commissioned journalist Peter Mares to provide an independent analysis that makes a case for urgent reform of Australia’s troubled approach to parent migration.
In his recently published report, '’, Mr Mares examines the evidence for and against parent migration and explores the practical, political, and ethical challenges of reform.
Backlog and processing times for the parents' visa
According to the report, the Department of Home Affairs had a combined total of more than 137,000 parent visa applications on hand — 86,000 contributoryand 51,000 non-contributory — as of May this year.
Peter Mares is an independent writer and researcher. Credit: Supplied by Blackbird PR
The huge backlog in permanent parent visa applications is thus not an inevitability but the product of deliberate political and administrative choices by successive governments.Scanlon Foundation Research Institute's newly published report 'The Parent Conundrum'.
To meet the growing demand, this year the government increased the total number of seats allocated for parents
However, Mr Mares contends that the current quantity is too low, and maintains that an allocation of 20,000 slots will be required to adequately address the demand and clear the backlog.
"Keeping a low annual intake of parent visas was only serving to prolong the current 'chaotic dysfunction' which was serving neither Australian families nor the national interest," Mr Mares argues in his report.
Getting rid of permanent parent migration altogether may sound harsh, but at least it provides families with certainty so that they can plan their lives and accommodate themselves to reality, rather than banking on false hopes.Scanlon Foundation Research Institute's newly published report 'Parent Conundrum'.
He says that holding out the prospect of a visa that may never come due to endless backlogs was causing great distress to families.
The report also underscores the significant increase in waiting times for permanent parent visas.
Under the migration program 2023-24, the federal government has allocated 8,500 seats for parent visas. Source: Moment RF / Alexander W Helin/Getty Images
"The expert panel reviewing the migration program thought that a serious underestimate — it assessed the likely processing time as 15 years," he says in the report.
Other aspects examined in the report
The report suggests that if the definition of 'immediate family' for visa purposes were expanded to include parents of adults, it could result in an additional influx of 20,000 to 30,000 older migrants coming to Australia each year.
It notes the government's decision to not increase parent intake is driven by two main factors.
Firstly, there are concerns about the fiscal and demographic impacts of adding thousands of older migrants annually to Australia and secondly, there's a consideration of electoral consequences.
The report highlights that due to excessively long wait times, numerous individuals refrained from applying for permanent residency visas for their parents.
But migration advisers suspect many sponsors and applicants don’t interrogate data on processing times and lodge an application in the misplaced hope that a visa will be granted ahead of time.New report 'The Parent Conundrum'
The report notes that Australia is the only country that uses a which means parents requires that half of a parent’s children must be Australian citizens or permanent residents.
It explains how an Indian migrant named Arvind Duggal launched a campaign for long stay parents visas after the test prevented him to sponsor his mother to migrate on a contributory visa.
According to the report, over the past decade, the backlog of unprocessed parents visas has roughly tripled. Credit: desifoto /Getty Images
It analyses the suggestion to shift to a Canadian or New Zealand style lottery to allocate parent visas in order to eliminate the current problem of massive visa application backlogs.
"A lottery might appear to be a neat political solution to the parent conundrum, but it fails on the key test of clarity and leaves families grasping at straws," it points out.
It notes that Australia’s permanent visa system is by far the most expensive, requires sponsors to meet a high level of household income and has far longer wait times and backlogs than any other country.
Response to the report
For Tanima Bakshi Gupta, who resides in Melbourne, opting for the Subclass 600 visitor visa to sponsor her parents stands as a swift and optimal alternative, as found in the report.
Tanima Bakshi Gupta (R) with her parents and child. Credit: Tanima Bakshi Gupta
"I have not even considered filing for my parents' permanent residency, as it has such long wait times associated with it," Ms Gupta, whose parents are in their seventies, says.
Like the report, migration agent Seema Chauhan also questions the feasibility of a lottery system for parent visas.
"This approach could potentially lead to families relying on hope, given the limited probability of securing a spot in the lottery," she notes.
Migration agent Seema Chauhan Credit: Seema Chauhan
She asserts that when applicants submit their visa applications, they typically are aware of the extended waiting period and are ready to accommodate it.
"The restriction on renewals for the should be removed as it will promote family unity and long-term stability for families," she says, adding that this long-term temporary visa was getting popular with her clients.
However, Abul Rizvi, former deputy secretary of the Department of Immigration, believes that there is an issue with extended temporary visas for parents.
"In the past we were never able to find a private health insurance provider who would provide a product that covered the full cost over the full period at a reasonable price. They just weren't interested in insuring old people," he comments.
"As you know, access to health and aged care services in Australia involves huge waiting times. A more generous parent policy would impact it negatively making it much harder to explain to the public who may have parents waiting to access these services," he says.
He further emphasises that a substantial portion of the expenses incurred in addressing the backlog of parental cases would be borne by state governments, leading them to request supplementary funding from the Commonwealth.
