"Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Jul 25th 2005, 5:00 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
One of the requirements in getting Parent Visas and Contributory Parent
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% -- red.) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children. So, may I
say that there is a connection between "Balance of Family Test" and
"the White Australian Policy" that was formally used in Australia up to
1970s?! In another word, am I correct to assume that "Balance of
Family Test" is currently implemented to stop the migration of
non-caucasian parents into Australia? If it's true, then the White
Australian Policy is still being implemented (of course in a different
form) in Australia.
Paul
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% -- red.) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children. So, may I
say that there is a connection between "Balance of Family Test" and
"the White Australian Policy" that was formally used in Australia up to
1970s?! In another word, am I correct to assume that "Balance of
Family Test" is currently implemented to stop the migration of
non-caucasian parents into Australia? If it's true, then the White
Australian Policy is still being implemented (of course in a different
form) in Australia.
Paul
Jul 25th 2005, 8:16 pm
#2
Reg. Migration Agent
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Inner Western suburbs of Sydney
Posts: 4,483
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Paul
One of the requirements in getting Parent Visas and Contributory Parent
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% -- red.) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children. So, may I
say that there is a connection between "Balance of Family Test" and
"the White Australian Policy" that was formally used in Australia up to
1970s?! In another word, am I correct to assume that "Balance of
Family Test" is currently implemented to stop the migration of
non-caucasian parents into Australia? If it's true, then the White
Australian Policy is still being implemented (of course in a different
form) in Australia.
Paul
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% -- red.) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children. So, may I
say that there is a connection between "Balance of Family Test" and
"the White Australian Policy" that was formally used in Australia up to
1970s?! In another word, am I correct to assume that "Balance of
Family Test" is currently implemented to stop the migration of
non-caucasian parents into Australia? If it's true, then the White
Australian Policy is still being implemented (of course in a different
form) in Australia.
Paul
Hi Paul,
It's more about numbers than race with the balance of family test, if you track the changes to this test.
Probably the fact that it's still harder for Africans to get here compared to any other continent is more supportive of your thesis, although given that there's no longer a colour bar you can't use the phrase "White Australia" without provoking passionate disagreement. You could put it as highly as "substantial discrimination", however precisely identifying the target group for that discrimination would be tricky, possibly more related to socio-economic status than colour these days.
Cheers,
George Lombard
www.austimmigration.com.au
Aug 28th 2005, 7:54 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Paul
One of the requirements in getting Parent Visas and Contributory Parent
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% ) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
Paul
Visas in Australia is 'Balance of Family Test'. As a Canadian citizen,
I initially did not understand what 'Balance of Family Test' was,
because there was no such a thing in Canada. Well, this is what I quote
from http://www.immi.gov.au :
'Balance of Family' Test
All parents applying for a visa in the Parent or Contributory Parent
category must meet the 'balance of family' test. This means the parent
must have:
1. at least half (50% ) of their children living lawfully and
permanently in Australia, or
2. more children living lawfully and permanently in Australia than in
any other single country overseas.
So, examining the definition, I can say that parents with 2 children or
less have a better chance to obtain (Contributory) Parent Visas than
those with 3 or more children, because:
1. If one child becomes an Australian Permanent Resident (PR), it
counts as 50% or more for parents with 2 children or less, but counts
as only 33% or less for parents with 3 children or more.
2. Please bear in mind that it is difficult to be admitted as an
Australian PR. So, parents with 3 children or more can hardly wish that
2 or more children of theirs will become Australian PRs.
Paul
I agree with SOME of what you say Paul but not all. I too think the balance of family test is unfair and although geographics and different cultures [hence coulors] play a part, I'm not sure using colour is the correct defence.
I for instance am white and one of four siblings. Like you say, our chance of bringing our parents in to Aus is unfairly limited by the fact we come from larger families when compared to the majority 2 child family.
As in my case, my being in Aus calculates to a 25% "contribution" to the success of my parents application rather than 50% [where there are two sibling families] and who's to say having equal children in each country is any more guaranteed [or less] in terms of sponsorship or taking on parental liability?
Also, providing parents pay the price for the visa, what does it matter how many kids are in each country? As it happens in our case there are two siblings in each, but there for the grace of God go I!.......
