Refugees and Asylum seekers: what is
really going on? By Jim Reiher
What is the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker?
A refugee is a person fleeing from something that threatens them. It may be
persecution due to ethnicity or religion. It may be famine or war. The UN has stated
that anyone can be a refugee and it is never about how rich or poor they are, how
much they have or don’t have, what age or religion or gender they are. Australia
agrees with this, being signatories to the UN charter on refugees.
An asylum seeker is someone who has arrived in a country like Australia and has
asked to be seen as a refugee. They are in the “pre-refugee’ state, in an Australian
legal sense. Technically, they are refugees by definition of the UN. But legally they
are not “quite” refugees as far as Australia is concerned. We need to check their
claims and make a ruling on whether or not they really are fleeing some terrible
situation, or just trying to get into Australia when they don’t “need” to.
A refugee has certain rights and responsibilities, (can work, can access some benefits,
Medicare, etc). But an asylum seeker has almost no rights. Some can work, but they
can not access any government payments until they are refugees. The asylum seeker is
often dependant on charity. It might take a year or more for an asylum seeker to be
called a refugee. They might also have their claim rejected and be sent back to their
home country.
‘Illegal’ Immigrants
Immigrants are different to refugees. Last year Australia took about 300,000
immigrants and 13,000 refugees. 300,000 was pretty huge, often it is closer to
200,000 immigrants. But comparing the numbers, refugees are a tiny proportion.
You can not be an illegal refugee. It is nonsense to call such people “illegal
immigrants”.
It is not ‘illegal’ to seek asylum. As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Geneva
Convention on Refugees, and a country that considers itself compassionate and a
champion of the ‘fair go’, Australia must step up to its international obligations and
reputation and swiftly consider asylum seekers for refugee status.
In July 2009, the Press Council upheld a complaint about the use of the term “illegal
immigrants” from 2004. (Adjudication No 1242). The Council formed the view that
The Australian had not sought to report incidents of “unauthorised arrivals” in an
inflammatory way as alleged by the complainant. The newspaper’s coverage of the
boat arrivals in the cited articles was fair and balanced, the Press Council said, but the
use of the modifier “illegal” in the articles and the term “illegals” in a headline are, in
this case, factually inaccurate.
How a refugee or asylum seeker gets to Australia
Refugees leave terrible situations. Most would like to stay where they have grown up;
where their family and friends are; where their parents and grandparents are buried;
where they know the culture, language and customs. Most in refugee camps would
like to be able to go home if their home situation ever became safe again. This is
important to remember: if we assist other countries to have peace and a degree of
stability, the refugee ‘problem’ would not be anywhere near what it is world wide.
There would be no ‘flood of boats’ because we would be addressing the problem at
the root cause.
But some people do seek to move permanently away from the traumas they have
experienced.
Depending on the country they come from, there may or may not be a process in place
to help them seek to be accepted in a country like Australia. Generally, the more
chaotic and war torn a country is, the less chance there is that there is an orderly
process to assist a refugee.
An example: getting out of Afghanistan
Most recent refugees to Australia are coming from Afghanistan, and as of April 2010,
99% of claims from Afghans seeking asylum were found to be genuine.
Consider Afghanistan: a tragic war torn nation. There is no where in that country
where a person can physically turn up and ask to be a refugee to come to Australia.
The Australian Embassy in Kabul operates from a number of locations that are not
publicly disclosed due to security reasons. In Afghanistan itself there is no advice or
direct communication possible from Australian embassies as to how to join a formal
queue. Afghans actually must lodge refugee claims in Islamabad (Pakistan). If they
try to do this, however, they hit more walls. There is no formal application process
easily available even in Islamabad. The Australian High Commission in Pakistan
website says in Pakistan: Due to security restraints personal lodgment of visa
applications at the High Commission in Islamabad is not possible. All visa
applications from all areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan should be lodged at the
Australian High Commission via courier to the following address: Visa Section;
Australian High Commission; Constitution Avenue & Ispahani Road; Diplomatic
Enclave No. 1. Sector G-5/4 ISLAMABAD – PAKISTAN.
This is information on a web site. The reality is that most never find that place. A
Hazara refugee dodging Pakistani police, does not know how and where to get the
many page documents and then find a courier service to deliver them. And even then,
if they managed to do that, they would be waiting for years for it to be processed. It is
common knowledge in Pakistan that no one gets a refugee visa out of Islamabad.
