 20th and all of them took the test a 1-1.5 months ago 
In fact for those who submitted after this date when you go the IMMI site login your account there is nowhere to show you how your application has been up to. It only shows the date of the acknowledgement.


----------



## ahbee

jemal said:


> We may already have a hint of an answer to that question, in this interview that Tony Burke gave just over a week ago:


It is a good sign to tell anyone who is eligible to apply the citizenship have to submit their application ASAP..


----------



## Mish

ahbee said:


> Mish, I think that's true !! Couple of friends of mine submitted the applications before April 20th and all of them took the test a 1-1.5 ago
> In fact for those who submitted after this date when you go the IMMI site login your account there is nowhere to show you how your application has been up to. It only shows the date of the acknowledgement.


I saw a post on Facebook taken from whirlpool of someone who applied after 20 April 2017 and they had their test date already ... I think they were 4 years PR.

The people I know were a couple of weeks prior and no test date yet.


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> I saw a post on Facebook taken from whirlpool of someone who applied after 20 April 2017 and they had their test date already ... I think they were 4 years PR.
> 
> The people I know were a couple of weeks prior and no test date yet.


Oh......you just reminds me all of my friends have been staying as PR in Australia at least 8 yrs. No wonder


----------



## Mish

ahbee said:


> Oh......you just reminds me all of my friends have been staying as PR in Australia at least 8 yrs. No wonder


I believe that is why there are so many applications because all the people who were PR forever where like oh crap I had better apply.

My husband is applying the day he is eligible. I don't know why people leave it so long if they want citizenship.


----------



## JandE

Mish said:


> I don't know why people leave it so long if they want citizenship.


I wonder that too... Then I think of myself. I was eligible in 1988, and applied in 2011... I put it off as I didn't want to be forced to vote, or do jury duty, etc..

My ex wife applied on the date of eligibility, 1992 I think..


----------



## ArsalanAhmad

*Good Character*

Hi All,

I have just join this forum. This forum is amazing. I got a lot of helpful information from this forum.
I got 489 SRS on 08/02/2013 and arrived Adelaide on 07/04/2013.
I applied for 887 PR on 06/02/2017, got bridging on 06/02/2017, and granted PR on 27/06/2017. I will then be eligible by 27/06/2018.

Can anyone please help me with the following queries

(1) In August 2013, I had a minor traffic fine, and in February 2017 I had an accident, report has been registered. However, SA Police has issued me a warning with no demerit points and no fines. Do I need to disclose these information in my future application?
(2) Do I need to get panel clearance certificate for my stay in Pakistan before 06/04/2013 before coming to Australia?

Thanks


----------



## Ritik

Hi Mish, I would like to ask a question from you if you please can help. I held bridging visa c. Should that count in 4 year residency?

i have applied my citizenship application (online) in august this year. i had received acknowledgement of application same day. now i m worried if my application will go through.

Thanks in Advance


----------



## Hassali.abdi

This guy does not give up easily. He already assumed that the will be passed before 1 July 2018. At the same time, he says "subject to the passage of the bill".

https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/whats-new


----------



## Mish

Ritik said:


> Hi Mish, I would like to ask a question from you if you please can help. I held bridging visa c. Should that count in 4 year residency?
> 
> i have applied my citizenship application (online) in august this year. i had received acknowledgement of application same day. now i m worried if my application will go through.
> 
> Thanks in Advance


My understanding is that the online system will not let you proceed if you don't meet the requirements.

I believe that a BVC is issued because you held a BVA when you applied for your visa, is that correct? If so then you don't need to worry as you were not unlawful at any time.


----------



## Mish

Hassali.abdi said:


> This guy does not give up easily. He already assumed that the will be passed before 1 July 2018. At the same time, he says "subject to the passage of the bill".
> 
> https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/whats-new


I saw that the other day. It is all depends if he can get NXT to agree but NXT will definitely not agree while the amendment will give the immigration minister alot of power. Whilst the amendment has that in it we know that we are safe and the amendment will not go through, we only have to worry when he removes it. I am not 100% sure on where NXT stand in regards to the 4 years PR.


----------



## ahbee

Mish said:


> I believe that is why there are so many applications because all the people who were PR forever where like oh crap I had better apply.
> 
> My husband is applying the day he is eligible. I don't know why people leave it so long if they want citizenship.


