The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[ramot]

8 hours ago, Jellybean T said:

We would also consider this if you could renew every 5 years but also we would need to be able to buy a house as renting would soon eat into the savings. 

Sadly this idea isn't of interest to the government. Prior to 2005 there was a totally self funded visa, 410, you could retire here with no cost to the country, buy a house, live here spend all your money here, so basically an asset to the country. This was then superseded by the investor retirement visa, 405, you had to have mega bucks, invest and leave money with your state, again be totally self funded, so again no cost to Australia, just living here spending your money locally.

The 410  visa for those of us still here is renewed every 10 years and the 405 reapplied for every 4 years. and very expensive.

They stopped the 410 visa in 2005, and have just stopped the 405 visa to new applicants in the budget, so even though you cost Australia nothing, just inject money into the economy the government doesn't want you here. Doesn't make sense to me, so probably unlikely to introduce a new visa similar to the ones cancelled.

[Kathss56]

20 hours ago, Ryanlee said:

The government tend to blame none citizens because they don’t have votes right.

it looks like the current government is deliberately delaying grant 143 visa by technically reducing 143 visa places yearly and setup roadblocks to delay the whole process ( it takes about 14-18 weeks for AOS processing - unbelievable)

Any change shouldn’t affect the applicants that currently waiting on the queue as they met all the criteria set by the government at the time of submission.

It would be great if someone in this forum asks his/her sponsor to reach out to SBS or the Guardian to get media attention about contributory parent visa long delay processing, then hopefully some senators will step up to give some pressures to the current government  (we have been told that the processing time is 18-24 months by the time of application)

Kev 

I think the Chinese community had the biggest voice in the Aos saga 

[ant111]

8 hours ago, ramot said:

Sadly this idea isn't of interest to the government. Prior to 2005 there was a totally self funded visa, 410, you could retire here with no cost to the country, buy a house, live here spend all your money here, so basically an asset to the country. This was then superseded by the investor retirement visa, 405, you had to have mega bucks, invest and leave money with your state, again be totally self funded, so again no cost to Australia, just living here spending your money locally.

The 410  visa for those of us still here is renewed every 10 years and the 405 reapplied for every 4 years. and very expensive.

They stopped the 410 visa in 2005, and have just stopped the 405 visa to new applicants in the budget, so even though you cost Australia nothing, just inject money into the economy the government doesn't want you here. Doesn't make sense to me, so probably unlikely to introduce a new visa similar to the ones cancelled.

I believe these we 're temporary visas too. Better to wait and have certainty and PR through a parent visa I thin k

[Fisher1]

On ‎15‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 23:11, LindaH27 said:

Ive really debated whether to post this or not! 

I’ve spent a fair bit of time recently looking at reports, google etc. Yes I know the statement - that there are lies damned lies and statistics!

One of Australia’s great strengths is its multi culturism. 

However what is obvious is that the larger the applicant country is the more visa applicants(for any kind of visa)  there will be. That is a fact. 

Without meaning to be controversial in any way - as there is such a demand would it not be fairer to give each applicant country a certain percentage of the visa places available (whether skilled worker, parent, partner etc)  in order to give applicants from smaller countries an equal crack of the whip? 

We are all in the same boat waiting and wanting to be with our families so I hope no offence is taken as none was meant  - just trying to see if there was a fairer way for everybody. The only thing that seems set in stone is the current government dislike of parents and the slow down of visas granted to the extent that places still available out of the so-called “ceiling” are not being granted. 

Their main fear seems to be that as older people we will cost their taxpayers a lot of money. As always there’s an answer - check the applicants income, savings etc to ensure they are self sufficient, make it a rule they also take out private health care  - or is that too simple? 

I have one question that I don’t know the answer to - apologies if it’s too simple a question!  Is each application treated as  one visa grant off the amount available  no matter how many apply on that application or does the grant count depend on how many parents and also adult dependant children there are on that application ? 

 

 

I agree with much of what you have said.  I still find the attitude of the Aus govt to parent visas a bit strange though.

Okay, so they are terrified of being swamped by hoards of elderly migrants - but they have the power to alter the system in a way that is efficient, fair, and above all transparent. Few people would make a decision to migrate in later life without at least considering  the cost and the waiting time. The Au gov, in making arbitrary and retrospective changes in the process are playing with people's lives in a seriously unpleasant and expensive way. The practice of taking a big deposit for something and then changing the rules of the deal is the sort of sharp practice I would associate with a used car dealer rather than a serious government.

Private health insurance?  What if your government has a reciprocal agreement with the Aus. Government?

Finally, and it's just a small point, but Australia encourages our sons and daughters to come and live here as skilled workers. Perhaps they might remember - just occasionally - that Australia has contributed nothing to the upbringing, education or training of those people.

