Frequently asked questions

Three offshore subclasses

The offshore parent visas do not require the applicant to be an aged parent: anyone who is a parent of a settled Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen can use them [cl 103.211] [cl 143.211] [cl 173.211]. They are: Subclass 103 (Parent), non-contributory and permanent; Subclass 143 (Contributory Parent), contributory and permanent; and Subclass 173 (Contributory Parent (Temporary)), the contributory temporary first stage that leads to the 143.

Granted offshore

Unlike the onshore aged-parent visas, these are ordinarily granted while the applicant is outside Australia [cl 103.411] [cl 143.412] [cl 173.411]. An application lodged while the parent is outside Australia does not put the parent on a bridging visa that lets them wait in Australia; on that ordinary route the wait is spent offshore. This is not universal for the 143, though: clause 143.411 lets a 143 applicant who at the time of application held a Subclass 173 or a substituted Subclass 600 visa be granted the 143 in Australia [cl 143.411], so the 173-to-143 upgrade in particular is commonly decided onshore, and a valid onshore 143 application of that kind can also support an application for a Bridging Visa A, whose grant, conditions and coming into effect are confirmed separately [cl 010.211(2)] [reg 2.07A]. This is the central practical difference from the 804/864/884 family, and it is why a parent who wants to be in Australia during the wait needs either aged-parent status (the onshore subclasses) or the temporary 870 bridge.

The narrow retiree onshore door

A separate onshore door exists for a retiree cohort. A former Subclass 405 (Investor Retirement) or Subclass 410 (Retirement) visa holder who held that visa on 8 May 2018 (or whose last substantive visa was one), has held no other substantive visa since, and is in Australia but not in immigration clearance, may lodge a 103 or 143 onshore [Sch 1 item 1124(3)(aaa), (3A)] [Sch 1 item 1130(3)(b), (3A)] and be granted onshore [cl 103.214] [cl 143.214] [cl 103.411] [cl 143.411]. This retiree cohort is also relieved of the balance of family and assurance-of-support requirements [cl 103.213(2)] [cl 143.213(2)] [cl 103.226(2)] [cl 143.228(2)]. It is a closed historical group, not a general onshore pathway.

The test

Every child of the parent is sorted into eligible or ineligible. An eligible child is an Australian citizen (wherever they live), or an Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is usually resident in Australia; every other child is ineligible and treated as living overseas [reg 1.05(2)] [reg 1.05(2A)]. The parent passes on either of two routes: - Route 1: at least half the children are eligible: the number of eligible children is greater than or equal to the number of ineligible children [reg 1.05(2C)]. - Route 2: the eligible children outnumber the ineligible in every single overseas country: the largest group of ineligible children usually resident in any one overseas country is fewer than the number of eligible children [reg 1.05(2D)].

Worked example: a parent has two children in Australia (eligible) and three children overseas (ineligible), living one each in three different countries. Route 1 fails, because two is not at least three. Route 2 passes: the biggest group of ineligible children in any single country is one, which is fewer than the two eligible children, so the test is satisfied.

Which children count

A "child" here includes a child or step-child of the parent, and a child or step-child of the parent's current spouse or de facto partner [reg 1.05(1)(a)], so step-children are counted and the choice of primary applicant in a blended family can change the arithmetic. Some children are removed from the count entirely under the exclusion clauses [reg 1.05(3)]: broadly, a child removed from the parent's custody by court order, adoption or operation of law, a child suffering persecution or human-rights abuse with no possible reunion elsewhere, and a child registered in a refugee camp. A child of unknown whereabouts is taken to be resident in the child's last known country of usual residence [reg 1.05(1)(b)].

When it is excused

The 103 gives no substituted-600 concession: its only balance-of-family excusal is the retiree cohort [cl 103.213] [cl 103.214], so an ordinary 103 applicant, including one on a substituted Subclass 600 visa, must still satisfy the test. The 143 is more generous: a 143 applicant is excused if, at the time of application, they held a Subclass 173 visa or a substituted Subclass 600 visa [cl 143.213], so a parent moving up from a 173 does not re-run the test, and the 143 retiree cohort is likewise excused [cl 143.214].

What the AoS is

The assurance of support (AoS) is a migration criterion satisfied when an assurance has been accepted by the Secretary of Social Services [cl 103.226] [cl 143.228]. The assurance itself is an assurance of support under Chapter 2C of the Social Security Act 1991 [reg 1.03 def assurance of support], administered by Services Australia, so the migration criterion (has an assurance been accepted?) and its administration (income, bond, recovery) are two separate systems.

