Talk:Visa policy of Australia/Archive 1

Politics
Splash,

"Taiwan" itself is a place and it has no right to issue passports. The so-called Taiwanese passports are issued by the state Republic of China.

Not stating that "Taiwanese passports" are actually issued by the Republic of China (ROC) may cause confusion. Readers may think the "Taiwanese passports" are issued by the "Republic of Taiwan", but this state never existed (even though some people proposed it).

Please at least let me clarify that "Taiwanese passports" are issued by the Republic of China. Note that ROC passports are never formally known as "Taiwanese passports" by the Republic of China. But the PRC sometimes refer ROC passports as "Taiwanese passports" (with the quotation marks) as PRC declines to recognise the statehood of the ROC after 1949.

Many ethnic people in Taiwan cannot accept the concept of "Taiwanese passport", but they accept the concept of ROC passport. Just stating "Taiwanese passport" here may oversimplify the issue.

Inevitably, issues about passports and visas are be political and can be contentious (especially if the PRC and ROC are involved). You cannot "take away" politics from this article.

BN(O) 12:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * see my message further down the page. You're just confusing the issue by dragging China-Taiwan-Hong Kong politics into it. This article is about the Australian ETA and has nothing to do with China, or its politics. You can do all the political clarifying you like in an article or articles which would actually have somehting to do with that information. But don't pollute a perfectly decent article with irrelevant politics. -Splash talk 12:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we should retain the phrase "Republic of China" in this section (with clarification that "Taiwanese passports" are actually/formally/officially/argurably/in the wikipedia way/in some way known as "Republic of China passport"). Many thanks. BN(O) 13:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

(no topic)
I 'd this because the TOC would only refer to the material that is incidental to the main thrust of the article: eligible countries ext links, see alsos and refs rather than actually the real material of the article. It's a very short article (but not a stub) and it doesn't bear dividing up into extraneous sections to make the TOC sensical. -Splash talk 20:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Visa-free travel
Is there a reference available for that sentence? E.g. a newspaper article, or an example of a country that has made its decision in this way and said so in a press-release or similar? -Splash talk 01:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote a new section dealing with the question more widely. -Splash talk 04:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the ETA by virtue that they charge a "service charge" in fact just a visa. It doesn't matter if you call it a service charge it still makes its not visa-free travel. 98.28.68.59 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand
The article is incomplete without at least some mention of the fact that New Zealand citizens don't need an ETA as they can access Australia under other arrangements. Not everybody is going to be aware of this. I don't see a reason for the removal of the text below:


 * New Zealand citizens are not eligible for the ETA but instead normally receive a Special Category Visa on arrival in Australia
 * Permanent residents of Norfolk Island are entitled to grant of a permanent visa on arrival in Australia

JAJ 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It belongs in an article about entry to Australia, and is in fact already there (in Australian immigration and Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement as well as Special Category Visa). It doesn't have to do with this article, and NZ is not on the list of acceptable passports, so it's already clear that these countries don't get ETAs. This article is not about visas/immigration to Australia in general, but only about the ETA. We have other articles for other topics and have already mentioned this particular point in three places! -Splash talk 07:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The ETA is however about visiting Australia without needing to make a visa application at an Australian Embassy or consulate.  It's clearly not the place to explain the details of other arrangements which have a similar affect, however these should at least be mentioned (somewhere).   JAJ 11:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I reinserted the bit about NZ. I don't agree that an article on the ETA is about anything other than the ETA and its implications, however. As I understand our Norfolk Island article, Norfolk Islanders are Australian citizens and so it seems self-evident that they need no visa to enter Australia-proper. I think that particular piece of information belongs elsewhere, however. (I think the NZ stuff does, too, but I can live with it.) -Splash talk 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Norfolk Island has a rather unique status in Australia - it's the only inhabited Australian territory that's outside the Australian migration zone and has its own immigration laws.    You're correct that most Norfolk Islanders are Australian citizens (Australia's citizenship laws do extend to the territory) and come to Australia on that basis, and the largest group of non-Australians on Norfolk are New Zealand citizens.  However the Australian government has created a Permanent resident of Norfolk Island visa (subclass 834) to grant automatic residence status in Australia to any Norfolk Island permanent resident who's not an Australian citizen.    For example a French citizen with Norfolk Island permanent residence (where that person has not become Australian) would not need an ETA to visit Australia, but would instead get the subclass 834 visa on arrival.   It's very similar to the Special Category Visa except it's permanent (without a re-entry facility) while the SCV is technically a temporary visa.     There are also a number of special instances where an ETA is not required if a person comes within the special purpose visa regime.    I'm open-minded about giving at least a brief reference to these in the article itself (the SCV one was more important) however they are valid substitutes for an ETA.  JAJ 00:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I think though, that kind of information clearly belongs in some other article, and not here, as evidenced by the fact that it takes a paragraph or so to do the job properly and that paragraph would be off-topic here. This article needs only to talk about the ETA, and it already steps outside that remit to talk about NZ. Although this would seem an opportunity for including all information about visa-free entry to Australia, that full discussion belongs elsewhere, probably in Australian immigration, or perhaps a new one maybe like Australian visas or something. Also, (by chance, really) the article as written doesn't say anything that is actually wrong: in the French example, it is completely correct in the information it provides and this is because the article is well-focussed (imo!) on the topic. Perhaps what is really needed is an expanded ==See also== section, giving a one-sentence summary of the various alternatives next to their links. Now I think of it, perhaps that's the way to go. I think the list so far might be:
 * Immigration (already there)
 * Immigration to Australia (already there)
 * Tourism in Australia (already there)
 * Special Category Visa — for New Zealanders to enter Australia
 * Permanent resident of Norfolk Island — such people obtain automatic Australian residence and need no visa
 * Special purpose visa — grants exceptions to Australian visa requirements for certain people
 * One of those needs writing, and clearly there is a need for an article, and a seperate one, on the topic. What do you think? Keeping articles focussed tightly to avoid them turning into globs of loosely-related information is something I think makes reading easier and more concise, but taking advantage of wikilinks to join everything up and improve context is very useful. This ==See also== section would need adding as appropriate to the other articles too. -Splash talk 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just written the article on Norfolk Island PRs. Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa
 * I've added both this and the Special purpose visa to the "See also" section (the Special Category Visa is much more common and answers the question why NZ is not ETA eligible.  JAJ 04:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent! -Splash talk 23:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
The suggestion that referring to Hong Kong and Taiwan by those names rather than calling them China and injecting a whole bunch of irrelevant politics into this article creates an "NPOV" problem is frankly asburd, BN(O). This article is about the ETA. It has zero to do with what you want a country called. It presents the facts as given by the authoritative source on this topic, and those facts are inherently 'neutral' being, as they are, 100% correct. Take your politics somewhere else. Thanks. -Splash talk 12:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hyperlink to COM(2006) 03 Final?
The link to this comes up as a 404 not-found. But every search I conduct, whether on Google or via various routes on the EU's webpages leads me to the same link, and it definitely existed at the time I last updated the article. If someone should either a) find it at a new location or b) discover that the link now works, it'd be great if they'd update the article. Meantime, it serves as an adequate citation since the document is presumably available from relevant libraries or other hardcopy sources of such things. Splash - tk 22:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Appears to be ok now. Splash - tk 12:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland Visa and Commonwealth
"(The United Kingdom and Ireland are exempt from this particular EU policy, but still do not impose any short-term visa requirements on Australians because it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations.)[12][13]"