In order to create a more equitable solution, perhaps there should be a deduction of visa costs the more children within each family there are in Aus? This would redress the balance!......personally I would prefer the balance of family to be scrapped as it seems wholly unfair and illogical and only serves to penalise larger families.
Good luck Paul, whatever happens.
Aug 28th 2005, 12:05 pm
#4
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne - the worlds most livable city
Posts: 964
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Phoenixuk2oz
I agree with SOME of what you say Paul but not all. I too think the balance of family test is unfair and although geographics and different cultures [hence coulors] play a part, I'm not sure using colour is the correct defence.
I for instance am white and one of four siblings. Like you say, our chance of bringing our parents in to Aus is unfairly limited by the fact we come from larger families when compared to the majority 2 child family.
As in my case, my being in Aus calculates to a 25% "contribution" to the success of my parents application rather than 50% [where there are two sibling families] and who's to say having equal children in each country is any more guaranteed [or less] in terms of sponsorship or taking on parental liability?
Also, providing parents pay the price for the visa, what does it matter how many kids are in each country? As it happens in our case there are two siblings in each, but there for the grace of God go I!.......
In order to create a more equitable solution, perhaps there should be a deduction of visa costs the more children within each family there are in Aus? This would redress the balance!......personally I would prefer the balance of family to be scrapped as it seems wholly unfair and illogical and only serves to penalise larger families.
Good luck Paul, whatever happens.
I for instance am white and one of four siblings. Like you say, our chance of bringing our parents in to Aus is unfairly limited by the fact we come from larger families when compared to the majority 2 child family.
As in my case, my being in Aus calculates to a 25% "contribution" to the success of my parents application rather than 50% [where there are two sibling families] and who's to say having equal children in each country is any more guaranteed [or less] in terms of sponsorship or taking on parental liability?
Also, providing parents pay the price for the visa, what does it matter how many kids are in each country? As it happens in our case there are two siblings in each, but there for the grace of God go I!.......
In order to create a more equitable solution, perhaps there should be a deduction of visa costs the more children within each family there are in Aus? This would redress the balance!......personally I would prefer the balance of family to be scrapped as it seems wholly unfair and illogical and only serves to penalise larger families.
Good luck Paul, whatever happens.
The "balance of family" test makes no sense in any way whatsoever. I come from a family of 5 children (I'm white by the way, incase you were wondering ;-) and I am the only one who is willing and financially able to take care of my parents when they get too old to do so themselves. My husband is in a similar position. None of our other sibs could be bothered, yet we cannot bring our parents into Aus because he and I are the only children of theirs here. I have asked the honourable minister how she calculates that a single child from a single-child family, would be better able to take care of their parent than myself, the eldest of 5 children, yet still one single person at the end of the day? Or is it writ in blood somewhere that single children are more successful financially than children with other siblings?
If we have a property with two homes and space for two sets of parents to live in, and they and we are willing to take care of their needs financially and otherwise, whose business is it anyway?
Aug 28th 2005, 12:12 pm
#5
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by G'Day
I agree with you on this one Phoenixuk2oz. In fact I've written the minister so many letters about this issue that I'm surprised they didn't throw me out of the country! I'm currently considering starting a campaign to get this stupid law scrapped as it is rediculous and discriminates against people with more than one or two children.
The "balance of family" test makes no sense in any way whatsoever. I come from a family of 5 children (I'm white by the way, incase you were wondering ;-) and I am the only one who is willing and financially able to take care of my parents when they get too old to do so themselves. My husband is in a similar position. None of our other sibs could be bothered, yet we cannot bring our parents into Aus because he and I are the only children of theirs here. I have asked the honourable minister how she calculates that a single child from a single-child family, would be better able to take care of their parent than myself, the eldest of 5 children, yet still one single person at the end of the day? Or is it writ in blood somewhere that single children are more successful financially than children with other siblings?
The "balance of family" test makes no sense in any way whatsoever. I come from a family of 5 children (I'm white by the way, incase you were wondering ;-) and I am the only one who is willing and financially able to take care of my parents when they get too old to do so themselves. My husband is in a similar position. None of our other sibs could be bothered, yet we cannot bring our parents into Aus because he and I are the only children of theirs here. I have asked the honourable minister how she calculates that a single child from a single-child family, would be better able to take care of their parent than myself, the eldest of 5 children, yet still one single person at the end of the day? Or is it writ in blood somewhere that single children are more successful financially than children with other siblings?
