Dr Anthea Vogl is a senior lecturer in law at the University of Technology Sydney. Her research addresses refugee and migration law, with a particular focus on the use of administrative powers to regulate refugees and non-citizens. Anthea is a current University of Technology Sydney Early Career Researcher Fellow and lectures in Administrative Law, Legal Theory and Refugee Law and Practice. In 2018 she was a visiting fellow at the Humbolt University Berlin Institute for Integration and Migration Research (BIM) and was awarded a Social Impact Practice Grant for clinical work with refugee legal organisations and service provision in Australia. Her current research projects address visa cancellation practices among asylum seeker and refugee populations and the private sponsorship of humanitarian entrants in Australia.
Anthea holds a doctorate in law from the University of British Columbia and the University of Technology Sydney (jointly awarded), and an LLM (McGill), where she was the Provost’s Fellow. She also holds a Bachelor of Arts and Laws (Honours) from the University of Sydney. Prior to joining UTS, Anthea was an associate of the Renata and Andrew Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law (UNSW) and worked in family and refugee law. She is admitted as a solicitor in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
- Executive Committee, Law Literature and the Humanities Assocation of Australasia.
- Editorial Board, Australian Feminst Law Journal.
- Editorial Committee, Alternative Law Journal.
- Member, American Law and Society Associaton.
- Member, International Association for the Study of Forced Migration
- ARC Kathleen Laureate Mentorship, University of Melbourne, 2017
- Australian Federation of University Women Tempe Mann Scholar, 2013
Can supervise: YES
- Migration law
- Refugee law
- Law and literature
- Law, race and gender
- Administrative law
- Refugee law
- Migration law
- Human rights
- Legal theory
- Law and literature
Vogl, A, Fleay, C, Loughnan, C, Murray, P & Dehm, S 2020, 'COVID-19 and the relentless harms of Australia's punitive immigration detention regime', CRIME MEDIA CULTURE.View/Download from: Publisher's site
van Rijswijk, H & Vogl, A 2020, 'Across Islands and Oceans: Re-imagining Colonial Violence in the Past and the Present', Law and Critique, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 293-311.View/Download from: Publisher's site
The three texts addressed in this review essay challenge us to question and creatively re-imagine the representation of material spaces at the centre of the colonial project: oceans, islands, ships and archives. Elizabeth McMahon deconstructs the island and its metaphorics, charting the relationship of geography, politics and literature through the changing status of islands, as imagined by colonists, beginning in the Caribbean and ending in Australia. Renisa Mawani destabilises colonial geography by re-animating the ocean and presents, amongst others, the ship and the ocean, as both method and juridical form. Writing against the 'free sea', Mawani addresses the imperial reliance on control of the ocean and the intensive juridification of the sea. Stewart Motha re-imagines law's aggressive acts of adjudication, and challenges its originary fictions by exploring the logic, aesthetics and violence of legal processes that preserve and disavow the past at the same time. Each monograph considers the imaginaries, fictions and material geographies of colonialism, alongside how these imaginaries have been used as sites of counter-claim and resistance by those subjected to their technologies.
Vogl, A & Methven, E 2020, 'Life in the Shadow Carceral State: Surveillance and Control of Asylum Seekers in Australia', International Journal For Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, vol. 9, no. 3.
This article critically examines techniques employed by the Australian state to expand its control of refugees and asylum seekers living in Australia. In particular, it analyses the operation of Australia's unique Asylum Seeker Code of Behaviour, which asylum seekers who arrive by boat must sign in order to be released from mandatory immigration detention, with reference to an original dataset of allegations made under the Code. We argue that the Code and the regime of visa cancellation and re-detention powers of which it forms a part are manifestations of what Beckett and Murakawa call the 'shadow carceral state', whereby punitive state power is extended beyond prison walls through the blurring of civil, administrative and criminal legal authority. The Code contributes to Australia's apparatus of refugee deterrence by adding to it a brutal system of surveillance, visa cancellation and denial of services for asylum seekers living in the community.
