The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[MikenSueNW3]

 

I sent the immi office another email and a really nice guy rang me from there this morning :cute: to tell me that if I have bought 'originals' I would not need to have them certified, and, even though the information tells you not to send the originals he said it didn't mean they would not accept them and they are returned after the process if finished.

 

So to sum up the documents you sent and I am sending are acceptable :biggrin: another hurdle jumped :jiggy:

 

Phoebe

 

One more box ticked – good on ya!

 

Mike

[MikenSueNW3]

Hi,

 

I have read a few posts with interest regarding parent migration. I wondered whether there were any options for a permanent resident in Brisbane to sponsor her ill parent from the UK. She has emphysema and related complications and not a great deals of funds. I am half of her remaining family, and I would like to become her carer. Do I have any visa options available for her?

 

Also take a look at http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/66867-health-issues-would-i-pass-medical.html, which is also moderated by Gill/Gollywobbler – some good info there.

 

Mike

[Guest]

How did you manage this, we applied in October 2009 from uk to live in Oz where our son lives, we have been told 12-14months before a case officer and then i suppose medical, and then 2 months approx for the go-ahead. Being in our 70s we are very confused with this. (Parent subclass 143 (Contributory Parent - Migrant). Have you any idea how long it is taking at the moment generally? Thanks Helen

 

We found the quickest way was to apply on shore for the CPV. Don't know how long its taking at the moment only know people are saying government are cutting intake by about half.

[Guest]

Forget to say the visa we were advised to apply for was the AgedCPV which I think you can only apply for on-shore. We also didn't bother with the temporary one but went straight for the permanent visa.

[Les Avalook]

We found the quickest way was to apply on shore for the CPV. Don't know how long its taking at the moment only know people are saying government are cutting intake by about half.

 

It would really help if you included a link to your source so we know exactly which visa the government is cutting in half. :yes:

[Guest Gollywobbler]

It would really help if you included a link to your source so we know exactly which visa the government is cutting in half. :yes:

 

Hi Les

 

The Government has halved the quotas of non-contributory Parent sc 103 and Aged Parent sc 804 visas available for 2010-2011. The source is below:

 

Parent Visa Processing Priorities - Family - Visas & Immigration

 

The quotas for all the Contributory Parent and Contributory Aged Parent visas are unchanged at 7,500 in total. Not even Senator Evans is stupid enough to kill a cash cow, my friend.....:cute:

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

On form 47PA it states

 

'Offshore visa

applicants are encouraged to forward all documentation to their

sponsor for them to send the visa application to the PVC'

 

have others done this or just sent them directly by courier?

 

Phoebe

 

Hi Phoebe

 

The important thing is that Form 47PA, Form 40 and the documents on the checklist for the visa must all be in one and the same bundle.

 

Whether you assemble the bundle in the UK and despatch it from here or whether your daughter checks everything and sends it off is between you and your daughter. It makes no difference to the PVC how you do it as long as they receive one bundle only, containing all of the documents.

 

With Mum, I assembled the bundle in the UK and got my sister in Oz (the Sponsor) to send all of her stuff to me from Oz. I figured that if I took the responsibility then there wouldn't be any disagreements about whose fault it was if I managed to get anything wrong.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest hewett3]

Forget to say the visa we were advised to apply for was the AgedCPV which I think you can only apply for on-shore. We also didn't bother with the temporary one but went straight for the permanent visa.

 

Hi (Maisies & Gollywobbler & anyone else that can help!) Is your visa the 864? An earlier resonse said that you can apply for on shore when here on a e676 visa but it needs to NOT say 'no further stay' Can you tell us what visa class you were in Australia on when you submitted your 864? And I assume if that was a 3 month visa you just went back to UK at the end of your holiday? Waited for the response and then came back?

 

My mother is 70 and single and over here end of Nov for 3 months so I am thinking it will be easier to do paperwork with her while she is here.

 

I haven't got her her 676 visa for Nov visit yet so I am wondering if there is anything I can do when applying for that 3 month visa to aid the application of the on shore 864.

 

Can you help me?

thanks Caroline

[PhoebeW]

Hi Phoebe

 

The important thing is that Form 47PA, Form 40 and the documents on the checklist for the visa must all be in one and the same bundle.

 

Whether you assemble the bundle in the UK and despatch it from here or whether your daughter checks everything and sends it off is between you and your daughter. It makes no difference to the PVC how you do it as long as they receive one bundle only, containing all of the documents.

 

With Mum, I assembled the bundle in the UK and got my sister in Oz (the Sponsor) to send all of her stuff to me from Oz. I figured that if I took the responsibility then there wouldn't be any disagreements about whose fault it was if I managed to get anything wrong.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

Thanks for that Gill. My daughter is sending form 40 plus any documents needed from her to me so I will send them from here. I want her to have as little as possible to do, I think they had enough 'form filling' for their own visa 3 years ago then their PR last year....:arghh:

 

Can anyone suggest a reliable courier from the UK:wink:

 

Phoebe

[MikenSueNW3]

Can anyone suggest a reliable courier from the UK:wink:

 

Phoebe

 

Phoebe: We used Parcel2ship to send via FedEx – a good bit cheaper than FedEx themselves direct, at £27.45. See Parcel2ship | Book FedEx document envelope delivery to Australia for only £27.45 all inclusive.

