SBS reporting on new temporary parent visa

[Alan Collett]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/04/new-visa-migrant-parents-stay-australia-10-years-it-costs-20000

More news on this topic to be posted as soon as I have it!

Best regards.

[Kathss56]

6 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/04/new-visa-migrant-parents-stay-australia-10-years-it-costs-20000

More news on this topic to be posted as soon as I have it!

Best regards.

@bry45  f y I 

[bry45]

1 minute ago, Kathss56 said:

@bry45  f y I 

Thanks Kath

I simply cannot understand why parents would not be allowed to work. They comment on how much money these visas will generate, but surely a working parent will also be contributing to the budget. Also, no pathway to permanent residence will lead to more parents staying illegally after the visa runs out. And, how do they think it will effect the parents and their children if they are to return home to their original country of origin after forming a complete new life for the past 10 years.

Ah well, the 143 it is then.

 

[Kathss56]

20 minutes ago, bry45 said:

Thanks Kath

I simply cannot understand why parents would not be allowed to work. They comment on how much money these visas will generate, but surely a working parent will also be contributing to the budget. Also, no pathway to permanent residence will lead to more parents staying illegally after the visa runs out. And, how do they think it will effect the parents and their children if they are to return home to their original country of origin after forming a complete new life for the past 10 years.

Ah well, the 143 it is then.

 

I know,ludicrous!  They could put something back into the economy that way! You never know some may come off our 143 queue though !

Edited May 4, 2017 by Kathss56

[Guest The Pom Queen]

@Alan Collett does this mean they will stop parents coming over and going off shore to renew a tourist visa? 

[Alan Collett]

3 minutes ago, The Pom Queen said:

@Alan Collett does this mean they will stop parents coming over and going off shore to renew a tourist visa? 

 

It might do - we need to await legislation and Department policy guidance.

Best regards.

[mansawant]

Does that mean parents can apply only for this new temporary visa and not for the permanent visa?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[Kathss56]

21 minutes ago, mansawant said:

Does that mean parents can apply only for this new temporary visa and not for the permanent visa?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
 

I think you can apply for this whilst waiting for a 143 to come through, as presuming it is an instant visa so to speak! 

[Alan Collett]

8 hours ago, mansawant said:

Does that mean parents can apply only for this new temporary visa and not for the permanent visa?

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
 

I repeat: we await the legislation and Department of Immigration policy material.

Best regards.

[FireBlade]

 

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/04/new-visa-migrant-parents-stay-australia-10-years-it-costs-20000

 

As many as 15,000 people each year will be able to pay up to $20,000 to bring their parents to Australia for up to a decade, following the Turnbull Government’s latest immigration shakeup, SBS News can reveal.

The financial burden of healthcare for migrant parents will be shouldered by their children under the new visa, with sponsors legally required to pay for their private health insurance.

The children will also need to act as financial guarantor on any extra healthcare costs their parents rack up in Australia.

“There's great expense to the taxpayer in relation to health costs over time with elderly parents,” Assistant Immigration Minister Alex Hawke told SBS News.

“That's the problem that governments around the world have been wrestling with.”

Under the new scheme, applicants could seek a three-year visa for $5,000 or a five-year visa for $10,000, with the opportunity of a single renewal for another five years at the same price.

The visa rules would help the government limit rising healthcare costs and, if legislated, could deliver hundreds of millions in visa fees to the Budget bottom line. If the 15,000 quota were filled in the first year, the Treasury could bank $150 million in fees alone.

Those on the new visa will not be allowed to work, however, the government hopes they will take on family roles which would see “reduced pressure on childcare facilities.”

“Grandparents will be available and able to, under this visa, care for their grandchildren while the parents work,” Mr Hawke said.

But the high cost of the visa has already been criticised by migration expert Henry Sherrell, from the Australian National University.

“The costs look extremely high for a temporary visa,” he said.

He says while other temporary visas require private health insurance, it is more unusual to require migrants to do without the public safety net for emergencies and unforeseen health crises.

“This is one of the first times we've seen where temporary migrants will be liable for public health cover in this country,” he said.

“The private health insurance premiums could be very, very high.”

The move to limit the healthcare access of elderly migrants comes following a Productivity Commission report last year that found the average lifetime cost of a single parent visa holder is between $335,000 and $410,000.

