The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[apparition232]

15 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

The 600 visa will still be available. They have changed the “replaces 600 visa”  wording since  

Oh thank you.. appreciated .

So much has happened since I applied for 143 in Dec 2018..

[LindaH27]

1 hour ago, apparition232 said:

Thank you everyone for the replies..

Thank you for this.

Wow... I had my parent on a 3 year 600 visa... Looks like the 3 or 5 years on 600 is no longer available after the launch of the 870 visa!

Looks like I will be needing a 5 year 870 visa, after the 600 expires, before 143 comes through.. if the parent is alive then..

This is very depressing..

Thank you for your support..

You may be better reading this topic especially a post by Alan Collett on page  23 dated January 31 

The 870 can be renewed once but parent has to be outside Australia for 3 ‘months in between. It’s likely many later applicants may end up with getting two. 
600 visa still valid but will now only   allow 12 months in any 18 months stay. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by LindaH27

[Aaron88]

4 hours ago, Greece said:

VAC2 Payment request received today. VAC2 Payment done today. 143 GRANT Letter received today.  48 Months of Long Waiting is over today.

Thanks to all on this Forum for contributing very valuable information related to cpv 143 which really helped us to do it ourselves. 

 

 Congratulations. Is your application onshore? As you can see, we have a similar timeline, hopefully I’ll hear something soon, but I’m not holding my breath after 48 months 

[Greece]

3 hours ago, Aaron88 said:

 Congratulations. Is your application onshore? As you can see, we have a similar timeline, hopefully I’ll hear something soon, but I’m not holding my breath after 48 months 

Thanks. Application was offshore. We have almost similar timeline. Hopefully, you should hear from CO in a day or two. Congrats in advance!

Edited February 17, 2020 by Greece

[Nan1]

Hello everyone,

We just received the 2nd VAC payment request today. But I don't know how to pay by BPay. Can anyone show me how to?

[Aaron88]

2 hours ago, Nan1 said:

Hello everyone,

We just received the 2nd VAC payment request today. But I don't know how to pay by BPay. Can anyone show me how to?

I would assume there’s instructions in the letter?  Also can you please kindly advise the timeline?

[Rosiejaq]

2 hours ago, Nan1 said:

Hello everyone,

We just received the 2nd VAC payment request today. But I don't know how to pay by BPay. Can anyone show me how to?

I think you need a Comm Bank account..?

 

[theballies]

3 minutes ago, Rosiejaq said:

I think you need a Comm Bank account..?

 

No you can make BPay payments with most bank accounts.  CommBank is one of the banks that will allow you to make a payment up to $100k per day, other banks might have a lower limit (ie ANZ has a $50k limit per day) - if your account has a limit less than $100k then you can make multiple payments over a few days until the full amount has been paid.

[Bre]

What is the aos amount for a dependent applicant on the ca143 visa? I am the dependent applicant and am over 18yrs old,

[Nan1]

1 hour ago, Aaron88 said:

I would assume there’s instructions in the letter?  Also can you please kindly advise the timeline?

 

58 minutes ago, Rosiejaq said:

I think you need a Comm Bank account..?

 

Thank you for reply.

In the letter shows me to pay through ImmiAccount and there is no option for BPay. I'm thinking of paying by credit card. And yes I have a bank account that can help to use BPay.

[Alan Collett]

1 minute ago, Nan1 said:

 

Thank you for reply.

In the letter shows me to pay through ImmiAccount and there is no option for BPay. I'm thinking of paying by credit card. And yes I have a bank account that can help to use BPay.

You're throwing away hundreds of $'s if you do ...

Best regards.

[Nan1]

1 minute ago, Alan Collett said:

You're throwing away hundreds of $'s if you do ...

Best regards.

Thank you. But I don't have anymore information in the email received to pay by BPay. I only have the Reference number and the letter shows me how to pay by ImmiAccount. Inside ImmiAccount, there are only 3 options: Creditcard, Paypal and UnionPay.

