8 Jul 2013

Refugees Suffer In The Community Too

By Jess Rosenberg

Unless they're able to work, asylum seekers in community processing are some of the most vulnerable people in the country, according to a new Red Cross report. Jess Rosenberg reports

Asylum Seekers living in the community on bridging visas are among Australia’s most destitute and impoverished people, according to a new report from the Australian Red Cross.

The inaugural Vulnerability Report was launched at Parliament House on 26 June and highlights the difficult living conditions faced by asylum seekers on bridging visas who are being processed in the community. The case studies are consistently grim: “[F]our of us are living in the same room … we don’t have much money left after we pay for food or clothes or transport … we can’t afford food,” writes one unnamed asylum seeker.

Australia is currently struggling to respond to the political and financial implications of increasing asylum seeker arrivals. Immigration detention centres are at capacity and they are a drain on the public purse, costing $772.17 million to operate over the 2010-2011 financial year, according to a March 2012 report from the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network.

Community-based processing is 90 per cent cheaper than immigration detention facilities (IDFs), according to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre. The Department of Immigration continues to rapidly expand this program. Since 25 November 2011, 19,284 boat arrivals have been granted bridging visas, a spokesman for the department told NM. There is an important distinction between community-based processing and community detention. In community detention, asylum seekers live in a department-approved detention facility. Asylum seekers in community-based processing are granted a minimal living allowance and make their own arrangements in the community.

Once in the community, bridging visa holders are referred by the department to external service providers for health and welfare support. With an initial grant of six weeks on a transitional support program, individuals and families must negotiate survival in the community. They receive payments that amount to 89 per cent of the Department of Human Services' Special Benefit payment or Newstart – less than $500 a fortnight.

The case studies in the Red Cross report are telling: “After paying the rent, we have $35 left for two weeks…we are eating noodles and eggs … normally one meal a day…” Families have to budget on this basic living allowance, ensuring their payments cover rent, food, transport, clothing, medication and other basics.

One family recently released into the community found it impossible to pay $5.90 for their child’s medication. They told the author of the report they would see the week out with only bread and jam for the children. The cost of living has led many to turn to local charity or support groups for the basics, such as food and warm clothing, and homelessness is a constant risk.

Without work rights, these families are unable to improve their situation, trapping them in a world of poverty, destitution and declining mental health. Unable to work or to afford the travel costs associated with public transport to and from community organisations, many remain isolated within their homes. Homelessness, poverty, hunger and illness are increasingly prevalent.

How did this situation arise? On 7 May 2013, then Immigration Minister Brendan O’Connor announced families would be released from immigration detention on to bridging bisas in the community. The “No Advantage” principle would still apply for all who arrived in Australia after 13 August 2012.

“No Advantage” has left many asylum seekers without work rights, unable to have their protection claims processed or have their families join them through a “Split Family” visa pathway if they are deemed to be a genuine refugee. Advocacy groups like the Refugee Action Coalition say the fear of permanent separation from their families may be responsible for the increase in women and children boarding boats to Australia in search of asylum. As the boats have not stopped, the department has had to rethink community processing for all asylum seekers, regardless of age or gender.

Dr Graham Thom, board member of the Asylum Seekers Centre in Sydney, told New Matilda he is “seeing a significant increase in homelessness” since the introduction of families and children into community processing. With the first groups of families and children entering the community on bridging visas in mid-May, only two weeks after the Immigration Minister’s announcement, service providers were unprepared.

The sector, “already stretched to the limit”, in Thom’s words, has had to fill the gaps. Heading in to the coldest weeks of winter, asylum seekers in the community continue to battle without appropriate clothing, bedding or resources.

Previously, all families were released from detention centres into community detention. The asylum seekers were housed within the community, and able to access community services, but because they were essentially still “in detention” they didn't pay rent or bills, nor were they expected to source their own accommodation.

“The Department [of Immigration and Citizenship] took a certain level of duty of care [in community detention]”, Thom says, by recognising the unique needs of families, and ensuring a basic standard of living was met. This duty of care has not been mirrored community-based processing. While the move to the community has been difficult for single men, “for families … it is even worse”.

The Red Cross report recommends the federal government rethink the living allowance afforded to community-based asylum seekers, proposing it be “commensurate with their needs and … no less than that provided to other people with similar needs in the Australian community.”

The first groups of families released on to bridging visas are nearing the end of their six week transitional support period. Homelessness is a real risk. One caseworker told NM about a single mother who spent a large portion of her living allowance on transport to and from unsuccessful house inspections.

A $300 per week, one bedroom apartment in the Western Sydney suburbs, will still leave them less than $10 a day to survive. The mother continues to submit unsuccessful rental applications, with one agent rejecting them due to concerns their living allowance could barely cover the rent.

Advocacy groups are worried. “If you’re going to release people in to the community, it has to be with appropriate supports and work rights…[otherwise] you’re heaping misery on top of a group who have already fled horrific circumstances,” Thom says. These families have the added stress of an uncertain future, and the inability to work to help support their everyday costs.

