12.07.2015 Views

Refugee Newsletter - unhcr

Refugee Newsletter - unhcr

Refugee Newsletter - unhcr

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

United NationsHigh Commissioner for <strong>Refugee</strong>sRegional Office for Australia,New Zealand, Papua New Guineaand the South PacificNo. 2 2005www.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong>From theRegional RepresentativeThe Captain Cook MemorialFountain, one of seven iconslit up in blue for World<strong>Refugee</strong> Day.Photo: UNHCR/M. LechContents1 From theRegional Representative2 New High Commissionerfor <strong>Refugee</strong>s3 Australia’s ResettlementProgramme4 Tribute to contribution ofVietnamese refugees5 Discussion Paper –Complementary Protection16 World <strong>Refugee</strong> Day Wrap-Up18 Kiwis Celebrate Courage19 New Youth Representativesfor Australia for UNHCR20 Accolades for AustralianYouth Put Focus on <strong>Refugee</strong>s21 Seeking Refuge: A Fight forFreedom22 Telling <strong>Refugee</strong> Stories23 Highly CommendedFriendshipsIn the first half of 2005, there have beensome notable landmarks regardingrefugee issues in this region.It was heartening to hear that the first 76of the Afghan refugees rescued by theNorwegian freighter MV Tampa back in2001 had received certificates of NewZealand citizenship from Prime MinisterHelen Clark in Auckland in April 2005,including the renowned "Tampa Boys" – 37unaccompanied teenagers most of whomhave since been reunited with their families.This happy outcome to a perilous andextraordinary journey provided a greatbackdrop to the "courage" themecelebrated on World <strong>Refugee</strong> Day 2005,which sought to highlight the courage ofrefugees as they overcome the enormousobstacles in their path to flee persecutionand rebuild their lives.Here in Australia, in Canberra, theCaptain Cook Fountain on Lake BurleyGriffin was lit up in blue to mark World<strong>Refugee</strong> Day. This was a very welcomecelebratory gesture in the nation's capital,where the topic of refugees is more oftencharacterised by controversial politicaldebate. UNHCR greatly appreciated theparticipation and support of the NationalCapital Authority in this international event.Few Australians will know that the nozzledesign for Canberra's water jet, installedin 1975, was based on the Jet d'eau onLake Geneva – where UNHCR'sHeadquarters is based. That waterfountain is also lit up in blue each World<strong>Refugee</strong> Day, so there was a wonderfulsymbolism linking the two cities that day.Symbolic gestures are important......butso too are substantive developments thatsafeguard the rights of refugees and otherdisplaced people.The recent changes to Australia'sMigration Act announced by the PrimeMinister in June were a welcome steptowards improving the treatment ofrefugees and asylum seekers.The affirmation by Parliament that as amatter of principle, minors shall only bedetained as a measure of last resort, wasof particular import. This change for thebetter, as Australia's Human Rights andEqual Opportunities Commission hasnoted, enshrines important principles fromthe international Convention on the Rightsof the Child into Australia's Migration Act.Continued on page 2…


From theRegionalRepresentativeContinued from page 1…New High Commissionerfor <strong>Refugee</strong>sThe amendments also provide asoftening of mandatory regulations forfamilies with children; faster processing ofTPVs; extended discretionary Ministerialpowers; and greater independent scrutinyof long term detention cases by theCommonwealth Ombudsman.Nevertheless, with regard to thesepositive developments, I feel it isimportant to take the opportunity toreiterate UNHCR's detention guidelines. 1Any detention of asylum-seekers is viewedglobally by UNHCR as inherentlyundesirable. This is even more so in thecase of vulnerable groups such as singlewomen, children, unaccompanied minorsand those with special medical orpsychological needs. While UNHCRrecognises that detention by States issometimes necessary to carry out health,identity and security checks, it should befor the shortest possible time andalternatives should be explored.This matter is, however, but oneamongst many echoes of real securityconcerns in today's world. Another is thegrowing need identified by theinternational community to developcomplementary forms of protection.In 2001, the concept of "complementaryprotection" was identified in UNHCR's"Agenda for Protection" as an importantnew tool. It is a concept which has beenfrequently debated since, and it will beaddressed once again at UNHCR'sExecutive Committee (EXCOM) meeting inGeneva this October. To help stimulatediscussion in this region, it is also thefocus of the discussion papers in this<strong>Newsletter</strong>, and I hope the variouscontributions from a range of perspectiveswill stimulate the interest of our readers.1. Copy of UNHCR's detention guidelines can be foundat www.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au/protlegalMr. António Guterres officially assumed hisduties as the 10th UN High Commissionerfor <strong>Refugee</strong>s on June 15, 2005, declaringsupport for the core values of internationalrefugee protection.The former Portuguese prime ministerwas nominated for the position on May 24by the Secretary-General Kofi Annan andformally elected three days later by UNGeneral Assembly to a five-year term.Addressing refugee agency staff on hisfirst day, Mr. Guterres said he had told Mr.Annan that he would be “firm in assertingthe core values of the office and thatrefugees and states alike should expect aprincipled, effective and committedUNHCR.”The new High Commissioner noted thatfinding safety in today’s world wasbecoming increasingly difficult. Whiledeveloping countries least able to afford ithost most of the world’s refugees, manyindustrialized nations continue to imposeever stricter controls on asylum.“All of us bear a responsibility forensuring that those genuinely in need ofinternational protection receive it,” he said,adding that more also needs to be donefor the estimated 20-15 million internallydisplaced people who are uprooted withinthe borders of their own countries.Less than a week into the new post, MrGuterres visited Uganda for World<strong>Refugee</strong> Day and to see for himself thesituation of refugees in northern Uganda,a country he praised for its generosity inhosting refugees. He visited Palorinya, arefugee settlement on the Nile, to meetnew arrivals from Sudan who have fledrecent incursions into south Sudan by theUgandan rebels known as the Lord’sResistance Army (LRA). He also visitedsome of the 1.5 million Ugandans whohave been displaced within their owncountry because of LRA attacks.Before joining UNHCR, Mr. Guterresspent more than 20 years in governmentand public service. He served as thePortuguese prime minister from 1996 to2002, and as president of the EuropeanCouncil in early 2000, co-chaired the firstEU-Africa summit and led to the adoptionof the so-called Lisbon Agenda. Hefounded the Portuguese <strong>Refugee</strong> Councilin 1991, and was part of the Council of theState of Portugal from 1991 to 2002.Mr Guterres succeeds former DutchPrime Minister Ruud Lubbers, who servedas UNHCR’s head from January 2001 untilFebruary of this year.Mr. Antonio Guterres, High Commissionerfor <strong>Refugee</strong>s. Photo: UNHCR/S. Hopper2 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


Australia’s ResettlementProgrammeRegional Representative Neill Wright haswelcomed the Immigration Minister’sannouncement that Australia haddelivered on its promise to increaseAustralia’s refugee intake.Senator Amanda Vanstone announcedin late July that the Government had fullydelivered on its increased <strong>Refugee</strong> andHumanitarian Programme for 2004-2005by granting more than 13,100 visas,including some 6,000 places for refugeesreferred by UNHCR.Millions of refugees around the worldpresently require timely and durablesolutions to their plight. Effective use ofresettlement, both as a protection tool andas a durable solution, is a key way to helprefugees most in need. Australia is one ofthe top three resettlement countries in theworld, with a quota of around 6,000 placesfor refugees every year.Resettled refugees receive excellentsupport upon arrival, through thegenerosity and commendable efforts ofthe Australian Government, NGOs andconcerned members of the community.The Australian Government's IntegratedHumanitarian Settlement Strategy helpsrefugees become self-sufficient andparticipate in the community as quickly aspossible. Assistance includes culturalorientation training prior to departure,escorts to Australia and intensivereception and case management serviceson arrival.In the Agenda for Protection, UNHCRcalls on resettlement countries to giveincreased attention to gender-relatedprotection needs in their resettlementprogrammes, in addition to the women-atriskcategory. Australia has demonstrateda commitment to providing solutions forwomen-at-risk, exceeding its quota of10.5% in the 2004-2005 program andaccepting 15.3% women-at-risk cases.The group resettlement this year ofLiberian women from Laine <strong>Refugee</strong>Camp in Guinea Conakry contributedsignificantly to the women-at-risk quota.Many of the group fled twice or more frompersecution. Typically, the refugees hadfled the civil war in Liberia between 1990and 1996 and settled in the Dananeregion of Côte d'Ivoire, until rebels fromLiberia and Côte d'Ivoire attacked thatregion in November 2002, so the refugeesfled to Guinea and elsewhere.Liberian refugees in Guinea are among38 caseloads of refugees determined byUNHCR to be in protracted refugeesituations. Such refugees find themselvesin a long-lasting and intractable state oflimbo. Their basic rights and essentialeconomic, social and physical needscannot be met after years in exile. It hasbeen estimated that approximately 6.3million refugees are stuck in protractedsituations, 2.3 million of which areconcentrated in Africa.In 2005-2006, Australia has committedto maintain its newly-increased quota of6000 places for refugees, with a focus onAfrica. UNHCR works closely with theAustralian government to find solutions forrefugees most in need of durablesolutions, including those in protractedsituations.Liberian refugees arrive in Australia.Photo: DIMIAJoin in White Ribbon Day“wearing a white ribbon is a personal pledgenot to commit, condone or remain silentabout violence against women andchildren.”November 25th marks the third anniversaryof UNIFEM’s White Ribbon Day – the largesteffort by men across the world, working inpartnership with women, to end men'sviolence against women. The day wasdesignated by the United Nations in 2002as the International Day for the Eliminationof Violence Against Women (IDEVAW).“This year we hope to encourage an evenbroader range of diverse organisations tojoin together and mark this importantevent,” said LibbyLloyd President ofUNIFEM Australia.UNHCR’s RegionalRepresentative NeillWright has agreed tobe an ambassador forthe event.<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/20053


