Sudarto and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for the conferral of Australian citizenship by Mr Sudarto, an Indonesian citizen, and a review of the Minister's decision to refuse that application. The dispute arose because, although Mr Sudarto met most of the eligibility requirements for citizenship, he had been subject to a good behaviour bond imposed by the ACT Magistrates Court following a charge for a driving offence. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was any discretion to grant citizenship in these circumstances and whether an adjournment of the proceedings until the expiration of the good behaviour bond was appropriate.

The Tribunal was required to consider two primary legal issues. The first was whether the provisions of section 24(6)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth) precluded the conferral of citizenship, and if so, whether any discretion existed to override this preclusion. The second issue was whether the Tribunal possessed the power to adjourn the proceedings, and if so, whether it was appropriate to exercise that power in this case, given the operation of section 24(6)(g).

The Tribunal reasoned that section 24(6)(g) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* operates as a mandatory bar to the conferral of citizenship when its preconditions are met. As Mr Sudarto was subject to a good behaviour bond, the Tribunal found that section 24(6)(g) applied and that neither the Minister nor the Tribunal on review had any discretion to grant citizenship. While the Tribunal acknowledged its general procedural power under section 40(1)(c) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth) to adjourn proceedings, it concluded that this procedural power could not override the substantive preclusion imposed by section 24(6)(g) of the Citizenship Act. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Mr Sudarto's application for review.