Do I need my Aussie passport to travel ?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by vaccav, Mar 15, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Welcome to Australia's leading independent Frequent Flyer and Travel Resource!
Our site contains tons of information that will improve your travel experience.
Joining AFF is fast, simple & ABSOLUTELY FREE -  join now by clicking on the JOIN NOW button, and take immediate advantage of these great BENEFITS.
Once registered, this box will disappear. And you will see fewer advertisements :)
  1. vaccav

    vaccav Junior Member

    Sep 26, 2004
    46
    0
    Hopefully you can help with a minor passport issue.. .. .. ..

    1. I am a british citizen who has been in Aus for about 8 years.
    2. I have a british passport
    3. I have permanent residency in Australia.
    4. A couple of months ago I finally became an Aussie citizen (Yay !)
    5. But I haven't got round to getting my Aussie passport yet.
    6. Next Tuesday I am off on a RTW for seven weeks.

    My question is:

    - I am aware that I SHOULD be travelling in and out of Australia on an aussie passport.
    - But I haven't got it yet.
    - Do I NEED to have an aussie passport or is it ok for me to travel on my British passport (still containing my permanent residency thingmy) ?

    My best understanding is:
    - I SHOULD have an aussie passport
    - Technically, I could have a problem.
    - But practically, they have no way of knowing and I will not have a problem on a British passport.

    Many thanks if you can help,

    vaccav
     

  2. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Your permanent residency visa is no longer valid since it was cancelled on attaining Australian Citizenship;

    Of course they know, since when you apply for citizenship it is registered on your DIMIA record

    You will have trouble using the British Passport and , if you read the documentation that you should have received, does state that except in some specific circumstances , you need to enter/leave Australia on an Australian passport.

    There is a good possibility that the airline taking you back to Australia will refuse to let you board since you will not be in possession of a valid visa

    I would suggest either (a) getting a passport ASAP or , if that is impossible, (b) contacting DIMIA and asking what you need to do

    Dave
     
  3. vaccav

    vaccav Junior Member

    Sep 26, 2004
    46
    0
    Dave,

    Many thanks for your help - it's much appreciated. I may be missing something, however, .. .. ..

    - how will the airline know that my visa has been cancelled ? My permanent residence visa is still in my british passport and is still unmarked so I'm not sure how they can deny me boarding. Let me know if I'm missing something.

    - You mentioned that they will know about my citizenship because it's on my DIMIA record. I had always assumed that the immigration guys in Sydney were only checking that your passport had the visa and maybe photocopying it on that machine. I may be wrong - are they actually scanning the passport and cross-checking it with various databases (DIMIA or DIMA, criminal records, etc, etc) ?

    Dave - many thanks for your help

    Best,

    vaccav
     
  4. Mahtoh

    Mahtoh Junior Member

    Feb 22, 2006
    41
    0
    Get an Australian passport. Stat. Trvelling on a wrong passport is an offence and will mean you will likely be banned.

    DIMA can do urgent passports but you must act now.

    BTWE, why on earth did you take so long to find this out?
     
  5. vaccav

    vaccav Junior Member

    Sep 26, 2004
    46
    0
    Thanks to all for your help. I took Dave's advice and called DIMA. DIMA told me I could 'legally' travel on the British passport as long as the permanent residence visa had not expired (their words not mine). They also told me to check with immigration.

    Immigration told me that I may be able to get a passport quickly, but if not then I would still be ok to travel on my British passport. They said:
    - If my permanent residence visa was still valid I'd be able to get back in ok.
    - I may get a few questions and there may be a discrepancy in their records but this wouldn't be a major problem.
    - But I'll definitely get back in (again, their words not mine)

    I was a bit cautious and they said that if I was concerned I should take my citizenship certificate with me too.

    Thanks to all,

    Vaccav
     
  6. acampbel

    acampbel Member

    Oct 31, 2005
    351
    2
    And the moral of the story is ...

    .... why did you bother swearing allegiance to the Queen a second time when you had a perfectly suitable RRV on your British passport?

