Parent visa application timelines (143 & 173)

[LindaH27]

Just now, AJM22 said:

Full list of CPV by month

 

Yes showing the true figure for June as 2051 not 1874 so the processing times you quoted will be longer than quoted 

[Jan.tt]

Thanks to AJM22 and LindaH27 that's been really useful. I noticed that there is sometimes a lengthy delay between the Medical and PCC submission and the 2nd VAC request, is that always the case?

[AJM22]

20 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

Yes showing the true figure for June as 2051 not 1874 so the processing times you quoted will be longer than quoted 

The processing time for CPV143 visas based on the cumulative number of outstanding CPV143 visas is only an estimate as of October 2020 assuming that current annual cap of 3600 CPV visas is fulfilled in each migration and would be a best case scenario.

If the annual cap of parent visas available in a given migration year are not fulfilled as has been the case since migration year 2016/2017 , 2017/2018 . 2018/2019. 2019/2020 where there has been a shortfall in the number of parent visas granted the estimated time for processing will in fact be much longer.

The  cumulative table shown earlier for CPV143 visa applications serves to highlight the ridiculous current situation regarding this visa where the whole point of applying for CPV143 visa was to pay the higher amount to fast track permanent residency in to Australia to be reunited with family and where processing would have originally been less than 3 years based on the lower amount of applications in the queue and the higher annual cap for CPV visas.

The Law Council of Australia made their opinion quite clear to the Department of Home Affairs in their submission regarding Australia's 2021/2022 migration program planning however unfortunately it appears to have fallen on death ears as the 2021/2022 migration planning level is the same as 2020/2021.

https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/publicassets/d393eb00-1c70-eb11-9439-005056be13b5/3960 - Australias 2021-22 Migration Program.pdf

You can only hope that the Australian government review parent visas and increase the annual cap significantly to clear the backlog especially for the CPV143 visa where the whole point of paying the higher amount for the visa was to fast track entry and to be reunited with family. As the law council have highlighted this visa pathway is now of very limited value especially if looking at CPV143 applications made in September 2020 where processing time would be in excess of 14 years based on current lower cap levels,

The Department of Home affairs did offer the opportunity for individuals to offer their opinions on 2021/2022 migration planning earlier in the year before it was decided and if more people submitted their opinion for 2022/2023 migration planning when it is due there may be the possibility that the policy regarding parent visa allocation may change.

migration.policy@homeaffairs.gov.au

 

 

[LindaH27]

There’s currently a senate enquiry going on into the problems to do with the queue for parent visas. Submissions from the public and other organisations ended in April 2021 and the report is due out on 10 August 2021. I know a lot of people sent in  their stories  

It will be very interesting to see what the recommendations are! 

[AJM22]

50 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

There’s currently a senate enquiry going on into the problems to do with the queue for parent visas. Submissions from the public and other organisations ended in April 2021 and the report is due out on 10 August 2021. I know a lot of people sent in  their stories  

It will be very interesting to see what the recommendations are! 

The submissions can be reviewed using the link below.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FamilyandPartnerVisas

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FamilyandPartnerVisas/Media_Releases

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FamilyandPartnerVisas/Submissions

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/FamilyandPartnerVisas/Public_Hearings

 

Chart regarding Contributory Parent Visa Activity from the Office of Home Affairs submission.

[AJM22]

Submission 60 gives a good account of the situation regarding Contributory Parent Visas however only 64 submissions were made to the Senate Enquiry.

[LindaH27]

The rate of refusal has jumped to 18% from the usual 6% as well in last couple of years. 

[Poonam Sharma]

According to this, 4000 for contributory and 500 non-contributory. 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Poonam Sharma

[AJM22]

24 minutes ago, Poonam Sharma said:

According to this, 4000 for contributory and 500 non-contributory. 

Allocation for migration year 2021/2022 is the same as 2020/2021.

4500 parent visas total of which 3600 are Contributory Visas.

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L00511

 

 

 

[Pars90]

So if my father's acknowledgement for 143 is 1-Nov-2016, is there hope for him to get his visa processes in this financial year (ending June 2022) or not really? 
Are they going to make up for the shortfalls somehow? 

[Marisawright]

16 minutes ago, Pars90 said:

Are they going to make up for the shortfalls somehow? 

No, because they are not shortfalls.   They do not promise they will fill the quota, it is just a rough guide.

[Pars90]

Thanks for that. I'll wait a few more months but if this persists I will definitely make this a public issue. This is surely unfair. Is there currently a petition, legal action on this? Happy to join. 

[Quoll]

43 minutes ago, Pars90 said:

Thanks for that. I'll wait a few more months but if this persists I will definitely make this a public issue. This is surely unfair. Is there currently a petition, legal action on this? Happy to join. 

It's not a matter of being "fair" it is designed to meet Australia's needs and commitments.  Parents really arent a vital part of Australia's needs and many other countries wont even consider parent migration, I think government would actually like to do away with the parent visas altogether if they could.  Maybe that will be one of the recommendations because it is just too heavy a demand.

