FirstWorldProblems

Friday mark's one week since the announcement of international borders reopening on a limited basis.  The announcement said that details would be following over the next two weeks, but so far we have seen little of that detail.  I thought I'd just update the thread with my original questions, adding into one place other questions posed here and what has become more clear in this first week.  I'm hoping this is of use to others hoping to visit family in Australia.

Question: Are family of Citizens and perm Residents able to enter?

Answer: Yes.   Spouse and dependent children of citizens will be allowed to enter, including for tourism/visitor purposes.  At least one PIO member (me) has had travel exemption approved on this basis.  You are advised to apply not more than 2 months prior to travel and not less than 2 weeks.  Mine took less than 48 hours.  

Question: How do the family of citizens get a visa to join travelling citizens?

Answer: When you apply for exemption to travel, one of the mandatory fields is your approved visa number or your visa application number.   I had a visitor visa (601) application sat in "Received" state since February, so I used the application number and that visa was approved at the same time as the exemption  

Question: What constitutes "fully vaccinated"?

"Seven-day home quarantine for Australian citizens and permanent residents fully vaccinated" is great news for those visiting family.  No need to spend two weeks in a hotel.  But what constitutes fully vaccinated?  Australia is very clear that this is 2 doses of an approved vaccine.    In the UK (which is one of only two destinations Qantas is opening flights for), under 18's can only have one dose.

So will they be allowed to travel?

Update: precious little new info on this.  In the government media release it states "Those who can’t be vaccinated, including young children and those with a medical exemption, will be counted as vaccinated for travel".  I think this is cause for hope for those living in the UK with children where you absolutely cannot get a child double vaccinated unless they are extremely clinically vulnerable.

Question: Will Qantas refund a flexible ticket?

Given the uncertainty brought by the questions above, and the speed at which tickets are being bought, it seems sensible to book a seat via a fully flexible, fully refundable tickets.  Qantas describes their "flex" ticket as "fully refundable", but when you dig into the detail on their website, the refund is always referred to as a voucher that has to be used within 12 months.  

Answer: Yes. Though it's clearly not their preference and they don't make it easy.  If you are a paranoid sort like me, I'd advise doing the following. 

• Call Qantas (make sure you have a spare hour or more to spend on hold) and ask the advisor the question explicitly. 
• All calls are recorded and stored for 10 years. 
• Ask the advisor for the timestamp of the call on their end, where they are located and their name
• write it down somewhere safe in case it's needed later

Question: What proof will be needed to show someone is fully vaccinated @NicF

Update: This remains unclear.  Airlines have been told that they will need to ensure passengers are fully vaccinated, but they still await details of what that means and how it is to be proven

Question: How will home quarantine work? @NicF

Update: No official word on this.  SA is trialling an app with facial recognition and geo-tagging.  Details like restriction on other people who live in that home are unknown.  Some reasoned speculation in this article

Question: Flight reliability @Darrenowen

Update: Qantas remain the only carrier thus far adding more flights and they are certainly selling seats quickly (we missed a few preferred options as we wrung our hands over the price).  We won't know until they start flying in mid-November if they are reliable.  A fully flex ticket is refundable, but it's often a lot more expensive than the cancellation fee of a saver ticket.  If the airline cancel they'll refund you.  Your grandfather probably wouldn't need the travel exemption as he is a PR.

Question: How will quarantine work if you need a domestic flight to another state after entering Australia? @BusbyBoo

Update: there is currently no information on this other than SA announcing an intention to allow fully vaccinated visitors from NSW & Victoria to enter SA by Christmas

In the hope that this is of use to some people, I'll keep it updated as the details emerge

43 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

I think they are letting citizens/PR holders in to holiday or do whatever.  Tourists outside that group are different with the exception of an immediate family member of a citizen/PR which I believe the OP is.  I think many think the borders will be open for anyone to come in which isn’t the case. 

Yes, exactly this.

1 hour ago, Mmmbop said:

Can I clarify, do you mean you received an exemption for your family to visit Australia? Or for you to visit family in Australia?

If so, can I ask what the relationship is? I.e. parents (non immediate family) or 'immediate' family? 

Happy to.

