The government will be announcing new changes to citizenship eligibility.
I'm all in for the new test and community integration. At least we are all part of OzB as a community :D
The toughest part that may affect some of us will be the 4 years probation period up from 1 year. Also, limited access to social security benefits during the 4 years wait.
What do OzBargain think ? How will the new changes affect you ?
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.afr.com/news/politics/ci…
One of the rules that may impact my in-laws is the age exemption. Currently if you are 60 or over you are not required to sit the test but it appears that under the new rules, the only age group exempt are 16 and under.
What a load of crap in terms of bringing English test and i bet will have to pay for the test as well.
If it is part of the fee then it is no issue but otherwise just making money.
I was wondering about this too.. What will the test be and what is wrong with the current tests they use for sponsorship/university admission (IELTS and PTE)?
They seem to be concerned that after living here for 4 years people might have suddenly forgotten how to speak English.
A friend had to sit the IELTS test 4 times: for uni, for her 457 visa, for PR and for something else I forgot.
She'll be thrilled to hear that she will have to do it one more time for citizenship.
Help me understand this guys.
It says in the pdf document in lateat news as follows:
The government will introduce new citizenship related changes in Parliament by end of 2017. The package of reforms will apply to applications received on or after government announcement on 20 April 2017.
It means exactly what it says.
The new rules will apply for citizenship applications submitted by 20 April, but they only expect the law to pass parliament later in 2017, which means the legislation itself will have retrospective application - that is apply for a period prior to enactment.
Those of us with parliaments do this all time, and in the current circumstances it's to prevent a wall of applications hitting the department between the announcement and when parliament gets it's act together. Parliament's take time to go through the motions, so to speak, so this is entirely normal and appropriate.
The people who will be kicking themselves the most are those who qualified to actually make an application, but twiddled their thumbs while assuming a rule change was not around the corner. That's a serious mistake to make in this country, as the history of immigration/citizenship law is one of constant change.
If the legislation is introduced only by end of 2017, is the department going to hold all applications for the rest of the year? There are people who already meet the 4 year residency requirement and haven't applied for citizenship yet, will their applications be on hold pending an English test that is not currently available in place.
The new rules will apply for citizenship applications submitted by 20 April…
Typo - i meant after 20 April.
… is the department going to hold all applications for the rest of the year?
That's a very good question.
Here's the departmental website, and contact details.
Please report back to class when you find out.
Australia is a secular nation…
There are unwanted muslims? Unwanted christians maybe.
These changes are going to weed out unwanted muslims and atheists….
How do you figure that?
No they won't.
You've been fooled by the dog whistle, dummy.
… :)
Well you forgot the smiley face in the initial message.
I do that all the time - gets me into all kinds of double trouble…
My goodness, it was a joke, lol.
In the link
" The values test would include testing an applicant's attitude towards religious freedom, violence against women, child marriage, female circumcision and ensuring girls have a right to an education."
Sounds like that has the potential to weed out those hardcore fundamentalist muslims who think that's ok, assuming they're silly enough to say what they actually think.
Hang on, how'd i end up on this side of the argument…
Well I thought adding atheists would automagically imply a joke :-)
From the quote, and the current atmosphere in Aus, it sort of alludes to extremist muslims, and the first part would weed out extremist atheists :-)
Of course nobody would be stupid enough to admit to these if they wanted to live here….
imbeciles who don't read, still giving negs, would most likely fail the test as well…
Absolutely. Muslims and atheists will never be able to live here for an additional 3 years, or pass a second English test.
Christians on the other hand will not have problems with that. They know much better English from the bible, amirite?
Not so great for those kiwis that were planning on following the path to citizenship that was announced in Feb last year and supposed to start 1/7/17.
They'll now have to pass an income test for 5 years, then be a permanent resident for 4 more years (up from 1), then finally be able apply for citizenship.
