Permanent Parent Visas to be abolished ?

[Gwyndy]

Quite right about providing talent.

 

One of my sons is a Civil and coastal engineer and my other boy who is heading down soon is a Film director, cameraman and film editor. The cost to get these guys to where they are now would run into the many, many 10's of thousands of Australian dollars. Much of the investment came from my wife and I. My engineer son has been paying Australian taxes for 4 years and my other boy will do so as soon as he is working. I would like to think that some people would recognise that there is a contribution to Australian society other than Parents costing money.

 

And for the record I have no problems paying our $110,000 visa fee. I understand why it is there and to some degree why it costs so much. I just wish it did not take so long to process once it has been lodged, like I say it takes approximately 24 + months. Then it is a full medical, full blood tests, HIV test and a chest Xray. Then a police check. which adds around a further $2500 to the overall fee.

 

And so for me, it's all worth it to be near my children and watch my grandkids grow up surround by their grandparents. Can only be a good thing.

 

Cheers

[Bungo]

I am going to sit on the fence rgarding this debate generally, because I have no particular opinion. But I find the last two arguments about having "provided" Australia with a skilled migrant (say) in the past rather bizarre. They were not your property to donate you know.

[Fisher1]

It is exactly the same logic as that employed in dismissing migrant parents as a drain on society whilst paying no attention to what they have contributed. When I talked about 'providing' a fully grown educated adult to Australia, I was writing in a rather 'tongue in cheek' way. Of course my daughter is not my ' property' to donate. No further comment on that one except to say I knew someone would probably take it the wrong way. The grain of truth in my remark was that by employing migrants, the country saves the cost of training them. And parents have made a contribution other than the visa fee. Which I paid willingly because I too understand the reason it's there.

[ramot]

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.

 

Have the rules changed about travel insurance cover in Uk? We have annual cover with trips up to 90 days covered and are in our 70's

 

Does SAGA still do travel insurance?

I doubt the Australian government gives a jot about our professional offspring being here, they are only interested in how much us oldies will cost in the long term.

 

Like others if we go down the parent visa route (we are on a long term 410 self funded retirement visa at present as we came on our own and children have followed us) then we accept the cost as we have never paid tax here, as the older we get sadly we need more medical back up.

[Parley]

It is a bit of a stretch to think a government should subsidise a parent because of what a child has achieved in their life.

[Roberta2]

Some political and wider context: The Commission reported to the government in April, but its report was not publicly released by Scott Morrison until 12 September.

 

It was the consequence of a deal with Senator Leyonjhelm which was forced on the government nearly two years ago. That was because the government needed to reintroduce temporary protection visas for asylum seekers. This was opposed in the Senate by Labor and the Greens, and thus was passed only by means of negotiations with Senate crossbenchers. They of course all extracted some price or other for their support. Leyonhjelm, who rides a variety of hobby horses, wants to impose much costs on all visas. His price for support for the reintroduction of temporary protection visas for asylum- seekers was the establishment of this Productivity Commission inquiry.

 

Obviously, the Commission has rejected Lyonhjelm's basic premise. Not surprising, since he is a nut case.

 

However, a consequence of all this has been the attention focused on the costs and benefits to the taxpayer of parent visas. The headline in The Australian yesterday was "Parents of Migrants to cost $3.2 billion". The wording above that in much smaller print was :"call for permanent visas to be abolished".

 

Now the issue will presumably be batted off to the government actuary.

 

It does look like low-hanging fruit.

 

What happens eventually will depend partly on the heat that MPs feel in their own constituencies on this issue - especially those electorates with large populations of recently arrived migrants who want to bring parents here. e.g. the Western suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

[Nemesis]

I am going to sit on the fence rgarding this debate generally, because I have no particular opinion. But I find the last two arguments about having "provided" Australia with a skilled migrant (say) in the past rather bizarre. They were not your property to donate you know.

 

Also Australia spends thousands every year training doctors, teachers,engineers, other professionals -who then up sticks and emigrate somewhere else, usually without taking their parents with them. So the other side of the coin is the the country has lost those peope in who it invested for its future, and is providing support for their parents and family left behind to grow old there.

It then imports professionals to fill the gap. Why should it also import - and support - their families, when it has the families of theoriginal professionals still here?

[Parley]

I presume the UK doesn't easily allow Australian parents to settle permanently in the UK ?

 

Probably a non issue. Can't be many elderly Australians wanting to move to the UK permanently.

