Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632058534.pdf (Australia)
Submission of Australian Hazara Associations to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee (i.e., the Committee) about the efficacy, fairness, timeliness, and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allow for family and partner reunions 3 May 2021 We, the undersigned Australian Hazara Associations, make this submission to the Committee about the fairness and cost of the processing and granting of visa classes for family and partner reunions.
We strongly believe that partner visa (Subclass 309) is an unfair system because it prioritises those who have arrived in Australia by air compare to those who have arrived by boats in the past decade.

Also, the delays in processing of partner visas have resulted in deterioration of mental health in our community which has direct impacts on social cohesion and community wellbeing in Australia.
Historically, the processing of partner visas for permanent residents in Australia were impacted by lack of consistent information, documentation issues, health examinations and security clearance of visa applicants.

However, in the past decade, several Ministerial Directions (i.e., Direction 62, 72 and the current Direction 80) have unfairly targeted those permanent residents who have arrived by boats prior to 13 August 2012.
As early as 2015, the Australian Human Rights Commission found that Ministerial Direction 62 constituted an ‘arbitrary and unlawful’ interference with the family and could present violation of articles 17 and 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)1.

Article 23(1) of the ICCPR states: The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State2.
Despite this finding, the then Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs issued Direction 80 on 21 December 2018, which replaced the earlier Directions.

It continues to give the lowest priority to partner visas for those permanent residents who have arrived by boats compare to those who have arrived by air in Australia.

The priority order changes when permanent residents obtain their Australian citizenships.
However, the added problem is that the Department of Home Affairs has also put citizenship applications of those who have arrived by boats in the lowest priority since 2013.

Therefore, targeted delays in the processing of citizenship applications and partner visas have resulted in deteriorating mental health in our community.
The growing insecurity and political uncertainty in Afghanistan, which have been put in further jeopardy because of the full withdrawal of US-led security forces from 1 May 2021, have further added to the mental stress and insecurity amongst our community in Australia.

More importantly, as the following stories demonstrate, targeted delays of partner visas have serious risks to socio-economic inequalities and social cohesion in Australia.
Example 1 (delays in family reunion visa and socio-economic cost to refugees and Australia) M arrived by boat in Australia in late 2011 and got his permanent residency visa in mid- 2012.
He submitted a partner visa application for his wife and three children aged 16, 13 and 1 CM v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Border Protection): Report into Arbitrary Interference With family: https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/2015_AusHRC_99.pdf 2 https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx 1 The efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allowfor family and partner reunionsSubmission 29 10 in 2013.
However, due to the Ministerial Directions, his family’s application was put at a lowest priority for processing.

He subsequently applied for his citizenship in 2016 and, as of May 2021, is still waiting to even sit for the required Citizenship Test.

M has worked hard to support his family in a transit country and has spent thousands of dollars to visit his family every one or two years.
However, the targeted delays have deteriorated his mental health and severely impacted his sense of belonging to Australia.

M is deeply worried about his family.

His oldest child is still in the application but M worries that the Department of Home Affairs may reject the child’s visa application because, since 2016, the Department has excluded children from partner visas once they turn 23 years old (i.e., resulting in split family members).
Example 2 (unfair partner visa processing and its impacts on socio-economic inequalities and social cohesion in Australia) S arrived by boat in Australia in 2011 and granted permanent residency visa in 2012.

He has applied for his partner visa in 2013, but it has not been processed in the past eight years.

However, his work mate D arrived by air in Australia and claimed for protection in 2013.

Since then, D has got his permanent residency visa and brought in his family members nearly four years ago.
D’s children attend local schools, and he has become Australian citizen.

However, S’s children lost on the same education and employment opportunities.

Every day at home and during work, S reflects about how he has been unfairly treated by the Department of Home Affairs compare to his co-worker, who has arrived from a different country by air in Australia.
He is deeply distressed about the unnecessary delays in his wife’s partner visa application, and the impacts that it has had on the education and life opportunities for his children.

Moreover, we support the findings of Australian government report into Integration, Employment and Settlement Outcomes for Refugees and Humanitarian Entrants in Australia3, which stated that settlement of refugees and their families is ‘our nation’s greatest achievements’.
As an emerging community in Australia, we have growing community members who have immensely benefitted from Australian humanitarian programs in the past two decades and have reunited with their families in this beautiful country.

They have embraced the enormous education, employment, and socio-cultural opportunities.
The thriving businesses of our community members in suburbs such as Dandenong and Shepperton in Victoria; Merrylands and Auburn in NSW and Prospect Street in Adelaide are just a few examples4.

As such, with the following story of a successful family reunion in our community, we bring to the attention of the Committee the positive impacts of timely and fair processing of partner visas to refugee families and Australia’s socio-economic development.
Example 3 (family reunion benefits to refugee families and Australia) R arrived by boat in Australia and got his permanent residency visa in 2010.

He immediately applied for his family visa (Subclass 309) and his wife and children were granted visas in 2012.

Since then, he has bought a house in Victoria and established a family business that has provided jobs for five individuals.

He has also supported his extended family members in Afghanistan.
His oldest son graduated from high school two years ago and completes his electrical apprenticeship.

His oldest daughter studies in university; and three other children attend high school.

His wife has Driver’s License and helps with his family business.

Apart from himself (who arrived by boats), his wife and children got their Australian citizenships in the past two years.
3 Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Investing in Refugees, Investing in Australia: the findings of a Review into Integration, Employment and Settlement Outcomes for Refugees and Humanitarian Entrants in Australia: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/reports-and-pubs/files/review-integration- employment-settlement-outcomes-refugees-humanitarian-entrants.pdf 4 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-07/hazara-refugee-community-impact-port-adelaide/13290420 2 The efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allowfor family and partner reunionsSubmission 29 We are grateful for the opportunity to present this submission on behalf of our community members who are deeply worried about their families in Afghanistan and in transit countries.
We look forward to attending a public hearing session to provide further information about the issues raised in this submission.

We sincerely hope the Committee’s findings inform the Department of Home Affairs’ decisions to ensure a fairer and more equitable processing of partner visas in Australia.

……………………………………………………………….. Signatories This submission is written on behalf of, and endorsed by, the following Australian Hazara Associations: 1.

Kateb Hazara Association, NSW 2.

Sallam Association, VIC 3.


Hazara Solidarity Community of Brimbank Inc. VIC 4.

Hazara Community Geelong Inc., VIC 5.

Afghan-Australian Initiative, VIC 6.

Imam Ali Association Centre, SA 7.

Queensland Afghan Community Association, QLD 8.

Payam Dari School, VIC 9.

Baba Mazari Foundation, SA 10.

Hazara Association of Queensland, QLD 11.

Rasul Akram Association of Victoria, VIC 12.

Human Care Welfare, NSW 13.

Association of Australian Tertiary Students from Afghanistan (AATSA), SA 14.
Hazara Community of Southern Tasmania, TAS 15.

Victorian Afghan Associations Network Inc. VIC 16.

Launceston Hazara Community, TAS 17.

Nabuwat Community of Western Australia Inc., WA 18.

Australian Hazara Afghan Community of WA, WA 19.

Australia Afghanistan Chamber of Commerce Inc. VIC 20.

Afghan Australian Civil Society Organisations, VIC 21.

Panjtan Welfare Society, NSW 22.

Afghan Sport Federation of Australia, SA 23.

ACT Hazara Community, ACT 24.


Hazara Association of Queensland Australia, QLD 25.

Australian AFG Football Association, NSW 3 The efficacy, fairness, timeliness and costs of the processing and granting of visa classes which provide for or allowfor family and partner reunionsSubmission 29