COVID-19 in South and Southeast Asia: a quick guide

7 September 2020

PDF version [340KB]

Dr Angela Clare
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Security Section

This quick guide provides an update of the COVID-19 crisis in South and Southeast Asia, with a focus on India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Vietnam.

The Parliamentary Library’s quick guide, COVID-19 in the Region, provides an overview of the pandemic in Australia’s nearest neighbours—Indonesia, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea and Pacific Island countries.

South Asia

The pandemic reached South Asian countries a little later than other parts of the world, but the last two months have seen case numbers accelerate. India now has the world’s fastest growing caseload, recording 4,202,562 cases as at 7 September—second only to the United States. Daily new cases have reached record highs in recent days, with 91,723 reported on 6 September. According to a recent serological survey nearly 30 per cent of residents in New Delhi may have been exposed to coronavirus infection, suggesting infection numbers are far higher than officially recorded.

In Pakistan, the world’s fifth most populous country, the tally of infections stands at 298,509 and deaths at 6,342. For now the pandemic appears to have passed its peak: the highest number of new cases was recorded on 14 June, with daily case numbers having now fallen to a seven-day average of 411. But analysts warn that the health system will be overwhelmed if case numbers continue to climb.

Bangladesh, one of the most densely populated countries in the world, has recorded 325,157 cases and 4,479 deaths, with the highest tally of new cases recorded on 2 July. Daily cases numbers have eased slightly but remain stubbornly high, while unusually heavy rain since July has displaced an estimated 1.5 million people, adding to the difficulties of containing the virus.

Several South Asian countries have to date recorded lower than expected numbers of deaths from the virus. Some have suggested that the region’s younger demographics may be a contributing factor, in addition to substantial undercounting.

High rates of poverty, patchy social protection, poor health infrastructure and wide economic and social disparities present vast challenges to the effective implementation of public health measures across the region. The pandemic is already aggravating existing inequalities as the more vulnerable are disproportionately affected by shutdowns and loss of income. High levels of debt limit the capacity of governments to mitigate impacts. Lack of nutrition and access to basic health services—including immunisation—are the overriding threats, leaving governments grappling with how to lift restrictions while minimising overall loss of life.

South Asia’s economic growth estimates for 2020 show an 8.8 per cent drop as a result of COVID-19. The collapse in key labour-intensive export industries such as garment-making, handicrafts and fisheries as well as the loss of revenue from tourism and foreign remittances has caused widespread income and job losses. Micro, small and medium enterprises—the mainstay of South Asian economies—have also been hit hard, with many at risk of permanent failure.

Western donor countries have shown little interest in providing significant support to the region’s response to the crisis. For most countries development banks have been the major source of finance for the response, although China has provided a US$500 million loan to Sri Lanka.

Some argue that the pandemic presents a rare opportunity to address longstanding inequalities in South Asian countries in regard to access to health and other basic services. An IMFBlog post has proposed a ‘new deal’ for informal workers in Asia, who make up around 80 per cent of the total workforce in the lower income countries. This would involve:

Getting the basics right. If international assistance and internal financing can be found, countries in developing Asia should use this to mount an effective public health response, shoring up public health infrastructures and expanding coverage, and correcting deficiencies in clean water, and sanitation.

Setting up more expansive and inclusive safety nets. Governments could use citizen identification systems and digital technologies, … so that social protection programs can reach the people most at risk more quickly and efficiently, with the ability to scale up in times of crisis. The temptation to introduce universal cash transfers by “giving money to everybody” should be tempered by the goal of ensuring adequate support for the most vulnerable at a reasonable fiscal cost.

Investing in digital capacity and bandwidth. … expanding the availability of digital platforms for education and financial services would help to ensure greater and more equitable access for all.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is lobbying business and political leaders to establish a universal basic income and to support the flow of remittances, which are vital to the economies of many lower income countries. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) argues that stimulus packages between 7 and 14 per cent of GDP are needed to cover public health infrastructure needs, social protection and economic revival in the region, far higher than the packages of around 1–3 per cent of GDP announced to date.

