Updated
7 September 2016
PDF version [376KB]
Elibritt
Karlsen
Law and Bills Digest Section
Contents
What is a
refugee
What is resettlement?
How does the UN refugee agency decide
who should be resettled?
Does Australia accept all refugees
referred to it by the UN refugee agency?
Is there a queue?
Does Australia only take people from
refugee camps?
Is resettlement the ‘right way’ to
seek asylum?
How many refugees does Australia
accept for resettlement?
How does Australia’s intake compare
to other resettlement countries?
How does Australia’s refugee
resettlement compare to its overall migrant intake?
How are visas under the Humanitarian Program
distributed?
Are all Humanitarian Program visas
for refugees?
Does Australia increase its intake
for specific groups of refugees?
Should Australia increase its
Humanitarian Program?
Does Australia contribute to the
number of refugees requiring resettlement?
Do boat arrivals take the places from
other refugees?
Can resettled refugees be reunited
with family members?
Where are refugees resettled from?
How many refugees does Australia
resettle from Indonesia?
How many refugees does Australia
resettle from Malaysia?
What is a
refugee
The 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
(the 1951 Refugee Convention) is the key international legal document defining
who is a refugee, their rights and the legal obligations of countries that are
signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention.[1]
Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a ‘refugee’
as:
- a person who is outside his country of nationality or habitual
residence
- has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political
opinion, and
-
is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that
country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.[2]
A Convention ‘refugee’ is different from an ‘asylum
seeker’ because the former has had their asylum claims assessed and
been found to satisfy the above definition. This assessment can be done by a
country that has acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention or by the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). There is no such thing as a ‘genuine
refugee’. A refugee by technical definition is simply someone who has
been recognised as satisfying the above Convention definition. Further, a
person is a refugee within the meaning of the 1951 Convention as soon as they
satisfy the above definition. This might actually occur before their
refugee status is formally determined by a country or the UNHCR. Refugee status
is therefore declaratory in nature—in that, a refugee does not become a refugee
because they have been recognised to be one but rather, they are recognised
because they are a refugee.[3]
What is resettlement?
‘Resettlement’ is the term used
to describe ‘the transfer of refugees from the country in which they have
sought refuge to another State that has agreed to admit them’.[4]
Broadly speaking, resettlement is a mechanism which provides protection to
refugees whose life, liberty, safety, health or other human rights are at risk
in the country where they sought refuge.[5]
For example, a refugee and his family in China facing imminent return to the
country from which they fled (North Korea) may urgently require resettlement to
a resettlement country (such as USA, Canada or New Zealand) to avoid being
forcibly returned to persecution. Similarly, a vulnerable young boy who fled
persecution in Ethiopia to a Tunisian refugee camp after his family were killed
may require resettlement to another country (such as Denmark or Norway) which
has special programs set up to assist unaccompanied minors.
Resettlement is one of three durable solutions UNHCR is
mandated to implement in cooperation with countries that have signed the 1951
Refugee Convention. The other two durable solutions to the plight of refugees
are local integration (in the country of refuge) and voluntary repatriation
(return to one’s home country). UNHCR will only consider resettlement if the other
two options are not available.
How does the UN refugee agency decide who should be
resettled?
Not every refugee will be eligible for resettlement. The
seven categories (or criteria) used by UNHCR to select refugees for
resettlement include:
- Legal and/or Physical Protection Needs of the refugee in
the country of refuge (this includes a threat of refoulement)
- Survivors of Torture and/or Violence, where repatriation
or the conditions of asylum could result in further traumatization and/or
heightened risk, or where appropriate treatment is not available
- Medical Needs, in particular life-saving treatment that is
unavailable in the country of refuge
- Women and Girls at Risk, who have protection problems
particular to their gender
- Family Reunification, when resettlement is the only means
to reunite refugee family members who, owing to refugee flight or displacement,
are separated by borders or entire continents
- Children and Adolescents at Risk, where a best interests
determination supports resettlement, and
- Lack of Foreseeable Alternative Durable Solutions, which
generally is relevant only when other solutions are not feasible in the
foreseeable future, when resettlement can be used strategically, and/or when it
can open possibilities for comprehensive solutions.[6]
Does Australia accept all refugees referred to it
by the UN refugee agency?
No. Though the UNHCR recommends or refers people for
resettlement, the ultimate decision to grant a visa rests with Australia’s
Immigration Department. Australia has four offshore refugee category visas:
Refugee (visa subclass 200); In‐Country Special Humanitarian (visa
subclass 201); Emergency Rescue (visa subclass 203); and Woman at Risk (visa
subclass 204).
Applications for an Australian refugee category visa
(whether self-referred or referred by UNHCR) must be made on the prescribed
form which is available from Australian overseas missions and from the
Department’s website. Applicants are expected to provide as much documentation
as possible (including certified copies) at the time of application to assist
in identity verification. The application must be lodged outside Australia at
an Australian diplomatic or trade mission and will be processed at designated
Australian missions around the world. Unsuccessful applicants receive a letter
indicating that one or more of the legal criteria have not been met. Though
there is no mechanism to appeal an adverse decision, unsuccessful applicants
may re-apply.[7]
It is not known how many people lodged offshore refugee visa
applications in 2015 (it was approximately 35,000 in 2013–14) but the average
processing time for refugee visas from time of application to the grant of visa
in 2014–15 was approximately 14 and a half months (62.7 weeks).[8]
Refugees seeking to enter Australia on a Refugee visa
(subclass 200) must satisfy numerous criteria that are more onerous than onshore
Protection visas. For instance, in addition to being subject to persecution and
meeting health, character and national security requirements, the Minister must
be satisfied that there are ‘compelling reasons for giving special
consideration to granting the visa’ having regard to:
- the degree or severity of persecution to which they are
subject
- the extent of their connection with Australia[9]
- whether another country can provide for the applicant’s
settlement and protection from persecution and
- the capacity of the Australian community to provide for their
permanent settlement.[10]
Also, the Minister must be satisfied that their permanent
settlement would be the appropriate course for the applicant and would not be
contrary to the interests of Australia. Moreover, the visa grant must be
consistent with ‘the regional and global priorities of the Commonwealth in
relation to the settlement of persons in Australia on humanitarian grounds’.[11]
In other words, there must be a visa available under the Humanitarian Program
for the given program year.[12]
Is there a queue?
Asylum seekers can lodge an application to be granted an
Australian offshore refugee category visa of their own volition without UNHCR
involvement. However, it is not known how many such applications are made and
successfully lead to visa grant. The reality is that the majority of asylum
seekers who have fled persecution will, by practical necessity, register with
UNHCR for protection, assistance, and if necessary (and if deemed eligible)
resettlement to another country.
If UNHCR assesses a refugee to be eligible for resettlement
it does not mean that they have joined an orderly ‘queue’, and that they will
be guaranteed resettlement to another country when their ‘number comes up’.