Is this statement correct? This implies that Ireland is part of the commonwealth. Ireland is not part of the commonwealth and I don't see how the commonwealth is a pre-condition of Irelands visa policy. Limbo-Messiah (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but the UK (and Ireland) do not — any longer at least — predicate their visa/visa-free arrangements on the basis of membership of the Commonwealth. The citizens of plenty of Commonwealth countries now need a visa to enter the UK and/or Ireland. I have removed the statement. Ondewelle (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How does the policy of UK/Eire and EU differ? The section which refs 11-14 implies that they are different, but the article text does not explain it proplery.83.146.15.166 (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Who removed singapore
I thought get singaporeans are eligible for the ETA? I dont see any mention of that, nor can I find any references in relevant wikipedia sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.81.8 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Cost of ETA
I see here it costs $20. I am from the US, and just had to pay $37 (AUD). Am I confused, or is this article out of date? (My bill is in USD, so I'm slightly confused the exact cost being precisely $37 AUD, but it was 37.something, and my US bill is $39.01) Verification? DAID (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Argentina,Chile and Brazil
citizens of these countries can travel to australia without pre arrival visa http://www.migrationexpert.com.au/visa/australian_immigration_news/2012/feb/0/592/australian_online_tourist_visas_for_brazilians_and_argentines_officially_come_into_effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.68.148.236 (talk) 13:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * All nationals can now apply for online tourist visas. However all of these must be applied for prior to arrival. Travelbird (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Eligible passports
Holders of thirty-four different passports are eligible for ETAs:

Holders of Taiwanese (Republic of China) passports must be resident in and apply from within Taiwan. Holders of British National (Overseas) passports must be resident in and apply from within Hong Kong. New Zealanders are not eligible for the ETA, but may enter Australia without giving notice; they are given a Special Category Visa on arrival.

argentina ,Brazil and Chile eletronic visa !
if europeans are marked why these countries aren´t marked?I know that is a diferent kind of visa but both of them are eletronic visa !for example all of them will take a number on internet and get a visa stamp only when they will arrive in Australia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.216.175 (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Chile,Brazil,Argentina passport
check out !the site of Australia immigration !visa requirements http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/tourist/676/eligible-passports.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.35.216.175 (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Article updated and expanded
The article is fully updated to reflect all recent (and not so much) changes. It has also been expanded substantially. The work included submitting a new correct map, updating the information on reciprocity issues with the data from the latest EU report on the matter and information on all ETA countries, adding the historic outlook, fixing the list of countries as well as shrinking the EU list to reflect the policy based on reciprocity with the EU as such, updating subclass numbers, updating information on merged tourist and business streams, adding information on regular visa electronic application and eligible countries, adding more detail to eligibility throughout the article, especially the low-risk countries information and British nationals eligibility, substantially improving references, updating the long outdated section on other visas while keeping it about the visitors and not immigration, adding the visa free transit section with detailed eligibility criteria, rearranging the sections a bit to group visas and visa exemptions more logically, adding further Visa exemption groups such as the Special Purpose Visa and the Permanent Resident of Norfolk Island visa, adding the very important MNRR data table and fixing the links and updating the department name. I have also included a photo of the visa label and visa stamps, however many files of this type, including the Australian visa scans have been contested on copyright grounds so it may be removed. Hopefully the article is now completely updated and is useful to all readers.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)