|
Post by Banjo on Jul 17, 2020 9:45:54 GMT 7
COVID-19 pandemic and border closures: Why Australians are banned from international travel Remember the words at the end of the Eagles' Hotel California? "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave". Feels a bit like Australia at the moment. As part of its response to the pandemic, the Australian government has made it tough for its citizens and permanent residents to leave. Not only are all incoming travellers required to enter hotel quarantine for 14 days, (with a possible exception if you happen to be a media mogul returning from Aspen in your private jet, or Dannii Minogue), the government has clamped down on your right to travel overseas. Having to quarantine is no incentive to travel. The legal framework for the government's restrictions on overseas travel is the Biosecurity Determination 2020. Under this legislation, Australian citizens and permanent residents have been prevented from leaving Australia since March 25 except for a few special categories, for example international aircrew, or for those who have been granted an exemption by Australian Border Force. Exemptions allowing an Australian citizen or permanent resident permission to depart will only be granted "in exceptional circumstances… demonstrated by the Australian citizen, permanent resident or operator providing a compelling reason for needing to leave Australian territory." In regulating the departure of all its citizens, including dual citizens, the Australian government has adopted a uniquely stringent posture. The USA, the UK all other European, Asian, African and South American countries allow their citizens to depart at will. Unless they are subject to a legal restraint such as criminal charges, and those restraints would have nothing to do with the pandemic, they're free to go, no questions asked. Some countries did impose a temporary ban that prevented their citizens from travelling beyond their borders, such as Lithuania, but those restrictions have lapsed. How hard is it to get permission to leave? Anyone with Australian citizenship or who is a permanent resident and wants to leave Australia must submit a written application to the Department of Home Affairs. Although an exemption applies to "a person ordinarily resident in a country other than Australia", many in that category have experienced delays and frustration in obtaining an exemption in order to leave Australia and travel back to their home country. Feedback suggests that getting permission to leave can be difficult even when there is a clear case for compassion - for example a dual citizen wanting to leave Australia to care for an aged parent overseas. An article published on the Executive Traveller website explaining who is exempt from Australia's international travel ban has attracted 850 posts, mostly from those affected by the travel restrictions. The right to travelThe Australian government does not want its citizens contracting COVID-19 while they're overseas. But does that justify the restriction on the freedom of Australian citizens to travel? Not according to Dr Kate Ogg, senior lecturer at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University. "It is arguable that the Australian government's restrictions on travelling overseas are in violation of Australia's human rights obligations. Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 12(3) of which provides that 'everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his [or her] own'. Pursuant to this right, a person can leave their own country for any reason whatsoever. The right to leave one's own country is not an absolute right. The government can place restrictions on Australian citizens' and permanent residents' right to leave for a number of reasons including the protection of public health." That would seem to give the Australian government an out. However, as Dr Ogg continues, "The measures put in place must be the least intrusive possible to protect public health. The Australian government's role is certainly to advise Australian citizens about the risks of international travel and urge Australians to avoid all inessential international travel. The Australian government's ban on international travel, which is only subject to a few very specific exceptions, may be a violation of the right to leave because it is not the least intrusive possible method to protect public health. It could both prevent the spread of COVID-19 by, for example, testing all travellers before departure and quarantining all returning travellers (a policy already in place)." The Department of Home Affairs says in a release titled 'Leaving Australia', "Australia has strict border measures in place to protect the health of the Australian community." That includes the protection of Australians travelling overseas. But that's hardly a consistent approach. Nor does it want them riding scooters without a helmet or taking prohibited substances, yet it does not prevent them from leaving Australia to avoid the possibility they might infringe foreign drug laws or injure themselves. Dr Ogg prefers the example of New Zealand, which has set the benchmark for successfully dealing with the pandemic, yet does not prevent its citizens from travelling overseas although it advises them against it. "The New Zealand government is correct in urging New Zealanders to avoid international travel and making them aware of the health risks to themselves and others," says Dr Ogg. "However, banning international travel, when there are methods that would allow for overseas travel and address the spread of COVID-19, is most likely a violation of the right to leave in the ICCPR." The government has recently announced that returning travellers will be charged for their stay in quarantine. That's around $3000 for two weeks' worth of board and lodging for a single traveller, confined in a hotel room not of their choice. That's a severe disincentive for anyone thinking of travelling overseas. So why does the Australian government consider it necessary to prevent us from doing so? While travellers have returned from overseas infected with COVID-19, that's what the quarantine safety net is for. Only if the Australian government does not have faith in its ability to detect and prevent returning travellers who are infected with coronavirus from spreading COVID-19 throughout the community does this ban make sense. The ban on overseas travel looks like an overabundance of care. If we're prepared to assume the risk involved in overseas travel, undergo quarantine when we return and pay for it, that's up to us. Maybe it's time for the nanny state to unlock the gate, and allow us to make our own decision about whether to travel overseas. www.traveller.com.au/covid19-pandemic-and-border-closures-why-australians-are-banned-from-international-travel-h1pds6?btis(Paywall, some readers may not access)
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 17, 2020 10:02:30 GMT 7
What a great idea; considering it is already a requirement to get into many other countries i.e. to have been tested before you leave. Maybe it's something Australia should consider too.
