Hosting an asylum seeker in Australia: A nationwide exploratory study

In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of people seeking asylum in Australia, resulting in over-crowded detention centres in various parts of the country. Appropriate management and assistance of asylum seekers has been an issue of major socio-political concern. In mid-2012, the Australian ruling government introduced a ‘first of its kind’ community placement initiative, which involved relocating low-risk asylum seekers from detention centres to homes of those Australian families who volunteered for this program. The present study investigated host families’ motivations for volunteering into this scheme and their resulting experiences. Twenty-four men and women from all over Australia were interviewed in person or over the telephone. Consistent with theoretical frameworks of altruism, acculturation, and intergroup contact, thematic analysis indicated participants’ interest in diversity/humanitarian issues were major factors that motivated them to host asylum seekers. Language and cultural barriers were reported as challenges, but generally, participants found the experience positive and rewarding. The initiative was regarded as an excellent avenue of learning about new cultures. The hosts played a strong role in promoting the English language proficiency and intercultural settlement of the asylum seekers. The scheme was considered as one way of diffusing fear/biases against asylum seekers prevalent amongst the Australian community at-large. Participants also provided suggestions to improve the scheme.

Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

Community-based asylum seekers’ use of primary health care services in Melbourne

Objective: To investigate primary health care service utilisation and health presentations among asylum seekers living in Melbourne. Design and setting: Retrospective audit of files of people who attended three Melbourne asylum-seeker health clinics between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2006. Main outcome measures: Rates of reasons for the encounter, diagnostic tests or investigations required, treatments prescribed and referrals. Results: Data were collected from 998 consultations corresponding to 341 people. Eighty-eight per cent of visits involved people with no Medicare access, owing to their visa status. The most common reasons for the encounter were general and unspecified symptoms or problems (rate, 59.9 per 100 encounters; 95% CI, 55–65), followed by musculoskeletal conditions (27.1; 95% CI, 24–30), and psychological problems (26.5; 95% CI, 23–30). The rate of referrals was 18.3 per 100 encounters (95% CI, 16–21). Conclusions: The three clinics providing services to asylum seekers in Melbourne are delivering care to a considerable number of people with complex health needs. A substantial number of asylum seekers present to clinics with psychological and social problems. Most cannot access government-subsidised health care. This must be addressed urgently by policy change at the federal and state and territory levels.

Asylum seekers living in the community on Bridging Visa E : community sector’s response to detrimental policies

In 1997, the Australian government introduced regulations restricting work rights, income and Medicare access to asylum seekers living in the community on Bridging Visa E (BVE). These visa conditions have resulted in unacceptable hardship for asylum seekers. In response, a variety of community-based agencies have been established across Australia. This study documents and collates the experiences of some of these agencies working in Victoria. These organizations maintain a high degree of inter-agency communication and liaison, have an extensive community support network by way of volunteer work and financial assistance from philanthropic organizations and the public, and have developed successful alternative models of care for asylum seekers. However, many of the agencies have been unprepared and under-resourced for the specific legal, cultural, and health concerns common to asylum seekers on BVE. A discussion of the issues faced by the community sector in the current asylum seeker/refugee political context is presented

'Genuine' refugees or illegitimate 'boat people' : political constructions of asylum seekers and refugees in the Malaysia Deal debate

Immigration to Australia has long been the focus of negative political interest. In recent times, the proposal of exclusionary policies such as the Malaysia Deal in 2011 has fuelled further debate. In these debates, Federal politicians often describe asylum seekers and refugees as ‘illegal’, ‘queue jumpers’, and ‘boat people’. This article examines the political construction of asylum seekers and refugees during debates surrounding the Malaysia Deal in the Federal Parliament of Australia. Hansard parliamentary debates were analysed to identify the underlying themes and constructions that permeate political discourse about asylum seekers and refugees. We argue that asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat were constructed as threatening to Australia’s national identity and border security, and were labelled as ‘illegitimate’. A dichotomous characterisation of legitimacy pervades the discourse about asylum seekers, with this group constructed either as legitimate humanitarian refugees or as illegitimate ‘boat arrivals’. Parliamentarians apply the label of legitimacy based on implicit criteria concerning the mode of arrival of asylum seekers, their respect for the so-called ‘queue’, and their ability to pay to travel to Australia. These constructions result in the misrepresentation of asylum seekers as illegitimate, undermining their right to protection under Australia’s laws and international obligations.