[LindaH27]

Exactly!!

I also mentioned private health insurance as the reciprocal agreement between UK and Australia only covers essentials as stated in UK site and only for visitors not people living there on PR  

“The standard of healthcare in Australia is very good. Under the reciprocal healthcare arrangements, British citizens resident in the UK and travelling on a British passport are entitled to limited subsidised health services from Medicare for medically necessary treatment while visiting Australia. This does not cover pre-existing conditions, or treatment that does not require prompt attention. These provisions do not apply to non-visitors, for example those who are studying in Australia. Other exclusions under the reciprocal agreement include pharmaceuticals when not a hospital in-patient, use of ambulance services and medical evacuations, which are very expensive.”

 

Most of the Australians that I know also take out private health insurance in addition to Medicare as Medicare doesn’t cover all costs. 

[SusieRoo]

9 hours ago, ramot said:

Sadly this idea isn't of interest to the government. Prior to 2005 there was a totally self funded visa, 410, you could retire here with no cost to the country, buy a house, live here spend all your money here, so basically an asset to the country. This was then superseded by the investor retirement visa, 405, you had to have mega bucks, invest and leave money with your state, again be totally self funded, so again no cost to Australia, just living here spending your money locally.

The 410  visa for those of us still here is renewed every 10 years and the 405 reapplied for every 4 years. and very expensive.

They stopped the 410 visa in 2005, and have just stopped the 405 visa to new applicants in the budget, so even though you cost Australia nothing, just inject money into the economy the government doesn't want you here. Doesn't make sense to me, so probably unlikely to introduce a new visa similar to the ones cancelled.

The old 410 visa sounds like it had all of the conditions that we need from a visa. Although I can understand why you would want the security from having PR. Do you know why the 410 was discontinued? 

[ramot]

56 minutes ago, Fisher1 said:

I agree with much of what you have said.  I still find the attitude of the Aus govt to parent visas a bit strange though.

Okay, so they are terrified of being swamped by hoards of elderly migrants - but they have the power to alter the system in a way that is efficient, fair, and above all transparent. Few people would make a decision to migrate in later life without at least considering  the cost and the waiting time. The Au gov, in making arbitrary and retrospective changes in the process are playing with people's lives in a seriously unpleasant and expensive way. The practice of taking a big deposit for something and then changing the rules of the deal is the sort of sharp practice I would associate with a used car dealer rather than a serious government.

Private health insurance?  What if your government has a reciprocal agreement with the Aus. Government?

Finally, and it's just a small point, but Australia encourages our sons and daughters to come and live here as skilled workers. Perhaps they might remember - just occasionally - that Australia has contributed nothing to the upbringing, education or training of those people.

The government decided that If you were on either of The 2 temporary retirement visas 410 & 405 there would be no reciprocal health agreement with the NHS. So you no access to Medicare and have to have private health cover, even though you were British.

Edited May 17, 2018 by ramot

[ramot]

6 minutes ago, SusieRoo said:

The old 410 visa sounds like it had all of the conditions that we need from a visa. Although I can understand why you would want the security from having PR. Do you know why the 410 was discontinued? 

Allegedly being rorted by a certain nationality. It really was a good visa.

[Fisher1]

28 minutes ago, ramot said:

The government decided that If you were on either of The 2 temporary retirement visas 410 & 405 there would be no reciprocal health agreement with the NHS. So you no access to Medicare and have to have private health cover, even though you were British.

More unfairness!

[SusieRoo]

22 minutes ago, ramot said:

Allegedly being rorted by a certain nationality. It really was a good visa.

Maybe the same thing will happen to CPVs

[Kpnuts]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/07/peter-dutton-says-like-minded-countries-should-rethink-un-refugee-convention
It’s also about other types of immigration 
quote:-
In a wide-ranging interview with Guardian Australia conducted on Tuesday, Dutton flagged a reluctance to allow the elderly family members of immigrants to come to Australia, and a desire to incentivise new arrivals to move to regional communities. He also reaffirmed the country’s commitment to a nondiscriminatory immigration policy
Quote 
“We need to bring in younger people like most western democracies. We want to bring them in as young as possible, which is sometimes controversial because people want to bring, particularly through the family program, people of an older age in. But we want people to pay taxes and be contributing for as long as possible.

Dutton also needs to sort out the employment issues. I came here on a 143 last year. I am 64 years of age and want to work but unfortunately ageism is against me. I want to pay my taxes and fully contribute to the economy but I am prevented from doing so.

[LindaH27]

I have to say Ive been really surprised recently to find that so called parent visas weren’t just for parents but also for adult dependents up to 23-25.  Does the balance of family test still apply in that situation? I somehow assumed that there was a separate visa for families emigrating. But then again most people especially in UK don’t have adult dependants after say 21. Having said that Im sure I saw a post a while ago where a 21 year UK dependant was refused as they had taken out a student loan therefore were considered not to be dependant. 

