Applicants for Australian citizenship who are 18 years old or over need to be of ‘good character’. In determining whether the applicant is of good character, the Department will assess the applicant based on the character requirements as outlined in Section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
The importance of the character requirement is emphasised by Deputy President Breen in Fenn Vs Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 (25 October 2000). Deputy President Breen emphasises that ‘the grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State. The refusal does not deprive Mr Fenn of any rights he currently holds, nor does it prevent him applying for citizenship again in a few years’ time when he can demonstrate a longer period of positive contribution to the Australian community.’
Similarly, in HLJW and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 689, a case of appealing an application for citizenship, the AAT emphasised the importance that the assessment of an Applicant’s character would have for deciding whether to grant citizenship.
In 2014, the Applicant committed domestic violence offences involving his wife. The offences included stalking, intimidation, an intention to physically harm and common assault. The context of these charges relate to an argument with his wife which led to the wife calling the Police as he was threatening her with a knife, after which she fled with their infant child.
The Tribunal member affirmed the decision not to grant him citizenship noting:
“The fact that the Applicant and his wife reconciled long ago and have expanded their family gives cause for optimism. They are unified in their desire to move forward. I am satisfied that in 2014 it could not be said that a person with his convictions was a person of good character.
However, in seeking to downplay the seriousness and potential danger of the 2014 incident, I am still left with an uneasy doubt as to whether he is now a person of good character. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has a clear understanding of the nature of the problem.
Regrettably, and despite his many positive attributes, I am not satisfied that sufficient time has passed, or that he has developed sufficient insight, such that it can now be said that he is a person of good character.”
The Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) does not provide a definition of good character; however it is generally used to refer to the ‘enduring moral qualities of a person’, and is used as a general indicator for whether the Applicant would be a citizen who abides by Australia’s laws.
In considering whether an Applicant is of good character, emphasis will be on the community standards. In the case of Zheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) AATA 304 at [120], it was noted that community standards involve the values of ‘loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law’.
Under Section 501 of the Migration Act, the Minister or the Department may refuse to grant citizenship to an Applicant if they aren’t satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test. This is the most common reason for Australian citizenship application refusals, and the reasons often relate to the Applicant’s criminal, immigration or personal history.
The character test requirements under Section 501 outlines the actions or characteristics that, when done or possessed by the Applicant, means they do not pass the test and are not of good character.
The application of the character test includes multiple areas that may be considered. The first area, under Section 501(6)(a), is whether the Applicant has a substantial criminal record. If the Applicant has a substantial criminal record, they don’t pass the character test. A substantial criminal record includes the following:
- the person has been sentenced to death; or
- the person has been sentenced to imprisonment for life; or
- the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or d) the person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment where the total of those terms is 12 months (if a person has been sentenced to 2 or more terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently (whether in whole or in part), the whole of each term is to be counted in working out the total of the terms); or
- the person has been acquitted of an offence on the grounds of unsoundness of
- mind or insanity, and as a result the person has been detained in a facility or institution; or f) the person has been found by a court to not be fit to plead, in relation to an offence; and as a result, the person has been detained in a facility or institution.
The second area where an Applicant wouldn’t pass the character test is immigration detention offences under Section 501(6)(aa) and 501(6)(ab). This is if the Applicant has been convicted of an offence that was committed in the following situations:
- while the person was in immigration detention; or
- during an escape by the person from immigration detention; or
- after the person escaped from immigration detention but before the person was taken into immigration detention again.
The Applicant would also fail the character test if they have been convicted of an offence under Section 197A by escaping from immigration detention.
The third area where an Applicant would not pass the character test is related to membership or association. More specifically, this is if the Minister suspects the following:
- that the person has been or is a member of a group or organisation, or has or has had an association with a group, organisation or person; and
- that the group, organisation or person has been, or is, involved in criminal conduct
The parameters for what constitutes a suspicion is defined as being less than a certainty or a belief, but more than mere speculation or idle wondering. The suspicion has to be reasonable, so it would be a suspicion that a reasonable person could hold in that situation, and it was based on an objective consideration of relevant material.
A member is someone who belongs to a group or organisation, and the evidence that is needed to establish reasonable suspicion will vary based on the circumstances of the case. For the purposes of this test, it is sufficient that the Minister has a reasonable suspicion that:
- the person has been, or is a member of a group or organisation; and
- the group or organisation has been, or is, involved in criminal conduct
The fourth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is involvement in certain criminal activities under Section 501(6)(ba). For this, the Minister will need to reasonably suspect the Applicant of being involved in, either in the present or in the past, conduct that constitutes one or more of the following:
- an offence of people smuggling (as described in sections 233A to 234A of the Migration Act;
- an offence of trafficking in persons;
- the crime of genocide, a crime against humanity, a war crime, a crime involving torture or slavery or a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern.
