Reform in Australian Migration Law
ARTWORK BY PETER DREW [MONGA KHAN AUSSIE POSTER,2020]
FORCED MIGRATION: DOES THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK ADDRESS THE PROVISION OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES?
Abstract
Asylum seekers and refugees (forced migrants) in Australia face significant psychological distress, exacerbated by pre-migration trauma, the asylum-seeking process, and resettlement challenges. The Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’or ‘Act’) governs their treatment, but many forced migrants encounter substantial barriers to access mental health services. These include the possibility of deportation, difficulties navigating the healthcare system, linguistic challenges, and a shortage of culturally sensitive mental health professionals. Budgetary constraints and political considerations further limit the availability of adequate mental health resources. Despite international law obligations to provide appropriate health services, significant deficiencies remain within Australia's legal frameworks, potentially failing to meet the specific mental health needs of this vulnerable group. Addressing these gaps is crucial for safeguarding the mental health rights of forced migrants, promoting their successful integration into Australian society, and fostering a more inclusive community.
Keywords: forced migrants, human rights, migration law, mental health, discrimination
GLOSSARY TERMS
Asylum Seeker: An individual who has sought international protection and whose claim for a refugee status is yet to be determined.
Complementary Protection: Protection granted to individuals who do not meet the strict definition of a refugee but cannot be returned to their home country due to the risk of torture, death, or other serious human rights violations.
Lex Specialis: Also referred to as generalia specialibus non derogant. A legal doctrine meaning ‘law governing a specific subject matter’ that takes precedence over general laws.
Medicare: Australia's publicly funded universal healthcare scheme.
Refugee: An individual who has been forced to flee their country due to persecution, conflict, or violence and granted protection in another country.
Trauma-Informed Care: An approach to healthcare that recognises and responds to the impact of traumatic stress on an individual's physical and mental health.
Vicarious Trauma: Also referred as ‘secondary traumatic stress.’ The emotional residue of exposure that counsellors and others experience from working with people as they are hearing their experiences and become witnesses to the pain, fear, and terror that trauma survivors have endured.
I. INTRODUCTION
The crisis of displaced people has intensified in recent years, exasperated by conflict and warfare, global instability, and climate-related disruptions.[1] Forced migrants experience profound psychological distress that surpasses that encountered by the general population; emanating from a combination of pre-migration trauma, the complexities of the asylum-seeking process, and the challenges of resettlement.[2] Notably, these individuals often suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and chronic stress.[3] Despite, the enactment of the Migration Act to regulate the presence of non-citizens, forced migrants encounter barriers to access mental health services, hindering their ability to seek professional assistance.[4]
The central contention of this paper explores Australia’s duty under international law to provide mental health services to forced migrants. It evaluates the national legal framework's capacity to provide adequate mental healthcare and identifies deficiencies in government initiatives. In order to recommend proposed law reform to enhance trauma informed, culturally sensitive and accessible mental health services for forced migrants, highlighting the need for legislators' increased involvement in scrutinising legislative implementation. It is essential to safeguard the wellbeing and dignity of this vulnerable population with compassion and support in accordance with our obligations to uphold international human rights law (IHL) and international refugee law.
II. BACKGROUND ON MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES OF FORCED MIGRANTS
Under the Article 1(A)(2) of the United Nations (U.N.) 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention), a refugee is a person who '...owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of [their] nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail [themself] of the protection of that country'.[5] An asylum seeker is a person who has fled their own country and is seeking protection in a second state.
