|
Australian Catholic Migrant and
Refugee Office
Covering letter
24 February 1999
Director
Economic and Environment Section
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
PO Box 25
Belconnen ACT 2616
The opportunity to participate in the consultation about the composition of the
Australian Migration Program for 1999/2000 is greatly appreciated.
The theme of the submission focuses on the importance of family reunion as a right;
consideration of increasing the family component of the Migration Program and that skilled
migration is not necessarily achieving what the Government had hoped it would.
The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO) believes that Australia's
Migration Program should be underpinned by moral and ethical codes of conduct and that
immigration is beneficial to the ongoing development of Australia.
All people deserve to be treated with respect, love, understanding and care. These
basic human needs are universal and should provide a template in the development of a
reasonable migration program. The Church is aware that economics, globalisation, and
popular public opinion influences Australia's planning for the migration program. It
encourages in this special and final year of the millennium that human need be considered
a principal factor in developing the Migration Program.
The submission is supported by the Mercy Refugee Service and Catholic Immigration
Multicultural Offices in Australia.
ACMRO supports the recommendations in the submissions made by the Refugee Council of
Australia and the National Council of Churches in Australia concerning the Humanitarian
Program. We also support the submission of the Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils
of Australia.
Director
Fr John Murphy
***********************
What changes to the size and the composition of the Migration Program do you feel
appropriate considering the dynamics of Australia's population (ie fertility, ageing,
social and economic, environment and international considerations?)
The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO) believes that immigration is
a positive for the ongoing development of Australia.
ACMRO reiterates its view that Australia can, and should, support an increase in the
net migration intake. Whilst it agrees that there is a need for balance, taking into
account all of the complexities cited above, its view is that the social and economic
benefits far outweigh the imputed costs.
Australia's diversity is its strength as it faces the challenges of an increasingly
globalised and mobile world. Our capacity to be players in that world already benefits
from the rich fabric of international contacts and links which have grown from our past
generous migration programs. The extent to which we will continue to benefit from, and
increase these links will depend on the reality of policies which support the flow of
people. Perceptions of insularity in the form of "people tariffs'' can only inhibit
our engagement in the global environment.
ACMRO does not entirely accept the current trends in both policies and program outcomes
which distort the focus towards economic and skill preference. Our view is that economic
aspects represent only one part of social fabric. Family, humanitarian obligations and the
environment are the background against which the economic factors must be considered. In
particular, the family, as the cornerstone of social support, is pre-eminent.
We support whatever increase in the migrant intake is required to make the family stream
an important component of the migration program.
Such a focus may well result in a different spread of countries of origin, reflecting the
family reunion and support needs of the newer and emerging communities. We believe that
this approach would strengthen the capacities of families and their contribution and
commitment to Australian society.
What further changes in policy settings on the Skills and Family categories could be
made to ensure that immigration continues to contribute to the national interest?
Restoring balance to the program would remove any possible misunderstanding that the
migration policy overlooks or ignores the value of family. The importance and the
fundamental rights of every human being to live in harmony with family members should be
recognised as a central element to human happiness. Australians have always embraced
family values as vital to ensure a happy and contented life. Why should a different set of
values be apportioned to migrants' families?
We are not convinced by the underlying assumptions of greater worth in "skilled"
and "Business" migrants. We believe that too much is made of that imputed value,
and that the issues are far more complex. The question of worthiness is raised in
considering such factors such as the definition of skill, economic indicators and training
requirements.
Furthermore, for every positive aspect there is a negative one. One argument put for
skilled migration, that the training is paid for overseas, only accounts for
qualifications held and does not necessarily include environment and industry training,
which is still required in Australia. In addition, some overseas skills and qualifications
may not be acceptable in Australia; some overseas-trained doctors are a case in point.
Also the problems associated with accompanying persons to a certain extent 'dilute' the
effect of the skilled migration as they are not usually as skilled as the principal
applicant.
Conversely, some accompanying persons of family reunion applicants may be highly skilled
in comparison to unskilled accompanying persons of skilled migrants.
There is little evidence to support the notion that skilled migrants add to and boost the
economy. Do the calculations measure the accompanying person effect and labour force
trends compared to lag times etc? Do the imputed benefits take into account the
administrative effort of processing and monitoring the skilled component? What effects
does skilled migration have on the capacity within Australia to respond to labour force
needs through education and training?
