For Australian government ministers to harness the economic benefits of refugees for both Australia and refugees’ host countries, the impediments of securing meaningful employment must be recognised and addressed. These include: the extensive time in Australia’s offshore detention centres which not only reduces education and employment capabilities but also costs the Australian government over A$400,000 a year per person (Button et al, 2016); The lack of recognition of overseas skills and expensive bridging courses that condemn qualified refugees to low skilled, difficult, dangerous and demanding jobs despite high-skilled labour shortages within Australia; The discrimination and ignorance surrounding refugee’s capabilities and the worth of their qualifications; The English language proficiency of refugees.
Literature has repeatedly established that refugees desire to join the labour market as soon as possible upon settlement (Correa-Velez et al, 2013). Yet despite significant intentions to find a job, most studies have highlighted that they experience distinct obstacles to obtaining employment and therefore participate less in the labour force than other migrant groups, particularly in the first years of settlement (Correa-Velez et al, 2013).
Labour-Market Segmentation
For instance, despite a large share of refugees having high pre-existing skills they are often not utilised. This is due to labour-market segmentation, a concept that decreases the prospects of particular groups, in this case refugees, due to social and institutional barriers, meaning they are restrained to the secondary sector of the economy that often fall into the ‘3D’ categories of Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous (Hugo 2009; Colic Peisker and Talibury, 2006).
Securitisation of Migration Within Public Discourse
Labour segmentation can be due to refugees often facing discrimination in the work-place due to the inherent subjectivities and securitisation of migration within public discourse (Ehrkamp, 2017) whereby refugees are perceived as a security threat and employers hold certain biases based on public opinion. Therefore, they often face a disadvantage entering the workforce, either facing unemployment, falling into segmented sectors, or being more likely to be exploited due to their lack of knowledge on cultural and societal norms, (Ehrkamp 2017; Correa-Velez et al, 2013).
Lack of Recognition of Pre-existing Skills
Not only this, pre-existing skills or qualifications are often not recognised by employers, so refugees are again either unemployed or underemployed (Marston, 2004). This is further impeded by the high cost of bridging courses and supplementary exams required to receive recognition (Okhovat, 2018). However, studies have also shown that recognition of overseas skills and qualifications on its own is not enough to secure employment and only when in combination with the education of employers is it a successful strategy (Correa-Velez et al, 2013).
Australia’s increasing labour shortages, especially of skilled employment, and demographic challenges, such as ageing of labour forces are a strong incentive to facilitate better employment prospects amongst refugees (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006). Regional and country areas of Australia have even declared a ‘urban-rural population imbalance crisis’ (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury). Indeed, policies have been implemented, particularly targeted at refugees, to increase motivations for settlement in such areas. However, despite increased job opportunities, the lack of resource centres have been highlighted as an incentive to stay in metropolitan areas due to better support services (Colic-Peisker and Tilbury, 2006; Okhovat, 2018).
Language Barriers & Working Bans
Another barrier to obtaining meaningful employment is English-language proficiency (Button, 2016). Whilst those on granted refugee and humanitarian visas are entitled to a limited number of English language lesson hours for the first five years under the Adult Migrant English Programme (AMEP) (Correa-Velez et al, 2013), it is often between 2-3 years before being granted a successful refugee status or obtaining a humanitarian visa. This time is also often spent in offshore detention centres (such as Nauru) or within the community. Whilst recent policy has reversed the working ban on refugees with Bridging Visas (BVEs), those within community detention centres are still not allowed to work hindering refugees’ ability to contribute to the economy (Okhovat, 2018).
Additionally, time spent in such centres have not only been shown to worsen refugee employment opportunities but can often be particularly detrimental to both their physical and mental health (Refugee Council of Australia, 2010). This also inhibits the extent to which refugees may be able to enter the workforce and can lead to greater reliance on further mental health, trauma and counselling service provision from the state.
Conclusion
Research has long-established that refugees are not passive recipients of aid (Black and Oeppen, 2013). Securing better and more meaningful employment opportunities for refugees have been highlighted as a driving factor in economic development for both host and origin countries and can also increase the extent to which refugees can become actors in conflict resolution (Koppenburg 2009; Black and Oeppen, 2013).
Recommendations
-Increase the turn-around time of visa processing so that periods within refugee detention centres are as limited as possible and refugees can access education and labour opportunities quickly. This will ensure that the economic benefits to Australia are maximised as less money is spent on care within such facilities and more money is contributed to the local economy sooner.
-Provide subsidies for refugee bridging courses & for employers who hire refugees as part of a Refugee Recognition and Representation campaign assisted by our NGO team as a joint venture between Australian Red Cross and Refugee Council of Australia. This educational and monetary initiative will help inform the public and future employers on the value and capabilities of refugees and help lead to greater recognition of overseas qualifications.
-Local councils must invest in more refugee resource centres in regional and country areas to facilitate employment transitions and encourage regional settlement. This will help fill labour shortages in areas most affected and facilitate better integration into the labour economy
References
Black, R., Oeppen. C., (2014) Refugees, In: Desai, V. and Potter, R.B. (eds.) The Companion to Development Studies (3rd ed.), Routledge: London, pp 503-506
Button, L., Evans, S., Lamion. A., (2016), At What Cost? The Human, Economic and Strategic Cost of Australia’s Asylum Seeker Policies and the Alternatives’, Save the Children and UNICEF
Colic-Peisker. V., Tilbury. F. (2006), Employment niches for recent refugees: segmented labour market in twentyfirst century Australia, Journal of Refugee Studies, 19 (2), pp 203-229
Correa-Velez. I., Barnett. A., Gifford. S., (2013), Working for a better life: Longitudinal evidence on the predictors of employment among recently arrived refugee migrant men living in Australia, International Migration, 53 (2), pp 321-337
Ehrkamp. P., (2017), Geographies of migration I: refugees, Progress in Human Geography 41(6), pp 813–822
Hugo. G., (2009), Best practice in temporary labour migration for development: A perspective from Asia and the Pacific, International migration, 47(5), pp.23-74.
Koppenberg. S., (2009), Where do forced migrants stand in the migration and development debate? Oxford Monitor of Forced Migration, 2(1), pp 77-99
Marston. G., (2004), A Punitive Policy: Labour Force Participation of Refugees on Temporary Protection Visas (TPV), Labour & Industry: a journal of the social and economic relations of work, 15 (1), pp 65-79
Okhovat. S., (2018), With Empty Hands: How the Australian Government is forcing people seeking asylum to destitution, Refugee Council of Australia
Refugee Council of Australia, (2010), Economic, civic and social contributions of refugees and humanitarian entrants: A literature review, Report prepared for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Canberra
Van Hear. N., (2009), Managing mobility for human development: The growing salience of mixed migration’ (with R. Brubaker and T. Bessa), Human Development Research Paper 2009/20 contributing to the Human Development Report 2009, New York/Geneva
By Catherine Greenacre,The European Institute for International Law and International Relations.
