Chambers and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) - [2018] AATA 3376

Chambers and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship) [2018] AATA 3376 (13 September 2018)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2018/0646
Re:Sally Ann Chambers
APPLICANT

Minister for Home AffairsAnd
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member D K Grigg

Date:13 September 2018
Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............................[Sgd].........................................
Member D K Grigg
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP – cancellation of approval to grant citizenship – whether applicant of good character – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Kiokata and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] AATA 1022
Re Chen and Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] AATA 455
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Policy (2016, Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member D K Grigg
13 September 2018
INTRODUCTION

Ms Chambers was born in London and is an English citizen.
In 1964. Ms Chambers travelled with her parents and siblings from Southampton in London to Australia under the Assisted Passage Migration Scheme. On 30 August 1964, Ms Chambers became a permanent resident in Australia.[1]
[1]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 12, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 10 April 2017; page 31, National Archives Record.
Ms Chambers has remained in Australia since 1964 as a permanent resident, marrying in 1971 and again in 1989.[2]
[2]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 26-27, Marriage Certificates.
On 10 April 2017, Ms Chambers applied for Australian citizenship by conferral (“Citizenship Application”).[3] In her Citizenship Application, Ms Chambers advised that in October 2003 she had been convicted of social security fraud for which she was sentenced to a 4 year good behaviour bond (“Fraud Offence”).[4]
[3]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, pages 10-24, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 10 April 2017.
[4]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, page 13, Application for Australian Citizenship dated 10 April 2017.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (“DIBP”) wrote to Ms Chambers on 23 August 2017 and advised her that in considering her Citizenship Application:[5]
(a)the DIBP must be satisfied that she is of “good character” as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (“the Act”);
(b)it would be taking her Fraud Offence into account; and
(c)she needed to provide a copy of the Court transcripts of her Fraud Offence hearing.
[5]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T7, pages 38-39, Email from DIBP to Ms Chambers dated 23 August 2017.
On 11 September 2017, Ms Chambers provided the DIBP with, among other identity documents, documentation regarding her Fraud Offence including the Court transcript as requested. The Fraud Offence documentation indicates that:[6]
(a)Centrelink determined that Ms Chambers had received $25,414.07 in excess of her parenting allowance/parenting payment entitlement, as a result of which Ms Chambers, at the age of 53, was charged with 7 fraud offences under the Social Security Act, Social Security (Administration) Act and Criminal Code (Commonwealth);
(b)The Fraud Offence resulted from Ms Chambers knowingly receiving money over four and a half years from Centrelink to which she was not entitled;
(c)Ms Chambers pled guilty to the charges;
(d)Ms Chambers was sentenced to a total of 32 months jail but was released immediately after entering into a recognizance in the amount of $4,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of four years;
(e)Ms Chambers’ parents repaid the overpayment in full;
(f)Ms Chambers is a pathological gambler; and
(g)Ms Chambers had been receiving psychiatric treatment for 32 years and was on lifelong psychiatric medication.
[6]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T8, pages 44-75, Fraud Offence documentation including Court transcript.
The DIBP wrote to Ms Chambers again on 25 September 2017 and invited her to comment on the fact that, in addition to needing to be satisfied that she is of good character as required by section 21(2)(h) of the Act, the DIBP must also not be prohibited from approving citizenship under section 24(6) of the Act.[7]
[7]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, pages 86-88, Email from DIBP to Ms Chambers dated 25 September 2017.
Section 24(6) of the Act provides, relevantly, that the Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time:
(e) if the person has been released from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment on parole or licence--during any period during which action can be taken under an Australian law to require the person to serve the whole or a part of that sentence; or
(f) if the person:
(i) has been released by a court from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment; and
(ii) has been so released because the person gave a security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, that the person will comply with conditions relating to the person's behaviour;
during any period during which action can be taken against the person under an Australian law because of a breach of a condition of that security…
Ms Chambers wrote to the DIBP on 27 September 2017 and stated that she has a gambling addiction, has paid for her crime and has not committed another offence since the Fraud Offence but that due to the Fraud Offence she is not trusted in the community. Ms Chambers also stated that she no longer gambles and has been attending Gamblers Anonymous for years. She asked that it be taken into consideration that she has lived in Australia since 1964 and would like Australian citizenship so she can obtain a passport to accompany her mother (aged 86) to New Zealand.[8]
[8] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, pages 93-94, Email from Ms Chambers to DIBP dated 27 September 2017.