The following points should be noted:
- With an emphasis on skilled migration the human element is significantly neglected in
choosing people who will make good migrants. Is a good migrant a person with skills,
professional training, wealthy with English language skills? Or is a good migrant someone
who will settle well into the Australian way of living, who has family, community or other
connections and support or reasons for migrating and a strong desire and reason to embrace
and integrate fully into the life offered in Australia?
- What proof do we have that the current system is an improvement to the old? Good
migrants, skilled and unskilled, will benefit Australian society as well as themselves
should the Department be able and disposed to put in place arrangements that identify the
attributes required from both the visa recipient and the visa dispenser.
- The thrust and emphasis on skills selection should be widened as a response to current
trends to make immigration part of an increasingly globalised economy that favours
interchangeable skills.
- Non-formal qualifications need to be more positively assessed and accepted should
practical experience and entrepreneurial drive be evident in interview by an experienced
Australian immigration officer.
What improvement do you think the Government should consider to immigration's
administrative processes and priorities to better manage the Migration Program while
maintaining Australia's control over who can migrate to Australia?
ACMRO commends the recent and ongoing efforts by the Government to improve its
administrative processes and management systems. We recognise that there is always a
tension between the need to police those people who have no authority to be in Australia,
and to encourage openness and accessibility.
In particular, we note the advent of the Client Service Charter as a welcome and timely
statement of intention by the Government.
Nevertheless, we see these developments as only necessary in an administrative environment
that has at times been characterised by an undue emphasis on control, procedure and
obstruction.
As a matter of general principle, we would encourage and support the government in
continuing further efforts to increase the accountability, transparency and equity of its
administration of immigration. In particular, we reiterate our view that the Client
Services Charter be subject to ongoing evaluation and monitoring.
As a matter of accountability ACMRO also strongly encourages the government to make
public the outcome of the consultations on the 1999/2000 Migration and Humanitarian
Programs. This would be a gesture of good faith, and a means for further discussion and
information. Such an innovative approach would address an undercurrent of cynicism in the
community which is due partly to a previous lack of response to expressions of views,
and/or submissions made concerning various aspects of the Migration and Humanitarian
Program.
More specifically, ACMRO would like to see improvements to the aspects of administration
against the above principles, which include:
- More open and accountable processing times by visa categories by post, including
priorities which reflect the nature of the category such as Women at Risk; Aged Parents
and immediate family members of humanitarian applicants;
- Processing regimes which are "front end " loaded (initially applicants should
be given accurate visa application information in order to comply with visa eligibility
requirements) as a matter of course rather than sequential processes which can be a covert
means for controlling outcomes;
- Genuinely responsive inquiry facilities which allow rather than inhibit access by the
public; and
- An improved standard of service in relation to written enquires that provide
appropriate, adequate, relevant details in a non-obstructive helpful manner.
What further steps do you think the Government could take to improve the dispersal of
migrants to regional areas?
ACMRO recognises that ultimately the choice to settle in one area or another is a
matter for the individual settler. We would be cautious to subscribe to any suggestion of
coercive settlement policies. However, could national or religious groups provide
(government supported?) incentives for settlement in country regions? Or what about
special consideration such as the provision of medicare numbers to medical practitioners
prepared to live in country or regional areas?
We also recognise that those factors that inhibit a choice to settle or remain in regional
areas go well beyond matters of migration policy and must be considered in context of
national trends. What factors contribute to reductions to population levels in regional
areas? Will the reasons be very dissimilar for both new settlers and the existing
population.
Solutions may consist of examining the possibilities of small business grants and/or
training to extend, enhance and encourage opportunities for the development of businesses
and trades in regional areas.
HUMANITARIAN PROGRAM
What changes to the size and composition of Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian
Program do you think the Government should consider?
ACMRO welcomes and commends DIMA on the various innovative improvements to settlement
services and is encouraged by the response to the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO)
report on 'Provisions of Migrant and Settlement Services by DIMA' by agreeing to all
recommendations.
ACMRO and its constituency considers the humanitarian program sacrosanct in its
commitment to the dignity of the human person which should continue to reflect our moral
obligation of compassion and awareness of human rights. It must continue to spell out and
insist on the basic human rights of refugees and other displaced humanitarian applicants.
