Labor’s elderly parent visas will bankrupt Australia’s welfare state

By Leith van Onselen

In the wake of Dr Bob Birrell’s startling report on Labor’s proposed uncapped visa for parents of existing migrants, it is worth considering what the long-term costs could be to Australian taxpayers and whether Labor’s policy is affordable.

Before considering these issues, below is Labor’s policy as per its website:

The Liberals’ unfair Temporary Sponsored Parent visa is completely different from the commitment they took to the 2016 election – with unfair conditions and higher fees for families wanting to reunite. Most cruelly, the Liberals are forcing families to choose which parents or in-laws they reunite with by limiting the visa to one set of parents per household.

LABOR’S PLAN

Labor’s fairer Long Stay Parent visa will allow parents and in-laws to reunite with their families and let all grandparents spend quality time with their grandkids:

Labor’s fairer Long Stay Parent visa will be more affordable for families – unlike the Liberal’s expensive fees that see families paying up to $40,000 to access visas.

Only a Shorten Labor Government will deliver a fair go for Australia’s proud migrant and multicultural communities with our fairer Long Stay Parent visa.

So, under Labor’s policy, each migrant citizen or permanent resident will be permitted to bring two elderly parents into Australia for a continuous period of 10 years at a cost of just $5,000, or $500 per year.

We can confidently assume that after this 10-year period has expired, these elderly parents will not be forced to return home and will, in effect, become permanent residents; although it is uncertain whether they would then gain full Medicare and Aged Pension benefits.

Under immense pressure, Labor’s immigration spokesman, Shayne Newman, stated via Twitter that “the new visa would apply the Coalition’s minimum taxable income of $83,454 for migrant families, thereby limiting demand to households earning above that figure”.

How many elderly migrants could Australia receive?

With the above facts in mind, let’s now consider the potential numbers of elderly migrants that could come to Australia under Labor’s policy.

According to the ABS’ latest migrant data there were 7.3 million people born overseas living in Australia in 2018:

If we very conservatively assume that 20% of these migrants would seek to bring one parent to Australia under Labor’s policy (let alone two as permitted), then Australia would be looking at around 1.5 million elderly parents flooding into Australia over the first few years of the scheme, most of whom would come to migrant-heavy Sydney and Melbourne.

The number of elderly migrants in Australia would also grow quickly over time under Labor’s policy. Australia’s permanent migrant planning level is currently set at 160,000, with another 16,000 under the humanitarian program:

Subtracting permanent parental visas issued under the Family stream leaves around 170,000 permanent migrants per year that will be permitted under Labor to bring in two elderly parents each.

Therefore, Australia could easily be inundated with millions of elderly migrants in the first term of a Labor Government.

How much would these migrants cost taxpayers?

The Productivity Commission’s (PC) Migrant Intake into Australia Report estimated that the circa 9,000 elderly permanent parental visas granted every year cost Australian taxpayers between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms, or between $335 000 and $410 000 per elderly adult, with the cost rising over time as numbers increase:

“The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms. Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.

Ultimately, every dollar spent on one social program must require either additional taxes or forgone government expenditure in other areas. It seems unlikely that parent visas meet the usual standards of proven need, in contrast to areas such as mental health, homelessness or, in the context of immigration, the support of immigrants through the humanitarian stream, and foreign aid.

Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak”.

It is true that Labor’s scheme isn’t as generous as the existing capped elderly permanent parental visa scheme, since they won’t immediately qualify for Medicare. Instead, they will be required to take-out private health insurance.

That said, as these migrants will be heavy users of the health system (due to their old age), they will require cross-subsidisation from other private health insurance members and will likely force up premiums for everyone else.

The massive increase in demand for health services will also require heavy investment in new health care workers (e.g. doctors and nurses), whose training is paid for to a large extent by taxpayers, as well as significant investment into new hospitals and aged care facilities.

Taxpayers will also need to invest more heavily into roads and public transport, water and sewerage, and the like to cater for the bigger population of non-taxpayers.

If we conservatively assume that the net cost of each new elderly migrant under Labor’s policy is one-quarter of the PC’s estimate under the existing permanent scheme, then Australia is still looking at a bill of around $84,000 to $102,500 per elderly migrant.

