The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[palaceboy1]

8 hours ago, SusieRoo said:

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.

I am not sure about the claim that the  queue Dates are about the same , for 103 as at November 2019 35k whereas the queue for 143 is 52k . 
Other than speculative claims on here what basis is there that 103 visa changeovers would be treated differently from 143 regarding costs .

I would also point out that the 103 processing is currently 2010 not 1990 which would be 30 years , it might well stretch out but will never reach 30 years , too many dropouts . It is more likely that the visa will be withdrawn and people be forced into the 143 queue.

 

[Alan Collett]

1 hour ago, palaceboy1 said:

I am not sure about the claim that the  queue Dates are about the same , for 103 as at November 2019 35k whereas the queue for 143 is 52k . 
Other than speculative claims on here what basis is there that 103 visa changeovers would be treated differently from 143 regarding costs .

I would also point out that the 103 processing is currently 2010 not 1990 which would be 30 years , it might well stretch out but will never reach 30 years , too many dropouts . It is more likely that the visa will be withdrawn and people be forced into the 143 queue.

 

 .... are you willing to roll the dice to find out ...?!

Best regards.

[SusieRoo]

2 hours ago, palaceboy1 said:

I am not sure about the claim that the  queue Dates are about the same , for 103 as at November 2019 35k whereas the queue for 143 is 52k . 
Other than speculative claims on here what basis is there that 103 visa changeovers would be treated differently from 143 regarding costs .

I would also point out that the 103 processing is currently 2010 not 1990 which would be 30 years , it might well stretch out but will never reach 30 years , too many dropouts . It is more likely that the visa will be withdrawn and people be forced into the 143 queue.

 

The only two things in my life which are not speculative are taxation and death. Everything else is an assumption base on many decades of life experience and gut feeling. In fact the older I get, the more I like to trust my gut. And coincidentally the older I’ve got, the more gut I’ve got to trust.

[LindaH27]

55 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

 .... are you willing to roll the dice to find out ...?!

Best regards.

 The timeline has a clue!

[apparition232]

14 hours ago, 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.

 

14 hours ago, ramot said:

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, 

 

14 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

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. 

 

14 hours 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.

 

13 hours ago, SusieRoo said:

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.

Thank you all for the replies.

It is good to see different angles to the argument.

To those who said they are are grateful Australia is even offering parent visas: I may be wrong, but it does appear USA allows relatively quick (about 1 year) and inexpensive (a couple thousand dollars) way to sponsor parents for green cards (i.e. PR). Links below:
https://kaass.com/long-will-take-bring-family-member-u-s

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/cost-i-130-family-petition-lawyer-filing-fees.html

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking the Australian government to offer anything for free. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that the cost and benefits of a visa, such as 143, should be fair and equitable.

Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer.

But to take money off Peter and give it to Paul... well..

[Marisawright]

16 minutes ago, apparition232 said:

To those who said they are are grateful Australia is even offering parent visas: I may be wrong, but it does appear USA allows relatively quick (about 1 year) and inexpensive (a couple thousand dollars) way to sponsor parents for green cards (i.e. PR).

That's interesting and surprising, as the US doesn't have the reputation of being generous with visas any more.  However why pick the US?  Have you looked at how parent visas to the UK work?   

I agree that in theory, it would make a lot of sense to change the parents' visa so it's the same as the one Ramot used to be on - no government benefits, no pension, no aged care, no medical cover, so having the parent in the country costs Australia nothing (and therefore the visa fee can be cheap).   

However in practice, I can see why the government wouldn't want to risk it.    Ramot has mentioned that she was in contact with others on that same visa, and that many had ended up going home because their costs were escalating so much as they aged.  That's what happens, unless you're very rich.  Most people who survive into old age are on multiple medications, just one hip replacement can cost $30,000 done privately, and these days death is often a long, slow and medically expensive process.  

 So, just imagine it - I'm sure you've seen the tear-jerking articles in the newspapers about some granny who's managed to stay in Australia for years without a permanent visa, and then she fails the medical (which they always knew she would) and is due to be deported.   Even though she and her family knew full well that would happen, they still make it sound like it's all a big surprise and the government is the bad guy.    We'd see that happening time and time again as the "self-sufficient" parents ran out of money.  

[ramot]

30 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

That's interesting and surprising, as the US doesn't have the reputation of being generous with visas any more.  However why pick the US?  Have you looked at how parent visas to the UK work?   

