Parent visa application timelines (143 & 173)

[br4t]

1 hour ago, Dandan said:

Hi. May I know how long it normally takes to receive acknowledgement email? I sent in my 143 application more than 3 weeks ago but have not received anything. Should I be concerned?

Mine was submitted on 13th Aug (received by IMMI) and I got the acknowledgment yesterday (8th Sept) approx. under 4 weeks.

Cheers,

 

[Pamz]

Hi all,

I want to apply for subclass 864 contributory aged parents visa.Please guide me with be below queries.

Is there any minimum income requirement for sponsor?

As per my understanding  AOS minimum requirements is there for assurer.

Will the department assess any income now or after, when they need AOS and further documents.

Thanks

 

[Lucy Adelaide]

1 hour ago, Pamz said:

Hi all,

I want to apply for subclass 864 contributory aged parents visa.Please guide me with be below queries.

Is there any minimum income requirement for sponsor?

As per my understanding  AOS minimum requirements is there for assurer.

Will the department assess any income now or after, when they need AOS and further documents.

Thanks

 

The Aos income requirement is for assurer not for sponsor. The centrelink will assess the income of assurer when the assurer submit his Aos application.

[Pamz]

Thank you very your reply.

My last year annual income is less the 35k due to covid.

Can I still sponsor my parents?

Will they access my income.

I can arrange the AOS after years when ask me.

Thanks 

[Lucy Adelaide]

23 hours ago, Pamz said:

Thank you very your reply.

My last year annual income is less the 35k due to covid.

Can I still sponsor my parents?

Will they access my income.

I can arrange the AOS after years when ask me.

Thanks 

https://www.centrelink.gov.au/custsite_aoscalc/aoscalc/financialCalPage.jsf?prg_id=37cc882550c14d2aabdeea20761b8bd8&wec-appid=aoscalc&page=D6A8C3632D6A43798B75AB1A8F69682B&wec-locale=en_US#stay

Check your eligibility with Centrelink tool

[LindaH27]

Something to be very aware of !

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/15/airlines-warn-nsw-may-reopen-to-international-travel-but-with-few-planes-to-service-huge-demand
 

It particularly mentions Singapore  Airlines

Singapore Airlines confirmed it would be further cutting the number of flights flying into Australia, blaming a lack of certainty over plans to lift passenger caps for the move which will see dozens of flights cancelled before the Christmas period.

Edited September 15, 2021 by LindaH27

[LindaH27]

Also saw this - good guide to potential wait times , given the current annual quota is only 3600! 

https://www.gm-parent-visas.com/contributory-parent-visa-application-numbers-updated/

[PaulM]

On 16/09/2021 at 02:35, LindaH27 said:

Also saw this - good guide to potential wait times , given the current annual quota is only 3600! 

https://www.gm-parent-visas.com/contributory-parent-visa-application-numbers-updated/

Thanks LindaH27. The 64 months that is currently being referenced on the Department of Home Affairs website is clearly not good guidance as we all know. We have been waiting since 17 Aug 2016, so currently 61 months and still no word. For fresh applicants now the wait will be 18 years, assuming quotas don't change and everybody who has already applied still goes forward (and, indeed, is still able). There will, of course, be many drop-outs and rejections as people age while their applications are waiting to be processed, but still, 10 years + must be expected.

In theory, it would look like we should get our visas in the current years batch as there are 3,739 applications up until the end of Aug 2016. However, I can't remember if the application numbers listed are the number of individuals or the number of applications put in. Anyone know?

That could make quite a difference to timelines if there are many couples. There could also be dependents, but I'm doubting there are many given the age cut-off and the length of time in processing.

 

[Kaybee]

1 hour ago, PaulM said:

Thanks LindaH27. The 64 months that is currently being referenced on the Department of Home Affairs website is clearly not good guidance as we all know. We have been waiting since 17 Aug 2016, so currently 61 months and still no word. For fresh applicants now the wait will be 18 years, assuming quotas don't change and everybody who has already applied still goes forward (and, indeed, is still able). There will, of course, be many drop-outs and rejections as people age while their applications are waiting to be processed, but still, 10 years + must be expected.

