The Psychological Impact of Extended Temporary Protection
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Psychological Impact of Extended Temporary Protection Fethi Mansouri and Stephanie Cauchi Abstract de demandeurs d’asile relatées au cours d’interviews indi- Against the background of the recent international trend viduelles. Celles-ci visent à jeter un éclairage sur les mani- of a greater reliance on deterrence measures in managing festations mentales et psychologiques à la suite the flow of asylum seekers, this paper discusses the imple- d’événements stressants qu’ils vivent en tant que déten- mentation of the temporary protection visa (TPV) in Aus- teurs de TPV. Chez de nombreux détenteurs de TPV, il tralia. It focuses on the psychological impact of the TPV est particulièrement révélateur que les expériences trau- policy on individual asylum seekers and how this unlim- matiques pré-migratoires sont aggravées par une condi- ited temporary status affects the overall process of settle- tion post-migratoire de protection « temporaire » ment. This study is based on personal narratives indéfinie. Cette situation se trouve exacerbée par la pré- constructed by individual asylum seekers during one-on- dominance des discours à teneur raciste et par des politi- one interviews aimed at sketching the mental and psycho- ques d’exclusion mises de l’avant par le gouvernement logical manifestations of stressful events in their lives as hôte. Les traumatismes et la persécution antérieurs, com- TPV holders. What is particularly revealing among many binés à la séparation familiale et à l’exclusion sociale ac- of these TPV holders is the fact that their pre-migration tuelles, sans oublier l’incertitude face à l’avenir, ont traumatic experiences are compounded by a post-migra- entraîné des états presque chroniques d’anxiété et de dé- tion condition of being in indefinite “temporary” protec- pression parmi un nombre significatif de détenteurs de tion. This is further exacerbated by a prevalence of TPV. racialized discourses and exclusionary policies advocated 1 by the host government. Past trauma and persecution, Introduction combined with present family separation and social exclu- As Australia enters the third millennium, its multi-ethnic sion, and further compounded by uncertainty about the fu- make up has emerged as a crucial dimension in the search ture, had resulted in almost chronic states of anxiety and for a national identity. Indeed, the 2001 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) census demonstrates clearly that Australia depression among a significant number of TPV holders. is a genuinely multicultural society with more than 20 per cent of its people being from a non-English-speaking back- Résumé ground (NESB). The annual intake of migrants (now in Prenant comme toile de fond la récente tendance interna- excess of one hundred thousand new arrivals each year) tionale de se fier aux mesures de dissuasion pour gérer le means that a significant number of new members of Austra- flux de demandeurs d’asile, l’article discute de la mise en lian society embark each year on the settlement and accul- œuvre du visa de protection temporaire (Temporary Pro- turation journey, with its many emotional and practical tection Visa – TPV) en Australie. Le propos s’attarde aux challenges, which affect both the individual and the host répercussions psychologiques des politiques liées au TPV society. Unless they are carefully managed and serviced, the sur les demandeurs d’asile individuels et à la manière problems associated with settlement, cultural adjustment, dont ce statut temporaire illimité touche l’ensemble du loss of community standing, and separation from family and processus d’installation. L’étude se base sur des anecdotes friends can lead to physical and mental health problems. Australia is one of the few countries in the world with an 81 Volume 23 Refuge Number 2 organized resettlement program for migrants, which is also cent of Iraqi cases.8 What these statistics show is that the extended to offshore humanitarian entrants. However, Aus- great majority of asylum seekers subsequently affected by tralia has also lead the world in the implementation of the TPV policy were found to be Convention refugees policies aimed at deterring asylum seekers. These policies whose cases for permanent protection were ultimately vali- include mandatory detention for all onshore arrivals with- dated by Australia’s own determination mechanisms. This out documents, a three-year temporary protection visa situation raises serious questions about the efficacy of the (TPV) for those found to be refugees, and the interception TPV regime. The conditions attached to TPVs deliberately of asylum seekers arriving by sea and removing them to a create obstacles to resettlement. Yet most of those affected third country for processing.2 by the TPV will subsequently settle permanently, attracting The focus of this paper is on the TPV which was intro- Australia’s full resettlement services. Thus the TPV policy duced in October 1999 for asylum seekers who arrive