 

However, other subscribers told me there are cheaper alternatives, so watch this space!!

 

Mike

[PhoebeW]

Phoebe: We used Parcel2ship to send via FedEx – a good bit cheaper than FedEx themselves direct, at £27.45. See Parcel2ship | Book FedEx document envelope delivery to Australia for only £27.45 all inclusive.

 

However, other subscribers told me there are cheaper alternatives, so watch this space!!

 

Mike

 

Thanks mike still got couple of weeks to wait for certificates so see what comes through but will kepp your link:wink:

 

Phoebe

[Les Avalook]

Thanks for that Gill. My daughter is sending form 40 plus any documents needed from her to me so I will send them from here. I want her to have as little as possible to do, I think they had enough 'form filling' for their own visa 3 years ago then their PR last year....:arghh:

 

Can anyone suggest a reliable courier from the UK:wink:

 

Phoebe

 

Try Courier Quote - Shipment Details

 

Under £20 for up to 1kg, under £25 for up to 2kg, we used them and the quote is for tracked DHL all the way from your house.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi (Maisies & Gollywobbler & anyone else that can help!) Is your visa the 864? An earlier resonse said that you can apply for on shore when here on a e676 visa but it needs to NOT say 'no further stay' Can you tell us what visa class you were in Australia on when you submitted your 864? And I assume if that was a 3 month visa you just went back to UK at the end of your holiday? Waited for the response and then came back?

 

My mother is 70 and single and over here end of Nov for 3 months so I am thinking it will be easier to do paperwork with her while she is here.

 

I haven't got her her 676 visa for Nov visit yet so I am wondering if there is anything I can do when applying for that 3 month visa to aid the application of the on shore 864.

 

Can you help me?

thanks Caroline

 

Hi Caroline

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

A visitor to Oz who only plans to stay for 90 days can choose between different visas:

 

Visa Options - Tourists - Visitors - Visas & Immigration

 

I'd be inclined to choose one of the cheaper options, myself.

 

Mum cannot travel to Oz on a tourist or visitor visa if her real intention is to apply for Permanent Residence in Oz once she has reached you. Australia only allows visitors to "visit" the country if the purpose of the visa is to enable the person to go sight-seeing, visit friends or relations and suchlike. Permanent migration is not "tourism," no matter how one might try to cut it, my friend!

 

It has happened that parents have gone out to Oz intending to visit their children. Once out in Oz, the parent has decided that the parent would like to stay in Oz permanently if the truth is known. In that situation, the family have consulted a migration agent in Oz or they have consulted their nearest DIAC office (usually in person) in order to explain that the parent has changed his/her mind and to ask whether it is possible to do anything?

 

If the migration agent and/or the officials in the DIAC office believe that the family are genuinely wondering whether anything is possible and that this curiosity did not arise until after the parent reached Oz, plus the facts reveal that the parent would meet all the criteria for the grant of an Aged Parent or Contributory Aged Parent visa, the migration agent or the DIAC officials are required to explain these possibilities to the family.

 

Please see the thread below. The family involved in the thread are dear friends of mine.

 

Cheap Parent Visas Part I - Poms In Adelaide

 

If a non-contributory Aged Parent is sought, a Bridging Visa A comes into effect automatically when the visitor or tourist visa expires. If the Parent then wants to leave Oz for a while but to be sure of being able to return to Australia, a Bridging Visa B is required because there are no "travel rights" with a BVA.

 

One has to apply for a BVB at the nearest DIAC office.

 

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1006.pdfhttp://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1006.pdf

 

The information about Bridging Visas is pretty draconian when you read it:

 

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1024i.pdf

 

DIAC in Melbourne are being as draconian as Form 1024i says with regard to ex-International Students who are, in effect, being held prisoner in Australia by reason of the Minister's continual changes where the processing of applications for skilled visas is concerned. Some of the DIAC officials are being right little Jobsworths by all accounts. :policeman:

 

Holding somebody prisoner in the place is an idea that Australia abandoned in 1841 so I would clobber a Jobsworth of a junior official who tried to be officious with me, but English is my first language, I am British and I am not prepared to put up with nonsense in any country that used to be a British colony. It is very different for some of the people who are now stuck in Oz when their only "crime" has been that they chose to study in the place.

 

Australia is not supposed to abuse Bridging Visas. Curtailing somebody's ability to come and go at will is a breach of that person's Human Rights if the person has not been convicted of a crime that carries a custodial sentence as the potential penalty.