Some might suggest that an Afghan refugee should go to the United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) office in Pakistan. But refugees cannot
physically get into the UNHCR offices in Pakistan, India or Iran. This is why they
come down the line to Jakarta. They might stop over in Malaysia, but they tend not to
stay there. It is a dangerous place for asylum seekers and refugees alike with arbitrary
arrests and brutal beatings so most head across to Indonesia in ferries where they
queue up for weeks to get into the UNHCR office in Jakarta and register. This is
actually quite risky too: some will be picked up and put in Indonesian Immigration
Detention. If they do get to talk with UNHCR officials, they then wait up to 6 months
to get an interview and then another 6-12 months for a decision. And when they get
that decision, if it is a good decision for them, they become refugees – that is all. It
does not mean a country has accepted them yet. It just means they get added to the
official list. They get a card that gives them “refugee status” in Indonesia. But… they
can not work for a living, or send their children to school. They only survive because
a non-government organization called “The International Organisation of Migration”
(IMO) provides basic accommodation and food for them. And this can go on for years
and years. (And most people do not know this, but the Australian government give
IMO about $13 million a year to help pay for this. Essentially to keep people there,
not here.) To actually be accepted by a country like Australia, can take between 10
and 20 years. Australia only took 50 refugees from there last year, and there are
currently over 2500 waiting on that list. (UN lists of refugees around the world are in
total huge. And sadly, less than 1% of the world’s refugees will be resettled each
year.)
Some, upon hearing of the process and the 10-20 year wait in Indonesia, give up and
find a so called “people smuggler” for a boat trip. Likewise some held in detention
pay bribes if they can, and are then allowed to “escape” and find their way to a boat as
well.
Once in a boat, the refugees are hoping to be picked up by the Australian navy. If they
are picked up before their boat sinks (and we have no reliable statistics on how many
lives are lost at sea), then they will be sent to Christmas Island and detained. (And by
the sound of it: soon there might be a 2nd island doing something similar).
The refugee hopes to get to this point. Because then at least they will be on a real
queue to be processed and considered. They can still wait about a year in these
Australian operated detention centres, though the time frame is less than the 3-5 years
it often took under the Howard government. If they are accepted, they come finally to
Australia as refugees.
What truth is there in the term “queue jumper”?
The above account of Afghan refugees should demonstrate the fact that in many parts
of the world there are no orderly queues to join.
Perhaps the term can be applied to the UN camps where people await placement in
sympathetic countries. If a person bypasses the UN camp, and comes by boat to
Christmas Island, are they “queue jumping” over other refugees who have ended up in
refugee camps?
Not really: they have decided not to get on a UN detention list, and go instead to an
Australian camp and be on the Australian detention list. They have chosen one queue
over another queue. And Australia actually has two accepted pathways for people to
come to Australia as refugees: either from UN camps or from our own camps.
Note: the fact that we are not taking many refugees from UN lists, especially in our
region, has actually added to the so called “boat problem” and the whole creation of
the second stream of refugees. If we took more people, they would be on a shorter UN
queue, and would therefore be less inclined to find an alternative queue via a risky
boat ride.
No. Australia accepts from all sources (immigration and refugees) about 180,000
people from overseas each year. Only about 13,000 of them will be refugees. The rest
are immigrants. Refugees account for less that 8% of those granted permanent status.
That 13000 refugee figure, is actually divided into two categories: about 7000 of them
go to the special humanitarian program and onshore protection network (including
both plane and boat arrivals), while 6000 of the number come from UNHCR
applications through refugee camps around the world.
It is a myth that people arriving by boat are taking away the places of those waiting in
UNHCR camps (i.e queue jumping) because there are two separate quotas within our
humanitarian intake: one quota for one queue, and another quota for the 2nd queue. If
a person sees a long queue, and moves to a shorter queue, this is not “queue jumping”.
“Queue jumping” is getting to the front of the queue you are on, before your turn. And
that happens not because the refugees do it: it happens when nations like Australia
‘cherry pick’ the best applicants from the whole queue. (And yes, that happens all the
time). A family with a disabled child might never get chosen even though they have
been in a UN camp a lot longer than some others who are chosen. Why? Because
governments like Australia do not want to have another person needing ongoing
medical care and expense. The real culprits who do the “queue jumping” are actually
governments who pick and choose from the huge pool of refugees. But when a
refugee sees two different queues and decides to try to get on the shorter queue, how
can we call that queue jumping? It is an inflammatory term to hide ignorance or bias
against refugees.
