Refugees In Australia Essay

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

2016, pp. 338). In 2015, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture found that the Australian government’s treatment of refugees in detention had violated their rights to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Méndez 2015). The independent report commissioned by the Australian government, the Moss Review, and leaked documents named the Nauru files, published by The Guardian, further evinced the government’s lack of compliance and disregard for basic human rights when they highlighted that cases of assaults, sexual abuse and self-harm were rampant on both Nauru and Manus Island.

However, while Australia has a duty of care to those it detains in off-shore detention centres, victims of alleged incidents are not protected under Australia law, but under local law. Nonetheless, the UNHCR has stated that Australia shares joint responsibility with Nauru and Papua New Guinea to ensure the treatment of asylum seekers held in offshore detention complies with obligations under international law. Many asylum seekers held in long-term detention are already predisposed to mental illness having fled torture and trauma arising from living in wartime conditions. Newman (2013) found that over 30% of refugees suffer from post-traumatic stress and depression. Yet, the conditions of Australia’s detention facilities and the drawn-out confinement do little but exacerbate these harms. As Lohana et al. (2016, pp. 179) found, “[the] lengths of time incarcerated resulted in depression, anxiety and psycho-social difficulties”. If Australia were truly concerned about the rights of refugees, it would undertake a policy akin to Sweden where asylum seekers are free to live where they choose, work, and live a meaningful life whilst their claims are processed (Abraha 2007).

Under international law, temporary protection visas (‘TPVs’) are classed under international law as an exceptional measure to be used only in situations of mass migration. Sweden has recently turned to the use of TPVs in light of the ongoing Syria crisis, however, unlike in Australia those given temporary residence permits are able to apply for a permanent residence permit, in certain circumstances, if they can prove they are self-sufficient (Swedish Migration Agency 2017). Australia reintroduced the use of TPVs in 2014. Its use has essentially created two classes of refugees, those that come by authorised means and maritime arrivals (Edwards 2003). TPVs can thus also be said to be a form of punishment that similarly to arbitrary detention is in violation of Article 31 of the Refugee Convention. This is because Article 31 clearly states that even if an asylum seeker arrives in an unauthorised or illegal way, they are not to be penalised for doing so.

The use of TPVs is a flawed policy, they often do not succeed in their policy aims and only cause further irreversible damage to refugees that likely contravenes Article 7 of the ICCPR.

They have been found to have detrimental psychological effects, as they leave refugees in a state of limbo, fearing their imminent forced return, where they are unable to integrate into society. This emotional distress is often compounded by the fact that refugees on TPVs in Australia are not able to apply for family reunification nor are they able to leave the country. Family reunification is a well-established right in Sweden, as well as most western countries. Moreover, it is a human right protected under the ICCPR whereby refugees have the right to family (Article 23) and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference with family life (Article 17). As a result of living in a state of uncertainty and heartache caused by family separation, refugees on TPVs face a “700 percent increased risk of developing depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in comparison with PPV (permanent protection visa) refugees (Mansouri et al. 2009, pp. 145). Denial of family reunification under TPVs is likely to cause more asylum seekers to engage in illegal means to arrive in

Australia.

Despite being a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the large numbers still fleeing persecution and war, political rhetoric and media sensationalism have created a climate in which Australia is portrayed as being at risk of inundation by illegal aliens who are a threat to quintessential values. As a result, Australia has employed the use of a number of policy tools consistent with those in other Western countries. However, when two countries such as Australia and Sweden are juxtaposed, it becomes clear that various Australian governments have gone beyond the norm and engaged in unnecessary steps that breach numerous human rights norms and legal obligations.