 

Nevertheless it does appear that some of DIAC's most junior officials are possessed of a traffic warden mentality (as was the grotty little Customs woman who I met at Perth Airport one year, who put me right off Australia for good, frankly. She threatened to "prosecute" me for standing in the Red Channel to explain that I was carrying a Stilton cheese in my luggage and I had not realised that I might not be allowed to take it into Oz until I was given the disembarkation card on the plane, about an hour before we landed at Perth. I told the little cow to go right ahead and to try to prosecute me if she dared because I would insist that she took the witness stand in person and explained her own incompetence to the court. Standing in the Red Channel in that situation is "attempted smuggling" according to the female clown from Customs - who looked to be about 21 if she was a day. I had bought the cheese at Harrods in London - which I thought might amuse the trial Judge! She thought better of the idea of trying to prosecute me once she got the message that her own promotion prospects would be on the line if she tried such a stupid idea but she was so goddamned rude - unnecessarily so - that I thought, "Never again with this grotty dump of a country." I don't think some junior officials realise just how easy it is to put a visitor right off the place for ever. )

 

I gather that the lady official at DIAC in Adelaide was very nice indeed when the British father described in my thread above went and asked her about BVBs. Whether they are all as pleasant as the lady he met is anyone's guess, though.

 

Please sing out if you have any queries.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi,

 

I have read a few posts with interest regarding parent migration. I wondered whether there were any options for a permanent resident in Brisbane to sponsor her ill parent from the UK. She has emphysema and related complications and not a great deals of funds. I am half of her remaining family, and I would like to become her carer. Do I have any visa options available for her?

 

Hi sas75

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

Since you live in Brisbane, I think you should arrange to go and see Christopher McGrath and/or his wife, Susan Wareham McGrath:

 

McGrath Migration Lawyers

 

I think that the issues are as follows:

 

1. You say that your mother is "ill" but you might be exaggerating that in your own mind (entirely understandably if so, obviously.) It might be that the situation is not as bad as you imagine.

 

2. At the moment, all of the real. relevant information about Health/Migration is being hidden on LEGENDcom. The information consists of the Health PAM and the 19 new Notes for Guidance for the MOC (Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.) You can access this information yourself, for free, by visiting the State Library in QLD or one of the University libraries in Brisbane:

 

LEGENDcom

 

LEGENDcom

 

Or you can purchase an annual subscription for Legend if you wish - this option would enable you to access the relevant information at home.

 

However my feeling is that you should consult an experienced legal practitioner as well/instead, which Christopher McGrath is but you can always talk with Susan if you feel that it would be easier to discuss the situation with a woman. Mr & Mrs McGrath share a bed so it is unrealistic to imagine that they do not share their clients' problems with each other as well! The real issue with client confidentiality is knowing that the hearer will not blab about a matter to an uninvolved third party who might then blab to somebody else etc. Neither Chris or Susan would dream of risking anything of the sort, obviously, and I would suggest them in particular because two heads are sometimes better than one - especially if you make it 3 heads instead of simply relying on theirs. There is nothing wrong with your own head, hun.

 

3. You really need to decide whether or not Mum would be likely to meet the Migration/Health criteria for Permanent Residence in Oz. The relevant Aussie legislation speaks of "a disease or condition" so it is impossible to break this down into its component parts. I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. However to my mind, "a disease" is something like cancer. "A condition" is something like high blood pressure. "A disability" is something like Down Syndrome, for example. The legislation does not break this down and the methodology for dealing with all 3 is the same.

 

As far as the Aussie Government is concerned, the question is cost. Would granting PR to Mum be likely to cost the public purse $21,000 AUD or more during her first 3-5 years in Oz? "Cost" is determined by reference to a theoretical formula and the formula itself is something that DIAC has never chosen to reveal.

 

We do know that the actual likely cost is irrelevant. The Royal College of Australasian Physicians have pointed out to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration that most of Australia's "caring" actually happens at home, because family members provide the care and that costs the public purse nothing. The average Aussie Citizen (eg my sister, who takes care of my own, disabled, mother) can confirm that 99% of the time, the much vaunted public purse won't stir its stumps sufficiently to provide any meaningful help anyway, so the RACP are absolutely right in their contention.

 

Joint Standing Committee on Migration: Index

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/report.htm

 

The RACP's submission to the JSCM can be found here:

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/subs.htm

 

Dr Paul Douglas is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. He attended the two Public Hearings in Canberra, on 24th Feb 2010 and 17th March 2010 respectively and the "official transcripts" of those two Hearings are Hansards.

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/hearings.htm

 

Dr Douglas is mistaken in his belief that the threshold figure of $21,000 was not decided upon until 8 years ago. The figure was actually decided in about 1998/1999 according to Dr Douglas' own bosses at DIAC, being Mr Matt Kennedy (in charge of the Health Section of DIAC) and his own boss, Peter Vardos (DIAC's overall boss of Policy.) I have published the relevant extract - again taken from Hansard - of their own evidence to the Senate in May 2009. My submission is #19 in the submissions I have provided the link for above, and I have published the link to the relevant Hansard in the same place.

 

Way back in May 2009, Messrs Vardos and Kennedy assured the Senate that they believe that the $21,000 AUD should be increased to at least $100,000 AUD. The JSCM, in June 2010, recommended that they should get on with it and implement this long overdue uplift instead of merely yapping about it. The JSCM said this firmly in their recent Report, entitled "Enabling Australia."

