Introduction
To a sovereign nation, the current treatment of asylum seekers may seem lawful as they are exercising their rights. Internationally, however, the procedures and execution of how Australia handle their asylum seeker ‘problem’ conflicts greatly with International law and treaties, to which they were ratified. As a result, Australia is left in a political and lawful bind between the complexities and intricate nature of the United Nations and Australian Government laws and legislation. Whilst the United Nations claim Australia is violating a multitude of their International Conventions, such as the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention.
…show more content…
Meanwhile, the Australian Government assures Australian’s that it complies with its international human rights obligations and is well within their means of authority and jurisdiction.This is said to be true as the Australian Government state they are in direct accordance with the Migration Act, and therefore instills them with the power of a border operation force, Operation Sovereign Borders to help limit and restrict illegal asylum seeker vessels, with Tony Abbott also claiming it has also prevented a large number of deaths and illegal activity. Australia has a responsibility as a proud Nation to uphold agreed upon International treaties, but is it currently doing so and remaining lawful? Arguments Against Argument 1 A recent investigation conducted by the United Nations finds Australia violates the ‘International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’ due to the current detainment process of Asylum seekers that Australia currently has. Human Rights Law Centre Director of Legal Advocacy, Daniel Webb, is in agreeance with the UN’s findings as he confirms that by leaving people locked up indefinitely in cramped, overpopulated conditions on a remote, segregated island, Australia is failing to meet the expected basic standard of human rights. This is a clear breach of International Law as The Torture Convention clearly prohibits subjecting people to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which is exactly what the current handling and processing is doing. Argument 2 The Australian Human Rights Commission is currently in the midsts of conducting an inquiry into Australia's practice of placing children asylum seekers in detention offshore detention centers. Professor Triggs told ABC News 24 "As a matter of very clear international law, children should not be detained for anything more than what is absolutely necessary for health checks and security checks," This however is not the case, with children potentially spending years of their youth in confined, segregated offshore detention centres waiting for their processing to be completed. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Indonesia has made it clear to Australia that children do not belong in detention and it is clear under International Law that States should not detain them, as the potential negative consequences that it could present to their mental health and overall well being could severely impact a youthful and developing brain. Argument 3 As a ratified party to the Refugee Convention, Australia has agreed to ensure that asylum seekers who meet the definition of a refugee are not sent back to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened.
This is known as the principle of non-refoulement. Tony Abbott has however life to Operation Sovereign Borders which acts as a border protection service whilst at the same time the United Nations are investigating into claims that this Operation has infact turned boats back which would infact violate an array of International Law and breach agreed upon treaties. Australia has obligations to assist those in distress at sea, in accordance with the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue. Australia would also be at risk of breaching International Refugee Law and Human Rights law if it turned back boats without assessing refugee claims made by the people on board. Specifically, it would be at risk of breaching its International obligation of non-refoulement, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Refugee Convention, and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or …show more content…
Punishment. Arguments For Argument 1 Under the leadership of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, deterrent measures have been employed in an attempt to minimise maritime arrivals harbouring asylum seekers through something called ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’. A border protection operation carried out by the ADF (Australian Defence Force) and lead by Major General Andrew Bottrell. Tony Abbott assures The UN and Australians that this preventative measure is not only fitting within the confines of International Law, but has also been extremely effective in its ability to stop the boats. Abbott also highlights the positive repercussions of having OSB in place as he claims this Operation has prevented the deaths of many considering becoming maritime asylum seekers, whom would have otherwise risked their lives at sea and potentially drown. Due to the increase in security and the use of off shore detention centres such as Nauru and manus, the closure of a large Indonesian smuggling ring which can be strongly attributed to the increase policy and deterrence procedures. Argument 2 The International Law and Treaties the United Nations claim Australia is breaching, in particular the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, was ratified over 30 years ago. It is abundantly clear that within the time the documentation was created, the world has dramatically changed, raising concerns that the agreed upon convention may not necessarily be relevant or even appropriate. After all, the Convention was specifically written to cope with the aftermath of WW2 and the sudden influx of refugees and families seeking asylum. With the current asylum seekers and refugee crisis’ this Convention and several others prompted by the UN can be considered out of date and in desperate need for amendments as the circumstances and process of seeking maritime asylum have changed. With WW2, it was a much more organised effort and the Government were willingly involved whereas with the asylum seekers, it is a highly unstructured mess where thousands are seeking unauthorised access. Member of the Australian House of Representatives Amanda Rishworth states “elements and circumstances are very different now and this is a problem that must be acknowledged and rectified.” Argument 3 With recent claims that Australia is potentially breaching the 1951 UN Refugee Convention for allegedly forcing back the boats - Professor Don Rothwell of the Australian National University states “the Commonwealth and its officers have a wide capacity to interdict, engage and exercise control over vessels coming to Australia under the Migration Act.” This therefore implies Australia are exercising their rights as a sovereign nation, lawfully under the Migration Act. It is however noted that if the Customs personnel and Navy, who are jointly responsible for Operation Sovereign Borders are found to have used force, as asylum seekers have claimed, then that could infact fall outside of the confines of the Migration Act, making it a violation of International Law. Possible reforms/ Alternatives Australia should be leading by example, as the respectable and multicultural country they ever so claim to be.