Multiplying this cost by the conservative 1.5 million estimate above, and the cost to Australian taxpayers could easily surpass $150 billion in net present value terms within the first term of a Labor Government, and thereafter grow proportionally alongside the growth in Australia’s migrant stock.

Labor’s policy could end the welfare state

There is no magic pudding when it comes to public finances, and the massive fiscal cost of Labor’s policy would necessarily divert funding away from other social programs, such as:

  • funding for schools and hospitals;
  • funding for infrastructure;
  • funding for the Aged Pension and Newstart; and
  • funding for the NDIS.

The cost of Labor’s policy would be enormous and could end Australia’s welfare state as we know it.

It also obliterates the false claim that a strong migration program is needed to mitigate an ageing population. Instead, Labor’s policy will dramatically age Australia’s population.

[email protected]

Comments

  1. Truly ironic. I suspect that, secretly, many immigrants are actually pleased with the current arrangements, because it means they could tell Grandma: “Look, we’d love to have you stay with us, but unfortunately the rules don’t allow it”. If the policy is changed, they will no longer have this excuse. By the way – is this something that needs to go through the Senate, or can it be changed simply by Executive decree?

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Ive been thinking about your first point, I reckon this policy may backfire in a huge way for Labor in migrant Communities.
      Fking spin doctors.

  2. It’s you Melbournetards and Sydneyc0cks that think you are so cool compared to the rest of the country. So enjoy the phlem spitting Chinese grannies and the street sh1tting indians that you progressives have embraced!

    • Flinders Street station has had signs written “Do not spit on stairs” for a long time. Someone must have known what the future holds.

      • Interestingly these were originally posted during the Spanish Influenza outbreak in 1919 and to control TB into the 60s and 70s. No one wants to address the very real possibility that mass tourism and immigration has increased contact rates and exposure rates to (e.g.) emerging viruses. By cramming people into cities and shuttling people from counties where emerging diseases arise (China) and ‘civil behaviours’ are different our great leaders have avoided mentioning that is likely to one day be responsible for epidemics of flu that will kill many more than had we stabilised our population and become less dependent upon mass tourism. They don’t because it would be racist to mention it of course….

        Not all diversity is good diversity. A greater diversity of diseases coming to Australia and being cycled has been overlooked. The impact of pathogens that like to live in high rise air treatment plans has also never featured in a Domain article (i.e. “The ABCs of legionella”) – I wonder why? Living high rise is unhealthy and a risky strategy during a pandemic.

  3. Q. Why would the foreign born only bring in 1 parent?

    That defies logic, for most it will be at least both.

    Let’s say 20% of 7.3 million overseas born (1.46 million) x 2 elderly parents each.
    That’s closer to 3 million.

    And quite naturally the demand will be all 4 parents.

    At 20% of 7.3 million foreign born wanting to bring in their elderly parents, that’s a demand for up to 6 million..

    And what is ‘elderly’?
    Is there an age floor or cap?

    And is this ‘on top’ of the existing intake?

    Our PR run rate has been about 190k a year over the last decade / say 1.9 million mostly unskilled third world migrants.

    Not all PR become citizens, a large proportion stay on PR (Malay, Thai, English, European or say Chinese Hukou tier 1 city pass holders) want to keep their foreign national status , they still get Australian Medicare & welfare as a PR.

    Others like low status Chinese Hukou – illegals in the tier 1 cities & now the dominant Chinese TR intake, or Indians (sole passport) try to get citizenship as quickly as possible to be an anchor / sponsor & get the cash back in chain migration.

    Even at 160,000 new PR intake a year – that’s another 480,000 new PR in the next 3 years.

    And let’s not forget the TR/NZ SCV
    March 2018 2.431 million. (VisaSure)
    March 2019 / 2.561 million up 130,000 or 5.3%.
    (DHA quarterly tables)

    Mostly are third world born unskilled adult TR on a variety of visa pretexts or via the NZ SCV transit stop

    That’s also an extra 411,000 TR/NZ SCV at the 5.3% yearly growth rate.
    And that’s a total of 3 million TR/NZ SCV onshore in 3 years.

