1417284 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3967

1417284 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3967 (22 December 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1417284

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Indonesia

MEMBER:Suhad Kamand

DATE:22 December 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 22 December 2015 at 3:25pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). For the reasons set out below the Tribunal has found that the applicants are not persons in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.

2. The first applicant (Applicant) is a child born in Australia in [2010][1]. He is a national of Indonesia and holds an Indonesian passport issued [in] 2011[2]. He first lodged an application for Australia’s protection [in] March 2011. The delegate refused to issue that visa [in] April 2011. That decision was affirmed by the Tribunal, differently constituted, on 28 July 2011. The applicant was unsuccessful in his request for Ministerial intervention on two occasions. He remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen until lodging the Protection visa application the subject of this review [in] March 2014 (Second Application)[3].

   [1] NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages certificate provided at folio 19, DIBP file [number]

   [2] Copy at folio 18, ibid

   [3] The above immigration history is detailed in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicants provided to the Tribunal at folio 9-16, [Tribunal file]

3. The Second Application was a valid application as a result of the Federal Court's decision in SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FMCA 215. That application included, as members of the first applicant’s family unit, his father, mother and three siblings. The delegate refused to grant the visas [in] October 2014 and the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision.

4. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by registered [migration agent].

5. Given the first applicant’s age, his parents appeared before the Tribunal on his behalf on 17 December 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. His parents indicated that his mother would speak for the first applicant, and that his father may also give evidence. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages. The applicants’ RMA did not attend the hearing.

   Member of the same family unit

6. Subsections 36(2)(b) and (c) provide as an alternative criterion that the applicant is a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen mentioned in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) who holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant. Section 5(1) of the Act provides that one person is a ‘member of the same family unit’ as another if either is a member of the family unit of the other or each is a member of the family unit of a third person. Section 5(1) also provides that ‘member of the family unit’ of a person has the meaning given by the Regulations for the purposes of the definition. The expression is defined in r.1.12 of the Regulations to include parents and siblings. Based on the identity documents provided[4] the Tribunal accepts that the second and third named applicants are the biological parents of the first applicant, and the fourth and fifth named applicants are his siblings aged under 18. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants are members of the same family unit. .

   [4] Folios 1-19, ibid

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. In the present case, risks of harm should the applicants return to Indonesia have only been advanced in respect of the first named applicant. This was confirmed by the first applicant’s parents when they appeared before the Tribunal on 17 December 2015. The first applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that the second, third, fourth and fifth named applicants do not have any individual fears of harm to advance, and they have applied only on the basis that they are members of the family unit of the first applicant.

8. As noted above, the first applicant in the present case previously made an application for a protection visa in 2011 which was assessed under s.36(2)(a).  The application was refused and the Tribunal subsequently affirmed the decision. As the first applicant in this case has previously had his claims for protection assessed under s.36(2)(a) prior to the commencement of the complementary protection laws and has not left Australia since the final determination of his previous protection application, the Tribunal considers that it must confine its consideration to whether he satisfies the requirements of ss.36(2)(aa) and (c).

9. Accordingly, the issue in this case is whether, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

10. In the Protection visa application form dated [in] March 2014, completed with the assistance of a RMA, it is claimed that: the applicant was born [in] 2010 in Sydney; he is an Indonesian national and a Muslim; he holds an Indonesian passport issued in [2011]. It is claimed in that form, on the applicant’s behalf by his parents, that he “could not adapt to life, health care system and society in Indonesia”; “he is used to life in Australia and Indonesia is a foreign country”; “ we could not provide him with the standard of living that he is used to in Australia and I fear that his health will suffer in a different climate with high levels of pollution and a change of diet will suffer significant harm” and that “my son’s best interests should be a primary consideration and it is best for him to remain in Australia”[5]. It is also claimed that: “Indonesia is a third world country with rampant corruption and Indonesian authorities do not act in the best interests of children and cannot provide the circumstances  of universal medical cover and education”[6] ; “As the standard of living in Indonesia is much lower than the standard of living in Australia, my son will suffer significant harm. The standards and law for child protection, education and health care are non-existent in Indonesia”.

