Labor visa earthquake to trigger elderly migrant tsunami

Below is an edited extract of a new paper by Dr Bob Birrell from the Australian Population Research Institute.

Summary

An alarmist headline? Not really. This judgement follows from an analysis of Labor’s proposed temporary visa for parents of existing migrants, entitled, a ‘Fairer Long stay parent visa for Australia’s migrant and multicultural communities’. The proposal was announced on 22 April, 2019.

Labor’s proposal is for an uncapped, low cost, temporary parent visa open to all migrant families who are citizens or are permanent residents. It will cost $2,500 for five years regardless of sponsors’ income or capacity to provide for their parents. All four parents in each household can be sponsored. The children eligible to sponsor their parents include all those who are permanent residents or citizens of Australia.

The visa will be renewable thus enabling parents to stay in Australia for ten years without having to leave. This means it is a de facto permanent entry visa since, as sponsors will know, it is highly unlikely that parents who have lived here for a decade will be required to return home.

Labor’s ‘temporary’ parent visa is an unprecedented offer. No other western country provides any similar parent visa. The trend across Western Europe is to tighten already stringent rules on parents’  access to obtain permanent residence status. The US, though it allows adult migrant children to sponsor their parents, has many hurdles, including that the sponsor must be a citizen and must meet financial capacity guidelines. Even Canada, the most overtly welcoming migration country in the west, has an annual cap of 17,000 on parent visas and, as with the US, sponsors must prove that they can meet stringent financial capacity criteria.

As we will see, Labor’s parent proposal dismantles all the careful rules successive Australian governments have, over thirty years, put in place to control parent migration. The door is now wide open for parent sponsorship. This is an especially attractive prospect of Australia’s more recently arrived Asian and Middle-Eastern communities. And here it should be noted that Australia’s Asian-born population (at just over 10 per cent) is higher than any other western country.

Australia is an enticing destination to migrants from Asia because of the large gulf between the political, social and cultural conditions here and in most Asia countries. Given that many immigrants would welcome in-house help with child care and that most Asians recognise obligations to care for their parents, the potential for Australia’s Asian and Middle-Eastern population  to take up Labor’s offer is huge.

At present most permanent entry parent visas are from China, mainly because there is a balance of family rule in place. This requires that half or more of siblings are resident in Australia. Many readers will be aware that there is a waiting list of Chinese applicants for Australia’s existing permanent entry parent visa of near 100,000. They will likely take up Labor’s proposed temporary parent visa. However, many more Chinese will also become eligible. (These are people who don’t meet the present financial criteria for sponsorship, which are outlined below.)

The really big change in eligibility will come from Australia’s Indian subcontinent and Middle Eastern communities. They constitute a larger group of potential sponsors than the Chinese. Most do not currently meet the balance-of-family test or the financial requirements of the existing permanent entry parent visa.

Labor’s proposal will make then eligible to bring their parents to Australia. They will have at least as powerful a motive to avail themselves of this opportunity as the Chinese.

Labor’s proposal could easily generate at least 200,000 parent applications, mainly from Chinese, Indian subcontinent and Middle Eastern country residents of Australia, over a three-year period.

The number depends, of course, on how the visa is implemented. This is explored below. The information we have at this point on Labor’s proposal is that it will be open-ended.

Background

To grasp the significance of Labor’s proposal it needs to be seen in the context of Australia’s present rules governing the issuance of permanent entry parent visas. There are two subclasses for parent visas in operation. One is a contributory parent visa where the parents have to pay some $43,600 as an upfront contribution to the likely public costs of their stay. In 2017-18 6,015 of these visas were issued. By June 2018 there was a backlog of applicants of 44,886. The other entry point is a non-contributory parent visa with much lower up-front fees. In 2017-18 1,356 of these visas were issued. For this non-contributory visa there was a backlog of 50,642 and a wait time of over thirty years.

In effect, together the current permanent-entry parent visas are capped at less than 8,000 a year.

Moreover, both permanent-entry parent visa subclasses are only available to pension-aged parents who can meet the balance of family test. This is why most of the parents visaed are from China – since most Chinese residents are from one, or at the most, two sibling families.

However, there is another parent visa option, soon to be available for those wishing to sponsor their parents. This is a temporary parent visa which the Coalition legislated in November 2018. Residents can apply from 17 April 2019 to establish their eligibility as sponsors of their parents.

