Questions surrounding the announcement of re-opening of international borders

[Wanderer Returns]

42 minutes ago, Darrenowen said:

Hello, 

I wondered if anyone can offer some advise. My Father was issued his 143 contributory parent visa in 2018.

He really wants to make the move permanently to Australia this year and would love to be here by  Xmas. His visa has already been validated due to holidays back and forth from the UK.

We really want to book a flight but we are scared that it might be cancelled as this has already happened with BA.
We’ve just had his granny flat built and we live in NSW. 
The issue for him is that he needs to hand in his notice at work and give notice to his landlord. If he does that and the flight gets canceled then he could be homeless and unemployed.

When booking flights how do they know weather your a permeant resident or not?  

They don't. The airline verifies this with the Australian Department of Immigration when you check-in at the UK airport. It took my wife 45 minutes to be verified, so he will need to arrive at the check-in very early. Booking Business of First Class flights seems to be the only way of ensuring you don't get bumped off. I wouldn't book flights with any airline that hasn't been flying to Australia in the last 18 months, and there aren't too many of them; Qatar, Emirates, for example.

We faced the same dilemma just over a year ago. I was in Brisbane and the wife was in the UK. She finished work on the Wednesday, the shippers came in Thursday and Friday, and she was on her way to Manchester Airport on Saturday morning.

You father is going to leave his job anyway, so I don't see that being unemployed for a week or two as being a major issue. He could end his lease after he was due to fly, so if the worse came to the worse, he'd have a short-term roof over his head (albeit an empty one).

There's no easy way around it really - it's a case of paying your money and taking your chances.

[Wanderer Returns]

15 hours ago, newjez said:

It wouldn't surprise me if there was an 'accidental' spread of covid to the covid free states over the next six months. It really wouldn't be hard for someone to do, either the 'government' or some anti lockdown nutters off their own back. Post a vial of virus to a willing recipient. Once delta is in and spreading, game over. No point staying closed.

 

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

This is the going to be the new reality.  Of course it is sad when people die, but it is sad whether it is Covid or Flu or Cancer.  

Actually, that would surprise me very much because with the exception of NSW and VIC, the rest of Australia has contained the spread of the virus extremely effectively - even the delta strain. There's a much lower population density across the rest of the country, remember - Sydney and Melbourne are something of an anomaly in that respect.

And if you tried to get across the NSW-QLD border at the moment without a permit, you'd pretty much be shot on sight!  

[Mmmbop]

Hi there. Does anyone have any insights on the reliability of outbound flights right now?

My wife, small child and I are due to move back to the UK on the 7th December as it's been too hard without family here. We have booked tickets via Qantas for a flight with Japan Airlines.

I'm trying to establish what the policy is in the event that the flight is cancelled, but I just wondered if anyone has a view on how likely that is? 

We're in NSW, where we're predicted to hit 80% in early November, so the borders being open by early December as announced seems a good bet.

What are the risks? The main one I can think of is that there is an outbreak/spike in NSW and borders shut again. 

And I'm also thinking about trying to get an exemption anyway in case that does happen. But I wonder whether the flight would be likely to run in that case.

And all being well, so assuming the border is open by the time of departure, could I be cautiously optimistic it will run?

So many questions...

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, Mmmbop said:

Hi there. Does anyone have any insights on the reliability of outbound flights right now?

Flights coming IN to Australia are unreliable because the number of passengers is limited.   There is NO limit on the number of passengers going OUT of Australia, so the outward flights are far more reliable.  In fact, I'd say you might find it easier to get a flight now than once the borders open, when there will be a flood of people going on holidays.

If you are leaving permanently, you should have no great difficulty getting an exemption.  We've had several members get one.  You must provide solid proof that you're genuinely leaving (things like proof you're selling your house/have given notice to your landlord, booking for shipping your stuff, notice to your employer etc).  Make sure you fill in statutory declarations as well, using their official form.  If by bad luck they knock you back the first time, you are allowed to apply again immediately, and applications are free.  