If we don't have a unified global response to pre departure and post arrival.....do we have any response at all? Cheers bear
|
|
|
Post by itsmylife08 on Jul 17, 2020 23:10:27 GMT 7
I don't think anyone likes having restrictions placed upon them no matter what the reasons are, but I believe we are in a unique situation now as people faced years ago with the Spanish Flu Circa 1918. Everyone must face up to the fact that this is a very serious situation we find ourselves in (We are all in this together) Civil libertarians no doubt are enjoying the opportunity to attack Governments left right and centre in their attempts to protect its citizens. In regulating the departure of all its citizens, including dual citizens, the Australian government has adopted a uniquely stringent posture. The USA, the UK all other European, Asian, African, and South American countries allow their citizens to depart at will. Unless they are subject to a legal restraint such as criminal charges, and those restraints would have nothing to do with the pandemic, they're free to go, no questions asked. Some countries did impose a temporary ban that prevented their citizens from traveling beyond their borders, such as Lithuania, but those restrictions have lapsed. I believe we only need to look at the aforementioned paragraph of this post and realize that the countries mentioned therein, that the situation becomes much clearer, most if not all of the countries mentioned have a much higher infection rate than Australia Why? I think the answer is obvious... So I say to all of you who are reading this post give our Government a fair go, including Scotty from marketing... Yours Sincerely Itsa
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Jul 18, 2020 9:06:46 GMT 7
It is arguable that the Australian government's restrictions on travelling overseas are in violation of Australia's human rights obligations. Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 12(3) of which provides that 'everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his [or her] own'. Pursuant to this right, a person can leave their own country for any reason whatsoever. The right to leave one's own country is not an absolute right. The government can place restrictions on Australian citizens' and permanent residents' right to leave for a number of reasons including the protection of public health."
It has been arguable for years for the disabled to be free to travel but never been mentioned ever before other than on this forum. It is a clear breach of human rights so why hasn't anyone argued this? Truly amazing how the media can pick & choose what they publish. No regards to inhumane causes that don't suit them.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Jul 18, 2020 11:17:44 GMT 7
"It is arguable that the Australian government's restrictions on travelling overseas are in violation of Australia's human rights obligations. Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 12(3) of which provides that 'everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his [or her] own'. Pursuant to this right, a person can leave their own country for any reason whatsoever. The right to leave one's own country is not an absolute right. The government can place restrictions on Australian citizens' and permanent residents' right to leave for a number of reasons including the protection of public health."
