Australian Immigration Daily News

Will my driving record affect my chances of getting Australian citizenship? 

That is perhaps the most common question that may be asked by applicants who wish to acquire Australian citizenship “by conferral”, after first obtaining permanent residency and then meeting the residency requirements of the Australian Citizenship Act. 

After all, practically everyone drives a car, and practically everyone commits a traffic infraction of some sort! 

Even I did! When I first came to Australia as an “alien” from the United States (no, the US is not yet home to Martians but it may be if Donald Trump gets elected!) I steamed through a couple of speed cameras (not badly!) and the warning signs and the speed limits painted on the road didn't register. And as for those “funny” diagonal lines painted on the road – what do they mean? And “zebras”? Americans think of those as animals you see in the zoo, or on safari, not a road sign! So learning how to drive (properly!) in Australia isn't so easy, even (as Americans do!) you think you already know how to speak English (?!). 

A case that was decided by the AAT in late June, Tsai and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship) (2016) AATA 411 (22 June 2016) provides a good example of how the traffic laws and the character requirement of the Citizenship Act interact.  A survey of these kinds of cases reveals that they are “literally all over the lot”, and that when it comes to citizenship applications and traffic offences, “it all depends” on the circumstances as to whether a traffic record can be an obstacle to a successful citizenship application. 

In Tsai's case, the fact that the applicant had committed a series of traffic offences spelled the doom (at least temporarily) of her application! 

The background was that Ms Tsai originally arrived in Australia in May 2001 from Taiwan. 

On 1 October 2012, she was pulled over by the police and charged with not complying with her learner’s license by not displaying “L” signs and driving unaccompanied. She was told by the police that her license was suspended and she could not drive. In her evidence before the AAT, she stated that she had tried to contact a taxi and a flat-mate to take her home, but she was unsuccessful. So as it was getting dark and she had no other way of getting herself home, she drove again even though she knew it would be unlawful to do so. 

Unfortunately for her, Ms Tsai was stopped again by the police on that same evening and was charged with driving while suspended. 

These charges were heard by a Local Court in NSW on 27 November 2012. On that day, the Court ordered that Ms Tsai be disqualified from driving.  

And on that very same day, she was again detected by the police driving her car, and was charged yet again with driving while disqualified. It was Ms Tsai's evidence before the AAT that the reason she was driving on that day was to take the car to a dealer in order to sell it. The AAT member did not accept this explanation.

 At this point, you have to wonder whether poor Ms Tsai was driving a car that had a very distinctive paint job (pink polka dots!) or if the car was equipped with a flashing sign that said: “Attention NSW Police, I am driving illegally, please pull me over! It is hard to imagine a more unfortunate series of events! 

To make matters even worse for her, less than 6 months before her case was heard by the AAT, Ms Tsai committed yet another traffic offence, this time for exceeding the speed limit in a school zone.

Was the fact that Ms Tsai was otherwise a person of unquestionably stellar character enough to save her application? 

After all, the “character test” under the Citizenship Act is universally interpreted under the Full Court’s decision in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs as referring to the “enduring moral qualities of a person”. 

And Ms Tsai’s character references spoke of her in glowing terms as a “hardworking and dedicated registered nurse” who showed “immense empathy” towards her patients. She also had letters of recognition from the Australian Red Cross and World Vision. 

However, the AAT member gave “minimal” weight to these character references, because they did not acknowledge either the frequency of her driving offences or their seriousness. 

So in the end, the citizenship application was “sunk” by the AAT’s conclusion that Ms Tsai had a “pattern of disobeying traffic laws over an extended period of time”.

The right decision?

Maybe the moral of this story is that it is better to let someone else drive until your citizenship application is approved, or better still, take the train!

Concordia Pacific, Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.