Tribute to Contribution ofVietnamese <strong>Refugee</strong>sThe 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigonand the arrival of Vietnamese refugees inAustralia was marked in a specialreception at Parliament House in Canberraon 25 May.Hundreds of people from theVietnamese community andparliamentarians past and presentgathered in the Great Hall for theVietnamese Australians’ 30 years ofIntegration and Contribution Reception.Dr Tien Manh Nguyen, FederalPresident of the Vietnamese Community inAustralia, welcomed the guests saying itwas a great honour for VietnameseAustralians to have their contributionsofficially recognised in Parliament House.“I look back at the past 30 years withamazement and pride. In such a shorttime, the Vietnamese community hasgrown from a small group of bewilderednew comers to a confident and proudcommunity, integrating successfully intoAustralian society,” Dr Nguyen said.The then Minister for Citizenship andMulticultural Affairs Peter McGaurancongratulated Vietnamese Australians ontheir achievements and saluted theircommitment to Australia, saying that“within just one generation, the Vietnamesecommunity has firmly established itself.”“Through your hard work, resilience andvision, you have worked to create betterlives for yourselves, and for your families,”he said.Speaking of its multicultural society, Mr.McGauran said Australians come fromevery corner of the world and speak morethan 200 languages, with 43% ofAustralians either born overseas or have aparent born overseas.“We are a nation of diversebackgrounds, but what brings us togetheris our common bond of citizenship, whichembodies our shared belief in thedemocratic process; respect for the rightsand liberties of all Australians; and equaltreatment under the rule of law. It is ourjoint respect for these values that is one ofthe greatest strengths of multiculturalAustralia.”“This commitment is particularly true ofthe Vietnamese-born, Australiancommunity, with an impressive 96 percentof Vietnamese Australians taking upAustralian citizenship,” Mr McGaruan said.Opposition Leader Mr Kim Beazley saidthat in just three decades, “The 200,000Vietnamese-born Australians and their45,000 Australian-born children have giventheir energy, tenacity and loyalty to theirnew country.”“They have enlivened our society andstrengthened our hope and belief inmulticulturalism.”“Per capita, Australia welcomed moreVietnamese refugees than any othercountry – more than 130,000.”“Thirty years ago we welcomed out firstVietnamese citizens to this country. Sincethen, they, their children and theirgrandchildren have changed the face ofAustralia – and we are better for it,” MrBeazley said.The boat Tu Do sailed into Darwin in 1977with 39 Vietnamese refugees. It is beingrestored by the Australian National MaritimeMuseum in Sydney with the help of Tan ThanhLu who built the boat for his family to flee.Photo: Australian National Maritime MuseumSubmissions toParliamentary InquiriesUNHCR’s Regional Office Canberra hasmade a number of submissions toparliamentary inquiries in recent months.The following submissions can be found at<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au/subinq:• Submission by UNHCR to the SenateLegal and Constitutional ReferencesCommittee, 28 July 2005The submission covers a range of issuesregarding Australia’s <strong>Refugee</strong> ProtectionArrangements including detention, theTemporary Protection Visa and TemporaryHumanitarian Visa regimes, and the “SevenDay Rule”. The submission argues that whilecertain aspects of the Migration Act andMigration Regulations don’t meetinternational standards and best practices,they have the potential to be administered insuch a way as to mitigate adverse impactsupon refugees and asylum-seekers.• Submission by UNHCR to the SenateForeign Affairs, Defence and TradeReferences Committee, July 2005The submission focuses on theimportant principle of confidentiality in thecontext of refugee status determination.• Submission by UNCHR to the SenateLegal and Constitutional LegislationCommittee, April 2005The submission focuses on the issues ofrefugees’ access to courts and measuresto discourage cases that have “noreasonable prospects of success.” Thesubmission urges a cautious approach inseeking to reduce unmeritorious litigationin asylum cases.4 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


Asylum seekers in the waiting room of the UNHCR refugee reception center in Moscow, 2004.Photo: UNHCR/V. Sokolovapermanent residence and the rights whichthat entails. Persons ‘in need of protection’encompass people falling outside the<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention who face a personaldanger of being tortured (as defined inarticle 1 of the Convention against Torture),as well as those who face a personal risk tolife or a risk of cruel and unusual treatmentor punishment where:(i) the person is unable or, because of thatrisk, unwilling to avail themself of theprotection of that country,(ii) the risk would be faced by the personin every part of that country and is notfaced generally by other individuals inor from that country,(iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental tolawful sanctions, unless imposed indisregard of accepted internationalstandards, and(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability ofthat country to provide adequate healthor medical care. 5Regulations may prescribe furtherclasses of such persons.In addition to these ‘front-end’ protectioncategories, anyone who has been issuedwith a removal order in Canada may applyfor Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).This procedure acts as a safeguard forpeople facing imminent deportation,although unsuccessful asylum seekers mayonly apply for it where new information hascome to light since the asylum decision wasmade. PRRA assesses the same groundsfor protection as the ‘protected person’claim (risk of persecution, danger of torture,risk to life or risk of cruel and unusualtreatment or punishment), and may lead topermanent residency for persons identifiedas having protection needs.In the US, people may also apply forprotection on the basis of torture. Ifapplicants can show that they are ‘morelikely than not’ to be tortured if removed to aparticular country, then protection based onthe Convention against Torture (CAT) willissue.There are two types of protection withinthe CAT protection framework: ‘withholdingof removal’ and ‘deferral of removal’.‘Withholding of removal’ is the moregenerous form of CAT protection, as itaccords beneficiaries some of the samebenefits as Convention refugees, but notfamily reunification or access to a specialprocess to adjust to permanent residence.Once granted, the onus is on theDepartment of Homeland Security to showthat return is safe.Deferral of removal is a more transientform of relief. It is granted to persons whoare more likely than not to be tortured ifremoved, but who are ineligible forwithholding of removal. It does not confer alawful or permanent immigration status 6 ornecessarily require that an applicant bereleased from detention or prison if held insuch a facility. 7 Furthermore, the grant issubject to review and can be withdrawnquickly and easily once the risk of torturehas diminished. 8 It effectively amounts tonothing more than a ‘tolerated’ status.By comparison to Australia, theprotection regimes in the EU, Canada andthe US appear generous and expansive.Nevertheless, there remain significantprotection ‘gaps’ in national versions ofcomplementary protection – in particular,the question of status for persons excludedfrom protection but who cannot be removeddue to prohibitions on refoulement underinternational law. Furthermore, the quality ofthe domestic status granted to beneficiariesof complementary protection variesconsiderably. For example, Canada grantsan identical status to Convention refugeesand other persons in need of protection,whereas the EU accords beneficiaries ofsubsidiary protection a secondary status –a decision reflecting political motivations butwhich is not justified by international law.Similarly, beneficiaries of subsidiaryprotection are given shorter residencepermits than Convention refugees, despitethe lack of empirical evidence to supportsubsidiary protection as a temporary status.Nevertheless, though the EU Directive ishallmarked by political compromise, itimportantly recognizes States’ broader nonrefoulementobligations under internationallaw and allows individuals to claimprotection on those bases. In spite of itsdrawbacks, it is still preferable to Australia’snarrow protection regime.In any case, the shortcomings of nationalcomplementary protection systems, relativeto the widened categories of personsprotected by them, are an inadequateexcuse to delay the implementation ofcomplementary protection in Australia.Ultimately, it is the standards andobligations contained in international law,both in relation to eligibility for protectionand substantive rights, that provide thecrucial legal foundations for any domesticcomplementary protection regime.*(BA (Hons) LLB (Hons) (Syd) DPhil (Oxon); Lecturer,Faculty of Law, University of Sydney. Email:janem@law.usyd.edu.au.1. Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 onMinimum Standards for the Qualification and Status ofThird Country Nationals or Stateless Persons as<strong>Refugee</strong>s or as Persons Who Otherwise NeedInternational Protection and the Content of the ProtectionGranted [2004] OJ L304/12.2. Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the‘Proposal for a Council Directive on Minimum Standardsfor the Qualification and Status of Third-CountryNationals and Stateless Persons as <strong>Refugee</strong>s or asPersons Who Otherwise Need International Protection’(COM(2001) 510 final- 2001/0207 (CNS)) (2002/C221/11) OJ C221/43 (17 September 2002) (Brussels 29May 2002) [1.9].3. The Directive does not apply to Denmark, inaccordance with articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on thePosition of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on EuropeanUnion [2002] OJ C325/5 and the Treaty establishing theEuropean Community [2002] OJ C325/33: Directiverecital 40.4. 7944/04 ASILE 21 (31 March 2004) art 2(e). It wasoriginally art 5, but was moved to the definitions sectionin art 2 by 11356/02 ASILE 40 (6 September 2002).5. Immigration and <strong>Refugee</strong> Protection Act 2001 s 97(1).6. CFR §208.17(b)(i) (2000).7. CFR §208.17(b)(ii) (2000).8. CFR §208.17(b)(iii) (2000).6 Discussion Paper No. 2/2005


