Skip to content

Last updated Wednesday 24 February 2003.

Name: Christ Sidoti
Human Rights Council of Australia

The introduction of temporary protection visas late in 1999 marked a significant reversal of longstanding bipartisan policy towards immigration to Australia. Until then Australian Governments had been committed to permanent settlement of immigrants. They explicitly did not want significant numbers of short-term migrant workers and still do not. They sought permanent commitment from those who came across the seas seeking new lives in this country so that the newcomers would become part of the Australian community, throwing in their lots with the rest of us for mutual advancement. All that changed in October 1999.

Temporary protection visas were introduced to delay permanent settlement to those who come to Australia in greatest need. They have now been extended with the intention of denying permanent settlement. Protection is to be temporary, rejection permanent. They not only delay and deny permanent settlement but they impose significant hardship and disadvantage on those given even this temporary protection, denying them access to many settlement services and supports and, most importantly of all, denying them family reunion. In September 2001, in the heat of the Tampa affair, the scheme was extended to all asylum seers who come to Australia as unauthorised arrivals. This policy and attitude have far reaching implications of great concern, both principled and practical in nature.

The issue of principle is the most important. These temporary visas are imposed not on those migrating to Australia for mere economic advantage but on those who have been assessed and accepted as genuine refugees fleeing persecution. Unlike other immigrants to Australia refugees leave their countries not through choice but through necessity. Their departures are not planned and orderly but traumatic and dangerous. They are usually forced to leave behind what meager possessions they might have had or to use them all in securing their flight from persecution. Many have suffered torture. By definition all have experienced persecution. These are people to whom we should be offering special assistance, not singling out for additional hardship. Yet additional hardship is what they receive at the hands of the Australian Government. They are sentenced to years of uncertainty, continuing insecurity, separation from their families. Perhaps some might not want to stay here permanently and hope to return to their own countries. But the choice should be theirs. And, even if that is their hope, they should be guaranteed protection until such time as they can safely return.

The legal paper on the relationship between the temporary protection visa scheme and the Racial Discrimination Act draws the provisional conclusion that the scheme does not violate the Act. This may be correct, although it is arguable. What is not open to doubt, however, is that the scheme violates other provisions of international human rights law as important as the prohibition of race discrimination.

The denial of family reunion is the most serious human rights violation involved - most serious because it is a flagrant violation of the human rights of children, the most vulnerable of these most vulnerable people. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child article 18 children are entitled to the care and protection of both parents and their families are entitled to state support to ensure this. Article 22 gives refugee and asylum seeker children the right to state assistance for family reunion. The Australian Government, however, actually prevents it. It keeps refugee children here separated from their parents overseas. It keeps children overseas separated from their refugee parents here, usually resulting in these children living in circumstances of deprivation and danger. It also results in children being exposed to greater danger by being brought to Australia by boat. Of course, the rights of parents too are violated. Each person has a right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 23 to found a family. Denying refugees in Australia the opportunity of establishing their family here through family reunion effectively violates this right.

Next is the issue of discrimination - perhaps not race discrimination but discrimination nonetheless based on status. Discrimination based on status is also prohibited in international law (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights article 2 and 26). Temporary protection visa holders are treated differently from other visa holders, including those who are accepted as refugees through off-shore settlement processes. This adverse treatment is at least discrimination based on status and perhaps discrimination based on race or ethnic origin. It is also a violation of the Refugee Convention article 31 which prohibits penalising refugees on account of the manner of their entry into the country of asylum. Refugee who come as boat people are penalised for that reason.

There is also significant concern that provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are being violated through the lack of support given to refugees on temporary protection visas.

These are important objections of principle to the current scheme. There are also objections of a more practical kind. Is it in our own interest as Australians to have people here for periods of years who are insecure, traumatized, denied assistance to learn English, accorded a discriminatory status that inhibits their integration into the broader community, left unsupported by and worried about their spouses and children? Surely and self evidently it is not. But that is what our two major political parties have decided to do. The research in 2001 found that the policy “has created uncertainty, insecurity, isolation, confusion, powerlessness and health problems among the holders of these visas as well as an increased burden on community organisations, state governments and volunteers”.