[Alan Collett]

Yes, this chart from the Department's submission identifies the nature of the backlog.

The big question for the Federal Government is what are they going to do about it?

Edited July 18, 2021 by Alan Collett

[Marisawright]

56 minutes ago, Pars90 said:

Thanks for that. I'll wait a few more months but if this persists I will definitely make this a public issue. This is surely unfair. Is there currently a petition, legal action on this? Happy to join. 

I agree that it's disgraceful, the way the Australian government has misled people about the length of the waiting lists.  However, it is not "unfair" to limit the number of parent visas. As migrants, we have no automatic right to bring our parents here. It is a privilege.

The high fee for the 143 visa is meant to pay towards the cost of Medicare, pensions etc for your parents from when they arrive to when they pass away.   A few years ago, the Government did some research and found that the actual cost is far, far higher than the fee they are charging.  That means for every parent visa the government approves, Australian taxpayers end up paying out a great deal of money.

So it is not surprising if they are not keen to award such visas.

[LindaH27]

19 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Yes, this chart from the Department's submission identifies the nature of the backlog.

The big question for the Federal Government is what are they going to do about it?

One of the solutions could possibly be to make all parent visas dependant on having private health insurance for the rest of their lives? 
 

But to be fair they would then have to reduce the cost of the visa as the large sum is supposed to be a contribution towards Medicare. 

it would of course mean the loss of the non Contributory visas and make it a preserve of those wealthy enough to pay for their private health insurance but the govt want to get away from the non contributory ones anyway.

Possibly the families too could help with the annual costs of the health insurance. 
In fact most countries pay for healthcare. They’re not all as lucky as UK with the NHS free for pensioners 

Edited July 18, 2021 by LindaH27

[AJM22]

10 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

I agree that it's disgraceful, the way the Australian government has misled people about the length of the waiting lists.  However, it is not "unfair" to limit the number of parent visas. As migrants, we have no automatic right to bring our parents here. It is a privilege.

The high fee for the 143 visa is meant to pay towards the cost of Medicare, pensions etc for your parents from when they arrive to when they pass away.   A few years ago, the Government did some research and found that the actual cost is far, far higher than the fee they are charging.  That means for every parent visa the government approves, Australian taxpayers end up paying out a great deal of money.

So it is not surprising if they are not keen to award such visas.

It will be interesting to see what the government do. It is not unfair to limit the number of places but there has been a move to reduce the amount of Parent places dramatically and a change in outcome where prior to migration 2016/2017 the annual cap of parent visas in a given migration year was always fulfilled.

The Office of Home Affairs know the number of applications outstanding at any point and it should not be difficult for them to provide realistic timescales so people applying for such visas are not misled. 

The decision to reduce parent visa allocations may not be economically beneficial as Australia's economic growth has been founded on immigration and attracting young skilled professionals over the past 30 years. Australia is a country built on migration and if they cannot attract or retain these young professionals due to them being isolated from their parents the risk is they will look to settle elsewhere in countries such as Canada. 

Hopefully the Government will have a review of their policy regarding parent visas and allocate more annual places to ensure it is able to continue to attract young professionals into the country as Australia cannot rely on natural population growth to boost its numbers to grow the economy going forward. 
 

https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/publicassets/d393eb00-1c70-eb11-9439-005056be13b5/3960 - Australias 2021-22 Migration Program.pdf
 

Comment made regarding parent visas during the 2021/2022 migration planning submission by the law council.  See above link.

 

[AJM22]

On 15/07/2021 at 15:40, AJM22 said:

Submission 60 gives a good account of the situation regarding Contributory Parent Visas however only 64 submissions were made to the Senate Enquiry.

 

Submission 60.pdf

[LindaH27]

6 minutes ago, AJM22 said:

It will be interesting to see what the government do. It is not unfair to limit the number of places but there has been a move to reduce the amount of Parent places dramatically and a change in outcome where prior to migration 2016/2017 the annual cap of parent visas in a given migration year was always fulfilled.

The Office of Home Affairs know the number of applications outstanding at any point and it should not be difficult for them to provide realistic timescales so people applying for such visas are not misled. 

The decision to reduce parent visa allocations may not be economically beneficial as Australia's economic growth has been founded on immigration and attracting young skilled professionals over the past 30 years. Australia is a country built on migration and if they cannot attract or retain these young professionals due to them being isolated from their parents the risk is they will look to settle elsewhere in countries such as Canada. 

Hopefully the Government will have a review of their policy regarding parent visas and allocate more annual places to ensure it is able to continue to attract young professionals into the country as Australia cannot rely on natural population growth to boost its numbers to grow the economy going forward. 
 

https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/publicassets/d393eb00-1c70-eb11-9439-005056be13b5/3960 - Australias 2021-22 Migration Program.pdf
 

Comment made regarding parent visas during the 2021/2022 migration planning submission by the law council.  See above link.

 

Most of the submissions from organisations  appear to be in favour of increasing the annual quota and reducing the length of wait time. 
 