That's because some of them are originated from countries which do not allow dual citizenship. As long as they heard about the new rules under citizenship they rushed to submit the applications LOL


----------



## Ritik

Mish said:


> My understanding is that the online system will not let you proceed if you don't meet the requirements.
> 
> I believe that a BVC is issued because you held a BVA when you applied for your visa, is that correct? If so then you don't need to worry as you were not unlawful at any time.


my BVC started in May 2012 then i applied for partner visa (820) in oct 2013. i don't know if i got granted BCA or it remained BVC. In may 2014 i been granted partner visa(820).


----------



## Majeesh

Ritik said:


> my BVC started in May 2012 then i applied for partner visa (820) in oct 2013. i don't know if i got granted BCA or it remained BVC. In may 2014 i been granted partner visa(820).


Ritik, the key point in your case is to be lawful in Australia for 4 years including 1 yr as PR. you have had a visa refusal or held a BVA something like that when you applied for 820/801. However BVB brought you back in to lawful so you are most likely met this requirement. Give DIAC a call for clarification.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Citizenship 7 saga. Five gone including the one Deputy Prime minister Joyce. Two survived-Nick and Matt Canavas.

Joyce got his share of the citizenship problem as he put all may residents in suspension by voting in support of the x-proposed citizenship bill. He will go back to by-election at New England.


What a week!!!!


----------



## shepherd

I found this spreadsheet to track yours and others applications.. hope this will help.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...44U7VG469oZNQeKgceVDO4/edit?ts=589cfc5c#gid=0


----------



## ChK

couscous said:


> Thanks Mish,
> 
> Mine was sub 309. My tourist visa : 27 Dec 2013 - 26 March 2014 ( left for 1 month) back on 2 May 2014 arrived - 26 July 2014 departed ( 2 month 17 days out side australia ) and on 12 oct 2014 back on my 309 visa.
> If the tourist visa count i assume i will be eligible on 27 Dec 2017.
> 
> Cheers


When do you become eligible for the citizenship? My wife was granted 309 in January 2017?


----------



## ChK

Hassali.abdi said:


> Hey you do not need to wait until January. You will be eligible on 27 December unless you have been absent from Australia for more than 12 months over the 4 years, or more than 90 days from the final year of the 4 years.
> 
> This means you are allowed to be away from Australia up to 12 months over the 4 years required to be Aus resident And upto 90 days over the year prior to the citi application date.


a quick question,

my wife was granted 309 in January and we were suppose to land before July which we did.

However we are not in Australia at the moment, we stayed there for a month and left. Does this mean that these days will be counted toward her 4 years as long as we are back before 12 months?


----------



## Mish

ChK said:


> a quick question,
> 
> my wife was granted 309 in January and we were suppose to land before July which we did.
> 
> However we are not in Australia at the moment, we stayed there for a month and left. Does this mean that these days will be counted toward her 4 years as long as we are back before 12 months?


Probably not it depends on if she meets the residency requirements .... no more 12 momths out of Australia in the 4 years and no more than 90 days in the 1 year before.

If you don't move to Australia until August 2018 then the time before August 2018 will not count.


----------



## ChK

Mish said:


> Probably not it depends on if she meets the residency requirements .... no more 12 momths out of Australia in the 4 years and no more than 90 days in the 1 year before.
> 
> If you don't move to Australia until August 2018 then the time before August 2018 will not count.


So if we move by June 2018, it'll all be counted? since the day she received her 309?


----------



## Mish

ChK said:


> So if we move by June 2018, it'll all be counted? since the day she received her 309?


Depends if she leaves Australia for any time in the 3 years afterwards.

In all honesty it is way too early to know as 1/ you don't know if she will need to leave Australia at any time unexpectedly and 2/ the citizenship rules may change by then.


----------



## ChK

Mish said:


> Depends if she leaves Australia for any time in the 3 years afterwards.
> 
> In all honesty it is way too early to know as 1/ you don't know if she will need to leave Australia at any time unexpectedly and 2/ the citizenship rules may change by then.


but anytime that she leaves, she'll have to make up right?

Yes, I understand but we are just thinking if it is worth it to move now or just wait for her PR.

Thank you so much.


----------



## Mish

ChK said:


> but anytime that she leaves, she'll have to make up right?
> 
> Yes, I understand but we are just thinking if it is worth it to move now or just wait for her PR.
> 
> Thank you so much.


Yes anytime she leaves it delays the citizenship.

It is hard to say if it is worth it or not. If the government gets their way and makes it 4 years PR then it is not worth it. The thing is we do not know what the government will do so it is hard to say if it is worth it or not.


----------



## Ritik

Ritik said:


> my BVC started in May 2012 then i applied for partner visa (820) in oct 2013. i don't know if i got granted BCA or it remained BVC. In may 2014 i been granted partner visa(820).


