Australians who live overseas now unable to leave country

[Banjo]

Australians who live overseas now unable to leave country if they return for visit

Government expands border ban in a move experts say could be constitutionally invalid and unfairly affect Australians from multicultural backgrounds

The Australian government has quietly expanded its ban on Australian citizens leaving the country to include people who are ordinarily residents in another country, meaning that even people who live overseas may not be allowed to leave Australia.

Prof Kim Rubenstein, an expert in citizenship law from the University of Canberra, said the change would unfairly affect Australians from multicultural backgrounds and could be constitutionally invalid.

Currently, Australian citizens and permanent residents are banned from leaving Australia, and have to apply for an exemption to do so, which can be granted for employment, study, or compassionate reasons, among others.

However, if an Australian citizen is ordinarily resident in another country, they are automatically allowed to leave.

On 1 August, the health minister, Greg Hunt, amended the legislative instrument that created the overseas travel ban to remove this exemption – and further tighten rules on Australian citizens or permanent residents.

Effective from 11 August, even Australian citizens who are ordinarily resident in another country will have to apply for an exemption to leave the country, and could be denied.

The Department of Foreign Affairs defines someone as “ordinarily resident in another country” if they spent more time outside Australia than inside for the last 12 to 24 months.

Australian citizens who are seeking to return to Australia are still required to apply, comply by arrival caps, and pay for their own hotel quarantine. Only Australian citizens and permanent residents are allowed to enter Australia.

Rubenstein told Guardian Australia that the government had placed some of the harshest restrictions in the world on its own citizens.

She said criticism of the exemption as a “loophole” was unwarranted.

“It’s not really a loophole, it is the normal rights of a person to travel back and forward to their country of citizenship,” she said. “They have made it even more draconian than it was at the beginning. No matter where you are from in the world, if you land here, you could be trapped.”

Rubenstein said the change would also discourage Australian citizens who had moved overseas to return home, for example, if they had to care for a family member or similar.

According to the 2016 census, 49% of Australians were born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas.

“I think the fairness issue comes back to being human beings in a globalised world,” she said. “Australia is a multicultural society. You are severely impacting the lives of people who have families abroad, who want to be able to connect with and spend time with their families in a Covid-safe way.”

On Monday, Hunt made the amendment to a declaration under the Biosecurity Act that first set up the overseas travel ban at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

An explanatory statement from the health department said that people who would be affected “have had substantial time in which to take action under the exemption” since it began in March 2020.

“The exemption was not intended to enable frequent travel between countries,” it said. “The amendment will reduce the pressure on Australia’s quarantine capacity, reduce the risks posed to the Australian population from Covid-19, and assist in returning vulnerable Australians back home.”
The anti-lockdown protest in Melbourne, where police arrested 15 people. Victoria has entered its sixth Covid lockdown.

According to the statement, the department of home affairs, the department of foreign affairs and trade, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet were all consulted about the change ahead of time.

“A person will no longer be able to rely on an automatic exemption to travel overseas where they ordinarily reside in a country other than Australia,” it says.

The home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, said that the change does not stop Australians from leaving the country, but “provides a balanced approach”.

“Travel exemption arrangements have been updated to improve consistency on border measures for all Australians,” she told Guardian Australia.

“This does not stop Australians ordinarily resident outside Australia from departing, however these people will now need to apply for an exemption. These restrictions provide a balanced approach between allowing Australians to travel, if essential, while protecting community health.”

Andrews said the exemptions system was “based on health advice and enables people to travel if essential” but it “is ultimately about keeping Australians safe from overseas Covid transmission”.

But Rubenstein said that the ban on outwards travel for citizens and the further ban on residents of other countries, could be unconstitutional.

“It is questionable whether there is a valid constitutional power to restrict Australian citizens from leaving the country. What is the head of power that is restricting someone from leaving? It can’t be quarantine, because it is not a question of quarantine because you are leaving the country.