Doesn't make a huge amount of sense given that NZ and AU values are fundamentally identical.
except the weather:)
AFAIK, that income test is just looking for the 5 year history not starting from your application.
I've checked the minimum requirements but that didn't seems to be that harsh.
Getting citizenship on the other hand is crap though.
We've been deporting quite a few of NZ's bikies BTW…
This is such a senseless proposal. For instance, I have been in Australia for 11 years, and have been eligible for Citizenship test as of now, I have studied through high school and university in Australia, as well as conducted a required English test before being qualified for Permanent Residency, I have also been working and contributing to the Australian society for all these years - and now I still have to wait for another 4 years??? Can someone please explain to me how is this reasonable ?
i lived here for 21 years, and then had to wait another 2
i had to do an english test despite being born in an english speaking country, and also a mouse tutorial.
i did the test in 6 minutes and they said i didnt put in any effort to finish so quickly…. but i passed
I had to do many English tests despite being born here.
And I still have no clue what Shakespeare is talking about. :/
The way I understand the new rules is that you need to have held PR for at least 4 years before you can apply for citizenship. I think that's a fair request, takes a number of years before you really feel like you belong here. So if you've held PR for 4+ years you should be eligible to apply now.
I've lived here for 9 years (study and work). Just got my PR last May and I was planning to apply citizen this May. Well 3 more years I guess.
More likely another greedy attempt by the current government to make us forking out what ever we have left in our pockets: for example, if one has done an English test to be qualified as a Permanent Resident, does it make any sense if he/she had to sit for another English test to prove his/her proficiency again?? Not to mention, a cost to sit one of these language tests isn't cheap - $300/each, on top of the Citizenship Test, which is $285. God knows whatever tests/exams they might come up with later on….
In terms of my scenario, I obtained my PR on 2016 and just recently being eligible to sit the test, apart from the 10 years period living legally in Australia on an overseas student visa. It would be more reasonable to ask people who arrive to Australia from offshore on PR to wait another 4 years, but for people who are in the same situation as mine - we have been in Australia for definitely 4 years or more already, without committing any crimes, studying, working and paying full tax as a model citizen. Why should this apply to us?
I am on a similar situation as you. Been here since 2005 as a high school student then vocational student. Then work. I applied for my PR in 2010 and only got it in 2015. Luckily i put in my apllication for citizenship last month, other wise i would be kicking myself right now
Completely agree with you. Don't really see why someone who has lived here for more than 4 years on any visa needs to be on a PR for another 4 years before qualifying for the citizenship. If they should change it then they should make the requirement 2 years on PR at most.
They may have some exemption for situation like you as they do with PR.
It's nothing solid in detail but the outline is that the test will be harder than before.
Hope that 4 years does not applies to NZ Citizen taking the pathway recently introduced as they said it's for NZ Citizens who are willing to get AU Citizenship.
You've made a fundamental category mistake.
You think citizenship is a right, and a right that should be exercisable within a certain time.
You're wrong on both counts.
You're just one of the dummies who assumed the world wasn't about to change, and then it did.
And if you think we're tough, well check this out:
1. In Austria, you have to live in the country 15-30 years before become eligible for citizenship.
2. In Switzerland, Permanent Residency takes at least 10 years.
Even with the new rules Australia is still very much open, just a little less open that it used to be.
Got to say i have little sympathy for foreigners whinging about how their porridge isn't quite at the temperature they prefer.
In Switzerland, Permanent Residency takes at least 10 years.
That is not the only hurdle it seems.
