A report on the Houston Report

Another unstated matter is what procedures and law will apply in Nauru.  Currently the IMA caseload is covered by the same legal tests as those seeking asylum after arriving by air.  The process used by UNHCR varies from country to country and generally is far less procedurally fair, and in a number of elements positively unfair.  Is it proposed to introduce a procedurally unfair process for people in Nauru, or will they get the benefit of procedural fairness as currently happens?

The family reunion issue was not fully set out in the report and it seems to have been not fully understood by the authors.   Any citizen or permanent resident can sponsor a partner and dependent children under the family migration program.   The main issue with these visas are the cost (currently $2060) and processing time.  Also, under the family program the sponsored partner and any children will not get settlement benefits such as free English classes and settelmetn assistance..   Whilst there is a figure for the family migration program each year, the partner visa is not ‘capped’ like the refugee program. 

Protection visa holders are able to apply to sponsor their spouse and dependent children under the humanitarian program which avoids paying the $2060 fee and they have access settlement services and English classes if needed.  A practical problem is that the larger numbers coming as refugees means fewer places for family reunion so the processing time for these cases has significantly blown out to several years.  The Report recommends that those who came as IMAs should not have access to this program as a way of reducing pressure on the humanitarian family reunion caseload. 

A significant number of people have already decided the delays are too long and have lodged under the family program already, which means that unless resources are moved to assess the cases in Amman, Dubai, Colombo, Tehran and Islamabad, the family migration program processing will blow out.

Another issue not really addressed is that of unaccompanied minors (UAM).  There are a few references in the Report to ‘vulnerable persons’ but does this mean that UAMs will be sent to Nauru and PNG, and if so, who are their guardians?  Currently the Immigration Minister is their Guardian and this was an issue raised in 2011 in the M70 case in the High Court which effectively ruled out the Malaysian plan.

The Malaysian plan is not ruled out but it is suggested that it be reworked as part of the general strategy of deterrence. 

One of the major causes of delays now faced by applicants whether in Australia, on Christmas Island or in Jordan is the slow process of security checks by ASIO.  Whilst this is not mentioned in the report given the limited terms of reference, it does slow down the process so much that people can be waiting more than 1-2 years after lodging a case for their security check to be finalised.  This has flow on consequences in family reunion and in some cases, means that children are no longer considered dependent because the process took so long.  Whilst there needs to be security checks, why they are taking so long is a mystery.

Overall, the report endorses a harsh policy for dealing with asylum seekers.  There are proposals which may slow or even stop the boats, but there are greater needs of addressing protection for those forcibly displaced generally.   The Report discusses the need for regional solutions but this is nothing new.  The Comprehensive Plan of Action in the 1980s was a ‘regional solution’ for the Vietnamese and Cambodian boat people, but since then there have been no serious efforts at regional solutions.  Whilst we fret over a caseload of 2.5% of the world’s asylum applications, most refugees will live in non-convention countries, in uncertain and sometimes unsafe circumstances, hoping and searching for their solution.