    Let’s just say the PR & TR intake rates are the same
    Over 3 years 2019-2022 it’s :
    480,000 new PR migrants
    411,000 new TR / NZ SCV (40% non NZ born)
    => 890,000 new onshore non citizens
    Plus:
    Liberal
    15,000 elderly migrant cap x 3 years = 75,000
    ➡️ Total 965,000
    say 1 million unskilled, third world & now elderly migrants

    Or
    Labor elderly ‘uncapped’ as per article.
    890,000 new PR & TR/NZ SCV as above.
    Plus up to 500,000 migrant parent elderly with demand of at least 3 million or more in backlog..
    ➡️ A total of 1.5 million extra third world unskilled & elderly migrants.

    Concentration.

    Given 87% of the new migrants are concentrated in Sydney & Melbourne it’s a very reasonable assumption that these 1 million, 1.5 million plus now the elderly migrants will be highly concentrated in both cities.

    Our Housing, services, hospitals, infrastructure, transport, roads, water, power etc are already overloaded.
    -/-
    Madness.

    • Here are some additional facts.

      Every country in the world population age pyramid demographic – now and projected over the next decade.
      Just published by Axios May 12 2019.

      Maybe Leith would like to include this is some of his articles & commentary.

      https://www.axios.com/world-population-distribution-countries-future-0cfebfd5-1d13-496a-b562-edf9dd0c76a2.html

      Australia isn’t too bad – it has one of the lowest best balanced population stacks of the OECD.

      Something finally conceded in the ‘Inter-Generational Report’.
      Australia did not need to import millions of ‘young migrants’ (who aren’t young & are a high net economic & welfare burden) or raise the pension age.

      We have in fact one of the better balanced population stacks in Australian born & one of the lowest ratios of pension outlays per Capita in the OECD..

      But we do have one of the highest outlays per capita for migrant intake, migrant unemployment & migrant welfare – with tens of billions now being sucked up by migrant PR & dual passport holders overseas.

      Now have a look at China.
      1.4 billion in a decade & the age pyramid literally explodes at the top.

      Or India (select by country) remembering India goes from 1.3 billion to 1.6 billion. Again remember scale & numbers – 20% aged Indians is 320 million.

      And that’s the pipeline to try & enter a western oecd country for healthcare & welfare.

  4. I never heard this grandparent import whinge from any other group.

    We got immigrants from Italy in 1967, they got married, had kids, and visited Italy in 1980. The grandpa never moved to AUS.
    Did Gillard import her grandpa?

    992,000 immigrants from England, 568,000 from NZ, 189,000 from South Africa?

    If we are to have mass immigration, why not import rugby fans from there instead instead of people who have a tendency to live with their grandparents? And people who have lived in a South African village or a British village their entire life rather than importing males from megacities who move to an Aussie megacity as soon as they get an Aussie passport.

    $83,454

    That should be the minimum salary on the 457 visa. You would cut down the number of grandpa whingers and immigrants on $83k/year would hopefully be paying more tax than immigrants on $10/hour.

    • The other thing being missed in this “analysis” is the age distribution of those foreign-born Australian residents/citizens included in the ABS statistics… there is nothing whether the figures count only those under 50, whether or not they actually have parents any more, how long they’ve been in the country, nothing like that…

      • A huge chunk of Australia’s migrant population has arrived over the past 15 years. Many will be young enough to still have parents.

        My analysis of the numbers was, if anything, conservative.

      • Looks like the ABS estimates don’t really look right when contrasted with the numbers in the 2016 (15.6m Australian born) and 2011 (15m Australian born) censuses… 2m either born here or migrated back over two years? Not likely…

    • nah, better to stay and try to change two corrupt parties from within, they’ll never see it coming.

  5. reusachtigeMEMBER

    DO NOT vote for Loser Shorten and his crippled party! Vote 1 for the Liberal Nationalist. Only they will protect our borders and make sure to bring in more if the right sort of people and not the lame elderly.

  6. One thing is for sure – the extra hundreds of thousands of bods will be a great support for Australian housing

    To house the grandparents, those new Australians will need to move to a bigger place, build a granny flat or rent another separate apartment.

    Adding this to a pre-existing housing shortage, you can expect some pretty predictable results.