Vegan denied Swiss citizenship by neighbours annoyed at her animal campaigns
Yes, Austria is a particularly hard case…
Does this mean you can't leave Australia AT ALL for 4 years before applying for Citizenship?
you might be able to leave short term… but my story is i had to stay in australia for 2 years to become a citizen when i returned, leaving for a day would reset it, and i grew up here, and never really thought to become one.
an African bloke (not being racist just pointing out the irony, who may/may not have been born here) working at southport immigration said i was unable to become a citizen when i applied as i had left Australia for more than a year, and had to wait two full years.
you are allowed to leave Australia anytime although not for a long time
You can only leave up to 12 months in the last 4 years. Think of its as a sliding window. Let's say its December of 2021 (12/2021), and your last four years is from 01/2018 to 12/2021, you left Australia in 02/2018, 03/2018, 07/2018, 08/2018, 10/2018, 12/2018, 02/2019, 05/2019, 06/2019, 12/2019, 04/2020, 09/2021, 10/2021. That's 13 months of the last 48 months away from Australia, you cannot apply for Citizenship.
But if you stay until 03/2022, the last four years is from 03/2018 to 03/2022, the 02/2018 period drops off. Meaning now you are away from Australia 12 months in the last 48 months, you can now apply for Citizenship.
all applicant must be made to eat vegemite sandwhiches. those who refuse get sent back where they came from immidiately. those who say they dont like it will have their application on hold for 4 more years before its processed again.
I wish I came from somewhere warmer, then I could get sent back there for refusing to eat brewers' sludge.
I was eligible for citizenship as of 23rd April 2017.
Shmuks
that's a close one, I'm a bit confused on when these reforms are actuated though, somebody posted that it will be relevant for any application lodged after 20/04/2017 although that seems a bit strange since the framework is well formulated yet.
If it gets passed in parliament,then it gets backdated to the initial announcement. Which seems kinda harsh. My wife is waiting for her PR visa to come through as we speak. So 4 years instead of 1, on top of the 10 years we've already been here (on permanently temporary SCV)
even if it doesnt get backdated, your wife will still have to wait for 4 years. since it is expected to get passed in late 2017.
I explain it here.
Harsh as to how it might apply to a few people who were close to qualifying to make an application, but not unusual in terms of how the process of law reform operates.
For those who've had plenty of time to apply but didn't - too bad.
Lol I was going to log my application to become a citisen on the 21st of April. Now I have to wait another 3 years. Been living in Australia 6 years so far
you still may be able to considering you lived here for 6years
I would still apply, as the legislation hasn't been changed yet.
If they reject your application, you can try to fight in the court.
The more cases like yours, the better.
The above ^ is just my opinion.
My other half is a month short of the PR requirement. I had a look through the legislation and it is merely stating the minimum requirements in order for the Minister to confer citizenship. So even after you meet the requirements Minister Peter Dutton can still reject it for any reason he sees fit and I imagine he will for all those not meeting the new requirements. Saying that we'll probably still submit an application when the time comes as Governments and Ministers change and as she is wanting to study again in the next few years it would be great to have access to HECS.
Well not quite, but you may have been eligible to make an application for citizenship as of 23 April. Whether that application would have been accepted depends on a number of criteria.
But bad luck bro - good luck in a few years if you choose to apply.
Also, limited access to social security benefits during the 4 years wait.
What do you mean by this? What are the benefits available to citizens but not Permanent residents? Don't see any reference the news article.
There's a talk of a new provisional visa that limits welfare benefits for holders until they transform to a full fledged PR.
I will try to find a link for it, or was it something on the TV. Luckily it wasn't introduced in the recent announcement.
Access to HECS
Devastating!!! I've been preparing the application and was about to submit it on 19 Apr, now I have to wait for another few years, ridiculous. While I support strengthening Australian values, it is non-sense to require 4 year immediate before citizenship. The reference paper (http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/di…) said this will apply to applications submitted on and after 20 Apr so it basically ignores people that are already qualified under previous test, how would that be fair!!! Waking up from bed and knowing that you are not qualified for Citizenship anymore is worst feeling I've ever had, it just ruins everything I've been planning. I urge everyone affected by this decision to cast their voice to [email protected].