• Wife is Australian by birth. All her family are there
• Kids hold dual citizenship
• I have only British citizenship.
• I applied for travel exemption to Australia, from the UK as the spouse of an Australian citizen.
• I stated the purpose of the trip was to visit my wife's family in NSW.  I didn't elaborate on why we wanted to visit them (I contemplated a sob story, but didn't), or who we wanted to see
• I provided marriage certificate and joint bank account statement as prove of our enduring marriage

It was approved on that basis.  The exact text is:

The travellers listed have been assessed as meeting the following exemption criteria:

• Immediate family member of Australian Citizen or permanent resident

Consideration for a discretionary exemption is not required in this instance.

My travel exemption and visitor visa were approved overnight.  I submitted the visa in February but the exemption on Sunday evening (U.K. time), linking it to the visa.  
 

I wrote that the purpose of the travel was to visit family.   So that’s one question answered - the reopening is not just for those permanents returning 

6 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I think many are mis-understanding this.  The borders opening up for international travel will enable citizens/PR holders to return.  No where have I read it will be opening up for tourists to flock in.  I bumped into someone I know last Friday in a similar situation to me (grown up kids in Australia) and the first thing they said to me is have you booked your flights.  They’ve booked flights for December thinking they’ll be going there on holiday.  I said no I haven’t as I think there’s zero chance of me being allowed over there yet.  I think that will come at some point next year but my guess would be later in the year.  The other issue will be the quarantine situation at the time.  Whenever I can fly out there I will if possible but there’s no point in me going out for a three week holiday if I’ve got to spend two weeks in a hotel.  So, who knows when it will be opened up for tourists and what the quarantine situation will be.  It may all change quite quickly.  It wasn’t many months ago Australia was staying shut on a quest for zero Covid and any cases that reared their head was dealt with by lockdowns.  Now just months later they are accepting its here to stay and once their vaccine rate is high it’s all go and we have to learn to live with it. International borders opening too is something many wouldn’t have believed just months ago.  Just like many other countries, their strict quarantine rules are likely to also change. Time will tell.  I hope I’m wrong and that tourists will get in very soon but I doubt it. 

Citizens, PR and their immediate families.  
 

If they are fully vaccinated you can quarantine at home. 
 

That’s all we know right now.  
 

So it’s clearly not for tourists coming over for a beach holiday, but neither does it say it’s for stranded aussies overseas returning permanently.  My interpretation is that Citizens, PR and their immediate families (like me) can visit Australia. 

I've submitted my exemption, so I’ll find out soon if I am correct  

Clarification really is needed though. 

9 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

The statement yesterday is great news but I think you are really jumping the gun here. It's a classic 'Scotty from marketing' statement from the federal government in the light of growing criticism and political pressure to reopen Australia to the rest of the world. The reality is that here in Australia the State Premiers run the show - not the Prime Minister. QLD and WA are light years away from reopening at the moment - even to other states. When they eventually do, I'm pretty sure hotel quarantine will be on the cards for a long time to come because being fully vaccinated doesn't mean that you still can't catch the virus, and pass it on. The Premiers are first in line of fire, and when they get it wrong for whatever reason the media doesn't hesitate in hanging them out to dry - as we've just seen in NSW. People overseas don't appreciate the covid mindset here, which is probably about where the UK was this time last year. There are a significant percentage of people who'd be happy if the borders never reopened!

Personally, I'd not be booking any flights here at the moment unless I was returning to Australia to live permanently. There is a huge backlog of permanent residents and citizens who are also desperate to return, and they will likely be given priority over visitors when things finally get moving.

If you're going to throw caution to the wind and book flights anyway, then make sure you do it directly with the airline and ensure your tickets are fully-flexible and refundable.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but honestly, I'm telling it like it is.

And I appreciate that. I really do. But as I’m sure you can imagine, my wife, who has missed births , deaths and marriages of immediate family is absolutely desperate to see them and whilst I try to keep her expectations low, it’s my job to make it happen if it’s at all possible. 

Today's announcement that borders will re-open in November is great news, and I'm sure mine is not the only family hoping to travel to Australia to spend Christmas with our family there. Qantas immediately brought forward the start of bookable flights from 19 December to 14 November for their two most popular routes, London and LA.  As I have been exploring flight options today I can see people are booking them quickly.

