PROJECT EVIDENCE for Prevention of Mental Disorders. The project coordinator is Dr Allan Mawdsley. The version can be amended by consent. If you wish to contribute to the project, please email admin@mhyfvic.org
[3] Indicated Programs are those for young people who will inevitably develop mental disorders unless there ispreventive intervention.
[3 b.] Psychological factors
i Children in detention
ii Children of Parents with Mental Illness
[3 b i ] Children in detention/ Children of asylum-seekers
Australia is a large country with a small population. It is an advanced country with a high standard of living and a low birthrate. It has benefitted enormously from immigration boosting the workforce, the population and the economy. Notwithstanding some concerns about the growing world population causing causing stress on the availability of natural resources, it is generally accepted that Australia is well-placed to accommodate significant continuing immigration.
The rate of immigration has varied over the years with humanitarian influxes due to refugees from wars on top of a relatively stable acceptance of about a quarter of a million immigrants every year. Only one twentieth of this number are refugees (about 12,500pa). The great majority of immigrants are selected on the grounds of desirable work qualifications and family re-union criteria, but even unselected refugees have overwhelmingly proven to be valuable citizens.
Awareness of the huge numbers of displaced persons around the globe necessitates control of immigration so as to avoid overwhelming our resources and causing economic and social disruption.
There must be a balance between provision of humanitarian aid, including acceptance of immigrants, and the capacity of the nation to absorb the burden. It is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to ascertain appropriate targets and to set in place mechanisms for orderly evaluation of requests for immigration, including by those seeking asylum from life-threatening persecution.
It is morally imperative that there be a readily available and recognised process for processing of applications for migration and asylum. Inasmuch as the numbers may be greater than can be immediately absorbed this may necessitate “forming a queue”.
Notwithstanding that Australia is a signatory to United Nations conventions on humanitarian treatment of refugees, over the recent several years Australia has enacted a bizarre selective imprisonment policy for refugees arriving by boat (although not similarly for those arriving by air). The rationale is not for management purposes (which decades of past experience show is best achieved by community living) but for punitive deterrence.
A strident racist vocal minority of our population, with unproven claims of adverse impact on employment, has influenced politicians to stigmatise refugees to justify deterrence. The refugees are imprisoned indefinitely without trial, not because of what they have done but because of the possibility that others might follow them to Australia.
The stigmatisation as “illegal” when no law has been broken, detention without trial which is against international humanitarian principles, indefinite detention in substandard conditions amounting to torture which inflicts serious mental damage on the individuals, and the unethical concept of torturing someone for what some other unrelated person might do (but hasn’t yet done), all degrade Australia’s international standing.
However, now that it has become politically contentious, neither of the major political parties has the courage to defy the racist minority. It is crucial for independent citizens to lobby to abolish this inhumane practice.
The seriousness of the harm inflicted on imprisoned refugees is well documented. A good account is available in Professor Louise Newman’s paper, “Cry Freedom! Child Asylum Seekers in Australia: the intersection of human rights and mental health” given as the fifth Winston Rickards Memorial Oration on 4th March 2014. It is available on the MHYFVic Website in the Orations section.
The Government is aware of community concerns that persons seeking a higher standard of living (“economic migrants”) may attempt to gain priority over more urgent applications, such as asylum seekers, and that irregular entry such as maritime arrivals may constitute “queue jumping”. Policies need to address these concerns but should do so in a way that does not cause damage.
Notwithstanding that the overwhelming majority of asylum-seekers are found to be genuine refugees, the current processes of mandatory detention cause unnecessary damage during the processing which is counterproductive to the objective of humanitarian assistance. This is especially concerning in the case of children of asylum seekers and unaccompanied minors.
This paper proposes a mechanism by which objectives can be attained more economically and without damage. The primary objectives are:
Orderly process of application in other countries as well as on-shore
Australia accepts many thousands of new settlers each year in a variety of categories, one of which is settlement of asylum-seekers. One of the oft-stated reasons for maritime arrivals is that there is insufficient mechanism for application without such attempts. If there was a better mechanism for application and processing in other countries, most of the incentive for maritime arrival would be removed. This would be additionally strengthened if the speed of processing was just as fast in other countries such that maritime arrival would confer no advantage.
