Temporary protection to permanent residence - it's a trust issue

On 14 July the Australian government announced that 9,500 temporary protection visa (TPV) holders would have the opportunity to apply for mainstream migration visas to enable them to remain in Australia permanently without needing to leave the country to lodge their applications.

Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, announced the initiative, along with a new return-pending visa, which would allow people not in need of further protection 18 months in which to make arrangements to return to their home country, or elsewhere.

What caught my eye in the Minister’s statement were these words:

This decision in relation to the opportunity for those on TPVs to apply to stay in Australia permanently, recognises the fact that many TPV holders are making a significant contribution to the Australian community, particularly in regional areas, [and] [b]ecause of links with Australia through social or work activities, many of these people were able to apply for mainstream migration visas from offshore.

If it is the case that TPV holders can apply to remain in Australia permanently and there are no “hidden extras” then it may be that compassion has finally prevailed for many refugees who are suffering depression, anxiety and have seen suicide as a very real alternative to returning to their homeland. 

It is true that “many TPV holders are making a significant contribution to the Australian community, particularly in regional areas” but that is also true for TPV holders in city areas.

That contribution can only be strengthened if there is certainty about their fate.

As a mental-health professional what I am most concerned about is that there may be “devil in the detail”. What TPV holders, and in fact most refugees and asylum seekers, need is clarity.

More than anything they need to know where they stand – they need a starting point in a life that has lost its place. What the TPV system has done to date is exacerbate mental anguish in a population that is already highly traumatised by their experiences in their homeland, and the whole process of flight and dislocation from their country of origin.

If there has been a real change of heart on the TPV policy, then this will indeed be a fresh start for many traumatised people. But there must be something real and genuine in the government’s efforts to make the transition from temporary to permanent status possible.

It will be important that this process include strong consultation with TPV holders in a psychological atmosphere that is not adversarial. It is vital that in the massive job of coordinating this transition, communication and trust underpin the application process.

Reflecting on the past five or six years, it is difficult to overestimate the benefits of the work being done by volunteer and non-government organisations to support asylum seekers. Organisations and community groups such as the Circles of Friends, The Australian Refugee Association, Rural Australians for Refugees, and many other individual ordinary Australians, have developed close and trusting relationships with asylum seekers – relationships that have been nothing short of lifesaving.

The people who are part of these organisations have earned the trust of asylum seekers. They have also delivered on their trust. In particular, non-government and community health organisations have performed a key role in providing support services for those asylum seekers with mental-health problems and mental illness, in advocating for services to be more sympathetic and responsive, and in providing important trust networks to overcome specific access challenges due to cultural, linguistic and geographical barriers. 

The government is in the box seat to support and encourage these established trust networks. It can do so by calling upon immigration officials to formally draw upon the proximity, skill and trust developed by community people – many of them who are volunteers - to help formulate a clear process for TPV holders to move from temporary to permanent status. 

Mental-health literature for traumatised people the world over emphasises coordination of services, safe and predictable environments, and the stability of client-provider relationships over time. Unlike a legal or political bureaucracy where relationships can be impersonal, in cases where individuals have suffered trauma and dislocation, personal, trusting relationships become hugely significant to successful settlement in the community. The importance of this relationship/trust-based approach must be valued in what to date has been a dehumanising legal process.

We must also acknowledge that even if there is a policy “change of heart”, the impact of TPV status has left us with many depressed and suicidal asylum seekers. Again, with extensive consultation with TPV holders we can only rebuild lives and build resilience and functional capacity, by developing an integrated community health response which includes appropriate specialist mental health support, and strong links between community, non-government organisations and volunteer groups. Resilience building will cost time and money.

It will require:

1. the implementation of evidence-based interventions such as psychosocial (broadly defined) supports and medication to reduce symptoms;
2. support and encouragement for specialist mental-health services and general practitioners to initiate and participate in education and guidance of children with regard to providing a safe, predictable and, as much as possible, supportive school, community environment building friendship and support networks; an effort to reduce, or remove the need for drug therapy – particularly in children;
3. for those who continue to require drug therapy, support and encouragement for specialist mental-health services and general practitioners to initiate and participate in education and guidance with regard to their drug therapy (as appropriate), in order to promote a sense of culturally appropriate partnership towards adherence and the achievement of therapeutic outcomes; and
4. support and encouragement for specialist mental-health services, primary-care services and general health services to respond to reductions in risk and protective factors and to early warning signs and symptoms; strong collaboration between government, non-health services and volunteer groups who provide strong support and friendship networks to asylum seekers.

More than this, it requires the government telling asylum seekers what this announcement actually means and how they can activate whatever benefits are possible. There needs to be clarification – urgently – on what is being offered here, how it can be actioned, and by who.

Long after the eye-catching headlines fade, we will need a dedicated team of immigration officials who are clear about what applies and who can communicate that information to refugees with clarity and certainty. 

This is about developing trust through appropriate and timely information transfer, with careful consideration being given to privacy principals.

Trust is a fundamental requirement for mental stability – now more than ever, TPV holders will need a trust guarantee, so that they can set about living useful, fruitful and hopefully happy lives in their new homeland.

If TPV holders, already disoriented by trauma, sometimes years of detention and then the relentless insecurity of temporary status in Australia, find that once again they are facing mixed messages, it will be disastrous.