Migration and Asylum Data for Policy-making in the European Union – The problem with numbers. CEPS Liberty and Security in Europe No. 89/March 2016

Among many other problems, the migration, humanitarian and policy crises in the European Union in 2015 and early 2016 have highlighted a pressing need for reliable, timely and comparable statistical data on migration, asylum and arrivals at national borders. In this fast-moving policy field, data production and the timeliness of dissemination have seen some improvements but the sources of data remain largely unchanged at national level. In this paper the author examines the reasons for some of the problems with the data for policy and for public discussion, and makes a set of recommendations that call for a complete and updated inventory of data sources and for an evaluation of the quality of data used for policy-making.

Realistic yet humanitarian? The comprehensive plan of action and refugee policy in Southeast Asia

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) has recently been described as a successful example of how to manage large protracted refugee flows. However, this article revisits the circumstances surrounding the CPA used to resolve the prolonged Indo-Chinese refugee crisis to highlight that part of its development was linked to the fact that Southeast Asian states refused to engage with proposed solutions, which did not include repatriation for the majority of the Indo-Chinese asylum seekers who were deemed to be ‘non-genuine’1 ( UNGA, 1989a) refugees. This resulted in the CPA often forcibly repatriating ‘non-genuine’ refugees, particularly near the end of its program. This article reviews the CPA in order to assess whether its practices and results should be repeated.

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.

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

The psychological treatment of refugees and asylum seekers : what does the literature tell us?

Over the past five years, Australia has accepted approximately 50 000 individuals through its Humanitarian program. To integrate these individuals specialised medical and psychological services have been established in major centres of Australia. Australia has been involved in a heated and partisan debate as to the policy of the government in responding to the refugee situation. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, it is imperative that Australia establishes and develops effective policies and processes to respond to the mental health needs of refugees and asylum seekers. To this end, the current review provides an overview of published studies relating to the psychological treatment of refugees and asylum seekers, as well as studies covering the delivery of related services in response to the needs of this group. In this review we aim to provide an informed perspective in terms of research evidence where this is available. Reported research is supported by findings from local focus groups conducted in Queensland, Australia. The overall aim is to provide an optimum response to facilitate the development of effective and humane programs for a significantly disadvantaged group in our community.

The 1989 Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) and refugee policy in Southeast Asia : twenty years forward what has changed?

In 2012, the only South East Asian countries that have ratified the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter referred to as the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol) is Philippines (signed 1954), Cambodia (signed 1995) and Timor Leste (signed 2001). Countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have annual asylum seeking populations from Myanmar, South Asia and Middle East, that are estimated to be at 15 000-20 000 per country (UNHCR 2012). The lack of a permanent and formal asylum processing process in these countries means that that asylum-seeking populations in the region are reliant on the local offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees based in the region to process their claims. These offices rely upon the good will of these governments to have a presence near detection camps and in capital cities to process claims of those who manage to reach the UNHCR representative office. The only burden sharing mechanism within the region primarily exists under the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime (the Bali Process), introduced in 2002. The Bali Process refers to an informal cooperative agreement amongst the states from the Asia-Pacific region, with Australia and Indonesia as the co-chairs, which discusses its namesake: primarily anti-people smuggling activities and migration protocols. There is no provision within this process to discuss the development of national asylum seeking legislation, processes for domestic processing of asylum claims or burden sharing in contrast to other regions such as Africa and South America (i.e. 2009 African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of the Internally Displaced, 1969 African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees [Americas]) (PEF 2010: 19).

Protect or deter? : the expert panel on asylum seekers in Australia

In June 2012 Prime Minister Gillard appointed an Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers to provide advice on policy options 'to prevent asylum seekers rising their lives on dangerous boat journeys to Australia'. This article examines the establishment of that Committee against the backdrop of an increasing number of boat arrivals, of deaths at sea and the failure of Government policy responses to prevent them. It examines the recommendations of the Expert Panel and considers the punitive outcome of some of these recommendations including the 'no advantage' test. It evaluates Kevin Rudd's Regional Resettlement Arrangement with Papua New Guinea and concludes that Australian and regional initiatives need to focus on protection of asylum seekers, not deterrence or avoidance of international obligations

'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.