Suite 4A6, 410 Elizabeth Street The Refugee Council of Australia Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia is the national umbrella body Phone: +61 (02) 9211-9333 [email protected] for refugees, people seeking asylum Web: www.refugeecouncil.org.au Twitter: @OzRefugeeCounc and the organisations and individuals Incorporated in ACT ABN 87 956 673 083 who support them Founded 1981
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 3
1. Introduction The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) welcomes the opportunity to provide its views in response to the Australian Government’s discussion paper on Australia’s Humanitarian Program in 2021-22. As the national community peak body on refugee policy, RCOA has been involved in providing detailed feedback to the Australian Government on this program for more than 35 years. It started with our first formal consultation with the Australian Government on directions for the Refugee and Humanitarian Program in 1984 and has continued since 1987, when we made our first detailed written submission to the Government. Our submission brings together views collected throughout the past 12 months through numerous engagements with our member organisations, refugee service providers, and refugee communities, ranging in format from targeted consultations to regular teleconferences. Like every other organisation, the COVID-19 pandemic created challenges for RCOA’s work. We were not able to proceed with our usual large-scale, face-to-face consultations and were unable to travel to different parts of the country; however, we continued to use every opportunity to understand the issues our members and refugee communities identify as their priority concern and how they want the Government to respond to those. Those concerns were not limited to domestic issues and included our response to the growing global displacement, especially at a time when a global pandemic has reduced access to protection. In our 2019-20 submission, we expressed our disappointment at the decline in the level of Australian Government interest in serious engagement with the community on issues related to the refugee program. We continue to hold this concern. It is also disappointing that this year the closing date for submissions on the Refugee and Humanitarian Program was after the delivery of the Federal Budget. It left no room for the community sector to put forward recommendations that could have been considered prior to the finalisation of the Budget. We are also concerned that the Australian Government is moving further away from seeing the Humanitarian Program as its responsibility as a global citizen to offer protection to the most vulnerable and moving more towards ‘risks’ that it needs to manage. There is no doubt that every program has its inherent risks; however, in our opinion, the statement in the first page of the discussion paper noting consideration of ‘expert advice to manage any risks to the Australian community’ is misplaced.
This submission is structured around the Government’s stated aims for the Humanitarian Program, as outlined in the Department’s discussion paper. They are:
providing permanent resettlement to those most in need, who are in desperate situations, including in refugee camps and protracted refugee situations;
reuniting refugees and people who are in refugee-like situations overseas with their family in Australia;
being flexible and responsive to changing global resettlement needs and emerging humanitarian situations to ensure Australia’s approach remains comprehensive and high-quality;
using resettlement strategically to help stabilise refugee populations, reduce the prospect of irregular movement from source countries and countries of first asylum, and support broader international protection;
meeting Australia’s international protection obligations.
2. Size and ceiling of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program The 2020-21 and 2021-22 ceiling of 13,750 places for both the onshore and offshore components of the Humanitarian Program represents a significant decrease in the size of Australia’s contribution to providing solutions to refugee displacement (Figure 1).
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 4
Figure 1: Size and composition of Australia’s Humanitarian Program, 2011-2021
The reduction in the size of the Humanitarian Program – from a peak of 21,986 visas granted in 2016-17, to less than 7,000 visas (both onshore and offshore) likely to be granted in 2020-21 – does not communicate the intention of the program to either “meet Australia’s international protection obligations” nor to “use resettlement strategically to help stabilise refugee populations, reduce the prospect of irregular movement from source countries and countries of first asylum, and support broader international protection”. This is particularly so in the context of growing and unmet resettlement needs identified by UNHCR (Figure 2) and the slow processing of onshore protection applications (see Section 5). Figure 2: Australia's contribution to meeting global refugee resettlement needs, 2011-2020
The introduction of the language of a ‘ceiling’, combined with the significant disruption in resettlement processes due to COVID-related public health measures and the effective ceiling placed on onshore protection grants (see Section 5), means the overall ceiling of 13,750 places is unlikely to be met in the 2020-21 Program. With significant border restrictions discussed as likely to remain in place until mid-2022, there are also questions about the extent to which the ceiling will again be met in 2021-22 without a concerted effort to facilitate the processing and entry of humanitarian visa-holders
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 5
currently offshore, and/or removing the effective ceiling on the number of onshore protection visas granted. RCOA strongly recommends the Australian Government remove the language of a ‘ceiling’ for the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program and make a commitment to implementing the full Program through a flexible combination of both offshore and onshore visa grants. Furthermore, RCOA strongly supports the need for early planning to build towards the restoration of a Program size of at least 20,000 places by 2022-23, and 25,000 places by 2023-24. Such a commitment would more fully align with the Program’s stated aim to be one of “the world’s most generous contributors to international refugee resettlement efforts”. With the US Biden Administration committing to resettling 62,500 refugees in 2021, and 125,000 admissions in 2022, Australia’s current commitment to a ceiling of only 12,000 offshore visas stands in stark contrast.
Recommendation 1: Remove ‘ceiling’ language and fulfil commitment to full program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government commits to implementing the full 2021-22 Humanitarian Program by removing the ‘ceiling’ language and allowing flexibility in allocation between the onshore and offshore components of the Program.
Recommendation 2: Plan for increase in Humanitarian Program to 25,000 places
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government commits to increasing the size of the Humanitarian Program in 2022-23 to 20,000 places, in recognition of the significant reduction in the delivery of the Program in 2020-21 and the capacity of Australia to make a more substantive contribution to international protection responses.
3. The international context
The COVID-19 pandemic has presented and is likely to continue to present a major disruption to refugee protection internationally for some time, including affecting the capacity of resettlement processes to facilitate visa processing, departures and arrivals. While there has been modest resettlement to countries, including Australia, since the pandemic began (Table 1), there are also substantial numbers of refugees who have been granted humanitarian visas who are yet to travel. The longer the ‘pause’ on resettlement, the more heightened the vulnerability of those waiting to travel. For example, in Lebanon where there are at least 1,035 visa holders currently waiting,1 the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of legal status and rights for refugees, coupled with a confluence of political, economic and humanitarian crises affecting the entire population, has pushed refugees into desperate situations. Table 1: UNHCR-referred resettlement departures by destination country, 2020 and 20212
2020 2021 Total
United States of America 6,740 791 7,531
Sweden 3,567 1,064 4,631
Canada 3,502 951 4,453
Norway 1,504 418 1,922
Germany 1,396 332 1,728
France 1,211 313 1,524
United Kingdom 829 418 1,247
Australia 1,082 74 1,156
Finland 667 204 871
Switzerland 503 293 796
Netherlands 415 304 719
Belgium 176 361 537
1 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2021/fa-210200877-document-released.PDF 2 UNHCR Resettlement Data finder, https://rsq.unhcr.org/en/
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 6
Spain 363 142 505
New Zealand 305 142 447
Portugal 222 93 315
Ireland 194 32 226
Romania 37 0 37
Denmark 31 0 31
Italy 21 0 21
Republic of Korea 17 0 17
Luxembourg 14 0 14
Argentina 4 0 4
Working through the barriers to facilitate the arrival of those who have already been granted a humanitarian visa in 2019-20 and 2020-21 should be a priority of the Australian Government, requiring a concerted and coordinated effort. To do this, RCOA recommends:
Travel exemptions: Australian Border Force (ABF) decision-makers use consistent criteria in assessing applications from Class XB visa holders for individual travel regulation exemptions and act with discretion in granting exemption to anyone holding a 200, 201, 202, 203 or 204 sub-class visa, considering that vulnerability and compelling circumstances have already been established in the granting of these visas, and that a compassionate response is required.