with- unnecessarily prolongs and exacerbates the difficulties and out valid documentation and who are subsequently found costs associated with the resettlement process. to be genuine refugees. TPV holders do not have the same On 13 July 2004, the government announced that all entitlements as permanent visa holders.3 They have limited TPV holders would be given the opportunity to apply for access to Social Security, primary education, and English permanent visas. TPV holders, however, would not auto- language classes, and are ineligible for most settlement matically qualify for permanent visas, but would simply be support services. In practice, they are excluded from terti- given the right (if eligible) to apply onshore for other ary education, as they are not entitled to Higher Education non-humanitarian visas – a right denied to them since the Contribution Scheme (HECS) places and must pay full fees, migration legislation changes of 2001. While the thirty- and although they have the right to work their ability to do three visa categories available appear to be extensive, many, so is limited by the temporary nature of their visa, poor such as the “Media and Film Staff,” “Visiting Academic,” English language skills, and limited access to employment and “Foreign Government Agency” categories, will benefit services. They have no automatic right of return if they leave few, if any, TPV holders, while other categories, such as Australia, and no right to family reunion – perhaps the most “Close Ties,” remain unavailable.9 Some of the visas avail- damaging restriction of the visa. Initially, it was thought able are permanent; however others (such as student visas) that a permanent visa would be granted once the TPV are also temporary, and unlike humanitarian visas, do not expired after three years. In September 2001, however, engage the Australian government in any protection obli- amendments to Australia’s migration legislation included gations once they have expired. Possibly of most benefit to the introduction of the “seven day rule.” This rule prevents an TPV holders is the “Regional Sponsored Migration asylum seeker from ever receiving a permanent visa if they Scheme” (RSMS) visa which is available to people who have havespentmorethansevendaysinacountrywheretheycould worked in regional Australia for at least twelve months. It have applied for protection. Most TPV holders who arrived has been amended so that employment does not need to be after September 2001 have been affected by this.4 with one single employer and the level of functional English Over the five-year period from 2000 to 2005, most asy- language required has been amended to make the category lum seekers affected by the TPV regime were from Afghani- more accessible to TPV holders working in rural areas. stan and Iraq. At the end of this period the great majority A “Return Pending” visa has been introduced for appli- (7,803) of processed applicants for further protection had cants whom the Australian government deems to be “no ultimately received a Permanent Protection Visa (PPV), longer in need of protection.” As at 4 November 2005, 75 with 105 receiving a further TPV.5 Of the latter cohort, 92 such visas were in effect.10 The visa allows eighteen months TPVs were granted as a result of character reasons and 13 for rejected applicants to make arrangements to return as a result of the application of the “seven day rule.” It home and carries the same rights and restrictions as the should be noted that most of the 7,803 would have arrived TPV. This is undoubtedly a more humane alternative for before September 2001 and were therefore not subject to rejected asylum seekers than (often forcible) removal or the “seven day rule.”6 As at 4 November 2005, 766 applica- detention, which were the extant responses, and will allow tions for further protection were yet to receive a primary them time to examine other alternatives. A “Reintegration decision and some 1,560 persons remained on a TPV.7 Assistance Package” to cover travel costs and resettlement Between July 2005 and February 2006 a number of TPV has also been offered to encourage voluntary return. How- holders appealed the decisions made upon their applica- ever, as the majority of TPV holders are Iraqi and Afghani, tions for further protection at the Refugee Review Tribunal the security situation in their home countries raises con- (RRT). This appeals tribunal recognized the need for fur- cerns grave enough to question the appropriateness of such ther protection in 95 per cent of Afghan cases and 97 per an offer. 82 The Psychological Impact of Extended Temporary Protection For TPV holders wishing to remain in Australia and conducted in Arabic and Farsi. We acknowledge some in- ineligible for alternative visas, the process of applying for a herent limitations of translation and inform the reader that further protection visa prolongs uncertainty about the fu- interviewees are identified by pseudonyms. ture and hinders individuals’ and families’ attempts to settle Content analysis was undertaken to identify major and build new lives.