Complementary ProtectionComplementary Protectionand Australian Practiceby the Department ofImmigration, Multicultural andIndigenous Affairs (DIMIA)The 1951 United Nations ConventionRelating to the Status of <strong>Refugee</strong>s is thecornerstone of the international protectionof refugees. A full and inclusiveapplication of the <strong>Refugee</strong>s Conventionensures that persons who meet itsrequirements are recognized as refugeesand are protected.The <strong>Refugee</strong>s Convention does notprovide for protection of people who donot meet the Convention definition of arefugee. Practices which have come to beknown as “complementary protection” areused by some European countries toprovide temporary or permanentresidence to people who are not owedrefugee protection. The concept has beendeveloped in individual countries throughdomestic legislation and is not defined orspecified in any international treaty.The nature and application ofcomplementary protection differs betweencountries. It can include permanent ortemporary residence on various groundsbased on humanitarian concerns,obligations under international humanrights treaties, or judgement by a State asto whether it is unsafe, inappropriate ornot practicable to effect return to thecountry of origin. In general, the practicein those countries which offercomplementary protection is that it affordsfewer benefits and entitlements than thoseprovided to refugees.For example, in the UK, a persongranted ‘humanitarian protection’ is initiallygiven a three-year residence permit,access to social security and health careand limited travel rights, but is not eligiblefor family reunion. They may apply at theend of the three-year period for indefiniteleave to remain. Applications for indefiniteleave to remain are assessed to determinewhether the applicant still qualifies forhumanitarian protection. It may be refusedif protection is no longer required. Manyother European countries (such asDenmark, Finland, France, Germany, theNetherlands) provide temporary residenceinitially to persons with complementaryprotection status with varying standards ofaccess to benefits. Family reunion may beavailable in some countries (eg Denmark)but not in others (eg Germany).Countries providing some form ofcomplementary protection often havelower refugee status approval rates than isthe case in Australia for applicants of agiven nationality. In Europe, there is atendency for complementary protectionstatus to be granted more often thanrefugee status. For example, in 2002, theUK granted only 10% of asylumapplications from asylum seekers on<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention grounds, but over21% were given some status onhumanitarian or other grounds. Swedengranted only 1.1% of asylum applicationsfrom asylum seekers on Conventiongrounds, but over 20% were grantedsome status on humanitarian or othergrounds 1 . By comparison, Australiaprovided protection under the <strong>Refugee</strong>sConvention to 29.4% of asylum seekers in2001/02. 2Whilst other countries continue to havequite different practices with regards tocomplementary protection, it appears theEuropean Commission is moving towardsharmonising the approach tocomplementary protection (termed‘subsidiary protection’) in European Unioncountries. The Council Directive on‘Minimum Standards for the Qualificationand Status of Third Country Nationals andStateless Persons as <strong>Refugee</strong>s or asPersons Who Otherwise Need InternationalProtection’ was adopted in April 2004. ThisDirective provides a framework for aninternational protection regime based onexisting international refugee and humanrights instruments obligations, whichemphasises the primacy of refugee status.Member States are required to haveimplementing national legislation in placeby October 2006.The EC Council Directive sets outminimum standards, with flexibility forStates to give lesser benefits to holders ofcomplementary protection (subsidiaryprotection) reflecting the potentially moretemporary nature of this category. Forexample, the Directive dictates thatpersons with subsidiary protection statusare provided with an initial one yearresidence permit, automatically reneweduntil protection is no longer required.Member states need only issue traveldocuments to persons withcomplementary protection status whenthey are unable to obtain a nationalpassport from their consular authorities.Access to social security is immediate andaccess to employment is available aftersix months of subsidiary protection status.Australia’s commitment to assistingrefugees and others in humanitarian needis reflected in its Humanitarian Program.Under this program Australia resettlessome of the refugees in greatest need ofprotection and others of humanitarianconcern and provides protection torefugees who arrived in Australia whoDiscussion Paper No. 2/20057


<strong>Refugee</strong>s from Kosovo at the East Hills Safe Haven, Sydney.Photo: UNHCR/H. J. Daviesengage our protection obligations underthe <strong>Refugee</strong>s Convention. Australia hasresettled over 645 000 people fleeingpersecution since World War Two. In2003-04, more than 2 000 people alreadyin Australia received protection under theHumanitarian Program, a significantproportion of the total of more than 13 800people who received protection inAustralia that year.Australia provides appropriatetemporary or permanent solutions to thosein humanitarian need, although it has notin the past sought to label such responsesas forms of “complementary protection”.For example, the Minister for Immigrationand Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs’public interest powers to intervene andgrant a visa is one means by whichAustralia meets the needs of those peoplein Australia whose circumstances do notfit the criteria of the <strong>Refugee</strong>s Convention,but to whom Australia may owe protectionunder other international treaties. Includedin this group is a small number of casesrelating to Australia’s obligations under theUN Convention against Torture and otherCruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment(CAT), the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (ICCPR), or theConvention on the Rights of the Child(CROC).These arrangements allow protectionclaims to be tested first against the<strong>Refugee</strong>s Convention definition whichconfers higher levels of entitlements torefugees than required under these otherinstruments. There is no indication thatthere are significant numbers of personsentitled to CAT, ICCPR or CROC protectionagainst return who do not also meet the<strong>Refugee</strong>s Convention definition of arefugee.Australia also has classes of visaswhich have been used to providetemporary haven for certain prescribedgroups. For example, in 1999 TemporarySafe Haven visas were used to providetemporary residence to some 4 000Kosovars who were brought to Australiafor temporary protection because theycould not return home due to conflict. Anequivalent ‘Safe Haven Visa’ was used toprovide temporary protection to some1 900 East Timorese evacuated byAustralia from Dili in 1999. Similarly, theoffshore humanitarian visa classes provideprotection to persons on grounds broaderthan those set out under the <strong>Refugee</strong>sConvention.There have been other occasions in thepast where groups in humanitarian needhave benefited from AustralianGovernment protection. In 1990 some 6900 people were granted visas under anew visa category to allow certain peoplewho were in Australia illegally prior to 19December 1989 to apply to regularisetheir status. In November 1993, over 42700 people from the People’s Republic ofChina, the former Yugoslavia, Sri Lankaand other countries were accommodatedunder three special visa categories. Afurther group of 7 200 people who did notmeet the criteria for the November 1993visas benefited from a further specialinitiative known as ‘Resolution of Status’ inJune 1997.The Australian Government’s willingnessto provide flexible arrangements for thosewith particular differentiatingcircumstances can also be demonstratedthrough the Government’s legislativeinitiative in August 2004 to introduce theReturn Pending Visa for those people whowere formerly recognised as refugees andwho are no longer in need of <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention protection. The ReturnPending Visa could also be seen asproviding a form of complementaryprotection, as it provides 18 months oflawful stay in Australia with continuedaccess to the same benefits and visaconditions as the Temporary ProtectionVisa, while the holder makesarrangements to depart Australia or toaccess other stay options. The RemovalPending Bridging Visa is a more recentinitiative that could also be used as a formof complementary protection in certaincircumstances where conditions in acountry of origin made returnsimpracticable.The above visa arrangements provide arange of mechanisms to providecontinued lawful stay in Australia ongeneral humanitarian grounds withconsiderable flexibility to respondappropriately to individual circumstances.It is not possible to anticipate and codifyall human circumstances. Accordingly, theMinisterial intervention power plays asignificant additional role in providing thecapacity to flexibly and compassionatelyrespond to other exceptional individualcircumstances where there are publicinterest grounds in providing some form ofcontinued stay in Australia. At the sametime the migration framework allows theGovernment to develop regulations asnecessary tailored to the particularcircumstances of new groups as the needarises.1. Data from UNHCR Statistical Yearbook 2002.2. Data from DIMIA source.8 Discussion Paper No. 2/2005


