9. Humanitarian Entrants
   1. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that currently more than 114 million people worldwide have been forcibly displaced ‘as a result of persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations’. This figure represents ‘the highest levels of displacement on record’.[1]
   2. International efforts to manage refugee crises in an organised manner date to the establishment of the office of the League of Nations’ High Commissioner for Refugees in 1921, which was set up to deal with the population upheavals caused by World War I and the dissolution of the empires of the Central Powers and the internal collapse of the Russian Empire.[2]
   3. As noted in Chapter 2, Australia’s first humanitarian intake occurred in 1947 in the aftermath of World War II, with the Displaced Person Scheme, which was administered with the support of the United Nations’ International Refugee Organization, the forerunner to the current UNHCR.
   4. Expressing Australia’s resolve to contribute to international efforts to manage refugee crises, in January 1954, Australia ratified the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. As a result of this, the country continued to resettle refugees on an ad hoc basis in response to specific humanitarian emergencies.[3]
   5. As the next major milestone in Australia’s humanitarian migration history, in 1977, in the wake of refugee crises in Indochina and following recommendations by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, the Australian Government formally established Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program as an integral part of the wider Migration Program.[4]
   6. A humanitarian entrant refers to someone who engages Australia’s protection obligations, or in other words, a refugee. The meaning of ‘refugee’ under the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act), is someone assessed to be:

• Outside their own country of nationality or former habitual residence (their home country); and
• Owing to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’, is unable or unwilling to return to their home country or to seek the protection of that country[5].
  7. The UNHCR, similarly, defines ‘refugee’ as

…someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.[6]

9.8In line with the practice of the UNHCR, Australia places priority on refugee cohorts who are outside of their home country and who are in greatest need of resettlement, including the following groups:

• People assessed as refugees by the UNHCR and referred to Australia for resettlement;
• Applicant proposals by a close family member in Australia; and
• Vulnerable cohorts within refugee populations, such as women and children, ethnic minorities, LGBTQI+ and other identified minority groups that are referred by the UNHCR or proposed by a close family member in Australia.[7]

Australia’s Refugee and Humanitarian Program

9.9As touched on above and discussed in Chapter 2, Australia has a long history of welcoming refugees displaced as a result of conflict, persecution, and human rights abuses. Indeed, since the end of World War II, Australia has successfully resettled more than 950,000 humanitarian entrants and is consistently among the world’s top resettlement countries.[8]

9.10Australia’s humanitarian intake has been an important component of the larger migration program for nearly 80 years and humanitarian entrants have made, and will continue to make, invaluable contributions to Australia’s culture, society, economy, and national identity.

9.11Apart from the contribution humanitarian entrants make domestically, Australia’s refugee intake demonstrates Australia’s status as a good global citizen. On this, the Refugee Council of Australia (RCoA), the national peak body for refugees and asylum seekers, and organisations and individuals assisting them, submitted that the resettlement of people in need of protection in Australia…

… has played a crucial role in international efforts to provide protection to persons whose life, liberty, safety and other fundamental rights are at risk. It has also enabled Australia to tangibly demonstrate its international solidarity with the mostly poor countries hosting the majority of the world’s refugees.[9]

9.12According to the Department of Home Affairs, the composition of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program (the Program) ‘is drawn from a range of nationalities, ethnic and religious groups, reflecting global displacement arising from conflict and persecution’. The Program is flexible and evolves in response to emerging humanitarian emergencies and global resettlement needs. The Program is guided by the following principles:

• Prioritising those caseloads most in need of global resettlement in line with guidance and referrals from the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR);
• Global and non-discriminatory; and
• Targeting vulnerable cohorts within refugee populations.[10]
  13. In line with the evolving humanitarian needs of the global community, the main sources of intake for Australia’s Program have changed and adapted over time (Figure 9.1).

Source: Department of Home Affairs, 'Discussion Paper: Australia's Humanitarian Program 2023-24', p. 7, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/files/australias-humanitarian-program-23-24-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

9.14The Program consists of two components: offshore and onshore. The offshore component focuses on ‘providing permanent resettlement in Australia to refugees and people in humanitarian need outside their home country (and outside Australia)’. The onshore component is reserved for people who arrive in Australia legally ‘seek Australia’s protection and are found to engage Australia’s non-refoulement (non return) obligations’.[11] Roughly, 80 to 90 per cent of humanitarian visas go to offshore applicants vis-à-vis onshore applicants (Figure 9.2).

Source: Department of Home Affairs, 'Discussion Paper: Australia's Humanitarian Program 2024-25', p. 7, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/humanitarian-program-2024-25-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 29 May 2024 (note: ‘UMA’ refers to Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals).

9.15The Australian Government has set the intake for the Program for 2024-25 at 20,000 places. This is the same as the intake for the 2023-24 Program. The 2022-23 Program was set for 17,875 places, all of which was fully delivered, with 15,875 visas granted for the offshore component and 2,000 for the onshore component.[12]

Visa Types for Humanitarian Entrants

9.16Australia offers various categories of refugee and humanitarian visas through the Program for individuals who need protection. These are broadly divided into offshore and onshore visas. Offshore protection visas are listed below.

• Refugee category visas:

• Refugee (subclass 200)—A visa generally for people who have fled persecution and are living outside their home country;
• In-country Special Humanitarian (subclass 201)—A visa used in very limited circumstances, as the UNHCR is not mandated to refer people for resettlement who remain in their home country, even if the UN has a presence in their country.
• Emergency Rescue (subclass 203)—A visa that is granted to a small number of people who are outside of their home country and who are in urgent need of protection because there is an imminent threat to their life and security. Usually, it is only granted to people who have been referred by the UNHCR; and
• Woman at Risk (subclass 204)—A visa for women and their dependants who are subject to persecution in the home country or are registered as being ‘of concern’ by the UNHCR and without the protection of a male relative.

• Special Humanitarian Program visa:

• Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202)—A visa for people outside of their home country and who, while not identified as a refugee, are subject to discrimination amounting to a gross violation of human rights, and with family or community ties in Australia. The applicant must be supported by an eligible proposer, who is obliged to pay for the applicant’s travel to Australia and provide initial accommodation and orientation in Australia. Only a small number of these visas are granted despite high demand and priority is given to those who have close family members in Australia.[13]
  17. Onshore protection visas consist of the following, divided into permanent and temporary visas:

• Permanent Protection visa:

• Protection (subclass 866)—A visa for people who arrive in Australia on a valid visa and want to seek asylum. Grantees are allowed to stay permanently in Australia.[14]
• Resolution of Status (subclass 851)—A visa that allows for the permanent resolution of status for certain visa holders, including eligible holders of a Temporary Protection visa (TPV) or Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV).[15]

• Temporary Protection visas:

• Temporary Protection (subclass 785)—A visa for people who arrive in Australia without a visa and want to seek asylum. The visa allows a holder to remain in Australia for three years, work, study, and access government services.[16]
• Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (subclass 790)—Another visa for people who arrive in Australia without a visa and want to seek asylum. The visa allows the holder to remain in Australian for five years, work, study, and access government services.[17]
  18. The key difference between the TPV and the SHEV is that the SHEV allows the holder to apply for other visas (but not a permanent Protection visa), for example, an employer sponsored skilled visa, if the holder, or their immediate family, fulfil the SHEV pathway requirements in a ‘SHEV regional area’.[18] To be eligible for the transition pathway, the holder, or a member of their immediate family, must work without receiving any social security support payments and/or study full time in a designated regional area for a total of at least 42 months of the five-year visa term.[19] Very few SHEV visa holders have met these requirements.[20]
  19. On 13 February 2023, the Government announced a new pathway to permanent residence for eligible holders of TPVs and SHEVs who had arrived in Australia prior to 14 February 2023 via a Resolution of Status (RoS) visa, subject to character, health, and security checks. This measure applies to the so-called ‘asylum legacy caseload’, a group of people who arrived in Australia as Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals (UMAs) between August 2012 and December 2013, prior to the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders, and were found to be refugees. It does not apply to UMAs during that time who were found not to be refugees. Further, any person arriving as a UMA after the commencement of Operation Sovereign Borders is subject to offshore processing and is ineligible for permanent protection, irrespective of refugee status.[21]
  20. The Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS), an organisation that provides free legal advice and representation to vulnerable people seeking asylum in Australia, welcomed the 13 February 2023 announcement, noting that the measure will…

…reduce the number of people who are impacted by the temporary protection regime and foster the social cohesion of refugees into the broader Australian community. However, RACS notes that many TPV and SHEV holders who have transitioned, or will be able to transition, onto RoS Visas will have been subject to the temporary protection regime for extended periods…[22]

9.21The Australian Migrant Resource Centre (AMRC), too, supported the announcement:

We welcome and support the permanency considerations for TPV and SHEV visa holders, who have been contributing highly through their engagement in the labour market and through entrepreneurship.[23]

9.22Some contributors to the inquiry, while welcoming the opening of the RoS pathway to current TPV and SHEV holders, raised concerns about the continuity of the temporary protection regime, which remains embedded within the Migration Act. The Australian Human Rights Commission, for instance, noted the following:

The Commission has long raised concerns about the impact of temporary protection visas and would encourage this Committee to consider this issue as part of its review in order to ensure that the transition to a permanent visa pathway is implemented effectively.[24]

9.23RACS, also, emphasised that the changes to open the RoS pathway to TPV and SHEV holders ‘do not abolish temporary migration protection system’. They explained:

Some refugees and people seeking asylum who arrived on or after 14 February 2023 are not eligible to apply for RoS Visas. Further those impacted by Offshore processing are not eligible. Bridging visa holders, undergoing such processing also continue to be subject to temporariness and limited rights (including work, study and healthcare), inhibiting social cohesion and their overall welfare.[25]

9.24A number of contributors recommended the outright abolition of the temporary protection regime through amendment of the Migration Act and the Migration Regulations. The Asylum Seekers Resource Centre (ASRC), an organisation that provides services to asylum seekers in the Victorian community and those held in detention nationally, for example, argued that temporary protection ‘denies people the opportunity to invest in their communities and erodes social cohesion, especially as people are separated from their families’.[26]

9.25In a joint submission, the Human Rights Law Centre, Migrant Workers Centre, and Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, claimed that the temporary protection regime ‘denies visa-holders the right to invest in their communities, to reunite with their families, to find work and plan for a future on equal footing’ and recommended that temporary protection be abolished.[27]

Meeting Australia’s Human Rights Obligations

9.26Contributors to the inquiry highlighted the importance of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program for Australia meeting its international human rights obligations.

9.27Professor Alan Gamlen, Director of the Migration Hub at the Australian National University, for one, emphasised the importance of Australia meeting its human rights obligations through the Program. He told the Committee:

Absolutely, Australia has obligations internationally, particularly because it's a signatory to the refugee convention, and because we wish to have harmonious relationships with our neighbours and our allies. As a country, we've bought into the multilateral system. Fulfilling our obligations to the humanitarian protection system is a fulfilment of that commitment to multilateralism. So, yes, we absolutely do have those obligations.[28]

9.28Similarly, Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, spoke of the ‘moral imperative attached to us ensuring that we provide protection and safety to people who need that around the world’ and urged that any reform to the migration system must ‘ensure that upholding human rights and Australia's international obligations with respect to asylum seekers and refugees are central considerations when shaping the future direction of Australia's migration system’.[29]

9.29In its submission to the inquiry, too, the Australian Human Rights Commission, highlighted the ‘important role that the Refugee and Humanitarian Program plays both with regards to Australia’s migration system, and also in terms of giving effect to Australia’s international human rights obligations’[30]. They elaborated:

Australia remains one of the most generous humanitarian countries in the world, with 13,307 visas granted under the 2021-22 Humanitarian Program. This should continue to remain a central component of Australia’s migration policy given the importance of ensuring that safety and protection is provided to people who are fleeing persecution, war and violence.[31]

9.30On this, the Department of Home Affairs acknowledges that the Program, among other things, aims to ‘meet Australia’s international obligations and positions Australia as a global leader in international resettlement efforts’.[32]

Nation Building and the Contribution of Humanitarian Entrants

9.31As noted, humanitarian entrants have contributed greatly to Australia’s society, culture, and economy for 80 years. On this point, the ASRC submitted that ‘[m]odern-day Australia has been built on the contribution of generations of people seeking asylum and refugees’. Moreover, they continued:

Australia’s response after World War II, the Vietnam War and many other world crises demonstrates that permanent migration for refugees is critical to building a nation that is prosperous whilst retaining its humanity.[33]

9.32The RACS, similarly, pointed to the substantial contribution the humanitarian entrants make to Australia:

We submit that refugees and humanitarian entrants bring a unique skill set to the Australian labour market by providing invaluable cultural and linguistic links to the increasingly multicultural Australian community. Accordingly, the employment of refugees can directly increase the competitive advantage of organisations by enabling them to deliver better services, build customer loyalty, and penetrate new and emerging markets.[34]

9.33While acknowledging that the aim of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program is to provide safety to those needing protection, the RCoA highlighted the ‘significant contribution that refugee and humanitarian entrants make to Australia’s economy and society, including in the areas of jobs and skills’. They made the following points in support of this assertion:

• The younger demographic profile and long-term engagement in the Australian labour market of refugee and humanitarian entrants (i.e., a median age 15 years younger than the national average and the lowest settler loss rate of any migrant group);
• Many refugees arriving with significant skills, qualifications and overseas work experience relevant to the Australian labour market, including as medical professionals, tradespeople, engineer, business owners, educators and carers;
• Refugee and humanitarian entrant labour force participation rates converge towards that of the Australian-born population over time. The second generation performs at a higher level;
• Refugees and humanitarian entrants engage disproportionately in the labour force in some regional areas, and industries where there is significant labour shortages;
• Refugee and humanitarian entrants show a greater propensity to form their own businesses than other migrants, and risk-taking, entrepreneurism, and an ability to identify and take advantage of opportunities is a key characteristic of the group; and
• Refugee and humanitarian entrants facilitate the development of trade between Australian and their countries of origin.[35]
  34. As a concrete example that quantifies the economic contribution that refugee groups can have, the RCoA cited research by Deloitte Access Economics on the impact of 160 Karen refugees from Myanmar on the rural Victorian town of Nhill. The research found, according to the RCoA, that the refugees contributed a net present value of ‘$41.49 million to the regional economy’. The RCoA asserted that the case ‘highlights the positive impact that refugees can have on local communities when they are successfully supported and recognised’.[36]
  35. In summation, the RCoA highlighted that Australia’s humanitarian entrants ‘have found success in every field of endeavour, including the arts, sports, media, science, research, business and civic and community life’.[37]
  36. Significantly, refugees and other displaced people are not merely a pool of labour for the benefit of the Australian economy. While acknowledging the substantial economic contribution the humanitarian entrants make, the RACS, for instance, highlighted the important contribution to Australian society and culture humanitarian entrants make: ‘Refugees also bring a wealth of cultural and social experiences that can enrich the fabric of Australian society, leading to greater cultural exchange which can help build a more diverse and inclusive society.’[38]

Skills Assessment and Recognition of Qualifications

9.37Humanitarian entrants are often inhibited from fully participating in the labour market in roles commensurate with their skill and qualification level due to difficulties in obtaining a positive skills assessment and/or recognition of their existing qualifications. On this, the Centre for Policy Development (CPD) noted that ‘a sizeable proportion’ of humanitarian entrants are ‘working below the skill level of the positions they held in their former country of residence due to a variance of qualifications that are not recognised in Australia’.[39] Skills assessment and the recognition of qualifications as it relates to skilled migration was addressed in detail in Chapter 7. This section deals with evidence relating to the unique circumstances faced by the humanitarian entrant cohort.

9.38As highlighted by the RCoA, humanitarian entrants often have skills and qualifications that are in high demand in the Australian labour market, yet ‘have been unable to access, afford or successfully navigate skills and qualifications recognition or industry accreditation processes’.[40]

9.39While acknowledging attempts to make assessment and recognition processes more accessible to migrants, including the recent Skills Assessment Pilots by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR)[41], the RCoA highlighted that such processes ‘still involve a degree of complexity’ and called for any future reforms to ‘ensure affordability and accessibility to refugee and humanitarian entrants’.[42]

9.40The Skills Assessment Pilots, now completed, were designed to ‘deliver faster, cheaper skills assessments’, and DEWR claims that the pilots helped migrants improve their employability. An evaluation of the results of the pilots is currently being undertaken ‘to help improve future skills assessments for migrants’. The Pilots consisted of the following:

• Faster Migrant Skills Assessments (ended in June 2022).

• The Pilot offered fast-tracked skills assessments for onshore migrants who had already submitted and paid for an application in a priority occupation and were awaiting an outcome;

• Skills Assessment Outcomes for Migrants (ended in February 2024).

• The Pilot offered free and fast-tracked skills assessments to eligible onshore migrants to help show employers they have the skills they are looking for;

• Employability Assessments for Migrants (ended February 2024).