Ms Chambers was advised on 30 January 2018 that her Citizenship Application had been refused under section 25(2)(b)(iii) of the Act on the grounds that she was not of “good character” because (“DIBP Decision”):[9]
(a)of the seriousness of the Fraud Offence;
(b)she had not fully disclosed the complete details of her sentencing in her application for Australian citizenship;
(c)she admitted guilt and repaid the debt only after the fraudulent activity was detected by Centrelink;
(d)of the lack of remorse shown;
(e)of the lack of acceptance of responsibility for her actions;
(f)of the lack of evidence indicating an attempt to increase community trust; and
(g)of the absence of third party evidence regarding rehabilitation.
[9]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T16, pages 97-109, Notification of decision to refuse an Australian citizenship application and decision record dated 30 January 2018.
On 10 February 2018, Ms Chambers sought a review of the DIBP Decision by this Tribunal.[10]
[10]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, pages 3-8, Application for Review of Decision dated 10 February 2018.
ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether Ms Chambers is not of “good character” for the purposes of section 21(4)(f) of the Act.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the DIBP Decision pursuant to section 52(1)(c) of the Act.
LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to section 24 of the Act:
(1) If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.
(1A) The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
Pursuant to section 21(4)(f) of the Act, a person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person is of “good character” at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.
IS MS CHAMBERS OF “GOOD CHARACTER”?
What does “good character” mean?
The term “good character” is not defined in the Act.[11] The Full Federal Court in Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44 (“Grass”) noted that the absence of a definition meant that:
[60] … Parliament clearly intended the term to be used in a broad way, and refrained from taking the approach adopted in the Migration Act of giving specific content to a character criterion. This appeal does not raise for consideration the proper construction of the term “good character”, but it is important to note the absence of a definition and, again, the legislative decision to leave room to the repository of the cancellation power to reconsider a range of events and conduct connected with the person who has been granted a citizenship approval.
(emphasis added)
[11]Unlike in the Migration Act where section 501(6) sets out a list of matters which result in a person not passing the “character test” and being exposed to having her or his visa cancelled under the Migration Act; Grass v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 44, at [60].
The Minister referred the Tribunal to the Citizenship Policy (2016) which provides guidance on the interpretation of, and the exercise of powers under, the Act. The Tribunal is not bound to apply the Citizenship Policy but it may, and it should, apply it in exercising its discretion unless it is unlawful or “tends to produce an unjust decision”.[12]
[12]Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645.
The Tribunal is not aware of any “cogent reason” why it should not take the Citizenship Policy into consideration.
Chapter 11 of the Citizenship Policy provides guidance on the administration of the “good character” provisions under the Act and to define, for administrative purposes, the meaning of “good character”. In summary, the Citizenship Policy advises that “good character” is to be objectively assessed by reference to “enduring moral qualities” such as being able to distinguish right from wrong, and behaving ethically, legally and honestly in accordance with Australian rules and values. The Citizenship Policy provides more fully as follows:
“It is not departmental policy for decision makers to be bound by a check-list. Decision makers need to look at the merits of each case and to turn their minds to the issues of character until they are ‘satisfied’, on a reasoned basis that an applicant is, or is not, of good character.”[13]
[13]Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, page 144.
“Most cases have adopted the following definition from the Full FC judgment in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs ((1996) 68 FCR 422; at 431-432):
Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact while the latter is a review of subjective public opinion… A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character… Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.
In this context, ‘moral’ does not have any religious connotations. The phrase ‘enduring moral qualities’ encompasses the following concepts:
·characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time
·distinguishing right from wrong
·behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society.
The good character requirement looks at the essence of the applicant. Their behaviour is a manifestation of their essential characteristics.
This broad definition means that a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes.
In Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931, Deputy President Breen discussed the role of the character requirement in a citizenship application (at [8]):
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.”[14]
[14]Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, page 145.
