Originally Posted by Hayshake
Many thanks for this. Are you sure that the Commonwealth Bank only accept the AoS Bond for 5 years and then you have to renew the Bond for another 5 years, please?
I wasn't really involved with the Bond for my mother because I was in the UK and my Aussie sister Elaine dealt with everything that had to be done about the AoS. She's never really told me anything about the Bond but Mum's CPV was granted in September 2006, which is nearly 5 years ago.
If the Deposit for the Bond expires and has to be renewed then I must remember to ask Elaine to deal with it. I've just assumed that it "must be" a fixed term deposit for 10 years but I've never discovered the details from Elaine, so if I may, I'd like to double check this with you before I rattle her cage about it!
Originally Posted by Mrs & Mrs T
DIAC publish very little information about Bridging Visas but what there is is contained in Form 1024i, not all of which is accurate with Aged Parents or Contributory Aged Parents who are British:
Bridging Visas are ONLY relevant where the Parent has applied for the *onshore* Aged Parent or Contributory Aged Parent visa. To be eligible for the onshore visa, the Parent's feet must be on Aussie soil at the time when the APV or CAPV application is lodged, plus the Parent must be old enough to be eligible for an APV or CAPV.
So - the Parent is already in Oz. What visa has the Parent used in order to get into Oz and how long a stay does it permit? Often, the answer is that the Parent has used a short stay Visitor Visa to get into Oz, which only permits a stay of 90 days at a time.
DIAC will not allow a hiatus between one period of stay being completed and another one beginning. They "bridge the gap" by granting the person a Bridging Visa, which allows the Parent (in this case) to remain in Australia lawfully until the APV or CAPV application has been processed and the visa granted.
So - the Parent is in Oz with a permitted stay of 90 days. He/she is old enough to be eligible for an APV or CAPV and the application for that is duly lodged with the Parents Visa Centre in Perth. The PVC staff check DIAC's records to find out when the Parent entered Oz, what visa was used for the purpose and what period of stay has been permitted. They realise that it won't be long until the permitted period of stay expires and that they have no hope of granting the APV or CAPV in time to prevent a time-gap.
Therefore when they acknowledge receipt of the APV or CAPV, the PVC confirm that a Bridging Visa A will come into effect automatically on the day when the permitted stay on the original visa expires. You don't have to do anything yourself in order to arrange this. DIAC deal with it for you.
The Bridging Visa A lasts for as long as it takes until the APV or CAPV is granted. With a CAPV, the period is usually about 4-6 months. With a non-contributory APV, the period will be around 7 years.
According to Form 1024i, the Parent will NOT be covered by Medicare during the duration of the Bridging Visa. That is not satisfactory. The Parent needs to be sure that an urgent medical problem will be dealt with immediately, especially if the Parent is going to have to spend 7 years on a Bridging Visa.
So I contacted Medicare and asked about this. Medicare said that if the Bridging Visa holder is from a country that has a reciprocal health care agreement with Oz then the BV holder (the Parent) will be treated as being a visitor to Australia throughout the duration of the Bridging Visa and s/he WILL be entitled to Medicare at the visitor's rate. Where the Parent is British, the RHCA says that Medicare will pay for any treatment that a doctor says is *necessary." (In other words, they'll pay for your Blood Pressure treatment but they will not necessarily pay to treat your Bunions as well!)
The other thing I queried via Mary's father (mentioned at the start of this thread) is the business of the Bridging Visa B.
The holder of a Bridging Visa A cannot be prevented from leaving Australia because Australia ceased to be a penal colony in 1841, soon after the Gold Rush began in Victoria. However a Bridging Visa A does not confer a right to re-enter Australia. That is no use when the Parent has applied for an APV or a CAPV because with either of those, the visa cannot be granted unless the Parent's feet are on Aussie soil at the time.
So if the waiting APV or CAPV applicant wants to leave Oz and be able to return to Oz, s/he MUST obtain a Bridging Visa B (known as 'the travel visa' before leaving Oz.) According to Form 1024i, there has to be a dire emergency in another country before a Bridging Visa B will be granted.
