summary report 2016 refugee resettlement quota review

SUMMARY REPORT 2016 REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT QUOTA REVIEW

OUR VOICES © Amnesty International / Parisa Taghizadeh

AFGHAN REFUGEE COMMUNITY

ORGANISATIONS, INSTITUTIONS AND COMMUNITIES WHO CONTRIBUTED TO OUR VOICES

KIWIS ON BOARD

NZ NATIONAL REFUGEE NETWORK

REFUGEE SECTOR STRATEGIC ALLIANCE

NEW ZEALAND TAMIL SOCIETY

SRI LANKAN REFUGEE COMMUNITY

ERITREAN REFUGEE COMMUNITY

Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand

and Polynesia

New Zealand National Myanmar Ethnics Council

Wellington Family Reunification Trust

TOTAL NUMBER OF SUBMISSIONS: 765INDIVIDUAL SUBMISSIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: 738

Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley Doing Our Bit

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................4

2. IBRAHIM’S STORY................................................................................................................................5

3. OUR VOICES PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS...................................................................................6

4. NEW ZEALAND’S ANNUAL REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT QUOTA.................................................................7a. Increasing the quota and corresponding resources.............................................7b. Further adjustments to the quota..............................................................................8

5. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF LIFTING THE QUOTA..................................................................................9a. International burden-sharing in times of crisis.....................................................9b. Three decades of stagnation......................................................................................10c. Reputation and identity...............................................................................................10 d. Economicbenefitsandcapacity..............................................................................11e. Groundswell of public support..................................................................................12

6. GOING BEYOND A QUOTA INCREASE...................................................................................................13a. Familyreunification......................................................................................................13b. Alternative pathways to resettlement.....................................................................13c. Foreign policy and humanitarian aid.....................................................................14

APPENDIXa. Panel Members.........................................................................................................................15

CONTENTS

A young refugee on the island of Kos © Amnesty International

NZ NATIONAL REFUGEE NETWORK

NEW ZEALAND TAMIL SOCIETY

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / RECOMMENDATIONS

In December 2015, Amnesty International initiated a public submission process entitled Our Voices. This process allowed ordinary New Zealanders and community organisations working with former refugees to have their say on the country’s refugee resettlement quota.

Based on more than 750 submissions received from a diverse range of people and a full day of pub-lic hearings held at Parliament on 15 February 2016, it is safe to say there is huge public interest in seeingNewZealand’srefugeequotapermanently–andsignificantly–increased.

The key message received from citizens, service providers, non-governmental organisations, local government, faith communities and former refugees themselves was that a refugee policy set nearly 30 years ago is out of step with today’s needs. As the world has changed dramatically, the New Zealand government should ask itself not how little but how much it can do to support those in need of safety and protection.

Refugee resettlement in New Zealand has seen great successes and is a model that is ready to be scaled-up, according to the people who deliver the services. Thousands of citizens across the country are also willing to lift their commitment and help to ensure positive settlement outcomes.

Amnesty International strongly encourages the New Zealand government to listen to Our Voices and consider implementing the following recommendations:

Permanently increase, preferably by at least double, the annual refugee resettlement quota at the upcoming Cabinet review.

Significantlyincreasefundingtoensureserviceprovidersareabletoadequatelysupportrefugees.

Permanently peg New Zealand’s resettlement quota minimum increase to population growth.

Remove overly restrictive quota requirements for refugees from Africa and the Middle East, and ensure the quota composition is in line with needs prioritised by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Expand New Zealand’s Refugee Family Support Category to 600 places a year and con-siderrelaxingeligibilitycriteriainboththeRefugeeQuotaFamilyReunificationCategoryand usual family policy.

Provide alternative legal avenues for populations at risk in addition to the quota, includ-ing provisions for community-based private sponsorship, academic scholarships and labour mobility schemes.

Use the opportunity of New Zealand’s membership of the UN Security Council to pro-motepeacefulsolutionstoconflictandtheprotectionofciviliansfromcrimesunderinternational law.

Use New Zealand’s diplomatic and aid channels to ease the plight of displaced persons, particularlyinSyria’sneighbouringcountriesandtheAsia-Pacific.