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/report.htm

 

DIAC can implement the uplift that they themselves have recommended. They can implement it tomorrow if they do choose. They do not need to change the legislation in order to alter their own Policies and the administrative formulae and figures that accompany those Policies.

 

 

 

The JSCM have also recommended that:-

 

• The health PAM;

• The new Guidance Notes; and

• The Health formula

should all be published on the DIAC website instead of hiding the relevant information on LEGENDcom. DIAC could implement that recommendation tomorrow as well if they so choose. Again, it is not necessary to change the law in order to change the secretive way in which DIAC has chosen to operate about this one.

 

I understand that the real reason behind this piece of unnecessary and unseemly secrecey is Dr Douglas' predecessor, who was replaced by Dr Douglas in about 2005. Somewhere I read that Dr Predecessor believed that a mere mortal should not be told anything about his/her own health or that of hhis/her loved one. That is a really old-fashioned approach to Medicine and it is not one that Dr Douglas himself shares.

 

I had a go at Dr Douglas about the whole thing not long ago. He was most informative. He sees no reason, himself, why all of the Health information should not be in the public domain. However he does not control where the bureaucrats in Canberra choose to keep their information. I think Dr Douglas himself is quite confused by LEGENDcom because he has been given to understand by his paymasters (Messrs Vardos and Kennedy) that LEGENDcom is "publicly available." Which is complete hogwash - that contention depends on the width of the hair that one might try to split, frankly. The Law Institute of Victoria (bless them) blasted this foxy little contention out of the water and the JSCM (bless them, too) heard the LIV loud and clear about this aspect of the issue.

 

So - will DIAC open this thing up properly and will they make the administrative changes necessary without waiting for Parliament to force the changes upon them via changing the relevant Law? DIAC cannot implement some of the JSCM's recommendations unless the Law is changed first, but there are a hell of a lot of other recommendations where DIAC could change their own internal, historical practices immediately and such change would definitely be an improvement.

 

However, George Lombard is a very astute, experienced Registered Migration Agent in Sydney. He says that - although the JSCM has assured everyone that when the JSCM recommends change, change happens - DIAC can be as tricky as the devil according to George:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/67292-have-your-say-health-requirement-5.html

 

I think that Susan Wareham McGrath probably shares my own irritation about this Health/migration issue. Christopher McGrath is a bloke! Like George, he might be more patient than I am.

 

From everything that I've read about Senator Chris Evans - the current Minister for Immigration - he probably wouldn't share DIAC's desires about the Health/migration question. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) told the Minister that the Health issue needed consideration and possibly amendment in the context of migration to Oz in the light of JSCOT's own review of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Minister was also getting it in the neck from his adoring (and voting) Public at the time, because of the public furore about the case of Dr Moeller and his son.

 

Peter Vardos bleated that the public furore about Dr Moeller really wasn't the Minister's fault, Guv. Honestly and truly, it was the fault of the Law, not the Minister. In so far as anybody bothered to listen to Vardos, everybody told him to shut up and continued to attack the Minister. If the Law is an ass and the Law is a bachelor then you change the bleedin' Law instead of trying to defend principles of law which have become hopelessly outmoded since Australia first decided not to allow "imbeciles" to enter Australia (which idea was invented in about 1901.)

 

Dr Moeller did more than anyone else has ever done to drag this debate into the open and to force it to be properly and publicly aired. He is a doctor of medicine, the same as Dr Douglas. I suspect that the two of them would not disagree with each other about this and I suspect that the Minister would listen to the doctors before he would listen to internal, bureaucratic and essentially unqualified internal opinions offered by his henchmen in DIAC about this issue.

 

This particular Minister is no stranger to kicking DIAC's ass and insisting that DIAC must obey his orders instead of trying to argue with him. Therefore if Evans is returned at the forthcoming Election and Julia Gillard then decides to keep him as her Minister for Immi, my feeling is that Evans would be a good friend to anyone who is worried about getting a loved one into Oz if the loved one has either never been or no longer is a "perfect specimen" of mankind. (That said, keeping a hopelessly defective Minister for Immi just because he seems to be a reasonable bloke as far as health and migration are concerned is another matter, I reckon.)

 

4. In the event that you and the Chris/Susan team should between you conclude that it would not be possible to get your Mum past the hurdle of the meds for PR in Australia (or at least, not possible unless the fundamental and radical reforms recommended by the JSCM have been implemented) I wonder whether a Medical Treatment visa might be possible instead?

 

Visa Options - Medical Treatment - Visitors - Visas & Immigration

 

I know almost nothing about these.

 

(Some aspects of the idea are decidedly gruesome. Apparently if somebody needs, say, a kidney transplant and a living donor is available, both the patient and the donor can travel to Oz in order for the surgery to be done in Australia.... Yep, well. We all understand the principle of Bring Your Own Bottle to a party. Snoopy (that incredibly astute, wise philosopher) once opined that dogs - or at any rate beagles - could have a similar party, in which BYOB should mean "Bring Your Own Bone." Bring Your Own [organ] Donor seems like a gruesome variation on this notion to me but I would trust the Aussie doctors and hospitals to ensure that everything is spotlessly clean and disinfected and to deal with any complications that might arise.)