Advocates have always argued community processing, rather than mandatory detention, is the more humane way to respond to Australia’s asylum seekers. Yet community processing alone will not address concerns of inhumanity in asylum seeker processing policy unless the program includes appropriate living conditions.

Log in or register to post comments

Discuss this article

To control your subscriptions to discussions you participate in go to your Account Settings preferences and click the Subscriptions tab.

Enter your comments here

phoneyid
Posted Monday, July 8, 2013 - 22:49

Is that Arabic writing I see on the back of the "Australia by boat" NO ADVANTAGE" 'travel brochure'.
Clearly then there's no difficulty in seeing a correlation between preferred travel method by those seeking asylum, and their place of origin.

Bearing no ill will to these asylum seekers and not denying an obligation to at least provide basic food and medicine as we do for paedophiles in our custody; would it be unreasonable as a citizen of Australia to demand that attention be placed on determining if there's a causality between asylum seekers and place of origin.

Jess Rosenberg, you've evidently done some casual work for Red cross written other articles, and also personally made some observations in Israel.
Is it yours or Red Cross's observation that the asylum seeker "problem" [as seen by some or many Australians] is in some way caused by the foreign policies of our Gov "in tune with" those of our allies who are in turn influenced by a minority in our nations as typified by the USA "NeoConservatives" with ideologues like the Zionist PNAC.
Have "we" perhaps been engaged in economic and military actions against these very nations from where we now see "asylum seekers" departing, and have we seen this caused with the greater push for these actions coming from a minority Zionist group.
Does the Red Cross speak to these questions or only recommend band aids with it's strong political voice and ask that we the masses pay?

Jess Rosenberg
Posted Tuesday, July 9, 2013 - 10:46

Hi there,

Just to clarify, the views expressed in this article are entirely my own.

All evidence provided throughout the article can be found in the public space.

asti
Posted Tuesday, July 9, 2013 - 22:51

Jess, could you plkease clarify - the allowance of less than $500 per fortnight - is that for one person, or for a family?  What is the amount per person?

Thanks

Betty
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 00:52

The Government should look at how the influx of displaced persons were dealt with Post WWII. They were sent to work for 2 years where work was needed doing the jobs that were available. If Asylum Seekers were sent out like that ASIO could get on with checking, knowing where they were. Given a choice of being held in detention centres or going out to work and being paid, I know which they would prefer. It is one way to avoid an enormous back log. It also speeds up integration, both for the AS's and Australians with whom they work. At the end of the two years contract, they can then go and do what they choose, if they have been found suitable to become Australians.

Where I was nursing we had two Doctors from Estonia, husband and wife, who cleaned the hospital floors. At the end of the two year time they could have done exams to qualify them both to practice in Australia if they wantedt that. Like Asylum Seekers they were just glad to be out of the war zone, as Asylum Seekers are too.

EarthFan
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 19:16

If asylum seekers are going to be allowed to compete with our own low-skilled workers, it should be in remote areas. They should not be allowed to gravitate to the cities - ever.

phoneyid
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 20:14

EarthFan; How do you feel about the "careless" manner by which we [using falsehoods] went into the countries or attacked economically; the countries of Arab speakers to whom this 'brochure' is directed.
Would you acknowledge that we've contributed in any way to the ills from which they're leaving; and if so; are you in any way "sorry" with a "sorrow" heart felt enough to offer some sort of recompense by way of generosity above that which any nation is obligated to under international refugee conventions.

phoneyid
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 20:28

I ask you as an Australian that I presume you are, because Jess Rosenberg and Red Cross don't seem concerned with asking who may have contributed to causing this outflow from those nations, they only seem to ask that we extend services at our tax expense.
As an Australian asked to pay by "refugee advocates", and to continue to pay as they keep coming, I think I'm entitled to an answer from those that ask that we pay. Advocates, "philanthropic" organisations, NGO's and Journalists alike.
Otherwise, how do we know that our efforts won't be an increasing struggle to fix something which we might prevent from starting in the first place; don't you think?

phoneyid
Posted Wednesday, July 10, 2013 - 23:07

Surely those that suggest to us measures by which we can address the problems around refugees, have a social and moral obligation to air the thought processes by which they determine that 'band aids' are the best policy to adopt.

Why should we listen to those people at all if they offer no information to suggest that they've given due consideration to the problem.

Absent due consideration of any reasonably expected pressures creating refugees; recommendations on that basis are ill-considered or flippant fixing nothing and even show a careless disregard.

Red Cross particularly with it's high public voice, among others, have a moral and social obligation to speak to these pressures instead of just pussy footing around a catastrophe.

Jess Rosenberg
Posted Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 21:38

Hi Asti-

 

Apologies for the delay. The $500 per fortnight is the payment single asylum seekers are eligible for under certain schemes funded by the Department.

These figures are based on the Centrelink models- asylum seekers are eligible for 89% of these payments.