The Claim
“Removed the names of many Australians stranded overseas during the pandemic from the register of stranded Australians, while they were still stranded.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The core allegation centers on events in November-December 2020 when the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), with assistance from Services Australia, conducted phone calls to Australians registered as seeking to return home [1]. After these calls, multiple Australians reported finding their status in the DFAT online portal had been changed without their explicit consent [2].
The most prominent case involved Laura Hartley, who was registered in Spain with her family wanting to return home. After a phone call from DFAT officials in late November 2020, she discovered her status had been changed to "I am not seeking to return to Australia at this time," despite having just informed the caller that her family had flights booked for January 18, 2021 [2]. When she checked again the following day, the status had been changed once more to a newly created category: "I am seeking to return to Australia in 2020" [1].
Other stranded Australians reported similar experiences. David Jeffries told the Senate COVID-19 inquiry on November 26, 2020, that after his DFAT call about his family's intention to return home, he "got the impression they were trying to talk us out of it" and was asked multiple times whether they were sure they wanted to return [3]. Carly McCrossin, founder of the Fly the Babies Home campaign, described receiving the same confusing call [3].
As of late November 2020, DFAT had registered 36,875 Australians as seeking to return home, with at least 8,070 considered vulnerable [1]. By December 6, 2020, only 14,000 of the original cohort who had registered by mid-September had actually returned [3].
Missing Context
The claim presents a one-sided narrative that obscures important operational context. DFAT's stated reason for the calls was legitimate administrative necessity: to "ensure we have a clear understanding of their current circumstances and intentions" because "people's intentions change, depending on where they are and their personal or family situation" [1]. According to DFAT, of the 5,500 Australians who had received calls by late November, fewer than 20% indicated they did not wish to return that year, and "very few" asked to be removed from the list [3].
However, the claim also omits a critical procedural issue: there was genuine confusion about what the status changes meant. The online system presented ambiguous options. When Hartley was called, she noted that "the alternative status to 'I am not seeking to return at this time' was 'I am seeking to return in the next 2 months,' which is when our flight is" [1]. The system's categorization was confusing and did not clearly align with individuals' actual intentions.
The claim does not address the broader context: Australia was managing a significant quarantine capacity constraint. National cabinet had capped arrivals to Australia in July 2020 in response to the second coronavirus wave in Victoria. By late 2020, the federal government had secured 500 quarantine places per fortnight at Howard Springs in the Northern Territory, with negotiations for 500 additional spots [3]. This capacity constraint made accurate data about genuine demand essential for prioritizing assistance to vulnerable Australians.
Critically, the claim uses the phrase "removed the names... from the register" which implies permanent deletion. This is not what occurred. Australians' statuses were changed in an online portal, but they were not deleted from DFAT's systems or records. DFAT explicitly stated it had "not take anyone off its lists of registered Australians overseas unless they ask to be taken off, or have successfully returned to Australia" [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The original source (Sydney Morning Herald) is a mainstream, reputable news organization with established editorial standards. The article is based on named examples (Laura Hartley) and quotes from opposition politicians (Penny Wong) [1]. It also includes DFAT's direct response to the allegations [1]. The framing is skeptical and uses the loaded term "cooking the books," which is opinion language rather than neutral reporting, though the underlying facts presented appear accurate.
The Guardian's parallel reporting by Paul Karp corroborates the core facts but also includes DFAT's defense and official parliamentary testimony from DFAT Deputy Secretary Tony Sheehan [3]. Both mainstream sources present the government's side of the story alongside criticism.
The parliamentary testimony from stranded Australians to the Senate COVID-19 inquiry provides primary source evidence of their perceptions and experiences [3].
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have equivalent issues managing stranded Australians or crises?
Labor's most comparable crisis management scenario occurred during the 2008-2009 Global Financial Crisis, though this did not involve stranded citizens abroad. More directly relevant is Labor's approach during previous humanitarian crises requiring evacuation operations.
During the 2011 Libyan Civil War, Labor's government evacuated Australians from Libya [4]. However, this was a discrete evacuation operation rather than managing a prolonged pandemic-related repatriation involving tens of thousands of citizens across multiple countries with varying quarantine capacity constraints.
Labor has not faced a direct equivalent to the COVID-19 repatriation crisis (managing 36,875+ registered returning citizens simultaneously with severe domestic quarantine capacity limitations). The scale and complexity of the Coalition's challenge was unprecedented in modern Australian governance.
However, Labor did criticize the Coalition's handling during the pandemic, arguing that the government should have implemented a dedicated national quarantine facility (as recommended by the Jane Halton hotel quarantine review) rather than relying on state hotel quarantine [3]. This critique suggests Labor believed the capacity constraint was a policy choice rather than an unavoidable circumstance.