There is an annual cap of 15,000 parents and accompanying dependent for this new visa. It is for five years, and will cost $10,000. There is a limit of one set of parents for each sponsoring household. To qualify as a sponsor, the Australian resident family’s annual taxable income must exceed $83,000.

The visa can be renewed, once, for another stay of up to five years, but the parents need to leave Australia before applying for this renewal.

There was no official statement of the likely number of applications at the time. However internal departmental sources indicate that the 15,000 annual quota is likely to be filled.

Labor’s Proposal

Labor’s temporary parent visa proposal was announced in response to the Coalition’s temporary-parent-visa legislation. In response to lobbying from migrant communities, the Coalition promised prior to the 2016 election that it would establish a new temporary visa for parents. As is evident, it took some time for the proposal to be legislated.

When the Labor leader, Bill Shorten, announced Labor’s proposed visa on 22 April 2019, he declared that the Coalition’s temporary parent visa option was ‘heartless, callous and cruel’. It was claimed that the Coalition’s visa was far stricter than originally promised, thus justifying Labor’s much more generous alternative.

As indicated, Labor’s initiative potentially opens the flood gates for parent migration. It appears to be a reckless and irresponsible policy bid put forward to garner migrant votes.

Did the Labor leaders consider the possible implications? It is doubtful that they did.

The proposal came from out of the blue. There was no mention of the temporary parent visa in Labor’s 2018 policy statement. When the Coalition’s temporary parent visa initiative was debated in parliament in late 2018 Labor gave no indication that it was considering a counter initiative.

The policy announced in April seems to have been generated in the heat of the current election battle. The Labor policy experts who dreamt it up appear not to have thought through the implications. Nor, apparently, did the Labor leaders who must have signed off on the policy.

The political focus at the time was on a few seats with high concentrations of Chinese voters, including Banks, Bennelong, Reid and Barton in Sydney and Chisholm in Melbourne, all of which (except Barton) are narrowly held by the Liberal party. For Labor, the Chinese may have seemed to be the most responsive target for their new policy because Chinese-born residents have shown a high propensity to sponsor their parents.

Who is eligible for the parent visa and how will applicants be assessed?

The Labor proposal refers to parents without any qualification. There is no distinction made between those who are of working or retirement age. We have to assume that both are included. If so, the proposal will vastly expand the pool of eligible parents, since the existing permanent-resident parent visas are only accessible to aged parents, as is the Coalition’s new temporary parent visa.

It may also be that grandparents will be eligible. The Labor policy statement explicitly refers to the need to allow Australia’s migrant and multicultural community families ‘to reunite with parents and grandparents still overseas’.

The policy statement also implies that all adult children with parents overseas will be eligible to sponsor their parents. There appears to be no period-of-residence requirement. There is also no reference to any required assessment of the financial capacity of the sponsoring children to provide for their parents once in Australia. Indeed, the emphasis in the proposal on the restrictiveness of the Coalition’s parent options strongly implies that Labor considers the absence of any financial condition to be one of their policy’s key selling points.

Will there be any check on the medical condition of the sponsored parents before the new parent visa is issued? It is hard to believe that this would be the case. Yet, there has been no indication that there will be any such evaluation.

All that we have is an indication that the parents will have to take out a private health insurance policy.

Why Worry?

The costs of Labor’s parent visa will soon be evident as the total climbs towards the 200,000 level mooted above, in just three years.

Most of the parents will locate in Sydney and Melbourne, since that is where the bulk of potential sponsors reside. The initial concentrations will be in municipalities with high concentrations of Chinese-born residents. Some of these are relatively affluent, including Chatswood and Ryde in Sydney and Monash and Box Hill in Melbourne.

However, as the projected flow from the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East ramps up an increasing number of parents will locate in relatively low-income outer suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne.

The main initial stress point will likely emerge via competition between these recent arrivals and the established communities for access to already scarce medical and welfare services, especially within the public hospital network.

Problems within the health insurance system are certain to emerge. Labor’s proposed visa will require parents to take out private health insurance. But how will the private insurance sector react to pricing this insurance? The sector will have to take on parents likely to need expensive hospital treatment but who have made no lifetime contribution to the funds. As has been well documented, the sector is already struggling with low membership levels from Australia’s younger residents.

These parents will be locating in Sydney and Melbourne, the two cities that are already failing to cope with high population growth – growth which mainly derives from net overseas migration.

