Australia's Humanitarian Program: a quick guide to the statistics since 1947

Includes humanitarian entrant estimates between 1947–48 and 1976–77 and Humanitarian Program visa grants since 1977–78. Summary Australia has a long history of accepting refugees and other humanitarian entrants from all parts of the globe, including those in need of assistance during and immediately after World War II. Since 1945, when the first  federal immigration  portfolio was established to administer Australia’ s post - war migration program, over  80 0,000 refugees and displaced persons have settled in Australia . However, it was not until Indochinese asylum seekers, fleeing conflict during the Vietnam War, began to arrive by boat that the Australian Government developed a specific refugee policy. Australia’ s first planned Humanitarian Program designed to deal with refugee and humanitarian issues, including the determination of onshore protection claims, was subsequently established by the Fraser Government in 1977. Since then, permanent migrants  have entered Australia via one of two distinct programs — the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian Program for refugees and those in refugee - like  situations. The Australian Government allocates places, or quotas, each year for people wanting to migrate permanently to Australia under these two programs. Annual statistics on Migration and Humanitarian Program ‘outcomes’ (visa grants) published by the Immigration Department since the 1970s, provide the most accurate source of data on the number of people granted visas to migrate to Australia. It is important to understand that there are two main components of Australia’s Humanitarian Program — offshore and onshore:  • the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program offers resettlement in Australia to refugees and humanitarian entrants from overseas under two categories. Most offshore refugees are referred to Australia by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and are formally accepted and resettled under the ‘Refugee’ category. These entrants have been assessed and accepted as refugees under Refugee Convention criteria. The Special Humanitarian Program (SHP) also offers resettlement to those offshore who, while not necessarily being refugees, face human rights abuses in their home country and have a connection with Australia. Applicants must have a sponsor (e.g. a permanent resident, Australian citizen or organisation).  Applications from family members of people already in Australia are referred to as ‘split family’. • the onshore component  of the Humanitarian Program  offers protection to people who have arrived in  Australia, lodged an asylum claim, and been granted protection. Onshore humanitarian entrants may have  been found to be refugees under Refugee Convention criteria or may otherwise engage Australia’s protection  obligations under other  human rights conventions

Boat arrivals in Australia: a quick guide to the statistics

Introduction: This quick guide provides statistics on the number of asylum seekers that have arrived by boat in Australia since 1976 when the first wave of boats carrying people seeking asylum from the aftermath of the Vietnam War began to arrive. It reproduces and updates the appendices of a more detailed Parliamentary Library research paper, Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. The full research paper includes an overview of the historical and political context surrounding the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, details of Australian government policy responses since 1976, and trends in public opinion.   It is important to note that, while every effort has been made to ensure consistency, the statistics provided in this guide have been compiled by Parliamentary Library staff over a period of many years from a variety of sources. For example, since 2008 our financial year figures have been compiled from ministerial or departmental media releases and transcripts. As not all media releases specify the number of crew members versus passengers, and some boat arrivals may not be subject to ministerial or departmental media releases at all, these figures may differ slightly from other sources. While we are confident our financial year figures accurately reflect available Government data, due to the inconsistency of the sources over the years these figures should be regarded as an estimate. However, our calendar year figures since 2009 have been compiled from a single source—regular advice provided to the Parliamentary Library by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. As a result, we can have confidence in the consistency and accuracy of that data

Boat arrivals and boat ‘turnbacks’ in Australia since 1976: a quick guide to the statistics

Overview This quick guide provides statistics on the number of asylum seeker boats that have arrived in Australia since 1976 when the first wave of boats carrying people seeking asylum from the aftermath of the Vietnam War began to arrive. The guide also includes the number of boats that have been ‘turned back’ since the practice of removing unauthorised maritime arrivals in Suspected Illegal Entry Vessels (SIEVs) from Australian waters was introduced by the Howard Government in 2001 and reintroduced by the Abbott Government in 2013. It reproduces and updates the appendices of a more detailed Parliamentary Library Research paper, Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976. The full Research paper includes an overview of the historical and political context surrounding the arrival of asylum seekers by boat, details of Australian Government policy responses since 1976, and trends in public opinion.&nbsp

Asylum seekers and refugees: a quick guide to key parliamentary library publications