ACMRO believes that the program should not be used for any purpose other than intended,
and specifically that family reunion program numbers should not be counted in this
program. Instead family reunion numbers should be catered for by an increase in the Family
Reunion Program. The focus of the Humanitarian Program should reflect the level of
humanitarian need with acceptance not governed by the country of origin and nor should
applicants be subjected to unrealistically low quotas.
What element of Australia's Humanitarian Program do you consider the Government needs
to improve? How might improvements be made?
The value and purpose of Australia's Humanitarian Program would be enhanced by faster
processing of applications, with an improvement of the identification mechanism and
quicker processing times that recognise the special needs and vulnerability's of these
applicants under programs such as 'women at risk' and 'emergency rescue visas'.
Family reunion application should be processed faster. It appears the current
application processing time is slower than it should be as the aim of the program is to
provide family reunion for a vulnerable group. Successful settlement for humanitarian
entrants is generally reliant on living as family units and may be hampered where periods
of prolonged separation may engender psycho-social problems within the family. A more
rapid processing should ensure better cultural and social adjustment and positive
settlement for the entire family.
Have the changes introduced through IHSS been effective in improving service provision
to refugees and humanitarian entrants?
ACMRO commends DIMA on adopting all recommendations made by the ANAO in response to the
findings of the 'Provision of Migrant and Settlement Services' by DIMA.
To ensure the success, and a holistic approach to the settlement program, adequate
coordination mechanisms should exist and operate effectively for the relevant service
providers, agencies and government organisations.
The level of material assistance required should be reviewed on arrival in Australia,
with the aim of ensuring that services are delivered where needed to optimise adjustment
and settlement opportunities.
How can we build on areas of success to better target and deliver services to those who
are most in need?
What current mechanisms exist to identify those who are most in need?
Networks both existing and emerging should be encouraged and utilised for maximum
benefit. DIMA is well placed to develop and coordinate a data-base detailing network
information. Such a data-base should be widely distributed and used as a means of an
holistic approach to coordination of settlement services.
We encourage lateral and fluid thinking for the status quo and that existing paradigms
not be accepted, there should be ongoing discussion and community consultation on
challengeable issues, e.g. who should be delivering settlement services: agencies, service
providers or government departments? Is the 2-year waiting period to access social
security for migrants under family reunion fair? Is permanent migration an outdated mode
of thinking in the context of a globalised world?
The purpose of the service programs is to look after the needs of the newly arrived.
Therefore access and equity strategies must be monitored and evaluated across all
government departments, agencies and organisations responsible for delivering settlement
and related services.
How well are the new service delivery arrangements working for AMEP clients?
ACMRO welcomes the allocation of 100 hours in addition to the 510 hours for
humanitarian and refugee entrants, but request that English language tuition is available
according to the individuals need and not measured by an allocation of time.
ACMRO is interested to understand the basis of the evaluation and monitoring process
and to have information about accountability measures and the operations of the process?
What are the performance indicators?
Our concern is for those who may fall out of the system, and particularly those who
drop out and do not finish their 510 hours, and who are unable to obtain employment and
subsequently lose social security eligibility. What happens to these people and what
systems are in place to identify and assist them?
Flex 3 recipients are recognised as a vulnerable group in need of special intensive
assistance. Settlement services should be tailored to meet their specific needs, such as
AMEP and labour market training programs. What evaluation measures exist to monitor the
success of these cases, especially with the new service provider arrangements? Are courses
monitored for level of success and appropriateness for this category? What happens to
those who fall out of the system?
What information can DIMA further provide to grants applications to assist them with
their funding applications eg targeted information sessions, demographic data?
Adequate training should be provided in order to understand the new accrual accounting
arrangements and how this translates to settlement workers, clearly defining the
responsibilities for both DIMA and the organisation/agency.
The national priorities will change over time and some will be of more importance in
some places than in others. Does the list cover the key areas of settlement need?
ACMRO welcomes DIMA's view that national priorities and the focus of service delivery
may change. The mechanisms detailed such as clarification of who is responsible for
providing services; encouragement of agencies to coordinate delivery of services;
targeting of resources to avoid gaps and duplication; and better outcomes for clients by
appropriately targeted and accessible services will aid this process. Ongoing monitoring
and open debate strategies are fundamental in addressing national priorities. DIMA must
continue to have responsibility to ensure that all humanitarian entrants are cared for and
that those who do fall out of the system are identified and recognised and that subsequent
adjustments are made to prevent further occurrences.
|