The projected parent inflow will add to this stress. The numbers are likely to greatly exceed those resulting from the Coalition’s proposed streaming of skilled migrants into regional locations.

For migration advocates, the parent influx will deliver their worst nightmare. As noted earlier, many justify the current high net overseas migration numbers on the grounds that the migrant intake is ameliorating the effects of demographic ageing. This derives from the impending retirement of the large cohort of baby boomers born between 1950 and the mid-1960s. As these advocates have  documented, this retirement will reduce the ratio of the working-age population relative to those of retirement age. Incoming migrants help to mute this effect, because they are currently younger, on average, than the resident population.

The impending parent influx will have the opposite effect.

For the hard-heads in the Treasury it will soon be apparent that the long-term costs of Labor’s parent visa are mounting as it morphs into a de facto permanent-entry program. Governments will be forced to acknowledge that these ‘temporary entry’ parents are in fact here to stay. They will then have to face the budgetary costs of providing them with the same aged person pension and health benefits as other aged residents receive.

It will not be easy to exit from Labor’s proposal once it is legislated. The current reluctance of the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, to even mention the issue is an indication. Since Labor’s parent visa announcement on April 22, apart from an initial critique from David Coleman, the Minister for Immigration, neither Coleman nor the Prime Minister has had anything to say about the issue. This is presumably because the Coalition feels it has more electoral skin to lose by antagonising migrant voters than it has to gain by telling other voters about the serious consequences of Labor’s proposal.

It took thirty years for the opening up of family reunion in the early 1980s to be wound back. The process eventually involved a mobilisation of mainstream voters concerned about the impact of migration and multicultural polices favouring the migrant constituency. This first occurred conspicuously at the time of 1996 Federal election.

It will probably happen again, but at what cost to community harmony in Australia? It would be nice to allow Australians of Asian descent to bring their parents here. But these residents knew what the rules were when they came to Australia. They know that no other Western country provides anything like the open-door policy that Labor’s proposal offers.

As for Australia’s majority non-migrant community, they will have good cause to be concerned about the proposal once they understand the likely numbers involved. The influx will add to the urban congestion and to the fiscal costs of accommodating Australia’s rapidly growing population. Yet, under Labor’s proposal, these parents arrivals will not be required to make any contribution to these costs.

Comments

    • What do you mean almost. Hard to find a more blatant rort I would have thought. Stuff all the exisiting taxpayers doing it tough they’re going to jam a 200,000 population burden on top of that.

      • It’s not just that it is 200, 000 additional migrants. They are 200,000 Aged migrants. Not working. Not ‘rejuvenating’ the population. Not addressing the ‘skills shortage’. All with higher medical costs. Even if the benefits of mass immigration have proved illusory, this group offer none, not one, of the claimed benefits, only downside. Goodness me, so much clever country thoughtlessness.

      • You’re a muppet if you think it’s only 200,00 aged parents. I’d add at least another zero

      • MountainGuinMEMBER

        Congested hospitals and doctor offices. Check
        Congested nursing homes. Check
        Worsen aging population. Check
        More tax needed from working aged citizens. Check.

        Sigh. If it is so heartless that new citizens cannot see thier parents, why cant they fly over to see them? Or skype them? Magnitudes cheaper and far fairer to all other taxpayers who have thier own priorities.

      • Leith, this is bad policy for us but good policy for the Labor party. Have a walk around any Sydney or Melbourne suburb on a week day during working hours and you will see multiple elderly Chinese couples pushing prams. You know who I’m talking about. The grandma can’t walk properly because of the rickets from a poor diet in her youth. The grandpa, hands behind his back, strolls serenely while his wife blathers on. That is exactly why they are here. Free childcare (and home duties) while the two kids go out and work. They all live in a 2-bedroom unit, but it doesn’t matter because its 10+ times better than China. And the grandkids grow up knowing that it was Labor that enabled it all to happen. Overcrowding? Ha ha, check out Beijing or Mumbai. Long waiting line to see the doctor? At least there is a doctor. Green grass in an overcrowded suburban park? WTF is green grass, I’ve never seen that before!

        There is a suburb next to Sydney airport called Wolli Creek, built on old industrial land. One by one I have watched the tower blocks go up. From the first, to now more than one kilometre of units along the train line. Access from the road is woeful, and the unit blocks are built very close to each other. When I mentioned this to a Chinese colleague, she thought Wolli Creek was paradise. Where she came from in China the tower blocks were three times higher and built so close next to each other that some roads literally never saw sunlight. That’s when the penny dropped for me.