“Drawing from the definition outlined in Definition of good character, an applicant of good character would:
·     respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries
·     be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay their taxes, and not be in dishonest receipt of public funds)
·     be truthful and not practise deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, or other governments and organisations, for example:
·providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications
·involvement in bogus marriage
·concealment of convictions that could lead to the cancellation or refusal of a visa or citizenship
·involvement in Centrelink or Australian Tax Office fraud
·giving false names and/or addresses to police
·not be violent, involved in drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct (for example recklessness exhibited by negligent or drink driving, excessive speeding or driving without licence or insurance)
·not be associated with others who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour, or others who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia
·not have evaded immigration control or assisted others to do so, or been involved in the illegal movement of people
·not have committed, been involved with or associated with war crimes, crimes against humanity and/or genocide
·not be the subject of any extradition order or other international arrest warrant
·not be involved in or providing assistance to, or reasonably suspected of being involved in or providing assistance to, terrorist organisations or acts of terrorism overseas or in Australia and
·not be the subject of any verifiable information causing character doubts.”[15]
[15]Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, page 147.
“In weighing up the various factors, the decision maker must not apply their own personal standards, but must apply community standards. Having regard to the words of the Preamble, and the pledge to be made if citizenship is approved, decision makers are asking themselves:
·would a person of good character have behaved the way the applicant did
·what is there to demonstrate that the applicant has upheld and obeyed the law
·has the applicant behaved in accordance with Australia's community standards
·does the applicant share Australia’s democratic beliefs and respect its rights and liberties.”[16]
(emphasis added)
CONTENTIONS
[16]Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, pages 149-150.
The Minister’s Contentions
The Minister submits that:
(a)Ms Chambers is not of good character because an applicant of good character would not practice deception or fraud in their dealings with the Australian Government, for example, by involvement in Centrelink fraud;[17]
(b)the Fraud Offence weighs heavily against a finding of good character, typically given that the offences occurred over a 4 ½ year period and were serious offences as reflected by the terms of imprisonment opposed;
(c)the offences are not victimless crimes as the ultimate victim was the taxpayer;[18]
(d)although Ms Chambers immediately pled guilty and has repaid the debt, this did not occur until four years after she knowingly commenced receiving benefits to which she had no entitlement and therefore little weight ought to be afforded to her remorse;[19]
(e)there is no objective evidence to corroborate Ms Chambers’ evidence that she has been undergoing rehabilitation in accordance with the Court order or that she has been attending Gamblers Anonymous or other appropriate counselling programs;
(f)Ms Chambers did not fully disclose the complete details of her sentencing in her application for citizenship, in that she failed to disclose the terms of imprisonment ranging from 12 – 20 months, from which she was immediately released upon giving security by way of recognizance. Ms Chambers only referred to a four year good behaviour bond; and
(g)Ms Chambers also has a history of driving offences in Australia.
[17]Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, para 16.
[18]Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, paras 22-23.
[19] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, para 24.
Ms Chambers’ Contentions
Ms Chambers told the Tribunal that:
(a)she knows what she did was wrong;
(b)she pled guilty immediately and arranged for the overpayment to be immediately repaid;
(c)the records of her general practitioner make no reference to her pathological gambling[20] because she had not told her doctor about her gambling or conviction as admitting that she had defrauded the government was embarrassing and the offence that she committed brings her a great deal of shame;
(d)she has been attending Gamblers Anonymous every week since the Fraud Offence;
(e)she has not disclosed her offence to people because it is shameful and she “wanted to make a fresh start”;
(f)because of the Fraud Offence, she could not get a job in her trained field of social work because she is not trustworthy and cannot engage in volunteer work which involves money;
(g)she did not make a reference to the sentence imposed in her Citizenship Application because she did not understand she had to, given that she was not sent to prison. She said she was unsure about how much information to give; and
(h)she feels she has been punished so many times.
[20] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, Annexure A.
CONSIDERATION
Seriousness of the Offence
The Citizenship Policy makes it clear that social security fraud is considered to be a serious offence.[21]
Evidence of Rehabilitation
[21] Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, page 147.
When considering an applicant with a criminal conviction, evidence of reform is relevant. In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422, the Full Federal Court considered the meaning of the expression "good character" for the purposes of the migration legislation. Davies J (with whose reasons Nicholson J agreed) said (at p 425):
…criminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.