The Contributory Parent visa fees, in DIMIA's view, do not fully cover all projected healthcare costs.
Canada doesn't have a balance of family test, however the problem there is that demand for visas far exceeds the quota, and processing times are very long (ie many years, for a lot of applicants).
Jeremy
Aug 28th 2005, 12:25 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by JAJ
The reason for the balance of family test is that DIMIA take the view that as parent migration is a 'family reunion' category, there should be a specific reason why the reunion should take place in Australia as opposed to some other country.
The Contributory Parent visa fees, in DIMIA's view, do not fully cover all projected healthcare costs.
Canada doesn't have a balance of family test, however the problem there is that demand for visas far exceeds the quota, and processing times are very long (ie many years, for a lot of applicants).
Jeremy
The Contributory Parent visa fees, in DIMIA's view, do not fully cover all projected healthcare costs.
Canada doesn't have a balance of family test, however the problem there is that demand for visas far exceeds the quota, and processing times are very long (ie many years, for a lot of applicants).
Jeremy
Whichever way I look at it I still cannot logically understand why a 2 child famiy have a 50% chance each of sponsoring their parents, with the same health liabilities you mention above!, yet a 4 sibling family have less right.
I personally still haven't heard anything logical or sound in this argument other than it's the law and that's that. And in this case, in my view, the law is an ass.
Aug 28th 2005, 12:33 pm
#7
Ex Mod (2002-2005)
Joined: May 2002
Location: NSW
Posts: 5,464
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Paul
<snip>
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children.
<snip>
And, demographic data show that families in the western world
(especially, caucasian families) have very few children (2 or less), or
sometimes don't have children at all. On the contrary, Asian families
(or even African families) have more than 2 (two) children.
<snip>
Singapore had a "stop at two" policy with enforcable penalties as deterrent (seemed to work pretty well then!).
South Korea is facing a severe "baby crisis" due to its family planning policies.
Japan isn't producing as many babies as it needs to sustain its economy.
All these are Asian countries, or were you referring to other parts of Asia?
Peter
Aug 28th 2005, 12:35 pm
#8
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Phoenixuk2oz
So on this basis DIMIA constitute the "family reunion" may not consitute one child out of all siblings even where, as in G'day's case [and others]there is clearly a closer relationship with their parents.
Whichever way I look at it I still cannot logically understand why a 2 child famiy have a 50% chance each of sponsoring their parents, with the same health liabilities you mention above!, yet a 4 sibling family have less right.
I personally still haven't heard anything logical or sound in this argument other than it's the law and that's that. And in this case, in my view, the law is an ass.
Whichever way I look at it I still cannot logically understand why a 2 child famiy have a 50% chance each of sponsoring their parents, with the same health liabilities you mention above!, yet a 4 sibling family have less right.
I personally still haven't heard anything logical or sound in this argument other than it's the law and that's that. And in this case, in my view, the law is an ass.
If there are 4 children and only one is in Australia, then DIMIA's view is that the parents have three children elsewhere and there is no real basis for them to ask to be 'reunited' with that one child in Australia.
DIMIA's view on extended family reunions is very clear. When an individual chooses to migrate to Australia, Australia is accepting *only* that individual. With spouse and dependents, but not parents, brothers, cousins etc.
If your suggestion was adopted, then any migrant would effectively acquire the right to sponsor parents. The Australian community is not prepared to accept unrestricted migration of extended family members based on just one person.
Jeremy
Aug 28th 2005, 1:05 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by JAJ
DIMIA regulations can *never* take into account the 'quality' or otherwise of a relationship as it's impossible to assess in any objective way. Other than the fact that an estranged relative is unlikely to sponsor or provide an assurance of support.
Originally Posted by JAJ
If there are 4 children and only one is in Australia, then DIMIA's view is that the parents have three children elsewhere and there is no real basis for them to ask to be 'reunited' with that one child in Australia.
Originally Posted by JAJ
DIMIA's view on extended family reunions is very clear. When an individual chooses to migrate to Australia, Australia is accepting *only* that individual. With spouse and dependents, but not parents, brothers, cousins etc.
