Talk:Visa requirements for Australian citizens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Kazakhstan is NOT visa free for Australian Passport holders[edit]

I was in Kazakhstan two weeks ago (May 2013) on an Australian passport and I had to get a Kazakh visa in advance before entering. The cited reference to an online article that states that Kazakhstan will be visa free comes from the year 2011. This relaxed visa policy never happened. You must obtain a Kazakh visa before entering Kazakhstan. Someone please edit the article and map to reflect that Kazakhstan is not visa free for Australian passport holders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazaik (talkcontribs) 13:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


No visa required to enter Cuba. I'd put it straight in, but then the image will be off. Any thoughts? Anyone? Jaydec (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unrecognized states and BAD EDITING[edit]

  • Australia does not recognize self-declared independent states such as South Ossetia, Abzhakia and Somilaland. They do not have diplomatic relations, and these unrecognized states do not have a network of embassies or consulates. To enter these states, one will have to enter via Russia and get a visa before doing so. Somilaland is a region that is controlled by rebels and pirates. Chaos reigns supreme here and with such, no one issues visas at all as they have no government and are NOT RECOGNIZED.
  • Greenland is in North America
  • Ceuta and Melilla are part of Spain. They are incorporated territories and do not have an independent immigration agency.
  • Azores and Madeira are part if Portugal. Same thing here goes as it does in Ceuta and Melilla.
  • Unless they are unincorporated, insular territories do not add them to the list. Unincorporated territories include Bermuda, Isle of Man, Puerto Rico. Incorporated territories such as Melilla, Ceuta, Azores should not be added as they are integral parts of their respective countries and do not have immigration autonomy.

To enter Russia a 30-day visa must be prearranged.

On other lists for visa requirements such as the U.S., U.K., and Canada these unrecognized states and incorporated territories are not added to those lists. The same should apply to this list. Stop confusing readers with nonsense and stop adding these rogue, unrecognized states!--XLR8TION (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC) To enter Russia a 30-day visa must be prearranged. You do need a visa to travel to all of those countries, and all of which have governments. For example, Somaliland has a government, here is the website: Here is evidence of visa's from Somaliland: and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otkdna (talkcontribs) 13:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Those states are pariah ROGUE states. Australia Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not recognize them as much of the modern world doesn't. Check Visa requirement articles for other modern nations such as the UK, U.S., Canada, New Zealand and NONE have these pariah states listed. Only recognized states and territories will be added to list.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If an entity controls territory and wishes to impose a visa requirement on Australian nationals it will do so. In that context, Australia's political stance towards that entity is immaterial. Readers will come to this page to find out if they need a visa to enter a particular place and should be able to access that information. If there is some law that forbids Australians from going to a particular place or interacting with particular entities then this should also be included.

If it doesn't already exist, a separate, perhaps linked, page on states recognised and not recognised by the Australian Government would not be inappropriate. RedDubh (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Schengen Area[edit]

Access to countries signed to the Schengen Treaty is 90 days in 180 days, not a half year. Additionally, it is 90 in 180 collectively. The way the information is structured at the moment a reader could reasonably interpret it as saying they could, for instance, spend 90 days in France and then 90 days in Germany and so on. This would expose them to fines, expulsion and a refusal to re-enter for up to five years.

Consider replacing the access information with a note that the country is a part of the Schengen area and include a seperate entry on the Schengen area.

Note also that the 180 days is a rolling window. That is, the entitlement is 90 days in the last 180 days. Also part days are whole days so if you enter at 1 minute to midnight it is considered 1 day. RedDubh (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Map Accuracy[edit]

The map is grossly inaccurate at the moment. Even just going by the information provided in the table below. For one, Russia, China and Mongolia all require visas prior to entry for Australians. Moreover they have never NOT required Visas so I don't understand what the original creator was thinking. I don't have time to go through the whole map but I am sure there are other inaccuracies. Jetjackson (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)



Edit request on 14 August 2013[edit]

Philipines was 21 day visa on arrivel, now 30 days (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Visa-Free Entry of Temporary Visitors to the Philippines Nationals from countries listed below who are traveling to the Philippines for business or tourism purposes are allowed to enter the country without a visa for a stay not exceeding thirty (30) days, provided they are holders of a passport valid for a period of at least six (6) months beyond the contemplated period of stay, and a return or outbound ticket to their country of origin or next country of destination.

5. Australia

Myo007 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hainan is in China[edit]

It looks like the map marks the Chinese province of Hainan (the little island near Vietnam) as being a visa-free destination for Australians. That's not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is accurate.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Please change the india visa requirement. it Not requied nowdays I heard from sources? Please update it!