• The Pilot offered free employability assessment, coaching session, personalised plan, and up-to $3,000 to cover employability skills training.[43]
  41. VETASSESS informed the Committee that it had access to funding under the DEWR Pilots ‘to do assessments of refugees’ but had faced difficulties in ‘trying to get the message to refugees’. VETASSESS had ‘approached a number of refugee councils’, but did not believe that it had done enough ‘to promote the ability of a refugee or humanitarian visa holder to have a skills assessment done’. According to VETASSESS, DEWR also recognised ‘that they need to put a bit more effort into marketing to the various refugee councils’.[44]
  42. A more fundamental barrier to skills assessment and qualification recognition faced by humanitarian entrants is the requirement to substantiate their work history, skills, or qualifications through documentation. The nature of seeking refuge or asylum means that many humanitarian entrants are unable to bring such documentation with them when they are forced to flee their country of origin and many face insurmountable barriers in obtaining such documents after leaving. As noted by VETASSESS:

Unlike skilled migrants who get their skills assessed as part of the application process, refugees do not. This disadvantages them when seeking employment as they have no independent verification of their skills.[45]

9.43VETASSESS suggested that assessing authorities can aid humanitarian entrants in substantiating their work history and qualification claims and recommended a ‘skills assessment mechanism’ directed at the refugee cohort. VETASSESS raised the following example of such support work:

VETASSESS undertook a pilot program for the Department of Education in 2015 involving skills assessments of refugees in select trades. The biggest challenge of the otherwise qualified tradespeople within this cohort was lack of formal validation of skills and hence low confidence from employers. Undergoing the skills assessment process and subsequent training yielded successful outcomes for the candidates.[46]

9.44The AMRC, which specialises in humanitarian and migrant settlement, and community capacity building, highlighted the success that Germany has had in efforts to recognise qualifications of refugees more effectively and efficiently:

In Germany between 2015 and 2018 around 8,475 Syrian vocational qualifications were recognized, as well as over 1,400 qualifications from Iran and over 800 qualifications from Iraq. The most common are recognition procedures in the field of health professions (doctor, nurse, dentist).

The AMRC pointed to the supports in place in Germany to better help refugees and other vulnerable migrants through the assessment and recognition processes: ‘Germany has developed tools that support the German economy in evaluating professional experiences and qualifications of refugees’. The AMRC praised Germany’s ‘online application’ because ‘easy to use, interculturally understandable and can be used early in the integration process’.[47] This was also discussed in Chapter 7.

9.45On this point, the CPD, also, raised ‘Germany’s innovative skills recognition system’ as a possible model for similar processes in Australia. The German system, they noted, ‘includes standard tests and training modules’ that ‘enables employers to assess the level of job readiness and identify where more training may be required’. This, they asserted, contrasted to ‘traditional skills assessments that require extensive documentation’.[48]

9.46The RCoA submitted that skill assessment and qualification recognition are not the only issues faced by humanitarian entrants and pointed to ‘industry registration or accreditation processes (‘licensing’)’ as also being problematic for such migrants. Licensing, according to the RCoA, ‘can be extremely lengthy, expensive and difficult to navigate’. Such licensing requirements, moreover, cut across ‘different Federal, state and territory jurisdictions’ and ‘effectively acts as employment gatekeeping’. The RCoA argued that there is an ‘an important role for government to play in ensuring a level of oversight and accountability to industry licensing processes’ and called for the establishment of a body similar to the Ontarian Office of Fairness Commissioner to provide such oversight.[49] Chapter 7 dealt with this suggestion in more detail.

9.47The AMRC, meanwhile, highlighted the need for direct pathways to employment to be built into skill assessment processes.[50]

There have been many cases where e.g. an electrical engineer is recognised to the equivalent of Australian standards but without connection with industry still could not engage or utilise their skills in the sector. There is a need for supported pathways and opportunities not just with the Skill Assessment Authority but also with the settlement sector, industry, wider community, departments etc to work together to create better pathways and opportunities to participation in the labour market.[51]

Committee Comment

9.48The Committee acknowledges that refugees in Australia often have skills, experience, and qualifications that are not fully utilised in the Australian economy.

9.49Refugees come to Australia seeking safety for themselves and their families, not career opportunities and, as such, may be unfamiliar with the skills and qualification assessment and verification processes and requirements. While the Committee acknowledges the effort of the Australian Government to improve the skills assessment process through its Skills Assessment Pilots, it notes that these are not specifically targeted at the humanitarian entrant cohort. Given the unique circumstances under which refugees come to Australia, the Committee sees merit in more targeted programs to support refugees navigate the skills assessment and qualifications recognition processes.

9.50Further, recognising the often-perilous route by which many refugees enter Australia, the Committee also understands that verification through documentation (such as qualifications, work experience, and government documentation) is sometimes impossible for refugees. The Committee sees great value in the suggestion by VETASSESS that assessing authorities be empowered to aid refugees in substantiating their skills and qualification claims. More specifically, the Committee agrees with the Centre for Policy Development that skills assessment processes in place in Germany may offer an appropriate model for similar processes here. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government incorporate these systems into a consolidated online portal, as recommended in Chapter 7, Recommendation 40.

9.51At the same time, the Committee is also cognizant that refugees also face other barriers to gaining employment commensurate to their skills and qualifications that are more sociocultural in nature. The Committee agrees with the Australian Migrant Resource Centre that better connections between industry and refugees should be built into the skills assessment and qualification recognition processes, and the settlement process more widely. This would aid both refugees, who often lack the social capital of skilled migrants and the wider Australian population, and businesses, who may be unaware of the untapped resource that the refugee cohort represents.

9.52The Committee recommends that the Australian Government undertakes a pilot program to better aid refugees in navigating the skills assessment and qualification recognition processes in Australia.

9.53The Committee recommends that the Australian Government refers to relevant examples in Germany to devise mechanisms through which skills assessing authorities can help refugees substantiate their claims around their skills, experience, and qualifications in cases where official documentation is unavailable.

The Government should ensure that any such mechanism is robust enough to ensure safety and quality standards for the Australian community. The Committee, further, recommends that this be implemented as part of an online portal for navigating these processes as included in Recommendation 38.

9.54The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establishes a system through which refugees are more directly connected to job opportunities relevant to their skills and qualifications that is built into the skills assessment and qualification recognition processes, and that the skill value of refugees is effectively promoted to potential employers.

Settlement Services and Employment Supports

9.55As noted elsewhere, refugees and other humanitarian entrants have experienced hardship and often trauma on their journey to safety in Australia. It is critical that such entrants are provided appropriate levels of support to allow them to integrate and thrive in their new home. As pointed out by Settlement Services International (SSI), and noted in the previous chapter, ‘integration is usually defined as the capacity to participate fully in economic, social, cultural and civic life and is a multi-dimensional, two-way process of mutual adaptation between newcomers and host communities’.[52]

9.56The Department of Home Affairs provided details on a ‘range of settlement options offered to new migrants that will enable them to fully participate, both socially and economically, in Australia’, including:

• A new Adult Migrant English Program (AMEP) business model from 1 January 2025. The new business model will provide greater flexibility and enhanced client supports to further improve English language, employment and settlement outcomes for AMEP clients;
• Supports for vulnerable young refugees and migrants, as announced in the 2023-24 Budget, with $9.1 million over 12 months to ensure the delivery of Youth Transition Support services, which improve employment, education and social connections for refugees and vulnerable migrants aged 15 to 25;
• The Humanitarian Settlement Program (HSP) supports humanitarian entrants and other eligible visa holders integrate into Australian life. It does this by helping new arrivals build the skills and knowledge they need to become self-reliant and active members of the community. The program has a strong focus on helping clients to learn English, gain employment and access education and training; and
• Specialised and Intensive Services (SIS) is a component of the Humanitarian Settlement Program (HSP) available to humanitarian entrants and other eligible visa holders who have complex needs. SIS offer clients short term needs-based support to help them access appropriate mainstream services and develop the necessary skills to manage their needs independently.[53]
  57. As identified in Chapter 4, on 16 October 2023, the then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs announced the release of the Refugee and Humanitarian Entrant Settlement and Integration Outcomes Framework (the Framework).[54] The Framework was developed to improve existing settlement services ‘with a view to further enhancing positive settlement outcomes for refugees and humanitarian entrants’. The Framework elucidates six ‘facilitating outcome areas’ considered critical to successful settlement outcomes. These areas are:
• Economic participation;
• Health and wellbeing;
• Language and digital literacy;
• Education;
• Housing and transport; and
• Understanding host culture.

Additionally, the Framework outlines two underpinning principles upon which ‘clients will be supported to engage with the settlement services model and how that model will in turn support these outcomes within the clients’. These principles are 1) self-agency, and 2) self-efficacy. ‘Self-agency’ involves the ‘ability to exercise control, influence and responsibility over one’s environment’, while ‘self-efficacy’ involves ‘a person’s belief in their capacity to act in the ways necessary to reach specific goals’.[55]

9.58Developing out of the Framework, the Government has announced a new Humanitarian Integration and Settlement Program (HISP) to build upon existing services under the HSP,

… but with some enhancements that will provide more flexibility for providers to deliver support to clients, based on the needs, strengths and aspirations of clients, facilitated through a mixed funding model to provide flexibility to service providers to tailor settlement services to their clients’ needs.[56]

9.59Some submitters argued that the current suite of settlement services is not meeting the needs of all humanitarian entrants. On this, Know Your Roots (KYR) Inc., for instance, related to the Committee a case study of a refugee’s experience with settlement services (Box 9.1).

9.60As the above case study demonstrates, humanitarian entrants must be supported in navigating the civic landscape of their new home. And while this case study highlights a failure of the formal settlement services, it also shows the vital role local grass-roots organisation and cultural community groups can play in aiding successful settlement of vulnerable migrants.