“If it is external affairs, it would have to be very closely related to the treaty under which the act is made … And I think restricting people from leaving their own country, you’d need to find something that is directly linked to that.”

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/aug/06/australians-who-live-overseas-now-unable-to-leave-country-if-they-return-for-visit

[ann]

'Barbaric’: Returning citizens who live abroad will need permission to leave Australia

The federal government has banned Australians who normally live in other countries from returning home without needing government permission in a move branded as “barbaric.”

Until now, residents of other countries who are Australian are allowed to leave the country without applying for an exemption, but are regularly questioned at the border and required to prove that they live abroad as part of the international border bans brought in at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But on Thursday the government quietly changed the rule, effective from August 11, claiming it was a loophole.

Now, according to the government’s explanatory statement tabled in Parliament, a person will have to demonstrate to the Australian Border Force Commissioner a “compelling reason for needing to leave Australian territory”.

The amendment, which cannot be disallowed, “will reduce the pressure on Australia’s quarantine capacity, reduce the risks posed to the Australian population from COVID-19, and assist in returning vulnerable Australians back home,” the government said.

Exemptions can be granted for business travel, but the government has previously said it intends to clamp down on the number of them being granted.

The government did not issue a press release to alert the public to the change nor did Health Minister Greg Hunt, who tabled the amendment, raise it in any of his media interviews on Thursday.

Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said the change was introduced out of consistency.

“This does not stop Australians ordinarily resident outside Australia from departing. However, these people will now need to apply for an exemption,” she said.

The exemption’s regime is based on health advice and enables people to travel if essential, but is ultimately about keeping Australians safe from overseas COVID transmission.”

‘Barbaric and counterproductive’
James Turbitt recently flew back to Australia from Belgium to try and say goodbye to his seriously ill mother.

He missed out on seeing her one last time because he was told to hire a charter flight worth tens of thousands of dollars to qualify for an exemption to leave hotel quarantine. He is currently in the country sorting out her affairs before returning home.

Turbitt said the government’s changes were aimed at citizens like him and that it was “barbaric and counterproductive”.

“I came back for the passing of my mother, I was locked in a hotel room while she passed away, denied an exemption to see her, and now I am subjected to proving my life overseas, in order to leave again?” the 35-year-old said.

“My life is overseas, my work is there, my partner is there, I’ve just lost my mother, and now I can be denied to go back and seek comfort from my partner?

“She has not been allowed in with me and now I might be denied leaving? What has this country come to?

“The [Queensland] Premier goes overseas to the Olympics, the Prime Minister goes to check out his family history in England.

Now someone who doesn’t even want to be in this country is potentially going to be forcibly detained in a place he doesn’t want to be. I do not agree that it is fair,” he said.

Australia is alone in banning its citizens, temporary visa holders, permanent residents and dual citizens from leaving the country under the international travel ban brought in March 2020.

It is also the only country to have temporarily threatened some of its citizens with the threat of jail and massive fines if they tried to return home from India during the height of its recent COVID wave. Several Australians who had been trying to get home died in India.

Australia is also alone in the world in locking out its citizens through a cap on the number of people who can enter the country in a single week – recently halved to around 3000 at the request of several Labor premiers.

This has resulted in a queue of more than 35,000 Australians around the world who are trying to get home at any one time but can’t because of the restrictions on hotel quarantine spaces.

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-says-it-will-lock-in-returning-citizens-who-permanently-live-abroad-20210805-p58gb9.html

Had to copy and paste all thus with the phone. Hope I got it all.

[ann]

Great minds think alike Banjo, I just put this up from a different paper. What a mess

[onemore]

For the first time in my life, I am speechless.

[bear]

I'm guessing this the loophole they considered needing to be closed off!!  I've only become aware of the classification in the last week or so and was waiting to see how a thread played out from another forum before mentioning it.