Coordination with the United Nations High Commission on Refugees in ascertainment of legitimacy of refugee status should accelerate the process of deciding whether or not immigration is possible.
Queuing of successful applicants and repatriation of unsuccessful applicants
If orderly processing enabled decision for acceptance as a refugee, a queue number could be allocated which would predict the timing of resettlement depending on the annual intake rate. The processing time of irregular maritime arrivals could take longer if papers are not in order, which would not confer an advantage and could possibly delay allocation of a queue number.
This should be a disincentive to maritime arrivals. A further disincentive could be transit accommodation off-shore, such as on Christmas Island, in the community with normal community supports, pending ascertainment of eligibility.
The UNHCR often judges asylum claims to be valid but is unable to immediately arrange settlement in new countries. Australia accepts some of these. Concerns by transit countries about delays in settlement of queued refugees should be managed by adjustments in foreign aid.
Applicants whose claim of asylum is not upheld would not be given a queue number but if processed in a transit country would still be free to seek immigration to other countries. If processed in Australia because of maritime arrival the disposition will continue to pose the same difficulties as at present, but in all cases should be adjudicated by independent (non-political) judicial procedures.
Community-based housing, health care, education and social services for applicants
The main factors causing damage to asylum-seekers are related to the indeterminate incarceration. The former practice of assessment in the community has been abandoned for the abovementioned stigmatisation reasons. There has developed a mythology that refugees are dangerous or that they will melt into the community and not be able to be found again. The available evidence of successful past community-based assessment has been ignored.
There is every reason to believe that refugees who wish to obtain permanent residence will obey requests to remain in regular contact with authorities, particularly if it is made clear that failure to do so would jeopardise their claim for asylum. There is absolutely no reason to require expensive, damaging imprisonment instead of community-based supervision whilst processing is undertaken.
Community-based processing whilst living in public housing, provided with the same health care as is available to other Australians, encouraged to go to work and schooling and to behave as normal family groups, would be far cheaper, far more humane and far better in terms of avoidance of damage than the current system of incarceration.
So, why don’t we do it? The great majority of claimants are approved and will be far better off with this beginning than with several years of dispiriting imprisonment. Detention should only be used for the small minority who are eventually deemed to be ineligible or who commit offences.
Assistance with community integration for successful applicants.
Promotion of mental health and wellbeing, and productive citizenship, is best achieved by encouraging normal family life in a safe, secure setting, with adequate food and shelter, and appropriate employment and training.
These conditions are best achieved in an open community setting. Some employment may be available in the community but additionally it could be appropriate to offer employment on developmental projects such as construction of public housing and facilities which would reduce the cost of these being provided by the community.
Last updated 20 March 2021
POLICIES for Prevention of Mental Disorders
[3] Indicated Programs
a) Biological factors
b) Psychological factors
i Children in detention
ii Children of parents with mental illness
c) Social factors
[3 b i ] Children in detention/ Children of asylum-seekers
MHYFVic advocates that asylum seekers should be processed in community-based accommodation where family members are free to participate in normal activities (such as schooling and health care).
MHYFVic advocates that special assistance be given to all immigrants to overcome health, mental health and social disadvantage, especially with gaining fluency in English-language communication.
MHYFVic advocates that the Australian Government should establish an orderly processing system, both on-shore and off-shore, for the processing of applications for seeking asylum as well as for immigration.
Last updated 20 March 2021
BEST PRACTICE MODELS for Prevention of Mental Disorders
[3] Indicated Programs
a) Biological factors
b) Psychological factors
i Children in detention
ii Children of parents with mental illness
c) Social factors
[3 b i ] Children in detention/ Children of asylum-seekers
The serious deficiencies in the Australian management of asylum-seekers would be avoided by the more humane system adopted by Canada. Their system is published on their government website as below:
Claiming asylum in Canada – what happens?
From: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada
Backgrounder
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires that every person seeking to enter Canada must appear for an examination at a port of entry to determine whether that person has a right to enter Canada, or may become authorized to enter and remain in Canada.