9.61Indeed, a number of submitters highlighted the vital importance of local communities in the successful settlement of humanitarian entrants. Professor Joy Damousi et al, for example, emphasised the ‘pivotal role’ that community networks and associations play in helping refugees settle in Australia. They explained that:

More established community organisations can provide support to the people with similar cultural heritage, religion and/or linguistic backgrounds. While many communities in the past did this without government support, it is important that government work with groups because of the assistance they provide migrants as they resettle.[58]

9.62Moreover, as pointed out by the CPD, ‘nation building is done most practically at a local level, through direct relationships, in schools, workplaces, places of worship, community centres, sports clubs and in all the spaces and places that communities meet together’.[59]

9.63In a similar vein, SSI submitted that the settlement and integration of humanitarian entrants ‘is enhanced by sustainably funded services with specialised expertise, which deliver integrated support and are embedded in, and trusted by, communities they serve’. [60]

9.64The NSW Government, meanwhile, argued that there was a need for ‘integrated place-based approaches to service delivery that support migrants and refugees through wraparound services’. They further suggested that such services should link refugee skills ‘with appropriate employment, vocational education and training (VET) opportunities’.[61]

9.65As part of the offshore component of the Refugee and Humanitarian Program, refugees can enter Australia via the Community Support Program (CSP). According to the Department, the CSP is designed to provide for the private sponsorship of refugees which complements the wider Refugee and Humanitarian Program. The CSP…

… enables communities and businesses, as well as families and individuals, to propose humanitarian visa applicants with employment prospects and to support new humanitarian arrivals.

The CSP is intended to harness community support for refugees, including the willingness of the Australian business community to support refugees in practical ways through employment and financial assistance, and increase the chances of strong integration and settlement outcomes.[62]

Applicants under the CSP are required to fulfill eligibility criteria for the Global Special Humanitarian (subclass 202) visa.[63]

9.66The Department of Home Affairs informed the Committee that a review into the CSP, undertaken in 2020-21 by the Commonwealth Coordinator-General for Migrant Services, found that global community support models can ‘improve economic, social and language learning outcomes for refugees, particularly through building social capital’. In response to these findings, a new community supported pathway for refugees is being trialled: the Community Refugee Integration and Settlement Pilot (CRISP), established by an investment of $8.6 million to support 1,500 individuals over four years. The CRISP, according to the Department, aims ‘to achieve optimal settlement outcomes with the help of Australian community members who want to help refugees settle into life in Australia’.[64]

9.67The Government has partnered with Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia (CRSA), a national non-profit organisation, to administer the CRISP.[65] According to the CRSA, the CRISP:

empowers groups of everyday Australians in any community in Australia to welcome and support the settlement and integration of a refugee household in their local community using a ‘community sponsorship’ model, inspired by the successful Canadian community sponsorship model.[66]

9.68Other submitters, too, pointed to the Canadian example as a role model for successful settlement programs in Australia. The AMRC, for instance, quoted the Government of Canada on the role of settlement services in Canada:

We want newcomers to succeed and add value to our culture and society. That’s why we fund services to help immigrants settle in their communities. There are more than 500 settlement service organizations across Canada. They help all newcomers to:

• learn about life in Canada and their community
• get language training
• find work
• make connections with established immigrants and Canadians.

Settlement services help newcomers adapt to life in Canada and put them on the path to eventually becoming Canadian citizens. [67]

9.69On the new Australian CRISP program, as CRSA explained, participants are initially identified as refugees by the UNHCR and then referred by the Department of Home Affairs into the program. They are then matched with a local Community Supporter Group who contacts the participants before they arrive in Australia and supports them over a 12-month period following their arrival. CRSA described the program as ‘a “sponsor a stranger” program’ and pointed out that Australia does not have a program that ‘enables community sponsorship of a refugee who is identified by a community group in Australia’, or a so-called ‘named’ or ‘linked program.[68]

9.70CRSA submitted that ‘community sponsorship’ programs, such as the CRISP, help amplify the role that humanitarian entrants play in nation building by centrally involving mainstream society in settlement and integration processes. Through such processes, CRSA contended, ‘community sponsorship not only supports the effective settlement and integration of those new migrants, but also boosts social cohesion by systematically introducing new migrants to groups of established Australians who are invested in their successful settlement.’[69]

9.71Additionally, while acknowledging that cohort-level data is not yet available on the outcomes of the program, CRSA argued that the CRISP also facilitates greater participation in the Australian economy by refugees under the program. They explained:

This is because of the pivotal role that a group of dedicated sponsors can play in leveraging their local knowledge, professional knowledge and personal networks in assisting refugee newcomers to find suitable and sustainable work or establish businesses.

They, further, recounted anecdotal evidence of ‘a number of refugees resettled through the CRISP who have begun working within their first six months in Australia, or who are taking meaningful steps towards working or establishing businesses.’[70]

9.72CRSA recommended that, among other things, that the CRISP program be made ‘a permanent feature ‘of the Migration Program and that it be scaled up to at least 5,000 places. They suggested that CRISP places should be additional to the annual humanitarian intake through the Refugee and Humanitarian Program.[71]

9.73Noting the importance of local communities in successful settlement outcomes, the AMRC emphasised the need for settlement services to include ‘capacity building of the wider community as a whole’. They explained that when ‘people have a sense of belonging they are set to thrive and contribute highly, giving more back to the community compared to what they receive through settlement support.’ The results of such community capacity building would be to position Australia as an ‘open hearted, compassionate country that welcomes people regardless of their background.’[72]

9.74Some contributors to the inquiry, highlighted the difficulties that humanitarian refugees face in accessing rental accommodation. CORE Community Services, for example, noted that refugees do not arrive with rental histories, explaining that:

That impacts a lot on rental auctioneering where the real estate agent has the upper hand to say: 'You don't have a rental history. Another person is about to pay $100 on top—are you able to pay more than that?' That under-the-table rental auctioneering is putting our clients in a very disadvantaged situation.[73]

9.75Further to this, CORE Community Services informed the Committee that ‘housing is a key challenge that significantly affects the overall settlement experience’. They reported that ‘housing affordability is described by our clients as their main source of financial and mental stress’.[74]

9.76The AMRC recommended if settlement services were better resourced and more flexible earlier in a humanitarian entrant’s arrival it would lead to improved settlement outcomes.

Appropriately resourced and flexible settlement services across various pathways such as in education, capacity building for mainstream services, engagement with industry etc. If this is available upfront, the contribution of refugees and migrants could be seen much earlier with much better settlement outcomes and higher participation rates in the labour market.[75]

Employment Support for Humanitarian Entrants

9.77As a cohort, humanitarian entrants face a range of barriers to gaining meaningful and ongoing employment compared to other migrant groups that goes beyond difficulties related to skills assessment and qualifications recognition. The Committee heard that better supports were needed to help humanitarian entrants access the job market. As highlighted by the CPD, ‘[l]abour market participation is a key to successful settlement’.[76]

9.78The Department of Home Affairs highlighted that the Economic Pathways to Refugee Integration grant program was established to increase the rate of employment for refugees and humanitarian entrants by creating job opportunities and pathways to employment and self-employment for refugees with low skill levels and low English language proficiency, where $21.3 million over three years was committed to the program.[77]

9.79Speaking of migrants more generally, SSI cited evidence that ‘job seekers from migrant and refugee backgrounds are over-represented in long-term unemployment trends’.[78] More specifically to refugees and asylum seekers, the Centre for Policy Development pointed out that ‘high levels of unemployment persist among humanitarian migrants’.[79]

9.80Indeed, as noted by the Department of Home Affairs, the 2016 Australian Census Migrant Integrated Dataset (ACMID) showed that in the first eight months of their arrival in Australia, only 23 per cent of humanitarian migrants in the labour force were employed but increased markedly after five years. Continuing, they explained that ‘for those in the labour force who had lived in Australia for five years, employment rates increased to around 80 per cent’.[80]

9.81Professor Joy Damousi et al, noted that humanitarian entrants face a range of factors that inhibit labour market participation, including ‘existing qualifications not being recognised; knowledge about labour market practices; tensions over what English language skills are needed and how they should be acquired; and the impact of life experience combined with structural barriers and discrimination’. Given this, they called for ‘tailored supports for refugee jobseekers and catering for job-ready refugees’.[81]

9.82The Australian Human Rights Commission, also, suggested that better supports, and the strengthening of acceptance of refugees among the community, could assist humanitarian entrants enhance their contributions to the Australian economy. They argued:

Initiatives that would assist in this regard include measures to overcome barriers to participation in the labour market, and a continued focus on the development of the National Anti-Racism Framework as an important contribution towards strengthening social cohesion in Australia.[82]

9.83SSI expressed concerns about the ‘effectiveness of Federally-funded employment services to deliver outcomes for refugees and migrants’. More specifically, SSI noted that the now-defunct Jobactive Government employment service ‘did not offer different cohorts of job seekers access to specialised employment service providers’. By contrast, the service provision model under the current Workforce Australia service has moved away from generalist providers focusing on all cohorts to specialist providers focusing on the needs of particular cohorts and those jobs seekers who require the most support. Workforce Australia offers providers specialist licenses for particular cohorts linked to areas of high demand.[83]