'Ordinarily resident outside Australia'

You are considered ordinarily resident in a country other than Australia if international movement records show that you’ve spent more time outside Australia than inside for the last 12 to 24 months. You do not need to carry a paper record of your movements with you. If required, Australian Border Force officers at airports can check your movement records in their systems.

aseannow.com/topic/1226204-ordinarily-resident-rule-for-travel-out-of-australia/

Since all of the information is readily accessible to ABF staff; I refuse to acknowledge them as "officers", at airports; the new requirements seem to be more about the Government finally being able to label 'ordinarily resident citizens' as non residents through the need to provide the required documentation to be allowed to leave. Prior to the change our travel movements sufficed and could be checked instantly at the airport prior to departure.

Take the following and paragraph below with a grain of salt. It's only conjecture and personal opinion from a raving ol' lunatic!! But you may mark my words if you so wish to do so; and to anyone living OS as a long term permanent tourist so as to protect Australian residency; good luck getting out again for longer than what'll be more than likely a set yearly portability in the future; if you don't have the necessary documentation as set out in the link below.

Forgive my skepticism, for I doubt it will end here, with the next imposition likely to be frozen pensions for Ozzies OS, just like the UK has had in place for yonks, thereby requiring people to come back home, re-establish residency, and serve a sentence before you can regain your pension at the then current or a pro rata rate before you  can leave again. In other words they'll starve us out of the jungle in the long run.....I haven't read the Iink in its entirety and may not bother but, you could be doing yourself a favour if you're likely to be caught up in this ABF legislation. Cheers bear 

What it now reads, please scroll down to:- 'Ordinary resident outside Australia'

On 1 August 2021 the Minister for Health and Aged Care amended the Biosecurity Determination 2020. From 11 August 2021 Australian citizens and permanent residents ordinarily resident in a country outside Australia will not be automatically exempt from Australia’s outward travel restrictions. From this date, they must apply for a travel exemption through the Travel Exemption Portal.

Supporting evidence must be provided and may include:-

foreign government issued documentation, for example

foreign drivers licence

foreign government issued residency card

evidence you have an established and settled home overseas, for example

tenancy/residential agreement

utility bills, rate notices

evidence you are employed or have ongoing business interests overseas

letter from your employer/employment contract in a foreign country

business tenancy agreement

If you are outside Australia and want to travel to Australia then return to your country of residence, you can apply for an outwards exemption before you arrive in Australia.

covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia#toc-8

P.S. Thanks for being all over this ann , you too Banjo . I had a hint something was afoot via PM this morning, though nothing concrete. I then saw a hint in another thread; finally I found Ann's OP and now at 6.33 p.m. Banjo's. It's been a slippin' through the cracks fom me all day.

ann  ; please disregard my PM.....

[itsmylife08]

I've read through most of the posts as suggested by bear, and IMHO this could just be the calm before the storm for many
It is questionable whether there is a valid constitutional power to restrict Australian citizens from leaving the country. What is the head of power that is restricting someone from leaving? It can’t be a quarantine, because it is not a question of quarantine because you are leaving the country. But from recent memory, we don't have a bill of rights in Australia, that could be the $64 question, as I've said many times before maybe this pandemic is the perfect opportunity for Government to control people en masse, could this just be just the start of things to come, Portability of pensions is another area of concern, maybe our masters are just working away quietly eroding our basic human rights until there is nothing left, who knows? Article 13 UN Charter on human rights Every person has the right to leave and re-enter their own country...

"Semper Paratus Always be prepared" On a personal level I don't think the new legislation will affect me all that much, but only time will tell if I ever decide to travel to the Philippines for a holiday. Hopefully the pandemic will be over by then.

What disturbed me the most was that unfortunate Aussie James Turbitt who traveled from Belgium to see his mother who was quite ill and was quarantined in a hotel for some time was not allowed to see her in the meantime she eventually passed away. I mean how intransigent can this Government be, here we have a young man desperately wanting to be with his dying and was denied this basic right. Surely this was a violation of basic human rights under the UN charter, on the other hand, the Queensland Premier Annastacia Palazczuk was allowed to travel to the Tokyo Olympics not to be outdone Scotty from marketing traveled to England to check out his Ancestry, Figure it out, guys for me there is no justice anymore when you've got that type of behavior going on. 

