SusieRoo Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 hour ago, paulhand said: We have discussed this "issue" before in other threads ... what false declaration would they be making? Departmental policy is: Intention to make a further application in Australia If an applicant applies for a visitor visa but intends to make a further visa application in Australia (whether this intention is stated or not), this does not necessarily indicate that the applicant does not intend a genuine temporary stay and is not a reason in and of itself to refuse the visitor visa. If the Regulations allow an application to be made in Australia by an FA-600 visa holder in Australia, s65 delegates should not be seeking to block this pathway. In addition, an intention to apply for a further visa in Australia does not necessarily indicate that the person will not leave Australia before the FA-600 visa ceases. The question to consider is not “will this person apply for a visa in Australia” but rather, “if this person does not apply for another visa in Australia, or if they apply and are refused, will they abide by the conditions of the visa and will they leave Australia”. The answer to this will help to determine if the applicant intends a genuine temporary stay. Still sounds morally dubious to me… especially considering all the thousands of offshore parents anxiously waiting for years to be with their families. Why should age make a difference? Born before this date sir? No problem… go directly to Australia, do not pass purgatory! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 Just now, SusieRoo said: Still sounds morally dubious to me… especially considering all the thousands of offshore parents anxiously waiting for years to be with their families. Why should age make a difference? Born before this date sir? No problem… go directly to Australia, do not pass purgatory! A learned tax manager once said to me when I was a mere articled clerk in an audit department at a London firm of accountants that I shouldn't look for equity in taxation, Many years later I have the view that the same applies to Australian migration. The policy extract that Paul has noted - while not the law - seems pretty clear to me. Best regards. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1987 Posted November 3, 2020 Author Share Posted November 3, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Alan Collett said: It's a good question - and arguably not helpful. Have a look here also: https://guides.dss.gov.au/guide-social-security-law/3/4/1/10 (scroll down to Pension age for both men & women born on or after 1 July 1952) In particular look at the example. Best regards. Yes I looked and it still seems like those born in 1957 will be eligible at 65 in 2022 Quote Date Affects men & women born (both dates inclusive) Pension age 01/07/2017 01/07/1952 to 31/12/1953 65 years and 6 months 01/07/2019 01/01/1954 to 30/06/1955 66 years 01/07/2021 01/07/1955 to 31/12/1956 66 years and 6 months 01/07/2023 On or after 01/01/1957 67 years Example: For a person born on 31 October 1953, the earliest date from which they could qualify for age pension would be 1 May 2019. This is their date of birth plus 65.5 years. For someone born in 1953, they would qualify at 65.5 after July 2017. So this should mean, for someone born in 1957, they would qualify at 67 after July 2023. So this implies (in a very confusing way) that before July 2023 they would qualify at 65 Edited November 3, 2020 by z1987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Best regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SusieRoo Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Alan Collett said: A learned tax manager once said to me when I was a mere articled clerk in an audit department at a London firm of accountants that I shouldn't look for equity in taxation, Many years later I have the view that the same applies to Australian migration. The policy extract that Paul has noted - while not the law - seems pretty clear to me. Best regards. That reminds me of when I was working as a cleaner, having left school at 16, my boss said something to the effect of “if it looks like poo and it smells like poo, that because it is poo”. And good luck finding equity in taxation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulip1 Posted November 3, 2020 Share Posted November 3, 2020 1 hour ago, z1987 said: Yes I looked and it still seems like those born in 1957 will be eligible at 65 in 2022 For someone born in 1953, they would qualify at 65.5 after July 2017. So this should mean, for someone born in 1957, they would qualify at 67 after July 2023. So this implies (in a very confusing way) that before July 2023 they would qualify at 65 Be assured Alan will be correct in what he’s saying. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z1987 Posted November 3, 2020 Author Share Posted November 3, 2020 22 minutes ago, Tulip1 said: Be assured Alan will be correct in what he’s saying. A clear explanation of that date in the table would be helpful though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LindaH27 Posted November 11, 2020 Share Posted November 11, 2020 (edited) Duplicated posts Edited November 11, 2020 by LindaH27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.