OUR VOICES SUMMARY PAPER ON THE REFUGEE QUOTA 20164 OUR VOICES

Ibrahim Omer is a former refugee from Eritrea. He arrived in New Zealand in 2008 through the refugee quota. New Zealand isn’t where Ibrahim’s story ends, but it is where it changes - for the better.

Asateenager,Ibrahimwasforcedtofleehishome,escaping a repressive regime, the potential to end up a child soldier or face prison for refusing nation-al service, which is both compulsory and endless.

“There was a shoot to kill policy on the border by the regime, I had very limited options, either to be shot, or get arrested and spend years in under-ground or metal shipping containers, or make it safe to Sudan,” said Ibrahim.

Speaking at the Public Hearing of Our Voices at Parliament on 15 February Ibrahim said he want-ed to tell his story to give those listening some idea why people choose to leave their country, why millions of people take the deadly risks, why they put their loved ones in danger of drowning in the oceans,orfallingpreytogreedyhumantraffickers.

“The answer is because they run out of options, because they would rather die trying than dying a slow and painful death.”

Ibrahim was lucky he made it to Sudan, but safety wasn’t guaranteed and he faced the very real prospect of being deported back to Eritrea until the UNHCR intervened and referred his case onto third countries for resettlement.

“It was at this crucial moment of my life New Zealand came asking for any special cases, luckily I got accepted, that was the day that changed my life. If it wasn’t for this wonderful country I would be languishing somewhere in an underground prison in a desert,” said Ibrahim.

Today, he said he couldn’t be happier, couldn’t be more proud. As a third year student at Victoria University he is working hard to give back to the country that gave him a second chance.

But he also makes a special plea to the government of New Zealand:

“As a former refugee who got the second chance in this beautiful country, I would like to add my voice to the thousands of Kiwis across the country who are calling on our Government to double the refugee quota.”

OUR VOICES SUMMARY ON THE REFUGEE QUOTA 2016

2. IBRAHIM’S STORY

“...luckily I got accepted, that was the day that changed my life. If it wasn’t for this wonderful country I would be languishing somewhere in an underground prison in a desert.” - Ibrahim Omer, former refugee from Eritrea and student at Victoria University.

5 OUR VOICES

© Amnesty International

On 10 December 2015, Amnesty International set up a process entitled Our Voices (ourvoices.org.nz) allow-ing the New Zealand public to have their voices heard on New Zealand’s annual refugee resettlement quota (the quota). As Cabinet is due to review the quota this year, Amnesty International considered it crucial for Cabinet to hear directly from the community and therefore felt it important that a platform was provided for interested parties to contribute their thoughts and expertise.

Our Voices received 765 submissions in total, indicating a high level of public interest in Cabinet’s upcom-ing decision on the quota. Of these, 738 were from ordinary citizens and 27 were from organisations repre-senting hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in total.

On 15 February, a public hearing event was held at Parliament, allowing a selection of submitters from New Zealand Red Cross, Oxfam New Zealand, Caritas and other organisations along with service providers, church leaders, local government and former refugees to present and discuss their views. A panel of experts chaired by former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan guided the discussions.1 The event was hosted by Hon Peter Dunne MP.

All participants valued the opportunity to come to Parliament and express themselves on this crucial issue. Nearly every submitter provided moving personal testimonies of the plight and hopes of refugees and asylum seekers. Hon Peter Dunne welcomed the submission process as an “important contribution to informed decision-making” and stressed the importance of community engagement; listening to those with first-handexperienceworkingfor–andwith–formerrefugees.

This summary report aims to provide an overview of recurring themes and messages included throughout the submission process. It contains a wide range of practical recommendations for Cabinet to consider ahead of its decision on the quota. For any further information or discussion of this paper, please contact [email protected].

1 See appendix for a list of panellists

3. OUR VOICES PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCESS

“When so many people are forced to flee their homes, how can we possibly stand by and not help? There are people here in New Zealand willing to open their hearts and homes to support those who are most in need, and by raising the quota you give us that chance.” - Susan Durcan, Auckland

OUR VOICES SUMMARY PAPER ON THE REFUGEE QUOTA 2016

The Panel at the Public Hearing © Amnesty International

6 OUR VOICES


New Zealand is one of 145 countries that are signatories to the 1951 United Nations Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. It acceded to the Convention in 1960 and has historically been a strong defender of it. An annual resettlement quota was established in 1987, originally allowing 800 refugeesidentifiedbyUNHCRtoberesettledinNewZealand.Thisquotadecreasedby50placesin1997,and until this day it stands at just 750 a year.