Cheers Itsa
Semper Paratus

[bear]

Article 13 UN Charter on human rights Every person has the right to leave and re-enter their own country...

Granted Itsa; it's something we've known about here for a long long time and no Australian goverment would stop citizens leaving or re-entering their own country; but something else we are already well aware of is this; they can and will place criteria and sanctions on citizens to make life as oppressively burdensome as they possibly can!! Cheers bear

[bear]

From Banjo post:- On Monday, Hunt made the amendment to a declaration under the Biosecurity Act that first set up the overseas travel ban at the start of the coronavirus pandemic.
From ann 's post:- the amendment which cannot be disallowed

Interesting..... possibly questionable; maybe deliberately slippery!! Just throwing it out there......thoughts & ideas most welcome!!

Excerpt:- At the Commonwealth level, the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth) enables the Governor-General to declare that a “human biosecurity emergency exists”. This was done on 18 March 2020 and is in force for three months (but can be extended for periods of up to 3 months if the threat continues to be severe and immediate). This allows the Minister for Health to “determine emergency requirements during the human biosecurity emergency period”.

Ordinarily such determinations, or other forms of delegated legislation, are “disallowable instruments”. This means that they have to be presented to both Houses of Parliament shortly after being made, and either House can, within a certain number of sitting days, pass a vote to disallow them. If an instrument is disallowed by either House, it then ceases to apply as a law (but still validly applied up until the date it was disallowed).

But where a “human biosecurity emergency” exists, Parliament decided that instead of making the determinations disallowable, it would put a time limit on their application. So they only operate during the period that the “human biosecurity emergency” exists. They therefore cannot be disallowed during that period, but they could be repealed by the Parliament or made the subject of judicial review in a court.

Other delegated legislation in response to the COVID-19 emergency, such as that made under health, defence and customs legislation, may still be disallowed by either House when Parliament next meets.

In the meantime, Parliament can continue to scrutinise delegated legislation and raise concerns with the relevant Minister about its application, seeking alterations where necessary. This is done through its parliamentary committees, which can continue to meet by electronic means even though Parliament is not sitting. 

One of the key committees is the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. It has announced that it is continuing to meet, by electronic means, and is actively scrutinising the delegated legislation that is emerging while Parliament is not sitting. While the instruments that are not disallowable do not fall within its ordinary terms of reference, it is scrutinising the others, and has set up a special webpage to list all the COVID-19 related delegated legislation so that people can easily find it and scrutinise it themselves as well.

On 8 April, the Senate also established a Select Committee on COVID-19 to inquire into the Australian Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be able to scrutinise the non-disallowable delegated legislation made under the Biosecurity Act along with other Government responses to COVID-19.

www.cefa.org.au/ccf/rule-law-during-coronavirus-pandemic

Whether relevant or not but:- 

'Rex Patrick wins fight for national cabinet documents'

Excerpt:- Independent senator Rex Patrick has won his legal fight to access national cabinet documents, after a Federal Court judge decided that the documents were not ‘an official record of a committee of the cabinet’.

Patrick launched proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in September, after his freedom of information requests relating to national cabinet meeting minutes and procedures were denied. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner then referred Patrick’s appeal to the AAT the following month.

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had rejected Patrick’s requests on the basis that the documents were official records of the cabinet, and were therefore exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.

www.themandarin.com.au/165173-rex-patrick-wins-fight-for-national-cabinet-documents/


'Nowhere to hide: the significance of national cabinet not being a cabinet'

Excerpt:- Federal cabinet committees derive their powers from the federal cabinet, have their decisions endorsed or overridden by that cabinet, and are ultimately subject its powers and directions. The national cabinet does not meet this description. Its decisions do not have to be endorsed by the federal cabinet and the federal cabinet cannot overrule them. National cabinet also addresses matters over which the federal cabinet has no authority or control.

theconversation.com/nowhere-to-hide-the-significance-of-national-cabinet-not-being-a-cabinet-165671

[itsmylife08]

In all honesty, how many people on this forum actually understand the language, not a lot I guess never mind this Government is going to carry on regardless irrespective of what the people think. nomadic you are right a revolution is needed, either you or the Beatles

[onemore]

Aug 6, 2021 22:25:25 GMT 7 itsmylife08 said:

In all honesty, how many people on this forum actually understand the language, not a lot I guess never mind this Government is going to carry on regardless irrespective of what the people think. nomadic you are right a revolution is needed, either you or the Beatles

I do and it scares me.