The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) play an instrumental role in protecting Canada’s border, deterring and intercepting irregular entry to Canada and keeping Canadians safe. CBSA, the RCMP and its domestic and international partners work together to intercept individuals who enter Canada irregularly. The RCMP is responsible for border security in between ports of entry, while the CBSA is responsible for border security at ports of entry and inland.
Making an asylum claim in Canada
Individuals can make an asylum claim in Canada at a port of entry or at an inland CBSA or Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) office. CBSA or IRCC officials will determine if an individual is eligible to make a claim. Factors determining an individual’s eligibility to make a refugee claim include whether the claimant has committed a serious crime, made a previous claim in Canada, or received protection in another country.
Asylum claimants are different from resettled refugees. Asylum seekers make a refugee claim in Canada at a Port of Entry or at an in-land office (CBSA or IRCC). These claims are governed in part by international treaties that Canada has promised to uphold. Resettled refugees, on the other hand, are screened abroad and undergo security and medical checks prior to being issued a visa to come to Canada.
When they arrive in Canada, they are permanent residents. As asylum claimants and resettled refugees come to Canada through different immigration streams, those who are crossing the border irregularly and claiming asylum in Canada are not queue jumpers, and are not taking the place of refugees who are coming to Canada from abroad for resettlement.
All refugee claimants undergo health and security screening, including biographic and biometric checks as well as the initiation of security and criminality checks.
Irregular crossings into Canada
Some individuals enter Canada irregularly between designated ports of entry. This can be dangerous and is a violation of the law. For legal and personal safety reasons, the Government of Canada continues to urge people to seek entry into Canada only at designated ports of entry.
People who are intercepted by the RCMP or local law enforcement after crossing the border irregularly are brought to the nearest CBSA port of entry or inland CBSA or IRCC office (whichever is closest), where an officer will conduct an immigration examination, including considering whether detention is warranted.
At this point, individuals undergo health checks to address any immediate health needs, as well as security screenings to ensure that they do not pose a security threat to Canada and to determine whether they are eligible to make a refugee claim.
These screenings include biographic and biometric checks (for example, fingerprinting). If required, a refugee claim will be started. Foreign nationals who are not intercepted by law enforcement often make their own way to the nearest IRCC or CBSA office and make a claim for refugee protection.
If the claim is determined to be eligible, it will be referred to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) for a hearing. In most cases, the foreign national will be released on terms and conditions while they await their hearing.
Individuals whose claim is found not to be eligible will be issued a removal order and released on conditions to report for a future removal proceeding. Foreign nationals who are required to leave Canada may be offered a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) by CBSA. Although CBSA starts the process, it is IRCC which conducts the PRRA prior to an individual’s removal from Canada. A PRRA assesses the risk an individual would face if returned to their home country.
Waiting for a decision on a refugee claim
All eligible refugee claimants receive a fair hearing at the IRB, an independent, quasi-judicial tribunal. Each case is decided on its merits, based on the evidence and arguments presented.
In making its decisions, the IRB considers whether the claimant meets the United Nations (UN) definition of a Convention refugee, which has been adopted into Canadian law, or is a person in need of protection. The UN defines Convention refugees as people who have a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, political opinion, nationality, or membership in a particular social group.
nder the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a person in need of protection is a person in Canada who would be subjected personally to a danger of torture, a risk to their life, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were returned to their home country.
Once an individual has been determined to be eligible to make a claim in Canada, as a refugee claimant they may have access to social assistance, education, health services, emergency housing and legal aid while a decision is pending on their claim. In addition, most individuals found to be eligible to make a refugee claim can apply for a work permit once they have undergone a medical examination. It does not matter if the claim was made at the border or at an inland office.
In general, IRB hearings take place in the province where the individual made their refugee claim. That province provides the services listed above to the refugee claimant. Should the claimant decide to move provinces while they are waiting to have their claim heard by the IRB (for example, they claim refugee status in Quebec then move to Ontario), they would need to inform the IRB, IRCC and the CBSA of this move, and provide their new address.
