why it’s too hard for some refugees to reunite with loved ones
- Written by: Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University
When refugees flee their home country due to war, violence, conflict or persecution, they are often forced to leave behind their families.
For more than 30,000 people who have sought asylum in Australia since arriving more than a decade ago, that separation has stretched into more than a decade. This group of people – known in policy circles as “the legacy caseload” – need a clear pathway to reunite with family members.
Refugees separated from family are plagued[1] by guilt and worry[2] for their family members’ safety. This makes it extremely difficult to focus on education, work or getting settled.
The right to family unity is a basic human right[3] and vital to any humane refugee policy.
However, tensions arise between refugees’ conceptions of family and the restrictive definitions embedded in Australian law.
High costs, complex administrative requirements, and lengthy processing times often delay or prevent families from reuniting.
The legacy caseload: more than a decade in limbo
The so-called “legacy caseload[4]” refers to approximately 30,000 people who arrived by boat between 2012 and 2014, and who were placed on Temporary Protection Visas.
For more than a decade, they were denied a pathway to permanency and barred from sponsoring family members to join them in Australia.
That policy[5] made life so unbearable, more than 6,500 people from this group “chose” to return home despite the risks they face. This raises serious concerns about whether they were genuinely able to make a free choice, or were pushed into returning to danger.
Since the Albanese government’s 2022 commitment to end temporary protection[6], almost 20,000 people have been eligible to transition to permanent visas through the Resolution of Status process.
This is a crucial step. Without a permanent visa, they could not sponsor family members.
Even with permanency, however, family reunion remains out of reach for many “legacy caseload” refugees. This is due to outdated laws, harsh policies and bureaucratic delays.
Many of these refugees have not seen their spouses or children since before their arrival. Because they arrived by boat, they are barred from proposing family members through the humanitarian visa program[7] and must use the family migration[8] program.
That’s significant because the humanitarian program has a much broader definition of “family”, and grants people access to settlement services[9] after they arrive.
Still unresolved is the fate of some 7,000 people who were refused protection under the flawed fast track system[10] (a now abandoned policy that was supposed to speed up processing but actually introduced delays and unfairness).
These people urgently need a pathway[11] to permanency.
Why family reunion remains so difficult
The main barriers to family reunification for refugees include:
- high visa fees (partner visa application charges, when they include children, can cost more than A$20,000)
- strict legal definitions (children over 23 are not classified as “dependents”; a child who was 12 when their parent fled may now be 24 — legally an adult, but still dependent and at risk)
- barriers to documentation (war and instability can make it difficult or dangerous to obtain documents, such as passports or identity papers)
- limited access to embassies
- technical issues with online applications
- repeated health checks (there is a visa requirement health checks but they are only valid for 12 months, so may need to be repeated if visa processing is delayed)
- unclear rules around exemptions.
These uncertainties further delay the process and add emotional and financial strain.
Calls for reform
Several organisations[13], including the Refugee Council of Australia[14] and the Refugee Advocacy Casework Service[15], have called for clear, achievable reforms. These include:
- introducing visa application charge concessions for refugees
- allowing people to pay fees in instalments
- adapting visa processing to reflect realities faced by refugee and humanitarian visa applicants, such as challenges obtaining identity documents
- establishing a dedicated unit in the Department of Home Affairs for processing visas from refugee families
- prioritising families where children may “age out”.
They have also called for changes to the legal definitions of “dependent” and “member of the family unit”. This is to reflect the diverse familial structures in many refugee communities.
For many refugees, family extends beyond the Western concept of the nuclear family. It may also encompass, for instance, adult daughters and parents (who often play pivotal care-giving roles).
Another big issue for many refugee families is single young women in Afghanistan being left behind because they have aged out.
Reuniting families
Australia can learn from other countries.
Canada’s[16] refugee sponsorship program actively supports family reunification.
New Zealand[17] offers a more affordable and flexible system. Their definitions of family are broader and visa fees are lower.
Without family reunion, a refugee’s safety remains incomplete.
As one refugee told researchers[18]:
I’m partly safer [in Australia], but inside I’m not safe […] I’m always afraid for the future of my family.
Thousands of refugees in Australia are still waiting. Their families remain in danger. The legal and policy tools to fix this already exist. What’s missing, for now, is the political will.
Reforming Australia’s family reunion system would mean more efficient refugee resettlement and integration, ultimately benefiting broader Australian society.
References
- ^ plagued (journals.sagepub.com)
- ^ guilt and worry (theconversation.com)
- ^ basic human right (www.unhcr.org)
- ^ legacy caseload (theconversation.com)
- ^ policy (www.unsw.edu.au)
- ^ end temporary protection (theconversation.com)
- ^ humanitarian visa program (immi.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ family migration (immi.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ settlement services (immi.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ flawed fast track system (academic.oup.com)
- ^ urgently need a pathway (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ EPA/JAMAL NASRALLAH (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ organisations (apo.org.au)
- ^ Refugee Council of Australia (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ Refugee Advocacy Casework Service (www.racs.org.au)
- ^ Canada’s (help.unhcr.org)
- ^ New Zealand (www.redcross.org.nz)
- ^ told researchers (www.sciencedirect.com)
Authors: Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University
