JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
SUBMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES CONFRONTING WOMEN
AND GIRLS IN THE INDIAN OCEAN-ASIA PACIFIC REGION
The Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) is the national umbrella body for refugees, asylum
seekers and the organisations and individuals who work with them, representing over 170
organisations and 700 individual members. RCOA promotes the adoption of humane, lawful
and constructive policies by governments and communities in Australia and internationally
towards refugees, asylum seekers and humanitarian entrants. RCOA consults regularly with its
members, community leaders and people from refugee backgrounds and this submission is
informed by their views.
RCOA welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback to the Committee on human rights issues
confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region. This submission will focus
on the specific human rights issues affecting refugee and asylum seeking women and girls
residing in the region. The Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region plays host to some of the largest
and longest-standing refugee crises in the world yet standards of protection for people fleeing
persecution often fall well below international benchmarks. RCOA acknowledges that many
states in the region continue to face significant challenges in addressing the basic needs of
their own nationals, which reduces their capacity to provide effective protection and support to
refugees and asylum seekers. However, we also believe that Australia is well-placed to play a
central role in promoting human rights in the region, including protections for people fleeing
persecution, and that such efforts could have particularly significant benefits for refugee
women and girls.
1.
Refugee protection issues in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region
1.1.
The Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region straddles three of the world regions designated
by the United Nations High Commissioner by Refugees (UNHCR): Africa, Asia and
Pacific, and the Middle East and North Africa. These regions play host to some of the
largest and longest-standing refugee crises in the world. Over 90% of the world’s
refugees and almost two-thirds of the world’s asylum seekers originate from countries
in these three regions, while over three-quarters of the world’s refugees and more than
half of the world’s asylum seekers reside in these regions. While the majority of
countries in the Africa and Middle East and North Africa regions do not fall within the
Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region, states bordering the Indian Ocean are among the
most significant countries of origin and asylum for refugees in these two regions.
Suite 4A6, 410 Elizabeth Street
Surry Hills NSW 2010 Australia
Phone: (02) 9211 9333 ● Fax: (02) 9211 9288
[email protected] ● Web: www.refugeecouncil.org.au
Incorporated in ACT ● ABN 87 956 673 083
The Refugee Council of Australia represents
non-government organisations and
individuals working with and for refugees
in Australia and around the world
Table 1: Refugees and asylum seekers by world region, as at June 20131
REGION
Africa
Asia and Pacific
Middle East and
North Africa
Europe
Americas
Various/ Stateless
REFUGEES
PRODUCED
3,705,953
3,852,646
2,574,463
ASYLUM SEEKERS
REFUGEES
PRODUCED
HOSTED
353,802
2,975,277
190,151
3,500,257
78,602
2,208,807
ASYLUM SEEKERS
HOSTED
402,133
84,880
68,375
338,045
494,769
141,866
79,732
37,037
248,131
354,820
77,247
-
1,616,309
807,092
-
Table 2: Major countries of origin for refugees in the Indian OceanOcean-Asia Pacific region
(>25,000
,000 people),
(>25
people), as at June 20131
COUNTRY
Afghanistan
Bhutan
Burma (Myanmar)
China
Ethiopia
Iran
Pakistan
Somalia
Sri Lanka
Vietnam2
REFUGEES
2,552,208
36,506
415,373
191,069
73,926
70,592
46,046
1,130,939
124,438
314,195
ASYLUM SEEKERS
46,051
118
28,245
16,703
41,934
26,967
24,504
30,086
18,056
1,710
TOTAL
2,598,259
36,624
443,618
207,772
115,860
97,559
70,550
1,161,025
142,494
315,905
Table 3: Major countries of asylum for refugees in the Indian OceanOcean-Asia Pacific region
(>25,000
,000 people),
(>25
people), as at June 20131
COUNTRY
Bangladesh
China2
Ethiopia
India
Iran
Kenya
Malaysia
Nepal
Pakistan
South Africa
Tanzania
Thailand
Yemen
REFUGEES
231,138
301,068
407,646
187,024
862,790
550,506
91,398
51,232
1,621,525
65,233
101,946
82,460
240,371
ASYLUM
ASYLUM SEEKERS
8
289
1,371
3,933
17
49,642
14,286
156
4,636
230,442
1,233
13,943
5,745
TOTAL
231,146
301,357
409,017
190,957
862,807
600,148
105,684
51,388
1,626,161
295,675
103,179
96,403
246,116
1.2.
Many refugees in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region reside in camp situations
(notably in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Kenya, Nepal, Tanzania, Thailand and Yemen)
but large numbers also reside in urban areas. While refugees living in urban areas
often have greater freedom of movement and better access to livelihood opportunities,
they may also be at greater risk of harassment (particularly if they lack formal status)
and may have more difficulty accessing services and support.