Originally Posted by JAJ
If your suggestion was adopted, then any migrant would effectively acquire the right to sponsor parents. The Australian community is not prepared to accept unrestricted migration of extended family members based on just one person.
I'm not having a go at you Jeremy as I realise you are playing devills advocate and reciting DIMIA rules and regs etc, but this whole concept is biased and seems badly thought out which is unusual as DIMIA are normally fairly equitable.
I have no problems with rules and regulations, and we all accpet the rules when we apply, however it's the bias shown towards smaller family units that naffs me of as all the above arguments make no sense whatsoever, are not logical....and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason. Quite frankly it stinks :-(
Last edited by Phoenixuk2oz; Aug 28th 2005 at 1:07 pm.
Aug 28th 2005, 1:53 pm
#10
Retired
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,649
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Phoenixuk2oz
Agreed it is difficult to assess the quality of the relationship but by definition DIMIA does this already in cases where there is one child in UK and one in Aus. Who's to say sibling and parents don't fall out post contributory parent visa has been accepted? At least the lesser size family has been given the opportunity.
Even if the parents are closest to that child in Aus? So if there is one child in Aus and another in UK....this again gives these families an unfair advantage as they are AUTOMATICALY allowed their parents in Aus and indeed are GUARANTEED to be able to do so [providing they pass criteria] ..unlike the larger families who proportionatly have to jump through more hoops. In G'day's case she has a 20% chance of bringing her parents over here and only if 2 more siblings emigrate to Aus can she do it. Yet had she only had one other sibling, she would have automatic rights. Whichever way we cut it....still sounds like a lousy, biased deal.
For families with five children and above there is an additional concession in the balance of family test. It can also be met if there are more children in Australia than in any other country.
So a 5-child family can meet the balance of family test with two children in Australia, provided the other three are living in different countries (eg one in the UK, one in France and one in Canada). Again, this reflects DIMIA's view that priority should be given to those parents who do not have a lot of other children in their home country.
As to the situation where the child that's closest to the parents is the one in Australia, DIMIA cannot assess something like that.
Except of course...where there are only two siblings it is!
I'm not having a go at you Jeremy as I realise you are playing devills advocate and reciting DIMIA rules and regs etc, but this whole concept is biased and seems badly thought out which is unusual as DIMIA are normally fairly equitable.
I have no problems with rules and regulations, and we all accpet the rules when we apply, however it's the bias shown towards smaller family units that naffs me of as all the above arguments make no sense whatsoever, are not logical....and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason. Quite frankly it stinks :-(
I'm not having a go at you Jeremy as I realise you are playing devills advocate and reciting DIMIA rules and regs etc, but this whole concept is biased and seems badly thought out which is unusual as DIMIA are normally fairly equitable.
I have no problems with rules and regulations, and we all accpet the rules when we apply, however it's the bias shown towards smaller family units that naffs me of as all the above arguments make no sense whatsoever, are not logical....and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason. Quite frankly it stinks :-(
As you note, where there are one or two children, there's de-facto a right to sponsor (on the basis of one child in Australia) once the other requirements are met.
DIMIA probably could say how many extra visas would be required should the balance of family test be dropped entirely.
As far as I recall, when the current government took office in 1996, only Senate opposition prevented them from changing the balance of family test in the other direction. They proposed at the time that parents should only be allowed to migrate if *more* than half (rather than at least half) their children were in Australia.
This would have had no effect on three and five child families, but would have made it a lot harder for two and four child families.
Jeremy
Aug 28th 2005, 3:25 pm
#11
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,553
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Phoenixuk2oz
. I too think the balance of family test is unfair and although geographics and different cultures [hence coulors] play a part, I'm not sure using colour is the correct defence.
For me it means I can bring my parents and leave my in-laws behind. LOL
Aug 28th 2005, 9:19 pm
#12
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 957
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
What about having a balance of grandchildren test? I have 2 sisters in the uk, so my parents will not be able to come out here to live (unless one of my sisters did which is highly unlikely). However neither of my sisters has children and I have 2 - so they are the only 2 grandchildren. I would like to see this taken into consideration.
Australia says it wants to recruit all these numbers of skilled people, but if they don't allow greater flexibility regarding families then many will not stay.
