Aged Parent visa - Subclass 804 - Canadian

[SusieRoo]

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!

[Alan Collett]

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.

[z1987]

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

[Alan Collett]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation.

Best regards.

[SusieRoo]

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.

[Tulip1]

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.

[z1987]

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. 

[LindaH27]

Duplicated posts

Edited November 11, 2020 by LindaH27