The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[Alan Collett]

Yes, the doubling of the waiting time for the granting of CP visas over the last few years is not good.

Being the cynical chap that I am I can see a political positioning in the next month or two in which the Australian Government says look at the processing times for Contributory Parent visa applications - they are 3 years and lengthening, and that's with a cost of $100k+.

It would never surprise me to see the delays in CP visa processing being a deliberate move to justify changes in visa pricing.

In other words, a processing time of 3 years and increasing will be said to reflect demand exceeding supply, and will further justify a hiking in the VACs, to meet the findings of the Productivity Commission report that was released last year, which said a VAC of $335k to $410k was appropriate to meet expected healthcare costs.

Here's an extract from that report:

(Page 27): The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms.

Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.

Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak.

In the short term, a partial remedy would be to lower the taxpayer funded subsidy for contributory parent visas by considerably raising the visa charge, and to introduce more narrowly focused non-contributory parent visas. This would involve narrowing eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds.

The impact of this tightening could be partly offset by the introduction of more flexible temporary parent visa arrangements, subject to the parents or sponsoring children meeting the costs of any income or health support during their period of residence.

We've already seen yesterday a controversial move with 457 visas - arguably for political purposes.

Don't be surprised if something similarly out of left field happens with parent visa applications.

Onwards!

[Kpnuts]

Yes, the doubling of the waiting time for the granting of CP visas over the last few years is not good.
Being the cynical chap that I am I can see a political positioning in the next month or two in which the Australian Government says look at the processing times for Contributory Parent visa applications - they are 3 years and lengthening, and that's with a cost of $100k+.
It would never surprise me to see the delays in CP visa processing being a deliberate move to justify changes in visa pricing.
In other words, a processing time of 3 years and increasing will be said to reflect demand exceeding supply, and will further justify a hiking in the VACs, to meet the findings of the Productivity Commission report that was released last year, which said a VAC of $335k to $410k was appropriate to meet expected healthcare costs.
Here's an extract from that report:
(Page 27): The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms.
Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.
Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak.
In the short term, a partial remedy would be to lower the taxpayer funded subsidy for contributory parent visas by considerably raising the visa charge, and to introduce more narrowly focused non-contributory parent visas. This would involve narrowing eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds.
The impact of this tightening could be partly offset by the introduction of more flexible temporary parent visa arrangements, subject to the parents or sponsoring children meeting the costs of any income or health support during their period of residence.
We've already seen yesterday a controversial move with 457 visas - arguably for political purposes.
Don't be surprised if something similarly out of left field happens with parent visa applications.
Onwards!

Yes, I too read this report which doesn't bode well for the future, however, I am not sure the findings properly reflect the situation. Take for example parents who actually want to work. They would be paying taxes etc which would bring additional money into the economy. I would rather they turned the tap off which would make the decision process a lot easier.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

[Alan Collett]

11 minutes ago, Kpnuts said:

Yes, I too read this report which doesn't bode well for the future, however, I am not sure the findings properly reflect the situation. Take for example parents who actually want to work. They would be paying taxes etc which would bring additional money into the economy. I would rather they turned the tap off which would make the decision process a lot easier.


Sent using Poms in Oz mobile app

Keep faith.

In a year or two (hopefully not too long) you'll have your visa, and the pain and anguish you are experiencing now will be forgotten.

Best regards.

[bry45]

Thanks for posting 8CPA

That definitely answered my query. We have become a little more patient over time, which is probably due to having kids in the first place, so have decided not to fo for a 600, At the end of the day, it's only money and time and if we run out of both before the visa comes, it won't matter anyway. 

We might just see what is involved with the 5 year one in July, but other than that, we're rubbing our ear lobes whilst softly chanting woooosaaaa !!!

I'm glad it all worked out for you and I'm sure now that your sorted, the wait and hoops you jumped through don't seem as bad now. Well done you and good luck to ya. 

Bry

[Alan Collett]

10 hours ago, 8CPA said:

Hello there. Just to let you know our experience. We applied in June 2014 and like you decided to sell up to have the money available. In January 2015 we applied for a 600 visa which we received within two weeks. Our migration agent was surprised that it had a 8503 on it which we were not expecting. This meant that we had to leave after 12 months to apply for another visa , presumably we could have applied for another 600 but we chose to return on a tourist visa as we were expecting our 143 at anytime. We had to make two exits after 3 months and a further exit to have the visa granted as the time frame stretched hugely during May & June. They also ran out of visa places so there was a period where no further visas were being processed that year. We had applied for a sponsored 600 visa and we had plenty of money in the bank so no problems financially we were also from the UK. I think Sue was lucky or maybe they have changed the rules but do be aware as our 8053 was totally unexpected. The 8053 also has a no return clause on it so if you leave within the 12 months you have to apply for another visa you cannot come and go on that visa. Good luck with it all. It was worth the tortuous wait to be with our family so hang on in there.

