System Message:

Australian Immigration Daily News

Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form
Posted by on in General
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 3365
  • 0 Comments

Daddy? Mummy?

Deciding who is a parent for migration purposes is not as simple as it seems.

The definition of “parent “is found in Section 5(1) and Section 5CA of the Migration Act.

Section 5(1)

parent: without limiting who is a parent of a person for the purposes of this Act, someone is the parent of a person if the person is his or her child because of the definition of child in section 5CA.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma1958118/s5ca.html

See also Regulation 1.14A of the Migration Regulations.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/s1.14a.html

However in 2010 the Full Federal Court handed down a judgment that expanded the meaning of the word “parent.”

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2010/119.html

The case involved the meaning of the word “parent” in Section 16(2) of the Australian Citizenship Act with the court holding that “parent” could mean a person who was not biologically related to the child.

Set out below is an extract from the judgement;

131 We can discern no relevant justification for holding, as the Tribunal did in NWH’s case, that a person can only be a "parent" within the meaning of s 16(2) where it can be established that he or she has a relevant genetic link to the applicant. If the Minister’s argument in this case were accepted, a person could be treated as a citizen from birth and believe himself to be a citizen, only to find years later, based on DNA test undertaken for other reasons, that under the law he is not and never was a citizen: see Citizenship Act, ss 16(2) (a), 17(1A), 19A. As a practical matter, we do not consider that Parliament would have intended the likely unfortunate results of the Minister’s construction (see [79]). The practical effect of this construction would be to accord the science of genetics a status that Parliament has not given it.

Although this decision related to the Australian Citizenship Act it has important consequences for migration law as well.

A footnote-the case did not end happily for the applicant.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/23.html

This news is published with permission from Peter Bollard:
LEWIS & BOLLARD
Solicitors & Migration Experts
Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:
0

Comments

  • No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment

Leave your comment

Guest Monday, 15 December 2025
Joomla SEF URLs by Artio

Immigration blog

Bizcover Banner
Today: National Migration Conference feat. Department of Home Affairs, and OMARA
The National Migration Conference 2025 will be hel...
Continue Reading...
Migration Amendment (Skilled Visa Reform Technical Measures) Regulations 2025
Effective from 29 November 2025, this legislative ...
Continue Reading...
Migration (2026 AFC Women’s Asian Cup – Class of Persons for Nil VAC) Instrument 2025
The Migration (2026 AFC Women’s Asian Cup – Class ...
Continue Reading...
Austroads Policy Change: Experienced Driver Recognition Status ends
As announced by Austroads on 21 October 2024, chan...
Continue Reading...