Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office

The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO) appreciates the opportunity to take part in the ongoing review of legislation as it affects refugees and asylum seekers. This submission is made by ACMRO, a national agency of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference directly concerned with these issues.

ACMRO was established by the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference (ACBC) in 1995. It is an amalgam of two previous Conference bodies - The Federal Catholic Immigration Committee, and the Australian Catholic Refugee Office. The ACBC mandates the ACMRO to advise and serve the ACBC at a both national and international level on migrant and refugee issues including: the development of church policy; acting as an official Church voice as approved the Bishops' Conference; the coordination of effective consultation and coordination between church agencies and making appropriate representation to Government on these matters. The ACMRO is accountable to the ACBC through the Bishops' Committee for Migrants and Refugees.

We appreciate the extension granted from 1 November to 8 November for the lodgement of the submission. However we are concerned that the restrictive timeframe and short notification imposed by the Committee for the submission has placed an unrealistic expectation and burden on organizations who may not be equipped to respond so quickly.

Consideration of the application of mutual obligation to the nominated special benefit recipients with particular consideration of:

Introduction

The ACMRO is concerned that the proposed legislation, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002, may place an additional burden on those with temporary protection visas (TPVs) due to the implication of mutual obligation. At issue is the implication of mutual obligation for TPV holders that "in return for unemployment payments, job seekers should make a contribution back to the Australian community .". [1] Problematic with this notion is that, unlike people on Newstart or Youth Allowance, TPV holders receive Special Benefits, for which there is currently no reciprocity of entitlements to services and assistance or mutual obligation conditions such as activity testing.

This concern is based on the notion that the proposed legislation is unclear about the mechanism of mutual obligation for those on TPVs. As of 1 January 2003, the proposed changes will effect those TPV holders who apply for Special Benefit payment and are of work force age, or who reach work force age. The proposed measures disregard the fundamental and legislative difference between those on Newstart or Youth Allowance who undergo activity testing as part of their mutual obligation with Centrelink, with entitlements to full assistance.

Negative Aspects

If TPV holders take part in the activity testing, the mutuality is one sided, unless provisions are introduced to enable TPV holders in receipt of Special Benefit payment to have access to labour market programs and English tuition. The proposed amendments ignore the issue of equity and access as TPV holders are denied the full range of services available to those on Newstart or Youth Allowance. Therefore we seek clarification whether the intention of the legislation is to make amendments allowing TPV holders the full range of services available to those on Newstart and Youth Allowance.

Limited or non-existent English language skills, high levels of poverty, unstable and irregular accommodation will make it difficult for TPV holders to comply with Centrelink's mutual obligation, especially activity testing. However, this potential problem may be alleviated if English language training and employment assistance are provided.[2]

Positive Aspects

Conversely to the concerns raised above, we acknowledge the significance and implications of these proposed measures as it reflects and recognises that TPV holders have potential long-term prospects of remaining in Australia. This is a most positive consideration for which we commend the Government for designing legislation which "aims to encourage social and economic participation by treating (those eligible) in a similar way to Australian nationals.by requiring them to be self-reliant and to fulfil a mutual obligation to the Australian community". [3]

Most refugees by definition are people with courage, ingenuity and perseverance and are endowed with talents and creativity which have enabled them to survive and find sanctuary. Australians respect such values and attributes - but rarely do we attribute them to refugees. The legislation is designed to help all Australians to be self-reliant, but it overlooks that TPV holders are a group least likely to require direction towards self-reliance. Rather they require opportunities, but in order to have any chance in the work force they need to be well prepared with language and employment skills.

The legislation focuses on those most likely to benefit from it, such as single people, of work force age and job ready. They can only be advantaged by having access to programs providing specialised preparation and training designed to assist with overcoming the many barriers of gaining entry to the Australian labour force market. If the focus of the measures is designed to assist TPV holders to gain worthwhile and meaningful employment, then it is a pleasing aspect as gaining employment is a major challenge of settlement for any migrant.