I agree that in theory, it would make a lot of sense to change the parents' visa so it's the same as the one Ramot used to be on - no government benefits, no pension, no aged care, no medical cover, so having the parent in the country costs Australia nothing (and therefore the visa fee can be cheap).   

However in practice, I can see why the government wouldn't want to risk it.    Ramot has mentioned that she was in contact with others on that same visa, and that many had ended up going home because their costs were escalating so much as they aged.  That's what happens, unless you're very rich.  Most people who survive into old age are on multiple medications, just one hip replacement can cost $30,000 done privately, and these days death is often a long, slow and medically expensive process.  

 So, just imagine it - I'm sure you've seen the tear-jerking articles in the newspapers about some granny who's managed to stay in Australia for years without a permanent visa, and then she fails the medical (which they always knew she would) and is due to be deported.   Even though she and her family knew full well that would happen, they still make it sound like it's all a big surprise and the government is the bad guy.    We'd see that happening time and time again as the "self-sufficient" parents ran out of money.  

It was the cost of health insurance that caused most people to leave. It went up 42% one year. We were paying nearly $13,000 annually not sure how much it has gone up this year, we had no choice but to pay if we wanted to stay.

[Sadge]

Whilst I can in some respects sympathise with the view that we parents should have private health care because we will, almost inevitably, be a cost to Medicare as we age, it should be borne in mind that we bring our wealth to this country (often far in excess of the $250,000 it is claimed we cost the taxpayer).  We buy cars and homes, spend our pensions here, pay our tax, invest our savings here, and when we depart this life, leave that money in OZ for our children to spend here.  Very, very few migrant parents will ever claim any sort of welfare benefits, so I think on balance we should be looked on as being an asset rather than a liability.

[Aaron88]

11 minutes ago, Sadge said:

Whilst I can in some respects sympathise with the view that we parents should have private health care because we will, almost inevitably, be a cost to Medicare as we age, it should be borne in mind that we bring our wealth to this country (often far in excess of the $250,000 it is claimed we cost the taxpayer).  We buy cars and homes, spend our pensions here, pay our tax, invest our savings here, and when we depart this life, leave that money in OZ for our children to spend here.  Very, very few migrant parents will ever claim any sort of welfare benefits, so I think on balance we should be looked on as being an asset rather than a liability.

Very well said, spot on

[Nan1]

On 18/02/2020 at 17:09, Alan Collett said:

Correct.

The advice given on the 13 number was not correct.

Best regards.

Thank you for your time. My apologies. Please ignore my questions before. I misunderstood here. I was advised that BPay is not for all types of visa applications, it is often for online applications but not for all. I will follow the instructions of the department to pay by the available options for my case.

[Tulip1]

5 hours ago, apparition232 said:

 

 

 

 

Thank you all for the replies.

It is good to see different angles to the argument.

To those who said they are are grateful Australia is even offering parent visas: I may be wrong, but it does appear USA allows relatively quick (about 1 year) and inexpensive (a couple thousand dollars) way to sponsor parents for green cards (i.e. PR). Links below:
https://kaass.com/long-will-take-bring-family-member-u-s

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/cost-i-130-family-petition-lawyer-filing-fees.html

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking the Australian government to offer anything for free. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that the cost and benefits of a visa, such as 143, should be fair and equitable.

Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer.

But to take money off Peter and give it to Paul... well..

The thing is making someone with PR permanently ineligible for benefits wouldn’t work. So if someone in their 80’s had no money and needed care would the Australian government leave them to rot, of course they wouldn’t. This old person may have had PR for many years, may even have citizenship. It’s one thing saying no help to someone on a temporary visa, quite another to refuse to help someone who has the right to live there indefinitely.  How could they force everyone to have private health care? How would they monitor it? What if someone can no longer afford it, do they lose their PR? It sounds good in principle but it wouldn’t work. By charging a high amount for the visa they are simplifying it by hoping to cover the costs or at least cover a chunk of them. At least they offer the visa. 

[Piel]

On 30/06/2018 at 21:46, Kush99 said:

@SusieRoo What kind of proof do I have to show, as he stays with me from the first day he came to Australia. So all the food, clothing is under me as well as the uni fees.

But he works part-time over TFN will this affect him?