In theory, it would look like we should get our visas in the current years batch as there are 3,739 applications up until the end of Aug 2016. However, I can't remember if the application numbers listed are the number of individuals or the number of applications put in. Anyone know?

That could make quite a difference to timelines if there are many couples. There could also be dependents, but I'm doubting there are many given the age cut-off and the length of time in processing.

 

It looks around 15 years.
Any news on the senate inquiry?

[LindaH27]

4 hours ago, PaulM said:

Thanks LindaH27. The 64 months that is currently being referenced on the Department of Home Affairs website is clearly not good guidance as we all know. We have been waiting since 17 Aug 2016, so currently 61 months and still no word. For fresh applicants now the wait will be 18 years, assuming quotas don't change and everybody who has already applied still goes forward (and, indeed, is still able). There will, of course, be many drop-outs and rejections as people age while their applications are waiting to be processed, but still, 10 years + must be expected.

In theory, it would look like we should get our visas in the current years batch as there are 3,739 applications up until the end of Aug 2016. However, I can't remember if the application numbers listed are the number of individuals or the number of applications put in. Anyone know?

That could make quite a difference to timelines if there are many couples. There could also be dependents, but I'm doubting there are many given the age cut-off and the length of time in processing.

 

It’s individual so that means couples will show as two in the queue.The 64 months relates to those actually being processed so currently May 2016 which it’s been stuck on for well over a year now! 

Sadly I’ve seen a post on social Media where the poster shares a letter from their agent who has had FOI info from immi. It says June 2016 should hopefully by processed by end of this year (which implies that may be the end of this quota)  but July 2016 applicants are not expected to receive grants until into next years quota 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by LindaH27

[LindaH27]

2 hours ago, Kaybee said:

It looks around 15 years.
Any news on the senate inquiry?

Due November this year 

[PaulM]

1 hour ago, LindaH27 said:

It’s individual so that means couples will show as two in the queue. The 64 months relates to those actually being processed so currently May 2016 which it’s been stuck on for well over a year now! 

Sadly I’ve seen a post on social Media where the poster shares a letter from their agent who has had FOI info from immi. It says June 2016 should hopefully by processed by end of this year (which implies that may be the end of this quota)  but July 2016 applicants are not expected to receive grants until into next years quota 

 

Thanks LindaH27. It will be a huge blow if only June 2016 is processed on the 2021/2022 quota. That would mean May and June 2016 only, so a maximum of 2282 visas issued given some May 2016 were under process in June last year. Waiting another year minimum borders on the inhumane given when we applied the process was quoted as taking 24 months. Do you have a link to the social media post by any chance please?

[LindaH27]

7 minutes ago, PaulM said:

Thanks LindaH27. It will be a huge blow if only June 2016 is processed on the 2021/2022 quota. That would mean May and June 2016 only, so a maximum of 2282 visas issued given some May 2016 were under process in June last year. Waiting another year minimum borders on the inhumane given when we applied the process was quoted as taking 24 months. Do you have a link to the social media post by any chance please?

Paul don’t forget there will be some earlier applications that are perhaps more complex that are still waiting to be finalised that are still in the queue 

[Arashtinbenmik]

Any new updates?!

[AJM22]

The migration report for migration year 2020/2021 is available at the following link

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2020-21.pdf

In migration year the 4500 Parent Visa Cap were fulfilled including the reduced number of 3600 Contributory Visas even during Covid-19. It would therefore appear that the shortfall on grant of Parent visas in previous 4 migration years was deliberate to reduce the number of parent visas being granted.  Refusal/Rejection rates were 6.70% in migration year 2021/2022.

 

Outstanding contributory parent visa applications in train as of 15th September 2021 is available at the following link. 288 applications from May 2016 are yet to processed as of this date.

https://www.gm-parent-visas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CP-visa-applications-in-train-15-Sept-2021.pdf

The following table gives you an idea of how much longer applications may take to be processed/granted from 1st September 2021 depending on month application was originally made based on the current annual cap of 3600 Contributory Parent Visa places versus different rejection rates at 0% 5% 10% 15% and 20% (Columns 8 to 12) . Refusal rate for 2020-2021 was 6.70%.