Submitters overwhelmingly commended the New Zealand government for its commitment to welcoming refugees and supporting services to assist with their resettlement. It was repeatedly highlighted that resettle-mentisa“lifeline”,ameasureofprotectionthatmakesalife-changingdifferencetothosefleeingwarandpersecution.Severalformerrefugeestoldofthehorrorstheyhadfacedinfleeingtheirhomecountriesandthe gratitude they felt for being able to start a new life in a safe and peaceful country. As such, the recent government announcement that an additional 600 Syrian refugees would be resettled over and above the annual quota was greatly welcomed.

Simultaneously,therewasafirmbeliefthatNewZealand’scontributiontoglobalresettlementisinadequate.The annual refugee quota of 750 places was described by some submitters as “completely out of step with current needs”, “pathetic” and “shameful”. New Zealand was labelled a “laggard”, its inaction effectively contributingtotheinternationallackofsafeandlegaloptionsforpeoplefleeingwarandpersecution.

There was an almost unanimous call from submitters for a decision by Cabinet to permanently increase New Zealand’srefugeequota.Whilesomecalledforasignificantincrease,morethan40%urgedGovernmenttoat least double the quota from its current intake of 750 to 1500 refugees a year. Many emphasised that lift-ing New Zealand’s quota must only be the beginning of a longer and comprehensive process of strengthening the country’s commitment to protecting refugees.

4. NEW ZEALAND’S ANNUAL RESETTLEMENT QUOTA

“Where is our heart, courage, compassion and commitment to these people who are suffering trauma, bereavement, grief, and loss of hope?”

- Jennifer Campbell, Mossburn

There was general praise for New Zealand’s commitment to resettling former refugees and providing them with meaningful support. Consequently, many suggestions were made as to how this commitment could be strengthened. With regards to the annual quota, there was consensus that the current number of 750 places a year is too low; while the quality of services is good, New Zealand is simply not helping enough people. Submitterscalledforasignificantincreaseinnumbersaswellasincorrespondingresourcestoensureposi-tive settlement outcomes.

It was further suggested to peg the quota to New Zealand’s population growth, bring it closer in line with needs determined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), remove overly restric-tiverequirementsforrefugeesfromAfricaandtheMiddleEast,retainthe10%plus/minusmargintoaddress practicalities as they arise, and remain open to emergency intakes over and above the quota.

A. INCREASING THE QUOTA AND CORRESPONDING RESOURCES

“I would like to see New Zealand double its refugee quota. We also need to increase the resources needed to look after them on arrival.”

- Robert Consedine, Christchurch

7 OUR VOICES

Concerns were raised by a number of submitters whetherasudden,significantquotaincreasecouldbe dealt with successfully. These concerns are particularly relevant as a number of former refugees underlined that life as a newcomer to New Zealand is far from easy. On a near-daily basis, former ref-ugees face challenges and barriers to successful integration, including isolation, discrimination and open racism. For example, panelist Abann Yor from Auckland Refugee Community Coalition under-scoredhowdifficultitisforformerrefugeestofindemployment due to their assumed “lack of experi-ence”. As such, most submitters agreed that any quota increase must be matched with corresponding investments into service support for refugees. Proper support, e.g. relating to education, employment and health, including mental health, is vital to ensure that former refugees establish themselves well in New Zealand.

New Zealand Red Cross, New Zealand’s lead provider of the community refugee resettlement programme,alsoconfirmedthereisariskofoverbur-dening the sector if the quota increase did happen too quickly. However, Red Cross – and many oth-ers–wereconfidentthesectorcouldcopewithasignificantquotaincrease,provideditiscarriedoutincrementallyoverthe2016-19periodwithsuffi-cient resource support. The level of quality services

currently provided could easily be retained and extended assuming an appropriate increase in sector funding, including for community organisations, service providers and the Refugee Quota Branch of Immigration New Zealand. Some organisations called for the doubling of sector funding, others for more than that. There was also an acknowledgement that further investigation is needed into the resourc-ingandsupportthatrefugeesreceiveaftertheirfirstyear in New Zealand.

B. FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE QUOTA

In addition to a permanent increase, further recommendations were made with regards to adjusting New Zealand’s refugee quota. For instance, several submitters demanded a tying of the quota to New Zealand’s population growth. This would ensure that at subsequent reviews the quota would automatically adapt to broader population trends and debates over numbers would be taken out of the political realm.

It was also suggested to align New Zealand’s quota more closely with United Nations priorities. New Zea-land Red Cross, among others, argued that the composition of the quota should be determined based on humanitarianneedsidentifiedbytheUNHCRratherthanformerrefugee’seaseofintegrationorprospectsofeconomiccontribution(asiscurrentlythecase).Africaisidentifiedastheregionwherehalfofallrefugeesgloballyinneedofresettlementlive,yetonly11%ofplacesunderNewZealand’squotawereallocatedtorefugees from Africa in 2014-15.2 It was recommended to remove New Zealand’s overly restrictive family linkrequirementforrefugeesfromAfricaandtheMiddleEastastheUNHCRstrugglestofindindividualswho meet this criteria.

Finally, several submitters encouraged the New Zealand government to closely monitor global displacement trends and, when the urgent need arises, accept refugees outside and above the quota. It was stressed that intimesofcrisiscountrieslikeNewZealandmustbeflexible,pragmaticandconsideralloptionsavailabletohelp. On that note, Caritas, ChangeMakers Refugee Forum and others called for an extraordinary allocation of places outside the quota for “transferees” from Australian asylum seeker detention centres.

“Let’s do our bit and double the 750 quota to 1500 places. And let’s make sure this issue doesn’t have to be argued with politicians in the future again. Let’s require Immigration NZ to factor in populations growth to every subsequent review of the quota. It’s only fair.”

- Murdoch Stephens, Doing Our Bit

8 OUR VOICES OUR VOICES SUMMARY PAPER ON THE REFUGEE QUOTA 2016

Rachel O’Connor from the New Zealand Red Cross addresses the panel. © Amnesty International

2 Refugee Quota Programme 2013/14 to 2015/16 available from http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/CF5E3B7D-28F7-4778-BFD6-

46F62984A48C/0/RefugeeQuotaProgramme20122013to20152016.pdf

Rachel O’Connor from the New Zealand Red Cross addresses the panel. © Amnesty International


The most common argument offered as to why New Zealand should lift its quota was the sheer scale of the current global displacement crisis. It was repeatedly emphasised that every country had to step up and do its best to alleviate the suffering of millions of individuals currently uprooted from their homes.

As highlighted by the research of organisations such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, Tearfund and others, the world is facing a humanitarian catastrophe of vast proportions. Since 1987 when New Zealand’s quotawasfirstestablished,thenumberofpeopleforcefullydisplacedhasmorethanquadrupled;itcurrently stands at 60 million, of which more than 20 million are refugees outside their home countries.3 Thisislargelyaconsequenceofsystematicandwidespreadatrocitiesinconflictaswellasappallinghumanrights abuses in a range of repressive countries. The daunting number of displaced persons is unlikely to go downanytimesoonduetotheprotractednatureofconflictsinplaceslikeSyria,Yemen,Iraq,Afghanistan,Libya, Sudan, DR Congo and Nigeria.

5. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF RAISING THE QUOTA

A variety of compelling arguments were provided as to why New Zealand should permanently increase its refugee resettlement quota. These included stepping up in times of unprecedented humanitarian crisis, upholding New Zealand’s reputation as a good global citizen, making up for three decades of stagnation, capitalising on the economic opportunities resettlement brings and building on the huge groundswell of domestic support for refugees.

A. INTERNATIONAL BURDEN-SHARING IN TIMES OF CRISIS

“I would like to live in a New Zealand that is connected globally, acts locally. (…) I would like to live in a New Zealand that shares the burden of the refugee crisis because we believe in the rights of humankind to safety and well-being. I urge my Government to increase its refugee quota and to be a beacon of light in an interdependent world.” - Cathy Buntting, Taupo

Refugees in Beli Manastir, Croatia, 10 km away from the border with Hungary, conditions were humiliating, people weren’t given any food or drink and temperatures were unberable - September 2015. © Attila Husejnow

9 OUR VOICES

3 UNHCR Mid-year trends 2015, December 2015 available at http://www.unhcr.org/56701b969.html

Increasing New Zealand’s quota would be a signal of support to both refugee populations and ‘frontline’ countries, including members of the OECD, who have experienced massive increases in refugee arrivals over the past year and have had no choice but to respond because of their proximity to the crises. Currently, the responsibilityfordealingwiththiscrisisliesdisproportionatelywiththepoorercountriesintheworld:86%of the world’s refugees are hosted in developing countries.4 Lebanon, for example, a country with roughly the same population as New Zealand, hosts more than one million refugees at present. For the sake of main-taining international stability, New Zealand should share a greater part of this challenge and contribute to easing the strain on poorer host countries.