Hi Mish, Sorry I didn't understand your Quote properly, can you please elaborate it one more time. I called two of the immi lawyers as they said bridging visa C will not be counted. I am WORRIED.

One more question. If someone applies partner visa while holding a BVC, will that be turned into BVA or it will remain BVC?

I am more than thankful for you guidance.


----------



## Ritik

Mish said:


> My understanding is that the online system will not let you proceed if you don't meet the requirements.
> 
> I believe that a BVC is issued because you held a BVA when you applied for your visa, is that correct? If so then you don't need to worry as you were not unlawful at any time.


Hi mish, Yes you are right BVC was issued because i applied for a visa while holding BVA back in 2009.


----------



## Mish

Ritik said:


> Hi Mish, Sorry I didn't understand your Quote properly, can you please elaborate it one more time. I called two of the immi lawyers as they said bridging visa C will not be counted. I am WORRIED.
> 
> One more question. If someone applies partner visa while holding a BVC, will that be turned into BVA or it will remain BVC?
> 
> I am more than thankful for you guidance.


As far as I know all bridging visa's are counted but with BVE anything before the grant of the BVE is not. Since you held a BVC it should not matter. If DIBP had changed the rules they would need approval to do that.

IF they apply when on a BVC it will remain a BVC however they will have an issue. If you apply when on a bridging visa for a partner visa you need to show exceptional circumstances to why you applied in Australia on a bridging visa and did not go offshore to do it. These cases are very hard to win and the approvals for them are very far between. It is alot easier and faster to do it offshore.


----------



## ash-aus

I applied end of Aug and already received email from Immigration for interview. My interview is booked in 2 weeks. I was surprised that I heard there was a long queue and it was "first come first take" basis. It is a good news though


----------



## Ritik

Mish said:


> As far as I know all bridging visa's are counted but with BVE anything before the grant of the BVE is not. Since you held a BVC it should not matter. If DIBP had changed the rules they would need approval to do that.
> 
> IF they apply when on a BVC it will remain a BVC however they will have an issue. If you apply when on a bridging visa for a partner visa you need to show exceptional circumstances to why you applied in Australia on a bridging visa and did not go offshore to do it. These cases are very hard to win and the approvals for them are very far between. It is alot easier and faster to do it offshore.


Thanks very much MISH.


----------



## popolo

ash-aus said:


> I applied end of Aug and already received email from Immigration for interview. My interview is booked in 2 weeks. I was surprised that I heard there was a long queue and it was "first come first take" basis. It is a good news though


Congrats!
Can I ask you in which part of Australia you are?


----------



## ash-aus

popolo said:


> Congrats!
> Can I ask you in which part of Australia you are?


Thanks I'm in Melbourne.


----------



## ahbee

ash-aus said:


> I applied end of Aug and already received email from Immigration for interview. My interview is booked in 2 weeks. I was surprised that I heard there was a long queue and it was "first come first take" basis. It is a good news though


Interview ????


----------



## MaxPower

ash-aus said:


> I applied end of Aug and already received email from Immigration for interview. My interview is booked in 2 weeks. I was surprised that I heard there was a long queue and it was "first come first take" basis. It is a good news though


By interview ... you mean test date

Anyways ... pisses me off no end when see posts like this ... considering we applied at the same office 2 months earlier

"processing in received order" BS from DIBP does not apply


----------



## ahbee

MaxPower said:


> By interview ... you mean test date
> 
> Anyways ... pisses me off no end when see posts like this ... considering we applied at the same office 2 months earlier
> 
> "processing in received order" BS from DIBP does not apply


Can't agree more !!! I submitted in July....


----------



## ash-aus

MaxPower said:


> By interview ... you mean test date
> 
> Anyways ... pisses me off no end when see posts like this ... considering we applied at the same office 2 months earlier
> 
> "processing in received order" BS from DIBP does not apply


Yes, it is a test date. Email mentioned interview as well.

MaxPower and ahbee, sorry my post made you uncomfortable. I shouldn't have posted it


----------



## jemal

ash-aus said:


> Yes, it is a test date. Email mentioned interview as well.
> 
> MaxPower and ahbee, sorry my post made you uncomfortable. I shouldn't have posted it


Ash-aus it's a good thing you posted as this way we can have an idea of what actually goes on at the department. Even though we submitted my wife's application in May (but eligible right after the announcement), we are happy for you that there is some movement on your case.

I encourage anyone to post on their progress, no matter what date they submitted, as it gives us some form of evidence against the department and their claims.