Another point,  most parents will also be paying tax on their pensions and savings interest and have living expenses so surely we would still be contributing to the economy and helping in other ways such as childminding and possibly voluntary work as well as having financed the upbringing and education of those young migrants they want instead of parents.  

I guess like so many of us here I’m very frustrated at the various rules and regulations that seem devised to stop parent immigration. The CPV was introduced so that people had to make a real commitment towards funding in exchange for quicker access so probably most of us have /will have sufficient funding in one form or another. 

So probably a controversial question (ducks behind the wall!)  - should the CPV just be for 1-2 parents and separate visa for families ? Would that make much difference to the numbers/waiting time? 

There must be a way round this somehow. As Alan Collett said there’s a lot of money the govt could collect if it granted these parent visas.   

@Fisher1 I did have a grin at the vision you brought up of Australia  being swamped by hoards of elderly migrants!   there’s a Cartoon in there somewhere - battle axe blue rinsed grannies shaking umbrellas and flat capped grandads shaking walking sticks.

Edited May 17, 2018 by LindaH27

[Fisher1]

3 hours ago, Fisher1 said:

I agree with much of what you have said.  I still find the attitude of the Aus govt to parent visas a bit strange though.

Okay, so they are terrified of being swamped by hoards of elderly migrants - but they have the power to alter the system in a way that is efficient, fair, and above all transparent. Few people would make a decision to migrate in later life without at least considering  the cost and the waiting time. The Au gov, in making arbitrary and retrospective changes in the process are playing with people's lives in a seriously unpleasant and expensive way. The practice of taking a big deposit for something and then changing the rules of the deal is the sort of sharp practice I would associate with a used car dealer rather than a serious government.

Private health insurance?  What if your government has a reciprocal agreement with the Aus. Government?

Finally, and it's just a small point, but Australia encourages our sons and daughters to come and live here as skilled workers. Perhaps they might remember - just occasionally - that Australia has contributed nothing to the upbringing, education or training of those people.

ooops!!!   Hordes. Not Hoards. From an ex teacher too - shame on me !
 

[LindaH27]

Hoards?? Oops shame on me too -  was a Graduate in English Lit  many moons ago!!

Edited May 17, 2018 by LindaH27

[Tulip1]

1 hour ago, LindaH27 said:

I have to say Ive been really surprised recently to find that so called parent visas weren’t just for parents but also for adult dependents up to 23-25.  Does the balance of family test still apply in that situation? I somehow assumed that there was a separate visa for families emigrating. But then again most people especially in UK don’t have adult dependants after say 21. Having said that Im sure I saw a post a while ago where a 21 year UK dependant was refused as they had taken out a student loan therefore were considered not to be dependant. 

Another point,  most parents will also be paying tax on their pensions and savings interest and have living expenses so surely we would still be contributing to the economy and helping in other ways such as childminding and possibly voluntary work as well as having financed the upbringing and education of those young migrants they want instead of parents.  

I guess like so many of us here I’m very frustrated at the various rules and regulations that seem devised to stop parent immigration. The CPV was introduced so that people had to make a real commitment towards funding in exchange for quicker access so probably most of us have /will have sufficient funding in one form or another. 

So probably a controversial question (ducks behind the wall!)  - should the CPV just be for 1-2 parents and separate visa for families ? Would that make much difference to the numbers/waiting time? 

There must be a way round this somehow. As Alan Collett said there’s a lot of money the govt could collect if it granted these parent visas.   

@Fisher1 I did have a grin at the vision you brought up of Australia  being swamped by hoards of elderly migrants!   there’s a Cartoon in there somewhere - battle axe blue rinsed grannies shaking umbrellas and flat capped grandads shaking walking sticks.

There will always be the scenario that a parents children live in Oz and they wish to join them but still have say one child at home with them.  If that child is a child and dependant then I think they should go on the application. After all, very few parents would do the visa to move to be with their children if one child would be left alone in the U.K. The problem is it does get exploited (we've seen on here recently about 25 year olds still 'dependant). The other thing you mention is that most of us can financially afford the move which is possible true although no end of people post on here about having to sell up, having to live somewhere cheap in Oz, worried about pension rises stopped, hoping to get work well into their 60's to afford to live etc. I reckon there are a fair amount of parents who really can't afford the move but will 'manage and make it work'. The other part to this is there must be a very high percentage of parents from other countries with very little money.  

