Transcript Slide 1

Australia’s Refugee and
Humanitarian Program:
Recent changes in refugee and asylum
policy and implications for the future
Presentation and consultation to inform RCOA’s Submission on
Australia’s 2013-14 Refugee and Humanitarian Program
Overview
• RCOA’s Intake Submission and
consultations
• International and Australian context
• Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers:
Recommendations and implications
• Pathways to protection: Onshore
processing of asylum applications
• Discussion
Refugee Council of Australia
• The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) is the
national umbrella body for refugees and the
organisations and individuals who support them.
• RCOA promotes the adoption of flexible, humane
and practical policies towards refugees and
asylum seekers in Australia and internationally
through conducting research, advocacy, policy
analysis and community education.
• RCOA operates with a small staff and does not
provide direct services. We aim to be a strong
independent voice for refugees and asylum
seekers in Australia.
RCOA Submission and consultations
• Annual consultations inform RCOA’s submission to
the Minister and Department of Immigration on
Australia’s 2013-14 Refugee and Humanitarian
Program.
• Major changes to Australia’s Refugee and
Humanitarian Program have recently been
announced. This presentation provides an overview
of these changes and some of their implications.
• RCOA is seeking your views on these changes and
impacts on refugee communities.
International context
• In 2011, UNHCR global statistics show
Forcibly displaced persons
Refugees
No. displaced
15.2 million
Refugees under UNHCR’s mandate
10.4 million
Palestinian refugees under UNRWA’s
mandate
4.8 million
Asylum seekers
895,000
Internally displaced persons
26.4 million
TOTAL
42.5 million
• Up to 12 million people were affected by
statelessness.
International context
• In 2011…
• 4.3 million people newly displaced;
• Asylum applications increased by over 60%;
• Number of asylum seekers recognised as
refugees more than doubled;
• 7.1 million refugees remain in protracted
situations (i.e. no solution for many years);
• 79,784 refugees were resettled in 2011, almost
20,000 fewer than in 2010;
• UNHCR estimates 859,305 people will be in need
of resettlement in the coming years.
Australian context
• Composition of the 2011-12 RHP:
8000
7000
Offshore Refugee
visas
6000
5000
Offshore SHP
visas
4000
3000
Onshore
Protection visas
2000
1000
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Australian context
•
For the first time ever, the onshore (7,039 visas or 51.2%)
was larger than the offshore (6,720 visas or 48.8%)
component of the Humanitarian Program.
• Of the 7,039 onshore protection visas, 4,766 (67.7%)
were granted to people who had arrived by boat.
•
Increase in protection visa applications lodged:
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
IMA refugee status
determination requests
received
8,000
6,000
4,000
Non-IMA protection
visa applications
lodged
2,000
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Australian context
Regional composition of offshore program
100%
10.0
3.1
0.2
0.5
0.4
80%
55.7
48.3
60%
70.8
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
30.5
29.2
25.2
21.5
33.2
50.9
Others
70.2
33.7
40%
1.8
9.9
1.9
20%
33.1
40.9
38.6
Africa
20.7
Asia & Pacific
3.4
39.9
24.3
34.7
26.2
34.0
28.0
35.3
33.5
31.8
39.8
37.1
Middle East &
South West Asia
20
11
-1
2
20
10
-1
1
20
09
-1
0
20
08
-0
9
20
07
-0
8
20
06
-0
7
20
05
-0
6
20
04
-0
5
20
03
-0
4
20
02
-0
3
0%
Questions
What strategies could the Australian
Government adopt to respond to key refugee
protection issues and new and existing
humanitarian crises? What role could the
Refugee and Humanitarian Program play in
this response?
Which groups would you nominate as being in
priority need of resettlement under Australia’s
Refugee and Humanitarian Program during
2013-14?
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers
• 28 June - Expert Panel announced to provide a
report on the best way forward “for Australia to
prevent asylum seekers risking their lives on
dangerous boat journeys to Australia”.
• 13 August - the Panel releases its report after six
weeks of consultation and research.
• 22 recommendations in report concerning the
future composition of the Refugee and
Humanitarian Program, regional protection, asylum
policy and family reunion.
• Australian Government has committed in principle
to implementing all 22 recommendations.
Panel recommendations: Composition
• Increase number of humanitarian visas granted
from 13,750 to 20,000 this financial year (2012-13).
This is the biggest increase in 30 years.
• Consideration be given to increasing the number
of places to 27,000 within five years.
• Of 20,000 places, 12,000 be granted for offshore
Refugee visas (sub-classes 200, 201, 203, 204).
• Remaining 8,000 places split between SHP (subclass 202) and onshore Protection visas (subclass 866). i.e. ongoing numerical link between
onshore and SHP.
