Agreed. But with all due respect you're missing the point Jeremy. What I'm saying is that at least these parents are able to gain the Contributory Parent visa in the first place due to there being less children.
Again, the point I made is that this PRESUMES the remaining children in UK have as good a relationship with their parents as the ones in Aus. Why should DIMIA buttume this? As an example, look at G'days case. She has 5 siblings, 4 of whom are in UK but as the eldest child with most ability in terms of housing-money etc G'day would like to take take the advantage of looking after her elderly parents. She's not asking for charity, indeed she is prepared to pay the feejust as the two sibling example....however she will NEVER get the opportunity of doing the same as a two sibling family simply because she has too many siblings who CHOOSE to live in UK. The chances of G'day and others like her e.g. Paul the original poster of bringing in their parents has been eliminated by the fact they have more siblings, some of whom have not chosen to live in Aus.
But once again this is not as fair as a two sibling family as a two sibling family would only require one child in Aus, this system would still need a minimum of two, hence unfair positive bias towards the smaller family again. Holy moly. Here is a clbuttic example of unfair policy. So what do you think the chances are then of someone with 5 siblings or more pbutting this criteria i.e two kids in Aus, and three kids in other countries? I'd say it's as rare as hens teeth! I've more chance of doing a foursome with Prince Charles, Camilla and her bloody horse.....lol
I agree. But DIMIA automatically buttume this therefore *buttess* thiswhere there are two siblings by AUTOMATICALLY allowing those parents to be sponsored by the Australian PR sibling! Thus DIMIA *buttume*the PR sibling in Australia is closer than the UK sibling. Again Jeremy...there is no real justification in the balance of family theory test here...or are we saying just because it is impossible to measure this criteria in more than two siblings, then we can't allow it? Ironically, we can't truly measure or *test* this in two sibling families however these kids AUTOMATICALY get the chance to have their parents live in Aus by the very nature of the fact they came from a two sibling family. Parents of two sibling families AUTOMATICALLY get the opportunity to live here providing they receive sponsorship...whereas larger family siblings do not have this AUTOMATIC right. Ummmm a tad biased me thinx.
Clearly DIMIA think it is quite fair and logical otherwise they wouldn't enforce the deal, surely. However given the bias is towards smaller families, if DIMIA wont concede the rules to make that part fairer to larger families.....then surely they should "compensate" some other way for example if a larger sibling family have more children in Aus than say a two sibling family....then why don't they lessen the cost of the visa so as to redress the balance a bit? For example currently one sibling in UK and one in Aus...then this family has automatic right to ask for contributory parent visa for their parents. Whereas a four sibling family requires two siblings in each country,thereby in effect there are two children paying into the Australian economy, contributing twice as much as a one sibling family. So....why not reduce the visa costs accordingly? or increase for the one sibling in each country accordingly? Of course you could claim the visa costs are to cover the cost of the parents living in Aus, but you have already answered this by stating previosuly that DIMIA claim this doesn't actually cover it wholly anyway. So there again, who picks this deficit in costs then? I guess it's the Australian Tax payers, and proportionatly this is more Tax from the two siblings from the larger family!!, the same siblings who have been penalised in needing greater balance of family in Aus in the first place! Jeeeeez...talk about being born unlucky!!
So you see, it just doesn't make sense Jeremy. I like to think all is fair in love and war....and despite being an argumentative sod, I am actually normally logical and I'm not afraid of saying "ooops sorry, misunderstood, I now see the logic"...but in this instance the balance of family test is absolutley 100% unfair where there are larger families as it *buttumes* things in one sense where there are smaller families but it will not *buttume* things in another sense where there are larger families.
A VERY good point Jeremy. I realise Australia has it's own aging population to contend with without increasing this by importing parents too therefore a line has to be drawn somewhere. My point however is this. It seems the larger families lose out in all ways Vs the smaller families. Maybe Visa Costs could be pro-rata'd or maybe longer holiday visas given out to parents who dont qualify due to the balance of family test? Therefore these parents will still get to see their kids and grand kids!..well done pootle....didn't think of THAT one!and not be penalised just for having more than two children...
So what are you saying Jeremy? Be grateful for the crap rules we have cos it could have been crappier?....lol
I agree Jeremy that this solution was better than what was proposed however "two wrongs don't make a right"...do they? Maybe now the visa is in situ..they could develop it further and make it fairer still? That's progress ;-)
I really appreciate your time in answering my points Jeremy. It's an interesting debate this and one that for obvious reasons I am interested in. The other point made by pootle is also a good one. The balance of family doesn't take into consideration the balance of grandkids...and these are family too! Maybe there should be a few variables that should be taken into consideration....ie. trade off that there aren't as many kids in Aus as UK...but since more grandkids...then this gives extra points? Ahhhhh who knows. At the end of the day, ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die...lol
Cheers again JAJ....much appreciated ;-)
--