The government plans to officially announce the visa along with the Budget next week, making good on an election promise from the 2016 campaign.

The change follows months of community consultation and is a response to calls from migrant communities who have been pressuring the government for reform to parent visas, arguing that the current system is complex and prone to long delay.

Those sponsoring their parents for the new visa need to be Australian citizens or permanent residents, or “eligible New Zealand citizens”.

The visa-holders would not be allowed to reapply beyond the 10 years and would have no pathway to permanent residency.

Parent visas are currently split across several visa streams, including the Aged Parent visa, the Contributory Parent (Temporary) and the permanent Contributory Parent visa.

Dianne Pajarillo is a Filipino-Australian registered nurse working at a hospital in Melbourne. Her husband is a nurse at another hospital and both work night shifts and weekends.

Her mother lives with them on an Aged Parent visa and helps look after the Pajarillo children, but needs to return to the Philippines every year for visa renewal.

Ms Pajarillo said her interest in the new five-year visa would “depend on what the costs are”, given the Aged Care visa only costs $130 to renew.

But she already pays for her mother’s private health insurance under the terms of the Aged Parent visa – costing $250 a month from Medibank Private – and thinks that arrangement is fair.

“I work in the healthcare industry. I know what’s happening, I know the burden,” Ms Pajarillo said. “There’s a lot of ageing population … we have to shoulder it.”

The government plans to roll out the new visa from November if it passes parliament.

[MaggieMay24]

18 hours ago, bry45 said:

I simply cannot understand why parents would not be allowed to work. They comment on how much money these visas will generate, but surely a working parent will also be contributing to the budget.

Given the recent changes to the 457 visa, I assume they want to avoid having temporary residents take jobs away from Australians.  So in essence, this is an extended visitor visa

[Quoll]

They're going to come a cropper with a whole load of "oh but we've settled so well in Australia and we are too old and frail to leave" complaints at the end of it - you can see the unintended consequences from a mile off!

[Guest]

I've merged the two threads on the same subject into one and its in the family visa forum. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

They're going to come a cropper with a whole load of "oh but we've settled so well in Australia and we are too old and frail to leave" complaints at the end of it - you can see the unintended consequences from a mile off!

On the other hand, it could be ideal for those wanting so spend some time in Aus to be around for the grandkids growing up for a few years but who don't want to stay permanently, especially if they have the rest of their family in the UK or elsewhere still. 

They would know going in the terms of the visa. I think its going to be made very clear there is no pathway to staying on and if in ill health to begin with, I'd think it foolish to apply for it. I think its an idea way for some to spend a few years in Aus before heading back to their home country. 

[Ferrets]

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

They're going to come a cropper with a whole load of "oh but we've settled so well in Australia and we are too old and frail to leave" complaints at the end of it - you can see the unintended consequences from a mile off!

I was thinking the same thing....but perhaps another thought - even if these parents end up stuck they will likely never have any rights to medicare or pension and need full 100% funding from their children.  If there is zero cost to the tax payer is that a bad thing?

[toOZ2012]

This seems like a fair visa. A bit expensive but not really in the grand scheme of things and non-monetary benefits they bring to their (grand)kids here.

Of course there is a pathway to a permanent residency. It's called a contributory parent visa. I bet this visa also comes with a "No further stay condition" so that people don't come over on this visa and apply for the 30 year parent visa to get bridging.

Immigration very well knows that they can't enforce mandatory health insurance so kids being a guarantor, albeit harsh, is a good way to enforce that there is sufficient cover and no one gets caught with massive medical bills.

The no work rights is a good decision not because they shouldn't be allowed to work but simply because Australia is very ageist. It's bloody hard to land decent jobs for someone in their 60s or 70s and starting fresh here. Having work rights, will create the illusion of "I can simply get a job to support myself and not be a burden to my kids" but the truth is there are not that many jobs for old(er) people to go around especially when the visa quota is 15,000 a year.

Come November and this visa becomes official, I've a bad feeling that the 2nd VAC on CPVs will increase significantly given the PC's report/suggestion to double it to start and then keep increasing.

Overall, a welcome pathway especially for parents who don't meet the balance of family test and/or can't afford huge CPV costs just yet.