Ruth
Australia says it wants to recruit all these numbers of skilled people, but if they don't allow greater flexibility regarding families then many will not stay.
Ruth
Aug 29th 2005, 1:56 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by JAJ
If parent and child fall out post visa then the parent keeps the visa (as long as it's the permanent visa). However the child can't use this as an excuse to get out of the 10 year Assurance of Support.
Originally Posted by JAJ
In one sense, smaller families do have the advantage in this respect. However, DIMIA would say that in a large family, the parents have lots of other children in the home country and therefore they have an advantage in that respect
Originally Posted by JAJ
For families with five children and above there is an additional concession in the balance of family test. It can also be met if there are more children in Australia than in any other country. So a 5-child family can meet the balance of family test with two children in Australia, provided the other three are living in different countries (eg one in the UK, one in France and one in Canada). Again, this reflects DIMIA's view that priority should be given to those parents who do not have a lot of other children in their home country.
Originally Posted by JAJ
As to the situation where the child that's closest to the parents is the one in Australia, DIMIA cannot assess something like that.
Originally Posted by JAJ
In DIMIA's view it is quite fair and logical. If you're an Australian citizen you are of course welcome to write to your federal MP on the subject and ask that the issue be raised with the Immigration Minister. .
So you see, it just doesn't make sense Jeremy. I like to think all is fair in love and war....and despite being an argumentative sod, I am actually normally logical and I'm not afraid of saying "ooops sorry, misunderstood, I now see the logic"...but in this instance the balance of family test is absolutley 100% unfair where there are larger families as it *assumes* things in one sense [where there are smaller families] but it will not *assume* things in another sense [where there are larger families].
Originally Posted by JAJ
As you note, where there are one or two children, there's de-facto a right to sponsor (on the basis of one child in Australia) once the other requirements are met. DIMIA probably could say how many extra visas would be required should the balance of family test be dropped entirely..
Originally Posted by JAJ
As far as I recall, when the current government took office in 1996, only Senate opposition prevented them from changing the balance of family test in the other direction. They proposed at the time that parents should only be allowed to migrate if *more* than half (rather than at least half) their children were in Australia..This would have had no effect on three and five child families, but would have made it a lot harder for two and four child families.
I agree Jeremy that this solution was better than what was proposed however "two wrongs don't make a right"...do they? Maybe now the visa is in situ..they could develop it further and make it fairer still? That's progress ;-)
I really appreciate your time in answering my points Jeremy. It's an interesting debate this and one that for obvious reasons I am interested in. The other point made by pootle is also a good one. The balance of family doesn't take into consideration the balance of grandkids...and these are family too! Maybe there should be a few variables that should be taken into consideration....ie. trade off that there aren't as many kids in Aus as UK...but since more grandkids...then this gives extra points? Ahhhhh who knows. At the end of the day, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die...lol
Cheers again JAJ....much appreciated ;-)
Aug 29th 2005, 7:43 am
#14
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne - the worlds most livable city
Posts: 964
Re: "Balance of Family Test" and "The White Australian Policy"
Originally Posted by Phoenixuk2oz
Agreed. But with all due respect you're missing the point Jeremy. What I'm saying is that at least these parents are able to gain the Contributory Parent visa in the first place due to there being less children.
Again, the point I made is that this PRESUMES the remaining children in UK have as good a relationship with their parents as the ones in Aus. Why should DIMIA assume this? As an example, look at G'days case. She has 5 siblings, 4 of whom are in UK but as the eldest child with most ability [in terms of housing/money etc] G'day would like to take take the advantage of looking after her elderly parents. She's not asking for charity, indeed she is prepared to pay the fee[just as the two sibling example]....however she will NEVER get the opportunity of doing the same as a two sibling family simply because she has too many siblings who CHOOSE to live in UK. The chances of G'day [and others like her e.g. Paul the original poster ] of bringing in their parents has been eliminated by the fact they have more siblings, some of whom have not chosen to live in Aus.
