Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Hi David & Jackie Are you really, really sure that you want to understand the whole thing fully? :SLEEP: Still, you might be gluttons for punishment, so here goes! The Contribution is supposed to be 12.5% of the anticipated future health care costs for the Parent for the remainder of his/her life. The figures are worked out between the Department of Health & Ageing and the Australian Government Actuary each year: Publications — Australian Government Actuary The CPV Scheme was launched on 1st July 2003. Prior to that there had been about 5 years of wrangling in Parliament about the idea. I think the history is that the first two Contributory Parent Bills were thrown out in Parliament in the late 1990s and the third version was eventually adopted in 2002. I've only read a couple of the reports in Hansard, from 2002. In those the MPs said that they felt it was reasonable that CPV holders should make a higher contribution to their future health care costs than non-contributory Parents have to, the relevant MPs felt that there must be a balance between what CPs give to the health care kitty shortly before arrival and the benefits that Australia enjoys as a result of having them there - eg tax, they get houses built etc. Plus the MPs recognised the unquantifiable social benefits of children having their grandparents close by and so forth. Between them I assume that decided that 12.5% was the right amount for the Contribution and then it seems that the Dept of H&A and the A.G.A. were told to translate that into $$$$, I imagine. The sceptics are very scornful about this theory. They argue that parents who are seriously ill or infirm are barred from migrating to Oz in the first place. Why should they all become desperately ill or infirm post-arrival in Oz? Since the CPV scheme has only existed since July 2003 it is too early for reliable stats about how many CPV holders have in fact placed huge cost-burdens on the health & community care systems (eg State funded old folks homes) over a 20 to 30 year period, and too early to calculate the actual cost. The sceptics suspect that the Government is simply making a stack of pure profit out of selling nothing but, "Giss ya dosh and we'll give you a quick visa" got up as a load of pious twaddle about future health care costs. I don't know which side to believe. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle with extreme arguments like these, I suspect. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sioux Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 HI I have had my cpv for 2 years and 3 months......got to sell house and finanlise some other personal stuff yet.....is it true that I have to be in oz for 2 of the five years of the visa or do i have til the end of the 5 years to arrive per manently. I have validated the visa. Thanks to anyone who can can? Sioux x x x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Polegate Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hi Gill Thank you so much for your reply. We have found it has answered our question. We couldn't find anything on the Australian Emigration website applicable. We were hoping you would answer! Very much appreciated. We are off on holiday to Brisbane in three weeks and are so looking forward to seeing our daughter and grandchildren. Be pleased to leave the snow behind. Thanks again, David & Jackie :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Hi All Claire&Don, whose CPV 143 application was lodged on 28/11/2007e-mailed me earlier to say that their Agent heard from their CO yesterday, 5th Feb. I should explain that theirs is a particularly difficult case and so their CO probably feels that it will take longer to sort their application out than one which has been properly prepared and presented to start with. Claire & Don are a young couple in their 30s. The child in question is Don's son (now aged 7) whose mother - Don's ex-wife - is sponsoring the couple on behalf of the child. That set of facts should have made any agent take extra care of the couple, I would have thought. However Claire & Don appointed a very eminient Registered Migration Agent based in Oz. His name has never been mentioned on these boards even though he deserves to be named & shamed. He accepted instructions to act for Claire & Don in mid 2006 when the little boy was only 3. Their Form 47PA is dated 13th Sept 2006, the date that Claire & Don signed it. It was eventually acknowledged by the POPC on 28 November 2007 - 14 months after it should have been submitted - because the Agent "mislaid it in his office." He did not get round to submitting the application till 14 months later than he should have done but the couple trusted him so they were not curious until they received a copy of the eventual acknowledgement letter. The first agent was sacked and a new one appointed. He contacted the POPC, the head of the Family section in Canberra and everyone else in an effort to convince them to give the application maximum priority because of the child. His efforts were firmly rebuffed. The Ministerial Direction which sets out the pecking