Africa and the Americas have also broadened this definition by including people who are compelled to leave their country due to ‘external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or events seriously disturbing public order.’[6]
A. PRE-MIGRATION, MIGRATION, AND POST-MIGRATION STRESSORS
Forced migrants represent some of the most vulnerable members of our society, often having endured severe trauma, loss, and violence during displacement and migration; with the enduring effects of such trauma being particularly pronounced in children.[7] The prolonged and uncertain process of visa status determination, coupled with experiences of detention, isolation, and marginalisation, exacerbates these conditions.[8] Subsequently, these individuals are required to confront the culture shock of their current situation while simultaneously dealing with the profound psychological and social implications of their past.[9] The incidence of common mental health disorders among this vulnerable group are significantly higher compared to Australian born residents.[10]
It is estimated that forced migrants internationally experience PTSD (48.7%), anxiety and psychological distress (40–50%) and that one-sixth have severe mental illness (16%).[11] This includes suicidal ideations. In addition, complex trauma has a significant neurobiological impact on children, affecting brain function via activating neural pathways linked to fear and anxiety and ultimately hindering brain development, increasing their risk of mental disorders and illness.[12]However, the use of specialist mental health services is low, with (4.6%–10%) of refugees in Australia with PTSD symptoms using these services.[13] Subsequently, chronic distress releases hormones like cortisol, impacting immunity and environmental genetic responses.[14] This continuous state of alertness can trigger fight-flight-freeze responses, even in safe environments, extends to have a broader impact on families and communities.[15]
B. SYSTEMIC BARRIERS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The Australian health system faces challenges from underfunding and understaffing. The arrival of forced migrants exasperates these pre-existing issues, leading to bureaucratic hurdles due to absence of consideration in state regulations and support promotion.[16] Contributing to poor mental health literacy, limited understanding of new healthcare systems and community stigmatisation.[17] In addition, precarious legal status can also impact access to mental health services, as some do not qualify for certain services, and others avoid phycological intervention, fearing adverse effects on visa renewals.[18]
Subsequently, certain forced migrants are restricted to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or private practice for mental health support.[19] However, these avenues often present barriers including challenges obtaining appointments or financial constraints; and further impeded by logistical obstacles including arranging transportation and difficulties securing childcare.[20] Furthermore, conventional mental health approaches often fail to address the complex trauma experienced from conflict and warfare.[21] Linguistic and cultural barriers, along with a shortage of multilingual professionals and interpreters, further reduce the effectiveness of treatment[22]. These deficiencies in approaches often lead to mistrust and reluctance to pursue phycological intervention.[23]
III. ANALYSIS OF LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND OBLIGATIONS
Understanding mental health policies for forced migrants requires a brief overview of Australia's humanitarian visa program, as healthcare entitlements vary by visa status and relevant legislation is in a constant state of flux.
A. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS
As a signatory to the Refugees Convention, Australia is bound by international law to protect forced migrants within its borders.[24] This includes upholding the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where their life or freedom would be endangered.[25] Furthermore, while forced migrants are under Australian jurisdiction, the government is obligated to ensure their human rights are respected as stipulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’), the Convention Against Torture (‘CAT’), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (‘CRC’).[26] It includes the right not to be arbitrarily detained or sent to third countries accused of IHL violations.[27] These obligations extend even to those who have not been officially recognised as refugees or outside Australia’s territories.[28]
The requirement for Australia to provide mental health services to forced migrants is established in IHR. Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (‘ICESCR’) mandates that States Parties affirm the entitlement of all individuals to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental well-being.[29] Similarly, while not explicitly addressing mental health services, the Refugee Convention and Articles 24 and 25 of the CRC imply a duty to provide healthcare access comparable to that of its citizens.[30] These legal obligations form the basis for host countries to ensure the provision of mental health services for forced migrants, demonstrating a commitment to safeguarding their dignity and welfare.
B. THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The Migration Act and Migration Regulations is the foundational legislative framework governing the entry and presence of non-citizens.[31] In consideration of national security, it regulates the administration of Australia's entire immigration system, establishing procedures and conditions for visa categories, as well as provisions for their cancellation and review.[32] Section 501 of the Act empowers the Government to deport non-residents who fail to meet character requirements.[33] Under s 501(6), failure to pass the character test can result from factors such as posing a danger to the community through disruptive or violent activities.[34] Section 501(7) emphasises a 'substantial criminal record' as grounds for failure. Of particular concern is s 501(7)(e), where detention in mental health or drug rehabilitation programs is equated to jail sentences, contributing to the 12-month threshold and treating individuals similarly to convicted criminals.[35]Furthermore, s 196 stipulates if an individual is detained due to visa cancellation under s 501, detention will continue unless a court finds it unlawful or determines the person is not an unlawful non-citizen.[36] Consequentially, individuals may face mandatory detention until they obtain a visa or are removed from Australia, potentially leading to indefinite detention.