When you say borders might shut again, do you mean you're in country NSW and you're worried you might not be allowed into Sydney?  I can't think of any other way the closed borders would affect you.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Marisawright

[Mmmbop]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Flights coming IN to Australia are unreliable because the number of passengers is limited.   There is NO limit on the number of passengers going OUT of Australia, so the outward flights are far more reliable.  In fact, I'd say you might find it easier to get a flight now than once the borders open, when there will be a flood of people going on holidays.

If you are leaving permanently, you should have no great difficulty getting an exemption.  We've had several members get one.  You must provide solid proof that you're genuinely leaving (things like proof you're selling your house/have given notice to your landlord, booking for shipping your stuff, notice to your employer etc).  Make sure you fill in statutory declarations as well, using their official form.  If by bad luck they knock you back the first time, you are allowed to apply again immediately, and applications are free.  

When you say borders might shut again, do you mean you're in country NSW and you're worried you might not be allowed into Sydney?  I can't think of any other way the closed borders would affect you.

Thanks for the response. I wouldn't technically need an exemption if as anticipated the borders are open by the time I fly. Although it might be wise to get one in case they aren't.

But if they aren't, my thinking is that an airline that is not currently operating in Australia may not have the certainty to operate a flight which may have very few people on it. These are flights, I think, that are being scheduled in anticipation of the borders being opened. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I'm in Sydney. Closed borders would affect me if I don't have an exemption. 

[Tulip1]

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. 

Edited October 3, 2021 by Tulip1

[FirstWorldProblems]

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. 

[Marisawright]

8 hours ago, Mmmbop said:

Thanks for the response. I wouldn't technically need an exemption if as anticipated the borders are open by the time I fly. Although it might be wise to get one in case they aren't.

But if they aren't, my thinking is that an airline that is not currently operating in Australia may not have the certainty to operate a flight which may have very few people on it. These are flights, I think, that are being scheduled in anticipation of the borders being opened. Maybe I'm wrong though.

I'm in Sydney. Closed borders would affect me if I don't have an exemption. 

First, let's clear up what is meant by "cancelled flights".   A lot of people are struggling to get to Australia due to "cancelled flights" but what they really mean is "cancelled seats on flights".  The planes are all making their scheduled trips, it's just that the person got bumped off the flight, because airlines give priority to business and first class passengers.  That doesn't happen on the flights out of Australia, because the airline can fill the whole plane. 

This is what I mean by, if you were to go now, you shouldn't have a big problem getting a reliable flight out.  And even if a flight did get cancelled (because it does happen, even in normal times), flights are not booked out, so you'll get a seat on the next plane.  

I do agree that if they open up and start scheduling a whole heap of extra flights, then Covid gets out of control and the government re-introduces the limits, then there will be cancelled flights. I think I would be getting out before that, because although flights are limited, they have got into a routine now.  I repeat that the exemption isn't the hurdle you seem to think it is.

Edited October 3, 2021 by Marisawright

[Mmmbop]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

First, let's clear up what is meant by "cancelled flights".   A lot of people are struggling to get to Australia due to "cancelled flights" but what they really mean is "cancelled seats on flights".  The planes are all making their scheduled trips, it's just that the person got bumped off the flight, because airlines give priority to business and first class passengers.  That doesn't happen on the flights out of Australia, because the airline can fill the whole plane. 

This is what I mean by, if you were to go now, you shouldn't have a big problem getting a reliable flight out.  And even if a flight did get cancelled (because it does happen, even in normal times), flights are not booked out, so you'll get a seat on the next plane.  

I do agree that if they open up and start scheduling a whole heap of extra flights, then Covid gets out of control and the government re-introduces the limits, then there will be cancelled flights. I think I would be getting out before that, because although flights are limited, they have got into a routine now.  I repeat that the exemption isn't the hurdle you seem to think it is.