order for priority amongst Parent and CPV applicants takes no account of the circumstances of the child or children in Oz so nothing could be done: Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 37. Processing Priorities Now that their new Agent has heard from the CO, it now also turns out that a number of documents which should have been included in the original bundle sent to the POPC are not there so the CO needs the couple and the sponsor to prepare new versions of some of the forms & supporting evidence documents such as the child's birth certificate. I think what we can deduce is that all the November 2007 applicants are in the same batch and that the COs are now sifting the files, working thrugh them to get all the Nov 2007 applicants to the same level of readiness in time for April when the COs will then start asking for meds, Assurances of Support and so on in order to get the whole batch ready for visa grants as soon as possible after 1st July 2009. This is NOT somebody queue jumping. I feel sure that the early contact by the CO is solely in order to get the file into the state that it ought to be in, in line with all of the others for Nov 2007. However it does also suggest that they must have either granted all the visas they can for 2008/9 or that they are very close to doing so and thus the COs are now able to start turning their attention to the early 2009/10 grantees. Which is excellent news for everyone in my view. Steve, Claire has asked me to thank you very much indeed for adding them to the tracker and she has asked me to ask you whether you could be very kind and record that their CO made contact on 5th Feb. They have not yet been asked for their meds. Claire says that at the moment it seems to be solely a matter of ensuring that all the right documents are completed and included so their Agent has advised them to wait for a request for their meds, pccs etc. Very many thanks, Steve. Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi Gill. This week we received a request for meds and penals plus the AoS letter for a 11/2007 lodged subclass 143 application. In the request letter the case officer effectively invited the applicants to be aware of the validity of meds and penals and suggested that they might defer them for a few months - but that they should have them finalised by May/June in time for visa grant early in the 2009/10 program year. It is also increasingly apparent that the general economic malaise is causing problems with requests for payment of the main Visa Application Charge. I think it probable this will mean that some of those who lodged in 11/2007 and who progress meds and penals in the next couple of months may find they actually move to grant in this program year. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Article from Go Matilda News which may be of interest to some: Go Matilda - Your Gateway to Australia - News Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi Alan Thanks very much for your new article. A friend of mine heard from a CO yesterday, as described in my earlier post on this thread, but she & I thought that must be because they are licking her file into shape rather than because they might try to see whether they can squeeze any extra grants into this year's allocation. Who knows? Maybe they are going to bring the late Oct and Nov 2007 applicants forward to a position where, if there are any CPVs "going spare" because earlier applicants either can't complete or withdraw, a few people who were not expecting to be lucky this year might be lucky after all? I have the following observation on what the POPC say: Whilst I understand their difficulties with timescales etc, one of the central planks in DIAC's advice to visa applicants is "Do not do anything irrevocable until you have your visas." This advice is firmly echoed by your own firm as well as by almost every other RMA in existence, for obvious reasons because I am sure that there have been cases where (especially with Parents who may be getting on in years) everything looks picture-perfect so they sell the house in plenty of time to pay the POPC /DIAC and then bang! One of the Parent-couple suddenly has a heart attack, stroke or something. It could happen and it is more likely to happen to Parents than to any other age group simply because there is no upper age limit on Parent migration. The POPC seem to be suggesting that potentially elderly and vulnerable visa applicants should gamble in order to satisfy the POPC's narrow parameters at a time when the British housing market is in a state of near collapse and may not be much better elsewhere???? I do not think so, my friend. I can't believe that the Minister would think so either if somebody tells him what his foot soldiers at the POPC seem to be advocating. This is civil servants who are so wrapped up in their own little sphere of activity that they fail to notice the real world outside their office window, bluntly. It is immature and not on. How do the POPC justify this in the teeth of DIAC's unwavering "uinversal global advice"? I'd be talking to Canberra in your shoes. The POPC are effectively contradicting