Want to migrate/move my parents to australia

[April]

On 11/11/2021 at 21:26, LindaH27 said:

I appreciate you will be paying for private health insurance ($50 per person seems very cheap to me !?) but are you aware that they would not be covered for any aged care at all on a bridging visa? Or if they become really ill during their wait and their potential costs would be over $49000 over 5 years they could be asked to leave. I do respect that, as you say, you look after your parents but sometimes things can go very wrong. 

Hi Linda, 

Could I please ask the point that if their potential costs being over $49000 over 5 years they could be asked to leave? Does this apply to visitor visa or 870 visa? Thank you !

 

[LindaH27]

I believe it’s relevant to most visas if they could lead to PR because Australia doesn’t want to end up paying for their potential problems as they age.  I also seen it go against children if their problems would end up costing the taxpayer too much as well - special schooling etc

As far as 870 you are supposed to have private health insurance (although some apparently stop it after they’ve been there a while !) but the sponsor should be aware that they are ultimately responsible for all Medicare costs the parent incurs and will be billed for  it. 

[LindaH27]

3 hours ago, April said:

The other option you probably are aware is visa 870. This long-term temporary visa is for 3-5 years, and maximum for 10 years. The issue is that the current waiting time for 143 is so long that 10 years may not be enough. 
 

The poster is only interested in 804 as they want the parents over asap 

[Blue Flu]

21 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I don't think it's surprising that the tone has changed.  Australia is no longer a brand new country crying out for migrants.  Because of that, its policies are slowly falling into line with Europe, the UK and the US - designed to keep people out, rather than encourage people to come in.  

If you look at the experience in those countries, second and third generation migrants, even from countries like India, are just as likely to want closed borders to prevent "foreigners taking our jobs" as older citizens. So I'm not convinced the attitude would change in the future, unless Australia experiences a sudden boom and suddenly requires a lot of extra people.

Mind you, if sponsors were made responsible for parents' upkeep, I would have no problem with such a policy change. BUT there would have to be a rigid rule that says, "if the sponsor can't pay, the parent goes home".  If not, we would have a constant stream of sponsors running social media campaigns whining, "Oh my poor father, he's been here10 years so it would be inhumane to send him back, the Australian government should let him stay and give him a Medicare card/pension because I can't afford it any more.  Yes I know I should have thought of that, but I'm entitled because I've brought such amazing value to the country as a migrant, so just gimme the taxpayers'  money now". 

Quite the contrary. Australia over last decade and a half has adapted a Big Australia immigration program. This has doubled immigration numbers plus from the normal rates in the name of growth. Obviously certain vested interests are fully onboard even pushing for these huge numbers, which look about to be reeved up again now restrictions are easing. 

Already there are claims that we'll be one million down on estimated population numbers over future decades. There is nothing to look at old world countries about in this regard. With the exception being possibly Germany where one million 'migrants' arrived across its borders in 2005. 

Only new world countries like Canada and USA appear to follow similar policy. 

No. I suspect the fact that a large part of the world does want extended family in place will influence policy over coming years. Aged parents do not tend to enter the work force, unless it is helping out in a family constructed business. Hence little to no pressure on existing work force but very helpful to negate expensive child caring costs.

With the Sub Continental population being among the highest educated it could be expected that over time this will reflect in earnings as well.  

[Blue Flu]

15 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

It sounds entirely possible that those visas  ended because of the conditions about self funding and the yearly increases. I would agree with you on that. I know that private health insurance in UK  jumps massively once you reach 65 and most have to stop using it. Once of my friends was paying £148 per month and on reaching 65 she was told her premium would go up to £543!!! Needless to say she stopped paying for it  

I’m very sure they will be looking very carefully at 804 - especially when they notice the numbers of people prepared to apply for it will start shooting up once they get over there - I’ve seen so many posts here and on other forums where others are promoting 804 as the answer to the long queues for contributory parents. 
The whole system needs looking at - there are too many loopholes at present. I know there’s also a lot  of anger especially among parents waiting for years offshore about the  the recent  loophole whereby people who may have only recently applied for 143 but who were in Australia when the borders closed, were  able to obtain a bridging visa enabling them to stay onshore until grant of 143 many many years in the future. That was unfair to all those in the queue. The bridging visa should only have been valid until the borders opened. Others mainly young people on temporary visas were told to go home whereas older parents on temporary visas could end up staying.
 