The Humanitarian Program administered by the Department of Home Affairs specifically focuses on providing protection to refugees.[37] It operates within an annually determined quota of onshore and offshore visa acceptance in accordance with fluctuating humanitarian needs and adhering to refugee convention obligations.[38] The definition of a refugee within the Refugee Convention and the Act is synonymous with one another.[39] However, individuals may face serious IHL violations without meeting the refugee definition if the harm is not linked to the five pre-established grounds.[40]Nonetheless, IHL law precludes sending people to countries where they face risk or danger regardless of refugee status, providing 'complementary protection' to the Refugee Convention.[41] Conclusively, it is evident that the character assessment criteria, particularly in relation to mental health considerations, warrant closer scrutiny to ensure non-discrimination of forced migrants under Australian law.
IV. COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS
According to the U.N, a few nations are responsible for majority of the world’s refugees; with Australia as one of twenty-three countries that accept refugees for resettlement.[42]
A. INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES IN MENTAL HEALTH PROVISION
Forced migrants experiencing poor mental health lowers the likelihood of paid employment and income, reduces labour force participation and job quality, decreases life satisfaction, and negatively affects refugee partners and children.[43]The Australian approach to refugee healthcare can Medicare entitlement and specialised services, presents a strong framework within the UNHCR resettlement program.[44] However, while praised for its comprehensive support for forced migrants, Australia reveals limitations when compared to counterparts including Canada and Germany. Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets precedent with providing culturally sensitive, trauma informed counselling and psychotherapy through the Interim Federal Health Program.[45] This program is pre-approved and eligible to immigration detainees, refugee claimants and protected persons.[46] In contrast, Germany's implementation of a psychosocial walk-in clinic within the state reception and registration centre for burdened refugees has received positive feedback from its patients.[47]
Evidently, where forced migrants can access mental health care without hindrance and irrespective of visa status, Australia's system exhibits significant gaps. By embracing a rights-based and inclusive approach akin to implementing a federal program and investing in specialised services, would not only enhance the well-being and integration of forced migrants but also affirm Australia's reputation as a leader in refugee resettlement and commitment to IHR obligations.
B. COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF AUSTRALIA'S MENTAL HEALTH PROVISIONS
Recent decades have illustrated stricter criteria for granted protection, limiting healthcare access and promotion for forced migrants across various visa categories. Forced migrants approved for offshore visa receive comprehensive benefits similar to Australian permanent residents, including Medicare access and support through the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy, disparities arise for onshore protection applicants.[48] Of particular concern is the restriction that prevents asylum seekers, who applied in Australia after 45 days or more in the previous 12 months, from working and accessing Medicare, affecting approximately 40% of community-based asylum seekers.[49] Asylum seekers without Medicare can theoretically access mental health services but may be unable due to financial constraints or fear of deportation. Although, NSW Health has established local organisation, STARTTS to facilitate specialised mental health services; these positions are limited and only accessible in NSW.[50] Other states can provide interpreters for those with limited English, but these policies do not apply to private practices.[51]
In addition, while Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) and Humanitarian Visa (THV) holders have access to Medicare, TPV holders over 18 are ineligible for government-funded English language classes, potentially impeding their navigation and effectiveness of essential services.[52] The diverse visa types highlight the complexity of the humanitarian program, causing confusion among refugees, asylum seekers, community workers, and healthcare practitioners in rights of access health services. Disparities between eligibility and accessibility epitomise these gaps.
Furthermore, healthcare (including psychiatric support) for asylum seekers with pending or cancelled visas held in immigration detention in Nauru, is provided by a private company, Global Solutions Limited.[53] However, reports have revealed deficiencies in the administration of adequate mental health services.[54] It highlights the importance of legislators’ legal scrutiny of Australia's healthcare policy compliance to ensure equitable access to essential services within the immigration system.
V. IDENTIFYING LEGAL GAPS AND ADVOCATING FOR REFORM
Paul Hartling, UNHCR, acceptance lecture when honoured with Nobel Prize 1981;
‘The voice of dissent is the bell of freedom.’[55]
A. GAPS IN THE AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Under the lex specialis principle, the Refugee Convention does not supersede the general protections of article 12 of the ICESCR if the HRL norm offers more protection.[56] However, the interaction between altering health policy, immigration regulations, and numerous visa categories in Australia result in a complex and often inflexible legal framework. As emphasised in the cases below.