Escalation of vulnerable cases: A process be established to identify current visa-holders overseas whose circumstances have changed since the visa grant was made and to facilitate travel to Australia as quickly as possible, including through exploring enhanced pre-arrival case support for visa holders who have been allocated to an Humanitarian Settlement Program provider.
Access to quarantine spaces: That both Federal and State/Territory-managed quarantine ensure a percentage of spaces are prioritised for humanitarian entrants, to be met through both existing capacity and/or through expanded or targeted facilities. Prioritisation would not be expected to override those of Australian citizens or permanent residents returning, but within the roughly 15% of quarantine spaces that are currently being allocated to people who are not citizens or permanent residents through the process of granting individual travel regulation exemptions, or by creating additional State-managed quarantine capacity outside of the international arrivals cap as was done for other cohorts (e.g. Australian Open tennis players, movie and mining industry groups).
Travel support: That enhanced support through International Organization for Migration (IOM) be offered to Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) proposers to facilitate travel for those they are supporting in recognition of the increased costs, complexity and risks of international travel at this time. In addition, facilitated flights for groups of humanitarian visa holders should be further explored, such as from Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Kenya, Thailand and India, where there are groups of more than 200 visa-holders currently waiting.
Small cohort facilitation: That a pragmatic approach is taken to facilitating groups of visa holders currently in locations where there are fewer barriers to resettlement. This applies to cohorts in Indonesia (~50 visa-holders), Malaysia (~160 visa holders) and the United States (~130 visa-holders), where there are direct flights to Australia, access to health and COVID testing, and exit requirements can be met.
Recommendation 3: Facilitate the timely resettlement of visa-holders currently overseas
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government prioritise and expedite the facilitation of resettlement for humanitarian visa-holders currently waiting overseas by:
granting Humanitarian (XB Class) visa holders individual travel regulation exemption based on visa sub-class alone;
establishing a process for escalating vulnerable cases with links in Australia;
ensuring a percentage of quarantine capacity is allocated to humanitarian visa holders;
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 7
enhancing travel assistance support through IOM for SHP proposers and initiating facilitated flights from key locations; and,
taking a pragmatic approach to facilitating small cohort travel from locations where there are fewer barriers to resettlement.
4. Offshore component of the Humanitarian Program In terms of the composition of the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program in 2021-22, the uncertain and fluid international context is likely to present an ongoing challenge to the practicalities of processing applications and ensuring timely resettlement for at least the next 12-18 months, warranting a more flexible approach to composition. In other words, consideration may need to be given to processing capacity and possibilities in different country contexts, alongside the broader principles which have guided program planning in previous years. With this in mind, RCOA recommends that the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program continue to comprise a combination of UNHCR-referred Refugee cases (sub-classes 201, 203, 204) and proposer-referred SHP (sub-class 202) cases, while sponsored places under the Community Support Program (or any overhaul of the model) be in addition to the Humanitarian Program quota. In recognition of the enormous gap between identified resettlement needs identified by UNHCR in 2021, RCOA recommends the Australian Government plan for at least two thirds of offshore cases be allocated to those referred by UNHCR as in priority need of resettlement.
4.1 Refugee cases
While RCOA agrees that the Humanitarian Program should be flexible and responsive to changing needs, vulnerability must remain the key criterion. The Shergold Review set out a number of key principles for Australia’s Humanitarian Program, including that Australia should continue to select refugees on the basis of humanitarian need:
Australia has a long and proud record of resettling refugees. We should maintain a generous and well-targeted program, working in close collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Maintaining the integrity of selection based on humanitarian need is paramount. It should be strongly affirmed that the selection of refugees for resettlement in Australia is fundamentally based on the need for protection.3
Figure 3: Refugee and humanitarian entrants, by referral type, 2011-12 to 2018-194
3 Peter Shergold, Kerrin Benson and Margaret Piper, Investing in Refugees, Investing in Australia: the findings of a Review into Integration, Employment and Settlement Outcomes for Refugees and Humanitarian Entrants in Australia (February 2019) https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/Pages/reviews%20and%20inquiries/review-integration-employment-settlement-outcomes-refugees-humanitarian-entrants.aspx, page 5. 4 Source: Freedom of Information
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 8
Government documents requested by RCOA under Freedom of Information (FOI) provisions show that, while in the 2012-13 financial year Australia selected 80% of its intake from UNHCR referrals, in the 2018-19 financial year the Department resettled only 23% through UNHCR referral processes (3,970 of 17,112 refugees). Further, FOI documents show that even those coming through the Refugee Program, which is usually set aside for UNHCR referrals, are being selected outside of recommendations of UNHCR. For example, in 2018-19, half (3,323 of 6,666 grants) of the Refugee visas granted were not referred by UNHCR, but through a proposer in Australia. It is clear from UNHCR’s resettlement statistics that the proportion of UNHCR-referred refugees being resettled by Australia has continued to decline. UNHCR’s online Resettlement Data portal reports that the number of refugees referred by UNHCR who departed to Australia was 7,502 in the 2016 calendar year, while in 2019 it was just 3,464.5 As shown in Figure 4, this also represents a declining percentage of places in Australia’s Humanitarian Program. In 2019, only 20% of people resettled through the Humanitarian Program were referred by UNHCR, as identified through UNHCR’s Resettlement Data Portal.
Table 2: UNHCR-referred refugees departing to Australia, by calendar year6
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
UNHCR-referred refugees resettled to Australia 7502 4027 3741 3464 1082
Figure 4: UNHCR-referred refugees as percentage of Australia's humanitarian intake, 2016 to 20207
RCOA’s position is that the Humanitarian Program, and especially Refugee visas, should be used to resettle those who are most vulnerable. While we recognise the need for and support an increase in pathways to humanitarian family reunion, there are concerns that Australia is granting visas to people based on community links in Australia and not on their need for resettlement. As discussed below, other places can and should be made available to support family reunion.
Recommendation 4: Refugee visa sub-classes reserved for cases referred by UNHCR
RCOA recommends that the Department of Home Affairs ensure that it is resettling the most vulnerable refugees. At least two-thirds of the Humanitarian Program should be set aside for Refugee Program visas (subclasses 200, 201, 203 and 204). Subclasses 200, 203 and 204 should be reserved for those who have been referred by UNHCR.
