1. The hearing was held on 20 May 2025 and was conducted by video. The Applicant was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Ms Alexandra O'Grady of Minter Ellison. The parties appeared by Microsoft Teams.
2. The Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined.
3. The following document was tendered as an exhibit by the Applicant:

(a) Certified extract from the Magistrate's Court at Heidelberg, dated 23 December 2023 (Exhibit A1).

4. The following materials were tendered as exhibits by the Respondent:

(a) Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions filed 11 March 2025 (Exhibit R1); > > (b) T-Documents T1 - T11, comprised of pages 1 - 169 filed on 12 October 2023 (Exhibit R2); and > > (c) Supplementary T-Documents S1 - S10, comprised of pages 1 - 55 filed on 11 March 2025 (Exhibit R3).

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that all evidence was before it and both parties were given the opportunity to address all the evidence orally and in writing.

1. The Tribunal heard evidence from the Applicant that:

(a) His speeding on one occasion was due to needing to use the restroom. > > (b) His speeding on the other occasions was due to matters such as frustration following an unsuccessful job interview and then rushing to drive to another, losing his brother, and his own health problems. > > (c) Life stressors cause him to speed; he speeds when he is 'going through a lot' and out of ignorance having come to a new country and not knowing how things work. > > (d) Everything that happened was unintended.

(a) His last fine incurred in 2023 was due to someone else driving his car, although he was unable to obtain evidence of this due to the passing of time. > > (b) He shares a car with multiple adults. > > (c) The Respondent should take steps to obtain the evidence confirming he was not the driver on the last occasion. > > (d) He accepts he wrongly answered 'no' to two questions on his partner visa application lodged in 2014, for the reasons set out in his statement at R3, S9. > > (e) He is of good character, he has never 'forced somebody', he lives peacefully, is a god-fearing person, sometimes in life things do happen and, in his case, things never happened because he thought he was above the law.

1. The Respondent provided detailed written submissions in the RSFIC paragraphs [19] - [33].
2. The Respondent indicated that the Minister continues to rely on those written submissions.
3. There are two discrete issues for the Tribunal to consider:

(a) The Applicant's history of offending and other conduct; and > > (b) The Applicant's dishonesty in his dealings with the Department, being his failure to disclose his visa application refusal.

4. To largely re-iterate the Respondent's submissions at RSIC paragraphs [19] - [33], and noting them with agreement:

(a) The Applicant was found guilty of a number of offences between February 2017 and October 2019. > > (b) The applicant received fines and a licence disqualification. > > (c) The Applicant was found guilty of further offending in October 2019, claiming he was not the driver at the time but has provided no evidence to the Tribunal that this was the case. > > (d) The Applicant's speeding on numerous occasions being born of frustration and life stressors is concerning, given these situations are likely to occur in the future. > > (e) While these are not strictly criminal convictions, it is still conduct relevant to the question of good character and demonstrates a pattern of behaviour of carelessness and disrespect for the law, due to its repeated nature.

5. The Applicant disagreed with the Respondent's proposition that he is careless and disrespectful given he is a disability support worker and is very careful when driving with his clients.
6. The Applicant did not dispute that he provided incorrect answers on his partner visa application form. However, the Tribunal regarded his explanation of being confused and overwhelmed by the questions as insufficient, particularly in circumstances where he had also previously completed a visitor visa application.

Character references, rehabilitation and mitigating factors

1. The Tribunal notes with agreement the Respondent's written submissions at paragraphs [28] to [32] regarding degree of rehabilitation, mitigating factors and character references, adding that none of the referees were made available to give evidence at the hearing. The evidence remains untested in that regard, and so limited weight can be given to these references for that reason.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant is of good character under section 21(2)(h) of the Act. This is the sole issue and, that being so, the Reviewable Decision is affirmed.

1. The Reviewable Decision, being the decision of a delegate of the Respondent dated 12 September 2023, to refuse the Applicant's application for citizenship by conferral, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 23 (twenty-three) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Gallagher