Hi 8CPA.

Sponsored visitor visas often have an 8503 condition attaching.

Note also that - to clarify - the 8503 condition means a further visa application cannot be lodged while you are in Australia.  It doesn't mean you can't return to Australia during the validity period of the visitor visa, assuming the visa has a multiple entry facility - which most such visas do.

A period of time outside Australia before applying for another visitor visa might also be a necessity, which doesn't help if you have been expecting the CP visa to be granted during 12 months of the visitor visa being granted, and processing times blow out (as they have been doing of late).

Agreed that visitor visas come in a multitude of guises, and can be a bit of a minefield - another reason to have an experienced migration agent assisting! 

Best regards.

[Catlady2014]

My daughter has had her phone interview with Centrelink, and her Assurance of Support has been approved.  They will send her a letter today to take to the bank and open the support bond account.  

[Catlady2014]

6 hours ago, Kpnuts said:

I am just about at my wits end on the continual extension of the 143. OK, the wait time has now stretched to 34 months but in my mind that should apply to new applicants? If the application pile keeps growing and no further resources are in place to deal with them then clearly the same pace of process takes place. This should mean that applicants in 2014 should get their 143's within a lesser time frame.

I have read various items of conflict in relation to the number of visas available. In one part the suggestion is that 7,000 odd visas are available for this stream. That suggests that the delay may simply be down to that number being reached? On another page, IMMI suggests that supply meets demand, so what is the issue? It is not beyond simple judgement to indicate to each applicant the current timeframe. For us it was 18 months and nothing convinces me so far as to why that should have changed. At £60k a couple I am disappointed at the level of service. It is a jaw dropping amount of money but an amount I am willing to pay but if this is meant to provide a fast track then forget it. I see many people, including myself, being put to all sorts of other financial burden whilst waiting for the elastic band to be ever stretched. So many people have planned their futures, making commitments and then being put on hold; it truly isn't fair to treat people like this. If you have an immigration policy then manage it - if needs be, stop the issue of the visa but stop dangling the carrot and moving the goal posts!





Sent from my iPad using PomsinOz

When did you apply? I'm assuming 2014, in which case you will start to hear something soon.  Don't get despondent, it is really hard on all of us, because the original processing time in 2014 was said to be 18 months.  If we had known at the start that it would take this long, we would have accepted it and not felt so bad, it's just that expectations were raised and then slowly sloooowly beaten down.  I don't know if the quota has been reached but there really is no reason to think that is the case.   When my granddaughter's application was being processed, Immi told her at one stage that the quota for her visa class had been reached and so she wouldn't get it until July but they carried on processing, and sure enough in July the visa was issued.  In other words, they made no secret of having reached the quota but they carried on processing applications.  I have no idea of the reason for the delay, and I think all that we parent applicants can do is to make quite certain we have all the info/documents in place and ready for when it is needed, and then try to get on with life as best we can, get your house up to scratch ready for selling, and get rid of all that clutter that everybody has in their house, attic, shed.  I've sold thousands of pounds worth of clutter so far and I have a little more still to sell.  And I know how difficult it is not to keep sending test emails and checking the exchange rate every hour, but I've pulled back considerably on both activities because I was just torturing myself.  So, keep your chin up and carry on with life as best you can.  

[8CPA]

1 hour ago, Alan Collett said:

Hi 8CPA.

Sponsored visitor visas often have an 8503 condition attaching.

Note also that - to clarify - the 8503 condition means a further visa application cannot be lodged while you are in Australia.  It doesn't mean you can't return to Australia during the validity period of the visitor visa, assuming the visa has a multiple entry facility - which most such visas do.

A period of time outside Australia before applying for another visitor visa might also be a necessity, which doesn't help if you have been expecting the CP visa to be granted during 12 months of the visitor visa being granted, and processing times blow out (as they have been doing of late).

Agreed that visitor visas come in a multitude of guises, and can be a bit of a minefield - another reason to have an experienced migration agent assisting! 

Best regards.