The temporary protection visa scheme may or may not violate the prohibition of race discrimination. But that is not the only issue. The scheme needs to be assessed against all Australia's human rights obligations. When so assessed, it is found to be a program of deliberate and flagrant violation of human rights.

Inhuman suffering has resulted from deliberate government policy. This is no unforeseen consequence of the policy. When the policy was first proposed and introduced, community organisations and human rights advocates predicted precisely these results but the Government dismissed their experience and expertise.

There is an urgent need to return to a policy for permanent settlement of refugees – a policy that is both more humane and more compassionate towards those seeking protection, that is, more consistent with Australia's human rights commitments, and more in our own interests.

The Centre for Citizenship and Human Rights at Deakin University undertakes research into socio-political theory and cultural citizenship aimed at supporting and extending civil society, democracy, citizenship and human rights. Since the TPV was introduced in October 1999, the Centre in partnership with community organisations initiated joint research into the impact of the TPV policy on asylum seekers, their ethnic communities and service providers. A team of researchers at the Centre are currently engaged in a longitudinal three-year national study aimed at establishing the long-term social and psychological impacts of the TPV regime. International comparisons on the concept of ‘temporary protection’ are also undertaken in order to place the Australian policy within an international context. This brief submission will discuss two points related to the impact of the TPV policy and its unusual nature in the international asylum process.

The evidence gathered so far indicates clearly that the TPV policy has created uncertainty, insecurity, isolation, confusion, a sense of powerlessness and health problems among this class of asylum seekers. The findings suggest that the TPV policy has had a negative impact on refugees’ mental and physical well-being, adding to their prior experiences of trauma in their countries of origin and in the detention centres. Equally, the TPV policy and subsequent cost-shifting in relation to settlement service provision have placed an enormous strain on community organisations and state agencies. The heavy burden of settlement service provision has fallen to ill-prepared community organisations struggling to meet the special needs of an increasing number of refugees left outside the mainstream humanitarian settlement services. State and municipal governments across Australia are left with no option but to assume the fiscal responsibility associated with post-arrival (in the case of TPV holders, post-release from detention centres) services provision especially housing, English language programs, psychological and physical health services. As if the 1999 version of TPV is not harsh enough, the Federal Government proceeded in 2001 to further erode the rights of asylum seekers in Australia by introducing a host of new legislative amendments which deny permanent protection and restrict access to courts with the stated aim of making Australia ‘less attractive’ to potential unauthorised arrivals.

Moving to the next point regarding the TPV policy from an international perspective. It is true that many countries, signatories to the Refugee Convention, do offer ‘temporary protection’ to asylum seekers. However, unlike Australia’s TPV policy these temporary visas are granted in most cases in situations of mass flight. This is the case with Sweden’s ‘temporary protection’ arrangements for example which is granted for two years to persons with failed asylum applications. Likewise, in the case of the United Kingdom, only rejected asylum seekers are granted an ‘exceptional leave to remain’ ELR (an extendable four-year protection from deportation, based on unsettled home conditions or other humanitarian grounds). Asylum seekers on temporary protection in both Sweden and the UK are entitled to social welfare benefits, health care and, in the case of Sweden at least, family reunion. This is in stark contrast to the situation in Australia where TPV holders have been found to be genuine refugees whose only crime is their mode of invoking Australia’s protection (i.e. ‘unauthorised’ arrival).

In brief the TPV policy in its Australian version is unprecedented in comparison to similar temporary protection arrangements in other countries. The research listed in this submission shows that the TPV has caused severe levels of hardship and difficulties among Convention refugees (in clear violation of International Refugee Conventions and Laws) with long term social and psychological repercussions.