 

I am told that the Reciprocal Health Care Agreement between the UK and Oz does come into effect with Medical Treatment visas, if relevant:

 

Visitors to Australia - Medicare Australia

 

Other countries have such Agreements as well but I only know about the UK/Oz one.

 

Beyond this, I don't know whether a Medical Treatment visa would be the right idea and whether - if it would be the right idea - it would be possible to do it where your mother is concerned. I think that Christopher McGrath would be a good person to ask about that because if he does not know the minutiae of the visa already, I suspect that he could soon discover the details.

 

Chris might say that my own idea is too complicated to be worth bothering with.

 

One thing you have not mentioned is how a person with emphysema would travel to Oz in the first place? I understand that the time in the air is about 20 hours between London and Brisbane. A chum of mine who teaches flying says that it is necessary to pressurise a cabin once the plane reaches an altitude of about 8,000 ft. He says that the airlines start to pressurise the cabins sooner than that after take-off and the planes cruise at around 33,000 to 36,000 ft. The level of oxygen inside the cabin is significantly reduced at that height because the plane sucks in cold air from outside the hull. The air itself is freezing cold at that height, and it also doesn't have as much oxygen in it as one would find on the ground. Heating cold air artificially is very expensive, which burns fuel like a good 'un because anything that produces heat burns fuel dramatically according to Jim, my late Hubby who was an engineer so he knew about warm air heaters etc. I'm the female mutt who pushes the switch. If the desired effect is not achieved, I scream for an engineer to come and fix the machine. I don't think about stuff like fuel consumption except in a car - and only then because I don't want to end up pushing the car!

 

Apparently it is very expensive to heat the air that reaches the inside of a cabin in a plane. (The air is still far too cold and needs at least 3 times as much heating according to me.) Seemingly they don't bring clean air into the cabin very frequently either. If the flight is full, the passengers end up inhaling more carbon dioxide than oxygen, I suspect.

 

As I understand it, emphysema is some sort of lung condition that leaves a person short of breath. Is the inside of a plane the right place for such a person to be for long periods, I ask? I think you would need to ask a doctor about this.

 

I can tell you that the MOC worries about elderly passengers spending long periods in the "low oxygen environment of an aeroplane cabin." My own Mum will be 90 in a couple of months. She has been flying long-haul ever since 1947, when she was 26. She now has PR in Oz so she no longer does as much long-haul flying as she used to and in Mum's case, her disability is purely physical. She has osteoporosis and so she broke her back a few years ago. The fracture caused spinal chord damage which is permanent in her case because no neuro-surgeon will risk a long, difficult operation to remove the offending piece of bone in a patient who is as old as Mum. Apparently she would not survive the anaesthetic and loss of blood involved in an operation that would take a minimum of 8 hours, so Mum is largely confined to a wheelchair nowadays.

 

However being stuck in a wheelchair is really the only thing wrong with my mother, as well. She has LOADS of aches, pains and ailments nowadays, I assure you. LOADS. She positively rattles with pills for her various ailments but the ailments themselves are the routine, minor things that she has developed as her age has increased. The MOC does not worry about these minor ailments that many, many old dears develop. The ailments won't kill Mum and the drugs alleviate the symptoms - one can't "cure" a chronic condition but one can make the patient more comfortable.

 

The MOC ignored all of Mum's conditions in the end. He was much more concerned to get a Consultant Geriatrician to have a look at Mum instead. Mum was in Oz at the time but her main visa meds had been done in the UK a few weeks earlier. The MOC decided to leave it to a GP in Perth, WA, to find and refer Mum to a suitable Geriatrician.

 

We had the usual hocus pocus with the "sealed envelope" routine from DIAC. I was in the UK at the time. My sister phoned me from Oz, asking, "Do you think it will be OK if I steam this envelope - addressed to "the doctor" - open to find out what the letter inside it requires? DIAC have said that Mum should take the sealed envelope to a GP of Mum's choice."

 

I told Elaine, "I wouldn't bother with the kettle. I'd use a knife to open the envelope immediately and find out what is going on. The GP is Dr Oi and he won't make a fuss about the idea that his patient has a right to know why the MOC wants her to see him."

 

In your shoes, Sas, I would do what I then did. Hit the Internet and find out about Geriatricians and Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACATs) in Oz:

 

Department of Health and Ageing - What's New?

 

The long & short of it is that an elderly person who needs residential care in a Care Home in Oz has zero chance of admission to such a Care Home (if the Aussie Govt is expected to pay for the Care Home) in the event that it turns out that Family Help is available for the person instead. Elaine (my sister) went through this with her late M-i-L, Fay. Fay definitely needed residential care but Elaine was the one who phoned Social Services and told them so. "Family help" was obviously "definitely available" - according to Social Services, who didn't even bother to send anyone round to see Fay.