1.3.
The Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific also plays host to large numbers of stateless people,
with the largest groups including:
• Lhotshampa from Bhutan
• Rohingya from Burma
• Khmer Krom in Cambodia and Vietnam
• Nubians in Kenya
• Ethnic Tamils from India in Malaysia
• Tibetans in Nepal
• Bidoons in Saudi Arabia
• Thailand’s hill tribe people
In some cases (notably the Rohingya and Lhotshampa) these stateless people are also
refugees. Others are not considered to be refugees but face similar challenges due to
exclusion from political processes and employment opportunities, barriers to accessing
essential services (such as health care and education) and vulnerability to detention
and exploitation.
1.4.
Many of the refugee situations in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific are seriously
protracted. UNHCR defines a protracted refugee situation as one in which a group of at
least 25,000 refugees from the same country of origin have been displaced in the
same country of asylum for five years or longer. In practice, many refugees in the
region have been displaced for between twenty and thirty years. Major protracted
situations in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region include:
• Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan
• Burmese refugees in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Thailand
• Bhutanese refugees in Nepal
• Burundian and Congolese refugees in Tanzania
• Iraqi refugees in Iran
• Somalian refugees in Kenya and Yemen
• Sri Lankan and Tibetan refugees in India
• Vietnamese refugees in China2
In addition, some refugees may have experienced protracted displacement in other
countries before arriving in their current country of asylum, For example, Afghan
refugees residing in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have often
been displaced for prolonged periods in Pakistan or Iran before being compelled to seek
protection further afield.
1.5.
Conditions for refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people across much of the
Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region are very difficult. This is in part due to the fact that
many countries in the region continue to face significant challenges in ensuring
security for and meeting the basic needs of their own nationals. A broader problem,
however, is limited recognition of the rights of refugees and stateless people across
the region.
Table 4: States parties to the Refugee and Statelessness Conventions in the Indian OceanOcean-Asia
3
Pacific region
AFRICA
ASIA AND PACIFIC
MIDDLE EAST AND
NORTH AFRICA
COUNTRY
Ethiopia
Kenya
Madagascar
Mozambique
Somalia
South Africa
Tanzania
Afghanistan
Australia
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Brunei
Burma (Myanmar)
Cambodia
China
Fiji
India
Indonesia
Iran
Japan
Kiribati
Korea, North
Korea, South
Laos
Malaysia
Maldives
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Nepal
New Zealand
Palau
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Samoa
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Timor-Leste
Tonga
Tuvalu
Vanuatu
Vietnam
Oman
Saudi Arabia
Yemen
1951
1954
1961
1951 = Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees ; 1954 = Convention Relating to the Status of
Stateless Persons; 1961 = Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
1.6.
While all of the African countries in the Indian Ocean region are party to the Refugee
Convention, recognition of the rights of refugees is limited in practice, particularly for
those living in urban areas outside formal camps. In Asia Pacific and the Middle East,
very few countries are party to the Refugee Convention and most lack a legal and
administrative framework for assessing refugee claims and providing protection.
Recognition of the rights of stateless people is even more limited, with only a handful
of countries across the region being party to either of the two international conventions
on statelessness. In fact, only one country in the region – Australia – is party to all
three conventions and has sufficient capacity to uphold these convention obligations
effectively.
1.7.
Many refugees and asylum seekers in the region do not have official permission to
work and therefore face destitution, remain heavily dependent on humanitarian
assistance or are forced to work illegally, risking arrest and detention. Additionally,
many refugees or asylum seekers in the region cannot legally own or rent property or
access basic services such as health care, education (including primary education for
children), welfare assistance or other forms of social support necessary for an
adequate standard of living. While some of these services may be more accessible to
people living in formal camps, they are typically inadequate to meet the needs of all
refugees and asylum seekers. People living in camps also face restrictions on freedom
of movement and limited access to livelihood opportunities.
1.8.
In countries which do not formally recognise refugee status and/or in which refugee
status determination process are not readily accessible, refugees and asylum seekers
are often treated in much the same way as undocumented migrants. Their lack of
formal status can place them at serious risk of exploitation, harassment, deportation
and detention. Use of detention is particularly prevalent in Asia, where conditions of
detention are often deplorable: many detainees experience violence and ill-treatment
(including, in some cases, torture) and deterioration of physical and mental health,
and it is not uncommon for children to be detained alongside adults.
1.9.
As noted above, many refugees in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region are living in
protracted situations and have no prospect of a durable solution (voluntary
repatriation, local integration or resettlement) in the near future. Conditions in major
countries of origin are generally not conducive to safe and sustainable repatriation.