Australia really needs to get a grip on its immigration policies otherwise it’s opening itself up to unsustainable massive expense in the future. 

As for the present policy of turbo immigration to counter short term concerns, (ageing population for example) is that these migrants will age themselves over time . Hence will ever increasing numbers be needed over the decades to counter an ever increasing aged population?

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, Blue Flu said:

As for the present policy of turbo immigration to counter short term concerns, (ageing population for example) is that these migrants will age themselves over time . Hence will ever increasing numbers be needed over the decades to counter an ever increasing aged population?

I guess that's quite likely, but wouldn't that be an additional pressure NOT to allow even more elderly people in?   They've already cut the maximum age for skilled visas to 45, and the way the points work in practice, anyone over 40 doesn't stand much chance.  

From the ABS: 

During 1976–1977, natural increase represented 66.6 per cent of Australia’s population growth and Net Overseas Migration 33.4 per cent; by 2016–17 natural increase represented only 36.0 per cent of Australia’s population growth with NOM at 64.0 per cent. Interestingly, the increase in NOM in recent years has not been caused by an increase in permanent settlers. Rather it has been driven by people staying in Australia on long-term temporary visas, such as overseas students and temporary skilled migrants

[Blue Flu]

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

I guess that's quite likely, but wouldn't that be an additional pressure NOT to allow even more elderly people in?   They've already cut the maximum age for skilled visas to 45, and the way the points work in practice, anyone over 40 doesn't stand much chance.  

From the ABS: 

During 1976–1977, natural increase represented 66.6 per cent of Australia’s population growth and Net Overseas Migration 33.4 per cent; by 2016–17 natural increase represented only 36.0 per cent of Australia’s population growth with NOM at 64.0 per cent. Interestingly, the increase in NOM in recent years has not been caused by an increase in permanent settlers. Rather it has been driven by people staying in Australia on long-term temporary visas, such as overseas students and temporary skilled migrants

Especially since corona virus closed borders. Australia's principle source of migration has been on shore. But even prior to that, studying in Australia was seen as a fairly reliable means of achieving PR.   

[Marisawright]

17 minutes ago, Blue Flu said:

even prior to that, studying in Australia was seen as a fairly reliable means of achieving PR.   

....but an extremely expensive one!

[April]

3 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

No. I suspect the fact that a large part of the world does want extended family in place will influence policy over coming years. Aged parents do not tend to enter the work force, unless it is helping out in a family constructed business. Hence little to no pressure on existing work force but very helpful to negate expensive child caring costs.

Am I reading correctly? You’ve got my hope up now! All I’ve been reading is that parent migration will eventually close its door due to the aging population. 

[Marisawright]

26 minutes ago, April said:

Am I reading correctly? You’ve got my hope up now! All I’ve been reading is that parent migration will eventually close its door due to the aging population. 

Blue Flu is entitled to his opinion but I have never seen any suggestion, anywhere, that the doors are likely to open to aged parents.  They may save the migrant children some childcare costs, but then they are taking jobs away from childcare workers so that adds to unemployment.  Besides, it is a massive assumption that grandparents are going to come to Australia and become full-time nannies.  They are certainly unlikely to provide extensive childcare until the day they die.

I think his argument is that people from the Indian sub-continent and Asia are now the majority of migrants, and their cultures have an expectation that children will care for aged parents at home, so they will want to bring parents to Oz.   So, as those non-European migrants become a significant part of the voting population and able to influence elections, the government will have to open the doors to extended family. However, I believe that currently ethnic Indians make up less than 3% of the Australian population so I think there would be a fair way to go before that happens...

