AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE TO AFGHANISTAN: COMPASSION OR INACTION?
Hafiza Zahidee
October 2021
Harrowing news has been filtering out of Afghanistan in recent weeks about the resurgent Taliban’s rapid rise to power and the US-led coalition forces’ equally speedy withdrawal. This has led to questions about whether Australia is going to expand its refugee intake. This post considers whether Australia’s response to the humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in Afghanistan offers a realistic hope to the vulnerable refugees urgently in need.
Australia’s resettlement programme offers permanent residence to people outside of Australia who are in humanitarian need. The program aims to “be flexible and responsive to changing global resettlement needs and emerging humanitarian situations to ensure Australia’s approach remains comprehensive and high quality.”
In 2020, the Australian Government reduced the annual resettlement intake from 18,750 to 13,750. Australia will accept only 3,000 Afghan nationals within the existing 13,750 places this financial year, a policy that seems to be a tokenistic shuffle of resettlement priorities, rather than a meaningful humanitarian response, particularly when compared with Canada’s pledge to accept 40,000. As a result, the Australian Government’s response to the Taliban takeover and subsequent crisis in Afghanistan seems more a calculated political move, rather than one based in compassion.
Australia has a historical record of showing compassion and empathy in previous humanitarian crisis such as the Vietnam war and the Tiananmen Square massacre, when respective governments protected 55,000 Vietnamese refugees and 42,000 Chinese students in response. Then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott offered an additional 12,000 places to Syrian refugees in 2015 during the Syrian crisis. Clearly, there is precedent for such an approach in Australia.
Given the government’s approach of withholding permanent residence status to refugees and asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat and who the Prime Minister claims did not come to Australia “the right way”, it would be a logical move for the government to bolster its resettlement intake and allocate greater resources to process visa applications quickly and efficiently.
Is resettlement a realistic option?
The Australian Government announced that “the 3,000 humanitarian places will focus on family members of Australians, persecuted minorities such as women and girls, children, the Hazara and other vulnerable groups”. However, it remains to be seen whether even these 3,000 people can meet the high bar administrative bar set by the Australian Government.
Australia’s humanitarian visa processes, and the eligibility criteria are extremely onerous and complicated. Each particular visa subclass has specific requirements which take into consideration the applicant’s location at the time of their visa application, as well as their claims and supporting evidence. This can be particularly challenging for Afghans who are unable to exit the country in the wake of the Taliban takeover, as well as sourcing supporting evidence from contacts who have either left the country or are afraid to provide evidence which are vital to the visa applications.
Australia’s humanitarian program has two components: offshore (resettlement) and onshore (protection). Australia’s offshore humanitarian program has three parts:
Refugee category (which contains the following visa subclasses: Refugee, In-country Special Humanitarian, Emergency Rescue and Woman at Risk).
Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) category (which includes subclass 202); and
Community Support Program (CSP) which links job-ready overseas refugees with individuals, businesses, and community organisations in Australia.
Most of these visa subclasses require applicants to be currently residing outside their country of origin. Further, for the Refugee category, UNHCR identifies the majority of applicants to be considered, who then refer them to Australia for resettlement.
Each visa category requires an incredible amount of documentation and proof so that the applicant can substantiate their claims. This includes identity documents, evidence of family relationship (such as birth certificate), marriage certificates, custody papers, as well as educational and other documents.
All these visa applications must be made on the prescribed form and submitted through the prescribed channel. The SHP applications must be proposed by an Australian citizen or permanent resident family member or relative. Outside of Australia, copies of documents must be certified by a person who is the equivalent of a Justice of the Peace or Commissioner for Declarations in the country where the documents are being certified.
What does this mean in practice?
While many foresaw the correlations between the unconditional withdrawal of the US troops and increased Taliban control of the country, few were ready for the rapidity of the Taliban’s rise to power. The Taliban takeover of Kabul, which was once considered to be almost impossible, occurred over a matter of a week, with the Afghan government surrendering without much resistance. The fallout of this catastrophe leaves Afghans seeking safe passage to Australia facing insurmountable obstacles, explained briefly here.
First, with the main airport and the main border crossings under strict Taliban control, leaving the country has been an impossible task for most Afghans. This means that most Afghan refugees who are at immediate risk to their safety are unable to meet most of the humanitarian visa pathway’s most important requirement, which requires an applicant to be located outside of their home country.
Specifically, Refugee visa (subclass 200), Global Special Humanitarian Visa (Subclass 202) and Woman at Risk (Subclass 204) visas are all for applicants who are currently outside their home country. Afghan nationals currently in Afghanistan are not eligible for these visas and can only apply for visas under the In-Country Special Humanitarian (Subclass 201) visa and Emergency Rescue (subclass 203) visa pathways.
Second, these Refugee Category visas are usually granted to people who are mandated as refugees by the UNHCR and referred to Australia for resettlement. Engaging with the UNHCR officials to undergo the necessary processes for a resettlement referral to Australia is an impossible task for Afghans in the current climate.
Third, the visa process requires an applicant to gather all their documents, in an extremely volatile and dangerous situation, where most agencies are no longer in operation. In fact, some Afghan women have begun to actively destroy all evidence of their education and employment, when faced with the risk of discovery.
Fourth, to apply for the Humanitarian visa, applicants need to obtain the relevant forms and submit the completed application, along with all relevant documentations to be considered by the Australian Government. Specifically, the Australian Government requires applicants for the Refugee category visas to print their application forms, identity documents and supporting evidence and send their applications by post to the immigration office closest to them. There are no options to apply online. This is an impossible obstacle for most Afghans residing in Afghanistan, as most institutions currently in operation are under the Taliban’s direct control.
Finally, while Australia must maintain the integrity of the Humanitarian visa system and conduct thorough checks of all claims in the applications and conduct relevant health and character assessments, it is a very real possibility that even if an Afghan national meets all the humanitarian visa requirements, obtains all documents, and submits their application by following the prescribed forms and methods, they will face a lengthy processing time for the visas.
In sum, for an Afghan national in immediate danger currently in Afghanistan, the only option is to navigate an extremely onerous and convoluted humanitarian visa process which can take many months and even years to resolve.
What can Australia do?
While under the world’s scrutiny, the Taliban have made promises of amnesty to those who have worked with the US-led coalition forces and Afghan army. However, reports have already emerged of executions and gross human rights violations, including the Taliban ‘death squads’ ramping up the hunt for Afghan collaborators and other opposition figures as well as executions of civilians, crimes against women and a brutal massacre of men from the Hazara minority group.
Due to its involvement in Afghanistan’s conflict, Australia has a moral responsibility to help people, particularly the Hazara minority group, at risk in Afghanistan and recognise that many Afghans risked their lives providing crucial support to Australian forces.
Australia must respond to this humanitarian crisis by urgently helping vulnerable Afghans to escape Taliban persecution. This includes Afghan nationals who assisted the Australian military and government, as well as women’s right and civil society activists, journalists, and minorities. The current offer of 3,000 humanitarian intake is woefully inadequate, particularly when considered together with the incredibly slow processing of visas and other bureaucratic red tape.
Most importantly, Australia should offer an additional humanitarian intake for Afghan nationals, in addition to faster visa processing to ensure that those who most need protection are provided with a humanitarian visa and safe passage.
Hafiza Zahidee is an Australian Hazara lawyer. She arrived in Australia in 2004 to rejoin her father, who arrived in Australia in the late 1990s after fleeing the Taliban regime. She is a former Registered Migration Agent and has also previously worked at the Refugee & Migration Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The views expressed in this article represent those of the author, and the author only.