Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Human Rights Defender

Lovell, Jonathon --- "Are Tempory Protection Visas Here to Stay?" [2002] HRightsDef 15; (2002) 11(2) Human Rights Defender 7

Are Temporary Protection Visas Here To Stay?

By Jonathon Lovell[*]

Australia’s present treatment of asylum seekers involves a number of controversial policies, including the mandatory detention of men, women and children in remote or overseas locations. In its present form, mandatory detention offends the basic dignity of the human person and comes at a great economic and moral cost to the Australian people. However, for the vast majority of asylum seekers who are recognised as genuine refugees, being detained is only the first step in an unnecessarily harsh and counterproductive settlement process. These people are given temporary protection visas (TPVs), which limit and often prevent access to English classes, tertiary education and meaningful employment. TPV status puts genuine refugees’ lives "on hold" for periods of three or more years and prevents reunion with immediate family members during this period. By granting temporary protection rather than permanent residency, Australia undermines basic rights and foregoes the possibility of benefiting – economically, socially and culturally – from people we tolerate but do not welcome.

A decade of transformation

The Commonwealth Government introduced temporary protection (or "safe-haven") visas in the late 1980s to offer extended protection to Chinese students studying at Australian universities. These students feared the prospect of returning home in the wake of state-orchestrated violence against student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in June 1989. This system of temporary protection was justified on the basis that it allowed the students the option of returning to their homeland in safety and dignity once the threat of persecution had subsided. Importantly, this justification was coupled with an offer of permanent residency and citizenship for those who chose to remain in Australia.

Australia’s positive response to onshore applicants (the Chinese students already living in Australia) was not extended to Chinese and Indo-Chinese "boat people" who began arriving in Australia in late 1989. With bipartisan support, the Labor Government adopted a policy of "humane deterrence" whereby asylum seekers were detained in order to deter others from making the trip to Australia. Detention was justified by claims that asylum seekers were "illegal immigrants", "queue jumpers" and a threat to ordinary Australians’ employment prospects.

By the late 1990s, Australia’s policies on asylum seekers had significantly hardened. In response, to a new wave of "boat people" – mainly from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan – the Coalition Government imposed an increasingly punitive detention regime and re-introduced temporary protection visas. These policies aimed to make Australia as ‘unattractive a destination for asylum seekers as possible’.

In early 1999, in response to an ongoing crisis in the Former Yugoslavia, the Government offered Australia as a temporary safe-haven for a number of Kosovar families. Most families were detained for several months despite our Government’s consent to their presence in Australia. Following this initial period of detention, many families were returned to Kosovo while others remained in Australia on temporary protection or health visas. The decision to place many Kosovar families on TPVs signified a change in Australia’s longstanding custom of providing humanitarian entrants with permanent status and extensive social and economic support. Significantly, a number of Kosovar families are still on TPVs some three years after arriving in Australia.

In October 1999, the temporary protection system was extended to all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without the correct documentation and are subsequently recognised as refugees. Genuine refugees – men, women and children – were already being detained in harsh conditions for extended periods of time. Upon their release from detention, TPV status deprived these same people of basic social and economic rights and made them into a virtual under-class in Australian society. Between 1999 and 2001, 90 percent of all asylum seekers who arrived in Australia without the correct documentation were recognised as genuine refugees.

Life on a TPV

Refugees who enter Australia with the express permission of the Commonwealth Government receive extensive support in establishing a household and adjusting to life in Australia. Where appropriate, these people receive more than 500 hours of English classes and assistance in securing employment. Various government, welfare and church agencies should be commended for their ongoing provision of these services.

By contrast, adults on TPVs are denied access to English classes, receive no employment assistance and only a minimal social security payment. In this light, a TPV’s employment prospects are very low. Even if an individual can speak English, there are a number of factors working against his/her entry into the paid workforce. Few employers are willing to invest time and resources in an employee who cannot guarantee their continued presence in Australia. Moreover, TPVs lose one-dollar of their already minimal social security payment for every one-dollar earned. This means they have to find employment for approximately 20 hours per week before they receive any financial benefit from working. That said, I know many TPVs who are working for little or no financial benefit simply to be out in the workforce, improving their English, interacting with others and contributing to Australian society.

In other areas, many TPVs are making a concerted effort to embrace life in Australia. They learn our slang, enjoy having barbeques and were cheering "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie" with the rest of us, as Australia cruised to yet another gold medal at the recent Commonwealth Games. However, this acceptance of Australian culture is coupled with the uneasy knowledge that Australia does not fully accept them. One young man I know described his temporary status in the following terms: ‘I don’t know if I will ever be able to call this country, any country, "home". That thought is hard to deal with ... it is constantly in your mind. It interferes with everything’.

Australia’s current policies infringe on the individual’s most basic social and economic rights, including the right to family life. Individuals on TPVs are prevented from reuniting with their immediate families for the duration of the visa. With no family and few opportunities to interact with others, many TPVs experience prolonged periods of loneliness and isolation. I know one young man who lived alone for three months and only ever ventured outside to buy groceries at the local shopping centre. Nevertheless, it only took a fellow customer, who realised the young man was having trouble locating items in the supermarket, to break this isolation.

Fortunately, children on TPVs are often in a relatively better position than their parents or adult siblings. While the detention of children is obviously contentious, the current system recognises a child’s right to education following their release from detention. English as a Second Language (ESL) classes and later mainstream schooling are perhaps the most important means for breaking the child’s sense of isolation from the broader community. In Canberra, we’ve tried to extend this by providing additional educational and social support to school-aged children on TPVs. We now run a weekly study school program and organise regular, low-cost activities for this purpose. In a positive move, the ACT Government has recently introduced ESL classes for Adult TPVs, which will hopefully engage and empower otherwise isolated individuals.

Nevertheless, at present, these positive initiatives are far outweighed by the Commonwealth Government’s insistence on using innocent people – men, women and children – to deter others like them from coming to Australia. By refusing to give asylum seekers permanent status and by barring TPVs from English classes and job-seeking programs, our Government is sending a clear message: these people are not welcome and are not deserving of the human rights afforded to Australian citizens. Somehow, in the course of this debate, human dignity has become something that has to be "deserved".

Implications For Australia

For me, Australia is more than a geographic area, more than a land "girt by sea" or a border to be protected. Australia is an idea. My generation has grown up in a multicultural Australia that prides itself on diversity and egalitarianism. If we are truly committed to a multicultural and egalitarian Australia where “you’re no better than me, and I’m no better than you”, we must uphold the basic dignity and rights of those most vulnerable in our society. I fear that our current approach to "protecting" our borders is compromising what I value most about being an Australian. In making Australia unattractive to asylum seekers, we risk losing what makes Australia so attractive to us.

Australians are not accustomed to having our treatment of others labelled as a ‘great human tragedy’, as was the case in a recent report commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. For most Australians, human rights abuses only occur in foreign countries and are a thing of the past in our own. Our challenge today is to talk to our fellow Australians in terms that allow them to recognise the injustice of current policies and the importance of recognising the basic dignity and rights of all people.

Will Temporary Protection Visas become a permanent feature of Australia’s social and political landscape? I sure hope not.

Email: jon_lovell@hotmail.com

[*] Jonathon Lovell was named 2002 Young Canberra Citizen of the Year for his voluntary work in refugee resettlement and support, including the establishment of a weekly study school program and the organisation of regular social, sporting and cultural activities for young refugees on Temporary Protection Visas.