India

Cases have risen rapidly over the last two months with numbers doubling every 24 days. Testing has also been scaled up to reach over 700,000 each day, but remains low by global standards. Some reports have questioned the accuracy of some of the tests used. Among the worst affected states are Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi.
India closed its borders and imposed heavy-handed lockdown measures from 24 March, suspending schools and transport, and forcing the immediate closure of businesses.
The economic impacts of these closures have been devastating, particularly for disadvantaged and vulnerable populations such as those in the informal sector and migrant workers.[1] An estimated 120 million jobs have been lost and remittance flows are expected to fall by over 20 per cent in 2020. The sudden lockdown prompted millions of labourers to leave cities and return home, with authorities scrambling to set up interstate border controls and quarantine camps. Lack of food and water and poor medical facilities in camps posed added risks. With the partial re-opening of the rail network in May, thousands more unemployed workers have left the cities and returned to rural villages and families to survive.
The Government assessed the economic and social costs from what was ‘arguably the world’s harshest lockdown’ as too severe to continue, and India began a phased reopening of its economy in early June.
Preparedness and response to the pandemic have varied across states, which have been forced to ‘return again and again to modified lockdowns to prevent the spread of the disease’. Kerala was initially identified as a model for a successful response but since July has experienced a surge of cases. India’s biggest slum, Dharavi in Mumbai, has attracted attention for containing the virus through an aggressive focus on ‘tracing, tracking, testing and treating’, made possible by large scale community mobilisation. Isolating patients in treatment centres—offering ‘free meals, vitamins and “laughter yoga” sessions’—is seen as one of the keys to success.
But in many places a shortage of health workers and properly equipped beds, and a rush to admit patients to private rather than public hospitals, has left the health system struggling. Health care for those with the virus is highly unequal, with patients in ‘chronically underfunded’ government hospitals facing long delays for even basic treatment. Hospital staff have protested against unsafe working conditions. A severe impact on other health programs is also evident, with routine vaccination and tuberculosis treatment showing declines.
On 12 May Prime Minister Modi announced a US$260 billion economic rescue package that includes measures such as a moratorium on debt repayments and credit guarantees to help micro, small and medium-sized enterprises access collateral-free loans. The national government also announced a US$22.3 billion package aimed at the poor, farmers, women and older people affected by the lockdown. Additional support to migrants and farmers includes the provision of concessional credit to farmers, a credit facility for street vendors and an expansion of food provision for non-ration card holders (mainly migrants). State and local governments are also rolling out assistance measures.
Analysts contend that over the next year India will remain in crisis mode and its economy must be ‘managed alongside persistent infection risks’. Unemployment was estimated at 23.5 per cent in April, while the country’s economy shrunk faster than that of any other major nation, declining 24 per cent in the last quarter. While the full scale of policy responses needed will not be clear until the pandemic has reached its peak, many argue more needs to be done to help low-income families. Critics have attacked the Government for failing to distribute food stocks while millions face starvation, arguing that additional measures, while welcome, are inadequate. The International Labour Organization (ILO) has estimated that up to 400 million people risk falling into poverty as a result of economic stoppages.
The World Bank has approved US$2 billion in loans for the pandemic response to boost social assistance to the poor and vulnerable households, while the Asian Development Bank (ADB) has approved a US$1.5 billion loan.
Coming on the back of months of protests against the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act passed in late 2019, commentators fear that the pandemic could stoke religious tensions and moves towards more authoritarian government. The media has reported that fear, stigma and blame have led to rising levels of violence against health care workers, migrants and those suspected of having the virus. Reports have also emerged of more than 50 journalists having been arrested, or the subject of police complaints, for COVID-19 related offences.
Australia signed a new strategic partnership with India in June 2020, with the aim of closer cooperation on science and technology, defence and maritime security.