        Most of the Chinese I know here are not Communist plants, they are just people trying to get a better life. And the politicians are gaming this, all while trying to look tough on China, but knowing its a red herring issue. Because more people means more construction, more houses, more of everything that the people in power have their fingers in. And if you build up a new support base because your traditional one has dissipated into a nation of self-employed tradies and “gig economy” piece-workers, you can keep the rort going for longer.

        Ermo is trying his hardest to bring back “old” Labor, but like white picket fences those days are gone. There is no Labor, no LNP, just different shades of the same sh!t. The different policy options are merely tinkering around the edges, increasingly led by focus groups and who has the squeakiest wheel. There is literally no core difference between either major party. The unions are no longer focused on workers – how could they be if they advocate a surrogate wage cap through imported labour? – they are focused on power. Industry super funds control a material portion of Australian wealth, and if you look at mainstream union policies – and their actions on building sites – they are focused on money through power, not workers’ rights. The Greens lost any semblance of an alternative option (and coherence) once Bob Brown left, and One Nation is simply a grab bag of disaffected, often not very bright, people that act as a protest vote without offering anything worth spending more than two minutes reading. SAP offers a genuine alternative, but outside this site I hardly see them mentioned. They will probably fade into oblivion, squeezed out by the sheer experience and rat-cunning of the major party machines.

        I don’t know if you surf, but for me this is one of those waves that looks to be good and then at the last second rears up into a sheer face with you sat on the lip looking down into the abyss. All you can do is say “oh fvck”, brace yourself and hope it doesn’t hurt to much when you hit the bottom and the board follows through at one hundred miles per hour. In other words, we are too late. The immigration is going to increase, the quality of life for the masses is going to decline, and as happened anywhere you care to mention, immigration will not “raise everyone up”. It will homogenise, dragging immigrants to a better life, simultaneously pulling existing residents down to a new permanently lower level. If you want a live example, take a tour around England. Make sure you visit Bradford, Leicester, east Birmingham and west London. That will give you a very accurate picture of where we are heading. The politicians are ahead of our bleating, and it will need to get worse before it gets better because at the moment it is merely uncomfortable.

      • I want to see Labor lose so the Libs are holding the ball when their property bubble bursts

    • reusachtigeMEMBER

      It is 100% assured that they will lose the election. Wait and see. Why would anyone sane and of a successful mind vote for Loser Shorten? Only the great Liberal Nationalist party will protect our borders. Vote 1 the Liberal Nationalists. I advise you all to if you are a successful achieving type otherwise you are branding yourself and your mind as a loser and failure and a UBI leech.

    • Its effectively open borders and a defensive policy against ALPs historic (2008 – 2011) inepitude on management of our borders.

    • DominicMEMBER

      I thought Alan Jones was close to tears on 2GB this morning such is his loathing for (and frustration with) Bill Shorten. That’s one thing we can agree on — the guy is such a colossal turd he makes Scummo look agreeable.

  1. This is the pay off for votes in several marginal electorates and and a strategy to neutralise The Fake Greens vote. It shows utter contempt for older Australian citizens in need of age care, hospitals, medical support etc. They have come second to the parents of immigrants – in other words, people who are not citizens. It is utterly bizarre.

    • DominicMEMBER

      Indeed. All those wealthy enough to look after themselves are fine, but the rest …

      This is the irony: the very people that Labor are meant to be batting for will get rooted by this policy.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        IMHO citizenship laws need to be significantly tightened.

        Dual citizenship laws should be expanded way beyond parliament. Any citizen who is eligible for a dual passport must be prevented from voting until they renounce their entitlement to any foreign citizenry rights or passport. No man can serve two masters, and maintaining a 2nd passport a as backup shows a distinct lack of commitment.

        It needs to be illegal and punishable by enormous fines for any businessmen who may be entitled to dual passports of extra-Australian citizenship making political donations, either directly or indirectly through their institutes. Voting would need to be made voluntary.

        Once that is done, only then can some serious corrective policies can be undertaken in order to restore power and control back to Australian people over the society they and their parents built.

      • @Stewie Griffin

        Disagree. This opens a political can of worms and will cause bureaucratic chaos. Reason being, it’s easier to get things done when it comes to things like foreign property, probate, and even national service, duty to vote, etc.