Case Study One: In C v Australia, the focus was on Government policy of offshore detention, particularly on Manus Island and Nauru.[57] Mr C, an Iranian national detained by Australia as a ‘non-citizen’ in 1992, was released in 1994 with severe psychiatric issues after a psychologist's recommendation went unheeded.[58] Subsequently, he was imprisoned for criminal acts and faced deportation in 1997.[59] The U.N. Human Rights Commission deemed his detention arbitrary, citing violations of articles 9(1) and 9(4) outlined in ICCPR, and Australia was found in breach of article 7 for prolonging Mr C's detention despite knowing its impact on his mental health, with warnings against his deportation due to fears of persecution in Iran.[60] The case highlighted concerns regarding the conditions in these centres, including inadequate access to healthcare, leading to adverse mental health outcomes for asylum seekers.
Case Study Two: In FRM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (‘FRM17’), despite recommendations for transfer, the Minister for Home Affairs refused to transfer refugee children from Nauru to Australia for necessary mental health treatment, citing severe psychological distress leading to self-harm and suicide attempts.[61] Relying on legal principles outlined by Bromberg J in Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (‘Plaintiff S99/2016’), emphasising the Commonwealth's duty of care under the Migration Act and the Constitution's executive power in section 61.[62] The Court granted mandatory interlocutory injunctions to enforce this duty, upholding the children's rights under articles 9(1), 9(4), and 7 outlined in ICCPR, as well as addressing the need for providing specialist child mental health care treatment in an inpatient setting within detention centres.[63] It illustrated the Australia’s obligation to ensure access to safe and appropriate medical facilities and treatment to prevent further harm, including death.
Case Study Three: In AYX18 v Minister for Home Affairs (‘AYX18’).[64] A 10-year-old boy from Iran, and his mother sought a mandatory injunction requiring the Minister to transfer them from Nauru to Australia for specialist psychiatric care.[65] Both were intercepted as ‘unauthorised maritime arrivals’ (‘UMAs’) under the Migration Act in 2013 and resettled in the Nauruan community in 2014. In two weeks, AYX18's mental health deteriorated, culminating in suicidal ideation due to an illness causing severe chronic pain. Despite medical recommendations for transfer to Australia, the Australian Government refused.[66] In early 2018, after suicide attempts, a child psychiatrist advised immediate transfer for specialised treatment. Perram J granted the injunction, citing similarities to previous cases.[67] The duty of care owed by the Australia to UMAs in regional processing countries were central to this decision.[68]
The Court's power to grant the sought injunction aligns highlights the judiciary’s strict approach in interpreting provisions that aim to limit their jurisdiction to provide relief. Despite legislative efforts, the judiciary upholds principles of equity, ensuring that outcomes are not ‘irrational’ or ‘draconian’, as it would deviate from established common law principles and human right law obligations.[69]
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGAL REFORMS AND POLICY ENHANCEMENTS
The Australian Humanitarian Program has increased its quota from 17,875 to 20,000 individuals per year.[70] A coordinated response from various government levels and NGOs is essential to provide holistic support and overcome fragmented service delivery for forced migrants.[71] Removing structural barriers to include comprehensive, affordable, culturally sensitive, and trauma-informed counselling service promoted within the immigration process, regardless visa status.[72] Specialised training for professionals is crucial in providing effective mental health services to refugees, helping to overcome cultural stigma, fostering trust, and ensuring safety.[73] Furthermore, incorporating vicarious trauma support for professionals is essential.[74] Psychiatrists must practice without undue external influence, and forced migrants should have the same legal entitlements regarding the confidentiality of health records.[75] Furthermore, immigration detention, which can cause acute and ongoing harm, should not be supported for immigration processing.[76]Children should remain with their primary caregivers unless it is in their best health and developmental interests.[77]Regular auditing in detention centres is necessary to ensure that mental health services are effective, as the environment significantly impacts their efficacy.
VI. CONCLUSION
The Australian legal framework, while attempting to provide mental health services to forced migrants, displays significant gaps between legal provisions and practical implementation. A more cohesive and coordinated approach involving both State and Commonwealth governments is required to ensure that forced migrants receive equitable and comprehensive mental health care. Reforms should focus on eliminating structural barriers, offering specialised care and upholding IHR obligations. Addressing these issues is crucial for safeguarding the mental well-being of forced migrants and creating a more inclusive and supportive society.