Mary's Dad was in Adelaide at the time, preparing to apply for a non-contributory APV. His daughter is a friend of mine. She likes to go on cruises from Australia, around the South Pacific and she likes to take the whole family with her, including her Parents. Form 1024i suggests that the Parents would not be allowed to go too because wanting to go on a jaunt round the South Pacific is hardly an emergency, after all! Mary's Dad went and saw DIAC in Currie St to ask them about this.
Apparently DIAC told him that a Parent who has applied for a non-contributory APV will always be granted a Bridging Visa B without sweat. Oh yes? Why? DIAC said that their Policy ruling is that a Parent who has applied for an APV is in for a very long wait and that it is unreasonable to keep the Parent trapped in Australia during this very long wait. Sure enough, he and his wife have now applied for their APVs and they now have Bridging Visa Bs to enable them to go on these foreign holidays.
Apparently DIAC did stress that the Bridging Visa B would only permit the Parent to spend a total of 90 days outside Australia in any calendar year. The reason for this is that, in theory at least, the Government might decide to grant a sudden amnesty on APVs and just grant them to everyone who has applied for them by dd/mm/yyyy. In that situation, DIAC would need the Parent to return to Oz very quickly, so it is better not to let him leave Oz for too long in the first place.
I don't know whether DIAC would be equally gracious about granting a Bridging Visa B when the Parent has applied for a CAPV because it won't take long to process and grant a CAPV anyway. So I'd be advising a CAPV applicant just to stay put in Oz for the duration of the processing of the CAPV unless there really is a genuine emergency in another country. DIAC might well be more gracious about this than I would be, though!
Does this answer Mum's queries, please?
Yes the Bond was taken out for 5 years in the first place.
I assume the bank will advise when the 5 year period is up, as it was all arranged via I think centrelink? or the official body. I guess it will have to be re-invested for a similar period at the rates applicable at the time.
It was arranged at the original investment that the interest was paid direct into my Australian bank account, but my son has to declare it for tax purposes, however I make sure he does not lose out.
I think you do an amazing job advising everybody about Parent Visa's, you must have spent an enormous amount of time researching and keeping up to date on this subject. Well Done.
Thanks very much
Originally Posted by Hayshake
Thanks for your kind words. I am passionate about the subject of Parent migration to Oz because we had 13 years of sheer hassle with the Balance of Family Test from 1993 to 2006 when Mum was finally able to obtain her CPV.
That is a long story but in essence S1.05 of the Regulations, which describes the BoF Test, says that a step-child is a "child" for the purpose of calculating the number of children to be counted in the BoF Test.
In 1999, a new definition of "step-child" was inserted into the Regulations. This said that a step-child is not a child if the step-child is over 18 at the time of the visa application. I gather that the new definition was not intended to alter the BoF Test. That happened by legal accident, I have been told.
In 2003, a well known solicitor called Peter Bollard acted for a lady called Mrs Xu on an appeal to the MRT. Mrs Xu was a widow who had one child of her own and two step-children. Her child was in Australia and her two step-childen were in China. DIAC said that she did not meet the BoF Test because the facts fell foul of S1.05 of the Regs.
Peter Bollard challenged that view. He argued that the 1999 definition of "step-child" must prevail because it was inserted after the original wording of S1.05. Personally, I think that was a very bold, brave argument but The Bollard persuaded the MRT to agree with him!
DIAC then altered their Policy to say that in a situation like Mrs Xu's, where the two conflicting definitions of "step-child" would produce two different outcomes for a visa applicant depending on which one is preferred, DIAC's staff must use the definition "that will not disadvantage the visa applicant," so the Manager of the Parents Visa Centre explained when I asked him for guidance about Mum's situation. Mum is/was a dead ringer for Mrs Xu except only that Mum has two children of her own and one step-child. The step-child and I both live in the UK, so sorting out the BoF Test was absolutely crucial to Mum's eligiblity.
Nobody has ever been more relieved and delighted than I was when the PVC confirmed, in 2005, that there would be no further problems with Mum's eligibility for a CPV! After that, the rest was plain sailing but we had almost given up hope by then, even though emigrating to Oz to be with her grandchildren became Mum's very dearest wish after she was widowed. To obtain her CPV for her was infinitely more valuable than any service I have ever performed for a normal law client, I feel.
