4 ms·

A charitable interpretation is that this law is aimed at Australian residents traveling to other countries for pleasure or non-essential business, contracting c

by whack 5y ago

A charitable interpretation is that this law is aimed at Australian residents traveling to other countries for pleasure or non-essential business, contracting covid, flying back home to Australia, and spreading it to others. Over the past year, Australia's covid rates have been far lower than other countries, hence why international transmission is a far greater risk. One alternative is preventing citizens who've traveled to other countries from returning home to Australia. Presumably this isn't legally/politically feasible because it violates a citizen's right to return home. Hence the government's decision to restrict people's ability to leave instead. I would hope tat getting an exemption is as simple and easy as "here's my lease and paystub in {COUNTRY}", but it remains to be seen how smooth and painless the process is.

masklinn 5y ago
> A charitable interpretation is that this law is aimed at Australian residents traveling to other countries for pleasure or non-essential business, contracting covid, flying back home to Australia, and spreading it to others. That was already restricted. This change targets citizens living abroad and prevents them from going back home. Who could leave by demonstrating that they are residents of an other country.
- whack 5y ago
  > 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. My reading of the above was that citizens living abroad would still be allowed to leave Australia and return to their home. They just need to go through a centralized exemption process in order to demonstrate that they are residing abroad
  - L_226 5y ago
    The article states that they already had to prove they were exempt. However as I have not personally gone through this I am not in a position to comment on the accuracy of this statement. But from what I know of Australian bureaucracy, likely it was an ad-hoc decision made by a representative in the airport checking whatever documentation was provided. But now, you need to apply to the federal Home Affairs ministry for an official exemption, which comes with as much delay and red tape as you can imagine. So what I'm saying is; whilst one is ostensibly still "allowed" to leave if one meets the requirements, in practice it may now be more difficult if not impossible. But the fact still remains that this is frankly an obscene policy. I'm disappointed, and angry, but not surprised. Let's also not forget that the previous Home Affairs minister himself went abroad last year, contracted covid, came back and had meetings with others.
anigbrowl 5y ago
But again, you could just say that anyone arriving, citizen or not, has to go through testing and/or quarantine. Saying people need permission to leave because they might come back is pointless indirection.
- MarkMc 5y ago
  It's not pointless - the point is to reduce the number of people who come into Australia. Quarantine is not perfect; fewer arrivals means fewer sources of infection.

by whack 5y ago

masklinn 5y ago

> A charitable interpretation is that this law is aimed at Australian residents traveling to other countries for pleasure or non-essential business, contracting covid, flying back home to Australia, and spreading it to others. That was already restricted. This change targets citizens living abroad and prevents them from going back home. Who could leave by demonstrating that they are residents of an other country.

whack 5y ago
> 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. My reading of the above was that citizens living abroad would still be allowed to leave Australia and return to their home. They just need to go through a centralized exemption process in order to demonstrate that they are residing abroad
- L_226 5y ago
  The article states that they already had to prove they were exempt. However as I have not personally gone through this I am not in a position to comment on the accuracy of this statement. But from what I know of Australian bureaucracy, likely it was an ad-hoc decision made by a representative in the airport checking whatever documentation was provided. But now, you need to apply to the federal Home Affairs ministry for an official exemption, which comes with as much delay and red tape as you can imagine. So what I'm saying is; whilst one is ostensibly still "allowed" to leave if one meets the requirements, in practice it may now be more difficult if not impossible. But the fact still remains that this is frankly an obscene policy. I'm disappointed, and angry, but not surprised. Let's also not forget that the previous Home Affairs minister himself went abroad last year, contracted covid, came back and had meetings with others.

anigbrowl 5y ago

But again, you could just say that anyone arriving, citizen or not, has to go through testing and/or quarantine. Saying people need permission to leave because they might come back is pointless indirection.

MarkMc 5y ago
It's not pointless - the point is to reduce the number of people who come into Australia. Quarantine is not perfect; fewer arrivals means fewer sources of infection.