    [5] All claims are set out at folio 107, CLF [number]

    [6] Ibid, folio 106

11. During the Department interview held [in] October 2014 and the applicants’ appearance before the Tribunal it was added that: due to the applicant’s father’s age, he would have difficulty sourcing employment in Indonesia; the applicant has [a medical condition] and, when he has an attack, he needs [medication]. It was submitted that the pollution in Indonesia may exacerbate the first applicant’s [medical condition].

12. At the commencement of the applicants’ Tribunal appearance on 17 December 2015, the Tribunal explained that the Tribunal only has jurisdiction to assess and decide whether the applicants are persons in respect of whom Australia has complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal explained the complementary protection provisions and the nature of “significant harm” as contemplated by the relevant law, annexed. When the Tribunal had completed its explanation the applicant’s mother said “not at all”, and went on to explain that: the first applicant will not face harm of the nature detailed in the Tribunal’s explanation; he suffers from [a medical condition] and needs [medication] when he experiences an [attack]; the pollution in Indonesia may make his [medical condition] worse. When asked if there is any evidence that the medication required to manage the first applicant’s [medical condition] cannot be sourced in Indonesia she responded that it is possible that this medicine is available in Indonesia, but she worries that the heat and pollution in Jakarta, where she previously lived, would not be good for her son. She added that the forest fires in Indonesia are causing health problems and are being felt as far away as Singapore.

13. When asked whether there is any other harm she fears her son may face, she restated the factors detailed in paragraph 10 above. She added that she does not know what might happen to him in the future in Indonesia, but maybe he would have trouble learning the language. Also, the high levels of corruption in Indonesia means that there is little respect for  the rule of law and she worries that her son may not have the same respect for the rule of law in Indonesia as he would have if he grows up in Australia.

14. She told the Tribunal that, in the family home in Australia they communicate in both English and Bahasa Indonesian. The children understand Indonesian but always respond in English. She said that the first applicant has not started school [yet]. Regarding diet, she said that the children do not favour Indonesian food and prefer other types of food.

15. She said that the first applicant is a practicing Muslim in that he engages in “normal” practices such as fasting and prayer.

16. She referred to an example of children being mistreated in Indonesia. Specifically she referred to an example of child labour where children were dying and being buried in a chicken coup. When asked whether she is suggesting that this may happen to the first applicant she responded that she is only mentioning this to illustrate that child protection in Indonesia is not adequate. She made no suggestion that her son faces any risk of such treatment.

17. The Tribunal also explored with the applicants their general circumstances including their education and work backgrounds and their ongoing ties in Australia and Indonesia. The applicant’s mother told the Tribunal that neither she nor her husband have permission to work currently. She said that she has previously worked in Australia as [occupation] and [occupation]. In Indonesia she worked in a [workplace] for around 5 years. Her highest level of study was completion of a [qualification] in Jakarta, however she was not able to find work in that area. She has family in Indonesia comprising [siblings]. They are married with children. The children go to school. Three of her [siblings] live in Jakarta and one lives in [location]. She does not own any property in Indonesia and her siblings often struggle financially. She said that, while she was schooled and worked in Indonesia in the past, she was unable to find work there in her chosen [field]. She also said that pay rates are low and it is difficult to meet a family’s needs on an Indonesian income.

18. The applicant’s father told the Tribunal that, in Australia he has worked in [occupation]. He has obtained a certificate in [a course]. In Indonesia he worked as [occupation] in Jakarta for around 2 years. He also worked in his father’s [business] in Indonesia for several years, however his father has now passed away and the [business] is closed. He does not own any property in Indonesia. He has [siblings] , all living in Jakarta. They rent the homes in which they live. Only one of his [siblings] are working, and his family in Indonesia generally finds life difficult financially. He is also worried that his age will be an impediment to him finding work in Indonesia. He was born in [year] and is aged [age] years.