Possible reforms and alternatives to how this current asylum seeker crisis is being handled, could be through Governmental avenues such as Pre-entry (Agreement with the Governing countries ), having departments in countries involved with people seeking asylum, having the processing happen in the asylum seeker's home country and have them assessed before then being transferred to Australia via a safe maritime or air path of passage.
As the conventions were written for the circumstances of WW2, The UN and the Australian Government could agree upon a regional solution much like the one made during the time of WW2 and the Vietnam War. This would result in settling people at a faster pace, helping the refugees by coordinating with them and other countries leaders and Governments to all join together to minimise the suffering and to ultimately speed up the process. Having this regulated, head on approach, could significantly increase the efficiency and processing that is currently taking place in Australia.
In regards to an alternative to offshore detention centres, there is simply no immediate alternative as all refugees must be health checked, security checked and to verify if they are a legitimate refugee- to assess their reasonings for travel and whether they fit within the confines of the 1951 UN refugee
Convention. Conclusion/Recommendation With the current refugee crisis currently expanding around the world (millions of ‘out of place people’), countries are stepping up to try and conquer this global dilemma however the Australian Abbott Government is firm with its rulings and refugee numbers and refuses to increase them. Abbott is willing, however, to lessen the number of Indonesian refugees intake, and allow more room for those affected by the Syrian war and crisis, the number is still only 14,000. With Australia’s current Abbott Government, I strongly believe very little will be done or put forth to aid the global issue of asylum seekers, as the current head of Government Tony Abbott, is very ignorant and stubborn when it comes to matters of refugees, and asylum seekers. And therefore the current procedures and handlings of asylum seekers, will remain the same, as Abbott continues to blatantly disregard the United Nations warnings of breaching International Law. On the over spectrum, the current refugees are also not abiding by the legislation and conventions put in place as they are not staying in the first ‘safe’ country they reach; in fact they move through several borders and countries in hopes to reach the shores of Australia, even though they risk the lives of themselves and their families, all whilst hypocritically violating the very own Convention they so desperately rely on. Amendments and reforms to the current International Law and International Conventions seem like the most logical action to take as it would mean a more suitably fit for current world issues and reflect the current community values of a modernised Australia and all Australians, to better promote social cohesion and clarity in regards to whether or not Australia is in in fact being lawful.
Australia is now facing allegations from the Human Rights Council that it has detained children and sent back refugees, in breach of international law.
Australian people should be opening arms to the Face of Mercy and to the Refugees that are
An extraordinary 65.3 million Refugees have been displaced around the world. In 2015 Australia took 12,000 of them. But where are Australians placing these Refugees? Australia is deporting these Refugees to a third country, either on Manus or Nauru Island. These Islands have reports of inhumane and cruel treatment towards Refugees For those who aren’t fully aware of what Refugees are; they are people whom come to Australia illegally without the appropriate visas. They cannot obtain these visas because of the reasons they are fleeing their country … their Government. None the less it should be the Australian Government they fear. The concepts of refugees are kept hidden away from us by our own Government in reflection of their Governments own self-interest. This tragedy is classified as a modern day witch hunt.
In doing so, we are also blocking out people who have the potential to bring even more cultural diversity into the community. If we honestly believe that we are a generous and multicultural nation, it’s time we show it by empathising with our fellow human beings. In order to improve the conditions in detention centres there must be a change to our unnecessarily harsh system. We need rules to be enforced, such as; a maximum 30 day time limit, and the people that are detained must be let out within this time frame. Within this time, health, character and identity checks must be completed. Shutting down isolating and remote detention centres. Speeding up the processing system. Asylum seekers must be given the opportunity to communicate with the outside world and have full access to legal advice and counselling. This means that telephones, internet and external activities need to be an option. Unaccompanied minors also need to be a priority. It is time that Australia treats our neighbours with all the dignity and respect that they finally
Controversy has surrounded Australia’s boat arrivals since 2001, when the Howard government took office. Howard instituted Operation Relex, a policy directing the Royal Australian Navy to intercept and board suspected illegal entry vessels, or SIEV’s (Turning Back Boats). Initially widely accepted, this policy was designed to discourage people from arriving illegally by boat. However, turning back small, overcrowded boats, and returning them just inside Indonesian waters, quickly became a safety issue (Turning Back Boats). According to the “Senate Select Committee’s Inquiry into a Certain Maritime Incident,” of the 12 boats intercepted from September 2002 to March 2003, four were turned back and three sank, killing two people (Turning Back Boats). Although Australia has a right to protect its borders from illegal aliens, over 90% of these asylum-seekers qualify as refugees (Turning Back Boats). Such a low success rate is reason enough to end the hazardous practice, but even more concerning are the detention centers where the remaining 10% are held. In 2001, the Howard government passed the Pacific Solution, authorizing the transport of asylum-seekers to island nations and offshore detention centers (Turning Back Boats). Since then, countless human rights violations have occurred at the Christmas Island, Manus Island, and Nauru detention centers (Murray). The asylum-seekers, some children, are often detained in poor conditions for indefinite periods of time, subjected to enhanced screenings, and refused legal representation or the right to appeal (Australia). After Howard left office in 2006 the refugee policies stopped, and the Australian government worked to heal the damage done to the islanders and its international reputation (Turning Back Boats). However, under PM Tony Abbott, the asylum seeker policies returned in 2014 through Operation Sovereign
The conditions of Australia’s immigration detention policies have also been cause for concern for probable contraventions of Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Whilst in Sweden, asylum seekers are afforded free housing whilst their applications are being processed, Australia’s methods are much more callous. Under the Pacific Solution, maritime asylum seekers are sent to impoverished tropical islands with no monitoring by human rights organisations allowed (Hyndman and Mountz, 2008). The UNHCR criticised Australia’s offshore processing centres stating that “significant overcrowding, cramped living quarters, unhygienic conditions, little privacy and harsh tropical climate contribute to the poor conditions of… Nauru and Papua New Guinea” (Morales
• Amnesty International: Australia- governments dismissal of UN criticism undermines hard earned credibility in human rights diplomacy.