Hirsch, A, Hoang, K & Vogl, A 2019, 'Australia's Private Refugee Sponsorship Program: Creating Complementary Pathways or Privatising Humanitarianism?', Refuge, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 109-122.View/Download from: Publisher's site
This article provides the first history and critique of Australia's private refugee sponsorship program, the Community Support Program (CSP). As more countries turn to community sponsorship of refugees as a means to fill the "resettlement gap," Australia's model provides a cautionary tale. The CSP, introduced in 2017, does not expand Australia's overall resettlement commitment but instead takes places from within the existing humanitarian resettlement program. The Australian program charges sponsors exorbitant
application fees, while simultaneously prioritizing refugees who are "job ready," with English-language skills and ability to integrate quickly, undermining the principle of resettling the most vulnerable. As such, we argue that the CSP hijacks places from within Australia's humanitarian
program and represents a market-driven outsourcing and privatization of Australia's refugee resettlement priorities and commitments.
In December 2013 the Australian government introduced a code of behaviour for all asylum seekers released from mandatory, indefinite detention and living in the Australian community. The Code of Behaviour for Subclass 050 Bridging (General) visa holders ('the Code'), now in operation for over five years, applies to all so-called 'illegal maritime arrivals' who apply for or seek to renew a bridging visa in order to be released from immigration detention. To be granted a bridging visa, this group of asylum seekers must sign the Code, and are thereafter bound by a 'list of expectations' regarding how to behave 'at all times' while in Australia. The Code's expectations range from obeying the law, to refraining from spreading rumours, swearing in public, bullying anyone or lying to government officials. The Code's introduction fits within a policy framework of punishment and deterrence applied to asylum seekers who arrive in Australia by boat and without authorisation. It functions to expand state surveillance and control over 'illegal maritime arrivals' and introduces a new mechanism to re-detain and punish asylum seekers living in Australia. As at December 2018, 15674 asylum seekers classed as 'unauthorised maritime arrivals', many of whom arrived between 2011 and 2014, were still living in the community on short-term bridging visas.
This paper explores inhuman/human constructions that feature in state responses to refugees. We move beyond straightforward normative claims that dehumanizing or demonizing refugees is unfair, unjust or bad to ask: what kind of inhuman monsters are refugees characterized as when they are 'demonised'; and, what are the consequences of such a characterization? Our argument is that reading the demonised refugee as the contemporary zombie monster and inversely, reading the resurgence of the zombie monster through the prism of the so-called refugee and migrant crisis, reveals the precise anxieties brought about by refugees and asylum seekers. In particular, we claim that both figures represent the transgression of borders, as well as the failure of containment, borders and border walls as a response to crisis. We also argue that the contemporary zombie, as a race-less catchall monster figure, mirrors the erasure of colonial histories, race and race relations in the casting of refugees as dehistoricized, invading and disorderly bodies. We analyse these themes through the 2013 blockbuster film World War Z (dir. Marc Foster). In the film, the United Nations, US Navy, World Health Organisation, and Gerry Lane (a former UN employee) combine to fight a global zombie war.
In this article, we use two case studies – the admission of
skilled migrants under the Temporary Work (Skilled) visa
(subclass 457) scheme and the admission of refugees under
Australia's onshore humanitarian program – to understand
the gendered nature, operation and effects of Australian
migration law more generally. These two case studies reveal
that the gendered nature of migration to Australia is evident
in even the most cursory examination of particular visa
categories and forms of migration, even if the experiences of
and implications for women migrants differ across different
streams of migration and specific visa categories. For
example, female temporary skilled migrants are more likely to
be over-represented in low-paid or casualised care industries,
as nurses or carers, and women asylum seekers face risks
of gendered violence when crossing borders unlawfully.
This article explores the genre and form of narratives that refugee applicants must present in order to move from refugee applicants to (refugee) citizens. It addresses these narratives as they feature in the adjudicative setting of the oral hearing within refugee status determination (RSD) processes. My argument is that the generic aspects of credible refugee testimony constitute and reflect the non-citizen subject whom refugee-receiving states are willing to accept. Through a close reading of testimonial forms and dialogue within the oral hearing, I show that the narratorial voice required of refugees is that of the realist novel's omniscient narrator, who can confidently account for herself and others. Second, drawing on Joseph R Slaughter's work on the relationship between the novel and human rights discourse, I argue that the narrative of a 'genuine' refugee is marked by the literary conventions of the Bildungsroman. Just as in the reconciliatory genre of the Bildungsroman, refugees must present their evidence in the form of a linear narrative that moves towards self-possession and sovereignty, and that resolves in incorporation into the nation-state and citizenship.
