Love Lockdown: Stranded Partners Fight to Return to Australia Continues After 12 Long Months
Today, March 20, 2021, marks one year since Australia’s international border was slammed shut in the face of countless temporary visa holders who call Australia home.
The announcement that the borders would be closed was made by Prime Minister Scott Morrison on March 19, 2020. If you were out of the country at the time and couldn’t make it back by 9pm the following, chances are you’re still stranded abroad today.
The decision to close the border came nine days after the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. Twelve months later, with the pandemic largely under control in Australia and with the government obtaining enough vaccinations to jab the entire nation, the border remains shut.
If you’re not affected by the border closure, it’s hard to argue with it. Unlike many countries around the world, life in Australia is mostly back to normal.
But as a result of the continued border closure, tens of thousands of people who call Australia home remain hopelessly stranded abroad with absolutely no clue as to when — or even if — they can return.
And while the border remains closed to temporary visa holders, it has always been wide open to Australian citizens and permanent residents.
It’s true that many Australians have found themselves stranded abroad. But this has nothing to do with the border closure.
Rather, this is due to a lack of inbound flights to Australia, and the exorbitant cost of the fights that remain available. The government has also limited the number of passengers that can fly into Australian airports from overseas — reportedly to ease pressure on quarantine facilities — which has made it increasingly difficult for Aussies to make their way home.
But this article isn’t about stranded Australians. At least not entirely.
This article focuses on the temporary visa holders that live in Australia, and who are in genuine and continuing relationships with Australian citizens. Due to the border closure, many of those individuals and their Australian partners have been tragically torn apart for the past year.
Apart for a year but still together? That’s commitment!
The governing bodies in charge of who can enter and leave Australia are the Australian Border Force (ABF) and Department of Home Affairs.
According to the guidelines stipulated by them, de facto partners of Australian citizens, permanent residents and New Zealanders who live in Australia are deemed to be ‘immediate family’ and can travel to Australia.
But before they’re permitted to board a flight home, they must be granted an exemption via the government’s online Travel Exemption Portal.
To be granted an exemption, couples must prove that they’re actually in a genuine and continuing relationship. Fair enough!
According to the Inwards Travel Restrictions Operation Directive published by the ABF and Home Affairs, examples of evidence couples can provide include civil partnership registrations, shared financial commitments and joint residence arrangements.
Upon providing evidence that you are indeed a de facto couple, you should be granted an exemption to the travel restrictions.
Sounds simple, right? Wrong.
Rather than following their own Operation Directive, the governing bodies appear to have taken a ‘Russian roulette’ style approach to the assessment process, repeatedly denying eligible couples their right to be reunited — for no apparent reason.
There are no valid reasons for rejecting applications. The Department of Home Affairs just says: ‘Based on the information provided, I am not satisfied that your circumstances meet the requirements for this exemption category.’
I spoke to a number of couples affected by the border closure, and I’ve quoted them throughout this article. For many of them, the quest for a travel exemption feels hopeless, and they were eager to raise their voice regarding issues they’ve been facing for the past year. Finally, someone wanted to listen to them.
We have been applying under the immediate family exemption category, because we’re a de facto couple. Exemptions for de facto partners are supposed to be based on the validity of the relationship, not the applicant’s circumstances. How does somebody’s ‘circumstances’ have anything to do with whether their relationship meets the requirements to be considered de facto?
If they cannot provide us with the ‘requirements’ to be considered a de facto couple, then how can an applicant’s ‘circumstances’ not meeting the ‘requirements’ be a valid reason for rejection?
Most of these couples are still in limbo — continuing to fight for their right to be reunited in Australia. Because of this, none of them wanted to be named in this article, terrified that speaking out might jeopardise their chances of receiving that elusive exemption.
One Australian citizen I spoke to expressed her frustration about being constantly rejected when requesting an exemption for her partner, who has been stranded in Brazil for the past twelve months:
We’ve had our exemption request denied 25 times despite having all the proof the Department of Home Affairs asks for. We have a joint bank account, we lived together here in Australia prior to the border closure, and we have household bills in joint names… We even registered our relationship with Births, Deaths & Marriages, but we still can’t get an exemption. This process is destroying us emotionally, mentally and spiritually.
Her partner embarked on a short trip back when the border was open, and had planned to return to Australia on March 22, 2020 — just two days after the borders were suddenly closed.
He echoes his partner’s frustration, outlining the glaring inconsistencies regarding who gets an exemption and who doesn’t:
I was two days away from flying back to Australia, and now I’ve been stranded in Brazil for 12 months. The process of trying to return home to Australia is just insane. We’ve seen people who have NEVER lived together, who have NO joint commitments, and some who’ve never even BEEN to Australia, GET APPROVED! Meanwhile I’ve lived in Australia for YEARS and my entire LIFE is there, but I’m not allowed to return? How is that fair? It’s NOT!