4.2 The Special Humanitarian Program
The primary avenue through which people from a refugee background seek to reunite with family members under the Humanitarian Program is the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP). However,
5 Information extracted from UNHCR Resettlement Data portal on 26 May 2021 6 Source: UNHCR’s Global Resettlement Needs series (for 2013 to 2017). 2018 figure extracted from UNHCR Resettlement Data portal 7 UNHCR data is based on calendar year and extracted from UNHCR Resettlement Data portal on 26 May 2021, while figures from Australia’s Humanitarian Program are based on financial year and from Department of Home Affairs, Australia’s Offshore Humanitarian Program: 2019–20, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visa-statistics/live/humanitarian-program
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 9
demand for the SHP far outweighs available places, even before the impact of COVID-19 border closures. In 2019-20, there were 40,232 applications for visas under the SHP, and only 5,099 grants, representing a 789% over-subscribed demand for visas in the SHP. Figure 5 shows the demand for the SHP (via the number of visa lodgements) and the number of grants. Figure 5: Number of lodgements and grants in the SHP, 2015-16 to 2019-208
It should be noted that refusals of SHP visa applications do not necessarily mean that the applicant is not in need of resettlement or did not have a genuine refugee claim. A significant portion of SHP applications are refused simply because there are not enough visas in the annual quota available to meet the demand. The Department of Home Affairs often gives the same standardised refusal notice to many applicants, noting that while applicants “have strong links to Australia and that there is no other suitable country available for resettlement”, the Department does not “have the capacity to resettle all applicants who apply for a humanitarian visa at this time”, and refused the grant of a visa because the application was not of the “highest priority”.9 The current settings of the Special Humanitarian Program have created barriers to the Australian Government intended aims of its Refugee Program as set out in the Discussion Paper, including its aim to “reunite refugees and people who are in refugee-like situations overseas with their family in
Australia”. The main barriers of the current SHP include:
Significant delays in processing times and decision-making;
Lack of communication from the Department or a lack of clarity about refusals in brief or standardised communication;
The high cost of sponsoring family members, and
Discrimination in the prioritisation settings for people based on their mode of arrival and without consideration of the vulnerability of family still overseas.
Many members of Australia’s refugee communities have expressed confusion and frustration about the prolonged waiting periods for family reunion and the length of time taken to process SHP applications. Many also commented on the limited or lack of information communicated to them about the reasons for these delays or the progress of their applications. Some respondents reported waiting for many years to be reunited, even with immediate family members. Figure 6 shows the average processing time in weeks for Refugee and SHP visa applications. From 2015-16 to 2019-20, the average waiting time to be granted a SHP was 78 weeks.
8 Source: Department of Home Affairs, Australia’s Offshore Humanitarian Program: 2019–20, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visa-statistics/live/humanitarian-program 9 See, for example, Plaintiff M64/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 50 (17 December 2015).
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 10
Figure 6: Average processing time (in weeks) of finalised cases, by visa category, decision type and year of finalisation, 2015–16 to 2019–2010
There is also a very large price tag attached to family reunion, even though the SHP is a less expensive option. People proposing relatives under the SHP need to pay for airfares, migration agents, legal fees and the costs of providing settlement support. The cost of reunification, even with immediate family members such as partners and children, can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. This cost is seen as being very difficult (if not impossible) for many people from a refugee background to meet, particularly for those who have arrived in Australia more recently. In addition to being placed as the lowest priority for family reunion applications through the Migration Program, Department policy also puts applications from proposers who came by boat as the lowest priority for a Special Humanitarian Program visa. SHP applications are prioritised in the following order which is based on the visa the proposer holds, whether the proposer is an Australian citizen, and the closeness of the relationship between the applicant and the proposer:
1. ‘Split family’ of a person who holds an offshore Humanitarian visa (including SHP) 2. Other family proposed by a close family member who does not hold a Protection or
Resolution of Status visa (partners, children, parents and siblings who do not otherwise meet the ‘split family’ definition)
3. Other family proposed by an extended family member who does not hold a Protection or Resolution of Status visa (grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews)
4. Applicants proposed by a friend or distant relative who does not hold a Protection or Resolution of Status visa or by a community organisation
5. Any person proposed by or on behalf of a person granted a Protection or Resolution of Status visa.11
Given the demand for the SHP Program, those further down the priority list can expect extensive delays, or may in fact never receive a visa, as any new application that is a higher priority will be placed before them. There is no clear rationale for placing people in this situation at the end of the queue. As the Australian Human Rights Commission noted, it does not act as a deterrent to other boat arrivals. It simply punishes people who are already in Australia and is an unnecessary barrier to successfully settling in Australia. We cannot expect people to make an effective home for themselves in Australia until they are reunited with their family.
10 Source: Department of Home Affairs, Australia’s Offshore Humanitarian Program: 2019–20, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/visa-statistics/live/humanitarian-program 11 Department of Immigration and Border Protection, ‘Procedures Advice Manual 3: Refugee and Humanitarian Offshore Humanitarian Program Visa Application and Related Procedures’ (2015) 16.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 11
4.3 The need for a humanitarian family reunion program
As in previous years, RCOA recommends that the Australian Government develop a humanitarian family reunion program outside of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program. This should be done in consultation with refugee community members, practitioners involved in providing support with family reunion applications and other relevant stakeholders.12 This proposal, which is detailed in our report on family separation, would make the family visa stream in the Migration Program more accessible to people from a refugee background. Such an opportunity would fulfil Australia’s commitment in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants to “consider the expansion of … flexible arrangements to assist family reunification”.13 Current avenues for family reunion do not meet the needs of many refugee and humanitarian entrants. The demand for family reunion has meant both the SHP and the Community Support Program became expensive pathways to family reunion, which was not their original purpose.
Recommendation 5: Develop a humanitarian family reunion program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government develop a separate Humanitarian Family Reunion Program of 10,000 places distinct from the Humanitarian Program. This should be developed in consultation with former refugee community members and organisations, peak bodies and relevant service providers.
Recommendation 6: Enhance access to family reunion
RCOA recommends that, in the absence of a separate Humanitarian Family Reunion Program, the Australian Government enhance refugee and humanitarian entrants’ access to family reunion by:
a) waiving application fees or at least introducing application fee concessions for refugee and humanitarian entrants sponsoring family members under the family stream of the Migration Program;
b) expanding the availability of no-interest loans to assist proposers in meeting the costs of airfares and/or application fees;
c) introducing greater flexibility in documentation and evidence requirements under both the Humanitarian Program and the family stream of the Migration Program;
d) reviewing eligibility requirements under the family stream of the Migration Program which effectively exclude applicants from refugee backgrounds;
e) prioritising processing of family members at immediate risk; and
f) ensuring access to settlement services on arrival and exempting family from the Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Period.
The Australian Government should consult with stakeholders to develop a process for assessing eligibility for concessions. There should be consultation with refugee communities, practitioners involved in providing support with family reunion applications and other relevant stakeholders to develop a process for assessing eligibility for the concessions referred to above.
Recommendation 7: Remove restrictions on family reunion for those who come by boat
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government immediately remove current restrictions on access to family reunion opportunities for Protection Visa holders who arrived by boat (including changes to processing priorities).
If the above recommendation is not implemented, people whose applications have been affected by the introduction of retrospective changes to processing priorities should be given the opportunity to withdraw their applications and receive a full refund of application fees.
12 See Refugee Council of Australia, Addressing the Pain of Separation for Refugee Families (21 November 2016) http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/publications/reports/family-separation/ 13 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (19 September 2016) http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/71/L.1 .
