Comment: World Refugee Day on June 20, which marks 75 years since the signing of the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a moment for Aotearoa to rethink how we offer protection to those who immediately need it.
With conflict, disasters and climate-related crises on the rise, more than 117 million people were forcibly displaced from their homes last year. A very small number of these individuals will eventually arrive in New Zealand through existing humanitarian pathways, but a vast majority remain in a state of limbo for years, if not generations.
For those facing imminent threats to their lives and security, our government currently has no clear or consistent policy to offer them immediate protections.
Instead, successive governments have established ad hoc responses to specific crises like Ukraine and Afghanistan, and often only after significant lobbying by community groups. But each response has had different eligibility rules, visa settings, settlement arrangements, family reunification rights and pathways to residence.
For instance, under the Special Ukraine Visa established in 2022, individuals received protection status for two years only with no clear pathways to permanent residency (this was later changed). They could only be sponsored to come to New Zealand by Ukrainians based here, who then also bore responsibility for most resettlement costs.
Just prior to that, though, in 2021, the government established the Afghan Emergency Resettlement Category. This was offered to Afghan nationals who were at risk because of their association with our government during the 20-year war against the Taliban. Greater government support in terms of both their evacuation and resettlement was provided, but not to the level of those who arrive under the refugee quota.
But the government has remained silent on many other crises of a similar (if not larger) scale – Gaza, Sudan and most recently Iran – despite countless petitions and protests.
A recently released policy report from the Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies at the University of Auckland and World Vision New Zealand argues this is both inefficient and inequitable.
For those with loved ones in these situations, it creates significant stress, made worse when formal pleas to politicians and immigration officials go unanswered. New Zealand can and should do better, particularly at a time where many other countries are shutting their doors to those seeking protection.
This is why the report calls for the establishment of a permanent emergency protection framework which would formalise New Zealand’s response to sudden global humanitarian crises.
This framework would have pre-agreed triggers, like the risk of serious harm to individuals or groups, or the breakdown of essential services such as access to clean water, food, and healthcare. These would act as the benchmark by which pathways would open for individuals from a specific place to gain protection in Aotearoa.
The need for such a framework is particularly acute with climate-related disasters already creating significant harm and humanitarian need across the Pacific.
We propose the framework would establish three standing visa pathways.
An emergency humanitarian visa would enable rapid protection for those directly affected by a declared crisis. A bridging visa would support people already in Aotearoa who can’t safely return home. And a community sponsorship pathway which, building on the Community Organisation Refugee Sponsorship programme, would enable families, diaspora, and civil society groups to play a key role in supporting arrivals.
The framework would also address inequities in past responses in terms of the settlement support. For instance, while quota refugees, of whom we accept a maximum of 1500 per year, receive six weeks of orientation at the Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre to help them adjust to life in Aotearoa, more recent emergency arrivals have often received limited or no government support.
To address this, we propose standardising core entitlements, including access to public healthcare, accommodation, work and study rights, and English language education for everyone, regardless of which protection pathway they arrive.
Refugee and diaspora communities are often central to the advocacy driving emergency responses, so it is crucial they be included in this approach. The framework would also bring together government, international partners such as the UN refugee agency, civil society, and affected communities from the start. This will lead to stronger decisions, better responsiveness and public confidence and engagement.
We believe this framework would create a predictable and transparent process for identifying when protection is needed and how it should be delivered. It would enable timely, coordinated action grounded in pre-agreed principles.
On the 75th anniversary of the signing of the landmark Refugee Convention, it’s clearer than ever that the landscape of refugee protection is rapidly changing.
The challenge of the 20th century was building international refugee protection institutions. The 21st century challenge is to adapt these institutions to a world marked by climate disruption, protracted conflict, shrinking humanitarian resources and record numbers of forcibly displaced people.
As humanitarian needs continue to grow, countries like Aotearoa, with the capacity to provide protection, have a responsibility not only to respond to crises, but to build the institutions that make these responses possible.
An emergency protection framework would meet this challenge by forging a clearer path ahead for those in serious need. They deserve no less.
The report discussed in this article was written by: Yang Du (World Vision NZ), Madiha Ali Changezi (Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland), Rebekah Armstrong (World Vision NZ), and Tim Fadgen (Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies, Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland).