The gross inconsistency in the decision-making process is one of the most common grievances felt across the board by partners who are desperately applying for a travel exemption.
How is it possible for couples that have been together for years, having lived together and provided sufficient evidence, to be rejected, but couples who have been together for less than a year and have not lived together are being accepted?
One couple I spoke with questioned whether those in charge of considering the requests actually read them before rejecting them:
Instead of reading the evidence and granting exemptions to those of us who meet the criteria, it seems more likely that the staff over at Home Affairs are blindfolding each other, spinning each other around, and playing pin the tail on the donkey with our requests.
An Australian woman whose partner was recently granted an exemption to return home from Italy raised serious concerns regarding exemption process. While ecstatic to have finally been granted an exemption after seven failed attempts, she admitted that despite being approved this time, they hadn’t made any changes to their last request, which was rejected:
We are over the moon right now. After multiple attempts and many tears, our 8th exemption request was granted. It feels so surreal. We can finally return home!!! We just want to stress that THERE IS NO CONSISTENCY with this process. Honestly, we were at the stage where we had lost all hope of ever getting an exemption and it was a complete shock to wake up to the email from Home Affairs! We didn’t make any changes from our previous exemption request.
Another couple, who are preparing to file a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission after being repeatedly denied their request for an exemption, questioned how such drastic inconsistencies are even possible:
How can people be applying repeatedly with the same application and be rejected numerous times, and then be approved without any changes to their application?
In an attempt to get to the bottom of it, I called the general information line for the Department of Home Affairs back in February and asked them some of the questions I’ve been hearing over and over.
I started by asking them which items of evidence are required to be granted an exemption to the travel restrictions as a de facto partner under the immediate family exemption category. Their response:
Requests are assessed on a case by case basis, and I can’t comment on specific individual cases.
I clarified my question, stating that I wasn’t asking about a specific individual case. I just wanted general information about what would satisfy Home Affairs that a couple’s partnership was indeed “de facto,” and therefore exempt. Their response:
This is just a general information line. I can’t comment on that.
I was getting nowhere fast, so I tried a more ‘general information’ approach.
I asked whether de facto partners are actually exempt from the travel restrictions under the immediate family exemption category as stipulated on the Department of Home Affairs website. I even quoted the section of the website — word-for-word — where is says that de facto partners are exempt. Their response:
I can’t comment on that.
Yikes!
I decided to wrap things up by asking if they had any general advice for the de facto couples who have repeatedly had their exemption requests denied. Their response:
Just keep submitting the request. Eventually it might be approved.
I couldn’t believe my ears.
Despite the fact that they refuse to grant exemptions to couples stranded apart, the government’s policy on wealthy international athletes and movie stars is a little more flexible, welcoming them with open arms as they travel to Australia to further enrich their VIP lifestyles.
One example of this is megastar Hollywood actor Matt Damon, who is currently in Australia to film the upcoming movie Thor: Love and Thunder.
Damon usually resides in a $21 million Los Angeles mansion, but was able to travel Down Under with his family to work on the blockbuster Marvel film. The Damons were also given permission to skip the usually-mandatory 14-day hotel quarantine. Instead, they spent a fortnight isolating themselves at a sprawling $7,000-a-night luxury mansion in Byron Bay.
This begs the obvious question: Why are Matt Damon and his family eligible to travel to Australia while those who actually live here — who have relationships, jobs, studies and various other commitments here — are forced to waste away in indefinite purgatory?
Another example of high-profile VIPs being afforded freedoms that mere mortals aren’t came when tennis players from all over the world — including at least ten who tested positive for COVID-19 —arrived in Melbourne on private charter flights to compete in the Australian Open.
A record $71.5 million was up for grabs across all rounds of the tournament, with the ultimate Men’s and Women’s Champions set to take home a cool $2.75 million each.
Men’s world number one Novak Djokovic drew criticism from the media when it was revealed that he had written a letter to Australian Open chief Craig Tiley in which he suggested trading the mandatory 14-day hotel quarantine for a more relaxed isolation in private houses with tennis courts.
Djokovic responded to the criticism by stating that he was merely trying to use his position of privilege to obtain better conditions for not only himself, but for his fellow competitors as well:
My good intentions for my fellow competitors in Melbourne have been misconstrued as being selfish, difficult and ungrateful. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I’ve earned my privileges the hard way … I use my position of privilege to be of service as much as I can where and when needed.