Name: Immigrant Women's Speakout Association of NSW

Immigrant Women's Speakout Association is the peak advocacy, information/referral and research body representing the ideas and issues of immigrant and refugee women in NSW.

The Association appeals to the Federal Government to reverse its policies and grant all refugees permanent residency and access to the full range of services essential for successful settlement in a new country. This will result in a significant and rewarding contribution by this group to the Australian community. It is only once refugees on TPV have access to services on an equal basis to other permanent residents in Australia, that activity testing should be considered.

We recommend that:

If refugees on TPV are to be active, participatory and contributing members of the Australian community then they must have access to services and support on the same level as permanent residents.

(The Above is an edited version of the submission made to the Legislation committee regarding 'Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Special Benefit Activity Test Bill 2002')

Name: Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office

The Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO), a national agency of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference is directly concerned with refugee issues.

The response to asylum seekers by many Western governments remains inflexible, failing as it does to meet the challenge of people seeking protection. The fundamental right to migrate is rendered meaningless unless migration programs enable migrants to be received. The situation is even more serious for asylum seekers who are forced to seek protection in an environment in which safe, stable, democratic countries seek to block their entry in order to exercise the right to seek asylum.

We believe that settlement and support services must reflect and respond to the special needs of vulnerable members of society such as those on TPVs. The Pope in his message for the 1993 World Migration Day acknowledged that “highly developed countries are not always able to assimilate all those who emigrate”, but he noted that we must not lose sight of the fact that the “criterion for determining the level that can be sustained cannot be based solely on protecting their own prosperity, while failing to take into consideration the needs of persons who are tragically forced to ask for hospitality”. As Professor Helen Hughes notes, the challenge remains for western liberal democracies such as Australia “… in transforming illegal into legal immigration based on improving refugee recognition and processing”.

As noted by the Australian Catholic Bishops — it is in our realm to help the vulnerable in our society as “We all have a responsibility to one another. So we must work together for social conditions to ensure that every person and every group in society is able to meet their needs and realise their potential. We have a responsibility to protect those whose dignity and rights cannot be guaranteed in their countries of origin or habitual residence. Our [Australian] policies should not use asylum seekers as a means of deterring others from seeking asylum in Australia”. The Australian Catholic Bishops called for a more humane treatment of asylum seekers, noting that the paramount importance of the dignity of the person must be “reflected in our nation’s policies”, and called for a review of policies “for dealing with those who seek asylum here, so as to ensure that they are not discriminated against because of their mode of arrival”

Name: Coalition for Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Detainees (WA Inc).

The Coalition for Asylum seekers, Refugees And Detainees or CARAD was formed in January 2000 to provide services and practical assistance to refugees leaving detention. (Until recently the acronym represented Coalition Assisting Refugees After Detention).

CARAD comprises perhaps 1200 volunteer workers as well as donors and supporters. Our volunteers have met roughly 2,200 men, women and children in WA and have continued to provide support for up to perhaps 700 families or lone people who live in this state. About half of them are estimated to be recipients of Special Benefit. Others have consistently had paid work, while another group engages in seasonal and other casual work, this latter group sometimes requiring access to Special Benefit.

We should say that almost every single refugee would rather do paid work, than receive a benefit, yet the conditions of the TPV (785) has set them up to be dependent and to fail. They are denied access to English language lessons recognised as essential to settlement and generally funded by the Federal Government, yet have the authority to do paid work. They are denied access to federally funded job searching services. These factors have frequently contributed to refugees who do find employment, working in poor conditions with illegally low rates of pay.

Refugees with a TPV are denied access to family reunion, the single most incapacitating provision of this visa and without doubt a contributor to the high incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other conditions adversely affecting their mental health.

It is ludicrous to expect that refugees can search for work without having had access to English lessons or training. This population is already vulnerable and faces significant disadvantage. Families are poor; they and individuals are mobile and change housing location frequently, often between states; they have little to no access to formal support services, being dependent on church, volunteer and other non-government services.