the main website / main DIAC advice completely - leaving vulnerable Parents as pigs in the middle. Policy is quite capable of deciding that two months should be six months or nine months. The Minister is not bothered about operational detail and this particular Minister is pragmatic enough to realise that he must do his own bit towards helping visa applicants to cope with the credit crunch/global recession, particularly the most vulnerable group of visa applicants in his whole portfolio. I'd ask the Minister outright: could he live with himself if Granny & Grandpa sell up in haste because they are frightened of falling foul of an arbitrary time limit set by the POPC, then a medical calamity happens and the upshot is that they not only can't migrate but they are homeless as well? From the very outset with my own mother - because of her great age - we decided that we were NOT prepared to sell her house until after she not only had her CPV 143 but had validated it. We did not have to sell Mum's house in order to pay for her CPV but even then I was very cautious and many Parents do have to do so, especially couples because of the price of the visas. CPVs and Retirees are the only groups who absolutely have to sell offshore assets in order to pay DIAC for visas (and the Capital Investment Scheme people, of course, but that is not an on-going Scheme and the applicants are all below 50 years of age too.) My second point is just to clear up a mention in your article. The Aged Parent/Bridging visa route is not available unless the Parent is Aged, in Oz and is not lumbered with Condition 8503. Additionally, just because the Parent might be in Oz on a Bridging Visa is not an indication of whether or not s/he has sold up elsewhere. S/he might have just as much trouble coming up with the 2nd Instalment quickly as the offshore applicant might have. Also, the Aged Parent/BV route is not any sort of guarantee that the whole appeal process will not go wrong on the family in the bitter end. It is not safe to make cushy assumptions with Parents who will necessarily be elderly or they would not be on BVs in the first place. Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi again Gill. As you say, DIAC's advice to applicants (which reflects ours) is that they make no arrangements to sell property, etc until after their visas are granted. As such, might not applicants (at the outset of lodging their application) have factored in some other avenue for raising the funds for the payment of the 2nd Visa Application Charge, other than selling property? And if that is the case the timeline in question ought not be problematic. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Hi again Gill. As you say, DIAC's advice to applicants (which reflects ours) is that they make no arrangements to sell property, etc until after their visas are granted. As such, might not applicants (at the outset of lodging their application) have factored in some other avenue for raising the funds for the payment of the 2nd Visa Application Charge, other than selling property? And if that is the case the timeline in question ought not be problematic. Best regards. Hi Alan Nope. It is nothing more than a cosy "get me outta here because this one is too complicated for me" theory. How many of your own CPV clients have sold their houses in order to pay for their visas? Do you seriously suggest to them that in an already depressed market they should go and sell themselves right down the river via an annuity? Bridging loans are not generally available nowadays unless contracts have been exchanged and all that the Bank is doing is bridging a gap for a couple of weeks because the removal firms are fully booked. For which minor assistance the Banks rip the clients right off, as you also know. The Banks are not willing to risk a hit if the bottom falls out of the housing market (which it well might - a three bedroom semi in Middlesbrough is estimated to sell for £9,000 in a fire sale - a foreclosure - next week.) The loan sharks offering annuities with wolfish grins on their chops are even less likely to risk any sort of hit on themselves. How will the average Parent couple afford to live in Oz for 10 years, minus British Pension uplifts and minus any help from Centrelink if they pander to the POPC on this one? Alternatively what you are saying is, "Don't even think of a CPV unless you can afford a S405 Investor Retirement visa instead and if you are wealthy enough for a 405 then the last thing you should do is trade the tax-perks of temporary residence for possible penury on a CP visa instead." There is actually no safe, responsible advice that you can offer your CPV clients unless you cause Canberra to instruct the POPC to back off, accept economic reality outside of Perth Metro and come to the party called Real Life in the Offshore World. The place where their clients come from, not the suburb down the road where the POPC staff live. Nobody is a bigger fan of the POPC than I am and the current Manager is the best thing since sliced bread in my firm opinion. Nevertheless his latest idea is mistaken and if he does not have the power to change it then it must be changed for him at a more senior level - by the Minister if necessary. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 To be honest, I'm not sure I follow the logic, Gill. Are you saying CP visa applicants should sell their home to realise the funds to pay the VAC, or should they be making provision to pay the VAC independently of releasing equity from their home? If circumstances dictate the former I think we are going to have some difficulty persuading the Department to move significantly - I recall the deadlines that the AHC in London imposed when there were 410 visa applicants trying to sell properties to generate the capital needed to meet that visa's financial requirements. A fair few were required to withdraw their application or their application was refused. The situation will not be helped by the demand for CP visas exceeding the available supply. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ruth&phil Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Thank you for your reply Gill about the long stay tourist visa. We are finding this a very useful site I have also noticed people had been asked for the form D80 when their application for the CPV 143 was acknowleged. We were not asked for this, so we have filled one in and sent it to our son who is our sponsure, we presume when we have a CO this will be asked for along with meds & police checks. Are there any other forms we should no about. Regards Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frizzy1 Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hi, Given this is the Contributory Parent Visa thread I am hoping one of you can answer my question as I cant contact Australia House in London as the contact number is incorrect on their website! I am about to post my parents CPV visa application and the immigration website provides the information below. I am planning to post by "International Signed For" so should I use the address for Courier as I am assuming that this is a manned office? Or should I use the "By Mail" address? Thanks Kirsti Outside Australia You must lodge your application by mail or courier at the following addresses: By mail: Perth Offshore Parents Centre Locked Bag 7 Northbridge WA 6865 AUSTRALIA By courier: Perth Offshore Parents Centre Level 3 166 Murray Street Perth WA 6000 AUSTRALIA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Hi Kirsti Yes - use the locked bag address for the parcel. Keep a note of the tracking number on the bar code. Although Royal Mail can't track the parcel via their own system once it has left the UK. AusPost are able to track it if need be though you have to e-mail them if necessary. Good luck Gill xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovandenese Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 questions re CPV visa Form 47PA. my dad is about to apply for the CPV s143 and has a couple of questions re the application form. Although he is married he will be the only applicant as he has been separated from his wife for 2 years. He is intending to get a divorce but this could take a while, and definitely won't be until his visa application has already been submitted. Q11 - is his separated spouse a "dependent"? Q23/24 - should the statutory declaration regarding separation be done by the applicant or the separated spouse? Part F - Spouse Details - does this section need to be completed for a separated spouse who will not be migrating? It will be very difficult if not impossible for Dad to obtain some of the information in this section eg the passport number and details of the separated spouse Part J - Details of other family members - Q58 - there were no children to the marriage but the separated spouse has 2 children from a previous marriage - should they be mentioned in this section? They were not adopted by dad. They would not affect the balance of family test as dad has 2 of his own children in australia as permanent residents and 1 of the separated spouse's children is also an australian permanent resident Q59 - does this have to be completed for a separated spouse? Q62 - does this have to be completed for a separated spouse? Also, on Form 80 - I assume that Dad will tick permanently separated at Q7, but as he i not divorced he will still have to provide his separated spouse details at Q18? Thanks to anyone who can help with the above!!! Both dad's children are now in Australia and we can't wait to get him over here too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Hi D&D Quite a shopping list of questions but all very clearly-stated, thank goodness! The way I would tackle the situation is as follows: Q11 - is his separated spouse a "dependent"? No, so the answer to Q11 is to tick Yes if Dad has visited Australia and fill in the details of his visits. Leave everything else on Qi11 blank. Q23/24 - should the statutory declaration regarding separation be done by the applicant or the separated spouse? By Dad. A dumped spouse is rarely minded to co-operate, as DIAC are fully aware! Part F - Spouse Details - does this section need to be completed for a separated spouse who will not be migrating? It will be very