A further argument repeatedly stated was that increasing the quota should not only be considered an urgent response to crisis but a way of making up for three decades of stagnation.

New Zealand is currently welcoming less people in need of protection than 29 years ago. Its quota has not increasedsinceitwasfirstestablishedin1987despiteapopulationincreaseofmorethan40%inthesameperiod. The number of asylum seekers applying for refugee status in New Zealand has also drastically gone down since 2001 due to advanced passenger processing and tighter border restrictions.5 In the 2014 calendar year, only 78 people successfully claimed asylum in New Zealand.6

As such, increasing the quota to 1500 refugees a year can be described as a step long overdue that would merely take back New Zealand to what it has done in the past. Even if the quota was doubled, New Zealand wouldstillsignificantlylagbehindcomparablepeers,includingAustraliaandCanada.Australiacurrentlyacceptsfivetimesmorerefugees,Canada14times,Sweden47timesmoreonapercapitabasis.ArchbishopPhilipRichardsonwasclearinhisassessmentofthesefigures;heemphasisedthat“theybringus nothing but shame.”

“Our refugee quota has stayed the same since 1987, although our overall population has grown by over a million people. It does rather suggest we are not doing our fair share.” - Celia Wade Brown, Mayor of Wellington

“New Zealand likes to think of itself as a good global citizen (…) but with its contribution falling steadily over the years that’s starting to ring a little hollow.” - Grant Bayldon, Executive Director of Amnesty International New Zealand


4 UNHCR Key Facts available at http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html

5 The UNHCR recorded 1,917 asylum seekers in New Zealand in 2001 http://www.unhcr.org/414ad59e0.html and only 251 asylum seekers as at June 2015 http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e488b36.html.

6 From Immigration New Zealand - http://www.immigration.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/00CBC69E-AB63-4C2A-876C-6A1BE7AFA2E8/0/RSBRefugeeandProtectionStatPak.pdf

Outside Akçakale refugee camp 3. © Amnesty International

B. THREE DECADES OF STAGNATION

C. REPUTATION AND IDENTITY

ConnectedtothefirsttwoargumentswasthewidespreadbeliefthatNewZealand’smeagrecontributionto resettling refugees is slowly eroding the country’s reputation and standing in the international commu-nity. Many submitters urged the need for New Zealand to step up if it is to remain a credible player on the international stage, living up to common myths such as New Zealand ‘punching above its weight’, ‘placing humanitarianvaluesfirst’and‘givingeveryoneafairgo’.Itwashighlightedthatcredibilityiscrucial,espe-cially in times of New Zealand being a non-permanent member on the UN Security Council and the country preparing to chair the 2017 UNHCR Annual Tripartite Consultations on Resettlement. Raising the quota now would give New Zealand a far higher moral ground at these fora.

It was also stressed that as a country with a heritage of former migrants joining Tangata Whenua, New Zealand has a record of providing a haven to those in need. Many New Zealanders have family histories that trace back to the slums of Edinburgh or the Irish famine. As such, it is in our background to extend pro-tectiontothosefleeingpersecutiontoday.NewZealand’ssuccessinresettlingcommunitiessuchastheHungarian, Vietnamese and Cambodian ones, or New Zealand’s proud history of welcoming Polish refugee children in 1944, should serve as an impetus to intensify the country’s resettlement efforts.