Yes, that all makes sense. It seems to me my biggest risk is actually that the inward situation comes to resemble the outward one, i.e. everything opens up as planned and the flights get overbooked.

I never said getting an exemption would be a major hurdle, although plenty have been denied. However, assuming I can get one, hopefully even in the case that closures are imposed again, we could get seats on a flight.

[Marisawright]

23 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

I never said getting an exemption would be a major hurdle, although plenty have been denied. 

Plenty have been denied, but not if you're moving permanently and provide proper proof.  The government doesn't give two hoots if you want to leave the country.  They only care because they don't want you to come back again, because you'll cost the taxpayer money in quarantine measures, bring infection into the country etc.  

I've known two people who got denied.  One because he was pig-headed and refused to make any arrangements to leave until he'd got the exemption - which of course, meant that he got denied because he submitted no proof (no idea what he ended up doing).  The other because they didn't include stat decs, but they applied again with stat decs and got approved very quickly.

I've seen people say they're on Facebook groups where permanent movers are claiming they've been denied.  However, when I ask for actual examples, they always come back with examples of people who only want to leave for 3 to 6 months.  

Naturally, the government is going to be suspicious of people who claim to be leaving permanently, because it's all too easy to turn around and "change your mind" once you're overseas -- and then you don't need any kind of permission to come back.  So, there's a high burden of proof that you have to supply.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Marisawright

[Mmmbop]

41 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Plenty have been denied, but not if you're moving permanently and provide proper proof.  The government doesn't give two hoots if you want to leave the country.  They only care because they don't want you to come back again, because you'll cost the taxpayer money in quarantine measures, bring infection into the country etc.  

I've known two people who got denied.  One because he was pig-headed and refused to make any arrangements to leave until he'd got the exemption - which of course, meant that he got denied because he submitted no proof (no idea what he ended up doing).  The other because they didn't include stat decs, but they applied again with stat decs and got approved very quickly.

I've seen people say they're on Facebook groups where permanent movers are claiming they've been denied.  However, when I ask for actual examples, they always come back with examples of people who only want to leave for 3 to 6 months.  

Naturally, the government is going to be suspicious of people who claim to be leaving permanently, because it's all too easy to turn around and "change your mind" once you're overseas -- and then you don't need any kind of permission to come back.  So, there's a high burden of proof that you have to supply.

Not true. It's a lottery with no transparency. I've heard of plenty of people who have been denied despite providing all the evidence.

I wrote an article on the issue, with examples, quite disgraceful: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/double-standards-in-australian-travel-ban-crisis,15332

I'm not too sure why it would be pig-headed of someone not to make arrangements to leave unless they were actually allowed to leave. That's quite the Catch 22. You're asking people to cut everything off without security that they can indeed leave. They're high and dry if they get denied. 

Also, I wouldn't describe it as 'natural' that the outward travel ban, pretty much unique amongst democracies and very probably illegal under international law, exists at all.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mmmbop

[Marisawright]

49 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

I'm not too sure why it would be pig-headed of someone not to make arrangements to leave unless they were actually allowed to leave.

Like all the others, you give two examples in your article about people who wanted to leave temporarily, not permanently.  In your second example, the word "permanently" is used, but do we know what the applicant put in their application?  If he applied under "compassionate" grounds to see his dying father, and the on compassionate grounds to go to a funeral, then that's why he got denied.   If he didn't supply proof of his permanent relocation, they wouldn't believe him - why should they. 

You can get a quote for shipping, you can put your house on the market, you can complete a stat dec, none of those things is irrevocable. To refuse to do those things is just being pig-headed.  

Please note that I'm not talking about whether the system is right or wrong, just how to work within the system, given that it exists. If you want to stand on principle and thereby prevent yourself from leaving, that's your choice.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Marisawright

[Mmmbop]

34 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Like all the others, you give two examples in your article about people who wanted to leave temporarily, not permanently.  In your second example, the word "permanently" is used, but do we know what the applicant put in their application?  If he applied under "compassionate" grounds to see his dying father, and the on compassionate grounds to go to a funeral, then that's why he got denied.   If he didn't supply proof of his permanent relocation, they wouldn't believe him - why should they. 