Edited September 13, 2016 by parleycross

[Guest]

I presume the UK doesn't easily allow Australian parents to settle permanently in the UK ?

 

Probably a non issue. Can't be many elderly Australians wanting to move to the UK permanently.

 

The UK doesn't have specific visa's for Australians but does have an Elderly Dependent Visa - it is for Dependent parents though so unlikely to apply to Australians as Centrelink means I cannot see how anyone would meet the criteria.

 

Those who migrate from countries without a welfare state, where children are expected to support their parents and where it is the cultural norm to do so are the most likely applicants I'd say.

[flag of convenience]

Also Australia spends thousands every year training doctors, teachers,engineers, other professionals -who then up sticks and emigrate somewhere else, usually without taking their parents with them. So the other side of the coin is the the country has lost those peope in who it invested for its future, and is providing support for their parents and family left behind to grow old there.

It then imports professionals to fill the gap. Why should it also import - and support - their families, when it has the families of theoriginal professionals still here?

 

Increasingly numbers do move. I know a few. Never come across a situation where parents moved over to country where child took up residence come to think of it. (in the Australian context) In a number of cases it is expected though that the child will more likely return. I think that was often the case but les likely in more recent times with the cost involved to settle in this country. America certainly appears easier for many professionals.

 

The other point being age. Australians, at least that I know, are usually younger than the average immigrant, mostly without kids. Far easier to be flexible under such circumstances.

[Roberta2]

How do such Asian parents come on a tourist visa, get a bridging visa, avoid paying the $47,000 - and then get access to Medicare and the prospect of a government pension in ten years?

[Roberta2]

How do we know that? Has anyone ever done a survey? Plenty of young Australians move to the UK, marry and don't ever come back. I have no family left in Australia. If I wanted to join my son, his English wife and two kids in the UK, I would be told to go jump. No amount of money would buy me the right to live there. The lack of reciprocity is rather obvious.

[flag of convenience]

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

 

Yes I am aware of the proposal. I remain somewhat of the opinion though, the powers that be, see yet another ' money grab' in offering such a visa to rich neighbourhood foreigners. They have sold out our education system (dumbed it down) real estate and now no reason not to direct it towards aged parents.

[flag of convenience]

How do such Asian parents come on a tourist visa, get a bridging visa, avoid paying the $47,000 - and then get access to Medicare and the prospect of a government pension in ten years?

 

I don't think there are any ready answers to that. Shouldn't ask too hard questions as it startles the sheep.

[Roberta2]

Apologies for sheep-startling. I was trained to ask for the evidence.

[flag of convenience]

How do we know that? Has anyone ever done a survey? Plenty of young Australians move to the UK, marry and don't ever come back. I have no family left in Australia. If I wanted to join my son, his English wife and two kids in the UK, I would be told to go jump. No amount of money would buy me the right to live there. The lack of reciprocity is rather obvious.

 

I think census records showing Australian born living in UK will put paid to plenty. There are ' substantial' numbers though, not all there for the long term though. I agree it would be somewhat difficult for a parent to migrate there to live with son. Especially since rules changed in 2001.

[Roberta2]

People should look at The Drum from yesterday, 13 September. Online from Australian Broadcasting Commission. There was a short section on the Productivity Commission report. The defence of the existing system was mounted by a Muslim woman, Lydia Shelley. Her defence was based on the support that she receives from her family as a working mother. This didn't go down well with the other panelists, former Labor foreign minister etc Bob Carr and Rebecca Weissner, who pointed out that she was getting a private benefit at the expense of the taxpayer. Most of the comments on Facebook have also been hostile. Of course, no one was particularly well informed about the existing system.

[Roberta2]

Aged care is another big issue of course. If parents come on some kind of extended visitors visa, the Brits and some others will have reciprocal health care rights. But they won't have any access to the Australian aged care system. As I understand it, anyway.

[ramot]

Have the rules changed about travel insurance cover in Uk? We have annual cover with trips up to 90 days covered and are in our 70's

 

Does SAGA still do travel insurance?

I doubt the Australian government gives a jot about our professional offspring being here, they are only interested in how much us oldies will cost in the long term.

 

Like others if we go down the parent visa route (we are on a long term 410 self funded retirement visa at present as we came on our own and children have followed us) then we accept the cost as we have never paid tax here, as the older we get sadly we need more medical back up.

 

Further to the above reference leaving your house empty, we go back to UK most years for approx. 3 months and have house sitters or try to arrange a house swap, so there are alternatives to leaving it empty, never had a problem.