Hello Again,

I can only speak from our own experience. I have just checked the 600 visa we were given and it clearly states that we were only allowed to enter Australia once during the term of that visa. Entry was stated as 'Single' with an explanation of the same below. We were on a Sponsored Family Visa. Hopefully things have now changed.

[daveedley]

7 hours ago, Alan Collett said:

Yes, the doubling of the waiting time for the granting of CP visas over the last few years is not good.

Being the cynical chap that I am I can see a political positioning in the next month or two in which the Australian Government says look at the processing times for Contributory Parent visa applications - they are 3 years and lengthening, and that's with a cost of $100k+.

It would never surprise me to see the delays in CP visa processing being a deliberate move to justify changes in visa pricing.

In other words, a processing time of 3 years and increasing will be said to reflect demand exceeding supply, and will further justify a hiking in the VACs, to meet the findings of the Productivity Commission report that was released last year, which said a VAC of $335k to $410k was appropriate to meet expected healthcare costs.

Here's an extract from that report:

(Page 27): The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms.

Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.

Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak.

In the short term, a partial remedy would be to lower the taxpayer funded subsidy for contributory parent visas by considerably raising the visa charge, and to introduce more narrowly focused non-contributory parent visas. This would involve narrowing eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds.

The impact of this tightening could be partly offset by the introduction of more flexible temporary parent visa arrangements, subject to the parents or sponsoring children meeting the costs of any income or health support during their period of residence.

We've already seen yesterday a controversial move with 457 visas - arguably for political purposes.

Don't be surprised if something similarly out of left field happens with parent visa applications.

Onwards!

I wonder, though, if these figures take account of the contributions parents make after their arrival in the form of income tax and medicare contributions?

[Kathss56]

2 hours ago, Catlady2014 said:

My daughter has had her phone interview with Centrelink, and her Assurance of Support has been approved.  They will send her a letter today to take to the bank and open the support bond account.  

Let's hope that letter doesn't take as long. Once in the bank your're there  so happy for you! 

[Pertenhall]

8 hours ago, Alan Collett said:

Yes, the doubling of the waiting time for the granting of CP visas over the last few years is not good.

Being the cynical chap that I am I can see a political positioning in the next month or two in which the Australian Government says look at the processing times for Contributory Parent visa applications - they are 3 years and lengthening, and that's with a cost of $100k+.

It would never surprise me to see the delays in CP visa processing being a deliberate move to justify changes in visa pricing.

In other words, a processing time of 3 years and increasing will be said to reflect demand exceeding supply, and will further justify a hiking in the VACs, to meet the findings of the Productivity Commission report that was released last year, which said a VAC of $335k to $410k was appropriate to meet expected healthcare costs.

Here's an extract from that report:

(Page 27): The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms.

Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.

Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak.

In the short term, a partial remedy would be to lower the taxpayer funded subsidy for contributory parent visas by considerably raising the visa charge, and to introduce more narrowly focused non-contributory parent visas. This would involve narrowing eligibility to non-contributory parent visas to cases where there are strong compassionate grounds.

The impact of this tightening could be partly offset by the introduction of more flexible temporary parent visa arrangements, subject to the parents or sponsoring children meeting the costs of any income or health support during their period of residence.

We've already seen yesterday a controversial move with 457 visas - arguably for political purposes.

Don't be surprised if something similarly out of left field happens with parent visa applications.

Onwards!

Alan, something niggles at the back of my mind and I wonder if you can reassure me.  If, as suspected, the visa charges are hiked will our charges be at the rate quoted when we applied or do they rise?  Zee

[Alan Collett]

35 minutes ago, Pertenhall said:

Alan, something niggles at the back of my mind and I wonder if you can reassure me.  If, as suspected, the visa charges are hiked will our charges be at the rate quoted when we applied or do they rise?  Zee

Hi Zee.

VACs are almost always locked in based on when the visa application was submitted to the Department of Immigration => lodge CP visa applications soonest!

Best regards.

[Alan Collett]

1 hour ago, daveedley said:

I wonder, though, if these figures take account of the contributions parents make after their arrival in the form of income tax and medicare contributions?

Even if they don't, the Government has the $ amounts from the Productivity Commission report to argue its case - if it wants to do so.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics, and all that ...

Best regards.