The proposed amendment would address the current problem restricting TPV holders to access work by addressing a level of vulnerability, as they would have the chance to gain access to English language courses which will reduce the possibility of exploitation by unscrupulous employees. Under these new arrangements it is presumed that the same entitlements and assistance will be granted to TPV holders as those on Job Search and Youth Allowance, resulting from activity testing. Therefore, it is vital that service providers and Centrelink have sufficient information and appropriate training to avoid barriers, hostility and ignorance about the new arrangements.

Issues

The key question of concern is whether the proposed changes provide TPV holders with the same entitlements and access to benefits as Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients. Will they have access to Centelink Job Seeker Classification instruments?

Under the proposed arrangements, Temporary Protection visa holders would certainly benefit by having eligibility to the process that evaluates the level of assistance necessary as preparation for entry into the workforce. Currently the level of support is incomplete with eligibility limited to Job Network - job matching services and access to the Centrelink Customer Service Centres, both of which provide basic assistance, which discounts the complex needs for those on TPVs.

We support the comment made by the Refugee Council of Australia[4] that there exist many concerns with the proposed legislation especially if it inhibits future prospects for TPV holders and places further restrictions on an already vulnerable and disadvantaged group.

The proposed legislation is an addition to the government's collection of restrictive measures aimed at making it less easy and desirable to claim asylum in Australia. As a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to share the burden posed by those who seek asylum. That responsibility is enhanced when military and political action in Afghanistan and the Middle East takes place with our (Government) support.

Summary

In summary, rather than punishing people we prefer what appears to be the Government's approach with this proposed legislation, which has the potential to assist a vulnerable group to be members of the Australian labour market. The amendments also appear to acknowledge that those on Temporary Protection visas have long-term prospects of staying in Australia. Such a sentiment is timely as it emulates concerns expressed by the Catholic community particularly during and around the time of Refugee and Migrant Sunday: that those who seek asylum and are granted refugee status in Australia be treated with compassion and a level of understanding commensurate with the ordeals they have experienced in seeking protection.

The proposed legislation can respond to those concerns by allowing TPV holders the same entitlements as those on Newstart or Youth Allowance, which in essence provide services and assistance to help with participation in the Australian labour force. This approach would also address a current imbalance by recognising a significant level of assistance currently met by charitable institutions as noted in a statement by Australian Catholic Bishops, that those on temporary protection visas ". have little or no access to Governmental settlement services, and must look to Church and voluntary organizations for assistance."[5]

TPV holders should not be further victimised by this legislation, as they are not given permanent visas due to their mode of arrival in Australia. It remains that they are entitled under international law to seek protection from any country that has signed the 1951 Refugee Convention.[6] Therefore we encourage government policies that provide equality of treatment for those people who come to Australia without documentation (by sea or air) and seek our protection. They should have equal entitlements and assistance attached to Newstart and Youth Allowance payment.

General Comment - how we treat displaced people/people seeking asylum

The response to asylum seekers by many Western governments remains inflexible, failing as it does to meet the challenge of people seeking protection. The fundamental right to migrate is rendered meaningless unless migration programs enable migrants to be received. The situation is even more serious for asylum seekers who are forced to seek protection in an environment in which safe, stable, democratic countries seek to block their entry in order to exercise the right to seek asylum.

We believe that settlement and support services must reflect and respond to the special needs of vulnerable members of society such as those on TPVs. The Pope in his message for the 1993 World Migration Day acknowledged that "highly developed countries are not always able to assimilate all those who emigrate", but he noted that we must not lose sight of the fact that the "criterion for determining the level that can be sustained cannot be based solely on protecting their own prosperity, while failing to take into consideration the needs of persons who are tragically forced to ask for hospitality".[7] As Professor Helen Hughes notes, the challenge remains for western liberal democracies such as Australia ". in transforming illegal into legal immigration based on improving refugee recognition and processing".[8]

Conclusion

In conclusion we restate our opposition to the proposed legislation unless provisions are included conferring on those eligible TPV holders the same assistance and services available to Newstart and Youth Allowance recipients who are subject to activity testing.

