The Ukrainian Refugee Crisis and New Zealand’s Inadequate Response

By Emma Burns

Since the Ukraine-Russia war began in February, over 5 million refugees have fled war-torn Ukraine.[1] In response to the refugee crisis, the United Nations (UN) launched a $1.7 billion fund; however, estimates suggest that associated costs could be $30 billion or more a year.[2] Before the war began, prospects facing refugees were already dire. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that almost nine out of every ten refugees lived in low- and middle-income countries, often very close to conflict situations.[3] The crisis in Ukraine is no different: neighbouring countries, particularly Poland and Romania, have taken in significant refugees and are starting to feel the burden. In conjunction with the global response, New Zealand has allowed Ukrainian-New Zealand residents to sponsor immediate family members under a special visa category. This article examines the sufficiency and durability of New Zealand’s response in light of the obligations assumed by the wider international community and the need to uphold the rights of Ukrainian refugees.

I Guidance from the United Nations on Refugees

The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and the associated Protocol, (the Convention) assure refugees enjoyment of their rights and allow States to develop regional laws and standards that complement the international refugee protection regime. Under the Convention, refugees are entitled to protection from forcible return to their country of origin (non-refoulement) among other rights and duties. The Convention defines a refugee as “someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted”. [4]

New Zealand adopted the Convention and is therefore obliged to uphold the its principles. As a participant in the UNHCR Regular Refugee Resettlement Programme, New Zealand also operates a Refugee Quota Programme in three-year cycles. Nominated refugees are granted Permanent Residence status and helped to integrate through a five-week reception programme, followed by settlement support for up to twelve months.[5]

To allow States to fulfil their obligations under the Convention, the UN advises States to build their refugee policies upon international humanitarian standards and principles. This means national legislation should reflect the principle of non-refoulement in border controls and refugee legislation should harmonise the protection provided in different States and admonish discrimination.[6] In particular the UN urges parliamentarians to ensure adequate funding to refugee protection systems such as the UNHCR.[7] A commendable refugee system employs durable solutions whereby refugees can be self-reliant and enjoy more rights as time passes. Durability ensures refugees can acquire the level of self-sufficiency necessary to support their dependants and work towards their own goals. Therefore, a commendable refugee system cannot merely be assessed in the initial response but in the durability of such a response in safeguarding refugee rights in the long-term.

II New Zealand’s Special Ukraine Visa Policy

In response to the crisis in Ukraine, the New Zealand government announced a special two-year visa category. This visa category allows an estimated 1,600 Ukrainian-born New Zealand citizens and residents to sponsor Ukrainian family members and their immediate families who are ordinarily residents in Ukraine to work and continue their education in New Zealand.[8] Immigration New Zealand (INZ) allows visa applications to be completed free of charge by the sponsor and has streamlined the process by removing police and medical certificate requirements provided the applicant meets health and character requirements.[9] In addition, the Government has granted a twelve-month extension for Ukrainian nationals in New Zealand with visas expiring before the end of the year and is allowing immediate entry to Ukrainian citizens who are offshore and hold valid visas.[10]

However, concerns have been raised about the ability of Ukrainian residents to utilize the special visa category. In a recent Stuff article, Ukrainian native Kate Turska commented that because many applicants are not of working age and “with the cost of living already rising here, most people just aren’t able to add a few additional mouths to their budget”.[11] Provided INZ accepts the visa application, sponsors are solely responsible for arranging and funding travel to New Zealand as well as accommodation and living costs once in New Zealand, in the absence of the supportive measures seen under the Refugee Quota Programme. Additional difficulties arise from the closure of the Visa Application Centre in Kyiv.[12] The New Zealand government is relying heavily on the financial capability of sponsors and the robustness of International Governmental and Non-Governmental organizations to help because of New Zealand's lack of diplomatic representation in Ukraine. New Zealand has opened its doors, but it is up to Ukrainians and their families to ensure that they can make it here and resettle successfully.

III International Responses to the Refugee Crisis

The European Union has issued a Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) whereby permanent residents of Ukraine were immediately entitled to temporary protection in any EU country for at least one year.[13] Rights under the TPD include a residence permit, access to the labor market and housing, medical assistance, and access to education. As well as Ukrainian nationals and their family members, stateless persons and nationals of other third countries who benefited from international protection or equivalent protection in Ukraine are also eligible.[14] Most significantly, the EU has granted Ukrainians who flee the war a blanket right to stay and work throughout its twenty-seven member nations for up to three years. [15] However, the Government of Poland, which has received the highest number of refugees, warns that it will need more money than the EU is currently offering to host the number of people arriving there.[16] Ukrainian refugees have been given residency for 18 months, and the Polish Parliament has provided financial aid to communities, local authorities, and families hosting them.[17]

So far, the UK has refused to match the EU's decision to offer Ukrainians open sanctuary. Instead, the UK operates a limited family reunification and sponsorship system, under which refugees can live and work in the UK for up to three years and access healthcare, welfare, and schooling.[18] The Family Visa Scheme invites applications from the immediate family, extended family, or immediate family member of the extended family of a UK resident. The Homes for Ukraine scheme operates alongside the visa scheme, allowing those without relatives in the UK to settle with a sponsor for at least six months whilst hosts receive €350 a month.[19] However, the Homes for Ukraine Scheme has come under criticism for insufficient safe-guards and vetting measures to prevent exploitation. [20]        

Australia has taken a similar approach to New Zealand, granting Ukrainian nationals in Australia whose visas expire at the end of June an automatic extension for six months and offering humanitarian visas to those still in Ukraine and those who have fled to Poland. [21] Like in New Zealand, family members can apply for visas on behalf of their families. [22] The approach of Oceania seems to emphasise procedural efficiency and the opportunity for immediate family members to seek shelter, provided they have the resources to take advantage of it.