Most countries of first asylum are unwilling to consider local integration as an option
and the difficult living conditions faced by refugees render long-term residence
untenable. Resettlement is more accessible in some parts of the Indian Ocean-Asia
Pacific region than in other regions of the world – indeed, the top four countries of
departure for resettled refugees (Thailand, Nepal, Kenya and Malaysia) all lie within
the region – but global resettlement needs continue to vastly outstrip available places
and most refugees in the region lack access to timely resettlement opportunities.
2.
Key issues affecting refugee women and girls
2.1.
Women and girls constitute around half of the global refugee population, a proportion
that has remained consistent over the past decade.4 While women and girls face the
same challenges as other refugees and asylum seekers in the region, they also face
additional risks and barriers due to their gender.
2.2.
Sexual and gendergender-based violence:
violence: Sexual and gender-based violence is endemic in
refugee situations, not only in Asia but across the world. Factors which lead to the
prevalence of violence against women and girls in these situations (some of which are
discussed in further detail below) include: insecure living conditions; lack of status and
consequent vulnerability to exploitation; lack of access to employment and education
opportunities; inadequate services and support for survivors of violence; and limited
access to justice which can in turn foster a climate of impunity for perpetrators of
sexual and gender-based violence. There is also a higher risk of family violence in
situations of displacement due to the stressors of living under precarious
circumstances, the impacts of torture and trauma on mental health and the perceived
disempowerment of men, whose traditional role as protectors and providers is often
undermined in a refugee situation.
2.3.
Insecure living conditions and lack of status: Refugees and asylum seekers typically
live under precarious and insecure circumstances. In camp situations, shelter in often
temporary and insecure and there is a lack of basic security measures such as locking
doors and adequate lighting. In urban areas, women may face difficulties accessing
secure accommodation due to their lack of formal status and limited or lack of income.
As noted above, lack of status also places refugees at risk of exploitation and
harassment, with women being at particular risk of sexual exploitation and
harassment.
2.4.
Livelihood and educational
educational opportunities: Access to livelihood and educational
opportunities is limited for most refugees and asylum seekers in the region but the
situation is particularly acute for women and girls. Even when such opportunities are
available, they are often less accessible to refugee women and girls due to genderbased discrimination, caring responsibilities or concerns relating to physical safety.
Being locked out of livelihood and educational opportunities can force women and girls
into survival sex (which can in turn lead to stigmatisation and social isolation) or early
and forced marriages.
2.5.
Discrimination:
Discrimination: Refugees and asylum seekers may face multiple forms of
discrimination in a country of asylum, based on their nationality, religion, race or
ethnicity. When coupled with their lack of status, this discrimination can further
hamper access to the already limited opportunities and services available to them.
Refugee women and girls face the added barrier of gender-based discrimination. For
example, girls may have more limited access to educational opportunities than boys to
due perceptions that education is “less important” for girls, particularly when families
have limited income to pay for education.
2.6.
Family separation:
separation: Family separation is a common consequence of forced
displacement. While it can happen suddenly and unexpectedly, separation is also used
by refugee families as a survival strategy. For example, some members of the family
(typically women, children and more vulnerable or less mobile members of the family)
may remain behind in a country of asylum while others travel further abroad in search
of livelihood opportunities or to seek protection in other countries. While separation
aims to improve the family’s overall circumstances, individual family members –
particularly women – can face greater risks apart than they do when the family
remains together. For example, single women and female-headed households are
often at greater risk of violence and exploitation than families which include adult male
relatives. Women may also find it more difficult to financially support their families
without the assistance of other family members due to the often limited livelihood
opportunities available to women.
3.
Strategies to advance the rights of refugee women and girls
3.1.
Australia already makes a significant contribution to addressing the needs of refugee
women and girls through its Refugee and Humanitarian Program. Over the past five
years, around 40% of the humanitarian visas issued under the Program have been
granted to women and girls.5 Australia also offers targeted resettlement opportunities
for refugee women through the Woman at Risk program, designed for women and their
dependents who are without the protection of a male relative and are in danger of
victimisation, harassment or serious abuse because of their gender. RCOA welcomes
the commitment of the Australian Government to offering these targeted resettlement
places on an ongoing basis.
3.2.
However, while the Woman at Risk program represents an important contribution to
addressing the protection needs of refugee women in the region, its scope is limited. In
2014-15, for example, only 1,000 places will be available under the program. In
addition, the program is only available to women who are without the protection of a
male relative, despite the fact that many refugee women living with male relatives
continue to face serious risks due to their gender. As such, RCOA believes there is a
need for broader strategies to more comprehensively address the needs of refugee
women and girls in the region.
3.3.
