Copyright © 2002, National Youth Affairs Research Scheme
ISBN 1 875236 56 2
This paper has been prepared by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme and is intended to provide background research and other information as a basis for discussion.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the National Youth Affairs Scheme Steering Committee; Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs; or individual Commonwealth or State/Territory Youth Ministers or Departments responsible for Youth Affairs.
All photographs in this document are posed by models, ©Copyright 2001 Photodisc, Incl.
Published for the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme by the
Australian Clearinghouse for Youth Studies
Hobart, Tasmania
2 Refugee status and experience
3 Statistical profile of young refugees
Table 1 Refugee experience by category of entrant 25
Table 2 Young people 12–25 years, entering or staying under the offshore and 26 onshore components of the Humanitarian Program, FY 2000–01
Table 3 Young people aged 12–24 years, entering Australia under the Humanitarian Program, 30 by age group, 1991–2000
Table 4 Young people aged 12–24 years, entering Australia under the Humanitarian Program, 31 by country/region of birth, 1991–2000
Table 5 Refugees and other migrants – a comparison of experiences 43
Table 6 Evidence of young refugee homelessness 51
Table 7 Description of DIMIA programs and services 63
Table 8 Eligibility for services 68
Table 9 Summary of good practice for working with young refugees 92
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACFE Adult, Community and Further Education
AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
AMEP Adult Migrant English Program
ALP Australian Labor Party
ARMS Adult Migrant English Program Reporting and Monitoring System
ASAS Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme
CMYI Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues
CRSS Community Refugee Settlement Services
CSR Community Support for Refugees program
CSSS Community Settlement Services Scheme
DEST Department of Education, Training and Science
DEWR Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
DEWRSB Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Small Business
DFaCS Department of Family and Community Services
DHAC Department of Health and Aged Care
DIMA Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (until November 2001)
DIMIA Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (post November 2001). Also abbreviated to the Department of Immigration
ELC English Language Centre
EYIN Ethnic Youth Issues Network
IHSS Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy
IAAAS Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme
IASS Immigration Advisory Services Scheme
JPET Job Placement Employment and Training program
JSCI Job Seeker Classification Instrument
LSIA Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia
MCIMA Ministerial Council of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
MRC Migrant Resource Centre
MSA Migrant Service Agency
NESB Non-English Speaking Background
NISS National Integrated Settlement Strategy
NYARS National Youth Affairs Research Scheme
OAA On-Arrival Accommodation
PPV Permanent Protection Visa
RRAC Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council
SAAP Supported Accommodation and Assistance Program
SAC Special Assistance Category
SCAAB Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau
SCIMA Standing Committee on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
SDB Settlement Database
SEARAC South-East Asia Resource Action Center (USA)
SHP Special Humanitarian Program
TAFE Technical and Further Education
TIS Translating and Interpreting Service
TISIS Translating and Interpreting Service Information System
TPV Temporary Protection Visa
UN United Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
VFST Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture
YACVIC Youth Affairs Council of Victoria
YARD Centre for Youth Affairs Research and Development (RMIT)
This study was commissioned and funded by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS). Louise Coventry undertook most of the initial data collection and wrote the first draft of the study findings. David MacKenzie contributed at all stages of the project and worked with Sarah Pinkney to produce the final version of this report. Many of the insights in this study reflect Carmel Guerra's years of experience working on policy and services for refugee young people. Her commitment, encouragement and thoughtful advice have been central throughout.
Many people contributed their ideas, experience and enthusiasm during the lifetime of the project. Susan Ward, then with the Ethnic Youth Issues Network (EYIN) in Victoria, was a committed member of the project team while Carmel Guerra was away on leave. The members of the Project Reference Group provided wise advice leading to the first draft of the report. They were:
In addition, many dedicated and experienced workers attended a series of forums to discuss 'good practice' principles and approaches. The policy ideas and arguments in this report were developed on the basis of input from key informants and some of the same people also served on the Project Reference Group. The following individuals gave considerable assistance to this project and advised the research team on many occasions: Paris Aristotle, Terri Bednall, Aileen Burgess, John Byrne, David Cox, Carol Croce, Jo Elvins, Susan Ferguson, Bill Frost, Peter Hosking, Merle Mitchell, Margaret Piper, Susan Ward, and Debbie Wong.
Thanks are due to the NYARS Secretariat, particularly to Ben Clews for his patient support of the project, and for his work in facilitating feedback on drafts of the report. Many helpful suggestions were made by the NYARS Steering Committee. We would also like to thank all those people from federal government departments who gave us information and expert feedback on earlier drafts of the report. The Client Access Unit of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs proved a valuable resource, and we would like to thank Margot Clifford for her energetic response to our requests for assistance particularly in the final stages of the project.
We would also like to thank the principals of the English Language Schools who gave their permission to ask selected students to participate in interviews and surveys. Their assistance made it possible to obtain some important new information.
Finally, we must thank the refugee young people interviewed for this study. These young people were keen for others to understand what they had lived through. They were generally optimistic about the future and happy to be making new lives in Australia. It is their positive outlook and creative potential to which the title of the report Wealth of All Nations refers.
March 2002
The needs of refugee young people have rarely been the specific focus of research or policy development. Instead, young refugees have tended to be represented in policy and academic discussion as a subgroup either of young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds or of refugees in general. This study was commissioned by the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) as a first step in consolidating what is known about young refugees as a specific needs group. It aims to provide an information base on which to build more effective strategies to address the complex needs of these young people and assist their long-term independence within Australia.
The report brings together insights from consultation and interviews with young refugees, refugee families, policy-makers and service providers, and a range of information from previous research and official statistics to address the following key questions:
The term 'young refugee' is used in this report to refer to people aged between 12 and 25 years who share common refugee experiences, regardless of their visa classification or status upon entry to Australia. 'Refugee experience' is defined as exposure to political, religious or intercultural violence, persecution or oppression, armed conflict or civil discord that incorporates the following basic elements: a state of fearfulness for self and family members, leaving the country of origin at short notice, inability to return to the country of origin, and uncertainty about the possibility of maintaining links with family and home.
Many young refugees have lived with the constant threat of violence and some have witnessed or even experienced torture. The trauma resulting from such experiences is deeply felt, whether or not it is openly discussed. Young refugees almost inevitably begin their life in Australia dislocated not only from their former home but also from loved ones left behind or lost in the confusion and desperation of escape. Many have spent long periods in transit camps or places of temporary asylum before and, in some cases, after reaching Australia. Such experiences lay common ground between people from otherwise disparate cultural, national and socioeconomic backgrounds. The report estimates that there are currently between 16,000 to 20,000 young people with refugee experiences living in Australia.
Despite the considerable diversity in their individual circumstances, the broad commonality of experience shared by young people from refugee backgrounds is likely to result in similar sorts of barriers to both shortand longer-term settlement in Australia. The challenges faced by young refugees give rise to a range and complexity of support needs overlapping yet different from those of other refugees and migrants. For all young people migrating to a new country, achieving independence entails successful negotiation of two simultaneous transition processes: a transition from one culture to another and an interrelated transition from childhood or adolescence to adulthood. Refugee young people are forced to cope with the traumas of their recent past at a particularly vulnerable stage in their personal development. Certain groups of young refugees face even greater challenges in their initial settlement and longer-term transition to independence:
Once in Australia, needs are mediated by the response of the host society, and the extent of family and community networks young people can draw on for support. Many refugee young people have family and community links to help them through the challenges of growing up in a new and sometimes hostile environment, but this is not always the case. Similarly, while many young refugees join established migrant communities when they arrive in Australia, others belong to emerging groups with limited support networks.
A particularly disturbing finding of this study is the extent of homelessness among refugee young people. The risk of homelessness for young refugees is at least six to 10 times greater than for other young people of school age. This finding is suggestive of a broader risk of social disconnectedness that seriously undermines chances of long-term independence. It also indicates a failure of policy because significant numbers of refugee young people clearly seem to be falling through the social safety net.
Some of the most comprehensive and well-developed settlement policies and programs in the world are Australian, but the absence of an explicit identification of young refugees as a high-need or disadvantaged group creates policy blind spots with serious implications for practice.
Settlement policy and programs assume that if families are supported and functional, then young people who are part of those families will have their needs addressed within the family unit. This assumption is questionable, particularly where settlement is viewed as more than just a short-term period. It is a basic tenet of youth policy in Australia that young people have specific needs notwithstanding the level of support they receive from their families. It is further recognised that young people from diverse cultural backgrounds may need additional support and specialist services to ensure that their needs are adequately met.
The importance of injecting a longer-term youth perspective into humanitarian settlement policy is borne out by evidence that after an initial period of settlement, many young refugees do not access the sorts of services that analysis of their socioeconomic disadvantage suggests would be crucial to ensure adequate support. For example, the greater risk of homelessness among young refugees is not paralleled by proportionately greater use of accommodation and related services; indeed the reverse appears to be true. At the same time, it is not reasonable to expect that generalist policy and services addressed to all young people will be effective unless the unique support needs arising from clients' experience as refugees are taken into account.
