Refugees NZ

Refugees NZ

Why are we failing?

In New Zealand, the quota of 750 refugees has remained unchanged for 28 years. The UN Refugee Agency ranks us 87th per capita in the total number of refugees and asylum seekers we host and 113th when measured by GDP. Australia, despite its reputation, allows 20,000. Why are we not setting an example to the rest of the world?

John McGlashan, a Scottish immigrant who ended up in Dunedin, once said: “If your prospects are bad … then I can safely say you would be ten times better off in New Zealand, where, if you are able and willing to work, to keep yourself sober, you would in a little time be surrounded with abundance of bacon and eggs, bread, butter, milk and cream, puddings, fowls, and all kinds of vegetables.” This was in 1848. Even then, New Zealand was seen as a sweet place to live, and this is further evidenced by the huge number of immigrants who have come to New Zealand and settled permanently since. When it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, New Zealand is seen as an ideal location to start again. Unfortunately, our country’s allowance of refugees and asylum seekers is something we can’t be as proud of.

As most of us already know, Australia has a rather xenophobic reputation when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers. In 2013, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Papua New Guinea (PNG) Prime Minister Peter O’Neill negotiated the infamous “PNG Solution”. The agreement outlined that any asylum seeker coming to Australia by boat without a visa would be refused entry into Australia and, instead, be sent to Papua New Guinea — a state that has a long history of failed government. This year, the Australian government has been caught up in its fair share of drama following allegations that it paid people smugglers carrying a boatload of refugees to sail to Indonesia instead. Not to be neglected is Australia’s horrendous treatment of refugees and asylum seekers if they are eventually accepted into the country. Once accepted, refugees are detained in detention centres, with no time limit on when they are to be released. As many are leaving war zones, poverty and often their families, being held in a detention centre is traumatic. There are many reports of detainees having suicidal thoughts and long-lasting depression.

On the other side of the spectrum, many states do a huge amount for refugees and asylum seekers. In 2014, Turkey hosted around 1.7 million Syrian refugees and Pakistan hosted 1.6 million refugees from Afghanistan.

New Zealand’s annual refugee quota is 750, with an extra 300 people coming under the Refugee Family Support Category — a category that means the initial refugees under the 750 quota can invite their family members to relocate to New Zealand. Additionally, the New Zealand government considers claims from asylum seekers for refugee status. Between 2011 and 2012, 364 claims were made and 115 were accepted. Around $7.6 million in taxpayer funding is spent on refugee services annually, with an extra $5.6 million set to be spent over the next four years. We are also internationally acclaimed for our resettlement programme.

In New Zealand, the quota of 750 refugees with additional family members allowed, has remained unchanged for 28 years. The UN Refugee Agency ranks us 87th per capita in the total number of refugees and asylum seekers we host and 113th when measured by GDP. Australia, despite its reputation, allows 20,000. That’s five times the number New Zealand takes in per capita. In 2012, the New Zealand government introduced the Immigration Amendment Bill (Mass Arrivals Act), which provides for the detention of a mass arrival of asylum seekers under a group warrant for a period up to six months to deter boats and people smugglers carrying asylum seekers. This seems inconsistent with the ever growing rate of displaced people around the world — a number that the UNHCR pinpoints at 59.5 million. Many of these people are children.

Why We Should Care

Today millions of people are forced from their homes and countries largely because of conflict or persecution. They have limited options. Either find haven in another country or face persecution and/or death at home. Many lose family and friends in the process. One of the most intense refugee crises in history is happening right now. Since 2011, Syria has been the home of a bloody civil war. The unrest began when the Syrian government responded violently to nationwide protests. More than 190,000 lives have been lost since due to continual violence in the form of bombing and armed conflict. Around 7.6 million people within Syria are displaced and at risk. Furthermore, approximately four million refugees have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. Naturally, it is a massive struggle for neighbouring states like Lebanon to support so many refugees physically and emotionally.

Refugees not only have to struggle with the loss of their homes and livelihoods, they are in constant fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones. Yara, a mother of four and refugee from Dayr al-Zor in eastern Syria, told her story to Amnesty International researchers in Lebanon:

My husband was arrested by Syrian authorities at the border. I didn’t have anyone to turn to and people were being killed by bombings and massacres so we fled. I found out my husband was killed. No one told me — I found out from YouTube that my husband was detained in a [Syrian] prison. He was killed in the prison and then [they] threw his body outside and the rebels showed the video on YouTube. I saw the video showing his photo after he was killed. These people contacted us and told me, “your husband is killed and come and receive his body”, but we couldn’t reach the place where he was. So, these people buried him.

Syria, however, is not alone in its insane refugee count. Closer to home, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees claims that Asia and the Pacific are home to around 3.5 million refugees, 1.9 million internally displaced people and 1.4 million stateless people. 

What If We Do Take In More?

If we increased the quota, government funding of refugee services would undoubtedly increase, and, yes, these new residents would be applying for the same jobs as other New Zealanders. Those opposed to increasing the quota generally believe that the quota sits at an ideal rate. Taxpayer money should be spent first and foremost on the New Zealanders who need it. By putting more funding towards refugee services, we are set back from dealing with New Zealand’s own issues that may need an increase in funding more urgently. Those opposed also feel that, as a small, isolated nation, we are doing the best we can at the current quota. Australia may allow more refugees into the country than New Zealand annually, but it is also a significantly larger nation.

Groups that support the increase, like Amnesty International, claim those who resettle in New Zealand want to do just that — resettle. They want to fund their own way, and this will eventually lead to them giving back to the society that helped them out in the first place. Refugees and asylum seekers who come to New Zealand actually become New Zealanders and bring with them new cultures and ideas that could easily become part of our rich immigration history. This month, New Zealand is set to take on the presidency of the UN Security Council — a role in which we will ask nations to do their upmost to respond to international conflicts. To those who support the increase, New Zealand officials would be asking states to make a difference, while not following that procedure themselves. More importantly, increasing the quota would be saving the lives of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

Steve Addison, a journalist who spent part of last year in a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey, believes that increasing the quota is simply the right thing to do. “When faced with a tough situation, it is important to do the right thing,” says Addison. “While it has no effect on the number of displaced people, it makes a lifetime of difference to those allowed to come here. It remains important to look after refugees both through resettlement programmes and in overseas camps. How we treat these people will shape the world in which we live.” 

New Zealand’s refugee quota is an important issue that all New Zealanders should be discussing — whether you support or oppose an increase. The minister of immigration is Dunedin’s Michael Woodhouse, and he recently told the New Zealand Herald that the government will be reviewing its refugee quota next year: “The government agreed to the current three-year quota programme in June 2013 and a decision will be made on the next three-year programme early next year considering all relevant factors. We will look at all aspects of the quota, including numbers.” 

By increasing the quota, New Zealand is not becoming a leader in dealing with refugees and asylum seekers, but it does make a significant difference from our part of the world. We need to be as open to the idea of helping refugees as we’d hope any other state would be open to accepting us as refugees.

This article first appeared in Issue 17, 2015.
Posted 12:28pm Sunday 19th July 2015 by Gemma Forlong.