The parents of Australians have been separated from their families under the government’s travel ban from China because they do not qualify as “immediate family”.
On Saturday, the government announced new travel restrictions on people who had visited China, barring all those except Australian citizens, permanent residents and certain family members from entering the country, in order to limit the spread of the new coronavirus.
In one case, the 67-year-old mother-in-law of an Australian had travelled to China to attend her brother’s funeral but was barred at the last minute from boarding a flight back to Australia.
Steven, an Australian citizen from Sydney, said his wife – who is a permanent resident and was travelling with her mother – was told by ground staff at a Tokyo airport that her mother was not considered “immediate family”, hours after the new policy was announced.
He said his wife told the staff her mother was a pensioner and dependent on her, but her mother was denied boarding at the airport.
Under the definition released by the government on Saturday, “immediate family” includes spouses, dependants and legal guardians.
Steven, who preferred not to give his surname, said: “On January 26, she got the news that her brother had passed away, so she chose to go back to attend his funeral. And her plan was to leave on 1 February. They were literally about to leave for the airport when that announcement was made.
“[His death] was very unexpected. In any other circumstance, we [would have] tried to convince her not to go, but we appreciated it was her brother. She decided to go and attend the funeral.”
He said he believed the “narrow definition” of family or dependant was against the spirit of the policy. “I don’t necessarily disagree with what they are trying to do, I just don’t think the intent of the policy was to stop people midway, especially if they are parents.
“If they are second cousins or something I get it, but not if they are parents. She is in her late 60s. She doesn’t really speak English. My wife is free to come back to the country, but she is not going to leave her nearly 70-year old mum to fend for herself. She is widowed, as well – it is not ideal for her to go back [to China] on her own.”
He said the sudden announcement, at 5pm on a Saturday, meant it was unclear who was and was not covered by the policy.
“As soon as the news came out, I called up Dfat [the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade] to clarify. They said they didn’t really have all the information as they had only seen the announcement on the news. I called back twice in the first few hours. I called back at 8.30pm and they said to the best of our knowledge that should be fine.
“On Sunday morning, they made their way to the airport with that information in mind. I made another call to Dfat and they said it looks like the mum will not be classified as an immediate family member. By that stage they had already arrived at the airport and were literally at the check-in counter, so it was a bit too late to turn back.
“The other frustrating thing is when the US announced a similar policy, they said it will take effect in 48 hours. It just gives you time to clarify the announcement. When they made the announcement here, it was on a Saturday night – Home Affairs wasn’t even open.”
On Monday morning, a Qantas plane evacuated 243 Australian citizens, permanent residents and family members from Wuhan, at the epicentre of the virus outbreak. On board were 89 children younger than 16, and five younger than two, said the foreign minister, Marise Payne.
As of Monday, there were 12 confirmed cases of the new coronavirus in Australia, with no fatalities. Globally, the virus has a 2.09% fatality rate, according to the Department of Health.
Lachlan Maclaine and his wife Zixun Wang, a couple from Melbourne, said they were similarly concerned about being separated because communication had been so poor.
“We may need evidence of our marriage [to be let back in to Australia], but we didn’t take our marriage certificate with us,” Wang said. “We don’t know if we need to legally prove that, or how to do that. We don’t know what the solution is now.”
Maclaine, an Australian citizen and accounts assistant, and Wang, a journalism student, are on honeymoon in the city of Harbin. They said their flight back to Australia had been cancelled after the ban was announced, and were struggling to find a replacement.
“The wording of the government was very callous,” Maclaine said. “The decision affected the airlines in a way that they decided we’re not going to do any flights at all. So Australian citizens don’t have an option – they have been left stranded.
“We weren’t contacted ourselves. We made contact after we sought them out. We decided to call the emergency line, we got through to the embassy in Canberra.”
“They said they couldn’t do anything for us,” Wang said. “They don’t have arrangements for anyone else in China. They have just given up on us.
“Identity has become one of the most important things,” she said. “They should divide us into healthy people and unhealthy people, not just Australian and not Australian.”
Steven said the definition of dependant did not take into account other factors, such as where children are the sole provider for an elderly parent.
“They have gone for a tax office or dictionary definition of what an immediate family member is without taking into account the cultural background.
“At the moment they are stuck in transit and we are just in a holding pattern to wait if the government clarifies if parents are in or out. But we can only do it for so long – 24 or 48 hours. We can’t do it indefinitely. At the moment I’m just trying to get some clarity.”