Complementary ProtectionComplementary Protection– A New Model for Australiaby the <strong>Refugee</strong> Council ofAustraliaComplementary Protection, or subsidiaryprotection as it sometimes known, is aconcept that is being talked about a greatdeal in Australia at present. To manypeople involved in refugee and asylumissues, however, while the name might befamiliar, the concept remains something ofa mystery.To understand complementary protectionyou need to realise that not everyone inneed of protection is a refugee and thuscan get access to the protection thatrefugee status affords. The <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention does not, for example,encompass all people who, for example:• are stateless; and/or• come from a country enveloped in civilwar; and/or• have been subject to gross violationsof their human rights for non-Convention reasons; and/or• would face torture on return to theircountry; and/or• come from a country where the rule oflaw and order no longer applies.Yet clearly these people have legitimateprotection needs.Some countries, such as Canada, haveresponded to this protection gap byexpanding the definition of a refugee. Thisis also sometimes done on a regional basissuch as in the Organisation of AfricanUnity (OAU) Convention that coversrefugees throughout Africa.Most asylum countries, however, haveelected to leave the definition of a refugeeunchanged and instead introduce aseparate – or complementary – form ofprotection to cover those people who falloutside the <strong>Refugee</strong> Convention. This isthe approach being adopted by the statesof the European Union in their harmonizedlegal framework.This second option (to introduce aseparate form of complementaryprotection) is currently the one in greatestfavour and it is consistent with the currentdirection of international protection. Notonly is it being adopted by all 25 EuropeanUnion states, it is also a concept endorsedby all of the members of the UNHCRExecutive Committee, including Australia.This was done when they adopted theAgenda for Protection in 2002. TheAgenda is the product of the wide-rangingGlobal Consultation process and sets outthe framework for action by UNHCR, Statesand other players to further refugeeprotection and one of its core objectives is:Provision of complementary forms ofprotection to those who might not fallwithin the scope of the 1951 ConventionTable 1: Current ProcedureApplication for Protection Visabut require international protection.Current practice in Australia is not,however, consistent with this internationaltrend. Australia does not have anadministrative process to assess protectionapplications from people with valid non-Convention reasons not to be returned totheir country of origin or habitualresidence. These claims can only beconsidered after the person has beenrejected by each stage of the refugeedetermination process and then seekspersonal intervention by the Minister forImmigration. The Minister has noncompellable,non-reviewable powers underSection 417 of the Migration Act to grant avisa to any failed visa applicant. In otherwords, the applicant has to go through anentire administrative determination processwhere his or her claims cannot beconsidered in order to get to the onlyplace where they can.Assessment by Department of Immigration (DIMIA):• does the person meet the criteria for refugee status?• does the person meet health and character requirements?YESGrant of Protection VisaYESRecommendation to DIMIA thata Protection Visa be grantedNOAppeal to <strong>Refugee</strong> Review TribunalAssessment by <strong>Refugee</strong> Review Tribunal:• does the person meet the criteria forrefugee status?NOi.e. this is the firstplace non-Conventionclaims can beconsideredRequest to the Minister for Immigration*to use discretionary powers to make a morefavourable decisionDiscussion Paper No. 2/20059


Outside Baxter detention centre, near Port Augusta.Photo: UNHCR/R. MignoneBy leaving any consideration of non-Convention related protection claims to thevery end of the process and by consigningthe decision to Ministerial discretion, it canbe argued that Australia’s current practiceis inefficient, unnecessarily expensive,places an unrealistic burden on theMinister for Immigration, lackstransparency and accountability, does notcontain sufficient safeguards and isdetrimental to both Convention refugees(by clogging up the system) and to thosewith non-Convention protection needs.A New Model for AustraliaIn order to address the identifieddeficiencies in Australia’s currentTable 2: Proposed ModelApplication for Protection Visaprocedures and to ensure that Australianpractice is both consistent withinternationally recognized best practiceand the promises made by theGovernment when adopting the Agendafor Protection, Australian refugee groupsare arguing that changes are required tothe way that protection applications areconsidered.Most of the advocates believe, andinternational practice would support this,that the most efficient and cost effectiveway to consider whether a person is inneed of complementary protection is touse a single administrative procedure.This can first consider whether a person isa refugee and then, if the answer is no,assess whether there are grounds for theAssessment by Department of Immigration (DIMIA):of merits of claimand whether person meets health and character requirementsDecision to Grant<strong>Refugee</strong> StatusRecommendationto grant <strong>Refugee</strong>StatusDecision to GrantComplementaryProtectionApplicationRefusedAssessment by <strong>Refugee</strong> Review TribunalRecommendation togrant ComplementaryProtectionApplicationRefusedIntervention request to theMinister for ImmigrationUnder the proposed model, an applicant’s eligibility for complementary protection canbe assessed at each stage of the determination process, thereby ensuring that thoseentitled to protection receive it at the earliest possible time.grant of complementary protection. Table2 gives a graphic representation of thisprocess.When considering the criteria for thegrant of complementary protection, thefirst point that is necessary to stress is thatit should be used only as a supplement torefugee status and never as areplacement for it. <strong>Refugee</strong> status affordsparticular protection under internationallaw (most importantly protection fromforced return to his or her country oforigin) and where a person meets thecriteria for the grant of refugee status, thisform of protection should be used.The deliberation process wouldnecessarily involve the decision makerconsidering a series of questions in thefollowing order:a. Does the person have a well-foundedfear of persecution under the terms ofthe 1951 Convention (and thus meetthe criteria for the grant of refugeestatus)? And if not:b. Does Australia have obligations to theperson under other human rightstreaties?c. Are there other protection-relatedreasons why a person should not bereturned to his/her country of origin?As the criteria for the grant of refugeestatus are already defined in Australianlaw, it is relevant to move on to how adecision maker should go aboutanswering questions b and c.The starting point for this considerationmust be Australia’s international treatyobligations. Australia is a party to anumber of relevant international humanrights treaties:10 Discussion Paper No. 2/2005


Complementary Protection• The Convention relating to the Statusof Stateless Persons (1954);• The Convention on the Reduction ofStatelessness (1961);• The Convention Against Torture andOther Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment (1984);• The International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (1966);• The International Covenant onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights(1966);• The International Convention on theElimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination (1965);• The Convention on the Elimination ofall Forms of Discrimination AgainstWomen (1979);• The Convention on the Rights of theChild (1989).Two of these treaties place specificobligations on States Parties that theycannot ignore:• the Statelessness Conventions requireStates to provide assistance andprotection (including the grant ofnationality) to persons who are notconsidered as a national by any otherState;• the Convention Against Torture obligesa State not to return a person to acountry where there are substantialgrounds for believing that he or shewill be subjected to torture, taking intoaccount the existence in the Stateconcerned of a pattern of gross,flagrant or mass violations of humanrights.In addition, the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights imposes anobligation on States not to return a personwho, as a foreseeable consequence oftheir removal or deportation, would face areal risk of violation of his/her rights underArticle 6 (right to life) or Article 7 (freedomfrom torture and cruel, inhumane ofdegrading treatment or punishment).The criteria for the grant ofcomplementary protection must thereforemake specific reference to people who arestateless and to people who would facetorture or death if returned to their countryof origin or habitual residence.The other treaties do not impose suchspecific obligations on other States butthey do provide a framework ofinternationally accepted human rightsstandards against which protectionapplications can be assessed. Naturallythere needs to be some form of testapplied to assess whether the violation ofrights is sufficiently serious to warrantprotection being granted. The EuropeanUnion, for example, has adopted thethreshold of “well founded fear of unjustifiedserious harm”, noting that such harm canbe direct physical harm or substantialdeprivation of fundamental rights.Advantages ofComplementary ProtectionIt is argued that if the model ofcomplementary protection proposed inthis paper if adopted, it would:• bring Australia into line withinternational best practice, ensurecompliance with its obligations underthe Convention Against Torture andthe Statelessness Conventions andfulfil one of the commitments Australiamade when endorsing the Agenda forProtection;• result in consistency betweenAustralia’s policy with respect to offshoreand on-shore refugees;• result in significant cost savings forthe determination bodies and alsoreduce welfare (ASAS) payments toasylum seekers and detention costs;• enhance the efficiency andproductivity of both the Department ofImmigration and the <strong>Refugee</strong> ReviewTribunal;• make it easier for applicants toMore than 200,000 East Timorese who had fled widespread violence in 1999 returned to theirhomes after independence was gained in 2002.Photo: UNHCR/M. KobayashiDiscussion Paper No. 2/200511


Asylum seekers from various countries at the Sangatte Red Cross Centre near Calais, 2002.Photo: UNHCR/H. J. Daviespresent their claims as it will reducethe perceived need to find tenuouslinks between their fears of returningand Convention grounds;• ensure necessary transparency,accountability and consistency indecision making;• reduce the burden on the Minister forImmigration and enable the Minister’sdiscretionary powers to be used forthe exceptional cases for which suchpowers were intended;• ensure that those entitled to Australia’sprotection receive it in a timely fashionand thus enhance their ability tobecome productive members of theAustralian community;• enable detained asylum seekers tohave all relevant claims consideredsimultaneously and thus reduce theduration and trauma of the detentionexperience;• benefit Convention refugees byfreeing up the determinationprocesses;• benefit holders of TemporaryProtection Visas by enabling athorough examination of theimplications of changed countrycircumstances when their applicationsfor a Further Protection Visa are beingconsidered;• reduce the incentive for people toabuse the protection applicationprocess to extend their stay in thecountry as decisions will be madefaster.Further, it can be argued that theproposed model:• is simply the transfer of existingdecision making powers and as such,cannot be seen as creating a pullfactor;• need not result in abusive applicationsfor judicial review if appropriatesafeguards are incorporated. It issuggested that such safeguards mightinclude clearly enunciated regulatoryrequirements and judicially controlledleave provisions.The introduction of ComplementaryProtection provisions in Australia wouldrequire amending Section 36(2)(b) of theMigration Act (1958) to set out the criteriafor the grant of a visa and introduce a newvisa subclass. It would also require that anew regulation be introduced to set outthe framework for the grant of a visa andthe rights and entitlements afforded tosuccessful applicants.The community sector considers thatthe introduction of a mechanism toprovide complementary protection wouldnot only enhance the efficiency andfairness of the current protection system inAustralia but would also address many ofthe challenges currently facing theGovernment. Key amongst these, ofcourse, is the dilemma of how to deal withAfghans, Iraqis and others (includingthose on Nauru) who cannot be returnedto their country of origin because ofongoing instability and with people whocannot be removed because no countrywill recognise them as citizens. Many ofthese people are currently destined toremain in indefinite detention.Complementary protection is a conceptwhose time has come.To read an expanded version of thispaper, go to www.refugeecouncil.org.au.<strong>Refugee</strong>s from Kosovo at the East Hills Safe Haven, Sydney.Photo: UNHCR/H.J. Davis12 Discussion Paper No. 2/2005