[NanaJan]

7 hours ago, Catlady2014 said:

When did you apply? I'm assuming 2014, in which case you will start to hear something soon.  Don't get despondent, it is really hard on all of us, because the original processing time in 2014 was said to be 18 months.  If we had known at the start that it would take this long, we would have accepted it and not felt so bad, it's just that expectations were raised and then slowly sloooowly beaten down.  I don't know if the quota has been reached but there really is no reason to think that is the case.   When my granddaughter's application was being processed, Immi told her at one stage that the quota for her visa class had been reached and so she wouldn't get it until July but they carried on processing, and sure enough in July the visa was issued.  In other words, they made no secret of having reached the quota but they carried on processing applications.  I have no idea of the reason for the delay, and I think all that we parent applicants can do is to make quite certain we have all the info/documents in place and ready for when it is needed, and then try to get on with life as best we can, get your house up to scratch ready for selling, and get rid of all that clutter that everybody has in their house, attic, shed.  I've sold thousands of pounds worth of clutter so far and I have a little more still to sell.  And I know how difficult it is not to keep sending test emails and checking the exchange rate every hour, but I've pulled back considerably on both activities because I was just torturing myself.  So, keep your chin up and carry on with life as best you can.  

It really has been a painfully slow process and as you say, we all supposed we would be with our families some 18-24 months after our applications were lodged.

But, we have now booked our flights.  Dammit, we are going anyway

We will have to live a very frugal existence on my small works pension and try not to spend too much of the house money whilst we are waiting for our visas to be processed. Immi are processing precisely 10 weeks prior to our application and we fly in 8 weeks time.  We are going to opt for the standard visitor visa, apply a day or 2 before our flights and keep our fingers crossed we are assessed before the first 3 months are up.  If not, a swift trip to New Zealand will be in order for a second 3 month stay and please, please we are sorted by then!!

Does anyone know if there is any period of time you need to be off-shore before you can come back into the country? @juliew1499 I think you had to do this, didn't you?

All I need to do now is send off for our police checks, end the tenancy on our rental house, book the removal/storage company, contact gas, electricity, Virgin TV, Water company, local Council, visit some friends and family around the UK and book a bit of a leaving bash............

Can't wait

[Kathss56]

2 hours ago, NanaJan said:

It really has been a painfully slow process and as you say, we all supposed we would be with our families some 18-24 months after our applications were lodged.

But, we have now booked our flights.  Dammit, we are going anyway

We will have to live a very frugal existence on my small works pension and try not to spend too much of the house money whilst we are waiting for our visas to be processed. Immi are processing precisely 10 weeks prior to our application and we fly in 8 weeks time.  We are going to opt for the standard visitor visa, apply a day or 2 before our flights and keep our fingers crossed we are assessed before the first 3 months are up.  If not, a swift trip to New Zealand will be in order for a second 3 month stay and please, please we are sorted by then!!

Does anyone know if there is any period of time you need to be off-shore before you can come back into the country? @juliew1499 I think you had to do this, didn't you?

All I need to do now is send off for our police checks, end the tenancy on our rental house, book the removal/storage company, contact gas, electricity, Virgin TV, Water company, local Council, visit some friends and family around the UK and book a bit of a leaving bash............

Can't wait

Don't apply a couple of days before. I applied online for a tourist visa 10 days before last year and nearly didn't get it in time. I had to ring them several times. They do random manual processing! For the last 10 years it has usually come through In seconds online, so be wary. 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Kathss56

[NanaJan]

19 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

Don't apply a couple of days before. I applied online for a tourist visa 10 days before last year and nearly didn't get it in time. I had to ring them several times. They do random manual processing! For the last 10 years it has usually come through In seconds online, so be wary. 

Thank you. Mine have always been instant in the past......but I will certainly take heed

[Kathss56]

@NanaJan someone quoted earlier (fisher1?) they went to NZ for 5 days but visa was though the day after, so a weekend would have done them. Troll through earlier posts  But who knows might not be next day. Hope others share their experience with you on that. Good luck! 

Edited April 19, 2017 by Kathss56

[NanaJan]

9 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

@NanaJan someone quoted earlier they went to NZ for 5 days but visa was though the day after, so a weekend would have done them. Troll through earlier posts  But who knows might not be next day. Hope others share their experience with you on that. Good luck! 

Yes, that was @juliew1499 when she had to go offshore when the 143 itself was granted.  I think we might need to go offshore after 3 months if the 143 hasn't been done by then (really hope not, but I'm not holding my breath) and again when the 143 is granted. I think Julie also had to do the same but I'm not sure about absence times for multiple entries on the tourist visa!

Hope that makes sense. It sure confused me

 

 

[juliew1499]

5 hours ago, NanaJan said:

It really has been a painfully slow process and as you say, we all supposed we would be with our families some 18-24 months after our applications were lodged.

