Permanent Parent Visas to be abolished ?

[Parley]

Each year's intake of parents of migrants costs Austalian taxpayers $3.2B.

 

The Productivity commission in its report to Government has called for permanent parent visasa to be abolished or the fees greatly increased.

 

Even the cost for the contributory visa of $47,000 does not come close to the estimated cost to taxpayers of $335,000 to $410,000 after health, welfare and aged care are taken into account.

[Perthbum]

Got a link.

[Suzukiscottie]

Heard it on the radio this morning. Surprised that this sort of comparison in costs hasn't been a realisation previously. If it is indeed true of course.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Parley]

It is on the front page of The Australian.

There is a link but it is behind a paywall so you might not be able to read it.

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/parents-of-migrants-to-cost-32bn-call-for-visas-to-be-abolished/news-story/05152165733a088d6b69dd6e3ea3b70f

Edited September 12, 2016 by parleycross

[Parley]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34104[/ATTACH]

[Fisher1]

Each year's intake of parents of migrants costs Austalian taxpayers $3.2B.

 

The Productivity commission in its report to Government has called for permanent parent visasa to be abolished or the fees greatly increased.

 

Even the cost for the contributory visa of $47,000 does not come close to the estimated cost to taxpayers of $335,000 to $410,000 after health, welfare and aged care are taken into account.

 

 

Of course the productivity commission is not taking into account the cost to the parents of producing one fully educated, skilled adult migrant who is presumably essential to the Australian workforce - otherwise Australia would be providing a home grown version of said migrant ...

[flag of convenience]

There is the argument that a migrant may better settle if parent/s are relocated as well. Saves on child care thus provides a further worker helping out fund Australia's rather high costs to establish.

 

Then there is the counter argument that health costs etc are a burden on a ever declining social welfare net. I see no problem for self funded retirees fully responsible for own health care, although I would imagine this would be expensive and rule out many but the richest that would be able to fund this.

 

There is no easy answer but welfare must surely be first and foremost for those already in the country.

[Fisher1]

There is the argument that a migrant may better settle if parent/s are relocated as well. Saves on child care thus provides a further worker helping out fund Australia's rather high costs to establish.

 

Then there is the counter argument that health costs etc are a burden on a ever declining social welfare net. I see no problem for self funded retirees fully responsible for own health care, although I would imagine this would be expensive and rule out many but the richest that would be able to fund this.

 

There is no easy answer but welfare must surely be first and foremost for those already in the country.

 

i wonder what proportion of parents actually do follow their kids - my guess is that the percentage is quite low. Given the balance of family test which must cut elligibilty right down, then the need to pass a medical. Most of those who apply for s contributory parent visa need to be relatively affluent - $47,000 is not a small amount to just kiss goodbye to, especially if there are two of you - which means many parents will be Aussie tax payers, probably till the day they die. How many parents can swallow higher Australian taxes as well as the prospect of having their UK state pension frozen the day they leave the UK? I cant see how these people are going to cost Oz the vast average amounts of money quoted above.

 

My guess is that they will discontinue the 103 VISA, which has already been discontinued once, then reinstated.

[Parley]

i wonder what proportion of parents actually do follow their kids - my guess is that the percentage is quite low. Given the balance of family test which must cut elligibilty right down, then the need to pass a medical. Most of those who apply for s contributory parent visa need to be relatively affluent - $47,000 is not a small amount to just kiss goodbye to, especially if there are two of you - which means many parents will be Aussie tax payers, probably till the day they die. How many parents can swallow higher Australian taxes as well as the prospect of having their UK state pension frozen the day they leave the UK? I cant see how these people are going to cost Oz the vast average amounts of money quoted above.

 

My guess is that they will discontinue the 103 VISA, which has already been discontinued once, then reinstated.

 

There are 8700 parents coming in every year under these visas.

[newjez]

i wonder what proportion of parents actually do follow their kids - my guess is that the percentage is quite low. Given the balance of family test which must cut elligibilty right down, then the need to pass a medical. Most of those who apply for s contributory parent visa need to be relatively affluent - $47,000 is not a small amount to just kiss goodbye to, especially if there are two of you - which means many parents will be Aussie tax payers, probably till the day they die. How many parents can swallow higher Australian taxes as well as the prospect of having their UK state pension frozen the day they leave the UK? I cant see how these people are going to cost Oz the vast average amounts of money quoted above.

 

My guess is that they will discontinue the 103 VISA, which has already been discontinued once, then reinstated.

 

It would probably help if they relaxed the holiday visa for parents. Many don't want to stay, just visit for a long period hassle free.

[flag of convenience]

i wonder what proportion of parents actually do follow their kids - my guess is that the percentage is quite low. Given the balance of family test which must cut elligibilty right down, then the need to pass a medical. Most of those who apply for s contributory parent visa need to be relatively affluent - $47,000 is not a small amount to just kiss goodbye to, especially if there are two of you - which means many parents will be Aussie tax payers, probably till the day they die. How many parents can swallow higher Australian taxes as well as the prospect of having their UK state pension frozen the day they leave the UK? I cant see how these people are going to cost Oz the vast average amounts of money quoted above.