Submitters did not tire of underscoring that New Zealandbenefitsenormouslyfromresettlingrefu-gees. Many stated that refugees not only make New Zealand a richer and more diverse place to live but alsosignificantlycontributetoNewZealand’spros-perity if they’re given a warm welcome and appro-priate support. While the quota is humanitarian in nature and many refugees may initially need assis-tance to overcome their trauma and challenges, most do become productive, creative, committed mem-bers of society in the long-term. As such, resettling refugees should not be seen as a burden but rather as an investment in the future of New Zealand, an opportunity to stimulate and diversify the country’s economy. Hon Peter Dunne seconded these views; every refugee family he had dealt with in the past had settled well and given back far more than origi-nally taken. These opportunities should be taken very seriously given that many local government councils across New Zealand were supportive of doubling the quota and many have been calling for more refugees to help address skill shortages. While economic arguments are certainly important, many submitters felt the need to highlight that New Zealand does not have a refugee quota simply because refugees are hard-working individuals with the potential of having a net positive effect on the economy. Rather, the quota is a humanitarian instru-ment to protect some of the most vulnerable people on earth and give them a chance to restart their lives

in dignity. Most submitters argued that New Zealand, asoneofthemostaffluentandprosperousnationsin the world, could easily afford to step up and ‘give’ rather than ‘take’. Indeed, New Zealand is a strong economic performer, has one of the highest living standards in the world, and as such does not lack the capacity to extend a hand to more refugees. Finally, it was argued by New Zealand Red Cross that resettling more refugees would create a more consistent level of demand for some specialised services such as English classes and mental health support. This would contribute to achieving econo-mies of scale.

“My point is this: Our capacity to carry more is significant. And that should not be overlooked.” - Hon Peter Dunne MP


Hon Peter Dunne opens the Public Hearing at Parliament on 15 February. © Amnesty International

D. ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND CAPACITY

“Many New Zealanders want to help. Please hear us and increase the number of refugees to New Zealand.”

- Cecilia Johnson, Pukerua Bay

E. GROUNDSWELL OF PUBLIC SUPPORT

One of the key messages standing out throughout the submission process was New Zealanders’ strong desire to practically participate in welcoming more refugees to New Zealand. Thousands of generous people across thecountryareeagertosupportrefugees’settlementandfulfiltheirdutiesasworldcitizens.

New Zealand Red Cross highlighted how over the past year they have been “inundated with offers of sup-port” from citizens all over the country. Church leaders also described the overwhelming feedback they have received from their communities. Despite different backgrounds and political views, church members were united in their willingness to provide assistance, both in terms of personal support (language training, school and employment assistance) and material resources (household items, shelter, food, clothing). Not least, local authorities have ex-pressed their interest in helping more refugees resettle in their areas.7

This corresponds, as mentioned above, with New Zealand Red Cross’ and other organi-sations’confidencethattheycouldrespondeffectively to an increased quota provided it is matched with an appropriate increase in government funding for support services. New Zealand’s Refugee Resettlement Strategy is considered a robust framework, and due to its implementation the sector is widely seen to be in the best place it has been for a long time. With these systems in place, thousands of volunteers to help, and further capacity in sight (for example, the rebuilt Mangere reset-tlement centre in Auckland and Dunedin as a new resettlement location), New Zealand is well-placed to increase its contribution to global refugee resettlement.


7 In October 2015, 28 New Zealand mayors wrote to the Prime Minister calling on New Zealand to double its refugee quota.

12 OUR VOICES

New Zealanders takes part in a vigil outside of Parliament in Wellington in September © Matt Grace

Red Cross Volunteers Holly Shaw and Scarly Kean at a concert by Kiwis on Board in January. © Tracey Barnett and Mattea Mrkusic.

6. GOING BEYOND A QUOTA INCREASE

A large number of submitters considered it essential to highlight that increasing the refugee quota is only one of many pathways available to enable greater entry of refugees to New Zealand. They urged the Govern-ment to consider providing alternative entry routes for populations at risk, all of which should be in addition to an increased resettlement quota. It was further underlined that New Zealand is bound by its international obligations of non-refoulement meaning it is not permitted to return refugees to situations where they would be at risk of human rights violations.

There was also consensus that resettlement is not viable as a single solution to the current global displace-ment crisis. A broader foreign policy and aid approach was demanded, ensuring New Zealand effectively contributestotheprotectionofdisplacedpersonsandcivilianscaughtupinconflict.

A. FAMILY REUNIFICATION

TherewerestrongcallsontheGovernmenttoproactivelyexpanditssupportforfamilyreunification.Sectorexperience tells us that family is one of the key factors contributing to a former refugee’s positive resettle-ment outcome. Many have parents, siblings and children overseas who they have concerns for and wish to be reunitedwith.Theseconcernsaddtotheirisolationandtraumaandmakeitdifficulttosettlewell.