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by toOZ2012

[newjez]

This would probably suit my needs - assuming the old dear is still alive in five years time when we could potentially move. How much is private health insurance on an old dear?

[Guest]

 

New temporary parent visas to be announced as part of next week's budget.

Key points:

- No work rights
- 3-year visa for $5,000
- 5-year visa for $10,000
-  Must have health insurance
- Child must act as financial guarantor
- Option for renewal once
- Sponsoring child must be PR, citizen or an 'eligible' NZ citizen

Read more here - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/04/new-visa-migrant-parents-stay-australia-10-years-it-costs-20000

No doubt more information will be made available next week.

[Quoll]

8 hours ago, snifter said:

On the other hand, it could be ideal for those wanting so spend some time in Aus to be around for the grandkids growing up for a few years but who don't want to stay permanently, especially if they have the rest of their family in the UK or elsewhere still. 

They would know going in the terms of the visa. I think its going to be made very clear there is no pathway to staying on and if in ill health to begin with, I'd think it foolish to apply for it. I think its an idea way for some to spend a few years in Aus before heading back to their home country. 

There are "get out" visas for those who are ill or unable to travel then of course they would be a burden on the tax payer because the get out  visa doesn't have the assurance of support clause. In theory it's good but I'm betting that once the time is up there will be petitions and ministerial appeals and media vilification of ministers etc as heart strings of split families are tugged. Only time will tell. 

[Ferrets]

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

There are "get out" visas for those who are ill or unable to travel then of course they would be a burden on the tax payer because the get out  visa doesn't have the assurance of support clause. In theory it's good but I'm betting that once the time is up there will be petitions and ministerial appeals and media vilification of ministers etc as heart strings of split families are tugged. Only time will tell. 

As I said, devil in the detail, with the children as guarantor even if parents don't go offshore the children will still need to guarantee all expenses.  A neat solution.

[Nemesis]

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

There are "get out" visas for those who are ill or unable to travel then of course they would be a burden on the tax payer because the get out  visa doesn't have the assurance of support clause. In theory it's good but I'm betting that once the time is up there will be petitions and ministerial appeals and media vilification of ministers etc as heart strings of split families are tugged. Only time will tell. 

You're probably right. 

People will forget that they accepted the rules when they applied for the visa and the papers will be full of people yelling about how its wrong to divide families. 

Fact is though, that's what happens with immigration.

When the kids migrate they say they can cope without their parents, then suddenly they realise they can't cope without them and they start yelling about wanting visas to allow their parents to visit for longer, now they're getting that they will want even longer. People need to think more before they move and accept that by moving across the world they have to leave part of the family behind. If you can't cope, don't move. Or move back if you want to reunite the family. That's what my husband and I have had too do, go home in order to be together. Sad, annoying, expensive, but we had no choice. If you want your whole family in one country work with the options presented to you. 

 

[Tulip1]

There's been talk of a hike in the cost of CPV. Does anyone know if this would be for new applications or could they just say to people who have already submitted that will be double for you too now. Would seem so unfair if that happened.

[Ferrets]

5 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

There's been talk of a hike in the cost of CPV. Does anyone know if this would be for new applications or could they just say to people who have already submitted that will be double for you too now. Would seem so unfair if that happened.

Given that the fairly ruthless way the changes to the 457s have affected those with applications in process I imagine the same could happen to the second VAC payment

[Alan Collett]

9 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

There's been talk of a hike in the cost of CPV. Does anyone know if this would be for new applications or could they just say to people who have already submitted that will be double for you too now. Would seem so unfair if that happened.

It is highly improbable the 2nd VAC will be increased for CP visa applications already lodged - that's why we recommend that intending CP migrants submit their visa applications now, to lock in the current scale of Visa Application Charges.

Best regards.

[Alan Collett]

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/05/05/people-will-pay-it-more-details-australias-20000-parent-visa

"People will pay it"

SBS News: More details of the temporary parent visa - announced yesterday and costing up to $20,000 - have emerged.

There had been concern among applicants and migration agents that the temporary visa would replace the two permanent migration options – the government currently offers a $5,935 visa with a 30-year wait period and another for over $47,000 with a three-year wait period.

But while those options will remain, they could potentially see significant price rises in next week’s Budget, a measure recommended by the Productivity Commission last year.

Best regards.