Complementary ProtectionComplementary Forms ofProtection – Evolving BestPracticesby the UNHCR Regional OfficeCanberraIntroductionA number of asylum countries have inplace administrative or legislativemechanisms for regularising the stay ofpersons who are not recognised asrefugees but who cannot safely return totheir home country. UNHCR welcomesthese mechanisms, in as far as theyaddress international protection needswhich may not be covered by the 1951Convention and 1967 Protocol relating tothe Status of <strong>Refugee</strong>s (the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention), and refers to them as“complementary” forms of protection.Beneficiaries ofComplementary ProtectionStates that allow people who are notrecognised under the <strong>Refugee</strong> Conventionto stay, do so for a variety of reasons. Thereasons may be compassionate, such aswhen stay is permitted for reasons of age,medical condition, other specificvulnerabilities, or family connections. Inother cases the reasons may be practical,such as when removal is not possible,either because transportation is notfeasible, travel documents are unavailableor cannot be obtained, or readmissionotherwise proves infeasible. Wheregrounds for stay are purelycompassionate or practical, thepermission to stay is not related tointernational protection needs. Personswho have been given permission to stayon purely humanitarian grounds must beclearly distinguished from persons in needof international protection, where anobligation to respect the principle of nonrefoulementapplies. With regard topersons permitted to stay on humanitariangrounds, UNHCR will generally have nodirect role to play.A restrictive interpretation of theConvention refugee definition in someStates has left persons with an alternativestatus, even though they could have beenand should have been granted refugeestatus. It is UNHCR’s view that suchpersons should be covered by the<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention rather than beinggiven a complementary form of protection.Similarly, complementary protectionshould not be a substitute for theapplication, in good faith, of theStatelessness Conventions. 1Persons who are unable to return totheir countries because of serious andindiscriminate threats to life, liberty orsecurity of person resulting fromgeneralised violence or events seriouslydisturbing public order, may be regardedby States as not covered by the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention, when such threats are notlinked to one of the specific <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention grounds (race, religion,nationality or member of a particular socialgroup). For example, people fleeing theindiscriminate effects of violence and theaccompanying disorder in a conflictsituation with no specific element ofpersecution, might not fall under a strictinterpretation of the Convention refugeedefinition. They may nevertheless stillrequire international protection, and beassisted by UNHCR.The regional refugee instruments inAfrica and Latin America specificallyinclude such people under the refugeedefinition. In other regions, States providecomplementary forms of protection.UNHCR’s mandate with regard to thisrefugee group derives from successiveresolutions of the UN General Assemblyand has also been confirmed by theExecutive Committee of the HighCommissioner’s Programme (EXCOM). 2Discussions onComplementary Forms ofProtection at ExcomEXCOM meets each October in Geneva toreview and approve UNHCR’sprogrammes and budget, advise oninternational protection and discuss awide range of other issues with UNHCRand its intergovernmental and nongovernmentalpartners.The consensus reached by EXCOM inthe course of its discussions oninternational protection is expressed in theform of Conclusions on InternationalProtection (EXCOM Conclusions).Although not formally binding, they arerelevant to the interpretation of theinternational protection regime andconstitute expressions of opinion whichare broadly representative of the views ofthe international community. The specialistknowledge of EXCOM, and the fact that itsConclusions are taken by consensus,gives EXCOM Conclusions weight as aguide to international protectionstandards.EXCOM has recognised that, whilepersons who are unable to return in safetyto their countries of origin as a result ofsituations of conflict may not all berefugees within the terms of the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention, they are nonetheless often inneed of international protection,humanitarian assistance and a solution totheir plight. EXCOM has encouragedDiscussion Paper No. 2/200513


Asylum seekers arriving in Nauru. Part of Australia's "Pacific Solution".Photo: UNHCR/M. BandharangshiUNHCR to continue to provideinternational protection to such personsand to seek solutions to the problemsarising from their forced displacement. Italso called upon all States to assist andsupport UNHCR’s efforts in this regard 3 .EXCOM has also emphasised thatcomplementary protection should notcome at the expense of the protectionalready afforded by the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention and other human rightstreaties, nor should it undermine theintegrity of the existing internationalprotection regime. Indeed, developmentsin relation to complementary protectionhave been accompanied by a renewedcommitment by States to fully andeffectively implement the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention, including its exclusionprovisions for people not deserving ofrefugee protection, and to maximize theiruse of other existing protection tools. 4One of the goals of the Agenda ofProtection, a programme of actionadopted by States and UNHCR in 2002, isstrengthening implementation of the<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention. The Agendaidentifies provision of complementaryforms of protection to those who might notfall within the scope of the Convention, butrequire international protection, as oneway of achieving this goal.The Agenda calls upon EXCOM to:Within the framework of itsmandate...work on a Conclusioncontaining guidance on general principlesupon which complementary forms ofprotection should be based, on thepersons who might benefit from it, and onthe compatibility of these protections withthe 1951 Convention and other relevantinternational and regional instruments.States are asked to:... consider the merits of establishing asingle procedure in which there is first anexamination of the 1951 Conventiongrounds for refugee status, to befollowed, as necessary and appropriate,by the examination of the possiblegrounds for the grant of complementaryforms of protection.Both of these items are expected to bediscussed at the EXCOM session inOctober 2005.What Standard of Treatmentfor Complementary Forms ofProtection?There is a growing consensus amongStates about the protection needs ofpersons who may not be covered by the1951 Convention, even if it is fully andinclusively applied. However, as regardsstandards of treatment, State practicevaries. To achieve greater harmonisation,the standards contained in the <strong>Refugee</strong>Convention could be used as a guide.Furthermore, the obligations deriving frominternational and/or regional human rightsinstruments need to be taken into account.Beneficiaries of complementary forms ofprotection should enjoy a formal legalstatus with defined rights and obligations,and should be issued with documentscertifying that status. The status shouldextend for a period of time which is longenough to allow the beneficiaries to regaina sense of normalcy in their lives. It shouldlast for as long as protection is required.The status afforded to beneficiariesshould reflect basic rights as defined inrelevant international and regionalinstruments. In some States or regions,domestic or regional human rightsprovisions may require standards oftreatment which are higher than those ofother States or regions, but the standardsto be respected should not fall below acertain minimal level. 5In the area of civil and political rights,beneficiaries should, in particular:• be protected from refoulement andexpulsion;• not be subjected to discrimination onthe basis or race, religion, politicalopinion, nationality, country of origin,gender, physical incapacity or othersuch basis;• never be subjected to torture or cruel,inhuman or degrading treatment orpunishment;• enjoy basic freedom of movement,and in any case, not be subject torestrictions on their freedom ofmovement, other than those which arenecessary in the interest of publichealth and public order;• have access to the courts of justiceand administrative authorities.Their protection should, moreover,include basic social and economic rightscomparable to those generally available inthe host country, including, in particular:• access to adequate housing;• access to assistance or employment;• access to health care as needed;• access to primary and secondaryeducation.The family is acknowledged in humanrights instruments as the natural andfundamental group unit of society. Theimportance of putting in place measuresthat ensure respect for the unity of therefugee family has been highlighted byEXCOM on a number of occasions. 6Maintaining or reinstating family unity isone of the most important ways in whichpersons in need of international protectioncan enjoy the stability and certainty theyrequire to continue their lives. Accordingly,14 Discussion Paper No. 2/2005


