Hamade and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Mr Hamade, which was refused by the Minister's delegate on the grounds that the delegate was not satisfied Mr Hamade was of good character, as required by sections 24(1A) and 21(2)(h) of the relevant Act. Mr Hamade sought a review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Hamade possessed the requisite "good character" for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act. The Act does not define "good character," but the Tribunal referred to the Citizenship Policy, which cites *Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs* (1996) 68 FCR 422. This case established that "good character" refers to a person's enduring moral qualities, assessed objectively, rather than their community standing. The Citizenship Policy further elaborates that this involves demonstrating characteristics over a long period, distinguishing right from wrong, and behaving ethically in accordance with Australian societal rules and values.

The Tribunal considered that the grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and is bestowed upon those who uphold Australian values and are willing to contribute positively to the country. The requirement for good character looks at the applicant's essential nature and behaviour as a manifestation of those characteristics. The Citizenship Policy indicates that a person of good character respects and abides by Australian law and does not cause harm through their conduct. The refusal of citizenship is not a punitive measure but rather an exercise of the community's right to determine who becomes a fellow citizen.