It is insulting, when the conditions of the visa preclude their treatment as equals (and breach the terms of the Refugee Convention), and when the Prime Minister and others have specifically campaigned to ensure that they will be seen and treated quite differently from all other Australian residents.

Name: Warren Seward
Glebe NSW

I don't feel the government is racially discriminating in the way it grants temporary protection visas.

I DO think the government is blatantly sexist when it releases women and children from detention centres but keeps the men locked up. (Imagine the media frenzy if men and children were released but the women were left locked up.)

Whatever the perceived risk of granting those men the same privileges as the women, they are obviously being prejudged as guilty.

Name: National Social Responsibility and Justice, Uniting Church

This is a brief extract from a submission by NSR&J and UnitingCare in relation to the Government's proposal to extend 'mutual obligation' to TPV holders who are on Special Benefit. Part of the rationale used by the Government is that TPV holders should be treated the same as other people in Australia. That's why we recommended that a better approach would be to make TPV holders eligible for the income support payments provided to other Australians and to provide them with the support made available to refugees who are granted permanent visas.

It seems the Government's stance on how TPV holders should be treated (equal or discriminatory) can alter depending on whether the measure is punitive or supportive. This proposed legislation argued for the 'same' treatment at the same time as this group of refugees continue to be singled out as 'different' when it comes to access to settlement support and many public and social services.

The Uniting Church has, on many occasions and in various forums, raised significant concerns about both the general direction of Government policy in relation to welfare and to refugees and asylum seekers. The Uniting Church is particularly concerned about the roll back of the Government’s commitment to welfare through ‘welfare reform’ and the current harsh and discriminatory treatment of refugees.

Australia’s treatment of refugees and asylum seekers is fundamentally a matter of community identity: Australia will be defined as a nation by our hospitality to others. The Uniting Church has pledged to hope and work for a nation whose goals are not guided by self interest alone, but by concern for persons everywhere. It is possible for Australia to take a more compassionate approach in assisting those people who are most vulnerable and in need and to maintain national objectives such as social cohesion and economic development.

The extension of activity testing to TPV holders will not achieve the objectives of increasing social and economic participation. Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) holders are currently prevented from accessing many services that would assist them to find work. Subjecting them to complex mutual obligation requirements and activity testing and exposing them to a harsh system of breaching penalties will cause already traumatised and marginalised people further harm. We are concerned that the motivation for this legislation lies in the Government’s expressed commitment to deter the arrival of onshore asylum seekers.

Providing TPV holders with access to the same assistance and support that Protection Visa (PV) holders receive would be the most appropriate way to achieve the aims of the proposed legislation. Unless the Government is willing to provide TPV holders with assistance to find work – including programs and support relevant to the particular situations of TPV holders such as settlement assistance, English language training, and eligibility for assistance provided to both newly arrived residents and PV holders – activity testing will only serve to compound the marginalisation of TPV holders.

People in receipt of government social security benefits or who are on very low incomes are eligible to apply for public housing in NSW. Temporary Protection Visa holders are not eligible to apply. They are eligible for emergency temporary housing or Rentstart (assistance with private rental market bond and 2 weeks' rent) only.

The Department of Housing policy spells this out:

TPV holders are only temporarily protected. They are not eligible for public housing unless they are granted permanent residency/permanent protection. They can however apply for emergency housing (which is of a temporary nature) and Rentstart (assistance with bond and the first two weeks rent for a private rental property) but are not eligible to apply for public housing unless granted a permanent visa.

Other job seekers are eligible for public housing. Those in public housing enjoy a benefit that TPV holders do not have - they are advantaged in their job search activities because they have secure and affordable accommodation.

Click here to view the full Shelter NSW submission to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002

Name: National Council of Churches
National Program on Refugees and Displaced People

The NCCA is comprised of fifteen major Christian churches working together to strengthen relationships and understanding of each other and to fulfill common witness, mission and service. Through the NCCA, member churches come together to break down the structures that create and perpetuate poverty, oppression, injustice and division.