any complementary protection regimeshould similarly build in appropriateprovisions for close family members to bereunited, over time, in the host country.Complementary forms of protectionneed not necessarily be permanent innature. However, the ending ofcomplementary status, just like thecessation of refugee status, should bebased on objective legal criteria, andshould never be arbitrary. It also needs tobe based on objective and reliablecountry of origin information. UNHCR hasparticular expertise in this area, and canplay a consultative role in decidingwhether it is appropriate to endcomplementary protection measures.In some States there are separateprocedures for determining whether aperson is a refugee within the terms of the<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention, or whether a personis in need of a complementary form ofprotection. More efficient may be a singleprocedure for determining whether aperson is in need of internationalprotection. This would entail first anexamination of the <strong>Refugee</strong> Conventiongrounds, to be followed, as necessary andappropriate, by an examination of thepossible grounds for the grant of acomplementary form of protection. Asingle procedure would also make iteasier to ensure that appropriate legalguarantees, including a right of appeal toan independent body, are available inrelation to all decisions concerning aperson’s entitlement to internationalprotection.ConclusionThe <strong>Refugee</strong> Convention remains thecornerstone of the international protectionof refugees and provides the basicframework for such protection. A full,inclusive and dynamic interpretation of the<strong>Refugee</strong> Convention, in accordance withits object and purpose, diminishes theneed for complementary forms ofprotection.Persons who are unable to return totheir countries because of serious andindiscriminate threats to life, liberty orsecurity of person resulting fromgeneralised violence, or events seriouslydisturbing public order, may be regardedby States as not fulfilling the refugeedefinition of the <strong>Refugee</strong> Convention, if nolink to a Convention ground can beestablished. However, they maynevertheless be in need of internationalprotection.The absence of a definitive legalframework agreed unanimously by allStates may result in a protection gap forsuch persons. Two approaches have beendeveloped to close such a potential gap:some States have accorded Conventionrefugee status to such people. In otherStates, complementary forms of protectionprovide a pragmatic response to suchinternational protection needs.The standards elaborated in theConvention, together with developments ininternational human rights law, provide animportant guide to the treatment thatshould be afforded to all persons who arein need of international protection.The standards of treatment afforded topersons not formally recognised asrefugees, but nevertheless acknowledgedto be in need of international protection,should provide for the protection of basiccivil, political, social and economic rights.Complementary forms of protection shouldbe implemented in such a way as toensure the highest degree of stability andcertainty possible, including throughmeasures to ensure respect for otherimportant principles, such as thefundamental principle of family unity.UNHCR would encourage greaterconsistency in the provision ofcomplementary forms of protectionthrough the adoption of guiding principles,possibly in an EXCOM conclusion.1, 1954 Convention relating to the Status of StatelessPersons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction ofStatelessness.2. For a more detailed view and full references to theresolutions, please see the article by Volker Turk “Therole of UNHCR in the development of internationalrefugee law” in <strong>Refugee</strong> Rights and Realities: EvolvingInternational Concepts and Regimes, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1999, ed. Frances Nicholson andPatrick Twomey.3. EXCOM Conclusion No. 74 (XLV) – 1994.4. Excom Conclusion No. 89 (LI) – 2000, paragraph 10.5. The International Bill of Rights (consisting of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights and the twoInternational Covenants, the Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights) sets out fundamental rights.Important is furthermore the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child. Regional instruments such as the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of Human Fundamentalfreedoms, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’Rights and the American Convention Human Rights(“Pact of San Jose”) also provide useful guidanceregarding fundamental human rights.6. See for example Conclusions 9(XXVII)-1977; 24(XXXII) – 1981, 88(L)-1999.<strong>Refugee</strong> from Kosovo at the East Hills SafeHaven, Sydney.Photo: UNHCR/H. J. DaviesDiscussion Paper No. 2/200515


It Takes Courageto be a <strong>Refugee</strong>The theme for World <strong>Refugee</strong> Day 2005 –It takes courage to be a refugee – wascelebrated around the region. Australianactor Jack Thompson lent his voice toUNHCR’s Community ServiceAnnouncements for radio and television,profiling personal stories of courage fromdisplaced people around the world.Governments, NGOs, communitygroups and citizens saluted the courageof refugees who have overcome enormousobstacles in their path to flee persecutionand rebuild their lives anew in a range ofevents throughout the region.In Canberra, the Captain Cook Fountainand seven public buildings in theparliamentary zone were lit blue tocoincide with the annual lighting of the Jetd’eau on Lake Geneva for World <strong>Refugee</strong>Day. The ACT government also sponsoredthe production of WRD flags that wereflown on Commonwealth Bridge, KingsAvenue and Russell Circle.World <strong>Refugee</strong> Day flags flying onCommonwealth Bridge, Canberra.Photo: UNHCR/S. WhyteImmigration Minister Amanda Vanstone onWorld <strong>Refugee</strong> Day. Photo: DIMIAA photographic exhibition at theTuggeranong Arts Centre titled ‘Sudan –Waiting for the Future’ featured over 100images from Sudan and the Kakumarefugee camp, including photos by formerUNHCR intern and Victorian YoungAustralian of the Year Matthew Albert.At Parliament House, ImmigrationMinister Senator Amanda Vanstonelaunched <strong>Refugee</strong> and HumanitarianIssues: Australia’s Response and awardedcitizenship to eight refugee andhumanitarian entrants. UNHCR spoke atthe event which was attended byrefugees, embassies, national refugeeadvocacy groups and communityorganisations. The ImmigrationDepartment (DIMIA) also hosted severalcitizenship ceremonies around the countryto coincide with WRD.The <strong>Refugee</strong> Action Committee andAmnesty International held a “ShowCompassion” rally calling for changes toAustralia’s mandatory detention andtemporary protection visa systems, andgather signatures to the <strong>Refugee</strong> Council’s‘<strong>Refugee</strong> Charter’.In Brisbane, a World <strong>Refugee</strong> Dayfestival was sponsored by the QueenslandGovernment, with cultural performances,food, fun, activities and speakers.An African fashion parade and culturalentertainment were part of the WRDfestivities in Darwin, at a picnic at theWater Gardens sponsored by Melaleuca<strong>Refugee</strong> Centre and the Department ofImmigration, Multicultural and IndigenousAffairs. The sharing of stories and acitizenship ceremony were also part of theday’s events.Amnesty International launched itsreport The Impact of Indefinite Detention atthe University of Sydney Law School andheld ‘Daybreak in Detention’ installationsat more than 30 locations across Australiaincluding Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide,Perth and Hobart.In Sydney, Australia for UNHCR held avery successful fundraising breakfastlaunched by the Honourable J.J.Spigelman AC, Chief Justice of theSupreme Court of New South Wales.Sudanese refugees Daniela (3) and DiannaZakaria (4) are among many refugeechildren from all over the world who becameAustralian citizens on World <strong>Refugee</strong> Dayduring Citizenship ceremony at Parramattain Sydney. Photo: Newspix/Quest/News Ltd16<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


<strong>Refugee</strong> Day Festival in Brisbane.Photo: Newspix/Quest/News LtdFormer refugee and CEO of Jurlique, MrHuy Truong, speaking at the Australia forUNHCR fundraising breakfast.Photo: Australia for UNHCRGuest speakers included former refugeeand CEO of Jurlique Mr Huy Truong, actorJack Thompson, journalist Sandra Sully,Special Representative of Australia forUNHCR Ian Chappell. Reflecting on thisyear’s courage theme, Huy Trong spokeabout his family’s escape from Vietnamand journey to Australia in 1978. He saidthe courage that refugees show in leavingtheir homes should indicate that theirmotivations extended beyond economicgains. “When you take those sort if risks,there is something that is much more realthan money at stake,” he said.Actor Garry McDonald dedicated theperformance of Two Brothers on 20 Juneat the Sydney Opera House, to the spiritand courage of refugees for WRD. Also inSydney, the Italian Institute of Culturededicated a concert on the 18th of Juneto the courage of refugees. Gli Archi wasperformed by an Italian ChamberOrchestra as part of the Sydney ItalianFestival.In Melbourne, to an audience ofapproximately 1400 people, Circus Ozdedicated its performance to refugees forWRD. The dedication was part of thecompany’s ongoing support to refugees inthe Melbourne community. The VictorianMigrant Resource Centre and other NGOs,jointly hosted a WRD Celebration.In South Australia, the Migrant ResourceCentre held a seminar on new andemerging communities with guestspeakers from the government andindustry.In Wellington, the RMS organized ajoint event with the Multicultural ServicesCentre, a partnership of seven agencieswhich offer services for refugees andmigrants. In Auckland RMS combined withother agencies to organize a celebrationwhich took place at King’s College, aschool which has been a long-timesupporter of the Mangere <strong>Refugee</strong>Reception Centre.In Papua New Guinea, UNHCRRepresentative Johann Siffointe hosted anevent to mark WRD in Port Moresby. Mr.Siffointe noted that despite the myriad ofchallenging issues that PNG was facing, itwas still able to fulfil its obligations underthe <strong>Refugee</strong> Convention in providingasylum for those who have left theirhomelands. The event was a greatsuccess with over one hundred guests inattendance.For more information on WRD eventsvisit www.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au/ WRD2005Mr Chris Kati, PNG’s Department ofProvincial Affairs, and UNHCR’s KasongoKaparo at the WRD function in Port Moresby.Photo: UNHCR/J.Siffointe<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/200517


