‘Byron Shire Council retains authority to hold citizenship ceremonies after Australia Day reversal’
The website for the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs contains the following passage:
Monday, 29 October 2018
Byron Shire Council retains authority to [hold] citizenship ceremonies after Australia Day reversal
The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs David Coleman has welcomed the Byron Shire Council’s decision to hold its Australia Day citizenship ceremony on 26 January following earlier announcements that they would not do so.
The newest citizens in Byron Bay and the surrounding regions will now be offered the choice of attending a citizenship ceremony on Australia Day—the most popular day of the year for new citizens to attend a ceremony.
“I welcome Mayor Simon Richardson’s and his council’s decision to reinstate the Australia Day citizenship ceremony,” Mr Coleman said.
“The government has been very clear on its position that citizenship ceremonies should not be used as tools to support or promote a political agenda, or to delegitimise Australia’s national day in any way.
“As required by the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code, ceremonies should be apolitical, bipartisan, non-commercial and secular to ensure that our new citizens are the focus of the celebrations.”
Mr Coleman has written to all council mayors reminding them of their obligations under the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code.
Any council who politicises a citizenship ceremony will be stripped of their right to hold citizenship ceremonies.
Disclaimer: the above is a mere reproduction of a website. The views expressed in those documents might not reflect the view of the Department, the AAT or the courts. The law or policies might have changed between the writing and reading of this article. The author of this article and Migration Law Updates disclaim any liability for any action (or omission) on their part based on any information provided (or not provided) in this article and are under no obligation to keep the general public nor practitioners informed about the matters discussed in this article or any other matters, or any future changes to any of those matters. It is the responsibility of each practitioner to obtain access to primary sources of law and policy by themselves and to carry out their own research and come to their own conclusions on legislation, case law, policies and more. This article is not intended for the general public.