Provides an overview of the content and links to several of the recent publications on issues affecting asylum seekers and refugees, both internationally and in Australia. Summary Asylum seeker and refugee policy has attracted a great deal of attention in Australia for many years. In particular, concerns over the unauthorised arrival of asylum seekers by boat have occupied successive governments and parliaments since the 1970s. With increasing levels of global forced displacement, public and political debate on these issues appears likely to continue for the foreseeable future. The Parliamentary Library has produced several comprehensive papers on asylum seeker and refugee issues and government policy responses, many of which are regularly updated. This quick guide provides an overview of the content and links to several of the recent publications on issues affecting asylum seekers and refugees, both internationally and in Australia

Permanent and temporary migration: a quick guide to key internet links

This guide provides key internet links to information about: skilled migration, family migration, temporary migration, and multiculturalism

Domestic, family and sexual violence in Australia: an overview of the issues

Provides an overview of research on the prevalence of domestic, family and sexual violence, at risk groups and the costs of violence against women to communities and to the economy. Introduction In 2013 the World Health Organization (WHO) published the first systematic international review on the prevalence of violence against women. During the course of the review the authors analysed and collated data from around the world, including Australia, on the prevalence of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. The review found that violence against women is a significant public health problem and a violation of human rights that affects more than one third of all women globally. The review concluded that the prevalence of violence constitutes ‘a global public health problem of epidemic proportions, requiring urgent action’. In Australia, domestic, family and sexual violence is widespread across all cultures, ages and socio-economic groups and the majority of those who experience these forms of violence are women. The most recent data on personal safety found that many men and women experience at least one encounter with violence in their lifetimes. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey estimated that in 2012, 49 per cent of men aged 18 years and over and 41 per cent of women aged 18 years and over had experienced some form of violence since the age of 15. Men were far more likely to experience physical violence at the hands of a stranger. However, the majority of women experienced physical violence by someone known to them—usually an intimate partner. While both men and women were more likely to experience physical violence than sexual violence, those who did experience sexual violence were much more likely to be women—around 4 per cent of men and 17 per cent of women had experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. Of those who experienced sexual violence (both men and women), the majority reported that the perpetrator was known to them. This research paper updates several previous Parliamentary Library publications on the levels of violence experienced by women in Australia. The paper includes an overview of research on the prevalence of domestic, family and sexual violence, at risk groups and the costs of violence against women to communities and to the economy. Limited comparisons of the levels of violence experienced by men and women are included where relevant. The paper also includes an overview of policy approaches designed to prevent violence against women

Developments in Australian refugee law and policy (2012 to August 2013)

Introduction: This Research paper provides a snap-shot of significant developments in refugee law and policy during the period 2012 to August 2013 when the 43rd Parliament was prorogued and the House of Representatives dissolved for a general election. The commencement of 2012 saw the Government and Coalition remain at an impasse on offshore processing following the successful 2011 High Court challenge to the Government’s proposed Malaysia Arrangement. In the absence of bi-partisan support to implement statutory amendments to facilitate offshore processing, the Government began implementing a single visa processing framework for all asylum seekers which saw irregular maritime arrivals being processed in the same way as onshore protection visa applicants. That is, both began to be assessed under a statutory process with independent merits review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) and have equal access to judicial review of negative decisions. However, by mid-2012, the report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers had been released and without delay, the Government begun implementing key recommendations, including the introduction of legislation to support the transfer of asylum seekers to regional processing countries, and creating capacity in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (PNG) to process asylum claims. The Government had also increased its Humanitarian Program to 20,000 places per year (with a minimum of 12,000 places being allocated for refugees), and it had removed family reunion concessions for proposers who had arrived through irregular maritime voyages. By the end of 2012, the Government had also begun implementing the Expert Panel’s ill-defined ‘no advantage’ principle to prevent boat arrivals benefitting from circumventing regular migration arrangements. It implemented this principle by selecting and transferring some boat arrivals to the regional processing centres in PNG and Nauru. The principle was also applied to an increasing number of asylum seekers released into the community on the mainland on bridging visas by denying them the opportunity to work and offering them only limited financial support. Significantly, these boat arrivals also remained ineligible for the grant of protection visas ‘until such time that they would have been resettled in Australia after being processed in our region’. However, the Government never clarified the number of years it envisaged these asylum seekers would wait for final resolution of their status, nor did it rule out the possibility of sending them offshore at a later date. The Government subsequently estimated that some 19,000 asylum seekers living in the community were subject to the ‘no advantage’ principle. Two months before the 2013 federal election and in the wake of growing support for the Opposition’s tougher border protection policies, newly appointed Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd made a surprise announcement on 19 July 2013 that Australia had entered into a Regional Resettlement Arrangement with PNG. Under the Arrangement, all asylum seekers that henceforth arrive by boat would be liable for transfer to PNG for processing and resettlement in PNG and in any other participating regional State. He subsequently makes a similar Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Nauru. Notwithstanding the Government’s policy shift, the Australian Labor Party was unable to secure another term in office and on 7 September 2013, the Liberal and National parties were voted in to form a Coalition Government, led by Tony Abbott. This paper provides a brief chronology of these and other significant events during the reporting period. It also outlines key legal developments by examining significant Federal and High Court judgments and provides a brief overview of the Bills that were introduced. The paper also briefly examines key policy developments and provides an overview of significant reports and parliamentary inquiries finalised during the reporting period. In doing so, this paper builds upon previous Parliamentary Library publications, Developments in Australian refugee law and policy 2010—2011 and Developments in Australian refugee law and policy 2007–10: Labor’s first term in office