Submission to National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from The Australian Psychological Society

Executive Summary The Australian Psychological Society categorically condemns the practice of detaining child asylum seekers and their families, on the grounds that it is not commensurate with psychological best practice concerning children’s development and mental health and wellbeing. Detention of children in this fashion is also arguably a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. A thorough review of relevant psychological theory and available research findings from international research has led the Australian Psychological Society to conclude that: • Detention is a negative socialisation experience. • Detention is accentuates developmental risks. • Detention threatens the bonds between children and significant caregivers. • Detention limits educational opportunities. • Detention has traumatic impacts on children of asylum seekers. • Detention reduces children’s potential to recover from trauma. • Detention exacerbates the impacts of other traumas. • Detention of children from these families in many respects is worse for them than being imprisoned. In the absence of any indication from the Australian Government that it intends in the near future to alter the practice of holding children in immigration detention, the Australian Psychological Society’s intermediate position is that the facilitation of short-term and long-term psychological development and wellbeing of children is the basic tenet upon which detention centres should be audited and judged. Based on that position, the Society has identified a series of questions and concerns that arise directly from the various psychological perspectives that have been brought to bear on estimating the effects of detention on child asylum seekers. The Society argues that, because these questions and concerns relate specifically to improvement and maintenance of child detainees’ educational, social and psychological wellbeing, they are legitimate matters for the Inquiry to consider and investigate. • What steps are currently being taken to monitor the psyc hological welfare of the children in detention? In particular, what steps are being taken to monitor the psychological wellbeing of children arriving from war-torn countries? • What qualifications and training do staff who care for children and their families in detention centres have? What knowledge do they have of psychological issues faced by people who have been subjected to traumatic experiences and are suffering high degrees of anxiety, stress and uncertainty? • What provisions have been made for psycho-educational assessment of children’s specific learning needs prior to their attending formal educational programmes? • who are suffering chronic and/or vicarious trauma as a result of witnessing threatening behaviour whilst in detention? • What provisions have been made for families who have been seriously affected by displacement to participate in family therapy? • What critical incident debriefing procedures are in place for children who have witnessed their parents, other family members, or social acquaintances engaging in acts of self-harm or being harmed while in detention? What psychotherapeutic support is in place for children who themselves have been harmed or have engaged in self- harmful acts while in detention? • What provisions are in place for parenting programmes that provide support for parents of children under extremely difficult psychological and physical circumstances? • What efforts are being made to provide parents with the opportunity to model traditional family roles for children, such as working to earn an income, meal preparation, other household duties, etc.? • What opportunities are in place for the assessment of safety issues such as bullying, and sexual or physical abuse of children or their mothers in detention centres? • How are resources distributed to children and families in detention centres? • What socialization opportunities are available either within detention centres or in the wider community for children to develop skills and independence, engage in social activities, participate in cultural traditions, and communicate and interaction with same-age peers and adults from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds? • What access do children and families have to videos, music and entertainment from their cultures of origin? • What provisions are in place to ensure the maintenance of privacy in a manner commensurate with usual cultural practice? • What is the Government’s rationale for continuing to implement a policy of mandatory detention of child asylum seekers that on the face of it is likely to have a pernicious impact on these children’s mental health? • In view of the evidence on the potential long-term impact of mandatory detention on children, what processes may be followed by Government to avoid such a practice and, more importantly, to develop policies and practices that will have a positive impact on these children’s psychological development and mental health?