I do agree however that the website showing processing times should be updated to show the actual potential wait times for new applicants instead of just showing the wait time for the ones they are currently processing - which is very misleading for new applicants. 

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, AJM22 said:

The decision to reduce parent visa allocations may not be economically beneficial as Australia's economic growth has been founded on immigration and attracting young skilled professionals over the past 30 years. 

Of course it has, but the fact is that for every young professional who goes home because they can't bring their parents, there are probably five eager to take their place and let their parents stay at home.

If Australia were struggling to attract migrants it would be a different story, but they're not. There are many, many more applicants than visa places, and many of those people don't need to bring parents.  Perhaps they don't have parents, perhaps they don't get on with them, or perhaps they're just one member of a large family.  

Edited July 18, 2021 by Marisawright

[Tulip1]

6 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

One of the solutions could possibly be to make all parent visas dependant on having private health insurance for the rest of their lives? 

A good idea in principle but would be impossible to monitor and enforce long term.  Imagine the amount of parents who’s health insurance premiums would get too expensive over time so they stop getting it.  The country couldn’t refuse to give them needed medical help nor would they deport everyone of them that was found without insurance.  Always best to get payment upfront and by charging for the visa they get guaranteed payment even if it doesn’t cover everything. 

[LindaH27]

34 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

A good idea in principle but would be impossible to monitor and enforce long term.  Imagine the amount of parents who’s health insurance premiums would get too expensive over time so they stop getting it.  The country couldn’t refuse to give them needed medical help nor would they deport everyone of them that was found without insurance.  Always best to get payment upfront and by charging for the visa they get guaranteed payment even if it doesn’t cover everything. 

Yes I do understand that but medical insurers are in business for a profit! 
Surely  it’s within the bounds of imagination for the govt to set up their own not for profit insurance agency for parents? Each parent visa could be linked to an annual demand for payment etc. The fees paid would all go into a big account that could be invested to gain Interest. Not all parents would utilise the full amount they’d paid for insurance, so that in the pot there could be a means of people being able to access reduced fees if their circumstances changed. 
 Private health insurance for older parents seems to be around $3500 pa from what I heard if so that would pay for at least 12 years of cover instead of $43600 of 2nd Vac . 
 

I’m not a mathematician or govt official but surely there could be a way of utilising the huge potential amount paid yearly for parents private health insurance to grow eith interest rates and given the size of the the pot -a possibility of govt negotiating better prices with medical institutions ? Some parents would rarely make a claim so could potentially be offered a No claims discount etc 

 

I'm quite  sure some will say it can’t be done  but the idea is out there for for deeper investigation etc ? After all people are prepared to spend money on private health insurance for 10 years whilst waiting for their grant and then pay for another 12 years instead of the large 2nd Vac charge - that gives 22 years of cover which could be enough for a lot of older parents. Some parents may only make small claims. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by LindaH27

[AJM22]

8 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Of course it has, but the fact is that for every young professional who goes home because they can't bring their parents, there are probably five eager to take their place and let their parents stay at home.

If Australia were struggling to attract migrants it would be a different story, but they're not. There are many, many more applicants than visa places, and many of those people don't need to bring parents.  Perhaps they don't have parents, perhaps they don't get on with them, or perhaps they're just one member of a large family. 

[AJM22]

8 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Of course it has, but the fact is that for every young professional who goes home because they can't bring their parents, there are probably five eager to take their place and let their parents stay at home.

If Australia were struggling to attract migrants it would be a different story, but they're not. There are many, many more applicants than visa places, and many of those people don't need to bring parents.  Perhaps they don't have parents, perhaps they don't get on with them, or perhaps they're just one member of a large family.  

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12876550
 

“The expansion of the Global Talent Scheme at a time when movement is limited has raised questions about how Australia could hope to fill 15,000 places when it managed just 4,100 of a cap of 5,000 last year.

Jackson Taylor, migration lawyer for Hammond Taylor, cautioned that the balance may have shifted too far towards "getting bang for your buck" out of the migration program, and the pandemic might highlight its flaws.

"You don't want to build a migration program where the only way people are going here is either they are millionaires or they're engineers and doctors," he said.

"There needs to be a program for people who just want to be part of society."

[Tulip1]

1 hour ago, AJM22 said:

There needs to be a program for people who just want to be part of society."

Why? What benefit to Australia will they be? Surely they have enough home grown residents that just want to be part of society.  If they are giving out visas to outsiders they get to chose what type of people they want and an aging bunch of older parents isn’t as desirable as young talented people that will contribute to the country and pay tax for dozens of years.  I’m not being horrible, I am a parent in the queue myself but I’m also aware there’s no way they want me over there just to be part of society.  The reality of that is me or many like me may well become an expensive burden on their tax payers one say.  I’m probably one of the younger people in the parent queue and still I think like that.  Why on earth would they want loads of people in their 60’s/70’s/80’s turning up. They’ve no doubt plenty of home grown ones of those already.