Migration to Australia: a quick guide to the statistics

This paper provides a summary of some of the key statistics on permanent and temporary migration to Australia. Overview Australia is considered to be one of the world’s major ‘immigration nations‘ (together with New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America (USA). Since 1945, when the first federal immigration portfolio was created, over 7.5 million people have settled here and Australia’s overseas-born resident population—estimated to be 27.7 per cent of the population in June 2013—is considered high compared to most other OECD countries. Permanent migrants enter Australia via one of two distinct programs—the Migration Program for skilled and family migrants or the Humanitarian Program for refugees and those in refugee-like situations. The Australian Government allocates places, or quotas, each year for people wanting to migrate permanently to Australia under these two programs. Until very recently, the United Kingdom (UK) had always been the primary source country for permanent migration to Australia. However, for the first time in the history of Australia, China surpassed the UK as Australia’s primary source of permanent migrants in 2010–11. Since then, China and India have continued to provide the highest number of permanent migrants. New Zealand (NZ) citizens also feature highly in the number of settler arrivals, but they are not counted under Australia’s Migration Program unless they apply for (and are granted) a permanent visa. Over the decades, migration program planning numbers have fluctuated according to the priorities and economic and political considerations of the government of the day. However, it is important to note that the Australian Government’s immigration policy focus has changed markedly since 1945, when attracting general migrants (primarily from the UK) was the priority, to focussing on attracting economic migrants and temporary (skilled) migrants. Currently the planning figure for the Migration Program is 190,000 places, with skilled migrants comprising the majority. One of the most significant developments in the dynamics of migration to Australia in recent years has been the growth in temporary migration. In 2000–01 temporary migrants outnumbered permanent arrivals for the first time. Many of these entrants arrived on either student visas or long-term temporary skilled business visas (subclass 457). Unlike the permanent Migration Program, the level of temporary migration to Australia is not determined or subject to quotas or caps by Government, but rather is demand driven. The 457 visa also provides a pathway for skilled workers and their dependants to apply for permanent residence and many students are also eligible to apply for permanent visas under the Migration Program at the completion of their courses. The largest contribution to net overseas migration (NOM) in recent years has been from people on temporary visas—mostly comprised of overseas students and temporary skilled migrants and the rate of Australia’s population growth has increased significantly over the few years largely driven by an increase in NOM

Assessment of Practice in Pre-Registration Undergraduate Nursing Programmes. Phase 2 Evaluation: Survey of students’ and mentors’ experiences of grading student competence in practice.