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 12
Recommendation 8: Restore funding for migration advice
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government restore funding for professional migration advice services to support refugee and humanitarian entrants in lodging family reunion applications.
Recommendation 9: Identify families in need of reunification
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government enter into dialogue with UNHCR about establishing a process for identifying refugee families that are seeking reunification, facilitating assessment and registration in countries of asylum and prioritising them for referral for resettlement under Australia’s offshore program.
4.4 The Community Support Program
RCOA has been advocating for a truly community-led sponsorship program since 2010. As such, we welcomed the Department’s review of the Community Support Program (CSP), in response to the Shergold Review, and we look forward to working with the Department to implement changes to the program following this review. While we were disappointed that changes to the CSP were not announced in this year’s Budget, we hope that a revamp of the program will occur soon, and that community and refugee-led organisations can participate in a co-design process for the program. As we highlighted more substantially in the review of the CSP, our key concerns about the CSP include:
The fact that it is included within the Humanitarian Program, reducing the number of places available to the most vulnerable and undermining the willingness of the community to support the program;
The exorbitant costs (up to $100,000 for a family of five), which will make sponsorship unattractive and drive desperate family members into debt;
The criteria, which require the refugees to be ‘job-ready’, preference certain countries of origin and asylum, and to be ready to move to a regional area, mean that the focus is on their attractiveness as migrants and not their vulnerability;
The focus on individuals and businesses creates a greater risk that the relationship will break down, and misses the opportunity for broader community engagement in the resettlement process.
We believe there is potential for the Australian Government to adopt a fair, open and community-led refugee sponsorship program that can enhance Australia’s response to the global refugee situation by drawing on the most successful aspects of the Canadian private sponsorship experience. We have developed an alternative model for community refugee sponsorship which draws upon the best aspects of the Canadian community sponsorship experience, in partnership with Save the Children, Amnesty International, Welcome to Australia, Rural Australians for Refugees and the Australian Churches Refugee Taskforce. Using this model, Australia could significantly enhance its humanitarian response to forced migration in a way which would help refugees integrate best into the Australian community. It would also leverage the compassion and generosity of Australians. Key features of our proposed model are:
Size of program: The initial program size should be 1,000 places per annum, growing to 10,000 places per annum over the next five years. These places should be in addition to those provided under the Humanitarian Program.
Eligible refugees: These should include those in most urgent need of resettlement as identified by UNHCR, as well as those seeking family reunion in Australia, and those whom Australian employers may wish to sponsor. Priority should be given to UNHCR-referred candidates, and the criteria should not include employability.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 13
Eligible sponsors: Those individuals wishing to sponsor refugees should do so as a collective ‘sponsor group’ under the auspices of a registered non-profit organisation, including incorporated community associations, local councils, religious organisations and other charities (‘Approved Community Organisations’ or ‘ACOs’). ACOs should be able to demonstrate that each sponsorship group will be capable of providing settlement support to the sponsored refugee(s) for 12 months.
Cost of sponsorship: The concept of community sponsorship involves the sponsoring community organisation covering the cost associated with a refugee’s initial stages of settlement, as well as airfares and medical checks prior to departure. Sponsor groups under the auspices of an ACO should be expected to raise funds to cover the costs for refugees for the first year of living in Australia. This should include costs for food and living expenses, rent and initial costs to make a new home in Australia. To ensure people do not experience hardship, sponsored refugees should have access to Centrelink (including rent assistance). However, the cost of Centrelink for one year should be covered by the sponsors. Our proposed model would reduce the cost of sponsoring a family of five from up to $100,000 (under the CSP) to between $20,000 and $50,000, depending on the extent to which income support is required in the first year after arrival. The cost of sponsoring an individual would be between $7,000 and $20,000, depending on the period of income support required. Some of these costs could be offset if sponsors are able to provide in-kind support (such as free accommodation or furniture).
Access to public services: Sponsors should be responsible for providing settlement support for the first year of settlement. However, sponsored refugees should have access to all other social services, Medicare, English language tuition and education, as with other refugees resettled through the Humanitarian Program. These costs should be borne by the Australian Government. After one year of settlement, sponsored refugees should continue to receive social security support from the government, as with refugees resettled through the Humanitarian Program.
Recommendation 10: Replace the existing Community Support Program with new model
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government replace the Community Support Program with a better model for community sponsorship for up to 10,000 places outside of the Humanitarian Program based on the proposal put forward by the Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative.14
4.5 Creating a balanced program
Community organisations and refugee communities remain concerned that the Government continues to prefer refugees based on their religion. The perceived prioritisation of refugees of Christian faiths is suggested in statistics (Figure 7). The proportion of Christian refugees in the Humanitarian Program has increased significantly, from 37% in 2012–13 to 60.7% in 2019-20. Figure 7: Number of persons granted humanitarian visas in 2017-18 to 2019-20, by religion15
14 Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative, A Better Way: A New Model for Community Sponsorship of Refugees in Australia (March 2018) http://www.ausrefugeesponsorship.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Final-Joint-Policy-Brief-Short-March-2018.pdf. 15 Department of Home Affairs, Australia’s Offshore Humanitarian Program 2019-20, p. 23 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-stats/files/australia-offshore-humanitarian-program-2019-20.pdf
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 14
A balanced program based on refugee protection needs and following the expert advice of agencies like UNHCR will ensure that Australia achieves its aims of both providing resettlement for those most in need and to use resettlement as strategically as possible to assist in stabilising refugee populations.
Recommendation 11: Implementing a balanced program and ensuring non-discriminatory decision-making on visa grants
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government ensure the Humanitarian Program is balanced and non-discriminatory, selecting refugees and humanitarian entrants based foremost on vulnerability and need, rather than consideration of religion, skills, English language ability or any other attribute.
5. Onshore component of the Humanitarian Program
5.1 Significant backlog of applications
For several years, the number of applications for Permanent Protection Visas (PPVs) has increased significantly. The number of applications received by the Department of Home Affairs increased from 716 in September 2013 to a peak of 2,803 in January 2018. It then fluctuated between the high and low 2000s until March 2020, when the border closures to contain the spread of COVID-19 pandemic
reduced this number.16 The steady increase in the number of PPV applications until March 2020 was never matched with proportionate resources at both the Department of Home Affairs and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in order to effectively process those applications; this has resulted in a significant backlog. Figure 8: Number of people applying for refugee status onshore, September 2013 to April 2021
The next graph (Figure 9) shows that since November 2019, the number of people awaiting a decision on their protection visa applications has never dropped below 33,000 in any given month. The significant increase in the decision time by the AAT has exacerbated this issue. The caseload
16 All the graphs in this section have been prepared using the public information provided by the Department of Home Affairs. Since November 2019, monthly breakdown of PPV lodgements and decisions have been provided here (Onshore Protection visa processing section).