But the announcement is light on detail, absent which it is difficult to book a flight with confidence.  Thinking there might be others struggling with the same questions, I thought I'd start a thread where we can share any answers we might find, or add to the related questions.

Question: Are family of Citizens and perm Residents able to enter?

Although the official press release refers to "australian citizens and permanent resident"s, all newspaper reports of the press conference quote the PM as saying "fully vaccinated Australians, permanent residents and family members"

Question: How do the family of citizens get a visa to join travelling citizens?

I've had a visitor visa application sat in "Received" state since February.  Do I delete it and try again?  

Question: What constitutes "fully vaccinated"?

"Seven-day home quarantine for Australian citizens and permanent residents fully vaccinated" is great news for those visiting family.  No need to spend two weeks in a hotel.  But what constitutes fully vaccinated?  Australia is very clear that this is 2 doses of an approved vaccine.    In the UK (which is one of only two destinations Qantas is opening flights for), under 18's can only have one dose.

So will they be allowed to travel?

Question: Will Qantas refund a flexible ticket?

Given the uncertainty brought by the questions above, and the speed at which tickets are being bought, it seems sensible to book a seat via a fully flexible, fully refundable tickets.  Qantas describes their "flex" ticket as "fully refundable", but when you dig into the detail on their website, the refund is always referred to as a voucher that has to be used within 12 months.  Though hidden deeply in the website you can find reference to cash refunds being something to speak to your local Qantas office about.   1hr 12mins on hold today was all I can manage before giving up.

During Covid I've had a few cancelled flights and was able to get a refund from Air China instantly but Emirates took a few months and Etihad I have a voucher with an option for refund.  What experience do people have in getting a cash refund out of Qantas when you choose to cancel? 

15 hours ago, Amber Snowball said:

I managed about half an episode of that I think. Couldn’t get on with it.

 I think it was called Sin City??? Set in Canberra. That was good. Only saw the first series whilst I was in Australia, so over 3 years ago but someone I work with says there’s a second series on Netflix here. It’s called something different in the uk than Oz, so not sure if sin city is the here or there title!

Sounds like you are describing a show that on UK Netflix is called Secret City.  Series one covers the death of a political aide who was the former husband of a reporter.  Is that the show?  It's pretty good.

48 minutes ago, Marcrobi said:

Has anyone heard recently if flights are still getting cancelled? If this is still happening what sort of notice have people received? 
I’m due to fly December 6th and really panicking about leaving work and getting cancelled!

I can understand your concern.  It is a dynamic situation and unfortunately it's subject to change at very short notice as the Covid situation continues to develop in Australia.  

I have had Etihad flights booked for December since January.  Last week I received a text message saying they had been cancelled.  I went online and could see they had been auto rebooked.  Looks like they have reduced the number of daily flights and shunted us onto the one remaining daily flight.   The new flights they've booked are less convenient for me, have a longer total journey, but at least they are still running.   

However with today's news that Australia isn't letting visiting citizens leave the country without permission, it's moot for us anyway - unless that changes.

A gilded cage is still a cage

I've spent many hours researching this topic as this is our plan too and yes, your are right.  As a citizen they will immediately qualify as a domestic student and as @Quoll says, many courses offer commonwealth supported places, reducing the cost often to about half that of the UK.  Note that not ALL courses have CSP

A-Levels are a recognised qualification, but be aware that the criteria differs by uni.  Here is an example from Sydney Uni:

Advanced Computing requires an ATAR of 90 or A Level points of 13/14
The A Level points are calculated as:
The first score listed (the 13 of the 14) is the requirement for three subjects, the second score (the 14) is for four subjects. 
•    A*=6, A=5, B=4, C=3, D=2, E=1. 
So for 13 you’d need two A’s and a C
 

One key difference between uni courses in UK and Australia is that in Australia Degrees without honours tend to be 3 years, with honours 4 years.  Whereas in the UK it's 3 for honours

I’d watch that for sure.  