Pakistan

As at 7 September 298,509 cases and 6,342 deaths have been recorded. Slowing numbers of new cases over the last month and the absence of an anticipated spike associated with the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha are encouraging. But with one of the lowest testing rates in the world, experts warn that it is too early to declare victory.
Early in the pandemic it was feared COVID-19 could devastate the country, already under stress on many fronts. An estimated 30 per cent of people live in poverty and lack of sanitation and over-crowded living conditions are widespread in urban areas. Rural populations often lack access to basic health care. The pandemic has affected critical areas of Pakistan’s economy and is exacerbating an existing financial crisis, with the country’s informal sector standing to lose the most.
The Government has been hesitant to impose heavy restriction measures, warning that a complete lockdown would endanger the lives of millions of poverty-stricken families, mostly those of daily wagers and labourers. A strict lockdown has not been imposed, including on mass religious gatherings and congregational prayers during Ramadan. Despite the still accelerating number of cases easing of restrictions commenced as early as mid-April, while domestic transport and international flights resumed on 20 June. Initial delays in implementing effective border quarantine measures are seen as a major contributing factor to the spread of the virus.
Fearing that the health system may collapse if case numbers continues to grow, on 10 June the World Health Organization recommended that authorities reimpose strict, intermittent and targeted lockdowns. Since then virus hotspots in 20 major cities have been under a ‘smart lockdown’. The national response has been led by a joint civilian-military coordination body, with the health ministry relegated to a largely advisory role. The ‘smart lockdown’ strategy appears to have been successful, with some experts arguing that the country’s decreasing case load can be linked to targeted lockdowns, contact tracing, awareness campaigns and the resulting behaviour change.
In July the UN reported that efforts to contain the spread of the virus were diverting resources away from basic health services, including reproductive, maternal and child health, and routine immunisation. Medical supply chains were also being disrupted. However on 11 August UNICEF reported that polio vaccination campaigns in Pakistan and Afghanistan had restarted.
The national government announced a relief package on 24 March worth around US$7.2 billion, to be implemented through to 2021. The virus has infected a number of senior government figures, including Pakistan’s Health Minister and Foreign Minister.
The Government’s 2020–21 budget, released in June, saw an 11.8 per cent increase in defence spending on last year’s budget (almost 18 per cent of the total budget). Health and education spending are set to increase by only a marginal amount.
Critics have accused the Government of a confused and incompetent response, underlining the weakness of the state. Lack of clear government leadership has led many Pakistanis ‘to live in a state of denial and disbelief’, according to observers, with media reports of a steep decline in public trust in the Government’s capacity to manage the crisis. One analyst notes the increasingly proactive role played by the military in the national response, which stepped in to fill ‘the big gap’ left by the Government’s inadequate leadership.
The country is heavily indebted to China, among other lenders, and has recently called for more debt relief. Analysts argue that such measures do not replace the need for deep structural reforms of the country’s economy and political system.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) provided an emergency loan of US$1.39 billion in April, while the World Bank provided $200 million in aid. The ADB has approved a US$300 million loan for the country’s COVID-19 response while the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) announced a loan of US$500 million. The Pakistani Government is reportedly seeking additional loans of US$2 billion from the global financial bodies.
Faced with an acute shortage of ventilators, close ally China has sent relief supplies, including ventilators, masks and testing kits reported to be worth US$55 million. The US has also pledged aid for Pakistan, including 200 ventilators.

Bangladesh

As at 7 September the country had recorded 325,157 cases and 4,479 deaths. Case numbers eased slightly over July but there are fears of a resurgence linked to religious holidays. The testing rate remains very low by international standards.
Bangladesh’s large population, high poverty rates and weak health systems magnify the risks posed by the pandemic. As early as 7 April health workers were reporting that the health system could not cope. This monsoon season has also seen severe flooding across half of the country, hampering containment efforts.
The Government imposed a national lockdown on 26 March, closing schools, transport and factories, and capping mass gatherings to 12. Closures have hit the economy hard, affecting remittance flows, export earnings (particularly from the ready-made garment sector, which makes up around 80 per cent of exports), and services. As elsewhere the poor are hardest hit, especially those dependent on daily wages. Around 20 per cent of the population, or 34 million people, live below the poverty line, with an equal number estimated to be close to poverty.
The Government announced a number of stimulus packages to support industry and workers, farmers and small business owners; widen the social safety net; and increase public expenditure and monetary supply. They include a US$600 million package to pay wages of garment workers. Critics argue this is not enough to cover the 47 per cent of workers receiving no income.
Bangladesh has one of the lowest ratios of hospital beds to patients in the world, with around 1,000 ICU beds for a population of more than 160 million. Analysts argue that ramping up the country’s testing, isolation and treatment capacity is critical, as is the provision of financial support for those without income and ensuring domestic supply chains are kept open to maintain essential goods.
The first cases of COVID-19 were identified on 14 May in the Cox’s Bazar refugee camps, home to an estimated 900,000 Rohingya refugees. On S September the WHO reported 4,054 cases of COVID-19 in the Cox’s Bazar district, 101 of which are in the Rohingya camps. In preparation for a COVID-19 outbreak, treatment and isolation centres have been constructed, information campaigns rolled out and aid workers trained in the management of the disease. Limited testing is seen to hamper efforts to detect and contain the disease.
More than 1,000 Rohingya asylum seekers were stranded at sea after being caught by border closures in the region prompted by COVID-19.[2] Since then some boats have been accepted by authorities in Malaysia and Indonesia and others have returned to refugee camps, with over 300 reported to be confined in dangerous conditions on Bhasan Char Island. Amnesty International has urged Australia to discuss the issue with Indonesia, as co-chairs of the international anti-people smuggling and trafficking forum, the Bali Process.
The IMF has approved emergency loans totalling around US$732 million for health and social protection and to meet balance-of-payments needs; the World Bank has approved US$100 million in financing to help respond to the pandemic and strengthen public health systems; and the ADB is providing a US$500 million loan to help fight the pandemic.