        My suggestion would be to permit dual citizenship but only of a limited number of countries.

        I believe if you want to serve in parliament, in the public service (state or federal), in state police, federal police, or the military you should renounce your second citizenship and become Australian and if you are involved in any crime that is against the best interest of the Australian public you should be automatically convicted for treason. Currently, you are allowed to hold dual citizenship and work for the APS however travelling to any foreign country must be done on your Australian passport.

        I agree with your point about political donations. That should be instant deportation.

      • DominicMEMBER

        @Stewie
        I don’t disagree, however, the people responsible for passing the legislation that you suggest are the very people who wish exploit the existing situation to their benefit so there is little to no chance of such an event occurring. The scope for corruption must be kept as wide as possible.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Currently, you are allowed to hold dual citizenship and work for the APS however travelling to any foreign country must be done on your Australian passport.

        ?? I was under the impression most countries legally require you to enter with your native passport if you are a citizen.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        Ubietz/ Dominic – I don’t doubt the logistical nightmare that this would require under our current political settings in order to herd all the political cats necessary to have this legislation passed.

        This is a deep reform suggestion and would probably only be possible to consider if it was pushed through during a crisis of some sort or another. Manufacturing one through a Royal commission would be a good approach, but we are still several elections away from the point where a party other than the LNP or Labor will be capable of pushing forward with such an inquiry.

        For it to work there cannot be any exceptions to the dual citizenship laws: US, UK, Canada AND Israel, along with all the other nations, would all need to be banned from voting until they could prove that they had renounced not only their citizenship, but their eligibility for citizenship or passports through ancestry or right of return.

        For the moment my suggestion is only a pipe dream, but frankly imho it is the only legal means remaining for Australians to dis-empower the Globalist class and take back our nation short of outright civil war.

      • @drsmithy
        If you’re travelling for work and representing the APS you must enter the country you’re travelling to with your Australian passport. At least, that was the case for the federal agency I worked for. I put forward that this should be the case for all APS agencies.

    • Not bizarre. The electorate were voting the wrong way too often. Time to import a new electorate. It’s already happened in the US and Europe. Now it’s happening here. It’s fascinating living through the decline and fall of a civilization. There’s nothing you can do about it so you might as well enjoy the ride. We are all frogs and the water is getting warmer every election.

  2. This is fvcking infuriating. What the hell is wrong with our political system that we get sold out to immigrants that we didn’t vote to come here in the hundreds of thousands? 10 more years of this and what the fvck will this country be? A vasal state of china or india? It’s terrifying how much contempt our supposed leaders hold us in. Time for nooses.

  3. Incredible stuff. I read that Finland gets 50% of its immigrants from rich countries and I doubt that grandparents living with grandkids is a thing in rich countries.

    Maybe it was a thing in the 1920s:

    Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

    Charlie lives with his mother and his four grandparents in a little wooden house

    Gerry Harvey wants to sell more toasters and we can get immigrants from rich nations where grandkids do not live with grandparents and there would be no pressure on the ALP to allow grandparents to be imported. But no, they have to import dirt poor immigrants like Charlie Bucket.

    • TheRedEconomistMEMBER

      Toasters? I suggest getting long rice cookers.

      There goes the Staggsy Return and Earn market. I already see team of “families” hitting the recycling bins at night. They beat me too one which I know is full of empty VBs … 😜

  4. Anyone tried to get medical treatment in the Australian hospital system for someone in their eighties, privately insured or not? Now let’s just double that population for no reason. The group of people who can’t access important medical treatment will still be small, still won’t make a difference electorally.

  5. So 1 migrant gets to bring their spouse in. Then those 2 migrants have 2 (or more) kids. Then they get to bring 4 parents in. So…. 1 becomes 8….so 2-300000 intake per yr multiplies to 1.6-2.4 million extra people. This sounds good!

    • DominicMEMBER

      Good for Coles and Woolies and adult diaper manufacturers but that’s about it.

  6. Thanks MB. This is a bad bad policy. Will be disastrous. Bigger than pink bats. How does ALP get a free kick on this? Why arent we talking more about this?

  7. Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves here. This is just a proposed policy. Wouldn’t it need to get approved by the parliament first?

  8. arthritic kneeMEMBER

    What happened to needing immigration to stop the population aging? Let’s forget about that now and bulk load the elderly with complex medical histories and 50 years of smoking under their belt. Winning.