But, we have now booked our flights.  Dammit, we are going anyway

We will have to live a very frugal existence on my small works pension and try not to spend too much of the house money whilst we are waiting for our visas to be processed. Immi are processing precisely 10 weeks prior to our application and we fly in 8 weeks time.  We are going to opt for the standard visitor visa, apply a day or 2 before our flights and keep our fingers crossed we are assessed before the first 3 months are up.  If not, a swift trip to New Zealand will be in order for a second 3 month stay and please, please we are sorted by then!!

Does anyone know if there is any period of time you need to be off-shore before you can come back into the country? @juliew1499 I think you had to do this, didn't you?

All I need to do now is send off for our police checks, end the tenancy on our rental house, book the removal/storage company, contact gas, electricity, Virgin TV, Water company, local Council, visit some friends and family around the UK and book a bit of a leaving bash............

Can't wait

 

Hi

We went off shore twice to NZ, first time was for a holiday, we had decided to buy our return ticket in NZ when we heard that our visa was granted. WHAT A MISTAKE!!!! Went to check in at Melbourne and was told you must have a return ticket if you are visiting NZ, as we didn't know when the visa would be granted we opted for a stay of 6 weeks and bought the return ticket at the airport. At the end of 6 weeks Centrelink had failed miserably and we came back to Melbourne, sorted it out over the following two weeks and went off shore again to NZ for visa grant.

I remember another POMS member just doing an overnight visit to NZ in order to get back in for another 3 months but personally we wanted a holiday. When it comes to going offshore for the visa grant IMMI will let you know how many days they want you to be away in order to grant the visa. They told us 5 working days but it was granted in 24 hrs from departure. I expect it is different for everyone.

i also agree that you should apply for the visitor visa sooner rather than later, it's valid for a year with multiple entries from date of issue, we did ours a month before we left. There is so much to do before you go and the stress of it all will build up (sorry) best to know it is sorted.

All will be well, specially over a glass or two on South Bank!

Julie

[Sooty]

9 hours ago, Kathss56 said:

@NanaJan someone quoted earlier (fisher1?) they went to NZ for 5 days but visa was though the day after, so a weekend would have done them. Troll through earlier posts  But who knows might not be next day. Hope others share their experience with you on that. Good luck! 

Y

[Sooty]

You will have to advise your case officer that you are onshore, and she/he will advise you.  We went Monday to Friday as they won't issue a visa on Sunday not sure about Saturday.  This was in 2014, I'm so sorry your CPV's are taking so long now.

[Fisher1]

11 hours ago, Kathss56 said:

@NanaJan someone quoted earlier (fisher1?) they went to NZ for 5 days but visa was though the day after, so a weekend would have done them. Troll through earlier posts  But who knows might not be next day. Hope others share their experience with you on that. Good luck! 

Hi,   Yes, I did say the Visa was in our inbox the day after we arrived in New Zealand but didn't mean to imply that booking a weekend away was a good strategy sorry if I did ... I seem to remember that Immi suggested a period of a few days but that might be me just remembering my own thoughts at the time. We booked six days because we didn't want to take any chances. 

[Geoffandgill]

On 16/04/2017 at 0:02 PM, nyorksgrannie said:

Hi again Amp, The on line application form asks for any specific time we want to be there, in our case, to help when second grandchild due, they also asked if we wanted multiple entries to which we said yes, it also asked if we knew dates of entry for each occasion to which we said No and put it depended on family circumstances and progress of 143, all of this is true, everyones circumstances will be different. You could start the online application and you will learn as you go along, it is quite tedious.

I was previously under the impression that the visa time started on entry and we put July for our arrival and yet it says valid up to March 2020 (we applied in March). I hope this will be more than long enough and we are granted 143. I did say we had applied for 143 with lodgement date on the application. I didn't want to leave the application for the 600 until the last minute in case there was a delay or change of visas.

I hope this helps,good luck with it.

Sue

 

 

Hi, does anyone know if you can apply for the 600 tourist visa for the year whilst being in Australia on the e-visitor subclass 651 for three months?

Geoff & Gill

[NanaJan]

On 03/04/2017 at 9:59 AM, kimboslice said:

update from immi  september 22nd 2014  for the 143 visa

Is anyone else really disappointed that this hasn't moved after what was a significant jump at the beginning of April?

I was hoping for an update today, but no response this morning

[gafuk]

Hi NanaJan

 A post on facebook from immi said the system was struggling with the requests.

Won't be long now !