Balanced Perspective
Arguments supporting the claim (problematic government behavior):
Critics, particularly Labor and some stranded Australians, viewed the status-change calls as attempting to artificially depress the number of Australians wanting to return home, thereby "cooking the books" to make Morrison's Christmas deadline promise look better [1][3]. The ambiguous phrasing of online status options and reports that callers "seemed" to be trying to talk people out of returning created an appearance of pressure [1][3].
The fact that individual statuses were changed without explicit confirmation of new status preferences is administratively problematic. While Hartley informed the caller she had flights booked in January, her status was changed to suggest she was not seeking to return, creating a contradiction in DFAT's records [2].
The volume of complaints from multiple stranded Australians (Hartley, Jeffries, McCrossin) suggests a systemic issue rather than isolated instances [3].
Arguments supporting government position (legitimate operations):
DFAT's Deputy Secretary Tony Sheehan provided a credible operational explanation: the calls were designed to obtain "a clear and timely understanding of people's circumstances and intentions" to "target our assistance to those most in need" [3]. This is a legitimate administrative purpose—accurately understanding who genuinely needs assistance is essential for prioritizing limited quarantine capacity.
The data suggests the calls did not result in mass removals from the register. Of 5,500 calls made by late November, only about 1,100 people indicated they did not wish to return that year, and "very few" requested removal from the list [3]. This indicates the calls were not systematically removing people who wanted to return.
DFAT did not permanently delete anyone from the register. Status changes in an online portal are administrative classifications, not removal from departmental records. Individuals' names remained in DFAT's systems [1].
The capacity constraint was real and severe. Australia faced genuine difficulties managing quarantine for returning citizens. Understanding true demand was operationally necessary to allocate assistance appropriately [3].
However, the operational need to understand intentions does not fully justify the apparent confusion in how status changes were communicated or implemented. A transparent system would have required explicit reconfirmation of status changes rather than unilateral updates in a portal [2].
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core allegation that Australians' statuses were changed in the DFAT register after phone calls is TRUE—this demonstrably occurred with multiple documented cases [1][2][3]. However, the claim's framing as "removed the names... from the register" is MISLEADING because it implies permanent deletion or removal from official records. No such removal occurred; only online status classifications were changed [1].
Additionally, while status changes did occur, the scale and intent were more complex than the claim suggests. The changes were inconsistently applied (Hartley's status was changed multiple times, suggesting confusion rather than systematic data manipulation), affected a minority of callers (about 1,100 out of 5,500), and were made in the context of a legitimate—if somewhat clumsily executed—attempt to clarify which stranded Australians genuinely needed immediate assistance given quarantine capacity constraints [3].
The "cooking the books" allegation (the implication of intentional data falsification for political purposes) cannot be definitively proven or disproven from available evidence. DFAT's explanation that status clarification was necessary for administrative prioritization is credible [3]. However, the execution was poor—confused status categories, unilateral portal updates without reconfirmation, and the appearance of pressure during calls created a legitimate controversy [1][2][3].
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core allegation that Australians' statuses were changed in the DFAT register after phone calls is TRUE—this demonstrably occurred with multiple documented cases [1][2][3]. However, the claim's framing as "removed the names... from the register" is MISLEADING because it implies permanent deletion or removal from official records. No such removal occurred; only online status classifications were changed [1].
Additionally, while status changes did occur, the scale and intent were more complex than the claim suggests. The changes were inconsistently applied (Hartley's status was changed multiple times, suggesting confusion rather than systematic data manipulation), affected a minority of callers (about 1,100 out of 5,500), and were made in the context of a legitimate—if somewhat clumsily executed—attempt to clarify which stranded Australians genuinely needed immediate assistance given quarantine capacity constraints [3].
The "cooking the books" allegation (the implication of intentional data falsification for political purposes) cannot be definitively proven or disproven from available evidence. DFAT's explanation that status clarification was necessary for administrative prioritization is credible [3]. However, the execution was poor—confused status categories, unilateral portal updates without reconfirmation, and the appearance of pressure during calls created a legitimate controversy [1][2][3].
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (4)
-
1
Sydney Morning Herald - "'Cooking the books': DFAT accused of changing details of stranded Aussies" - Anthony Galloway (December 5, 2020)
Australians who are stuck overseas have hit out at the government for taking them off a register of expats wanting to return.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
2
News.com.au - "DFAT accused of changing stranded Aussies' statuses" (December 2020)
News Com
-
3
The Guardian - "Stranded Australians are being reclassified to avoid embarrassing PM, Labor says" - Paul Karp (December 6, 2020)
Penny Wong says Scott Morrison is more interested in ‘headlines than actually helping people’ after complaints about Dfat calls
the Guardian -
4
2011 Libyan Civil War evacuation - Various news reports
Follow the latest headlines from ABC News, Australia's most trusted media source, with live events, audio and on-demand video from the national broadcaster.
Abc Net
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.