You can get a quote for shipping, you can put your house on the market, you can complete a stat dec, none of those things is irrevocable. To refuse to do those things is just being pig-headed.  

Please note that I'm not talking about whether the system is right or wrong, just how to work within the system, given that it exists. If you want to stand on principle and thereby prevent yourself from leaving, that's your choice.

So you draw the conclusion that the second person was applying to leave temporarily, despite, as you note, them saying that they applied to leave permanently?

You seem to have drawn this conclusion based on the fact that the article doesn't include the contents of their application. Quite bizarre really.

And you say, if he applied on compassionate grounds to go to a funeral, then that's why he got denied. As if that's the most natural thing in the world.

A) It's not the point because, as stated, the person applied to leave permanently, unless you choose to disbelieve that for reasons which are unclear.

B) People should be allowed to leave under compassionate grounds, both morally, and by the terms of the legislation. If you don't think caring for a dying parent, or indeed attending their funeral - constitutes grounds - under any interpretation of the frankly disgraceful system - then I really don't know what to say to you.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mmmbop

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, Mmmbop said:

So you draw the conclusion that the second person was applying to leave temporarily, despite, as you note, them saying that they applied to leave permanently?

B) People should be allowed to leave under compassionate grounds, both morally, and by the terms of the legislation. If you don't think caring for a dying parent, or indeed attending their funeral - constitutes grounds - under any interpretation of the frankly disgraceful system - then I really don't know what to say to you.

I drew the conclusion because if he applied to leave permanently, he would not have needed to mention the compassionate grounds in either application.  He would simply have applied on the grounds that he needed to return to look after his mother.  The fact that he "applied to go home and see his sick father" and then he "applied to go to his funeral" are very strong indicators that he applied on compassionate grounds, and therefore it's very likely he supplied the wrong evidence. 

Did you see his application?  If not, then why are you so sure he submitted a correct application?

I have seen ample evidence of people being denied on compassionate grounds.  My opinion on that is neither here nor there, it's what the situation is. I repeat, I have yet to see one single person who can say, "I applied giving all the correct evidence of my plans to move permanently, including stat decs, and I was still refused". 

In every case I've seen so far, they've made a mistake or failed to provide the right evidence or applied under the wrong category, or all three. I am happy to be proved wrong, but it's ridiculous of people to go around scaremongering about being unable to go home, on the basis of distorted information.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Marisawright

[Mmmbop]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I drew the conclusion because if he applied to leave permanently, he would not have needed to mention the compassionate grounds in either application.  He would simply have applied on the grounds that he needed to return to look after his mother.  The fact that he "applied to go home and see his sick father" and then he "applied to go to his funeral" are very strong indicators that he applied on compassionate grounds, and therefore it's very likely he supplied the wrong evidence. 

Did you see his application?  If not, then why are you so sure he submitted a correct application?

I have seen ample evidence of people being denied on compassionate grounds.  My opinion on that is neither here nor there, it's what the situation is. I repeat, I have yet to see one single person who can say, "I applied giving all the correct evidence of my plans to move permanently, including stat decs, and I was still refused". 

In every case I've seen so far, they've made a mistake or failed to provide the right evidence or applied under the wrong category, or all three. I am happy to be proved wrong, but it's ridiculous of people to go around scaremongering about being unable to go home, on the basis of distorted information.

You're making a lot of assumptions I would say. 

You say 'Did you see his application? If not how do you know he submitted a correct application?'.

I don't, for sure. However, neither do you. I strongly suspect neither of us are immigration lawyers, or know enough about the very opaque exemption system to judge what a 'correct' application is. The system is intentionally opaque, so the chances of people submitting an 'incorrect' application, a by-all-accounts very subjective judgement, are therefore increased. There is very little guidance on how to submit an application in compelling circumstances.