Though refugees may be assessed by UNHCR as eligible for resettlement, in
reality they face a potentially indefinite waiting period for a resettlement
country to offer them a resettlement place (depending on the urgency of their
individual needs). This process has been likened to a hospital triage system in
which needs are constantly reassessed in order to prioritise the most acute
cases.[13]
Moreover, the ultimate decision as to whether they will be granted a refugee
visa is dependent on the country which has agreed in principle to resettle
them.
Of the 145 States Parties to the 1951 Refugee Convention,
only about 30 participate in the UNHCR resettlement program and accept quotas
of refugees on an annual basis.[14]
UNHCR estimates there are currently approximately 80,000 resettlement places
offered by resettlement countries around the world but that there are currently
in excess of one million refugees in need of resettlement.[15]
Does Australia only take
people from refugee camps?
No. There is no requirement under Australian law that a
person be registered with UNHCR prior to applying for an Australian refugee
category visa but in practice most have been recognised as refugees by the
UNHCR and have been referred to Australia’s Immigration Department for
resettlement (UNHCR referred cases).[16]
However, that does not mean that Australia only accepts refugees from UNHCR
camps. Despite the iconic image of refugees living in white tents in a
sprawling emergency camp, the reality is that over 60 per cent of the world's
19.5 million refugees live in urban environments.[17]
Is resettlement the ‘right way’ to seek asylum?
The perception that resettlement is the ‘right way’ to seek
protection has been described as ‘misguided’.[18]
This is because refugees do not have a right to be resettled and countries
(including Australia) are not legally obligated under the 1951 Refugee
Convention or any other international instrument to accept refugees for
resettlement.[19]
Refugee resettlement is a voluntary scheme coordinated
by the UNHCR which facilitates burden and responsibility sharing amongst
countries that are party to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Significantly, UNHCR
emphasises that resettlement should complement and not be a substitute
for the provision of protection to persons who apply for asylum under the
Convention (for example, spontaneous arrivals such as asylum seekers arriving
by boat).[20]
How many refugees does
Australia accept for resettlement?
As the following table indicates, the number of offshore
refugee category visas granted since 1975 has varied greatly, the highest
number being in the early 1980s under the Fraser Government when Australia
granted 20,795 visas (mostly to Indochinese), and the lowest being 1,238 ten
years later under the Hawke Government. From 2000 onwards, the Government has
slightly increased the annual quota of refugee visas to its current level of
around 6,000 visas—where it has remained for the last ten years (with one
notable exception). The most dramatic increase was under the former Labor
Government in 2012 when the number of offshore refugee visas granted doubled to
over 12,000 in one year in response to the recommendation of the Expert Panel
on Asylum Seekers.[21]
Year |
Refugee visas granted |
Year |
Refugee visas granted |
1975–76 |
4,374 |
1996–97 |
3,334 |
1976–77 |
8,124 |
1997–98 |
4,010 |
1977–78 |
9,326 |
1998–99 |
3,988 |
1978–79 |
12,750 |
1999–00 |
3,802 |
1979–80 |
17,677 |
2000–01 |
3,997 |
1980–81 |
20,795 |
2001–02 |
4,160 |
1981–82 |
20,195 |
2002–03 |
4,376 |
1982–83 |
16,193 |
2003–04 |
4,134 |
1983–84 |
12,426 |
2004–05 |
5,511 |
1984–85 |
9,520 |
2005–06 |
6,022 |
1985–86 |
7,832 |
2006–07 |
6,003 |
1986–87 |
5,857 |
2007–08 |
6,004 |
1987–88 |
5,514 |
2008–09 |
6,499 |
1988–89 |
3,574 |
2009–10 |
6,003 |
1989–90 |
1,238 |
2010–11 |
5,998 |
1990–91 |
1,497 |
2011–12 |
6,004 |
1991–92 |
2,424 |
2012–13 |
12,012 |
1992–93 |
2,893 |
2013–14 |
6,501 |
1993–94 |
4,315 |
2014–15 |
6,002 |
1994–95 |
3,992 |
2015–16 |
6,000 (planned) |
1995–96 |
4,643 |
|
|
Source: Immigration Department, Population flows:
immigration aspects 2008–09, source data, chapter 4; 1975–1977 data
provided by the Department to the Parliamentary Library in 2001; 2009–2014 data
extracted from Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years); DIBP, ‘The
Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website.
It is relevant to note that family
members included in the application of a refugee who has successfully applied
for an offshore refugee visa (subclass 200) will generally also be granted the
same visa. Thus, it would perhaps be
inaccurate to say that Australia currently grants approximately 6,000 offshore
refugee category visas to ‘refugees’ each year. Family members (that is,
normally a refugee’s partner and dependent children) inevitably take up a
considerable number of visas available for grant but they are not necessarily
persecuted and ‘refugees’ in their own right.
How does Australia’s
intake compare to other resettlement countries?
Australia has been involved in the UNHCR resettlement
program since 1977 and has consistently ranked as one of the top three
resettlement countries in the world. This ranking reflects the number of places
made available by various countries for refugee resettlement through UNHCR’s
resettlement program. This number is influenced by a number of factors
including a country’s ability to share the international responsibility for
refugees taking into account the number of asylum seekers arriving
spontaneously at a country’s borders, of which Australia has comparatively few.[22]
The following table shows the number of refugees who were
resettled in 2015 (assisted by UNHCR):
Country
of resettlement |
Number of persons resettled |
United
States of America |
52,583 |
Canada |
10,236 |
Australia |
5,211 |
Norway |
2,220 |
Germany |
2,097 |
Sweden |
1,808 |
United
Kingdom |
1,768 |
Finland |
964 |
New
Zealand |
756 |
France |
700 |
All others |
3,550 |
Grand
total |
81,893 |
Source: UNHCR, ‘UNHCR
Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017’, UNHCR, p. 57.
How does Australia’s refugee resettlement compare
to its overall migrant intake?