Are we being flooded by boat people?
In the last 34 years (from 1st January 1976 to 30th April 2010) we have had a total of
23,024 people come by boat to Australia seeking asylum. That’s an overall average of
677.1 asylum seekers a year. At this rate it would take 149 years to fill the MCG just
once, with boat arrivals!
Some years see more boat arrivals than other years of course. There is a myth that
circulates that they are worse that ever right now. The current numbers are huge
(supposedly). In fact the highest actual years on record to date and the number that
came in those years and the government that was in office when that happened are
listed here. The top four years:
2001 5516 boat people Howard government
1999 3721 boat arrivals Howard
2000 2939 boat arrivals Howard
2009 2750 boat arrivals Rudd
In other words, we are getting more than the average at the moment, but it is not quite
as many as the really active years of 1999-2001 – all Howard years (Howard was PM
from 1996-2007).
The boat people are a small minority of refugee applications and are nearly always
genuine! The actual 2008/09 figures for protection visa claims (ie those assessed as
refugees): the total was 5304. Of that total, onshore claims – those arriving by plane
were 5098 (96.2%). By contrast the offshore claims – those arriving by boat were 206
(3.8%).
And compared to the total world people movements Australia only gets a tiny
“dribble” of the total. In 2009, Australia received just 0.5% of the 1.18 million new
asylum applications for that year.
95% of asylum seekers that arrive by boat are found to be genuine refugees. In
comparison only around 45% of those that arrive by plane are found to be in genuine
need of protection. And yet approximately 95% of all applications for refugee status
in Australia are from people who have come in on planes. Only 5% come from people
arriving on boats.
Do refugees in Australia get more centerlink support that old age pensioners?
No! Consider this detailed response from Pamala Curr:
About two years back an e-mail claiming that refugees were paid more than
pensioners began the rounds. It was not accurate but many believed it. It has
resurfaced in the past month; racist rumours have a supernatural shelf life. Refugees
coming out of detention on Temporary Protection Visas (now about to be abolished)
get what is called Special Benefit payments. This is the lowest Centrelink benefit
available. In 2005 it was $404.00 per fortnight for singles over 21years (less if you
are under 21). They can also get up to $60.00 housing assistance per fortnight. These
folk have been found to be refugees and are legally allowed to stay in Australia.
Under this Special Benefit payment they lose dollar for dollar for every dollar earned
so for instance if they get part-time work 13.5 hours per week at $15 an hour- then
they lose their Centrelink and their housing assistance as well. These folk also are not
eligible for any help to get work, English classes or any federally-funded programs.
They get no pharmaceutical benefits or assistance with phone and electricity bills.
Special benefit has now been increased to $429.80 per fortnight. See:
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/filestores/co038_0801/$file/co038_
0801en.pdf Old age pensioners (single rate) get $546.80 per fortnight. Plus extra
help with pharmaceutical benefits, power and phone bills. This is not a millionaire
rate but it is $117 per fortnight more than refugees. See
http://www.centrelink.gov.au/Internet/internet.nsf/payments/pay_how_agepens.htm
You can check the links to see that this information is correct and find out more detail
about couple rates, etc. False claims that refugees are getting a better deal than aged
pensioners are not true and they cause some people to be abusive towards people they
identify as refugees.
Pamela Curr
Campaigns Co-ordinator
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Melbourne.
The statistics for the Australian run detention centres
As at 4 June 2010, there were 3760 people in immigration detention, including 1333
in immigration detention on the mainland and 2427 in immigration detention on
Christmas Island.
Of the 1333 people in immigration detention on the mainland, 257 were children
(aged under 18 years) – eight were detained in the community under residence
determinations, 113 were in alternative temporary detention in the community, 78
were in immigration residential housing and 58 were in immigration transit
accommodation.
Of the 2427 people in immigration detention on Christmas Island, 241 were children
(aged under 18 years) – one was detained in the community under a residence
determination and 240 were in alternative temporary detention in the community.
There are a total of 498 children in some form of immigration detention.
Since the end of the Second World War, over 700 000 refugees and people in
humanitarian need have been resettled in Australia. Many had close family or other
ties to Australia.