VII. ABBREVIATIONS
CAT
Convention Against Torture
CRC
Convention on the Rights of the Child
ICESCR
International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
ICCPR
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
IHR
International Human Rights
NGOs
Non-Governmental Organisations
Refugee Convention
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
STRATTS
NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors
TPV
Temporary Protection Visa
THV
Temporary Humanitarian Visa
U.N
United Nations
UNHCR
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UMAs
Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals
VII. REFERENCES
[1] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2022 (UNHCR, Report, 2022).
[2] Frances Shawyer et al, 'The Mental Health Status of Refugees and Asylum Seekers Attending a Refugee Health Clinic Including Comparisons with a Matched Sample of Australian-Born Residents' (2017) 17 BMC Psychiatry 76, 5-6 (‘Shawyer et al’).
[3] Ibid. See also, Mary Anne Kenny et al., 'Mental Deterioration of Refugees and Asylum Seekers with Uncertain Legal Status in Australia: Perceptions and Responses of Legal Representatives' (2023) 69(5) International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 7-10 (‘Kenny et al’).
[4] Angela Nickerson et al, 'The Association Between Visa Insecurity and Mental Health, Disability and Social Engagement in Refugees Living in Australia' (2019) 19(1) Journal of Psychiatric Research 31-37 (‘Nickerson et al’). See also, C v Australia, Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (13 November 2002).
[5] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted 28 July 1951, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 189, 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954), art 1(A)(2) and United Nations, Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267 (entered into force 4 October 1967) (‘Refugee Convention’).
[6] Organisation of African Unity, Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, opened for signature 10 September 1969, 1001 UNTS 45 (entered into force 20 June 1974) and Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, adopted 22 November 1984, Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, (1985) 24 ILM 156.
[7] Shawyer et al (n 2) 2-3. See also, Winnie Lau and Trang Thomas, 'Research into the Psychological Well-Being of Young Refugees' (2008) 5(3) International Psychiatry 60, 61 (‘Lau and Thomas’).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Lau and Thomas (n 7) 61.
[10] Shawyer et al (n 2).
[11] Ana-Marija Tomasi et al, 'Understanding Mental Health and Help-Seeking Behaviours of Refugees' (Short Article, Child Family Community Australia, July 2022) https://aifs.gov.au/resources/short-articles/understanding-mental-health-and-help-seeking-behaviours-refugees (‘Ana-Marija Tomasi et al’).
[12] Shawyer et al (n 2) 61.
[13] Ana-Marija Tomasi et al (n 11).
[14] Suzanne C Segerstrom and Gregory E Miller, 'Psychological Stress and the Human Immune System: A Meta-Analytic Study of 30 Years of Inquiry' (2004) 130(4) Psychological Bulletin 601-630.
[15] Ana-Marija Tomasi et al (n 11).
[16] Michael Au et al, A Model Explaining Refugee Experiences of the Australian Healthcare System: A Systematic Review of Refugee Perceptions' (2019) 19 BMC International Health and Human Rights 22 (‘Au et al’).
[17] Yulisha Byrow et al, 'Perceptions of Mental Health and Perceived Barriers to Mental Health Help-Seeking Amongst Refugees: A Systematic Review' (2020) 75 Clinical Psychology Review 101812, 12, 15, 16 (‘Byrow et al’).
[18] Byrow et al (n 16) 18 and 20.
[19] Ignacio Correa-Velez, Sandra M Gifford and Sara J Bice, 'Australian Health Policy on Access to Medical Care for Refugees and Asylum Seekers' (2005) 2 Australian and New Zealand Health Policy 23.
[20] Byrow et al (n 16) 15.
[21] Au et al (n 15) 18.
[22] Ibid, 15.
[23] Ibid, 16-17.
[24] Refugee Convention (n 5).
[25] Ibid, art 33.
[26] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) (‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’); Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987) (‘Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’) and Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990) (‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’).
[27] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights art 9; Convention on the Rights of the Child (n 24) art 37(b) and Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (n 24) art 3.
[28] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136) and Al-Skeini v United Kingdom [GC] No 55721/07, [2011] ECHR 1093.
[29] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 12 (‘ICESCR’).
[30] Refugee Convention (n 5) and Convention on the Rights of the Child (n 24) art 24 and 25.
[31] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘Migration Act’) and Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
[32] Ibid. Regardless of whether the non-citizen was born in the country or the duration of living onshore.
[33] Ibid, s 501.
[34] Ibid, s 501(6).
[35] Ibid, s 501(7)(e).