Executive Summary Context Local and national concerns regarding competency in newly qualified practitioners provided the impetus for the undergraduate nursing programme team at Bournemouth University to radically change the practice assessment tool as part of a curriculum rewrite in 2005. Alongside the introduction of the new practice profile, an evaluation strategy was implemented with two stages; Phase One focused on year one of implementation and reported at the end of that year (2005-6). These findings were used to inform mentor education and to amend the tool for new students and those moving into year two. This phase used a qualitative approach to collect data from focus groups with students and mentors (Adult Branch only), and practice/HEI educators concerning their experiences of using the grading practice assessment scheme. Phase Two utilised the qualitative findings to develop a questionnaire survey. Questionnaires were selected as the research tool in order to access greater numbers of students and mentors from across all branch programmes. Education staff was not surveyed in this phase. Purpose and project aim The purpose of the project was to evaluate the impact of the new practice assessment scheme from the perspective of the users and to make suggestions to key stakeholders for quality improvement where necessary. Phase One of the evaluation involved small numbers and only Adult branch students; whilst the findings were informative, it seemed important to test these out on a wider sample. The aim of Phase Two of the grading practice evaluation was to explore: • mentor and student experiences of using the assessment tool across all nursing branches • the impact of quality assurance processes Pertinent literature An overview of the historical and current context of practice assessment for nurses in the UK was provided, including the policy literature from the statutory body. Research on practice assessment in nursing was found to be relatively limited particularly concerning the grading of practice. Key studies include Bondy (1983; 1984) and Hillegas & Valentine (1986) from the USA, Glover et al. (1997) from Australia; from the UK, Burns (1992) and Scammell et al. (2007). All studies had limitations but generally the notion of grading practice was well received by users; however there were concerns about quality assurance processes particularly around reliability as well as issues concerning mentor/practice assessor preparation. In light of an increased national emphasis on nurses’ competency in practice, empirical work that evaluates a new practice assessment initiative is timely. Whilst of value locally in terms of reviewing and improving processes, the findings may also interest colleagues elsewhere. Project design A questionnaire survey of mentors and year two and three nursing students was undertaken to investigate their experiences of using the grading practice assessment tool. All branches of nursing were successfully targeted for inclusion using convenience sampling, but no learning disability students opted to participate. Mentors were accessed via an annual mentor conference; students were accessed via tutor groups. 112 (86%) of the 130 mentors available, completed and returned the questionnaire. The branch representation was adult nursing (62.5%; n=70), Mental Health (21.4%; n=24), Child Health (17%; n=19) and Learning Disability (1.8%; n=2). Questionnaires were distributed to 210 students; 107 were completed (51% response). The sample comprised Adult branch (72%; n=77), Mental Health (19.6%; n=21) and Child Health students (8.4%; n=9). The response rate broadly reflected the proportion of students enrolled within each branch of the targeted cohorts. Most student respondents were undertaking year 3 of their programme (70.1%; n=73); the exception was Child Health where all students were undertaking year 2. As an evaluation study, formal ethical approval was not sought; however permission was granted to conduct the evaluation by the Associate Dean for Nursing, and the educational leads within placement areas. There was a project steering group with representatives of all parties including students and mentors; their role was to oversee the project process and to liase with colleagues within their organisations. Quantitative data was coded and inputted into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS for Windows version 15.0); where possible chi-square analysis was undertaken to explore whether the results were significant. Qualitative aspects of the questionnaire were transcribed and a content analysis was undertaken. Given the sample size, it is not possible to generalise from this evaluation. Others may judge transferability to other settings. In reviewing the findings, a number of limitations must be acknowledged. The most significant limitations are that no Learning Disability students opted to participate and the response rate generally from students was not as high as anticipated (51%). This is however a reasonable response rate for a questionnaire survey but if time had permitted, an extension to the convenience sampling may have been beneficial. Other limitations include the fact that findings were generated from reported practice and, as such, may be subject to distortions of memory. Findings Five key areas emerged from the findings: questions around mentor education indicated that participation in updates was high although the sampling process may have introduced some bias. Indeed poor uptake was identified in Phase One, reflecting other studies and anecdotal evidence for the programme team. The findings around support for practice education were mixed; mentors appeared to want more support than was available. Student experience varied according to branch – Mental health students feeling most supported and Child Health the least. However the use of neutral grades was high in both mentor and student groups indicating some cause for concern. Perception on use of the profile in terms of whether it was fit for purpose indicated positive responses overall but some confusion from both students and mentors as to the status of the written sections in comparison with skills performance; the latter was perceived as the top priority. The fourth area focused on how grading ‘worked’ and yielded some valuable perceptions. Generally respondents liked and wanted to grade or be graded in practice. Whilst the majority of mentors claimed to use the descriptors and found them useful, the number who did not use them was of concern. There were mixed perceptions of the appropriate use of second marking, some students perceiving that they were given middle grades due to logistical problems in accessing second markers, although this was not supported by the mentor data. The vast majority of mentors expressed confidence in grading students. However a significant minority responded neutrally or negatively or did not answer the question when asked whether they felt confident to fail a student. This finding is important when considered alongside the neutral response to feeling supported. Finally accountability within the assessment process appeared strong, although at times profiles were signed by staff who had not worked with the student. It is unclear however whether these mentors were primary mentors or those functioning as second markers. Overview of discussion The Phase Two evaluation was broadly supportive of the Phase One findings but extended these to other nursing branches and has provided more useful detail on some of the issues underpinning the grading practice scheme. Quality assurance is a prime issue: the evaluation has shown that reliability of the tool could be improved if the descriptors are clear and robust processes are in place to ensure these are consistently applied. Second marking is another feature of reliability and perceptions varied as to whether this was utilised as much as required and is an issue for programme and placement staff to consider, particularly in the light of inter-branch discrepancies. Students and mentors should be encouraged to constructively make any concerns known. Education around grading and support for mentors was another key area; there perhaps can never be enough support but if any staff have concerns around failing students, this needs to be addressed. The reasons for differing perceptions of support across branches, needs to be explored further. Overall the grading of competency in nursing practice yields far more benefits than problems. It is an innovative scheme, not without challenges; both evaluation phases provide valuable data to focus quality improvement effectively. Conclusion The evaluation captured the views of mentors and students representing all nursing branches, with the exception of Learning Disability students. The issues raised across the branches were broadly similar, notably that the notion of grading practice was welcomed as a means of valuing the practice element of the programme, although implementation was not without challenges. These are reflected in the focus on the quality assurance processes and in fact this is where the branch experience differs most. Mental Health students felt the most supported in placement, were the most likely to receive grades that required to be second marked (indicating full use of the grading range) and were most satisfied that mentor comments matched the grades awarded. In contrast Child Health students were the least satisfied in all these parameters. Adult branch students gave mainly neutral responses which indicate some underlying issues worthy of further investigation. It can be concluded from the mentor data that experience across branches did not differ markedly. The sample accessed updates and most felt confident in grading practice. However almost 18% did not feel confident about failing students and almost another 20% gave a neutral response to this question, indicating a need for further staff development in this area as well as a review of processes designed to support mentors in making these judgements. Recommendations • Explore ways of engaging learning disability students in sharing their perspective on the practice assessment tool and processes. • Increase transparency of communication channels between placement providers and the university regarding practice assessment. - Flowcharts or algorithms for mentors and students might be useful - Include these on the back of each practice profile • Review support mechanisms for students within placements. Identify best practice and include minimal standards on the clinical audit documentation to increase parity between placements and branches. • Investigate peer support schemes for students in practice which include preparation and support for those undertaking this role. • Child Health programme team should review support for students with practice partners to identify specific issues for improvement. • Review level descriptors with students, mentors as well as programme teams to ensure clarity of language and processes. • Re-emphasise the use of descriptors in mentor education as well as student preparation for placement • Review criteria and processes for second marking and emphasise within mentor education. • Disseminate HSC audit of practice profiles on a placement provider organisation basis and include a focus on quality of feedback in relation to grade awarded. • Review current practice around preparing and supporting mentors in failing students and develop an action plan for implementation over the next academic year