In addition, the refugee claimant would need to inform the province they are leaving of the move and apply for services in their new province. Of the cases that are heard, a decision is generally finalized in approximately four months.
Except for health services, which are funded by the Government of Canada (Interim Federal Health Program), provision of all these supports is the responsibility of provinces and territories. Municipalities or non-profit organizations also provide some supports.
The Government of Canada also provides funding through the Canada Social Transfer, which is a federal block transfer to provinces and territories in support of post-secondary education, programs for children, social assistance and other social programs. This is provided on an equal per capita basis to the provinces in accordance with Statistic Canada’s annual population estimates.
The population estimates include persons who are claiming refugee status and the family members living with them. The Canada Social Transfer will provide $14.586 billion in 2019-2020 to the provinces and territories.
Refugee claimants are not eligible for federal settlement services until they receive a positive refugee determination; however, they are eligible for some settlement services funded by provinces.
Receiving a decision on a refugee claim
Positive decision
Upon receiving a positive decision on their refugee claim, claimants receive protected person status with the full spectrum of federally funded settlement services becoming available to them. A positive Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision also results in protected person status for the individual in most cases. This means that individuals can stay in Canada and apply to become a permanent resident in most cases. These support services include:
Negative decision
If a claim is rejected by the Refugee Protection Division, individuals may be able to appeal the decision to the Refugee Appeal Division of the IRB. If individuals have no right to appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, they can ask the Federal Court to review the decision.
Once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, the conditional removal order that was issued at the time the refugee claim was initially made becomes enforceable in order to allow for removal of the individuals.
Failed refugee claimants who are under removal orders may not be eligible for social assistance, depending on the province. Please contact the provinces directly for more information.
The CBSA is mandated to remove all foreign nationals, regardless of citizenship, who are found to be inadmissible to Canada and who are subject to an enforceable removal order.
All individuals have the right to due process. However, once they have exhausted all legal avenues, we expect them to respect our immigration laws and leave Canada or be removed by the CBSA. Failure to appear for a removal interview or a scheduled removal date may lead to a Canada-wide arrest warrant and potential detention before removal by the CBSA.
The Safe Third Country Agreement
The Safe Third Country Agreement, signed between Canada and the United States (U.S.) in 2004, requires that refugee claimants seek protection in the first safe country in which they arrive. The Agreement applies to those making an asylum claim at a land border port of entry between Canada and the U.S. It does not apply to those who arrive from the U.S. by sea, between the ports of entry or an inland port such as an airport.
Since the 1980s, countries around the world have been using safe third country-type agreements as a way to address pressures on domestic asylum systems from the continued growth of global migration. Since the mid-1990s, the United Nations Refugee Agency has supported these types of agreements.
The Agreement between Canada and the U.S. is premised on the principle, accepted by the United Nations Refugee Agency, that individuals should seek asylum in the first country they arrive in. U.S. compliance with treaty obligations is overseen by an independent judiciary. The Safe Third Country Agreement remains an important tool for Canada and the U.S. to work together on the orderly handling of refugee claims made in our countries.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act requires the continual review of all countries designated as safe third countries to ensure that the conditions that led to the designation as a safe third country continue to be met. The asylum system in the U.S. continues to meet the international standards and therefore the U.S. continues to be a safe third country.
There are four types of exceptions to the Safe Third Country Agreement: refugee claimants who have a family member in Canada; unaccompanied minors under the age of 18; individuals holding a valid Canadian visa; and those who have been charged with or convicted of an offence that could subject them to the death penalty in the U.S. or in a third country. Also, the agreement does not apply to claimants who have entered Canada at a location that is not a port of entry.
Last updated 20 March 2021
We welcome discussion about any of the topics in our Roadmap epecially any wish to develop the information or policies.
Please send your comments by email to admin@mhyfvic.org
Speak about issues that concern you such as gaps in services, things that shouldn’t have happened, or things that ought to happen but haven’t; to make a better quality of service…….
Help achieve better access to services & better co-ordination between services together we can…….
Mental Health for the Young & their Families in Victoria is a collaborative partnership between mental health & other health professionals, service users & the general public.
MHYFVic
PO Box 206,
Parkville, Vic 3052
