george

We will be travelling to Australia in two years, with the view of settling there
(Melbourne) if we like it as much as we think we will.

I know there is a visa designed for retired persons, which lasts four years. Question
is: may one apply for this *after* we come to the country and have used up the three
month standard visa?

Also, what are chances of eventually becoming Permanent Residents?

Thank you

George

George Lombard

Hi George,

The retirement visa is a reasonably straightforward option, and you can apply
onshore. Two problems are proving that you have the relevant asset base and meeting
the rollover requirements.

Cheers

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

george wrote in message ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

george

Thanks George.

Question: Is the "relevant asset base" the 'front up'$$? (AU $300,000) and would the
'rollover' be the 'steady monthly income'?, which is AU $45,000 I believe) If so,
these won't cause any problem if the present minimums are maintained.

You say one can apply onshore. This means, I assume, that once we are there and have
used a portion of the three months we can apply straightaway for the retirement visa.

What we are planning is to obtain a 'housesit' in Melbourne for several months,
possibly up to a year, to see if we really like the place, then if so, apply for the
retirement visas. But for a housesit of more than three months requires an extension
of the three-month visa. So, this isn't a problem either, right?

Hope this is all clear

George

"George Lombard" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]>>We will be travelling to Australia in two years, with the view of settling there[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>(Melbourne) if we like it as much as we think we will.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>I know there is a visa designed for retired persons, which lasts four years.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Question is: may one apply for this *after* we come to the country and have used up[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>the three month standard visa?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Also, what are chances of eventually becoming Permanent Residents?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Thank you[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>George[/usenetquote2]
    >

JAJ

I think George Lombard has already given some pointers on your other question. You
should also read form 1044i http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1044i.pdf

As for your chances of getting PR, under policy and law at the moment, very low
unfortunately.

If you are going to do housesitting, you need to be careful to ensure that you are
not breaching the 'no work' condition on any ETA/visitor visa.

Jeremy

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

george

Jeremy

Actually George didn't 'give some pointers on the other question' since what I asked
was a clarification of his previous email. There was a question of terms, if you
recall I was asking if his terms were the same as mine.

As for 1044i, that's been read and saved and read again, as have all other pdf's
available. In fact, the only reason I'm asking questions here is because the official
government web site doesn't really answer these questions precisely, i.e. there isn't
anywhere (that I've found) that indicates that one can apply for a retirement visa
'onshore'. For that bit of information I thank George.

Your reply that my chances of getting PR are low doesn't really answer the question,
which was "what is the requirement'. I assume there are requirements, but again I
haven't been able to find them on the government web site.

Housesitting doesn't fall into the 'work' definition since no wages are given or
received. It's a contract agreement between two people, one of which has a house or
flat, the other a lot of time on his hands

George

[email protected] (JAJ) wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Also, what are chances of eventually becoming Permanent Residents?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Thank you[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>George[/usenetquote2]

JAJ

    >
    >

You need to read Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994, and look for subclass
410. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...4227/sch1.html

    >
    >
    >
    >

I'm not sure what requirements you mean.

You can't apply for skilled migration if you are 45 or over. I'm not sure if you have
an Australian son or daughter, and there is a parent class but with only 500 visas
available annually and up to 20,000 people in the queue.

Otherwise business migration seems to be the only option, and I've no idea of the
requirements for that.

The law could always change in the future, but it's not something you should rely on.

    >
    >
    >
    >

As far as I know the UK government has included housesitting in the minimum wage
legislation in that country at least (the result has simply been to kill the
industry). Which is why I mentioned it - hopefully Aus is more sensible.

Jeremy

george

[email protected] (JAJ) wrote in <[email protected]>:

[usenetquote2]>> there isn't anywhere (that I've found) that indicates that one can apply for a[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> retirement visa 'onshore'. For that bit of information I thank George.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >

Thanks for the url, which I've just read. Yes, it does indicate here that one can be
in Australia to apply for the retirement visa. Point is, we don't want to spend a
couple months in Australia, find we like it sufficiently to stay longer, then be told
we must go back 'home' to reapply for the retirement visa.