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Sep-1
3
Dec-1
3
Ma
r-14
Jun-1
4
Sep-1
4
Dec-1
4
Ma
r-15
Jun-1
5
Sep-1
5
Dec-1
5
Ma
r-16
Jun-1
6
Sep-1
6
Dec-1
6
Ma
r-17
Jun-1
7
Sep-1
7
Dec-1
7
Ma
r-18
Jun-1
8
Sep-1
8
Dec-1
8
Ma
r-19
Jun-1
9
Sep-1
9
Dec-1
9
Ma
r-20
Jun-2
0
Sep-2
0
Dec-2
0
Ma
r-21
Permanent protection (subclass 866) lodgements - by month
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 15
reports of the AAT shows that in the last financial year (2019-20), only 25% of refugee cases were
finalised within one year and the median time for decisions was at 109 weeks (over two years).17 Figure 9: Number of people awaiting a decision on their protection visa applications from November 2019-April 2021
While people wait for the outcome of their protection visa applications, they usually remain on a bridging visa with the same conditions as their original visa. It means their access to work rights and Medicare is limited or denied, despite the change in their personal circumstances. For example, people who entered Australia on a tourist visa often have no work rights. They also face major hurdles in accessing government-funded support programs like Status Resolution Support Services (SRSS). RCOA’s member organisations have told us that a significant majority of PPV applicants are indeed considered ineligible for SRSS. The temporary status of this group creates added challenges, such as difficulty in accessing women’s refuges. Considering people are now waiting several years for the outcome of their protection application, this ongoing lack of support has created significant physical and mental health challenges, family issues, and an underclass of people who are at real risk of exploitation and excluded from any support. Figure 10: Total number of decisions (grant and refusal) in each month, November 2019-April 2021
17 These numbers were 37% of refugee cases finalised and median time of 72 weeks in 2018-19 financial year and 66% of refugee cases finalised
and median time of 31 weeks in 2017-18 financial year .Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Statistics, https://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/corporate-information/statistics
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 16
RCOA believes that the Government has missed the opportunity that was created by the border closure, and the subsequent reduction in the number of lodgements, to reduce the backlog of applications. This could have been achieved by increasing the number of departmental staff working on this caseload. However, a look at the number of monthly decisions since the borders were closed at the end of March 2020 shows no considerable increase compared to the time prior. While a record number of decisions (2,330) were handed down in May 2020, that trend did not continue and the number of monthly decisions decreased again. Even though we saw some slight increases in the number of decisions afterwards, they are not enough to address the backlog of applications. In many cases, that increase did not even bring the total number of decisions to the 2020 level. For example, the total number of decisions in the first four months of 2021 was 4,507, while the same number in the first four months of 2020 was 4,589.
5.2 The onshore program’s link to offshore visas and its ‘ceiling’
RCOA’s consistent position over the years has been that grants of protection visas to refugees in Australia should not be included in the Humanitarian Program. If a person is found to be in need of protection in Australia, Australia is obliged under international law to grant them protection. This should not be offset against the needs of vulnerable refugees who require resettlement from overseas, as the two processes are not comparable. The “Legacy Caseload” legislation that passed in December 2014 and became law enabled the Minister to cap permanent protection visas, as the Minister is able to do with migration visas more generally. The effect of this is that even if a refugee claim is successful, if it is beyond the ‘cap’ or ‘ceiling’ set by the Minister in a financial year, that person cannot be granted protection until the following financial year. We maintain that this power is fundamentally at odds with our obligations under the Refugees Convention and our international protection obligations, a stated aim of the program. Over the years and despite the increase in the number of protection visa applications, the number of those granted protection visas has declined. This number has been maintained at exactly 1,650 in the past two financial years. Figure 11: Lodgement and grant of permanent protection visas by financial year
While the Government is not officially stating that there is a ceiling on the number of onshore protection visas granted each year, we see it as no coincidence that the grants have been maintained
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 17
at a specific number over two consecutive financial years. Further, when the Government handed down the delayed 2020 Budget, it committed to “allow[ing] flexibility in places between offshore and onshore categories in response to COVID-19 travel restrictions”,18 indicating that it would work to fill the program with more onshore protection applicants. However, the total number of monthly grants so far in the current financial year (at 1,137 grants as of 30 April 2021)19 shows that this promise is unlikely to be fulfilled, suggesting that PPV grants will remain at or under 1,650 visas again in 2020-21. In RCOA’s opinion, this is a major missed opportunity. At a time when a considerable number of offshore humanitarian visa places remain unfulfilled due to ongoing border closures and the backlog of onshore protection visa applications remains at over 30,000, the Government could have diverted more resources to the finalisation of those onshore applications, granting visas to those found to be owed protection. This would have ensured that we meet our international obligations, reduced the backlog of onshore applications, and ended the ongoing uncertainty (and the resultant destitution) that many of those applicants face.
Recommendation 12: Separate the onshore and offshore components of the Program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government de-link the onshore component of the Humanitarian Program from the offshore component.
Recommendation 13: Removal of cap or ceiling on the number of onshore visas
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government ensure that there is no cap or ceiling – officially or informally –on the number of onshore refugee visas granted.
Recommendation 14: Use the current circumstances to clear the backlog
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government through the Department of Home Affairs ensure that the Humanitarian Program meets the planning level of 13,750 places by allocating any remaining visas from the unfulfilled places to the onshore component. There exists a unique opportunity to allocate the remaining places to onshore applications found to be in need of refugee protection to ensure the backlog is reduced. The Department of Home Affairs should allocate extra resources and staffing to process those applications and not stop the processing when the visa grants reach the arbitrary planning figure.
6. Regional settlement and the impact of changes in housing availability In the past decade, the Federal Government has directed the settlement of refugees and humanitarian entrants in regional areas, especially those without family links in metropolitan areas. This policy has considerably increased the proportion of humanitarian entrants settled directly in regional areas, from 6% in 2001 to 14% in 2011,20 and then to 38.6% in the 2019-20 financial year.21 RCOA has had a longstanding focus on regional settlement of refugees and over the past few years, undertook research on regional mobility, including direct refugee settlement and secondary movement of refugees to regional areas. From 2017 to 2019, we conducted multiple consultations with service providers and refugee communities in regional areas across Australia to understand the factors that need to be considered to achieve successful settlement. Suitable employment opportunities and housing affordability were two of the key factors people nominated as contributing to the retention of refugees in some of the regional locations, as well as the reasons for secondary migration from metropolitan areas.