It has been arguable for years for the disabled to be free to travel but never been mentioned ever before other than on this forum. It is a clear breach of human rights so why hasn't anyone argued this? Truly amazing how the media can pick & choose what they publish. No regards to inhumane causes that don't suit them. So while it may be arguable, the government can place restrictions for a number of reasons; which it appears to have done in a lawful; if not a morally acceptable manner to many. The facts are though; any disabled person whether on the DSP or not, had the right to leave Australia whenever they wanted to go overseas, for as long as they liked, prior to this latest edict. What stopped members here from leaving was mostly to do with Social Security legislation which dictates how we are paid and the conditions applied to contine to receive that payment overseas; and nothing whatsoever to do with the government breaching any UN declarations, ratifications etc.. The allowable self funded extensions to the 28 day portability provisions are proof of that. People weren't able to leave because of their personal financial circumstances in most instances. Cheers bear See more: Can the right to freedom of movement be limited?www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-movement#can-the-right-to-freedom-of-movement-be-limited
|
|
|
Post by twentypoints on Aug 13, 2020 15:35:48 GMT 7
[https://www-traveldailymedia-com]Travel Daily
All of Asia’s Eyes Turn to Bali
[https://www-traveldailymedia-com] Gary Bowerman
4 mins ago
[data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="344" width="550" xmlns="http://www][https://www-traveldailymedia-com] The countdown is on. Will Bali really open to international arrivals on 11 September – and if it does, who will visit? By Gary Bowerman “The Chinese don’t come now. We don’t know when they will return.” It was the week after Chinese New Year, and the driver guiding me through beautiful eastern Bali had descended into gloom. The coronavirus was not yet a pandemic, but his industry was starting to suffer. “The Chinese like to take tours to different places. Now, no.” he said. Fast forward to August 2020, and Asia’s eyes are refocusing on Bali. The holiday island’s proposed reopening to inbound tourism on 11 September is a highly anticipated test case in South East Asia, where most borders remain firmly closed. Can Indonesia successfully relaunch its signature tourism island amid the country’s continuing struggle to contain the coronavirus? 2020 Options Are Running Out Asia is collectively willing for some substantive tourism news that extends beyond hopeful headlines about travel bubbles. The past 5 months have been miserable for the region’s travel sector, and progress is elusive. In Vietnam, the Danang outbreak spread fear through a nation presumed COVID-safe. Case infections are spiralling in India, Indonesia and Philippines, while Japan and Hong Kong confront new waves. Parts of Australia and New Zealand are back in lockdown Meanwhile, Taiwan’s media called for cross-border travel to be ruled out for 2020, and Macao’s tourism authority said international arrivals may not return until mid-2021. Thailand appears in no hurry to welcome back tourists, and Malaysia’s health minister said that a new infection wave is “inevitable” were the country to reopen its borders. With options running out for 2020, Asia’s tourism hopes are loaded onto Bali’s scenic shoulders. Why Bali, Why Now? In mid-June, Balinese authorities said the island’s reopening would occur in three phases. Firstly, local tourism businesses and attractions reopened on 9 July. On 31 July, the start of a long-weekend break for the Eid al-Adha holiday, saw domestic tourists permitted to re-enter Bali. At present, international tourists would be welcome to visit Bali from 11 September. “The world is watching closely, and the success of Bali in reopening its tourism will greatly influence our efforts to resurrect Indonesian tourism,” Tourism and Creative Economy Minister Wishnutama told Indonesian media. Fixed deadlines, though, are tricky to manage in a fast-shifting, unpredictable pandemic. If Bali does open its borders next month, it is likely to be in a slow and gradual manner. Legal hurdles will need overcoming. Foreign tourists are currently prohibited from entering Indonesia, and international flights are restricted. Therefore, Bali will need the Jakarta government to amend its entry rules. It will also need to thrash out some ‘green lane’ agreements and approve more flights. Both will prove tricky given the nation’s COVID-19 struggles. Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo is expected to make an announcement closer to Bali’s presumed reopening date. Why Reopen in September? The timing is largely borne from economic necessity. Indonesia’s economy contracted 5.3% in Q2. An under-pressure government needs to rejuvenate domestic consumption and generate much-needed currency inflows. It also badly needs a ‘good news’ story. The holiday retreat of Bali is popular with Indonesian and inbound travellers, and being an island, the authorities believe they can control visitor numbers – and case infections. Even with a phased reopening and strict safety protocols, it represents a huge risk – both for Bali’s reputation and its public health. But Indonesia appears to be nearing an economic inflection point of no return. Ordinarily, Bali would be enjoying a busy period. Hotel occupancy statistics for 2019 show that August, September and October produced the year’s highest averages, 67.1%, 63.2% and 63.3%, respectively. By comparison, January 2020 registered a fairly healthy 59.3%, plummeting to 2.09% in May. The Mega Markets: China & Australia In a ‘normal’ year, the mid-September reopening would appeal to the vital Chinese market. The first week of October is one of two Golden Week public holidays, which witnesses a surge of outbound travel. With Chinese travellers becoming accustomed to short booking windows, this would give them time to plan their “revenge spend” Bali getaways. Except, of course, that Chinese borders are firmly shut, and Bali banned direct flights from China at the start of February. Even in the absence of unchecked viral infections, remedial bilateral diplomatic work may be needed. Moreover, China only reintroduced inter-provincial domestic travel booking in mid-July and will reinstate tourism access to Macao from late September. Just in time for Golden Week. Is Beijing likely to sanction travel to Bali anytime soon? Perhaps not, but if it were to permit strictly controlled charter groups on a pilot basis, Bali would be an appealing destination. Bali’s other primary market appears a longer shot. In 2019, around 1.3 million Australians visited Bali. Large parts of the hotel, bar, restaurant and hotel infrastructure in places like Kuta were built with Australian tourists in mind. In addition, September to December were the four strongest months for Australian outbound travel in 2019. The timing would be right. Except, Australia’s Prime Minister has precluded outbound travel while the country fights winter COVID-19 community transmissions, particularly in Victoria. Secondary Markets? Japan and South Korea seem similarly unlikely to sanction travel to Bali. The northern hemisphere winter would usually bring visitors from long-haul markets like the UK, US, France and Germany, but each of those has a long virus battel ahead. That leaves South East Asian nations, particularly Malaysia, and India as residual hopes. Neither appear likely to deliver in September, and perhaps not until early next year. In early July, Indonesia’s flag carrier Garuda floated the notion of direct flights to Bali from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Mumbai and New Delhi. This would obviate transiting in Jakarta, or another South East Asian airport. It would also enable morning arrivals and evening departures, thereby ensuring maximum spending time in Bali. But, obtaining regulatory approval in a US election year would be a stunning achievement. And although Bali is a big draw for Indian travellers – and pent-up demand for travel clearly exists – September would appear to be too soon. So, what is Bali’s strategy to attract inbound travellers given that its key markets are either subject to travel bans, air capacity cuts, uncertain flight pricing and travel risk aversion? The answer to that question is unknown. Despite leaked suggestions that Indonesia is seeking to negotiate limited access to Bali with Asian governments, nothing is confirmed. All of which suggests a short-term stimulus may need to be found closer to home. Can Domestic Travel Step Up? The importance of domestic travel to Bali is sometimes overlooked. In 2019, Bali’s I Gusti Ngurah Rai Airport handled 24.17 million arriving and departing passengers. Of those, 6.86 million were international arrivals, with 4.97 million domestic arrivals. The devil is in the detail, as always. While the difference between the figures is relatively low, international arrivals grew 12% compared to 2018, while domestic arrivals fell 10%. On this basis, it seems unlikely that domestic tourism alone can resurrect Bali’s economic fortunes. However, travel is re-setting, and Bali could prove to be an enticing destination for domestic travellers, especially those wary of flying beyond Indonesian borders. For now, Bali is piecing together the hugely complex jigsaw that it set itself by announcing a reopening schedule. The date may move, it may stay the same – but Asia’s COVID-era tourism politics will likely hold more influence on visitor numbers than new safety protocols, volcanic sand beaches and surf waves. — Gary Bowerman is Director of Check-in Asia, and an experienced Asia tourism analyst and media commentator. He spent six years living and working in China, and has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2010. He is the author of The New Chinese Traveller: Business Opportunities from the Chinese Travel Revolution (Palgrave, 2014), and co-host of The South East Asia Travel Show podcast.
Categories: Features, Special Reports, Hospitality, Tourism, Indonesia
Tags: Bali, Indonesia, Gary Bowerman, Tourism Reopening, Chinese Travel
Travel Daily
Back to top
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 13, 2020 17:34:47 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by twentypoints on Aug 24, 2020 6:47:41 GMT 7
THAILAND REOPENING PHUKET FOR TOURISM OCT 1– VISITORS MUST STAY 30 DAYS
REOPENINGTRAVEL
Spread the love
Last Updated 6 hours ago
The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, Yuthasak Supasorn, made a statement on August 21st confirming the government’s plan to open Phuket for international tourism on October 1st.