----------



## popolo

if it is of any consolation, I applied on April 20 and I'm yet to hear anything


----------



## needguidance

*Citizenship Guidance*

Hi All,

My stay in Australia is as follows -

20th June 2013 - 15th March 2015 : 2 Student Visas
15th March 2015 - 07th April 2015 : Bridging Visa A
07th March 2015 - 03rd March 2017 : Post Study Work Visa (Visa 485)
03rd March 2017 - on going : Permanent Residency (Visa 189)

Overseas Travel:
24th Dec 2015 - 08th Feb 2016
23rd Dec 2016 - 28th Jan 2017
20th June 2017 - 05th July 2017

My query is -
Will my 2 student visas and Bridging Visa A will be counted for Residency Requirement?


----------



## shepherd

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...44U7VG469oZNQeKgceVDO4/edit?ts=589cfc5c#gid=0

Anybody knows the owner of this spreedsheet which has all the timeline updates? as it is no longer available now!


----------



## Vinzo

Anyone else get this when page 6 of the online form??

"An error has occurred
The applicant is unable to proceed with this application. Access the Residence calculator to check when the applicant will have been in Australia long enough to be eligible for Australian citizenship."

I dont understand, my wife has visa temp grant 8/11/2013 and pr was 7/2/2016, the immi calculator is says we can apply for citizenship.

While typing this up, I just relised she arrived 22/11/2013, maybe thats the date i should go by?


----------



## shepherd

Vinzo said:


> Anyone else get this when page 6 of the online form??
> 
> "An error has occurred
> The applicant is unable to proceed with this application. Access the Residence calculator to check when the applicant will have been in Australia long enough to be eligible for Australian citizenship."
> 
> I dont understand, my wife has visa temp grant 8/11/2013 and pr was 7/2/2016, the immi calculator is says we can apply for citizenship.
> 
> While typing this up, I just relised she arrived 22/11/2013, maybe thats the date i should go by?


She should have stayed in Australia for 4 years so yes you have to apply on 22/11/2017


----------



## shepherd

A new spreadsheet is created in One Drive so it will be great if you guys could add your details too ... we give each other hope 

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...=file,xlsx&app=Excel&authkey=!APu7knBUDAAjHQw


----------



## aguscarrascosa

Test email received today.

Council: North Ryde, NSW
Office: Sydney
Applied Online: 12/05/ 2017
Acknowledgement: 12/06/2017
Mail test received date: 14/11/2017
Test date: 28/11/2017


----------



## Ritik

Hi Mish, Hope you are doing well. Your advice has been great help for all of us on this forum, Thanks for that.
I would like to ask you something, I applied citizenship back in august and I recently moved to New Zealand. Planing to stay here for another 6-8 months. i still have my partner living in Australia. Will my application have any impact that i m in new zealand? 

Thanks in Advance


----------



## Mish

Ritik said:


> Hi Mish, Hope you are doing well. Your advice has been great help for all of us on this forum, Thanks for that.
> I would like to ask you something, I applied citizenship back in august and I recently moved to New Zealand. Planing to stay here for another 6-8 months. i still have my partner living in Australia. Will my application have any impact that i m in new zealand?
> 
> Thanks in Advance


Just that you need to be in Australia for the test date and the ceremony date. I know with the test date from what I have seen sometimes people are only given a short period of notice.


----------



## Ritik

Mish said:


> Just that you need to be in Australia for the test date and the ceremony date. I know with the test date from what I have seen sometimes people are only given a short period of notice.


ok. So do you think there can be chances that they can decline my application because I'm in New Zealand? or they must give me a notice (even short one) to return back in Australia for test and ceremony?


----------



## mayaasen

Ritik said:


> Mish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just that you need to be in Australia for the test date and the ceremony date. I know with the test date from what I have seen sometimes people are only given a short period of notice.
> 
> 
> 
> ok. So do you think there can be chances that they can decline my application because I'm in New Zealand? or they must give me a notice (even short one) to return back in Australia for test and ceremony?
Click to expand...

Hello there, hopefully I'm posting this correctly (first timer)

I'm in a similar situation to yours and unsure on what to do.

I applied for citizenship at the start of August (in ACT via Post) and informed them I was going overseas but would be able to go back to Aus as soon as needed to do the test.

Now I am still in SE Asia and wondering if they will still send me a date to do the test while I'm overseas OR if I need to be in Australia in order to get a date??

Thanks a lot, any help is appreciated


----------



## Vinzo

My wife has given birth to our 2 kids here, Arent they Aus citizen by birth because iam or do i need to apply for them too with my wifes application.

So my answers would in underline would be right but last two im unsure of?