Lol I was going to log my application to become a citisen on the 21st of April(When I became eligble). Now I have to wait another 3 years too. Been living in Australia 6 years so far
Huh.. isn't it the case that as long as you have been PR for 4+ years you can apply, I don't agree with being able to apply for citizenship after only one year as PR. That's too short. At the end of the day the govt can change rules when they want, as PR you still get everything the same as everyone else except no right to vote and no Australian passport.
"Increasing the general residence requirement, which means an applicant
for Australian citizenship will need to demonstrate a minimum of four years
permanent residence immediately prior to their application for citizenship;"
But what about a student who has already spent 3-4 years in Australia - they wouldn't be a PR but they would pretty much be living as a PR since they'd be based here. Why does that person then need be on a PR for another 4 years before qualifying for a citizenship?
I certainly don't support government can change rules when they want- wouldn't this encourage the government to abuse the power not just immigration matter but everything?
I suppose at least there should be some grandfather arrangement in place but it is not quite about the opinion more like the way government just do things as they see fit or it fit their ambitious. US has things like the government does ridiculous things and the court fixed it, which is much less commom in Aus.
…was about to submit it on 19 Apr…
Sorry to have to break this to you, but if you'd submitted your application on that day the old rules would have applied to you.
You should have to be on probation for 10 years!
And while on the subject, anyone running for Local Council should have to prove they have lived in that area for a min of 20 years!
That includes Australians born here.
The biggest issue I have about this change is a lack of transitional period. Starting with the 457 and now citizenship, they moved the goalpost without any advance notice. People plan their lives around the existing rules and it will deter people from coming to Australia in the future if they believe the words of the Australian government can't be trusted.
I fully respect that Australia is a sovereign nation and have the rights to change the rules for citizenship at any time, but certainty is important to many people (myself included) and making a change without a transitional period undermines that trust people place on Australia when they shift their entire life to Australia.
To give a quick example, I will use myself in this case. I am a NZ citizen who have applied for and granted permanent residency (PR) last year with the goal of getting Australian citizenship at the end of this year and it cost me $5k in visa and agent fees (not a small amount).
As a NZ citizen, I don't get anything extra for obtaining PR, the only reason I did so was to secure citizenship as my parents are AU citizens (they got their citizenship after my birth, so I am not eligible to be granted one by descent) and have lived here for most of their life, so I want to make sure I can always enter Australia and to apply for jobs in the Australian public sector. Now the goalpost has suddenly been shifted so I am not eligible for citizenship for another 3 years. This undermines the faith I have with existing rules and nothing stops the government from changing the rules again in the next 3 years, so I have pretty much given up on getting citizenship.
In all likelihood this appears to have the support of the main parties so it will pass and I will have to chalk it down to an expensive lesson learned. I have a stable job since coming to Australia so I have been paying taxes and have never got any centrelink payment or used medicare much beyond the occasional doctor visit. I believe I can make a good contribution to the Australian society as a citizen, just disappointed in how Australia treat its newcomers nowadays.
…it will deter people from coming to Australia in the future if they believe the words of the Australian government can't be trusted…
…I fully respect that Australia is a sovereign nation and have the rights to change the rules for citizenship at any time,..
These two sentences are inconsistent - you either respect the right of our representative parliament to change the rules, or you don't.
I think you can trust the words of the Australian government, and their words are that the citizenship rules will change from 20 April.
And almost nothing deters people from coming here and for good reason. The only thing we've found to be an effective deterrent is gulags on Nauru and Manus Island.
Believe me, you'll apply in a few years…and stop whinging about the fees - it costs us serious money to process all those bits of paper - just confirming people who are they claim to be is expensive enough.
I disagree that these sentences are inconsistent.
It is perfectly possible to respect that Australia is a sovereign nation with rights to change rules AND have an opinion that the rule change will deter people from coming to Australia if they believe the words of the Australian government can't be trusted. You can even respect Australia's sovereignty while totally disagreeing with the policy.