[SusieRoo]

38 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

There will always be the scenario that a parents children live in Oz and they wish to join them but still have say one child at home with them.  If that child is a child and dependant then I think they should go on the application. After all, very few parents would do the visa to move to be with their children if one child would be left alone in the U.K. The problem is it does get exploited (we've seen on here recently about 25 year olds still 'dependant). The other thing you mention is that most of us can financially afford the move which is possible true although no end of people post on here about having to sell up, having to live somewhere cheap in Oz, worried about pension rises stopped, hoping to get work well into their 60's to afford to live etc. I reckon there are a fair amount of parents who really can't afford the move but will 'manage and make it work'. The other part to this is there must be a very high percentage of parents from other countries with very little money.  

Good post and I guess this is getting to the root of the parent visa conundrum. Australia wants to keep families together, but is not willing to burden the taxpayer and you can't have one without the other. So now we are seeing changes which discriminate against poorer immigrants. I'm sure we will end up with a system which only allows in rich parents/sponsors who are able to support themselves in Australia.

I'm also warming to the new temp visa. There did appear to be an opportunity to hold one of these visas while still queuing for the 143 but I'm not sure if this has been officially confirmed yet. I also understand you can still buy a new-build house while on this visa. 15,000 places per year also makes this attractive with an opportunity for early applicants to get processed quickly.

We are still a little too young to retire yet so not having any opportunity to work is a drawback for husband. He is now talking about taking up fishing in Australia which is fine by me (anything to keep him out of the house).

[LindaH27]

@SusieRoo which changes now discriminate against poorer migrants? I thought the changes to AOS had been stopped?  Have I missed something? 

I’m not sure richer parents would actually still get in as they have stopped the 410/405 visas whereby you had to support yourself etc. 

Are they going ahead with the temp visa? It seems to be taking a long time and I wondered if they had quietly brushed it under the carpet so to speak!!

I believe Dan Tehran is bringing in new legislation on 23 May concerning AOS etc. I wonder whether it will just revert back to old criteria or whether something extra will be slipped in. 

Edited May 17, 2018 by LindaH27

[SusieRoo]

1 hour ago, LindaH27 said:

@SusieRoo which changes now discriminate against poorer migrants? I thought the changes to AOS had been stopped?  Have I missed something? 

I’m not sure richer parents would actually still get in as they have stopped the 410/405 visas whereby you had to support yourself etc. 

Are they going ahead with the temp visa? It seems to be taking a long time and I wondered if they had quietly brushed it under the carpet so to speak!!

I believe Dan Tehran is bringing in new legislation on 23 May concerning AOS etc. I wonder whether it will just revert back to old criteria or whether something extra will be slipped in. 

I understand the changes to AoS are still being applied to new applicants and only the retrospective part has stopped. 

[SusieRoo]

2 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

I believe Dan Tehran is bringing in new legislation on 23 May concerning AOS etc.

Do you have any more details? I can't find anything on Google.

[ant111]

On 15/05/2018 at 19:07, Mrs Depp said:

My parents, (along with others) were asked by Immi back in October last year to obtain medicals and police checks in preparation. I don't know anyone who has done them off their own backs and if they did then I wouldn't expect a refund. However, once they request you to do them, you do it as you are led to believe that once all is in place and they reach the assessing timeframe for your lodgement date then the request for the 2nd VAC would follow soon after. We're on 2 months and counting and not a word since. Very frustrating.

Sorry perhaps I misread. Usually they issue the visa before these expire. Therefore if the issue is delayed they may delay this process. But I think your parents should not have to do them again anyway. 

[LindaH27]

I thought the changes had gone for good rather than just the retrospective bit. 

As for Dan Tehran see this https://www.sbs.com.au/news/exclusive-coalition-backflips-on-parent-visa-crackdown

Edited May 18, 2018 by LindaH27

[ant111]

I heard parents whose sponsors are citizens get priority processing. Citizens can vote. Anyone confirm this.? This gives the main reason for government reluctance to grant visas under the immigration / infrastructure spin. It' seems mainly about votes.

Secondly with 35000 in the parent queue only and most probably from China and India who don't have to speak English-culture/ integration issues etc.

Thirdly it's a world wide problem not enough young tax payers in relation to pensioners . However the good point made about our children contributing without costs in education and upbringing  to Australia should be considered. As should parents childcare and those self funding through pensions, work etc. This brings me back to the main problem which  is electioneering and looking after citizens who can vote and perhaps their parents

[thomas1965]

Got our AoS acceptance letter ... updated signature.

[kimboslice]

5 hours ago, ant111 said:

Citizens can vote. Anyone confirm this.?

yes citizens can vote

[gafuk]

Hi,

 Well that was a crazy couple of weeks! House move done, and counting down until we fly, 7th June.

Has anyone any advice on travel insurance on the one way flight to OZ?.

Once we arrive I presume we need to register with medicare etc but not sure what type of insurance to look for for a one way plus a few days trip ?