[usenetquote2]>>Your reply that my chances of getting PR are low doesn't really answer the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>question, which was "what is the requirement'. I assume there are requirements, but[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>again I haven't been able to find them on the government web site.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I'm just looking to the possible day when my wife and I may have lived in Australia
for 4-5 years and instead of being considered foreigners might want to legalise our
situation, i.e. first of all become permanent residents, perhaps leading to
Australian citizenship. Haven't found the rules and regs governing such a
possibility.

[usenetquote2]>>Housesitting doesn't fall into the 'work' definition since no wages are given or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>received. It's a contract agreement between two people, one of which has a house or[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>flat, the other a lot of time on his hands [/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Brilliant. Must be a hold-over from the Thatcher era. Hopefully Australia won't
follow suit. But there is an excellent Australian organisation (by all accounts)
which maintains a 'database' of housesitting applications and provides a 'mix and
match'. I'm sure those folks would know the legal regulations and I've emailed them -
no response so far.

George

John

George,

I was hoping to retire in Aus and carried our extensive research on many Websites, I
now have many megabytes of pdf and other files on my hard disk as a result! I found
the most informative site on this subject is pasted below, copied from
http://members.aol.com/ianharrop/h2.htm

I have totally independent financial resources, several relatives (professionals) on
my father's side who have lived all their lives in Aus, yet obviously the government
has effectively said "NO". So I have given up and am now looking at alternatives in
Europe, USA, Caribbian etc.

I wish you luck in your endeavours, John Bracknell, UK.
================================================== ========================

Retirement visas - a mess Changes made by the Australian Government to Retirement
visas have transformed this visa from a relatively attractive one to very doubtful
proposition. The changes affect applications made after 1 December 1998. These
changes do NOT effect people who hold Retirement visas issued prior to 1 December
1998 or people who applied for Retirement visas prior to 1 December 1998.

The Retirement visa is a 4 year temporary visa initially, which requires extensions
every 2 years.

Prior to 1 December 1998, these extensions were relatively simple, and provided the
applicants had not committed any criminal offences and had abided by their visa
conditions (prinicipally, had not worked), then extensions were relatively
straightforward. The applicant's financial circumstances and the health requirement
were not required. This streamlined processing was available to what were known as
"Rollover applicants", that is people who held a Retirement visa.

The Australian Government have now removed this easy route to extensions, and
the financial requirements and the health requirements must now be satisfied
every 2 years.

Financially, the effect of this is that applicants for extension must be more careful
about spending their money. Further, they could get caught when the Australian
Government raise the monetary requirements for the visa (although this is likely to
be some time off, as the 1 December rules made a substantial increase, so the next
one is several years away).

It is the Health requirement which causes the most concern. Retirees are, by their
nature, older. As time marches on, we all suffer deterioration in our health.
Ultimately, the applicant will fail health, unless, to put it bluntly, they are lucky
enough to die first. The effect of this is that when they are of ill-health, and fail
the health requirement, the Australian Government will require that they pack up and
go back whence they came. Is this reasonable? I certainly do not think so, and I
doubt many reasonable people would.

I now recommend extreme caution to clients considering Retirement visas. In
general, unless you have other avenues to a permanent visa, say as a Parent, the
Retirement visa should be viewed as a short-term measure only, because unless the
Government has a change of heart, you may find yourself uprooting and going back to
your home country.

You may wonder if this was a slip of the pen in drafting the legislation changes. It
certainly is not. The wording is very particular and the provisions excluding post-1
December new retirees from the easy extenisons had to be clearly worded in. The
inference is that the Australian Government wishes to reduce the number of retirees
in Australia.

I emphasise again that holders of Retirement visas issued prior to 1 December 1998,
and people who applied for Retirement visas prior to 1 December 1998, are NOT
affected by these changes.