[purpleal]

Aged care is another big issue of course. If parents come on some kind of extended visitors visa, the Brits and some others will have reciprocal health care rights. But they won't have any access to the Australian aged care system. As I understand it, anyway.

 

Isn't government subsidised aged care means tested? My mother will be coming here with her own money which would rule her out of any means-tested assistance, be that aged care, benefits etc. We ourselves are specifically (for the sole purpose of my mother coming here) building a new house with a separate wing for my mother. Her funds will be kept in the bank until such time that she needs to go into care, which will be in a private facility.

Edited September 14, 2016 by purpleal
spelling

[Roberta2]

All aged care is government subsidized and means tested. There is no such thing as a private facility. About 25% of the sector is for-profit, the rest is the mainly church-based Not for Profit. See the My Aged Care website.

[Roberta2]

Actually, what I said was not quite correct about aged care. There are private operators who purport to provide residential aged care, without need for ACAT assessments or means test etc. Couples can stay together. They are often built by property developers in the outer suburbs where the land is cheaper. However, I would be very careful about those. My mother lost $300,000 in little more than two years in such a place when she moved with my father into a two bedroom unit. I'll call it "Paradise". They come under the various Retirement Villages Acts in each state. So they have hefty exit fees that can be up to 40%. The nursing and other care is always "extra", so that everything is charged for, in fifteen minute increments. We found the care inadequate and unreliable. There was a constant turnover of managers and staff. When my father had to go into hospital, the hospital would not release him to go back to "Paradise" because of the hospital's duty of care. He died soon after. Then my mother was too ill herself to stay in "Paradise" and had to be moved into aged care. By then, units in "Paradise" had dropped sharply in price because of increased competition in the area. Hence the loss of $300,000 on a unit that had cost $500,000- because of the drop in value and the large exit fee. By this time, the new and much more expensive federal aged care system had come in, and Mum has had to pay $60,000 over three years as a means-tested care fee, ($25,000 a year with lifetime cap of $60,000) on top of the $300 plus a fortnight that she pays in daily care fees. (Everyone pays that.) She also had to pay $530,000 for her Refundable Accommodation Deposit. So that's my family's experience with so called private aged care.

[Fisher1]

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.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say about the lack of reciprocity, but you should know that without support, most parents would be extremely unlikely to manage on their British state pensions, frozen or otherwise. A full UK state pension is currently £118 a week, or about $200 at current exchange rates. It's not really possible to exist on that even in the UK. Many UK pensioners also have pensions from their employment, the fast disappearing "final salary" schemes under which the recipient is paid a proportion of their final pre retirement salary for life. Others have pensions provided by investment, usually in an annuity, but with a growing number funded by buy to let property. Put these different income streams together and you can see why some UK parents feel able to make the move to Australia, despite eye watering property prices and a generally higher cost of living. The frozen pension is unfair to expats - remember it is not a state funded handout but something that has been contributed to throughout ones working life - but it is not something that would necessarily reduce income to the level where a migrant parent would need to apply for a state funded Australian pension, which I understand is a benefit, and as such is means tested?

 

Perhaps it's time to close the Australian aged pension to migrating parents?

[Fisher1]

Have the rules changed about travel insurance cover in Uk? We have annual cover with trips up to 90 days covered and are in our 70's

 

Does SAGA still do travel insurance?

I doubt the Australian government gives a jot about our professional offspring being here, they are only interested in how much us oldies will cost in the long term.

 

Like others if we go down the parent visa route (we are on a long term 410 self funded retirement visa at present as we came on our own and children have followed us) then we accept the cost as we have never paid tax here, as the older we get sadly we need more medical back up.

 

Hi Ramot, I've only just seen this. would you mind letting me have the name of the company that provides you with travel insurance for ninety days? We travelled over to Oz for ten weeks this spring and had a problem getting cover for over 30 days. Tried several firms online and they all said the same thing - thirty day maximum trip. Saga still do travel insurance, but they also limited 66 year olds and over to 30 days for a single trip. In the end we made it because we had an annual multi trip policy and they said that they counted the age you took the policy out as the age for the entire year.

 

As we are currently still in the UK it would be great to know we could still get insurance for longer trips.

[Fisher1]

Further to the above reference leaving your house empty, we go back to UK most years for approx. 3 months and have house sitters or try to arrange a house swap, so there are alternatives to leaving it empty, never had a problem.

 

Sorry Ramot, but my point about house insurance was that leaving the house for a lengthy trip necessitated the use of house sitters or indeed a house swap.