18 Commonwealth of Australia (2020), Budget 2020-21, https://budget.gov.au/2020-21/content/bp2/download/bp2_complete.pdf , p.108. 19 Calculated using the information in Onshore Protection visa processing (from the month of July 2020 to April 2021), available here. 20 Feist, H. Tan, G. McDougall, K. Hugo, Graeme. (2014). Enabling Rural Migrant Settlement: A Case Study of the Limestone Coast. Hugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, available to download here, page 8. 21 Department of Home Affairs (2021), Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2021-22, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/files/2021-22-discussion-paper.pdf, p.6.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 18
Conversely, the reasons why some regional areas fail to attract or retain a refugee population include a lack of proper infrastructure and services (especially in the areas of education and physical/mental health), isolation, and the absence of a welcoming and inclusive environment. While some refugees might continue to live in those areas despite these challenges and because of employment, these factors mean the regional areas will fail to retain this population when the employment opportunities decline. These findings and observations clearly show the importance of a place-based approach to refugee settlement in regional areas. Once a regional location has been identified as a primary settlement location, its suitability needs to be constantly reviewed, as situations inevitably change. As part of this review, the advice of the settlement sector and regional communities, the local circumstances such as housing affordability, infrastructure, employment opportunities and their suitability, and support services need to be regularly monitored and evaluated. For example, extreme weather conditions such as drought or flooding may affect the availability of employment in areas such as agriculture, and housing affordability may change or health infrastructure in a community may deteriorate. In the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program Discussion Paper, the Australian Government has reaffirmed its commitment to increasing regional settlement, creating a target of 50% of humanitarian entrants to be settled in a regional location by 2022. However, this target and this commitment need to be considered in the context of the changed reality of many of traditional regional settlement locations. There has been significant population movements from metropolitan areas to some of these regional locations during the COVID-19 pandemic. This has affected the availability and affordability of rental accommodation in those areas. The return of more than 500,000 Australians since the start of pandemic may have also contributed to a decline in rental availability in some regional areas. The member organisations we spoke to in the past few weeks identified the issues related to accommodation costs and availability in regional areas as one of their most significant concerns. They reported that in Hobart and in parts of regional Victoria, the cost of rental accommodations has tripled and there are few housing vacancies. Concerns were also raised about the service capacity in some of the regional areas, as there have been no recent arrivals and the finalisation of older caseloads have resulted in a reduced capacity of the providers and their inability to quickly scale up. As the Federal Government has traditionally focused on settling ‘unlinked’ refugees in regional areas (those without an identified family link in a metropolitan area), the capacity of service providers to support them in navigating life in Australia is of added importance. The concerns relayed to RCOA about the cost and availability of accommodation have also been reflected in media reports and published research in recent months. In its most recent Rental Affordability Snapshot, based on a survey of over 74,000 listings, Anglicare Australia concludes that compared to 2020, every single household type is worse off as the rental prices across Australia continue to rise. The report found that 0%, or just three rentals, are affordable for a single person on a JobSeeker payment. For a couple living on the Age Pension, only 2% of rentals were affordable.22 The report highlights the challenges in regional Australia, stating:
The Snapshot shows that affordability in regional areas has crashed over the past year, challenging the myth that country areas offer an affordable reprieve from the city. It seems that
22 Anglicare Australia (2021), Rental Affordability Snapshot, https://www.anglicare.asn.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/rental-affordability-snapshot---national-report.pdf?sfvrsn=8 , pp.4-9.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 19
people flocked to regional areas when they had the opportunity to work flexibly, putting unprecedented pressure on regional housing markets.23
…and each of the regional areas we surveyed saw dramatic declines in the number of listings overall.24
Research from National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation published in April 2021 but with data up to June 2020 shows that rental affordability in Hobart is similar to Sydney, with both cities not having any affordable rental accommodation for the bottom 40% of income earners.25 Indications are that the housing situation in Hobart has deteriorated further since June 2020. The situation is the same in some other regional settlement locations like the Gold Coast or Coffs Harbour, where a vacancy rate of 0.5%26 in both towns is driving up the cost of rent. RCOA still believes that, if they are well-supported, refugees settling in regional Australia can bring about economic, social and cultural benefits to the area. With a higher percentage of working age people than other migrant groups and higher birth rates, refugees can reinvigorate regional areas. They have a strong sense of community engagement and can improve the quality of life for those in regional areas. Multiple successful examples of regional settlement support this. However, the above challenges highlight the importance of an ongoing review of the suitability of those locations as local situations change. The challenges relating to housing availability and service capacity have not affected all regional areas equally. The Government must undertake an urgent review of the regional settlement locations to assess the changes and pause the settlement of refugees in areas that are facing significant challenges. As mentioned, the majority of the refugees settled in regional areas are unlinked and therefore, have weaker community support and connections. This makes it much harder for them to overcome complex challenges that have even overwhelmed those who fully understand the Australian housing market.
Recommendation 15: Urgently review the regional settlement locations
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government, including the Department of Home Affairs, conduct an urgent review of the current regional settlement locations in consultation with the settlement sector. This review should assess whether those locations still have the factors to achieve successful settlement, including housing affordability and service capacity.
7. Settlement assistance The settlement knowledge, language skills, and expertise that staff have in Humanitarian Settlement Program (HSP) and other support providers needs to be acknowledged and sustained. Their specialised skills are not easily replaced and will be needed urgently when the Humanitarian Program restarts in earnest. The current structure of the HSP fee-for-service model has meant that contracted agencies have found it difficult to retain their highly-skilled staff. This funding model is not only administratively burdensome but also can lead to the dulling of innovative and lateral approaches to complex challenges. The Australian Government should continue to explore ways to ensure that HSP providers can retain staff and ensure that their unique skillset is not lost.
23 Anglicare Australia (2021),4. 24 Anglicare Australia (2021), 9. 25 National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (2021), Housing inSITES: Capital city housing affordability for renters and potential first home buyers, https://www.nhfic.gov.au/research/researchreport/housing-affordability/housing-insites-capital-city-housing-affordability-for-renters-and-potential-first-home-buyers/ 26 Claudia Jambor, Luisa Rubbo, and Melissa Martin, ‘Rising house prices, tight rental market sign of ‘new renaissance’ for regions, NSW Deputy Premier says’ ABC News (24 February 2021), https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-24/regional-nsw-housing-crisis-champagne-problem-john-barilaro-says/13186852; Dominic Cansdale, ‘Gold Coast crisis accommodation in shortage due to ‘absolutely crazy’ rental market’ ABC News (12 February 2021), https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-12/gold-coast-rental-market-overwhelms-crisis-accommodation/13140710
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 20
Recommendation 16: Explore ways to retain skilled Humanitarian Settlement Program staff
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government urgently work with HSP providers to find innovative ways to pay and retain highly-skilled settlement staff.