I tried to chnge it' but cannot do it properly in html. sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:608C:4C40:E957:83EB:32C:26D5 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please read the article, it's still a plan.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying categories?[edit]

Other countries' visa requirements pages do not have lists by continent/region (US, Japan and others) - as far as I can see, this page is the only one. This makes it much easier to compare countries side-by-side. How about harmonising the page with other pages in this topic? Ganseki (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It was like that before but then someone proposed it this way. If no one is objecting then I can edit it back to a full list.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems no one is objecting so I will go ahead and implement the changes.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Myanmar Visas:

Singapore visit pass for Australian passport : Look at below on the page:

Myo007 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Australian embassy in Singapore is not a primary source for information regarding Singapore but only regarding Australia. Not to mention there is nothing about the regulation you mention in the article on that page. Also when it comes to any source you need to add it in proper form to the article. The fact that you visited those countries is a pure original research case.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Data suggested by User:Myo007 looks correct.[1] Here are some governmental sources I found, which directly verify the 70-day-Myanmar and the 90-day-Singapore factoids:


Ping User:Twofortnights and User:samtar, are these legit wiki-reliable sources for the updated info? (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I can only repeat myself. You can't use the Australian Government as a primary source for what Singaporean Government is doing. Especially when you mention fake articles from some immigration act which don't even mention Australia or the permitted length of stay.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes here. First of all, I don't believe the word "you" is being used properly here. I'm not the same person as Myo007. They aren't the same person as me. I don't see either one of us using 'fake' sources -- although the 70-and-90-factoids were definitely not EXPLICITLY supported in the URLs that Myo007 gave you, they certainly are explicitly supported in the DIFFERENT ones that I gave you. Please actually check that the URLs which I provide above are different, and furthermore, actually check whether said new URLs explicitly support the 70-and-90-factoids, as I've written them (no mention of any immigration act).
  So, now that we have the preliminaries straightened out... ping User:Twofortnights, maybe you *still* dislike the sources I provided, even though they are different URLs than Myo007's, they are roughly the same publishers. Are you saying you don't believe the Australian government counts as WP:RS, for this particular 90-day-factoid about Singapore? I note you say nothing about the 70-day-factoid about Myanmar, which is now explicitly sourced to the Myanmar government, yet you made no move to mainspace that 70-day-factoid. Or are you saying, for the 90-day-factoid, that since the Australian government is a WP:SECONDARY source, you insist on a WP:PRIMARY source? Seems backwards to me, though of course, a newspaper-article or a travel-book cite would be 100% independent for the WP:NOTEWORTHY nature of the factoids in question. Is there any actual dispute that 70-days-biz-visa for Myanmar is factually correct? Is there any actual dispute that 90-days-pleasure-visa for Singapore is factually correct? Thanks, (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course it is disputed. Singapore Immigration Regulations 12(7) says "Every visit pass issued to any person as a tourist or for the purpose of a social visit shall be subject to the condition that the holder shall not engage in any form of paid employment or in any business, profession or occupation in Singapore during the validity of that pass unless he has the consent in writing of the Controller or is the holder of a valid work permit issued under the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap. 91A)." How does that prove that Australians can stay for 90 days? Also, for the other issue, all primary sources say it's 30 days. It may of course be that the primary sources were not updated but there is no proof of that. When it comes to Austrade, as it is a secondary source we do not know what they mean with "a visa is not required for Australian citizens for a stay of up to 90 days" as Singapore has a pass extension policy so although the initial grant is 30 days it can be extended. Which the Austrade page actually deals with in the next paragraph that speaks about the e-XTEND system. Also that page clearly suggests that everyone should "check their passports for the arrival endorsement and take note of the number of stay days given" which means that Australian citizens are not granted 90 days by default. That is why we need a confirmation.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the wording -- I saw that Myo007 had used 12(7) as a quasi-reference, but I just removed it myself, since I had found austrade, and since you said there was no explicit proof in 12(7) earlier. (As far as the default behavior, I interpreted the austrade warning as "make sure the clerk did not mess up"... but you could be reading between the lines better than me.) In any case, I will dig a little deeper, and see if I can figure out what the broader picture looks like, and why the numbers don't match up -- could be austrade is outdated, I will see if they are in or somesuch. Not being in Australia nor Singapore kinda hampers me. :-)     But this seems eminently figure-out-able. p.s. On the other-country-factoid, is there still a question about the Myanmar stuff, and the 70-days-for-biz-visa thing? Or can I put that one in? (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The American program is eVisa NOT Visa Waiver[edit]

The disgusting, intrusive, and degrading American ESTA program that was beefed up in Nov 2014 with questions such as "list all other citizenships", "who is your employer", "what is your address in your home country", "name your parents", and so forth, plus an application fee, along with fingerprinting at the border, is NOT a Visa Waiver program and it is beyond stupidity to continue to name it as such.

America does not treat Australia with reciprocality. America treats Australian citizens, descendants of those called up (conscripted) to fight for America in Vietnam, as suspicious as though from an enemy state.

Please update the map to reflect America does not respect the Visa Waiver program. At best it should be called an electronic visa - but in reality it is no such thing but an actual separate visa you require to visit the country.

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016[edit]

BrendanJW100 (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 06:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2016[edit]

BrendanJW100 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Have to make sure this article is unblocked of Visa requirements for Australian citizens.

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. DRAGON BOOSTER 06:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2017[edit]

Mongolia: "Registration required after 30 days". This is very misleading. If one intends staying more than 30 days one needs to register with the Mongolian immigration office in UB within 7 days. The information from official Mongolian websites is contradictory, so not worth quoting. And if you are entering Mongolia in a location other than UB it gets very messy. Every year hundreds of tourists get a $200 fine as they leave the country because they stayed more than 30 days, but didn't register within 7 days of entering Mongolia. I have been doing business in Mongolia for years and been around this mulberry bush many a time.

So, the text should read. "Register within 7 days if staying more than 30 days".

That is enough info to at least get people looking online where they will find the info needed. Monear (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)