Australian Citizenship (special residence requirement) Instrument (LIN 21/069) 2021

It explicitly specifies the work of ministers of religion in senior leadership positions and lists the sorts of duties that are included (clause 7).

Who this affects (in practice)

• Individuals who apply for Australian citizenship and who claim that their residence or work falls within the specified activities or kinds of work listed here will be affected, because those activities and jobs are the categories treated under the cited provisions of the Act (see cl.5–7 and cl.2A).

• The instrument also directs attention to particular organisations (for verification or context) such as the Australian Olympic Committee, Cricket Australia, CSIRO, and S&P/ASX All Australia 200 companies (cl.5; cl.6(2)(e); cl.3).

• Employers and employers’ representatives may be affected to the extent applicants need employer documentation or verification to show they performed the specified work (see cl.5–7 and cl.3 definitions).

Why this matters (official claim and practical consequences)

The immediate legal effect is procedural/mechanical: the instrument defines what counts as a "specified" activity or kind of work under sections of the Citizenship Act referenced (cl.5–7). That matters because those specifications change which applicants can rely on the special residence provisions of the Act (the instrument is made under s.22C — cl.2A). The instrument itself does not set out the broader policy objective in this text; it provides the categories the decision-maker will treat as falling within the Act’s special residence rules.

Testing that practical effect against costs, incentives and implementation trade-offs (source-grounded):

• Concentrated benefits and who gains: the instrument explicitly includes narrowly defined, high-status or high-skill roles (for example, CEOs or executive managers of S&P/ASX 200 companies (cl.6(2)(c)), doctorate-level academics/scientists employed by Australian universities (cl.6(2)(d)), elite athletes representing Australia in specified competitions (cl.5 items 2–6), and medical specialists meeting international-fellowship criteria (cl.6(2)(f))). Those categories will be the direct beneficiaries if the Act’s special residence provisions operate in their favour for applicants in those roles (see cl.5–7).

• Compliance burden on applicants: an applicant relying on these specifications will need to show documentary proof that their activity or work fits a listed category (for example, evidence of participation in a named event/organisation (cl.5), proof of employment in a specified post or employer (cl.6(2)(c)–(e)), or evidence of visa history and the basis of the visa grant (cl.3 definition of "relevant talent visa")). The instrument’s reliance on external lists and specific dates (for visa classes in cl.3 and the S&P/ASX 200 list referenced in cl.3 Note 2) implies administrative steps to verify eligibility.

• Administrative discretion and interpretive points: several terms in the instrument require factual or evaluative assessment by the administering authority. Examples include "requires a Negative Vetting 2 or higher security clearance" (cl.5, item 1), "internationally recognised record of exceptional and outstanding achievement" (cl.6(2)(f) and cl.6(3)), and membership of the S&P/ASX All Australia 200 (cl.3 Note 2). These invite factual verification and judgment by officials when processing applications.

• Reliance on external standards and bodies: the instrument ties specification to external organisations and lists (for example, ICC events and Cricket Australia for cricket (cl.5, item 6), the S&P/ASX 200 list (cl.3 Note 2), CSIRO and the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes (cl.6(2)(e))). That creates operational dependencies for verification and can produce timing issues (e.g. the S&P/ASX index being rebalanced quarterly — cl.3 Note 2).

• Timing and transitional effect: the instrument explicitly provides that later amendments made by LIN 26/024 apply to citizenship applications made on or after LIN 26/024’s commencement (cl.8). That creates a clear temporal cut-off for which version of the specification applies to a given application.

Concrete mechanics — who decides and who bears costs

• Who decides: the Department (the decision-maker under the Citizenship Act) applies these specifications when deciding whether an applicant’s activity/work falls into the listed categories (the instrument provides the list; the Act and departmental processes govern decision-making — see cl.2A and cl.5–7).

• Who bears costs: applicants seeking to rely on these categories will bear the evidence-gathering and administrative compliance costs (documentary proof, potentially arranging employer or organisational confirmations) because the instrument defines categories but does not by itself undertake verification (see cl.5–7 and cl.3). Employers or named organisations may bear some cost if asked to provide confirmations.

Practical limits and trade-offs visible in the text

• The instrument is a categories list rather than a rulebook: it lists named activities and roles; many qualifying phrases are inherently factual or evaluative (e.g. "internationally recognised record", security clearance levels, or membership of the ASX 200), which requires case-by-case verification (see cl.5, cl.6(2)(f), cl.6(3), cl.3 Note 2).

• Some categories are precisely linked to named organisations or external events (Olympics, Commonwealth Games, ICC events — cl.5 items 2, 3, 5, 6). Others are occupation/skill based but tied to qualifications or employers (PhD-holding academics at Australian universities — cl.6(2)(d); CSIRO employees — cl.6(2)(e)). That mix creates straightforward verification for some applicants and more discretionary assessments for others.

• The instrument anticipates future change by cross-referencing an amending instrument (LIN 26/024) and setting a commencement condition for its application (cl.8). The instrument does not itself describe the content of those amendments.

Source citations: clauses 2A, 3, 5–8.