A potential solution lies at the intersection of youth policy and humanitarian settlement policy. The key recommendation arising from this project is for the development of a national policy for the support of young refugees that would incorporate this crossportfolio perspective. A national policy would also provide a framework for ensuring that the needs of young refugees are better addressed by more deliberate use of existing human and financial resources for support of this group.
Recommendation 1:
That a national young refugee support policy be developed by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, in consultation with other stakeholder state and federal departments.
From the limited evidence available, young refugees appear to be under-represented among users of both mainstream and ethno-specific social services. This is likely to be because of limited awareness among this group about available supports. It may also suggest a lack of cultural appropriateness of the services. Good practice in addressing the needs of refugee youth at an agency level implies a capacity to take into account the intersecting perspectives of youth and ethnicity in the design and delivery of services.
The Charter of Public Service in a Culturally Diverse Society could potentially be used to bring about a stronger focus, in government and community agencies and services, on young refugees. However, mechanisms are needed to ensure that social service agencies follow through and are held accountable for the implementation of their access and equity policies.
Recommendation 2:
That the allocation of government funding to social service agencies be conditional upon appropriate access and equity policies at agency level, and be linked where appropriate to access and equity outcomes established under government guidelines and incorporated in service agreements.
The support needs of young refugees transgress both departmental and sectoral boundaries and make complex demands on the full range of human services. Consequently, the capacity for coordination and integration of services is a key component in building an effective national support strategy for young refugees.
The National Integrated Settlement Strategy (NISS) and Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) are explicitly designed to encourage the different tiers of the government and community sectors to work together in the interests of people with refugee experiences. These strategies are based on sound principles but lack adequate focus on the specific needs of young refugees as well as the resources for effective implementation.
Recommendation 3:
That the Federal Government develop a comprehensive youth strategy for young refugees as an integral part of the National Integrated Settlement Strategy (NISS) and Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS).
The common practice of allowing older refugees to speak on behalf of younger refugees, and of nominating community leaders to speak in general terms about the needs experienced across an entire community, tends to elicit a parental perspective on the needs of young refugees. Direct consultation with young refugees is rare and this is a missed opportunity for pertinent feedback on the effectiveness of policy. Consultation with refugee young people should be a foundation principle of a national support policy. One possibility is for a non-government peak organisation to assume responsibility for on-going consultation with young refugees and other young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
Recommendation 4:
That the Federal Government ensure ongoing consultation with young refugees and service providers working with them about the issues and support services that affect young refugees. Consideration should be given to resources needed to support the mechanisms for this consultation to take place.
The capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of policy or programs that claim to meet the needs of refugees, old or young, is severely constrained by lack of consistent recording of refugee or humanitarian status in agency records. It is not always feasible or appropriate for information on a migrant's entry or protection visa classification to be recorded. There are some possible exceptions to this. Given the relationship between visa category and access to income support, it is desirable that Centrelink and other agencies dispensing emergency financial assistance record this information.
The problem of developing indicators of refugee experience falls within the larger project of developing a standardised approach to collecting data on the ethnic, cultural and linguistic background of clients in order to monitor the potential disadvantage (or in some instances, advantage) arising from these factors. In 1999 the Australian Bureau of Statistics responded to the widely recognised need for a nationally consistent framework for the collection and dissemination of data on ethnicity by developing Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity. The implementation of the ABS Standards is a pressing issue on which other policy research and development depends.
Recommendation 5:
That the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs in collaboration with the Australian Bureau of Statistics develop a process to monitor the national implementation of the ABS Standards for Statistics on Cultural and Language Diversity in both the government and non-government sectors.
A key aim of this study has been to identify strategies to enable the early and effective settlement of young refugees. The enormous challenges faced by many young refugees upon arriving in Australia would appear in some cases to raise insurmountable barriers to successful settlement. However, an exclusive focus on the 'neediness' of these young people may result in unwarranted pessimism about their longer-term prospects. Young refugees, like young people generally, tend to be resilient and adaptive; moreover people from refugee backgrounds are proven survivors, having often overcome considerable difficulties to reach Australia.
Agencies supporting young refugees must find ways to build on the strengths of young refugees and assist them to participate in the community. At the same time, failure to recognize the multiplicity and complexity of the needs of this diverse group of young people will undermine the ultimate effectiveness of government and community support. Therefore, young people with refugee experiences should be seen as a 'high risk' group, meriting priority attention and specific allocation of resources in many areas of social policy, much in the same way as homeless young people have received such attention in recent years.
Appreciating and responding effectively to the needs of young refugees necessarily involves a longerterm support perspective than that which defines the parameters of current settlement programs. The review of government support and services undertaken for this study suggests that the least developed program areas are those that potentially respond to the longer-term needs of young refugees. This is not a problem any department of immigration can solve by itself. The federal departments responsible for education, income and employment services will need to assume greater responsibility for addressing the needs of young refugees within their programs and services. The explicit identification of young people with refugee experiences as a special needs group within the program areas of relevant departments is one way of enabling a longer-term perspective on strategies for assisting successful settlement.
An effective national policy for young refugees should focus not only on an initial period of settlement but beyond to their future lives as new residents and citizens of Australia. The importance of adopting a longer-term perspective on 'settlement' raises the issue of how to define the target population of young refugee settlers. Currently many young people with refugee experiences living in Australia are not considered by government to be prospective 'settlers'. This is true in the case of temporary protection visa holders who, by definition, are allowed to remain in Australia for a limited time; it is not intended that people under the terms and conditions of these visas settle and make Australia their home. Most mainstream government services, including income support, are only available to migrants with permanent residency status.
We argue that young people with refugee experiences who are resident in Australia on a temporary basis and/or whose claims for refugee status and protection are still being processed (asylum seekers), should be included in a national young refugee support policy even though their 'final' destination may be a country other than Australia. Both temporary protection visa holders and asylum seekers are resident in Australia for an uncertain period of time. Even young people who remain ineligible for permanent protection visas and hence permanent residency status may remain in Australia for longer than three years since temporary protection visas may be renewed. For people in their teens and early twenties, even relatively short periods without adequate support can seriously undermine long-term life chances and independence (whether in Australia or elsewhere). On humanitarian grounds and on the grounds of enhancing the effectiveness of policy designed to enable early and effective settlement, all young people with refugee experiences living in Australia and seeking Australia's protection should be treated 'as if' they were going to remain in the country indefinitely. This would entail having access to education, income, employment and other mainstream supports from the beginning of their stay.
Recommendation 6:
That broad youth policy in the federal and state jurisdictions explicitly address the special needs of young people with refugee experience along with other special needs groups where appropriate.
This report argues that the target population for a national support strategy should comprise young people with refugee experiences resident in Australia and that eligibility should be decided according to need. At present, eligibility for a range of mainstream and migrant specific supports and services is determined on the basis of visa classification and residency status. We argue that the 'hierarchy of benefits' set in place by current distinctions in the visa classification system, results in serious inequities in the treatment of young refugees. First, people with similar claims for refugee status, or more broadly, for humanitarian protection, are treated differently according to the means by which they entered the country. Second, young people who share similar refugee experiences and settlement support needs, entered, or were allowed to stay in Australia on visas that confer very different entitlements to government assistance.
Two subgroups of young people with refugee experiences residing in Australia are identified as being particularly disadvantaged by current visa and eligibility arrangements. These are temporary protection visa holders and young people who were sponsored to Australia by refugee family members under the Family Stream of the Migration Program. The number of young people in both these subgroups can be anticipated to increase. The likely impact of restrictions to eligibility for government assistance is to undermine the chances of some particularly high-risk groups of young migrants for successful settlement. Current arrangements are not only inequitable but, from the point of view of strategic settlement policy, they are also likely to be ineffective. The approach to determining eligibility stands in marked contrast to federal youth policy generally, where emphasis is increasingly placed on ensuring young people at risk of not making a successful transition to independence are specifically targeted for preventative assistance. The overlap in the populations of young refugees and homeless young people heightens this contradiction. The report makes the case for a needs-based approach to eligibility on the grounds of equity and the long-term effectiveness of refugee settlement policy and youth policy.
Recommendation 7:
That the eligibility criteria for government assistance to young people with refugee experiences be reviewed with the objective of investigating how a needs-based approach might best be implemented.
As young refugees begin their lives in Australia, they tend to become aware of conflicting messages. On the one hand, they encounter an ethic of multiculturalism which tells them they are welcome and valued additions to Australian society; on the other, they encounter racist attitudes and practices that suggest the opposite. Racist attitudes and practices constantly undermine the official policy stance of multiculturalism. There needs to be continuing community education to encourage a more positive, empathetic and generous response to disadvantaged groups including refugees and asylum seekers. This is important for receiving broad community support for extending equitable and humane treatment to these young people.