In refugee applications involving witchcraft-related violence (WRV),those accused of witchcraft are largely women, and those fearing witchcraft are more often men. This is one of two interrelated articles reporting on cases where claimants feared harm from witchcraft or occult practices. It argues that WRV is a manifestation of gender-related harm, one which exposes major failings in the application of refugee jurisprudence. Systemic inattention to the meaning and application of the Convention ground of religion, combined with gender insensitivity in analysis, meant that claims were frequently recon-figured by decision makers as personal grudges. The fear of witchcraft cases pose an acute ontological challenge to refugee status determination, as the claimed harm falls outside what is understood to be objective, verifiable, or Convention-related. Male applicants struggled to make their claims comprehensible as a result of the feminized and`irrational' characterization of witchcraft fears and beliefs.
Seuffert, N & Vogl, AF 2016, 'Inequality and Austerity after the Global Financial Crisis: Law, Gender and Sexuality', Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-7.
Vogl, A 2016, 'A Matter of Time: Enacting the Exclusion of Onshore Refugee Applicants Through the Reform and Acceleration of Refugee Determination Processes', Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 6, no. 1.
Vogl, A 2016, 'A Matter of Time: Enacting the Exclusion of Onshore Refugee Applicants through the Reform and Acceleration of Refugee Determination Processes', Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 137-162.
State-based processes for determining refugee claims are crucial sites of inclusion or exclusion for onshore refugee applicants. This paper argues that cultures of disbelief and exclusion towards onshore refugee applicants are increasingly being enacted indirectly, via procedural reforms to Refugee Status Determination (RSD), which limit the ability of applicants to establish and articulate their claims. Focusing on Australia and Canada, this paper tracks the acceleration and truncation of RSD procedures, which first reflect and then frequently achieve the exclusion of onshore applicants. Two sets of reforms in particular have profoundly limited the terms on which applicants may present their claims. In Canada, this occurred as the result of a major overhaul of RSD that took place in December 2012. In Australia, the policy of 'enhanced screening' of applicants achieves the immediate screening-out of certain claims from the Australian determination system. Alongside analysing these reforms as a means of exclusion, this paper argues that the new procedures most disadvantage applicants making claims on the basis of gender-related persecution.
Vogl, AF 2015, 'Over the Borderline: A Critical Inquiry into the Geography of Territorial Excision and the Securitisation of the Australian Border', University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 114-145.
Vogl, AF & Methven, E 2015, 'We will decide who comes to this country, and how they behave: A critical reading of the asylum seeker code of behaviour', Alternative Law Journal, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 175-179.
Vogl, AF 2013, 'Telling Stories from Start to Finish: Exploring the demand for narrative in refugee testimony', Griffith Law Review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 63-86.
When people seeking refugee status come before departmental officers or administrative bodies, the applicants first person testimony plays a crucial role since there is often little or no other evidence such as documents or witnesses to support the claim being made. The distinctly narrative form of refugee applicants evidence and its central place in the status determination process make such testimony an ideal site from which to explore the laws relationship with narrative. In this article I use one Refugee Review Tribunal decision to exemplify how demands for narrativity, in relation to both the content and form of evidence, influence determinations about the plausibility of refugee testimony. I argue that part of the laws requirement for `plausible evidence involves an expectation that refugee applicants tell a good story that is, one that predominantly conforms to the conventions of model narrative forms. When the law responds to the events and accidents within refugee testimony, narrative expectations are at play and the precise terms of these standards and the content of `good, orderly narratives are implicit, shifting and inconsistent.
Vogl, AF 2012, 'Seeking Asylum: Human Smuggling and Bureaucracy at the Border (review)', Canadian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 159-159.
Vogl, A 2020, 'Protection, Crime and Punishment: Regulation at the Nexus of Crimmigration and Refugee law' in Dauvergne, C (ed), Research Handbook on the Law and Politics of Migration, Edward Elgar, Toronto.
