Login / Join
Immigration Daily News 30 year wait for parent visa damages Australia’s international standing for migrant integration
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 20576
- 49 Comments
30 year wait for parent visa damages Australia’s international standing for migrant integration
The department of immigration's (DIBP's) website states that the processing period for the non-contributory parent visa is now 30 years. The previous indication was 13 years. Has the quota dropped for this parent visa category or have more people desperately joined the queue in light the of the shock from the government’s attempt to repeal the visa class?
Thirty or 13 years, the wait is too long. Unless families can contribute some $100,000 and get on the contributory parent visa class which has a processing period of under 2 years, family reunions involving parents look virtually impossible.
This issue together with the difficulties faced by migrants in obtaining permanent residency were among the reasons cited for the fall in Australia’s score in the latest assessment of Australia’s performance in resettling migrants according to a report by the global ranking index, MIPEX.
The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants in all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA.
Developers of the index, use 167 policy indicators to “create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. The index is a tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed.
While Australia ranks 8 out of the 38 countries ranked, the migrant integration policy index has penalised Australia for policies that make it harder for migrants to have family reunions and obtain permanent residence.
The parent category visa was a particular concern. The category includes both the Parent (non-contributory) and the Contributory Parent visas. Parent (non-contributory) visa applications have a lower processing priority than other visas in the family stream such as partners, children and contributory parent visas. DIBP's website indicates that the same number of parent visas will be available this year: 8,675. However its website is still showing the 2014–15 Migration Programme year breakdown for the 2 different classes, with the quota as follows:
- 1 500 places allocated to Parent (non-contributory) visas (subclasses 103 and 804)
- 7 175 places allocated to Contributory Parent visas (subclasses 173/143 and subclasses 884/864) which requires a contribution of over $100,000.
According to the DIBP, due to the caps, applicants for a Parent (non-contributory) visa “can expect an approximate 30 year wait before visa grant consideration after being allocated a queue date.”
“People just can’t do that,” said Jessica Kinsella, the Australian National University lecturer who helped compile the Australian data for MIPEX. In an interview with the AAP news agency she said that migrant policies needed attention in order to promote social cohesion and help those already settled to have a fulfilling life. Ms Kinsella said Australia needs to weigh up the need of migrants to be with family against the burden some could place on the health system, along with the economic contribution grandparents can make as a source of childcare.
Comments
-
Wednesday, 23 August 2017Tara. What utter nonsense. Withhold the services of your trade and then go on Centrelink because Mum and Dad are not nearby to hold your hand? As Sam in previous comment so wisely advised, you and DIBP have a choice. But all is not lost, the good news was (is?) that DIBP in September 2016 announced "introducing a long-term temporary visa for parents". Temporary means no Australian Government (think, tax payers) freebies/handouts which may not suit our socialists of course but hey, who cares as long as Mum and Dad are in Australia being looked after by their sons and daughters at their expense as they should.
-
Thursday, 24 August 2017
I am sorry if I have offended anyone with my views but I'm afraid that is truly how i feel. Here in the U.K. there seems to be a constant recruitment drive to lure nurses overseas, especially to Australia. Im sure plenty of people, with limited family ties take up this opportunity but for myself, coming from a small close knit family, family is very important and I couldn't imagine leaving them behind on the other side of the world. I'm sure I cannot be the only one who feels this way and it must deter other very hardworking nurses and skilled workers from making the move.
-
Thursday, 24 August 2017
The bottom line is that Australia takes 400,000 migrants a year, 200,000 being PR. it doesnt have to fight for these. So many want to come and they make sacrifices to do so for a better life. Generally it is the English speaking countries whose peoples dont want to sacrifice anything. We all make choices.
-
Thursday, 24 August 2017
I see people from the poorer countries accepting many sacrifices so that they and their children can grow up in Australia. This includes being separated from parents. I also see many people from English speaking countries, especially New Zealand, complaining and wanting more from Australia than they should expect. This is why so many New Zealanders are in Australia on the temporary visa whereas those from poorer countries make it to PR. I do immigration work and it is amazing how the English speakers just expect and expect. Sad but true. So Tara, you need to understand, it is your choice, basically take it or leave it.
-
Tuesday, 05 September 2017
30 years!! What a joke..To me, This looks more like a cremation visa than a parents visa.
-
Tuesday, 05 September 2017
Anyone who thinks there is a cheap easy way to bring elderly parents to Australia is dreaming. It isn't going to happen. The Government doesn't want these visas to be granted. The long wait was because they limited the visa category to 500 a year for parent, carer, remaining relative etc. The Opposition parties wouldn't allow the visas to be stopped so the Government allowed only a minimum number. Get over it, it will never happen no matter how many sob stories are put up. I totally agree with this. We need younger working people to migrate. I am semi-retired but I believe the changes are good for Australia.
-
Sunday, 08 April 2018
Why don’t Australia introduce the scheme as migration for parents but no benefits to receive for the first several years if you are so concerned about the elderly people to benefit from your medical or other system? The immigrants mainly just family get-together, not only to receive those benefits. In this way, you can accelerate the application processes as well.
-
Sunday, 08 April 2018
As much as you say the elderly haven’t paid tax or made any contribution to Australia, the amount of money contributed by the younger generations who came to Australia to study and live here, have largely been paid by their parents, so this is indirect way that the elderly contributed to Australia to large aspect and progressed your economy. Then the younger generation who obtained PR or citizenship lives in Australia and work here, paying tax to the government, spending money in Australia year by year is another contributions from the same family. So have a think, and then you might get a new idea of immigration system.
Immigration blog
I was curious about why this post was put up again.
The idea that bringing in a 65 year old parent or unemployable family member is cheap for the country is a simple arithmetic error. It is expensive. People are living longer, and the "latest" stats are three years old.
As for bringing one's spouse and children, the idea is acceptable only if the worker’s skill is very valuable. Nursing is a skill, and nurses in the marketplace are in short supply, but the Australian universities are pumping out nurses at record rates. But even Australian born nurses with families are unable to get by on the $100k that they earn (public hospital, full time with three years experience). Most are married or partnered with another person earning and contributing to their family support. To bring in two workers or to bring in one worker with a dependant family on each single job visa is bad arithmetic. No nurse turns down an Australian visa because her family cannot come with her.
However, despite all the arithmetic, it makes sense that anyone coming on a work visa for more than two years should, after the first year, be able to be joined without any hassle by spouse/partner and children. A family environment produces better workers than a separated family. The HR stats on this are clear.
"Tara" is mistaken about the nursing shortage. There are plenty of nurses here. But only 62% are working. If we were to have a sharp recession, more of them would return to the workforce and temporary visa holders would lose jobs. For the government, it is all about the numbers.
Morality? This is not a moral question. No one seeking employment is “owed” a visa. But it has deep social consequences, and I vote for the family to be able to come after the original visa holder has time to adjust to the country.