Recommendation 8:
That the Federal Government undertake continuing community education to encourage people in the broader community to respond positively and generously to refugees and asylum seekers, particularly by highlighting young refugees as future young Australians.
An unintentional lack of cultural sensitivity is observable in some service institutions and service providers. Cross-cultural awareness training is often a low priority and low status activity in Australia, and this needs to be overturned. In-service training and the training of mainstream service providers by ethnospecific service providers can help sensitise mainstream professionals to the issues. Beyond the individual commitment of staff, and opportunities for training, issues of cultural and linguistic appropriateness are relevant to all levels of an organisation's practice: the nature of services delivered, the process for delivering these services, the system and culture of management, and the external organisational relationships.
Recommendation 9:
That a proportion of government funds for organisations working largely with clients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds be tied to crosscultural awareness staff training and organisational development.
This study has highlighted many gaps in our basic knowledge about young refugees in Australia. Two areas are recommended for further attention. A need is particularly evident for reliable information on the circumstances of refugee young people who first came to Australia without authorisation. Another group of young people about whom little is known and whose needs may consequently be overlooked are the children of refugees.
Recommendation 10:
That further research be conducted to ascertain similarities and differences between the needs of refugees and their children.
Recommendation 11:
That further research be undertaken to investigate the needs and access to support services of refugee young people currently living in the Australian community who arrived without authorisation and/or who hold bridging or temporary protection visas.
The importance of developing a national young refugee support policy lies in enabling some 16,000 to 20,000 young people find a real home in Australia and make their full contribution to Australian society. This contribution promises to be considerable, but first these young people must be assisted to meet the challenges that confront them on arrival. To be effective in helping young refugees make a successful transition to independence, policy and program development must explicitly take the complex and multifaceted needs of these young people into account. It must also recognise that an adequate response to the needs of refugee young people entails a long-term commitment. The adoption and successful implementation of the good practice approaches identified as part of a national strategy in this report require the commitment and care of practitioners and service providers. Success also depends on the political will and dedicated support of the Federal Government.
The National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS) annually commissions significant research into current social, political and economic issues affecting Australia's young people (those aged between 12 and 25 years). In 1997, NYARS commissioned the Centre for Youth Affairs Research and Development and the Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (then the Ethnic Youth Issues Network) to undertake a study to identify strategies that would enable refugee young people to make a successful transition to independence within their new country.
Young people from refugee backgrounds potentially face many barriers to successful resettlement resulting from their pre-migration and migration experiences. Relatively little research focuses specifically on young refugees to ascertain how this group's settlement needs may differ from those of older refugees and other migrants. In his landmark report published in 1994 about the settlement of refugee, humanitarian and displaced immigrants in Australia, James Jupp argued that the absence of a distinction between the settlement needs of refugees and those of other migrants represented a key policy failure. Jupp identified the 'study of the social adjustment [...] of refugee youth' as one of the priority areas for further research (1994, p.84).
Young people with refugee experiences might reasonably be expected to have different or more complex needs compared with most other young migrants regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. Young refugees face the difficulty of having to work through past traumas and rebuild relationships, while starting life afresh in a new country whose language and culture is new to them. Usually, but not always, they do this with the support of at least some family members. Unlike their parents or other adult family members, refugee young people simultaneously face the challenge of 'growing up' in their new country. This study is grounded in the realisation that a better understanding of the specific needs of young refugees and the nature of the difficulties they experience in making the transition to independence is a prerequisite to developing more effective policy and programs.
This project was jointly undertaken by RMIT's Centre for Youth Affairs Research and Development and the Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues.
The Centre for Youth Affairs Research and Development (YARD) is a university organisation that has close links with the youth sector. The centre has established a national reputation for its work in a number of important areas of youth research and development.
The Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues (CMYI) is a Victorian community-based support and resource organisation for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and the organisations that work with ethnic minority young people. It is an independent body auspiced by the Australian Multicultural Foundation. The centre's immediate predecessor, the Ethnic Youth Issues Network, was established in 1988 and was auspiced by the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria.
A Project Reference Group was established at the outset of the study to advise on the best way to achieve the project objectives and to assist in the interpretation of findings. A list of reference group members can be found in Appendix 1.
The project was designed to answer the following key questions:
Mindful of Moss's observation that 'large scale, quantitative studies into the needs of refugees are not appropriate and may not yield much useful data' (1993, p.175), the project adopted a multi-method approach comprising several components.
Component 1:
Review of academic and policy-related literature
The literature review covered: theorisation on the conceptualisation of need; accounts of the premigration, migration and settlement experiences of refugees, particularly of young refugees; and empirical and theoretical studies identifying the risk factors and barriers to settlement associated with the refugee experience.
Component 2:
A review of government policies and program information
This review is current to March 2002. Information was obtained directly from relevant government departments and agencies, and from their web sites.
Component 3:
Analysis of secondary data sources to profile the target group
The research team initially sought data from seven sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia (LSIA), the Translating and Interpreting Service Information System (TISIS), the Adult Migrant English Program Reporting and Monitoring System (ARMS), the National Settlement Database (SDB), the (former) Department of Social Security, and from Brunswick English Language Centre (which had collected information about migrant students with low literacy levels). Refer to Appendix 2 for information about these sources of data.
Component 4:
Consultation with a range of policy-makers and service providers to elicit their views on the adequacy of government policy relevant to young refugees
The people consulted for the study were those identified as having considerable expertise in working with young refugees over many years. They came from both the public (federal and state) and community sectors, with specific expertise in housing, management, service development, torture and trauma, mental health, youth policy, juvenile justice, education and language services. Our informants were asked to talk about their views on the strengths and weaknesses of government policy affecting young refugees. Topics included access, eligibility, coordination and information sharing, assessments, on-arrival assessments, asylum seekers, health, employment, income, education and training, justice and law, housing, identity, language services and practice concerns.
Component 5:
A survey of 200 students attending selected English Language Centres (3) and Adult Migrant English Programs (5) in Queensland and New South Wales
English Language Centres and Adult Migrant English Programs provide an important point of access to refugee young people. All states and territories with the exception of Victoria provided appropriate ethics clearance for the project to survey or interview young refugees in English Language Centres. Victoria's refusal to participate in the project is unfortunate, since this state is home to the second largest proportion of new humanitarian arrivals after New South Wales. To compensate for this, the results of the survey were compared with data from a 1995 pilot survey conducted in Victoria. Students were asked to complete a questionnaire (see Appendix 8) in a classroom situation under the supervision of their teacher. The questionnaire, a plain language statement and the consent form were translated into 10 community languages. Additional interpreters were used for other languages. The survey was piloted with a small group of students and amendments made before the large-scale administration of the survey. Respondents were asked about the conditions in former countries that led them to seek refugee status, their living and housing arrangements in Australia, and their future plans. See Appendix 8 for a copy of the survey instrument.
Component 6:
A national survey to estimate the extent of homelessness among young refugees
This study sought to investigate common anecdotal claims that refugee young people have a high risk of homelessness extending beyond an initial period of settlement in which housing instability would be anticipated for all new arrivals. Homelessness, in its various degrees, is an important indicator of social disconnectedness. Young people living in temporary or inadequate accommodation for long periods of time, as well as those living on the streets or in squats, are likely to encounter acute difficulties in taking advantage of various employment and education opportunities and preparing themselves adequately for their future lives in Australia. To assess the extent of homelessness among young refugees, Adult Migrant English Programs and English Language Centres across Australia were asked to count the number of students during the week of the survey whose situation matched various categories of housing stress or homelessness. A four-category definition of homelessness was devised specifically for the purposes of this study (see Appendix 3). The results of this survey were compared with new data from the national census of homeless school students (MacKenzie & Chamberlain 1995).
Component 7:
Face-to-face interviews with selected students at English Language Centres and Adult Migrant English Programs in New South Wales and Queensland
Altogether, 33 interviews were conducted, each between 40 and 80 minutes in duration. Interpreters were used as required and interviews were taperecorded. Twenty-one interviewees were male and 12 were female. About one-third of the interviewees came from Bosnia (12), but a range of other countries were also represented namely Algeria (1), Afghanistan (2), Pakistan (1), East Timor (1), Croatia (2), Vietnam (3), Iraq (5), Somalia (4), Sudan (1) and Eritrea (1). Interviewees ranged in age from 15 to 25 years. English Language Centres and Adult Migrant English Programs were chosen as data collection sites because they are the last near-universal point of service contact with refugees. Individual sites were selected for accessibility and the cultural mix of the community in which each institution was located. Participating sites were: Liverpool Adult Migrant English Program, Milperra Intensive English Centre, Keebra Park State High School, Southbank TAFE, Yeronga TAFE, Beverly Hills Intensive English Centre, Fairfield Adult Migrant English Program and Auburn Adult Migrant English Program. See Appendix 4 for a copy of the interview schedule.