So basically someone applying for a Contributory Parent Visa in August 2021 will now have to wait 16 to 17 years for their application to be processed assuming the current annual CPV CAP of 3600 places and current outstanding queue level of 65834 CPV applications.

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities/parent-visas-queue-release-dates

 

There is currently a senate enquiry going on into the problems to do with the queue for family and parent visas and the outcome of this was originally meant to be made available  10th August 2021 but has now been delayed until 25th November 2021 probably due to Covid-19 issues in Australia.

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

It is unlikely that this enquiry will change the current situation as the current backlog is partly due to recommendations made in the Australian Productivity Review of  April 2016.

https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/report/migrant-intake-report.pdf

The document provide an interesting insight into recommended policy   (In relation to Family reunion see pages 469 to 485)

From this document it appears that permanent visas for parents will be reduced significantly/discouraged in the future due to modelled lifetime costs per individual that will be incurred by the Australian taxpayer during their lifetime after a permanent visa has been granted.  In this report it suggests based on financial modelling that $335000 to $410000 costs are incurred by the taxpayer over the lifetime of every permanent parent visa granted and that the 143 visa cost of $47295 (now $47825) is heavily subsidised and only covers a fraction of this lifetime cost.

It would  however be interesting to be able to see the cost breakdown by category per individual from any modelling to better understand how the $335000 to $410000 cumulated lifetime fiscal cost per individual is apportioned as it probably does not assume that many parents that may be relocating to Australia may already have sufficient assets accumulated in their original country of origin such as property, savings and pensions which will be used to live on when relocating to Australia.

In this document the following recommendations were made to Australian Government 

Two of the recommended measures from this review have already been implemented in the form of the 870 visa (flexible temporary parent visa) and reduction in the annual cap for contributory parent visas (reduced from 7175 places in 2018/2019 migration year to the current level of 3600 places in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 migration years).

It is possible that the shortfall in granted parents visas in the four migration year periods from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2020 against the available cap is deliberate in response to recommendations made in this report until the annual cap was officially lowered to 3600 CPV places in 2020/2021.  In  previous migration years the annual cap in any migration year was always fulfilled with granted parent visas.

Within the document on page 483 one of the recommendations is to substantially increase the charge for Contributory Parent Visas fee levels  initially by 100% by doubling the fee.  This recommendation has not happened yet.

[LindaH27]

45 minutes ago, AJM22 said:

The migration report for migration year 2020/2021 is available at the following link

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/report-migration-program-2020-21.pdf

In migration year the 4500 Parent Visa Cap were fulfilled including the reduced number of 3600 Contributory Visas even during Covid-19. It would therefore appear that the shortfall on grant of Parent visas in previous 4 migration years was deliberate to reduce the number of parent visas being granted.  Refusal/Rejection rates were 6.70% in migration year 2021/2022.

 

Outstanding contributory parent visa applications in train as of 15th September 2021 is available at the following link. 288 applications from May 2016 are yet to processed as of this date.

https://www.gm-parent-visas.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/CP-visa-applications-in-train-15-Sept-2021.pdf

The following table gives you an idea of how much longer applications may take to be processed/granted from 1st September 2021 depending on month application was originally made based on the current annual cap of 3600 Contributory Parent Visa places versus different rejection rates at 0% 5% 10% 15% and 20% (Columns 8 to 12) . Refusal rate for 2020-2021 was 6.70%.

So basically someone applying for a Contributory Parent Visa in August 2021 will now have to wait 16 to 17 years for their application to be processed assuming the current annual CPV CAP of 3600 places and current outstanding queue level of 65834 CPV applications.

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities/parent-visas-queue-release-dates

 

There is currently a senate enquiry going on into the problems to do with the queue for family and parent visas and the outcome of this was originally meant to be made available  10th August 2021 but has now been delayed until 25th November 2021 probably due to Covid-19 issues in Australia.