[Alan Collett]

2 minutes ago, Nan1 said:

Thank you. But I don't have anymore information in the email received to pay by BPay. I only have the Reference number and the letter shows me how to pay by ImmiAccount. Inside ImmiAccount, there are only 3 options: Creditcard, Paypal and UnionPay.

Another reason people instruct a professional advisor ...?!

I suggest you contact the Department if you're unclear how to pay using BPay.

Best regards.

 

[Nan1]

2 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Another reason people instruct a professional advisor ...?!

I suggest you contact the Department if you're unclear how to pay using BPay.

Best regards.

 

Thanks for your patience.

I did call the 131 phone number and I was advised that the BPay only for online application and my 143 application is paper based.

Can you please tell me what people often receive in the 2nd VAC request email? Any invoice file attached?

[Alan Collett]

1 minute ago, Nan1 said:

Thanks for your patience.

I did call the 131 phone number and I was advised that the BPay only for online application and my 143 application is paper based.

Can you please tell me what people often receive in the 2nd VAC request email? Any invoice file attached?

Call them again - we often pay our client's VACs by BPay.

Best regards.

[theballies]

2 minutes ago, Nan1 said:

Thanks for your patience.

I did call the 131 phone number and I was advised that the BPay only for online application and my 143 application is paper based.

Can you please tell me what people often receive in the 2nd VAC request email? Any invoice file attached?

I didn't think there was an online application for 143 - pretty sure they are all paper based?

[Alan Collett]

Just now, theballies said:

I didn't think there was an online application for 143 - pretty sure they are all paper based?

Correct.

The advice given on the 13 number was not correct.

Best regards.

[apparition232]

22 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

You may be better reading this topic especially a post by Alan Collett on page  23 dated January 31 

The 870 can be renewed once but parent has to be outside Australia for 3 ‘months in between. It’s likely many later applicants may end up with getting two. 
600 visa still valid but will now only   allow 12 months in any 18 months stay. 

Thank you very much for directing me to this info.

With the processing times for 143 blown up to 9 years, I wonder what utility is there to pay this large sum of money?

Say a parent is 60 years when they first apply for 143. They then get 10 year 870 visas, at the end of which they are 70 years old. Around that point, the choice is whether you want to pay the visa cost for 143 or not, frankly against which you will never receive:

1. Age pension (eligible when 80 years old? How long will they live then to get pension? Average life expectancy is 80 years. You can expect to be dead before you get the age pension.)

2. Medicare. You will need private health insurance if you don't want to wait in the queue for non-emergency surgeries, say knee-replacement. Who wants to be in pain for 6 to 8 months after waiting in the 143 queue,  paying 143 visa fees, and then waiting in the queue for knee replacement for another 6 to 8 months? And then further hoping the surgeon doesn't need to attend an emergency case on the day you are scheduled for the knee surgery, in which case you get bumped further in the queue.

Am I missing something? Why is 143 visa still an attractive proposition?

The cost of 143 is not delivering the promised benefit, if it's going to take that long to process. In fact, the longer it takes, the more it looks like a non-contributory visa.

For example, if it takes 10 years to process 143, and 20 years to process non-contributory, the cost of 143 should be $25k not $50k. This is simplistic, but you get the idea. The idea is that the 143 cost should take into account the processing time. It is unfair to charge $50k to applicants who got processed in 1 year, and the same fee to those who get processed in 10 years. The longer the processing, the closer the fee should be to that of a non-contributory visa. Otherwise, it is just ransom money the government is getting off you to keep your family together, and that too after delay of 10 years, and also after you have paid 870 visa fees once or even twice, and all this is from your post-tax dollars. This is nothing short of daylight robbery... You are being robbed thrice:
- High cost compared to non-contributory, but still getting a deal that looks more and more like non-contributory
- Less time for Medicare, Age Pension benefits
- After you have already paid 870 fees

From your after tax dollars, not to mention your peace of mind...