The fact is, the words of the Australian government can't be trusted. The Australian law (or policy or whatever) said that one year after obtaining PR people would be eligible for citizenship, and for anybody who obtained PR less than one year ago, that is no longer true.
So people in this position did all the paperwork, paid the money, expecting a certain path to citizenship to be available to them; and all of a sudden its not. The government has changed the deal after taking the money - that's a bad deal. If they grandfathered it so that only people obtaining PR after 20 April, that would be a different story. But even then it would be fairer to give a few months notice in respect to people who have been working towards PR.
Isn't a good thing if people who live here permanently want to become citizens? Doesn't it imply a level of participation in our society?
In terms of the inconsistency i wasn't thinking in terms of deterrence - i was thinking of respecting the rule changes and not trusting the government.
I'll just make a few quick points.
The processes for obtaining PR and citizenship are separate, and are in fact dealt with in different Acts - the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) for Visa's including Permanent Residency visa's, and the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) for citizenship.
When it comes to citizenship, whether you have PR or not, and for how long, can be a factor for one of the streams, and that's citizenship by conferral. There are other streams, including by birth, by 10 year ordinary residency, by adoption, for abandoned children, and by descent.
The eligibility criteria for citizenship by conferral are listed here, with residency requirements expanded on here. This will all change with the new rules.
Any changes to the legislation will be made by the federal parliament, not the executive government as such, though they are obviously the instigators of these proposed changes.
When the parliament sets rules in legislation, it's not a promise it will never change. They're just saying they're the current rules. Any talk about "the words of the Australian government can't be trusted" misunderstands how this all works. The government, let alone parliament, has never promised that the rules may not change, and such rule changes are usually effectively made overnight (you declare what the rules will be, then retrospective legislation introduced later).
The new rules tighten the current ones in a number of respects, and those changes really are generally aimed at requiring more objective evidence that applicants have a commitment to the country. That is perfectly legitimate. The longer time period is part of that, and reflects a more serious engagement and participation in the country than the current lousy permanent residence requirement of 1 year.
My brain hurts.
@AngryChicken:
I think all your points are reasonable however, I still don't like it.
Regarding 5 - its true that there isn't a promise that the rules won't change, however in a stable country with a stable level of migration its reasonable for people to hope that once they have embarked on a particular path towards citizenship, that those options will remain open to them. Sure, the Australian community through the Australian government could change the rules for future migrants; but it doesn't seen fair to change it for people who have already changed their entire life to move towards become a full citizen of Australia.
To draw a parallel in a totally different area: if you buy an investment property hoping to use/take advantage (depending on your point of view) of negative gearing; you have a reasonable hope that any changes to those rules would not apply to existing properties.
Regarding 6 - yes its legitimate, but I don't agree with it. We are a nation of migrants and we are a young nation. We don't have to be exclusive, we don't have to be unwelcoming. (insert all the arguments in favor of migration here). I just feel like Australia is following the extremely depressing global trend of looking inward, thinking nationioalistically, and so on. Also, the vast majority of people who have obtained PR have been here for much longer than 1 year.
My brain's recovered. Here's some more points.
We probably agree on most things.
I'm sympathetic to those that were about to be become eligible to apply for citizenship, but will now need to wait longer. No one likes just missing a deadline.
I have little sympathy for those who have been eligible for a while, but didn't act on it. That's just too bad, and it suggests they may not have been right into the idea from the start anyway.
These rules change on a regular basis, which is entirely as expected given circumstances are changing. Simply because we are, at least to a degree, an "immigrant country" doesn't mean the rules that applied 20 years ago are adapted to today.
Even with the new rules Oz is welcoming. It's just that things had evolved to a point where we were a little too welcoming. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection is currently overwhelmed with applications for visa's for example, and the cities are at breaking point.
The residency requirement is 1 year with PR, so yes that usually means they've been around somewhat longer.
