Fast asylum processing does not have to come at the cost of fairness to people seeking safety, according to a new Kaldor Centre policy brief that considers Switzerland's experience.
Calling for a new Australian approach, the authors of the new policy brief, Kaldor Centre Director Daniel Ghezelbash and Constantin Hruschka of the Protestant University of Applied Sciences in Freiburg, make the case that successive Australian governments’ focus on deterring, blocking and punishing people who seek protection has clouded serious, systemic issues and slowed down potentially life-or-death calls.
Their new research, ‘A fair and fast asylum process for Australia: Lessons from Switzerland’, draws on the success of Swiss asylum procedure reforms – which since 2019 have reduced start-to-finish times to less than nine months, while safeguarding fairness for applicants. The procedures also have earned wide-ranging political support, from the local United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office, leading refugee NGOs in Switzerland, and a large majority of the local population.
In Australia, governments have for decades tried to speed up processing by restricting a person’s ability to properly put forward a case for protection. But this has led to longer delays, with more appeals and more cases being overturned by courts and tribunals.
In Australia’s failed fast-track asylum process, more than 37% of decisions have been overturned by the courts.
The resulting, backlogged process works for no one. It hurts the health and wellbeing of people seeking asylum and sets back their ability to work, contribute and integrate into the community. For the government, costs add up while the integrity of the asylum system is undermined, with people who have no asylum claim incentivised to lodge applications so they can stay in Australia.
At a time when asylum applications are at a six-year high in Australia, the new Kaldor Centre policy brief provides evidence of a better way. It highlights three key elements of the Swiss system that should inform Australia and other countries to create better procedures.
The first is that fair and fast processing requires up-front investment in decision-making capacity; there must be enough people trained to decide and review cases.
Second, streaming cases into appropriate pathways can help use this decision-making capacity efficiently. The Swiss approach uniquely streams every case into accelerated procedures by default, with an ‘off-ramp’ for more complex cases. The latter cases are referred into the extended procedures, which have more flexible procedural timelines.
Third, and most importantly, is that applicants are supported to adequately prepare and put forward their cases. Every applicant in Switzerland has access to a government-funded, independent lawyer. While it involves up-front costs, McKinsey & Company found it would result in overall cost savings flowing from faster processing.
The Swiss experience has shown an excellent return on investment, contributing to smoother and more efficient hearings, and faster decision-making.
The Australian government’s October 2023 asylum reforms were a step in the right direction, with significant investment in decision-making capacity and a boost in funding for legal representation. However, Australia’s current approach to prioritising cases at the first stage – the Department of Home Affairs – undermines fairness, with many applicants being refused without an interview or opportunity to put forward further information about their case. The result has put additional strain on the review process before the courts and tribunals, contributing to delays across the system. A faster system will only be possible if applicants can effectively put forward their case at the departmental level.
Ghezelbash said:
‘The main lesson from the Swiss approach is that fairness enhances efficiency.’
‘Applicants must have the opportunity to adequately prepare and put forward their case, and key to this is access to government-funded legal representation. If adequate support is provided, then it is possible to speed up the processing of less complex cases by imposing shorter procedural deadlines,' Ghezelbash said.
‘But a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. There needs to be flexibility in the system to adapt procedures and timelines, based on the needs and complexity of individual cases.’
The Kaldor Centre policy brief shows that shorter procedural deadlines can work for some cases, provided safeguards and adequate support are in place. Ghezelbash and Hruschka’s research details the consultation and resourcing that would be required to leverage the evidence of the Swiss experience for success in Australia.
The result would be faster, fairer outcomes for the benefit of the Australian community – and those who seek its protection.
Explore the policy brief ‘A fair and fast asylum process for Australia: Lessons from Switzerland’ in full.
For media interviews, contact Lauren Martin, lauren.martin@unsw.edu.au or 0407 393 070.
Explore more resources at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.
Image: Pexels / Kindel Media