I would rather they just said that the parents cannot get any government benefits, not charge contributory fees, and make you pay privately for health insurance etc. Would work out way better for everyone involved. They can keep a bond if you become bankrupt or otherwise unable to pay, so that the bond then pays for health insurance etc.

Would be fairer, faster, cheaper and enhance community. The only thing it will stop is you getting a raw deal.

[Taswegians2B]

I know it is frustrating; our wait time has gone from 3 years at the time of application to roughly 6 probably, but to be honest we are just grateful that Australia offers parent visas.

[ramot]

48 minutes ago, apparition232 said:

Thank you very much for directing me to this info.

With the processing times for 143 blown up to 9 years, I wonder what utility is there to pay this large sum of money?

Say a parent is 60 years when they first apply for 143. They then get 10 year 870 visas, at the end of which they are 70 years old. Around that point, the choice is whether you want to pay the visa cost for 143 or not, frankly against which you will never receive:

1. Age pension (eligible when 80 years old? How long will they live then to get pension? Average life expectancy is 80 years. You can expect to be dead before you get the age pension.)

2. Medicare. You will need private health insurance if you don't want to wait in the queue for non-emergency surgeries, say knee-replacement. Who wants to be in pain for 6 to 8 months after waiting in the 143 queue,  paying 143 visa fees, and then waiting in the queue for knee replacement for another 6 to 8 months? And then further hoping the surgeon doesn't need to attend an emergency case on the day you are scheduled for the knee surgery, in which case you get bumped further in the queue.

Am I missing something? Why is 143 visa still an attractive proposition?

The cost of 143 is not delivering the promised benefit, if it's going to take that long to process. In fact, the longer it takes, the more it looks like a non-contributory visa.

For example, if it takes 10 years to process 143, and 20 years to process non-contributory, the cost of 143 should be $25k not $50k. This is simplistic, but you get the idea. The idea is that the 143 cost should take into account the processing time. It is unfair to charge $50k to applicants who got processed in 1 year, and the same fee to those who get processed in 10 years. The longer the processing, the closer the fee should be to that of a non-contributory visa. Otherwise, it is just ransom money the government is getting off you to keep your family together, and that too after delay of 10 years, and also after you have paid 870 visa fees once or even twice, and all this is from your post-tax dollars. This is nothing short of daylight robbery... You are being robbed thrice:
- High cost compared to non-contributory, but still getting a deal that looks more and more like non-contributory
- Less time for Medicare, Age Pension benefits
- After you have already paid 870 fees

From your after tax dollars, not to mention your peace of mind...

I would rather they just said that the parents cannot get any government benefits, not charge contributory fees, and make you pay privately for health insurance etc. Would work out way better for everyone involved. They can keep a bond if you become bankrupt or otherwise unable to pay, so that the bond then pays for health insurance etc.

Would be fairer, faster, cheaper and enhance community. The only thing it will stop is you getting a raw deal.

Your idea is in some ways similar to the old totally self funded 410 retirement  visa which was replaced in 2005 by the very expensive 405 investor retirement visa also now closed to New applicants. I don’t know for sure, but the rumour was that  the 410 visa was being rorted, who knows? but I also have no idea why the investor 405 retirement visa was stopped. You had to leave a large amount of money with your state government pay plenty to renew every 4 years, and have a good income, and be self funded. Refundable if you left Australia or I assume when you died. Thought the government was on a winner with that one.

Having been through the nightmare retrospective changes to the visa our son applied for, and our daughter going on the dreadful bridging visa D, for months I don’t believe for a moment that the government cares in the slightest. 

I do understand the total frustration at the what appear lies about the waiting time for visas on the official web site, but It’s your decision to apply for a visa, the government owes you nothing, take it or leave sums it up.. Fairness does not come into it. Australia doesn’t want old people, and not many countries even have a parent visa policy.

