Paul Gunning

Are temporary retirement visa holders entitled to the $10,000 first time buyers
allowance?

What should we put for intended date of arrival and proposed period of stay
questions?

How long does a temporary retirement visa take from Ireland?

How long would an onshore aged parent visa take?

Is the form sent to the Irish office or direct to Perth parent processing?

We have Irish VHI world cover would this be sufficient for the private medical cover
requirement?

Alan Collett

Hello Paul.

In answer to your questions:

1. Re FHOG - nope.
2. Re entry date and proposed period of stay - put the date you plan to arrive and (presumably) 4 years.
3. Can't answer this one - our 410-visa clients are based in the UK and so we submit them to London.
4. Currently 4 to 6 years in our experience.
5. To Dublin.
6. No, as health cover has to be arranged with an Australian insurer - you will need to arrange Visitors Cover. If you need help in this regard mail me directly as we can help arrange health cover with an Australian insurer.

Hope this helps.


Alan Collett
alan-at-gomatilda-dot-com
Registered Migration Agent Number 0102534
and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
http://www.gomatilda.com, and
http://www.collettandco.com


Are temporary retirement visa holders entitled to the $10,000 first time buyers allowance?

What should we put for intended date of arrival and proposed period of stay questions?

How long does a temporary retirement visa take from Ireland?

How long would an onshore aged parent visa take?

Is the form sent to the Irish office or direct to Perth parent processing?

We have Irish VHI world cover would this be sufficient for the private medical cover requirement?

Jaj

    >On Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:07:28 +0100, "Paul Gunning"
    ><[email protected]> wrote:

    >Are temporary retirement visa holders entitled to the $10,000 first time buyers
    >allowance?

No.

Plus, you need FIRB permission to buy a property: http://www.firb.gov.au

    >
    >We have Irish VHI world cover would this be sufficient for the private medical cover
    >requirement?

Does it cover you if you move medium/long term to Australia for treatment in
Australian hospitals, or is it only intended to cover you for holidays in Australia?

The Regulations only talk about having 'adequate arrangements in Australia for health
insurance.'

Applying for an onshore aged parent visa will involve a long wait (perhaps not as
long as offshore, but still long at the moment).

Jeremy

Alan Collett

Jeremy,

Just to come back to you on the issue of health insurance under the 410-visa. Here is an extract from the Procedures Advice Manual used by case officers:

"Adequate arrangements for health insurance is not defined, however, it is policy that this criterion generally cannot be satisfied unless the applicant produces evidence of comprehensive health insurance (covering hospital and medical costs) with an Australian insurer. The insurance policy

. need not necessarily be with a specialist health insurance company;

. can include an excess, if the applicant so wishes; and

. may include standard "pre-existing condition" clauses;

but otherwise must be fully comprehensive."

=> The health cover MUST be with an Australian insurer.

Best regards.




Alan Collett
alan-at-gomatilda-dot-com
Registered Migration Agent Number 0102534
and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
http://www.gomatilda.com, and
http://www.collettandco.com

Jaj

Alan Thanks for this. It's to be hoped that DIMIA will follow the lead of the UK,
Canada and New Zealand and put their operational manual online at some point.

Generally, what are your thoughts on the 410 visa. In this case the person asking the
question seems to be planning to use it as a stopgap while waiting for an onshore
aged parent visa, which is a reasonable strategy. Another reasonable strategy is to
use the 410 while keeping a home both in Australia and the home country. But other
than that, the 410 is a rather tenuous arrangement to build a long term residence on.

ISCAH's recent newsletter pointed out that at the end of this year the first 4 year
renewals will be coming up and the fate of the 410 seems to be wide open in either
direction. http://www.iscah.com/newsletter47.htm

Which probably means that if someone really wants a 410 they should be looking to get
one sooner rather than later, if abolition is the route down which the Government
chooses to go.

Jeremy

    >On 3 Jun 2002 15:20:17 GMT, Alan Collett <[email protected]> wrote: Jeremy,
    >
    >Just to come back to you on the issue of health insurance under the 410-visa. Here
    >is an extract from the Procedures Advice Manual used by case officers:

Alan Collett

Hello again Jeremy.

I believe that the requirement for 410 renewal applicants to have a medical hasn't yet become a political issue, simply because those affected by this requirements haven't yet reached the expiry of their initial 4-year term. It is only when a number of renewal applicants fail their medicals and are refused a visa that we will start to see comment in the press - and perhaps a change of policy in this area. That said, I wouldn't be building a migration strategy on such a hope.

I believe this area is in desparate need of a policy review by DIMIA, linked clearly with the vexed issue of parent visas. Clearly making available more parent visas doesn't help those retirees who don't have children in Australia - but (say) a requirement for those seeking a retirement visa to lodge funds to at least partially fund anticipated health costs would (in my view) be a step in the right direction. After all, retirees need to have a fairly substantial amount of capital to be issued with the visa in the first place.

Another angle we have found is that for the wealthier retiree there is often merit in at least considering the 131-Investment Linked visa, particularly if there has been the management of a portfolio of shares, property, cash, etc in the last few years. It might mean lodging A$1.5m in a Designated Investment for 3 years to attain the 105 points required under Business Skills migration, but applicants are then looking at a permanent visa rather than the uncertainty of a 410-visa.

Best regards.



Alan Collett
alan-at-gomatilda-dot-com
Registered Migration Agent Number 0102534
and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
http://www.gomatilda.com, and
http://www.collettandco.com


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jaj
Alan Thanks for this. It's to be hoped that DIMIA will follow the lead of the UK,
Canada and New Zealand and put their operational manual online at some point.