Component 8:
Interviews with five refugee families living in Victoria
These interviews were conducted by staff from the Job Placement, Education and Training (JPET) program employed by the Ethnic Youth Issues Network (now the Centre for Multicultural Youth Issues), and families were chosen because of their existing links and rapport with JPET staff. The aim of the interviews was to explore families' expectations for their children and to get a sense of cultural variability in notions of 'independence'. Five families were interviewed. This was an exercise in sensitisation rather than an attempt to interview a representative cross-section of refugee families. The family interview schedule is included in Appendix 5.
Component 9:
Good practice forums and consultation with community service agencies
Three half-day forums were conducted in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne to generate ideas about good practice in working with young refugees and to document examples of services and programs that seemed to work particularly well. Between 18 and 30 individuals with experience working with refugee young people attended each of the forums. Attendees were from both the public and community sectors and were predominantly involved in direct service work, although a significant number of policy workers and youth advocates also attended. Attendance was by invitation only, and invitation lists were compiled by youth peak bodies in each state, in consultation with the project team. Ideas about the concept of good practice were presented at the outset of each forum, after which the discussion was oriented towards specific indicators of good practice in working with young people with refugee-like experiences. Forum participants worked through two rounds of workshops focused on service responses to young refugees. The first round of workshops considered differences between good practice work with young refugees and with young people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds across several service areas: employment, education and training; housing; health; and racism, identity and culture. Young people from culturally diverse backgrounds were chosen as the point of comparison because, of all potential service users, they most closely resemble young refugees. The second round of workshops recognised that service provision ought to be considered along a temporal continuum. Participants were asked to identify examples and indicators of good practice work with young refugees in a reception context, in a settlement context and in a post-settlement context. (See Appendix 7 for a more detailed description of the forum agendas and method.) Further consultation with workers from a range of community service agencies (selected on the basis of information gathered in study Components 1 to 9) was carried out in order to develop clearer strategies for assisting young people in their transition to independence.
The report is divided into seven chapters addressing the project objectives, and eight appendices that provide detail on specific aspects of data collection. Chapter 2 explains the definition of 'young refugee' adopted by this study. The notion of 'refugee experience' is contrasted with official classifications of refugee and humanitarian status embodied in international law and Australian migration policy. The chapter identifies the common threads of experience that unite young people from refugee backgrounds and, in the context of an overview of Australia's immigration program, explains the different visa classifications under which these young people enter, or are allowed to stay in, Australia. Chapter 3 estimates the total number of young people with refugee-like experiences currently living in Australia. It presents a range of statistical data on the source countries, age, gender and geographical distribution of young refugees who entered Australia under the Humanitarian Program, and highlights the gaps in our current knowledge about the wider population of young people from refugee backgrounds. Chapter 4 considers how refugee experiences before, during and immediately after migration potentially erect barriers to young people's successful resettlement and longer-term independence. The chapter outlines problems associated with the conceptualisation and measurement of 'need' with respect to this client group and provides a descriptive account of key issues in the areas of employment, education, training, accommodation, health, justice, income and psycho-social support. Chapter 5 reviews the capacity of the current service system to meet the immediate and longer-term support needs of young people with refugee experiences. It explains Australia's commitment to refugees generally and the de facto policy context in which the needs of young refugees are currently addressed, including an overview of federal government services and programs. Chapter 6 draws attention to key examples of good practice in service delivery, and in policy and program development, and makes a first attempt to identify the principles that underpin good practice. Finally, Chapter 7 summarises key findings and draws out the main policy implications of the study, with recommendations for improving support to young people with refugee experiences.
In this report, unless otherwise stated, the term 'young refugee' is used to refer to people aged between 12 and 25 years who share common refugee-like experiences, regardless of their strict entry status or visa classification. This is to recognise that not all people with refugee experiences have official refugee status or entered the country under the Humanitarian Program of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (as explained further in Chapter 2). The terms 'young refugees', 'refugee young people', 'young people with refugee experiences' and 'young people from refugee backgrounds' are used interchangeably. The migration categories under which young people with refugee experiences have entered Australia are described using their official title to avoid possible confusion, for example, 'entrants under the Refugee component of the offshore Humanitarian Program'.
The term 'mainstream' is used frequently in this report. Conventionally it is used to refer to organisations that are seen as central to the Australian way of life and endorsed by the broader community. Such organisations are generally contrasted with 'ethnic or ethno-specific' organisations and services that are by implication seen as more marginal. In this report, the term 'mainstream' is used more neutrally to describe those services or organisations that are set up for all groups in the community in contrast with services specifically designed to meet the needs of a particular group or groups.
The term 'Anglo-Australian' has been used as a shorthand reference to people who come from Englishspeaking communities and cultures, and does not refer exclusively to those whose families originated in Great Britain.
The interviews and consultation for this study were carried out between 1997 and 1998. Several factors, including changes to the research team, delayed publication of the findings. However, an initial draft of the report was substantially revised prior to eventual publication in 2002. This report incorporates new data and discussion of federal government policy and programs current to March 2002.
In this chapter we explore the question of defining the population of 'young refugees' deemed to be in need of targeted settlement assistance. The notion of 'refugee experience' is contrasted with official definitions of refugee and humanitarian status embodied in international law and Australian migration policy. The chapter aims to identify the common experiences that define what it means to be a 'young refugee' in order to better understand the sorts of barriers likely to confront these young people during resettlement. In the context of an overview of Australia's immigration program, we explain the different visa classifications under which young people with refugee experiences enter, or are allowed to stay, in Australia.
In public policy, definitions carry with them important implications for the allocation of resources. The tasks of defining what it means to be a 'young refugee' and identifying a target population for government assistance are not one and the same, but they need to be carried out in reference to each other. This would encourage the production of definitions that can usefully be employed for specific policy purposes and enable meaningful and equitable distinctions to be drawn regarding eligibility and ineligibility for services.
The purpose driving this study is to find ways to enable the successful resettlement of young refugees. An initiating premise was the recognition that new arrivals from refugee backgrounds are likely, as a result of their pre-migration and migration experiences, to face common difficulties in their efforts to adjust to a new life in Australia. Further, it was anticipated that young people with refugee experiences would have needs identifiable, if not entirely distinct, from those of older refugees. Therefore, in order to determine the inprinciple target population for strategies aimed at assisting the long-term independence of young refugees, we must identify the sorts of experiences that differentiate refugee young people from other client groups, specifically on the basis of likely impacts on the capacity for successful resettlement.
The first point of reference in defining a 'refugee' is generally the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Status of Refugees. The UN definition is often embedded in the legislation of individual nations regarding humanitarian migration. Definitions developed for the purposes of managing the international refugee protection system and national humanitarian commitments, however, are not necessarily suited to the purpose of identifying a target population for settlement support services. It is refugee-like experience rather than official designation as a refugee or possession of a humanitarian-class visa that defines the relevant population. The defining characteristics will of course overlap, but will not coincide exactly.
At the same time, it is important to recognise that the migration category under which a young person with refugee-like experience is admitted and/or allowed to stay in Australia has considerable impact on his or her eligibility for government services and assistance. More broadly, different 'classes' of migration carry with them different degrees of public support and understanding that may in turn affect the likelihood of successful settlement in Australia.
Official definitions and visa classifications remain important guides to definition. The UN 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to Refugees define refugees as people who:
are outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence; and are unable or unwilling to return or to seek the protection of that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and among other things, are not war criminals or people who have committed serious non-political crimes.
The Convention is widely recognised as being overly restrictive for the purposes of identifying people deserving of humanitarian consideration and in need of resettlement. Designed just after the Second World War, the definition does not fully capture the circumstances that have forced people since then to leave their home countries in their thousands and seek asylum elsewhere. In addition, many of the specific types of persecution women are subject to are not recognised as amounting to persecution under the Convention.
Australia is a signatory to the Convention, which it ratified in 1954, and the Protocol, ratified in 1973. Australia is consequently bound by these treaties. The Convention definition of refugee was incorporated under Australian law with the enactment of the Commonwealth Migration Act 1958.1 In 1995 the Act was amended so that for a person to be classified as a refugee there must be a link between the allowed reason claimed for anticipation of persecution (whether on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social or political group) and the particular persecution faced by an individual should they return to their former country. Subsequent to this, there have been several revisions to the Australian interpretation of the UN definition. Nevertheless, this definition remains central to Australian policy for humanitarian resettlement. As discussed below, the UN definition of refugee is employed in three different components of Australia's offshore and onshore Humanitarian Program.
