Login / Join
Immigration Daily News 2,000 visa holders battling for Australian permanent resident rights.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 6005
- 5 Comments
2,000 visa holders battling for Australian permanent resident rights.
Gathering momentum recently is a petition in change.org to allow the holders of the now defunct retirement visa (sc410) to be considered for permanent resident visas.
Currently, the estimated 3000 holders of this retirement visa have no rights to a permanent resident visa in Australia, regardless of how long they have been in Australia.
A media release from BERIA, a voluntary organisation for retirement visa holders estimates that many of its members have lived here for a long time with at least 100 retirees having lived here for over 20 years.
David Humphries, Policy Adviser for BERIA, said that BERIA is mounting a direct campaign and petition asking that the Government to allow retirement visa holders who have lived in Australia for at least 10 years to apply for permanent residency.
‘We believe that that this is a reasonable request,’ he said, ‘and totally in keeping with the spirit of the Australian notion of “a fair go”. Mr Humphries added that BERIA has been campaigning for 8 years but has only received assurances from both sides of politics that retirement visa holders would be granted permanent residency. “But we’re no nearer achieving permanent residency than we were eight years ago. Politicians have been willing to give words of support, but unwilling to take action,” he said.
The main argument against permanent residency is the cost of health care to which most visa holders are not currently eligible.
However, Mr Humphries argues that the Government has never balanced this cost against the additional tax benefits to Australia that permanent residency will bring.
“Currently retirement visa holders, do not pay Australian income tax on their overseas sourced incomes. As permanent residents they would pay Australian income tax on all their income and thereby increase Australian tax revenue. Nor has the Government considered the economic impact of the overseas-sourced funds still to be introduced into Australia by retirees over what remains of their lifetime,” he said.
The sc410 has been replaced by the sc405 investor retirement visa which essentially grants applicants over 55 years of age who invest AU$750,000 in an Australian state a 4-year visa which is renewable - provided they have private health cover and an annual net income of $65,000. Like the defunct sc410, this visa provides no avenue to permanent residency in Australia.
Comments
-
Friday, 18 August 2017We have been in Australia since 2005 under our Visa 410. We have no outstanding debt to any bank, or financial institution. We own our property, possible value One Million dollars plus, and live a normal happy life. However with the pound in decline over the last three years, our pensions are not keeping up with our normal standing of living. We read about Reverse Mortgage, and approached the Commonwealth Bank, and proceeded very quickly with the plan, up until our Visa was discussed. That's when it stopped, and we were told that we are NOT residents, and are here on a temporary Visa only. Does anyone have more information, regarding this matter.
-
Sunday, 20 August 2017
The money problem is not in the pension. (The new visa asks for a relatively low investment and gives temporary rights but no permanent resident rights). Almost all of the retirees would not meet the 10 year working rule (all to be accomplished before 65 years of age). The problem is Medicare. The last official pronouncement on end-of-life costs of people 60+ to the system is over $81,000 per person (2014). That was before the new disability act. If you take out your calculator, that's 3,000 times 81,000 or 2,000 times 81,000 or whatever number is actually on the retirement register. No politician would agree to that for people who cannot vote (a bit like refugees but lacking the moral imperative because retirees can return home and keep their funds).
The genuine question for retirees is whether they can find an alternative route to stay permanently. The temporary visa is actually better than the old retirement visa. There may be ways to launch applications for other visas. I would urge people to seek out Christopher Levingston who has a better imagination and follow through than most migration specialists.
If your bank is saying you cannot invest in residential property, it is wrong. The latest update from FIRB on the rights of temporary residents to buy new dwellings has not changed. You may invest in some mixed residential property where the developer has received the necessary permissions to sell to foreigners. Shop around if that is the problem.
On 1 July 2017, the Department introduced amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 to provide alternative requirements for Investor Retirement (subclass 405) visa applicants, who are already in Australia, applying for a further subclass 405 visa, but who cannot meet certain visa criteria. Compelling and compassionate circumstances may be considered by the Department in cases where an applicant is suffering from hardship due to ailments associated with ageing or difficulties following the death of a partner. -
Monday, 21 August 2017
The government’s money problem is not in the pension. (The new visa asks for a relatively low investment and gives temporary residence rights but no permanent resident rights). Almost all of the retirees would not meet the 10 year working rule (all to be accomplished before 65 years of age) for the pension.
The problem is Medicare. The last official pronouncement on costs of people 60+ to the system is over $81,000 per person (2014). That was before the new disability act. If you take out your calculator, that's 3,000 times 81,000 or 2,000 times 81,000 or whatever number is actually on the retirement register. No politician would agree to that for people who cannot vote (a bit like refugees but lacking the moral imperative because retirees can return home and keep their funds).
The genuine question for retirees is whether they can find an alternate route to stay permanently. The temporary visa is actually better than the old retirement visa. There may be ways to launch applications for other visas. I would urge people to seek out Christopher Levingston who has a better imagination and follow through than most migration specialists.
If your bank is saying you cannot invest in residential property, it is wrong. The latest update from FIRB on the rights of temporary residents to buy new dwellings has not changed. You may invest in some mixed residential property where the developer has received the necessary permissions to sell to foreigners. Shop around if that is the problem.
On 1 July 2017, the Department introduced amendments to the Migration Regulations 1994 to provide alternative requirements for Investor Retirement (subclass 405) visa applicants, who are already in Australia, applying for a further subclass 405 visa, but who cannot meet certain visa criteria. Compelling and compassionate circumstances may be considered by the Department in cases where an applicant is suffering from hardship due to ailments associated with ageing or difficulties following the death of a partner.
Things are not all bad. -
Saturday, 24 March 2018
If $81,000 is the sum required and it was scaled, according to age of individual visa holders and included a sum for continued Private Health Insurance to the same level as required now. Also take into account direct or indirect tax already paid over the years, the lump sum required would be quite different especially for 410 visa holders, most of whom are 70+ and not in their early 60's.
Immigration blog
They should have retired to Costa Rica. As someone who used to tell people that the Australian government could be trusted to leave the retirement visa alone, I am embarrassed when I meet former clients around town.
The cost to the government of permitting elderly people to stay here without their own substantial incomes would be massive. However, it might be the right thing to do ethically--if governments can ever act other than politically.