Does the applicant have children including any who may be deceased?
*Yes* No

Is the applicant the responsible parent of any children under 16 years of age that are applying for citizenship within this application? A 'responsible parent' of a child is:
a parent unless he or she has no parental responsibility because of orders made by the Family Court of Australia, or
any person having responsibility over the child because of an order made by the Family Court, or
any person who has guardianship or custody of the child under a law in force in a State or Territory or a foreign country.
*Yes* No

Does the applicant have any children that are not applying on this application but are applying on another application (for example with another parent)?
Yes No???

Does the applicant have any children that are not applying for citizenship including those who are deceased?
Yes No???


----------



## aguscarrascosa

Today I've done the test and my application status changed from Received to Approved in the afternoon.

Council: North Ryde, NSW
Office: Sydney
Applied Online: 12/05/ 2017
Acknowledgement: 12/06/2017
Mail test received date: 14/11/2017
Test date: 28/11/2017 (100%)
Online status to Approved 28/11/2017


----------



## andrewjames

Vinzo said:


> My wife has given birth to our 2 kids here, Arent they Aus citizen by birth because iam or do i need to apply for them too with my wifes application.
> 
> So my answers would in underline would be right but last two im unsure of?
> 
> Does the applicant have children including any who may be deceased?
> *Yes* No
> 
> Is the applicant the responsible parent of any children under 16 years of age that are applying for citizenship within this application? A 'responsible parent' of a child is:
> a parent unless he or she has no parental responsibility because of orders made by the Family Court of Australia, or
> any person having responsibility over the child because of an order made by the Family Court, or
> any person who has guardianship or custody of the child under a law in force in a State or Territory or a foreign country.
> *Yes* No
> 
> Does the applicant have any children that are not applying on this application but are applying on another application (for example with another parent)?
> Yes No???
> 
> Does the applicant have any children that are not applying for citizenship including those who are deceased?
> Yes No???


Australian by birth as you are Australian and they were both born in Australia.


----------



## needguidance

Hi Guys,

This below link is not working. Saying Unauthenticated.

https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...Pu7knBUDAAjHQw

Can the admin look into this?

Thanks!


----------



## ahmee

popolo said:


> if it is of any consolation, I applied on April 20 and I'm yet to hear anything


Same here, applied on April 20. Have not heard back yet.


----------



## cokerags

needguidance said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> This below link is not working. Saying Unauthenticated.
> 
> https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?...Pu7knBUDAAjHQw
> 
> Can the admin look into this?
> 
> Thanks!


I think the person who created it has taken it down. There is another one here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...qxU3p4SOfFedG7WanXQSwyrfA/edit#gid=1621018804


----------



## ahbee

ash-aus said:


> Yes, it is a test date. Email mentioned interview as well.
> 
> MaxPower and ahbee, sorry my post made you uncomfortable. I shouldn't have posted it


hi Just wanna know if there is any update for your interview


----------



## maoram

Hi All,

I am new to this forum. 

I am wondering what steps to take next, as I applied for my citizenship on the 24th April this year, and it's nearly 8 months. 

I understand that there is a massive backlog, (which is not our fault but the government's fault - they really need to hurry up and start processing) but I'm not sure of what to do.

There are so many people on this forum that applied for the citizenship after the date that I applied and they have already attended/attending cerermonies! 

Please help!


----------



## ahbee

Have you check your IMMI account to see how it goes ?


----------



## maoram

Yes and I haven't received any updates it still says "application received"


----------



## ahbee

Same here 

Just hope do not have to wait b4 the new rule come out next year


----------



## downunder_

I sent paper application. The application was singed on May 25th. I received the acknowledgement email July 10th. In the acknowledgement email, they stated that my application's date is May 25th (which is the date under my signature on the application form)

... and the changes were voted down in the Senate on Oct 18 (I guess).

*My question is, starting from which date should I count the 11 months processing time..?*

And why are people who submitted after other people are receiving results before those people..?

Should we write to Tony Burke again..?

*EDIT*: I just sent an email to Tony Burke explaining this issue to him. I believe if we can make enough noise, someone is gonna pay attention to this matter. Complaining to each other is not as effective.


----------



## Mish

The processing times are based on application date.

I think the issue is that the senate decision was made so close to the end of the year so they would have less testing dates. I would hope that things speed in February after Christmas and the school holidays.


----------



## Eizzi

It's still monumentally crappy that people aren't being processed in order of application. It was their retroactive stuff-up shenanigans, I don't want their excuses haha.


----------



## solskjaer

Mish said:


> I believe that is why there are so many applications because all the people who were PR forever where like oh crap I had better apply.
> 
> My husband is applying the day he is eligible. I don't know why people leave it so long if they want citizenship.