Panel recommendations: Composition
• Regional composition:
• Maintain resettlement places for Africa (currently
21% of offshore program);
• Additional places from Middle East and Asia;
• Of additional places, up to 3,800 from South-East
Asia and more focus on resettlement from places
close to countries of origin (i.e. Middle East)
• Other caseloads to focus on: Iranians, Iraqis, Sri
Lankans.
• No specific details released by DIAC yet.
Panel recommendations: Composition
• Private/community refugee sponsorship pilot
announced as part of May Federal Budget with one
of the aims to increase capacity for Australia to
resettle more refugees.
• 23 August – Increase to 20,000 places announced
as result of recommendation of Expert Panel.
• Announcement on private/community sponsorship
pilot is expected before end of year.
• Unclear what visa category or how a pilot will be
structured in context of already-expanded RHP.
• Expert panel suggests sponsorship program could
reduce costs of humanitarian visa by one third.
Questions
What comments, questions or concerns do you have
about the recommended changes to the composition
of Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program (i.e.
the immediate increase in numbers to 20,000, increase
in refugee quota to 12,000, increased regional focus
on South-East Asia, and continuation of the link
between the onshore protection and SHP
components)?
What role do you think a private/community
sponsorship program should or could play within
Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program?
Panel recommendations: Asylum policy
• Offshore processing: Panel recommended
legislation be introduced as a “matter of urgency”.
• On 17 August, Parliament made legislative changes
to allow the transfer of asylum seekers to regional
processing countries, paving the way for offshore
processing in Nauru and PNG.
Panel recommendations: Asylum policy
• Legislation included:
• removal of minimum conditions for offshore
processing country;
• processes for and issues to be considered when
making a designation for offshore processing;
• designations be made through a disallowable
legislative instrument;
• Removes the Minister for Immigration’s guardian
responsibilities for unaccompanied minors
transferred to a regional processing country.
Panel recommendations: Asylum policy
•
Safeguards: the only conditions in making offshore
designation is that Minister believes it is in the national
interest to do so, and has considered whether the
designated country has provided assurances re: the
principle of non-refoulement and access to RSD
procedures.
• No sunset clause: No regular review mechanism for
designations of regional processing countries. A
designation can remain in place indefinitely, regardless
of whether conditions change or whether the initial
assurances are fulfilled.
•
Obstruction of natural justice: Minister’s decision to
designate a country as an offshore processing country
will not be open to independent review.
Panel recommendations: Asylum policy
•
Panel recommended that a capacity be established in
Nauru and PNG “as soon as practical” to process the
claims of “IMAs” transferred from Australia.
•
First asylum seekers sent to Nauru on 14 September;
Manus Island (PNG) reported to be opened Nov.
•
No information regarding processes for safeguarding their
rights and wellbeing.
•
Panel recommended that the timeframe for resettlement
out of Nauru or PNG be “in line with other regional
processing arrangements”.
• Improvements required for a comprehensive regional
cooperation and protection framework are currently not
in place. Question: What is a fair “waiting time”?
Panel recommendations: Asylum policy
•
Panel recommended Malaysia Agreement be built on through
bilateral engagement focused on strengthening safeguards
and accountability as a positive basis for Australian
Parliament’s reconsidering the designation of Malaysia as an
offshore processing country.
•
Excision policy: The Panel recommended that the Migration
Act 1958 be amended so that a person arriving anywhere on
Australia soil by irregular maritime means have the same lawful
status as those who arrive in an excised offshore place (i.e.
liable to have claims assessed through regional or offshore
processing).
•
The Panel recommended a review of the Australian refugee
status determination (RSD) process.
•
The Panel suggested possible turnback of boats carrying
asylum seekers in future “if appropriate regional and bilateral
arrangements are in place”.
Question
What comments, questions or concerns do you
have about the changes to asylum policy
recommended by the Expert Panel (including
reinstating offshore processing, the Malaysia
Agreement, extending excision to all of
Australia, reviewing refugee status
determination (RSD) processes and
considerations for turning back boats in the
future) and the implementation of these?
Panel recommendations: Regional protection
•
A comprehensive and sustainable regional framework for
improving protection and asylum systems: the significant
expansion of registration, processing, delivery of durable
outcomes for refugees and the return of failed asylum
seekers, enhanced regional cooperation to combat people
smuggling.
•
Focus areas for this “managed regional system”:
• consolidating the Regional Cooperation Framework
developed through the Bali Process;
• enhancing cooperation on capacity-building initiatives;
• increasing funding for UNHCR.
•
Few details contained in Panel Report. It is unclear at this
stage how the Australian Government will pursue the
implementation of this recommendation.
Panel recommendations: Regional protection
• Capacity-building initiatives – $10 million additional
funding for programs supporting the development of
a regional framework for improved protections,
registration, processing, integration, resettlement,
returns and other priorities.