As noted by the Australian Catholic Bishops - it is in our realm to help the vulnerable in our society as "We all have a responsibility to one another. So we must work together for social conditions to ensure that every person and every group in society is able to meet their needs and realise their potential. We have a responsibility to protect those whose dignity and rights cannot be guaranteed in their countries of origin or habitual residence. Our [Australian] policies should not use asylum seekers as a means of deterring others from seeking asylum in Australia".[9] The Australian Catholic Bishops called for a more humane treatment of asylum seekers, noting that the paramount importance of the dignity of the person must be "reflected in our nation's policies", and called for a review of policies "for dealing with those who seek asylum here, so as to ensure that they are not discriminated against because of their mode of arrival" [10].

Background - Catholic Social Teaching

The moral and ethical underpinnings of our opposition and comments to the proposed legislation lie in Catholic Social Teaching. Many of the principles at stake are given practical expression by the community of nations in international human rights law. The Catholic Church's extensive international experience in assisting and protecting the dignity of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants has led it to strong support of the international laws relating to the rights of such groups.

The Catholic Church in Australia, as elsewhere, has a long history of welcoming and assisting migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. As the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference recently affirmed:

The Catholic Church in Australia, through the Catholic Immigration Offices at national and state level, religious institutes, Church Organizations, and many dioceses and parishes, has taken and continues to take important initiatives to help refugees and asylum seekers. These have ranged from intervention at the policy and advocacy levels to providing refugees, asylum seekers, and those who have been granted Temporary Protection Visas, with advice and assistance with housing, employment, clothing, friendship, support and pastoral care.[11]

The philosophical basis for the assistance and advocacy of Catholic agencies in relation to asylum seekers and refugees are to be found in the scriptures and in Catholic Social Teaching.

Catholic Social Teaching sums up the teachings of the Catholic Church on social justice issues. It is the effort to bring the light of the Gospel to bear on the issues we face in the social dimensions of our lives.

This body of teaching promotes a vision of a just society that is grounded in biblical revelation, the teachings of the leaders of the early Church, and the wisdom gathered from experience of the Christian community as it has responded to social justice issues through history. As a formal body of teachings the social doctrine has developed markedly in the nineteenth and twentieth century.

Church documents such as encyclical letters, pastoral statements, and pastoral letters are the main sources of social teachings. Some of these documents, such as Papal encyclicals, are international in scope and quite general. Others, for example, pastoral statements by local Bishops and national conferences of Bishops, look in detail at particular issues in particular places.

An extensive body of Catholic teaching on asylum seekers exists at the local, regional and international levels.[12]

Key Principles

The following principles from Catholic Social Teaching, though religious in nature, are closely related to customary international human rights law:

The primacy of human dignity:

.Every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and has an inalienable and transcendent human dignity which gives rise to human rights.

.People are always more important than things. People are never a means or an instrument to be used for the benefit of another.

The Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also affirms the inherent dignity and inalienable rights of the human person.

The unity of the human family:

.Every human person is equal in dignity and rights. Every human community, every race and culture is equal in dignity and rights. The human family is one because we are all children of the one God.

This principle is echoed in Article 1 of the UDHR.

The universal destination of goods:

.God intended the goods of creation for the use of all, and so everyone has a right to access the good of creation to meet their needs.

UDHR articles 22 and 25 also reflect a right to the things needed for survival.

Solidarity and the common good:

.We are all really responsible for each other and must work for social conditions which ensure that every person and every group in society is able to meet their needs and realise their potential.

.Every group in society must take into account the rights and aspirations of other groups, and of the well being of the whole family.

The need to take into account the rights of others and the importance of community for human flourishing is affirmed in UDHR articles 28 and 29.