The National Program on Refugees and Displaced People operates under the Christian World Service Commission of the NCCA. It is concerned with policy relating to refugees, asylum, settlement, access and equity. It is also involved in awareness raising, education, community development and advocacy. This work is done in partnership with the State Councils of Churches, which each have a refugee program that maintains close links to the community and involves member churches in providing services to refugees and asylum seeker.

The NCCA has been at the forefront of community moves to assist refugees with Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs), for example, through helping to establish 'houses of welcome' that provide referrals, English classes and temporary accommodation after they are released from detention.

While the NCCA recognises the generosity of successive Australian Governments in maintaining a generous system of settlement assistance to refugees selected offshore, it reminds the Government that its primary responsibility under the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol is towards refugees arriving onshore.

In signing the 1951 Refugee Convention, Australia recognised that states shall:

The NCCA's position on the need to abolish TPVs altogether has been made very clear in NCCA submissions, policy documents and in a resolution of the NCCA's 15 member churches at its last three-year NCCA Forum in June 2001.

Click here to view the full NCCA submission to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002

Name: Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC)

The Immigration Advice and Rights Centre (IARC) is a non-profit community legal centre specialising in immigration law. While we do not provide advice on protection visa applications itself, we have an understanding of the circumstances of refugees and TPV holders, obtained though our advice services and knowledge about temporary and permanent protection visas as a result of our education services. As a result of exclusion from access to essential social and economic benefits, there has been an increased burden on community organisations, volunteer agencies and state and local governments who are faced with meeting the needs of TPV holders.

Immigration service case workers at the South Brisbane Immigration and Community Legal Centre (SBICLS) a sister organisation to ours in Brisbane, who do directly represent TPV holders with regard to migration matters, have observed the extreme difficulty faced by TPV holders with respect to language and 'coping' skills. They have dealt with many TPV holders over a period of two and a half years since their lodgement of the original application for a protection visa. They observe how these same persons are struggling with language and are extremely depressed as a result of not being able to find work as a result of their inadequate language, their difficult assimilation into the community as a result of their temporary status here in Australia, and their limited education skills required for even the basic of jobs.

SBICLS observe that in their experience a large proportion of TPV holders have had limited schooling and education. Following their release from detention, most of them were sent on their way to look after themselves, with just one intense briefing on how to get on in Australia. There is little assistance provided by the Commonwealth government in following up the needs of these people. In SBICLS's view, in Brisbane, it has only been through the remarkable support of non-government organisations, church groups, concerned citizens and the State government that these persons were able to be carried through their difficult times.

The experiences of migration caseworkers at SBICLS described above supports our view that under the current situation, because of denial of access to essential settlement services available to PPVs, TPV holders are inadequately supported and already extremely vulnerable.

Subjecting them to further activity testing requirements simply exposes them to the penalty and breaches system. Without access to, in particular, English language courses, but also other support services such as Intensive Assistance, requiring them to negotiate and comply with activity agreements is unlikely to increase their social and economic participation. It is, in fact, more likely to set them back even further in the event that they are penalised for breaching an obligation that may unfairly have been imposed.

Another important issue relates to the denial of access for TPV holders to the family reunion program in our migration system. The right to be united with family members is a fundamental human right and critical to successful settlement prospects Unlike permanent refugees, TPV holders are not entitled to sponsor their close family members, including spouse and dependent children, under Australia's family migration program, regardless of the length of time that they have been in Australia Therefore, these refugees are forced to be separated from their family, potentially indefinitely No doubt this will also contribute to their social marginalisation and disadvantage within our society.