Mr Kyranis submitted that there is limited evidence of Ms Chambers’ rehabilitation or her compliance with the Recognizance Order to seek counselling treatment, and that this is something one would expect Ms Chambers to have undertaken given that gambling was the explanation for why she committed the Fraud Offence.
At the hearing, Ms Chambers said she has attended Gamblers Anonymous every week, continued with her volunteer work at a soup kitchen and has not been near or inside a gambling venue since the Fraud Offence.
Ms Chambers acknowledges that she would have no control over her gambling addiction if she went to a gambling venue. She said Gamblers Anonymous has given her the tools to stay away from gambling venues and this works for her.
Mr Richard Hartman, a friend of Ms Chambers for 25 years, provided a statement verifying that Ms Chambers had joined Gamblers Anonymous.[22] The Minister did not require Mr Hartman to be available for cross-examination.
Lack of Remorse/Acceptance of Responsibility
[22] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, pages 114-115, Statement of Mr Hartman dated 7 February 2018.
Ms Chambers said “I know it was terrible…I felt at the time [she defrauded Centrelink] that I had no control and would sleep in car parks waiting for pubs to open”.
Character Evidence
Ms Chambers told the Tribunal that if she told people about the Fraud Offence no one would trust her (particularly with money) and she would lose people that she relies on.
Mr Kyranis said it was accepted that Ms Chambers was actively involved in volunteer work at the time of her sentencing but not now. However, the character references provided by Ms Chambers refer to her having some community involvement. Ms Chambers says she is involved up to 3 days a week in volunteer activities and referred to the statements provided by Mr Tony Christinson and Mr Thomas Jithin from the Donald Simpson Community Centre. Mr Christinson and Mr Jithin refer to the fact that Ms Chambers has been involved in the Centre for three years and that she convenes the table tennis session every week. Mr Jithin states that Ms Chambers has been involved in many local community activities, willingly volunteers her time and expertise for a number of events and is a great asset to the organisation.[23]
[23]Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, pages 112- 113, Statement of Mr Christinson dated 7 February 2018 and Statement of Mr Jithin dated 9 February 2018.
I asked Mr Kyranis whether he accepted that Mr Jithin’s statement was corroborating evidence that Ms Chambers is engaged in volunteer work. He said it is the evidence of one person. When asked how many witnesses are required to corroborate Ms Chambers’ evidence that she does volunteer work, Mr Kyranis responded that he could not answer that question. Mr Hartman also makes reference to the fact that Ms Chambers engages in volunteer work and programs such as Meals on Wheels. When this was pointed out to Mr Kyranis, he said he accepted that Ms Chambers had undertaken some volunteer work.
None of the character witnesses were asked to be available for cross-examination and Mr Kyranis acknowledged that their evidence could be accepted. Mr Kyranis then also accepted that Mr Hartman’s evidence corroborates Ms Chambers’ evidence that she attends Gamblers Anonymous.
There is no evidence that Ms Chambers did not abide by the Recognizance Order. Mr Kyranis accepted that but added that there is no evidence that she did. However, on the balance of probabilities, given that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise, it is reasonable for the Tribunal to accept that Ms Chambers complied with those orders as required.
Reason for Wanting Australian Citizenship
Ms Chambers says she would like a passport in order to be able to travel with her 86 year old mother to New Zealand. She said she probably could get a UK passport but she has never left Australia.
Requiring a passport to travel is not a relevant factor to the grant of citizenship.[24]
Other Issues
[24] Citizenship Policy (2016) Chapter 11, page 149.
The Minister also drew the Tribunal’s attention to Ms Chambers’ traffic offence history.[25] Since 1990, Ms Chambers has incurred 25 demerit points for speeding, driving while unlicenced and failing to stop at red lights. The last offence was for speeding in excess of speed limit in August 2013.
[25] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, Annexure B.
Conclusion
The commission of a crime does not automatically disqualify someone from becoming a citizen. In Re Chen and Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] AATA 455 at [10], where Senior Member Redfern, as she then was, quoted from the Australian Citizenship Instructions which stated: “An applicant’s behaviour does not need to be faultless, but the aggregate of their qualities must be weighed against ordinary community standards of behaviour”.
The social security system relies on recipients of social security payments being honest about issues concerning their eligibility to receive payments. The Fraud Offence committed by Ms Chambers is a serious offence.