Vogl, A, Hoang, K & Hirsch, A 2020, 'Private Humanitarian Sponsorship in Australia: Searching for the Community in Australia's Community Refugee Sponsorship Program' in Labman, S & Cameron, G (eds), Strangers to Neighbours: Refugee Sponsorship in Context, McGill-Queen's University Press, Canada.
In this chapter, we explain the details and design of Australia's new humanitarian sponsorship program and outline a number of critiques of the program, with a focus on the promise and potential of community involvement. In so doing, the chapter addresses both the contemporary sponsorship program in Australia, and the lesser-known Community Refugee Settlement Scheme (CRSS), which preceded the CSP and ran from 1979-97. Although the CRSS was a program that focussed on community settlement rather than the full sponsorship of humanitarian entrants, the program facilitated significant community involvement in Australia's resettlement policies in the 1980s and early 1990s, and helped to successfully settle over 30,000 refugees.4 The concepts of "private humanitarian sponsorship" and "community humanitarian sponsorship" are at times used interchangeably. In the Australian context, however, it is important to interrogate and distinguish these terms. The CSP holds significant potential for expanding Australia's resettlement commitments and improving its humanitarian program. However, the CSP in its current form falls short of these objectives and hinders broader community participation in humanitarian sponsorship. We focus on three main issues with the current CSP - the absence of the principle of additionality;5 the high upfront costs of sponsorship and visa application fees; and the overreliance on individual family sponsors. As 3 such, we argue that due to both the design of the program, and the lack of community engagement in its implementation, the CSP represents a private refugee sponsorship program, rather than a truly community-orientated one.
Vogl, A 2019, 'Crimmigration and refugees: Bridging visas, criminal cancellations and 'living in the community' as punishment and deterrence' in Crimmigration in Australia: Law, Politics, and Society, pp. 149-171.View/Download from: Publisher's site
© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019. This chapter explores the shifts in practices of onshore immigration detention in Australia. It argues that the mandatory detention of asylum seekers must be read alongside and in light of Australia's bridging visa regime, and in particular the large number of asylum seekers released from detention and living in the community on discretionary and short-term bridging visas. Using crimmigration as a framework, this chapter argues that Australia's bridging visa regime is not a practice ancillary to the primary policy of mandatory detention, but is central to the logic and policy of punishment and deterrence of onshore asylum seekers seeking protection within Australian territory. In analysing the bridging visa regime, the chapter focuses on the use of broad visa cancellation powers against asylum seekers on the basis of criminal behaviour and examines visa cancellation data from 2014 to 2016. Under the bridging visa cancellation powers, including under the Asylum Seeker Code of Behaviour, criminal law and immigration law operate interchangeably to surveil and control asylum seekers; it is not only asylum seekers' status and mode of entry that is criminalised, but increasingly, criminal law and behavioural regulations are used to control, punish and deter bridging visa holders living in the community.
Vogl, A 2019, 'Crimmigration and Refugees: Bridging Visas, Criminal Cancellations and 'Living in the Community' as Punishment and Deterrence' in Billings, P (ed), Crimmigration in Australia: Law, Politics, and Society, Springer, Germany, pp. 130-154.View/Download from: Publisher's site
Australia's status as the only state with a policy of mandatory indefinite detention of all unlawful non-citizens, including asylum seekers, who are within Australian territory is a fact that is both well-known and frequently cited. From its inception, mandatory immigration detention was touted as 'the method of deterrence for those seeking asylum onshore' and since then 'mandatory detention has been at the forefront of a deterrence as control and control as deterrence discourse'2. The imagined subjects of deterrence are frequently asylum seekers presented as 'bogus' or as economic migrants, and the sites for control are Australia's 'immigration program' and borders. While these dual factors have animated the implementation and continuation of the policy for over 25 years, the contemporary practice and enforcement of detention in Australia presents a much more complex picture.