That is the point. It's designed into the system, which you seem unwilling to attribute any blame to.

Furthermore, compelling and permanent grounds should not be mutually exclusive, that's absurd.

Regardless of the nature of the applications submitted, about which we cannot know very much, based on the information we do have, any system which denies a request in such circumstances is to my mind categorically inhumane and wrong.

You can call it scaremongering, and blame the people suffering at the hands of this system, but the point is that very many people have been unable to leave when they most needed to despite their best efforts. Many have also been successful. The point remains, it's an opaque and cruel system.

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mmmbop

[Paul1Perth]

18 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. 

WA, Queensland, NT and maybe SA are still zero covid and everyone has lived a "normal" covid free life. 

They're only accepting it's here to stay in NSW, VIC and ACT.

[Marisawright]

25 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

You're making a lot of assumptions I would say. 

You say 'Did you see his application? If not how do you know he submitted a correct application?'.

I don't, for sure. However, neither do you.

 

Exactly.  So you have NO grounds for saying that applications to move permanently, properly submitted with the right evidence, are being refused.  And yet you are willing to not just post on a forum, but go into print to say they are.  If you're a journalist, you should be ashamed of yourself for printing your assumptions as if they were facts.

I repeat, my assumptIon is EVERY BIT  as valid as yours. Show me ONE example of someone who submitted correctly and still got refused, and I'll be very happy to be proved wrong.

You're entitled to be angry about people being denied the right to fly for compassionate reasons, but that is NOT RELEVANT to people who are moving permanently, because it frightens people who are lkely to have no problem leaving if they follow the instructions correctly.  That's not fair on those people.

[Mmmbop]

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

Exactly.  So you have NO grounds for saying that applications to move permanently, properly submitted with the right evidence, are being refused.  And yet you are willing to not just post on a forum, but go into print to say they are.  If you're a journalist, you should be ashamed of yourself for printing your assumptions as if they were facts.

I repeat, my assumptIon is EVERY BIT  as valid as yours. Show me ONE example of someone who submitted correctly and still got refused, and I'll be very happy to be proved wrong.

You're entitled to be angry about people being denied the right to fly for compassionate reasons, but that is NOT RELEVANT to people who are moving permanently, because it frightens people who are likely to have no problem leaving if they follow the instructions correctly.  That's not fair on those people.

I notice you don't respond to the entirety of message. I've made my assessment of the system very clear. It's based on all the available information, and it's quite legitimate. The burden of proof that a system is NOT inhumane and cruel lies with those trying to demonstrate that it isn't, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect it is. It is right and proper to ask the question, and to raise concerns.

I don't have 'NO' grounds for the analysis. I, and many others like me who have observed this problem, have the anecdotal evidence of many people. Detailed anecdotal evidence of people, saying exactly what they've submitted, stat decs, the lot, and being denied. That is the ONLY evidence available. You have nothing, other than your frankly patronising assumptions about people's inability to fill in their applications correctly. 

You cannot define what a 'correct' application is, can you? That's impossible to know. That information is not in the public domain. You are in no position to make the assumptions you are making. 

As far as we can tell, it is opaque and cruel.  And if it isn't, and it's merely a series of administrative errors as you very complacently suggest, then ok. That's possible. Based on everything I've seen and heard, I think it's highly unlikely. Regardless, the system would still be at fault for communicating so poorly what's required.

Please don't tell me I should be ashamed. I'm trying to raise awareness about an important issue. The worst that happens if I'm wrong is that some people are worried unnecessarily. The worst that happens if everyone acts like you and shuts up about it is that the likely unfair system persists and people continue to suffer unjustly.

The piece is an opinion article, and clearly framed as such. There is nothing that is neither fact nor opinion in it. How would you suggest a journalist cover an opaque unaccountable system. By your bizarre, authoritarian logic, we are only permitted to make any comment on it at all when it becomes transparent, and we have all the information we could possibly want. How would anything ever come to light, or be held accountable, by your logic?