There is a need for a more coordinated strategy for using Australia’s aid program to
address urgent protection needs and build the capacity of other countries in the region
to support displaced people. We regret that the Displaced Persons Program, which was
specifically designed to address the needs of refugees, asylum seekers and other
forcibly displaced people outside Australia, will be discontinued from next financial
year. However, we note the Government’s intention to refocus Australia’s aid program
on the Indo-Pacific region and believe this represents an opportunity to more
comprehensively address the needs of displaced people in our region, including the
unique needs of displaced women and girls.
Recommendation 1
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government develop a coordinated aid and
development strategy for addressing the needs of displaced people in the Indian Ocean-Asia
Pacific region, taking into account the unique needs of refugee women and girls.
3.4.
As noted above, family separation can have significant implications for the safety and
welfare of refugee women and girls. We welcome the Government’s commitment to
expanding the number of places available under the Special Humanitarian Program
(SHP) for humanitarian entrants in Australia seeking to reunite with family members
living overseas. However, we note that there are large numbers of people in Australia
who are not eligible to sponsor family members under the SHP and are considered the
lowest processing priority for family visa applications due to having arrived in Australia
by boat. In addition, a significant number of the 30,000 asylum seekers currently living
in the Australian community are likely to be granted protection in Australia but may
only be eligible for temporary visas which do not permit family reunion. The vast
majority of people affected by these restrictions are men, many of whom are separated
from female partners and children living in difficult and often dangerous
circumstances overseas. As such, restrictions on eligibility for family reunion are likely
to have significant implications for the safety and wellbeing of refugee women and
girls in the region.
3.5.
Furthermore, even those humanitarian entrants who are eligible to sponsor family
members for resettlement face barriers which can place some family members,
particularly women, in extremely vulnerable situations. One example is the restricted
definition of “family” used by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in
assessing visas applications under the SHP or family stream of the general migration
program. According to this definition, “immediate” family is considered to be a
person’s partner and children or, if they are a minor, their parents. This excludes
extended family members and children of the sponsor who are over the age of 18,
regardless of dependency relationships. As a result, some dependent family members
can be left behind on their own when the rest of the family is resettled, potentially
placing them at far greater risk of violence, exploitation or destitution – particularly if
they are women.
3.6.
Through our community consultations, RCOA had heard of examples where female
extended family members (such as aunts or sisters who live with the family and share
caring responsibilities) and single female children of the sponsor who are over the age
of 18 (including single mothers) have been excluded from SHP and family visa
applications on the basis that they are not “immediate” family members. This forces
the sponsor to make an impossible decision: either one family member must be left
behind in a situation where they will be at great risk, or the whole family will miss out
on resettlement. We strongly encourage the Government to revise its policies on
humanitarian family reunion to ensure that they do not increase the level of risk faced
by refugee families, particularly women and children.
Recommendation 2
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government restore full access to the Special
Humanitarian Program and family stream of the migration program to all humanitarian visa
holders.
Recommendation 3
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government revise its humanitarian family reunion
policies in line with the recommendations outlined in RCOA’s submission on the 2014-15
Refugee and Humanitarian Program.6
3.7.
RCOA also sees the potential for Australia to play a key leadership role in addressing
protection needs in our immediate region. As noted above, recognition of the rights of
refugees is limited across much of Asia Pacific and there is a pressing need for greater
cooperation between states in the region to address the protection needs of people
fleeing persecution. For a number of years, RCOA has called on the Australian
Government to develop a framework for sustainable and constructive regional
cooperation on protection issues to ensure that refugees and asylum seekers are able
to access the protection and support to which they are entitled, regardless of where in
the region they seek it. We believe that this would have particularly significant benefits
for women and girls given the added risks and challenges they face in refugee
situations. RCOA has published several submissions over a number of years detailing
strategies for developing this framework and is happy to provide further information to
the Committee as needed.
Recommendation 4
RCOA recommends that the Australian Government work towards the development of a
framework for regional cooperation on refugee protection in Asia Pacific.
NOTES
Statistics derived from UNHCR’s Mid-Year Trends 2013, http://www.unhcr.org/52af08d26.html
UNHCR reports that the 300,000 Vietnamese refugees residing in China are well integrated and in practice receive protection
from the Chinese Government.
3 Ratification status derived from Chapter V of the United Nations Status of Treaties database,
https://treaties.un.org/pages/Treaties.aspx?id=5&subid=A&lang=en
4 According to UNHCR’s Statistical Yearbook 2012, http://www.unhcr.org/52a7213b9.html
5 Figure derived from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s Settlement Reporting Facility,
http://www.immi.gov.au/settlement/srf, based on data from the calendar years 2009 to 2013.
6 Available at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/isub/2014-15_Intake%20sub.pdf
1
2