(Added 17 April 1999)

================================================== ========================

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

george

Hello John,

Thanks for the msg. I'm not clear as to why you yourself would be denied entry,
particularly since you've got relatives there.

As for the retirement situation, yes, it seems the Australian government is being
very careful not to allow its own resources get used in keeping foreigners healthy!
As long as we can support ourselves (with our own money, no working allowed) and keep
ourselves healthy I imagine we're welcome...

And I also suppose it means that unlike Canada (where we now reside) Australia
doesn't allow foreign residents to become permanent simply by the fact of having been
there a number of years, and follow that up with citizenship. Which means that
foreign residents, retired or not, always have to buy expensive health insurance.

George

John <[email protected]> wrote in <[email protected]>:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

[snip]

George Lombard

Dear John, George,

Your situation is familiar, and we have had a previous debate here about Ian Harrop's
views on the changes to the rollover situation for retirement visas.

Legally, there is a real issue about whether the legislative changes as written do in
fact require re-evidencing of funds and health criteria. We have had a couple of
legal opinions to the contrary, in fact. However, current DIMA policy is that you
would need to keep healthy and wealthy for each review, and therefore we'll need to
wait for a decision of the Federal Court before you get some clarity on the question.
We have a couple of clients who have decided to barrel on regardless, but in those
cases there is family here.

Cheers

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

John wrote in message ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    >
[usenetquote2]>>We will be travelling to Australia in two years, with the view of settling there[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>(Melbourne) if we like it as much as we think we will.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>I know there is a visa designed for retired persons, which lasts four years.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Question is: may one apply for this *after* we come to the country and have used up[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>the three month standard visa?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Also, what are chances of eventually becoming Permanent Residents?[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Thank you[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>George[/usenetquote2]

george

George,

I'm new to the lingo, does 'rollover' mean maintaining the status quo, i.e. if one is
already in Australia no need to reevaluate periodically? Just renew retirement visa?
(Please either confirm or redefine "rollover"

We are't worried about having to prove 'health and wealth' as long as the current
requirements don't change drastically.

However, one point I'd like to ask you. I've been told, or read somewhere, that minor
health problems such as high cholesterol nicely controlled with little white pills
doesn't constitute a health problem, just that we would have to fork out $$ to buy
the pills. This true? Or could things like high cholesterol, high blood pressure,
etc. be enough to reject applicants for retirement visas?

George

"George Lombard" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

George Lombard

Hi George,

Rollover means what I want it mean, I suppose What I was saying was that there is
a real issue about the meaning of the amendments which provoked Ian Harrop into
writing his piece in 1999, and that although the Australian government practice is
supposed to be to require you to have new medical and financial assessments at every
visa renewal, this may not be legal.

On the little white pills question, the issue is your health costs, not your health.

Cheers

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

george wrote in message ...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]>>Dear John, George,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Your situation is familiar, and we have had a previous debate here about Ian[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Harrop's views on the changes to the rollover situation for retirement visas.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Legally, there is a real issue about whether the legislative changes as written do[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>in fact require re-evidencing of funds and health criteria. We have had a couple of[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>legal opinions to the contrary, in fact. However, current DIMA policy is that you[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>would need to keep healthy and wealthy for each review, and therefore we'll need to[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>wait for a decision of the Federal Court before you get some clarity on the[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>question. We have a couple of clients who have decided to barrel on regardless, but[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>in those cases there is family here.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>Cheers[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>George Lombard[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>www.austimmigration.com.au[/usenetquote2]

george

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

I've been considering this situation for a day or so now. Seems to me the Australian
government can put people in a real bind if they so choose.

Suppose my wife and I get settled into a nice flat in Melbourne (purchased from
selling our Canadian house and much of its contents) and buy all the necessaries,
perhaps lease a car, subscribe to The Age, sign up with Optus cable, and settle back
for an enjoyable retirement. Now four years later (and every *two* years after this)
we're required to justify our wealth and health.