6 hours ago, purplealster said:

Thank you for your input - you are right there is lots to consider, especially as it is the family home. I do not like to big note so I wasn't very clear in my original post

Absolutely understand.  Everyone’s circumstances are different and such things  are incredibly nuanced.  I think we all understand it’s about many, many factors beyond the offer you’ve received. Lifestyle, health, age, stress, income, future ambitions etc.  None of us are in exactly your position so we can only really overlay our own circumstances and experiences and attitudes to risk when we think about yours.    

You sound happy and maybe even a little relieved, so I say good for you and good luck to you. 
 

3 minutes ago, CaptainR said:

If the housing market crashed I would imagine that the stock market would also be drop like in the 2008 financial crisis? Or am I adding 1+1 and making 3? 

Depends.

If it's a localised Sydney, or even Australia wide housing price crash (or a less dramatic price reduction) due to rising interest rates, then I don't see that having a global effect.  So if ther investment portfolio is diversified geographically as well as by sector, I'd think the returns would still be good.

If there was another GFC, that's a different story and it affects almost everything.  But it's probably not an issue for these guys strategy, since if their investments drop 10% and property also drops 10%, the baseline changes.

I'd say the real risk is if the house prices (and thus rent) continues to rise and the  post-tax, post-inflation returns aren't adequate to cover that rise.

It's a gamble.  Could pay off big.  Could go the other way.

2 hours ago, purplealster said:

We bought our property in the Northern Beaches for $960,000 in 2011, knocked down and rebuilt in 2018 for $700,000. We had a crazy stupid offer for our place yesterday which we are going to grab and run run run without a glance back. We will invest the money because there is no way we would even consider buying again with prices being the way they are. When interest rates start rising, there will be many people in trouble and that's when we *may* consider buying again. Have you considered investing your money and renting instead? 

Very interesting indeed.  We know this is a common approach in a lot of countries around the world, but it's not something I am familiar with.   Am I understanding correctly that:

- you are speculating on the prices dropping once interest rates rise?  I agree that will likely happen, it's just when.

- that even if this doesn't occur and prices won't drop, you'll have sufficient investment returns to be able to pay rent forever?

Sounds pretty good.

Are there any pitfalls to this approach?  I suppose the investment returns need to be high enough that after tax you can re-invest for inflation (otherwise your capital is going down in real terms) and still have enough profit each year to cover the rent.   Can't really think of anything else.

1 minute ago, Marisawright said:

I'm making the point that it is (appropriately, given your username) very much a first world problem.

As is everything beyond food in your belly and clothes on your back.

And whilst not being able to spend time with loved ones is indeed a first world problem, it is nonetheless a problem for people and terribly upsetting for many on a daily basis.   "rich" people have feelings and emotions too and are equally deserving of empathy.  

Not that it matters, but we certainly weren't rich.   We needed the childcare over the holidays as we both had to work and had to make many other sacrifices to retain our connection with the family.

45 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Lucky you, but to me that sounds like a rich person!s lifestyle 

What is the point you are trying to make with this statement?  I don't understand.

In terms of policy, it's always interest rates that have the greatest affect on house prices.   Look at the two charts below 

People buy based not on the house price, but on the montly cost - just like they do with cars. And whilst interest rates drop, house prices rise

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

even pre-Covid, they were growing up without grandparents for 90% of the year by the parents' choice. 

I would have said the same, but our experience has been quite different.   We bring my wife's mother to the UK for 10 weeks every summer, and have done for 20 years, along with our annual 3 week visit there.   That concentrated time with the kids, being in the same house etc, has given them a closer relationship than they have with my family here in the UK who live 40 mins away and my mother in law is closer to my kids than her other grandkids in Australia.   My 16 year old is adamant he is going to university in Sydney and living with his grandmother.  Which is nice.

2 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

The decline in the rate of rise is of seas levels is well documented with decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr, since 1940 or even as early as the 1930's (see references below).  Long term tide gauge records in Sydney Harbour show that there has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about 0.65mm pa, or about the height of a matchbox over a century, as suggested by Geologist Dr Geoff Derrick. Similarly Derrick suggests that the sea level patterns appear independent of CO2 emissions.