 

The situation was definitely dangerous. Fay had all-but set herself and her home on fire. Elaine had a key for the house and let herself into Fay's house one chilly afternoon. Fay's legs were bandaged because she had leg-ulcers. Fay was cold, so she dragged her armchair too close to an electric fire. Warmed up, Fay then fell asleep in the chair. Elaine arrived by pure chance - to find Fay fast asleep whilst her bandages were smouldering and about to catch fire. Elaine unplugged the electric fire, doused Fay's bandages with a bucket of water to prevent any flames, got a screwdriver and removed all the castors from all the furniture and generally improved Fay's safety, albeit not her comfort as well.

 

Elaine then spent an hour on the phone to Social Services, telling them that the situation was dangerous and that they ought to do something. They eventually said that they would send somebody round but Fay died three months later and nobody from Social Services had bothered to turn up.

 

I think that the RACP are right. Their members are doctors who deal with the public. The lay-public and their doctors are only too keenly aware that Government bureaucrats are full of Wizard Wheezes. These Wheezes look great when one is a Suit in a meeting room. Apparently "Independence for the Elderly" is a fantastic idea. (All the more desirable because the idea will save the Government a shed-load of money.)

 

And the dangerous situation if this Wizard Wheeze goes too far? A dangerous situation won't arise according to the Suits at DoHA because Social Services (paid for out of some other Government Budget) will undoubtldly jump in to prevent any danger to an elderly person in Oz.

 

Yeah, right. The public know that this does not happen. So do their GPs in Oz. I suspect that Dr Douglas is enough of a realist to know that these Government Initiatives actually and invariably translate into being, "Nothing that might actually be useful to anyone but the theorising will undoubtedly cost the tax-payer a fortune."

 

Paying an army of Suits to sit around theorising will eat up 99% of the relevant budget, so gawd 'elp the member of the public who might actually need some practical help because that bit will NOT be happening, despite the claims on the paper.

 

I think that Dr Douglas and the Minister both know this. However the former has his pay-cheque to consider and the latter has his own - very highly paid - job in the Government to consider. It is much easier to work everything out according to a theoretical (and hidden) formula that assumes that the costs envisaged by the Government-paid Suits might actually happen to somebody, sometime.

 

Unless your Mum really is "ill," as you say, as opposed to just, "not quite up to the weather," I'd be inclined to wonder whether a holiday in the warmth of QLD might improve matters, as I have mentioned in my reply to Caroline (above) today?

 

Because you say that your mother is "ill," I think it might be well worth a chat with the McGrath Team as well.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[PhoebeW]

One more box ticked – good on ya!

 

Mike

 

 

A further email to the immi office has confirmed question 34 (money you intend to bring into Australia) on form 47PA

 

'This question refers to the overall value of assets and cash that you will have access to. Not the amount you physically take through immigration clearance at the airport.'

 

So that has cleared the last thing up for me officially, form is now completed just waiting for certificates and paperwork arriving from Oz :jiggy:

 

Thought I would post this in case anyone else is confused by it :wink:

 

Phoebe

[vava]

Gollywobbler! You crack me up - I now have a vision of you arguing at customs like all those people on "Nothing to Declare" on Living tv and Virgin tv. Love that programme but I agree, some of them are real jobsworths and unfortunately for some visitors to Oz, a lot seems to be lost in translation and they are sent back to wherever they came from. My daughter`s mother in law had an unfortunate incident with some Bisto gravy granules at customs which has scarred us all for ever!

[Guest Gollywobbler]

A further email to the immi office has confirmed question 34 (money you intend to bring into Australia) on form 47PA

 

'This question refers to the overall value of assets and cash that you will have access to. Not the amount you physically take through immigration clearance at the airport.'

 

So that has cleared the last thing up for me officially, form is now completed just waiting for certificates and paperwork arriving from Oz :jiggy:

 

Thought I would post this in case anyone else is confused by it :wink:

 

Phoebe

 

Hi Phoebe

 

They told me the same thing as they told you.

 

Legally, the question is unnecessary anyway. Applicants for the Parent range of visas are not means-tested. They are not means-tested because the Aussie Government decided to rely on the twin-ideas that the Parents are sponsored and that they will be Assured as well. Therefore impertinent questions from a bunch of beaucrats, plus policy-ridden "information" from them about what these bureaucrats want to know and why can be ignored in my not-so-humble opinion.

 

Secondly, my mother is a sort of "super-snail." Whereabouts she might choose to live in the world has zero bearing on the fact that she owns a house in the UK. That house has a value (lots of) and Mum is the sole owner of it.

 

The value of any assets that Mum might choose to take to Oz with her during her lifetime are irrelevant to any amount that Mum herself is actually worth, because her right to do what she likes with her assets is irrelevant until after her death. So she is the "walking deeds" of her house, is you like.

 

The value of a house and other assets (eg jewellery and shares) in the UK is none of the Aussie Government's business. That is that. They know this as well as I do and sod their "policies" because their policies are not Law. :policeman:

 

Therefore although the Parent people told me exactly the same as they told you, I decided to ignore them. The right to sell is what counts. The right to sell travels with the owner of the assets. The rest is nobody else's business.