    • Yep, housing is the economy. If private debt for housing fails, we will have public debt. And if the gfc taught us anything, when push comes to shove private debt is public debt.

    • DominicMEMBER

      Except that these geriatrics wont be economically active and few will be independently wealthy. Certainly none will be able to borrow a cent, so … non-compliant granny flats and 4 to a room it is then.

    • I’m not sure about that. Don’t mistake western standards of living for those the target group of this policy will use. I think the richer Chinese migrants will go for the spare bedroom option for mum and dad, but as I said yesterday on weekend links I think the poorer migrants will just Harry Potter their olds and put them anywhere, partition the lounge room, repurpose the laundry if they’re in a house. I also think that many migrants will be forced to sponsor their families by the family back home regardless of whether or not they can afford to financially pay for 1-4 non productive adults in theirhouse (many migrants lie to the people back home about their true situation after migrating because the pressure to be successful is unreal and no one wants the dream of living on easy western st destroyed) and I think this will tip some families into mortgage stress that had previously been doing ok and destroy families that were struggling. I think that there’s a possibility this may not be housing market positive. It took me years to get over my shock at living conditions Chinese were prepared to live in when I was there.

      • Great comment…there’s a lot more to this problem than is understood by most Aussies.
        It’s all about importing people and when you import people you also import their passions, their problems and their prejudices.
        As you say (wrt China) the cultural Image of going to America (or Australia) is one of winning the lottery, but today’s reality is often quite different…..yet these bonds of Filial piety persist.

    • 6 adult households will mean more money pooled together, meaning the ability to push up prices. It’s a nice way for Labor to keep house values up.

    • This is why they buy houses in Tarneit.

      The train station allows them to commute to their $10/hour IT and accounting jobs in the CBD – while a million Aussies are unemployed and told to “study STEM”.

      The land is cheap enough to build a 4 bedroom house that can accommodate 6 people.

    • Australia is blessed with vast natural resources, the biggest of which is a bottomless pit of stupidity we can mine forever

  7. BoethiusMEMBER

    To put the $150b. cost of this “policy” in context, there are about 10m households in Australia.
    So we have here an estimated cost, in the first term of government, of $15,000 per household.

    • Nobody will care.

      Because the “house” bit of the household will go up $50k+ in the same period. Despite what Leith says, there is a magic pudding in public financing, see, and it’s private housing.

  8. St JacquesMEMBER

    Yep Peachy, spot on, That’s all the CFMEU cares about, and the LNP bosses at the Big End of Town and every mug property punter too, -like the new reduced subprime deposits. Anything to keep Straya’s one trick pony alive even if it’s just for another few years.

    This FIRE ponzi economy is now in intensive care and all stops will be pulled to keep this zombie alive until the next election. We’re definitively on the Road to Nowhere now. This country lost its mind to greed long, long ago, now its leading political scumbags have carte blanche to prostitute it on the global street corner. The place is going to hell slowly but more surely for all that. The only thing that will save Oz in the long run is a hard landing now, that would break the ponzi delusion and force a fundamental rethink, but that is not going to be allowed to happen.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQiOA7euaYA

    • I know that others aren’t reading it that way but this is what I’m saying when I say that the present immigration deal needs to be sweetened to remain attractive, and immigration needs to remain attractive to support the Ponzi scheme. It’s not a logical path to anywhere but the poor house, but it is the path that were on and it’s the pathway that our present Aussie economy is best structured to serve.

  9. Spoke to a fed labor mp who denied it was an issue on the w.e and said aust has always welcomed immigrants.

    Also said it was good for the mental health of the immigrant families.

    Said it was a news limited beat up because uncle bill doesn’t like news Corp…

    • Daz la, why don’t you name the MP and electorate?

      You keep posting this but you never say whom it was that you spoke to.

    • It’s not good for integration, so not good for the locals. We already have migrants who speak in foreign languages on their mobile phones during work and lunch breaks. This will mean they have less need to ‘make friends’ with the locals if they have their extended family here too.