Complete details of the Fraud Offence were not disclosed in the Citizenship Application because Ms Chambers made no reference to the prison sentence. The Recognizance Order itself makes no reference to a prison sentence. The prison sentence is only referred to in the sentencing remarks. There is nothing to indicate that this was an intentional omission on Ms Chambers’ part.
In terms of what attempts Ms Chambers has made to rehabilitate herself, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Chambers is telling the truth when she says she has been regularly attending Gamblers Anonymous since the Fraud Offence. This is corroborated by Mr Hartman. However, there is no evidence of any counselling or psychotherapy treatment. The transcript of the Magistrates Court proceeding makes reference to the fact that Ms Chambers has had psychiatric treatment for a very long time and has taken anti-anxiety and anti-depressant medication. However, there is no medical evidence before the Tribunal. A report from a treating psychologist or psychiatrist explaining the status of Ms Chambers’ condition would have been helpful. There is no evidence that Ms Chambers is having that treatment, particularly in circumstances where she has not even admitted to her general practitioner that she has a pathological problem.
In relation to the character witnesses, the Minister contends that the character references should be given little, if any, weight.[26] In Kiokata and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] AATA 1022, the Tribunal remarked at [109] that the:
[109] ...references are subjective views of persons having contact with Mr Kiokata, and should not be given the same weight that should be accorded to Mr Kiokata's own actions and conduct which has been set out in substantial detail above".[27]
[26] Exhibit 2, Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 July 2018, para 20.
[27]Applied in the recent decision of Grafton and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) AATA 981 at [72].
The Tribunal agrees that the character references do not carry much weight for the reasons given in Kiokata. The character references, from the Chair and the Manager of a local community centre, speak very highly of Ms Chambers but, other than the statement of Mr Hartman, they do not make reference to the social security fraud or traffic offences.
As pointed out by the Minister, the Citizenship Policy provides that decision-makers should give little weight to references that do not acknowledge the relevant offences or incident, and should also have regard to the inherent bias in any reference submitted by an applicant in support of their application for citizenship.
Mr David Gliddon, Ms Chambers’ brother, attended the hearing to give evidence. Mr Gliddon was quite emotional and clearly distressed about his sister’s crime and her gambling. He told the Tribunal:
(a)the family has had to “look after” Ms Chambers all of her life;
(b)when he found out about the Fraud Offence, it was devastating;
(c)“this [i.e. the submissions made by the Minister] is making it seem like Sally did something really terrible and even to bring up the traffic offences is terrible but nobody drives around and doesn’t get fined after 50 years of driving and I am not making excuses but it’s a life factor”;
(d)Ms Chambers has spent a lot of time looking after children with down syndrome and argues with departments regarding the way they treat these people;
(e)his sister has “a heart of gold, she made a mistake and that was 15 years ago”;
(f)the Department is making out that Ms Chambers “is the worst person almost saying she is a terrorist, that she’s committed this terrible crime. She didn’t really understand the implications of what she was doing. I’m trying not to say this as an excuse…. We’re dealing with a human being”;
(g)as soon as the family discovered what Ms Chambers had done they instantly paid all the money back and had no problems doing that;
(h)Ms Chambers no longer gambles and she is starting now to actually go out of the house and start doing a few little things which has taken all these years;
(i)Ms Chambers cannot go for a job because of this terrible crime she’s committed;
(j)“The government has really made Sally look absolutely terrible and it’s not fair. We make mistakes. Sally has done everything within her power to rectify from the financial point of view it’s all been paid back and 15 years she’s had a really good record…. Surely we should be able to move on [from her crime]. She is a good person she’s probably done more things than a lot of other people have in trying to help other people she’s just that type of person…[What the Department] is saying is over the top, they are assassinating Sally”.
Mr Gliddon says there is more to his sister than the Fraud Offence.
Mr Gliddon does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the crime committed by his sister. The DIBP is not responsible for Ms Chambers’ actions. Mr Gliddon’s comments were clearly driven by emotion and the love he has for his sister. Mr Gliddon acknowledged that Ms Chambers did not appreciate the implications of the offence. He also confirmed that it was the family that paid the money back, not Ms Chambers.