Thanks

Hi Kush99,

After payment of 2nd vac, have you got the visa yet?

Does your brother pass the dependent child check?

Thanks newbie 

Piel

[Piel]

On 30/06/2018 at 21:46, Kush99 said:

@SusieRoo What kind of proof do I have to show, as he stays with me from the first day he came to Australia. So all the food, clothing is under me as well as the uni fees.

But he works part-time over TFN will this affect him?

Thanks

Sorry double post.

After the 2nd vac paid, have u got the visa?

[LindaH27]

@apparition232 you said 

 

Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer. 
 

There is a bond - it’s the Assurance of Support. And we are ineligible for government benefits for 10 years after grant of visa - and a lot of parents would take out private health insurance to top up the Medicare - which doesn’t pay for everything. Most Australians have private health care too!! 

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, LindaH27 said:

@apparition232 you said 

 

Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer. 
 

There is a bond - it’s the Assurance of Support. And we are ineligible for government benefits for 10 years after grant of visa - and a lot of parents would take out private health insurance to top up the Medicare - which doesn’t pay for everything. Most Australians have private health care too!! 

...but after 10 years you are eligible.  And taking out private health insurance is not compulsory and I would question whether most parents take out private health insurance.   Some do, as do some Australians, but it's slowly becoming less common to do so.

[LindaH27]

Maybe because there’s an extra levy over 31 (I think) which might also affect younger migrants??  

Yes benefits are payable after 10  years but given the age of some  applicants and the length of wait it might  actually never be needed

ambulance and dental cover aren’t covered under Medicare under  in all states either 

[ramot]

8 hours ago, apparition232 said:

 

 

 

 

Thank you all for the replies.

It is good to see different angles to the argument.

To those who said they are are grateful Australia is even offering parent visas: I may be wrong, but it does appear USA allows relatively quick (about 1 year) and inexpensive (a couple thousand dollars) way to sponsor parents for green cards (i.e. PR). Links below:
https://kaass.com/long-will-take-bring-family-member-u-s

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/cost-i-130-family-petition-lawyer-filing-fees.html

Don't get me wrong. I am not asking the Australian government to offer anything for free. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that the cost and benefits of a visa, such as 143, should be fair and equitable.

Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer.

But to take money off Peter and give it to Paul... well..

You are making an assumption that all parents would be able to afford your suggestions, we all have different incomes. Parents don’t just come from UK, they come from many countries with varying amounts of income.

I don’t know if you are retired yet? It’s perhaps easy to think that your money will last indefinitely, but the reality is that the longer you are retired, life becomes more expensive, so many retirees can begin to struggle, as your income doesn’t increase in proportion. I don’t know if you picked up on my post about the cost of health insurance, but that was one of the costs that people either couldn’t afford or resented how much it increased annually, and you hear the same from everyone, about the amount it increases annually, let alone all the other bills.

Then your next suggestion about a bond. The reality of the government holding a bond, what sort of amount are you suggesting? Will you get interest? People who were on the old 405 investor retirement visa had to lodge either $500,000 or $750,000 depending on the area, with $250,000 returned after 4 years. As time went on so did the reality of not being able to access a large amount of money that they started to need. The present  $10,000 might not be nearly enough, so you would be tying up cash that you actually start to need to survive. After 17 years in my case on the frozen state pension, the amount is well done on what I would now be eligible for. Luckily it doesn’t affect me, but it does hurt other pensioners if your income doesn’t keep up with inflation.

So to be honest I don’t think your suggestions are realistic, 

it’s irrelevant what other countries parent visa policies are, if you want to come to Australia on a parent visa you either accept their rules or don’t come. the government isn’t interested in individuals demands.

[Marisawright]

5 hours ago, Sadge said:

Whilst I can in some respects sympathise with the view that we parents should have private health care because we will, almost inevitably, be a cost to Medicare as we age, it should be borne in mind that we bring our wealth to this country (often far in excess of the $250,000 it is claimed we cost the taxpayer).  We buy cars and homes, spend our pensions here, pay our tax, invest our savings here, and when we depart this life, leave that money in OZ for our children to spend here.  Very, very few migrant parents will ever claim any sort of welfare benefits, so I think on balance we should be looked on as being an asset rather than a liability.