9.84While SSI acknowledged that this model ‘recognised that culturally responsive services delivered by providers experienced in delivering programs to Indigenous communities, people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, refugees and ex-offenders are a key pillar to providing improved outcomes for these cohorts’, it highlighted ‘inconsistencies’ in the allocation of CALD and Refugee specialist licenses across South Australia, Victoria, NSW, and Queensland. It raised the example of South-West Sydney where ‘no CALD or Refugee specialist licenses were allocated in one of the most culturally and linguistically diverse areas of Australia’.[84]

9.85On this, the RCoA submitted that ‘there are only two refugee specialist employment services that have received funding through Workforce Australia to stand up services in three of the 24 regions’. The RCoA argued that it was ‘imperative’ that more was invested into refugee specialist employment services.[85]

9.86While arguing that more funding for specialised employment services for humanitarian entrants was needed, the RCoA cautioned that the ‘incentive structure within employment service funding models… can push new arrivals into jobs that do not correlate to meaningful career outcomes of economic participation’. They explained that because employment services have been funded on the basis of ‘simply getting a person into work’, jobseekers ‘can be pressured to accept entry level or low-skilled jobs’. The RCoA suggested that employment services needed to be incentivised into helping people into ‘employment that more closely aligns with their skills, qualifications, experience and aspirations’[86]

9.87The ASRC pointed out that many humanitarian entrants are placed on bridging visas to regularise their migration status while they await the outcome of their claim. The ASRC stressed, however, that bridging visas are not designed to be held for extended periods due to the limited rights available to visa holders. The ASRC described the effect of this situation:

The temporary nature of bridging visas means that many people can only work for short periods of time as they need to renew these visas on a regular basis and sometimes require the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to personally intervene to grant them permission for bridging visa renewal.[87]

9.88The insecure nature of bridging visas also acts to disincentivise potential employers from employing such asylum seekers. The ASRC explained:

Understandably employers are hesitant to employ people who will lose their work rights every few months or years while they hold bridging visas. This creates a cruel and precarious situation for people seeking asylum and fosters an environment where predatory employers can engage in exploitative practices. The illegal work conditions that bridging visa holders have been exposed to have been linked to instances of modern slavery. People seeking asylum are fearful of speaking out against dangerous conditions as they may lose their jobs and do not have access to mainstream social support.[88]

9.89As the ASRC argued, moreover:

Allowing conditions where unscrupulous employers can take advantage of migrants is harmful to the economic and social cohesion of our society and prevents people seeking asylum from accessing basic rights afforded to others in our country.[89]

9.90The ASRC recommended, among other things, that work and study rights be granted to all people seeking asylum on bridging visas ‘throughout the refugee status determination process’ and that people seeking asylum on bridging visas are eligible of government-funded study support, including VET courses, CSP, FEE-HELP, funded apprenticeships, and traineeships.[90]

9.91The RACS, warned that people seeking asylum still face ‘significant barriers to accessing employment, including language barriers, and lack of appropriate training and support.’ They explained:

Only certain bridging visas grant work rights to people seeking asylum. The availability of work rights to people seeking asylum is heavily dependent on the conditions of their visa, and the progress of their application for protection. If person seeking asylum holds a bridging visa with a ‘no work’ condition, they may be able to apply for a new bridging visa with work rights, if their application is being decided by the Department or is under merits review, and they meet certain other criteria. In certain circumstances people seeking asylum on bridging visa with no work rights, cannot apply for work rights.[91]

9.92Acknowledging the Australian economy is suffering major labour and skills shortages across a range of industries, the RACS believed that ‘all people seeking asylum, if engaged in a legal process to seek Australia’s protection, no matter what the stage of that process, should have access to work rights whilst awaiting any outcome or whilst making arrangements to depart Australia should that be their decision.’[92]

We submit that refugees and humanitarian entrants bring a unique skill set to the Australian labour market by providing invaluable cultural and linguistic links to the increasingly multicultural Australian community. Accordingly, the employment of refugees can directly increase the competitive advantage of organisations by enabling them to deliver better services, build customer loyalty, and penetrate new and emerging markets.[93]

9.93Several contributors pointed out that humanitarian entrants, as a cohort, have higher levels of entrepreneurism. The CPD, for instance, indicated that humanitarian entrants ‘are among the most entrepreneurial migrants in our society, and almost twice as likely to be entrepreneurs as Australian taxpayers as a whole’. They suggested that there is ‘unmet demand’ for business loans and microfinancing at reasonable rates as part of the settlement services available in Australia. They cited the example of the ‘well-established microfinance program’ under the Office for Refugee Resettlement in the United States of America, which had achieved high repayment and business survival rates.[94]

9.94Continuing, the CPD highlighted that ‘a major design feature’ of the US program was ‘its reliance on localism and devolution’. They explained:

Support for projects and loans are decided by organisations in the areas where support will be delivered. Local organisations work directly to the Office of Refugee Resettlement on their application for funding support. This helps match up the funding source with communities where a framework for successful loan delivery is already in place.[95]

The CPD argued that, in the Australian context, because ‘migration settlement is concentrated in place’ microfinancing was ‘particularly applicable’.

9.95Related to this, the Department of Home Affairs using data from the Australian Tax Office and the Department of Human Services, noted of all humanitarian entrant taxpayers, ‘24 per cent reported income from their own incorporated business, higher than other migrants groups and all Australian taxpayers’.[96].

Furthermore, humanitarian entrant taxpayers had the highest median unincorporated business income at $16,852, compared with migrant taxpayers from the other visa streams.[97]

Employment Support for Refugee Women

9.96The Committee heard that refugee women, in particular, faced barriers to employment. The CPD, for example, submitted that only 20 per cent of female humanitarian migrants are participating in the labour market compared to 60 per cent of men from this cohort. They suggested that stronger supports for humanitarian migrant women into ‘decent work fosters equity, productivity and economic mobility’. They noted, in particular, that microfinancing has the potential to ‘boost labour participation rates of women through home-based business to foster business experience among female humanitarian migrants’.[98]

9.97SSI, meanwhile, pointed out that refugee women from low and middle-income countries face significant barriers to labour market participation. This is despite recent research which found that such women ‘have much higher levels of graduate and post-graduate degrees compared to Australia-born women’. Moreover, these women, the research found, are more likely to be employed in ‘low-skill and low-paid jobs that are not commensurate with their skills and qualifications’.[99]

9.98SSI highlighted that these research results indicate that ‘a more targeted policy response to unlock the economic potential’ of refugee women is needed. They suggested that such a response include: subsidised entry into vocational and tertiary courses to bridge skills and qualification gaps; careers advice; and opportunities for paid internships and structured mentorship pathways.[100]

Committee Comment

9.99The Committee acknowledges the wide range of evidence it received on settlement services for humanitarian entrants. It notes the importance of embedding settlement services within communities, allowing refugees to connect with others and establish relationships and networks, while investing the wider community in the settlement and integration process.

9.100The Committee endorses recent Government announcements concerning settlement services, including the release of the Refugee and Humanitarian Entrant Settlement and Integration Outcomes Framework and the establishment of a new community sponsorship scheme through the Humanitarian Integration and Settlement Program. The Committee is hopeful that these initiatives address much of the concerns the Committee heard in evidence and the Committee is keen to monitor the outcomes of these into the future.

9.101In relation to employment support services, the Committee believes that more work can be done to help refugees gain employment in roles that align with their skills, qualifications, and experience. To this end, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government works within the existing funding framework to improve specialised refugee employment services and that job service provider be incentivised to help refugees find jobs, or pursue small business opportunities, best aligned with their skills and experience.

9.102The Committee recognises that extended periods on bridging visas results in negative outcomes for those seeking asylum in Australia. The Committee welcomes the announcement on 5 October 2023 by the then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the then Minister for Home Affairs, and the Attorney-General to bolster the integrity of the refugee protection system. With this announcement, the Government acknowledged that processing and assessment backlogs had grown exponentially, allowing some unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the system by lodging non-genuine applications for protection.[101]

9.103The Government has invested $58 million ‘in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia will increase the capacity of those bodies to deal with significant Protection visa and other migration-related caseloads’ and a further $48 million to boost ‘essential legal assistance services to support applicants through the application process’.[102] The Committee is hopeful that these investments and other integrity measures associated with the Nixon Review[103] will address the long delays in the assessment and processing of asylum seekers’ claims and the number of non-genuine claims being lodged. This will hopefully reduce the time people are placed on bridging visas while awaiting their refugee status to be determined.

9.104The Committee acknowledges evidence that asylum seekers on bridging visas have inconsistent access to work rights, often due to seemingly arbitrary decisions made in varied ways during visa processing outcomes. This inconsistency does not sit well with the principle that while resident in Australia, these asylum seekers should have access to the same work rights as other bridging visa holders. The Committee recognises that there may be security or public interest considerations in restricting work rights to some asylum seeker bridging visa holders, however unless these security or public interest considerations can be firmly established the Committee considers that all other asylum seekers should have work rights to allow them to support themselves and their families and contribute to Australia's economy and society.