Click here to view the full IARC submission to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002

Name: RMIT [Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology] University, Refugee Support Task Force

RMIT is committed to being engaged with the main issues of society through its responsiveness to community needs The mass movements of refugees around the world and the presence of asylum-seekers in Australia bring an important set of issues to RMITRMIT has recently established a Refugee Support Task Force, to recommend actions the university can take to support refugees and asylum seekers RMIT's involvement in this issue has bought the university into contact with TPV holders, some of whom are currently RMIT students, and with their advocates through the RMIT Refugee Support Reference Group This contact has made us aware of the severity of the problems TPV holders currently face, and committed to lending assistance as a university As part of this commitment, and our broader engagement with issues in the community, we submitted a response to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002 which made the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1:
In order to give TPV holders the best chance of finding meaningful employment, the full range of settlement services offered to holders of permanent protection visas should be made available In particular, TPV holders should be given access to: the 510 hours of free English classes offered, through AMEP, to permanent visa holders; Centrelink job search facilities; and free interpreting and translation services.

Recommendation 2:
Mutual obligation, breaching and activity tests should not be applied to those on special benefit Instead they should be given access to the full range of Centrelink job search assistance, including job networks, on an elective basis.

Recommendation 3:
Denial of access to social security should never be utilised as a deterrent measure against further undocumented arrivals.

Recommendation 4:
The dollar for dollar income test should be abolished, as should the in-kind means testing eg. one third reduction in payment to those who receive free board. Special Benefit should not be means tested more stringently than New Start.

Recommendation 5:
TPV holders on special benefit should be permitted to study full time, in order to best enable them to gain educations or update overseas qualifications.

Click here to view the full RMIT submission to the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Special Benefit Activity Test) Bill 2002

Name: Barbara Ashby
Bardon, Queensland.

We in Australia should be more aware than some other countries in the world about racial discrimination. Our White Australia policy was a form of racial discrimination, it was a form of apartheid very well recognised by the South Africans ( I visited South Africa in those times) and one of the reasons that white South Africans have chosen Australia to move to post apartheid. Indigenous Australians have only recently been included in the same rights as other citizens and have still to enjoy the same standard of living.

For these reasons we should all look very closely at the effect the TPV has on the men, women and children it is inflicted on. There is no doubt in my mind that it is racist and very detrimental to the health, mental and physical, of those who hold it.

TPV's are genuine refugees under Australia's strict guidelines - that means they have fled here from terrible consequences happening to them if they had stayed. They have had to leave behind family, home and culture. They have endured a horrendous journey by boat across seas to claim asylum and safety. After they have had the good fortune not to have drowned, they land to be interred in desert detention camps for an unknown length of time with no knowing what may happen to them. This is adults - who have left family behind, young people alone, and parents with young children.

Finally out in Australian society they should be able to look forward to rebuilding their lives. But no - I have friends who hold TPV's. It is cruel. Where the male adult is a professional and should be contributing to the Australian economy - he can't get a job because he is only assured of being here for 3 years - no one wants him. The mother has to try to build up his confidence in a culture where the male is proud of being the family carer. She is also trying to provide support for her children. Her older boys she has not seen for years as they had to escape quicker and were taken to Europe by people smugglers. When she tried to ask them to take the rest of the family there too she had no choice but to go to Australia. Under the TPV she cannot go to visit them and they cannot come here! Her younger children here are allowed to go to school - thank goodness. However one of them has reached Grade 11. When I first met them he was going to study to be a doctor, a professional, like his father. All of them are succeeding very well considering they have learned English with no help, had lost 2 years of school whilst escaping through the middle east and a further 1 1/2 years without schooling in Detention! But the careers people who visited the school from the universities - when he told them of his ambitions - told him to' forget it 'as he had no entitlement to go to university under the TPV!He was severely depressed, lost interest in school and although still attending is lost! All the family suffer severe migraines, have to sleep in the early evening and try to hold themselves together as a family. They have no idea whether they will have their right to stay revoked next year when the 3 years is up. They say that people they know in Sydney have been told that there will be no decision. The children don't know what their future will be! The parents feel that they have let their children down - a terrible sense of failure!! I am continually upset that I am part of this Australia - it is certainly racist.