Kiwis Celebrate CourageWorld <strong>Refugee</strong> Day is a day to recognisejourneys and trials and generosity butmost importantly it’s about hope for thefuture, Somali community leader AdamAwad told those celebrating atWellington’s Multicultural Services Centrein New Zealand.“Young people make up the majority offormer refugee communities and they arethe people on whom so many hopes anddreams depend. We need to support themso they can be proud of who they are andso that they can walk in two worlds atonce, the one that their parents camefrom, and the New Zealand world to whichthey now belong.“If we want to be strong Kiwis, werefugees and migrants must also continueto be strong in our original cultures andidentities. Those are almost all we wereable to bring with us. They are what wehave to carry to the future.”Adam Awad was one of around 180people who gathered at the MulticulturalCentre to celebrate the launch of itsexpanded services, timed to coincide withSam Manzanza (second left) and hisdrumming group.Photo: RMSWorld <strong>Refugee</strong> Day. The MSC is apartnership of seven agencies offeringrefugees and migrants services such asEnglish language tuition, job mentoring,counselling and interpreting services.The NZ Minister of Immigration, PaulSwain, the MP for Wellington CentralMarian Hobbs and the Mayor ofWellington Kerry Prendergast all took partin the ceremony. The speeches werefollowed by Cambodian and Sri Lankandance, African drumming, traditionalChinese music, songs by adult Englishlanguage learners and refreshments.In Auckland the Director of the Office ofEthnic Affairs, Mervyn Singam, addressedthose who gathered at Kings College tomark the occasion. He applauded thecourage of refugees likening it to “a lampthat illustrates the way forward for us if onlywe could see”. He urged host communitiesand refugee communities to share theirstories for greater understanding. “Youbring with you to this country your journeysof strength and endurance. You teach usand remind us about what is important inlife. You are like the strongest threads in abeautiful tapestry of different peoples thatmakes the entire fabric more durable.”In Hamilton refugees, friends ofrefugees and staff members gathered atthe Waikato Migrant Resource Centremarking this important day in the refugeecalendar with speeches from formerrefugees and the local Member ofParliament followed by a morning tea.Tsunami Thank youA tsunami-displaced family move into a newtemporary home built by UNHCR in AmparaDistrict, Sri Lanka. Photo: UNHCR/C. FitchUNHCR Regional Office Canberra wouldlike to thank everyone in the region whohelped the agency respond to the IndianOcean Earthquake-Tsunami Emergency inSri Lanka, Indonesia and Somalia where weprovided emergency relief and shelter.Regional Representative Neill Wright wassent on an emergency mission to Sri Lankato manage UNHCR’s response to thedisaster for the month of January, just a fewmonths after he had left his previous postthere to take up the one in Canberra.Seeing first hand the devastation in SriLanka and also the positive impact of quickand effective response, Mr Wright extendsparticular thanks to all those in our regionwho helped UNHCR to respond.• Australia for UNHCR raised over Aus$750,000 for UNHCR’s Tsunami operations• AUSTCARE contributed Aus $50,000 toUNHCR’s emergency operations in SriLanka.• NZAID donatedNZ $3million toTsunamioperations.• AusAID donatedAus $1 million toUNHCR operations in Sri LankaA Progress Report on UNHCR’s responseto the Indian Ocean Earthquake TsunamiEmergency January-June 2005 is availableonline at www.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au/pubinfo18 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


New Youth Representativesfor Australia for UNHCRAustralia for UNHCR has appointed twonew Youth Representatives, Adut DauAtem and Sophie Weldon, to educate theirpeers about the work of the UN <strong>Refugee</strong>Agency and to raise funds for itshumanitarian programmes for refugees.Nineteen-year-old medical sciencestudent Adut Dau Atem spent eight yearsin a refugee camp in Kenya after fleeingher village in southern Sudan during thecivil war.“It is very special for me to have thishonour, to talk to young people about whatit is like to be a refugee, about the work ofUNHCR. I have experienced first hand,what it is like to be saved by UNCHR, tobe given food or shelter when you aredriven from your home and family. Now Iwant my voice to keep alive the plight ofthe refugees still in camps so they are notforgotten,” said Adut.Year 10 student Sophie Weldon, fromSydney’s northern beaches, drew attentionto Adut’s compelling story by entering aUNCHR writing competition in 2003.Through a family friend she wasintroduced to Adut who had recentlyarrived in Australia from the Kakumarefugee camp in Kenya. Sophie’s story ofAdut’s refugee experiences won the 2003Jack Thompson with Special Youth Representatives Adut Atem Dau and Sophie Weldon .Photo: Australia for UNHCRCompetition and in the meantime a specialrelationship developed between the girlsand their families that has had anenormous impact on both their lives.Wanting to do more to promote the workof the UN <strong>Refugee</strong> Agency, Sophieapproached Australia for UNHCR with aproposal to engage young Australiansresulting in both girls’ appointments asSpecial Youth Representatives.“I have come to understand the value ofthe work of UNHCR from the inside fromAdut’s story. Who would’ve thought thatnow, our lives would interweave in such asa way. I am honoured and grateful for theopportunity to talk to young people aboutthe work of UNHCR, in the hope that theymay come to understand that the wordrefugee is not an issue, but a real person,”said Sophie.WATER FOR LIFE APPEALAustralia for UNHCR has launched it 2005Mid Year Appeal – Water for Life – whichaims to provide safe clean drinking water torefugees and communities in Africa.Lack of clean drinking water is one of themajor causes of death and diseases,such as cholera and dysentery, for somany people in Africa and especiallychildren.What your money can buy:• $117 can provide jerry cans for 35refugee families• $243 can provide sanitation facilities for alarge school, reducing the risk of disease• $360 can sink a well to provide clean,safe water for a village• $1146 can provide a hand pump usedfor up to 300 people• $8536 can drill a borehole to provideclean water for up to 500 peopleTo donate to the Appeal, call 1300 362 288<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/200519


Alen O’Hran with Queensland Premier PeterBeattie.Accolades for AustralianYouth Put Focus on <strong>Refugee</strong>sYoung Australians are being recognised fortheir work with refugees or achievementssince arriving as refugees.Young Queenslanderof the year“Having flown on many previous occasionswith my parents, I thought it would be theusual ‘tea or coffee’ affair!” recalls 24 yearold Alen O’Hran of his flight from war-tornBosnia “But to my disbelief, this was aplane with no windows, no seats – it was acargo plane!”With his cargo of life experience, Alenultimately came to Australia under thehumanitarian programme, picked up an Irishsurname and, this year, he landed himselfthe title of Young Queenslander of the Year.When he arrived in Brisbane eight yearsago Alen spoke no English. Since thenhe’s become the first member of his familyto graduate with a university qualification,started a Masters in Law, been appointedAssociate to a Queensland Supreme CourtJudge, been an ambassador forQueensland University of Technology,been part of the 2004 National YouthRoundtable, and also heavily involved withvoluntary and community activities. Nowhe’s Young Queenslander of the Year 2005and couldn’t be happier.“The award means so much more to meas it’s a recognition of a lifetime struggleon my part to make something out of mylife. Hopefully I’ll get to meet young peoplearound Queensland and share my storywith them and at least show them what awonderful journey life is, and how, despitebeing tough, challenging and hard, it isindeed rewarding!Alen’s family name gained anapostoprohe courtesy of an enrolmentofficer at a Brisbane high school. ”Theenrolment officer asked me to spell thename to her. So I did O-H-R-A-N. Shethought I was Irish so she put an extraapostrophe in it and capitalized one of theletters. So now it’s O’Hran. So figure this –I’m half Serbian, half Bosnian, with anAustralian passport containing an Irishsurname!,” said Alen.All Sails are up for Victorian YoungAustralian of the YearAt the age of 24, Matthew Albert has donemuch already. He has been aphotojournalist, a UNHCR Protection Internin Kenya, graduated in law, was co-founderof the Sudanese Australian IntegratedLearning (SAIL) Program and was namedVictorian Young Australian of the Year 2005.SAIL started with Matthew and his friendAnna Grace helping out a Sudanese familyin Melbourne. Soon, the word spread andthe participant numbers grew. SAIL nowhas 350 Sudanese and 250 volunteers,collectively known as SAILors. SAIL runs sixmini-programs, providing services to all agegroups from toddlers to adults at threecampuses every week.On paper, the SAIL Program providesEnglish tutoring and support to theSudanese community but in practice, itprovides a venue and the means for peopleto create friendships."SAIL has fulfilled many of ourexpectations with tutors and studentscoming together. Tutors attend parentteacherinterviews and invite their studentsover for Christmas. This is priceless and isa testament to the incredible welcome fromthe Sudanese community and to thededication and commitment of the volunteerthat makes SAIL work", said Matthew.The experience in Kenya as a UNHCRprotection intern helped Matthewunderstand what life is like beforeresettlement for Australia’s fastest growingethnic community. "This was a valuablelesson and it helps us tailor SAIL’s programstowards the Sudanese community," he said.“The UNCHR Internship gave meperspective on the how the internationalcommunity operates and what the Sudanesecommunity have survived. I also learnt aboutmy place in the world. Like all of us inAustralia we are very fortunate,” he said.For more information about the SAILProgram visit http://www.SAILProgram.cjb.netVictorian Young Australian of the YearMatthew Albert at the Tuggeranong ArtsCentre Sudanese photographic exhibition.Photo: The Canberra Times20 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