I don't accept the negative gearing analogy. When you decide to buy and negatively gear a property, one of the investment risks is that the tax concession may be removed. The reason something like that should be grandfathered has more to do with stability of the market - don't want everyone selling at the same time. And to a degree the citizenship changes have been grandfathered - those who have already applied, but whose applications have yet to be processed, will be assessed under the old rules - they didn't have to do that, and could have said they apply to anyone who has yet to be granted citizenship.
OK, my brain hurts again.
such rule changes are usually effectively made overnight
Not true. Last time they changed the legislation, there was a 2-year transitional period for those who already were permanent residents.
@aft:
Oh, i didn't know that.
I'd be interested in knowing the particular rule change you have in mind.
@AngryChicken:
Actually, even a 3-year period.
https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Citi/Lear/Law-and-policy/res-…
Between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2010 there has been transitional arrangements in place.
- If you became a permanent resident before 1 July 2007, and apply on or before 30 June 2010, the residence requirement is:
-You must have been living in Australia for 2 years as a permanent resident in the 5 years immediately before applying, including 1 year in the 2 years immediately before applying.- If you became a permanent resident on or after 1 July 2007 the residence requirement is:
-You must have been living in Australia on a valid Australian visa for 4 years immediately before applying, including 1 year as a permanent resident, and
-You must not have been absent from Australia for more than 1 year during the 4 year period, including no more than 90 days in the year immediately before applying.
@AngryChicken:
Well, Angry Chicken, its been nice sparring with you on this issue - and having a polite, reasonable discussion.
As I said in my last comment, my main reaction to all this is emotional - I don't like our country and other countries closing up; and I feel like this government and even the opposition is reacting to their fear of losing power to more protectionist parties like One Nation. I don't feel like this change will offer any benefit to existing Australian citizens, or future citizens; but instead will contribute to a suspicion of people who have been here a few years (or generations) less than us who are already here.
…reacting to their fear of losing power to more protectionist parties like One Nation.
Don't get me wrong, that's exactly what's going on here, with a lot of dog whistling to boot as i've said somewhere else in this thread. It's the same with most (mostly non-) changes to the skilled migration scheme. And that contemptible prat Dutton has been off dog whistling some more with suggestions in relation to dealings with children at Manus when there's no clear evidence of that at all.
However i'm comfortable with a 4-year PR requirement, but other good minds may differ in what's essentially a judgment call. In terms of transition arrangements - i dunno, but they've obviously decided not to have any anchored to when someone obtained PR.
BTW looks like the transition arrangements mentioned above came in with the new Australian Citizenship Act in 2007, which repealed the 1948 Act (which introduced the notion of Australian citizenship - that's right, there was no such thing as Australian Citizenship until that Act came into force on 26 January 1949).
But this country is still very much open to migration and citizenship, even with the new rules. Make no mistake about that, and it's driven primarily by economic arguments. I'd personally prefer to increase our refugee intake at the expense of the so-called skilled migration intake.
…and having a polite, reasonable discussion…
Thank you.
I'll now get back to my more usual trolling.
Someone should start a petition on Change.Org and we can all go into it.
I agree with a lot of folks on here and I'm sure the OzBargain community will back everyone up!
I like that this has happened, however I feel that it could have been worded better. The letter would need to address that Australian values can be instilled through other means, and a mandatory four year wait for a law abiding, tax paying resident is unnecessary.
First of all, Why do you wanna change your nationality? Is it because are you not feeling proud of your mother country's citizenship?
People come here to build a better and brighter future for their families, these opportunities may not exist back in their mother countries. Australia is a land of opportunies and a proud immigrant country, dated all the way back to when the country was founded.
Maybe people want to have the ability to vote in the country they call home? Or work for a government department, or join the defence force? Maybe they don't want to live in constant fear of having the rules changed on them by whichever nutbag politician gets in which they have no control over?
This is me. I'm aching to work in defence. Aced their entry test. They then politely declined my application as they assumed I was a citizen.
We allow dual citizenship, though many countries do not.