  9. reusachtigeMEMBER

    This is a great plan as it will encourage a larger pool of new vibrants to want to make our great nation home.

    • DominicMEMBER

      The geriatric relations parties will be memorable. There’s the added benefit of them being able to take out their false teeth 😉

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      Yep, just been through it. The services are excellent but overwhelmed.

      This policy by Labor is obviously designed to destroy this system. They want every man for themselves.

    • For actual nursing home places a 50% drop in home values is going to break the business plan of most homes. How many people could raise the present deposit requirements without pledging their overvalued shacks ?

      • The coming drop in home ownership rates amongst retirees will do for that model anyway. A 50% drop in house values will just bring the collapse forward 20 years.

  10. The welfare state (Australia’s system of decent welfare) is not going to survive mass immigration. This is only going to hasten its demise. I doubt that our current system of welfare will see out another decade.

  11. I pre voted. I brought this up with the local mp labor member who didnt lnow it was uncapped.

    Anyway he said well at least labor has a big heart. I put greens last and labor second last

      • We have a big heart and embrace those that view us with disdain. Get ready for death stares, loud foreign languages spoken everywhere, and lots of overcrowded footpaths with shuffling oldies.

    • Yeah well, their big heart is going to cost us big time. Absolute cvnts, all of them.

  12. MSM and the ABC aren’t challenging this so the punters won’t know (I haven’t heard anything on radio either), and the polls say ALP to win. It’ll delight the CCP who are also getting a free ride to power. It looks to me like all the parties are ok with it as well because as far as I can see they are not objecting. Again we’re f….d

    • DominicMEMBER

      Maaaaate. Don’t you know that when you’ve drained the last taxpayer dollar you simply print the rest!

      You see, on that basis we can afford all the geriatrics who want to come.

      MMT: Easy peasy!

  13. There is a positive

    They’ll die without breeding. It’s a reversible problem. Unlike young migration.

  14. Mylifeforaiur

    This is a ploy for future votes just like the open border policies advocated by the democrats in the US who want central and South Americans to just pour through their southern border wall (and yet trump is the one being demonised). Who the hell do you think these vibrant new migrants will be voting for down the track? Labor of course. Immigration should be based on need and merit. We don’t want an open borders policy gutting our living standards, robbing our nation of taxpayer resources and crushloading our infrastructure. I should think the CCP would be delighted by this policy. We should investigate this as potential foreign influence in an Australian election. Just like in the US, the enemy is not Russia. It is China.

  15. scootytootyMEMBER

    Hopefully these oldies have lots of babies together when they get here.

  16. At least now we know why Labor needs to raid elderly Australians’ super savings. How else are they going to find the billions to pay for elderly foreigners?

  17. BoethiusMEMBER

    This will cost each Australian household about $7,700 in the first three years.

    Bob Birrell’s report estimates that the parent visa inflow in the first three years could be 200,000.

    The Productivity Commission (2016) estimates the present value of the fiscal costs of parent visa holder in 2015/16 at $335,000 – $410,000. Let’s take the average, and say $372,500. Updating by three years of inflation in the cost of health and aged care, pensions etc. ( say 2% p.a.) and we have $395,300 per parent visa holder in 2018/19.

    Bob Birrell’s report says there will be a contribution of $2,500 for five years. It is unclear whether this is per year or total. Let’s assume per year, so the total contribution is $12,500 (=5 x $2,500) per parent visa holder.

    This makes the net fiscal cost in present value terms $382,800 (=$395,300 – $12,500) per parent visa holder.

    Bob Birrell estimates that the policy will cause an inflow in the first three years of 200,000 persons. The net present value of the fiscal cost of this is $76,560 m. (=200,000. x $0.3828 m.).

    The number of households in Australia is approximately 10 m.

    Hence the cost to the average Australian household of this policy in the first three years is approximately $7,700.

  18. I feel like throwing up. I was so looking forward to Scummo et al being given the arse, but this will ruin us. I never thought I could say this, but I hope Labor don’t get in now, based on this one horrendous policy.

    Fcuk. 🙁

  19. tripsterMEMBER

    I was going to vote Labor because of their changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, but I can’t in good conscience vote for them now. They’ve lost my vote. Indeed, this policy strikes fear into my heart. I am going to preference them last.