19. The Tribunal put to the applicant’s that it has reviewed various sources discussing health, education and employment in Indonesia, including the most recent report of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) on Indonesia, dated in June 2015, relevant parts of which are excerpted in Annexure 2.  The Tribunal notes that the report identifies that the Government of Indonesia is taking steps to increase access to health, education and employment. While acknowledging that the standard of health, education and employment, including the level of remuneration in Australia may be higher and preferable to the applicants, lower standards of living do not, without more, rise to the level of significant harm, nor suggest that any of the applicants, including the first applicant, faces a real chance of significant harm, as contemplated by the relevant law, in Indonesia in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

20. As explained to the applicants, the Tribunal must assess whether the first applicant faces a real risk of harm which rises to the level of significant harm as contemplated by the relevant law should he return to Indonesia. The Tribunal explained that a real risk means a substantial chance, as distinct from a remote or far-fetched possibility.[7] The Tribunal also explained that, from the evidence advanced, there is no suggestion that any of the applicants face a real risk of being arbitrarily deprived of their life or of the death penalty being carried out on them. The applicants agreed that they face no such risks.

    [7]         Chan v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379; MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559.

21. Regarding torture, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment and degrading treatment or punishment, the Tribunal explained that those types of harm require an element of intention to harm a person, which does not appear apparent in the claims made in respect of the first applicant or any of the other applicants. The applicants’ agreed.

22. Regarding torture, the Tribunal explained that the definition involves severe pain and suffering being intentionally inflicted on a person for specific purposes. The Tribunal detailed the purposes referred to in the definition of torture, annexed. The applicant’s agreed that none of the applicants face a real risk of torture should they return to Indonesia.

23. Similarly, the Tribunal explained that cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment refers to severe pain or suffering which is intentionally inflicted on a person, while degrading treatment and punishment refers to “an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable”. The Tribunal explained that it cannot see where a risk of such harm is apparent in any of the evidence advanced. The applicants agreed but said that they hope that there is some way they can remain in Australia based on what they Tribunal knows of their situation.

24. Taking into account all the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants, including the first applicant, face, in Indonesia, a real risk of: being be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will being carried out on them; being subjected to torture; being subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to a receiving country, they will suffer significant harm.

25. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Suhad Kamand

    
    

    Member

    ANNEXURE 1

    RELEVANT LAW

27. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

28. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

29. The effect of the Full Federal Court's decision in SGGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 71 is to confine the bar on making a further application for a protection visa contained in s.48A to the making of a further application which duplicated the same essential criterion for the grant of the visa as in the earlier unsuccessful application. The court found that s.48A did not prevent a non-citizen who had made a valid application on the basis of the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) from making a further application on the basis of the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) whilst he or she remained in the migration zone. According to SZGIZ a person who had previously applied for and been refused a protection visa only on the basis of one of the criterion in s.36(2) appeared eligible to lodge a further valid application on the basis of one of the other criterion. However, the Court's reasons suggest that such a person could only have their later claims assessed against those criteria upon which they had not previously made an application.

30. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

    owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

31. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

    Complementary protection criterion

32. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

33. Torture is defined as “an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)      for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)      for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)      for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)      for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)      for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.”

1. “Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” is denied as “an act or omission by which:

   (a)      severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

   (b)      pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

   but does not include an act or omission:

   (c)      that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (d)      arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.”

2. “Degrading treatment or punishment” is defined as “an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

   (a)      that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (b)      that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.”

3. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

   Section 499 Ministerial Direction

4. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

5. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   Annexure 2

   DFAT Country Report Indonesia, 9 June 2015

   The most recent DFAT Country report on Indonesia reports the following in respect of health, education and employment.

