Support for refugees

reported that last year the Red Cross lost contracts to resettle refugees in main centres. The contracts have gone to new and untried community-based providers with no experience in refugee resettlement.

Since then there have been numerous accounts of refugees being dropped off with little support to cold, dirty houses with no warm blankets or bedding, inadequate heating, then left alone for days.

If there was some compelling reason to involve community agencies, a sensible approach would have retained the Red Cross as advisers to assist with the transition. As it is, the architect of this new approach (presumably Immigration NZ) has played russian roulette with the health and safety of refugees. All central agency ivory tower theory and a failure to recognise the value of experience.

In response to the recent publicity about the plight of some refugees, an INZ spokesperson said, ‘‘there were a couple of teething problems’’.

Volunteers in the field are saying it has become a ‘‘basic human rights issue’’.

The INZ general manager of Refugee and Migrant Services points to a recent survey that says ‘‘73% of respondents said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the services they were receiving’’.

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? Refugees come from repressive regimes and fear speaking out as in their experience it invites repercussions from officialdom.

INZ has a duty of care. And so do the providers. Refugee resettlement is not a business. If providers are running it to the ‘‘contractual requirements’’ then they should not be in the game.

Organisations which have a commitment to pastoral care, and are prepared to go the second mile, should be the only groups engaged to run refugee resettlement programmes. There must be change.