    • Me too. Labor now goes last, greens second last and libs 3rd last. Can’t believe I’m writing this but this policy absolutely infuriates me.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I hope so.
      The party spin doctors like to blame the Michael Daley Foot in mouth gaff for the ALPs poor showing at the polls in Electorates with large Asian Populations.
      I have seen this reiterated a number of times at ALP functions but I don’t think they believe what they are saying to us.
      It’s a Straight up Social Conservative v Social Progressivism problem Labor has with almost all non European migrant Communities (I got a bunch of Czech mates who oppose the ALP on similar grounds)
      The lowest “No vote” on Gay marriage was in usually labor held western Sydney and Melbourn equilivant Working class suburbs with dominate ethnic migrant Communities.
      Unlike Most other seats in Australia that have ALWAYS Voted for the same party for half a Century, these Immigrant Electorates are up for grabs.
      Labor Can not win without them.
      It’s got nothing to do with “Compassion” and everything to do with Survival and Winning.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I’m still here Brother.
        😘
        Thanks for Caring,…I love you too.

        On a side note,…When your comment is awaiting moderation does that mean no one can see it?

  20. tripsterMEMBER

    Here is something others can use if they want to email their local member and couldn’t be bothered drafting something themselves:

    I am a longtime resident of [xxxx] and have voted Labor all of my adult life.

    I was also fully intending to vote Labor at the upcoming election, until I understood more about the recent announcement from Bill Shorten about Labor’s proposed change to the Long Stay Parent Visa, in particular to make it uncapped in terms of the numbers of elderly parents who can apply for the visa.

    Analysis has shown that this may lead to in excess of 200,000 elderly parents being brought into Australia within a short period of time, placing incredible strain (our already strained) hospital systems and infrastructure. Australia is already suffering the economic consequences of an ageing population – why would we willingly make it worse?

    As a younger voter who is already paying incredibly high private health insurance premiums, and struggling under the burden of taxation and high housing costs, I do not understand why Labor would be doing this when it will make all of those things worse.

    I read a detailed analysis of the potential consequences of this policy this morning (I have included the link below) and it has caused me significant concern.

    From what I have read no other Western Country has a policy of this kind that has NO CAP on the places – all other countries are very careful to restrict the numbers of elderly parents that they allow into their countries due to the significant economic burden associated with it.

    If Labor pursues this policy then they have lost my vote forever.

    https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/05/labor-visa-earthquake-to-trigger-elderly-migrant-tsunami/#comment-3344493

    Best regards

  21. haroldusMEMBER

    Would this count in overall migration numbers?
    The total inbound is something like 800k right?
    So this would go to 600k plus 200k wrinklies?
    As Rich said, these 200k sort themselves out.

    Also as Mackack points out, this is an election promise, so Labor’s vibrant new fan base might be getting a lesson in Australian election promises.

    • The tax from their consumption will go nowhere near to paying for their health care and other services. A regional doctor I know said they are already at bteaking point. This is lost in the noise of the thought bubbles of this election. Once Bill is elected he’ll be pushed to do more by the extreme forces in the party. Maybe EP can sit him down for a chat lol

    • This policy is as cynical as they come. The ALP knows that voters from several very family-centred cultures would donate both nuts and ovaries if they had a chance to import mum and dad. Every other political poison is sugar coated by this bait. They’d vote for the return of the White Australia Policy if it meant that they got the old folks through the door before it slammed shut.

      In the era of “ageing populations” the ALP will progress a geriatric policy to keep Chinese and Indian immigrants voting for them forever. It’s almost funny, because they’ll drop right back into ‘ageing population’ narrative when the dust settles on this bit of corruption.

      We’ve seen industry exploit mass immigration to drive down wages. Our university sector depends on live human trade to make cash. Now the ALP are exploiting it to win votes. It shows that there is absolutely no demographic strategy to this other than cynical opportunism. This policy exposes that principle free reality. We are being governed by people who have no strategic consistency other than what serves best for the next election pitch – it’s all a cynical front.

      Ipso facto – we are truly screwed until the party duopoly is broken. The ALP is just as bad as the LNP.

      • @Clive – You have summarised the real issue perfectly. Whenever I start questioning if there just might be a shred of altruistic intent in these politicians, I just ask myself how much a person like Bill Shorten desires to become PM.

        It is just serendipitous if their selfish actions happen to align with the greater good.