It is important to note that to fail this limb of the character test, it is not necessary for the Applicant to have been convicted of an offence for the above conduct.
The fifth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is if they are not of good character on account of past and present criminal or general conduct under Section 501(6)(c)(i) and 501(6)(c)(ii).
In the process of considering whether an Applicant is not of good character, all of the relevant circumstances of the particular case will be taken into account to provide context and create a complete picture of the person’s character. Lee J elaborated on this point in the case of Godley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 83 ALD 411, saying that ‘the words “of good character” mean enduring moral qualities reflected in soundness and reliability in moral judgement in the performance of day to day activities and in dealing with fellow citizens. It is not simply a matter of repute, fame or standing in the community but of continuing performance according to moral principle. A person of ill repute by reason of past criminal conduct may nonetheless, on objective examination at a later stage in life, be shown to be a person reformed and now of good character.’
To fail this limb of the character test, it isn’t necessary for the Applicant to have a recent criminal conviction, or involved in recent general conduct which would indicate that they are not of ‘good character’. However, the conduct in question does need to show a lack of enduring moral quality that outweighs any consideration of more recent good behaviour. In the Godley case, Lee J elaborated on this point, saying that ‘ it is necessary that the nature of the conduct said to be criminal, be examined and assessed as to its degree of moral culpability or turpitude. Furthermore, there must be examination of past and present criminal conduct sufficient to establish that a person at the time of decision is not then of good character. The point at which recent criminal conduct, (as the term ‘present criminal conduct’ is to be understood), becomes past criminal conduct must be a matter of judgement. If there is no recent criminal conduct that circumstances will point to the need for the Minister to give due weight to that fact before concluding that a visa applicant is not of good character’. Additionally, ‘before past and present general conduct may be taken to reveal indicia that a visa applicant is not of good character continuing conduct must be demonstrated that shows a lack of enduring moral quality. Although in some circumstances isolated elements of conduct may be significant and display lack of moral worth they will be rare, and as with consideration of criminal conduct there must be due regard given to recent good conduct’.
The fifth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is if they are not of good character on account of past and present criminal or general conduct under Section 501(6)(c)(i) and 501(6)(c)(ii).
In the process of considering whether an Applicant is not of good character, all of the relevant circumstances of the particular case will be taken into account to provide context and create a complete picture of the person’s character. Lee J elaborated on this point in the case of Godley v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 83 ALD 411, saying that ‘the words “of good character” mean enduring moral qualities reflected in soundness and reliability in moral judgement in the performance of day to day activities and in dealing with fellow citizens. It is not simply a matter of repute, fame or standing in the community but of continuing performance according to moral principle. A person of ill repute by reason of past criminal conduct may nonetheless, on objective examination at a later stage in life, be shown to be a person reformed and now of good character.’
To fail this limb of the character test, it isn’t necessary for the Applicant to have a recent criminal conviction, or involved in recent general conduct which would indicate that they are not of ‘good character’. However, the conduct in question does need to show a lack of enduring moral quality that outweighs any consideration of more recent good behaviour. In the Godley case, Lee J elaborated on this point, saying that ‘ it is necessary that the nature of the conduct said to be criminal, be examined and assessed as to its degree of moral culpability or turpitude. Furthermore, there must be examination of past and present criminal conduct sufficient to establish that a person at the time of decision is not then of good character. The point at which recent criminal conduct, (as the term ‘present criminal conduct’ is to be understood), becomes past criminal conduct must be a matter of judgement. If there is no recent criminal conduct that circumstances will point to the need for the Minister to give due weight to that fact before concluding that a visa applicant is not of good character’. Additionally, ‘before past and present general conduct may be taken to reveal indicia that a visa applicant is not of good character continuing conduct must be demonstrated that shows a lack of enduring moral quality. Although in some circumstances isolated elements of conduct may be significant and display lack of moral worth they will be rare, and as with consideration of criminal conduct there must be due regard given to recent good conduct’.
- the nature and severity of the criminal conduct;
- the frequency of the person’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
- the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
- any circumstances surrounding the criminal conduct which may explain the conduct such as may be evident from judges’ comments, parole reports and similar authoritative documents; and
- the conduct of the person since their most recent offence
The last point of the conduct of the person since their most recent offence includes:
- the length of time since the person last engaged in criminal conduct;
- any evidence of recidivism or continuing association with criminals;
- any pattern of similar criminal conduct;
- any pattern of continued or blatant disregard or contempt for the law; and
- any conduct which may indicate character reform
In considering an Applicant’s past and present general conduct to determine whether they are not of good character, it allows for a broader view of their character in circumstances where conviction may not have been recorded, or where the conduct may not have constituted a criminal offence.
When analysing the Applicant’s past and present general conduct to determine whether they are not of good character, the particular circumstances of the case will be taken into consideration- this includes evidence of rehabilitation and periods of good conduct.