Reopening Phuket for foreign visitors will act as a sort of pilot program for the rest of the country, testing how successful restarting the tourism sector in this current environment can be.
“On Oct. 1 we will start in Phuket”
Yuthasak told Reuters on Friday.

The reopening news of Phuket does come with a lot of caveats, many of which might be deal breakers for hopeful tourists. While the entry requirements and countries that will be allowed to travel on October 1 have not yet been formally released, the government has publicized the criteria for the reopening, which does include both quarantines and several PCR tests.
Visitors Must Stay 30 Days
Yuthasak Supasorn told Reuters that foreign tourists will be committed to stay in Thailand for at least 30 days, which they must fly directly into Phuket. Shorter trips will not be permitted. The first 14 days of their minimum 30 day vacation will be in quarantine at their hotel, which will include their private hotel room, common areas of the hotel’s property, and in some cases beach access.
Many PCR Tests
The Minister of Tourism and Sports, Phiphat Ratchakitprakarn, stated that only after 14 days in quarantine at the hotel, plus 2 PCR tests with negative results, the tourist will then be permitted to leave the hotel property and venture around Phuket. Any tourist that then wishes to leave Phuket and visit other parts of Thailand can only do so after a 3rd PCR test performed in the 3rd week of their visit. A negative PCR test may also be required by all arrivals to fly into Phuket.
In order to ensure the pilot program is controlled and successful, it has been suggested that staff should also remain at the hotel, as to not potentially carry the virus unknowingly back into their respective communities.
Which Countries Will Be Welcome?
The government of Thailand has not yet stated which countries will be considered for entry in the Phuket project. Many officials believe they will first start with neighboring countries in which the virus has also been successfully contained, and/or nations with important socioeconomic ties to Thailand.
Since the border closed and nationwide lockdown measures were put in place in late March, Thailand has been one of the most successful countries in the world at containing the virus. It’s been almost 3 full months since their last confirmed case, which is a reason they have been so reluctant to reopen. However, Thailand’s economy is extremely dependant on tourism, and they’ve experienced a devastating 12.2% shrink in the 2nd quarter, the worst hit in the last 22 years.
Last year, Thailand recorded the highest number of tourists entering the country, nearly smashing the 40 million mark. The government is hopeful the Phuket pilot project will safety allow them to restart claiming some of those foreign arrivals.
Since July, Thailand has also been allowing select categories of foreigners to enter the country, starting with medical tourists, direct family members of Thai nationals, business investors, and skilled foreign workers. The Phuket announcement is the first general tourism announcement to come out of Thailand since the closure in March.
Read More: See which countries in Asia have now reopened for tourism, countries that are accepting Canadian and American tourists, and travel insurance that covers covid
Sources: Reuters / Aljazeera /
Disclaimer: Thailand’s reopening news is ever-changing and being updated constantly. We do our best to keep this article up to date with all the latest information, but the decision to travel is ultimately your responsibility. Contact your consulate and/or local authorities to confirm your nationality’s entry and/or any changes to travel requirements before traveling.
For Breaking Travel Reopening
Spread the love
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 24, 2020 7:52:53 GMT 7
Sounds like a pipe dream to me. What tourist is going to be able to or want to comply with that? Heard that they may open up to Chinese tourists as virus seems under control there and it is one of Thailands biggest markets. But only rumours until new announcement in the next few weeks. Malaysia likewise is currently closed until end of August when they will announce whether extended or not. So all still very much up in the air everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 24, 2020 8:55:00 GMT 7
|
|
|
Post by nomadic on Aug 24, 2020 19:57:47 GMT 7
Yep, the dearest is my yearly budget for everything. Defies belief that they are only worried about the richest tourists when the poorest ones benefit the country and more locals far more. And are more likely to travel first also. Australia realised many years ago that backpackers benefit the economy far more than rich tourists. Take all the backpackers out of Thailand and it would be in dire trouble as it is currently. The town I'm in relies on them 90% all year round. My landlady only gets western backpackers and not had one in months. Yet again another government cares nothing of the poorest people.
|
|
|
Post by bear on Aug 28, 2020 10:44:05 GMT 7
Australians don’t have a ‘right’ to travel.