One couple I spoke to said that regardless of his intentions, they felt annoyed when they learned that Djokovic had suggested that he shouldn’t have to do the mandatory 14-day quarantine in a hotel room:
We would give absolutely anything to be able to do a 14-day hotel quarantine and be reunited in Australia. We’ve been requesting for an entire year to be able to do exactly that! So yeah, hearing him suggest he shouldn’t have to do it really got under our skin.
Djokovic ended up winning the tournament, taking home the $2.75 million prize money for his troubles.
Another couple I spoke to told me they watched the Men’s and Women’s Australian Open finals together online — from opposite sides of the world.
With one partner stranded in Brazil and the other here in Australia, they felt envious that tennis players were allowed to travel Down Under, while they’re still unable to do the same.
It really affected our mental health to see the tennis players arriving in Melbourne. We live together in Australia, yet I remain stuck here in Brazil.
Ironically, it’s our dream to attend the Aus Open together. We were actually planning to go this year, but me being stuck in Brazil for the past 12 months meant that our dream was crushed. Maybe next year, if I’m not still stuck here.
I asked them if they had any ill-feelings towards the players or the officials involved with the tournament:
No. We were envious, sure. But we don’t begrudge the players for travelling to Australia, or the organisers of the Aus Open. We would never want to take away their freedom or their rights. We just wish we were given the same freedom and rights.
Many couples have questioned whether the mass rejection of their travel exemption requests constitutes a violation of the their human rights.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is currently being flooded with complaints from couples who have been unsuccessful in obtaining an exemption, but who believe they have the sufficient evidence to prove that they meet the mysterious, undefined requirements.
The Federal Government’s initial decision to restrict international travel to Australia was described as a bid to protect the health and safety of the Australian public:
Our number one priority is to slow the spread of coronavirus to save lives … Our government will continue to act on the best available information to keep Australians safe.
A year later, they have well and truly achieved their goal.
In fact, in the five months since late October 2020, there have been only two COVID-19-related deaths in Australia.
While Australians are safe the way things currently are, it cannot be rationally argued that partners of Australian citizens pose more of a risk to the health and safety of the Australian public than several charter flights full of international tennis players — a number of whom tested positive for COVID-19.
So if the tennis players are exempt from the travel restrictions, why aren’t the temporary visa holders in genuine and continuing relationships with Australian citizens? Those who live here and have businesses, jobs, studies and financial commitments here. Those whose entire lives are here!
For every temporary visa holder in a de facto relationship who remains stranded abroad, there’s an Australian citizen who is equally affected. That begs another question: Does the government represent the citizens who’ve been without their partners for a year? Or are their priorities invested solely in wealthy and privileged VIP visitors?
Australian citizens whose loved ones remain stranded abroad have not only faced the emotional turmoil of being apart from their partners for a year, but have in many cases faced devastating financial hardship as a result of their separation.
When I was in Australia, we were comfortable and happy. I was running my own business there, and I was doing very well with it. But since I’ve been stuck overseas, I’ve been unable to maintain my clients and all of my hard work has gone down the drain.
Now my partner has to pay all of our bills on his own, plus help me to survive in another country. The stress on him is unfair, and I hate that I’m unable to help.
We’ve gone from two people supporting one life together, to one person supporting two lives apart — on opposite sides of the world.
And while the Australian government continues to cap the number of inbound passengers to “ease pressure on state and territory quarantine facilities,” the pressure on the Australian citizens who remain apart from their partners is anything but easing.
I’m sending hundreds of bucks into the Brazilian economy every week, mate. This has been going on for an entire year, with no end in sight. It’s just about sent me broke, but you’ve gotta do what you’ve gotta do. We would’ve loved to have spent all that money in the Australian economy, but Scotty from Marketing has prevented us from doing that by keeping us apart. Good on ya, Scotty!
But there might be a glimmer of hope on the horizon yet.
According to Alex Hawke, the newly appointed Immigration Minister, the government is planning to allow temporary visa holders, including international students, back into the country as soon as possible.
The reason? Not because their lives have been turned upside down after being stranded abroad for a year. But because they’re valuable to the Australian economy.
In an interview with SBS News, Mr Hawke explained the government’s thought process behind planning to bring temporary visa holders back to Australia sooner rather than later.
We’ve learnt one thing out of COVID, and that is we absolutely miss the visitors to our economy and temporary visa holders. We want them back as soon as possible … That’s why the government is rolling out our vaccination program and preparing for the opening of our international borders, so we can have those important visits from tourists that spend so much money in our country … we want to get them back.
At this point, the countless couples who’ve been stranded apart for a year and counting won’t care what the government’s motives are. If it means they can return to their lives and partners here in Australia, you can bet your bottom dollar they’ll be on the first available flight.
But until then they’ll have to keep following the valuable advice of the Home Affairs staffer I spoke to back in February:
Just keep submitting the request. Eventually it might be approved.