Name: Sheila Newman
Frankston, VIC

If Australia allows asylum applicants easier entry and true permanency then this will mean that it represents a more favourable destination than do most other countries. This has the likely impact of increasing the flow of asylum applicants under the non-refoulement obligations. The processing of such applicants is, as we know, extremely expensive, not least because it has become the subject of a legal industry. If those making asylum laws make them in the absence of real information (rather than vague official rhetoric) on practices in other countries then our policies will become a source of problems rather than solutions. If you have relied on the Australian and English speaking media for your information or on works based on poorly defined national and international statistics then your enquiry will produce little of use.

Counting immigration is complex. National statistics have limited comparability internationally, not only for refugees/asylum applicants, but particularly for overall migration data. Europe generally keeps two sets of books. The first is for "third world immigrants/refugees" and these are counted in OECD figures and locally defined as OS immigration. The second set of books is for intra EEC and EU countries. These migration movements are not subject to medical examinations except in exceptional circumstances, and, in this way and in other ways, escape OECD documentation. Western Europe has practised a discrimination that can be inferred as racial or as political or as economic or as prioritising local community since the late 1950s. I am most familiar with French law. After 1974 this 'discrimination' was formalised and in the late 1990s EEC deriving immigrants had the automatic right to 10 year work and residence visas equivalent to the French identity card. These privileges are not available to peoples from outside Western Europe, including Australians.

Since 1974 there has been a divergence on immigration/refugee policy between Western European countries and English speaking settler States, e.g. Australia, USA, Canada, NZ. (South Africa excluded from examination here).

This divergence has comprised a reduction in formal immigration & refugee intake [usually defined together statistically] in the West European countries but maintenance of high immigration [often defined separately from refugee intake] in the English speaking settler states. Most people in the latter states are unaware of this difference.

Because, at European law (but not at Australian law) family reunion is a right, unplanned immigration to West Europe has risen under family reunion since the 1980s. West European countries get around this now unpopular trend by limiting availability of housing; the housing stock is more or less finite. Lack of housing also means that those asylum seekers whose claims are rejected and even those whose claims are accepted, find getting a foothold very difficult. Many move on, conveniently for those States, and outside formal statistical documentation. In Australia and other English speaking countries (I include the UK in the latter group, not in the Western European group) the system of land development planning and housing has become dependent on population growth and is a major factor impeding reduction of immigration numbers. A preference for monied immigrants militates against high intake of refugees in these English speaking states.

In conjunction with population growth rate decline there was a decline in dependency on petroleum derived fuels, which was not reproduced in the English Speaking Settler States.

The impact of this difference is that the population trajectories for the European states trend towards peak and then decline after around 2050. In the English speaking settler states the trajectories climb ever upwards. Energy and CO2 pollution trajectories reflect these trends and energy policies. Much of the post 1974 'growth as usual' in the English speaking western world has been paid for by growing debt where economies have been more and more reliant on extractive mining and agricultural bases that do not match dollar value per kilogram commercial oil equivalent of the slower growing populations with less resource intensive economies of Europe.

These differences represent important ecological considerations. Such considerations have led to the rise in ecological organisations (called Ecomalthusian) that worry about growth in population numbers in Western Economies. Similar concerns are not experienced in Western Europe (which is a largely imagined model for many of our philosophical concepts and standards with regard to immigration and asylum) because rate of population growth and rate of energy consumption and debt are not so out of control. Where ecological damage is great, population growth decline trends promise long term relief. Not so in Australia. In Europe biodiversity is also a very feeble consideration. In Australia, the US, Canada, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, this is not the case.

These ecological factors are raised here because, if you apply a European based analysis to them, then you may infer them as racially motivated in the absence of complimentary energy consumption and demographic growth rates information and values which include preservation of local biodiversity and wilderness. This has been at the origin of much misunderstanding between legal and social champions of high immigration and refugee intake and liberal asylum policies and those who oppose high population growth on other grounds which do not include beliefs that humans come in different races and that differences between these are of economic, social or ecological importance.