    My RRV has expired and I am heading off O/S at the end of the month, so I looked into getting an "Oi, Oi, Oi" passport. Once I did the maths it worked out that I would be in the grave long before I broke even, so I gave the idea away and renewed the RRV.

    In any case, it would have been hypocritical of me to sign on when I take every opportunity to disparage Australian nationalism, foreign policy, and general lack of global humanity.

    I think I harped on about this before but the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared. Or am I being paranoid?

    Time to get my coat .....


    Cheers,

    AC
     
  7. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    Actually the Pledge of Allegiance has no reference to Her Most Excellent Majesty, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her Other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

    I find it odd that you found that with the arithmetic unless you expect to die soon. The cost of a Resident's return visa (BB 155) is $120 and the cost for Ciizenship is $120. The BB 155 has a 5 year validity , whilst the Citizenship is permanent , so there is a break even point straight away here. In 5 years time, you'd be ahead as far as I can see, other than the cost of a passport, but you'd need a passport to travel overseas anyway. Also, should you end , for some reason, spend an extended period away from Australia , you could end up being ineligable for a BB 155 and so lose residency rights. Also, the government could change the eligiability rights to maintain residency. By taking citizenship , you are fully protected from such issues. I thought it was better value to take citizenship, but each to their own

    Dave
     
  8. bambbbam2

    bambbbam2 Active Member

    Feb 13, 2005
    857
    1
    Perth, WA
    And of course Charles will actually become King George VIII when he ascends to the throne.. sorry bit off-topic there.. :)
     
  9. Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    Not to mention the increasing circumstances of the current Government choosing to deport non-citizens, including permanent residents, on 'character grounds'.

    This is why I appreciate that I have the privilege to vote. Those who choose not to vote, can not validly criticise the government of the day.

    But I digress...
     
  10. MetroAir

    MetroAir Guest

    Actually, she is Elizabeth the first, and he will either be Charles the first or George the third (or possibly the fifth - depends which way you look at it) when ascending the throne.

    Remember they are the monarch of Australia - not the United Kingdom, over here!

    Reginal counting really either started at settlement or formation of Federation.

    (see the Australia Act 1986 (Cth))
     
  11. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Where in the Australia Act does it say that the title of the Queen is changed? I wasn't aware that there was a different formal address for the Queen for Australia to the one I gave above?

    The address does refer to her being "Head of the Commonwealth"

    Dave

    Dave
     
  12. acampbel

    acampbel Member

    Oct 31, 2005
    351
    2
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    I have heard that you have two options when taking the pledgie, and one of them delicately skirts around the fact that the head of the Windsor family (that motley bunch from Buck Palace) is also the Australian head of state.

    Yes, but I would forever more be paying for two passports, as only a complete fool would give up unfettered access to Europe.

    I have voted in every Federal, State, and Council election since I was 18 (I arrived here before 1984 when they decided that Permanent Residents were good enough to pay tax, but not worthy of voting how it should be spent).

    I even voted in the Republic Referendum (remember that one?). I fondly recall a co-worker who was incensed to find out that I was one of the 200,000 or so "poms" who were eligible to vote. He was all for deporting us leeches back to Blighty, but I cut him off mid-tirade to make a couple of predictions:-

    Firstly, that the majority of these "leeches" would vote for Australia becoming a republic.
    Secondly, that the majority of the dumb-fcuk Aussies wouldn't.

    He wasn't amused when I was proven right on both counts.


    But I must be off now ... I see the Queen of Australia is about to open the Empire Games.


    Cheers,

    AC
     
  13. GDSman

    GDSman Member

    Oct 18, 2004
    302
    213
    Hobart
    Pledge include Bettie - no. However, from experience, I can confirm that God is an option.
     
  14. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    No, neither refer to the Crown. There are 2 versions of the pledge of commitment (came into effect in 1993), the difference between the 2 , being that one contains the words "under god" and the other does not

    "From this time forward, [ under God ] , I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey."