If an Applicant has been involved in activities that show contempt or disregard for the law or for human rights, this may be used to determine they are not of good character. Examples of this include involvement in terrorist activities, or activities related to trafficking or possession of substances, political extremism, extortion or fraud. It can also include serious breaches of immigration law, breaches of visa conditions, or overstaying visas, either in Australia or another country, and also involvement in war crimes or crimes against humanity. Whether the Applicant has been removed or deported from Australia or another country can also play a part, as well as whether the Applicant has been dishonourably discharged or prematurely discharged from the armed forces of another country.
If an Applicant has charges brought against them in a jurisdiction other than the Australian jurisdiction, and they aren’t resolved, the conduct that led to the charges may be considered as part of the context of the Applicant’s overall character.
The sixth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is if there is a risk that the Applicant may engage in the conduct listed in Section 501(6)(d) if they were granted citizenship.
Refusal on these grounds is stronger if there is evidence that suggests there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the Applicant would engage in this conduct. The threshold is that there must be a risk of it occurring in the future- it would be insufficient for citizenship to be denied just based on the finding that the Applicant had engaged in the conduct in the past. The conduct that may be used for this assessment include:
- risk of engaging in criminal conduct in Australia- Section 501(6)(d)(i)
- risk of harassing, molesting, intimidating or stalking another person in Australia- Section 501(6)(d)(ii)
- risk of vilifying a segment of the community, of inciting discord or of representing a danger through involvement in disruptive and/or violent activities- Section 501(6)(d)(iii), (iv) and (v)
The seventh area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is if they were involved in sexually based offences involving a child under Section 501(6)(e). To elaborate, this applies if the Applicant has been convicted of one or more sexually based offences involving a child, or they were found guilty of the offence, or a charge was proven against them. This applies even if the Applicant was discharged without conviction.
The eighth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is if they have been charged with committing crimes under International Humanitarian Law, as per Section 501(6)(f). This applies to acts committed in Australia or a foreign country, and the Applicant will not pass if they have been charged with, or indicted with one or more of the following crimes:
- the crime of genocide;
- a crime against humanity;
- a war crime;
- a crime involving torture or slavery;
- a crime that is otherwise of serious international concern
The ninth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is due to national security risk under Section 501(6)(g). This will happen if the Applicant was assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Applicant is found to be directly or indirectly a risk to security.
The tenth area where an Applicant will not pass the character test is related to certain Interpol notices under Section 501(6)(h). An Applicant will not pass the character test under this criteria if there is an Interpol notice in force, and it is reasonable to infer from the notice that the Applicant would present a risk to the Australian community, or a segment of it.
For the Department to determine whether someone is not of good character, it will consider the following documents or circumstances:
- any recorded criminal convictions
- sentencing remarks
- parole reports
- victim impact statements
- obligations the Applicant may have to a court in Australia or overseas
- the Applicant’s association with people of concern, such as criminal records of family members
- incidents of reported domestic violence
- whether the Applicant has been honest in their dealings with the Australian community, including providing false or misleading information in relation to a visa or citizenship application
- passenger cards
- previous visa applications
- records of dealings with the department of immigration, ATO and Centrelink (department of Social Services)
Applicants may be required to provide the Department with a penal clearance certificate for the countries they have visited outside Australia. Penal clearance certificates, also known as police checks, will show whether the Applicant has a criminal record in the given country. Applicants may be required to provide this if they have lived or travelled outside Australia since turning 18 years old.
For individuals who apply for Australian citizenship by conferral, an overseas penal clearance certificate is required if:
- they have lived or travelled outside Australia since turning 18 years of age, and
- they held a permanent visa at that time, and
- the total time they spent outside Australia adds up to 12 months or more, and
- the time they spent in any one country was 90 days or more, or
- requested by the Department.
For Applicants who are New Zealand citizens, they do not need to provide an overseas penal clearance certificate for New Zealand. Instead, the Department will directly request if from the New Zealand Ministry of Justice.
For individuals who apply for Australian citizenship by descent or adoption, an overseas penal clearance certificate is required if the following circumstances have been met in the last 10 years:
- they lived or travelled outside Australia since turning 18 years of age, and
- the total time they spent outside Australia adds up to 12 months or more, and
- the time they spent in any one country was 90 days or more.
Examples of evidence that can be used to support the good character test include the following:
- character references/ recommendations from employers, work colleagues and friends
- evidence showing work experience/ employment history
- evidence of cooperation with Australian authorities/ Departments
- psychologist or social worker reports to prove completion of rehabilitation programs and their opinion regarding the likelihood of reoffending
- evidence to show community work e.g. volunteer work or other ways the Applicant has been a supportive member of the community
- evidence of the steps that have been taken to avoid reoffending