As such, many organisations and individuals recommended expanding New Zealand’s Refugee Family Sup-port Category. Currently offering 300 places, it should be doubled to provide 600 places a year. The Refugee Council New Zealand and others wished to highlight that the application process for this category is extreme-ly complicated, lengthy and expensive. Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley supports many families inthiscomplicatedapplicationprocesswithlittleadditionalresources.Itisverydifficulttosponsorfamilymembers as approved applicants must bear the cost of the application fee, medical examinations and travel to New Zealand.

Otherprocessesforfamilyreunificationareequallylongandfraughtwithuncertainty.Severalcommunityor-ganisationsstressedthateligibilitycriteriainboththeRefugeeQuotaFamilyReunificationCategoryaswellasusualfamilypolicyshouldberelaxed.Inthefirstcategory,manyfeltthatparametersarecurrentlytoonarrow as they only include the sponsor’s spouse, dependent child(ren) or parent(s), if the sponsor is under 24 of age and single. However, many cultures do not stick to the formal nuclear family model. As such, a number of submitters called on these parameters to be opened wider to include other family members too. Regarding normal family policy, Caritas emphasised that there are a number of families from refugee back-grounds who will meet the general threshold but are unable to meet some of the criteria, for example an offerofemployment.Thesespecificrequirementsshouldbewaived.

B. ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS TO RESETTLEMENT8

A number of organisations suggested making greater provisions for community-based private sponsorship as implemented in countries like Canada and Australia. It was made clear that these alternative forms of humanitarian admission need to be over and above an increase in the refugee quota. This model, which enables individuals, civil society and local authorities to sponsor refugees in addition to the quota, is known to be very effective yet expensive for the private sponsors. Large parts of the costs related to resettlement, reception and integration have to be covered by the sponsor. While the Anglican Church, for example, would

“Over and above that prospective increased quota, we request the Government to provide alternative pathways for refugees and asylum seekers to become legal residents of New Zealand, including community based private sponsorship, (...) extended family reunification schemes, academic scholarships and labour mobility schemes.”

- Archbishop Philip Richardson , Archbishop of NZ Diocese - Anglican Chrurch


8 Alternative pathways for admission are additional mobility routes for refugees that would allow refugees to seek safety but that fall outside the mandate of UNHCR. They are used in situations of exceptional crises to allow for a mass movement of refugees and to expand protection options for refugees. They are not a substitute for resettlement, which targets the most vulnerable refugees, but they allow for the safe transfer of refugees who do not fall within the vulnerability criteria.

support this model, Caritas was very clear in saying that few, if any, Catholic communities would have the means to do this.

Government should consider how these issues can be addressed effectively and refugees coming through thesepathwaysaresufficientlysupportedtorealisetheirhumanrights.Furtheroptionsexploredincludedexpanding academic scholarships and labour mobility schemes. Both options could provide refugees with lawful opportunities to continue their education and pursue employment in New Zealand. They should also be made available over and above an increase in the quota for refugees.


9 UNHCR 2015 Global Appeal Update available at http://www.unhcr.org/5461e5f7a.html.


Many submitters underlined that in addition to increasing the quota New Zealand must pursue a foreign policythataimstopromotepeacefulsolutionstoconflict,respectforinternationalhumanitarianandhu-manrightslaw,aswellastheprotectionofciviliansinarmedconflict.ItwasstressedthatinitsroleontheUN Security Council New Zealand has a unique opportunity to campaign against some of the root causes of displacement, for example the widespread bombardment of civilian homes, hospitals and schools as well as thearbitrarydenialoflife-savingaidinconflict.NewZealandwasencouragedtoprioritisetheprotectionofcivilians from unlawful attacks and aid blockades, and work towards ensuring accountability for these mass atrocity crimes.

ItwasfurtherdemandedthatNewZealandstartsleadingonmattersofrefugeeprotectionintheAsia-Pacificregion. According to the UNHCR, the region is home to 7.7 million people of concern: they include 3.5 mil-lion refugees, 1.9 million internally displaced people (IDPs), and 1.4 million stateless people.9 The majority of countries, including Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, have not signed up to the 1951 Refugee Conven-tion and deny basic protections to refugees and asylum seekers. With life in legal limbo, most refugees are desperatetoseekprotectionelsewhereviadangerousunofficialchannels,ofteninvolvinghumansmugglersandtraffickers.NewZealandshoulduseitsdiplomaticandaidchannelstoimprovetheirsituationontheground, especially as regards ending arbitrary detention, improving access to refugee status determination procedures, and granting refugees the right to work.

