Will the Lafha Allowance be an issue for my partners upcoming PR visa?

[Guest hopefullly2]

Hi everyone,

 

After receiving our 457 spouse visa 18 months ago things could not be any better back here in Oz. All the pressure and stress of the process has long gone but a new visa issue has risen back through the cracks again. At the moment my partner is receiving the Lafha allowance as we are looking to move back to the UK sometime next year after we receive her PR visa.

 

My question is will Immigration look at the allowance and hold that against her when they go to upgrade her Temporary visa to Permanent Visa status?

 

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[northshorepom]

Why would they "hold it against her??". When you get PR (it may even be when you lodge an application, I can't recall) you are no longer entitled to claim LAFHA anyway. And anyway, it's probably going in October, although last time I checked this useless government *still* hadn't moved the necessary legislation, which is abysmal given the time they have had to do it.

[Guest hopefullly2]

We just thought that because she is receiving Lafha allowance and the possibility of moving back to the UK that immigration might not give her the visa as easily compared to not getting the allowance and definently staying.

[wakeboard1980]

Perfectly legit question mate for someone that has just joined and is looking for a few answers.

 

I wouldn't think it would effect you at all. You were/are entitled to lafha when you have been claiming it so thaere should be no issues caused when you are applying for PR.

 

Don't know where the *useless government* rant came from but weather they stop lafha or not doesn't really matter to your situation of PR. If it stays you will be able to continue claiming until you get your PR.

[northshorepom]

Perfectly legit question mate for someone that has just joined and is looking for a few answers.

 

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise but on reading it back I can see how it could have been interpreted that way. Lost in translation. Yep, perfectly reasonable question

 

I wouldn't think it would effect you at all. You were/are entitled to lafha when you have been claiming it so thaere should be no issues caused when you are applying for PR.

As above

 

Don't know where the *useless government* rant came from but weather they stop lafha or not doesn't really matter to your situation of PR. If it stays you will be able to continue claiming until you get your PR.

The rant came from the fact that the government first proposed the change out of the blue in Dec 2011, then "consulted", then in the budget announcement in May 2012 the actual budget statement said existing LAFHA claims would be valid until 2014. Only 2 days later did Swan's office come out with further information saying they meant that stay of execution would only apply to citizens or PRs working away in Australia, not temporary residents, all of whom would lose the allowance with no phasing in July 2012. Then they failed to bring out the Finance Bill and at the last minute (Jun 20th or so) announced a further stay of execution for another 3 months. Finally they presented a draft bill on 28th June before the winter recess but more consultation is still going one

 

For people like me who have to manage resources and business costs when we have a substantial number of people on 457s, this is a massive pain in the @rse. We have people who have resigned and the cost of replacing them, people who will probably resign if it goes so we may have to replace them but no way of knowing yet, and people we'll probably have to pay more to keep. Whilst the issue is not resolved, we are moderately impacted and it's all so unnecessary

 

A good government would have made a decision in good time, announced it to the business community and taxpayers, probably included some phasing so business can manage the change more effectively, not bodged the budget anouncement for the sake of cheap populism, moved the legislation promptly (the fact they didn't says it all about the knee jerk way the decisions were made) and at least when they realised they'd screwed it up, announced a new timetable and got it right. As it stands we'll probably get the legislation resolved again 2 weeks before the allowance stops dead. Or it will end up in the courts

 

This government did none of those things. They made a total hash of it, and for what? It represents about 0.2% of the federal budget (from memory, I would have to check). That is why, on this subject (and others, but that's not for this thread) I say they are useless

[wakeboard1980]

Didn't mean to suggest otherwise but on reading it back I can see how it could have been interpreted that way. Lost in translation. Yep, perfectly reasonable question

 

 

As above

 

 

The rant came from the fact that the government first proposed the change out of the blue in Dec 2011, then "consulted", then in the budget announcement in May 2012 the actual budget statement said existing LAFHA claims would be valid until 2014. Only 2 days later did Swan's office come out with further information saying they meant that stay of execution would only apply to citizens or PRs working away in Australia, not temporary residents, all of whom would lose the allowance with no phasing in July 2012. Then they failed to bring out the Finance Bill and at the last minute (Jun 20th or so) announced a further stay of execution for another 3 months. Finally they presented a draft bill on 28th June before the winter recess but more consultation is still going one

 

For people like me who have to manage resources and business costs when we have a substantial number of people on 457s, this is a massive pain in the @rse. We have people who have resigned and the cost of replacing them, people who will probably resign if it goes so we may have to replace them but no way of knowing yet, and people we'll probably have to pay more to keep. Whilst the issue is not resolved, we are moderately impacted and it's all so unnecessary

