Dr Malini Yugendran
Auckland, March 14, 2023
On 27 February 2023, Michael Wood, Minister of Immigration, announced in the Indian Newslink Lecture that the New Zealand government had increased its intake of refugees from 1000 to 1500. While this is a positive step, there are still significant challenges that refugees face when resettling in New Zealand.
Indian Newslink sheds light on some of the major issues through the lens of an asylum seeker.
Refugee vs Asylum Seeker
Mr Sri (name changed to provide confidentiality) a Sri Lankan national, who had sought asylum in New Zealand, said there exists a lack of knowledge regarding the very fundamentals.
“Firstly, it is important to understand that there are two different categories of people seeking refuge: refugees and asylum seekers. I am an asylum seeker, which means I am already in the country and am unable to return to my home country for various reasons. Refugees start receiving support before arriving in the country, in terms of conveyance, and when they lad in New Zealand, they will already have a place too stay and basic necessities taken care of. On the other hand, asylum seekers like me are not considered refugees until we are granted official status. Even then, we do not receive the same benefits,” said Mr Sri.
Asylum seekers often fall through the cracks because they do not receive financial, housing, education or mental health support.
Discrepancies
Mr. Sri pointed out that there is a negative perception and oversimplified view of refugees, which results in people attributing certain characteristics to all refugees based on stereotypes. He said, “some refugees and asylum seekers are highly educated, and some are not educated at all, so a tailored approach should be taken instead of using a blanket approach. I know of a Doctor from Sri Lanka who drives a taxi in New Zealand. These displaced people should be integrated into society and be given the respect and dignity they deserve and not be reduced to second-class citizens.” He further explained that identifying each person’s capabilities will help them become contributing citizens of the nation rather than a burden.
Mr Sri added, “Many New Zealand refugees migrate to Australia because Australia recognises talents and utilises them. However, New Zealand requires local experience, and it does not allow skilled asylum seekers in mainstream occupations, which can cause distress.” “I have personal experience with this issue. I was working for minimum wage in a dairy. I have since moved to Australia for better work opportunities and to regain my confidence and pride,” he added.
According to Mr Sri, “after providing housing facilities, refugees are often left to their own devices.” He explained that instead of providing these asylum seekers with just Work and Income monetary benefits, the government should provide bridging education and use their skills in this country. He added that leaving them to rely solely on Work and Income support will only make them dependent on the taxpayers, and make them complacent. He said that the responsibility lies with the government to help asylum seekers and refugees become purposeful citizens. He further recommended that the government should stop providing support to refugees and asylum seekers after the first two years, which would encourage them to find work and become independent, contributing citizens.
Mr Sri also raised concerns about the lengthy process for obtaining a residence visa and citizenship after being granted asylum. He questioned the need for two separate applications, which he deemed a waste of resources for both the asylum seeker and the government. “You [the government] have already granted me asylum, so why do we have to go through two separate applications? Instead, the government should just process citizenship directly,” said Mr Sri.
This is a point that Lawyer Ms Sundar concurs with.
Article 34 of Naturalisation
Pooja Sundar, an immigration and refugee lawyer who sits on the Auckland District Law Society, Immigration and Refugee Law Committee and the Refugee Council of New Zealand, believes that refugees should be granted citizenship upon recognition or have the process expedited, as required by Article 34 of the Refugee Convention. She said, “It is my view that refugees should be granted citizenship upon recognition or at least have this process expedited as per the convention requirement. New Zealand is failing in this international obligation. Should New Zealand not wish to accept this part of the Convection, a reservation should be filed with the United Nations including an explanation as to why Article 34 cannot be met/followed.”
The New Zealand government’s commitment to reviewing migrant and refugee resettlement programs is positive, but there are still significant obstacles to resettlement, such as the high cost, delays and requirements of medical tests and the lack of language and translation services for refugees.
Ms Sundar said that conducting security checks during the residency application process can cause significant delays of up to six months or more.
She added, “The fact of the matter is that this applicant is a recognised refugee who cannot be deported from New Zealand. It is highly unlikely that they will be denied residence at the end of the process (whether this involves an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, or the medical waiver process through INZ), therefore requiring refugees to spend money, that they often do not have, on medical tests and specialist reports is a real barrier to resettlement. The entire health check process, therefore, adds further time and money to an already drawn-out process.”
Ms Sundar added that the assessment of partnerships in refugee residence applications does not take into account the cultures and countries of origin of the applicants. She believes that asking for a statement outlining the couple’s relationship including how they divide parental responsibility, their household chores, etc., is unnecessary. She added, “providing evidence of living together is also often difficult given a variety of possible circumstances, including the family being in hiding and not having documents to show their address, one of the partners living in a different country or city to the other for the purposes of earning money to provide for their family, cultural traditions of a woman moving into her husband’s ancestral home following marriage and not having any documentation in her name to show her address, among others.”
In addition, refugees may face a language barrier when submitting evidence to INZ, as all documentation must be in English. This can be challenging for those who do not have a strong command of the language, and the lack of financial resources to hire interpreters or translators which further exacerbates the issue, making it difficult for refugees to submit the required documentation promptly.
Ms Sundar concluded, “The government must take action to expedite citizenship and residency processes, reduce costs and rethink the requirements for medical tests, and ensure the resettlement process is inclusive.”
Dr Malini Yugendran is an Indian Newslink Reporter based in Auckland.