[36] Ibid, s 196(4).
[37] Ibid, s 36 and s 36(2)(a)
[38] Ibid. See also, Australia Law Commission, Australia’s 2022-23 Humanitarian Program (Report, August 2022) p 6-9.
[39] Refugee Convention (n 5) art 1A(2) and Migration Act (n 29) s 5H.
[40] D & E v Australia, Communication No 1050/2002 UN Doc CCPR/C/87/2D/1050/2002 (25 July 2006) and Baban v Australia, Communication No. 1014/2001, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001 (2003).
[41] Ibid.
[42] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Global Trends: Forced Displacement in 2021 (UNHCR, Report, 2022) 21.
[43] Hai-Anh H Dang, Trong-Anh Trinh and Paolo Verme, 'Do Refugees with Better Mental Health Better Integrate? Evidence from the Building a New Life in Australia Longitudinal Survey' (IZA Discussion Paper No 14766, IZA, October 2021).
[44] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR Resettlement Handbook, Country Chapter - Australia (Handbook, April 2016). See also, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 'UNHCR Welcomes Australia’s Increase in Refugee Resettlement' (Press Release, August 2023).
[45] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. See also, Government of Canada, Interim Federal Health Program Policy (Policy, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada) https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/policies-operational-instructions-agreements/interim-federal-health-program-policy.html#discretionary.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Catharina Zehetmair et al, 'A Walk-In Clinic for Newly Arrived Mentally Burdened Refugees: The Patient Perspective' (2021) 18(5) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2275.
[48] Ignacio Correa-Velez, Sandra M Gifford and Sara J Bice, 'Australian Health Policy on Access to Medical Care for Refugees and Asylum Seekers' (2005) 2(1) Australia and New Zealand Health Policy 23, 4 (‘Correa-Velez, Gifford and Bice’).
[49] Ibid, 4 and 6.
[50] New South Wales Ministry of Health, NSW Refugee Health Plan 2011-2016 (Report, 2011) https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/multicultural/Publications/refugee-health-plan.pdf.
[51] Au et al (n 14).
[52] Correa-Velez, Gifford and Bice (n 45) 4 and 8.
[53] Ibid. The private company is Global Solutions Limited (Australia) Pty Ltd.
[54] Auditor-General, Australian National Audit Office, Delivery of Health Services in Onshore Immigration Detention (Report No 13 of 2016-17), 8-9. See also, Mastipour [2003] FCAFC 93, [8] and S v Secretary [2005] FCA 549, [198].
[55] Paul Hartling, 'Acceptance Speech by Mr. Poul Hartling, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, on the Occasion of the Award of the 1981 Nobel Prize for Peace to UNHCR' (Speech, University of Oslo, 10 December 1981).
[56] Ben Saul, 'Dark Justice: Australia's Indefinite Detention of Refugees on Security Grounds under International Human Rights Law' (2012) 13(2) Melbourne Journal of International Law 685, 29-31.
[57] C v Australia, Communication No 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (28 October 2002).
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] FRM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1169.
[62] Ibid. See also, Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483.
[63] Ibid.
[64] AYX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 11.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Ibid.
[68] Ibid. See also, Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 483
[69] Plaintiff S99/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 27 at [458].
[70] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 'UNHCR Welcomes Australia’s Increase in Refugee Resettlement' (Press Release, August 2023).
[71] Byrow et al (n 16).
[72] Ibid. See also, Hyojin Im and Laura E T Swan, 'Capacity Building for Refugee Mental Health in Resettlement: Implementation and Evaluation of Cross-Cultural Trauma-Informed Care Training' (2020) 22(5) Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 9 (‘Im and Swan’).
[73] Catharina F van der Boor and Ross White, 'Barriers to Accessing and Negotiating Mental Health Services in Asylum Seeking and Refugee Populations: The Application of the Candidacy Framework' (2020) 22 Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health 156, 170-171.
[74] Gökhan Ebren, Melis Demircioğlu and Okan Cem Çırakoğlu, 'A Neglected Aspect of Refugee Relief Work: Secondary and Vicarious Traumatic Stress' (2022) 35(2) Journal of Traumatic Stress 558-565.
[75] Byrow et al (n 16) 14-17.
[76] C v Australia, Communication No 900/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/900/1999 (28 October 2002); FRM17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1169 and AYX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 11.
[77] Ibid.