Christmas Island costs:
$9.98m per annum fixed (this figure is just for maintaining the facilities)
$32.5m per annum from 2 Oct 08 – 31 Aug 09 with clients in the centres (this costs
includes health services, interpreter services, charter flights, and staff costs and
allowances)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
A survey of 1,000 Australians recently commissioned by Red Cross and released for
Refugee Week indicates that most Australians are sympathetic towards the plight of
refugees.
• 86% of people would flee to a safe country, if they lived in a conflict zone and
were under threat.
• 94% of these people would use all their money and assets to get to a safe
country.
• 31% know of someone who has come to Australia escaping persecution or
conflict in another country.
• 83% agree that people fleeing persecution should be able to seek protection in
another country.
• 83% are willing to assist a refugee in their community settle in Australia.
• 67% agree that refugees have made a positive contribution to Australian
society.
Green policies:
1) Immediately lift the suspension of claims for asylum for Sri Lankans and Afghans
2) Close down Christmas Island, (and not begin a similar facility in East Timor) and
repeal Section 46A of the Migration Act (excision policy)
3) Increase in Australia’s humanitarian intake to 20,000 (Jim here: perhaps we should
add: and reduce immigration by a similar amount or more, in consideration for total
numbers and our water parched land to support an ever increasing population)
4) Encourage Indonesia and Malaysia to sign the Refugee Convention
5) Judicial review of detention decisions (30 day time limit)
Some quotes from the Greens “Immigration and Refugee policy”
- “Asylum seekers and refugees are no more a threat to our boarders than
anyone else and they must be treated with compassion and dignity” (5).
- “Australia must assess in good faith all asylum seekers who arrive on our
mainland or any of our islands, without discrimination based on the method of
arrival” (6)
- “The Australian Greens want the elimination of the policies of mandatory
detention, and other forms of harsh punitive or discriminatory treatment of
asylum seekers and refugees” (11).
- “The Australian Greens want planning for climate change refugees with a
particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region” (12).
- “The Australian Greens will (amongst other things):
o Increase the number of places for off-shore refugees and humanitarian
entrants (14)
o Abolish mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers (17)
o Abolish discriminatory separation of refugees into permanent and
temporary visa categories based on whether or not they arrived with a
valid visa (18)
o Restore the Australian migration zone to match Australia’s territory
and accept responsibility for processing all asylum seekers who seek
Australia’s protection within the migration zone (20)
o House asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa in publicly
owned and managed open reception centres, where entry and exit to
these centres are unrestricted except where prohibited for medical or
security reasons (24)
o Ensure that initial assessment of refugee status is completed within 90
days (25)
o Grant asylum seekers an AAV – an Asylum Application Visa – which
allows them to travel, work, income support and access to ongoing
educational and medical services while their claims for asylum are
being assessed (26,27)
o Ensure that the UN adopts a definition of environmental refugee in its
assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a
definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention (35).”
Jim’s personal thoughts: a possible answer to the refugee “problem”:
1) Australia should take the recommendation of the UN: 0.1% of the population
of the country, as the figure for how many refugees we should absorb each
year. That would be 21,000 annually. The Greens recommend 20,000 from
this line of argument.
2) That would be increasing our intake by 7,000. Currently we take 13000 a year.
3) If we focused on our region, that increase would clear the backlog of people
waiting on the UN list in Indonesia, and would immediately stop the boats.
People would not need to risk the dangerous boat journey to wait up to a year
on Christmas Island if they only had to wait up to a year in Indonesia. It would
eliminate the need for a “2nd queue”. The boat trips will continue while the
refugees wait in Indonesia for 10-20 years.
4) Indeed if we took 0.1% of our total population each year, we would then have
the moral right to encourage other western countries to do the same.
5) At the same time: work on the bigger picture. There are a couple of bigger
picture considerations.
a. Promote peace and stability in our region of the world. Do not support
actions that begin wars and cause people movements – wars lead to
refugees. Peace, stability and a degree of prosperity, keeps people
settled.
b. Encourage the Indonesian and Malaysian governments to sign the UN
convention on refugees, and seek to financially invest in (with the
condition that we can then monitor the conditions of) the holding areas
for refugees in Indonesia.
c. In the meantime, since most of our current refugee flow is coming
from Afghanistan and that region, why not negotiate with Pakistan (via
the UN) to have a proper processing camp set up there? It would save
people dangerous travel and even greater dislocation. If such a place
could be set up there, and run efficiently to place people in a relatively
short period of time, it would stem the flows leaving that region in
dangerous and uncertain ways.
Recent Comments