[bear]

Last night I had this dream..........

The first casualty of this legislation will be not Reinstating Full Pay when entering Australia for a holiday and not being able to keep it for six weeks post departure through obfuscation about how long you may be away for; or in the case of those not even required to advise travel movements i.e. those on DSP/UP.  Because prior to this, if you declared you were leaving permanently your supplements were cut on departure. How many would've declared that  when there was an option?? That was the Loophole!!

This new process; whether getting your exit documents before you arrive or before departure through furnishing foreign documents proving your residency OS,  guarantees the loss of this much need capital for most; IMHO. This morning;  not a very cheery Bear,  mai bpen rai   

[onemore]

Straight out of “Yes Minister”this episode goes like this:-

In the Prime Ministers office, I dare not utter his name otherwise I might bring up my breakfast, there is a dilemma, the hotel quarantine is not working and the returning Australians are overcrowding the already stretched quarantine facility in Darwin, the premiers are calling for more quarantine facilities to be built, so the PM gets on the phone and asks some of his rich mates to help out, but the premiers don’t like that solution.

Then Humphrey has a brilliant idea, one that involves no money being spent on more hospitals, or quarantine stations.

“Just tell the gullible public that they cannot leave the country unless they are a very rich person, or a politician, if they don’t leave then that puts no pressure on the facilities, no one leaving results in no one coming back”.

“What about the Australians stranded overseas?” Well they have had their chance, we gave them plenty of warning, they must be content where they are.

[itsmylife08]

I was asked that question once when leaving my reply was, I'm not sure at the moment a few months maybe but less than a year for sure, why does it matter? aw, no mate just asking

BTW I think you hit the nail on the head, with visa extensions here in the Philippines they put a label in your passport with tourist printed  on it, meaning you're not a resident? I just wonder if Canberra recognizes that? 

Now what's wrong Yogi tell Boo Boo It'll be ok   

Cheers Itsa 

[bear]

Now what's wrong Yogi tell Boo Boo It'll be ok   

Nothing wrong little buddy, but thanks for caring. Nothing a few full picnic baskets wouldn't fix!!

Just not very cheery because of this government's never ending oppression on all but the fabulously wealthy, the sums of money given away to the favoured, the always crying poor, the ongoing denial of how the economy really works, the ridgid dichotomy that $44 a day is a reasonable amount of money for people to have a comfortable life on; when they are kicking back at the dining room in OUR Parliament House with an allowance of $86 a day just for food. Allowances; they've got them coming out of orifices yet to be discovered by medical science and; once upon a time long long ago, if a PMG Tech went bush to install new installations he got allowances to pay for accommodation, and food as well. The smarter ones camped out and got to save all of their main renumeration for months on end.....back when the yellow brick road to the Wizard's house was more than just a dream. Cheers bear

P.S. The Beatles ain't gonna cut it Boo Boo....

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/26/canberra-on-a-big-budget-how-jobseeker-stacks-up-against-a-federal-politicians-perks

It's indecipherable; and quite frankly they're much better off with me over here on a number of fronts, and they'd do well to remember this.......

[itsmylife08]

I hear what you say, big guy but for me, it's just a matter of time before I return as the tickets are paid for. It's depressing almost on a daily basis with the news that's coming out of Canberra. Have I made the right decision? in truth I really don't know at least from my perspective, it's different for the family To be honest it scares me at times!!!


Cheers Itsa