      • TO be fair most migrants in the workforce are very friendly and do want to make friends with locals, but often they can’t

      • Simon, I can only go by my recent observations from office-based work, and I’m seeing more and more migrants either talking exclusively amongst people from similar origins (including loud conversations in foreign tongues); talking to people on the phone in their lunch breaks (and during work) again loudly in foreign languages, and or walking around the office talking in a foreign language.

        When I did do blue collar work years ago, it was a different story, there was more of a sense of comradery, including with more engaged migrants.

        But office world, it is a different story, sadly.

  10. michael francis

    Taking out private health insurance is bullshit. When they get sick an ambulance is called and it’s straight to a public hospital emergency admission.

  11. Ronin8317MEMBER

    It is about the Indian vote.

    The existing parent visa is a very expensive long term tourist visa that is designed to be not taken up. The new ALP visa will be a disaster, because the ‘private health insurance’ won’t cover much at all. This is morally wrong : we are setting up people to become destitute.

    • No one is becoming destitute except the Australian taxpayer.
      NSW Health can’t and won’t enforce any debt raised by a hospital admission.

      • With no growth funding in fy1920 that might change

        Of course it relies on patient disclosing they are a PHI member. There should be a dynamic cross check of Medicare numbers with PHI

    • Our local resident PHI doesn’t cover much (mainly a tax dodge and that is how it is set up), but the PHI that they are suppose to take out covers more, but it costs more. It costs about $6000 pa for a couple. Not exactly cheap and with an older cohort taking out PHI (if they do), then expect this number to rise drastically.

      • Ronin8317MEMBER

        My in-laws bought the private health insurance cover when they visited Australia : it’s pretty much accident tourist cover, and they only cover up to the MBS fee. Furthermore, medication cost is capped at something low like $300…

  12. From a short-term mindset the numbers add up perfectly. Winning seats is the only thing that matters in the here and now til Saturday. Paying the piper down the road is not this week’s problem.

    Go long corrugated iron shacks and public lotteries to see if you win the right for a bridge to sleep under

    • St JacquesMEMBER

      And the opposing side wouldn’t dare to oppose it for fear of offending the said ethnic vote. Both sides are on the same page. Go Straya.

  13. It’s that stupid a policy, economically, it could almost have come from the Greens!

      • Greens also want to reduce the backlog of family reunion visas (usually parents). I think they are quoting there is a backlog of 97,000 applicants.

  14. Everyone forgets that we need these migrants to stem our ageing population.

    Praise be to Wahleed.

  15. Interesting to see that absolutely nobody is commenting on Australia’s need to introduce Aged care visa’s.
    It’s like you’ve all decided that it is completely optional and therefore a silly decision given that there’s no good reason for ever making.such a decision.
    Hmmm I’m not so sure
    Australian wages were once a upon a time at least 5 times Chinese wages for equivalent jobs, basically whatever you would earn in China in RMB was paid in Australia in AUD. That difference motivated people to move And provided sufficient excess capital that they could afford to have their parents taken care of in China living a grand life, but that was before Chinese wages strengthened and before new Australian migrants were forced to pay upward of 10 times their wages for simple shelter.
    Today it’s a lot harder to convince a highly skilled Chinese employee to relocated to Australia…the reward equation is just weak …once they calculate how much they’ll need to spend on Aussie housing and Aussie schools/coaching and still support their parents living in China (while simultaneously paying daycare in Australia) …well lets just say they’re quick to tell you how much more they’ll need to be paid so that the whole venture makes financial sense.
    Now how does the same calculation work out if I can bring my parents to Australia???
    As I said at the start I suspect you guys are all putting the cart before the horse (wrt who really chooses and who really benefits…an therefore who really needs to make additional compromises)

    • It’s a fair comment, and the same analysis we all make if offered a job in Sydney. More money, but totally unaffordable housing, unaffordable lifestyle, crush-loaded, rubbish amenity for families etc. No economic and social basis for the decision unless you are clever, well educated, child-free and happy to suck up a dog-box for some quick cash … or totally desperate because anywhere is better than where you and your family now are. The thing is you are assuming Australia is filling our cities at break-neck pace with the former.

    • Aged care visas? Convince “highly skilled Chinese”? Mate, you sure do enjoy waffling on about a lot of nonsense!