Edited November 13, 2021 by Marisawright

[Blue Flu]

2 hours ago, April said:

Am I reading correctly? You’ve got my hope up now! All I’ve been reading is that parent migration will eventually close its door due to the aging population. 

The doors will not open fast enough for your liking April. It will only come about due to political pressure in seats with a large Asian Minority or in places majority. I am speaking longer term. But remember the onus even then will most likely remain for a considerate period on sponsor being responsible for all cost incurred around health matters. 

There is no certainty in anything but necessity and remaining in power tends to do wonders focus the political mind.

[LindaH27]

6 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

As for the present policy of turbo immigration to counter short term concerns, (ageing population for example) is that these migrants will age themselves over time . Hence will ever increasing numbers be needed over the decades to counter an ever increasing aged population?

Yes  increasing numbers of YOUNG migrants who will look after the ageing population either via their taxes as they work or by being in jobs where they physically look after them. 
Given that Australia has looked into the cost   of elderly parents and it shows each parent on average costs $410,000 over the rest of their lives, they certainly don’t want to put that expense on the taxpayers. 
 

Google Australia Productivity Review 2016 for a good explanation of Australias parent immigration policy. Four recommendations were made and two have already been implemented 

[Blue Flu]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Blue Flu is entitled to his opinion but I have never seen any suggestion, anywhere, that the doors are likely to open to aged parents.  They may save the migrant children some childcare costs, but then they are taking jobs away from childcare workers so that adds to unemployment.  Besides, it is a massive assumption that grandparents are going to come to Australia and become full-time nannies.  They are certainly unlikely to provide extensive childcare until the day they die.

I think his argument is that people from the Indian sub-continent and Asia are now the majority of migrants, and their cultures have an expectation that children will care for aged parents at home, so they will want to bring parents to Oz.   So, as those non-European migrants become a significant part of the voting population and able to influence elections, the government will have to open the doors to extended family. However, I believe that currently ethnic Indians make up less than 3% of the Australian population so I think there would be a fair way to go before that happens...

Yes that is exactly what I mean. It is worth considering perhaps that it is not the overall percent of any particular group within the total population. It the  influence over government and percent in certain seats that can turn an election. Howard lost his safe seat in Sydney it should be remembered after upsetting his numerous Chinese constituents. 

[April]

2 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

. 
Given that Australia has looked into the cost   of elderly parents and it shows each parent on average costs $410,000 over the rest of their lives, they certainly don’t want to put that expense on the taxpayers. 

I wonder how they come up with $410,000, assuming majority of the cost are health care? As parents most likely will bring their savings, overseas pension and property proceeds to Australia. I certainly don’t see my parents will need to use government assistance other than Medicare.
 

[LindaH27]

8 minutes ago, April said:

I wonder how they come up with $410,000, assuming majority of the cost are health care? As parents most likely will bring their savings, overseas pension and property proceeds to Australia. I certainly don’t see my parents will need to use government assistance other than Medicare.
 

It is mainly Medicare and the cost of treating people as they age. They just average it out for all parents - some will cost a lot,  others not so much. None of us  know what will  happen in the future - I’m older and have seen some of my friends health deteriorate quite quickly. Accidents, illnesses such as cancer, and general ageing giving rise to loss of physical activity with arthritis, hip replacements, cataracts and so on. 
When you’re young you don’t  think of what it could be like as you grow older - I certainly didn’t. In  my head I’m still 21 - my head says do this but my body either says ok but it will take a while longer or it says No way!!
Google productivity review 2016 Australia for a good explanation of their policy towards parents 

Edited November 13, 2021 by LindaH27

[April]

44 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

  6 hours ago, Blue Flu said:

As for the present policy of turbo immigration to counter short term concerns, (ageing population for example) is that these migrants will age themselves over time . Hence will ever increasing numbers be needed over the decades to counter an ever increasing aged population?