Afghanistan

As at 7 September 38,398 people across all provinces in Afghanistan had tested positive for COVID-19, while 1,412 had died. New cases are on a downward trajectory but this may be due to low testing rates: by 23 August only 100,960 people had been tested out of a population of 37.6 million. Local government reports suggest hundreds of people may be dying of suspected COVID-19 without ever seeing a medical professional. Of the total reported cases, 10 per cent are health workers.
Health facilities report a lack of basic protective equipment, testing kits and medical supplies, and a shortage of trained staff.
Afghanistan is ranked among the highest risk countries in terms of health and humanitarian impacts from the virus, with the International Committee of the Red Cross warning that ‘rising violence and attacks on healthcare facilities amid the pandemic have put millions of people at risk’. Medical NGO Médecins Sans Frontières announced it was withdrawing from a Kabul hospital after its maternity ward was targeted by gunmen on 12 May.
The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs argues that ‘Complacency and failure to follow public health advice is creating grave risks in the community with people generally not observing physical distancing protocols’. One analyst has suggested that the Government has given up trying to contain the virus and is resting its hopes on herd immunity. But ‘With the role of herd immunity still uncertain, public numbness is helping Afghanistan get through the pandemic instead’.
The Government announced on 6 June that it was extending the national lockdown for three months, and issued new health guidelines. It has also announced a series of emergency relief packages for the health sector, economic support and social protection measures. The impact of the lockdown on the most vulnerable is of broad concern, such as steep rises in the cost of food.
The IMF has approved US$220 million of emergency assistance, noting that the pandemic is inflicting heavy damage on the country’s economy. The World Bank has approved a US$400 million grant to sustain its economic reforms and help the country manage the COVID-19 crisis.

Southeast Asia

The health impacts from COVID-19 have not been as severe in Southeast Asia as elsewhere around the globe, and, with some exceptions, most countries have so far been successful in suppressing the virus. Observers have suggested a number of reasons for this success, including early and decisive lockdowns, transparent communication, and response measures that ‘impose minimal financial costs on their populations’. Some studies suggest that people in parts of Southeast Asia may have some natural immunity to COVID-19, while others note that the region is experienced in fighting other infectious diseases such as SARS and dengue fever. Several Southeast Asian countries have also achieved high levels of mask wearing.

Concerns have been raised in regard to the erosion of democracy and human rights across the region, seen particularly in increased action against government critics. Observers have conceded however that even the more repressive countries in the region have ‘displayed impressive levels of transparency about COVID-19 and the government response’.

The region’s economies are being severely affected by lockdown measures, disruptions to global and regional supply chains, and the loss of income from key sectors such as tourism and remittances. As in South Asia, the informal sector is one of the hardest hit. The UN has warned the region faces a socio-economic crisis that could reverse decades of poverty reduction.

Analysts have also argued that millions of migrant workers in the ASEAN region have been neglected in national policy responses. Support for these workers is critical as economies re-open, they contend.

China has been one of the major providers of COVID-19 related assistance to the region, supplying medical equipment and technical expertise from early February. Relief packages were delivered with considerable publicity, prompting the label ‘mask diplomacy’. Foundations linked to billionaire Jack Ma and state-owned enterprises have also engaged in large donations of medical supplies. It is difficult to assess the total value of China’s donations.