Lots of countries do not allow to have dual citizenship. And they still have lots of ties in their home country.


----------



## MaxPower

Still waiting here for an interview date


----------



## jemal

MaxPower said:


> Still waiting here for an interview date


Same here. Wife applied May 1st. Heard nothing at all. Meanwhile know of people who applied July, August and September who got their interview and test invites in November/December, some who have already sat (and passed) the test.

Maybe security checks, etc. are to blame.


----------



## Miss Swan

Finally got an interview date! Seems the Brisbane office is working through the backlog at an astronomically slow pace.

Applied 26th April
Received interview email 21st Jan
Interview date 31st Jan

From personal experience, those checking their ImmiAccount for updates need not be too concerned. I was logging in every week to keep seeing the same old "Received" status and then suddenly 'bam!' I got an email advising me of my test date. Look out for your emails instead


----------



## ahbee

What interview ??? for citizenship ? Isn't that all you need is to sit the citizenship test only ?


----------



## ahbee

*"Meanwhile know of people who applied July, August and September who got their interview and test invites in November/December, some who have already sat (and passed) the test"
*
WOW !! REALLY ???
How long do I have to wait then ??? I applied on end of July....


----------



## Miss Swan

ahbee said:


> What interview ??? for citizenship ? Isn't that all you need is to sit the citizenship test only ?


The interview is simply a process where they identify your identity and ensure you're eligible before you're allowed to sit the test.


----------



## Miss Swan

ahbee said:


> *"Meanwhile know of people who applied July, August and September who got their interview and test invites in November/December, some who have already sat (and passed) the test"
> *
> WOW !! REALLY ???
> How long do I have to wait then ??? I applied on end of July....


It seems different states work through different speeds. Can't say for other states but my personal experience is that Brisbane tends to be a little slower than Melbourne or Sydney.


----------



## ahbee

Miss Swan said:


> It seems different states work through different speeds. Can't say for other states but my personal experience is that Brisbane tends to be a little slower than Melbourne or Sydney.


Well, I don't think Melbourne work faster then Brisbane, I submitted my application in July


----------



## Ritik

HI EVERYONE, Do you guys think that we should make a WAITING ROOM for citizenship applications? Because this forum is no longer relevant.


----------



## MaxPower

ahbee said:


> Well, I don't think Melbourne work faster then Brisbane, I submitted my application in July


Well, surprisingly I got an e-mail response from the complaint I sent to the Melbourne Processing Office asking why some applications from Aug-Nov 2017 have already received test dates while some from April-July 2017 have yet to receive anything

They didn't answer that part of my question  .... however they stated they are now processing applications from April/May 2017 and should get to our mid June 2017 application in "approx. two-three months"


----------



## Passion123

Any help will be highly appreciated regarding my wife. Please find below the timings

Law full entry into Australia: 20.10.2013
Permanent Residency: 16.06.2015
1st travel: 15.09.2015 to 26.11.2015
2nd travel: 05.09.2017 to 06.12.2017
Due for citizenship on 20th October 2017

She was due for her Citizenship on 20th October 2017 but she had to travel overseas to visit her sick mum. Now for the purpose of not to travel more then 90 days in the last 1 year immediately before the application, if i use resident calculator from departments website it says "requirement met" if i use her visit dates from 05.09.2017 to 05.12.2017, Which means either exclude date of arrival or date of departure or both of them... 

BUT...

if I enter exact date of departure and arrival i.e. from 05.09.2017 to 06.12.2017 the requirement met status changes to NO and it tells us not to apply before 06.09.2018. 

I believe the day of departure and arrival should not be included in being away from OZ as in both days actually the applicant was in Australia. 

I had also called department during November to seek some information so I could change her return tickets to early date but because of the wrong information provided by the operator I ended up not changing the return tickets.

Can you please help me to let me know is she eligible?

please receive many many thanks in advance.


----------



## MaxPower

Citizenship Minister expected to announce tonight that they are making another attempt to change the Citizenship laws


----------



## JandE

MaxPower said:


> Citizenship Minister expected to announce tonight that they are making another attempt to change the Citizenship laws


The new requirements for citizenship will come into effect on 1 July 2018. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/citi/whats-new

I actually expected the bill to be presented before now, to get it passed by the date originally proposed.


----------



## Savage_Flame

JandE said:


> MaxPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizenship Minister expected to announce tonight that they are making another attempt to change the Citizenship laws
> 
> 
> 
> The new requirements for citizenship will come into effect on 1 July 2018. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/citi/whats-new
> 
> I actually expected the bill to be presented before now, to get it passed by the date originally proposed.
Click to expand...

