Mary Anne Kenny

Individuals seeking asylum encounter significant barriers when seeking protection. Currently, the developed world's predominant, and arguably exclusive, reaction to the increase in the number of people forcibly displaced is the implementation of restrictive migration control policies. In Australia a series of punitive measures were applied to approximately 31,000 asylum seekers who arrived by boat between 2012-2014. In 2014 the government introduced a ‘fast track assessment’ (FTA) process for processing refugee claims. In practice the FTA process was marked by significant delays and concerns about its fairness. Temporary protection was the only option available for people who were recognised as refugees. These changes were accompanied by a significant reduction in legal and social supports. The primary objective of this research was to understand the mental health consequences of these changes upon this group of asylum seekers and refugees, known as the ‘legacy caseload’

The aim of this study was to investigate how legal professionals in Australia responded to the mental distress experienced by clients with insecure visa status in the Fast Track Assessment (FTA) process. This article reports on survey findings obtained from 38 legal professionals followed up by focus groups and interviews with 16 participants. The participants were all involved in providing legal assistance to refugees and asylum seekers with insecure visa status, the majority delivering that assistance via pro bono or community law centre settings. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. The study uncovered a complex interplay of practical challenges, emotions, and ethical dilemmas that legal professionals encounter while assisting asylum seekers in the FTA process. The study participants’ experiences highlight that a migration law practice frequently becomes the initial setting where asylum seekers disclose mental distress. Legal professionals found themselves simultaneously witnessing human suffering and endeavouring to prevent re-traumatisation of their clients. Responding to distress was difficult to achieve as the operational setting in which they provided legal assistance and the prevailing hardline political messaging by the Australian government toward asylum seekers who arrived by boat was hostile and (re)traumatising. There is a pressing need for more trauma-informed education and training for both current and future legal professionals. Findings are discussed alongside practical suggestions for trauma-informed interviewing for legal professionals who interview asylum seekers.

Email
Twitter31
Facebook252
LinkedIn
In February this year, the Albanese government announced that thousands of refugees living in Australia who were on Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEV) would now be moved onto a permanent visa known as a Resolution of Status Visa (ROS)...

Refugees in Australia need to be able to access a fairer, faster and more affordable family reunion system. Policies in Australia have led to families being forced to live apart from each other for over a decade. People who have arrived by boat have already faced protracted delays, lack of social support, uncertainty, and ongoing separation from their families since arriving in Australia. A process that considers fairly the specific barriers people have faced and continue to experience, and their family visa applications should be high priority.

Recently the government has made some welcome announcements for refugees, including abolishing policies that placed visas for family members at the end of the processing queue, and allowing refugees on temporary protection visas access to permanency. Both announcements are important steps towards allowing refugees to reunite with families after a decade of separation.

Unfortunately, current laws, procedures and policies continue to add unnecessary barriers to family reunion for refugees, compounding their trauma.

A process that prioritises family visa applications and that gives fair consideration to the specific barriers people have faced is required. The process should be straightforward, affordable and fair.

This paper sets out the laws, procedures and policies requiring amendment in order to address the impacts of the decade-long separation from families experienced by refugees in Australia. These recommendations to government are framed to apply to Partner and Child visas, where the sponsor holds or has held a Resolution of Status visa, Protection visa or Refugee and Humanitarian visa.

Background: Many developed countries have introduced strict measures designed to deter people seeking asylum. Measures such as held detention, insecure visas, restrictions work and services all impact the mental health of asylum seekers. In 2014 Australia introduced a 'fast track assessment' (FTA) system of processing refugee claims for asylum seekers who arrived by boat, those found to be refugees were only eligible for temporary residence. Legal professionals play a pivotal role in protecting the rights of asylum seekers and gain unique insight into the impact of the legal system has on clients mental health. Aim: To investigate how legal professionals in Australia perceived the impact of the FTA process on their clients.

Methods: Mixed methods comprising of two phases - (i) an online survey and (ii) follow-up focus groups and interviews with legal professionals involved in assisting asylum seekers in the FTA process. An inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

Results: Survey results were obtained from 38 legal professionals. Follow up in depth qualitative focus groups and interviews were conducted with 16 survey participants. The data demonstrate that legal professionals encounter clients in complex seemingly insurmountable mental health crises including deepening mental distress and deterioration, feelings of hopelessness, defeat and entrapment. Interviewees shared compelling examples of what they believed constituted a direct connection between asylum seekers experiencing uncertainty and deteriorating mental health over time with fluctuations in hopelessness, anger, withdrawal and suicidality. These negative impacts were often compounded by separation from family.

Conclusions: The legal framework for determining whether an asylum seeker is a refugee can have a detrimental impact on the mental health of asylum seekers. The mental distress of asylum seekers and refugees is exacerbated by uncertainty linked to both delays in processing accompanied by sustained and ongoing uncertainty of legal status.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought the connections between law and public health into stark relief. The pandemic has demonstrated both the essential nature of global cooperation and international regulation to promote universal rights to life and health, and the potentially harmful impacts of limitations imposed on human rights in time of emergency. It has also tested the international human rights framework, which allows for permissible limitations on human rights where required, but which remains subject to widely varying domestic implementation. In this paper, we explore the relationship between international human rights law and the COVID-19 pandemic, including a focus on the rights of vulnerable individuals and communities who have experienced disproportionate impacts from both the pandemic itself and from measures that constrain the exercise of human rights. We propose that the inquiry and monitoring mechanisms of the UN human rights bodies provide important avenues for addressing the human rights implications of COVID-19 and Government responses to the pandemic. We also review Australia’s domestic implementation of international human rights law and its relevance in the era of COVID-19, noting the piecemeal approach to human rights protection under Australian law. We conclude that this time of emergency provides an opportunity for the progressive development of international human rights law, via principles of reciprocity, social protection, human rights preparedness and comprehensive normative protection for a right to public health.