Historically, the Australian government has recognised that the UN definition of refugee is not inclusive of all those people who may require protection and resettlement. Accordingly, Australia allows some people not classified as refugees to enter Australia as permanent residents on humanitarian grounds. A number of humanitarian entrance categories (described later in this chapter) have been established over the years to facilitate this process. Humanitarian entrants are targeted for special settlement assistance by government. However, not all people with experiences commonly associated with being a refugee will enter Australia under the Humanitarian Program (whether as officially designated 'refugees' or as humanitarian entrants). It is increasingly likely that people from refugee backgrounds, including young people, will enter as family migrants under Australia's Migration Program (see below). Here again, likely need does not coincide with distinctions made in policy.
The Convention definition and related national criteria for resettlement selection are also limited with respect to identifying new arrivals most in need of settlement support. While the fear of persecution on return to the country of origin is the key criterion for decisions about selection for resettlement,2 the ramifications of past persecution and trauma are critical considerations in estimating the likely difficulties that a person will face adjusting to life once in Australia. Moreover, experiences commonly associated with fleeing one's home and being unable to return, regardless of personalised experiences of persecution, are likely to have considerable impact on settlement needs, particularly in the case of young people.
How should a 'young refugee' be defined to meet the purposes of targeting resettlement assistance? In common usage, the term 'refugee' refers to people who have escaped a situation of considerable trauma and are unable to return to their place of residence. The following definition sets out basic and additional factors that identify the sorts of experience that we argue should be considered when determining eligibility for government assistance for young people resident in Australia. 'Refugee experience' can be defined as including exposure to political, religious or intercultural violence, persecution or oppression, armed conflict or civil discord which incorporates the following basic elements:
In addition to these 'base level' criteria, many young refugees have suffered extreme abuse such as torture or rape; they may have witnessed the death or rape of family members and loved ones; their communities may have been subject to unexplained disappearances and other violations of human rights. Such experiences have a profound impact on the wellbeing of individuals, families and whole communities.3
In addition to the sorts of experiences that define being a 'young refugee', there is also an age criterion. Conventionally, 'young people' are defined as those aged 12 to 25 years. However, young people with refugee experiences who arrived in Australia in their early 20s may require assistance into their late 20s and beyond. The age limits should therefore not be seen as fixed, but they do provide guides for targeting assistance.
In the next section of this chapter and in Chapter 4, we expand on this definition to identify some of the key features of refugee experience likely to impact on resettlement support needs, and specify the particular difficulties faced by young people.
In this section, we explore common experiences shared by young refugees on the basis of interviews with 33 young people from refugee backgrounds who have recently arrived in Australia4 and a review of available literature. Our definition of refugee experience does not imply young refugees are a homogenous group. Within a broad commonality of experience shared by people who have fled their home country, there is considerable diversity in the precise nature of the experiences and the likely consequences for settlement support needs. Key variables include age on arrival, gender, ethnicity and cultural background, English language proficiency and education, the degree of familial and community support on arrival, and the network of services available in the area of settlement.
When young refugees arrive in Australia, they are likely to have had some harrowing and extremely stressful experiences. Many young refugees have survived life in a war zone and some may themselves have participated in the fighting. Most will have lived with the constant threat of violence and some will have witnessed or even experienced torture.
I was born in the midst of two wars. When I was two years old, there was a war with Iran, and that finished in 1988, and then there was the Gulf War. So all my life, I have known only war. It is nothing exciting (Iraqi refugee, aged 20).
Persecution on the grounds of ethnic identity, religion or race is a common part of the refugee experience. Sometimes persecution is aimed specifically at young people, for example in the form of under-age conscription into government military forces (which may be actively engaged in combat with the ethnic minority with which the young person identifies).
I cannot go back to Iraq, because I have finished Grade 12, and I am now supposed to go to the army. The punishment for escaping army duty in Iraq is to have your ear cut off (Iraqi refugee, aged 20).
We are strong Muslims. But I know that no one has a monopoly on God. Our faith – it is for us. It does not affect other people. But we were persecuted for being Muslim. It was a very bad situation (Afghani refugee, aged 19).
Pittaway (1991) found that 73% of the 204 refugee women she interviewed had experienced a high to medium degree of torture and trauma. Moss (1993, p.200) notes that the torture experience for women most often takes the form of sexual abuse, adding that the lack of public awareness and discussion of this issue may result in an under-estimation of the extent of the problem.
The events surrounding escape can also be traumatic. The lack of choice in leaving and the inability to return put young people under considerable psychological pressure as they attempt to cope with an abrupt dislocation from their previous life. Young people may also become separated from family members during the confusion and desperation of escape.
The fighting erupted around us and I thought that my mother and brothers and sisters had jumped on the lorry at the front of the convoy. So I jumped on the back of another lorry. When the lorries stopped at the refugee camp in Kenya, it was only then that I realised that my mother was not there ... that she was still in the city. I was 8 years old then (Somali refugee, female, aged 15).
Young refugees commonly experience physical deprivation in refugee camps or in transit from their country of origin to Australia. Nutritional, educational or recreational needs are easily overlooked in camp situations and, in some cases, fighting and persecution continue. Women may be particularly at risk in camps.
On the way to the refugee camp in the lorry, I did not have any food, water or money. There was no rain. Some other people tried to help me, but their food was bad and the water was not clear. I was really scared (Somali refugee, female, aged 15).
There was trouble in the camp. There was no food, not enough of everything (Sudanese humanitarian entrant, aged 22).
Lengthy periods in transit give plenty of time to dwell on past pain. Young people often remain in a highly anxious state, fearing for the well-being of other family members left behind and wondering what the future holds.
In the camp in Thailand, life was very hard. We were very worried, because our future was so uncertain. We did not know if or when we would leave the camp, and if so, where we could go (Vietnamese family reunion entrant, female, aged 18).
Schooling may also be disrupted.
I spent seven years in the refugee camp, from when I was eight years old to when I was 15. I did not study in the camp, so I have not been to school since I was eight years old (Somali refugee, female, aged 15).
Considerable amounts of time and personal momentum can be wasted in refugee camps, in transit or in detention centres waiting for an application for protection to be approved.
The search for a safe and permanent place to live often entails many journeys, and many dashed hopes. The personal histories of several of the young people interviewed for this study identify the circuitous paths that eventually brought them to Australia. Jasenko's story exposes the frustration of having to relinquish safety in a seemingly endless wait for migration applications to be processed.
This frustration cannot be overstated. Several interviewees explained how they had reached a place of safety, only to be unable to find accommodation or to run out of money and consequently be unable to wait for a response to their application for a visa. Under these circumstances, refugee applicants may be forced to return to a war zone. Subsequently it becomes difficult for authorities to trace them, or for them to move when an opportunity to migrate arises.
When we went back to Bosnia, the Australian embassy could not make contact with us. That was from 1994 to 1996. They were the worst two years in the world, those last two years (Bosnian refugee, male, aged 19).
The search for asylum is usually lengthy and always an uncertain process. The escape paths and destination plans people make for themselves are often blocked by events over which they have little control.
Experiences of persecution, violence, the loss of loved ones, and periods of sustained fearfulness and anxiety undermine the trust and sense of belonging that young people should be able to take for granted. Relationships with significant adults are often disrupted or permanently broken, and new relationships, where these form, may be short-lived.
I have lost contact with my dad now. I don't know where he is. I have tried to find him (Bosnian family reunion entrant, male, aged 17).
I last saw my mother nine years ago. I have not written to her because I did not have her address. I asked the Red Cross to help me find her address (Eritrean refugee, female, aged 18).
The trauma resulting from these experiences is deeply felt, whether or not it is openly discussed. The ramifications of trauma may be felt for many years. For some young people, a full recovery to a normal life might appear unattainable. Trust in relationships may be affected and belief in friends, family and the general goodwill of people in the community may be seriously undermined.
I was surprised at how friendly Australian people were when I first arrived. They smiled all the time. I think people do not always mean it when they smile. In Sudan, you do not go around smiling all the time. I am a bit suspicious. People are insincere (Sudanese refugee, male, aged 22).
Feelings of mistrust may be directed at government, bureaucracy and officialdom, thereby compromising a young refugee's capacity to accept official support, to respond appropriately to questioning and, generally, to negotiate the obstacles that face them on arrival in a new country.
The phenomenon of 'survivor guilt', or shame and self-blame at being alive when others, perhaps deemed more 'worthy', did not make it to safety, is an additional burden often borne by those whose family relationships have been severely disrupted and whose significant family members have been killed or left behind.
When young refugees first arrive in Australia they are usually unfamiliar with Western lifestyles and culture. Refugee-producing countries are predominantly located in the under-developed world. The culture shock experienced on arrival in a country such as Australia is not conducive to an early, effective settlement because there is so much to learn. A priority is to become familiar with the social support system, but many of the assumptions on which the Australian system is founded are alien to young refugees.