   “ Health

   2.15 Article 34 of Indonesia’s Constitution provides for social welfare and social security and stipulates the state’s obligation to provide medical and public service facilities.

   2.16 Indonesia has seen improvements in the health of its population over the past two decades. Most communicable diseases are being brought under control and life expectancy has increased. According to the UNDP, average life expectancy at birth was 70.8 years in 2013 reflecting 72.9 years for females and 68.8 years for males.

   2.17 But many challenges remain. Indonesia currently has very poor health indicators for a middle-income country. With about 350 mothers dying of childbirth-related causes for every 100,000 live births, Indonesia has a maternal mortality ratio that is worse than any country in Asia except Afghanistan and Lao PDR. Progress in reducing child deaths has stalled for a decade. Population growth remains high with the total fertility rate at 2.6 since 2003 and only 43 per cent of women of reproductive age using any form of modern contraception.

   2.18 Indonesia’s HIV epidemic is the fastest growing in Asia in terms of the increase in the number of new infections every year. According to UNAIDs, the estimated HIV/AIDs prevalence rate for adults aged 15 to 49 years in 2013 was 0.5 per cent. At 2.4 per cent, rates of HIV/AIDs are roughly four times higher than the Indonesian average in the two Papua provinces, constituting a low-level generalised epidemic that is still increasing in severity. The HIV/AIDs rate in turn helps to fuel the rapidly growing problem of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis in the Papuan provinces. In five provinces of eastern Indonesia (including the Papuan provinces) malaria is yet to be brought under control.

   2.19 Indonesia faces a rapidly growing burden of lifestyle-related non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Thirty-seven per cent of children are stunted nationally, with up to 57 per cent stunted in some eastern provinces. This proportion has remained unchanged for six years, but the proportion of adult women who are overweight or obese has more than doubled from 15 per cent to 33 per cent over the same period. This dual burden of malnutrition will accelerate the already alarming growth of NCDs such as heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancers which already account for 58 per cent of Indonesia’s lost disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). A further nine per cent of DALYs are through injuries, more than half of which are transport-related.

   2.20 As at 2010, Indonesia had a hospital bed density of 0.6 beds/1,000 population. However, there are huge regional disparities in health indicators across Indonesia, with eastern Indonesian provinces being by far the most disadvantaged. Apart from geographical inequities, inequities between rich and poor are also increasing even within the same geographical areas. The poor in Indonesia use and benefit from health services far less than wealthier citizens and this is particularly true of hospital care. While, theoretically, all local clinic and hospital care is accessible for the poor and near poor through a unified national social and health insurance scheme, out of pocket expenditure by the poor and near poor continues to account for a large proportion of health expenditure by Indonesians and is a barrier to accessing services. Utilisation of national health insurance by the poor is low and many who would be eligible are not listed on the scheme. Underlying causes of this low utilisation include transport availability and cost, the administrative burden of signing up (including identification issues), lack of clarity on the functioning of the health care coverage scheme and perceived low quality of care, including a lack of medical specialists in rural areas. The number of sick people who seek their own medical treatment outside the health system (45 per cent) or no treatment at all (13 per cent) remains high. The availability of essential drugs at health facilities is low at only 70 per cent (against a target of 95 per cent).

   2.21 Women’s access to a health system able to deal effectively with even basic complications in delivery is low, particularly for rural and remote poor women. This is evidenced by the high proportion of maternal deaths still occurring outside any health facility, the gap in the number of primary care centres (puskesmas) able to offer Basic Emergency Obstetric and Neonatal Care relative to government targets and the relatively large number of maternal deaths occurring between health facilities due to the poorly functioning referral system.

   2.22 The current tendency of the Indonesian Ministry of Health, faced with the challenge of accelerating progress towards off-track MDG targets, is to concentrate resources in the most populous provinces so as to reduce the absolute numbers of deaths. This tends to increase the relative deprivation in the already disadvantaged eastern provinces. It appears that the national health insurance scheme, which commenced implementation in January 2014, will further exacerbate the already severe imbalance of health financing towards hospitals and curative services, which are concentrated in the major cities, to the neglect of more cost-effective primary health care and preventive and promotive health programs, including in remote areas.