 

A good government would have made a decision in good time, announced it to the business community and taxpayers, probably included some phasing so business can manage the change more effectively, not bodged the budget anouncement for the sake of cheap populism, moved the legislation promptly (the fact they didn't says it all about the knee jerk way the decisions were made) and at least when they realised they'd screwed it up, announced a new timetable and got it right. As it stands we'll probably get the legislation resolved again 2 weeks before the allowance stops dead. Or it will end up in the courts

 

This government did none of those things. They made a total hash of it, and for what? It represents about 0.2% of the federal budget (from memory, I would have to check). That is why, on this subject (and others, but that's not for this thread) I say they are useless

 

Just out of interist what are the wages like that you are paying people that are claiming LAFHA? Is it that different to other companies that your employees are sort of forced to jump ship if they are going to lose the LAFHA?

[northshorepom]

All sorts of ranges. There are people on <$100K on it going right the way up to people on well north of $300K. I don't see most of those at the top end, mind :wink:

 

We pay market rate if not above. Most of those who are jumping ship are just going back where they came from (mostly the UK, or South Africans but most of those are going back to the UK as well, a few Yanks). Most are fairly senior and highly skilled people who can get work elsewhere even in tough times, it's just with the LAFHA gone there's not enough to keep them here. It can mean $1500 a month less in the pocket for the guys on the bigger wages, which even if you're well paid is a big hit to take in one go. A bit of phasing and I reckon we've had avoided most of that, hence one source of annoyance. It will increase our costs as we will be making up the salaries of the most valuable members of staff, but not to the full extent of the LAFHA they've lost as we can't afford it. That then opens up additional retention risks for us as whilst we can insist on confidentiality, it's hard to plug every leak. If someone who's got 30% LAFHA loss compensation finds out a colleague (who they may rate as no better or even worse) has got 70% compensation, they're going to be pretty ticked off. Again, with phasing and a bit of notice we could have planned our way out of that.

 

Of course I'm annoyed as it affects the business financially and will give us a few performance issues we have to handle. From an outsider's point of view, it was probably an over-generous allowance and some were taking the mickey, but it wasn't entirely without logic - on a personal level as far as the recipients are concerned, since they are ineligible for the biggest areas of government spend (welfare and most health) it's not unreasonable they shouldn't pay full whack for those things. On a corporate level, it essentially acted as a tax break enabling businesses in growth areas to bring in skilled workers more easily and at lower cost. And as mentioned the sums "saved" in cutting it are pretty small in the federal scheme of things. Some of those savings will be lost in a small hit to corporate profitability and hence corporation tax, all other things being equal. But none of those are compelling reasons for it to be retained, the thrust of my irritation is that with a bit of notice (say 12 months) and a phased plan (say phase it out over 2 or 3 years) it could have been changed with very little impact to anyone. But they've bungled it really badly. 6 months notice & no phasing, followed by 2 years SoE, followed by a last gasp SoE, and we are still waiting for the matter to be properly settled

[wakeboard1980]

I know quite a few people that recieve lafha and some of then are eligable for PR but wont apply because it will mean they lose their lafha. Now to me it should do what it says on the box, in a certain way. I believe its to pay for maintaining your home, weather thats in Australia or overseas, and to pay for your accomodation to carry out your employment requirements. Now everyone I know that recieves it has either sold their house in the UK or have rented it out and are covering their mortgage. In effect they are getting the LAFHA without needing said LAFHA to pay their expenses as a result of working on the other side of the world. Their Lafha is used to gain a better life, in a nicer house, closer to the city, closer to the beach etc. Thats not right in my book (if they get it all well and good) but when it oes then they can't really complain if it was used as income rather than paying for smething as a result of your employment circumstances.

 

I think a lot of companies have dangled the lafha carro, so to speak, to tempt people to go to Aus. And like you said it has helped business grow as well, but, and here comes the but, yes people will hurt from losing it but they (majority) will be in no worse a position than the locals if they are all being paid the same market rates.

 

Yes I know some stand to lose a lot of money each week but if they are that good at their job then they will be kept on with some sort of salary re negotiation. Everyone will be affected in some way but at the end of the day it was allways an allowance that could and can be taken away.

 

With regards to not being eligable for certain things I agree its a bit of a kick in the teeth to say on one hand you have to pay this much tax BUT you can't have access to this and that. At least the brits have access to medicare under the recipro health care agreement. I am in the same position here in the UK, no recourse to public funds. Yet I still pay the same as the guy beside me.