Everything was new to me, the language, everything. I found it so difficult (Eritrean refugee, female, 18 years).
I'll never forget how it was to come to Australia. It was just amazing, everything was so new (Afghani refugee, male, aged 19).
Settlement difficulties are compounded by a lack of English language proficiency. Many young refugees speak very little English when they first arrive in Australia and often become frustrated with their inability to communicate. This problem is all the more difficult to solve if the young person is only partially literate in his or her own language (a common occurrence due to disruptions in schooling).
I knew a little bit of English from school, but it was American English and when I tried to speak in English, people did not understand me, because I had a funny accent. That was very hard (Bosnian refugee, male, aged 19).
Generally, young refugees tend to experience mixed feelings about arriving in a new country – a simultaneous sense of relief and shock.
When I arrived in Australia, I was feeling both happy and sad. I cried. The war was happening over there, but I missed my friends (Bosnian family reunion entrant, male, aged 17).
The first thing I remember about Australia is that I was really sad to have left my friends. But, on the other hand, I am really lucky, because I can go to school normally and I can finish university (Bosnian refugee, female, aged 18).
Young refugees who arrive in Australia illegally, either alone or with family, are generally subject to periods in detention.5 For these young people, feelings of extreme fearfulness and a sense of a loss of freedom and movement are likely to continue, even beyond detention and into the settlement phase.
I bought a false passport in Bangkok. It already had a visa for Australia in it. When I got to the airport in Australia, I tore my passport up. I was taken to the detention centre and I stayed there for five months. It's like prison. I was afraid that if I got sent back, I would disappear. I passed five months thinking only this one thought (Algerian refugee, male, aged 24).
Reality takes some time to set in. Commonly, a 'honeymoon' period, in which there is a great sense of relief and safety, gradually yields to an increasing awareness of the relative disadvantage or extra difficulty experienced by refugees. At this point, some young people begin to feel disillusioned about the prospects of settling in and making a new life. It is also common for refugees to avoid acknowledging the difficulties they face, perhaps anxious not to seem ungrateful.
There is nothing bad about Australia. Even when I was stranded at the airport and nobody came to meet us, that is not bad now. That was long ago. I passed that (Somali refugee, female, aged 15).
Many young refugees express a strong commitment to Australia. In a pilot survey of young refugees attending English Language Centres in 1995, most emphasised their commitment to Australia. They saw no other future for themselves, and planned to stay in Australia for the rest of their lives.
I would like to visit every place in Australia and see Australia from every corner so I know what it really looks like. That is my wish. I understand that Australia is the best country for me (Bosnian refugee, male, aged 19).
Jasenko had wanted to come to Australia for a very long time. Jasenko's mother left Jasenko's father shortly after he was born. She went to Australia to join her parents who had migrated there from Bosnia in the 1960s. She wanted to take Jasenko with her but because he was a boy child in a communist country, she could not get permission. Jasenko's father was unable to care for him and so he grew up with his paternal grandparents. But Jasenko's grandparents loved him.
When the war erupted in the neighbouring province, Jasenko left his grandparents with their blessing and fled to England. Once in England he applied to join his mother in Australia. He waited in England for six long months for news of his visa application, before he learnt that he had not been accepted. Jasenko was only 17 years old and his father had not signed the visa application form, so he was deemed too young or perhaps too big a risk for Australia to accept. Jasenko had to wait another six months. Living in England was hard because Jasenko did not know enough English and was ineligible to work or study. Reluctantly, Jasenko returned to Bosnia to wait out the final six months. He was only there ten days when war broke out in his home town. The city was blockaded and he lost his freedom of movement. It took another three years before Jasenko could again apply to come to Australia. This time he was more successful. On arrival, Jasenko was reunited with his mother. Settlement was relatively smooth because his mother was delighted to have her son with her.
Farouda comes from Iraq. She and her family are from the Assyrian Catholic community. In the village, people speak Assyrian (an older language than Arabic), but they also speak Arabic and Arabic is the language of instruction in schools. Farouda was fortunate to flee the war-zone in Iraq with her immediate family, her father and mother as well as her sister and two brothers. They traveled to Jordan where a relative was able to shelter them for a month, then through Yugoslavia and on to Greece. In Yugoslavia, a friend of the family offered to make arrangements for them, but he took almost their entire family life savings of US$20,000 and none of the money produced any benefits for the family. Their hopes of securing a preferred settlement were dashed.
Many young people currently living in Australia share the refugee experiences outlined in the previous section, but not all entered the country as officially recognised refugees or under the government's humanitarian resettlement program. The remainder of this chapter explains the different programs and visa classifications under which young people with refugee-like experiences may enter or be allowed to remain in Australia. These distinctions have serious implications for entitlement to government assistance. Further detail on the entitlements conferred by different programs and visa categories is provided in Table 8 and the accompanying discussion in Chapter 5.
Australia's immigration policy is non-discriminatory in the sense that applicants from any country will be considered for permanent residence, 'regardless of their ethnic origin, gender, colour or religion' (DIMIA 2001a). All migrants to Australia must satisfy health and character checks before their applications can be approved, in addition to meeting various migration criteria, which vary according to migration category. When an application is approved, a class of visa is allocated reflecting the program and program component under which the application was made.
The immigration program has two main components: the Migration (non-humanitarian) Program for skilled and family migrants, and the Humanitarian Program for refugees and others with humanitarian needs.7 The majority of new entrants to Australia each year arrive under the Migration Program. In the financial year8 2000–01, for example, approximately 80,000 visas were allocated under this program. This compares to a planning level of around 12,000 visas under the Humanitarian Program (DIMIA Fact Sheet, 20 July 2001).
Australian governments, on a bipartisan basis, have remained committed to providing assistance to refugees and other victims of significant human rights abuses. Over the past 50 years, more than half a million refugees and displaced people have been resettled in Australia (DIMIA Fact Sheet 60, Nov. 2001). Each year, the federal government decides on the size and composition of the Humanitarian Program. These decisions take into account world-wide resettlement needs, as established by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees9 (UNHCR), and follow consultation with a number of relevant peak bodies as well as community organisations and interest groups. Some 12,000 places were allocated to the Humanitarian Program in 2000-01 and the same number in 2001–02 (DIMIA Fact Sheet 60, Nov. 2001).
The Humanitarian Program comprises an offshore resettlement program for applicants overseas and an onshore protection program for people claiming refugee status from within Australia. Since commencing the research for this study, some important changes have been made to the types of visa available to young refugees under the onshore resettlement program.
The offshore resettlement program applies to people living outside Australia who are deemed to be subject to persecution and for whom resettlement in another country is seen as the only option. All entrants under the offshore resettlement program have been given permission to enter Australia prior to arrival. The offshore program currently allocates visas under two main categories: Refugee and Special Humanitarian.
Entrants under the Refugee category are also known as 'convention refugees' because they must meet the criteria for refugee status determined by the UN convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. Government generally sets aside 4,000 places for applicants under the Refugee category. In 2000–01, a total of 3,997 people arrived in Australia for resettlement under this category, of whom 1,163 (or 29%) were aged between 12 and 25 (see Table 2).
There are three subsets of the Refugee category:
Women at Risk: the program recognises that refugee women in particularly vulnerable situations are exposed to risk of serious abuse, sexual assault, victimisation or harassment where traditional support and protection have unavoidably broken down. This category was established in 1989 in recognition of the priority given by UNHCR to the protection of refugee women. Approximately 80% of the world's refugees are women and children (Pittaway 1991).
In-country Special Humanitarian: aimed at persons still in their home country who are identified as in need of resettlement by a major human rights organisation because they are being persecuted;
Emergency Rescue: people in or outside their home country who experience persecution in their home country and who are in urgent and compelling need to travel and for whom resettlement in Australia is the appropriate solution.
The Australian government pays for the airfares of successful Refugee category applicants and new arrivals are provided with the widest range of settlement support services under the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS).
Special Humanitarian Program (SHP)
Special Humanitarian entrants are 'people outside their home country who are subject to substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights in their home country' (DIMIA Fact Sheet 60, Nov. 2001). People applying for permanent residency under the Special Humanitarian component usually need to demonstrate some connection with Australia through family links, or through having previously worked or studied here. A formal proposal from an Australian permanent resident or citizen is required.
It is through the Special Humanitarian Program that many refugee and humanitarian settlers have 'proposed' close family members to migrate to Australia. Under the Program, the proposer's role may include assisting the new arrival with airfares, medical costs and accommodation. Proposers are expected to help entrants gain access to services to support their settlement in Australia. SHP visa holders are eligible for most settlement services under (IHSS) and, like Refugee entrants, are exempted from the two-year waiting period for income support.