Which offshore visas require it

The AoS is a mandatory criterion for the two permanent offshore visas: 103 [cl 103.226] and 143 [cl 143.228], and is not required for the temporary 173. On the 173→143 pathway the requirement therefore attaches only at the permanent 143 stage. The retiree cohort is relieved of it [cl 103.226(2)] [cl 103.214(2)] [cl 143.228(2)] [cl 143.214(2)].

How and when it is provided

The AoS is not lodged with the visa application. As a matter of practice, because a parent file can sit in the queue for years, the Department requests the assurance when the application is near decision, using its power to ask for further information [MA s 56], and the request may set a short deadline to respond. The assurer then lodges the assurance with Services Australia, which applies the income test. For an ordinary adult mandatory Parent AoS, prescribed security is required; Services Australia assesses the assurer and applies the prescribed security amount rather than deciding case by case whether security is needed [Social Security Act s 1061ZZGD(2)(b), (3)] [AoS Determination ss 18–20]. The security is refundable and held for the assurance period. Once Services Australia accepts the assurance, that acceptance satisfies the visa criterion. Because the income and security settings move over time, what matters is the law in force when the assurance is actually requested, not at lodgement.

PIC 4005 and PIC 4007

The decisive distinction is between PIC 4005, which has no ministerial waiver for the significant-cost or prejudice-to-access requirement, and PIC 4007, which carries that waiver. An accepted assurance of support does not cure a health failure. Because health examinations expire and these queues run for years, an applicant is commonly asked to complete medicals more than once, so health should be screened early.

The primary-applicant health table

The 103 and the 173 use PIC 4005 for the ordinary applicant [cl 103.224] [cl 173.224]: the 103 has no substituted-600 health concession, so a substituted-600 103 applicant still faces PIC 4005. The 143 mirrors the onshore 864: which criterion applies turns on the substituted-600 and 173 history [cl 143.225].

| Applicant's situation | Health criterion | |---|---| | 103, ordinary applicant | PIC 4005 | | 173, ordinary applicant | PIC 4005 | | 143, not a 173 holder, not a substituted-600 holder | PIC 4005 | | 143, not a 173 holder, substituted-600 holder, never previously held a 173 | PIC 4007 | | 143, not a 173 holder, substituted-600 holder, previously held a 173 | health checks the Minister considers appropriate | | 143, was a 173 holder at the time of applying for the 143 | health checks the Minister considers appropriate | | 143, retiree-route primary applicant | PIC 4005 [cl 143.225AA] |

Family-member health is addressed separately for migrating and non-migrating family members [cl 103.227] [cl 103.227A] [cl 143.229] [cl 173.226] [cl 173.227].

The 173-to-143 health concession

An applicant who was a 173 holder at the time of applying for the 143 undergoes only "any health checks that the Minister considers appropriate" [cl 143.226], outside the PIC 4005/4007 frame entirely: the same concession the 884→864 pathway carries. Because they already met PIC 4005 at the 173 stage, the permanent 143 does not re-impose the non-waivable health gate, so a condition that developed or worsened after the 173 was granted does not by itself defeat the 143. For a parent whose health is fragile, going through the 173 first can be protective, not just a way to spread the contributory charge.

The cost

The 103 is non-contributory: only the ordinary application charges apply. The contributory 143 and 173 each carry a substantial second instalment, payable before grant of the relevant visa: before the permanent 143 for item 1130, and before the temporary 173 for item 1221 [Sch 1 item 1130(2)(b)] [Sch 1 item 1221(2)(b)]. On the staged 173→143 pathway the contributory charge is spread across the temporary and permanent stages rather than paid in a single hit. The amounts are large and move over time, and for applications made on or after 1 July 2026 the first instalment of all three visas is additionally tiered by whether the applicant holds a valid passport issued by a Pacific-regional country, a category defined in regulation 1.03 [reg 1.03 def Pacific-regional country] [F2026L00874 Sch 3 items 12, 17, 33-35], so the applicable tier and the current Schedule 1 amount have to be checked at lodgement.

The queue

Section 85 permits the Minister to set a financial-year maximum by legislative instrument, and section 86 prevents further grants when an applicable determination reaches that maximum; Parent applications that have not been granted remain queued rather than lapsing [MA s 85] [MA s 86]. LIN 26/042 set the Parent and Contributory Parent maxima for 2025–26 and repealed on 1 July 2026; as at 12 July 2026, no 2026–27 section 85 determination had been located [LIN 26/042 ss 4–6, 8]. Home Affairs nevertheless continues to administer Parent applications through cap-and-queue arrangements. An applicable cap cannot block a visa for the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of an Australian citizen, the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect, or a person who is usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law [MA s 87(1)]. Processing order on the contributory side is set by a parent-processing direction, a policy instrument that orders the queue, not a visa criterion, and is replaced from time to time.