Further information with a list of other references and citations can be found here:

 https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf 

and:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/HaveWeBeenToldTheTruthAboutSeaLevel(amended).pdf

Thank you.  Interestingly the saltbushclub paper uses the same data that I posted a couple of responses above.  You can see in the charts that the sea level has risen and that the rate of rise is more acute in the last couple decades. (page 7, figures 8 and 9)

But the paper then dismisses this as being important because the rise is not a very big rise and because it's less than the global rise.  I think the author of this paper seeks to mislead its readers.

Not a very big rise

1. Firstly a rise is a rise is a rise.  A rise is significant and not something to be ignored.  We can't think of ecological trends in human lifespans.  
2. In the executive summary the very first attention grabbing headline in size 30 font author states

Yet the data they use clearly shows the rise has been 91mm between 1880 and today.  A bloody big matchbox.  The paper then goes on to falsely state the annual rate of rise as 0.63mm, where the data source it uses shows it to be 0.65mm.  Then extrapolates that over 100 years to make the matchbox analogy

Yet elsewhere on this website the admin publishes "data" showing the sea level at fort denison has lowered!  Though offers no source.

So which is it?  

Unimportant Because It's A Lower Rise Than Global Rises

"The trend of 0.65mm/yr is below the world average of about 3.1mm/year"

Ignoring that we are back to 0.65mm again, what is the actual point being made?  That it doesn't matter that it's a rise, because at least it's less than elsewhere.  Standard distraction tactics.  Hey, mustn't grumble, others have it worse.

The Data Itself

Firstly, this is actual data, which is good.  Elsewhere on the site they flat out make it up.  But it's only one data source and it's been cherry picked because it's the one that shows the lowest rate of rise.

A proper report would also offer up the other sources.  The ones showing higher rates of sea level rise.  It would then seek to disprove them.  This paper doesn't.  It just ignores them.

In conclusion, this cannot be considered a trusted source.  It contains contradictions, untruths and is a classic case of disinformation - throw out high volumes of opinion, dress it up to look like there's some science and this bombardment of falsehoods will stick if it's repeated often enough.  Particularly with anyone who already believes the core premise and wants it to be true because they are very unlikely to a) inspect the data or b) search for other data.  Instead they find the core message that fits to their beliefs and take it as reinforcement.

I really would urge you to look at a variety of sources for your information.  Unfortunately there are plenty of grinding personal agenda's out there and people looking to deceive.  Without doing the research ourselves, the best we can do is seek out multiple sources, consider the motivation of the source and most importantly, inspect the data for ourselves to see if it stacks up.  For me, the salt bush club most certainly does not stack up.

3 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Yet the largest body of water on the earth is not rising and that is the science. As simple as that. Its got nothing to do with "countries less vulnerable turning their backs on the others".     

I note that you didn't share the data from your previous assertion. I would be interested in seeing it as all the data I could find, some of which I shared, evidences that there has been no decrease in the rise.

Could you please share the evidence for this latest assertion of yours that the pacific isn't rising?   I tried to locate it myself but could only find data contradicting is.  Such as the below from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Note the acceleration over the last 20 years.

Is it possible you are relying on some old data and need to review?

21 hours ago, newjez said:

No, I was fully zipped up when I turned around. I never bothered to turn up for the court hearing. Apparently it's voluntary in the UK.

I prefer my version of events.  I shall hitherto refer to you as FlasherJez

2 hours ago, s713 said:

Australian TV is considerably worse than TV in the UK. Considerably worse. We can call that right now.

I don't know how you can say that:

• Rake - superb 
• Glitch - superb
• Jack Irish - superb
• Border Security - not just superb, but some of the best TV ever!  People trying to cheat the system who get caught.  Can't beat it.

That's all I have

On 30/04/2021 at 14:22, newjez said:

No. Spent the night down the pub with my mates. Stopped for a slash against a wall on the way home, but I couldn't go. Turned around and there were two coppers standing there 

So you flashed your willy at the Rozzers?

6 hours ago, JetBlast said:

I get that. But you’re giving the impression Sydney and Melbourne is where it’s at. However for a position like this it’s evenly spread across the country and in proportion to the population. 

Ergo more jobs in Sydney and Melbourne