Does COVID mean our days of carefree overseas trips are over?
Australia is a nation of enthusiastic travellers, it is one of our defining national characteristics.
At any given time, around a million of us are living and working overseas. In 2019, a record 11.3 million Australian residents went on short-term trips, double the figure of ten years earlier.But COVID-19 has radically changed our capacity to go and be overseas. Will we ever travel so easily and readily again? You don’t have the ‘rights’ you probably thought you had Travel may be of huge importance to Australians, but it is not a right or entitlement. When you leave Australia, you also take on an element of risk. The federal government has long-warned their help in a crisis will have “limits”. The consular services charter says, You don’t have a legal right to consular assistance and you shouldn’t assume assistance will be provided. Australians don’t even have the absolute right to a passport, although in practice, it is rarely denied. International law provides for the right to freedom of movement - both in and out of Australia. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says, Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own. [This] shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order … public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. Australia ratified the covenant in 1980, but there is no Commonwealth legislation enshrining the right of freedom of movement. Even if there was, this doesn’t mean it would override legitimate public health concerns. Coming home is no longer simpleIn March, when the pandemic took off, the Morrison government advised Australians overseas to return home. But coming back is no longer a simple question of booking a ticket and getting on a flight. For one thing, the global airline industry has collapsed, making available flights scarce. As part of Australia’s COVID response, caps have also now been placed on international arrivals. In July, the number of Australian citizens and residents allowed into the country was then reduced by a third, from about 7,000 to about 4,000 a week, to ease the pressure on the hotel quarantine system. This system will be in place until at least October. Prime Minister Scott Morrison explained he knew this made it more difficult for people to come home, but the policy was not “surprising or unreasonable”. Rather, [it will] ensure that we could put our focus on the resources needed to do testing and tracing. Nightmare logisticsAccording to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, more than 371,000 Australians overseas have returned since March. But more than 18,000 are still stuck overseas, saying they want to come home. Last week, a Senate inquiry heard about 3,000 of this group were “vulnerable” for medical and financial reasons. There are a growing number of media reports detailing the stories of those stranded overseas. Many are desperate to return for financial and personal reasons. People have spoken about the complex logistics involved in returning - including lack of available flights, lack of affordable flights - with reports of tickets costing as much as A$20,000 - strict border controls to exit the country they are in, and the cost of quarantining when they get home. Internal border closures in Australia have added a further level of complexity. On Friday, The Sydney Morning Herald reported the Morrison government was drawing up new plans to evacuate Australians stuck overseas. It is worth noting that despite people’s understandable frustrations, the Australian government has limited options to help here - and the options they do have are not simple. They can potentially charter flights or cruise ships, but this is not straightforward because it requires agreements from host countries, available planes and ships, and can be hugely expensive. Leaving Australia is no longer simple, eitherLess visible, but very concerning from a rights perspective, is the Australians who are stuck in Australia. A state generally should allow citizens to leave their own country. There are wide-ranging bans on people leaving Australia during the coronavirus pandemic, with a limited range of exemptions. There are obviously compelling reasons why people will still want to travel, given Australia’s strong international connections, especially when close relatives are ill or dying overseas. But again, we don’t actually have a “right” under domestic law to leave Australia - with the federal government able to control our movements under the Biosecurity Determination 2020. Between March 25 and August 16, Australian Border Force received 104,785 travel exemption requests. Of these, 34,379 were granted a discretionary exemption. Some perhaps more discretionary than others - entrepreneur Jost Stollmann was granted an exemption to travel overseas to pick up his new luxury yacht. The way we think about travel needs to changeSignificant Australia’s diplomatic resources have been going into supporting Australians overseas during COVID-19. In July, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade reported 80% of its staff took part in the response effort. Secretary Frances Adamson has also noted her department’s approach to COVID-19 had to go “well beyond what’s written in our