The Claim
“Refused to give citizenship to eligible permanent residents, years after their refugee claims were accepted.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim that the Coalition Government caused significant delays in citizenship processing for refugees who had already been granted permanent residency is substantiated by evidence from the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA). In October 2015, RCOA published a comprehensive report documenting systemic delays affecting refugees on permanent visas seeking Australian citizenship [1].
According to the RCOA survey of 188 refugees on permanent visas:
- 83% had been waiting more than 80 days (the Department's claimed standard)
- The average wait time was 215 days from application lodgement
- For those who completed the citizenship test and were awaiting ceremonies, the average total wait was 357 days
- The longest documented waits were 603, 623, and 682 days
- 89% of affected applicants arrived in Australia by boat, indicating these delays disproportionately impacted boat arrivals [1]
The delays manifested in three main ways:
- Extended waits to sit the citizenship test after applying
- Delays between passing the test and receiving approval letters
- Cancellations or indefinite postponements of citizenship ceremonies after approval [1]
Multiple applicants reported receiving approval letters stating they were eligible for citizenship, followed by ceremony invitations being cancelled at the last minute via phone or SMS, with no rescheduled date provided despite monthly ceremonies continuing in their local areas [1].
Missing Context
Selective Application of Delays: The claim omits that these delays appeared to disproportionately target a specific cohort. According to RCOA's findings, "only one person consulted had applied for citizenship before September 2013, indicating that these delays have started to occur since the Coalition Government came to power" [1]. The delays primarily affected those who arrived by boat (89% of respondents), suggesting a policy targeting specific visa subclasses rather than a universal processing slowdown.
Policy Context - Temporary Protection Visas: The Coalition's broader asylum policy context is relevant. In August 2013, the Coalition announced plans to deny permanent residency to approximately 30,000 asylum seekers who arrived by boat, instead placing them on Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) [2]. While this policy specifically addressed those awaiting refugee determination (not those already granted permanent protection), it established a pattern of differential treatment based on mode of arrival.
Security Check Justifications: Some applicants were told they were undergoing "further internal checks" including identity and security checks. While RCOA noted these applicants had already passed rigorous ASIO security assessments during their refugee application process, the Department may have cited enhanced security vetting as justification for delays [1].
Documentation Barriers: The Department requested difficult-to-obtain documents from many applicants, including police checks from transit countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan, and birth certificates from countries that don't issue them. These requests created additional bureaucratic obstacles particularly affecting refugees who had fled persecution [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
New Matilda: The original source, New Matilda, describes itself as "independent journalism at its best" and is characterized by Media Bias/Fact Check as a "left-wing independent Australian website of news, analysis, and satire" [3][4]. The site has published since 2004 and covers Australian politics from a progressive perspective. While the article appears to reflect legitimate concerns raised by refugee advocates, the publication's left-wing orientation should be considered when evaluating its framing and emphasis.
Refugee Council of Australia: The primary documentary evidence comes from RCOA, a well-established non-government organization that has operated since 1981. Their October 2015 report provides specific data from 188 surveyed refugees and is cited by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) in its own 2018 performance audit on citizenship processing efficiency [5]. RCOA is an advocacy organization that represents refugee communities, which may influence their framing, but their data collection methodology (surveys, consultations with migration agents and lawyers) provides credible documentation of the delays.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government 2007-2013 refugee permanent visa citizenship processing policy"
Finding: The Rudd Labor Government (elected November 2007) took the opposite approach on refugee visa policy. According to parliamentary records, "the Rudd Labor Government was elected with a commitment to end the 'Pacific Solution' and the temporary protection visa regime, providing all holders of these visas with permanent protection visas" [6].
Specifically:
- Labor abolished TPVs in 2008, converting all existing TPV holders to permanent protection visas
- Labor stopped processing asylum claims on Nauru (the "Pacific Solution") upon taking office
- This represented a significant policy reversal from the Howard government's approach [6]
However, comprehensive comparison data on citizenship processing times specifically under Labor (2007-2013) versus the Coalition (2013-2016) was not available in the sources reviewed. The RCOA report established that delays appeared to commence after September 2013, but did not provide equivalent data from the preceding Labor period.
Historical Context - TPVs under Howard: The Coalition's 2013 approach had precedent in the Howard government (1996-2007), which introduced TPVs in 1999. The Coalition's 2013 policy explicitly referenced the Howard government's approach, with Tony Abbott stating: "That was the position under the last Coalition government, that will be the position under any future Coalition government" [2].
