Repeal of certain family visas

Parliament house flag post
Mother and daughter siting outdoors

Repeal of certain family visas

Posted 18/07/2014 by Harriet Spinks

In the 2014-15 Budget, the Government announced its intention to repeal six family stream visa categories–the Parent visa (subclass 103), Aged Parent visa (subclass 804), Aged Dependent Relative visa (subclasses 114 and 838), Remaining Relative visa (subclasses 115 and 835) and Carer visa (subclasses 116 and 836). An amendment to the Migration Regulations giving effect to this move was tabled in the House of Representatives on 2 June and in the Senate on 16 June. The regulation permanently closed the relevant visas classes to new applications as of 2 June 2014, but applications which were submitted prior to this date will remain in the queue and continue to be processed. An attempt by the Opposition to disallow the regulation was unsuccessful in the lower house, but a disallowance motion by the Australian Greens remains on the table in the Senate.

The stated rationale behind the closure of the visa classes is to better focus the family stream of the migration program on reunion of close family members, and ensure certainty for families by removing visa subclasses which have extremely long waiting periods. The explanatory memorandum to the Regulation clarifies that ‘close families members’ means ‘partners and children, and parents who contribute financially to their own migration and settlement (through the Contributory Parent visa category)’ (emphasis added). One of the major concerns of the Opposition and the Greens, as well as interest and advocacy groups, is that with the closing of the non-contributory parent category, the only option for people wishing to sponsor their parents to migrate permanently to Australia is via the contributory parent category.  Contributory parent visas cost considerably more than non-contributory parent visas (in some cases up to $50,000 per applicant) and require a higher Assurance of Support or bond. The Opposition is concerned that many people will now be priced out of being able to sponsor their parents to migrate to Australia. Non-contributory visas cost less than contributory visas, however, as few places were available under the non-contributory visa category, the waiting time had stretched out to around 13 years.

The other visa classes repealed by the regulation are:

  • Aged Dependent Relative visas, for older people who relied on an eligible relative in Australia to provide financial support
  • Remaining Relative visas, for people whose only near relatives are living in Australia, and
  • Carer visas, for people to move to, or remain in, Australia to care for a relative with a long-term or permanent medical condition, or assist a relative providing care to a member of their family unit with a long-term or permanent medical condition.

Migration agents and community members have expressed disappointment in both the substance of the measure, and its timing. The announcement that the visa classes would be repealed was made on 13 May, in the context of the Budget, however no date was given regarding when this would take effect. The amending regulation was made just over two weeks later, on 29 May, registered on 30 May and tabled in the House on 2 June. Agents and members of the public were informed of the amendment on 29 May and told that the last day to make valid applications for the affected visas classes would be 2 June, meaning that many prospective applicants missed the deadline. The measure has been described as ‘surprisingly nasty’, and the rationale of focusing on places for close family members as ‘disingenuous’, given that parent visas will still be available for those who can afford to pay.

The move to repeal these visa classes is perhaps unsurprising in light of the Government’s clearly expressed view that the primary aim of the migration program is to provide economic benefit. In one of his first public addresses after winning Government the Immigration Minister stated his view that ‘immigration is an economic policy, not a welfare policy’ and expressed the Government’s commitment to ensuring family reunion would never comprise more than a third of the total migration program.

However those who have criticised the move as being cruel also say that the Government is overlooking the socio-economic benefits family reunion brings, for example in providing free child care thus enabling parents to work, and providing carers for elderly or disabled people which reduces the burden on the health and aged care systems. Concern has also been expressed that not being able to sponsor parents to Australia may act as a disincentive for skilled migrants to migrate here, and therefore potential talent will be lost to other countries.

The battle by Labor and the Greens to save these visa classes has been lost in the lower house, but is yet to be fought in the Senate. The new crossbenchers in the Senate have not yet weighed into the debate on this issue, so how the Senate is likely to vote on the disallowance motion remains to be seen.


  • 6/11/2014 4:42 PM
    Jordan said:

    The balance of family test precludes sponsoring an aged dependant parent in cases where the balance of children are outside Australia (even if the sponsor is willing to pay the contibutary fees) If we are serious about allowing a parent into the country ,if fully supported, why need there be a balance of family test? Te only option is a class 114 visa, which has a current queue of 56 years. That would mean a applicant would be eligible at a minimum age 121.

  • 17/02/2015 5:15 PM
    Amanda said:

    The other issue that concerns me is that with longer waiting periods for non contributory visa parents tend to develop chronic health problems as they get older. When their time come on the queue some parents fail the medicals. Then what are the parents suppose to do. Go back to their home country and die alone with out the support of their children and grand children. This creates a lot of pressure and distress among children as they are not able to travel to visit their parents and not being able to look after them. In many cultures it is the responsibility of the children to look after parents when they are older, not aged care facilities. The government should think about getting rid of the medicals for aged parents who waited in the queue for many years. Most of the children can afford to pay for private medical care. Even if the government does not offer medicare privileges to aged parents, the children will be happy to pay for private medical funds and have parents close by to them. After all the Australian government cannot expect foreign parents to be healthy until the day they die so that only the health parents are allowed to remain in Australia but the frail and sick has to go back and suffer and die alone. That is really harsh on parents and children.

Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print


Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament

Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice




refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Indigenous Australians Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment taxation Sport illicit drugs Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force welfare policy Asia income management Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States higher education people trafficking school education aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA United Nations federal budget health financing emissions trading gambling Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police Industrial Relations dental health National Disability Insurance Scheme forced labour Senate election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service International Women's Day corruption Fair Work Act child protection people smuggling debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Australian Crime Commission Newstart Parenting Payment 43rd Parliament slavery by-election political parties Census constitution High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Afghanistan Higher Education Loan Program HECS youth Aviation environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs poker machines doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform politics banking firearms public policy mental health China ADRV terrorism social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation governance public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing paid parental leave European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas planning United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing election timetable citizenship Productivity asylum seekers early childhood education Canada Population Financial sector national security fuel violence against women domestic violence disability employment Tasmania integrity science research and development Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia accountability housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation family assistance expertise Senators and Members climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets health reform Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration health system Australia Greens money laundering servitude Special Rapporteur Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship China; Economic policy; Southeast Asia; Africa housing Speaker; House of Representatives; Parliament Defence High Court; Indigenous; Indigenous Australians; Native Title ACT Indigenous education Norfolk Island External Territories emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery transparency corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days baby bonus DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking federal election 2010 workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions

Show all
Show less
Back to top