Also, although I'm not an expert on Family Law, I've always been suspicious of the idea that there is any sort of legal relationship between a step-parent and a step-child. I suspect that these terms are really only social niceties. At best, if the law really considers that there is a legal relationship, it is one that cannot come into being without the overarching contract of marriage between the child's natural parent and the step-parent. It can only be a derivative relationship because it cannot be anything else. The death of the natural parent automatically severs the marital contract, so it seems to me that it must also sever any derivative relationship at the same time. I think the only way to avoid that would be if the step-parent adopts the step-child formally, which didn't happen in our own case. So the Aussie Government's attitude reminded me of kangaroos, frankly!
Anyhow, thanks very much for confirming that the Bond is only deposited for 5 years initially. On reflection, I think this is an excellent thing because 10 years is a very long time during which capital might be tied up at a lousy rate of interest, which might well improve during the 10 years. So I can see that two 5-year deposits would make more sense and would operate much more fairly.
Centrelink are "the dole office" according to Elaine when I asked her who they are! They manage the AoS scheme on behalf of DIAC. That was the result of the usual Civil Service twaddle. DIAC's staff used to organise the AoS themselves originally. Then a couple of Assurers managed to wriggle out of their AoS obligations by convincing a court that DIAC had not explained their obligations to them clearly enough. Gummint, in its usual clumsy wisdom, then decided that DIAC's officials only know about visas. Apparently they do not also know how to hammer AoS information into the skull of an Assurer but - seemingly - Centrelink's officials do know how to do that bit. Yerr! Right!!
Yes, I think you are right and I can relax. The Commonwealth Bank are bound to advise Elaine that the deposit (the Bond) will be expiring and they will either ask her what she wants them to do with the money or they will tell her that Centrelink require it to be re-invested for a further 5 years. Centrelink can't be so gormless that they would simply allow the CBA to release the money, I reckon!
Very many thanks again for this information because I didn't know about it till you mentioned it. I had assumed that a 10 year deposit must have been possible and that the depositor just has to live with it as far as the original interest rate is concerned.
Mods - I'm just bumping this thread back to the top to make sure that a lady called Wendy will be able to find it easily. She has started another thread called "Parenting Bridging Visas" so I just want to make sure that she can find the rest of the information with no trouble.
Hi gill. :-) we are now in oz and loving it. We are now trying to work out a way for the in laws to get over here. I have Been all through this thread and it looks like it's the way forward. So basically the in laws come here on a tourist visa and then apply the aged visa as soon as they get here? Has anyone done this recently to make sure it works?Btw hope you are well?John
Parent Bridging Visa
Could you supply a link, please, to the "Parenting Bridging Visa" started by Wendy as referred to in the quote below?
Originally Posted by Gollywobbler
Here ya go...............
Originally Posted by aerotony
Originally Posted by mr luvpants
I'm fine thanks and I'm delighted to hear that you are as well.
Ttwo or three people have posted on here within the last 6 months to confirm that thir own Parents have applied for Aged Parent Visas subclass 804 and have had no difficulty with any stage of the process.
The important thing to remember is that the Parents cannot simply bowl into Oz on a short stay visitor visa and tell the staff at the airport that they intend to stay in Australia forever.
The thought processes have to be done in the correct order. Therefore:
1. Parent gets a visitor visa for the sole purpose of visiting Oz;
2. At the time when he arrives in Australia, he still intends to do nothing but visit and then go home;
3. However AFTER his arrival in Oz, the Parent changes his mind and decides that he wants to apply for an Aged Parent visa instead of going home.
It is unlawful to obtain a visitor visa unless you do not intend to do anything other than "visit" Australia. "Visit" does not imply "stay indefinitely."
The whole idea will NOT work unless:-
A. The Parent meets the Balance of Family Test; and
B. Any relevant children MUST be "settled permanent residents of Australia."
Does this help, please?
Last edited by Gollywobbler; 13-07-2011 at 12:29 PM.