    Here I am not sure on really; you can get to Europe with an Australian passport with no issues, the only time the European passport would come into its own, imo, is as evidence of right to work/live etc and if you were going to live in Europe for an extended time, I would think that you would want Citizenship to avoid the risk of losing residency rights for not meeting the requirements for a return visa. Not renewing a UK passport does not affect UK Citizenship status

    Each to their own; I didn't have much of a choice at the time when I did it last year, I needed it due to work I was doing in Canberra, but would have done it anyway


    Dave
     
  15. gaia

    gaia Member

    Dec 1, 2003
    125
    0
    You can get a passport same day...my last one took one hour. So why are you mucking about?
     
  16. Skyring

    Skyring Established Member

    Oct 18, 2005
    1,972
    1,316
    Canberra, Australia
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    She's opening the games in her capacity as the Head of the Commonwealth - India will host the games next time around and she'll open them as well, despite India being a republic.

    As for the Queen being the head of state, that's a debatable point nowadays. Try to find a statement in law saying she is the head of state. You can't - all you get are non-judicial opinions.
     
  17. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    More relevently,, imo, can you find anything that states that she has ever ceased to be head of State since obviously, the monarch has been head of state ?

    The information I found shows that she is because


    The Constitution of Australia defines the Parliament as "the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" and vests the Federal legislative (law-making) power in the Parliament (section 1, Constitution).

    The executive power (the governing and administrative power) of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (section 61, Constitution).


    Plus , go to the http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page345.asp website it states that she is since Australia is part of the Commonwealth and , as it states ,

    "A Commonwealth realm is a country where The Queen is the Head of State. The Queen is Queen not only of Britain and its dependent territories, but also of the following realms: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu."


    it doesn't seem to be a debatable point to me.

    Dave
     
  18. Skyring

    Skyring Established Member

    Oct 18, 2005
    1,972
    1,316
    Canberra, Australia
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    That would be difficult, as there has never been anything in legislative or common law saying she was the Australian head of state.

    The term is not used in the Constitution, nor any other Commonwealth Act. The High Court has never been asked the question.

    I take your point, and certainly up until quite recently nobody would have thought that she wasn't the head of state. But just as somewhere along the way the United Kingdom became a foreign power, the role of the Queen has diminished. The Prime Minister doesn't think she's the head of state, for example.

    The Queen's website can imply that she's the head of state. It doesn't make her so. Only Australian law can define who is the head of state, and it doesn't. I've got a copy of the Commonwealth Government Directory for March 1997 stating that the Governor-General is the head of state. It's debatable.
     
  19. Dave Noble

    Dave Noble Senior Member

    Oct 10, 2005
    6,419
    8
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...


    It does make it so. Until Australia was released from UK control , it naturally had the Monarch as head of state. Unless the Monarch has elected to remove herself from that position, she is, so finding a position stating that the Queen is no longer the Head of State would be relevent

    Also, Australia is a Commonwealth member; to be part of the Commonwealth , the Queen has to be head of state under the requirements for Commonwealth membership

    Also, given that The executive power of the Commonwealth of Australia is vested in the Queen (which is defined in the constitution under section 61, Constitution), then she is Head of State

    Dave
     
  20. Skyring

    Skyring Established Member

    Oct 18, 2005
    1,972
    1,316
    Canberra, Australia
    Flight Map:
    View my flight map
    Re: And the moral of the story is ...

    The Monarch was never actually defined in law as the Australian head of state. People just assumed she was, but as we have seen with the UK being defined by the High Court as a foreign power, things change. Nor does the Queen actually state that she is the Australian head of state. Her website implies it, but such an indirect reference can hardly be taken as a definitive constitutional declaration.

    India is a member of the British Commonwealth and the Indian president is the indisputable Indian head of state, so no, British Commonwealth members don't need the Queen as head of state.

    The Constitution states that the executive power is vested in the Queen (whatever "vested" means), but as all the powers commonly associated with head of state are directly given to the Governor-General and cannot be exercised by the Queen, it's difficult to see what remains to her of this notional executive power.
     
Loading...

Share This Page