The purpose of government:

.Governments must protect, foster and promote the human rights of all people and all groups. Such rights are civil and political as well as economic, cultural and social. Governments must act not only in the interest of particular groups, but for the good of all. They must intervene in social and economic life to

establish conditions that help each person and each group to achieve their potential as freely and fully as possible.

.The basis, foundation and end of the state is the service of the human person. The interest of the person is paramount, rather than the interests of the state or national security.

Thinking along similar lines, the Preamble of the UDHR acknowledges respect for human rights as the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.

Relating these general principles to the concrete situation of asylum seekers and refugees, the ACMRO believe that Australian policy should observe the following ethical norms:

Australia, as part of the international community, should undertake its responsibilities towards refugees voluntarily, and in the spirit of humanitarianism.
As a wealthy and stable nation, we share a responsibility for the weakest in the world community.
Australia is entitled to protect its territorial integrity in ways that are consistent with its international obligations and undertakings and its domestic law and legal principles.
Australia's international human rights law obligations should apply equally in all parts of Australia's territory.
No refugee or asylum seeker should be subject to punishment, mistreatment or other violations of human rights to deter others from seeking asylum in Australia.
Refugees and asylum seekers who are intercepted on their way to Australia must be treated with respect for their dignity without subjection to physical violence or threats of physical violence.
Under no circumstances should a refugee or asylum seeker be diverted to a country that is not party to the 1951 convention or to major human rights treaties, or to a country that cannot support their presence with dignity.
Aid funds should not be diverted from development projects to underpin the detention and processing of asylum seekers in Australia or in other countries.
The number of resettlement places available under the off-shore humanitarian program must not vary according to the number of on-shore asylum seekers, since the two fill different needs and roles.
Non-citizens in Australia should be detained only after they have been individually assessed as a risk to public safety or security. All detention requirements must be reviewable by a court and must be for the shortest time possible.
Any asylum seeker in detention is entitled to be treated humanely with respect for his or her human dignity.
Asylum seekers who are determined to be in need of protection shall be entitled to family reunion.
Asylum seekers found to be in need of protection should be granted permanent visas.

These norms have been developed by the ACMRO and Australian Catholic Council Social Justice Council working together with religious institutes that are engaged in practical work with asylum seekers and refugees in Australia and internationally.

[1] Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business, Fact Sheet Budget 2000.

[2] ACMRO Submission to the Consultation on the 2002/2003 Migration and Humanitarian Programs. People with TPVs do not have access to the full range of support services available to other refugees. They have a high level of mobility and no processes are established to ensure that they are linked with the necessary health services. The refugee experience: the impact of detention in Australia; ongoing separation from family; barriers and isolation from the general community; and an uncertain future with the granting of the TPV - all these factors contribute to existing or new emotional or mental health problems. Extensive and conclusive studies found detention can intensify pre-existing trauma for asylum seekers.

The denial of the basic right of family reunion to TPV holders is fundamentally wrong and opposes the accepted social norm of the need of the support and unity of the family.

[3] FaCs Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002, Explanatory Memorandum, 2002.

[4] Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee on the Family and Committee Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002, Refugee Council of Australia, October 2002.

[5] Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Statement from the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, p 8, 26 March 2002.

[6] UNHCR 1951 Refugee Convention - Australia recognised the implications of the signing of the convention not to impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry, on refugees coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened (Article 31); to accord to refuges lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals (Article 23).

[7] John Paul II, Message for the 87^th World Day of Migration 2001: The Pastoral Care of Migrants, a Way of Accomplishing the Mission of the Church Today

[8] Hughes, Helen, 2002. Immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers: a global view, Centre for Independent Studies Limited.

[9] ibid

[10] Ibid.

[11] A Statement from the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference Refugees and Asylum Seekers, 26 March 2002.

[12] For an examination of these teachings see Cornish, S., The Call to Hospitality: Refugees in Catholic Teaching, Catholic Social Justice Series, No 44, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council.