Sie sind auf Seite 1von 7

#RIGHT TRACK

JAGAJAGA
CONVERSATIONS
PROJECT
Interim Report – July 2018
Introduction
The Jagajaga #RightTrack Conversations tradespeople, and students. As shown in
Project is a local initiative that invites Fig. 1 and 2, participants were drawn from
people to reflect on their own values and a variety of age groups and suburbs, but
how they relate to the topic of seeking with the majority coming from Eltham,
asylum. Eltham North and Montmorency. A total of
114 people have participated as of July.
Community members reflect on and
discuss the stories of real people involved This interim report explores the results from
in the process of seeking asylum through this initial phase of the project. As the
semi-structured conversations, which are next federal election approaches, further
held in the intimacy of people’s homes, conversations will be held to represent
cafes, churches and other public spaces. the diversity of the Jagajaga community.
A final report will be prepared for
They ask people to consider the values presentation to the community and local
that guide the way they treat others, how representatives.
these align with the story of Raj (a person
currently seeking asylum) and how a While the project is a local community
fairer and more efficient process could be initiative, it is affiliated with the Asylum
envisioned. Participants then fill in a short Seeker Resource Centre’s #RightTrack
survey to indicate their opinions. campaign, which aims to advocate for a
fairer and more efficient asylum-seeking
The project particularly engages the 60 process by shifting grassroots community
per cent of the population who haven’t attitudes through values-based dialogues.
considered the issue, or haven’t made up The ASRC has provided the stimulus
their mind on it. material for the conversations and support
to train conversation facilitators.
Conversations in Jagajaga
Since February 2018, conversations have Similar #RightTrack conversation projects
been held with a range of groups across are currently being run in other electorates
the Jagajaga community, including throughout Victoria. It will be expanded to
sporting clubs, middle-aged professionals, a national scale in the next few months in
churches, neighbourhood learning centres, the build-up to the federal election.

Figure 1: Age range Figure 2: Suburb


114 participants

Eltham Montmorency Greensborough

Under 18 18-35 35-50 51-65 Over 65 Diamond Creek Research St Helena


Under 18 18-35 35-50 51-65 Over 65
Eltham North Lower Plenty Briar Hill
Others

2
Jagajaga’s values
Before participants discussed the
experience of people seeking asylum, they
reflected on the values that guide them in Don’t make assumptions
how they treat others. Non-judgemental Open minded
Understanding others’ situation Empathy
A range of values were raised by
participants, but the ones below were Treat others as you
the most commonly mentioned in the
conversations. would like to be treated
Accept people for who they are
Empathy Look for the good in others
Across all conversations, empathy was a Understanding Equity Fair go
strongly identified value. These included
references to kindness, not being Equal opportunities Unbiased
Inclusive
judgemental, accepting people for who
they are, compassion and treating others
Dignity Respect Charity
how you would expect to be treated. Kindness Compassion
Open Diversity Fairness
Fairness Care Honesty
The idea of fairness also featured Responsibility Helpfulness Thoughtfulness
prominently. Participants said that they
valued equity, equal opportunity, giving
people a fair go and being unbiased. The word cloud above indicates the frequency of
values mentioned; the larger the word the more
frequent its use.
Respect
The specific terms ‘respect’ and ‘dignity’
were frequently mentioned in this part of
the conversation.

3
Jagajaga’s views
When participants heard about Raj’s The process lacks transparency
feelings of frustration and uncertainty Furthermore, participants were concerned
during the asylum-seeking process, they about the process’s lack of transparency.
expressed that this process and its effects Not only is Raj not kept informed about his
on Raj was at odds with their values and application, information is also concealed
expectations. from the general Australian public.

“Shameful, shocking, abhorrent” “Timelines are not given”


“It’s distressing” “There is poor information, so Raj doesn’t
understand what is happening”
“The opposite of what we expect of our
legal system” “The process is dishonest and deceitful – it
keeps people in the dark”
“Contrary to our values and far from how
we would want to be treated”
Ultimately, the process is harmful
“No kindness or respect is shown” For participants, this discrimination,
inefficiency and lack of transparency is
Overwhelmingly, they believed this process causing harm to people seeking asylum.
was discriminatory, inefficient, harmful and
lacking transparency. “The long waiting periods cause more
trauma on top of the trauma suffered in the
past”
The process is discriminatory
Participants felt that Raj is “pre-judged” “It’s degrading, below standards expected
and is subjected to discrimination for no in our society”

good reason. They believed that asylum- “Raj has no capacity to re-build his life, he
seekers like Raj who arrived by boat were cannot plan”
not given equal rights and opportunities.
“It results in depression and anxiety”
“It is unfair” “It keeps people marginalised, dependent
on charity and fearful”
“Prejudiced”
“It’s an insensitive and cruel process,
“There are different rules based on no causing psychological distress”
logical reasons”
“A deliberate strategy to keep him in
limbo”
“It is made as hard as possible”

The process is inefficient


Community members also expressed that
the process was highly inefficient. They
believed that processing and waiting times
are needlessly lengthy.