But once again this is not as fair as a two sibling family as a two sibling family would only require one child in Aus, this system would still need a minimum of two, hence unfair positive bias towards the smaller family again. Holy moly. Here is a classic example of unfair policy. So what do you think the chances are then of someone with 5 siblings or more passing this criteria i.e two kids in Aus, and three kids in other countries? I'd say it's as rare as hens teeth! I've more chance of doing a foursome with Prince Charles, Camilla and her bloody horse.....lol
I agree. But DIMIA automatically assume this [therefore *assess* this]where there are two siblings by AUTOMATICALLY allowing those parents to be sponsored by the Australian PR sibling! Thus DIMIA *assume*the PR sibling in Australia is closer than the UK sibling. Again Jeremy...there is no real justification in the balance of family theory test here...or are we saying just because it is impossible to measure this criteria in more than two siblings, then we can't allow it? Ironically, we can't truly measure or *test* this in two sibling families however these kids AUTOMATICALY get the chance to have their parents live in Aus by the very nature of the fact they came from a two sibling family. Parents of two sibling families AUTOMATICALLY get the opportunity to live here providing they receive sponsorship]...whereas larger family siblings do not have this AUTOMATIC right. Ummmm a tad biased me thinx.
Clearly DIMIA think it is quite fair and logical otherwise they wouldn't enforce the deal, surely. However given the bias is towards smaller families, if DIMIA wont concede the rules to make that part fairer to larger families.....then surely they should "compensate" some other way for example if a larger sibling family have more children in Aus than say a two sibling family....then why don't they lessen the cost of the visa so as to redress the balance a bit? For example currently one sibling in UK and one in Aus...then this family has automatic right to ask for contributory parent visa for their parents. Whereas a four sibling family requires two siblings in each country,thereby in effect there are two children paying into the Australian economy, contributing twice as much as a one sibling family. So....why not reduce the visa costs accordingly? [or increase for the one sibling in each country accordingly?] Of course you could claim the visa costs are to cover the cost of the parents living in Aus, but you have already answered this by stating previosuly that DIMIA claim this doesn't actually cover it wholly anyway. So there again, who picks this deficit in costs then? I guess it's the Australian Tax payers, and proportionatly this is more Tax from the two siblings from the larger family!!, the same siblings who have been penalised in needing greater balance of family in Aus in the first place! Jeeeeez...talk about being born unlucky!!
So you see, it just doesn't make sense Jeremy. I like to think all is fair in love and war....and despite being an argumentative sod, I am actually normally logical and I'm not afraid of saying "ooops sorry, misunderstood, I now see the logic"...but in this instance the balance of family test is absolutley 100% unfair where there are larger families as it *assumes* things in one sense [where there are smaller families] but it will not *assume* things in another sense [where there are larger families].
A VERY good point Jeremy. I realise Australia has it's own aging population to contend with without increasing this by importing parents too therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere. My point however is this. It seems the larger families lose out in all ways Vs the smaller families. Maybe Visa Costs could be pro-rata'd or maybe longer holiday visas given out to parents who dont qualify due to the balance of family test? Therefore these parents will still get to see their kids [and grand kids!..well done pootle....didn't think of THAT one!]and not be penalised just for having more than two children...
So what are you saying Jeremy? Be grateful for the crap rules we have cos it could have been crappier?....lol
I agree Jeremy that this solution was better than what was proposed however "two wrongs don't make a right"...do they? Maybe now the visa is in situ..they could develop it further and make it fairer still? That's progress ;-)
I really appreciate your time in answering my points Jeremy. It's an interesting debate this and one that for obvious reasons I am interested in. The other point made by pootle is also a good one. The balance of family doesn't take into consideration the balance of grandkids...and these are family too! Maybe there should be a few variables that should be taken into consideration....ie. trade off that there aren't as many kids in Aus as UK...but since more grandkids...then this gives extra points? Ahhhhh who knows. At the end of the day, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die...lol
Cheers again JAJ....much appreciated ;-)
Again, the point I made is that this PRESUMES the remaining children in UK have as good a relationship with their parents as the ones in Aus. Why should DIMIA assume this? As an example, look at G'days case. She has 5 siblings, 4 of whom are in UK but as the eldest child with most ability [in terms of housing/money etc] G'day would like to take take the advantage of looking after her elderly parents. She's not asking for charity, indeed she is prepared to pay the fee[just as the two sibling example]....however she will NEVER get the opportunity of doing the same as a two sibling family simply because she has too many siblings who CHOOSE to live in UK. The chances of G'day [and others like her e.g. Paul the original poster ] of bringing in their parents has been eliminated by the fact they have more siblings, some of whom have not chosen to live in Aus.