 

It is impossible to separate "Mrs X" (my mother) from the value of her assets worldwide because she alone controls the assets for as long as she is alive.

 

I decided to ignore the bureaucratic, nosy, interfering question. It is NOT founded in Law. Put in a fgure that is too low to shut the bureacrats up and you will invite Interfering Questions from them, along the lines of, "How will this Parent be able to afford to survive in Australia?" That is none of their business. The visa applicant is Sponsored and she is Assured.

 

Put in too much and they will expect the imminent arrival of a millionaire, who can perhaps be fleeced out of tax? Mum is not a miliionaire but that is beside the point. How much she might actually be worth - or her Estate might be worth is more accurate, because Mum's "financial value" will not crystallise until after she dies - is nobody else's business except hers.

 

I decided that I did not need lectures from a junior Aussie bureaucrat doing overtime so I put down enough to shut them up. What my mother is actually worth is her business, not theirs, so I decided that it was not the day for the Hair Shirt.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[yomvard]

Dont stop there, gravy granules!!!......

I too have had a couple of up and downers with the male chauvanists at Melbourne Airport!! I am not the little women who has to shut up and do as I am told!!!!:arghh:

[PhoebeW]

Hi Phoebe

 

They told me the same thing as they told you.

 

Legally, the question is unnecessary anyway. Applicants for the Parent range of visas are not means-tested. They are not means-tested because the Aussie Government decided to rely on the twin-ideas that the Parents are sponsored and that they will be Assured as well. Therefore impertinent questions from a bunch of beaucrats, plus policy-ridden "information" from them about what these bureaucrats want to know and why can be ignored in my not-so-humble opinion.

 

Secondly, my mother is a sort of "super-snail." Whereabouts she might choose to live in the world has zero bearing on the fact that she owns a house in the UK. That house has a value (lots of) and Mum is the sole owner of it.

 

The value of any assets that Mum might choose to take to Oz with her during her lifetime are irrelevant to any amount that Mum herself is actually worth, because her right to do what she likes with her assets is irrelevant until after her death. So she is the "walking deeds" of her house, is you like.

 

The value of a house and other assets (eg jewellery and shares) in the UK is none of the Aussie Government's business. That is that. They know this as well as I do and sod their "policies" because their policies are not Law. :policeman:

 

Therefore although the Parent people told me exactly the same as they told you, I decided to ignore them. The right to sell is what counts. The right to sell travels with the owner of the assets. The rest is nobody else's business.

 

It is impossible to separate "Mrs X" (my mother) from the value of her assets worldwide because she alone controls the assets for as long as she is alive.

 

I decided to ignore the bureaucratic, nosy, interfering question. It is NOT founded in Law. Put in a fgure that is too low to shut the bureacrats up and you will invite Interfering Questions from them, along the lines of, "How will this Parent be able to afford to survive in Australia?" That is none of their business. The visa applicant is Sponsored and she is Assured.

 

Put in too much and they will expect the imminent arrival of a millionaire, who can perhaps be fleeced out of tax? Mum is not a miliionaire but that is beside the point. How much she might actually be worth - or her Estate might be worth is more accurate, because Mum's "financial value" will not crystallise until after she dies - is nobody else's business except hers.

 

I decided that I did not need lectures from a junior Aussie bureaucrat doing overtime so I put down enough to shut them up. What my mother is actually worth is her business, not theirs, so I decided that it was not the day for the Hair Shirt.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

Hi Gill

 

I couldnt agree more.:biggrin: I intend to put in a figure (like you did) to satisfy them.

 

The reason I asked the question was my daughter (in Oz) thought is meant what you would actually take 'on your person' through customs, this is another bureaucratic thing, it seems you are only 'allowed' $10,000 as far as she knows, more than that apparantly 'interfere's' with the Australian economy :swoon: so I wanted to check I was putting the 'correct' figure in :biggrin:

 

Phoebe

[PhoebeW]

Dont stop there, gravy granules!!!......

I too have had a couple of up and downers with the male chauvanists at Melbourne Airport!! I am not the little women who has to shut up and do as I am told!!!!:arghh:

 

I got through the 'gravy granules thing by sending a 1kg pack to my daughter as a Xmas presant, it got through ok. My s-i-l loves Pork Scratchings (we make them) so I took him 6 packets first time we went. I put them in the lid of my case and declared them, they were confiscated as they were 'animal orientated' even though they were cooked. My s-i-l was gutted. :cry:

 

It was his 40th birthday earlier this year so I sent him a full box of 18 packets, declared cooked snacks on the customs label and they got through. He said the box had been opened (obviously for inspection) as they have to put a sticker on to say it had been opened by them then they sent it on, so who's right :arghh:

 

Phoebe

[Les Avalook]

Hi Gill

 

I couldnt agree more.:biggrin: I intend to put in a figure (like you did) to satisfy them.