consular charter”. Pre-COVID, there were more than one million Australians living and working overseas. www.shutterstock.comGiven the range of pressing foreign policy issues at the moment, a serious question is how much of the Department of Foreign Affairs’ time and attention should be spent on consular services? What is being lost in other diplomatic efforts trying to get Australians home? Australians need to grapple with the idea that the government doesn’t have to “get them back” if they travel overseas (even if it wants to). And under Australian law, we don’t have a “right” to leave the country. We don’t know how long these COVID changes will last - particularly if efforts to create a vaccine are not successful. So, the way we think of travel and our risk calculations may unfortunately need to change. This might result in the biggest shift in our travel mindset since the 1950s, when international travel opened up to ordinary Australians. With rising awareness of climate impacts of travel, this may not be a wholly negative development. But a deeper conversation is still required about the right to freedom of movement for Australian citizens. theconversation.com/australians-dont-have-a-right-to-travel-does-covid-mean-our-days-of-carefree-overseas-trips-are-over-144862
|
|
|
Post by twentypoints on Sept 2, 2020 11:22:55 GMT 7
The Sydney Morning Herald 'Definite shift' in Border Force approach to travel ban as approvals surge By Caitlin Fitzsimmons August 30, 2020 The Australian Border Force is approving travel requests at a much higher rate now than earlier in the pandemic and making decisions within hours that previously took weeks. A third of Australians seeking permission to travel overseas have now been granted an exemption from the travel ban implemented to halt the spread of coronavirus, up from 25 per cent earlier in the pandemic. Since March, Australian citizens and permanent residents have been banned from leaving the country without approval from the federal government on the basis that they could spread COVID-19 when they return. Brooke Carman received permission to travel to Germany to be with her partner Kevin Jaeger the same day she applied. SUPPLIED An ABF spokeswoman said the higher approval rate was the result of a new application portal and additional staff, which had helped clear a backlog of requests. This is backed up by the fact that the rejection rate has also increased, indicating fewer people are left waiting for a decision or having to make multiple applications. But Adam Byrnes, the principal lawyer at Visa & Citizenship Lawyers in Sydney, confirmed the decisions were much faster since the introduction of the application portal but believed there had been a "definite shift in policy" within the past week. "We're seeing a lot more approvals come through with the criteria being a lot lower bar than it was before … such as relationships where they've only spent two weeks physically together," Mr Byrnes said. "We've had 10 or 15 [approvals] come through in the past three or four days where they were nowhere close to meeting the requirements that we've had before." Liberal MP Dave Sharma criticised the policy as a "pretty extraordinary restriction on people's liberty" in an interview with The Sun-Herald two weeks ago and was among Coalition MPs who spoke about it in the party room in Canberra last week. www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/definite-shift-in-border-force-approach-to-travel-ban-as-approvals-surge-20200828-p55qfu.html
|
|
|
Post by twentypoints on Sept 4, 2020 13:38:06 GMT 7
AUSTRALIA EXTENDS BAN ON INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL AND CRUISE SHIPS FOR 3 MORE MONTHS It is official. The Australian government has announced the ban on international travel and cruise ships will be extended for 3 more months. Australians will not be able to leave the country until at least December 17th, 2020 and cruise ships over 100 passengers will also continue to be banned from Australian ports. Health Minister Greg Hunt confirmed the news that the Australian federal government has banned its citizens and permanent residents from leaving the country by air or sea. The only exceptions are for residents of another country, an offshore freight, boat, aircraft or essential worker or government official. “The Australian Government will extend the human biosecurity emergency period under the Biosecurity Act 2015 by an additional three months,” read the official statement by Greg Hunt. “The emergency period, which has been in place since 18 March 2020, will now be in place until 17 December 2020.” Cruise ships carrying over 100 passengers will also be banned from docking at international ports unless the ship is in distress or the liner left Australia before March 15 this year destined for another domestic location. The Australian government extended the ban based on advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC). “AHPPC has advised that the international and domestic COVID-19 situation continues to pose an unacceptable public health risk.” “The extension of the emergency period is an appropriate response to that risk.” The four restrictions covered under the Biosecurity Act are in place to protect Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic said the press release: Restrictions on the entry of cruise ships into Australia Protections for the supply and sale of certain essential goods Restrictions on overseas travel Restrictions on retail stores at international airports Last week one of Australian's favorite vacation destinations announced that they would keep their borders closed as well. Bali Governor, Wayan Koster announced that the island would remain closed to international tourism until at least the end of December. Australia is closed for all inbound international tourism. www.traveloffpath.com/australia-extends-ban-on-international-travel-and-cruise-ships-for-3-more-months/
