Sarah Stephen

In recent years, many families who successfully convinced the immigration department (DIMIA) that they should be released from detention found themselves in a new type of hell <97> living on a bridging visa E (BVE).

This visa denies people the right to work, and access to Medicare or government welfare. They aren't even allowed to do voluntary work, or access public education or transport concessions. Those on BVEs include asylum seekers living in the community; some have been on BVEs for up to five years.

A bridging visa is a temporary visa that enables a non-citizen to remain lawfully in the country while their application for a substantive visa is processed, or while they make arrangements to leave. There are five classes of bridging visa: A, B, C, D and E. Their duration can vary from days to years.

DIMIA told a 2004 Senate estimates committee hearing that it had issued 33,000 bridging visas in 2003. Around 22,000 of them were bridging visa A, which allow the visa-holder to work, but at least 8000 were BVEs.

A proportion of visa over-stayers, who have not made a claim for protection, are also granted BVEs. Some better-known examples include Fijian mother of five Sereana Naikelekele, who was released from detention on a BVE in April; and Naomi Leong, the three-year-old who was born in Villawood detention centre, and inexplicably released on a BVE while her mother, Virginia, was granted a BVA.

DIMIA refuses to disclose how many of those on BVEs are asylum seekers, but in her 2003 masters thesis Hostility and Hospitality, B. Telfer estimated that 34-40% of community-based refugees have no work rights or access to Medicare.

According to Amnesty International, there are around 8000-10,000 asylum seekers living in the community awaiting decisions on their applications for protection visas and appeals procedures. Using Telfer's estimates, somewhere between 2700 and 4000 asylum seekers are struggling to survive on BVEs.

Community support

Asylum seekers end up on a BVE for four main reasons. In some circumstances, a refugee can be released from detention to await the outcome of their claim or appeal. This may be because of mental or physical health reasons, or because they are an unaccompanied minor. Others have been released as a result of a habeas corpus application (challenging the lawfulness of their detention) due to being stateless and therefore facing indefinite detention.

Their release is conditional on them proving they have sufficient community support to live without any work rights or government support. Often some of the most vulnerable are released from detention on these grounds, and their medical and care needs are very high. Yet they are explicitly denied access to Medicare and government-funded health services.

Father Jim Carty from the House of Welcome in Sydney, which provides assistance to asylum seekers, has seen a number of people released on habeas corpus after four years in detention, who have then been put onto BVEs. "They're put in a timeless capsule of punitive conditions", he told Green Left Weekly. "They're stateless; no country will take them. Why can't we give them permission to work?"

The majority of BVE-holders have never been detained. They arrived in Australia with valid visitor or student visas, were cleared by immigration and subsequently lodged protection visa applications. Since July 1, 1997, all asylum seekers who do not apply for a protection visa within 45 days of arrival in Australia are denied the right to work and access to Medicare. This was introduced under former immigration minister Philip Ruddock as a deterrent to supposed non-genuine asylum seekers.

There are a number of legitimate reasons why BVE holders don't manage to lodge their application within 45 days of arrival. They include: misinformation from well-meaning family or community members, or migration agents; insufficient information or inability to access representation; circumstances changing in their home country (this mainly affects overseas students); and a lack of English or understanding of legal or immigration procedures.

Appeals punished

If asylum seekers appeal their application decision beyond the Refugee Review Tribunal, they are automatically denied work rights. Appeals to the Federal and High Court take from six months to a number of years. This category may include prior holders of temporary protection visas (that is, acknowledged refugees) who are appealing a negative decision of an application for a permanent protection visa.

Carty related an example of one family on a BVE whose two children were born in Australia, and who believed they would be persecuted if they went back home. "Their case doesn't come up in court until late next year. How do they survive? The Red Cross might help, but it depends what stage they've reached in the claims process. Otherwise, it's us or [the organisation] Bridge for Asylum Seekers."

As of July 1, 1998, asylum seekers seeking ministerial discretion on humanitarian grounds under section 417 of the migration act are automatically denied work rights. Appeals to the minister can take a number of years. This category may also include prior holders of TPVs.

Struggling to survive the visa from hell

Sarah Stephen

BVE holders are not entitled to Medicare benefits. Sixty-one per cent of those asylum seekers surveyed by Hotham Mission needed medical attention while on a BVE. One in four had been refused medical treatment, either because they did not have a Medicare card, could not pay for the services or did not have sufficient identification.

This included one case where a person with an injury related to previous torture could not locate a specialist willing to diagnose the problem gratis. In another case, a person with a urinary tract infection and liver problems went undiagnosed and untreated for two years. In another case three asylum seekers were only able to access hospitalisation after a long advocacy processes and threats of legal action. In another, a six-year-old child was denied access to a hospital outpatient clinic for treatment of chronic asthma.

Poor legal representation

Sarah Stephen

Katarina, a single mother from Eastern Europe, waited four years for a final decision before being approved by the minister under section 417. Although having no family in Australia, with work rights for the first three years Katarina managed to support herself and her child, and pay for the services of a migration agent. The agent had initially quoted her a maximum fee of $3000-4000. When her submission to the minister was lodged, Katarina lost her work rights and her ability to support her family. The agent allegedly told Katarina that she would be able to get her work rights back and then charged her $7000 to lodge the ministerial application.

From Green Left Weekly, October 12, 2005.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.