8th August 2019
Dear Mr Conaghan,
You will be aware, I’m sure, that some one thousand refugees and their
friends recently held a demonstration outside parliament.
These people have been accepted by Australia as genuine refugees who
cannot return to their countries of origin because they have a well-founded
fear of persecution or worse. After all the trauma that they have suffered,
they need now to rebuild their lives in Australia. Sadly, the current
government policy of issuing these genuine refugees with Temporary Protection
Visas (TPVs) or Safe Haven Enterprise Visas (SHEVs), rather than permanent
protection, makes it very difficult indeed for them to get on with their lives.
Many of these refugees are separated from their families, and haven’t
seen their loved ones for years, but these temporary visas do not permit their
families to join them. Without the express permission of the Australian
government, they are not permitted to travel overseas to third countries where
they could at least meet up with family members. Every three years (TPVs) or
five years (SHEVs) they have to reapply for protection, meaning that their
lives are full of uncertainty. Just imagine a female refugee being forced to
relive her story of sexual violence at the hands of militias, to a complete
stranger, often male, through an interpreter. Why do we need to punish and
humiliate people in this way?
And what about their children, as they approach university age? Their
temporary visa means that they are not able to access the student loans scheme (HECS),
but are required to pay the full overseas student fee, which is completely
beyond the capacity of almost every refugee family.
It should be abundantly clear that these temporary visas serve no good
purpose, and that they inflict great harm. It need not be like this. It has not
always been like this. Other developed countries treat their refugees
with compassion, regarding them as an asset rather than a burden. With the
federal election now behind us, this is surely an opportune moment to right
this wrong and to put this punitive and unnecessary policy behind us. I
request that you raise these matters with the Department of Home Affairs, and
that you advocate for a change of policy, namely the reintroduction of
permanent protection for those whose claim for protection has been approved.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
M