      • I’d politely suggest that you simply ignore me, it’ll be a hard cross for me to bear but I suspect I’ll get over it.

      • I usually do ignore your comments. But you just consistently post dribble and garbage and you need to be called out on it from time to time fisho.

      • Well thank you for your honesty, however with all due respect I’ll keep writing my drivel and you can keep ignoring me.
        I know that the opinions I express are not shared by the majority but does that automatically mean that they should be suppressed or censored? It’s a slippery slope when fringe opinions need to be suppressed to keep the majority happy and that’s somewhere that I’m not ready to go.

    • Which highly skilled Chinese are we getting whose skills are so in demand they can’t be found locally?
      And why is their pay so low?

    • Relevant StakeholderMEMBER

      This is aimed at those already here. Please tell me what valuable industry the Chinese work in that is worth the cost of importing 100-200,000 oldies in the first year of operation?

      • Well for a start there are a fair number of recently arrived Chinese involved in RE development in Australia.
        It’s hard to argue that we don’t need the additional houses given the high demand especially in Sydney/Melb
        A lot of Australian Chinese that I know work in various import businesses (in a way they’re the new Aussie Manufacturing replacement …we now must import what we used to make)
        I know a good number of Chinese that work in banking (there’s hardly a more iconic Aussie business than banking)
        It’s not my job to TELL the economy what skills it is short of not is it my job to figure out what environment/package is needed to keep the great Aussie Ponzi scheme alive…because that’s what we are doing …that’s all we are doing …but that said it seems to be what the majority of Aussies want our elected officials to keep doing .
        Have you been into a pub recently and heard the refrain that the government needs to do something to prevent the Sydney Re market from collapsing? (stupidity maybe ..but it is what really worries average Aussies) they want solutions and the only long term way to prevent price collapse is to continue to pump the population….
        stupid but reality

    • Fisho, in my sector there are not the jobs in hardware product based that would cause a Chinese s/w enginerr to move here. Far more advanced work is being done there. When I left the US in 2010 many of my indian colleagues were returning to india and that happened over a few years where they said never to let’s go. One thing Aussies don’t realise that there are so many engineers in india and china and for the indians the ones who get os jobs in the US at least, they are ususlly in the top 1%. With globalisation the pay is up in india as you’re saying but also lifestyle and cost of living. Many of my mates have really nice homes there and live like kings as they have servants and other helpers. It’s not the lifestyle for everyone but it’s becoming a factor. Many who come here skilled are paying a big trade off. Finally many of the guys I worked with have homes all over the world and are mobile.

      On this specific issue there probably needs to be some means test as well as it will be open to corruption

      • Yeah I worked with plenty of Indians in the US that have returned and are now Bangalore Billionaires. Same goes for lots of Chinese engineers but the big return for them was over 15 years ago.
        As a result of the world having so many Chinese and Indian engineers we now have an absurd situation where engineering wages are globally down (compared with other professions) .
        Last year I wanted to get some mechanical parts designed for a sort of two stage turbo charger, I visited a couple of local companies but I quickly established that they didn’t have the expertise to do the job and intended to outsource it to China. So naturally I decided to cut out the middle man.
        A friend had custom plans drawn up for a major house remodeling/extension and guess what the bulk of the architectural design work was done in India.
        The world’s changing fast, so immigration deals that were unbelievably sweet 10 years ago are now unattractive. But that doesn’t mean that Australian companies can afford to sweeten the offer through wage increases because the job will just end up off shore. this reality is seeping into the Aussie economy through whichever holes we fail to plug up …but is plugging the holes really the long term answer?

    • I don’t have the answer either. All I know I have to do most of my work offshore when I can get it, and it’s drying up here. We don’t seem to have the culture to do lots of engineering now. There are bits here and there, but people just see housing as it’s been very attractive looking back as the investment of choice. Housing for investment will bring us down eventually, but in the meantime we’ll import more demand and tinker with policy to make it attractive as it’s such a huge part of GDP. This particular alp policy though could had really bad effects on our services as they are already on the edge listening to doctor/nurse friends and the investment isn’t going effectively into it. They never seem to listen to the people charged with do the job, and probably that they don’t want the truth. F knows, but electing any of the three majors will not fix anything imo. It’s why my vain attempt in voting was to put the independents and sap into the senate to hopefully control the crazies in all those parties. I don’t know what else to do, but I do feel helpless in a sinking ship.