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

It is unlikely that this enquiry will change the current situation as the current backlog is partly due to recommendations made in the Australian Productivity Review of  April 2016.

https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake/report/migrant-intake-report.pdf

The document provide an interesting insight into recommended policy   (In relation to Family reunion see pages 469 to 485)

From this document it appears that permanent visas for parents will be reduced significantly/discouraged in the future due to modelled lifetime costs per individual that will be incurred by the Australian taxpayer during their lifetime after a permanent visa has been granted.  In this report it suggests based on financial modelling that $335000 to $410000 costs are incurred by the taxpayer over the lifetime of every permanent parent visa granted and that the 143 visa cost of $47295 (now $47825) is heavily subsidised and only covers a fraction of this lifetime cost.

It would  however be interesting to be able to see the cost breakdown by category per individual from any modelling to better understand how the $335000 to $410000 cumulated lifetime fiscal cost per individual is apportioned as it probably does not assume that many parents that may be relocating to Australia may already have sufficient assets accumulated in their original country of origin such as property, savings and pensions which will be used to live on when relocating to Australia.

In this document the following recommendations were made to Australian Government 

Two of the recommended measures from this review have already been implemented in the form of the 870 visa (flexible temporary parent visa) and reduction in the annual cap for contributory parent visas (reduced from 7175 places in 2018/2019 migration year to the current level of 3600 places in 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 migration years).

It is possible that the shortfall in granted parents visas in the four migration year periods from 1st July 2016 to 30th June 2020 against the available cap is deliberate in response to recommendations made in this report until the annual cap was officially lowered to 3600 CPV places in 2020/2021.  In  previous migration years the annual cap in any migration year was always fulfilled with granted parent visas.

Within the document on page 483 one of the recommendations is to substantially increase the charge for Contributory Parent Visas fee levels  initially by 100% by doubling the fee.  This recommendation has not happened yet.

Yoh haven’t mentioned the one thing that impacts very highly on the Australian taxpayer is the huge numbers of 804 applicants who pay a low fee, are allowed to wait onshore and are entitled to essential Medicare if they come from one of the eleven countries that have a reciprocal health agreement with Australia. The report in 2016 also recommending getting rid of 804 except for compassionate cases. They’ve tried to get rid of this visa before. I know it’s probably be a sore point amongst those who have or hope to apply but it is discriminatory as they are allowed to wait onshore on bridging visas unlike those of the same age on 103 and 143. 143  applicants opted to pay a large sum of money in the belief  they would be granted their visa more quickly but are very disillusioned now especially as they have to wait offshore. 
Also due  to people realising the length of the wait time now I feel there will be a huge jump in numbers who will apply for 804 once the borders open, thereby increasing the costs to Australian taxpayers. 
 

If they stripped out the cost of Medicare to those on 804 the overall cost to taxpayers as envisaged in the report would drop - a lot! 


 

[Marisawright]

4 hours ago, AJM22 said:

 

It would  however be interesting to be able to see the cost breakdown by category per individual from any modelling to better understand how the $335000 to $410000 cumulated lifetime fiscal cost per individual is apportioned as it probably does not assume that many parents that may be relocating to Australia may already have sufficient assets accumulated in their original country of origin such as property, savings and pensions which will be used to live on when relocating to Australia.

I doubt they're assuming that every parent is claiming the aged pension.  It's medical costs that are the huge drain, and some parents will cost the taxpayer that much in medical costs alone.  

While parents may be healthy when they arrive, statistics show that most people over 65 are on at least one regular medication, and many are taking several (statins, blood pressure tablets, arthritis medication, heart pills, diabetic treatments, etc etc).  With seniors paying only $5 per prescription for drugs that can cost the government ten times that or more, that's an annual cost that really mounts up if a parent lives for another 20 or 30 years.   Then there are preventive procedures like colonoscopy which are repeated regularly, and operations like a hip replacement ($30,000), open heart surgery ($50,000), cancer surgery and so on. 