Just a casual minimum 7+ years for the fiance to become a citizen 

In all honesty, I am just glad she can join me in Oz and we are able to be together. But it certainly is a long path..


----------



## Lena83

The bill hasn't passed parliament yet, the house is still divided and no affirmative action has been taken. We have to wait and see what happens. I would be due next year to apply and this is really annoying if it passes....


----------



## ArsalanAhmad

Thank you for providing quick information. This forum is great. Can anyone please tell what are the new changes? Are there any changes other than stated here



JandE said:


> The new requirements for citizenship will come into effect on 1 July 2018. ht tps ://w ww.hom eaffa irs.gov.a u/trav/c iti/whats-new
> 
> I actually expected the bill to be presented before now, to get it passed by the date originally proposed.


----------



## ArsalanAhmad

Hi All, its very important the Government has asked for polls for Pauline Hansen's Bill

The Australian parliament is legislating by SurveyMonkey: asking for a public yes-no vote in an online poll on Pauline Hanson’s proposed legislation to change citizenship law.

In an exceedingly rare move, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs legislation committee has set up a SurveyMonkey online poll, asking people one question: do you support the provisions of the Australian citizenship legislation amendment (strengthening the commitments for Australian citizenship and other measures) bill 2018?


----------



## JandE

ArsalanAhmad said:


> The Australian parliament is legislating by SurveyMonkey:


The government is *not* legislating by Survey Monkey.

The result of the poll is not binding on the committee, nor on the parliament (that would be unconstitutional)

It just gives them an idea of feelings. The result can be shot down and ignored anyway, and it probably costs nothing.

It is an interesting way to guage opinions without needing to follow the result.


----------



## Dayvt

Processing times have creeped up again.
75% = 13 months
90% = 16 months


----------



## Dayvt

Stats out for month ending 30 April 2018: -
75% = 14 months
90% = 16 months



Dayvt said:


> Processing times have creeped up again.
> 75% = 13 months
> 90% = 16 months


----------



## radman

Wife applied for citizenship mid-August 2017 ... just received the test date scheduled for beginning of July.


----------



## JandE

I just read a news article. 
"The number of citizenship applications on hand as at 30 April for conferral is 209,826,” a member of the Home Affairs Department told the Senate Estimates Hearing in May.

That is a lot of applications waiting in line. 

The new Citizenship bill is heading for debate later this month.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Hey Friends,

Any update about the citizenship changes propossed? Tomorrow is 2nd of July and the new requirement is not in effect yet. The changes have not been introduced in the senate yet/

What is next?


----------



## Mish

Hassali.abdi said:


> Hey Friends,
> 
> Any update about the citizenship changes propossed? Tomorrow is 2nd of July and the new requirement is not in effect yet. The changes have not been introduced in the senate yet/
> 
> What is next?


I read recently that there may be changes later in the year.

My thoughts are that they need NXT who are the deciding votes and won't put it to parliament until they know they will agree which is why we haven't heard anything yet.

It is not a bad thing that it is delayed though as more people can apply before the changes come through


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Mish said:


> Hassali.abdi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Friends,
> 
> Any update about the citizenship changes propossed? Tomorrow is 2nd of July and the new requirement is not in effect yet. The changes have not been introduced in the senate yet/
> 
> What is next?
> 
> 
> 
> I read recently that there may be changes later in the year.
> 
> My thoughts are that they need NXT who are the deciding votes and won't put it to parliament until they know they will agree which is why we haven't heard anything yet.
> 
> It is not a bad thing that it is delayed though as more people can apply before the changes come through
Click to expand...

Hi Mish,

Thanks for the reply. It is good that they delay every time until they give it up.

I will be eligible to appy in late April 2019. It is long time as there is uncertainty in this changes.

Has your partner applied or not yet due?

Regards,
Hassan


----------



## Mish

Hassali.abdi said:


> Hi Mish,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. It is good that they delay every time until they give it up.
> 
> I will be eligible to appy in late April 2019. It is long time as there is uncertainty in this changes.
> 
> Has your partner applied or not yet due?
> 
> Regards,
> Hassan


He applied in May. He is from a HR country so I am expecting it to take longer ☹. From what I have seen HR countries are taking longer for citizenship now too.

I am.hopeful he has it before mid next year as we want to go overseas and it will be easier on an Australian passport.