I was reading the 2021 intergenerational report today - that’s exactly what the report says, migrants will age themselves over time so migration alone is not the solution to ageing population. Apparently the fertility rate of 1.6 is what to blame; that also explains in part why partner visas are prioritised in family stream. The report does project a migration level to be increased to 190,000 in 2023-24, but I suppose the focus will remain to be skilled migration which contributes most positively to the economy as the report states. 

[LindaH27]

4 minutes ago, April said:

I was reading the 2021 intergenerational report today - that’s exactly what the report says, migrants will age themselves over time so migration alone is not the solution to ageing population. Apparently the fertility rate of 1.6 is what to blame; that also explains in part why partner visas are prioritised in family stream. The report does project a migration level to be increased to 190,000 in 2023-24, but I suppose the focus will remain to be skilled migration which contributes most positively to the economy as the report states. 

The increase to 190000 is simply a return to what it was pre pandemic - and mostly comprises skilled migration, students, etc ie young people. I’ve been waiting 4.5 years for 143 and I’m under no illusions that I will get it soon - I’m expecting to wait for approximately the same time again at the current quota. This wait obviously impacts on older parents - the main concern is whether they would pass the medical the older they get!
 

In May 2020 the parent queue calculator for 804 applicants was amended to include contributory visas. You put your date of application in. It told me there were 22900 in front of me. Obviously given the low annual quota that is going to take some time! 
Yes some will have been granted or withdrawn but equally some 103 non contributory applicants have been able to transfer to 143 and still keep their original date of application which means they jump to the top of the queue. Looking at the figures quoted in the chart by Alan Collett Im working on at least another 5 years wait!

Thats hard to take when you’re older but I’m determined to just get on with life and just let things happen in their own time. There’s other options - long holidays etc and 870s. Im not actually a fan personally of 870 - I’d worry about all the stuff back home like my house and car etc but that’s just me! 

Don’t forget that two parents on one application actually take up two places in the queue so 3600 grants could  mean just 1800 couples or 3600 single people or even some couples with dependants all of whom would count so couple with two valid dependants would take up 4 places in the queue. but obviously its all mixed! 
Also people who were granted 173 for two years then apply for 143 which is usually granted quite quickly to keep them lawfully in Australia so that’s an extra to be added to the queue as well - it’s fluctuating all the time. 

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, April said:

I wonder how they come up with $410,000, assuming majority of the cost are health care? As parents most likely will bring their savings, overseas pension and property proceeds to Australia. I certainly don’t see my parents will need to use government assistance other than Medicare.
 

Consider that just one hip replacement costs the government over $30,000. A typical old person’s prescriptions are likely costing the government several thousand dollars a year, possibly for 20 years. Not to mention GP visits, specialists, tests - very easy to spend that much.

Edited November 13, 2021 by Marisawright

[ramot]

1 hour ago, April said:

I wonder how they come up with $410,000, assuming majority of the cost are health care? As parents most likely will bring their savings, overseas pension and property proceeds to Australia. I certainly don’t see my parents will need to use government assistance other than Medicare.
 

As I am one of the few posters who retired here, nearly 19 years ago, the reality of moving to Australia as retirees, is that the cost of living becomes more and more expensive, and your income doesn’t necessarily keep up. This fact has caused many people we know to go back to the UK, the main driver being free NHS. Not everyone’s personal pension is index linked, the difference in the amount of the  frozen state pension becomes so much larger as the years progress. I would be surprised if retirees only needed Medicare as they age. Almost everyone retired that I know has private health cover. I don’t know how easy it is now to get a mortgage as a retiree, so a large amount of cash might have to be used up to buy a property? A new retiree here has no access to any state funding for 10 years after moving here. Should you need to go into care, which is a serious possibility as you age, then a very serious amount of money has to lodged, plus high weekly fees. The cost of some medication is not covered by the PBS and can cost thousands of $.