Cost versus time

The 103 costs less but has the longer queue; the contributory 143 (direct or through the 173) costs far more but has a materially shorter queue. Home Affairs estimated about 15 years for a new Contributory Parent application and about 33 years for a new Parent or Aged Parent application on 9 July 2026. Those figures are current operational estimates, not legal periods, and must be checked again when advice is given.

What staging locks in

The 173 is the temporary first stage; the 143 is the permanent destination. The obvious reason to use it is to split the large contributory charge across two payments, but, exactly as with the onshore 884→864, going through the 173 first also locks in two positions: - Health: a former 173 holder is not re-tested against the non-waivable PIC 4005 at the 143 stage [cl 143.226]. - Family unit: a child who was included in and holds the 173 stays a member of the family unit for the 143 even after crossing an age tier [reg 1.12(5)].

So a parent with fragile health, or a family with a child near an age boundary, gains real protection by going through the 173 first.

Recognition and the lock

The 143 does not require the applicant to still hold the 173 at the moment of lodging: "holder of a 173" is defined to cover someone who held one within the last 28 days, and someone the Minister accepts on compassionate and compelling grounds [cl 143.111]. The flip side is that a person in Australia who has held a 173 at any time since last entering is locked to the listed visa classes until leaving and re-entering, even after the 173 ceases. They can validly lodge only the matching contributory permanent visa, a Medical Treatment visa, or a protection visa [reg 2.07AI(1)].

Who can sponsor

The sponsor is the parent's child, but only if the child has turned 18 and is a settled Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen; the child's cohabiting spouse or de facto partner can sponsor instead, on the same settled basis; and if the child is under 18, the child's cohabiting spouse, a relative or guardian, or a community organisation may sponsor in the child's place [cl 103.212] [cl 143.212] [cl 173.212]. "Settled" means lawfully resident in Australia for a reasonable period [reg 1.03 def settled], no fixed number of months or years, so it turns on genuine, established residence, not merely holding the right visa.

Substitute sponsor

The sponsor at decision can be a different person from the sponsor at lodgement, provided the new sponsor meets the same requirements [cl 103.222] [cl 143.222] [cl 173.222]. There is also a narrow protection on the 173→143 pathway: if the applicant held a 173, their usually-resident sponsor dies before the 143 is decided, and no other eligible sponsor is available, the sponsorship requirement is dealt with under a separate clause rather than simply failing [cl 143.222A].

The partner-sponsorship limit

A person granted a contributory parent visa (143, and equally the onshore 864) cannot sponsor a partner or prospective-marriage visa for someone who was their spouse or de facto partner on or before the day the parent visa was granted, for five years after that grant [reg 1.20KA]. Narrow exceptions exist (for example, compelling non-financial reasons the partner did not apply at the same time). This bites a parent who is granted the visa and later wants to bring a spouse: it should be checked before the overall strategy is settled.

Lodgement facts and decision facts

An offshore parent file takes years, so it needs active management. Balance of family is fixed by the facts at lodgement (for those who must satisfy it), while sponsorship and the assurance of support must still hold at decision and can fail late. When the primary applicant or the sponsor dies during the wait, the consequences are worked out against the specific criteria (including the narrow 173-sponsor-death rule [cl 143.222A]), not treated as general misfortune.

Children ageing out

An included child stays a member of the family unit only while their age tier is satisfied [reg 1.12(2)]: under 18 on the relationship alone; 18 to 22 dependent on the parent, whether through financial dependence or incapacity [reg 1.05A]; 23 or over only through incapacity [reg 1.05A(1)(b)]. A child who is engaged, married or in a de facto relationship is out regardless of age. Because the tiers are tested at the relevant decision, a child can age out during a long wait, but on the 173→143 pathway a child who holds the 173 is preserved into the 143 [reg 1.12(5)]. Project each child's age against the likely timeline at the start, and get their health examinations done before a boundary is crossed (this does not affect age-out).

Bridging status depends on the application route

An application that must be lodged and granted offshore does not itself provide an Australian bridging visa, so a parent visiting Australia while that application is pending must keep the separate visitor status valid and, in the ordinary case, be outside Australia at grant [cl 103.411] [cl 143.412] [cl 173.411]. The current Subclass 143 has an important exception: an applicant who held a Subclass 173 or substituted Subclass 600 visa at application can be granted in Australia under clause 143.411, and a valid onshore, onshore-grantable substantive-visa application can engage the Bridging Visa A route [cl 143.411] [cl 010.211(2)] [reg 2.07A]. A no-further-stay condition on a visitor visa does not block a genuinely offshore application, but it can block valid lodgement of an onshore pathway unless waived.