With a change at the helm of government, there was some speculation that the hardline and aggressive approach in immigration may be softened, though the minister has not changed.
There are no signs of an aggiornamento so far though, with the rhetoric relatively unchanged, especially regarding those stuck in Manus and Nauru. The focus on centralised control and militarisation of immigration has meant that the flexibility needed in this complex area has not been available.
If you create a legal system that has around 19 sections of the Act just dealing with preventing people from applying for protection in Australia, unless the minister personally intervenes, it illustrates a very strict and tight approach — no other visa category is so heavily regulated. Many asylum seekers are being crushed by an uncompromising structure that prevents them from obtaining any certainty in where they can live beyond a few years.
Consider the situation of 'Hamid' (not his real name). He is stateless and came to Australia by boat in mid 2012. He sought protection and his case remains under consideration. Hamid is married and has five children, who remain in another country also unable to resolve their statelessness.
Let us assume Hamid can meet the narrowed definition of a refugee that we use in Australia. The best he gets is a Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) for three years.
The TPV is a cruel and punitive visa that prevents refugees from applying for anything else apart from another punishing TPV or the Palmer inspired SHEV visa. The SHEV is another version of the TPV but is valid for five years, and allows an applicant to apply for many non refugee visas provided they work or study in designated regional areas for up to 42 months. So far only NSW has signed up for the SHEV.
At the time this was enacted in December 2014, the former immigration minister noted that he thought only a small number of the 30,000 awaiting decisions on their cases would ever benefit from a SHEV to convert their visa to something more permanent.
This is especially so for the older refugees, like Hamid. He is 47, and has some skills in a trade. He could move to a regional area of NSW, work in his trade, and apply for the SHEV. Hopefully 42 months after the grant of the SHEV (however long that will take) he can seek sponsorship on a 457 visa for his trade, assuming he improves his English and gets a genuine employer willing to sponsor him. He can then sponsor his wife and children to join him.
However, once he turns 50, his chance for a permanent visa in the skilled or employer sponsored area disappears. So while he might get the 457 visa in four years, he will never get permanent residence, either because of his age or because the law states that if you ever held a TPV, you can never get the permanent protection visa — which is really the visa he needs to create some certainty for his future.
Having explained this to Hamid, I thought he was about to cry. Maybe he did after he left the office. I can understand why. He is now unable to see a way of reuniting with his family in the short term, or getting a long term solution for himself and his family — all because of the need to punish the refugees who arrive in Australia by boat, as a way of 'stopping the boats'.
Hamid is but one example of many. This cruel and punitive policy needs to be amended and provide a mechanism for a permanent visa, which might be a refugee visa or something else, without having to wait years. We need to remove the barriers that constrict the options.
The punitive effect of the TPV is a means of pressuring already traumatised people to leave Australia. These polices are creating major anxiety for refugees, who are being worn down by the inflexible system, leading to increasing acts of desperation. Increasingly, we are seeing a more puritanical approach to the application of the laws, especially to those who seek and are granted protection.
This new puritansim is also wearing out those working with refugees — lawyers, migration agents, interpreters, social workers, medical staff, public servants and the many Australians who provide help through non-government organisations around the country. Some leave the area disenchanted due to burnout, others can become more radical in their views.
Either way it has the effect of alienating people from working with refugees and asylum seekers. Surely this cannot be the political intention.
There is an opportunity here to 'embrace the future' rather than punishing people further and emphasising fear with puritanical policies and laws. We can only hope that something is done before more people are broken by the harshness of the existing law and policy.
Kerry Murphy is a partner with the specialist immigration law firm D'Ambra Murphy Lawyers and member of the boards of the IARC and JRS.
Image by James Jordan, Flickr CC