|
|
|
Post by twentypoints on Sept 16, 2020 8:37:44 GMT 7
THAILAND REOPENING FOR LONG-STAY TOURISTS: NEW 90 DAY VISA KASHLEE KUCHERAN SEPTEMBER 15, 2020 REOPENINGTRAVEL TRAVEL NEWS Last Updated 6 hours ago Thailand’s new 90-day visa for long-stay tourists has just been announced by Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, during a cabinet meeting on September 15. This new visa will be the first stage of general tourism reopening in Thailand, by first allowing long-stay tourists who agree to spend at least 90 days in the nation, jump-starting the shattered industry. Applicants for the visa will have to book a hotel or private accommodation for the full 90 days in order to qualify, and they also must agree to a 14-day quarantine upon arrival. After the quarantine is completed, the tourist will be granted free movement. No testing procedures have been mentioned yet, but they also could come into play as the visas are issued. PM Prayut Chan-o-cha is most concerned with keeping new cases of the virus out of the community as in-bound tourists start to arrive. “The most important condition would be a 14 day quarantine. Visitors can arrive for tourism or health services, and they can stay at alternative state quarantine facilities, specific areas or at hospitals that function as quarantine facilities. Our public health system is amongst the best in the world and people can have confidence in it.” While this news is just breaking, here is everything we know so far about Thailand’s new long-stay visa. (We will update this article as updated news becomes available) STV Visa Rules Cost: 2000 baht Length: 90 days. The visa can be renewed two times just before expiry, making the total length of stay possible for up to 270 days. How Many Will Be Issued? Deputy government spokeswoman Traisulee Traisaranakul said the STV visas will be issued at a rate of 1200 per month to start Countries to be included: Unknown. Thai finance secretary, Prasong Pootaneat said Thailand could benefit from accepting tourists from nations where the disease has not been high in recent months, which could include China, Taiwan and some European countries. Quarantine Rules: All applicants who receive approved STV visas must agree to quarantine for 14 days upon arrival. It is unknown if this will only be at state facilities, or if this list of approved hotels will be valid for hosting quarantining arrivals. Proof of Stay: In order to qualify for the visa, tourists will need to show proof of a stay equalling a full 90 days or more. This will include apartment rental contracts, confirmed hotel bookings, lease of a condo, copy of ownership of a dwelling belonging to family/friends where the applicant will stay, etc. Start Date: Unknown. The Thai government said details will soon follow. Areas Of Thailand Where The Visa Will Be Valid: Unknown. The Government's public relations site states “The Government will begin to open up for long-stay tourists in the areas where the spread of COVID-19 is prevented and controlled.” This is the first news of general tourism starting to resume in Thailand. Many expats, usual long-stay visitors, partners of Thai nationals, and other frequent travelers to Thailand have been waiting for any sign that Thailand will once again allow them to return. Since July, Thailand has only been allowing very select categories of foreigners to enter the country, including some medical tourists, direct family members of Thai nationals, business investors, and skilled foreign workers. Prior to this recent STV visa announcement, the only other signal that Thailand was looking to accept tourists soon was the Phuket pilot project. The governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, Yuthasak Supasorn, made a statement on August 21st confirming the government’s plan to open Phuket for international tourism on October 1st. The reopening of Phuket for foreign visitors was planned to act as a sort of pilot program for the rest of the country, testing how successful restarting the tourism sector in this current environment can be. The Phuket reopening is planned with a minimum 30-day stay, many PCR tests, and a strict 14-day quarantine. While the program isn’t expected to launch until October 1st, the new STV Visa might be a more attractive option for visitors, pending on its actual start date. The long stay visa aims to help Thailand’s tourism industry, which has been greatly affected by the pandemic. Thailand earned at least two trillion baht a year from international tourist arrivals before the COVID-19 outbreak. www.traveloffpath.com/thailand-reopening-for-long-stay-tourists-new-90-day-visa/
|
|