For many countries in the region development banks are the major source of concessional finance (loans) for the COVID-19 response. The US is one of the largest donors, so far earmarking US$76.9 million to train medical workers, boost screening capabilities and strengthen national health systems. Non-government assistance has also been substantial. The EU, Japan and Taiwan have also provided support, while Singapore and Vietnam have provided assistance to their regional partners.

Vietnam is chairing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2020 and has organised a number of virtual meetings for member states to share information about the pandemic. Efforts to establish an ASEAN travel bubble have been hampered by disparities in the pandemic’s status, with hardest hit countries Indonesia and the Philippines unable to join travel corridors.

Australia’s assistance to the region includes the ASEAN-Pacific Infectious Disease Prevention Program ($28 million, 2019–22) and other support through its new development policy, Partnerships for Recovery—Australia’s COVID-19 Development Response. Australia also contributes to global health and financing organisations that are actively engaged in supporting the response, including Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance; the Global Fund; the World Bank; ADB and AIIB.

The US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) tracks COVID-19 policy responses in Southeast Asia.

The Philippines

The Philippines recently overtook Indonesia to become the worst-hit ASEAN country. As at 7 September 237,365 cases and 3,875 deaths had been recorded, and the weekly average number of daily new cases is 2,856.
The Government was slow to respond to the pandemic but from mid-March closed its borders and introduced quarantine measures. In what was seen as one of the strictest and longest lockdowns in the region, numerous parts of the main island Luzon and capital city Manila saw curfews between 8 pm and 5 am.
President Duterte has been granted special temporary powers, which have been reported to affect vulnerable populations, especially the urban poor, particularly hard. On 1 April Duterte ordered the police and military to shoot protesters violating lockdown measures.
The Government response has been inconsistent and confusing, critics have argued. Many lockdown measures were lifted on 1 June and the ensuing rise in case numbers ‘has overwhelmed the public health system and further damaged the economy’. Further lockdowns have yet to control the virus and media reports suggest the President ‘has now been reduced to waiting on a vaccine’.
The Government announced a sizeable economic stimulus package and social protection program, worth around 15.6 per cent of GDP. It has also prevented health workers from going overseas, in an effort to protect the domestic health system.
Unemployment has hit record highs with reports of 27.3 million—nearly half of Philippine adults—out of work. Remittances account for around 10 per cent of GDP and are expected to take an unprecedented hit. Protests against job losses and food shortages have been reported across the country, while the Government attempts to stifle dissent.
The country’s GDP shrank by 16.5 per cent in April–June compared to the same period last year, falling into the first recession in three decades.

Vietnam

As at 7 September the country had recorded 1,049 cases and 35 deaths. Up until mid-July the country had reported no COVID-related deaths and gone months without a locally transmitted case. With its proximity to China and suboptimal healthcare system the low numbers have surprised many.
A spike in cases in late July looks to have been brought under control through a tightly coordinated response from central and local governments, with daily new cases dropping to a weekly average of two on 7 September.
The government response, hailed as one of the most successful in the world, was early and effective. Travel restrictions were introduced in late January and quarantine in mid-February. It used extensive and strict tracing, testing, isolation and active treatment regimes, and mandated community protection measures such as social distancing and the use of face masks. In the face of outbreaks the Government extended its lockdown to only 12 high-risk locations for up to the maximum incubation period of two weeks.
‘Exceptionally strong’ community engagement and national pride in controlling the pandemic have also been cited as reasons for Vietnam’s success.
Both economic stimulus packages and social protection measures have been implemented for the poor and unemployed. An estimated 5 million people had lost their jobs as at mid-April, with workers in the textile and garment industries suffering the most severe impacts.
Vietnam was the first ASEAN country to begin lifting lockdown measures. Given its success in controlling the epidemic, the World Bank argues that Vietnam’s economy is well placed to bounce back after the pandemic if it can identify new drivers of growth to consolidate the recovery.
While it is hard to verify official data analysts note that the country’s authoritarian system of government allowed the immediate implementation of social restrictions and security measures, including the control of social media. Others have argued that the country’s COVID-19 success was made possible by the transparency of information, potentially increasing the demand for transparency across other areas of government.
The case of a Scottish pilot who spent more than two months on life support in Vietnam after contracting COVID-19 made international headlines when he eventually recovered and was able to return home.