      • @Slambo – Totally. Our party duopoly is a vehicle for the same flavour of personal ambition. The negative reaction of the Australian people to the dead eyes and empty heart of Bill Shorten will be proven to be prophetic. The union movement became a career path to politics and my guess is that Bill always sought power, even as a child. But sane people don’t seek power over others. They do so because of a character flaw, personality defect or delusions of grandeur – they are getting back at the bully or kids who did not pick them for the team. Only those totally committed to democracy and principle by their actions should ever be trusted. Bill is a union schemer who’s found that if you turn up to the meetings and keep quiet you can move up simply by walking into the carnage and hostility and not threatening anyone. You gain support as a ‘peacemaker’ for really doing nothing but compromise. Because there is no great leader who ever did anything of note without principle. Bill has no real principles and in this case he is just the mirror to the comically retarded Morrison and his gang of social vandals. It’s like opposing Attila the Hun with a platform of ‘we should all be nice to each other’.

  22. Will parent visas create skills shortages?

    Bring in more migrants who then bring in their parents who then create skills shortages who…….

  23. So will we see Immigration representatives kicking out elderly parents after the 10 years, en masse?

    More likely, entitled migrants will insist after 10 years that these parents become permanent residents and get their pensions and Medicare cards.

  24. Is there a way to opt out of PAYG tax? Can I tell my employer to tax (not tax) me under a different arrangement?

    • Yes, there are several variations. One called Google, another called Apple, plenty of others. You need an overseas entity to wash the cash for you though.

  25. Watch as we get larger migrant households, with 3 sets of adults, all pooling their money to buy houses, pushing up house prices.

  26. John Howards Bowling Coach

    Labor are going to win. Not enough people understand this problem and enough idiots will think it is good virtue signalling. Remember a lot of migrants these days are more aligned to the LNP than Labor as they were in the past so the ALP are baiting them. The LNP have lost the plot, Summo is spewing almost incoherent garbage the last few days and if you actually understand his words, they are mostly completely dishonest or non sense. His babble that the end of negative gearing will kill the funding for state governments in the direct path from falling stamp duty is just an attempt at populism as it ignores the fact that the voters are paying that tax in the first place, so less stamp duty is just a result of people paying less property taxes, not seeing through that is only going to happen if you’re a Greens Voter who thinks government revenue falls from the sky… Australians aren’t that stupid are they? Oh, wait a second…

    Let’s pray it’s a non core promise and the free entry for expensive parents wanting a hip replacements and eye surgery gets canned before it sees light. It’s the sort of virtue signally you expect from Plibersek

  27. Is see jobs growth……………in intepretors, migrant community development and aged care sectors.

  28. By importing ready-made Labor voters, the Labor Party will try to change Australia’s demographics to the point where they can’t really get voted out.
    The millions of Chinese nationals we are talking about can hardly be expected to collectively act against the interests of their homeland.
    Nor can they be expected to shrink in relative size over time.
    Under Labor would we be looking at democracy with Chinese characteristics?

    Labor is the China-first party.

  29. Both parties deserve to be copping heat over this policy, as it was the Coalition who introduced it last year – https://www.seekvisa.com.au/sponsored-parent-870-visa/

    The new 870 Temporary Parent Visa only started in April 2019. It has a “no work” test and will only be valid for a total of 10 years. Applicants will also need private health insurance and have no access to medicare – and the sponsor will be liable for any costs incurred. Labor is proposing to halve the cost and uncap the numbers, but everything else looks the same so after the 10 years is up they will still have to apply for a permanent visa.

    The big cost that migrant groups are complaining about is the cost of getting a permanent parental visa. The cheap one already has a processing time of over 30 years and a more expensive Contributory Parental visas still takes a couple of year to process.

    To get an idea of the costs involved, recently I spoke to someone who had successfully obtained a couple of Contributory Parental visas for his two in-laws. During the time that the visa is being processed, they are still temporary residents and still not eligible for medicare. For each parent they had to put up $14k (10k from primary applicant and 4k from secondary applicant) as an assurance of support – money that would be held and deducted from if various medicare services and the like were utilised. Apparently from April this year the cost of this bond would be going up by 50%, making it $21k each.

    In addition there are the application fees, which according to Dept of Immigration are over $47k per applicant.
    https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/contributory-parent-143

    As neither party appear to be touching any of the above, it confirms for me that they are just trying to canvas for the migrant vote and appeal to do-gooders and Green voters who won’t look further into it and realise that it’s still going to cost over $60k per parent to get permanent residency.