Now, if either the wealth or the health drops below a certain level (and just what is
the acceptable 'health level'?) it's "sorry but you folks have to leave." So we're
obliged to sell the flat and all its contents, lose $$ on the car lease ... and back
to Canada where we would have to essentially start all over, finding a flat, ... etc.

To your knowledge has this actually happened to people? Is this a realistic scenario
or am I becoming paranoid?

George

    >

This is good news. So health 'situations' such as high cholesterol or high blood
pressure (and others I'm sure) don't count as potential health problems and shouldn't
bar one from being accepted or (more importantly) continuing to enjoy retirement in
Australia.

Cheers,

George

Tony Bryer

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Realistic or otherwise it appears to be what the law says.

In 10-12 years time I hope to retire to Melbourne on a retirement visa. If I do it
will be with my eyes open. And 20 years down the line if my situation deteriorated
and I was refused a renewal I suppose I could scarcely complain.

But ... I plan to have an income much the same as the average office worker (say
A$30K) with my home paid for. It does seem to be less than moral that the Australian
government might take my taxes for perhaps 20 years and then feel that it has no
moral responsibility to me, and that I should go back to the UK and be a charge on UK
taxpayers who have not seen a penny of my money for the said 20 years.

Economically it just does not make sense either. If you insist on keeping people in
permanent insecurity surely they are going to be less likely to invest in Australia
(for example perhaps keeping and letting out a flat or investing funds back 'home').
To be cynical surely it is in Australia's economic interest for retirees to spend as
much of their money as possible in Australia (without becoming a charge on the
taxpayer) before they die with the balance going to an Australian undertaker (they
surely would be outraged at the thought of expelling people who look at death's
door!). Insisting that retirees keep a large proportion of their in savings for the
next renewal will probably means that when they die it is all sent back to a
brother/sister/child/etc back 'home' which makes no sense.

A sensible retirement scheme would IMO allow you to settle in Australia on a four
year visa with the current financial rules remaining in place. At the end of four
years you would have the option for renewing for a further period (much as existing)
or paying a lump sum to buy into health and social security. I don't know how much
this would be, but effectively it would be the current actuarial cost of these
benefits which would be a function of your age - ? A$50-100K. Payment of this sum
would entitle you to permanent residency and the same benefits as any other resident
(perhaps pension adjusted to allow for anything you receive from your 'home'
country). Currently under 1000 people retire to Australia each year AIUI. If a rule
like this grew the number to just 2000 that would probably mean another A$1bn of
foreign currency coming into the country and a not insignificant number of new jobs
being created.

Am I missing something?

Tony Bryer UK

george

Tony,

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

That's the point I was making. Seems that they are willing to accept one's money (and
we would be paying into the local economy something like A$35,000-40,000 a year or
more) then not if but *when* the health deteriorates means buying a ticket back to
Canada. If it's after 4-6-8 years, that's one thing; you're young enough to start
elsewhere. But if it's after fifteen or twenty years, then starting all over in your
former country/city is terribly difficult. Seems to me that one would always carry
around the feeling that one is on a temporary pass, one that will be called in at the
government's whim.

[snip]

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Reasonable. Especially when compared to the deals that the Australia makes (and most
other countries make) concering business visas. If you're a wealthy businessman and
want to move to Australia you can get permanent resident status rather quickly I
would imagine, and even citizenship (they do want you to pay taxes

But as far as I know it's just not possible for retirees to get permanent residency,
meaning one must fork out for health care and medicines as required. Even free
medical checkups which we enjoy here in Canada would become another annual expense.
But know what? I'd do it, just to avoid the six months of winter every year

    >
    >
    >
    >

I think the Australia government is more concerned about people using up a health
system into which they (retirees) haven't contributed. And in particular, I would
suppose, they are fearful of offering these foreigners long drawn-out and very
expensive health care, such as transplants, kidney machines, etc.

    >
    >
    >
    >

No, don't think so

George (in Canada)