 

The reason I asked the question was my daughter (in Oz) thought is meant what you would actually take 'on your person' through customs, this is another bureaucratic thing, it seems you are only 'allowed' $10,000 as far as she knows, more than that apparantly 'interfere's' with the Australian economy :swoon: so I wanted to check I was putting the 'correct' figure in :biggrin:

 

Phoebe

 

You have declare if you take more than $10,000 through customs, once you do that no problem.

 

Well it was for us, then everything we read about customs has at least 2 versions.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Gollywobbler! You crack me up - I now have a vision of you arguing at customs like all those people on "Nothing to Declare" on Living tv and Virgin tv. Love that programme but I agree, some of them are real jobsworths and unfortunately for some visitors to Oz, a lot seems to be lost in translation and they are sent back to wherever they came from. My daughter`s mother in law had an unfortunate incident with some Bisto gravy granules at customs which has scarred us all for ever!

 

Hi Vava

 

Good God! Bisto Gravy Granules surely upset Australia's eco-system good & proper?

 

A Stilton cheese from Harrods is another matter entirely, I assure you. The incident happened in 1985, before the idea of the Internet For All Comers. It was coming up for Christmas and at the time, I lived and worked in London. I worked in the City of London but I lived in Chelsea, so Harrods was just down the road.

 

I had promised Elaine (my sister) that I would head for Oz on something like 18th Dec 1985. I had booked my flight to prove it to her. The flight was at about 10pm from LHR, so I would be able to do a full week of work before heading for Oz.

 

I don't particularly like Stilton cheese, myself. If a truckle of the stuff has been matured for long enough then it does go from being "very brash" to the palate to being reasonable according to my own palate, but I don't go out of my own way to buy it. "One hard, one soft and one goat," has always worked according to dinner parties given by me. (Feed them with enough booze beforehand and they won't notice the ceiling, let alone the cheese, according to me!)

 

I've lived in France. Good old Mousetrap cannot be purchased in France. France produces 1,000 different cheeses (no kidding, they do.) However Mousetrap and Stilton are not two of the options in France.

 

I speak French - ish. I do not speak it to to the extent of defining "Mousetrap" to a French person. Franglais might be, "Mousequetaire," though I think that word means "Musketeer," actually.

 

God knows what word or phrase one would use to describe Mousetrap in France, even in Franglais, never mind French. "Fromage pour entrapper un maus?" Sounds a bit thin to me, I don't think it really produces a mental picture of the Cheddar Gorge and I hope that George Lombard mght wade in, since he speaks fluent French, which I don't!

 

But you get my drift! They ain't got Mousetrap, ergo you can forget about buying it in France, ergo how one might describe it is irrelevant.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[PhoebeW]

You have declare if you take more than $10,000 through customs, once you do that no problem.

 

Well it was for us, then everything we read about customs has at least 2 versions.

 

That's maybe where my daughter was getting mixed up re the $10,000, still it's sorted now just needed to tick the right boxes on form 47PA :biggrin:

 

In my experience customs all over the world are much the same including the UK :wacko:

 

Phoebe

[Guest The Pom Queen]

Hi Sayma

Welcome to PIO, unfortunately I am not qualified to advise you on the visa front. Gill (Gollywobbler) is an expert in this field, alternatively you could try contacting one of the registered migration agents who post on the forum.

Good luck and I hope you find your answers.

Kate

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Dont stop there, gravy granules!!!......

I too have had a couple of up and downers with the male chauvanists at Melbourne Airport!! I am not the little women who has to shut up and do as I am told!!!!:arghh:

 

Hi Sandy (yomvard)

 

What bugged me the most was that it was 2am on a Sunday morning in Perth, I had just arrived non-stop from London, having caught the overnight flight straight after leaving work on a Friday afternoon, I was looking forward to spending some time with my sister and bro in law and instead, I was confronted by an officious little female who didn't know the relevant Law anyway. She had to go off and ask somebody else about whether or not I could take my jar of Harrods Stilton in to Oz.

 

Needless to say, the cheese was in the middle of my suitcase. To protect the china jar, I had wrapped it in several layers of tee-shirts, knickers and such like and had put the bundle into the middle so as to ensure maximum protection.

 

I was made to move the case onto the floor to unpack it - which was a disgrace. There was no reason why they couldn't have bought themselves a table for the Customs hall. So there I was, grovelling about on the floor, feeling exhausted and grubby anyway whilst this officious little female stood over me, lecturing me about the purity of the Aussie eco-system or something. I ignored her and carried on searching.

 

After a bit she hissed angrily, "Are you listening to me?"

 

Me: "No. I'm looking for the cheese, as you can see."

 

That was too much for this bossy little harridan, evidently!

 

I don't see how a Stilton cheese can upset their crops or whatever she was on about unless you take the cheese and spread it on a blinking field in any case. I had not made a special trip to Harrods just so that I could give a field in Australia a special Christmas treat, obviously.

 

It was quite absurd and it was an example of officiousness for the sake of being officious but for no other reason. No valuable purpose was being served by such nonsense.

 

Cheers

 

Gill