8. Temporary protection RCOA continues to object to the Government policy of issuing only temporary protection to people recognised as refugees but having arrived without a prior visa. We need to give permanent rather than temporary protection to people who have demonstrated their well-founded fear of persecution. People seeking safety need security. They need to be able to settle well, to reunite with their families, and to look forward to the future. RCOA has met with and surveyed hundreds of people living on temporary protection, and they wish to find a solution to their situation. Many of the 18,000 people on a Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) or a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) are open to exploring how they might be able to fill labour shortages across Australia as a viable pathway to permanent residency. The SHEV was introduced in 2014 to encourage people who are found to be refugees to move to regional Australia. If they did so, they were offered the possibility of eventually qualifying for a non-humanitarian permanent visa if they met the particular visa’s requirements (a distant hope in most circumstances). Predictably, the current visa system and support services have not produced these intended outcomes, with most SHEV holders unable to reside in a regional location because of the lack of available opportunities or unable to utilise the pathway options to permanent residency. The Government announced that this visa would be valid for five years and was designed to encourage refugees to move to regional areas. To be eligible for a SHEV, a person must declare an intention to work or study in a designated SHEV zone. However, the SHEV has not fulfilled its policy intention in attracting refugees to live and work in regional areas. According to the Department of Home Affairs’ evidence to the Joint Sitting Committee on Migration, “of the 12,165 SHEV holders, there are currently 8,000 in metropolitan areas and there are 4,127 in regional areas”.27
In order to encourage refugees on a SHEV or TPV to help fill these labour shortages, there need to be proper incentives and support in place. People need security that they will be able to remain in Australia and continue contributing to their local communities. They need to be able to settle with their families by their side, and they need local communities who are willing and able to support them. Together, the policy changes recommended in this submission will allow refugees on SHEVs and TPVs to help address the impending labour crisis in Australia’s critical sectors and industries, such as the agriculture, meat, food processing, childcare, aged care and disability care sectors. Importantly, SHEV holders can only help to fill these labour shortages with proper support and implementation of realistic pathways. The labour shortages in critical sectors and industries due to COVID-19 are likely to impact both metropolitan and regional communities across Australia. The agricultural and horticultural industries will affect many regional areas in Australia that have been traditionally reliant on a steady migrant labour force. Although the Australian Government has made some provisional changes to the visa arrangements for some existing migrant workers due to the labour shortages created by COVID-19, the lack of a steady flow of overseas migrant workers into Australia means that industry and regional labour shortfalls are likely to get worse. Many temporary migrant workers have already departed Australia due to COVID-19 and there is no new stream of migrants flowing into Australia. However, SHEV and TPV holders provide a unique opportunity for the Australian Government to address these shortages through supporting people who are already in Australia. A key reason for the failure of the SHEV to attract people to work in regional areas is the lack of a realistic pathway to permanency for people who do work in a regional area. If a person on a SHEV
27 See the Department’s testimony here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/WorkingHolidayMaker/Report/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024567%2f75088
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 21
meets the visa pathway, they are then able to apply for certain other skilled, family and student visas. However, they are not guaranteed those other visas and must meet the specific requirements of the visa. Many of these visas are out of reach for refugees on a SHEV, even if they fulfil the visa pathway. The criteria of these other visas are onerous and prohibitive for most people. This is especially true because people on a SHEV are not able to access any federal government education support which would support them to attain the skills and education required for many of these visas. As such, the SHEV has failed to provide a realistic incentive for people to move to regional areas, and therefore failed in its policy intention in encouraging regional resettlement. Last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration investigated this issue on request from Acting Minister for Immigration Alan Tudge. RCOA made a submission to the inquiry, recommending that an incentive is provided to refugees on Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs) and Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs) to encourage these people to fill some of these labour shortages. RCOA has consulted widely with refugee community members on SHEVs and TPVs, and conducted a survey with over 700 of these visa holders. Our research shows that a significant majority (85%) of the 18,000 SHEV and TPV holders would take up these jobs if they were offered a permanent visa after working in these areas. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration endorsed our proposal in their report in November, noting that:
SHEV and TPV holders were unlikely to take up opportunities in regional areas, particularly in agriculture and horticulture, without further incentives due to perceived uncertainty at the end of the process and the many practical barriers, including access to training and education…
The Committee therefore sees merit in the Government addressing the identified barriers and providing stronger incentives for SHEV and TPV holders to fill critical regional labour shortages... The Government should also provide greater certainty in the migration pathway to attract more SHEV and TPV holders to settle in regional Australia and help to fill critical labour shortages… the permanent visa requirement concessions discussed above should be carefully and seriously considered.28
As such, we recommend the Department of Home Affairs work with industry groups and RCOA to develop a viable pathway to permanency that can truly incentivise refugees on SHEVs and TPVs to take up jobs in regional areas and in industries facing significant labour shortages. Such a pathway to a permanent visa does not have to involve the granting of a permanent refugee visa. There are many other skilled visa options that can be modified to enable refugees who work in these regional areas to gain a permanent visa.
Recommendation 17: Ensure genuine pathway options for TPV and SHEV holders filling labour shortages
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government modify the SHEV pathway to provide permanent visas to all refugees on a SHEV or TPV who work in a regional area or critical industry for 12 months.
9. Linking Australia’s resettlement, aid and diplomacy While the Government’s discussion paper for the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program states that one of its goals for the Program is “using resettlement strategically to help stabilise refugee populations, reduce the prospect of irregular movement from source countries and countries of first asylum, and support broader international protection”, there is little evidence of effective action to implement this
28 The Committee’s recommendations are available at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/WorkingHolidayMaker/Report/section?id=committees%2freportjnt%2f024567%2f75088
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 22
goal. In annual submissions over the past 15 years, RCOA has outlined the need for a coherent strategy to promote international opportunities to increase the protection of refugees, drawing together Australia’s humanitarian and overseas aid programs and its international diplomacy. If the Australian Government is serious about the often-repeated claim, in justifying punitive policies towards people seeking asylum, that it wants to save lives at sea, then Australian policy must pursue policies which improve the protection of refugees in the places where they first seek asylum. To do this, Australia needs to shift its mindset, moving away from policies in Asia which promote deterrence, detention and deflection of responsibilities to neighbouring countries, to policies which promote protection of the most vulnerable, stability and good governance. Key to these alternative policies should be:
Shifting emphasis from grand multilateral processes like the Bali Process (which is focused on smuggling and transnational crime and not on refugee protection) towards engaging Australia’s neighbours in bilateral and smaller multilateral initiatives based on practical problem-solving for refugees and host societies.
Giving greater leadership in this area of Government policy to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), recognising the central roles of diplomacy and humanitarian aid in building durable solutions for refugees.
Recognising that resettlement has a strategic role in durable solutions for refugees but placing greater emphasis on peace-building and development in countries of origin and promoting the more effective protection of refugees in countries of asylum.
Australia cannot act on this stated goal for the Humanitarian Program without taking more seriously the key protection concerns expressed by refugees in many countries of asylum. Through our active involvement in the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN) and our close partnership with the Asia Pacific Network of Refugees (APNOR), we have had the opportunity to hear on many occasions directly from refugees in countries across Asia about the factors which make life unbearable in the places where they have sought refuge. The concerns of refugees are common across national boundaries:
1. Access to a fair asylum process and protection from refoulement 2. Freedom from detention 3. Legal status while seeking asylum and after refugee status is granted 4. Adequate food, clothing and shelter 5. Access to health services 6. Personal security and access to justice 7. Access to education 8. The right to work and a sustainable livelihood 9. The right to family unity 10. Access to a viable future (a durable solution) for themselves and their children
In bringing together the Government’s work in diplomacy, overseas aid and refugee resettlement, DFAT and the Department of Home Affairs could work together, seeking the advice of NGOs in RCOA’s national network and APRRN’s regional network as well as APNOR and refugee diaspora organisations in Australia. Opportunities to be explored could include:
Inviting key resettlement states, such as USA, Canada and New Zealand, to work with Australia on diplomacy and aid strategies which move beyond resettlement as the only durable solution.
Engaging the government of Indonesia in an active dialogue about how the 2016 Presidential Decree can be implemented in a way which creates alternatives to detention, enables refugees to live and work legally and focuses resettlement options on those in greatest need.
Reviewing, as a matter of priority, the impacts of Australian policy on refugees in Indonesia, including restrictions on refugee resettlement, the under-resourcing of UNHCR activities in the country and funding cuts to International Organization for Migration programs, policies which have left many refugees facing destitution with no durable solution in sight.