9.105Finally, acknowledging the added barriers faced by refugee women to access the job market, the Committee recommends that more targeted job support services for women refugees be made available.

9.106Further to this recommendation, the Committee acknowledges that this report does not address the recognised endemic issue of domestic violence and coercive control that can influence the outcomes for refugee, and indeed all migrant, women. In revising the support services improvements for refugees, the Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in line with its domestic violence reform agenda, expand all specialised employment support and domestic violence support services to all migrant women, to ensure equity in delivering desired system improvements.

9.107The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works within the existing funding framework to improve specialised refugee employment support services and that that employment support service providers be incentivised to help refugees find jobs, or pursue small business opportunities, best aligned to their skills, qualifications, and experience.

9.108The Committee recommends that, unless there are compelling reasons related to security or the public interest, that the Australian Government provides work rights to asylum seekers on bridging visas to allow them to support themselves and their families and contribute to the Australian economy and society.

9.109The Committee recommends that the Australian Government makes available more specialised employment and domestic violence support services for migrant women.

Permanent Residency and Citizenship

9.110The Committee heard evidence on the value placed on permanent residency and smooth pathways to citizenship by humanitarian entrants.

9.111The RACS emphasised the importance of permanent protection for humanitarian entrants as a basis for wider nation building efforts. The RACS argued that permanent protection allows refugees to ‘fully integrate’ into Australian society and contribute to Australia’s economic development ‘by allowing them to buy their own homes, invest in business, participate and bring valuable skills to the workforce and pursue new ideas’.[104]

9.112The attainment of citizenship, moreover, is a significant milestone for humanitarian entrants on their journey to safety and security. For such migrants, as noted by the RCoA:

…Australian citizenship has special significance. Gaining citizenship marks both their integration into their new country and the end of their displacement. For many, it will mark the first time they have experienced the protection of a state, rather than its persecution.

…

For this reason, most refugees and humanitarian entrants are eager to apply for citizenship as soon as they can, and prize it highly[105]

9.113The RACS submitted that ‘Australia’s response to increased displacement of people by conflict and climate change should be a humane, fair, efficient, and permanent settlement process.’ Noting that refugees are placed on bridging visas, often lacking certain rights, while waiting for their claim to be assessed, they cautioned that…

..[t]his lack of permanency, the delays in processing of protection visa applications, and the current use of Bridging Visas impedes people’s ability to gain meaningful employment and access to proper health care whilst living in Australia.[106]

9.114The Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma (QPASTT), with experience of supporting 7,796 clients in 2021/22 from over 85 countries by offering both individual or family counselling and group work, believed opportunities to gain permanent residency were highly valued by individuals, families and communities who have arrived in Australia via humanitarian pathways and asylum seeking processes. They explained:

Being able to offer permanent protection to people who have experienced persecution on the basis of their race or ethnicity, membership of a social group, or through their religious or political affiliation, is an important component of Australia's commitment to human rights. It also demonstrates our nation's commitment to multiculturalism and diversity, and offers a "demographic dividend" to compensate for our aging population.[107]

9.115QPASTT submitted there was an important additional aspect of permanent migration that is highly valued by people from refugee and asylum-seeking backgrounds—the opportunity to become Australian citizens:

Citizenship signals welcome, inclusion and belonging in Australia, allowing full rights of political engagement in our nation. Citizenship is a requirement for obtaining an Australian passport and receiving protection when travelling overseas, including travel to country of origin. Citizenship is a requirement for sponsoring community and family members, and for facilitating family reunification, which for many, is a crucial component of healing from refugee torture and trauma.[108]

9.116Despite the clear benefits to gaining citizenship, QPASTT highlighted the barriers which can have ‘long-term devastating effects on the wellbeing of permanent residents’:

One important barrier to the citizenship aspirations of the communities QPASTT works with in Queensland, is the challenge of successfully completing the citizenship test. An estimated 30 per cent of all clients assisted though our intake processes seek advocacy and assistance about citizenship.[109]

9.117The Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc. (Foundation House) called for a review of barriers and facilitators to citizenship for migrants and humanitarian settlers, noting the following:

Supporting and encouraging migrants including humanitarian settlers to become citizens are important measures to promote nation-building and social cohesion. However, many applicants and those of refugee backgrounds in particular encounter barriers to becoming citizens that are unduly onerous.[110]

9.118Foundation House submitted since people of refugee backgrounds were unlikely to wish or be able to migrate elsewhere, Australia’s nation-building and social cohesion would be ‘significantly enhanced by policies and programs that strengthen refugees’ sense of being welcomed, that they belong, and that their economic, social, and cultural contributions are valued’. Expanding on this, they stated:

Humanitarian and refugee migrants are particularly likely to become permanent settlers because the persecution that they fled continues in their countries of origin; prolonged wars have seriously damaged the economies and key services such as health and education; they are stateless and not permitted to return to the countries they were forced to leave.[111]

9.119Being a citizen is a status that is greatly valued by people of refugee backgrounds according to Foundation House because of their histories of exclusion. They explained that for refugees…

…their experience of dictatorial regimes that deny people the right to have a say in how they are governed and because it increases their opportunity to safely travel to reunite with family members in other countries.

Regrettably, many of our clients and members of refugee communities encounter barriers to becoming citizens that we believe are unduly onerous.[112]

9.120QPASTT raised concerns about the various challenges involved with the current process for gaining Australian citizenship, such as an applicant being required to:

• Be a permanent resident of Australia for four years. This is currently unattainable for many people who have arrived in Australia via irregular maritime arrival or through the restricted provision of temporary protection visas only;
• Score 75 per cent or over, and pass all five values questions, on the citizenship test to test their knowledge of Australia; and
• Have a basic knowledge of English language, which is also measured by scoring over 75 per cent on the citizenship test.[113]

Citizenship and Knowledge of the English Language

9.121Foundation House highlighted the challenges for some refugees to meet a requirement for citizenship by demonstrating their basic knowledge of the English language:

The requirement and the manner of its application may constitute significant barriers for people of refugee backgrounds because of the adverse impact of traumatic experiences on language learning and because a significant number may not be literate in their first language for reasons such as limited formal education in countries of origin, perhaps as an aspect of the discrimination they experienced as well as limited education generally. This particularly affects women. As one of our Counsellors observes, there is a ‘gender impact’.[114]

As well as the educational barriers in countries of origin and temporary protection, mothers are generally the main carers for their children, limiting their opportunities to attend English language classes and/or to participate in employment where they are more likely to interact for extended periods with English speakers than they are in community settings.[115]

9.122The RCoA noted that while the majority of humanitarian entrants do not require the aid of an interpreter to pass the citizenship test, there was a small proportion of refugees ‘who will miss out because they personally aren’t able to complete the citizenship test in English in a way that usually other members of their family can’. The RCoA emphasised that the issue was not about ‘Australian values’, highlighting that people ‘who’ve lived in situations where basic rights have been denied actually understand the values more fundamentally than any of us will.’[116]

9.123In a similar vein, QPASTT criticised the citizenship as ‘a barrier that conflates English proficiency with alignment of values and language homogeneity with social cohesion’.[117]

9.124QPASTT, further, questioned the Australian Government’s reliance on a written test in English without interpreter support, claiming it was ‘not a reliable or effective indicator of a person's understanding of citizenship, nor of their acceptance of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship’. They further argued that...

… the test conditions can induce a level of stress where even those with strong English language skills are failing. There is consistent anecdotal evidence from refugee communities across Queensland that this is despite attending citizenship classes, and extensive hours of pre-test independent study. QPASTT staff have frequently heard accounts of individuals attempting the test in excess of five times, incurring significant cost at having to reapply and pay application fees after every fourth attempt. Individuals have spent in excess of two years studying for the test, and make multiple test attempts.[118]

9.125QPASTT also noted that the incidence of repeated failed attempts was more likely for people who have had limited formal schooling or have not had the privilege of being literate in their first language:

It is also apparent that these challenges disproportionately affect women from refugee background who are more likely to have had limited education opportunities and in Australia, are likely to have fulfilled caretaking responsibilities in the family home…[119]

9.126For many, the level of distress caused by repeated failure of the citizenship test renders citizenship an unobtainable aspiration, according to QPASTT. They explained:

Failure to obtain citizenship has also created substantial distress for those who desperately want to travel to see and support ageing or seriously unwell family members, or to sponsor family members who are remaining in dangerous situations. This creates substantial moral distress when it becomes impossible to meet cultural obligations to protect and provide for family members, regardless of geographical separation. For trauma survivors, this sense of exclusion and loss of hope in their future, detrimentally impairs mental wellbeing.[120]

9.127QPASTT also raised concerns about the location of interview and testing sites. They noted that despite Townsville being a regional centre, there was no local availability of citizenship interviews and testing with people required to travel 700 km to attend their interviews and tests in Cairns.[121]

9.128QPASTT recommended the Australian Government:

• Reinstate oral interpreters to support people with barriers to language due to hardship and refugee experience.
• Establish grounds for exemption, including limited schooling, disability, literacy in first language and trauma history.
• Audit locations for interviews and tests, with solutions to ensure equitable access for people living in regional, rural and remote areas.[123]

Committee Comment

9.129The Committee believes that, as a multicultural society, the essence of Australian citizenship is not necessary tied to the English language, important though this is for Australian culture, facilitating the integration of the country’s diverse ethnocultural groupings, and maximising citizens’ participation in civil society. Refugees, often more than other people, are acutely aware of rights and obligations of citizenship, having often been denied these things in their countries of origin. Refugees, however, come in all ages and levels of educational achievement. And while acquiring proficiency in the English language before or after arrival may be achievable for the majority of refugees, this is not the case for all.