The number of places government makes available for the SHP is linked to the number of places it anticipates will be needed for refugees under the onshore component of the Humanitarian Program. The number of SHP entrants has consequently declined over the last few years following the large increase in unauthorised arrivals that claim refugee status from within Australia. The decline was particularly notable in 1999–2000, with the number of SHP grants allocated dropping 30% from the year before.10 Whereas more grants used to be made under the SHP than under the Refugee category, this has now been reversed. DIMIA anticipates about 3,000 places will be available under the SHP in the 2001–02 program year (pending onshore allocation), slightly less than the year before (DIMIA Fact Sheet 60, Nov. 2001).
This decline has been of particular concern to refugee and humanitarian settlers in Australia since it greatly limits their options for family reunion. Like other migrants with permanent resident status, offshore humanitarian visa holders can sponsor close family members through the Family Stream of the Migration Program but this method does not make the same allowance for the needs of either sponsoring or sponsored parties (see below). The SHP acknowledges the importance to refugee settlers of close family members left behind during their flight from persecution or oppression, and as such is a critical part of government's resettlement program.
In 2000–01, 28% of SHP entrants were aged between 12 and 25 (a total of 886 young people) (see Table 2).
Special Assistance Category (SAC)
Prior to November 2001, the Humanitarian Program included a Special Assistance Category (SAC). The SAC was introduced in 1991–92 for groups with close family or community links with Australia who were in particularly vulnerable situations but did not meet the criteria of other categories. SAC was, therefore, the most flexible stream of the Humanitarian Program. Government decided each year which groups to target, and each group then became a SAC subprogram. As with the Special Humanitarian Program, a formal proposal from an Australian permanent resident or citizen was required. Travel assistance was not provided by government, but SAC entrants had access to services under the IHSS.
SAC visa subclasses were discontinued with effect from November 2001, though some of the refugee young people currently resident in Australia would have entered Australia under the terms and conditions of this category, including 216 young SAC entrants in 2000–01.
Special Assistance Category Visa holders remain on these visas although the category itself has now closed. They have the same entitlements as permanent residents, identical to other humanitarian program entitlements.
The onshore program applies to people who make an application for refugee status once in Australia. Prior to 1989, there were fewer than 500 such applications in any single year. This changed dramatically following events in Tiananmen Square in June 1989. Onshore refugee applications peaked at more than 16,000 in 1990–91, with three-quarters of applications coming from citizens of the People's Republic of China, many of whom were studying in Australia at the time. Every year since has seen several thousand people make applications for refugee status from within Australia.11
Onshore applicants for refugee status include both authorised and unauthorised arrivals. Authorised arrivals are asylum seekers who first come to Australia under a valid temporary visa and then apply for refugee status, for example following the eruption of a war or civil disturbance in their country of origin. This group of onshore applicants is resident in the Australian community when they make their application.
An 'unauthorised arrival' is someone found to have entered Australia either by air or by sea without valid migration documents. When discovered by Australian authorities, unauthorised arrivals are compulsorily detained in Australian Immigration Reception and Processing Centres. In recent years there has been a decrease in the numbers of people arriving in Australia's airports without valid travel documents,12 but a large increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals by boat. In 1998–99 some 921 people arrived by boat without authorisation, this number rose to 4,175 in 1999–2000 and declined slightly to 4,137 in 2000–01.13 The majority of unauthorised boat arrivals in 2000–01 came from Afghanistan (55%) and one-quarter from Iraq. A notable feature of unauthorised boat arrivals is that the individuals on board characteristically declare themselves upon arrival to the Australia authorities in order to seek protection as refugees under the onshore program.14 Nevertheless, these individuals are subject to mandatory detention.
In 2000–01, a total of 1,366 young people arrived in Australia without authorisation, this being 31% of all unauthorised arrivals. The vast majority (97%) arrived by boat. One-fifth of unauthorised young arrivals were minors (aged 12 to 17) with most (57%) aged 21 to 25 years.15
In order to qualify for protection visas and remain in Australia, onshore applicants must meet the strict definition of 'refugee' set out in the United Nations Refugees Convention; unlike offshore applicants, asylum seekers are not eligible for protection under the Special Humanitarian Program. Asylum seekers who do not meet UN criteria are, where possible, returned to their country of origin at the earliest opportunity.
Asylum seekers who come to Australia by sea without authorisation have experienced a marked drop in success rates over the last decade. In 1989, 78% of unauthorised boat arrivals were granted permanent residence in Australia. Over the period 1989 to 1997, only 19% of such applicants were granted approval to remain in Australia (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1998).
Since the introduction of the temporary protection visa, larger numbers of unauthorised arrivals have been granted protection, but not permanent residency. In 2000–01, about 80% of all detained asylum seekers were recognised as refugees.16 The figure is slightly higher (83%) for young asylum seekers.17
Until October 1999, all asylum seekers found to be refugees under the terms of the UN Convention, including those who arrived without authorisation, were given immediate access to a permanent protection visa (DIMIA Fact Sheet 64, Nov. 2001). This visa conferred permanent residency status and eligibility for the full range of support arrangements also offered to refugees settled from overseas. It also enabled visa holders to sponsor family members to Australia.
Since October 1999, asylum seekers found to be refugees, but who entered the Australian mainland illegally or on fraudulent documents, are only eligible to apply for a temporary protection visa (TPV) which gives them residence for an initial period of three years after which time they must reapply for protection. TPV holders have restricted access to government assistance and settlement services. As temporary residents they are not eligible to sponsor their close family members to Australia, and are unable to enter and exit Australia freely (without risking cancellation of their visa).
The introduction of TPVs was particularly designed to discourage the operation of people smuggling networks and to reduce the number of unauthorised boat arrivals to Australia. The restricted entitlements conferred by the TPV were intended by government to act as a deterrent. The Secretary General of Amnesty International, Irene Khan, interprets the legislative change as follows: 'Because detention in itself has failed to reduce the number of asylum seekers, the Government has sought to deprive those detained of some rights and benefits, even after they have been recognised as refugees' (Khan 2002, p.3).
As noted, the number of places made available for the Special Humanitarian Program (offshore resettlement) is constrained by the number of places required for onshore applicants. Consequently if the allocation of TPVs increases, the number of offshore SHP visas decreases. While in theory there is no reason that these two components of the Humanitarian Program should be directly linked in this way, the fact that they are tends to undermine the standing of the onshore resettlement program. In DIMIA's view, the problem that arises is one of allowing unauthorised arrivals to 'tak[e] the places in the Humanitarian Program from refugees and others who are often in greater need of resettlement' (DIMIA Fact Sheet 64, Nov. 2001). This is colloquially described as 'queue jumping', an obviously value-laden expression which, among other things, assumes there is an orderly queue to be jumped.18 Arguably the queue in question is a product not of the global system of refugee protection, but of Australian government policy and policy rhetoric. The linking of onshore and offshore components is likely to exacerbate a vicious circle whereby reduced opportunity for legitimate humanitarian migration encourages risk-taking among people who are desperate to escape their circumstances, which encourages unauthorised arrival, which in turn (in Australia) leads to the reduction of places for humanitarian migration.
The creation of the TPV and related changes to the visa system sets in place what DIMIA refers to as 'a hierarchy of benefits' (DIMIA Fact Sheet 65, Jan. 2002). Asylum seekers found to be refugees and who entered the country legally on valid documents, are still granted permanent protection visas (PPV) which gives them permanent residence and access to the full range of resettlement programs and government assistance. Importantly for our purposes, the principles underlying this hierarchy relate primarily neither to the definition of refugee experience nor to the need for protection or humanitarian consideration, but to the way in which an asylum seeker first arrived in the country. As Amnesty International Australia points out:
Both onshore and offshore refugees have been assessed according to the same criteria and determined to possess a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Yet despite the indivisible nature of the definition of a refugee, the Australian government has seen fit to impose such a division – one that discriminates between refugees purely on the basis of means of entry. This is in spite of the fact that the Convention recognises irregular entry, and in Article 31 explicitly prohibits the imposition of penalties on refugees on account of their illegal entry into the receiving nation (Amnesty International Australia 2001).
Whether or not the TPV proves effective as a deterrent, the price is likely to have been a heavy one for the refugees concerned. In 2000–01 some 4,455 TPVs were granted to refugees arriving in Australia without authorisation. A large proportion (43%) of the applications for TPV grants were from young people aged 12 to 25 years. These young people and their families escaped persecution or oppression and reached Australia's shores, generally after hazardous voyages in unseaworthy vessels. On arrival, they underwent sometimes lengthy periods in detention centres while their claims for refugee status were being processed. When their claims for refugee status were proved legitimate, they were released into the Australian community but without the full range of refugee settlement support services available to offshore refugees, and with assurance of only three years of residency.
