As if 15 years of rampant population growth (immigration), clogged roads and public transport, unaffordable housing, and degrading public services wasn’t enough. During the federal election campaign last year, both major parties committed to doubling-down on the population ponzi by allowing parents of Australian residents to migrate here on five-year visas. From SBS:
The Coalition has promised a continuous five-year visa for parents of Australian residents, currently offered to only to those applicants on a case-to-case basis who have lodged a concurrent permanent parental visa application.
If re-elected, the Coalition will remove the requirement for these parents to have lodged a concurrent permanent parental visa application.
“The Coalition recognises that many Australians, including our growing South Asian and Chinese communities, face particular pressures through the separation of children from parents and grandchildren from grandparents,” Peter Dutton said…
Unveiling its ‘Long Stay Parental Visa’ policy, the Labor last week promised a parental visa that would allow parents of migrants a continuous stay of three years. Labor’s proposal also has the conditions a mandatory private Australian insurance policy and a $5000 bond for each applicant.
At the time I argued that this was an utterly stupid proposal that would be detrimental to existing residents. This is because these migrants would add pressure to an already strained system and would not work, pay taxes, or contribute in a meaningful way to the economy. Moreover, existing residents would be required to foot the bill for the additional federal government investment in hospitals and infrastructure to keep up with the expected migrant influx.
Now, The Guardian reports that the Federal Budget will announce measures that will grant 15,000 visas a year to elderly parents of migrants at a cost of only $10,000:
Aged parents of migrants will get access to 15,000 five-year temporary visas at $10,000 each under changes expected to be announced in next week’s budget.
Parents will need to hold private health insurance and have financial support through a bond from their children before the visa would be approved…
Peter Dutton, said the government wanted to help families reunite without adding extra cost to the health system.
“The Coalition recognises that many Australians, including our growing south Asian and Chinese communities, face particular pressures through the separation of children from parents and grandchildren from grandparents,” Dutton said. “We want to help families reunite and spend time together, while ensuring that we do so in a way that does not burden Australia’s healthcare system.”
Sure, the policy will require these migrants to have private health insurance. But given that they would be old, and likely be heavy users of health services, they will place upward pressure on private health insurance premiums for everyone else.
Currently, an uninsured non-resident who turns up at an emergency department gets full treatment irrespective of whether they can or will pay. If they are sick enough (e.g. having a heart attack) they go to the top of the queue and everyone else waits. The costs just end up on a growing list of unpaid and noncollectable debts on a health department ledger.
These elderly migrants will also place greater pressure on health care professionals – both private and public – whose training is paid for, to a large extent, by the taxpayer.
More broadly, Australia’s infrastructure, public services, housing affordability, and overall living standards are already under strain. Adding aging migrants into the mix will only exacerbate the decline.
It’s also worth pointing out that the Productivity Commission’s (PC) Migrant Intake Australia report, released last year, recommended significantly tightening parental visas and raising their price, given they are costing taxpayers an estimated $335 000 to $410 000 per adult, or between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms (and growing):
There is a strong case for a substantial increase in visa pricing in relation to some elements of the family reunion stream. This would provide scope to recoup at least a portion of the high fiscal costs typically associated with immigrants in this category. In the medium term, the allocation of parent visas should be revised…
The contributory visa charge of just under $50 000 meets only a fraction of the fiscal costs for the annual intake of roughly 7200 contributory parents. And an additional 1500 parents make a minimal contribution. Overall, the cumulated lifetime fiscal costs (in net present value terms) of a parent visa holder in 2015-16 is estimated to be between $335 000 and $410 000 per adult, which ultimately must be met by the Australian community. On this basis, the net liability to the Australian community of providing assistance to these 8700 parents over their lifetime ranges between $2.6 and $3.2 billion in present value terms. Given that there is a new inflow each year, the accumulated taxpayer liabilities become very large over time. This is a high cost for a relatively small group.
Ultimately, every dollar spent on one social program must require either additional taxes or forgone government expenditure in other areas. It seems unlikely that parent visas meet the usual standards of proven need, in contrast to areas such as mental health, homelessness or, in the context of immigration, the support of immigrants through the humanitarian stream, and foreign aid.
Given the balance of the costs and benefits, the case for retaining parent visas in their current form is weak.
Rather than heed the PC’s advice, and reduce the burden on taxpayers, the Coalition has instead chosen to increase the quantity of elderly migrants flowing into Australia, thus adding to strains on infrastructure, housing, the Budget, as well as exacerbating the aging of the population.