difficult if not impossible for Dad to obtain some of the information in this section eg the passport number and details of the separated spouse My father was dead by the time Mum applied for her CPV. We sent a certified copy of his death certificate. Since his death had severed the contract of marriage, Mum had no spouse so I put N/A at the top of Part F and left the rest blank. Although Dad's contract of marriage has yet to be legally severed by the impending divorce, permanent separation is efectively the same thing as death or divorce, therefore Dad's Stat Dec deals with the situation in the same way as a Decree Absolute would. I would simply put N/A and be done with it in the form. You can sweep everything up later, as I will explain. Part J - Details of other family members - Q58 - there were no children to the marriage but the separated spouse has 2 children from a previous marriage - should they be mentioned in this section? They were not adopted by dad. They would not affect the balance of family test as dad has 2 of his own children in australia as permanent residents and 1 of the separated spouse's children is also an australian permanent resident We had a very similar situation. The correct way to deal with it is as follows: List Dad's own children. Then leave a line. Then list the step-children but put asterisks beside their names. Below that put the asterisk again and put "Not relevant. See Statutory Declaration." Q59 - does this have to be completed for a separated spouse? I would not complete it at all.. I would simply put "N/A - See Statutory Declaration." There is no sense in muddying the water with irrelevant information that will only confuse inexperience clerical staff who do the intial assessments. Q62 - does this have to be completed for a separated spouse? No - only for Dad. His ex-spouse is irrelevant to this application. Now proceed to Q53 and Part L. In that, one line at a time, put down all the question and section numbers/letters that you and I have dealt with above. Then write, "In relation to all of the above, please note that I am permanently separated from my ex-wife and she will not be migrating with me. Her children are no longer a part of my family - please refer to the definition of "step-child" in Section 1.03 (Definitions) of the Migration Regulations 1994. My ex-wife might be eligible for Parent migration in her own right but she is not included in my application and will not be included in it at any stage. Please refer to my statutory declaration in response to Questions 23 & 24." They can look up the Regulations themselves. The relevant section says: step‑child, in relation to a parent, means: (a) a child of the parent who is not the natural or adopted child of the parent but who is the natural or adopted child of the parent’s current spouse; or (b) a child of the parent who is not the natural or adopted child of the parent but: (i) who is the natural or adopted child of a former spouse of the parent; and (ii) who has not turned 18; and (iii) in relation to whom the parent has: (A) a residence order in force under the Family Law Act 1975; or (B) a specific issues order in force under the Family Law Act 1975 under which the parent is responsible for the child’s long‑term or day‑to‑day care, welfare and development The POPC staff are nice people but they are far from brilliant with the Balance of Family Test and step-children can throw them into utter confusion in my experience (my mother has a step-child and they would have got the Balance of Family Test wrong in her case if they had been given half a chance. Migration agents regularly get it wrong when a step-child is involved, too. In your case it doesn't matter if they apply the Test wrongly because they will get to the right result by mistake anyway but encouraging the right result via error is not a very scientific way of tackling a question of law! Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 HI I have had my cpv for 2 years and 3 months......got to sell house and finanlise some other personal stuff yet.....is it true that I have to be in oz for 2 of the five years of the visa or do i have til the end of the 5 years to arrive per manently. I have validated the visa. Thanks to anyone who can can? Sioux x x x Hi Sioux I am so, so sorry that I have not noticed your query before now. Because of us both helping Wiccan I had not thought of you as a CPV applicant/holder. I thought you were probably younger than Wic and a skilled applicant! Mea culpa! You have 5 years from the date of the grant of your visa in which to make your permanent move to Oz. A separate issue is your entitlement to a Resident Return Visa once you have moved to Oz: Five Year Resident Return Visa (Subclass 155) Five Year Resident Return Visa (Subclass 155) They literally do get the computer to count out 730 nights spent in Oz. They know when you enter and leave Australia using the CPV because that is carefully logged. However you are a Parent and they tend to be pretty tolerant with Parents. Even if you have not done the 730 night stint by the time you wan tto go for a holiday offshore the chances are that they will