Seeking Refuge:A Fight for FreedomLeft to Right, Simon Kragh (left) and SamNeedham. Photo: UNHCR/S. WhyteYear Seven Students at Canberra’s OranaSchool took a theatrical approach tolearning about refugees with theirproduction of their play Seeking Refuge: AFight for Freedom.Teacher Emily McKenzie said theproduction was designed to enhance thestudent’s understanding of issues thatsurrounded refugees in a positive andmemorable way. “I guess only two in theclass really knew anything much aboutany refugee stories,” she said. “We’d beentalking a little bit about refugees as ageneral topic… I thought to bring that alittle closer to home we could talk aboutcultures mixing as in a multiculturalAustralian society. What better way to dothat than have a story of a refugee family,their journey to Australia and theirreception?”The play was based on a story fromRochelle E. Ball’s compilation of some ofthe experiences of Canberra’s refugeepopulation – World’s Turned Upside Down.Students were put into groups to work ona particular scene and would then reportback to the class for discussion. Thescript was drafted over four to five weeks.To keep the students on track (and to givethem some real-life experience), thescripts were then given to a formerImmigration Department case worker whomade suggestions on the story’splausibility.For the students it seems the play waswell worth their efforts. “It was a goodthing to do,” said student Simon Kragh. “Itwas interesting and I learnt a lot aboutrefugees.” “It was also to make people alot more aware of refugee issues,especially young people,” said anotherstudent Cordelia Powrie. “Some peoplejust think that its people coming over froma different country, like it will all just workout for them…we tried to show them in aslightly less serious way that these thingshappen and that they should be aware ofthem.” Ms. Mckenzie agreed, and foundthe student’s reactions to the topic quiteinteresting. “A lot of the comments thatwere made by the students when Ibrought it up were ‘why don’t we just letCordelia Powrie and Sam Needham.them all in the country?’ or ‘can’t we justgive them a city?’” The play also includeda scene showing the home life of a guardat a detention centre. “It was interestingfor the kids to see both sides of the storyand show that he (the guard) is not amonster because he works at a detentioncentre” she said.The play proved to be a success with26 students involved in the production,and around 150 patrons attending thematinee and evening shows. The studentshoped the play would have an impact onother students and all those in the OranaSchool community attending theperformances. “Hopefully it will send thema message” said Miss Powrie, “becausethat’s what we’re trying to do.”Photo: UNHCR/S. Whyte<strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/200521


Telling <strong>Refugee</strong> StoriesLatest writing comp winnersannouncedFirst placeEighteen-year-old Mina Ardic has troubleremembering her father. “The sad thing isthat his face remains vague in my memoryand it’s slowly fading away.”Mina escaped from war-torn Bosnia withher mother and three siblings as refugees,and was resettled to Australia where it wasrumoured her father had fled. Sadlyhowever, as it turned out, Mina’s fatherHajrudin was one of the many lives lost tothe break-up of the former Yugoslavia.Mina’s story, as told by her classmateand friend Dragica Dacic, whose Serbianfamily also fled conflict in the Balkanssome years earlier, is one of many enteredin the UNHCR high school writingcompetition and won first place in themain category.“I thought I had been to hell and backbut when Mina, who is Bosnian, told meher story, I thought how lucky I am andhow lucky she is to have survived”, saidDragica.Dragica writes how as a six-year oldMina was suddenly forbidden to play withher childhood friends because they wereSerbian and Croatian. She narrates herfriend’s story of war closing in on thefamily until they were forced to flee; thestory of Mina’s younger brothers having tobe dressed up in girls’ clothes to stopthem being killed by soldiers targetingmen and boys; the story of an anguishedmother, alone and desperate for herchildren to survive, let alone lead a‘normal’ life.While statistics give scale, they canhide the humanity behind the numbers. Inrunning its annual writing competition,<strong>Refugee</strong>s: telling their stories, UNHCRhopes to engage young Australians inDragica Dacic (left) was the winner of thisyear's competition for her story on her friendMina Ardic (right).Photo: UNHCRtelling the human stories behind thenumbers. Announcing the winners of lastyear’s competition in May, UNHCRRepresentative Neill Wright said: “Thesecompelling tales help to humanise a groupof people too often cited as mere statisticsor an abstract political problem.”“Through talking and listening withcompassion and writing with respect, wehope this competition helps to buildunderstanding as well as forge newfriendships,” he said.Dragica agrees: “Although I haveextracted one story, it captures whatpeople have gone through and hopefully itwill raise awareness of the plight ofrefugees” she said. More importantly,“Writing this piece about Mina’s journeyproves people can put war aside and getover it. We can share stories andsympathise with each other” Dragica adds.Winning first place has been a boost toDragica and Mina and the whole school.“I didn’t even expect to get short listed”says Dragica, “To be given that title ofwinner – it feels amazing. This is definitelyan achievement for the whole school andnot just for Mina and me”. St Alban’sCollege teacher Phil McMillan agrees,saying it shows the students can competeat a statewide level with other schools.“Both Dragica and Mina stand out as thestudents who really do want to make thebest of their time at school,” he said.Second place“I find myself anticipating what he is goingto say, but at the same time I am scared”writes 15-year-old Amee Maiklem from StBrigid’s College, Perth. Amy won secondplace in the competition for her story onthe life of Algerian refugee Adele Baya.Baya, a journalist who fell foul of theauthorities in his home country, spoke toAmee’s class and gave the girls a veryreal reminder of how lucky they were tohave grown up in such a harmonious andconflict-free country. As Baya recountedhis struggle to get an education, toSecond-place winner Amee Maiklem (left)with Adele Baya, and another student fromSt Brigid's College.Photo: UNHCR22 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005


Detention Centre in Western Australia beforebeing recognized as refugees.“It was horrible” Najeeba recalls, “Itwasn’t something you would expect, beinglocked up”. Upon release Najeeba and herfamily were sent to Tasmania where they feltmore welcomed: “It was really nice, peoplereally welcomed us,” she said. Speakingfondly of the kindness and generosity of herTasmanian neighbours, Najeeba felt morepositive about the new start. “I thought, ‘Ishouldn’t judge everyone.’”For Razia the challenges continued:“Outside the detention centre we had tolearn English and we have to live in a newsociety,” she said. But she appreciates thesupport of the local Afghan communitywhich helped her family settle in over thosefirst few months and years.“We were always going to each others’houses and having fun” recalls Najeeba ofthe time they then spent together in Sydneybefore Razia moved away to Griffith. Whilethe two girls lost touch over that period, totheir delight they were reunited when Raziareturned to Sydney and was enrolled atHolroyd High School.Their parents are very pleased at theirsuccess in the competition and Najeeba’sfather is proud that his child is contributingto Australian society, particularly after fouryears of uncertainty over whether theywould be granted residency.“When we got residence my dad hadtears and my mum jumped up and down.My dad said ‘From now on, we are moreresponsible to this country, we have to dothings to benefit this country and make itproud of us’” said Najeeba, who plans to liveby her father’s vow and become Australia’sfirst female Prime Minister. Razia also hashigh ambitions: “I would like to go to uni andpossibly study medicine if I get the marks.”Awarding the prizes to the two girls lastMay, UNHCR’s Regional Representative NeillWright said: “It’s a testament to the courageand resilience of Razia and Najeeba thatafter all they’ve been through, they are nowdoing well at school and have won places inthis national writing competition.”Both girls received book vouchersdonated by Gleebooks and the two storieshave been published (along with otherfinalists) in a book by <strong>Refugee</strong>s: telling theirstories which can be viewed on line atwww.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.au or ordered ataulcapi@<strong>unhcr</strong>.chNew UNHCR ResourcesThematic Compilation ofExecutive CommitteeConclusions(2nd edition, June 2005)This new reference tool groups all relevantExCom references since 1975 by subject,mapping the evolution of thinking on keyprotection issues.The 2nd edition incorporates ExComconclusions adopted in 2001 through2004, and includes new subject headingssuch as:• age, gender and diversitymainstreaming• capacity building• Convention Plus• durable solutions• interception• participation/community developmentapproach/empowerment• reception of asylum-seekers• return of persons found not to be inneed of international protection• smuggling and traffickingThe updated Compilation is available atwww.<strong>unhcr</strong>.ch/protect/Protectionpublications/compilations andcommentaries.The following resources are available fromUNHCR’s Regional Office in Australia.UNHCR's Global Appeal 2005This report providesan overview ofUNHCR's strategiesand programmes forthe year 2005.Global Report 2004UNHCR's annualreview of theachievements andimpact of itsprogrammes worldwide during theprevious year, published June 2005.UNHCR REGIONAL OFFICENEWSLETTERNo. 2/2005(Published August 2005)A publication of the Regional Office forAustralia, New Zealand, Papua NewGuinea and the South Pacific.15 Hunter Street,Yarralumla ACT 2600Tel: +61 2 6273 2733Fax: +61 2 6273 6822E-mail: aulca@<strong>unhcr</strong>.chWeb: www.<strong>unhcr</strong>.org.auEditors: Sylvana Whyte andAriane Rummery24 <strong>Refugee</strong> <strong>Newsletter</strong> No. 2/2005

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!