Balanced Perspective
Legitimate Policy Rationale: The Coalition Government's approach to asylum seekers who arrived by boat was explicitly designed as a deterrent measure. As Immigration spokesperson Scott Morrison stated in 2013, the policy aimed to reduce boat arrivals through mechanisms including TPVs and restricted access to permanent residency [2]. The citizenship delays affecting boat arrivals on permanent visas appeared to be an extension of this broader deterrence framework.
Comparative Processing Standards: While the RCOA report documented delays of 215-357 days for refugees (particularly boat arrivals), the Department of Immigration and Border Protection claimed a standard of processing 80% of applications within 80 days [1]. This suggests the delays were not system-wide but targeted specific cohorts.
Ombudsman Investigation: The issue was serious enough to prompt a Commonwealth Ombudsman own motion investigation in 2016-2017 into "delays in processing of applications for Australian citizenship by conferral" [5]. The ANAO also conducted a 2018 performance audit on citizenship processing efficiency, citing the RCOA report as background context [5].
Impact Assessment: The delays had documented humanitarian consequences, including:
- Inability to sponsor family members under family reunion programs (Ministerial Directive 62 already placed boat arrivals at lowest priority)
- Mental health impacts from prolonged uncertainty and family separation
- Barriers to international travel to visit family in countries of origin or transit
- Additional requirements (citizenship tests, difficult-to-obtain documents) that created barriers for refugees with disrupted education or limited English [1]
Distinction from TPV Policy: It is important to distinguish this claim from the broader TPV debate. The claim specifically addresses delays in citizenship for refugees who had already been granted permanent residency (subclass 866 Protection Visas and similar), not those on temporary visas. These individuals had satisfied all visa requirements including security checks and were legally entitled to apply for citizenship after four years of residence.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The claim is substantiated in its core factual assertion: the Coalition Government did cause significant, documented delays in citizenship processing for refugees who had been granted permanent residency, with average waits of 215-357 days documented in 2015. These delays disproportionately affected boat arrivals and appeared to commence after September 2013.
However, the claim's framing as a general refusal to give citizenship "years after their refugee claims were accepted" slightly overstates the situation. The delays were measured in months (averaging 7-12 months) rather than multiple years for most applicants, though some extreme cases exceeded 600 days. Additionally, the delays were targeted at a specific cohort (primarily boat arrivals on permanent protection visas) rather than a blanket refusal affecting all eligible permanent residents.
The claim also omits the broader policy context: these delays appeared to be part of a deliberate deterrence framework targeting boat arrivals, not merely bureaucratic inefficiency. The lack of transparency about reasons for delays and the selective application to boat arrivals suggests policy intent rather than resource constraints.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The claim is substantiated in its core factual assertion: the Coalition Government did cause significant, documented delays in citizenship processing for refugees who had been granted permanent residency, with average waits of 215-357 days documented in 2015. These delays disproportionately affected boat arrivals and appeared to commence after September 2013.
However, the claim's framing as a general refusal to give citizenship "years after their refugee claims were accepted" slightly overstates the situation. The delays were measured in months (averaging 7-12 months) rather than multiple years for most applicants, though some extreme cases exceeded 600 days. Additionally, the delays were targeted at a specific cohort (primarily boat arrivals on permanent protection visas) rather than a blanket refusal affecting all eligible permanent residents.
The claim also omits the broader policy context: these delays appeared to be part of a deliberate deterrence framework targeting boat arrivals, not merely bureaucratic inefficiency. The lack of transparency about reasons for delays and the selective application to boat arrivals suggests policy intent rather than resource constraints.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (6)
-
1PDF
Delays in Citizenship Applications for Permanent Refugee Visa Holders
Refugeecouncil Org • PDF Document -
2
Refugees to be denied permanent residency under Coalition plan to 'determine who comes here'
Tony Abbott declared that "this is our country and we determine who comes here" as he unveiled sweeping plans to fast-track the deportation of failed asylum seekers. Under the Coalition's policy, around 30,000 people currently waiting for their refugee claims to be finalised in Australia would be denied permanent residency. Those who are deemed to be refugees would instead be placed on temporary protection visas (TPVs), while those whose claims are rejected would be denied the right to appeal.
Abc Net -
3
New Matilda - Bias and Credibility
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
Media Bias/Fact Check -
4
About Us - New Matilda
THE WEBSITE New Matilda is independent journalism at its best. The site has been publishing intelligent coverage of Australian and international politics, media and culture since 2004. You’ll find new stories on the homepage daily. THE NEW DIGEST The New Matilda news digest is the best way to keep up to date with ourMore
New Matilda -
5
Efficiency of the Processing of Applications for Citizenship by Conferral
Anao Gov
-
6
Australian citizenship: a chronology of major developments in policy
Parlinfo Aph Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.