Mark Northam

Also note that the requirement that you be "settled" in Australia refers to being lawfully in Australia for 2 years (according to current DIBP policy) on any sort of visa which can include time on temporary visas such as student visas, 417, 457, etc. You must however be a PR at the time you lodge the parent visa. Note the very long waiting times (20+ years) on the traditional parent visa subclasses, however this can be overcome if you are willing to pay the high second visa application fee for the contributory and contributory aged parent visas.

My biggest concern about these proposed changes is that if an applicant is named in a sponsorship application (for a partner visa) and the applicant is offshore and planning on coming to Australia on a visitor visa to lodge an onshore partner visa, what would that sponsorship application do to the applicant's chances of being granted a visitor visa (for tourism purposes)? If an applicant was already onshore on a 3-month visitor visa stay and there is a sponsorship application requirement introduced, it could potentially delay the application by the applicant past the 3-month mark - if the applicant then went offshore and re-entered Australia if their visitor visa was a multiple-entry visa, could designation on a partner sponsor application then cause the applicant not to be allowed to re-enter Australia due to an intention to lodge a permanent visa onshore when allowed to do so? The added delay and cost to partner visa applicants is also an issue - this visa has seen a HUGE increase in visa application fees over the last few years, and at some point the application fee will be seen as punitive. And in terms of character, I can understand the concerns re: sponsors with criminal records sponsoring young children dependents of their proposed partners, but to what extent will character issues with sponsors result in their inability to sponsor their own partner? Given the introduction of highly sensitive character-related provisions, such as where a visa can be cancelled if the applicant is deemed a threat to "the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or a segment of the Australian community; or the health or safety of an individual or individuals" (Section 116(1)(e) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) dealing with cancellation powers). And what of family violence claims against sponsors on previous application(s) that are upheld yet the sponsor is given no opportunity to contest the claims or provide evidence the claims are false? How would it be fair or reasonable to penalise a sponsor based on such a one-sided decision making process with no natural justice provided to the sponsor to comment on adverse information given to the Department? Lots of questions, few answers so far, lots to look forward to this year! Best, Mark Northam