Finally, all parents are going to die of something.  Some will die suddenly, but many will have a prolonged decline with a lot of expensive medical intervention, hospital stays, palliative care etc., costing tens of thousands. 

The solution seems obvious.  If the government introduced a rule making it compulsory for all parents to hold full private health insurance for the rest of their life, the problem would be solved. The trouble is that you can't give someone a permanent visa and then make it conditional.  So you'd have to make all parent visas should be temporary, and parents have to prove compliance to get it renewed every so many years.  But the problem then is the bad publicity that's bound to ensue, if the government forces somebody's granny to go home because she can't afford health insurance any more - so it's not a path they're likely to pursue.  

[ramot]

26 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

I doubt they're assuming that every parent is claiming the aged pension.  It's medical costs that are the huge drain, and some parents will cost the taxpayer that much in medical costs alone.  

While parents may be healthy when they arrive, statistics show that most people over 65 are on at least one regular medication, and many are taking several (statins, blood pressure tablets, arthritis medication, heart pills, diabetic treatments, etc etc).  With seniors paying only $5 per prescription for drugs that can cost the government ten times that or more, that's an annual cost that really mounts up if a parent lives for another 20 or 30 years.   Then there are preventive procedures like colonoscopy which are repeated regularly, and operations like a hip replacement ($30,000), open heart surgery ($50,000), cancer surgery and so on. 

Finally, all parents are going to die of something.  Some will die suddenly, but many will have a prolonged decline with a lot of expensive medical intervention, hospital stays, palliative care etc., costing tens of thousands. 

The solution seems obvious.  If the government introduced a rule making it compulsory for all parents to hold full private health insurance for the rest of their life, the problem would be solved. The trouble is that you can't give someone a permanent visa and then make it conditional.  So you'd have to make all parent visas should be temporary, and parents have to prove compliance to get it renewed every so many years.  But the problem then is the bad publicity that's bound to ensue, if the government forces somebody's granny to go home because she can't afford health insurance any more - so it's not a path they're likely to pursue.  

Marisa I’ll pick up on your point about private health cover, I agree you should have this and we do, but I didn’t realise now that we have Medicare how much is covered free by Medicare, as previously as temporary residents we had to claim everything back on our insurance. I agree that more things seem to be catching me out Health wise,, and I am beginning start costing the country money, and that’s just in the 2 years since we got PR, and I thought I was reasonably fairly fit.  We only get our prescriptions at the $6.60 rate, when we reach the safety net, most of the year pay the PBS rate.

The reality of the long long wait for anyone applying for a parent visa now is eye watering, it doesn’t make sense to have a potential visa with a wait like that. It’s disgraceful to give people false hope by the misinformation, and I do wonder if the way the length of the wait is indicated is a deliberate way to raise some revenue, and give false hope.  I came the parent visa route, so I’m on every potential parents side, but I seriously wonder if the visa is sustainable. I dread to think what the government might do, as they have been known to change the rules retrospectively and cause hardship to many many potential immigrants.

[Marisawright]

5 minutes ago, ramot said:

The reality of the long long wait for anyone applying for a parent visa now is eye watering, it doesn’t make sense to have a potential visa with a wait like that. It’s disgraceful to give people false hope by the misinformation

I agree, the misleading information is what's disgraceful.  If it's not practical to put parents on the equivlanet of your old 410 visa (temporary with full health insurance), then personally, I think they should do what New Zealand did, and close the parent visa queue completely, right now (while still processing existing applications, of course).  

That may sound harsh, but it's honest and clear.  Children contemplating migration will know upfront that if they do, they can't bring parents.  Children currently in Australia will know they can't bring their parents and can make the decision whether to move back.  

Once the backlog is cleared -- which will likely take about 15 years -- they can reopen and can relaunch with a new version of the parent visas (which they'll have had plenty of time to develop. 

[PaulM]

Thanks AJM22 for a concise update on where we currently stand.

The official processing has been stalled at May 2016 for 16 months now, taking it across the 2021/22 fresh allocation period. Does anybody have any theories (or indeed direct knowledge) as to why?