Malaysia

As at 7 September the country had seen 9,397 cases and 128 deaths. Very low rates of new infections have been recorded for some weeks.
Despite some missteps, analysts acknowledge that the Government’s response has been largely effective. Since mid-March the country has been under relatively strict movement restrictions. Commentators observe that clear messaging, a well-resourced public service, competent health leadership and active contact tracing and testing have seen good results, despite the country’s ‘insecure borders, significant mobile and vulnerable populations, larger households in denser living conditions and less than ideal political situations’.
The Government has announced economic stimulus and social support packages worth around US$60 billion, or 15.5 per cent of GDP. The economy has been hit hard, and is expected to contract by between 3.5 and 5.5 per cent in 2020.
On 16 April the Government denied entry to a boat carrying 200 Rohingya refugees on the basis that they might spread the virus. Malaysia does not recognise refugee status, but has often been a destination for Rohingya seeking resettlement. It recently announced plans to shut its borders and threatened to push boats back to sea.

Myanmar

As at 7 September 1,419 cases and 8 deaths had been recorded, with the first case reported on 23 March. The low numbers are thought to have been the result of a lack of testing rather than the absence of the virus. The country’s weak health system and high proportion of the population with chronic health conditions puts it at high risk in the event of a new wave of infections.
There has been a spike in cases in recent weeks with 166 new cases recorded on 6 September, the country’s largest daily increase to date. Most recent infections have been in the conflict–torn Rakhine state.
While the strictest containment measures have been lifted, gatherings of more than five people remain prohibited and wearing masks is mandatory. Borders with China and India are closed and the border with Bangladesh is restricted to trade. The World Bank contends that the pandemic is dealing a severe blow to the country’s economy, with slowing growth threatening to reverse recent gains against poverty.
A military-led task force has been appointed to oversee the country’s response, which has broad powers to investigate cases and restrict media.
Human rights groups have reported that the military is increasing attacks against ethnic armed groups in Shan, Kachin, Chin and Rakhine states.

Cambodia

As of 7 September the country had recorded 274 cases and no deaths. The Government was slow to respond but declared a state of emergency on 31 March, closing borders, imposing travel restrictions and quarantine requirements, cancelling national celebrations, and allocating more resources to the health sector.
The pandemic has had a severe impact on Cambodia’s export-oriented sectors, particularly garment and footwear industries, small-to-medium enterprises (SME) and tourism, which contributed nearly 33 per cent of GDP in 2018. The World Bank notes that the collapse of these sectors puts at least 1.76 million jobs at risk.
The Government announced a stimulus package of up to US$2 billion for legally registered SMEs only, and US$70 million for the health sector. Cambodia is receiving significant financial support from donors, including the World Bank, the ADB and a number of bilateral donors, including Australia.
Human rights groups claim that the Government has used its emergency powers against critics and others for political ends.

Singapore

As at 7 September 57,022 cases and only 27 deaths had been recorded. After initial success at containing the virus the city state saw an explosion of cases associated with foreign worker dormitories, which make up the bulk of active cases. The rate of new infections has eased but community transmission continues at a low level.
Singapore’s second quarter GDP shrank by 12.6 per cent on a year-by-year basis, largely due to the slump in global demand. Analysts note signs of recovery but caution that low consumer confidence and uncertainty over the pandemic and future Government stimulus measures could all affect economic growth.

[1]. An estimated 360 million people in India live below the poverty line. Eighty per cent of the non-agricultural labour force consists of daily-wage earners in the informal sector, and 76 per cent of India’s workforce is classified as ‘vulnerable’ by the ILO.

[2]. On 1 May 2020 the UNHCR estimated that 167 countries have partially or fully closed their borders to contain the spread of COVID-19, and 57 of these are not making exceptions for people seeking asylum. See H Spinks, ‘Seeking asylum in the time of coronavirus: COVID-19 pandemic effects on refugees and people seeking asylum’, FlagPost, Parliamentary Library blog, 19 May 2020.

For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.

Creative Commons

With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.

In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.

To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.

Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.

Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.