9.130For older refugees, those who have limited education, and those who have experienced trauma and hardship, exemptions should be made to allow the use of an interpreter for the citizenship test. This particularly makes sense if the intent of the test is to gauge the candidate’s suitability as an Australian citizen, not their capacity in English. The Committee, therefore, recommends that exemptions be made for the use of an interpreter for the citizenship test on a case-by-case basis when the above circumstances apply.

9.131Finally, acknowledging that interview and test sites are limited, the Committee recommends that the Government conducts an audit to ensure that test locations are properly aligned to areas of need.

9.132The Committee recommends that the Australian Government offer exemptions on a case-by-case basis to allow the use of an interpreter for the citizenship test for refugees who are older, lack formal education, or have experienced trauma and hardship.

9.133The Committee recommends that the Australian Government conducts an audit of citizenship interview and testing sites to ensure that these are located in areas of greatest demand.

International Police Checks and Identity Requirements

9.134Foundation House raised the challenges for refugees to meet requirements to provide overseas penal clearances or police checks, as well as documents to establish their identity. They explained that:

Providing these documents may be impossible for people of refugee backgrounds from countries from which many refugees originate or in which they resided.[124]

9.135Foundation House submitted the example given by a Karen member of its staff explaining when Karen and Burmese community members seek police clearance requests from Thailand they never get replies from the Thai police because ‘refugees are not allowed to go out from the camps and therefore there are no records for them’.[125]

9.136According to Foundation House, the Department of Home Affairs acknowledged that it was ‘not always possible to obtain overseas penal clearances and suggests that people who are affected contact the Department to be exempt from the requirement’. Despite this, Foundation House claimed although this is explained to the Department, ‘…they ask again and again, and applicants wait for years unable to obtain citizenship.’[126]

9.137Foundation House shared similar challenges arising for refugees seeking identity documents from their countries of origin they are fleeing. They explained:

…people of refugee backgrounds may be unable to secure documents from their countries of origin to establish their identity.

A person may be refused citizenship because the Department of Home Affairs is not satisfied with their identity, although the Department had previously approved that person’s application for protection and resettlement, which also required it to be satisfied as to the person’s identity.[127]

Committee Comment

9.138The Committee recognises that the evidentiary requirements for police checks and identity requirements may be problematic for refugees, and cause distress when demands for documents cannot be met due to the government of the country the person is escaping from being either non-responsive or obstructing requests.

9.139The Committee notes that the Department identified that exemptions are available, but that advocates have expressed frustration with this process.

9.140The Committee therefore recommends that the Department of Home Affairs develop clear guidelines to enable these exemptions to be sought and granted in the most effective way possible, while also minimising the possibility for identity fraud or manipulation.

9.141The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs develops clear exemption guidelines that recognise the importance of providing a pathway for refugees to establish their identity claims when documentary evidence is unobtainable, while minimising the risk of fraud.

Climate Change and Refugees

9.142The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at University of NSW warned internal and cross-border displacement within and from the Pacific Islands is likely to increase as disasters intensify and become more frequent, exacerbated by the impacts of climate change. Expanding, they submitted:

Climate change not only threatens lives and livelihoods, but also loss of place, culture, family and identity, as well as dislocation from ancestral lands. In some places, climate change presents an irreversible and existential threat, particularly for low-lying atolls where food and water insecurity are already a reality.

Neither international law, nor the domestic laws of most countries, provides a clear-cut legal status to people displaced by the impacts of disasters, climate change or environmental degradation. Although refugee and human rights law may offer protection to some, it will not be an attainable or applicable solution for many.[128]

9.143The Kaldor Centre, which is dedicated to the study of international refugee law, claimed mobility in the context of climate change and disasters as its area of expertise, welcomed the Australian Government’s announcement in 2022 of a new Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV):

…it will enable 3,000 Pacific Islanders to move permanently to Australia with their families each year, rather than being stuck in cycles of temporary work and separated from family left at home. In its implementation, it will be important for the PEV to provide preferential opportunities for countries that lack other mobility pathways and which are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change over the longer term.[129]

9.144Smart migration opportunities, designed in close dialogue with Pacific peoples, could reduce the risk and extent of displacement in the future, according to the Kaldor Centre:

Migration can be a form of adaptation to climate change, and an important risk management strategy. Migration opportunities enable people to move in their own time and on their own terms, rather than being displaced when disaster strikes.[130]

9.145The Kaldor Centre highlighted the importance of consulting with the diaspora Pacific communities in Australia when designing this Pacific Engagement Visa and future migration schemes from the region:

…diaspora communities which tend to provide considerable levels of support when new migrants arrive. In this, attention should be given to particular groups, such as women and girls, those with disabilities, and young people. It is also important to recognize wider notions of ‘family’ (and family support structures/living arrangements) in Pacific communities, which may not be captured by Australia’s more nuclear definitions.

9.146They, further, suggested that Australia ‘consider creating special humanitarian visas for those adversely affected by the impacts of disasters or climate change—both for those who are here when disaster hits and cannot safely return home, as well as to assist people to find safety in the aftermath of a disaster’.[131]

9.147The then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Andrew Giles MP, announced in April 2204 that the PEV program would commence from 3June 2024. This joint media release, issued with the Foreign Minister and Minister for International Development and the Pacific, outlined that:

The program will enable up to 3,000 citizens of Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste to migrate to Australia as permanent residents each year.

This will grow Australia’s diaspora, deepen cultural connections, boost business, and educational ties between Australia and participating countries and support economic development in the Pacific.

Countries participating in the first year of the program include Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, with discussions ongoing with other partners in the region.

The PEV program will use an online ballot to select participants, who can then apply for the visa, providing an equitable, streamlined and transparent system.

Applicants must secure a formal ongoing job offer in Australia and meet health and character requirements, before being granted a visa.[132]

9.148Whilst not identifying the PEV as a mechanism to address climate change impacts on the Pacific, the PEV program creates another migration pathway for populations in nations that may be impacted by these factors into the future.

9.149VETASSESS identified input it had provided to the Migration Review that climate-related disasters would continue to be a source of displaced refugee populations, outlining that:

Disasters accounted for more than half of internal displacements worldwide in 2021: 23.7 million people across the globe were displaced because of disasters. Weather-related disasters accounted for the majority of these, with floods and storms jointly causing 21.6 million displacements.[133]

9.150VETASSESS stressed that the impacts of climate change would continue to affect Australia’s neighbours in the Pacific and that ‘Australia has a moral obligation to assist those impacted in its regional neighbourhood’.[134]

Committee Comment

9.151The Committee noted with interest that direct evidence to this inquiry was limited on the impact of climate change and how it affected refugee populations, especially in the Pacific neighbourhood.

9.152The Committee welcomes the development and implementation of the Pacific Engagement Visa program, but acknowledges that, as the continuing impacts of climate change become evident globally, particularly in the Pacific neighbourhood, Australia’s migration system will need to be ready to adapt as those future challenges arise.

Footnotes

[1]UNHCR, ‘Refugee Statistics’, https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics/, viewed 29 May 2024.

[2]Gilbert Jaeger, ‘On the history of the international protection of refugees’, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 83, No. 843, September 2001, pp. 727-728; Michael Barnett, Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, pp. 88-89.

[3]United Nations, ‘Convention relating to the Status of Refugees’, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-2&chapter=5&Temp=mtdsg2&clang=_en, viewed 29 May 2024; Australian Government, A History of the Department of Immigration: Managing Migration to Australia, 2017, p. 46.

[4]Australian Government, A History of the Department of Immigration: Managing Migration to Australia, 2017, p. 60.

[5]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Australia’s protection obligations’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/refugee-and-humanitarian-program/about-the-program/seek-protection-in-australia/australia-protection-obligations, viewed 29 May 2024; Migration Act 1958, s 5H.

[6]United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, ‘Who is a refugee?’, https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/, viewed 29 May 2024.

[7]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Refugee and humanitarian program—About the program’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/refugee-and-humanitarian-program/about-the-program/about-the-program, viewed 21 May 2024.

[8]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Refugee and humanitarian program—About the program’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/refugee-and-humanitarian-program/about-the-program/about-the-program, viewed 21 May 2024.

[9]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 4.