Psychological wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia : a literature review prepared for the Australian Psychological Society

This literature review was developed as background for the formulation of an Australian Psychological Society position on the mental health and wellbeing of refugees resettling in Australia. The major aim is to provide a broad overview of the concerns related to refugee mental health and wellbeing within the Australian context. To begin, a brief overview of the definition of a refugee and the scope of refugee movement is provided. Next, the review examines the pre-displacement, post-displacement, systemic and socio-political factors that influence the process of adaptation in refugee resettlement. It then reviews documented approaches to psychological assessment and therapeutic interventions with refugees; and finally it summarises suggestions for assessment and intervention in these practice contexts.

A systematic review of naturalistic interventions in refugee populations

Naturalistic interventions with refugee populations examine outcomes following mental health interventions in existing refugee service organisations. The current review aimed to examine outcomes of naturalistic interventions and quality of the naturalistic intervention literature in refugee populations with the view to highlight the strengths and limitations of naturalistic intervention studies. Database search was conducted using the search terms ‘refugee’, ‘asylum seeker’, ‘treatment’, ‘therapy’ and ‘intervention. No date limitations were applied, but searches were limited to articles written in English. Seven studies were identified that assessed the outcome of naturalistic interventions on adult refugees or asylum seekers in a country of resettlement using quantitative outcome measures. Results showed significant variation in the outcomes of naturalistic intervention studies, with a trend towards showing decreased symptomatology at post-intervention. However, conclusions are limited by methodological problems of the studies reviewed, particularly poor documentation of intervention methods and lack of control in the design of naturalistic intervention studies. Further examination of outcomes following naturalistic interventions is needed with studies which focus on increasing the rigour of the outcome assessment process.

Photographic representations of Asylum seekers in Australian media

This paper introduces three approaches to unlocking the degrees of “truth” within photographs published in newspapers by exploring the genres of Press photography, Photojournalism and Documentary photography. This is brought into context through a study of photographs appearing in The Australian newspaper during 2001 when the Norwegian freighter, the MV Tampa, rescued boat people whose vessel had sunk off the West Australian coast in 2001, and two months later the Children Overboard incident occurred.

The role of legislative, executive and judicial mechanisms in ensuring a fair and effective asylum process

A good faith reading of core international protection obligations requires that states employ appropriate legislative, administrative and judicial mechanisms to ensure the enjoyment of a fair and effective asylum process. Restrictive asylum policies instead seek to ‘denationalize’ the asylum process by eroding access to national statutory, judicial and executive safeguards that ensure a full and fair hearing of an asylum claim. From a broader perspective, the argument in this thesis recognizes hat international human rights depend on domestic institutions for their effective implementation, and that a rights-based international legal order requires that power is limited, whether that power is expressed as an instance of the sovereign right of states in international law or as the authority of governments under domestic constitutions.

The review of Australia's asylum laws and policies: a case for strengthening Parliament's role in protecting rights through post-enactment scrutiny

The central contention of this article is that there is a need for greater involvement of legislators in overseeing a systematic and rights-based scrutiny of the impact of legislation and policy. The recent operation of Australia s asylum laws and policies, in particular provides an illustration of the reforms required. Challenges to the rights of non-citizens in Australia and other jurisdictions serve as a reminder of the extent of change required before rights are firmly entrenched in the processes of government. A useful step forward would be to enhance the role of legislators in setting the criteria and agenda for post-enactment scrutiny in light of issues raised during pre-legislative scrutiny.

Access to protection for 'Offshore Entry Persons' aka asylum seekers

In 2001, amendments to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) made possible the offshore processing of protection claims. The same amendments also foreshadowed the processing of claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia according to non-statutory procedures. After disbanding offshore processing the then Rudd Labor Government commenced processing of protection claims by ‘offshore entry persons’ in Australia under the Refugee Status Assessment process (RSA). The RSA process sought to substitute well established legislative criteria for the grant of a protection visa, as interpreted by the courts, with administrative guidelines and decision-making immune from judicial review. This approach was rejected by the High Court in the cases M61 and M69. This article analyses these developments in light of Australia’s international protection obligations, as well as considering the practical obstacles that continue to confront offshore entry persons as they pursue judicial review of adverse refugee status determinations after the High Court’s decision.