accept the "substantial ties and compelling reasons" arguments. Even if not there is a 3-month RRV that can be issued instead so it is not a big deal when a Parent visa holder is involved. You say your CP visa was granted in about September/October 2006 - the same as my mother's. When did you validate it, please? If you validated it before 1st July 2007 then you may be able to claim Citizenship under the old rules - ie once you have spent 2 years in Oz: Step 1: Am I eligible? – General eligibility I am not sure how the first 2 paragraphs of the section headed "Residence Requirements and calculator" interact with each other. Are they saying that somebody who validated before 1st July 2007 can only take advantage of the 2 year rule provided they apply for Citizenship before 30th June 2010? I am not clear whether that is what they do mean, in which case you might have to do a 4 year stint before you could claim Citizenship. I would expect it to lead to squabbles if somebody has completed 1 year and 11 months of residence in Oz prior to 30th June 2010. Somebody is bound to have a heart-tugging reason as to why s/he could not complete the full two years in time so I would expect to see plenty of bickering around June 2010 time! Peter Chiam (ptlabs) is mainly "the" guru for skilled visa applicants who are relying on IT skills in order to apply for migration to Oz. However he is also an absolute walking textbook on exactly how the Citizenship legislation works in both theory and practice. Since this question may become relevant to you, given that you have not yet "moved to Oz permanently" he might want to clarify this question for both of us. Also it would not be a bad idea to ask Peter to cast his eye over my optimism about RRVs for you in due course. I will drop Peter a line and ask if he would very kindly take a look at this post when he has time. Cheers Gill xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donovandenese Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Hi D&D Quite a shopping list of questions but all very clearly-stated, thank goodness! The way I would tackle the situation is as follows: No, so the answer to Q11 is to tick Yes if Dad has visited Australia and fill in the details of his visits. Leave everything else on Qi11 blank. By Dad. A dumped spouse is rarely minded to co-operate, as DIAC are fully aware! My father was dead by the time Mum applied for her CPV. We sent a certified copy of his death certificate. Since his death had severed the contract of marriage, Mum had no spouse so I put N/A at the top of Part F and left the rest blank. Although Dad's contract of marriage has yet to be legally severed by the impending divorce, permanent separation is efectively the same thing as death or divorce, therefore Dad's Stat Dec deals with the situation in the same way as a Decree Absolute would. I would simply put N/A and be done with it in the form. You can sweep everything up later, as I will explain. We had a very similar situation. The correct way to deal with it is as follows: List Dad's own children. Then leave a line. Then list the step-children but put asterisks beside their names. Below that put the asterisk again and put "Not relevant. See Statutory Declaration." I would not complete it at all.. I would simply put "N/A - See Statutory Declaration." There is no sense in muddying the water with irrelevant information that will only confuse inexperience clerical staff who do the intial assessments. No - only for Dad. His ex-spouse is irrelevant to this application. Now proceed to Q53 and Part L. In that, one line at a time, put down all the question and section numbers/letters that you and I have dealt with above. Then write, "In relation to all of the above, please note that I am permanently separated from my ex-wife and she will not be migrating with me. Her children are no longer a part of my family - please refer to the definition of "step-child" in Section 1.03 (Definitions) of the Migration Regulations 1994. My ex-wife might be eligible for Parent migration in her own right but she is not included in my application and will not be included in it at any stage. Please refer to my statutory declaration in response to Questions 23 & 24." They can look up the Regulations themselves. The relevant section says: The POPC staff are nice people but they are far from brilliant with the Balance of Family Test and step-children can throw them into utter confusion in my experience (my mother has a step-child and they would have got the Balance of Family Test wrong in her case if they had been given half a chance. Migration agents regularly get it wrong when a step-child is involved, too. In your case it doesn't matter if they apply the Test wrongly because they will get to the right result by mistake anyway but encouraging the right result via error is not a very scientific way of tackling a question of law! Best wishes Gill thanks for the advice!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Polegate Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 CONGRATULATIONS to all CPVers who have just been allocated a Case Officer. Good Luck. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanky Lad Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hi All, Very nearly 4 months since we landed at Sydney after an "adventure" that started back in December 2002 and our first recce visit; normally I have very little to say on the negative side and have adopted the attitude of New life, New Country - adapt and get on with it. BUT, a word of warning !!! It is now an everyday "fact of life" and we all assume it its available at whim. We use it for fun or business or to keep in touch across the planet. IT, is broadband access. If you are in or near the major cities its not a problem. Like many CPV's we have "kidz" ( in our case ) living nearer the city because its where the good jobs are. Most of us are not coming here to look for work and will be living of UK house sale provceeds, pensions and savings, so to maximise the fund.... we move out of the city to find a home within easy travel - usually no more than 1 or 2 hours driving time. We spent 3 months looking at rentals before giving up and looked to purchase within our limits. And took advantage of a $10,000 "discount" from the builders and $24000 in refunds from the government. In the process and speaking with the sales agent, we asked about broadband..."No Problems, we ( him at the showhouse site office ) are on it here", and cited all our various email contacts with him. The house is great and ticks all the box's - well all except one.....broadband! I have made a light hearted post entitled Telstra and Bigpond are operated by Martians! its in "Chewing the fat" it lists our fruitless attempts to get online without busting the bank to do so. The problem is basically with Telstra and the local exchange. Its still basicllay a pre-digital set up with some limited modern additions...and for us its run out of ADSL broadband slots. So we wait for either Telstra to stump up and modernise it....which they have no plans we are told...or wait for somebody to cancel their account for whatever reason. We are on the Central Coast and I am told the exchange is a sub depot of the main Gosforth exchange system serving towns around The Entrance, Touckley, Wyong. All of which are north of the CPV /working brits, popular area's around Terrigal and Avoca Beach, Woy Woy etc. There is WiFi broadband which may suit many IF you live near a transmitting ,mast and have "line of site" even so, its not cheap. So if you had Braodband in the UK like Tiscali at about £12 - £15 a month..... forget it....here you can easy treble the costs and if its relevant the monthly allowance is at best with the big suppliers about 12 gigs. A bright side is, one of the best and cheapest dial up connections is from Beagle.com.au. $12.95 no contract no limits. So far I have resisited moving back into the dark ages of dial up connections hoping to find a broadband supplier to meet my needs - I need a fast connection and more than 12 gig a month to manage websites in the UK! Family needs are not as greedy for gigs as my needs, so most may find a connection to suit your needs....so CHECK it out if you need the internet to keep in touch with famly here and the UK. L. L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hello LL, and welcome to the land of Hellstra. Have you had a look at the Whirlpool forums: Whirlpool Broadband News There are likely to be some suggestions on that site which might help you ... Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ANN S Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Can anyone help us please, we do not know what visa to apply for. We are 69 & 72yrs old. We have our only Daughter living in Australia, with her husband and 3 young sons. these are our only grandsons. We have 1 son living in Bulgaria & 1 son living in the UK with his wife 2 daughters & 1 grandchild. We desparatly want to spend the rest of our lives in Australia, with our Daughter & her fanily. The problem is The Balance of family Test. Our son in the UK is 48yrs & does not want to emigrate to Australia. He is over the age for acceptence, & does not have the skills that are needed in Australia. Not only does he not want to Emigrate but Australia does not want him anyway. But as far as we can see we are beeing denied the chance of living the rest of our lives with our daughter & her family who want us & are willing to care for us. We know that grandchildren don't count, but if they did, half of our family would be living in Australia. We think this is very unfair, stopping us from being with our Daughter who wants us & our son who does not. Does anyone know of a way rond this problem. Please Please can anyone help us. Desparate Ann xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Can anyone help us please, we do not know what visa to apply for. We are 69 & 72yrs old. We have our only Daughter living in Australia, with her husband and 3 young sons. these are our only grandsons. We have 1 son living in Bulgaria & 1 son living in the UK with his wife 2 daughters & 1 grandchild. We desparatly want to spend the rest of our lives in Australia, with our Daughter & her fanily. The problem is The Balance of family Test. Our son in the UK