The Coalition’s proposed changes risk undermining a fair and workable protection system.

Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Australia recognises that Australia needs a well-managed migration system that responds to housing, infrastructure, workforce and community needs. 

A good system should be predictable, fair and workable. It should give people a genuine opportunity to understand and meet their obligations, resolve their immigration status efficiently, and plan their lives.

It should also enable Australia to meet its responsibilities to people who need protection.

The Coalition’s policy proposal would significantly reduce Australia’s humanitarian intake, and make bridging and temporary visas highly inaccessible, by requiring people to leave Australia and apply offshore. The Coalition would also introduce a 30-day limit for people making an onshore protection claim. 

These are serious changes to the way Australia responds to people who are already here, including people whose circumstances may be uncertain or whose need for protection has not yet been resolved. 

The proposal to halve Australia’s humanitarian intake to 10,000 places comes at a time when the number of people displaced globally remains extraordinarily high. 

Australia’s humanitarian program is already a relatively small contribution to our overall migration program, but it is an important and deliberate way Australia shares responsibility for people who cannot safely remain where they are. 

It is pragmatic and responsible for Australia to welcome people who need protection, knowing they will bring with them their gifts, skills and experiences that enrich our whole community. 

Learn about the crisis facing people from Myanmar.

The proposed 30-day deadline for people to lodge protection claims is also unlikely to produce a fairer or more efficient system.  

Many of the people we work alongside, who have valid grounds for seeking asylum, are not immediately aware of their right to make a protection claim, let alone prepared to navigate the process or access the resources required to set a claim in motion.

Families arrive dealing with the aftermath or war, displacement, grief, and loss, and many are rightly focused on their immediate survival. It takes time, safety, and support to apply for asylum.   

Others may need to apply for asylum long after their arrival because conditions in their country of origin have changed, making the 30-day deadline unviable.  

Whether a person needs protection should be determined by the circumstances they face if returned to their country of origin, not by how quickly they are able to navigate the system.  

The proposed reduction in bridging visas also raises concerns.  

Bridging visas do not provide a pathway for people to remain in Australia indefinitely. They allow people to remain lawfully while their immigration status or application is being resolved.

The Coalition says its proposal would reduce the current bridging visa caseload from around 414,000 to 20,000, primarily by requiring people seeking subsequent visas to leave Australia and apply offshore. This will send families back to circumstances where they face harm, and risk Australia’s non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. 

Australia already has processes for assessing protection claims, and we have guidance about how Australia can support those who do not have a lawful basis to remain, to return home safely, voluntarily and with dignity.  

We should be focusing on making these processes timely, fair and effective, rather than introducing arbitrary barriers that make it harder for people to remain lawfully and safely while their cases are being heard.  

Nobody benefits when protection is reduced to a numbers game.

Housing, infrastructure and cost-of-living pressures affect everyone in Australia, including migrants. They require practical solutions: building more homes, investing in infrastructure and making essential services work for the people who rely on them.  

Reducing migration or weakening protections for people seeking safety is not a substitute for addressing these underlying challenges, and it is a poor basis from which to approach migration policy.  

Over decades working alongside refugees and people seeking asylum, we know that migrant communities bring much-needed skills, qualifications, experience and capacity to contribute to both Australia’s workforce, and our diverse and thriving multicultural community.  

We also know that refugees and people seeking asylum in particular are consistently working below their qualifications, because of barriers to skills recognition.  

Read Ahmad’s Story here, for example.  

Effective migration policy in Australia should make it possible for people like Ahmad to contribute their skills and experience, live self-sufficiently and participate fully in Australian life, wherever they are in their asylum journey.  

There are practical ways to build a migration system that is both well managed and fair. 

Australia can maintain a meaningful humanitarian program, of 20,000 places or more, as part of our overall migration planning. It is a responsible and pragmatic measure for Australia to offer a pathway to safety for people in need of protection.   

We can also make our system work better by investing in timely, properly resourced processing. 

People have a right to seek asylum, and protection claims need to be assessed fairly. People who need support to navigate the system need clear information and pathways. People who may not have a basis to remain also need their circumstances resolved promptly and safely.  

This is what a well-managed system looks like: clear pathways, timely decisions and a fair process for everyone, before people are pushed further into uncertainty and crisis, and without making those circumstances harder to resolve later.  

A better legacy for Australia would be a system that gives people a fair go, upholds the rights of people seeking protection, and makes sure no one falls through the cracks.