Although Australia and New Zealand have responded to the crisis by opening special visa categories and contributing to humanitarian funds, they have not taken an active, involved approach in alleviating the burden of European countries bearing the brunt of Ukrainian refugees, and are only minimally aiding rehabilitation of refugees upon arrival. Compared to the principled approach flagged by the UN, and the comparatively robust aid of the EU, Oceania’s conduct might rightfully come under criticism for tiptoeing around its obligations to uphold standards of international humanitarian law by confining its obligations to the immediate family members of residents on home soil.

IV Opportunities for Improvement

International experience demonstrates that there are opportunities for New Zealand to have greater involvement with international and non-government organisations involved in the day-to-day accommodation of Ukrainian refugees. If financial constraints are a pressing concern, New Zealand could still extend the Special Visa requirements to extended family members or allow a sponsorship scheme which learns from the experience of the UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme. Expanding aid to refugees beyond immediate family members and encouraging New Zealanders to join the government’s condemnation through a sponsorship scheme, acknowledges the principle of global citizenship, that the magnitude of human rights breaches at the hands of Russia symbolically threatens human rights for all peoples. Most importantly, such changes would align New Zealand more meaningfully with humanitarian law obligations as a signatory to the Convention.

Alternatively, or additionally, New Zealand could increase the robustness of the Special Visa Category to make the uptake of visa applications more feasible. The COVID pandemic has already reduced the number of refugees New Zealand has accepted under the Refugee Quote Programme. [23] The Government could compensate for this by offering resettlement support to Ukrainian refugees. Betts and Collier would argue that ensuring refugees successfully integrate is a win-win policy, a paradigm shift in policy whereby the perception of refugees shifts from burden to potential asset. They argue doing so requires “international multilateral collaborations … benefiting both the refugees and the host countries, and improving the prospects of eventual post-conflict reconstruction by maintaining education and skills.” [24] Improving the durability of New Zealand's response means accepting that immediate return to Ukraine after two years may not be feasible and ensuring that the rights of Ukrainians are progressively realised regardless.

V Conclusion

Even if New Zealand does not have the financial resources to donate millions in aid, nor the staffing and geographical proximity to distribute humanitarian aid on the ground, we still have a moral obligation to protect Ukrainian refugees to the extent we are reasonably able. Restrictions on applicants for the Special Visa seek to limit numbers by narrowing applicant requirements, making the perception of refugees as a burden a reality by imposing the costs of resettlement on New Zealand Ukrainians. It is possible to recognise the resource constraints on New Zealand as a small Island nation whilst simultaneously reframing the perception of refugee flows as mutually beneficial. Although the Special Visa responds to the Ukraine-Russia War, it does not reflect the full potential of international legal standards and the ideals of a refugee system advocated for by the UN.  

The views expressed in the posts and comments of this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the Equal Justice Project. They should be understood as the personal opinions of the author. No information on this blog will be understood as official. The Equal Justice Project makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The Equal Justice Project will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information.

Featured image source: Flickr

[1] “Ukraine Refugee Situation” (27 April 2022) Operational Data Portal https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine

[2] Lowery, Tessa “What Different Countries Are Doing (or Not) to Help Ukraine’s Refugees,” Global Citizen, March 25, 2022, at 1. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ukraine-refugees-how-countries-globally-helping/

[3] Nicholson and Kumin A guide to international refugee protection and building state asylum systems (Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Handbook for Parliamentarians 27, 2017) at 11.

[4] Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 189 UNTS 137 (opened for signature 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954), art 1.

[5] Immigration New Zealand “New Zealand Refugee Quota Programme” <www.immigration.govt.nz>.

[6] Nicholson and Kumin, above n 3, at 31.

[7] At 35.

[8] Immigration New Zealand “Important information for Ukrainian nationals” (14 March 2022) <Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.>.

[9] Immigration New Zealand, above n 8.

[10] Immigration New Zealand, above n 8.

[11] Katie Ham “Ukrainians in NZ concerned special visas rules will leave too many behind” Stuff (online ed, New Zealand, April 16 2022).

[12] Immigration New Zealand, above n 8.

[13] European Commission, “Information for people fleeing the war in Ukraine” (19 April 2022) <www.ec.europa.eu> at 1.

[14] At 1.

[15] At 1.

[16] “How many Ukrainians have fled their homes and where have they gone?” BBC News (online ed, United Kingdom, April 28 2022).

[17] Daniel Tilles “Poland passes law expanding support for Ukrainian refugees” Notes from Poland (online ed, Poland, 14 March 2022). 

[18] BBC News, above n 16.

[19] BBC News, above n 16.

[20] “Homes for Ukraine: Housing scheme called danger to refugees” BBC News (online ed, United Kingdom, 5 April 2022).

[21 “Humanitarian Visas Fast-Tracked for Ukrainians” (2 March 2022) Visa Solutions <www.visasolutions.com.au>.

[22] Visa Solutions, above n 21.

[23] Immigration New Zealand, above n 5.

[24] Polly Nyiri and Gerry Clare “Books: Refuge: Transforming a Broken Refugee System: A New Approach to Refugees” 2017 67 Br J Gen Pract 274 at 274.