   Education

   2.23 Article 31 of Indonesia’s Constitution provides for a right to education and outlines the state’s obligation to provide funding for basic education, noting that a minimum of 20 per cent of the state and regional budgets is to be allocated towards implementation of a national education system. The government has consistently achieved this goal since 2009 following changes to how it counts education expenditure.

   2.24 With over 50 million students and 2.6 million teachers in more than 250,000 schools, Indonesia has the third largest education system in the Asia region and fourth largest in the world (behind China, India and the United States). Two ministries are responsible for managing the education system, with 84 per cent of schools under the Ministry of National Education and the remaining 16 per cent under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Private schools play an important role – while only seven per cent of primary schools are private, 56 per cent of junior secondary and 67 per cent of senior secondary schools are private.

   2.25 According to the UNDP, Indonesians attend an average of 7.5 years of schooling (out of an expected 12.7 years). Primary school net enrolment rates are below 60 per cent in poor districts compared to more well-off districts that have universal enrolment. Net enrolment rates for secondary education have experienced a steady climb (currently 66 per cent in junior secondary and 45 per cent in senior secondary) but are still low compared to other countries in the region. Indonesia is also trailing behind its neighbours in early childhood education and higher education, with gross enrolment rates of 21 per cent and 11.5 per cent respectively. Indonesia has had some notable success in getting more children into schools through new school construction programs, scholarships for the poor, and school grants which make tuition free up to grade nine. Notwithstanding such gains, around 2.3 million children between the ages of seven and 15 do not attend school.

   2.26 On average, nine years in an Indonesian school provides the same level of learning attributed to six years of schooling in Australia; Indonesian students finish year nine with only rudimentary proficiency in reading, math and science. International tests of student achievement reveal that three quarters of those still in school at the age of 15 do not have the basic math skills that they need to function in society; two thirds do not have enough science to function effectively in the modern world; and one in five cannot read well enough to perform basic tasks in the workplace.

   Employment

   2.27 The World Bank reports that Indonesia's unemployment rate was 6.3 per cent in 2013. Youth unemployment has fallen in recent years, from 25 per cent in 2007 to 17.1 per cent in the first quarter of 2014. The country has 92 national labour unions representing around 3.4 million union members nationally (around 15 per cent of total registered workers). However, statistics can be misleading as many individuals hold multiple memberships and unions often inflate their numbers. With a few exceptions, unions overwhelmingly represent employees in the formal work sector in jobs that offer higher wages and good job security.

   2.28 Increasing numbers of Indonesian workers are now employed in the formal sector, driven by strong labour demand and improved access to education. Job quality remains an issue, however, and some estimates suggest that between 50 to 60 per cent of the Indonesian working age population still work in the informal sector. Wages for these jobs are low and there is little protection for workers. In turn, many workers in the formal sector do not have contracts and are often paid below minimum wage.

   2.29 Gender disparities in labour participation persist, with 2014 participation rates for men and women at approximately 84 per cent and 51 per cent respectively. Data from Indonesia’s 2010 labour force survey indicate that female workers’ wages were 30.8 per cent lower than those of male workers (see section on ‘Women’ below).

   2.30 According to the ILO, each year approximately 700,000 documented Indonesia migrant workers seek employment abroad, mainly as domestic workers. The numbers for undocumented workers are considerably higher. The majority of Indonesian workers went to Malaysia, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia in 2013. Java was the source for the largest number of Indonesian workers overseas, reflecting Java’s high population. The Indonesian Government has committed to creating more domestic job opportunities and moving workers into higher productivity activities, including through promoting investment in labour intensive industries, reforming its social security system and improving access to vocational training and tertiary education”.