Permanent migrants enter Australia via one of two distinct
programs—the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian
Program for refugees and humanitarian entrants. The number of refugees who are
resettled each year from overseas is normally less than five per cent of
Australia’s permanent Migration Program. In fact, the number of visas currently
allocated to UNHCR assisted refugees is the lowest percentage of the Migration
Program for more than twenty years (only 3.2 per cent). The following table
compares the number of permanent visas granted to refugees (resettled from
overseas with UNHCR assistance) with the number of permanent visas granted to
migrants under the Migration Program over the last twenty years:
Year |
Migration program |
Resettled refugees |
% of migration program |
1994–1995 |
76,500 |
3,992 |
5.2% |
1995–1996 |
82,500 |
4,643 |
5.6% |
1996–1997 |
73,900 |
3,334 |
4.5% |
1997–1998 |
67,100 |
4,010 |
5.9% |
1998–1999 |
67,900 |
3,988 |
5.8% |
1999–2000 |
70,200 |
3,802 |
5.4% |
2000–2001 |
80,610 |
3,997 |
5.0% |
2001–2002 |
93,080 |
4,160 |
4.5% |
2002–2003 |
108,070 |
4,376 |
4.0% |
2003–2004 |
114,360 |
4,134 |
3.6% |
2004–2005 |
120,060 |
5,511 |
4.6% |
2005–2006 |
142,930 |
6,022 |
4.2% |
2006–2007 |
148,200 |
6,003 |
4.1% |
2007–2008 |
158,630 |
6,004 |
3.8% |
2008–2009 |
171,318 |
6,499 |
3.8% |
2009–2010 |
168,623 |
6,003 |
3.6% |
2010–2011 |
168,685 |
5,998 |
3.6% |
2011–2012 |
184,998 |
6,004 |
3.2% |
2012–2013 |
190,000 |
12,012 |
6.3% |
2013–2014 |
190,000 |
6,501 |
3.4% |
2014–2015 |
189,097 |
6,002 |
3.2% |
2015–2016 |
190,000 (planned) |
6,000 (planned) |
3.2% |
Sources:
E Karlsen and J Phillips, Seeking asylum: Australia’s humanitarian program, Background note, Parliamentary Library, 2011; J
Phillips and J Simon-Davies, Migration to Australia: a quick guide to the statistics, Quick guide, Parliamentary Library, updated 27 June
2016; Ministerial press releases (various years); Immigration Department,
Australia’s refugee and humanitarian program, fact sheet 60 (various years);
DIBP, ‘The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015.
How are visas under the Humanitarian Program distributed?
In early May each year, when announcing its annual Federal
Budget, the Government traditionally reveals how many permanent visas will be
granted in the forthcoming financial year under its Humanitarian Program.
However, at the end of 2014, section 39A was inserted into the Migration Act
1958.[23]
This new provision enables the Minister to specify by way of disallowable
legislative instrument the minimum number of visas under the Humanitarian
Program for a financial year. Thus, the number of visas to be made available
under the Humanitarian Program for the next three years (to mid-2019) has
already been revealed.[24]
The numbers of visas available for grant under the
‘Humanitarian Program’ are shared or distributed amongst the following groups
of people:
- Refugees and their families who have already arrived in Australia
by boat or plane (eligible to apply for a permanent visa)
- Refugees and their families who will be ‘resettled’ from
overseas, and
- Humanitarian entrants and their families seeking to enter Australia
from overseas.
In the 2015-16 financial year, the Government has maintained
the annual intake quota under the Humanitarian Program at 13,750 places.[25]
Though official statistics on visa grants are yet to be released by the
Department, it is expected that of these, 6,000 visas will be given to refugees
that are resettled to Australia with assistance from the UNHCR. Another 5,000
will be given to humanitarian entrants under the Special Humanitarian Program
(SHP).[26]
Though onshore visa grants are not specifically allocated planning places,
based on these figures it appears the Government is estimating that some 2,750
onshore permanent protection visas will be granted in 2015–16.
Are all Humanitarian Program visas for refugees?
No. Places available to SHP visa entrants (currently 5,000)
should be distinguished from places allocated to refugees. The SHP visa is for
people who are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross
violation of human rights in their home country—not for refugees fleeing
persecution for a Convention reason. When introduced in 1981, the SHP was
designed specifically for people who were ‘quasi-refugees’ who were unable to
return to their home country for fear of substantial discrimination.[27]
Substantial discrimination involves a lower threshold than persecution. It
might involve:
- arbitrary interference with the applicant's privacy, family, home
or correspondence
- deprivation of means of earning a livelihood, denial of work
commensurate with training and qualifications and/or payment of unreasonably
low wages
- relegation to substandard dwellings
- exclusion from the right to education
- enforced social and civil inactivity
- removal of citizenship rights
- denial of a passport, or
- constant surveillance or pressure to become an informer.[28]
Visa applicants under the SHP must also be supported by a
proposer (an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand
citizen, or an organisation that is based in Australia) who is responsible for
their settlement. This could include airfares for them to travel to Australia,
providing accommodation upon arrival, assisting them to find permanent
accommodation, and providing information and orientation assistance. The
Government does not pay the travel costs for people who are granted an SHP
visa.
Traditionally, most of the places available under the SHP
are taken up by family members of refugees and humanitarian entrants already in
Australia.[29]
Overseas refugees normally receive less than 50 per cent of the annual
allocation of visas under the Humanitarian Program. The following table
compares the number of visas granted to refugees (resettled from overseas with
UNHCR assistance) with the number of visas that have been granted under the
Humanitarian Program over the last 20 years:
Program
year |
Humanitarian Program (permanent) visas granted |
Resettled refugees |
% of Humanitarian Program |
1994–95 |
14,858 |
3,992 |
27% |
1995–96 |
16,252 |
4,643 |
29% |
1996–97 |
11,902 |
3,334 |
28% |
1997–98 |
12,055 |
4,010 |
33% |
1998–99 |
11,356 |
3,988 |
35% |
1999–00 |
15,860 |
3,802 |
24% |
2000–01 |
13,733 |
3,997 |
29% |
2001–02 |
12,349 |
4,160 |
34% |
2002–03 |
12,119 |
4,376 |
36% |
2003–04 |
13,603 |
4,134 |
30% |
2004–05 |
12,988 |
5,511 |
42% |
2005–06 |
13,836 |
6,022 |
44% |
2006–07 |
12,902 |
6,003 |
47% |
2007–08 |
12,825 |
6,004 |
47% |
2008–09 |
13,414 |
6,499 |
48% |
2009–10 |
13,756 |
6,003 |
44% |
2010–11 |
13,799 |
5,998 |
43% |
2011–12 |
13,759 |
6,718 |
49% |
2012–13 |
20,019 |
12,012 |
60% |
2013–14 |
13,768 |
6501 |
47% |
2014–15 |
13,756 |
6,002 |
44% |
2015–16 |
13,750 (planned) |
6,000 (planned) |
44% |
Source: Department of Immigration figures published in Report
of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers; Immigration Department Annual
Reports (various years); E Karlsen and J Phillips, Seeking
asylum: Australia’s humanitarian program, Background note, Parliamentary
Library, 2011; DIBP, ‘2014–15
Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance)’; DIBP, ‘The
Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring
integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015.
Does Australia increase its intake for specific
groups of refugees?
Successive governments have made ad-hoc announcements that
specific groups of refugees are to be resettled to Australia. Often these
announcements are in response to mounting public pressure for humanitarian
intervention. Occasionally these statements may inadvertently give the
impression that such intakes will be in addition to Australia’s annual
humanitarian intake quota, but that is not always the case. For example, the
Coalition Government’s announcement on 3 October 2013 that a ‘further’ 500
Syrian refugees would be resettled in Australia in response to the UNHCR’s call
for a coordinated international effort to resettle Syrian refugees was not in
addition to but rather, came out of, Australia’s existing annual intake
quota under the Humanitarian Programme (that is, the 13,750 places).[30]
Similarly, on 13 December 2012, the former Labor Government
announced that Australia would offer locally engaged Afghan employees at risk of
harm due to their employment in support of Australia’s mission in Afghanistan
resettlement to Australia.[31]
In the 2013–14 financial year, some 800 visa places were subsequently allocated
to at-risk locally engaged Afghan employees (LEE) and their families. However,
these too were not in addition to but rather, came out of
Australia’s existing annual intake quota under the Humanitarian Programme.
In contrast, on 9 September 2015, the Australian Government
announced that it would make 12,000 visas available in response to the
conflicts in Syria and Iraq. While these places are in addition to the
annual Humanitarian Programme intake (currently 13,750 places), they are not technically
an increase to the annual Humanitarian Programme. Rather, these additional 12,000
places are being offered under a parallel initiative to supplement the
annual Humanitarian Programme quota. The 12,000 additional places are available
to refugees in need of resettlement (located in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey),
many of whom are referred by UNHCR, and to persons proposed under the SHP.[32]
Though it is not entirely clear, it appears that these 12,000 places will be
filled over a number of years.[33]
Should Australia increase its Humanitarian Program?
The number of permanent visas available under the Migration
Program (for skilled and family migrants) has been steadily increasing in
recent years to 190,000 visas per annum. In contrast, the number of visas
available under the Humanitarian Program has been maintained at a relatively steady
number between 12,000 and 13,000 since 2000. The most significant departure
from this trend was in 2012–2013 when the former Labor Government, acting on a
recommendation of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, increased the
Humanitarian Program to 20,000 visas with 12,000 being specifically allocated
to the resettlement of overseas refugees. In making this recommendation, the
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers considered that there were a number benefits in
increasing the Humanitarian Program:
-
it would serve Australian national interests and international
engagement
- it would enhance the scope of cooperation with regional partners
- it would give greater hope and confidence to asylum seekers in
the region that regular migration pathways and international protection
arrangements provide a practical, realistic and better alternative to dangerous
boat voyages to Australia
- it would enable Australia to assist in meeting growing
humanitarian needs in the region in a fair and timely way
-
it would support Australian strategies to encourage other
international resettlement countries to assist in more expansive ways, and
- it would contribute to the strengthening of regional cooperation
on asylum issues.[34]
The Expert Panel was also of the view that if the policy
directions recommended in its report (such as regional processing in Nauru and
PNG) were effective in reducing the number of maritime asylum seekers arriving,
the Humanitarian Program should be progressively further increased to 27,000 places
within five years taking into account Australia’s prevailing economic
circumstances, the impact of the earlier increase and progress in achieving
more effective regional cooperation arrangements.[35]
However, within six months of coming into power in 2013, the
current Coalition Government announced that, acting upon an election
commitment, it had reduced the number of refugees that would be resettled in
2013–14 from 12,000 to 7,000.[36]
This meant the total Humanitarian Program would be reduced to 13,750 visas,
bringing it more in line with historical trends. One of the reasons cited for
the reduction was the cost associated with the increase, although the
Immigration Department has stated that it is not possible to provide an
individual costing for resettlement, noting that ‘there is no per head
resettlement figure as the cost for resettling each case varies’.[37]
In making the recommendation for the expansion of the
Humanitarian Program, the Expert Panel relied upon advice received from the
Department of Finance and Deregulation which estimated the cost of the initial
increase of 6,250 places to bring the program to 20,000 places to be in the
order of $1.4 billion over four years (or $350 million per annum).[38]
Over the last few years, there have been consistent calls
for the Humanitarian Program to be increased.[39]
In December 2014, in the context of negotiations with cross-benchers to secure
passage of the Government’s controversial Migration and Maritime Powers
Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, the Immigration
Minister committed to taking all reasonably practicable measures to ensure the
grant of at least 16,250 visas in 2017–18 and 18,750 visas in 2018–19.[40]
According to the Minister, the increase of 7,500 places would cost ‘more than
$100 million to be funded by offsets that I have committed to within my
portfolio’.[41]
Does Australia contribute to the number of refugees
requiring resettlement?
It is not yet known whether Australia’s policy of regional
processing (currently in Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Nauru) may ultimately
contribute to the number of refugees requiring resettlement, as some
commentators have suggested.
According to UNHCR, successful local integration from the
refugee perspective requires a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle of the
host country without having to abandon one’s own cultural identity. From the
viewpoint of the host country, it requires willingness for communities to be
welcoming and responsive to refugees and for public institutions to meet the
needs of a diverse population. It also requires opportunities for refugees to
become citizens and to enjoy full and equal participation in society.[42]
Former UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres,
expressed concerns about the ability of non-Melanesian refugees to successfully
integrate into PNG.[43]
Academic scholars have similarly expressed scepticism regarding the viability
of settling refugees in PNG. For example, Professor Ben Saul from the
University of Sydney is of the view that refugees are unlikely to be physically
safe in PNG and their basic rights to have access to health care, education,
work, social security and an adequate standard of living will not be
sufficiently protected. If such rights were to be guaranteed a different
problem would inevitably arise—inequality between refugees and PNG citizens.[44]
At time of writing, less than twenty refugees had settled into PNG society.[45]
As the Government of Nauru is only issuing refugees with
temporary visas, the Australian Government has entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Cambodia to
voluntarily settle refugees processed by Nauru in Cambodia.[46]
However, concerns have also been raised about Cambodia’s willingness and
capacity to provide protection.[47]
To date all but one of the five refugees transferred to Cambodia from Nauru
have reportedly subsequently left Cambodia.[48]
If these concerns prove to be well-founded (and there is
little prospect of the refugees voluntarily repatriating to their home
countries) some of these refugees may end up having to be resettled, presumably
with the assistance of the UNHCR. In this context it is relevant to note that
in 2015, UNHCR put forward over 134,000 refugees for resettlement to
participating resettlement countries (representing a 28 per cent increase from
2014) resulting in close to 82,000 departures. Of the refugees put forward by
the UNHCR for resettlement in 2015, 16 per cent were located in the Asia and
Pacific region. Malaysia had the fifth highest number of refugees submitted
for resettlement, with over 7,000 people put forward by the UNHCR.[49]
The substantial demand for resettlement in the region was largely due to the
high proportion of countries that have not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention,
the absence of national legal frameworks and procedures for refugee protection,
limited local integration opportunities, and the lack of prospects for
voluntary return.[50]
Australia may arguably end up being the destination country
for some of these regionally settled refugees due to the nexus that already
exists between them and Australia—as was the case with the majority of refugees
processed in Nauru under the Howard Government. When the Government engaged in
regional processing in PNG and Nauru from 2001–2007, some 1,153 people
subsequently required resettlement. A number of resettlement countries
ultimately agreed to accept these refugees with the assistance of the UNHCR
including New Zealand (401), Sweden (21), Canada (16), Denmark (6) and Norway
(4). However, the majority—705 refugees (or 61 per cent) ended up being
resettled in Australia.[51]
Similarly, the decision by the former Labor Government to
intercept a vessel carrying asylum seekers headed for Australia (later
transferred to an Australian Customs vessel, the Oceanic Viking and
taken to Indonesia), resulted in over 70 refugees requiring resettlement
following their refusal to disembark in Indonesia. A number of resettlement
countries ultimately agreed to accept these refugees with the assistance of the
UNHCR including USA (22), New Zealand (13), Norway (3), and Canada (2). Again,
a proportion of these refugees ended up being resettled in Australia (22 or 16
per cent).[52]
Do boat arrivals take the places from other
refugees?
No. It is true that since 1996 the onshore and offshore
components of Australia’s Humanitarian Program have been numerically ‘linked’.
Broadly speaking, this means that when the Government allocates the number of
visas that will be available under the ‘Humanitarian Program’ (13,750 in 2015–16)
the visas are distributed in a way that accommodates ‘spontaneous arrivals’,
such as those arriving undocumented by boat or plane. In other words, onshore
protection visa grants to refugees who have arrived by boat or plane are
deducted from the SHP annual quota (5,000 in 2015–16).[53]
However, this does not mean that the number of visas available for refugees to
be resettled declines. Rather, the linkage causes a strain on the number of
places available to humanitarian entrants under the SHP.
The following table illustrates the reduction in SHP visa
grants (for humanitarian entrants and immediate family members of resettled
refugees) over the last ten years which in some years is commensurate with
fluctuating onshore permanent protection visa grants. Refugee category
visas granted to resettled refugees have remained relatively steady (noting a
dramatic increase in 2012 by the former Labor Government):
Year |
Offshore visa SHP visa grants |
Onshore protection visa grants |
Offshore refugee visa grants (resettled) |
2001–2002 |
4,258 |
3,885 |
4,160 |
2002–2003 |
7,280 |
866 |
4,376 |
2003–2004 |
7,668 |
1,896 |
4,134 |
2004–2005 |
6,585 |
4,601 |
5,511 |
2005–2006 |
6,836 |
5,215 |
6,022 |
2006–2007 |
5,275 |
2,243 |
6,003 |
2007–2008 |
5,026 |
2,434 |
6,004 |
2008–2009 |
4,586 |
3,266 |
6,499 |
2009–2010 |
3,244 |
4,697 |
6,003 |
2010–2011 |
2,981 |
4,818 |
5,998 |
2011–2012 |
714 |
7,038 |
6,004 |
2012–2013 |
503 |
7,504 |
12,012 |
2013–2014 |
4515 |
2775 |
6501 |
2014–2015 |
5,007 |
2,747 |
6,002 |
2015–2016 |
5,000 (planned) |
2,750 (planned) |
6,000 (planned) |
Source:
Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years); DIBP, ‘The Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website; P Dutton, Restoring integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015; DIBP, ‘Onshore Humanitarian Programme 2015–16’, DIBP website.
Can resettled refugees be
reunited with family members?
It is widely recognised that family reunification is a
critical factor in the successful settlement of a refugee in their country of
asylum. Resettled refugees can apply to be reunited with family members in two
ways—either through the SHP or through the family stream of the regular
Migration Program.
In 2015–16 the Government appears to have allocated 5,000
visas under the SHP to be shared amongst the following groups of people:[54]
- immediate family members of refugees who have been granted permanent
protection visas in Australia[55]
- family members (such as siblings and parents) of refugees who
have been resettled from overseas, and
-
humanitarian entrants (and their immediate family members)—that
is, people who are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross
violation of human rights in their home country.[56]
Though it is not publicly known how many applications
currently remain outstanding for family reunification (also known as ‘split
family’), in August 2012 there were some 16,300 outstanding split family SHP
applications and a significant backlog, with delays in family reunion expected
to exceed 20 years.[57]
In 2012–13, the former Labor Government, acting on a recommendation of the
Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, removed the right of refugees who had arrived
by boat to propose family members under the SHP. This policy shift was
considered necessary to (amongst other things) ease the pressure on the SHP
backlog and create an incentive for asylum seekers to seek protection earlier
and closer to their country of origin.
However, it is not entirely clear whether refugees already
in Australia waiting to be reunited with family members abroad will greatly
benefit from the additional places made available under the SHP.[58]
In May 2014, the Minister announced that of the 13,750 places available in the
2014–15 financial year, a minimum of 4,000 places would be provided under the
SHP component for families of offshore humanitarian entrants.[59]
By August 2014, this number had increased to 5,000 visas.[60]
However, though there were 5,000 places available under the SHP, the Minister
subsequently allocated a minimum of 4,400 places for Iraqi nationals (including
ethnic and religious minorities) and Syrian nationals (including those living
in countries such as Lebanon) ‘predominantly out of the SHP’.[61]
In 2014–15, the majority (58 per cent) of visas available under the SHP were
again granted to Iraqi and Syrian nationals, but it remains unclear how many were
granted to those waiting to be reunited with family members.[62]
As mentioned, refugees can also sponsor family members
through the family stream of the regular Migration Program, though visa
application charges apply and applicants can also experience significant delays
in processing times. When the former Government removed the right of refugees
who had arrived by boat to propose family members under the SHP, it
simultaneously made available 4,000 additional visas to family members
sponsored by refugees under the family stream of the Migration Program. In
2012–13, approximately 1,000 visas were subsequently granted to family members
of protection visa holders.[63]
Before the current Government announced the removal of the 4,000 places in
December 2013, another 1,000 visas were granted to family members of protection
visa holders in 2013–14.[64]
It is not yet known whether the Government’s decision to remove the 4,000
additional places had the effect of simply shifting the existing backlog to the
family stream of the Migration Program.
Where are refugees resettled from?
On a global level, over the last ten years refugees from Myanmar,
Iraq, Bhutan and Somalia have been the target of a large number of UNHCR
resettlement submissions to resettlement countries like Australia. However, the
magnitude of the Syrian crisis has meant that Syria became the largest country
of origin in 2014 and 2015, with some 80,000 refugees having been referred to countries
for resettlement since the outbreak of the conflict in early 2011. Other top
countries of origin referred to countries in 2015 include the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (20,527), Iraq (11,161), Somalia (10,193) and Myanmar
(9,738). These four countries and Syria accounted for almost 80 per cent, or
four out of five, UNHCR submissions in 2015.[65]
Australia decides the size and regional composition of its
resettlement program taking into account information on global resettlement
needs and priorities from the UNHCR, the views of stakeholders including states
and territories, and by considering the views of the Australian community. With
respect to the latter, each year the Refugee Council of Australia engages in a
national consultation process and prepares a submission on issues the
Government should consider in planning the coming year’s refugee program.[66]
The Minister determines the number of places to be allocated
including the regions, nationalities and ethnic or religious groups that will
be the focus of the program each year. Consistent with previous years, in 2014–15
more than half of Australia’s offshore refugee quota was filled by the
resettlement of refugees and their families from Afghanistan, Myanmar and Iraq.
The following table shows the number of offshore Convention refugees (by
country of birth) resettled to Australia in 2014–15:
Country
of birth |
Numbers of refugee visas granted |
Afghanistan |
1,604 |
Myanmar |
1,182 |
Iraq |
1,004 |
Syria |
647 |
Congo
(DRC) |
318 |
Iran |
269 |
Somalia |
261 |
Eritrea |
252 |
Ethiopia |
181 |
Bhutan |
50 |
Others |
234 |
Total |
6,002 |
Source:
Immigration Department, DIBP, ‘2014–15 Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance)’.
Since July 2009, the Government
has allocated a nominal 12 per cent of the refugee category allocation of the
offshore program to Woman at Risk (subclass 204) visas. This visa subclass is
for females who are subject to persecution or are registered as being of
concern to the UNHCR. They must also be living outside their home country, not
have the protection of a male relative, and be in danger of victimisation,
harassment or serious abuse because of their gender.[67]
In 2014–15, the Government granted 1,000 Woman at Risk visas. The top five
countries of birth for women granted these visas were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Congo
(DRC), Eritrea, and Ethiopia.[68]
Year |
Woman at risk visa grants |
2001–02 |
478 |
2002–03 |
504 |
2003–04 |
393 |
2004–05 |
841 |
2005–06 |
995 |
2006–07 |
980 |
2007–08 |
819 |
2008–09 |
788 |
2009–10 |
806 |
2010–11 |
759 |
2011–12 |
821 |
2012–13 |
1,673 |
2013–14 |
1,052 |
2014–15 |
1,009 |
Source:
Immigration Department Annual Reports (various years).
How many refugees does Australia resettle from Indonesia?
The majority of boats carrying asylum seekers to Australia
depart from Indonesia, primarily because of its close geographical proximity to
Australia. Though there are varying estimates of the number of refugees and
asylum seekers in Indonesia, UNHCR estimates that Indonesia hosts approximately
13,829 asylum seekers and refugees as at 29 February 2016 (up from 9,500 in mid-2014).[69]
More than half of all the asylum seekers registered by UNHCR in Indonesia were
from Afghanistan. The remainder were from countries such as Myanmar, Somalia,
Sri Lanka, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan and Iraq.[70]
While Indonesia is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it has a long
tradition of hosting asylum seekers and refugees. An immigration regulation
ensures that refugees and asylum‐seekers can stay temporarily in the
country until their refugee status can be confirmed and appropriate solutions
found for them.[71]
UNHCR continues to be the primary provider of protection and assistance to
refugees and asylum seekers, undertaking responsibility for finding durable
solutions, such as resettlement.
As at February 2016, more than 4,000 people were detained,
including women and children. They are kept in 13 immigration detention centres
and some 20 makeshift detention facilities across Indonesia. In addition to
those who are detained for illegal entry or exit, ‘over the past two years
UNHCR has been challenged by the increasing number of asylum seekers and
refugees who have “self‐reported” to immigration authorities to be
detained because they cannot financially support themselves. This creates a
range of problems, most notably severe overcrowding in detention facilities’.[72]
UNHCR estimates that ‘the average waiting period from registration to first
instance interview [for refugee status determination] ranges from 8 to 20
months depending on the priority and complexity of the case’.[73]
Australia resettled only 560 UNHCR referred refugees from
Indonesia during the period 2001 to February 2010.[74]
The following table provides a yearly break-down of the number of refugee visa
grants since 2001:
Years
(calendar and financial) |
Visa grants |
2001 |
2 |
2002 |
39 |
2003 |
100 |
2004 |
103 |
2005 |
48 |
2006 |
13 |
2007 |
87 |
2008 |
45 |
2009 |
95 |
2010–11 |
480 |
2011–12 |
181 |
2012–13 |
605 |
2013–14 |
600 |
2014–15 |
450 (planned) |
2015–16 |
450 (planned) |
Source
for calendar years 2001–2009: Departmental advice provided to the Parliamentary
Library in 2010; source for financial years 2010–2016: Answers to questions at
Budget Estimates hearings;[75]
transcript of interview with the Immigration Minister.[76]
Though resettlement of UNHCR referred refugees from
Indonesia has substantially increased over the last decade, in November 2014, the
Government announced that it would only resettle 450 refugees annually from
Indonesia in future and no one who registered with UNHCR on or after 1 July
2014.[77]
This measure was designed to reduce the movement of asylum seekers to Indonesia
and encourage them to seek resettlement in countries of first asylum.[78]
However, as noted above, the number of asylum seekers and refugees in Indonesia
has increased since this announcement was made, largely due to regional
influences.[79]
According to UNHCR, in 2015 a total of 610 refugees were
resettled from Indonesia to resettlement countries such as Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, and the US (a decrease from 836 in 2014).[80]While
precise figures are yet to be released by the Department, UNHCR figures
reportedly indicate that of these 610 resettlements, Australia accepted 425
refugees from Indonesia in 2015.[81]
How many refugees does
Australia resettle from Malaysia?
Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention but
according to the UNHCR, as at August 2015, there were close to 154,000 asylum
seekers, refugees and other persons of concern to UNHCR residing in Malaysia,
the vast majority of whom were from Myanmar (143,000).[82]
As at the end of August 2015, some 5,900 refugees had been accepted for
resettlement to a variety of resettlement countries, including Australia.[83]
In 2009–10, Australia granted 340 visas to refugees awaiting
resettlement in Malaysia. All were to refugees from Myanmar.[84]
Australia granted 490 refugee visas to refugees awaiting resettlement with
UNHCR assistance in 2010–11. Of these, the vast majority (438) were from
Myanmar.[85]
On 25 July 2011 the Australian and Malaysian governments
signed an Arrangement which provided for the transfer from Australia to
Malaysia of up to 800 asylum seekers and for Australia to accept 4,000
additional refugees from Malaysia (1,000 over four consecutive years commencing
2011–12).[86]
However, when the High Court ruled invalid the Minister’s declaration of
Malaysia as a country to which asylum seekers could be sent, the former Labor
Government was forced to put the Arrangement on hold.[87]
Nonetheless, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard pledged that the Government
would continue to honour the commitment to resettle 4,000 refugees from
Malaysia. However, the additional 4,000 places would be drawn from the existing
annual Humanitarian Programme quota.[88]
Thus, in 2011–12 Australia granted 1,350 visas to refugees
awaiting resettlement in Malaysia, and another 1,350 in 2012–13.[89]
The Department expected that it would resettle around 1,000 people in Malaysia
in 2013–14 but final figures confirming actual grants have not yet been made
publicly available. During the period 1 February 2015 to 31 January 2016,
Australia resettled 600 refugees from Malaysia (and granted an additional 500
SHP visas to persons in Malaysia).[90]
[1]. Convention
relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into
force 22 April 1954) 189 UNTS 137 as amended by the Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugees (adopted 31 January 1967, entered
into force 4 October 1967) 606 UNTS 267, Refworld website.
[2]. Article
1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
[3]. United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Handbook and Guidelines
on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951
Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, December
2011, Refworld website.
[4]. UNHCR, UNHCR Master
Glossary of Terms, UNHCR website, June 2006.
[5]. UNHCR, ‘Frequently asked questions about
resettlement’, 2012, UNHCR website.
[6]. UNHCR, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, 4
November 2014, UNHCR website, chapter 6.
[7]. Department
of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP), ‘Country Chapters (Australia)’,
revised April 2016, in UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, op. cit.
[8]. DIBP, ‘Australia’s
Offshore Humanitarian Program: 2013–14’, DIBP website; DIBP, ‘Country
Chapters (Australia)’, in UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, op. cit. Priority
processing arrangements exist for Emergency Rescue visa applications, of which
there were 11 in 2014–15: DIBP, Annual
report 2014–15, DIBP website, Canberra, 2015, p. 133.
[9]. This
requires an assessment of the nature of any family or social ties the applicant
has in Australia.
[10]. In
assessing this factor the Department takes into account whether the applicant
has a proposer, and if so, the level of assistance the proposer is likely to be
able to provide, other support that may be available to the applicant from
relatives, friends and community organisations in Australia, the applicant’s
likely employment prospects, taking into account their work history,
qualifications and English language ability.
[11]. Migration Regulations
1994, Schedule 2, Subclass 200, criterion 200.223, Federal Register of
Legislation website.
[12]. DIBP,
PAM3–Migration Regulations: Assessing offshore humanitarian (Class XB) visa applications,
LegendCom database.
[13]. J McAdam
and F Chong, Refugees: Why seeking asylum is legal and Australia’s policies
are not, University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2014, p. 155.
[14]. These
include: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and United States of America: UNHCR, ‘Frequently
asked questions about resettlement’, op. cit; UNHCR, ‘UNHCR
Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017’, UNHCR website, Annex.
[15]. UNHCR, ‘UNHCR Refugee Resettlement Trends 2015’,
UNHCR website.
[16]. The
application form for a Refugee subclass 200 visa states that the requirements
for the visa are that the applicant is living outside their home country; and
subject to persecution in their home country; and in need of resettlement:
DIBP, Application
for an Offshore Humanitarian visa (Form 842), DIBP website.
[17]. UNHCR, ‘Urban refugees’, UNHCR
website.
[18]. J McAdam
and F Chong, Refugees: Why seeking asylum is legal and Australia’s policies
are not, op. cit., p. 68.
[19]. Ibid., p.
68.
[20]. UNHCR,
‘Frequently asked questions about resettlement’, op. cit.
[21]. Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers, Report
of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, Canberra, August 2012, Archive
website, p. 14.
[22]. UNHCR, ‘Global
trends: Forced displacement in 2015’, UNHCR website.
[23]. Migration Act 1958, Federal Register of Legislation website.
[24]. See Legislative Instrument IMMI
14/117, registered on 23 December 2014, Federal Register of Legislation
website.
[25]. P Dutton, Restoring
integrity to refugee intake, media release, 12 May 2015.
[26]. DIBP, ‘The
Special Humanitarian Programme (SHP)’, DIBP website.
[27]. I McPhee
(then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs), 'Ministerial
Statement: Special Humanitarian Program’, House of Representatives, Debates,
18 November 1981, p. 3072.
[28]. DIBP, PAM3:
GenGuide D–Humanitarian visas–visa application and related procedures, LegendCom
database.
[29]. For
example, family members of refugees who arrived in Australia by plane, or
arrived by boat prior to 13 August 2012, or were granted one of the five
offshore refugee visas.
[30]. S Morrison,
500
more Syrian refugees to be settled in Australia, media release, 3
October 2013; S Morrison and M Binskin (Vice–Chief of the Defence Force), Press
Conference, Sydney, transcript, 4 October 2013.
[31]. C Bowen
(Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) and S Smith (Minister for Defence), Visa
policy for at-risk Afghan employees, media release, 13 December 2012.
[32]. DIBP, ‘Australia's
response to the Syrian and Iraqi humanitarian crisis’, DIBP website.
[33]. ‘The
Government will provide $827.4 million over four years to permanently resettle
an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq’:
Australian Government, Mid-Year
Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) 2015–16, Appendix A.
[34]. Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers, Report
of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, op. cit., p. 39.
[35]. Ibid.
[36]. S Morrison,
Honouring
our promise to provide more resettlement places to offshore humanitarian
applicants, media release, 6 March 2014. Note that the Government
reduced the number of refugees it would resettle in 2014–15 from 7,000 to 6,000
but increased the number of SHP places from 4,000 places to 5,000 places: S
Morrison, Stopping
the boats to help Iraqis and Syrians, media release, op. cit.
[37]. Senate Legal
and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio, Supplementary Estimates 2012–15
October 2012, Question
SE12/0446.
[38]. Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers, Report
of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, op. cit., p.143. In the broader
context it is perhaps relevant to note the Department
of Finance and Deregulation also estimated the cost of establishing the
regional processing centre on Nauru to be in the order of between $1.2–$1.4
billion over four years.
[39]. Such as
members within the Australian Labor Party; members of the Nationals’ Federal
Council; the Australian Greens; Independent MP Nick Xenophon; Anglican
Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies; and a diverse group of 35 high-level
policymakers and experts. See further: Australia21 et al, ‘Beyond the
boats: Building an asylum and refugee policy for the long term’, November
2014.
[40]. S Morrison,
Migration
and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy
Caseload) Bill 2014, transcript, 3 December 2014; section 39A Migration Act 1958; Legislative Instrument IMMI
14/117, registered on 23 December 2014, Federal Register of Legislation
website.
[41]. S Morrison,
Migration
and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy
Caseload) Bill 2014, transcript, 3 December 2014.
[42]. UNHCR, Refugee
Resettlement—An International Handbook to Guide Reception and Integration,
UNHCR Refworld website, September 2002.
[43]. A Guterres
(United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), Letter
to C Bowen (former Minister for Immigration and Citizenship), 9 October
2012. See also: D Glazebrook, ‘Papua New
Guinea’s refugee track record and its obligations under the 2013 Regional
resettlement arrangement with Australia’, Australian National University
(ANU), Discussion Paper 3 of 2014.
[44]. B Saul, Rudd’s
PNG plan unlikely to comply with international law, The Conversation,
20 July 2013.
[45]. M
Brissenden, ‘Return
home or settle in PNG the only options available to Manus detainees: Dutton’,
ABC AM, transcript, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 18 August
2016.
[46]. S Morrison,
Operation
Sovereign Borders, Nauru, Federal Budget, Cambodia, Press conference,
Sydney, 22 May 2014; Memorandum
of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and the
Government of Australia, relating to the Settlement of Refugees in Cambodia,
26 September 2014, UNHCR Refworld website.
[47]. C Uhlmann, ‘Refugee
resettlement concerns outlined by Cambodia's opposition leader’, The 7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 26 August 2014.
[48]. Andrew
& Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Fact
sheet: Cambodia and refugee protection, updated 6 July 2015; C Uhlmann,
‘Refugee
resettlement concerns outlined by Cambodia's opposition leader’, The
7.30 Report, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 26 August 2014;
Lindsay Murdoch, 'Refugee
leaves Cambodia after being deeply unhappy with move from Nauru', Sydney
Morning Herald, 27 May 2016.
[49]. UNHCR, UNHCR
Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017, UNHCR website, 2016.
[50]. Ibid.
[51]. Expert
Panel on Asylum Seekers, Report
of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, op. cit., p. 131.
[52]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Answers to Questions on
Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary Budget Estimates
2010–11, 19 October 2012, Question
SE12/40; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 21 February 2011, p. 76; Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Official
committee Hansard, 23 May 2011, p. 160.
[53]. DIBP, ‘The
Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website.
[54]. DIBP, ‘The
Special Humanitarian Programme(SHP)’, DIBP website.
[55]. Under the
SHP, declared immediate family members might include the refugee’s spouse or de
facto partner (including same sex partner), dependent children, parents or
siblings. Family members of boat arrivals who arrived on or after 13 August
2012 are currently ineligible to apply.
[56]. S Morrison,
Stopping
the boats to help Iraqis and Syrians, op. cit.
[57]. Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, op. cit., pp. 40–41, 135.
[58]. In 2012–13
only 503 SHP visas were granted (due largely to the large numbers of protection
visas granted onshore). While 5,007 SHP visas were granted in 2014–15, it is
not known how many of these were granted to ‘split family’ applicants.
[59]. S Morrison,
20,000
places for those most in need of protection, media release, 13 May 2014.
[60]. ‘There will
be 6 000 places for refugees referred by the UNHCR, including 1,000 places for
women at risk and their dependants and 5,000 for people proposed by their close
family in Australia under the SHP’: S Morrison, Stopping
the boats to help Iraqis and Syrians, op. cit.
[61]. S Morrison,
Stopping
the boats to help Iraqis and Syrians, op. cit.
[62]. DIBP, ‘2014–15
Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance)’, DIBP website.
[63]. Department
of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), Annual
report 2012–13, DIAC website, Canberra, 2013, p. 42.
[64]. DIBP, Annual
report 2013–14, DIBP website, Canberra, 2014, p. 58.
[65]. UNHCR, ‘UNHCR
Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2017’, UNHCR website, pp. 11–12.
[66]. For further
information and previous years’ submissions see: Refugee Council of Australia
(RCOA), ‘Annual
consultations’, RCOA website.
[67]. Regulations
204.211 and 204.222 Migration
Regulations 1994, Federal Register of Legislation website.
[68]. DIBP, ‘2014–15
Humanitarian Programme Outcomes (at a glance)’, DIBP website.
[69]. UNHCR, ‘Indonesia
Factsheet’, February 2016, UNHCR website; UNHCR, ‘Indonesia
Factsheet’, September 2014, UNHCR website.
[70]. Ibid.
[71]. Ibid.
[72]. Ibid.
[73]. Ibid.
[74]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Border Protection portfolio, Additional Estimates, 2009–10, Question
118, 9 February 2010.Note that out of this caseload, five people were
granted Partner (subclass 100) visas.
[75]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2011–12, 17
October 2011, Question
214; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to
Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary
Estimates, 2012–13, 15 October 2011, Question
290; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to
Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary
Estimates, 2013–14, 19 November 2013, Question
369; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to
Questions on Notice, Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio, Additional
Estimates, 2015–16, 8 February 2016, Question
49.
[76]. C Uhlman, ‘Interview
with Scott Morrison’, ABC AM Programme, transcript, Australian
Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), 19 November 2014.
[77]. S Morrison,
Changes
to resettlement another blow to people smugglers, media release, 18
November 2014.
[78]. DIBP, ‘Talking
points: Resettlement cut-off date for refugees in Indonesia’, Freedom of
Information (FOI) document release, 19 November 2014.
[79]. The UNHCR
2016 Factsheet
explains that ‘a marked increase in the number of registrations by UNHCR
occurred in May 2015 following the rescue at sea of nearly 1,000 Rohingyas from
Myanmar’. The media reported that Australia’s decision not to accept refugees
who had registered with UNHCR after 1 July 2014 meant that ‘Australia would not
take the Rohingyas who reached Indonesia after fleeing persecution in Myanmar
during the refugee and trafficking crisis in South-east Asia last year’. See: J
Topsfield, ‘Indonesia
appeals to Australia to accept more refugees’, The
Sydney Morning Herald, 15 March 2016; L Murdoch, ‘Desperate
killings at sea: Rohingya fleeing Myanmar’, The
Sydney Morning Herald, 17 May 2015.
[80]. UNHCR, ‘Indonesia Factsheet’, op.
cit.
[81]. J
Topsfield, ‘Indonesia
appeals to Australia to accept more refugees’,
op. cit.
[82]. UNHCR, ‘Malaysia
Factsheet’, August 2015, UNHCR website.
[83]. Ibid.
[84]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Budget Estimates, 2011–12, 24 May 2012, Question
209.
[85]. Department
of Immigration and Citizenship, Supplementary Estimates, 2011-2012, Immigration
and Citizenship Portfolio, Official
Committee Hansard, 17 October 2011, p. 52, viewed 15 January 2015. Note
that eight of these people were born in Malaysia to Burmese refugees.
[86]. ‘Arrangement
between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia on transfer
and resettlement’, DIBP website. See also ‘Operational
guidelines to support transfers and resettlement’, Andrew and Renata Kaldor
Centre for International Refugee Law website.
[87]. Plaintiff
M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106 of
2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] HCA 32,
Austlii website.
[88]. J Gillard, Transcript
of joint press conference, Canberra, 13 October 2011.
[89]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2012–13, 15
October 2011, Question
290, accessed 11 December 2014; Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice, Immigration and Citizenship
Portfolio, Supplementary Estimates, 2013–14, 19 November 2013, Question
369.
[90]. Senate
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Answers to Questions on Notice,
Immigration and Border Protection Portfolio, Additional Estimates, 2015–16, 8
February 2016, Question
49.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament using information available at the time of production. The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.