Opening dialogue with the government of Thailand about its plans to improve the identification and protection of urban refugees and to end the immigration detention of children.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 23
Brokering discussions between the government of Bangladesh and resettlement states about the role that resettlement could play in protecting the most vulnerable Rohingya refugees and offering practical international support to Bangladesh as it hosts 900,000 refugees.
Exploring how the expertise of NGOs and government agencies in Australia on many issues of refugee status determination, protection, settlement and engagement with refugee communities could be shared as part of strategies to support the development of new protection initiatives in the region.
Recommendation 18: Convene a forum to advance a whole-of-government integrated response to displacement
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government convene a forum with NGOs, refugee-led organisations, peak bodies, intergovernmental bodies and other relevant stakeholders to advance the development of an integrated and strategic response to displacement, including consideration of the roles of aid, diplomacy, capacity-building and the strategic use of resettlement.
10. Summary of recommendations
Recommendation 1: Remove ‘ceiling’ language and fulfil commitment to full program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government commits to implementing the full 2021-22 Humanitarian Program by removing the ‘ceiling’ language and allowing flexibility in allocation between the onshore and offshore components of the Program.
Recommendation 2: Plan for increase in Humanitarian Program to 25,000 places
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government commits to increasing the size of the Humanitarian Program in 2022-23 to 20,000 places, in recognition of the significant reduction in the delivery of the Program in 2020-21 and the capacity of Australia to make a more substantive contribution to international protection responses. Recommendation 3: Facilitate the timely resettlement of visa-holders currently overseas
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government prioritise and expedite the facilitation of resettlement for humanitarian visa-holders currently waiting overseas by:
granting Humanitarian (XB Class) visa holders individual travel regulation exemption based on visa sub-class alone;
establishing a process for escalating vulnerable cases with links in Australia;
ensuring a percentage of quarantine capacity is allocated to humanitarian visa holders;
enhancing travel assistance support through IOM for SHP proposers and initiating facilitated flights from key locations; and,
taking a pragmatic approach to facilitating small cohort travel from locations where there are fewer barriers to resettlement.
Recommendation 4: Refugee visa sub-classes reserved for cases referred by UNHCR
RCOA recommends that the Department of Home Affairs ensure that it is resettling the most vulnerable refugees. At least two-thirds of the Humanitarian Program should be set aside for Refugee Program visas (subclasses 200, 201, 203 and 204). Subclasses 200, 203 and 204 should be reserved for those who have been referred by UNHCR.
Recommendation 5: Develop a humanitarian family reunion program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government develop a separate Humanitarian Family Reunion Program of 10,000 places distinct from the Humanitarian Program. This should be developed in consultation with former refugee community members and organisations, peak bodies and relevant service providers.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 24
Recommendation 6: Enhance access to family reunion
RCOA recommends that, in the absence of a separate Humanitarian Family Reunion Program, the Australian Government enhance refugee and humanitarian entrants’ access to family reunion by:
a) waiving application fees or at least introducing application fee concessions for refugee and humanitarian entrants sponsoring family members under the family stream of the Migration Program;
b) expanding the availability of no-interest loans to assist proposers in meeting the costs of airfares and/or application fees;
c) introducing greater flexibility in documentation and evidence requirements under both the Humanitarian Program and the family stream of the Migration Program;
d) reviewing eligibility requirements under the family stream of the Migration Program which effectively exclude applicants from refugee backgrounds;
e) prioritising processing of family members at immediate risk; and
f) ensuring access to settlement services on arrival and exempting family from the Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Period.
The Australian Government should consult with stakeholders to develop a process for assessing eligibility for concessions. There should be consultation with refugee communities, practitioners involved in providing support with family reunion applications and other relevant stakeholders to develop a process for assessing eligibility for the concessions referred to above.
Recommendation 7: Remove restrictions on family reunion for those who come by boat
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government immediately remove current restrictions on access to family reunion opportunities for Protection Visa holders who arrived by boat (including changes to processing priorities).
If the above recommendation is not implemented, people whose applications have been affected by the introduction of retrospective changes to processing priorities should be given the opportunity to withdraw their applications and receive a full refund of application fees.
Recommendation 8: Restore funding for migration advice
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government restore funding for professional migration advice services to support refugee and humanitarian entrants in lodging family reunion applications.
Recommendation 9: Identify families in need of reunification
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government enter into dialogue with UNHCR about establishing a process for identifying refugee families that are seeking reunification, facilitating assessment and registration in countries of asylum and prioritising them for referral for resettlement under Australia’s offshore program.
Recommendation 10: Replace the existing Community Support Program with new model
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government replace the Community Support Program with a better model for community sponsorship for up to 10,000 places outside of the Humanitarian Program based on the proposal put forward by the Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative.29
Recommendation 11: Implementing a balanced program and ensuring non-discriminatory decision-making on visa grants
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government ensure the Humanitarian Program is balanced and non-discriminatory, selecting refugees and humanitarian entrants based foremost on vulnerability and need, rather than consideration of religion, skills, English language ability or any other attribute.
29 Community Refugee Sponsorship Initiative, A Better Way: A New Model for Community Sponsorship of Refugees in Australia (March 2018) http://www.ausrefugeesponsorship.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Final-Joint-Policy-Brief-Short-March-2018.pdf.
Refugee Council of Australia – submission on the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program 25
Recommendation 12: Separate the onshore and offshore components of the Program
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government de-link the onshore component of the Humanitarian Program from the offshore component.
Recommendation 13: Removal of cap or ceiling on the number of onshore visas
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government ensure that there is no cap or ceiling – officially or informally –on the number of onshore refugee visas granted.
Recommendation 14: Use the current circumstances to clear the backlog
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government through the Department of Home Affairs ensure that the Humanitarian Program meets the planning level of 13,750 places by allocating any remaining visas from the unfulfilled places to the onshore component. There exists a unique opportunity to allocate the remaining places to onshore applications found to be in need of refugee protection to ensure the backlog is reduced. The Department of Home Affairs should allocate extra resources and staffing to process those applications and not stop the processing when the visa grants reach the arbitrary planning figure.
Recommendation 15: Urgently review the regional settlement locations
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government, including the Department of Home Affairs, conduct an urgent review of the current regional settlement locations in consultation with the settlement sector. This review should assess whether those locations still have the factors to achieve successful settlement, including housing affordability and service capacity.
Recommendation 16: Explore ways to retain skilled Humanitarian Settlement Program staff
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government urgently work with HSP providers to find innovative ways to pay and retain highly-skilled settlement staff.
Recommendation 17: Ensure genuine pathway options for TPV and SHEV holders filling labour shortages
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government modify the SHEV pathway to provide permanent visas to all refugees on a SHEV or TPV who work in a regional area or critical industry for 12 months.
Recommendation 18: Convene a forum to advance a whole-of-government integrated response to displacement
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government convene a forum with NGOs, refugee-led organisations, peak bodies, intergovernmental bodies and other relevant stakeholders to advance the development of an integrated and strategic response to displacement, including consideration of the roles of aid, diplomacy, capacity-building and the strategic use of resettlement.