 

My guess is that they will discontinue the 103 VISA, which has already been discontinued once, then reinstated.

 

Quite possibly so. Other migrant groups are willing to pay considerable amounts to have parents come to Australia though. Health care better and conditions for the aged far better overall. There is definitely a ' business' to be made in that department to be had.

[flag of convenience]

It would probably help if they relaxed the holiday visa for parents. Many don't want to stay, just visit for a long period hassle free.

 

That would be the sensible approach to the matter.

[amibovered]

That would be the sensible approach to the matter.

That would appear to be the plan

Under the recommended changes, a temporary visa for parents would allow them to stay for a longer period of time as long as the sponsoring child met the necessary health and income costs during their stay.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/family-reunions-australian-migration-visas-living-costs-report/7838362

[Fisher1]

That would appear to be the plan

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-13/family-reunions-australian-migration-visas-living-costs-report/7838362

 

 

 

It isn't just that simple though. The difficulty for many older people is travel insurance. Even if your health needs are met in Australia you still need insurance for the journey back and forth, and most insurance companies insist on insuring from your home address for the whole period. Once your are more than 66 years of age, it is difficult to insure yourself for longer than a month, so the option of six months in each place is gone. To be honest I'm not mad about the idea of packing up and starting again in Oz , even now I've got my visa - but one month per trip to see a beloved only child and grandchild just isn't long enough. Clearly there will also com e a time when travel is not possible at all, and then what? No visits at all, or one long sob- fest.

 

there may well be thousands of people arriving each year under the current scheme, but of those, how many remain self sufficient? Many will be tax payers, all will be consumers, an increasing number work for many years.

 

Still the greater good has to prevail, and time will tell but I bet the 103 will go first.

[Roberta2]

The Productivity Commission report is on the internet.

[Roberta2]

To what extent are health needs met in Australia for visiting Poms such as parents? I don't know what reciprocal arrangements are in place.

[Roberta2]

It's not just travel insurance. If the path to permanent residence is closed, there will be no prospect of future access to the Australian aged pension, no? So even if parents were able to live in Australia for longer periods, they would have to live on their "frozen" Pom pensions. However, this could be a future area addressed if UK-Australian relationship changes as a consequence of Brexit, possibly. Australian governments have been banging on about it for decades, just getting brushed off.

[Guest The Pom Queen]

I haven't read all this thread but I've seen a few articles on the subject. It seems it's not UK families that are the issue but more Asian families who want to bring parents and then grandparents. I also saw an article where someone was claiming benefits for his 7 wives, now if you have a polygamist can they legally bring in all those wives and their parents as well? I'm sure the answer would be no, well I'd hope so.

I wonder if they could alter the visa for high risk countries.

At the end of the day though it isn't Australia's problem that you moved over here without your parents, I am presuming we all moved over and didn't think at the time that we would be bringing our parents out in the future?

I agree with one of the comments that they should maybe look at doing a long stay visa, however, this would be hard for really elderly parents but for parents in their 50-70 it may be an option. For those older I think the travel and stress would be too much.

[ramot]

It's not just travel insurance. If the path to permanent residence is closed, there will be no prospect of future access to the Australian aged pension, no? So even if parents were able to live in Australia for longer periods, they would have to live on their "frozen" Pom pensions. However, this could be a future area addressed if UK-Australian relationship changes as a consequence of Brexit, possibly. Australian governments have been banging on about it for decades, just getting brushed off.

 

Judging by the many friends I have here on the parent visa I don't know anyone who relies only on the frozen state pension. No other pension is frozen as far as I know, and all ours are index linked, accrued from working in more than one company during our working life. Possibly might apply to pensioners older than us, but we are in our 70's.

with no disrespect to other nationalities, I wonder if pensioners from other countries might need more government support than those from UK and might be more of a drain.

 

My state pension has been frozen for 12 years, and the upgrade I get when visiting UK is a bonus but not life changing.

[Roberta2]

The origins of this Productivity Commission report are unusual. It was a result of a 2014 deal between then Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and "libertarian" independent Senator David Leyonhjelm. They struck a deal that Leyonhjelm would support the government in reintroducing temporary protection visas for asylum seekers, in return for the government's agreeing to a Productivity Commission report on immigration. However, the Commission has rejected Leyonhjelm's central demand to scrap the current point system and replace it with hefty charges. Leyonhjelm has all sorts of strange bees in his bonnet, but the Report that he has more or less created has drawn attention to the cost-benefit analysis to the Australian taxpayer of parent migrant visas. i.e. the Commission claims that the 8,700 or so parents coming in each year cost between $2.6 billion and $3.2. billion over a lifetime (after allowing for inflation).