If i was running the show i wouldn't allow dual citizenship…
Despite all the talk in this thread about people "contributing" to this country blah blah blah, the fact is they're all just batting for themselves, and none of them are likely to be especially patriotic until they've been here for a long time and put down serious roots, such as kids and stuff.
And for those that retain citizenship of another country, what happens if Australia goes to war with that other country? Yes, that's one reason many countries do not allow dual citizenship.
So PTE/Ielts/Toefl test to get PR and then "independent" English test to get Citizen. Seriously?
From what I read in the discussion paper, it requires "Competent" level of English which is equivalent to IELTS 6 (all bands), PTEA 50, etc.
It is a bit unfair to apply this to Skilled Migration visa holders because they already proved their English language skills in their PR application.
Yeah I mean the requirement for my PR visa was IELTS band 7 but they require an independent test for the citizenship. What a useless thing to ask.
I agree that it may be useless for skilled migrants but I think there are other types of visa that would require an English test.
They shouldn't make it 4 years of PR, that seems like a total brain-fart. It should be 4 years on whatever visa, before you can apply for PR, then 1 year of PR at the end of that. ATM its ridiculous that some SCV holders, waiting for the new pathway to finally open in July this year, will now have to wait an extra 3 years on top of the minimum 6 years they have already spent here. Some have been stuck here in limbo for 16 years already. they finally get a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel in 2 months time, then suddenly that light vanishes an extra 3 years away.
It was this until Yesterday
LOL, my wife came here as a little kid in 1982, has been a PR for ages but never taken out citizenship, she keeps saying she will do it but the rules just get harder for her. I got citizenship when i wanted to join the Army back in 1988. All I did back then was fill in a form and sit through a basic interview. Wife should have sorted out her citizenship before tests etc came in.
Lot more relaxed in the 1980s/90s - when there was more a focus on multiculturalism, when now it's all about the dollar.
I'd get your wife onto it, in case she inadvertently commits a serious crime or something - here's a good summary. A culpable driving offence could do it.
Even dual citizens can lose Oz nationality if they're not careful - the law is here.
It's pretty easy especially if she has been here that long! I love the test! it's fun!
Here is the same.
I have been affected by the change and I have to wait another few years to become citizen because of the the change.
Transitional period is a good idea? So why not doing what we can do?
As the new rules have not passed yet, I would suggest sending emails to [email protected] and give our voice.
Change.Org is not so useful I think but doing it do not take you 5 mins more.
We may also giving the voice to their "opposite" parties. (political…)
I would said. I will remember what the government doing right now. Don't forget we can vote when we become citizens.
Wait, the previous requirement to become citizen was only 1 year of having PR status? I could have applied 3 years ago to be citizen (got my PR in 2012)
yeah, you can apply for citizenship as you already completed 4 yrs on PR as per new rules.
You'll also need to meet the 4 year residency requirement. And be a PR for a year during that period.
Its not law yet…still needs to get passed……….there is a lot of noise coming from the Kiwi's about challenging the proposal through the court system….will be interesting….great to see this happen around ANZAC time. I believe anyone who pays tax in this country should be entitled to all benefits afforded to any citizen.
I got 85% on the practice test. Some questions are weird i.e Under what circumstances can you beat your wife? !! wt?!
A lot of legal studies questions i'e which body interprets laws? judicial
I think this is to make sure those prospective citizen know exactly what is australian value. If they answered the way so to get the citizenship and then decide to do the total opposite, then their citizenship can be revoked on this basis. There is a lot of ppl come here as spouse or through arranged marriage who refused to assimilate and feed on centrelink and those "values" then pass on to their next generation. Hence I think by linking citizenship and welfare with child education means that at least there is some hope that their next generation could be integrated into australian society through education.
I think the new questions should go something like this:
1. Is orange your favourite colour?
2. Where can you get the cheapest Eneloops, Nespresso Pods and KFC nuggets?
3. Is your name Broden?