Australia’s Private Refugee Sponsorship Program: Creating Complementary Pathways Or Privatising Humanitarianism?

Abstract

This article provides the first history and critique of Australia’s private refugee sponsorship program, the Community Support Program (CSP). As more countries turn to community sponsorship of refugees as a means to fill the “resettlement gap,” Australia’s model provides a cautionary tale. The CSP, introduced in 2017, does not expand Australia’s overall resettlement commitment but instead takes places from within the existing humanitarian resettlement program. The Australian program charges sponsors exorbitant application fees, while simultaneously prioritizing refugees who are “job ready,” with English-language skills and ability to integrate quickly, undermining the principle of resettling the most vulnerable. As such, we argue that the CSP hijacks places from within Australia’s humanitarian program and represents a market-driven outsourcing and privatization of Australia’s refugee resettlement priorities and commitments.

The development and significance of marketisation in refugee settlement services

“…A pattern emerged in the admission of refugees of shifting costs on to the community with the introduction of a community sponsorship program. The program started as the Community Proposal Pilot in 2013 under the Gillard Labor government and became the Community Support Program under the Turnbull Coalition government in 2016 (Hirsch et al 2019). Eligibility criteria for the program focus on refugees being able to achieve self-sufficiency within 12 months, which means having a job offer, being of working age and demonstrating a functional level of English.…”

“…Eligibility criteria for the program focus on refugees being able to achieve self-sufficiency within 12 months, which means having a job offer, being of working age and demonstrating a functional level of English. The Turnbull government described the program as 'revenueraising' as the sponsors were required to pay an array of fees covering more than just expected resettlement costs, while program participants did not have access to short-term resettlement services (Hirsch et al 2019). The program was not designed to bring more refugees to Australia, as private sponsorship spots are part of, and not an addition to, Australia's annual refugee intake.…”

Community Sponsorship in Europe: Taking Stock, Policy Transfer and What the Future Might Hold

“…Applied to community sponsorship, efficiency here potentially refers to establishing new legal channels to protection and/or improving integration outcomes, depending on the model. Of course, a states' reasons for establishing new legal pathways to admission can vary between increasing protection space to establishing more control over their borders, including at the expense of the right to seek asylum (Hirsch et al, 2019).…”

“…For example, community sponsorship models should not be discriminatory, and future models should avoid previous schemes operating in the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia providing admission only to Christians (European, 2018, 61). In Australia, the costs of community sponsorship are exorbitant and the scheme supports refugees who speak English and are deemed ready for employment who, thus morphing into a form of labour migration rather than refugee protection (Hirsch et al, 2019).…”

Equally Public and Private Refugee Resettlement: The Historical Development of Canada’s Joint Assistance Sponsorship Program

“…As sponsorship has expanded around the world in recent years, debates about the public versus private role in resettlement have continued. For example, scholars in the United Kingdom and Australia have criticized emerging sponsorship programs in their countries for being too privatized (Dajani, 2021;Hirsch et al, 2019). Some countries are reluctant to introduce sponsorship programs because of concerns around privatization, in particular, about sponsors financially supporting resettled refugees.…”