Labor now has the political clout to reset Australia’s refugee policy. Here’s where to start
- Written by: Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University
Australia’s policy towards refugees and asylum seekers stands at a critical juncture.
Global displacement is at record highs and many countries are retreating from their responsibilities[1]. At this moment, Australia can lead by example.
As Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said[2] on election night:
We do not need to beg or borrow or copy from anywhere else. We do not need to seek our inspiration overseas. We find it right here in our values – and in our people.
Those values should guide a principled and evidence-based response to the global refugee crisis. This response should be grounded in fairness, humanity and respect for Australia’s international human rights obligations.
A principled reset
Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, which defines a refugee as a person who has a well-founded fear of persecution based on:
- race
- religion
- nationality
- membership of a particular social group
- political opinion.
However, aspects of Australia’s current approach to refugees have drawn criticism[4] from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi.
The new Labor government could use its strength in parliament to initiate a principled and evidence-based reset. This could include:
creating a new emergency visa for humanitarian crises[5] to assist people fleeing conflict
improving the efficiency and fairness[6] of the asylum seeker process
ending offshore processing[7] of refugees
streamlining the family reunification process[8]
making immigration detention an option[9] that could be used at the discretion of the Department of Home Affairs, instead of being mandatory
giving people access to independent review of their detention
improving systems for LGBTQ+[10] asylum seekers (many of whom face heightened risks, are not always believed about their sexuality, and lack culturally sensitive support).
There are four key areas in particular need of reform.
1. Ending the legal limbo
A crucial priority is resolving the status of some 7,000 people who are part of what’s known as the “legacy caseload[11]”.
These people were refused refugee status under a problematic and now-defunct process known as the “fast track assessment[12]”. They are now on bridging visas and in legal limbo.
A solution is also needed for the roughly 1,000 people who were detained in offshore processing centres in Manus Island and Nauru but are now living in Australia. They are also on bridging visas, also in a state of legal uncertainty.
People in both these groups have endured 13 years in legal and policy limbo[13]. Reform[14] is long overdue.
One option is to allow people in both groups who were previously refused protection to apply for a permanent visa[15] without requiring yet another drawn-out assessment of their protection claims.
Community organisations, legal experts and mental health professionals could help the government develop clear, trauma-informed and evidence-based processes for reviewing their cases.
2. Expanding the numbers
Australia’s main way of accepting refugees is via what’s known as the humanitarian program[17]. But the number of refugees accepted under this program doesn’t currently reflect the scale of global displacement.
Labor has proposed[18] expanding the number of refugees Australia takes.
It has suggested Australia take 27,000 through the core Refugee and Humanitarian Program[19] and an additional 10,000 through two pathways:
At the UN’s 2023 Global Refugee Forum[20], the Australian government committed to gradually implementing this increase, beginning in 2023–24.
A dedicated advisory and coordination body[21] could help with planning and implementation.
It’s also worth noting current policy[22] prohibits asylum seekers registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Indonesia after June 2014 from being resettled to Australia.
The new government could also consider lifting this arbitrary restriction to give these vulnerable refugees access to durable solutions.
3. Strengthening the rights of children and young people
Immigration systems are largely designed around adults. Children and young people are too often overlooked.
As a result, children have been:
Children (including those born in Australia) can’t sponsor their parents via family sponsorship processes. They’re denied a say in decisions that deeply affect their lives.
The Migration Act should be amended to require that all decisions affecting children give primary consideration to the best interests and views of the child. This would be in line with Australia’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child[23].
Similar principles are already embedded in Australian family law and child protection policy, providing a clear model for reform.
4. Reviewing Australia’s boat turnback policy
Since 2013, Australia has intercepted boats under Operation Sovereign Borders[24], using turnbacks and takebacks with little independent oversight.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has raised concerns[25] about this policy.
Sometimes during these interactions Australian officials detain and interview people on boats about their reason for trying to enter Australia, but details about what happens during such encounters are kept largely secret. Most of these encounters end with the boat and people on it being returned to the country from which they came.
A recent document[26] published by the Commonwealth Ombudsman reported on conditions aboard vessels used for maritime detention.
It found serious problems[27], including no private spaces for sensitive interviews and no interpreters on board.
The Department of Home Affairs responded[28] by saying formal interviews use accredited interpreters. However, the report highlights many crucial interactions do not.
There is also no time limit on detention at sea, and no independent monitoring of how protection claims are assessed.
A more comprehensive review[29] is urgently needed.
References
- ^ retreating from their responsibilities (www.unhcr.org)
- ^ said (www.pm.gov.au)
- ^ AAP Image/Lukas Coch (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ criticism (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ humanitarian crises (theconversation.com)
- ^ efficiency and fairness (theconversation.com)
- ^ ending offshore processing (theconversation.com)
- ^ family reunification process (theconversation.com)
- ^ an option (theconversation.com)
- ^ LGBTQ+ (theconversation.com)
- ^ legacy caseload (theconversation.com)
- ^ fast track assessment (theconversation.com)
- ^ 13 years in legal and policy limbo (theconversation.com)
- ^ Reform (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ apply for a permanent visa (www.unsw.edu.au)
- ^ AAP Image/Supplied by Thamilselvan Selvakumar (photos.aap.com.au)
- ^ humanitarian program (immi.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ proposed (www.alp.org.au)
- ^ Refugee and Humanitarian Program (immi.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ 2023 Global Refugee Forum (www.unhcr.org)
- ^ advisory and coordination body (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ policy (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (www.ohchr.org)
- ^ Operation Sovereign Borders (osb.homeaffairs.gov.au)
- ^ concerns (www.unhcr.org)
- ^ document (www.ombudsman.gov.au)
- ^ serious problems (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
- ^ responded (www.ombudsman.gov.au)
- ^ review (www.refugeecouncil.org.au)
Authors: Mary Anne Kenny, Associate Professor, School of Law, Murdoch University