[MillieB]

On 12/11/2021 at 08:45, LindaH27 said:

It sounds entirely possible that those visas  ended because of the conditions about self funding and the yearly increases. I would agree with you on that. I know that private health insurance in UK  jumps massively once you reach 65 and most have to stop using it. Once of my friends was paying £148 per month and on reaching 65 she was told her premium would go up to £543!!! Needless to say she stopped paying for it  

I’m very sure they will be looking very carefully at 804 - especially when they notice the numbers of people prepared to apply for it will start shooting up once they get over there - I’ve seen so many posts here and on other forums where others are promoting 804 as the answer to the long queues for contributory parents. 
The whole system needs looking at - there are too many loopholes at present. I know there’s also a lot  of anger especially among parents waiting for years offshore about the  the recent  loophole whereby people who may have only recently applied for 143 but who were in Australia when the borders closed, were  able to obtain a bridging visa enabling them to stay onshore until grant of 143 many many years in the future. That was unfair to all those in the queue. The bridging visa should only have been valid until the borders opened. Others mainly young people on temporary visas were told to go home whereas older parents on temporary visas could end up staying.
 

Australia really needs to get a grip on its immigration policies otherwise it’s opening itself up to unsustainable massive expense in the future. 

I couldn’t agree more with your comments Lynda. I too have seen lots of posts on other forums saying the 804 visa is the way to go once borders open.  I cannot get my head around being allowed to enter Australia on a tourist visa with no intention of being a tourist. 

Too many unfair loopholes that need looking at, urgently. 

[LindaH27]

2 minutes ago, MillieB said:

I couldn’t agree more with your comments Lynda. I too have seen lots of posts on other forums saying the 804 visa is the way to go once borders open.  I cannot get my head around being allowed to enter Australia on a tourist visa with no intention of being a tourist. 

Too many unfair loopholes that need looking at, urgently. 

The trouble is the report is not now due till March next year - the second time it’s been postponed presumably because the situation is so complex. But it will be too late to prevent 804 being currently used as parents are now allowed in and people on other forums  are openly saying they’re going with the sole intention of getting 804. 
 

We all want to get in but the rules are unfair and there are too many loopholes. I’m not surprised there’s an enquiry going on. So many people were complaining to Australian MPs about the loopholes that some action had to be taken and Australia really began realising it was opening itself up to massive expense in the coming years. . 

[April]

13 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

The trouble is the report is not now due till March next year - the second time it’s been postponed presumably because the situation is so complex. But it will be too late to prevent 804 being currently used as parents are now allowed in and people on other forums  are openly saying they’re going with the sole intention of getting 804. 
 

We all want to get in but the rules are unfair and there are too many loopholes. I’m not surprised there’s an enquiry going on. So many people were complaining to Australian MPs about the loopholes that some action had to be taken and Australia really began realising it was opening itself up to massive expense in the coming years. . 

I’ve seen posts on other forum/social media  too - people applied offshore in 2020 onwards now realised it would actually take more than 10 years to get the visa processed, if the current cap of 3600 remains. Given the 870 has a maximum period of 10 years which may not be enough before 143 can be processed, not to say the applicant needs to go offshore for 3 months to renew after the first 5 years, some people were publicly suggesting to get to Australia as a visitor then apply 804 onshore just to get BVA. This is quite unfair for the 143 applicants patiently waiting offshore. 
 

I didn’t get why the government needs 870 applicant to go offshore for 3 months to renew after the first 5 years, and only allows 10 year maximum. I would think 870 doesn’t use Medicare and hence would not incur much cost to taxpayers? Even people from countries with reciprocal medical arrangement would buy private health insurance anyway. 

[JetBlast]

1 minute ago, April said:

Even people from countries with reciprocal medical arrangement would buy private health insurance anyway. 

I don’t have private…

[LindaH27]

5 hours ago, JetBlast said:

I don’t have private…

I thought one of the conditions of 870 was that you had to have private health insurance? 

[palaceboy1]

5 hours ago, JetBlast said:

I don’t have private…

Are you on 870 and have a Medicare card