Australian Immigration Daily News

Do the reforms to Australia’s “parent visa” framework that have been proposed by the Turnbull Government go far enough?

Do they do enough to accommodate the very understandable desire of people who have migrated to Australia to bring their parents over here?

As readers will be aware, the government has announced plans to introduce a new “temporary” parent visa that would enable Australian citizens, permanent residents and “eligible New Zealand citizens” to sponsor their parents to travel to and remain in Australia for a total period of up to 10 years.

The introduction of these new temporary parents visas is dependent on the passage by the Parliament of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (according to the Parliament’s Website, the Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on 16 March 2016 and then “lapsed at prorogation” (meaning essentially that it had not been passed by the Senate when Parliament was adjourned for the Federal election last year; the Government has indicated that this Bill could be passed by the end of 2017 – we shall see!).

If the Bill becomes law, there will be 2 separate kinds of temporary parent visas: one with a stay period of 3 years, with a visa application charge of $5,000, and the second for a period of 5 years, with a visa application charge of $10,000. These visas will be “renewable” for a total stay period of 10 years and will not be subject to the “Balance of Family” test that is a criterion for the grant of other kinds of parent visas but sponsors will be required to satisfy household income requirements and accept liability for any debts to the Australian public health care system that may be incurred by their parents.  Also, parents will be required to maintain private health insurance during the period of their stay in Australia.

One important restriction that will be placed on these visas will be that only one “set” of a family’s parents will be able to be sponsored at any given time.

And what remains unanswered is what might happen if parents reach an advanced age while they are in Australia on their temporary visas, and become for health or other reasons unable to return back to their home countries at the end of the period of visa validity.  It would appear unlikely that any government would seek to locate such people and put them in immigration detention, wouldn’t it? The “optics” of doing so would look terrible, wouldn’t they? Not to mention the underlying cruelty of placing aging people in detention!

Anyway, a recent case that was heard before the AAT, Bui and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) (2017) AATA 1330 (23 August 2017) highlights some of the ongoing difficulties with the existing system of parent/contributory visas.

The story in this case was that the applicant had come to Australia from Vietnam on a contributory parent visa to be with his eldest daughter, who had previously migrated to Australia.  He was in his 50s when he arrived in Australia, and was accompanied by his wife and youngest daughter. 

It was said by the applicant that his daughter’s total expenses for sponsoring his parents and her sister through the contributory parent visa was $140,000.

This does seem somewhat extraordinary, as it is unclear how much of that $140,000 consisted of visa application charges, how much was fees charged by migration agents, and how much was other expenses – travel, moving costs, etc. 

What is clear is that the visa application charges for a contributory parent visa are very very high: $43,600 for a primary applicant who holds a temporary contributory parent visa and $43,600 (!!!) for a secondary applicant, a spouse or de facto partner of the primary applicant!

In any event, what happened in the Bui case was that the applicant and his family had sold off all of their possessions in Vietnam before moving to Australia.  The applicant and his wife had then taken up work at a mushroom farm in Mildura, but were quickly made redundant.  The applicant had promised to repay his daughter’s expenses and began to feel guilty and hopeless about not being able to honour that promises.

The applicant then apparently encountered a “friend” at a shopping  centre who apparently told him that if he cultivated cannabis with him, “his financial problems would be solved”.

So the applicant took up a role as a “house-sitter”, caring for a crop of cannabis plants.

Of course, what ultimately happened  was that the Victorian police discovered the marijuana growing operation. The applicant was arrested and then sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 and  half years.  And his contributory parent visa was cancelled under the mandatory visa cancellation provisions of section 501(3A) of the Migration Act.

The story does have a “happy resolution”, of sorts: the AAT saw fit to set aside the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.  The primary reasons for the Tribunal’s decision were that the offence was the first that the applicant had committed and was considered an isolated event in his otherwise law abiding life; there was a low risk that he would re-offend; he was involved in the care of his grandchildren, and the “best interests” of these children thus weighed against visa cancellation, and the Tribunal member considered that the Australian community would be prepared to give this particular person “a second chance” to remain in Australia.

Whatever one may think of the merits of the Tribunal’s decision, the case does certainly highlight some of the issues and problems that can arise due to the high visa application charges associated with the contributory parent visa programme, doesn’t it?

So, should there be more easily available pathways for permanent residence for parents?

Or is the risk that parents may become a burden on Australia’s health care and public welfare system too great?

What do you think?

Questions? This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.