But once again this is not as fair as a two sibling family as a two sibling family would only require one child in Aus, this system would still need a minimum of two, hence unfair positive bias towards the smaller family again. Holy moly. Here is a classic example of unfair policy. So what do you think the chances are then of someone with 5 siblings or more passing this criteria i.e two kids in Aus, and three kids in other countries? I'd say it's as rare as hens teeth! I've more chance of doing a foursome with Prince Charles, Camilla and her bloody horse.....lol
I agree. But DIMIA automatically assume this [therefore *assess* this]where there are two siblings by AUTOMATICALLY allowing those parents to be sponsored by the Australian PR sibling! Thus DIMIA *assume*the PR sibling in Australia is closer than the UK sibling. Again Jeremy...there is no real justification in the balance of family theory test here...or are we saying just because it is impossible to measure this criteria in more than two siblings, then we can't allow it? Ironically, we can't truly measure or *test* this in two sibling families however these kids AUTOMATICALY get the chance to have their parents live in Aus by the very nature of the fact they came from a two sibling family. Parents of two sibling families AUTOMATICALLY get the opportunity to live here providing they receive sponsorship]...whereas larger family siblings do not have this AUTOMATIC right. Ummmm a tad biased me thinx.
Clearly DIMIA think it is quite fair and logical otherwise they wouldn't enforce the deal, surely. However given the bias is towards smaller families, if DIMIA wont concede the rules to make that part fairer to larger families.....then surely they should "compensate" some other way for example if a larger sibling family have more children in Aus than say a two sibling family....then why don't they lessen the cost of the visa so as to redress the balance a bit? For example currently one sibling in UK and one in Aus...then this family has automatic right to ask for contributory parent visa for their parents. Whereas a four sibling family requires two siblings in each country,thereby in effect there are two children paying into the Australian economy, contributing twice as much as a one sibling family. So....why not reduce the visa costs accordingly? [or increase for the one sibling in each country accordingly?] Of course you could claim the visa costs are to cover the cost of the parents living in Aus, but you have already answered this by stating previosuly that DIMIA claim this doesn't actually cover it wholly anyway. So there again, who picks this deficit in costs then? I guess it's the Australian Tax payers, and proportionatly this is more Tax from the two siblings from the larger family!!, the same siblings who have been penalised in needing greater balance of family in Aus in the first place! Jeeeeez...talk about being born unlucky!!
So you see, it just doesn't make sense Jeremy. I like to think all is fair in love and war....and despite being an argumentative sod, I am actually normally logical and I'm not afraid of saying "ooops sorry, misunderstood, I now see the logic"...but in this instance the balance of family test is absolutley 100% unfair where there are larger families as it *assumes* things in one sense [where there are smaller families] but it will not *assume* things in another sense [where there are larger families].
A VERY good point Jeremy. I realise Australia has it's own aging population to contend with without increasing this by importing parents too therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere. My point however is this. It seems the larger families lose out in all ways Vs the smaller families. Maybe Visa Costs could be pro-rata'd or maybe longer holiday visas given out to parents who dont qualify due to the balance of family test? Therefore these parents will still get to see their kids [and grand kids!..well done pootle....didn't think of THAT one!]and not be penalised just for having more than two children...
So what are you saying Jeremy? Be grateful for the crap rules we have cos it could have been crappier?....lol
I agree Jeremy that this solution was better than what was proposed however "two wrongs don't make a right"...do they? Maybe now the visa is in situ..they could develop it further and make it fairer still? That's progress ;-)
I really appreciate your time in answering my points Jeremy. It's an interesting debate this and one that for obvious reasons I am interested in. The other point made by pootle is also a good one. The balance of family doesn't take into consideration the balance of grandkids...and these are family too! Maybe there should be a few variables that should be taken into consideration....ie. trade off that there aren't as many kids in Aus as UK...but since more grandkids...then this gives extra points? Ahhhhh who knows. At the end of the day, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die...lol
Cheers again JAJ....much appreciated ;-)
At least DIMIA should have some other means by which, if a person is willing and able to take the whole of the financial burden upon themselves as a family, they should be allowed to.