Regarding costs v. contribution, not all parents will arrive intending to live as retirees immediately. Some (like me) would have years of working lives ahead, contributing taxes as they go. That potential contribution diminishes the longer you wait for the visa. I'd float the idea of age-based fee levels or granting dates, though I won't as it probably works for me but I'd find it hard to justify morally. I've also been paying full taxes on properties I own and rent out in Aus...should that be considered a credit against my cost??   (Yes, I'm being a bit cheeky here).

[MillieB]

12 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

Yoh haven’t mentioned the one thing that impacts very highly on the Australian taxpayer is the huge numbers of 804 applicants who pay a low fee, are allowed to wait onshore and are entitled to essential Medicare if they come from one of the eleven countries that have a reciprocal health agreement with Australia. The report in 2016 also recommending getting rid of 804 except for compassionate cases. They’ve tried to get rid of this visa before. I know it’s probably be a sore point amongst those who have or hope to apply but it is discriminatory as they are allowed to wait onshore on bridging visas unlike those of the same age on 103 and 143. 143  applicants opted to pay a large sum of money in the belief  they would be granted their visa more quickly but are very disillusioned now especially as they have to wait offshore. 
Also due  to people realising the length of the wait time now I feel there will be a huge jump in numbers who will apply for 804 once the borders open, thereby increasing the costs to Australian taxpayers. 
 

If they stripped out the cost of Medicare to those on 804 the overall cost to taxpayers as envisaged in the report would drop - a lot! 


 

I agree with this Linda.  The loophole to allow people to go over on a Tourist visa, apply for a 804 and then get issued a bridging visa whilst on-shore, needs closing.  

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, PaulM said:

Regarding costs v. contribution, not all parents will arrive intending to live as retirees immediately. Some (like me) would have years of working lives ahead, contributing taxes as they go.

True, and perhaps that should be taken into account with a different class of visa.  Although then you'd have the problem of people saying they're planning to work for x years and then, as soon as they arrive, "changing their mind".    Or, of course, becoming ill and then being unable to work.

As for property investing - hundreds of foreign investors own property in Australia, it doesn't give them any rights of abode, so you are being a bit cheeky!

[PaulM]

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

True, and perhaps that should be taken into account with a different class of visa.  Although then you'd have the problem of people saying they're planning to work for x years and then, as soon as they arrive, "changing their mind".    Or, of course, becoming ill and then being unable to work.

As for property investing - hundreds of foreign investors own property in Australia, it doesn't give them any rights of abode, so you are being a bit cheeky!

Yep - cheeky for sure Marisa.

Do you have any thoughts on why the processing has been stuck at May 2016 for so long? I find it a bit disconcerting, especially given the numbers in the queue that we all believe to be correct.

[Marisawright]

16 minutes ago, PaulM said:

 

Do you have any thoughts on why the processing has been stuck at May 2016 for so long? I find it a bit disconcerting, especially given the numbers in the queue that we all believe to be correct.

The bottom line is that the government doesn't want to support elderly parents, and I'm guessing the recent review has only hardened that view.  It's going to be a political hot potato to close the doors and that's why they've resorted to a go-slow instead.  Covid has given them a perfect excuse to go even slower.

I wonder, if the UK were to consider opening its doors to Australian parents under their proposed new trade deal, perhaps Australia might reciprocate?  (currently, in case you don't know, there are no equivalent visas for an Australian wishing to bring their parent to the UK).

Edited October 1, 2021 by Marisawright

[LindaH27]

25 minutes ago, PaulM said:

Yep - cheeky for sure Marisa.

Do you have any thoughts on why the processing has been stuck at May 2016 for so long? I find it a bit disconcerting, especially given the numbers in the queue that we all believe to be correct.

I also think that they’ve diverted some staff from parent visas to other sections dealing with emergency bridging visas and Covid visas to keep people lawfully on shore who were stuck once the borders closed - although I think some were highly delighted as they got an emergency bridging visa which enabled them to stay till 143 is granted many years in the future!!