“It’s an inefficient use of taxpayer


resources”
“Disorganised, cumbersome and overly
complicated”
“Inconsistent”
“It’s ruining people who would otherwise be
productive”
4
Jagajaga’s vision
By the end of the conversation, 88 per cent “Make sure applicants understand the
of all participants believed that something process”
needed to change about the current “Be given time estimates and regular
process to make it fair and efficient (Fig. 3). updates”
“I have learned more and am more “Also keep the public informed”
determined that things need to change”
Cost-efficient
“A fairer process is needed” Participants were adamant about
the need to direct taxpayer resources
To make the asylum-seeking process effectively. Suggestions included
better align with their values, participants redirecting money by closing detention
believed that it should treat people with centres and spending it on legal assistance
dignity, respect and humanity. They to speed up processing, as well as
suggested that the process be made increasing the public’s awareness of the
fair, timely, transparent, efficient and situation and informing them of how they
supportive. can help.

Fair “Spend money on constructive purposes,


Participants emphasised that the process don’t waste money on destroying mental
should have the same rules for everyone, and physical health”
with no discrimination based on mode of
transport, and that it should apply these Support for applicants
rules consistently. Participants believed that people applying
for asylum should have adequate access
“An unbiased process” to case-workers, lawyers, translators,

“Uniform and non-discriminatory rules” English classes and job training, money for
food and accommodation, counselling
“No distinction for the form of transport” and healthcare. They also thought that
“A right to meaningful review through an they should be given opportunities to get
independent tribunal” involved in and feel part of the community.

Timely “Implement programs to set people up


Overwhelmingly, participants pointed out for success – we can benefit from the
the need for a timely process to provide contribution of these strong people”
a degree of certainty for people seeking
asylum and allow them to plan for the
future. Figure 3:
Percentage of participants who
“Faster processing time” support a fairer process by the end of
“Fix delays” the conversation
“Set time frames”
12%
Transparent
Participants asked for the process to be
made clear to both the applicants and the Supportive
general public.
Unsure/not
supportive
“Government should provide clear and
appropriate information”
88%
“Let Raj know what is happening”
5
Conclusion
These community conversations have community members were disillusioned,
provided a space for Jagajaga community believing that they as individuals couldn’t
members to reflect on the current process do anything to change the system.
of seeking asylum through a values-based
discussion. While one voice alone might be ignored,
many voices demanding change are
In learning of Raj’s story, participants were harder to brush aside. This report synthesises
shocked to discover that the process the voices of the Jagajaga community,
directly contradicts many of their values who hope that this community consultation
and causes harm to people seeking process will create a real difference at the
asylum. As one community member wrote policy level.
in the survey;

“We treat asylum-seekers and refugees in Figure 4:


an un-Australian, unfair, inhumane fashion, Percentage of participants who will
leaving them with further suffering and support a local MP who advocates
without hope.” for a fairer asylum process
The structure of the conversation 50%

nevertheless provided them the 45%


40%
opportunity to constructively envision a 35%
process that would align with their values 30%
of empathy, fairness and respect. This is a 25%
process that is non-discriminatory, timely, 20%

transparent, cost-efficient and supportive. 15%


10%
5%
However, the conversation facilitators 0%
commented that despite these Strongly Agree Unsure Disagree Strongly
constructive suggestions, many of the agree disagree

6
Host a conversation today
One of the biggest challenges to creating a fairer process is that most people just
don’t know enough about how it currently works.

We need your help to keep the momentum going.

If you are interested in hosting a community conversation – it’s as easy as


getting together five or six people – please contact the project team at
JagajagaRightTrack@gmail.com and a team member will get in touch.

You provide the people, time and date, and we provide the rest!

Contact us:
JagajagaRightTrack@gmail.com

Follow the #RightTrack project:


facebook.com/righttrack.org.au
www.righttrack.org.au

© 2018 Jagajaga #RightTrack


With thanks to Naomi Simmonds for images used

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen