As the conflicts around the globe create ever greater numbers of refugees seeking protection, Australia is narrowing the gap through which refugees can squeeze. Traditionally, Australia has been renowned for providing one of the largest resettlement programmes for refugees. This situation has changed recently with the new policies of the Liberal government, elected earlier in 1996 with a large majority. One of the promises on which the new government was elected was to maintain the existing humanitarian and migration programmes: the 'refugee component of the programme [Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance] will not be reduced' (Coalition statement on Immigration). It has been reduced.
Onshore and offshore quotas
Australia's current Humanitarian Programme comprises offshore and onshore components. The offshore programme is concerned with persons overseas seeking protection in Australia and is subdivided into the Refugee Programme, the Special Humanitarian Programme and the Special Assistance Category.
For 1996/1997, the Humanitarian Programme for offshore refugees has been reduced from 15,000 to 10,000 places. Places for 2,000 people (coming from BosniaHerzegovina, Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Slovenia, and Former Yugoslav Republics of Serbia and Montenegro) which had been 'borrowed' from the potential quota for 1996/1997 for use in 1995/1996, have now been brought forward again to 1996/1997.
The onshore programme is a new component of the Humanitarian Programme, instituted by the current government, in which 2,000 onshore places have been allocated for refugees seeking asylum. The provision of this new policy, however, is that if the number of people who are granted onshore protection exceeds the 2,000 quota, then places to meet the extra requirements for onshore positions will be taken from the offshore quota, thereby reducing the chances of refugees outside Australia seeking protection. The reverse is not the case, as pointed out in the August 1996 issue of the RMS NEWS (National Council of Churches in Australia Refugee and Migrant Services): 'It is interesting to note the lack of a provision that, should all of the 2,000 onshore places not be filled, the remainder will be allocated to the offshore component of the programme.'
Capping the onshore numbers disregards the possibility of new crises, such as Tiannamen Square when large numbers of Chinese in Australia sought sur place protection for fear of persecution on return to China. Should another incident of this nature occur, there will be a drastic reduction in the number of offshore positions.
Asylum seekers' benefits cut
An increase in funding to accelerate processing of asylum claims is a welcome initiative, provided that the funding is used to employ additional civil servants to facilitate asylum seekers' cases. The cost of this 'additional' funding however, has been the discontinuance of funding to the Red Cross for the Asylum Seekers Assistance Scheme. The scheme provided a fortnightly benefit for the living costs of asylum seekers, who were able to access free legal services such as Legal Aid and Refugee Advice and Casework Services offered in Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. The funding cuts prevent asylum seekers from appealing against primary decisions from the courts refusing them asylum. Currently this affects many Timorese refugees in Australia whose claims for protection are being rejected on the basis that they are Portuguese.
To make matters worse, current discussions suggest that the option of Federal Court Review of the Refugee Review Tribunal may be removed, preventing asylum seekers from having their cases reviewed. It would still be theoretically possible for asylum seekers to take their case to the higher court but, in reality, asylum seekers generally do not have the resources for this.
Detention of 'boat people'
Onshore asylum seekers who did not clear immigration at the port of entry include refugees arriving by boat. Detention of 'boat people' continues to mar Australia's reputation in terms of respect for civil, political and human rights. The government coalition supports mandatory detention of illegal immigrants, into which category 'boat people' fall. However, there is no requirement that the refugees should be advised of their legal rights upon entry to Australia. Unless 'boat people', immediately incarcerated upon arrival, actually request legal aid or the assistance of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, these services are not provided. It is unlikely that 'boat people' will have arrived fully briefed on their Australian legal rights!
Asylum seekers who actively seek Federal Court review or the Minister's leave to stay on humanitarian grounds can remain in detention for up to a year or longer. Some Chinese who have not provided personal details have been detained for four years. The current review of the Onshore Refuge Division of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is addressing the decision making process for immigration and improving the productivity of the Refugee Review Tribunal. It is possible that decision making will be speeded up. Given that it is already fast by international standards, there is a concern that this will result in an erosion of quality.
Onshore asylum seekers who have not cleared the usual immigration system are detained in special centres where they may not leave unless under escort. They are guarded by the Australian Protective Services, which are also responsible for the security of politicians, airports and commonwealth buildings. This form of 'protection' gives new meaning to the term of 'protective custody' and questions should be asked as to why the Australian population requires protection from refugees.
Beyond Australia's human rights laws
Over a year ago there was an enquiry into detention which produced a number of recommendations that have not been implemented. The current debate has sunk to a new low. It is more concerned with a proposed Bill to remove the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs from accountability under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act and the Ombudsman Act, than with the rights of refugees. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs supports this proposed legislation. Should it pass, the Human Rights Commissioner, Chris Sidoti, is concerned that the Department of Immigration will be in the first stage of being placed outside Australia's human rights laws. The consequence of this is that protection of refugees will no longer be an obligation of the Department of Immigration and Cultural Affairs.
In its own words, the government coalition 'strongly reaffirms its continuing commitment to an Australian immigration policy and programme that is best suited to both our national interest and our international responsibilities'. Despite some positive changes in the current humanitarian policy, the refugee quota for people seeking protection in Australia has been reduced. Would it be fair to speculate that this reduction is in Australia's national interests? Narrowing the gap between the doors risks neglect of Australia's international responsibilities.
Roxie Orr is currently a Visiting Study Fellow at the RSP and has recently researched the current refugee situation in Australia.
Acknowledgements and sources
1. Australian House of Representatives Hansard for 20th May 1996,
Questions Without Notice, Refugees.
2. Madeline Garlick, Justice, London.
3. Andrew Hamilton personal communication.
4. Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Fact Sheet (16 May 1996).
5. Journeys' End Quarterly Newsletter, Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office, Vol 2, No 4, July 1996.
6. Mercy Refugee Service newsletter, Vol 9, No 2, June 1996.
7. Kerry Murphy, Jesuit Refugee Service Australia.
8. Sister Patricia Pak Poy, Australian Network, International Campaign to Ban Land Mines.
9. Charles Sinclair notes on 'Migrants, Refugees and the 1996/1997 Budget'.
October 1996