Vogl, AF 2017, 'Sovereign Relations: Australia's 'Off-shoring' of Asylum Seekers on Nauru in Historical Perspective' in Epstein, C (ed), Against International Relations Norms: Postcolonial Perspectives, Routledge, UK, pp. 158-174.View/Download from: Publisher's site
This chapter focuses on the offshore processing centre on Nauru, in order to interrogate how the norm of sovereignty is used, or rather, abused in the Australian policy of offshore processing. The Australian Government has repeatedly and consistently claimed that under the laws of sovereignty, Nauru is responsible for the refugee processing centre on its territory. Against this view, I argue in this chapter that the Australian Government abuses foundational norms of sovereignty in the policy of offshore processing in order to avoid liability for refugee detention and processing on Nauru. In so doing, the Australian Government undermines Nauru's formal sovereign status, exercises effective control over Nauruan territory, and in essence implements its own migration and asylum policy on Nauruan soil. This chapter further argues that Australia's offshore processing regime on Nauru is best understood through a postcolonial lens; that is, Australia's use of Nauruan territory to establish a processing centre beyond Australian legal regulation is directly continuous with Australia's colonial history in the Pacific, and with Nauru in particular. Australia's ability to exploit Nauru's territory and its sovereignty in order to implement its own migration and 'border control' strategies is made possible by Australia's former colonial relationship with Nauru. In turn, offshore processing extends and continues Nauru's ongoing relationship with Australia of dependence and aid, which began with Australia's colonial exploitation of Nauru's land and resources.
Hoang, K, Kneebone, S, Ogg, K & Vogl, A Workshop on Community Sponsorship UTS UNSW 2019, Summary Report and Outcomes of Workshop on Community Refugee Sponsorship in Australia and Future Research Directions, Sydney.
Vogl, A & Dehm, S UTS Faculty of Law and Academics for Refugees 2017, An Unfair and Dangerous Process: A Legal Analysis of the Ministerial Deadline to Apply for Asylum and Use of Executive Power in the Legacy Caseload, pp. 1-19, Sydney.
Vogl, A Women's Legal Services 2007, A Long Way to Equal: An Update of 'Quarter Way to Equal: A Report on Barriers to Access to Legal Services for Migrant Women, Sydney.
Pressure is growing to release people from immigration detention, with lawyers from Australia's Human Rights Law Centre mounting a court case on behalf of a refugee seeking protection from COVID-19. They argue the federal government has a duty of care to refugees, which cannot be met in immigration detention due to the crowded conditions there. This test case illustrates the urgency of the need to release people from detention.
Vogl, A 2020, 'There's a ban on leaving Australia under COVID-19. Who can get an exemption to go overseas? And how?', The Conversation.
Vogl, A 2020, 'There's a ban on leaving Australia under COVID-19. Who can get an exemption to go overseas? And how?', The Conversation.
Vogl, A 2020, 'There's a ban on leaving Australia under COVID-19. Who can get an exemption to go overseas?', SBS News.
The complexity of refugee determinations cannot be reduced to a soundbite. Legal decisions about refugee status are not an inevitable reflection of the truth or merits of a person's asylum claims. They are made in the context of a legal system that has been deliberately set up to accelerate asylum decision-making, to deny acces to legal advice to people seeking asylum and to limit the legal options of those who have arrived by boat.
Vogl, A & Dehm, S 2019, 'The Ethics of Academic Publishing and International Migration's 'Policy Interview' with Australia's Minister for Home Affairs', Border Criminologies (https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/cen…).
Vogl, A & Hirsch, A 2019, 'Community members should be able to sponsor refugees for the right reasons, not to save the government money', The Conversation.
The imposition of a non-negotiable, non-discretionary and blanket deadline to a group of asylum seekers – where the failure to meet the deadline extinguishes any form of claim – is an exceptionally unfair, arbitrary and dangerous measure.
Vogl, A 2014, 'Asylum Seeker Code is a Rhetorical Tool – with Severe Consequences', The Conversation.
Vogl, A 2014, 'On Asylum Seekers, International Law can't Hold Back this Government', The Guardian.
Vogl, A 2013, 'Comment: Aggravated People Smuggling', Alternative Law Journal, pp. 276-276.
Vogl, A 2013, 'FOI Documents Reveal Mining Lobby's Demand For EDO Closure', Alternative Law Journal, pp. 56-57.
Vogl, AF 2012, 'Coroner says Christmas Island tragedy was 'foreseeable'', Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd, pp. 139-139.