Generally, what are your thoughts on the 410 visa. In this case the person asking the
question seems to be planning to use it as a stopgap while waiting for an onshore
aged parent visa, which is a reasonable strategy. Another reasonable strategy is to
use the 410 while keeping a home both in Australia and the home country. But other
than that, the 410 is a rather tenuous arrangement to build a long term residence on.

ISCAH's recent newsletter pointed out that at the end of this year the first 4 year
renewals will be coming up and the fate of the 410 seems to be wide open in either
direction. http://www.iscah.com/newsletter47.htm

Which probably means that if someone really wants a 410 they should be looking to get
one sooner rather than later, if abolition is the route down which the Government
chooses to go.

Jeremy

Paul Gunning

Hi Thanks for the information.

I have read other posts that say that retirement visa holders DO NOT have to redo
medicals or prove their financial status after the renewal period, they just have to
fill in the form again. Can anyone clarify this?

"Alan Collett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Hello Paul.
    >
    > In answer to your questions:
    >
    > 1. Re FHOG - nope.
    > 2. Re entry date and proposed period of stay - put the date you plan to arrive and
    > (presumably) 4 years.
    > 3. Can't answer this one - our 410-visa clients are based in the UK and so we
    > submit them to London.
    > 4. Currently 4 to 6 years in our experience.
    > 5. To Dublin.
    > 6. No, as health cover has to be arranged with an Australian insurer - you will
    > need to arrange Visitors Cover. If you need help in this regard mail me
    > directly as we can help arrange health cover with an Australian insurer.
    >
    > Hope this helps.
    >
    >
    > Alan Collett alan-at-gomatilda-dot-com Registered Migration Agent Number 0102534
    > and a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
    > http://www.gomatilda.com, and http://www.collettandco.com
    >
    >
    > Are temporary retirement visa holders entitled to the $10,000 first time buyers
    > allowance?
    >
    > What should we put for intended date of arrival and proposed period of stay
    > questions?
    >
    > How long does a temporary retirement visa take from Ireland?
    >
    > How long would an onshore aged parent visa take?
    >
    > Is the form sent to the Irish office or direct to Perth parent processing?
    >
    > We have Irish VHI world cover would this be sufficient for the private medical
    > cover requirement?
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > Alan Collett
    >
    > Posted via http://britishexpats.com

Jaj

    >On 4 Jun 2002 01:20:11 GMT, Alan Collett <[email protected]> wrote: Hello
    >again Jeremy.
    >
    >I believe that the requirement for 410 renewal applicants to have a medical hasn't
    >yet become a political issue, simply because those affected by this requirements
    >haven't yet reached the expiry of their initial 4-year term. It is only when a
    >number of renewal applicants fail their medicals and are refused a visa that we will
    >start to see comment in the press - and perhaps a change of policy in this area.
    >That said, I wouldn't be building a migration strategy on such a hope.

My suspicion is that the number of refusals at this stage will be small simply
because I get the impression that the 410 visa hasn't exactly been a runaway success
in terms of numbers.

I agree that it is unwise to build a migration strategy on imponderables unless there
is a clear fall back plan.

    >
    >I believe this area is in desparate need of a policy review by DIMIA, linked clearly
    >with the vexed issue of parent visas. Clearly making available more parent visas
    >doesn't help those retirees who don't have children in Australia - but (say) a
    >requirement for those seeking a retirement visa to lodge funds to at least partially
    >fund anticipated health costs would (in my view) be a step in the right direction.
    >After all, retirees need to have a fairly substantial amount of capital to be issued
    >with the visa in the first place.

Quite right. And if they have a lifetime pension income from a stable source
overseas, then if nursing home costs were required while they were still living, this
pension would fund a substantial portion of that.

Given that these people are reasonably wealthy, they are often liable to a reaosnable
amount of Australian tax (with no Medicare coverage or citizenship rights) and spend
most of the rest in the Australian economy, it does not seem to be fair go to accept
a person in as a resident (even a temporary resident) for 10 or 15 years and then
chuck them out just as their health is turning south. I have my doubts as to whether
it's going to be politically feasible to effectively deport (by definition) on
grounds of sickness people who will in the previous number of years have effectively
become part of the Australian community.

What the system really needs is an equivalent of the UK's Long Residence concession,
whereby if anyone spends 10 years legal temporary residence in Australia, they can
more or less automatically get PR.

Regards

Jeremy

George Lombard

Hi Paul,

    >I have read other posts that say that retirement visa holders DO NOT have
to
    >redo medicals or prove their financial status after the renewal period,
they
    >just have to fill in the form again. Can anyone clarify this?

I have posted a long and erudite discussion of the law on this a long time ago.
You could find it somewhere at google, no doubt. The substance is that the text
of the law which may have removed automatic rollover is susceptible of an
alternative interpretation, which would preserve rollover. That is why ISCAH and
others are waiting to see what might happen. Before the restrictions on judicial
review which arose last year it could only have been resolved by litigation. Now
we're not so sure...

Personally I doubt that the Department is capable of harmonising retirement visa
options with parent visas. The bulk of parent visa applications are from the
third world, and those applicants rarely have the resources to obtain a
retirement visa. Your plan of using the retirement visa to bridge the period
until aged parent visa age therefore is perfectly workable; unless that is, the
laws have changed again by then.

Cheers

George Lombard