Whenever Mr Gliddon started crying, Ms Chambers would turn to me and say “don’t make him cry”. She did not seem to appreciate that it was not the Tribunal that was upsetting her brother, but the situation she is in due to her actions.
Ms Chambers has apologised for committing the Fraud Offence but the Tribunal does not believe she has demonstrated any real understanding of the seriousness of her actions. Her main concern seems to be what impact her conduct has had on her personally. This serious lack of insight weighs heavily against a finding that Ms Chambers is a person of good character.
In written submissions provided by Ms Chambers prior to the hearing, she blames the Australian government for her gambling addiction and resultant crime. She wrote:[28]
I have witnessed first-hand, similar time and money being spent to decline citizenship, by discrediting an individual who commits a crime to support an addiction, which could only have ever happened because the Australian Government itself put the “drug” there in the first instance…The Australian Government has its own addiction to collection of tax revenue accrued from gambling… Rather than punish the gambler again and again…This sentence doesn’t end, I will never get free of this stain. The Industry and the Australian Government should take responsibility and share the shame.
[28] Exhibit 3, Submissions of Ms Chambers dated 7 August 2018.
Ms Chambers told the Tribunal she was very angry when she wrote those submissions and said:
“every week at Gamblers Anonymous you see a victim. People say they never thought this could happen to me and that is get totally seduced, people lose their homes and their families and someone is getting the money… Providing a place for people to fail for people to lose everything they hold dear, I find so disturbing because 15 years after [my offence] it is still happening”.
At the hearing, Ms Chambers said she did not express remorse when talking to the government official at the time of her application because she thought that would be making excuses if she did. However, this has nothing to do with acknowledging the seriousness of the crime or feeling true remorse. Ms Chambers referred to an email she wrote on 15 February 2018[29] where she explained about her gambling issue and how she had hurt her family.[30] It is clear from this email that Ms Chambers blames her gambling addiction on the Australian Government. She writes that she will not be the last person addicted to gambling.
“I have to go [to Gamblers Anonymous] because I always need to be reminded of the damage I did, the crime I committed, so I can’t ever forget. The guilt doesn’t really go away, it is always there… I’ve paid for my crime, I’m no longer able to do the work I loved, working alongside intellectually disabled people because I can’t get a blue card, I am not trustworthy, I traded the relationships I had with them. I threw all that away.”
[29] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, pages 110, Email from Sally Ann Chambers dated 15 February 2018.
[30] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T17, pages 114-115, Statement of Mr Hartman dated 7 February 2018.
There is nothing in this statement which demonstrates a real understanding of the seriousness of the crime she committed.
While the Fraud Offence was committed 15 years ago, the Tribunal does not believe that Ms Chambers has taken responsibility for the crime or genuinely understands and acknowledges the seriousness of the offence. The primary contention made by Ms Chambers is that it is the government’s fault. The government is not responsible for the choices made by Ms Chambers.
Fraud against the Commonwealth is a very serious crime. That does not mean Ms Chambers should be punished for the remainder of her life but it does have to be taken into account in determining good character. The Citizenship Policy is the guide that the Department uses to ensure consistency in decision making and it sets out in substantial detail the issues that one needs to consider. One of those issues is whether you have committed a crime and the nature of that crime. Although this crime may not have resulted in somebody being physically or mentally hurt and the money was repaid, involvement in Centrelink fraud is an example of somebody not having the characteristics of “good character”.
There has been no criminal offending since the Fraud Offence but there has been a significant number of traffic offences. While they may seem minor to Mr Gliddon, breaching the traffic laws has the potential to endanger the safety of people on the roads and is relevant to an assessment of good character for the purpose of a citizenship application. The repeated breach of the traffic rules indicates a preparedness to disregard Australian laws and is another factor which weighs against a finding of “good character”.
DECISION
For the reasons above, the Tribunal has found that Ms Chambers is not of “good character” and does not meet the eligibility criteria as per section 21(4)(f) of the Act. Therefore, Ms Chambers not eligible for citizenship under section 21(2)(c) of the Act.
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member D K Grigg

.............................[Sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 13 September 2018

Date(s) of hearing: 31 August 2018

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Jake Kyranis, Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date(s) of hearing:	31 August 2018
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Jake Kyranis, Sparke Helmore Lawyers