Fingers crossed for you that you can apply before any changes happen. If lucky they won't change the residency period.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

Mish said:


> Hassali.abdi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mish,
> 
> Thanks for the reply. It is good that they delay every time until they give it up.
> 
> I will be eligible to appy in late April 2019. It is long time as there is uncertainty in this changes.
> 
> Has your partner applied or not yet due?
> 
> Regards,
> Hassan
> 
> 
> 
> He applied in May. He is from a HR country so I am expecting it to take longer ☹. From what I have seen HR countries are taking longer for citizenship now too.
> 
> I am.hopeful he has it before mid next year as we want to go overseas and it will be easier on an Australian passport.
> 
> Fingers crossed for you that you can apply before any changes happen. If lucky they won't change the residency period.
Click to expand...

MISH,

I wish him the best in his citizenship process. He is lucky that he became eligible before any changes get effect.

The failed In october in the senate, they again failed July 2nd, and I hope they will give up in the interest of migrants.

We don't expect an old mum or dad from non-English speaking country to pass the propossed English test. Certainly there will be a permanent under-class residents in Australia if the change get its way. GOD FORBID.

9 months to go for me.


----------



## ampk

Slightly off topic but there is/was a big push for Registered Migration Agents to also have some stupidly high level of English level.

Most (all) I have seen have very good English reading and written skills and many also appear to be migrants themselves. I would expect that many applicants would not benefit at all by the RMA having perfect English skills, but would greatly benefit if the RMA spoke the applicants language.


----------



## Hassali.abdi

ampk said:


> Slightly off topic but there is/was a big push for Registered Migration Agents to also have some stupidly high level of English level.
> 
> Most (all) I have seen have very good English reading and written skills and many also appear to be migrants themselves. I would expect that many applicants would not benefit at all by the RMA having perfect English skills, but would greatly benefit if the RMA spoke the applicants language.


That is weired. Why agents need such condition?

Already they were approved by the Australian government why reasses about their competency?

It seams the current government is fight with it's system.

It appears they are tightening the nose of every department shutting the door to everyone.


----------



## Mish

Hassali.abdi said:


> We don't expect an old mum or dad from non-English speaking country to pass the propossed English test. Certainly there will be a permanent under-class residents in Australia if the change get its way. GOD FORBID.
> 
> 9 months to go for me.


They are now proposing primary school level English which I do agree with. Mainly because a friend of mine her parents are migrants and don't speak much English and are always rely on her. It is very concerning if something happens to them & they can't get in contact with my friend (their daughter), then they will have no-one to help them.

IMO they need to demonstrate enough to get around - but groceries, go to the dr, go to the hospital & catch public transport.


----------



## CollegeGirl

Here's the thing though - I don't think requiring that is going to change anything for people living without that much English. It will inspire a few to learn, sure, but those probably were the people more inclined to do it anyway, who have the resources to attend classes, etc. For most it will just mean they stay as PR and don't go for citizenship, which means they won't have a voice in the political direction the country takes. Not a fan of the language requirement for that reason.


----------



## Mish

Changing it may force some to learn some basic English to get by. We aren't talking high level just enough to be able to communicate what they need.

There are countries live Germany & Denmark who require you to be proficient in their language before getting citizenship.

My concern with those that do not know English is what happens if they are having a heart attack and they can't get someone to translate for them? It is more of a safety thing to know the language or you need someone with you at all times that speaks the language (I speak from experience here as when I go to my husband's country to visit I make sure someone who speaks Arabic is with me at all times as my Arabic is extremely basic).


----------



## MaxPower

Disregarding the citizenship aspect - all PR applicants should have a minimum English level IMHO


----------



## Hassali.abdi

MaxPower said:


> Disregarding the citizenship aspect - all PR applicants should have a minimum English level IMHO


Hi Maxpower,

What do you mean please? Do you mean the citizenship was dropped and focusing on English mandatory for PR applicants?

Clarify for us to benefit please.


----------



## Mk83

Any news, citizenship approved ? Anything


----------



## PurpleMonkeyDishwasher

I guess with the election results of last week this may be back on the agenda.

Looking like Coalition with 35 seats in Senate with 2 One Nation, Cory Bernardi and Jaquie Lambie all likely to support changes if they are relisted.

Well done Australia.


----------



## BionicAllah

PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:


> I guess with the election results of last week this may be back on the agenda.
> 
> Looking like Coalition with 35 seats in Senate with 2 One Nation, Cory Bernardi and Jaquie Lambie all likely to support changes if they are relisted.
> 
> Well done Australia.


Oh goody, does this mean we're gonna have a replay of Peter Dutton's orders to stop processing citizenship applications for almost 6 months, despite the fact his silly bill hadn't been passed.


----------