• Enhanced bilateral cooperation and engagement
with Indonesia, Malaysia and other key source
countries for asylum seekers arriving in Australia –
e.g. additional resettlement places.
• Better coordination with other resettlement countries
to enhance the strategic use of resettlement.
• Development of joint operational guidelines for
managing search and rescue activities in the region.
Questions
What issues and strategies should be
considered by the Australian
Government in pursuing a sustainable
regional protection framework?
What would an effective and humane
model include?
Panel recommendations: Family reunion
• SHP (visa sub-class 202) – 714 visas granted in 201112. 20,000 applications in ‘backlog’. Even fewer SHP
visas expected to be granted in 2012-13.
• Panel recommendations re: family reunion:
• Remove policy concessions for immediate (Split) family
applicants in order to reduce size of the SHP backlog;
• Reduce future eligibility to SHP for refugees who arrive by
boat;
• Allocate an additional 4,000 places in the family stream of
the Migration Program specifically for humanitarian entrants
(with no concessions);
• A decrease in number of onshore Protection visas granted as
result of suite of Expert Panel recommendations would lead
to increased capacity in SHP in longer term.
Questions
What do you think about the changes in eligibility to the
Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) for humanitarian
entrants who arrived by boat?
What do you see are the main barriers to humanitarian
entrants proposing to reunite with family members
through the family stream of the Migration Program?
What could be done to make the family stream of the
Migration Program more accessible to humanitarian
entrants?
What other issues or observations would you like to
highlight concerning the experiences of family
separation and the opportunities for family reunion for
refugee and humanitarian entrants?
Pathways to protection: Onshore processing
• Major changes in past 24 months:
• Expansion of community detention;
• Shift to one refugee status determination process;
• Community release of asylum seekers on bridging
visas (BVEs).
• Unsure what return to offshore processing will mean
in long-term for onshore processing.
• In short-term, ~7,000 people in held detention (as of
mid-Sep) who arrived before 13 August and are
eligible for community release for the duration of the
resolution of their protection claims.
• Opportunity to reflect on community placements.
Pathways to protection: Onshore processing
Community detention:
•
Expansion of community detention for children, families and
vulnerable asylum seekers from 25 places in October 2010
to around 1,650 in September 2012.
•
More than 5,100 clients have been approved for the CD
program since its expansion in October 2010.
•
More than 2,950 of these clients have been granted a
permanent Protection visa, and about 440 have been
granted a temporary bridging visa (BVE).
•
As of 19 September 2012, there were approximately 1,650
people residing in CD.
•
Those in CD are still detained under migration act – no visa
granted, no work rights, support provided through services
contracted by DIAC (Red Cross and others).
Pathways to protection: Onshore processing
Refugee status determination (RSD) process:
•
From 24 March 2012, all asylum seekers have access to
the statutory RSD, review through the Refugee Review
Tribunal and access to judicial review of decisions to
determine if legal errors were made.
•
The establishment of this single system for all asylum
claims assessed in Australia coincided with the
introduction of complementary protection.
• All claims for protection are now assessed at the
primary and review stages against both the Refugee
Convention and other human rights treaties such as the
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
and the Convention Against Torture.
Pathways to protection: Onshore processing
Bridging visas:
•
In December 2011 DIAC began releasing asylum seekers to
reside in the community on bridging visas (BVEs) for the
duration of the resolution of their protection claims;
•
People who arrive by boat are detained for initial health,
security and identity checks. DIAC seeks to release people
onto bridging visas within 90 days. (The average stay in closed
detention was 343 days in June 2011 and 86 days in July 2012.)
•
People on BVEs supported initially through DIAC-funded
contracted services:
• Community Assistance Support (CAS) Transitional;
• CAS;
• Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme (ASAS); and
• Humanitarian Settlement Services (HSS) – for those who are
‘1A-met’
Pathways to protection: Onshore processing
Bridging visas:
• From November 2011 to September 2012, around
4,900 asylum seekers who arrived by boat were
moved from detention onto Bridging Visas.
• Of those, around 2,000 people on bridging visas
have now been granted a Protection visa, leaving
approximately 2,800 BVE-holders in the community.
• As of 31 July 2012, there were still 6,809 people in
closed detention.
• It is expected that 2,000 people per month will be
released on BVEs by the end of the year.
Questions
Have you observed differences between the
settlement experiences of people who settled after
extended time spent in closed detention and those
released into the community on a bridging visa or in
community detention?
What local programs or initiatives are working well to
support people in the community awaiting the
resolution of their Protection application?
What supports do you think should be made available
to people on bridging visas or in community detention
to enhance their settlement prospects if a Protection
visa is granted?
Question
Are there any other new and emerging
issues or concerns that you think the
Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA)
should be advocating on?
www.refugeecouncil.org.au
Thank you for your participation.
Please email any additional ideas,
comments or suggestions to
[email protected]
by 10 November