SeveralsubmittersalsourgedNewZealandtoreconsideritsaidbudgetandstrengthenfinancialsupporttothe UNHCR as well as those countries in the developing world most affected by the global refugee crisis, including Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. In that regard, New Zealand’s $19 million aid contribution to the Middle East, including support for refugee education in Turkey, was praised.

Last but not least, some contributors also asked that particular consideration be given to developing policy andactionforpeopledisplacedbyclimatechangeinthePacific,asrequestedbytheUNHCR.Majorex-tremeweathereventslinkedtoclimatechange,includingdroughts,floodsandcyclones,arelikelytobecomea key driver of displacement in the future. New Zealand was encouraged to “get ahead of the game” and begin discussions on how to effectively address this issue.

C. FOREIGN POLICY AND HUMANITARIAN AID

Rosslyn Noonan - ChairFormer Chief Human Rights Commissioner, now working as a human rights and organisational de-velopment consultant. Vice-chair of Amnesty International New Zealand’s Governance Team.

Abann YorGeneral Manager of Auckland Refugee Community Coalition. Originally from South Sudan, Abann arrived in New Zealand with his family in 2005 through the refugee resettlement quota.

Daniel GamboaPresident of the New Zealand National Refugee Youth Council. Daniel is a former refugee from Colombia.

Christalin ThangpawlVice-Chairperson of the National Refugee Network, Chairperson of the New Zealand National Myan-mar Ethnics Council (NZNMEC) and Chair of both the Matu Community NZ and Wellington Myan-mar Ethnics Association Inc. Christalin is a former refugee from Myanmar.

Hsu-Ee KhooCommunityLawyer/RōiaHaporiworkingonRefugeeandImmigrationAdviceServiceatCommuni-ty Law Wellington and Hutt Valley.

John O’LoghlenCo-Founder of Beijing gourmet pizza chain Gung Ho! Pizza. John has an interest in human rights and refugee resettlement based on his own family refugee roots in Hungary and travel to over 70 countries.

Dr Kate McMillanSenior Lecturer in Comparative Politics at Victoria University, Wellington.

Jeff ThomasGeneral Manager of Refugee Trauma Recovery, a specialised provider of mental health services to traumatised refugees and torture victims.

APPENDIX

PANELISTS AT SUBMISSION EVENT, 15 FEBRUARY 2016



Vanakkam. My name is Sanujan and I am from Sri Lanka.

In my country there was a huge war and that war forced me and my family to come here. When I was a little boy all the people in my country started migrating to other countries because of the war. The Sri Lankan army bombed everywhere and we did not feel safe in my country so we started moving place but my mum got missed in our journey. When me my dad and my sister were moving there was a big lake with mud and my dad carried me on one side and my sister on the other side.

The army bombed a poison boom in the lake and me and my sister felt dizzy. My dad managed to carry me and my sister across the lake but then the army caught us and they put us in a camp with spiky bar around us. Then we gave the army some jewellery to get out of there. Then we went to a christian father and he helped us to find my mum. We thought that we are not safe here so we plan to go to australia in a boat.

My uncle also came with us in the boat. Then we started moving. When we were traveling the boat stopped working and some people including my dad went to fix the boat after they fixed the boat we started moving again. In the middle of the sea we didn’t know the way to australia and we were in the boat with very little food and very little water for 54 days.

Then we crashed on a Indonesian Island called Panithan Island. After a few days we saw an Indonesian Navy and they came and helped us. The Navy gave us some food and water. The navy took us to the jail. We were in the jail for 3 months and the Indonesian Immigration took us out of the jail and they gave us a home and some money.

After two and half years the New Zealand Government interviewed us and gave us visa and they let us come to New Zealand.

Now we are safe and happy here. I’m sure I will work hard and become a scientist. If our government takes more refuges everyone will be happy.

Thank you.

Submission from Sanujan, former refugee from Sri Lanka. Age 10

© Thapanee Iestrichai

summary report 2016 refugee resettlement quota review

Documents