"Welfare benefits' includes Medicare (which you are entitled to, and which you will certainly claim, even if you have health insurance). That's the single biggest cost to the taxpayer. Like I said, one hip replacement costs $30,000.   Every time you visit the doctor, the taxpayer pays the bulk of that cost, and as we age, we visit far more often. Not to mention the cost of prescriptions which are not covered by private health insurance at all.

Many migrant parents do claim the Australian aged pension.  We've had parents on this forum asking how soon they can claim it. 

You don't bring your wealth to Australia. Your Australian children will inherit your wealth whether or not you move to Australia, after all. 

I have nothing against parents joining their children but I an fully understand how the government reaches that $250K figure, especially as I am now in that age brakcet and can see how medical costs mount up in older age. 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Marisawright

[ramot]

6 hours ago, Sadge said:

Whilst I can in some respects sympathise with the view that we parents should have private health care because we will, almost inevitably, be a cost to Medicare as we age, it should be borne in mind that we bring our wealth to this country (often far in excess of the $250,000 it is claimed we cost the taxpayer).  We buy cars and homes, spend our pensions here, pay our tax, invest our savings here, and when we depart this life, leave that money in OZ for our children to spend here.  Very, very few migrant parents will ever claim any sort of welfare benefits, so I think on balance we should be looked on as being an asset rather than a liability.

I really question your assertion that very few migrant parents will ever claim any sort of welfare payments. Not sure if you are already in Australia? As I mentioned in another post, don’t assume all parents come from UK, and their circumstances might be very different. Will be interesting the proportion of  parents that come from UK to parents from let’s say Asia, as the largest number of immigrants come from those countries now.

It perhaps depends on your definition of welfare. We are by no means in need of ‘welfare’ but why shouldn’t we take advantage of what is on offer to us. We have home assist here on the Sunshine Coast, the principle being to help keep us oldies safe from taking unnecessary chances, by for instance climbing ladders, falling and therefore needing and costing Medicare  We have our gutters cleaned, light bulbs changed, solar panels cleaned for very very minimal cost from $10, when we might need it gardening and other help. 

We have a seniors card for discounts on bills. Daft not to have one.

you definitely need ambulance cover here if you aren’t covered by your state. You are covered in Qld if you pay utilities bills. 

We still have children and grandchildren in UK, so if we have any money left it won’t all stay in Australia.

Edited February 19, 2020 by ramot

[palaceboy1]

13 hours ago, Alan Collett said:

 .... are you willing to roll the dice to find out ...?!

Best regards.

No I am not ! Just pointing out actual not gut feelings .  So how many 103 off shore applicants who get in the queue today would still be in a position to take up the visa in 30 years , on shore 804 are different but are then dicing with medical problems etc .

[VLong]

Hi everyone , does anyone know how long they asking bank guarentee and interview for the aos ??? We applied aos 13 January in centrelink :((( we will move to different house soon .Really worry they send the mail and we cant collect that . Anyway , g9 anyone !!!

[apparition232]

1 hour ago, ramot said:

You are making an assumption that all parents would be able to afford your suggestions, we all have different incomes. Parents don’t just come from UK, they come from many countries with varying amounts of income.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

The point raised by ramot hits me particularly hard. If it otherwise becomes unaffordable, who exactly are you robbing with the current model? Other visa holders who may not claim as much benefits? Or the government? Or the tax payers? Now, is that fair?

The current model appears fair to those who benefit from it.

The USA model works because it does not take from Peter to pay Paul.

[apparition232]

2 hours ago, ramot said:

It’s irrelevant what other countries parent visa policies are, if you want to come to Australia on a parent visa you either accept their rules or don’t come. the government isn’t interested in individuals demands.

And what would happen if only those benefit from it stay in the system, and others who don't "like" the system don't?

It would quickly become unsustainable, as it would then just comprise of takers, and no givers. Visa fees would start to climb, delays would become worse etc and the system would collapse.

Why do you think the USA system works?

[Lady Jane]

Hi all, 

 

do I need to take my comms  bank guarantee letter into centrelink or can I submit it online onto Mygov? I’m sure I’ve seen something on here before about this but I can’t find it. 
thank you in advance. 
 

[AlwaysVet]

3 hours ago, Lady Jane said:

Hi all, 

 

do I need to take my comms  bank guarantee letter into centrelink or can I submit it online onto Mygov? I’m sure I’ve seen something on here before about this but I can’t find it. 
thank you in advance. 
 

You can do it either way.