      • I’m aware as are many I have spoken to. Plus. it just shows how the major parties just can’t take a clue. Nationalism and protectionism is on the rise all over the world. Brexit, 5-star movement, yellow vests, trump wall. You would think that was enough to get it through their skulls. Now I am not saying we need to swing to those extreme’s, but just at least don’t announce policies that are the complete opposite

  16. Hardly anyone knows about this policy. Fairfax haven’t even mentioned it as far as I know.

    Will it need to get through the Senate?

  17. All to get the migrant vote – a cohort that has helped suppress wages, increase housing, strain infrastructure, increase congestion and reduce amenity.

  18. “the new visa would apply the Coalition’s minimum taxable income of $83,454 for migrant families, thereby limiting demand to households earning above that figure”.

    So can we at least see this as a silver lining? In that people who do want to bring their parents over will have to declare at least that much of their income, so no more cash in hand jobs.

    Also, if the compulsory private health insurance the olds have to get is anything like the PHI people on student visas and the old 457 visa have to take out, it’s going to be a massive revenue boost for PHI providers. If I were conspiratorially-minded on this, I would even be tempted to think the whole plan was cooked up by the PHI industry just to sell more plans…

    • TailorTrashMEMBER

      That $83,454 is in the wrong colum …..it should be verified Tax paid each year for the last 10 years to import your aged parents ….and then with strict understood limitations …….no healthcare and no pension …..this has to be one of the worst policies ever and labor is not even in government yet …..

  19. 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 has just 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 $120k to get permanent residency.

    If either party was serious about enforcing the costs, the 870 visa would have the same kind of Assurance of Support bond requirement – 50k for a 5 year visa paid upfront.

  20. Jevons ghostMEMBER

    Interesting series of hard-hitting exposés on corruption in PNG & Solomon Islands. Looks like Strayan interests are knee deep in a lot of it. Check out what is happening on Rennell Island for example. Livelihoods and a decent future for the locals being destroyed.

    http://pngicentral.org

  21. Concerned_Citizen

    Make no mistake. This is one of the most destructive policy decisions ever announced. As a member for 23 years I would never have thought the destruction of this nations health and welfare systems would come from the Labor Party.
    Last week I was handing out how to vote cards. This morning I resigned my membership.
    Both sides of politics are dead to Australians.

    • Did you make it clear to them why you dropped your membership (as well as actively participating and volunteering) with the party?

  22. There is more than social welfare costs to all this migration – there is also the cost of upgrading infrastructure, transport service etc and then there is the down grade to general living standards – having been a temporary resident of Oz 2005 – 2010 now returned to NZ – the down grade of quality of life in main cities from congestion and shitty new developments is pretty obvious and having lived for some while out on the Murray – the productive regional community is getting shafted by the need to drain money from the least vocal parts of the nation to fund “growth” or more correctly bloat, in the main urban centres. Could I recommend this SMH article from some years back https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-yarra-monster-is-killing-us-20100822-13apt.html which highlights how Oz is going wrong (as are most industrialized nations). The major cities have become terminally parasitic on the productive economy – Oz still still pays its way by farming and mining – the cities are simply there to spend the proceeds – and the cities are twice as big as they were 30 years ago and produce no more but consume lots more – while the same number of acres are paying for it. This can not end well and importing ever more unproductive consumers whether from Britannia of Bangladesh will only speed the rate at which your living standards deteriorate.

  23. Samet f2f d th f

    If its a problem then why Government do not stop migrating people. Because they bring money into Australia in form of study fees (around $15,000 for 6 months) and other costs which is the main source of income of Australian Government. In this case they shouldn’t be taxed in their jobs too. Everbody here wants to take not to give. They are taxpayers too and should get all the benefits. It is the parent’s money that help somebody come here. So why should parents be left behind. What we mean by migrants? Everybody is a migrant here except Aboriginals.

  24. – Labor is pandering more and more to the immigrants. One has to admit that the composition of the australian population is changing. And the political scene will be forced to change as well. Just get used to it.