is 48yrs & does not want to emigrate to Australia. He is over the age for acceptence, & does not have the skills that are needed in Australia. Not only does he not want to Emigrate but Australia does not want him anyway. But as far as we can see we are beeing denied the chance of living the rest of our lives with our daughter & her family who want us & are willing to care for us. We know that grandchildren don't count, but if they did, half of our family would be living in Australia. We think this is very unfair, stopping us from being with our Daughter who wants us & our son who does not. Does anyone know of a way rond this problem. Please Please can anyone help us. Desparate Ann xx Hello Ann Welcome to Poms in Oz. What about your son in Bulgaria? Is there any likelihood of persuading him to move to Oz? If not then I am afraid that Parent visa would be out of the question, even though I HATE having to say so. If you are in reasonable health, the Aussies are usually pretty good about allowing British Parents to visit their families in Oz for up to 12 months at a stretch, though. Please see the link below: Tourist Visa (Subclass 676) British Visitors to Oz who are 70 or over and planning to visit for more than 3 months are required to get their own GP to complete a simple form of Medcal Certificate, which is here: dima_health - Australian High Commission Please click on the link above and download the form. I think the Aussies would be happier if you just both get the Tourist Medical Certificate completed. The best way to apply, in my view, is to use the paper Form 48 (one each) and send them to London with a covering letter explaining why you want to make a long visit, the situation with your not being able to migrate permanently etc. Tourist Visa (Subclass 676) Click on the link for applying by mail. Unfortunately the only long term possibility when the BoF Test is not met is Investor Retirement visa, which costs a mint: Investor Retirement (Subclass 405) Most British Parents can't afford it, including my Mum. Please sing out if there is anything else I can do to help at this stage. Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Hi again Ann In my last reply I forgot to mention medical insurance if you are minded to use a long stay tourist visa so that you can ask to spend a year with your family in Oz. Please see this link: Visitors to Australia - Medicare Australia Although the stuff about the visa on the DIAC website says that visitors of 70 or over "must have medical insurance" it does not say, "must have private medical insurance." That is because the Oz/UK Reciprocal Health Care Agreement counts as medical insurance for the purposes of the subclass 676 visa. So do NOT let Fly By Night Visas flog you a ferociously expensive insurance policy that DIAC do not require you to obtain. If you take your time about filling in the forms etc there is no need to use agents just to get tourist visas. They don't know how to do them when people of 70 or over are involved anyway. Save the money for the visit instead, I suggest. Best wishes Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Can anyone help us please, we do not know what visa to apply for. We are 69 & 72yrs old. We have our only Daughter living in Australia, with her husband and 3 young sons. these are our only grandsons. We have 1 son living in Bulgaria & 1 son living in the UK with his wife 2 daughters & 1 grandchild. We desparatly want to spend the rest of our lives in Australia, with our Daughter & her fanily. The problem is The Balance of family Test. Our son in the UK is 48yrs & does not want to emigrate to Australia. He is over the age for acceptence, & does not have the skills that are needed in Australia. Not only does he not want to Emigrate but Australia does not want him anyway. But as far as we can see we are beeing denied the chance of living the rest of our lives with our daughter & her family who want us & are willing to care for us. We know that grandchildren don't count, but if they did, half of our family would be living in Australia. We think this is very unfair, stopping us from being with our Daughter who wants us & our son who does not. Does anyone know of a way rond this problem. Please Please can anyone help us. Desparate Ann xx You could try what my parents did for many years - 6 months here, 6 months there. It worked for them until they were 80 and decided that they didnt want to do the trip any more but it hasnt worked out too badly for them because they love where they live in UK and one of my sons seems to have emigrated back now that he is an adult and they get to see a lot of him. Alternatively, would your daughter consider moving back to UK? It's not easy having half your family on one side of the world and the other on the other side of the world! Good luck working something out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Lankylad have you tried the satellite broadband options? I have been looking at homes out in the bush and many of them have fast connections via satellite. Whirlpool would definitely be a good source of advice on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.