You seem to have limited appreciation of journalism, or indeed dissent/democracy.

And as I said, and you chose to ignore, opacity of the system IS the issue. There ARE no 'instructions' as you seem to believe. You should go into business helping those trying to reunite with their families as you're such an expert.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mmmbop

[Marisawright]

21 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

I notice you don't respond to the entirety of message.

There are two subjects here: 

1. People who want to leave Australia for compassionate or other reasons.
2. People who want to leave Australia permanently

I am discussing how easy or difficult it is to achieve #2.  Nothing to do with whether it's fair or not, but entirely to do with what is factually possible.  Most of your messages are about #1, whch are completely irrelevant to #2.

I have no interest in proving whether or not the system is inhumane.  That is a different discussion, one that is certainly worth having, but totally irrelevant to your, or anyone else's, chances of leaving permanently (as opposed to leaving termporarily).

I am interested ONLY in proving whether or not people who wish to leave permanently, and who submit the appropriate proof, are being rejected.   I see people claiming, without actually checking their evidence, that such people are being rejected. Every single one I'm aware of, turns out to have been submitted incorrectly.  The explanation offered by the person in your article suggests he also applied incorrectly. I can't prove it, but you've admitted that you didn't actually check.

If you want to present your evidence, I'd have no problem conceding that I'm wrong.  But if all you're going to do is rant about the injustice of the system, it's irrelevant to our discussion.

[Parley]

29 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

I notice you don't respond to the entirety of message. I've made my assessment of the system very clear. It's based on all the available information, and it's quite legitimate. The burden of proof that a system is NOT inhumane and cruel lies with those trying to demonstrate that it isn't, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect it is. It is right and proper to ask the question, and to raise concerns.

I don't have 'NO' grounds for the analysis. I, and many others like me who have observed this problem, have the anecdotal evidence of many people. Detailed anecdotal evidence of people, saying exactly what they've submitted, stat decs, the lot, and being denied. That is the ONLY evidence available. You have nothing, other than your frankly patronising assumptions about people's inability to fill in their applications correctly. 

You cannot define what a 'correct' application is, can you? That's impossible to know. That information is not in the public domain. You are in no position to make the assumptions you are making. 

As far as we can tell, it is opaque and cruel.  And if it isn't, and it's merely a series of administrative errors as you very complacently suggest, then ok. That's possible. Based on everything I've seen and heard, I think it's highly unlikely. Regardless, the system would still be at fault for communicating so poorly what's required.

Please don't tell me I should be ashamed. I'm trying to raise awareness about an important issue. The worst that happens if I'm wrong is that some people are worried unnecessarily. The worst that happens if everyone acts like you and shuts up about it is that the likely unfair system persists and people continue to suffer unjustly.

The piece is an opinion article, and clearly framed as such. There is nothing that is neither fact nor opinion in it. How would you suggest a journalist cover an opaque unaccountable system. By your bizarre, authoritarian logic, we are only permitted to make any comment on it at all when it becomes transparent, and we have all the information we could possibly want. How would anything ever come to light, or be held accountable, by your logic?

You seem to have limited appreciation of journalism, or indeed dissent/democracy.

And as I said, and you chose to ignore, opacity of the system IS the issue. There ARE no 'instructions' as you seem to believe. You should go into business helping those trying to reunite with their families as you're such an expert.

What does being fair have to do with anything? Lots of people have suffered due to extraordinary policies related to Covid.

You aren't going to change anything. You just need to wait for the easing of restrictions like everyone else has to.

[Mmmbop]

1 minute ago, Marisawright said:

There are two subjects here: 

1. People who want to leave Australia for compassionate or other reasons.
2. People who want to leave Australia permanently

I am discussing how easy or difficult it is to achieve #2.  Nothing to do with whether it's fair or not, but entirely to do with what is factually possible.  Most of your messages are about #1, whch are completely irrelevant to #2.