Australia takes on many refugees annually, some of which come through the humanitarian program and others who arrive in Australia seeking asylum (Schweitzer et al 2005). The first asylum seekers arriving to Australia by boat was soon after the Vietnam War, with the first boat arriving in Darwin in 1976 (Phillips & Spinks 2013) . (Mann) reports that these asylum seekers were settled seamlessly into the community with the government providing generous access to accommodation and other settlement services. He suggested that due to Australia’s i...
This report focuses on Australia’s treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, and whether mandatory detention leads to international law breaches. The AHRC argues that, although detention may be appropriate in some instances, the length of time and living conditions endured by asylum seekers currently in detention is cruel, inhuman and degrading. AHRC support this argument explaining offshore detentions are mandatory, provide no time limit for detainment and are refused the access to the legal system. This article is important to my role as a United Nations representative in my scenario (ten) as it illustrates the treatment endured by asylum seekers in detention centres and links this to international human rights violations. Additionally, this report provides recommendations on how to help manage this situation, which would be useful for my role to consider when investigating what previous changes have done to improve the
The current and previous Australian Governments have risked being responsible for crucial human rights violations when it comes to the ‘screening out’ process which can reject asylum seekers before their cases have even been correctly assessed. This process has returned asylum seekers back to Sri Lanka where they will face an uncertain fate due to violence and discrimination which also questions the legality of the whole process. Many asylum seekers who were ‘screened out’ had lost contact with their loved ones who had eventually relocated by the time they were able to communicate with them via telephone. One asylum seeker had told an inquiry that he had lost contact with his wife and children whilst in the Woomera detention centre as they did not allow the asylum seekers to contact their families. In 2005, during the Howard government, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) found that separately detaining asylum seekers violated international human rights
Also it is crucial that the host country offer useful programs to help immigrants in Australia.
In the lead up to a 2001 federal election, the Howard government released allegations that asylum seekers were ‘throwing’ children overboard as a stunt to be rescued and granted access to Australia. (Rawat, 2013)
The Australian government later on became in breach of international law as we were going against the UNDHR (that we are a signatory to) pertaining to the illegal detention of refugees. According to the UN high commissioner “The 1951 Convention specifically bars countries from punishing people who have arrived directly from a country of persecution (or from another country where protection could not be assured), provided that they present themselves speedily to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry. Monitoring (through reporting obligations or guarantor requirements) is often a perfectly viable alternative to imprisoning asylum-seekers”. Detention is only acceptable if it is brief, absolutely necessary, and instituted after other options have been implemented. With what the Australian government is currently doing with keeping refugees in detention we are as a result in breach of this. Last year (2016) between the months of July and November the average asylum seeker had been in detention for 500 days. Due to this we are in breech of the convention. Being in breach of this presents an enormous problem that faces Australian politics and may lead top prosecution at an international level. It was clear to see that both parties advocated for an offshore processing facility this is evident with the September 2001 introduction of the
Australia's current refugee policy dictates that australia has accepted more than 700,000 refugees and people that are in need of a new beginning in a new country. The largest group that came to australia was in 1947 and 1954 when 170,000 refugees came from camps in Europe and majority from poland to the big smoke of Australia. Australia established its first Department of immigration in 1945 when arthur caldwell was minister.It was not until 1977 that a comprohensive policy on refugees was adopted by setting out the objectivies and mechanisms for a long program,The program was developed by Coalition government led by Malcolm Fraser and Michael Mackellar as Minister for Immigration.
Globalisation has increased modern technology all over the world enabling more people, such as globally separated families, to maintain contact. Increased media coverage also draws the attention of the world to human rights violation which can lead to an improvement in human rights. This is not a reflection of all marginalised groups. In Australia, the detention of unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC) contravenes the United Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), however the media are prohibited to enter detention centres and report on this issue (Cemlyn and Briskman, 2003).