The $43,000 fee has to be balanced against how much we might cost Australia as we are expensive as we age, and arriving in our latter years, we have never previously paid any taxes here to compensate for our prospective costs. We now have PR and I seem to have unexpectedly had a few problems already, so have had various free checks and treatment and that’s just since last May, 

Edited February 18, 2020 by ramot

[LindaH27]

Just now, Taswegians2B said:

I know it is frustrating; our wait time has gone from 3 years at the time of application to roughly 6 probably, but to be honest we are just grateful that Australia offers parent visas.

For now! New Zealand closed their parent visas about 4 years ago. 
If it is now the case that you don’t need an eligible child to sponsor your 143 as their de facto partner can do it, as some recent posts suggest, that opens up to a potentially huge rise in applications.
thus blowing out the wait times out even further in the future for applicants from now on, which people would need to be aware of in order to have realistic expectations of their potential wait time  

Australia ( like most countries now including Britain!) doesn’t want immigrant parents. We cost too much money. A Productivity Review  a few years ago said the true cost was actually 10 times the amount of the current visa cost! 

They have tried to discourage applicants, they got rid of 804 non contributory  a few years ago for 6 months before they had to reinstate it, which also cause a rush to the corresponding  contributory. They have reduced the numbers of parent visas available annually from 7175 to 6000 but this is only a “ceiling” in practice  they have granted less - around 5600. Non contributory are only allowing c 1250 p.a. and their wait time has blown out to an estimated 30 years. Peter Dutton has openly talked about only wanting younger socially active immigrants rather than parents  etc etc

To be honest I’m just glad I’m in the queue now which if there are no major changes will hopefully allow me the chance to get my visa in the next 3-4 years! But my expectations and hopes from the time I applied - when it was said wait time was 18- 24 months!! - have now sadly had to become more and more realistic as time goes on. 

[Taswegians2B]

Yes, we’ve had to be realistic about timeframes as well.  It’s disappointing for both parents and our Australian offspring but we just have to be patient, which is easier said than done!  This forum is very helpful and supportive, I’m glad I found it.

[LindaH27]

1 minute ago, Taswegians2B said:

Yes, we’ve had to be realistic about timeframes as well.  It’s disappointing for both parents and our Australian offspring but we just have to be patient, which is easier said than done!  This forum is very helpful and supportive, I’m glad I found it.

Oops I meant to reply to the earlier poster! No matter. I too am very grateful to this forum and have learnt so much along the way! 
We are fairly close in terms of our  queue dates - let’s hope we’re both get there in 3 years or so!! 

[Taswegians2B]

Agreed!  Have to keep positive

[SusieRoo]

1 hour ago, apparition232 said:

Am I missing something? Why is 143 visa still an attractive proposition?

The cost of 143 is not delivering the promised benefit, if it's going to take that long to process. In fact, the longer it takes, the more it looks like a non-contributory visa.

Very true… there is now no obvious benefit in anyone 60 years of age, applying for a 143 visa over a 103 visa. The queues are about the same length and you have the option to switch to a contributory parent visa at any time without loosing your queue date (however there are other considerations).

Contributory parent visa are no longer serving the purpose they were intended.  The only way Australia can fix this is to increase the cost. There was a report a few years ago that calculated parent immigrants cost the taxpayer approximately $250k each. I guess if this were the price of a 143 visa today, then processing times would again be realistic.

There is a general consensus here that if the cost of contributory parent visas should rise, it will not be applied retrospectively. And existing applicants will only pay the price quoted at the date they applied. But if you change from a 103 visa to a 143, you could loose this price lock-in.

Also the ‘cap’ on all classes of parent visa can change on a political whim. So queues could dramatically lengthen at any time. They can also close down a parent visa stream (as we have seen in the past) or close parent visas for new applicants (like happened in New Zeeland).

It’s always best to take advice from a good agent (like Allan). But if I were starting again I would lock-in to a 143 now and then get on with my life as normal.

When we first applied, we thought the wait would be only 18 to 24 months, if we had known it would take more than 4 years, we probably would not have applied. But now we are thankful we did and 4 years seems like a breeze compared to the 10 years of possible delay for today’s applicants. And who knows how long the queue will be in the coming years, even ten years queuing might not look that bad in the future.