[10]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2023-24’, p. 2, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/files/australias-humanitarian-program-23-24-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

[11]Department of Home Affairs, ‘The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs’, 11th Edition, May 2023, p. 33.

[12]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2024-25’, p. 7, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/humanitarian-program-2024-25-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

[13]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2024-25’, p. 5, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/humanitarian-program-2024-25-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

[14]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Protection visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/protection-866, viewed 4 June 2024.

[15]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Resolution of Status’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/resolution-of-status-851#Overview, viewed 4 June 2024.

[16]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Temporary Protection visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/temporary-protection-785, viewed 4 June 2024.

[17]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Safe Haven Enterprise visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/safe-haven-enterprise-790, viewed 4 June 2024.

[18]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Safe Haven Enterprise visa’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/safe-haven-enterprise-790, viewed 4 June 2024. The list of postcodes included in the SHEV regional areas can be accessed here: Department of Home Affairs, ‘Safe Haven Enterprise visa (SHEV) regional are’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/safe-haven-enterprise-790/safe-haven-enterprise-visa-regional-area, viewed 4 June 2024.

[19]Department of Home Affairs, ;Safe haven Enterprise visa pathway’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/safe-haven-enterprise-790/shev-pathway/overview, viewed 4 Juen 2024.

[20]Susan Love, ‘Resolving the status of Temporary Protection Visa holders: a quick guide’, Parliamentary Library, 16 May 2023, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/ProtectionVisaHolders, viewed 4 June 2024.

[21]Susan Love, ‘Resolving the status of Temporary Protection Visa holders: a quick guide’, Parliamentary Library, 16 May 2023, https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2223/Quick_Guides/ProtectionVisaHolders, viewed 4 June 2024; Daniel Ghezelbash, ‘Changes to temporary protection visas are a welcome development—and they won’t encourage people smugglers’, The Conversation, 13 February 2023, https://theconversation.com/changes-to-temporary-protection-visas-are-a-welcome-development-and-they-wont-encourage-people-smugglers-199763, viewed 5 June 2023.

[22]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p. 5. Also see: Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 2

[23]Australian Migrant Resource Centre, Submission 102, p. 9.

[24]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 42, p. 3.

[25]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p. 5.

[26]Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 2.

[27]Human Rights Law Centre/Migrant Workers Centre/Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 120, pp. 14, 18.

[28]Professor Alan Gamlen, Director, Migration Hub, Australian National University, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 12 May 2023, p. 61.

[29]Ms Lorraine Finlay, Human Rights Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 16 May 2023, pp. 7, 9.

[30]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 42, p. 2.

[31]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 42, p. 2.

[32]Department of Home Affairs, ‘The Administration of the Immigration and Citizenship Programs’, 11th Edition, May 2023, p. 32.

[33]Asylum Seekers Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 1.

[34]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p.12.

[35]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 3.

[36]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 4.

[37]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 4.

[38]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p. 3.

[39]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 10.

[40]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 16.

[41]See: Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, ‘Skills Assessment Pilots’, https://www.dewr.gov.au/assessing-authority-policy-and-assurance/skills-assessment-pilots, viewed 28 May 2024.

[42]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 16.

[43]Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, ‘Skills Assessment Pilots’, https://www.dewr.gov.au/assessing-authority-policy-and-assurance/skills-assessment-pilots, viewed 11 June 2024.

[44]Mr Rob Thomason, Executive Director, VETASSESS, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 28.

[45]VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 21.

[46]VETASSESS, Submission 89, p. 21.

[47]Australian Migrant Resource Centre, Submission 102, p. [8]. Also See: Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 10.

[48]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, pp. 10-11.

[49]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, pp. 16-17.

[50]Australian Migrant Resource Centre, Submission 102, p. [7].

[51]Australian Migrant Resource Centre, Submission 102, pp. [7-8].

[52]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 11.

[53]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 15.

[54]Hon Andrew Giles MP, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, ‘New framework to guide refugee settlement outcomes in Australia; Media Release, 16 October 2023,https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/new-framework-guide-refugee-settlement-outcomes-australia.aspx, viewed 13 June 2024.

[55]Department of Home Affairs, ‘The Refugee and Humanitarian Entrant Settlement and Integration Outcomes Framework’, pp. 1-2, 4.

[56]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2024-25’, p. 8, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/humanitarian-program-2024-25-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

[57]Know Your Roots (KYR) Incorporated, Submission 77, p. [8].

[58]Prof Joy Damousi, Dr Rachel Stevens, Dr Mary Tomsic, Submission 24, p. 4.

[59]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 64, p. 8.

[60]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 11.

[61]NSW Government, Submission 57, p. 5.

[62]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Discussion Paper: Australia’s Humanitarian Program 2024-25’, p. 5, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/PDFs/humanitarian-program-2024-25-discussion-paper.pdf, viewed 21 May 2024.

[63]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Community Support Program (CSP)’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/refugee-and-humanitarian-program/community-support-program/how-to-apply, viewed 13 June 2024.

[64]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 14; Department of Home Affairs, ‘Community sponsorship reforms—Review of Australia’s Community Support Program’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/settling-in-australia/settlement-policy-and-reform/community-sponsorship-reforms, viewed 13 June 2024.

[65]Department of Home Affairs, ‘Community sponsorship reforms—Review of Australia’s Community Support Program’, https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/settling-in-australia/settlement-policy-and-reform/community-sponsorship-reforms, viewed 13 June 2024.

[66]Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, Submission 85, p. [1].

[67]Australian Migration Resource Centre, Submission 102, pp. [11-12].

[68]Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, Submission 85, p. [1].

[69]Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, Submission 85, p. [2].

[70]Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, Submission 85, p. [2].

[71]Community Refugee Sponsorship Australia, Submission 85, p. [2].

[72]Australian Migration Resource Centre, Submission 102, p. [5].

[73]Ms Shama Pande, Service Manager, Multicultural Communities, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 9.

[74]Ms Joanne Robertson, Strategic Performance and Analytics Manager, CORE Community Services, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 8.

[75]Australian Migration Resource Centre, Submission 102, p. 13.

[76]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 10.

[77]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 14.

[78]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 9.

[79]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 10.

[80]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 14.

[81]Prof Joy Damousi, Dr Rachel Stevens, Dr Mary Tomsic, Submission 24, p. 4.

[82]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 42, p. 3.

[83]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 9.

[84]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 10.

[85]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 14.

[86]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105, p. 14.

[87]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 3.

[88]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 3.

[89]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 6.

[90]Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Submission 86, p. 2.

[91]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p.11.

[92]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p.11.

[93]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p.12.

[94]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 11.

[95]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 11.

[96]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 14.

[97]Department of Home Affairs, Submission 127, p. 14.

[98]Centre for Policy Development, Submission 65, p. 11.

[99]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 9.

[100]Settlement Services International, Submission 26, p. 9.

[101]Hon Andrew Giles MP, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Hon Clare O’Neil MP, Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Mark Dreyfus, Attorney-General, Joint Media Release, ‘Restoring integrity to our protection system’, 5 October 2023, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/restoring-integrity-protection-system.aspx, viewed 15 June 2024.

[102]Hon Andrew Giles MP, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Hon Clare O’Neil MP, Minister for Home Affairs, Hon Mark Dreyfus, Attorney-General, Joint Media Release, ‘Restoring integrity to our protection system’, 5 October 2023, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/restoring-integrity-protection-system.aspx, viewed 15 June 2024.

[103]Australian Government, ‘Rapid Revies into the Exploitation of Australia’s Visa System’, 31 March 2023.

[104]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p. 3.

[105]Refugee Council of Australia, Submission 105. P. 10.

[106]Refugee Advice and Casework Service, Submission 104, p. 11.

[107]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, pp. 3-4.

[108]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 4.

[109]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 4.

[110]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 1.

[111]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 2.

[112]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 2.

[113]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, pp. 4-5.

[114]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 3.

[115]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 4.

[116]Mr Paul Power, Chief Executive Officer, Refugee Council of Australia, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 17 May 2023, p. 25.

[117]Ms Stephanie Long, Systematic Advocacy and Strategic Projects Lead, Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2024, p. 8.

[118]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 5.

[119]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 5.

[120]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 6.

[121]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 5.

[122]Romana, Burmese Care, Committee Hansard, Videoconference, 18 May 2023, p. 9.

[123]Queensland Program of Assistance to Survivors of Torture and Trauma, Submission 41, p. 5.

[124]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 3.

[125]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 3.

[126]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 3.

[127]Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc; Submission 80, p. 3.

[128]Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Submission 48, p. 2.

[129]Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Submission 48, p. 2.

[130]Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Submission 48, p. 2.

[131]Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, Submission 48, p. 3.

[132]Hon Andrew Giles MP, Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Hon Penny Wong, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Hon Pat Conroy MP, Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Joint Media Release, ‘Key milestone for Pacific Engagement Visa program’, 27 April 2024, https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/AndrewGiles/Pages/key-milestone-for-pacific-engagement-visa-program.aspx, viewed 20 June 2024.

[133]VETASSESS, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. 7.

[134]VETASSESS, Submission 89, Attachment 1, p. 7.