Clinical Nurse Educators' Adoption of Socioculturally-Based Teaching Strategies

Thesis (Ph.D.) - Indiana University, Nursing Science, 2009Nursing education is faced with addressing the challenge of educational reform as a result of the rapid changes in the complexity of health care delivery systems, increased technology and biomedical knowledge, a shortage in nursing faculty, and increased enrollment in schools of nursing. Although national nursing organizations have called for reform and innovation in nursing education little is known about the factors that are related to educators' adoption of such changes. The purpose of this descriptive, exploratory, correlational, survey study was to explore the adoption of socioculturally-based teaching strategies (SCBTS) by examining the following variables in relation to their adoption using Everett Rogers' diffusion of innovations model: (a) clinical nurse educators' perceived characteristics of SCBTS, (b) clinical nurse educators' perceived organizational support for innovation, and (c) selected demographic characteristics. Minimal research has been conducted regarding the factors related to clinical nurse educators' adoption of SCBTS, which may better prepare nurse graduates for today's health care system. Findings from this study suggest that adoption is not straightforward, but the perceived characteristics of teaching strategies play an important role in the clinical nurse educator's decision to adopt or not adopt SCBTS. Rogers' model was partially supported based on the findings that clinical nurse educators were more likely to adopt a teaching strategy if it was perceived to be advantageous, compatible, and not too complex. On the other hand, clinical nurse educators were more likely not to adopt teaching strategies that they must "try out" or that must be observable by others, which was not supportive of Rogers' model. Adopters of SCBTS were more experienced clinical educators who felt supported by their academic organizations in terms of innovation; however organizational support for innovations was not associated with adoption of the teaching strategies. Holding a certificate in a nursing specialty, the type of program in which the educator taught, and the age of the educator were not associated with the adoption of SCBTS. Future research using Rogers' model or other appropriate models is called for to further explore the adoption of SCBTS by clinical nurse educators