I have no interest in proving whether or not the system is inhumane.  That is a different discussion, one that is certainly worth having, but totally irrelevant to your, or anyone else's, chances of leaving permanently (as opposed to leaving termporarily).

I am interested ONLY in proving whether or not people who wish to leave permanently, and who submit the appropriate proof, are being rejected.   I see people claiming, without actually checking their evidence, that such people are being rejected. Every single one I'm aware of, turns out to have been submitted incorrectly.  The explanation offered by the person in your article suggests he also applied incorrectly. I can't prove it, but you've admitted that you didn't actually check.

If you want to present your evidence, I'd have no problem conceding that I'm wrong.  But if all you're going to do is rant about the injustice of the system, it's irrelevant to our discussion.

As I have said, there is plenty of overlap between permanent and compassionate grounds. That's a false distinction which you choose to draw, quite arbitrarily, and which I don't accept. You don't get to determine what is relevant in a two way conversation. I am making the points I want to make.

I've made myself quite clear. I won't be submitting any more 'evidence' to you for the reasons explicitly stated. There is no more evidence AVAILABLE. 

I also don't want to crowd those thread further. People can draw their own conclusions. Good luck to you.

[Mmmbop]

4 minutes ago, Parley said:

What does being fair have to do with anything? Lots of people have suffered due to extraordinary policies related to Covid.

You aren't going to change anything. You just need to wait for the easing of restrictions like everyone else has to.

Nothing relevant to the discussion in this.

[Marisawright]

7 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

As I have said, there is plenty of overlap between permanent and compassionate grounds. That's a false distinction which you choose to draw, quite arbitrarily,

Nonsense.  

if you wish to leave Australia permanently, you  are not required to give a reason, compassionate or otherwise.  You just need to prove that you're making genuine preparations to leave. So while there is an overlap in WHY people decide to move, there is NO overlap within the exemption system.  None.

I feel sorry for you, because it sounds as though you'd have liked to leave long ago, but you've been waiting for the borders to open, under the false impression that it would be too hard to get an exemption.  

[Mmmbop]

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

Nonsense.  

if you wish to leave Australia permanently, you  are not required to give a reason, compassionate or otherwise.  You just need to prove that you're making genuine preparations to leave. So while there is an overlap in WHY people decide to move, there is NO overlap within the exemption system.  None.

I feel sorry for you, because it sounds as though you'd have liked to leave long ago, but you've been waiting for the borders to open, under the false impression that it would be too hard to get an exemption.  

Yes you're quite right. It's a totally transparent and simple system, and all the people who have fallen foul of it are clearly just not as intelligent as you.

And thank you for your concern, I'm sure it's quite genuine. How condescending.

Read this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/coronaivurs-border-restrictions-hard-to-leave-permanently/100274870

I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why the people in this article are all doing it wrong and really it's fantastically straightforward. Jog on.

 

Edited October 4, 2021 by Mmmbop

[Nemesis]

18 minutes ago, Mmmbop said:

Yes you're quite right. It's a totally transparent, straightforward and simple system, and all the people who have fallen foul of it are clearly just not as intelligent as you.

And thank you for your concern, I'm sure it's quite genuine. How condescending.

Read this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/coronaivurs-border-restrictions-hard-to-leave-permanently/100274870

I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why the people in this article are all doing it wrong and really it's fantastically straightforward. Jog on.

 

I have had a similar discussion with Marisa in the past and she challenged me to post details of people who had been refused permission to leave permanently. As I had come by those details partly through work, and partly though being a member of Facebook groups I was not prepared to share the intimate details as I feel that is unfair to the individuals concerned. As a result she refused to believe in situations such as dual citizens being refused permission to leave 4 or 5 times, or the most distressing one - an elderly lady who was set to follow her family home to the UK in March 2020, but is still here, with little money, no home and no belongings, as her family took them all in anticipation of her following them. Its good to hear from someone else who has witnessed these heart=breaking refusals.