[silencio]

Not parents from 1st world countries are the issue, parents from migrants from developing countries are far more likely to pull up stakes in their country of origin where the aged pension or universal free health care is a alien concept.

 

Some Asian/Indian migrants from not so wealthy backgrounds take on huge debts to pay for their parents to join them in Australia.

 

In my opinion Australian Immigration should rather close the loophole for parents coming on a tourist visa and then suddenly applying for a bridging visa in Australia to avoid paying the 47,000 AUD.

 

An extended tourist visa for parents is a really good idea.

Edited September 13, 2016 by silencio

[SOMV]

The Commission reported back in April this year. All of a sudden this becomes a "permanent parent visas to be abolished" headline?

 

The commission reported on the following, on other words, it was specifically asked to look at this idea:

 

the Commission has been asked to assess, a single price would be charged for all immigrants (outside the humanitarian stream), determined either through a tender, an auction or by government. It would replace the current plethora of 18 MIGRANT INTAKE INTO AUSTRALIA different visa classes, fees and charges, as well as the current administrative selection mechanisms, although current character, health and security checks would be retained....

 

And it reported as follows:

 

"Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak. In the short term, a partial remedy would be to lower the taxpayer funded subsidy for contributory parent visas by considerably raising the visa charge, and to introduce more narrowly focused non-contributory parent visas. This would involve narrowing eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds. The impact of this tightening could be partly offset by the introduction of more flexible temporary parent visa arrangements, subject to the parents or sponsoring children meeting the costs of any income or health support during their period of residence. The resulting (large) fiscal savings could be better directed at more vulnerable members of the Australian community and at reducing the more general pressures of an ageing population."

 

The Commission then recommended that:

 

"The Australian Government should amend arrangements for permanent parent visa applicants. In the short term, it should:

 

• increase substantially the charge for contributory parent visas

• narrow eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds to do so, accompanied by clear published criteria to limit applications for such visas

• consider lowering the caps for contributory parent visas

• introduce a more flexible temporary parent visa that would provide longer rights of residence, but with requirements, as for other temporary visas, that the parents or sponsoring child would meet the costs of any income or health supports during the period of residence."

 

And:

 

"The Australian Government should request the Australian Government Actuary to update its actuarial analysis of the long-term fiscal consequences of immigrants arriving under the parent visa stream, eventually incorporating all expenditures and revenues, including at the state and territory government level."

 

End of Commission report and end of Commission recommendation on this topic. How this becomes a "permanent parent visas abolished" headline is questionable.

 

(The whole commission report can be accessed here:

 

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/report/migrant-intake-report-overview.pdf )

[Gwyndy]

Hi Everyone

 

I have read this with much interest, as I am in the process of obtaining a CPV from the UK.

 

Just to add a few numbers to this thread. The cost to my wife and myself for the CPV is roughly $110,00 along with a few other small fees. With a waiting list of approximately 24 months plus. On top of that, we will be bringing approximately around $1,000,000 to settle and put into the local economy, buy a house, vehicles, furniture etc.

 

We are both 60 and in excellent health and will hope to do a mixture of charity and part time paid work. We will be joining our son and his wife who are about to start a family in Tasmania. By us being local to them, this will ensure that they stay in Tasmania, hopefully raise a family of 2/3 kids and contribute to the state over the long term. We will expect to also contribute to the state through local taxation and income tax. We bring with us 2 pensions, our state pension and a private pension which would hopefully give us approximately $3,000 to put back into the local infrastructure and we will have medical insurance.

 

So really, it is not just what we parents cost the local economy but what we may bring to it also. I would like to think it counts

 

Many thanks for reading

[Gwyndy]

$3,000 per month from pension

sorry for the mistake

[Fisher1]

I would like to return to my original comment about the cost of providing Australia with one fully grown, educated adult, free of charge other than salary. I've no idea how much it costs to train, say, a doctor - but it certainly costs a fair amount of money. It could be argued that if Australia is to benefit from foreign born experts, then it can afford to spend some of the money it saves on training by welcoming the parents of those who experts, who in their turn will contribute to Australian Society, not least by providing free childcare.

 

On the issue of extended parent visas, it is already possible to get a visa for six months, longer if your name is on the waiting list for a permenant residence parent visa. But it is fairly useless to have a six month visa if you can't get travel insurance for longer than a month. This restriction does NOT begin at 70 or 80, it begins at 66. Yes, a 66 year old can get travel insurance but most companies will not insure for trips lasting longer than a month, which , excluding travel would give you about three and a half weeks with your family.

 

On the subject of insurance, most UK companies will not insure your unoccupied house for longer than ninety days. So unless you have exceptionally helpful family members to house sit, or can afford to pay house sitters, you are going to be sitting in Australia crossing your fingers that the house hasnt burned down while you weren't looking.

 

As I said earlier, it isn't that simple.