By definition TPVs give holders 'temporary' status as residents; it is not intended that people under the terms and conditions of these visas settle and make Australia their home. It may be argued on this basis that young people on temporary protection visas should not be considered as part of a target population for strategies to assist the settlement and long-term independence of young refugees. However, even if TPV holders only stay in Australia for the initial three-year period allowed by their visa, this is a significant length of time, particularly for young people who are generally expected to gain the skills and experience during this time to support themselves as adults later on. Since TPV holders are allowed to renew their visas,19 the total length of time spent in Australia could cover the large part of a person's adolescence. We argue therefore that these young people should be included in the category of young refugees for the purposes of targeting government settlement assistance, even though their 'final' destination may be a country other than Australia. (This is discussed at greater length in Chapter 5.)
In the past, young people under the age of 18 without parents or close relatives usually entered Australia under the Humanitarian Program. These young people were mostly from Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos, and they had typically lived for a period in refugee camps in Thailand, Hong Kong or other nearby countries. Australia no longer targets unaccompanied minors as humanitarian entrants, but maintains an Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Scheme.20 Small numbers of young people still enter Australia without parents or close relatives, either under the offshore Humanitarian Program or as unauthorised arrivals (usually arriving by boat in the company of other asylum seekers).
As of May 2001, there were a total of 218 young people in the Scheme. Almost half this number (48%) were resident in Australia under temporary protection visas. As for other age groups, the numbers of unauthorised arrivals aged under 18 years have increased since the late 1990s. Unauthorised arrivals in this age group are, like all other unauthorised arrivals, subject to mandatory detention. In line with Australia's international obligations towards refugees, unaccompanied humanitarian minors who are TPV holders have access to the same basic package of services available to adult TPV holders (see Table 8).
Under the Unaccompanied Humanitarian Minors Scheme, young people are described either as 'wards' (previously referred to as 'unattached'), 'non wards' (formerly called 'detached'), and 'isolated non wards' (formerly called 'isolated detached'). A 'ward' is defined as a non-citizen minor who falls within the provisions of the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946, that is, a young person under the age of 18 who is not in the care of either parent, or a close relative over 21 years of age. These young people become wards of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The Minister delegates most of his21 powers and functions under the Act to various officers of the state or territory child welfare departments who assume responsibility when wards are released from immigration detention or when they arrive in Australia under the offshore humanitarian program. DIMIA pays a maintenance allowance either to foster parents or directly to the young person if they are living independently. Support is provided to caregivers to 'maximise the successful settlement of the minor' (DIMA Annual Report 1999–2000). In 1999–2000 some 170 minors were eligible for this assistance, compared with 183 in 1998–99. Very few young people are considered to be living independently; the maintenance allowance was paid directly to a total of nine unaccompanied minors in 1999–2000. The maintenance allowance is paid (in line with the Minister's duties, obligations and liabilities under the Act) until the ward turns 16 years of age at which point he or she becomes eligible for Centrelink Special Benefit.
A 'non-ward' is a minor who does not fall within the provisions of the Act, that is, a young person (under 18 years) who in the care of a relative (over the age of 21) other than the parent. It is assumed that sponsoring relatives will accept guardianship responsibility for the young person, although they are not the legal guardians of the young person. The third category of 'isolated non-ward' is of more recent origin and refers to a non-ward whose care arrangements with a relative over the age of 21 have broken down irretrievably after arrival in Australia.
The Commonwealth/state cost share program was established in 1985 with five state child welfare departments in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia, for the welfare supervision and support of unaccompanied humanitarian minors. The program is aimed at ensuring effective settlement support is provided to all these young people while they reside in Australia. The Federal Government is currently negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the states regarding the future arrangements for the care and welfare supervision of unaccompanied humanitarian minors. DIMIA advises that 'The future MOU will consist of a series of care packages, and the amount of funding provided under by the Commonwealth will be a significantly higher level of funding for the care of unaccompanied humanitarian minors compared to the funding provided under the current cost share agreement'.
The Migration Program has two main categories or 'streams' under which migrants can enter Australia as permanent residents: the Skilled Stream and the Family Stream. A slightly larger proportion of visas granted under the program each year is allocated to skilled stream migrants (DIMIA Fact Sheet 20, July 2001). In line with the economic rationale for this component, skilled stream migrants have to satisfy a points test based on employment related factors, and they must be nominated by an employer or have other links to Australia. Alternatively, they must have successful business skills or significant capital to bring to Australia to establish a business.
The family migration component reflects government's recognition of the family as the institution that provides vital support in the lives of most people. Under this component, migrants are selected on the basis of their family relationship with a sponsor or nominator in Australia. They do not have to meet the skills or language ability criteria applied to Skilled Stream migrants. Visas allocated under the Family Stream are categorised under four types of family relationship: partner, child, parent or other family member.22 Certain classes of family stream visa may be 'capped' meaning once a specified number has been allocated under that category in a given program year, no more visas can be granted under that category until the following program year. Applications involving dependent children are currently accorded highest priority in the processing of applications under the Family Stream (DIMIA Fact Sheet 37, Dec. 2001).
Family migrants must be sponsored or nominated by a close family member, partner or fiancé(e) living in Australia. Where applications are made outside Australia, the main applicant and any dependents included in the application must be sponsored (rather than nominated) and usually the sponsor would be an Australian permanent resident aged 18 years or older (see DIMIA Fact Sheet 29, Dec. 2001). Family Stream applicants are subject to an Assurance of Support. This is a legal commitment by the assurer to repay the Commonwealth of Australia any benefits paid to those covered by the assurance in the first two years after their migration from overseas or grant of permanent residence in Australia (ibid).
Refugee and humanitarian settlers with permanent residency status are eligible to sponsor close family members to Australia. Parents/guardians, dependent children and partners may be sponsored to Australia under what is commonly referred to as 'family reunion' migration.
One consequence of the increasing pressure on the Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) is that people who are close family members of refugees settled in Australia are encouraged to apply for entry under the Family Stream of the Migration Program rather than risk missing out under the SHP. This method of family reunion has always been open to refugee and humanitarian settlers but, as noted, is less satisfactory than reunion under the SHP because it does not take into account the specific needs of refugee sponsoring and sponsored parties. When they arrive in Australia, migrants sponsored by refugees in Australia are treated the same as other Family Stream migrants in that they are expected to rely on their Australian sponsor for financial and material support during the first two years of their settlement. This is problematic for a number of reasons relating to the capacity of refugee sponsors to meet their sponsorship obligations (see Chapter 5).
What this suggests is that an increasing number of young people from refugee backgrounds are arriving in Australia as Family Stream migrants. This study sought to find out how likely it was that young people sponsored to Australia under the Family Stream had refugee experiences themselves, since where sponsorship arrangements break down, these young people would be left without the full range of supports generally available to refugee and humanitarian settlers.
A survey was conducted to investigate the past experiences and current circumstances of some 200 young people studying at English Language Centres and Adult Migrant English Programs in New South Wales and Queensland. The sample included people who had entered Australia under the Humanitarian Program and those who entered under the Family Stream of the Migration Program.23 Students were asked to complete the questionnaire in a classroom situation under the guidance of their teacher.24 Respondents were presented with a series of statements about life and events in their former country and were asked to agree or disagree with each. Four of these statements are presented in Table 1. The results of this survey were combined with those from a similar survey conducted in 1994 with some 200 students in Victoria.
The large majority (71%) of family reunion entrants originated from countries undergoing considerable violence at the time of their departure, just under onethird reported that their family was subject to persecution, and 22% stated that they had been afraid for their lives. The results of the survey show that although family reunion entrants are less likely to report the direct experiences of persecution typical of entrants under the Humanitarian Program, a significant proportion had refugee-like experiences of a nature that could be anticipated to impact on settlement needs. This is illustrated in the experiences recounted by a young Bosnian who came to Australia as a family reunion migrant:
We caught the last bus out of Croatia. For one and a half years after that, no more buses got through. We had to go through areas of war on the bus. It was so horrible because people were fighting all around us. We were convinced that the next stop would be the one where we would have to get off, or that they would kill us. The bus had to go through so many barricades. The army came on board to check our passports. And if they felt like it, the soldiers could have turned the bus around and sent us back. I didn't believe I was going to make it. The guy next to me on the bus was killed. All the people on the bus saw. We were all crying. Everyone was screaming and yelling. The soldiers shot him and there was blood. The soldiers threatened to blow our tyres, too. I was very frightened and I feel so lucky that we escaped (Bosnian family reunion entrant, male, aged 17).
These findings confirm the expectation that some young people with refugee-like experiences arrive in Australia under the Migration Program, rather than the Humanitarian Program and are consequently subject to different conditions and entitlements reflecting the types of visa allocated (see Chapter 5).
Table 1: Refugee experience by category of entrant
|
|
Refugee and humanitarian entrants
|
Family Stream entrants
|